4.7 Article

Experimental investigation and numerical modelling of density-driven segregation in an annular shear cell

期刊

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 1305-1317

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2021.02.020

关键词

Density-driven segregation; Annular shear cell; Granular media; Stokes? law; Shear band

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper experimentally investigates density-difference-driven segregation in a range of density ratios and heavy particle concentrations, proposing a continuum approach to model the process. The model is validated by comparison with experimental findings, successfully predicting density-driven segregation at different density ratios and volumetric fractions.
Granular materials segregate spontaneously due to differences in particle size, shape, density and flow behaviour. In this paper we experimentally investigate density-difference-driven segregation for a range of density ratios and a range of heavy particle concentrations. The experiments are conducted in an annular shear cell with rotating bumpy bottom that yields an exponential shear profile. The cell is initially filled with a layer of light particles and an upper layer of heavier grains and, on top, a load provides confinement. The segregation process is filmed through the transparent side-wall with a camera, and the evolution of particle concentration in space and time is evaluated by means of post-processing image analysis. We also propose a continuum-approach to model density-driven segregation. We use a segregation-diffusion transport equation, constitutive relations for effective viscosity and friction coefficient, and a segregation velocity analogous to the Stokes' law. The model, which is validated by comparison with experimental findings, can successfully predict density-driven segregation at different density ratios and volumetric fraction. (c) 2021 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据