Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23561 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866916462061420544 |
|---|---|
| author | Lee, Wing Pok Woo, Jonathan D. Triplett, Luke F. Gu, Yifan Burnett, Sarah C. Ding, Lingyun Bertozzi, Andrea L. |
| author_facet | Lee, Wing Pok Woo, Jonathan D. Triplett, Luke F. Gu, Yifan Burnett, Sarah C. Ding, Lingyun Bertozzi, Andrea L. |
| contents | The dynamics of viscous thin-film particle-laden flows down inclined surfaces are commonly modeled with one of two approaches: a diffusive flux model or a suspension balance model. The diffusive flux model assumes that the particles migrate via a diffusive flux induced by gradients in both the particle concentration and the effective suspension viscosity. The suspension balance model introduces non-Newtonian bulk stress with shear-induced normal stresses, the gradients of which cause particle migration. Both models have appeared in the literature of particle-laden flow with virtually no comparison between the two models. For particle-laden viscous flow on an incline, in a thin-film geometry, one can use lubrication theory to derive a compact dynamic model in the form of a $2\times 2$ system of conservation laws. We can then directly compare the two theories side by side by looking at similarities and differences in the flux functions for the conservation laws, and in exact and numerical simulations of the equations. We compare the flux profiles over a range of parameters, showing fairly good agreement between the models, with the biggest difference involving the behavior at the free surface. We also consider less dense suspensions at lower inclination angles where the dynamics involve two shock waves that can be clearly measured in experiments. In this context the solutions differ by no more than about 10%, suggesting that either model could be used for this configuration. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2410_23561 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | A comparative study of dynamic models for gravity-driven particle-laden flows Lee, Wing Pok Woo, Jonathan D. Triplett, Luke F. Gu, Yifan Burnett, Sarah C. Ding, Lingyun Bertozzi, Andrea L. Fluid Dynamics Analysis of PDEs 35Q70, 70-05, 70-10, 76D08 The dynamics of viscous thin-film particle-laden flows down inclined surfaces are commonly modeled with one of two approaches: a diffusive flux model or a suspension balance model. The diffusive flux model assumes that the particles migrate via a diffusive flux induced by gradients in both the particle concentration and the effective suspension viscosity. The suspension balance model introduces non-Newtonian bulk stress with shear-induced normal stresses, the gradients of which cause particle migration. Both models have appeared in the literature of particle-laden flow with virtually no comparison between the two models. For particle-laden viscous flow on an incline, in a thin-film geometry, one can use lubrication theory to derive a compact dynamic model in the form of a $2\times 2$ system of conservation laws. We can then directly compare the two theories side by side by looking at similarities and differences in the flux functions for the conservation laws, and in exact and numerical simulations of the equations. We compare the flux profiles over a range of parameters, showing fairly good agreement between the models, with the biggest difference involving the behavior at the free surface. We also consider less dense suspensions at lower inclination angles where the dynamics involve two shock waves that can be clearly measured in experiments. In this context the solutions differ by no more than about 10%, suggesting that either model could be used for this configuration. |
| title | A comparative study of dynamic models for gravity-driven particle-laden flows |
| topic | Fluid Dynamics Analysis of PDEs 35Q70, 70-05, 70-10, 76D08 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23561 |