|From:||"Roberts, Andrew" <A.P.Roberts@...5884...>|
|Date:||Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:18:25 +0000|
Yes I just checked that the number of particles is 1002 as defined by the number of counts in each of the 20 bins across the profile and yes, this equals the total number of particles that were originally created. To prove it, this is the snapshot of the polydisperse system:
I have uploaded my profile in comparison with the literature:
There seems to be some kind of crystallization near the walls for the LAMMPS simulation, although the central flow region seems to be fairly linear. The daCruz case also contains no friction - presumably this means that the particles have no tangential force
on them and if there is also no tangential damping, they cannot rotate. Could a tightly packed wall encourage crystallisation if the particles cannot rotate free of this zone - like raking the particles through the flow? I noticed that the literature ignores
the zones close to the wall and has possibly rescaled the profile to show only the linear zone, but I'm not sure if that is the reason. Do you know what could cause this problem? Presumably increased polydispersity would cause more slippage at the wall and
less polydispersity would cause more crystallisation?
But why would re-ordering the wall particles influence the velocity profile? - but it's true that the wall particles are added first in order, then the flow particles are randomly placed between them. Should the wall particles be added with random id numbers?
Also, why is there an excluded volume near the walls? - the velocity profile is being computed for all atoms in the simulation.
My input script looks like this:
From: Steve Plimpton <sjplimp@...24...>
Sent: 04 July 2017 00:59:00
To: Axel Kohlmeyer
Cc: Roberts, Andrew; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [lammps-users] Ncount bin sensitivity
Also, is the total count for all the bins equalto the total # of particles you expect to be counting?
I.e. use fix ave/time with no averaging.
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Axel Kohlmeyer <akohlmey@...29....> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Roberts, Andrew