Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Enhancing semi-resolved CFD-DEM for dilute to dense particle-fluid systems: A point cloud based, two-step mapping strategy via coarse graining

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a two-step, point-cloud coarse-graining mapping removes grid-size dependence in unresolved CFD-DEM and is the only tested approach that captures dilation-induced negative pore pressure and delayed collapse in dense…

desk verdict Genuinely novel point-cloud coarse-graining mapping for CFD-DEM, but the flagship pore-pressure claim is undercut by an uncontrolled comparison that never states whether KBM/DPVM used the same semi-implicit momentum-exchange scheme. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09517 v1 pith:PQ5RH5VP submitted 2025-06-11 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-phphysics.geo-ph

Yuxiang Liu , Lu Jing , Xudong Fu , Huabin Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-phphysics.geo-ph
keywords Eulerian-Lagrangiancoarsegrainingtwo-waycouplingtwo-stepmappinggranularcolumncollapseCFD-DEMporepressurefeedbackgridindependence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a two-step mapping strategy for volume-averaged CFD-DEM simulations of particle-fluid systems. Instead of sending particle data straight to fluid grid centers, it first spreads each particle onto a multi-layer Fibonacci point cloud using a truncated Gaussian kernel, producing smooth coarse-grained fields that do not know about the fluid grid. Only then are those fields projected onto the grid for coupling. The authors argue that this removes the grid-size dependence and particle-crossing oscillations of conventional kernel-based methods, and that it is the only tested approach that captures the dilation-induced negative pore pressure and delayed initiation of very dense immersed granular column collapse. If right, the method extends unresolved CFD-DEM reliably from dilute suspensions to nearly jammed granular packs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-layer Fibonacci point cloud attached to each particle. Points are positioned on concentric spherical layers by the Fibonacci lattice, with layer spacing $0.25d$ and the outermost layer at radius $w=2d$; the number of points per layer scales with the squared layer radius, so each point owns an equal-area Voronoi cell on its sphere. A truncated Gaussian kernel is evaluated at every point and renormalized over the point cloud, so the weights sum correctly without any grid involvement. A topology-based indicator tells which fluid grid contains each point, enabling grid-averaged void fraction and particle velocity fields, while the same point weights interpolate fluid quantities back to the particle center for drag. This two-way, grid-independent quadrature of the kernel is what lets the method detect tiny volume changes of the granular phase.

What would settle it

Repeat the dense immersed granular column collapse ($\phi_i=0.6233$) and the 1D weight-allocation error test with much coarser point clouds, e.g., $N_o=24$ or layer spacing $0.5d$; if the negative pore pressure, delayed initiation, and the two-orders-of-magnitude error reduction all survive, the point-cloud parameters are not load-bearing, and if they degrade, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a particle can be represented by roughly 300 evaluation points arranged on concentric Fibonacci-lattice spheres (outermost layer radius equal to the kernel width $w=2d$, layer spacing $0.25d$, 96 points on the outer layer), and that evaluating the coarse-graining kernel at those points rather than at fluid grid centers decouples the mapping from the grid. The paper shows that this point-based coarse graining lowers the weight-allocation error relative to the analytical truncated Gaussian by orders of magnitude, suppresses temporal oscillations as a particle crosses grid boundaries, yields convergence above first order in a sphere-sedimentation test, and reproduces both a bi-disperse fluidized bed and Ergun pressure-drop data. Its strongest validation is the immersed granular column collapse: for initial solid fraction $\phi_i=0.6233$, only the proposed method gives the delayed initiation and negative pore pressure along the column diagonal that the resolved LBM-DEM reference shows, while DPVM and KBM collapse too early. The claim is that this sensitivity comes from resolving sub-grid particle displacement in the coarse-grained volume fraction and momentum fields before they are projected to the fluid grid.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the fixed point-cloud resolution (96 outermost points, layers every $0.25d$) samples the truncated Gaussian kernel finely and uniformly enough for every particle; the paper reports no sensitivity study for these parameters, so if they are too coarse the claimed grid-independence and pore-pressure sensitivity would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weight allocation to grids matches the analytical kernel far more closely than standard KBM, with errors reduced by at least two orders of magnitude in the 1D test.
  • Particle motion across grids produces much smaller periodic oscillations in the mapped weight field, for both fine and coarse grids.
  • Settling velocity of a single sphere converges with grid refinement at better than first order and agrees with experiment from $\Delta x/d=3$ down to $0.25$.
  • In bi-disperse fluidized beds, the method reproduces measured expansion heights on both fine and coarse grids, where DPVM and KBM shift with grid resolution.
  • For very dense immersed granular collapse, the method tracks the resolved LBM-DEM initiation times over initial packing densities $0.55$ to $0.6233$, capturing the regime where collapse is delayed by negative pore pressure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One consequence the authors leave implicit is that any Eulerian-Lagrangian transfer quantity—heat, species mass, charge—could be routed through the same grid-free point-cloud layer with the same expected insensitivity to grid size.
  • The paper's premise that the coarse-grained fields are smooth and grid-free suggests a route beyond drag-only coupling: the same point-cloud weights could carry contact stress or granular temperature into the fluid-phase equations, which the authors flag as future work.
  • A testable extension is to make point-cloud resolution adaptive—fewer points in dilute regions, more in dense packs—since the fixed roughly 300 points per particle is the main overhead on coarse grids.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-step mapping strategy for unresolved and semi-resolved CFD-DEM. In the first step, each DEM particle is represented by a multi-layer Fibonacci point cloud and spread with a truncated Gaussian kernel, producing grid-independent coarse-grained fields (volume fraction, momentum density, velocity). In the second step, these point-based fields are projected onto fluid grids through a topology-based indicator, while fluid variables are interpolated back to particle centers for the drag closure. The method is compared with conventional kernel-based mapping (KBM) and the divided particle volume method (DPVM) in 1D/2D weight-allocation tests, an Ergun pressure-drop test, single-sphere sedimentation, a bi-disperse fluidized bed, and an immersed granular column collapse. The central claims are improved accuracy, stability, and grid independence over conventional kernel-based mapping, and, in very dense granular collapse, the ability to detect sub-grid particle displacements and capture dilation-induced negative pore pressure and delayed initiation.

Significance. If the central claims survive scrutiny, the method would be a useful addition to semi-resolved CFD-DEM: it offers a smoother, grid-independent coupling over a wide range of grid-to-particle size ratios and extends unresolved methods into dense regimes where pore-pressure feedback matters. The manuscript has clear strengths: the point-cloud quadrature and two-way coupling equations are derived explicitly; the application suite spans dilute to dense systems; the efficiency analysis with a look-up table variant is included; and the no-flux boundary treatment in Appendix A is a practical contribution. The main evidence for the pore-pressure claim, however, rests on a comparison that is not controlled with respect to the semi-implicit momentum-exchange scheme, and the point-cloud resolution parameters are fixed without a sensitivity study. These gaps currently limit the strength of the central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.3 and Appendix B] The immersed granular column collapse test (Figs. 14 and 15) is the principal evidence for the claim that the point-cloud mapping captures dilation-induced negative pore pressure and delayed initiation. However, the proposed solver is augmented with the extended semi-implicit momentum-exchange term, Eq. (B.6), which uses the coarse-grained particle velocity <v>_j from Eq. (26). The paper never states whether the KBM and DPVM runs in this test used the same semi-implicit treatment or the default explicit scheme. If KBM and DPVM used explicit coupling, their failure to capture the negative pore pressure and delayed initiation could be a numerical artifact of the time-step limitation described by Eq. (B.5) rather than a consequence of the mapping strategy. This is load-bearing for the Section 7 conclusion. Please provide a controlled comparison: run KBM and DPVM with the same semi-implicit scheme, or run the proposed method with explicit momentum exchange, and report pore pressure and initiation times for both configurations.
  2. [3.2 and 4.1] The point-cloud parameters N_o=96 points on the outermost layer, layer spacing Delta_r=0.25d, and outer radius r_o=2d are fixed throughout the paper, and no sensitivity study is reported for N_o or Delta_r. The core claims of grid independence and detection of subtle sub-grid particle displacements depend on the point clouds providing a sufficiently fine and uniform quadrature of the truncated Gaussian kernel. If these parameters are too coarse, the method would degrade toward the behavior of grid-centered kernel methods. Please report the convergence of the weight-allocation error, Eq. (32), and of representative collapse outputs (e.g., initiation time or pore pressure) with respect to N_o and Delta_r.
  3. [4.3, Eqs. (9) and (34)] The Ergun pressure-drop test is largely a self-consistency check: the Gidaspow drag model in Eq. (9) uses the Ergun correlation for epsilon_f <= 0.8, and the comparison in Eq. (34) is against the same Ergun correlation. Agreement therefore supports the numerical consistency of the mapping and the drag implementation, but it does not independently validate the physical accuracy of the point-cloud mapping. The paper should either present this test explicitly as a consistency check or validate against a drag closure that is not derived from the Ergun equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [4.1, Eq. (32)] The definition of W(x_j) is ambiguous for the proposed method: the text says the weight is evaluated at a grid center, which is the KBM operation, while the proposed method sums point-cloud weights inside each grid cell. Please clarify how W(x_j) is computed for each method in this error metric.
  2. [3.3, Eq. (26)] Eq. (26) is undefined when a grid cell contains no point-cloud points, because the denominator vanishes. This can occur near the free surface in the collapse simulations; please specify the treatment used in that case (e.g., setting <v>_j to zero or using a small regularization).
  3. [5.3 and 7] The wording that only the proposed approach captures the pore-pressure feedback is too strong given the uncontrolled comparison noted in the major comments; please qualify the claim until the comparison with KBM and DPVM is made on equal footing.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.6)] The notation in Eq. (B.6) is very hard to parse: the absolute-value bars, the fraction inside the angle brackets, and the implied split into implicit and explicit parts are not defined clearly. Please rewrite the equation with explicit definitions of all norms and bracket operations.
  5. [Appendix A, Fig. A.18] The text states that the near-wall volume-fraction profile is in 'good agreement with theoretical and experimental results,' but the reference for this theoretical/experimental profile is not identified and no quantitative error is reported. Please add the reference and a quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; only minor self-referential numerical checks and a benchmark from a coauthor.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 and 4.2, Eqs. (19), (20), (32), (33)]
    "we define an overall error ε, ε = Σ_j |W(x_j)Δx − ∫_{x_j−Δx/2}^{x_j+Δx/2} W_anal(x) dx|, where W(x_j) is the weight evaluated by the proposed or conventional method at a grid center x_j and W_anal(x) indicates the analytical kernel function."

    The 'analytical kernel function' W_anal is the same truncated Gaussian of Eq. (19) that defines the point-cloud weights of the proposed method (Eqs. 19–20). The 1D and 2D weight-allocation 'benchmarks' therefore measure how well the point-cloud quadrature reproduces the method's own kernel; the claimed higher accuracy is a self-consistency of the method's defining function, not an independent validation of the kernel or of the physical coupling. This is a numerical-consistency loop, not a fitted physical prediction, and it does not affect the external sedimentation, fluidized-bed, or LBM-DEM collapse benchmarks.

full rationale

The central physical claims are supported by external benchmarks: single-sphere settling against Ten Cate et al. (2002), bi-disperse fluidized bed against Khan et al. (2016), and immersed granular collapse against resolved LBM-DEM of Yang et al. (2020). The Yang et al. benchmark is from a coauthor of the present paper, but it is a resolved, parameter-free reference not fitted to the present method, and the pore-pressure phenomena are documented in external references [10,11,47,70]; this is a mild self-citation, not a load-bearing circularity. The 1D/2D kernel tests and the Ergun pressure-drop test are self-consistency checks: the ground truth is the paper's own Gaussian kernel (Eq. 19) and the Ergun equation already embedded in the Gidaspow drag model (Eqs. 8–9 and 34). These verify numerical quadrature and mapping implementation rather than deriving the central result from its inputs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from an author-only theorem. The comparison in the collapse test could be confounded by the extended semi-implicit momentum-exchange scheme (Appendix B, Eq. B.6) not being explicitly applied to KBM/DPVM, but that is a control/comparability issue, not a circularity. Overall circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method relies on standard volume-averaged fluid equations, the Gidaspow drag closure, and a set of numerical constructs (Fibonacci point cloud, topology indicator, no-flux point retraction) whose parameters are fixed by hand without a reported sensitivity study. The free parameters are the kernel width ratio, the added mass coefficient, and the point-cloud resolution parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • kernel width ratio w/d = 2
    Chosen based on prior KBM studies [39,40,46] and tested for w/d=1-5 in Section 4.1. It is not fit to the validation data, but the method's accuracy and stability depend on it.
  • added mass coefficient C_A = 2
    Used only in the single-sphere sedimentation test, taken from prior literature [31,67] to model virtual mass effects when fluid and particle densities are similar. A hand-chosen modeling constant, not the focus of the paper.
  • outermost layer point count N_o = 96
    Defines the resolution of the Fibonacci point cloud. No sensitivity study is reported for this value.
  • layer spacing Δr = 0.25d
    Sets the radial spacing between point-cloud layers. No sensitivity study is reported for this value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The volume-averaged N-S equations (Anderson and Jackson) govern the fluid phase
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(3). This is the standard unresolved CFD-DEM framework that the paper builds upon.
  • domain assumption The Gidaspow drag closure accurately represents particle-fluid drag for the conditions simulated
    Section 2.3, Eqs. (8)-(10). The paper states that using other drag models does not affect the main conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncated, renormalized Gaussian kernel over the point cloud is the correct coarse-graining kernel
    Section 3.2, Eqs. (19)-(20). Renormalization over each particle's own points changes the kernel shape relative to the analytic Gaussian and is a model choice.
  • standard math Topology-based indicator Eq. (24) correctly identifies point-in-grid membership, and every point lies in exactly one grid
    Section 3.3. This is a computational-geometry fact needed for conservation of volume fraction and momentum during mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The no-flux point boundary treatment preserves mass conservation near physical boundaries
    Appendix A. Points beyond the boundary are retracted toward the particle center with weights unchanged; this is asserted, not proven, to conserve mass.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing semi-resolved CFD-DEM for dilute to dense particle-fluid systems: A point cloud based, two-step mapping strategy via coarse graining." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQ5RH5VP

@misc{pith2026250609517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing semi-resolved CFD-DEM for dilute to dense particle-fluid systems: A point cloud based, two-step mapping strategy via coarse graining},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQ5RH5VP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09517}
}
read the original abstract

Computational fluid dynamics and discrete element method (CFD-DEM) coupling is an efficient and powerful tool to simulate particle-fluid systems. However, current volume-averaged CFD-DEM relying on direct grid-based mapping between the fluid and particle phases can exhibit a strong dependence on the fluid grid resolution, becoming unstable as particles move across fluid grids, and can fail to capture pore fluid pressure effects in very dense granular systems. Here we propose a two-step mapping CFD-DEM which uses a point-based coarse graining technique for intermediate smoothing to overcome these limitations. The discrete particles are first converted into smooth, coarse-grained continuum fields via a multi-layer Fibonacci point cloud, independent of the fluid grids. Then, accurate coupling is achieved between the coarse-grained, point cloud fields and the fluid grid-based variables. The algorithm is validated in various configurations, including weight allocation of a static particle on one-dimensional grids and a falling particle on two-dimensional grids, sedimentation of a sphere in a viscous fluid, size-bidisperse fluidized beds, Ergun's pressure drop test, and immersed granular column collapse. The proposed CFD-DEM represents a novel strategy to accurately simulate fluid-particle interactions for a wide range of grid-to-particle size ratios and solid concentrations, which is of potential use in many industrial and geophysical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09517 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Local and non-local mapping strategies for CFD-DEM. Crosses represent the centers of particles or fluid grids, while dots are point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the two-step coarse-graining CFD-DEM method, which consists of a point-based dispersion for generating the coarse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Geometry of the multi-layer point cloud associated with one particle. (a) Radii and spacing of the multiple layers. (b) and (c) compare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Coupling between point-based coarse-grained fields and fluid grid variables. The upper panel corresponding to Eqs. (25) and (26) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flow chart of the proposed CFD-DEM method. Coarse graining is used as an intermediate step for two-way coupling. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Weight allocation test for a static particle located on one-dimensional grids, comparing the proposed method and KBM. (a) Weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Weight allocation of a falling particle of diameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ergun test comparing the proposed method and KBM. (a) Computational domain. (b) Pressure drop as a function of the fluid inlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Computational domain of the single sphere sedimentation test. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of the single sphere sedimentation test. (a) Settling velocity obtained by the experiment, DPVM, and KBM with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bi-disperse fluidized bed test. (a) Computational domain and grid configurations. (b) Comparison of the proposed method, DPVM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Steady-state expansion heights hsurf of the fluidized bed under different fluid velocities uinlet with (a) ∆x/ds = 1 and (b) ∆x/ds = 2. 5.3. Immersed granular column collapse with varying initial packing densities The final validation test is regarding the collapse of…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Computational setup of the immersed granular collapse test. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results of a very dense granular column with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Results of varying initial packing densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Efficiency test for the proposed method, with both topology-based and table-based point allocation strategies, and conventional methods. 7. Conclusions This study presents a novel mapping strategy that integrates the concept of point-based coarse graining into the vol…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Talling, R

    P. Talling, R. Wynn, D. Masson, M. Frenz, B. Cronin, R. Schiebel, A. Akhmetzhanov, S. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S. Benetti, P. Weaver, et al., Onset of submarine debris flow deposition far from original giant landslide, Nature 450 (2007) 541–544

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    E. Deal, J. G. Venditti, S. J. Benavides, R. Bradley, Q. Zhang, K. Kamrin, J. T. Perron, Grain shape effects in bed load sediment transport, Nature 613 (2023) 298–302

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Peacock, R

    T. Peacock, R. Ouillon, The fluid mechanics of deep-sea mining, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 55 (2023) 403–430

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    H. Shi, P. Dong, X. Yu, Y . Zhou, A theoretical formulation of dilatation/contraction for continuum modelling of granular flows, J. Fluid Mech. 916 (2021) A56

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Topin, Y

    V . Topin, Y . Monerie, F. Perales, F. Radjai, Collapse dynamics and runout of dense granular materials in a fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 188001

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Ishikawa, Lubrication theory and boundary element hybrid method for calculating hydrodynamic forces be- tween particles in near contact, J

    T. Ishikawa, Lubrication theory and boundary element hybrid method for calculating hydrodynamic forces be- tween particles in near contact, J. Comput. Phys. 452 (2022) 110913

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Dance, M

    S. Dance, M. Maxey, Incorporation of lubrication effects into the force-coupling method for particulate two- phase flow, J. Comput. Phys. 189 (2003) 212–238

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Boyer, É

    F. Boyer, É. Guazzelli, O. Pouliquen, Unifying suspension and granular rheology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 188301. 23

    work page 2011

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Blais, M

    B. Blais, M. Lassaigne, C. Goniva, L. Fradette, F. Bertrand, Development of an unresolved CFD–DEM model for the flow of viscous suspensions and its application to solid–liquid mixing, J. Comput. Phys. 318 (2016) 201–221

    2016

  2. [10]

    Rondon, O

    L. Rondon, O. Pouliquen, P. Aussillous, Granular collapse in a fluid: role of the initial volume fraction, Phys. Fluids 23 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Pailha, M

    M. Pailha, M. Nicolas, O. Pouliquen, Initiation of underwater granular avalanches: Influence of the initial volume fraction, Phys. Fluids 20 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    P. Jop, Y . Forterre, O. Pouliquen, A constitutive law for dense granular flows, Nature 441 (2006) 727–730

    2006

  5. [13]

    Guazzelli, O

    É. Guazzelli, O. Pouliquen, Rheology of dense granular suspensions, J. Fluid Mech. 852 (2018) P1

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y . Sun, J. Li, Z. Cao, A. G. L. Borthwick, A two-dimensional double layer-averaged model of hyperconcentrated turbidity currents with non-newtonian rheology, Int. J. Sediment Res. 38 (2023) 794–810

    2023

  7. [15]

    D. S. Malkus, J. A. Nohel, B. J. Plohr, Dynamics of shear flow of a non-newtonian fluid, J. Comput. Phys. 87 (1990) 464–487

    1990

  8. [16]

    H. H. Hu, N. A. Patankar, M. Zhu, Direct numerical simulations of fluid–solid systems using the arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian technique, J. Comput. Phys. 169 (2001) 427–462

    2001

  9. [17]

    C. S. Peskin, Numerical analysis of blood flow in the heart, J. Comput. Phys. 25 (1977) 220–252

    1977

  10. [18]

    Z.-G. Feng, E. E. Michaelides, Proteus: a direct forcing method in the simulations of particulate flows, J. Com- put. Phys. 202 (2005) 20–51

    2005

  11. [19]

    Z. Yu, X. Shao, A. Wachs, A fictitious domain method for particulate flows with heat transfer, J. Comput. Phys. 217 (2006) 424–452

    2006

  12. [20]

    Z. Yu, X. Shao, A direct-forcing fictitious domain method for particulate flows, J. Comput. Phys. 227 (2007) 292–314

    2007

  13. [21]

    Uhlmann, An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate flows, J

    M. Uhlmann, An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate flows, J. Comput. Phys. 209 (2005) 448–476

    2005

  14. [22]

    Tsuji, T

    Y . Tsuji, T. Tanaka, T. Ishida, Lagrangian numerical simulation of plug flow of cohesionless particles in a horizontal pipe, Powder Technol. 71 (1992) 239–250

    1992

  15. [23]

    Tsuji, T

    Y . Tsuji, T. Kawaguchi, T. Tanaka, Discrete particle simulation of two-dimensional fluidized bed, Powder Tech- nol. 77 (1993) 79–87

    1993

  16. [24]

    C. T. Crowe, M. P. Sharma, D. E. Stock, The particle-source-in cell (PSI-CELL) model for gas-droplet flows, J. Fluid Eng. 99 (1977) 325–332

    1977

  17. [25]

    L. Jing, C. Kwok, Y . F. Leung, Y . Sobral, Extended CFD–DEM for free-surface flow with multi-size granules, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 40 (2016) 62–79

    2016

  18. [26]

    C. Wu, A. Berrouk, K. Nandakumar, Three-dimensional discrete particle model for gas–solid fluidized beds on unstructured mesh, Chem. Eng. J. 152 (2009) 514–529

    2009

  19. [27]

    Z. Peng, E. Doroodchi, C. Luo, B. Moghtaderi, Influence of void fraction calculation on fidelity of CFD-DEM simulation of gas-solid bubbling fluidized beds, AIChE J. 60 (2014) 2000–2018

    2014

  20. [28]

    Lätzel, S

    M. Lätzel, S. Luding, H. J. Herrmann, Macroscopic material properties from quasi-static, microscopic simula- tions of a two-dimensional shear-cell, Granul. Matter 2 (2000) 123–135. 24

    2000

  21. [29]

    X. Gao, J. Yu, L. Lu, C. Li, W. A. Rogers, Development and validation of SuperDEM-CFD coupled model for simulating non-spherical particles hydrodynamics in fluidized beds, Chem. Eng. J. 420 (2021) 127654

    2021

  22. [30]

    S. Wang, Y . Shen, Super-quadric CFD-DEM simulation of chip-like particles flow in a fluidized bed, Chem. Eng. Sci. 251 (2022) 117431

    2022

  23. [31]

    Z. Wang, Y . Teng, M. Liu, A semi-resolved CFD–DEM approach for particulate flows with kernel based approx- imation and Hilbert curve based searching strategy, J. Comput. Phys. 384 (2019) 151–169

    2019

  24. [32]

    Zhang, W.-L

    Y . Zhang, W.-L. Ren, P. Li, X.-H. Zhang, X.-B. Lu, Calculation of particle volume fraction in computational fluid dynamics-discrete element method simulation of particulate flows with coarse particles, Phys. Fluids 35 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Z. Su, C. Xu, K. Jia, C. Cui, X. Du, A novel semi-resolved CFD-DEM coupling method based on point cloud algorithm for complex fluid-particle systems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 434 (2025) 117561

    2025

  26. [34]

    S. Deb, D. K. Tafti, A novel two-grid formulation for fluid–particle systems using the discrete element method, Powder Technol. 246 (2013) 601–616

    2013

  27. [35]

    H. Che, C. O’Sullivan, A. Sufian, E. R. Smith, A novel CFD-DEM coarse-graining method based on the V oronoi tessellation, Powder Technol. 384 (2021) 479–493

    2021

  28. [36]

    J. Link, L. Cuypers, N. Deen, J. Kuipers, Flow regimes in a spout–fluid bed: A combined experimental and simulation study, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60 (2005) 3425–3442

    2005

  29. [37]

    Kitagawa, Y

    A. Kitagawa, Y . Murai, F. Yamamoto, Two-way coupling of Eulerian–Lagrangian model for dispersed multi- phase flows using filtering functions, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 27 (2001) 2129–2153

    2001

  30. [38]

    Z. Wang, M. Liu, Semi-resolved CFD–DEM for thermal particulate flows with applications to fluidized beds, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 159 (2020) 120150

    2020

  31. [39]

    Z. Wang, M. Liu, On the determination of grid size/smoothing distance in un-/semi-resolved CFD-DEM simu- lation of particulate flows, Powder Technol. 394 (2021) 73–82

    2021

  32. [40]

    G. Zhu, Y . Zhao, Z. Wang, M. Liu, et al., Semi-resolved CFD-DEM simulation of fine particle migration with heat transfer in heterogeneous porous media, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 197 (2022) 123349

    2022

  33. [41]

    J. Chen, J. Zhang, A semi-resolved CFD-DEM coupling model using a two-way domain expansion method, J. Comput. Phys. 469 (2022) 111532

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zhang, X.-B

    Y . Zhang, X.-B. Lu, X.-H. Zhang, An optimized Eulerian–Lagrangian method for two-phase flow with coarse particles: Implementation in open-source field operation and manipulation, verification, and validation, Phys. Fluids 33 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    R. Sun, H. Xiao, Diffusion-based coarse graining in hybrid continuum–discrete solvers: Theoretical formulation and a priori tests, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 77 (2015) 142–157

    2015

  36. [44]

    Capecelatro, O

    J. Capecelatro, O. Desjardins, An Euler–Lagrange strategy for simulating particle-laden flows, J. Comput. Phys. 238 (2013) 1–31

    2013

  37. [45]

    R. Sun, H. Xiao, Diffusion-based coarse graining in hybrid continuum–discrete solvers: Applications in CFD– DEM, Int. J. Multiph. Flow 72 (2015) 233–247

    2015

  38. [46]

    Eshraghi, E

    H. Eshraghi, E. Amani, M. Saffar-Avval, Coarse-graining algorithms for the Eulerian-Lagrangian simulation of particle-laden flows, J. Comput. Phys. 493 (2023) 112461

    2023

  39. [47]

    Pailha, O

    M. Pailha, O. Pouliquen, A two-phase flow description of the initiation of underwater granular avalanches, J. Fluid Mech. 633 (2009) 115–135. 25

    2009

  40. [48]

    Cheng, C

    K. Cheng, C. Zhang, K. Peng, H. Liu, M. Ahmad, Un-resolved CFD-DEM method: An insight into its limitations in the modelling of suffusion in gap-graded soils, Powder Technol. 381 (2021) 520–538

    2021

  41. [49]

    Z. Zhou, S. Kuang, K. Chu, A. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of particle–fluid flow: model formulations and their applicability, J. Fluid Mech. 661 (2010) 482–510

    2010

  42. [50]

    T. B. Anderson, R. Jackson, Fluid mechanical description of fluidized beds. Equations of motion, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 6 (1967) 527–539

    1967

  43. [51]

    P. A. Cundall, O. D. Strack, A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies, Géotechnique 29 (1979) 47–65

    1979

  44. [52]

    Gidaspow, Multiphase flow and fluidization: continuum and kinetic theory descriptions, Academic press, 1994

    D. Gidaspow, Multiphase flow and fluidization: continuum and kinetic theory descriptions, Academic press, 1994

    1994

  45. [53]

    Ergun, Fluid flow through packed columns, Chem

    S. Ergun, Fluid flow through packed columns, Chem. Eng. Prog. 48 (1952) 89

    1952

  46. [54]

    C. Y . Wen, Mechanics of fluidization, in: Fluid Particle Technology, Chem. Eng. Progress. Symposium Series, V ol. 62, 1966, pp. 100–111

    1966

  47. [55]

    Y . Liu, X. Yu, General formulation of drag force on assemblage of spherical particles in fluids: A critical review and a new empirical formula, Phys. Fluids 34 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Goldhirsch, Stress, stress asymmetry and couple stress: from discrete particles to continuous fields, Granul

    I. Goldhirsch, Stress, stress asymmetry and couple stress: from discrete particles to continuous fields, Granul. Matter 12 (2010) 239–252

    2010

  49. [57]

    Weinhart, A

    T. Weinhart, A. R. Thornton, S. Luding, O. Bokhove, From discrete particles to continuum fields near a boundary, Granul. Matter 14 (2012) 289–294

    2012

  50. [58]

    Cheng, A

    H. Cheng, A. R. Thornton, S. Luding, A. L. Hazel, T. Weinhart, Concurrent multi-scale modeling of granular materials: Role of coarse-graining in FEM-DEM coupling, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 403 (2023) 115651

    2023

  51. [59]

    Weinhart, C

    T. Weinhart, C. Labra, S. Luding, J. Y . Ooi, Influence of coarse-graining parameters on the analysis of DEM simulations of silo flow, Powder Technol. 293 (2016) 138–148

    2016

  52. [60]

    S. Wang, S. Ji, Computational mechanics of arbitrarily shaped granular materials, Springer, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Chukkapalli, S

    G. Chukkapalli, S. R. Karpik, C. R. Ethier, A scheme for generating unstructured grids on spheres with applica- tion to parallel computation, J. Comput. Phys. 149 (1999) 114–127

    1999

  54. [62]

    Baselga, Fibonacci lattices for the evaluation and optimization of map projections, Comput

    S. Baselga, Fibonacci lattices for the evaluation and optimization of map projections, Comput. Geosci. 117 (2018) 1–8

    2018

  55. [63]

    Swinbank, R

    R. Swinbank, R. James Purser, Fibonacci grids: A novel approach to global modelling, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 132 (2006) 1769–1793

    2006

  56. [64]

    E. B. Saff, A. B. Kuijlaars, Distributing many points on a sphere, Math. Intelligencer 19 (1997) 5–11

    1997

  57. [65]

    González, Measurement of areas on a sphere using Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices, Math

    Á. González, Measurement of areas on a sphere using Fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices, Math. Geosci. 42 (2010) 49–64

    2010

  58. [66]

    Ten Cate, C

    A. Ten Cate, C. Nieuwstad, J. J. Derksen, H. Van den Akker, Particle imaging velocimetry experiments and lattice-boltzmann simulations on a single sphere settling under gravity, Phys. Fluids 14 (2002) 4012–4025

    2002

  59. [67]

    Z. Xie, S. Wang, Y . Shen, CFD-DEM modelling of the migration of fines in suspension flow through a solid packed bed, Chem. Eng. Sci. 231 (2021) 116261

    2021

  60. [68]

    Guo, Motion of spheres falling through fluids, J

    J. Guo, Motion of spheres falling through fluids, J. Hydraul. Res. 49 (2011) 32–41. 26

    2011

  61. [69]

    M. S. Khan, S. Mitra, S. Ghatage, Z. Peng, E. Doroodchi, B. Moghtaderi, J. B. Joshi, G. M. Evans, Pressure drop and voidage measurement in solid-liquid fluidized bed: Experimental, mathematical and computational study, Chemeca 2016: Chemical Engineering-Regeneration, Recovery ...

    2016

  62. [70]

    R. M. Iverson, M. Reid, N. R. Iverson, R. LaHusen, M. Logan, J. Mann, D. Brien, Acute sensitivity of landslide rates to initial soil porosity, Science 290 (2000) 513–516

    2000

  63. [71]

    G. Yang, L. Jing, C. Kwok, Y . D. Sobral, Pore-scale simulation of immersed granular collapse: implications to submarine landslides, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 125 (2020) e2019JF005044

    2020

  64. [72]

    H. Xiao, J. Sun, Algorithms in a robust hybrid CFD-DEM solver for particle-laden flows, Commun. Comput. Phys. 9 (2011) 297–323

    2011

  65. [73]

    A. Ries, L. Brendel, D. E. Wolf, Coarse graining strategies at walls, Comput. Part. Mech. 1 (2014) 177–190

    2014

  66. [74]

    H. Zhu, A. Yu, Averaging method of granular materials, Phys. Rev. E 66 (2002) 021302

    2002

  67. [75]

    Kloss, C

    C. Kloss, C. Goniva, A. Hager, S. Amberger, S. Pirker, Models, algorithms and validation for opensource DEM and CFD–DEM, Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 12 (2012) 140–152

    2012

  68. [76]

    S. Radl, B. C. Gonzales, C. Goniva, S. Pirker, State of the art in mapping schemes for dilute and dense euler- lagrange simulations, in: Selected papers from 10th International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Oil & Gas, Metallurgical and Process Industries, S...

    2015

  69. [77]

    Goniva, B

    C. Goniva, B. Blais, S. Radl, C. Kloss, Open source CFD-DEM modelling for particle-based processes, in: 11th International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Minerals and Process Industries, 2015. 27

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.