Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 119–145 | Cite as

Suspended load and bed-load transport of particle-laden gravity currents: the role of particle–bed interaction

Original Article

Abstract

The development of particle-enriched regions (bed-load) at the base of particle-laden gravity currents has been widely observed, yet the controls and relative partitioning of material into the bed-load is poorly understood. We examine particle-laden gravity currents whose initial mixture (particle and fluid) density is greater than the ambient fluid, but whose interstitial fluid density is less than the ambient fluid (such as occurs in pyroclastic flows produced during volcanic eruptions or when sediment-enriched river discharge enters the ocean, generating hyperpycnal turbidity currents). A multifluid numerical approach is employed to assess suspended load and bed-load transport in particle-laden gravity currents under varying boundary conditions. Particle-laden flows that traverse denser fluid (such as pyroclastic flows crossing water) have leaky boundaries that provide the conceptual framework to study suspended load in isolation from bed-load transport. We develop leaky and saltation boundary conditions to study the influence of flow substrate on the development of bed-load. Flows with saltating boundaries develop particle–enriched basal layers (bed-load) where momentum transfer is primarily a result of particle–particle collisions. The grain size distribution is more homogeneous in the bed-load and the saltation boundaries increase the run-out distance and residence time of particles in the flow by as much as 25% over leaky boundary conditions. Transport over a leaky substrate removes particles that reach the bottom boundary and only the suspended load remains. Particle transport to the boundary is proportional to the settling velocity of particles, and flow dilution results in shear and buoyancy instabilities at the upper interface of these flows. These instabilities entrain ambient fluid, and the continued dilution ultimately results in these currents becoming less dense than the ambient fluid. A unifying concept is energy dissipation due to particle–boundary interaction: leaky boundaries dissipate energy more efficiently at the boundary than their saltating counterparts and have smaller run-out distance.

Keywords

Particle-laden gravity current Multiphase flow Pyroclastic flows Bed-load 

List of Symbols

\({}^mc_{i}\)

instantaneous velocity of mth phase [m/s]

\({}^mc_{i}\)

fluctuating velocity of mth phase [m/s]

\(C_{1\mu}\)

constant in fluid turbulence model (0.09)

\(C_{1\varepsilon}\)

constant in fluid turbulence model (1.44)

\(C_{2\varepsilon}\)

constant in fluid turbulence model (1.92)

\(C_{3\varepsilon}\)

constant in fluid turbulence model (1.22)

\(C_{\rm D}^{S}\)

drag coefficient

\({}^mc_{\rm p}\)

heat capacity [J/kg K]

pd

particle diameter [m] (1.0 × 10−4 m and 0.01 m)

e

restitution coefficient (0.65)

\({}^me_{ij}\)

strain rate [s−1]

Fc

coefficient of friction (0.62)

gi

gravitational acceleration [m/s2] (9.81 m/s2)

g0

radial distribution function

\(H_{gp}\)

interphase heat transfer [W/m3]

H1

hindrance coefficient in particle–particle drag (0.3)

\({}^mI_{i}\)

interphase momentum transfer [kg/m 3s]

\({}^pI_{\rm 2D}\)

second invariant of rate of strain tensor [s−2]

1k

fluctuating kinetic energy of the gas phase [m2/s2]

mP

pressure [Pa]

mq

thermal heat flux [J/m2s]

Rkm

ratio thermal conductivities

mT

thermal temperature [K]

\({}^{m}U_i \)

average velocity [m/s]

mα

volume fraction of mth phase

\({}^{m}\varepsilon \)

dissipation rate of fluctuating kinetic energy [m2/s3]

pκ

granular conductivity [J s /m3]

pθ

granular temperature [m2/s2]

\({}^{m}\mu\)

dynamic viscosity [Pa s]

mλ

bulk viscosity [Pa s]

\({}^{p}\varphi\)

angle of internal friction (32°)

Π

turbulence exchange terms

mρ

density of mth phase [kg/m 3]

σ k

gas turbulence constant (1.0)

\(\sigma _{\varepsilon}\)

gas turbulence constant (1.3)

\({}^{m}\tau _{ij} \)

stress tensor [Pa]

Preceding superscripts

 

m = 1, 2, 3 (1 is gas phase, and 2 and 3 are particle phases)

 

p = 2 and 3 (particle phases)

 

Subscripts

 

i, j = 1, 2 (indices for spatial direction)

 

PACS

91.40.Zz 91.45.Wa 91.50.Jc 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benjamin T.B. (1968). Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31: 209–248 MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Britter R.E. and Simpson J.E. (1978). Experiments on the dynamics of gravity current head. J. Fluid Mech. 88: 223–240 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartel C., Meiburg E. and Necker F. (2000). Analysis and direct numerical simulation of the flow at a gravity current head. Part 1 Flow topology and front speed for slip and no-slip boundaries. J. Fluid Mech. 418: 189–212 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Necker F., Hartel C., Kleiser L. and Meiburg E. (2002). High-resolution simulations of particle-driven gravity currents. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 28: 279–300 MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonnecaze R.T., Huppert H. and Lister J.R. (1993). Particle-driven gravity currents. JFM 250: 339–369 ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Middleton G.V. (1966). Experiments on density and turbidity currents. Can. J. Earth Sci. 3: 523–637 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carey S. (1996). Pyroclastic flows and surges over water: an example from the 1883 Krakatau eruption. Bull. Volcanol. 57: 493–511 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher R.V.e.a. (1993). Mobility of a large-volume pyroclastic flow-emplacement of the Campanian ignimbrite, Italy. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 56: 262–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allen S.R. and Cas R.A.F. (2001). Transport of pyroclastic flows across the sea during explosive, rhyolitic eruption of the Kos Plateau Tuff, Greece. Bull. Volcanol. 62: 441–456 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Branney M.J. and Kokelaar P. (2002). Pyroclastic Density Currents and the Sedimentation of Ignimbrites. The Geological Society, London Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freundt, A.: Entrance of hot pyroclastic flows into the sea:experimental observation. Bull. Volcanol. 65 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burgisser A., Bergantz G.W. and Breidenthal R.E. (2005). Addressing complexity in laboratory experiments: the scaling of dilute multiphase flows in magmatic systems. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 141: 245–265 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons, J.D.: Civil Engineering vol. 258. University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gera D., Syamlal M. and O’Brien T.J. (2004). Hydrodynamics of particle segregation in fluidized beds. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 30: 419–428 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harlow F.H. and Amsden A.A. (1975). Numerical calculation of multiphase flow. J. Comput. Phys. 17: 19–52 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Syamlal, M.: National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drew D.A. (1983). Mathematical modeling of two-phase flow. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 15: 261–291 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Agrawal K., Loezos P.N., Syamlal M. and Sundaresan S. (2001). The role of meso-scale structures in rapid gas-solid flows. J. Fluid Mech. 445: 151–185 MATHADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dartevelle S., Rose W.I., Stix J., Kelfoun K. and Vallance J.W. (2004). Numerical modeling of geophysical. granular. flows: 2. Computer simulations of plinian clouds and pyroclastic flows and surges. GEOCHEMI. GEOPHYS. GEOSYST. 5: 1–36 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dufek J.D. and Bergantz G.W. (2005). Transient two-dimensional dynamics in the upper conduit of a rhyolitic eruption: A comparison of the closure models for the granular stress. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 143: 113–132 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neri A. and Dobran F. (1994). Influence of eruption parameters on the thermofluid dynamics of collapsing volcanic columns. JGR 99(11): 833–11857 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Brien, T.J., Syamlal, M.: Advances in Fluidized Systems. In: Gaden, E.L., Weimer, A.W.: 127–136 (AIChE Symposium Series, pp. 127–136 (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parsons J.D. and Garcia M.H. (1998). Similarity of gravity current fronts. Phys. Fluids 10: 3209–3213 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richardson J.F. and Zaki W.N. (1954). Sedimentation and fluidization: Part I. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 32: 35–53 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan A.R. and Richardson J.F. (1987). The resistance of motion of a solid sphere in a fluid. Chem. Eng. Commun. 62: 135–150 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martin D. and Nokes R. (1988). Crystal settling in a vigorously convecting magma chamber. Nature 332: 534–536 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hazen A. (1904). On sedimentation. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. LIII: 45–71 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crowe C.T., Gore R.A. and Troutt T.R. (1985). Particle dispersion in free shear flows. Part. Sci. Tech. 3: 149–158 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raju N. and Meiburg E. (1995). The accumulation and dispersion of heavy particles in forced two-dimensional mixing layers. Part 2: The effect of gravity. Phys. Fluids 7: 1241–1264 MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burgisser A. and Bergantz G.W. (2002). Reconciling pyroclastic flow and surge: the multiphase physics of pyroclastic density currents. EPSL 202: 405–418 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lun C.K.K., Savage S.B., Jeffrey D.J. and Chepuniy N. (1984). Kinetic theories for granular flow: inelastic particles in Couette flow and slighty inelastic particles in a general flow field. J. Fluid Mech. 140: 223–256 MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Benyahia S., Syamlal M. and O’Brien T.J. (2005). Evaluation of boundary conditions used to model dilute, turbulent gas/solids flows in a pipe. Powder Technol. 156: 62–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jones, N.E.: An experimental investigation of particle size distribution effects in dilute gas–solid flow. PhD Thesis, Purdue University (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Syamlal, M.: review of stress constitutive relation. (Technical Report DOE/MC/21353–2372) Department of Energy, Springfield, VA (1987)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Savage S.B. (1998). Analyses of slow high-concentration flows of granular materials. JFM 377: 1–26 MATHADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simonin, O.: Continuum modeling of dispersed two-phase flows. Combustion and Turbulence in Two-Phase Flows, Lecture Series vol. 2. Von Karman Institute of Fluid Dynamics, Rhade Saint Genèse (1996)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peirano E. and Leckner B. (1998). Fundamentals of turbulent gas-solid flows applied to circulating fluidized bed combustion. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 24: 259–296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cao J. and Ahmadi G. (1995). Gas-particle 2-phase turbulent-flow in a vertical duct. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21: 1203–1228 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lowe R.J., Linden P.F. and Rottman J.W. (2002). A laboratory study of the velocity structure in an intrusive gravity current. J. Fluid Mech. 456: 33–48 MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Syamlal, M., Rogers, W., O’Brien, T.J.: MFIX Documentation: Theory Guide, pp. 1–49. US Department of Energy, Morgantown, WV (1993)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gunn D.J. (1978). Transfer of heat or mass to particles in fixed and fluidized beds. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 21: 467–476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fedors R.F. and Landel R.F. (1979). An empirical method of estimating the void fraction in mixtures of uniform particles of different size. Powder Technol. 23: 225–231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johnson P.C. and Jackson R. (1987). Frictional–collisional constitutive relations for granular materials, with application to plane shearing. J. Fluid Mech. 176: 67–93 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Iverson R.M. (1997). The physics of debris flows. Rev. Geophys. 35: 245–296 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sommerfeld M. (2003). Analysis of collision effects for turbulent gas-particle flow in a horizontal channel: Part 1. particle transport. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 29: 675–699 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yamamoto Y., Potthoff M., Tanaka T., Kajishima T. and Tsuji Y. (2001). Large-eddy simulation of turbulent gas-particle flow in a vertical channel: effect of considering inter-particle collisions. J. Fluid Mech. 442: 303–334 MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dade W.B. and Huppert H.E. (1995). Runout and fine-sediment deposits of axisymmetric turbidity currents. J. Geophys. Res. 100: 18597–18609 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dade W.B. (2003). The emplacement of low-aspect ratio ignimbrites. J. Geophys. Res. 108: 2211 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dingman S.L. (1984). Fluvial hydrology. Freeman, New York Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ghosh J.K., Mazumder B.S., Saha M.R. and Sengupta S. (1986). Deposition of sand by suspension currents: Experimental and theoretical studies. J. Sediment. Petrol. 56: 57–66 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Valentine G.A. (1987). Stratified flow in pyroclastic surges. Bull. Volcanol. 49: 616–630 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Choux C.M. and Druitt T.H. (2002). Analogue study of particle segregation in pyroclastic density currents, with implications for the emplacement mechanisms of large ignimbrites. Sedimentology 49: 907–928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burgisser A. (2004). Physical volcanology of the 2050 BP caldera-forming eruption of Okmok Volcano, Alaska. Bull. Volcanol. 67: 497–525 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brown R.J. and Branney M.J. (2004). Bypassing and diachronous deposition from density currents: evidence from a giant regressive bed form in the Poris ignimbrite, Tenerife, Canary Islands. Geology 32: 445–448 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Planetary ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Space ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations