2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2017.01.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of the implementation of three common types of coupled CFD-DEM model for simulating soil surface erosion

Abstract: Soil erosion is a common process studied by soil science, environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering, coastal engineering, and many other fields. In the areas of hydraulic engineering, the geotechnics of soil erosion remains a high priority topic as the bridge scour is a common cause of bridge failures. Accurate predictions of scour depth and soil erosion rate remain challenging, due to the limitations of existing scaled experimental approach in fulfilling the hydrological and hydrodynamic similarity … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(21 reference statements)
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A few previous studies assumed the pressure drop is shared only by fluid phase (i.e., Feng and Yu 2004), which lead to a slightly different equation format. Numerical comparison by the authors (Guo and Yu 2017) shows that different equation forms lead to around 20% differences in the particle drag force.…”
Section: Governing Equations For Fluid Phasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A few previous studies assumed the pressure drop is shared only by fluid phase (i.e., Feng and Yu 2004), which lead to a slightly different equation format. Numerical comparison by the authors (Guo and Yu 2017) shows that different equation forms lead to around 20% differences in the particle drag force.…”
Section: Governing Equations For Fluid Phasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…e capability and use of the CFD-DEM combination have been reported recently in the literature for a wide range of applications, including fluidized beds [14][15][16][17][18][19], filtration processes [20][21][22][23][24], hole cleaning and sediment transport in the oil and gas industry [25][26][27][28], hydrocyclones, vortex flow, and instabilities [29][30][31], and bed-load transport [32,33]. Specifics of the CFD-DEM coupling have also been documented, including studies of different types of DEM coupling [34], numerical errors involved in the models [35], requirements for the coupling with distinct fluid mechanics numerical models [36][37][38], and the use of nonspherical particles [39].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dominant merit of the CFD, in comparison to the other methods, is to apply the more real soil parameters (such as size and configuration) to predict the interaction force, thereby attaining the more adequate soil-tool interactions (Barker, 2008). Karmakar, Baker and Guo & Yu et al ever simulated the soil reaction forces by CFD modeling, but their research objects were either just a flat plate, rather different from the tool presented here (Barker, 2008;Guo & Yu, 2017;Karmakar & Kushwaha, 2006). Different geometric shape of the ploughbody contributes to different interaction forces over its surface (Gill & Vanden Berg, 1967).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%