2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of wall roughness on drag and lift forces of a particle at finite Reynolds number

Abstract: 2016-11-03T14:11:40

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
33
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
2
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[] made direct measurements of lift and drag over a gravel bed, but also in low gradient streams with deep flow. They found for spherical particles that C D ∼ 0.76, C L was highly variable, and that peak deviations in drag and lift forces due to turbulence were large when particles protruded above the bed [see also Dwivedi et al ., ; Lee and Balachandar , ].…”
Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[] made direct measurements of lift and drag over a gravel bed, but also in low gradient streams with deep flow. They found for spherical particles that C D ∼ 0.76, C L was highly variable, and that peak deviations in drag and lift forces due to turbulence were large when particles protruded above the bed [see also Dwivedi et al ., ; Lee and Balachandar , ].…”
Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in Jackson () and Hsu et al (), we consider separately the contributions of buoyancy and drag to the force between the liquid and granular phases and neglect other contributions. In numerical simulations, lift forces at high particle Reynolds numbers were found negligible for grains more than one particle radius away from the bed (Lee & Balanchandar, ). Likewise, the added mass force associated with mean relative acceleration between the grains and liquid (see, e.g., Geurst, ) can be neglected because the latter is 1 order of magnitude smaller than the convective acceleration of the mean flow.…”
Section: Two‐phase Momentum Balancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the incoming flow is not quiescent but turbulent: it is well known that a laminar wake in a turbulent background flow tends to recover somewhat faster than its counterpart in laminar flow (Amoura et al 2010; Zeng, Balachandar & Najjar 2010). Second, the sphere is not isolated, but it is located near a complex-shaped, evolving sediment bed: some researchers have indeed considered this problem (for a fixed single sphere), but the scaling of the wake length with Reynolds number was not explicitly obtained (Dey et al 2011; Lee & Balachandar 2017). In order to gauge the latter influence, we have performed a simulation with a single spanwise row of spheres placed adjacent to a macroscopically flat sediment bed holding all particles fixed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%