4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Particle settling in yield stress fluids: Limiting time, distance and applications

期刊

JOURNAL OF NON-NEWTONIAN FLUID MECHANICS
卷 238, 期 -, 页码 189-204

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnnfm.2016.09.002

关键词

Visco-plastic fluids; Augmented lagrangian method; Distributed lagrange multiplier/fictitious domain method; Finite time decay; Arbitrary shape

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the problem of a single heavier solid particle settling in a yield stress fluid that behaves as a classical Bingham plastic. The flow configuration we are interested in is the transient dynamics from a particle settling in a Newtonian fluid to a Bingham plastic. Depending on the magnitude of the yield stress (or dimensionlessly the Bingham number), the particle and the surrounding fluid may return to rest in a finite time or reach another steady but lower settling velocity. At the analytical level, we write the total kinetic energy decay of the system. We evidence the existence of a critical Bingham number beyond which motion is suppressed and derive upper bounds for the finite stopping time as well as the maximum path length. These estimates can be obtained in 2D only while the extension to 3D remains an open question. At the numerical level, we design a robust and efficient Lagrange multiplier based algorithm that enables us to compute actual finite time decay. The algorithm combines an Augmented Lagrangian outer loop to treat the exact Bingham law to a Distributed Lagrange Multiplier/Fictitious Domain inner loop to account for freely-moving particles. We show that the ability to compute the balance between net weight (weight plus buoyancy) and yield stress resistance is the key point. The algorithm is implemented together with a Finite Volume/Staggered. Grid algorithm in the numerical platform PeliGRIFF. We investigate 2D configurations with the following particle shape: (i) a circular disc and (ii) a 2:1 rectangle. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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