Rocky Verification Manual

ANSYS, Inc. Release 2025 R1

Southpointe January 2025
2600 Ansys Drive
Canonsburg, PA 15317 ANSYS, Inc. and
ansysinfo@ansys.com ANSYS Europe,
Ltd. are UL
http://www.ansys.com registered ISO
(T) 724-746-3304 9001: 2015
(F) 724-514-9494 companies.
Copyright and Trademark Information

© 2025 ANSYS, Inc. Unauthorized use, distribution or duplication is prohibited.

ANSYS, Ansys Workbench, AUTODYN, CFX, FLUENT and any and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature
names, logos and slogans are registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries located in the
United States or other countries. ICEM CFD is a trademark used by ANSYS, Inc. under license. CFX is a trademark
of Sony Corporation in Japan. All other brand, product, service and feature names or trademarks are the property
of their respective owners. FLEXlm and FLEXnet are trademarks of Flexera Software LLC.

Disclaimer Notice

THIS ANSYS SOFTWARE PRODUCT AND PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION INCLUDE TRADE SECRETS AND ARE CONFID-
ENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY PRODUCTS OF ANSYS, INC., ITS SUBSIDIARIES, OR LICENSORS. The software products
and documentation are furnished by ANSYS, Inc., its subsidiaries, or affiliates under a software license agreement
that contains provisions concerning non-disclosure, copying, length and nature of use, compliance with exporting
laws, warranties, disclaimers, limitations of liability, and remedies, and other provisions. The software products
and documentation may be used, disclosed, transferred, or copied only in accordance with the terms and conditions
of that software license agreement.

ANSYS, Inc. and ANSYS Europe, Ltd. are UL registered ISO 9001: 2015 companies.

U.S. Government Rights

For U.S. Government users, except as specifically granted by the ANSYS, Inc. software license agreement, the use,
duplication, or disclosure by the United States Government is subject to restrictions stated in the ANSYS, Inc.
software license agreement and FAR 12.212 (for non-DOD licenses).

Third-Party Software

See the legal information in the product help files for the complete Legal Notice for ANSYS proprietary software
and third-party software. If you are unable to access the Legal Notice, contact ANSYS, Inc.

Published in the U.S.A.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction to Rocky Verification and Validation Test Cases ................................................................ 9
1.1. Verification & Validation .................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Errors Calculation ............................................................................................................................ 10
2. DEM Cases ............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.1. Ball Rolling on a Flat Surface ............................................................................................................ 11
2.1.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2. Thermal Radiation between Two Concentric Spheres ....................................................................... 17
2.2.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 18
2.2.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3.1. External Module ............................................................................................................ 19
2.2.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 20
2.3. Tumbling Mill Wear Model ............................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 23
2.3.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 24
2.3.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 25
2.4. Free-falling Sphere Collision ............................................................................................................ 26
2.4.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 26
2.4.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 27
2.4.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 29
2.4.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 29
2.5. Two Stacked, Compressed Spheres .................................................................................................. 35
2.5.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 35
2.5.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 36
2.5.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 38
2.5.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 38
3. CFD-DEM Coupled Cases ....................................................................................................................... 43
3.1. Particle Terminal Velocity ................................................................................................................ 43
3.1.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 43
3.1.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 43
3.1.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 45
3.1.4. 1-Way Constant Results .......................................................................................................... 45
3.1.5. 1-Way Fluent Results .............................................................................................................. 47
3.1.6. 2-Way Unresolved Results ....................................................................................................... 49
3.2. Fixed Bed (Ergun Correlation) .......................................................................................................... 51
3.2.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2. Mathematical Formulation ..................................................................................................... 52
3.2.3. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 53
3.2.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 54
3.3. Lift Force ........................................................................................................................................ 56
3.3.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 56
3.3.2. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 57
3.3.3. Results ................................................................................................................................... 58
4. SPH Cases .............................................................................................................................................. 63
4.1. Dam Break ...................................................................................................................................... 63

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. iii
Rocky Verification Manual

4.1.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 63

4.1.2. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 64
4.1.3. Results ................................................................................................................................... 64
4.2. Lid-Driven Cavity ............................................................................................................................ 66
4.2.1. Case Description .................................................................................................................... 66
4.2.2. Input Data & Setup ................................................................................................................. 67
4.2.3. Results ................................................................................................................................... 68
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 75

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
iv of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
List of Figures
2.1. Ball rolling on a flat surface. ................................................................................................................... 11
2.2. Flat surface geometry dimensions. ........................................................................................................ 13
2.3. Comparison of the ball particle's translational velocity. .......................................................................... 14
2.4. Comparison of the ball particle's rotational velocity. .............................................................................. 15
2.5. Translational velocity absolute and relative errors. ................................................................................. 16
2.6. Rotational velocity absolute and relative errors. ..................................................................................... 17
2.7. Two concentric spheres exchanging heat due to radiation. .................................................................... 18
2.8. Comparison of temperature for the inner sphere and the analytical solution [K]. ..................................... 20
2.9. Absolute and relative errors for the results shown in the previous image. ............................................... 21
2.10. Schematic View of the Load Angles .................................................................................................... 22
2.11. Kalala (2008) Simulation Load Angles ................................................................................................. 22
2.12. Rocky Simulation Load Angles ............................................................................................................ 23
2.13. Application of the Archard wear model in Rocky DEM simulation. ........................................................ 24
2.14. Comparison between profiles: Unworn reference (Yellow),Worn Experimental (Purple) and Worn Rocky
simulation (Orange). ................................................................................................................................... 26
2.15. Free-falling sphere colliding with a plane and frictionless surface. ........................................................ 27
2.16. Relation between the damping ratio and the restitution coefficient e. ............................................... 28
2.17. Evolution of the height of the sphere for the first bounce. .................................................................... 30
2.18. Absolute error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the height of the sphere. ............................. 31
2.19. Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the height of the sphere. ............................... 32
2.20. Evolution of the velocity of the sphere for the first bounce. .................................................................. 33
2.21. Absolute error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the velocity of the sphere. ............................ 34
2.22. Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the velocity of the sphere. ............................. 35
2.23. Compressed spheres stacked between two fixed walls ......................................................................... 36
2.24. Relation between the damping coefficient and the restitution coefficient . ...................................... 37
2.25. Evolution of the position of particle 1 over simulation time. ................................................................. 39
2.26. Evolution of the position of particle 2 over simulation time. ................................................................. 40
2.27. Absolute error between Rocky and Runge-Kutta solution for the particles position. .............................. 41
2.28. Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the particles position. .................................... 42
3.1. Particle falling under gravitational and drag forces. ................................................................................ 44
3.2. Rocky simulation results using 1-Way Constant coupling at several different output times. ..................... 46
3.3. Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Constant coupling method. ......................... 46
3.4. Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Constant coupling method. ......................... 47
3.5. Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Fluent coupling method. .............................. 48
3.6. Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Fluent coupling method. .............................. 49
3.7. Particle velocity over time results comparison using 2-Way Unresolved coupling method. ...................... 50
3.8. Particle velocity over time results comparison using 2-Way Unresolved coupling method. ...................... 51
3.9. Fixed bed with 0.5 m height of spherical particles within a container. ..................................................... 52
3.10. Rocky simulation results using 2-Way Fluent coupling showing the static pressure along the fixed bed
at the last timestep. .................................................................................................................................... 54
3.11. Comparison of static pressure [kPa] for the Rocky simulation and reference results. .............................. 55
3.12. Absolute and relative errors. ................................................................................................................ 56
3.13. Lift Force verification case (particles centralized, in red; CFD cell nodes colored by Fluid Velocity; air inlet
and outlet indicated with red arrows. .......................................................................................................... 57
3.14. Comparison between simulation and analytical results of lift force for the 8 fixed particles. ................... 59
3.15. Absolute lift force error for each particle. ............................................................................................. 60
4.1. Dam break validation case. .................................................................................................................... 63
4.2. Geometries dimensions. ....................................................................................................................... 63
4.3. Comparison of the force acting on the column. ..................................................................................... 65

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. v
Rocky Verification Manual

4.4. Simulation 3D results showing the wave impact on the column. ............................................................ 66
4.5. Lid-driven cavity validation case. ........................................................................................................... 67
4.6. Velocity field through the cavity for Re=100. .......................................................................................... 68
4.7. Streamlines through the cavity for Re = 100: Ghia at al ........................................................................... 69
4.8. Streamlines through the cavity for Re = 100: Rocky simulation. .............................................................. 69
4.9. Comparison of u-velocity along the vertical line through the cavity center for Re = 100. ......................... 70
4.10. Comparison of v-velocity along the horizontal line through the cavity center for Re=100. ..................... 71
4.11. Absolute and relative errors for u-velocity along the vertical line through the cavity center for Re =
100. ............................................................................................................................................................ 72
4.12. Absolute and relative errors v-velocity along the horizontal line through the cavity center for Re =
100. ............................................................................................................................................................ 73

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
vi of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
List of Tables
2.1. Verification case input parameters. ........................................................................................................ 12
2.2. Translational and rotational velocities targets ........................................................................................ 17
2.3. Verification case input parameters. ........................................................................................................ 19
2.4. Thermal Radiation module parameters. ................................................................................................. 19
2.5. Temperature target ............................................................................................................................... 21
2.6. Comparison of Load Angles between Kalala (2008) and Rocky Simulation .............................................. 22
2.7. Validation case input parameters. .......................................................................................................... 24
2.8. Comparison between the experimental and simulation geometry volume. ............................................ 25
2.9. Verification case input parameters. ........................................................................................................ 29
2.10. Input parameters for the compressed spheres case validation. ............................................................. 38
3.1. Verification case input parameters. ........................................................................................................ 45
3.2. Velocity target ...................................................................................................................................... 47
3.3. Velocity target ...................................................................................................................................... 49
3.4. Velocity target ...................................................................................................................................... 51
3.5. Verification case input parameters. ........................................................................................................ 53
3.6. Pressure target ...................................................................................................................................... 56
3.7. Verification case input parameters. ........................................................................................................ 57
3.8. Results correlation for both lift force laws. .............................................................................................. 60
4.1. Validation case input parameters. .......................................................................................................... 64
4.2. Lid-driven cavity case input parameters. ................................................................................................ 67

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. vii
 Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
viii of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 1: Introduction to Rocky Verification and
Validation Test Cases
The Rocky Verification and Validation Manual presents a collection of verification and validation (V&V)
cases that demonstrate some key capabilities of the Ansys Rocky product. The main purpose of this
manual is to bring classical and relevant cases that either have known solutions (theoretical or analytical)
or have experimental data available for correlation.

Providing these test cases enables Ansys Rocky users to prove the software's robustness to their own
satisfaction, thereby building confidence in Rocky's solutions.

The cases presented in this manual may be used for additional verification of Rocky capabilities if applied
to specific cases from users. To solve the DEM and SPH test cases, you must have a valid product license
for Rocky. To solve the CFD-DEM test cases, you must also have a compatible Ansys license to run Ansys
Fluent. Some of the test cases consist of simple problems that run quickly on less powerful computers;
however, some do require the use of GPU and/or parallel computing to be processed. These latter cases
are mainly those that require comparison with experimental data.

A continuous verification of Rocky is performed by the Numerical Development and Quality Assurance
teams at ESSS as new functionalities are implemented and included in the Rocky software package. An
update to this manual is published with every new product release and includes the latest results that
are available.

1.1. Verification & Validation

According to Boehm[1] (p. 75) and Blottner[2] (p. 75), we can adopt the following succinct descriptions:

• Verification: "Solving the equations right."

• Validation: "Solving the right equations."

Verification and Validation (V&V) are both necessary processes for demonstrating the predictive capab-
ility of a computational model. These two processes can be defined more specifically as[3] (p. 75):

• Verification: Process for ensuring that a numerical model accurately represents the conceptual de-
scription of the physical model and the related analytical solution. In other words, the verification
process involves proving that the code within the mathematical model and the numerical algorithm
are accurately producing the computational model as intended.

• Validation: Assesses the degree to which the computational model accurately represents the physics
of the real world being modeled in an intended application. The validation requires the comparison
between simulation and experimental data, where the predictive capability is evaluated along with
the physical reality while addressing the uncertainties arising from both experiments and computations.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 9
Introduction to Rocky Verification and Validation Test Cases

1.2. Errors Calculation

For each V&V case presented in this manual, the comparison between Rocky results and the reference
data (from analytical expressions or experiments) is done by means of absolute and relative errors cal-
culations.

The absolute error is defined as the difference between the value calculated by Rocky and the reference
value of a quantity that is being compared. For example, imagine that we are interested in knowing
the velocity of a particle in a certain time step and is the value calculated by Rocky. In this case, the
absolute error can be calculated using the formula , where is the reference
value (analytical or experimental).

The relative error is defined as the ratio of the absolute error to the reference value. Thus, the relative
error gives an indication of how close the Rocky results are to the actual values that we are considering
as reference. Using the same example, we can calculate the relative error for the velocity using the
formula . Important: The relative errors are dimensionless; within this manual we multiply the
relative errors by 100 to express them as percentages.

It is important to state that in this manual, for the validation cases where the reference values come
from experiments, we are considering the experimental mean values for the errors calculation and ad-
ditional comments are added when we deem necessary.

As a complementary analysis, for the V&V cases that converge to a final constant or stable value, a table
with each target value and the respective solution ratio is presented in order to show the level of cor-
relation achieved by the results.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
10 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 2: DEM Cases
In this section you will find the verification and validation cases that consider only the DEM solution.
These test examples have no coupling with other Ansys products (for example Ansys Fluent and Ansys
Motion) and can be run using only Rocky.

2.1. Ball Rolling on a Flat Surface

2.1.1. Case Description

In this verification case, a spherical particle acting under gravity and with the following criteria begins
to roll on a flat surface:

• Diameter

• Initial translational velocity in the x-direction

• Initial rotational velocity in the z-direction

Due to the rolling friction, the translational velocity is converted into rotational velocity. After a short
deceleration phase, the no-slip condition occurs at the ball-surface contact point and the ball reaches
constant translational and rotational velocities. An illustration of this case at initial time condition is
shown in Figure 2.1: Ball rolling on a flat surface. (p. 11).

Figure 2.1: Ball rolling on a flat surface.

2.1.2. Mathematical Formulation

From the relation between the kinetic friction force acting on the particle, the translational and rota-
tional velocities of the particle rolling in the x-direction may be expressed as follows:

(2.1)

(2.2)

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 11
DEM Cases

where:

• is the particle's position in the horizontal direction.

• is the particle's translational velocity in the horizontal direction.

• is the particle's rotational velocity.

• is the gravity acceleration in the vertical direction.

• is the dynamic friction coefficient between the particle and the surface materials.

• is the particle's mass.

• is the particle's diameter.

• is the particle's moment of inertia.

By integrating equations Equation 2.1 (p. 11) and Equation 2.2 (p. 11) with the initial conditions
and , the time when the rolling friction stops and equals , can be given by:

(2.3)

2.1.3. Input Data & Setup

The equations shown in the last section can be resolved and equivalent results can be calculated by
Rocky considering the same input data and boundary conditions. The input parameters for this veri-
fication case setup are presented in Table 2.1: Verification case input parameters. (p. 12) and the
geometry dimensions are shown in Figure 2.2: Flat surface geometry dimensions. (p. 13).

Table 2.1: Verification case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Thermal Disabled -
Normal Force Hysteretic Linear Spring -
Tangential Force Linear Spring Coulomb -
Limit
Adhesive Force None -
Rolling Resistance None -
Gravity Y None

Wall Geometry (Flat Surface):

Length (X) 0.25
Length (Y) 0.0
Length (Z) 0.1
Solid Properties:

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
12 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Ball Rolling on a Flat Surface

Parameter Value Unit

Particle Diameter 0.1
Particle Density 10,000

Particle-Geometry Dynamic Friction 0.2 -

Coefficient
Particle Initial Translational Velocity 3.0

Particle Initial Rotational Velocity 0.0

Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 1.0

Figure 2.2: Flat surface geometry dimensions.

2.1.4. Results
After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the analytical values.
Here, the evolution of the translational and rotational velocities over time are shown in Figure 2.3: Com-
parison of the ball particle's translational velocity. (p. 14) and Figure 2.4: Comparison of the ball
particle's rotational velocity. (p. 15), respectively. The numerical solution given by Rocky presents
strongly correlated values to those obtained by the analytical expressions.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 13
DEM Cases

Figure 2.3: Comparison of the ball particle's translational velocity.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
14 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Ball Rolling on a Flat Surface

Figure 2.4: Comparison of the ball particle's rotational velocity.

The absolute and relative errors for the particle velocities are compared in Figure 2.5: Translational
velocity absolute and relative errors. (p. 16) and Figure 2.6: Rotational velocity absolute and relative
errors. (p. 17). The maximum absolute errors for the translational and rotational velocities are around
0.005 m/s and 0.25 rad/s, respectively. The maximum relative errors are around 0.23% and 4.5%, re-
spectively.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 15
DEM Cases

Figure 2.5: Translational velocity absolute and relative errors.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
16 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Thermal Radiation between Two Concentric Spheres

Figure 2.6: Rotational velocity absolute and relative errors.

Table 2.2: Translational and rotational velocities targets (p. 17) lists the values for the final translational
and rotational velocities. These include the target values calculated by the analytical expressions, the
numerical results calculated by Rocky, and the ratio between both, which shows a strong correlation
between results.

Table 2.2: Translational and rotational velocities targets

Target Rocky Ratio[-]

Translational Velocity 2.14224 2.14245 1.00009
[m/s]
Rotational Velocity [rad/s] 42.88794 42.86162 0.99939

2.2. Thermal Radiation between Two Concentric Spheres

2.2.1. Case Description

In this verification case, two concentric spheres exchange heat due to radiation. The spheres are
separated by a non-participating medium and their surfaces are considered to be opaque, gray, and
diffuse. The outer sphere is modeled as a boundary with a constant and uniform high temperature
of 2000 K and the inner sphere is modeled as a particle with an initial temperature of 300 K. The two
spheres are shown in Figure 2.7: Two concentric spheres exchanging heat due to radiation. (p. 18).
For technical details, refer to the documentation for the Thermal Radiation module. This ready-to-use
module can be downloaded from the Ansys Customer Portal.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 17
DEM Cases

Figure 2.7: Two concentric spheres exchanging heat due to radiation.

2.2.2. Mathematical Formulation

The net radiation exchange between two surfaces can be expressed analytically for some cases, de-
pending on the radiation view factor and the surfaces areas ratio. For the case of two concentric
spheres, the net radiation may be expressed as follows:

(2.4)

where:

• is the radiation heat transfer rate between the spheres.

• , which is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

• Ti is the inner sphere's surface temperature.

• To is the outer sphere's surface temperature.

• is the thermal emissivity of the inner sphere.

• is the thermal emissivity of the outer sphere.

• Ai is the area of the inner sphere.

• Ao is the area of the outer sphere.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
18 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Thermal Radiation between Two Concentric Spheres

2.2.3. Input Data & Setup

The equations shown in the last section can be resolved and equivalent results can be calculated by
Rocky considering the same input data and boundary conditions. The input parameters for this veri-
fication case setup are presented in Table 2.3: Verification case input parameters. (p. 19).

Table 2.3: Verification case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Thermal Model Enabled -
Gravity (X) 0

Gravity (Y) 0

Gravity (Z) 0

Wall Geometry (Outer Sphere):

Diameter 100
Triangle Size 12.5
Solid Properties (Wall Geometry - Outer Sphere):
Constant Surface 2000
Temperature
Material Density 7850

Material Specific Heat 500

Material Emissivity 1.0 -

Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 30

2.2.3.1. External Module

This verification case makes use of an external module called Thermal Radiation, which enables
additional Rocky solver capabilities. This ready-to-use module can be downloaded from the Rocky
Customer Portal. The module parameters considered for this case are presented in Table 2.4: Thermal
Radiation module parameters. (p. 19).

Table 2.4: Thermal Radiation module parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Module Version 20.0 -
Geometries Screening 10
Distance
Particles Screening Distance 10
Start Time 0
Stop Time 30

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 19
DEM Cases

2.2.4. Results
After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the analytical values.
Here, the evolution of the inner sphere's (the particle's) temperature over time is shown in Fig-
ure 2.8: Comparison of temperature for the inner sphere and the analytical solution [K]. (p. 20). The
numerical solution given by Rocky presents strongly correlated values to those obtained by the ana-
lytical expression.

Figure 2.8: Comparison of temperature for the inner sphere and the analytical solution [K].

The absolute and relative errors for the inner sphere's (the particle's) temperature are compared in
Figure 2.9: Absolute and relative errors for the results shown in the previous image. (p. 21). The
maximum absolute error for the temperature is around 1.5 K. The maximum relative error is around
0.11% K.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
20 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Tumbling Mill Wear Model

Figure 2.9: Absolute and relative errors for the results shown in the previous image.

Table 2.5: Temperature target (p. 21) lists the value for the final temperature. This includes the target
value calculated by the analytical expression as compared to the value calculated by Rocky. A Ratio
of 1.0 here shows a strong correlation between the results.

Table 2.5: Temperature target

Target Rocky Ratio[-]

[K] [K]
2000 2000 1.0

2.3. Tumbling Mill Wear Model

2.3.1. Case Description

In this validation study, it is shown that the combination of the Discrete Element Method (DEM) with
Archard's wear law is effective for simulating wear in mill cases. The wear rate in the DEM model is
significantly higher than the experimental rate, and the entire wear process was simulated within a
few mill revolutions. Based on the Lethabo mill described by Kalala (2008)[8] (p. 75), this validation
case highlights the accuracy of mill wear simulation using the DEM method.

The Shoulder, Toe and angles (Figure 2.10: Schematic View of the Load Angles (p. 22)) were com-
pared between the simulation described by Kalala (2008)[8] (p. 75) and the simulation performed in

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 21
DEM Cases

Rocky DEM and show good agreement ( Table 2.6: Comparison of Load Angles between Kalala (2008)
and Rocky Simulation (p. 22)).

Figure 2.10: Schematic View of the Load Angles

Table 2.6: Comparison of Load Angles between Kalala (2008) and Rocky Simulation

Simulation Profile Shoulder Toe Angle Angle

Angle (Degrees) (Degrees)
(Degrees)
Figure 2.11: Kalala (2008) Simulation Load Angles 303 128 34.68

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
22 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Tumbling Mill Wear Model

Simulation Profile Shoulder Toe Angle Angle

Angle (Degrees) (Degrees)
(Degrees)
Figure 2.12: Rocky Simulation Load Angles 295 132 36.05

Relative Error (%) -2.6 3.1 3.9

2.3.2. Mathematical Formulation

The Archard wear model is a shear-based model that correlates volume losses with the work due to
friction forces (Figure 2.13: Application of the Archard wear model in Rocky DEM simulation. (p. 24)).
This model has been extensively correlated with a wide variety of materials and is frequently used
by the mining industry to simulate wear. The following equation shows the application of the Achard
Wear Model in Rocky DEM simulation:

(2.5)

where:

• is the volume of material worn from surface.

• is the shear work.

• is the user input parameter Shear Work Proportionality.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 23
DEM Cases

Figure 2.13: Application of the Archard wear model in Rocky DEM simulation.

2.3.3. Input Data & Setup

The input parameters for this validation case setup are presented in Table 2.7: Validation case input
parameters. (p. 24)

Table 2.7: Validation case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Gravity (Z) -9.81

Wall Geometry (Lethabo_10mm_mesh):

Diameter 4267
Triangle Size 15
Material Density 7850

Young's Modulus 1e+11

Poisson's ratio 0.3 -

Shear Work Proportionality (Achard's 5e-07
Law)
Motion Frames (Mill Rotation):
Motion Time 0 - 1000
Initial Angular Velocity -15.7

Particle Properties (Ball):

Diameter 50 mm
Material Density 7850

Young's Modulus 1e+08

Poisson's ratio 0.3 -

Materials Interactions (Ball Material X Mill Material):
Static Friction 0.2 -
Dynamic Friction 0.2 -

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
24 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Tumbling Mill Wear Model

Parameter Value Unit

Tangential Stiffness Ratio 1 -
Contact Stiffness Multiplier 1 -
Restitution Coefficient 0.4 -
Materials Interactions (Ball Material X Ball Material):
Static Friction 0.2 -
Dynamic Friction 0.2 -
Tangential Stiffness Ratio 1 -
Contact Stiffness Multiplier 1 -
Restitution Coefficient 0.5 -
Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 110
Time Interval 0.5
Wear / Start 7.6
Geometry Update Interval 0.005

2.3.4. Results
The experimental geometry was modeled based on the coordinates provided by Kalala (2008)[8] (p. 75).
After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the experimental
values. This validation case demonstrate that such a modeling scheme still maintains reasonable ac-
curacy in the geometry volume compared to experimental measurements, as we can see in
Table 2.8: Comparison between the experimental and simulation geometry volume. (p. 25)

Table 2.8: Comparison between the experimental and simulation geometry volume.

Geometry Volume ( ) Relative Error (%)

Unworn reference 0.1131 -
Worn Experimental 0.0967 -
Worn Rocky simulation 0.0956 -0.8

It is also possible to verify that the wear profiles between the experimental geometry and simulation
are similar (Figure 2.14: Comparison between profiles: Unworn reference (Yellow), Worn Experimental
(Purple) and Worn Rocky simulation (Orange). (p. 26)).

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 25
DEM Cases

Figure 2.14: Comparison between profiles: Unworn reference (Yellow), Worn Experimental
(Purple) and Worn Rocky simulation (Orange).

2.4. Free-falling Sphere Collision

2.4.1. Case Description

In this verification case, a frictionless spherical particle falls freely under gravitational force from an
initial height, , and bounces upon collision with a rigid wall. The translation motion of the particle
is described in three stages: free fall, contact and rebound. For details regarding the theory, refer to
(Chen, 2007) and to Rocky DEM Technical Manual.

In this case, R is the ball particle radius, is the initial height, g is the gravitational acceleration,
is the pre-collision particle velocity and is the post-collision particle velocity, as described in Fig-
ure 2.15: Free-falling sphere colliding with a plane and frictionless surface. (p. 27).

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
26 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Free-falling Sphere Collision

Figure 2.15: Free-falling sphere colliding with a plane and frictionless surface.

2.4.2. Mathematical Formulation

For the first motion stage (free fall), the following equations govern the motion of the particle:

(2.6)

(2.7)

(2.8)

where y is the center of the particle with respect to the wall and g is the gravitational acceleration.
The particle velocity v and position y are given by
(2.9)
(2.10)

When the sphere's center position is equal to its radius, the free fall stage ends and the second motion
stage begins. The particle-wall collision is treated using the linear spring-dashpot model such that
force balance on the particle during contact is given by

(2.11)

(2.12)

(2.13)

where and are the system natural frequency and the damping ratio, respectively. The
damping ratio is determined directly by the relation shown in the figure below. Refer to Rocky DEM
Technical Manual to see this relation formulation.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 27
DEM Cases

Figure 2.16: Relation between the damping ratio and the restitution coefficient e.

The normal spring coefficient is and is the particle mass. The initial particle velocity is obtained
when the particle center position is equal to its radius. The velocity and position of the particle center
during contact, regarding an underdamped system with , are given by

(2.14)

(2.15)

where is the damped natural frequency.

The third and last motion stage correspond to the ball rebound, which begins when the particle
center position is equal to its radius. The force balance on the particle results in the following

(2.16)

(2.17)

(2.18)

Therefore, the sphere's velocity v and center position y are given by

(2.19)
(2.20)

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
28 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Free-falling Sphere Collision

2.4.3. Input Data & Setup

The equations shown in the last section can be resolved and equivalent results can be calculated by
Rocky considering the same input data and boundary conditions. The input parameters for this veri-
fication case setup are presented in Table 2.9: Verification case input parameters. (p. ?).

Table 2.9: Verification case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Thermal Disabled -
Normal Force Linear Spring -
Dashpot
Adhesive Force None -
Restitution Varied -
Coefficient
Gravity Y -9.81

Sphere:
Sphere Radius 0.2
Sphere Density 2,600

Friction Coefficient 0 -
Young Modulus 200,000 Pa
Plate:
X and Z dimensions 1
Young Modulus 200,000 Pa
Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 0.5

2.4.4. Results
After running the simulations using the parameters described in the previous section, it is possible
to compare the results between Rocky and the Analytical solution. The evolution of the particle height
(measured from its center position) is shown in Figure 2.17: Evolution of the height of the sphere for
the first bounce. (p. 30) for different coefficients of restitution, labeled from 0.7 to 1.0. This figure
presents the analytical results in the dots, and the numerical results from Rocky as dashed lines. It
can be seen that the higher the restitution coefficient, the better the correlation between numerical
and analytical results, and that for all cases the numerical simulations follows the same pattern beha-
vior as the analytical one.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 29
DEM Cases

Figure 2.17: Evolution of the height of the sphere for the first bounce.

The absolute and relative errors for the sphere's height are compared in Figure 2.18: Absolute error
between Rocky and Analytical solution for the height of the sphere. (p. 31) and Figure 2.19: Relative
error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the height of the sphere. (p. 32), respectively. It can
be seen that the absolute error increases with the decrease of the coefficient of restitution, which
follows the conclusions from the previous figure, and the maximum Absolute Error is for the coefficient
of restitution equal to 0.7 for the last output, of about 0.0085 m. For the Relative Error, it can be seen
that values lower than 4% can be found for all coefficients of restitution for the majority of the simu-
lation. However, when the contact between particle and plate occurs (from around 0.3 to 0.4 s), the
Relative Error gets to about 8% for the highest coefficient of restitution. This occurs because even
though the Absolute Errors get closer to zero, the height itself gets closer to zero, which means that
even the slightest changes in height between analytical and numerical solutions will be higher when
evaluating relative values. Also, this occurs for the higher coefficient of restitution due to the lack of
energy dissipation during the contact.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
30 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Free-falling Sphere Collision

Figure 2.18: Absolute error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the height of the
sphere.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 31
DEM Cases

Figure 2.19: Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the height of the sphere.

The evolution of the particle's velocity is shown in Figure 2.20: Evolution of the velocity of the sphere
for the first bounce. (p. 33) for different coefficients of restitution, labeled from 0.7 to 1.0. This figure
presents the analytical results in the dots, and the numerical results from Rocky as dashed lines. It
can be seen that the higher the restitution coefficient, the better the correlation between numerical
and analytical results.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
32 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Free-falling Sphere Collision

Figure 2.20: Evolution of the velocity of the sphere for the first bounce.

The evolution of the sphere's velocity absolute and relative errors calculated analytically and with
Rocky can be verified in Figure 2.21: Absolute error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the
velocity of the sphere. (p. 34) and Figure 2.22: Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution
for the velocity of the sphere. (p. 35), respectively. It can be seen that, like in the particle's height,
the Absolute Error increases with the decrease of the coefficient of restitution, which follows the
conclusions from the previous figure, and the maximum Absolute Error is for the coefficient of resti-
tution equal to 0.7 after the sphere leaves contact with the plate, of about 0.065 m/s. For the Relative
Error, it can be seen that values lower than 10% can be found for all coefficients of restitution for the
majority of the simulation. However, when the contact between particle and plate occurs (from around
0.3 to 0.4 s), the Relative Error can get as high as 25% for the lowest coefficient of restitution. This
occurs because in this range of time the particle is changing its path along the Y-axis from moving
towards -Y into moving towards +Y directions, and the velocity reaches values around zero, so that
any changes imply on significative Relative Errors.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 33
DEM Cases

Figure 2.21: Absolute error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the velocity of the
sphere.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
34 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Two Stacked, Compressed Spheres

Figure 2.22: Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the velocity of the sphere.

2.5. Two Stacked, Compressed Spheres

2.5.1. Case Description

In this verification case, two frictionless spheres with the same radius, , are stacked between two
fixed walls, causing them to be compressed. The walls are positioned at m and ,
with the particles centers initially located at m and m. This setup, illustrated
in Figure 2.23: Compressed spheres stacked between two fixed walls (p. 36), ensures the particles
remain in contact and under compression.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 35
DEM Cases

Figure 2.23: Compressed spheres stacked between two fixed walls

2.5.2. Mathematical Formulation

A general expression for the acceleration of particle 1 is as follows:
(2.21)

where is the gravity force, is the particle 1-wall spring force, is the particle 1-wall
damping force, is the particle 1-particle 2 spring force and is the particle 1-particle 2
damping force.

The expressions for each of these forces are:

(2.22)
(2.23)
(2.24)
(2.25)
(2.26)

where refers to particle mass, is the gravity acceleration, refers to spring coefficients, and
to the damping coefficients.

The is calculated by:

(2.27)

And the individual is computed as:

(2.28)

where refers to Young's Modulus and is the particle diameter.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
36 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Two Stacked, Compressed Spheres

The damping coefficient is determined directly by the relation shown in the figure below. Refer to
Rocky DEM Technical Manual to see this relation formulation.

Figure 2.24: Relation between the damping coefficient and the restitution coefficient .

The acceleration for particle 1 can be written as:

(2.29)

Similarly, for particle 2:

(2.30)

where the expressions for each of the forces are:

(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.33)
(2.34)
(2.35)

The acceleration for particle 2 can be written as:

(2.36)

This system of equations (Equation 2.29 (p. 37) and Equation 2.36 (p. 37)) does not have any known
analytical solution so far. However, to be compared with Rocky, it can be numerically solved using
the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 37
DEM Cases

2.5.3. Input Data & Setup

The equations shown in the last section can be resolved and equivalent results can be calculated by
Rocky considering the same input data and boundary conditions. The input parameters for this veri-
fication case setup are presented in Table 2.10: Input parameters for the compressed spheres case
validation. (p. 38).

Table 2.10: Input parameters for the compressed spheres case validation.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Thermal Disabled -
Normal Force Linear Spring -
Dashpot
Adhesive Force None -
Restitution 1 -
Coefficient
Gravity Y -9.81

Particle 1:
Sphere Radius 0.0005
Sphere Density 20000

Friction Coefficient 0 -
Young Modulus 2E06 Pa
Particle 2:
Sphere Radius 0.0005
Sphere Density 10000

Friction Coefficient 0 -
Young Modulus 2E06 Pa
Bottom Wall:
Friction Coefficient 0 -
Young Modulus 2E06 Pa
Top Wall:
Friction Coefficient 0 -
Young Modulus 2E06 Pa
Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 0.001
Time Interval 1E-05

2.5.4. Results
After running the simulations using the parameters described in the previous section, it is possible
to compare the results between Rocky and the Runge-Kutta solution. The evolution of the particles

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
38 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Two Stacked, Compressed Spheres

positions (measured from their centers) is shown in Figure 2.25: Evolution of the position of particle
1 over simulation time. (p. 39) and Figure 2.26: Evolution of the position of particle 2 over simulation
time. (p. 40).

Figure 2.25: Evolution of the position of particle 1 over simulation time.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 39
DEM Cases

Figure 2.26: Evolution of the position of particle 2 over simulation time.

The absolute and relative errors for the particles positions are compared in Figure 2.27: Absolute error
between Rocky and Runge-Kutta solution for the particles position. (p. 41) and Figure 2.28: Relative
error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the particles position. (p. 42), respectively. The absolute
error is maximum for particle 1 around 8.0E-07 m, representing a 0.18% relative error, while for particle
2 it is roughly 1.8E-06 m, representing a 0.13% relative error.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
40 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Two Stacked, Compressed Spheres

Figure 2.27: Absolute error between Rocky and Runge-Kutta solution for the particles
position.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 41
DEM Cases

Figure 2.28: Relative error between Rocky and Analytical solution for the particles position.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
42 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 3: CFD-DEM Coupled Cases
In this section you will find the verification and validation cases that consider the 1-Way Constant, 1-
Way Fluent and 2-Way Fluent (unresolved) CFD coupling methods included with Rocky.

For the tests examples that are coupled with the Ansys Fluent software, it is required that you have a
compatible Ansys license to run Fluent. Refer to the System Requirements page on the Rocky website
for more details about Rocky compatibility with Ansys Products.

3.1. Particle Terminal Velocity

3.1.1. Case Description

In this verification case, a spherical particle freely falls under both the gravitational force and a separate
drag force due to a prescribed vertical airflow. The particle accelerates due to gravity and gradually
decelerates due to the fluid's drag force, reaching a constant velocity referred to as the terminal ve-
locity when the drag force is equal to the gravitational force.

3.1.2. Mathematical Formulation

The falling sphere schematics with acting forces and vertical flow streamlines are shown in Fig-
ure 3.1: Particle falling under gravitational and drag forces. (p. 44). For more imformation about how
CFD models and methods are implemented in Rocky, refer to the Rocky DEM-CFD Coupling Technical
Manual.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 43
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Figure 3.1: Particle falling under gravitational and drag forces.

The drag force, , acting on the particle is calculated based upon the drag coefficient [4] (p. 75):
(3.1)

where:

• is the relative velocity between the particle and fluid.

• is the projected particle area in the flow direction.

• is the fluid density.

Considering that the sphere shown in is a sufficiently small particle of diameter , its velocity can
be evaluated from the following expression:

(3.2)

with initial conditions and , where y is the particle displacement and is the
particle material density.

The drag coefficient in the current example is calculated using the Schiller & Naumann correlation,
valid for with spherical particles. For more information about the theory, refer to the Rocky
DEM-CFD Coupling Technical Manual.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
44 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Particle Terminal Velocity

3.1.3. Input Data & Setup

The equations shown in the last section can be resolved and equivalent results can be calculated by
Rocky with the CFD coupling methods considering the same input data and boundary conditions.
The input parameters for this verification case setup that are common for all the coupling methods
used are presented in Table 3.1: Verification case input parameters. (p. 45).

Table 3.1: Verification case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Gravity Y -9.81

Solid Properties (Particle):

Shape Sphere -
Diameter 100
Material Density 2000

Initial Velocity 0

Fluid Properties (1-Way Constant):

Density 1.225

Viscosity

Velocity 0.4

Drag Law Schiller & -

Naumann
Virtual Mass Law Disabled -
Turbulent Disbaled -
Dispersion
Bouyancy Enabled -
Solver Parameters:
Simulation 0.5
Duration

3.1.4. 1-Way Constant Results

The first coupling method used was the 1-Way Constant method. When comparing the results, the
particle velocity calculated by Rocky presents strongly correlated values to those obtained by the
mathematical expression (named as reference). Figure 3.2: Rocky simulation results using 1-Way
Constant coupling at several different output times. (p. 46) shows the particle velocity calculated by
Rocky at three different output times. The comparison of the particle's velocity evolution over time
is shown in Figure 3.3: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Constant coupling
method. (p. 46).

After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the analytical values.
Figure 3.2: Rocky simulation results using 1-Way Constant coupling at several different output

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 45
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

times. (p. 46) shows the particle velocity calculated by Rocky at the three different timesteps. The
evolution of the particle velocity over time is shown in Figure 3.2: Rocky simulation results using 1-
Way Constant coupling at several different output times. (p. 46). The numerical solution given by
Rocky presents strongly correlated values to those obtained by the mathematical expression.

Figure 3.2: Rocky simulation results using 1-Way Constant coupling at several different output
times.

Figure 3.3: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Constant coupling method.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
46 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Particle Terminal Velocity

The absolute and relative errors for the particle velocity are compared in Figure 3.4: Particle velocity
over time results comparison using 1-Way Constant coupling method. (p. 47). The maximum absolute
error for the velocity is less than 10-3 m/s. The maximum relative error is around 1.8 %.

Figure 3.4: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Constant coupling method.

Table 3.2: Velocity target (p. 47) lists the value for the terminal velocity. This includes the target value
calculated by the mathematical expression as compared to the value calculated by Rocky. A Ratio of
1.00000 shows a strong correlation between the results.

Table 3.2: Velocity target

Target Rocky Ratio[-]

[m/s] [m/s]
0.05808 0.05808 1.00000

3.1.5. 1-Way Fluent Results

The second coupling method used was the 1-Way Fluent method. Similarly to the results found with
the 1-Way Constant coupling method, the particle velocity calculated by Rocky presents strongly
correlated values to those obtained by the mathematical expression. The comparison of the particle's
velocity evolution over time is shown in Figure 3.5: Particle velocity over time results comparison using
1-Way Fluent coupling method. (p. 48).

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 47
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the reference values.
The numerical solution given by Rocky presents strongly correlated values to those obtained by the
mathematical expression.

Figure 3.5: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Fluent coupling method.

The absolute and relative errors for the particle velocity are compared in Figure 3.6: Particle velocity
over time results comparison using 1-Way Fluent coupling method. (p. 49). The maximum absolute
error for the velocity is less than 10-3 m/s. The maximum relative error is around 1.3%.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
48 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Particle Terminal Velocity

Figure 3.6: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 1-Way Fluent coupling method.

Table 3.2: Velocity target (p. 47) lists the value for the terminal velocity. This includes the target value
calculated by the mathematical expression as compared to the value calculated by Rocky. A Ratio of
1.00430 shows a strong correlation between the results.

Table 3.3: Velocity target

Target Rocky Ratio[-]

[m/s] [m/s]
0.05808 0.05833 1.00430

3.1.6. 2-Way Unresolved Results

The third coupling method used was the 2-Way Unresolved method. An additional setting for the 2-
Way Unresolved coupling is the Solids Maximum Volume Fraction Target, which is a reference of the
space that the particles are expected to occupy within the cells of Fluent's mesh (for additional details,
please check the Rocky DEM-CFD Coupling Technical Manual). This value was set to 0.0005, since the
case has a single, small particle. Similarly to the results found with both coupling methods shown
before, the particle velocity calculated by Rocky presents strongly correlated values to those obtained
by the mathematical expression. The comparison of the particle's velocity evolution over time is
shown in Figure 3.7: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 2-Way Unresolved coupling
method. (p. 50).

After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the reference values.
The numerical solution given by Rocky presents strongly correlated values to those obtained by the
mathematical expression.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 49
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Figure 3.7: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 2-Way Unresolved coupling
method.

The absolute and relative errors for the particle velocity are compared in Figure 3.8: Particle velocity
over time results comparison using 2-Way Unresolved coupling method. (p. 51). The maximum absolute
error for the velocity is less than 10-3 m/s. The maximum relative error is around 1.6%.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
50 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Fixed Bed (Ergun Correlation)

Figure 3.8: Particle velocity over time results comparison using 2-Way Unresolved coupling
method.

Table 3.2: Velocity target (p. 47) list the value for the terminal velocity. This includes the target value
calculated by the mathematical expression as compared to the value calculated by Rocky. A Ratio of
1.00379 shows a strong correlation between the results.

Table 3.4: Velocity target

Target Rocky Ratio[-]

[m/s] [m/s]
0.05808 0.05830 1.00379

3.2. Fixed Bed (Ergun Correlation)

3.2.1. Case Description

In this verification case, the pressure drop along a fixed bed of spherical particles is evaluated using
the Ergun[5] (p. 75) dense flow drag law, which is modeled using the 2-Way Fluent (unresolved) CFD
coupling method. For more information about how CFD models and methods are implemented in
Rocky, refer to the Rocky DEM-CFD Coupling Technical Manual. The case illustration is shown in Fig-
ure 3.9: Fixed bed with 0.5 m height of spherical particles within a container. (p. 52).

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 51
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Figure 3.9: Fixed bed with 0.5 m height of spherical particles within a container.

3.2.2. Mathematical Formulation

The Ergun [5] (p. 75) correlation for the pressure losses accompanying the flow of fluids through a
fixed bed of granular material can be expressed as follows:

(3.3)

where:

• is the pressure drop suffered by the fluid that flows though the fixed bed of granular material.

• L is the fixed bed's height.

• is the solid volume fraction within the fixed bed.

• is the fluid volume fraction within the fixed bed.

• us is the superficial relative velocity of the fluid in the direction of the flow.

• is the fluid dynamic viscosity.

• is the fluid density.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
52 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Fixed Bed (Ergun Correlation)

• dp is the diameter of the spherical particles within the bed.

3.2.3. Input Data & Setup

The equations shown in the last section can be resolved and equivalent results can be calculated by
Rocky considering the same input data and boundary conditions. The input parameters for this veri-
fication case setup are presented in Table 3.5: Verification case input parameters. (p. 53).

Table 3.5: Verification case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Gravity Y -9.81

Geometry (Container):
Length (X) 0.1 m
Length (Y) 0.8 m
Length (Z) 0.1 m
Solid Properties (Geometry):
Material Density 7850

Material Young's Modulus 1011

Material Poisson's Ratio 0.3 -

Solid Properties (Particle):
Bed Height 0.5 m
Shape Sphere -
Diameter 3.95 mm
Rotations Enabled -
Input Type Volume Fill -
Input Mass 10 kg
Material Bulk Density 500

Material Young's Modulus 108

Material Possions's Ratio 0.3 -

Fluid Properties (Fluent):
Domain Length (X) 0.1 m
Domain Length (Y) 0.8 m
Domain Length (Z) 0.1 m
Fluent Mesh Size 10 mm
Inlet Velocity 0.275 m/s
Outlet Gauge Pressure 0 Pa
Walls Shear Condition Free Slip -

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 53
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Parameter Value Unit

Density 1000

Dynamic Viscosity 0.001

2-Way Fluent Properties:

Drag Law Ergun[5] (p. 75) -
Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 1.0 s

3.2.4. Results
After running the Rocky case as specified, the results can then be compared to the analytical values.
Here, the static pressure loss along the bed height is shown in Figure 3.10: Rocky simulation results
using 2-Way Fluent coupling showing the static pressure along the fixed bed at the last
timestep. (p. 54) and Figure 3.11: Comparison of static pressure [kPa] for the Rocky simulation and
reference results. (p. 55)The numerical solution given by Rocky presents strongly correlated values
to those obtained by the analytical expression.

Figure 3.10: Rocky simulation results using 2-Way Fluent coupling showing the static pressure
along the fixed bed at the last timestep.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
54 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Fixed Bed (Ergun Correlation)

Figure 3.11: Comparison of static pressure [kPa] for the Rocky simulation and reference results.

The absolute and relative errors for the pressure drop are compared in Figure 3.12: Absolute and rel-
ative errors. (p. 56). The maximum absolute error for the pressure drop error is around 1.0 kPa. The
maximum relative error is around 2.3%.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 55
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Figure 3.12: Absolute and relative errors.

Table 3.6: Pressure target (p. 56) lists the value for the total pressure drop on the fixed bed. This in-
cludes the target value calculated by the analytical expression as compared to the value calculated
by Rocky. A Ratio of 1.00 shows a strong correlation between the results.

Table 3.6: Pressure target

Target Rocky Ratio[-]

[kPa] [kPa]
117.42 116.90 0.99

3.3. Lift Force

3.3.1. Case Description

The scenario considered in this verification case is such that eight spherical particles are fixed into
an air planar Couette flow (as shown in Figure 3.13: Lift Force verification case (particles centralized,
in red; CFD cell nodes colored by Fluid Velocity; air inlet and outlet indicated with red arrows. (p. 57)),
and it is modeled using the 2-Way Fluent (unresolved) CFD coupling method, using both the Mei and
Saffman lift force laws. Numerical results are compared to analytical lift force data, showing good
agreement.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
56 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lift Force

Figure 3.13: Lift Force verification case (particles centralized, in red; CFD cell nodes colored by
Fluid Velocity; air inlet and outlet indicated with red arrows.

3.3.2. Input Data & Setup

The analytical lift force data used as reference to verify this case was calculated with both Mei
(Equation 3.4 (p. 57)) and Saffman (Equation 3.5 (p. 57)) lift coefficient correlations implemented as
equations, in order to calculate the lift force (Equation 3.6 (p. 57)) for each law. The same properties
values used to calculate the analytical data were used to set up the project into Rocky, and these input
parameters are presented in Table 3.7: Verification case input parameters. (p. 57)

(3.4)

(3.5)

(3.6)

The case is initialized in Fluent with the proposed velocity field for the air flow. Thus, we can process
only the first output to compare the results with the analytical data, because of that we will not
consider any perturbations in the fluid velocity field caused from the collision with the particles (what
makes the calculation of analytical data simpler).

Table 3.7: Verification case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Gravity (X) 0
Gravity (Y) 0
Gravity (Z) 0
Solid Properties (Particles):
Shape Sphere -

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 57
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Parameter Value Unit

Diameter 0.1 -
Rotations Enabled -
Inlet Type Particle Custom -
Inlet
Number of Particles 8 -
Material Bulk Density 1600
Material Young's Modulus 108
Material Poisson's Ratio 0.3 -
Fluid Properties (Fuent):
Domain Length (X) 5 m
Domain Length (Y) 5 m
Domain Length (Z) 20 m
Inlet Velocity 3y+1
Outlet Gauge Pressure 0 Pa
Walls Shear Condition Specific Shear -
Walls Shear Stress (X) 0 Pa
Walls Shear Stress (Y) 0 Pa
Walls Shear Stress (Z) 0 Pa
Density 1.225
Viscosity

2-Way Fluent Properties

Drag Law Morsi & Alexander -
Morsi & Alexander Parameters 0 -
(K1)
Morsi & Alexander Parameters 0 -
(K2)
Morsi & Alexander Parameters 0 -
(K3)
Lift Law (first run) Saffman -
Lift Law (second run) Mei -
Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 0.1 s
Output Frequency (CFD) 0.1 s
Output Frequency (DEM) 0.1 s

3.3.3. Results
The Rocky project was run twice (once for each lift force law) and the results can be compared to the
reference (Figure 3.14: Comparison between simulation and analytical results of lift force for the 8

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
58 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lift Force

fixed particles. (p. 59)). For each particle, the lift force versus position was plotted, totalizing eight
dots for each law (one per particle). In the same plot, the analytical solution is also plotted as dashed
and dotted lines, allowing the visualization of the good agreement between the analytical and simu-
lation results.

Figure 3.14: Comparison between simulation and analytical results of lift force for the 8
fixed particles.

In the second plot (Figure 3.15: Absolute lift force error for each particle. (p. 60)), it is possible to
visualize the absolute error between the Rocky simulation results and the analytical data for each
run. For every particle, the relative error is approximately 0.04%, ensuring strong correlation between
the solutions. The solutions results are also presented in Table 3.8: Results correlation for both lift
force laws. (p. 60), as well as the ratio between the analytical and the Rocky simulation results.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 59
CFD-DEM Coupled Cases

Figure 3.15: Absolute lift force error for each particle.

Table 3.8: Results correlation for both lift force laws.

Law Particle Target Force Rocky Force Ratio[-]

[N] [N]
Y-position
[m]
0.625 0.37625 0.37667 0.99
1.125 0.57297 0.57319 0.99
1.625 0.76941 0.76972 0.99
2.125 0.96586 0.96624 0.99
Saffman
2.625 1.1623 1.1627 0.99
3.125 1.3587 1.3592 0.99
3.625 1.5552 1.5558 0.99
4.125 1.7516 1.7523 0.99
0.625 0.63224 0.63249 0.99
1.125 0.96210 0.96248 0.99
1.625 1.2919 1.2924 0.99
Mei
2.125 1.6218 1.6224 0.99
2.625 1.9517 1.9524 0.99
3.125 2.2815 2.2824 0.99

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
60 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lift Force

Law Particle Target Force Rocky Force Ratio[-]

[N] [N]
Y-position
[m]
3.625 2.6114 2.6124 0.99
4.125 2.9413 2.9424 0.99

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 61
 Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
62 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Chapter 4: SPH Cases
In this section you will find the verification and validation cases that consider SPH or DEM-SPH coupling.

4.1. Dam Break

4.1.1. Case Description

In this validation case, part of a container is filled with water. After some time, the gate is removed,
allowing the water to flow through the container. The water hits a square column placed in the middle
of the container and the resultant force on it is compared to experimental data available in [6] (p. 75).

The dam break validation case is illustrated in Figure 4.1: Dam break validation case. (p. 63) and the
geometries dimensions are shown in Figure 4.2: Geometries dimensions. (p. 63).

Figure 4.1: Dam break validation case.

Figure 4.2: Geometries dimensions.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 63
SPH Cases

4.1.2. Input Data & Setup

The input parameters for this validation case setup are listed in Table 4.1: Validation case input para-
meters. (p. 64).

Table 4.1: Validation case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Gravity 9.81
Fluid Properties:
Element size 5
Initial Density 1000
Dynamic Viscosity 0.001
Sound Speed 20
Boundary Type No Slip -
Laminar
Turbulence Type LES -
Viscosity Type Cleary -
Positions Correction Shift -
Type
Volumetric Fill Mass 73

4.1.3. Results
Comparing the results, the overall behavior of the fluid force acting on the column calculated by
Rocky matches the experimental results developed by [6] (p. 75). In the experiment, the force was
measured with a load cell mounted inside the column at its bottom. In the simulation, the force is
the sum of the normal forces acting on each column geometry triangle in the X direction.

The comparison of the simulation and experimental forces acting on the column over time is shown
in Figure 4.3: Comparison of the force acting on the column. (p. 65). The absolute error at peak force
is around 2 N (33.3 N experimental versus 31.2 N from the simulation), which represents a relative
error of 6.3%. it is important to notice that the main characteristics of the experiment are present in
the simulation, so the experimental curve is well fit for most of the simulation time.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
64 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Dam Break

Figure 4.3: Comparison of the force acting on the column.

Figure 4.4: Simulation 3D results showing the wave impact on the column. (p. 66) shows the wave
evolution over the time obtained by the simulation. The first frame shows the initial condition, right
before the gate removal. The first wave impact occurs around 0.8 s (positive peak force of Fig-
ure 4.3: Comparison of the force acting on the column. (p. 65)) and the second wave impact occurs
at 1.8 s (negative peak force of Figure 4.3: Comparison of the force acting on the column. (p. 65)).

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 65
SPH Cases

Figure 4.4: Simulation 3D results showing the wave impact on the column.

4.2. Lid-Driven Cavity

4.2.1. Case Description

In this verification case, a square cavity with side length L=1 m is filled with fluid and the top wall
(lid) moves at a constant speed of V = 1m/s. It was modeled as a 3-dimensional problem with 0.05
m thickness, considering periodic boundaries. The stationary walls and the moving lid are modeled
with no-slip boundary condition. Laminar flow was evaluated for a Reynolds Re = 100.

The lid-driven cavity problem is illustrated in Figure 4.5: Lid-driven cavity validation case. (p. 67). It is
the same case presented in [7] (p. 75) and the reference results are compared for verification purposes.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
66 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lid-Driven Cavity

Figure 4.5: Lid-driven cavity validation case.

4.2.2. Input Data & Setup

The input parameters for the lid-driven cavity verification case setup are listed in Table 4.2: Lid-driven
cavity case input parameters. (p. 67).

Table 4.2: Lid-driven cavity case input parameters.

Parameter Value Unit

Physical Model:
Thermal Model Enabled -
Gravity (X) 0

Gravity (Y) 0

Gravity (Z) 0

Wall Geometry:
Square Cavity Side (L) 1.0 m
Square Cavity Thickness 0.05 m
Lid Velocity (V) 1.0 m/s
Fluid Properties:
Element size 10 mm
Initial Density 10

Dynamic Viscosity 0.1

Sound Speed 10.0 m/s

Boundary Type No Slip -
Laminar
TurbulenceType Laminar -
Viscosity Type Morris -

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 67
SPH Cases

Parameter Value Unit

Poission's Correction None -
Type
Volumetric Inlet SPH 1.0 kg
Mass
Solver Parameters:
Simulation Duration 60 s

4.2.3. Results
The velocity field of the fluid flow through the midplane on the z-direction of the cavity at Re=100
is shown in Figure 4.6: Velocity field through the cavity for Re=100. (p. 68), while Figure 4.7: Streamlines
through the cavity for Re = 100: Ghia at al (p. 69)shows the streamline contours for the cavity flow
on the same midplane. Figure 4.7: Streamlines through the cavity for Re = 100: Ghia at al (p. 69)(a)
shows the streamlines obtained by [7] (p. 75), while Figure 4.7: Streamlines through the cavity for Re
= 100: Ghia at al (p. 69)(b) shows the streamlines from the Rocky simulation.

A qualitative comparison can be done and one can see that the solutions present similar behavior.
It is possible to observe that a vortex is generated by the shear force of the moving wall (lid) and the
core of the vortex places at the upper half of the cavity.

Figure 4.6: Velocity field through the cavity for Re=100.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
68 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lid-Driven Cavity

Figure 4.7: Streamlines through the cavity for Re = 100: Ghia at al

Figure 4.8: Streamlines through the cavity for Re = 100: Rocky simulation.

Relevant verification parameters used in the literature for the lid-driven cavity problem are the hori-
zontal fluid velocity (u) along the cavity vertical centerline, as well as the vertical fluid velocity (v)
along the horizontal cavity centerline. Comparisons of the u and v fluid velocities along the lines
through the cavity center for Re=100 are shown in Figure 4.9: Comparison of u-velocity along the
vertical line through the cavity center for Re = 100. (p. 70) and Figure 4.10: Comparison of v-velocity
along the horizontal line through the cavity center for Re=100. (p. 71), respectively. The fluid velocities
calculated by Rocky presents strongly correlated values to the reference ones.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 69
SPH Cases

Figure 4.9: Comparison of u-velocity along the vertical line through the cavity center for Re =
100.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
70 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lid-Driven Cavity

Figure 4.10: Comparison of v-velocity along the horizontal line through the cavity center for
Re=100.

The comparisons of the absolute and relative errors between the velocities results for Re=100 are
shown in Figure 4.11: Absolute and relative errors for u-velocity along the vertical line through the
cavity center for Re = 100. (p. 72) and Figure 4.12: Absolute and relative errors v-velocity along the
horizontal line through the cavity center for Re = 100. (p. 73). The relative errors are mostly below
30% and higher differences can be observed at the points close to the stationary walls and other
points where the velocities values are close to zero, in which high relative differences are expected.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 71
SPH Cases

Figure 4.11: Absolute and relative errors for u-velocity along the vertical line through the cavity
center for Re = 100.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
72 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
 Lid-Driven Cavity

Figure 4.12: Absolute and relative errors v-velocity along the horizontal line through the cavity
center for Re = 100.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 73
 Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
74 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Bibliography
[1] Boehm, Barry W. Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall. 1981.

[2] Blottner, F. G.. Accurate Navier-Stokes results for the hypersonic flow over a spherical nosetip. Powders
and Grains. 1989.

[3] Ooi, Jin Y.. Establishing predictive capabilities of DEM - Verification and validation for complex
granular processes. Powders and Grains. 1542. 20-24. 2013.

[4] Pritchard, Philip J.. Fox and McDonald's Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons. 2011.

[5] Ergun, Sabri. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem. Eng. Prog.. 48. 89-94. 1952.

[6] Raad, Peter E. and Bidoae, Razvan. The three-dimensional Eulerian-Lagrangian marker and micro cell
method for the simulation of free surface flows. Chem. Eng. Prog.. 203. 668-699. 2005.

[7] Ghia, U. and Ghia, N. and Shin, C. T.. High-Re Solutions for Incompressible Flow Using the Navier-
Stokes Equations and a Multigrid Method. Journal of Computational Physics. 48. 387-411. 1982.

[8] Kalala, Johnny Tshibangu. Discrete element method modeling of forces and wear on mill lifters in
dry ball milling. PHD thesis, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the
Witwatersrand. 2008.

[9] Chen, F. and Drumm, E. and Guiochon, G.. Prediction/Verification of Particle Motion in One Dimension
with the Discrete-Element Method. International Journal of Geomechanics . 7. 2007.

Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates. 75
 Release 2025 R1 - © ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. - Contains proprietary and confidential information
76 of ANSYS, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.