This paper’s goal was to select methods and a calibration procedure which would lead to the determination of relevant parameters of a discrete element method (DEM) and virtual material creation. Seven particulates were selected with respect to their shape (spherical and non-spherical), size and density. The first calibration experiment involved “packing test” to determine the shape accuracy and bulk density of virtual packed particulates. The series of simulations were compared with real experiments, and the size, shape and density of virtual particles were optimized. Using three apparatuses, the input parameter values were experimentally determined for a contact model that defines the behavior of particulates in DEM simulations. The research part of the paper examines the influence of factors such as particle number; pile formation method; and the method of evaluation of the angle of repose on the process of the calibration of virtual material. The most reproducible results were achieved by the “pilling” method and by the rotating drum—both evaluated by the geometric method. However, it is always advisable to make an overall visual comparison of the slope shape between the calibration simulation and the experimental curves. The bowl’s diameter to particle size ratio should be greater than 25, and the calibration experiment should contain approximately 4000 particles to ensure representative results during angle of repose calibration experiment.

No abstract

No abstract

With the rise of additive technologies, the characterization of metal powders is increasingly required. There is a need to precisely match the properties of metal powders to a specific machine and to ensure highly consistent production. Therefore, the study aims at a detailed characterization of ten metal powders (Metal powder 316 L, Zn, Sn, Al, Cu, Mn, Fe, Bronze, Ti and Mo powder), for which the particle size distribution, morphology, static and dynamic angle of repose and the effective internal friction angle (AIFE) were determined. The AIFE parameter and flow index were determined from three commonly used rotary shear devices: The computer-controlled Ring Shear Tester RST-01. pc, the Brookfield PFT Powder Flow Tester and the FT4 Powder rheometer. The results showed that the values ​​for the device of one manufacturer did not fully correspond to the values ​​of another one. The flow characteristics of the metal powders were quantified from the particle size distribution data, static angle of repose, and AIFE data. According to the particle size distribution and angle of repose (AOR), 50% of the tested metal powders fell into the free-flowing mode. According to the evaluation of AIFE, 20% of the samples fell into the lower area. Based on the flow indexes calculated from the measurements of the shear devices used, 100% (RST-01.pc), 70% (PFT) and 50% (FT4) of the samples were included in the free-flowing category. When comparing the results, attention should be paid not only to the nature of the material, but also to the methodology and equipment used. A comparison of methodologies revealed similarities in the changing behavior of the different metal powders. A comparison of effective angles of AIFE and static AOR was shown, and a hypothesis of the conversion relation was derived.

the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.