You are on page 1of 15

Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology

journal homepage:

Two-uid modeling of cratering in a particle bed by a subsonic

turbulent jet
Casey Q. LaMarche a,, Aldo Benavides Morn b, Berend van Wachem c, Jennifer Sinclair Curtis d
University of Florida Chemical Engineering Department, Room 227 CHE PO Box 116005, Gainesville, FL 32611-6005, United States
Mechanical Engineering Facultad de Minas Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medelln, Colombia
Impearial College of London Mechanical Engineering Department, London SW7 2AZ, UK
University of California Davis, Department of Engineering, Davis, CA 95616, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Two-Fluid Method is capable of modeling large-scale (i.e., lab scale or larger) multiphase (particle-uid)
Received 8 December 2016 ows by treating both the uid and particle phase as interpenetrating continua and solving mass and momentum
Received in revised form 25 April 2017 balances for each phase. To solve for the ow of the solids phase the momentum balance requires constitutive
Accepted 5 May 2017
relations in the form of normal and shear stresses i.e., pressures and viscosities. However, the stresses that ac-
Available online 16 May 2017
count for frictional contacts in dense particle systems, and are relevant to this work, are empirically based. A
study of the effects of adjusting the frictional model formulation (the empirical parameters of the model), by
Two-uid model changing the overall frictional stress magnitude and the relative magnitude of the frictional viscosity to the fric-
CFD tional pressure, on the behavior of the bed is presented here. It was found that the magnitude of the frictional vis-
Friction cosity relative to the frictional pressure affects the crater growth prediction almost as much as the magnitude of
Crater formation the overall frictional stress. Additionally, a frictional model formulation is validated for sand particles, and predic-
tions are compared with existing experimental data for the crater formation of a sand bed under a vertical, im-
pinging jet of gas (Metzger et al. J Areo Eng (2008) v22, p2432). In the low jet velocity regime (subsonic,
turbulent jet), the model predicts the salient features previously measured for the growth rate of the crater of
time, the prole of the crater, and the response of the crater to turning the jet off. In the high jet velocity regime
(compressible, near sonic jet ow) the prediction agrees qualitatively with prior experimental observations.
2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction of different rocket exhaust designs and the particle-laden surfaces. Fur-
thermore, space exploration is not the only application that would ben-
The interaction of rocket-exhaust with the dense particle layer that et from a software package that can simulate the gas-solid and solid-
covers the surfaces of the moon, Mars and some asteroids can result in solid interactions as transporting particles is commonplace in many in-
potentially hazardous soil erosion in the form of high-speed particle dustrial operations, such as hoppers, uidized beds, silos, pneumatic
spray or crater formation [1]. During the Apollo missions, the eroded conveying, etc. [3].
particle spray obscured the astronauts' view of the lunar surface [1]. Ad- Two main model frameworks are typically used to model multi-
ditionally, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the plume impinge- phase (particle-uid) systems, namely, Discrete Element Method
ment interacting with the Martian surface, several landing techniques (DEM) and the Two-Fluid Method (TFM). In DEM, Newton's equations
were tested for the Martian rovers including the use of an umbilical of motion are solved for every particle in the domain, and therefore
structure that allowed for the rockets to sit 6.5 m above the lander [2]. adjusting the particle properties for each particle is straightforward
Performing experiments in conditions that match a spacecraft landing [4]. However, tracking the positions of every particle in the domain re-
on an extraterrestrial surface are technologically and economically pro- quires a large computational overhead, and consequently the number
hibitive, which is evident when considering the tests would require r- of particles, or size of the system, that can be simulated with DEM is lim-
ing a rocket, in vacuum, in variable gravity, onto a bed of extraterrestrial ited to orders of magnitude smaller than realistic processes [5]. In TFM,
particles. Thus, designing spacecraft and surface architecture for future the particle phase and uid (liquid or gas) phase are treated as interpen-
space exploration will benet from the ability to predict the interaction etrating, interacting continua, hence the particle phase is treated as a
uid (i.e., individual particles are not considered), and mass and mo-
Corresponding author. mentum balances are solved for each phase. The solids phase mass
E-mail address: (C.Q. LaMarche). and momentum balances are derived by ensemble averaging the
0032-5910/ 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.
C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 69

equations of motion so larger systems can be considered than with DEM pushes them away [37]. When the stagnation pressure of the jet ex-
(since individual particles are not tracked), but constitutive relations are ceeds the bearing capacity of the soil, as with BCF, the soil is shoved
required to solve the averaged equations [69]. downward, producing a shallow crater [36]. In the DDF mechanism,
The constitutive relations solved in TFM in the form of in the granu- the uid is pushed by the jet into the void spaces of the soil, un-jams
lar phase equation of motion as collisional, kinetic, and frictional stress- the material below the surface and shears it [31]. Simulating the crater
es. The collisional and kinetic stresses dominate in dilute-solids ows formation under high- and low-velocity jets could provide insight into
and account for inelastic collisions and particles crossing imaginary the experimentally observed cratering mechanisms by Metzger et al.
shear planes, respectively [10,11]. Additionally, the collisional and ki- [31]. Metzger et al. [31] also report measurements of transient cratering
netic stresses are generally derived from rst principles, e.g., derived behavior such as crater growth through the cratering experiment. They
for dilute systems of hard-sphere particles [12,13]. At the denser limit present a rigorous parametric study of the effect of the properties of the
of particle ows (high solids volume fractions), particles sustain endur- gas jet on the cratering of the particle bed, which offers a set of measure-
ing contacts and therefore friction between particles plays a signicant ments that can be compared to TFM predictions of a jet interaction with
role in the behavior of the particle bed [14]. Unlike the stress contribu- a particle bed surface [31].
tions that dominate in the dilute limit, the models that account for fric- The main aim of this work is to validate the predictions from TFM
tional contacts is empirically based [9]. (Newer frictional models relate using frictional stress models for a gas jet impinging on a bed of particles
the frictional stress to the particle-particle friction coefcient [15], but and to evaluate the sensitivity of the bed behavior to the formulation of
are not the focus of this work since the frictional coefcient of the par- the empirical, frictional stress model. The experimental results of
ticles was not known). Additionally, the frictional contacts are Metzger et al.'s [31] parametric study were used to validate TFM as a
accounted for by the frictional stresses [14], which are orders of magni- tool to predict crater formation. The importance of correctly dening
tude higher than the collisional and kinetic stress contributions [9]. Ac- the frictional stress is shown here via a sensitivity study of the empirical
cordingly, the frictional stresses will play a signicant role in the values used in the frictional model on the overall prediction of the
behavior of dense layer of particles covering the surfaces of the Moon model. This work provides a rigorous analysis of the frictional model
[16], Mars (based on images in [17]), and asteroids. used for modeling the dense particle TFM. Finally, a frictional model for-
Previous studies illustrated the importance of correctly im- mulation for sand is presented that correctly predicts the salient fea-
plementing the frictional stress to achieve accurate predictions, and in- tures that were measured [31] for the bed of sand impacted by a
dicate caution should be used when applying frictional models due to turbulent, subsonic jet.
their inherent empiricism [9,1820]. TFM has been shown to be a viable
approach to modeling dense particle, gas-particle systems, as long as 2. Model equations
the appropriate models are implemented correctly [9,1829]. Thus,
TFM is expected to be a viable approach to predicting the interaction 2.1. Governing equations
of a gas plume with a dense particle bed.
Due to the technological and economic limitations associated with As discussed above, the two-uid approach models both the uid
performing experiments that match the conditions of a spacecraft land- and solid phases as interacting and interpenetrating continua, and a
ing on an extraterrestrial surface, performing experiments on Earth - in mass and a momentum balance are solved for both the solids and
atmospheric conditions, with turbulent, subsonic jets - to validate TFM uid phases. The ensemble averaged equations of motion of Anderson
for predicting crater formation is a rst step to building a software pack- and Jackson [8] and Jackson [6,7] are provided in Table 1 and were
age capable of predicting rocket exhaust impingement onto extraterres- used to model the uid (gas) and particle phases. As discussed above,
trial surfaces. Moreover, TFM has been used extensively to model constitutive relations are needed to close the averaged solids phase mo-
spouting and jet-uidized beds, which are analogous to a jet impinging mentum equation (i.e. solids-phase stress). Somewhat analogous to the
from below [9,2129]. However, for the case of a jet impinging down- Reynolds stress in turbulence that depends on the uctuating velocity of
ward onto a bed of particles, which is relevant to landing spacecraft, the the uid, the collisional and kinetic particle-phase stresses depends on
motion of the particle phase was neglected and only the single-phase the magnitude of the particle velocity uctuations (v's). The uctuating
uid (liquid or gas) was simulated. In particular, experimental studies velocity is the difference between the instantaneous (vs) and mean par-
demonstrated that when a turbulent, subsonic jet impinges onto a parti- ticle velocity (Vs), namely v's = vs Vs). A granular temperature, , can
cle bed in atmospheric conditions, a crater is produced (details available be introduced, and is given by [10],
elsewhere, e.g., [3033]), which is different than the spout and uidized
beds beds that occur when the jet is at the bottom of the bed [9,2129]. 1 D 0 2E
vs 1
Previous computational uid dynamics simulations were used to study 3
the ow patterns in horizontal scour holes by modeling a jet impinging
into a solid wall shaped as a crater (i.e. the crater shape was frozen in which is similar to the thermodynamic temperature of a gas. A balance
time and simulated using no-slip boundary conditions) [31,34,35]. For in- of granular energy, 3/2, is used to close the solids-phase governing
stance, Metzger et al. [31] performed a gas-phase simulation of a vertical equations (Table 1). Granular energy is generated by shear in the parti-
jet impinging inside of a wall in the shape of a crater in order to investi- cle phase, diffuses along gradients of granular energy, dissipates due to
gate the properties of the jet inside of the crater. These previous scour inelastic particle-particle collisions and is generated and/or dissipated
and crater studies only accounted for the interaction of the uid jet with from interactions of the uid phase with the particle phase [9]. Lun
a solid-wall and therefore did not account for the interaction and inter- et al. [12] derived expressions for these relations based on the kinetic
penetration of the uid with the particle phase. theory of dense gas [38] allowing for inelastic particle-particle collisions.
Nonetheless, the formation of craters under impinging jets was in- Only the collisional and kinetic contributions of the solids phase stress
vestigated experimentally (see elsewhere for details, e.g., [3033]). For are taken into account for the granular energy balance, as frictional
example, Metzger et al. [31] experimentally investigated the cratering stress is considered to dissipate energy to true thermal energy, rather
mechanisms dominating in beds of sand cratered by both high- and than uctuating energy [14]. van Wachem et al. [9] showed that for
low-velocity jets. They identied diffusion-driven ow (DDF) [31] and dense systems, is typically conserved locally thus convection and dif-
bearing capacity failure (BCF) [36] as possible mechanisms that domi- fusion can be neglected, and therefore an algebraic assumption can be
nate the in high-velocity ow regime and viscous erosion (VE) [37] to employed in general for the granular energy balance in dense particle
dominate the low-velocity ows. VE occurs at the top layers of the par- ows. The governing equations and constitutive relations are provided
ticle bed where the gas torques particles over their neighbors and in Table 1.
70 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

Table 1
Governing equations and constitutive relations.

Governing equations

Continuity uid phase g

 g Vg 0
Continuity solids phase s
 s Vs 0
h i
Momentum equation gas-phase V
g g tg Vg  Vg g  g g PVg Vs g g g
g g  Rg
h i
Momentum equation solid-phase s s V s
V  V P  P Vg Vs s s g
t s s s s s s s
h i
Granular uctuating energy balance 3
2 t s s s s sV s;col s;kin s;col P s;kin I
 s  s  3
Algebraic Assumption [9] 3
2 t s s s;col s;kin P s;col P s;kin I  s  3

Constitutive relations
h i
Gas phase stress tensor, g (N/m2) g g Vg Vg T 23  Vg I
Solids phase stress tensor, S (N/m2) s s Vs Vs T s 23 s  Vs I
Solid phase pressure, Ps (N/m2) [14] Ps = Ps,col + Ps,kin + Ps,fr
Solids collisional pressure, Ps, col (N/m2) [12] Ps,col = 2gos2s (1 + e)
Solids kinetic pressure, Ps ,kin (N/m2) [12] Ps,kin = ss
Solids frictional pressure, Ps, fr (N/m2) [14] 0 s s; min
P s;fr min n
Fr s s; p
s Ns; min
s; max s

Solids phase viscosity, s (Pa s) [14] s = s, col + s,kin + s ,fr

Solids collisional viscosity, s, col (Pa s) [39] s;col 45 2s s ds g o 1 e =
p h i2
Solids kinetic viscosity, s ,kin (Pa s) [39] s ds
s;kin 10
961ego 1 5 g o s 1
Solids frictional viscosity (Eq. (3)), s ,fr (Pa s) [40] s;fr
P s;fr sin
2 I2D
Solids frictional viscosity (Eq. (4)), s ,fr (Pa s) [20] P sin
s;fr ps;fr

2 I2D =ds
Solids bulk viscosity, s (Pa s) [12] s 43 2s s ds g o 1 e =
Radial distribution function, go [41] h i1
g o 1s;max s

Collisional dissipation of , s (kg/m s3) [12] s 121e2
go s 2s 3=2
Interphase momentum transfer coefcient, (kg/m3 s) [42,43] 3 1 s s g Vg Vs
1s 2:65
4 CD ds
( h i
1 0:151s Rep 0:687 if 1s Rep b1000
CD Rep 1s
0:44 if 1s Rep 1000
ds g Vg Vs
Rep g

Turbulence equations (uid phase)

Gas phase Reynolds stress (v'gv'g for RSM model), Rg(m2/s2) Rg = v'gv'g
Boussinesq hypothesis (v'gv'g for k- model, used only for high velocity simulation) (m2/s2) hv0 g v0 g i 2 kI t;g Vg Vg T
3 g
Turbulent kinetic energy (high-velocity simulation only), k (m2/s2) [44]
k  g g Vg k  g t;gk k g t;g S2

t g g
g g g k;g
Mean rate of strain tensor, S (1/s)
S 12 Vg Vg T : Vg Vg T
Turbulent dissipation rate (k- model; high-velocity simulation only), (m2/s3) [44]
 g g Vg  g t;g

kg C 1 t;g S2 g C 2
t g g
g ;g
Turbulent viscosity, t,g (Pa s) t;g g C k

Covariance of gas phase velocity and particle phase velocity, ksg (m2/s2) [45] ksg 2k 1sg , with b 1 C v s C v
sg g

Ratio of characteristic time scales, sg [45] sg t;sg

Lagrangian integral time scale calculated along particle trajectories, t, sg (s) [45] t;sg p
, with
vg vs t;g
Lt;g and C = 1.8 1.35cos2(t),
t is the angle between the mean particle velocity and the mean relative velocity
Particle relaxation time due to inertial effects acting on particle phase, F, sg (s) [45] F;sg s s 1 s C v

Characteristic turbulent time scale, t,g (s) [45] t;g 32 C k

Drift velocity, vdr (m/s) [45] D D
vdr sgt;sgs s sgt;sgg g , with Dt;sg 13 ksg t;sg
p k3=2
Characteristic turbulent length scale, Lt,g (m) [45] Lt;g 3=2C
Inuence of solids phase on k, k,g (kg/m s3) [45,46] k, g = (ksg 2k (Vg - Vs) vdr)
Inuence of solids phase on , , g (kg/m s4) [45] ;g C 3 k k;g
Turbulence modeling constants C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, C = 0.09, C3 = 1.2, Cv = 0.5
k = 1.0, = 1.3, sg = 0.75
Gas phase Reynolds stress transport equation (RSM model) [46]
t g g g
 g g Vg Rg g g Rg  Vg Rg  Vg T
g  g Rg  g g hv0 g v0 g v0 g i
g hP v0 g v0 g T ig g g R;g
where P PP and P is the mean pressure
Interaction of gas and solids phase turbulence, R;g (kg/m s3) [46] R;g 23 k;g I
Turbulent diffusive transport closure (kg/m s3) [47]
C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 71

Table 1 (continued)

Turbulence equations (uid phase)

 g g hv0 g v0 g v0 g i  0:82 R g
D 0 E
Linear pressure-strain model (kg/m s3) [48] P v0 g v0 g T g T;1 T;2 T;W
Slow pressure strain term, T;1 (m2/s3) [49] T;1 1:8 k Rg 23 kI
h  i
Rapid pressure strain term, T;2 (m2/s3) [49,50] T;2 0:6 Rg  Vg Rg  Vg T  Vg Rg 23 P w C w I
where the subscript w indicates the component normal to the wall
Production near wall, Pw (m2/s3) [49,50] P w hv0 g;w v0 g;w i
V g;w
Convection near wall, Cw (m2/s3) [49,50] C w xw V g;w hv0 g;w v0 g;w i
Rapid pressure strain term normal to wall, T;2;w (m2/s3) [49] T;2;w T;2  nw
h D 
Rapid pressure strain term, T;W (m2/s3) [49] 3=2
T;W c1dk w 0:5 k v0 g;w v0 g i  nIhv0 g v0 g;w i  n 32 hv0 g v0 g;w i  nT
0:3 T;2;w  nI 32 T;2;w n 32 T;2;w nT
where dw is the distance to the wall and c1 = C3/4 /0.4187
Dissipation tensor, g(m2/s3) g 23 I
Turbulent dissipation rate (RSM model), [44]
 g g vg  g t;g
t g g
g g k C 1 Rg : Vg C 2 g ;g

The mass and momentum balances solved for the gas phase are also Johnson and Jackson [14] and Johnson et al. [54] developed the
provided in Table 1. The Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) was used to sim- commonly-used, empirical equation for the frictional pressure that is
ulate the turbulent ow of the jet. For the case of a jet impinging on a given by [54],
dense particle bed simulated here, it is assumed that the effects of tur-
bulence are important in dilute-particle regions and negligible in >
< 0 s s; min
dense particle regions. Accordingly, Cokljat et al.'s [51] RSM is used to P s;fr s s; min 2
account for the effects of particles on turbulence here. Transport equa- : Fr 
> p s Ns; min
s; max s
tions and for the RSM employed, i.e., the Reynolds stresses Rg and turbu-
lence dissipation rate , are provided in Table 1.
where Fr, n and p are material-specic, empirical constants. The form of
Ps,fr in Eq. (2) captures the measured trend of rapidly increasing Ps,fr with
increasing s that diverges as s,max is approached [14,54]. Additionally,
2.2. Frictional stress model
the form of Ps,fr in Eq. (2) ensures that frictional stresses are not consid-
ered for s bs,min [54]. Johnson and Jackson [14] and Johnson et al. [54]
The aforementioned frictional stress models account for the effect of
use Coulomb's law (the frictional force is proportional to the normal
friction on particle contacts, and is added to the kinetic and collisional
force) to relate Ps,fr to s,fr. The rst s,fr model analyzed in this paper
stress contributions in the solids phase momentum balance [52]
was proposed by Schaeffer, is also based on Coulomb's law, and is
(Table 1). Frictional stress models are based on critical state theory,
given by [40],
which is rooted in soil science, and the resulting stress equations are
empirical [14,20,53]. Johnson and Jackson [14] considered the frictional 8
> 0 s s; min
stress in Newtonian form, i.e., it is represented in terms of a pressure P s;fr sin <  n
(Ps,fr; normal stress) and viscosity (s,fr; shear stress), and proposed s;fr p s s; min sin 3
2 I2D : Fr 
> p p s N s; min
forms of the Ps,fr and s,fr based on the assumption that the medium s; max s 2 I 2D
does not dilate or contract while deforming i.e., the critical state as-
sumption. Srivastava and Sundaresan [20] found that the critical state where I2D is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor and is
assumption did not affect the prediction of particles discharging from the internal angle of friction. To avoid singularity in calculating s,fr a
a hopper. minimum value for I2D (1012) was applied, but did not affect the re-
The frictional stress is used to account for the effects of friction that sults as I2D was always N10 12 in the regions of interest. Srivastava
occur result from sustained contacts, which are more likely to occur at and Sundaresan [20] proposed a model for s,fr to account for uctua-
higher solids volume fractions [54]. For solids volume fractions above tions in the strain rate associated with the formation of shear layers
a critical limit, s N s,min, enduring contacts are assumed and friction by combining Schaeffer's frictional viscosity (Eq. (3)) [40] with Savage's
must be considered [54]. In general, enduring contacts are assumed to estimate of the root-mean square strain-rate uctuation [52]. Srivastava
occur for s,min = 0.5, as particles do not touch for uniformly spaced and Sundaresan's [20] frictional viscosity model is given by [20],
grains with s b s,min [54]. A model that does not account for enduring
contacts, or does not accounts for friction until an unrealistically high P s;fr sin
value of s, the bed will act too much like a liquid. On the other hand, s;fr q 4
if a model accounts for enduring contacts when a system is too dilute, 2 I 2D =ds
i.e., s,min is taken as a value too low, the particles cannot be assumed
to endure these long contacts (i.e., collisions should be considered in- and includes the dependence on granular temperature to account for
stantaneous) and the ow will be incorrectly predicted. Accordingly, the formation of shear layers, i.e., /d2s where ds is the particle diameter.
the frictional stress is considered to be zero until a critical solids volume Previous TFM simulations using Johnson et al.'s [54] Ps,fr (Eq. (2)) and
fraction, s,min, is achieved [54]. The frictional stress increases with in- Schaeffer's [40] s,fr (Eq. (3)), predicted dense beds of glass beads with
creasing s until the maximum random close packing fraction s,max for too high of a frictional stress in certain ow geometries [18,20]. By in-
the solids is reached [54], i.e., the maximum solids volume fraction cluding the granular temperature in Eq. (4), s,fr is effectively reduced
that randomly oriented grains can reach [55]. From a physical stand- relative to the s,fr predicted with Eq. (3) for the same Ps,fr. Hence, s,fr
point, the frictional stress accounts for the frictional contacts that op- can be viewed as an effective friction, and this same idea is extended
pose compaction of a particle bed. in this work to account for rolling friction effects.
72 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

The frictional viscosity theories based on Coulomb's law (Eq. (3) and 3.1. Experimental setup of Metzger et al. (2009)
Eq. (4)) are derived for particle contacts that only experience sliding
friction [40], and therefore do not account for other interactions that Metzger et al.'s [31] cratering experiments were used to validate the
can occur for particles in enduring contact such as rolling friction be- TFM used here, and the experimental apparatus used to measure the
tween grains. However, the resistance to rolling at particle contacts crater formation is schematized in Fig. 1. A brief description of their ex-
can have a signicant effect on the shearing behavior of granular mate- periments is provided here, but the details can be found elsewhere [31].
rials [56]. Rolling resistance is expected to increase the bulk frictional In Metzger et al.'s [31] experiments, a gas jet was directed downward,
behavior of granular materials for the same normal force [56]. Nonethe- towards a bed of particles. The jet was produced by gas ow expanding
less, a well-established, continuum, frictional stress theory that incorpo- out of the exit of a long, straight pipe. The experiment was designed
rates rolling friction does not exist. Accordingly, as mentioned above, such with the intent that the jet would be split by the beveled-edge of
s,fr is treated as semi-empirical here and recast as, the window and a half-jet would impact the particle bed. Then, the cra-
ter development could be monitored through the window [31]. Metzger
8 et al. [31] performed experiments on Jetty Park Beach sand sieved to a
< 0 s s; min particle size range of 100180 m.
s;fr s s; min sin 5
: Fr  p p s Ns; min
s; max s 2 I2D 3.2. Simulation setup

The computational mesh and simulation domain for the axisymmet-

where Fr, n and p and empirical, material-specic parameters that ric simulations are rendered in Fig. 2. The differential equations were
allow for s,fr to be effectively increased or decreased relative to the discretized with the nite-volume method, and second-order implicit
solids pressure. It is worthwhile to note the similarities in Eqs. (5) and time stepping scheme was used. The SIMPLE [57] pressure-correction
(3). The modication to s,fr retains the empirically determined relation- algorithm was implemented to calculate the ow eld in the domain.
ship between s and Ps,fr [54] (Eq. 2), but the empirical, material-specic The simulation predictions were independent to various aspects of the
parameters Fr, n and p specic to Eq. (5) allow for s,fr to change rel- mesh (i.e. wall placement, mesh size, domain, etc.). The results of the
ative to Coulomb powders that only experience sliding friction (Eqs. (3 sensitivity test showed that mesh size of the order 1 mm 1 mm near
4)). Here, the empirical parameters relevant to the frictional pressure the jet-impingement region on the bed was necessary to resolve the
and the frictional viscosity have been modied: Fr, p, Fr, and p (here, gas-phase gradients necessary to accurately predicted the particle-
n = n = 2). The effect of adjusting the frictional stresses (Fr and p in phase erosion. The mesh was rened near the impingement region in
Eq. (2) and Fr and p in Eq. (5)) independently of each other is order to reduce the overall number of mesh cells and improve computa-
discussed further below. tional efciency. Meshes were created using the program Gambit v2.4.6
and the TFM equations solved using the computational uid dynamics
(CFD) solver Fluent. All frictional models were added to Fluent using
3. Methods the User Dened Function (UDF) capability, where the frictional models
were written in C and compiled into the solver.
In this section, the experimental setup Metzger et al.'s [31] is The simulation domain corresponds to the experiments, namely, a
discussed before the simulation, as the simulation was set up to match dense, particle bed is located at the bottom of the domain and a jet is di-
the experiments. The domain, computational mesh, and discretization rected downward toward the bed. The solids volume fraction of the bed
used for the simulations are described in detail. Finally, the tests de- (Fig. 2) was initialized to 0.58. In order to avoid a stiff matrix, and aid in
signed to evaluate the sensitivity of the model predictions to the convergence, the rest of the domain was initialized with a small s
discretization scheme, domain, and physical models are described. (105). Cratering predictions were not sensitive to the initial value of

Fig. 1. Schematic of experimental setup.

C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 73

tested, such as the drag, kinetic and collisional solids-phase stress, and
turbulence model.
The accuracy of the RSM and k- model were veried by simulating a
jet impacting a wall placed orthogonally to the exit of the jet, and com-
paring the predictions to the measurements of Cooper et al. [58] and
simulations of Craft et al. [59], respectively. The turbulence model pre-
dictions were consistent with the predictions of Craft et al. [59]. In par-
ticular, both turbulence models have high errors when predicting
stagnation regions, where strain-rates are often high, but in general,
the RSM is more accurate than the k- model [59]. A thorough discus-
sion of the limitations of turbulence models predicting the stagnation
region is [59].

3.4. Frictional model study and validation

A frictional stress study was conducted for two reasons, namely, to

elucidate how the frictional stress models affect the behavior of the
bed, and to determine the most appropriate frictional stress formulation
for sand. The results of the frictional model study are evaluated along-
side of the experimental measurements of Metzger et al. [31]. The accu-
racy of the frictional models are assessed by comparing the predictions
to one of Metzger et al.'s [31] experiments, the conditions of which are
referred to as the base case. The conditions of the base case are an Argon
jet with a velocity of 37 m/s, a 1.02 cm diameter nozzle with a height of
7.62 cm above the bed. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, the nozzle
diameter of 1.02 cm and height of 7.62 cm were used for the simulation.

3.5. Simulation predictions

Once the most accurate frictional stress model formulation was de-
termined by comparing predictions to measurements [31] for the base
Fig. 2. Axisymmetric formulation (a) computational mesh and (b) simulation domain. case conditions, it was used to predict the crater formation in conditions
Unless otherwise noted, A = 15.2 cm, Hp = 7.62 cm, Dp = 1.02 cm. that match Metzger et al.'s [31] other experiments. Metzger et al. [31]
reported the results of parametric tests of the properties of the jet in
s = 105, which was veried by lowering the value by two orders of the low-vg regime. Here, only the smallest and largest extremes of
magnitude. each test (e.g., smallest and largest gas density) were simulated for
To simulate the gas expansion from the jet, a short length of pipe this work. It is important to note that the frictional model was not
was simulated in the domain (the gas inlet boundary was designated changed when simulating conditions other than the base case; only
as a velocity-inlet). For each simulation, the magnitude of the gas veloc- the simulated jet operating conditions were changed (gas velocity, gas
ity at the velocity-inlet i.e., jet velocity, vg was held constant species, etc.) to determine the accuracy of the frictional model in
throughout each simulation, and for a given set of simulation condi- predicting the behavior of the sand. To avoid confusion, the conditions
tions, the velocity of the gas at the inlet was set to the experimentally and methods used to set up the simulations for the high-vg regime are
published value [31]. The turbulence conditions of the jet were set discussed in the relevant section below.
using turbulence intensity and length scale. Table 2 provides all of the
values used for the simulations. 4. Results and discussion

3.3. Model sensitivity In this section, the sensitivity of crater formation to various numeri-
cal and physical aspects of the simulation is discussed. Then, the effect of
Sensitivity to mesh size as well as time step were tested to ensure the overall magnitude of the frictional stresses as well as the relative
that accurate resolution of gradients were captured. The effect of the magnitude of Ps,fr and s,fr are investigated, and the results are presented
presence of the sidewall and side- and top-exit boundaries on the crater with respect to the cratering phenomena. A model is presented, Model
predictions was investigated by implementing a mesh geometry with A, which accurately predicts the salient features of crater growth mea-
walls twice as far as in the original mesh geometry. Additionally, the sured by Metzger et al. [31]. Additionally, the new model, which is an
sensitivity of the crater growth rate to the physical models was also extension of previous frictional models, is employed to explore the
cratering mechanism for both low-vg and high-vg jet regimes.
Table 2
Simulation parameters. 4.1. Sensitivity results

Property Value
The sensitivity of the cratering prediction was tested against various
Particle density, s (kg/m3) 2650 aspects of the simulation domain, physical models, and numerical
Particle diameter, ds (m) 140
methods, as discussed above. In terms of the sensitivity of the crater
Particle-particle coefcient of restitution, e 0.9
Particle-wall coefcient of restitution 0.9 growth to the computational mesh, if the mesh element size was too
Angle of internal friction, () 28 large in the impingement region, the crater formation began much
Max packing solids volume fraction, s,max 0.63 later in time and did not grow at the correct rate. The size of the domain
Min solids volume fraction, s,min 0.5 was large enough to not affect the crater growth, as the predictions
Initial solids volume fraction 0.58
were not affected when the size of the domain was doubled (regardless
74 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

of the frictional stress model formulation). Additionally, the cratering in Table 3). In Model B, s,fr and Ps,fr are increased compared to Model
predictions were not affected when the length of the pipe in the domain A. Using Model C, the effect of increasing Ps,fr relative to s,fr with respect
was increased, as long as the mesh was resolved enough at the bed-jet to Model A can be investigated. The Ocone et al. model [63] accounts
interface, indicating that the domain/mesh used was adequate for all only for sliding friction (Eq. (3)) and reduces the overall frictional stress
simulations. by two orders of magnitude with respect to the Johnson et al. model.
When the jet initially impacts the bed, a small time step, 107 s, was The last model in Table 3, implements the frictional viscosity model of
required to ensure convergence. The time step was slowly increased to Srivastava and Sundaresan [20] (Eq. (4)) that effectively reduces s,fr rel-
106 s by 0.1 s. All times reported, associated with the simulations, are ative to the Johnson et al. model to account for the formation of shear
in seconds of real time and from here on will be referred to with the unit layers.
of seconds, to be concise. To reduce error in the solution, the residuals The rst second of crater growth predicted under the base case con-
were set to 105 in order to set a strict tolerance on the convergence ditions by the various frictional model formulations are compared in
of all variables. Convergence was checked for every time step as the tra- Fig. 3. The solids volume fraction of 0.02 was used to track the bed sur-
jectory of the solution changed if the convergence criteria were not met, face, which is necessary to determine the predicted crater depth for all
even for only a few time steps. simulations (the crater depth-prediction was insensitive to the s
The frictional stress model formulation was found to dominate the value used to track the surface of the bed). The Johnson et al. frictional
cratering predictions. Setting the collisional and kinetic stress compo- model formulation, the empirical parameters of which were originally
nents to a constant value did not affect the growth rate of the crater. Ad- determined for glass spheres [54], predicts a crater that grows too
ditionally, the cratering rate was independent of the drag model when quickly compared to the measured depth. However, as stated earlier,
comparing predictions of the Wen and Yu [42] and Gidaspow [39] Metzger et al.'s [31] experiments were performed with sand, which is
drag models. Since crater formation is insensitive to the drag force the more angular and rougher than glass spheres, and therefore the same
lift force was neglected as it is small compared to the drag and gravita- empirical (material-specic) parameters would not be applicable for
tional forces [6062]. both particle types. The prediction of the particle bed by Model A is
The effect of the turbulence model on the model prediction was ex- more accurate than the Johnson et al. model, as illustrated in Fig. 3,
plored by comparing simulation predictions employing the k- model to and was produced by (empirically) accounting for rolling friction via a
the RSM. The RSM was less sensitive to time step size and predicted bet- factor of two increase in s,fr relative to the Johnson et al. model. Accord-
ter resolution of gas-phase vortical structures. Accordingly, for the ingly, the model adjustments for Model B and Model C are based on
quantitative validation of the TFM the RSM was used for simulations Model A, rather than the Johnson et al. model.
of low-vg conditions. The k- turbulence model did affect the quantita- The predictions of frictional model formations Model A and Model B
tive predictions of the two-uid model for the low-vg base case, are similar, even though p and p increase from 5 to 5.5 for Ps,fr (Eq. (2))
but the qualitative predictions were similar. However, since only a and s,fr,(Eq. (5)) respectively (Table 3). Thus, simulations were per-
qualitative comparison of the cratering predictions and experiments is formed with other frictional model formulations that simultaneously
performed for the high-vg (near-sonic ow) regime, the more computa- increased the frictional stress for Ps,fr and s,fr further from the magni-
tionally efcient the k- model. tude of Model A (i.e. Fr = 0.1 and p = 5.9; Fr = 1.0 and p = 5), which
The results of a simulation implementing the full partial differential predicted a negligible difference in the crater growth as compared to
equation for the granular temperature balance, found in Table 1, show Model B. Additionally, a simulation was performed with a model that in-
that the algebraic assumption for determining the granular temperature creased s,fr further relative to Ps,fr compared to Model A e.g., to inves-
is sufciently accurate for the present case. The algebraic form of the tigate the effects of further increasing the rolling friction but the crater
granular energy balance (neglecting convection and diffusion) was prediction is again negligibly different than that of Model A. The similar
found to be acceptable by comparing the results to those predicted by bed prediction of increased frictional models indicates that once the
the full partial differential equation balance. frictional stress is of a certain order, or the frictional viscosity is

4.2. Frictional model study

To investigate and optimize the predictions of crater growth, the

existing, empirical frictional stress models [14,40,54] were adjusted,
which are summarized in Table 3. A commonly used [1820] frictional
stress model formulation combines Johnson et al.'s [54] form of Ps,fr
(Eq. (2)) with Schaeffer's [40] s,fr (Eq. (3)), which is referred to here
as the Johnson et al. model. Other published frictional models were
also tested, i.e., Ocone et al. [63] and Srivastava and Sundaresan [20].
To test the effects of increasing s,fr relative to Ps,fr compared to the John-
son et al. model, as a way of accounting for rolling friction, s,fr was in-
creased by a factor of two from the Johnson et al. (Fr = 2Fr; Model A

Table 3
Summary of frictional models.

s,fr (Pa s) Ps,fr (Pa)

Fr p Fr p

Increased s,fr relative to Ps,fr (Model A) Eq. (5) 0.1 5 0.05 5

Johnson et al. [40,54] Eq. (3) 0.05 5 0.05 5
Ocone et al. model [63] Eq. (3) 0.05 3 0.05 3
Increased frictional stress (model B) Eq. (5) 0.2 5.5 0.1 5.5
Increased Ps,fr relative to s,fr (model C) Eq. (5) 0.1 5 0.5 5
Fig. 3. Predicted crater depth with varying frictional models for the base case conditions
Srivastava and Sundaresan [20] Eq. (4) 0.05 5 0.05 5
(37 m/s Argon jet).
C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 75

relatively large compared to the frictional pressure, the cratering predic- 4.3. Parametric study: comparing crater predictions to measurements
tions become insensitive to further increases.
Decreasing the frictional stress by two orders of magnitude with the The conguration of frictional models Model A and Model B predict-
Ocone et al. model causes large changes in the cratering predictions ed similar crater growth and were the most accurate predictions of the
compared to the Johnson et al. model. The Ocone et al. model over pre- crater development for the base case (Fig. 3). However, since Model A
dicts the crater depth, as this model signicantly underestimates the was slightly more computationally efcient, Model A was used to simu-
frictional stresses for sand. When the frictional stresses are too low, late the various jet conditions reported by Metzger et al. [31]. In partic-
the bed behaves too liquid-like and the jet drives deep into the bed ular, Model A was used to predict crater formation to t = 1 s with
followed by the bed sloshing back. This splashing of the bed can be iden- conditions that match the parametric investigation by Metzger et al.
tied in Fig. 3, where the crater depth quickly decreases after reaching a [31]. The predicted growth of the crater depth by Model A for the case
maximum at around 0.5 s, which corresponds to a jump in the crater of Argon jets with vg = 37 m/s and vg = 56 m/s plotted against Metzger
width after the crater sloshes. et al.'s [31] measurements in Fig. 4. The predictions of Model A and mea-
Frictional model with increased Ps,fr only (Model C), Srivastava and surements [31] for the crater depth over time as a function of gas species
Sundaresan model, and the Johnson et al. model demonstrate increased are presented in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5, the simulation and experimental data
crater-depth growth over time compared to Model A. The three former are for 56 m/s jets of Argon, Nitrogen and Helium. The effect of Hp on
models have reduced s,fr with respect to the Ps,fr relative to the latter. As the predicted crater depth over time is compared to Metzger et al.'s
mentioned above, Srivastava and Sundaresan model has the same form [31] measurements in Fig. 6. The conditions of the experiment and sim-
of Ps,fr as the Johnson et al. model, but s,fr is effectively decreased to ac- ulation in Fig. 6 are a 40 m/s Nitrogen jet with nozzle heights (Hp in
count for uctuations in the strain rate (Eq. (4) vs. Eq. (3), respectively). Fig. 2) of 7.62 cm and 10.16 cm. The simulation predictions illustrated
Model C predicts a bed that craters at the second fastest rate, even in Figs. 46 were computed in an axisymmetric domain. In Figs. 4
though s,fr is the same as Model A, and Ps,fr is higher. If Ps,fr is increased, and 5, Model A predicts the crater formation to t = 1 s well for a variety
at the expense of the s,fr (with respect to Model A, i.e., Model C, Johnson of gas species and jet velocities. However, the predicted crater depth by
et al. model and Srivastava and Sundaresan model), the bed behaves too Model A, Fig. 6, is more sensitive to the pipe height than what was found
much like a liquid and the cratering rate exceeds experimental observa- experimentally. However, the experimental data does not have error
tions. Conceptually, a bed with increased Ps,fr relative to s,fr, can be bars, so it is difcult to tell if the predictions are within the experimental
thought as more similar to a true (molecular) liquid than a granular ma- uncertainty. Hence, the simulations performed with Model A predict the
terial because the increase in Ps,fr makes the bed more incompressible, salient features of Metzger et al.'s [31] parametric study.
but without a comparable change in s,fr i.e., the bed ows like a liquid
because the level of friction (s,fr is too low to keep the high-pressure re- 4.4. Long time simulations
gions of the bed from owing to lower pressure regions. In addition, for
very short times, the bed expands because Ps,fr is larger than the weight Metzger et al. [31] describes the experimentally observed crater evo-
per unit area of the particles in the cell i.e., gravitational forces are too lution as the initial formation a single parabolic crater that later col-
small to keep particle phase from expanding [54] which is expressed lapses into a dual crater consisting of an inner (parabolic) and outer
by the dip in the crater depth in Fig. 3 at early times for these three (conical) crater. The walls of the outer crater oscillate between the
models. Similar to the case of increased Ps,fr relative to s,fr, the bed be- angle of failure and the angle of repose of the sand [31]. The crater
haves too liquid-like when the overall magnitude of the frictional stress- growth rate is altered at the moment when the outer crater forms, as
es are too low, for instance with the Ocone et al. model. To better particles begin to recirculate inside of the crater (between the inner
illustrate the correlation of the magnitudes of s,fr and Ps,fr on the crater and outer craters) [31]. For the relevant experimental cases, the crater
depth prediction, Table 4 provides the orders of magnitude of these split occurs well after 1 s and therefore simulations were carried out
stresses in the bed at 0.5 s for the models provided in Table 3. Addition- with Model A to longer times. Fig. 7 demonstrates such long-time pre-
ally, Table 4 illustrates the bed compressibility by providing the maxi- dictions of crater growth compared to Metzger et al.'s [31] base case
mum (peak) predicted s in the bed by the various models. The s measurements. The predicted crater depth of Model A diverges from
values in Table 4 are outputs from the simulation that depends on the the experimental results at around 4.2 s (Fig. 7), which is slightly later
specic frictional model formation and should not be confused with than the time it took for the crater to split in the experiments, namely,
s,max, which is a constant (Table 2) and an input to Ps,fr (Eq. (2)) and ~3.7 s [31].
s,fr (Eqs. (35)). The s values is Table 4 demonstrate that the compress- To understand the under-prediction of crater depth at later times,
ibility of the bed is determined by the magnitude of Ps,fr. For instance, crater proles from experiments [31] and predictions are compared in
the orders of magnitude smaller Ps,fr and s,fr of the Ocone et al. model Fig. 8. In Fig. 8, the column of images on the left are experimental snap-
compared to the of Johnson et al., results in a bed that is much more shots of the crater for the base case conditions, in the middle and on the
compressible. In sum, the cratering prediction can be greatly affected right are the contour plots of s predictions for corresponding times by
by adjusting the overall frictional model magnitude (e.g., Ocone et al. Model A and the Ocone et al. model, respectively. The crater proles
model and Johnson et al. model) and the relative magnitude of s,fr to predicted by Model A does not properly predict the formation of the
Ps,fr (e.g., Model A and Model C). outer crater, Fig. 8, which could impact the solid-phase recirculation

Table 4
Predicted frictional viscosity and pressure associated with different frictional models.

Frictional model Max s in the Magnitude of s,fr Magnitude of Ps,fr

bed at t = 0.5 s at t = 0.5 s (Pa s) at t = 0.5 s (Pa)

Increased s,fr relative to Ps,fr (Model A) 0.591 O(100107) O(10103)

Johnson et al. [40,54] 0.588 O(101106) O(10103)
Ocone et al. model [63] 0.619 O(101102) O(100102)
Increased frictional stress (model B) 0.587 O(100108) O(10104)
Increased Ps,fr relative to s,fr (model C) 0.570 O(101104) O(10103)
Srivastava and Sundaresan [20] 0.588 O(101105) O(10103)
76 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

Fig. 4. Crater depth predictions with varying Argon jet velocities (Model A). Fig. 6. Crater depth prediction with varying nozzle height (Model A).

4.5. Effect of viewing window

rate [31], which affects the crater growth. Only the rst 1 s of crater for-
In order to observe the sub-surface evolution of the crater, the
mation is presented for the Ocone et al. model because it over-predicts
cratering experiments are performed such that a window splits the
the crater growth (Fig. 3). The Ocone et al. model predicts a bed that is
jet. Hence, the effect of the viewing window in the center of the ow
too compressible due to the low magnitude of Ps,fr, as is illustrated by the
on the jet in experiments (Fig. 1) must be understood. Since performing
compaction of the solids phase near the surface of the crater under the
three-dimensional simulations is computationally prohibitive for the
opposing forces of the jet and the splashing solids at t = 0.104 s in
current case, the effect of the wall was investigated using two-
Fig. 8. Model A predicts the crater prole well for both t = 0.104 s and
dimensional, Cartesian (2D Cartesian) simulations. Reuge et al. [64]
1 s. Close inspection of the top of the crater prediction at t = 3.77 s by
found that 2D Cartesian simulations of uidized beds had predictions
Model A exhibits a drop in the position of the more dilute s to about
similar to those of three-dimensional simulations. Fig. 9a and b provide
halfway down the side of the crater, compared to above the top of the
the domain and computational mesh, respectively, for the 2D Cartesian
crater found at t = 1 s. For experiments, the outer crater is just starting
simulations without a wall. The simulation domain of 2D Cartesian
to form in the experiments at t = 3.77 s. At t = 38.02 s, well-dened
mesh with a wall that splits the jet is depicted in Fig. 9c and the compu-
inner and outer craters are found experimentally, but using Model A, a
tational mesh in Fig. 9d. The wall was placed directly along the center-
distinct outer crater is not predicted. It is expected that the two-uid
line of the jet, splitting the mesh in half, with the bed only to one side
model with Eq. (3) or Eq. (4) would not correctly predict the outer cra-
of the wall. The top of the wall in Fig. 9c and d is 2 cm above the top
ter size or sidewall angles since Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) the model is only
of the particle bed.
valid for continuously deforming regions [40].

Fig. 5. Crater depth prediction with varying gas type (Model A). Fig. 7. Long time crater depth prediction with 37 m/s Argon jet (Model A).
C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 77

Fig. 8. Experimental crater images and corresponding simulations at different times (left column, experimental images; middle column, Frictional Model A; right column, Ocone et al.
frictional model).

In Fig. 10, the crater depth measurements for the base case [31] are The effect of the wall on crater growth is further demonstrated in
compared to the predictions with the new frictional model formulation, Fig. 11, which provides s contours within the bed predicted by Model
Model A, for three different simulations: axisymmetric without a wall A at various simulated times. The crater depth is tracked at the center
(Axisymmetric Mesh), Cartesian without a wall (Cartesian: No Wall), of the jet, at the surface of the wall. The jet is has initially defected
and Cartesian with a wall (Cartesian: with Wall). At early times, without when it rst impinges on the top of the wall, causing it to be deected
considering the wall, the crater growth rate is under-predicted in both towards the center of the bed, resulting in erosion slightly away from
the Cartesian and axisymmetric coordinate systems. However, by the centerline (Fig. 11a). The predicted drop in the crater depth (crater
~0.5 s the crater depth is accurately predicted in the Cartesian simula- becomes shallower) at ~0.1 s in the presence of the wall (dashed gray
tion without considering the wall, but over-predicted in the axisymmet- line in Fig. 10) is explained by a pocket of eroding solids that collides
ric simulation. Nonetheless, the crater depth is generally under- with the wall, resulting in a temporary increase in the bed depth
predicted in the presence of a wall (except for the period of t ~ 0.2 to (Fig. 11b). As the jet develops over time, it expands towards the wall,
0.35 s). To understand the effect of the splitting the jet with the window causing the erosion to increase closer to the centerline, as illustrated
in experiments, the predictions of Cartesian simulations with and with- in Fig. 11c and d. Hence, the interaction of the jet and the wall decreases
out the wall are compared. Specically, the wall increases the trajectory the crater growth rate compared to when a wall does not split the jet.
of the crater depth growth at early times compared to the no-wall pre-
dictions, but decreases crater growth at later times. This qualitative 4.6. Simulations of turning the jet off
change in crater growth due to the presence of the wall provides a pos-
sible explanation for the over-prediction of the crater depth near ~1 s in The dynamic behavior of the crater formation when the jet is on pro-
the axisymmetric coordinate system (Fig. 3) because the wall was not vides a validation of the frictional model under high shear rates, which
simulated. Nonetheless, the predictions indicate the effects of the wall is consistent with the conditions under which the s,fr models were de-
are small, but that it slightly increases the initial cratering rate and re- rived [40]. However, in experiments, after the jet is extinguished, a cra-
duces the erosion rate at later times. ter remains with walls at the angle of repose. The behavior of the bed
78 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

Fig. 9. (a) Domain and (b) computational mesh for the two-dimensional, Cartesian simulations without a wall splitting the jet. (c) Domain and (b) computational mesh for the two-
dimensional, Cartesian simulations with a wall splitting the jet.

after turning off the jet was investigated with the various frictional velocity at the inlet of the jet to a very small value and modeling the
model formulations. It is not expected that TFM with the frictional ow as laminar in the axisymmetric simulation. Additionally, the top
models implemented here is capable of predicting a crater with walls surface of the particle bed was tracked using s = 0.58, as this s is
at the angle of repose (see Fig. 8) or a stable crater after the jet is above s,min, such that the ow behavior is controlled by frictional
extinguished. Nonetheless, it is expected that the a model with a suf- stresses. Immediately after extinguishing the jet, the crater predicted
ciently high s,fr can predict the a crater that will ll in slowly and the by Model A initially remains at a nearly constant size, but begins to
surface of the particle bed will not splash above its original level (as slowly ll in after a few seconds of simulation time.
would occur for the surface of a true liquid after extinguishing a jet). Ex- Conversely, the frictional models that predicted a particle bed that
periments performed with analogous particles in a similar experimental behaved much like a liquid while the jet was on (the Ocone et al.
apparatus show that the crater remains when the jet is terminated at model and Model C), also predicted a bed that behaved too liquid-like
~1 s. Hence, the effect of turning off the jet on the behavior of the crater after turning off the jet, as the crater immediately collapsed and made
was explored using the predictions from Model A by turning the gas a splash. Hence, the TFM with improved frictional stress description,
C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 79

can be used as a qualitative comparison of the prediction and experi-

ment for a compressible jet. The cratering mechanisms are explored
using the prediction of Model A for both the base case (low-vg) and a
compressible, near-sonic Nitrogen jet (high-vg) impinging on beds of
The velocity for the high-vg experiments was not reported, but it was
described as very close to the speed of sound [65]. The high-vg study was
performed in the axisymmetric domain, using the same computational
mesh as the base case simulation (Fig. 2). The Mach number (Ma = ve-
locity of the gas/speed of sound in the gas) of the inlet of the pipe was
set to 0.75 and the resulting Ma at the exit of the pipe was 0.9, in
order to avoid shocks (i.e., regions where Ma = 1) in the system. The
density-based solver was used in order to account for the compressibil-
ity of the Nitrogen jet. To improve computational efciency, the high-vg
simulations were performed using the k- turbulence model was imple-
mented to simulate the turbulence in the gas phase. Hence, the k-
model was expected to be adequate for qualitatively investigating the
cratering mechanism of the high-vg regime, as it is assumed that the re-
duced accuracy of the k- model only affects the quantitative accuracy of
the predicted erosion rate based on the results of the turbulence model
accuracy test performed for a low-vg jet (discussed in Section 4.1). How-
Fig. 10. Crater depth prediction with varying simulation domain (Model A). ever, an accurate quantitative prediction of the erosion rate is not neces-
sary for identifying the cratering mechanism especially for the case of
DDF or BCF i.e., the dominating mechanism observed for the high-vg
i.e., Model A for the case of sand, results in sufciently high s,fr to pre- regime [31] as the gas penetration and particle trajectories in the
dict an abrupt transition from dynamic to a static bed when the jet is bed, rather than surface erosion rates, are used to identify the cratering
extinguished (high to low shear stress) without predicting unrealistic mechanism [31].
splashes. Predictions of the mass ux (ms s Vs ) plotted on top of s iso-
surfaces in Fig. 12 can be used to identify the mechanism [66] dominat-
ing craters formation in the low-vg regime (base-case condition) and for
4.7. Cratering mechanisms the high-vg regime (near-sonic jet conditions). It should be noted that
while the mass ux magnitude is generally highest in the center of the
Metzger et al. [31] reported results for high- and low-vg cratering ex- shearing region (indicated by the lighter gray vectors), the solids in re-
periments. The low-vg experiments discussed above (Section 4.2 and gions of smaller s are actually moving with the largest Vs, and regions
Section 4.3) were used to validate, quantitatively, the predictions by with higher s are moving with the smallest Vs. The movement of solids
Model A. Metzger et al. [31] used observations of particle movement for the low-vg jet is predicted to occur only in the thin shearing layer of
in the bed to identify the mechanism dominating the crater formation s = 0.020.5 (Fig. 12a), which is consistent with Metzger et al.'s [31]
in each jet-velocity regime, and thus the predicted cratering mechanism description of VE. For the high-vg jet, on the other hand, the movement

Fig. 11. Contour plots of solids volume fraction predicted using the Cartesian simulation with thin wall after (a) t = 0.05 s, (b) t = 0.10 s, (c) t = 0.13 s, and (d) t = 0.40 s. The solid black
(vertical) line indicates the wall and the dotted (horizontal) line represents the initial, undisturbed (t = 0 s) bed height.
80 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

are tangential to the edge of the crater, indicating the DDF mechanism
dominates the crater formation. To verify that BCF does not occur for ei-
ther the low-vg or high-vg cases, the predicted stagnation pressures can
be compared to the bearing capacity of the cratering material. In partic-
ular, the gas pressure in the stagnation region are predicted to be
~800 Pa and ~9000 Pa for the low-vg and high-vg simulations, respec-
tively, but the bearing capacity of sand is on the order of 100,000 Pa
[67], indicating that the BCF mechanism does not occur.
Iso-surface contours of gas velocity magnitude, Vg, plotted on top of
iso-surfaces of s are rendered in Fig. 13 for predictions of the 37 m/s
Argon jet after t = 0.5 s (Fig. 13a) and for the near sonic compressible
Nitrogen jet (Fig. 13b) by Model A. To compare the penetration of the

Fig. 12. Solid phase mass ux (m/s) vectors and solids volume fraction iso-surfaces pre-
dicted by Model A for (a) an Argon jet with vg = 37 m/s at t = 0.5 s and (b) a near-
sonic nitrogen jet at t = 0.067 s. It is important to note that the plot in (a) is zoomed in
to a smaller scale of axial and radial positions than in (b) in order for the mass ux in
the shear region to be observable for both cases.

of the solids phase in the bulk, i.e., s 0.5 (Fig. 12b), indicates that the
dominating mechanism is either DDF or BCF rather than VE. Metzger
et al. [66] determined that the trajectories of particles will be tangential
to the edge of the crater if DDF dominates the crater formation (the gas
from the jet penetrates into the pores and slightly uidizes the particles,
causing them to move with the gas through the bed), and perpendicular
to the crater wall if the dominating mechanism is BCF (the gas jet acts
like a mechanical force that pushes particles downward). The simula- Fig. 13. Gas velocity (m/s) iso-surface contours plotted and volume fraction iso-surfaces
tion predictions are in agreement with Metzger et al.'s [31] experiments predicted by Model A for (a) Argon jet with velocity 37 m/s at t = 0.5 s and (b) a near
as the trajectories of the solids phase predicted in the high-vg simulation sonic nitrogen jet at t = 0.067 s.
C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882 81

jet into the bed for the low-vg and high-vg cases, the Vg shown in Fig. 13 friction coefcient [15,68]. Additionally, comparing predictions of crater
is limited to iso-surfaces with a range of 0 to 1 m/s. The small Vg values growth for a wide range of particles to measurements [69] in order to
below the bed surface presented in Fig. 13a indicates there is little gas determine the robustness of the material-specic frictional stress
penetration for the low-vg case, whereas Fig. 13b illustrates deep pene- model.
tration of the jet into the particle bed in the form of large Vg values deep
below the surface of the crater for the high-vg case. Comparing the gas Nomenclature
velocity magnitude at similar distances below the surface of the dense
CD - Drag coefcient
crater, which is taken here as solids volume fraction associated with ds [L] Particle diameter
the onset of enduring contacts (s = s,min = 0.5), can be used to quan- e - Coefcient of restitution
tify the difference in gas penetration from the jet between the low-vg Fr, Fr [MT2 L1] Empirical material parameter for frictional pressure
and high-vg cases. For the low-vg case, the penetration of gas is quanti- g [LT2] Gravity
go - Radial distribution function
ed by Vg = 0.05 m/s at a distance of ~11 mm below the dense surface I2D [T2] Second Invariant of the Strain Rate Tensor
of the crater, s = 0.5 (Fig. 13a). However, for the high-vg case, at the k [L2 T2] Turbulent kinetic energy
same depth below s = 0.5, the gas velocity magnitude is 0.8 m/s. Fur- L [L] Length
thermore, for the high-vg case, Vg does not reduce to 0.05 m/s until a dis- M [M] Mass
n, n, p, p - Exponent in frictional stress model
tance of 58 mm below s = 0.5 (not shown in Fig. 13b). The DDF
P [MT2 L1] Gas pressure
mechanism occurs when the gas diffuses into the bed faster than the Ps,col [MT2 L1] Solids collisional pressure
solids can move, and the gas drags the particles away from the crater Ps,fr [MT2 L1] Solids frictional pressure
[31]. Accordingly, Vg must be large enough for the drag force to be signif- Ps,kin [MT2 L1] Solids kinetic pressure
icant compared to the particle weight, which is more likely in the high- Rep - Particle Reynolds number
Rg = v'gv'g [L2 T2] Gas phase Reynolds stress
vg case as indicated by the high gas velocities predicted inside of the bed
t [T] Time
(Fig. 13b). Greek symbols
[MT1 L3] Interphase momentum transfer coefcient
5. Conclusions s [MT3 L1] Collision dissipation of Granular Temperature
g - Gas volume fraction
The two-uid model (TFM) including frictional stress models is used -
to predict the crater formation of a particle bed impacted by a subsonic, s - Solids volume fraction
turbulent jet. It is determined here that the crater formation is dominat- s,min - Solids volume fraction when frictional stress is
ed by frictional stresses, and thus crater formation is a promising system activated
s,max - Max packing solid volume fraction
for studying and validating frictional stress models. The frictional stress
[L2 T-3] Turbulent gas dissipation rate
models implemented in this work are based on previously developed [L2 T2] Granular temperature
models [14,20,40,63], which require empirical, material-specic param- s [MT1 L1] Diffusivity of (s = 0, because of steady state
eters. In this work, the effect of the formulation of the frictional stress assumption)
s [MT1 L1] Bulk granular viscosity
model on the behavior of the particle bed is reported for the rst time.
s [MT1 L1] Solids viscosity
In particular, it is demonstrated that the overall frictional stress magni- s,col [MT1 L1] Solids collisional viscosity
tude and the relative magnitude of the frictional pressure to the friction- s,kin [MT1 L1] Solids kinetic viscosity
al viscosity greatly affect the predicted behavior of the bed, which is s,fr [MT1 L1] Solids frictional viscosity
further evidence that these empirical stress models should be used t,g [MT1 L1] Turbulent gas viscosity
Vg , Vs [LT1] Mean velocity vector
with caution. A particle bed is predicted to behave too liquid-like if
v's [LT1] Solids velocity uctuation
the frictional stresses are too low. Additionally, when the frictional pres- s, g [ML3] Density
sure is increased without a comparable increase in the frictional viscos- g, S [MT2 L1] Stress tensor
ity, the bed behaves more liquid-like (e.g., the bed splashes while the jet [Deg] Angle of Internal Friction
is on and collapses immediately after the jet is turned off). Alternatively,
when the frictional viscosity is increased without a comparable increase
in the frictional pressure, the bed acts less liquid-like (e.g., the bed does Acknowledgement
not splash and the bed remains after the jet is turned off).
Furthermore, a new frictional stress model is formulated for 100 This work has been funded by NASA STTR (NNK08EB52C) Phase I
180 m beach sand, Model A, and the predicted crater growth is validat- and II as well as NSF OISE 0968313. The authors are grateful to Dr. Philip
ed using the measurements of Metzger et al. [31]. The frictional stress Metzger for his insightful conversations related to this work.
formulated in this work is based on the models of Johnson and Jackson
[14] and Schaeffer [40] with frictional viscosity increased to account for References
the higher friction between sand particles relative to glass spheres that [1] P.T. Metzger, J.E. Lane, C.D. Immer, S. Clements, Cratering and blowing soil by rocket
is not accounted for in Coulomb's law of friction (i.e., sliding only). The engines during lunar landings, in: H. Benaroya (Ed.), Lunar Settlements, CRC Press,
new frictional model formulation can predict the cratering behavior of Boca Raton, FL 2010, pp. 551576.
[2] A. Sengupta, J. Kulleck, S. Sell, J. Van Norman, M. Mehta, M. Pokora, Mars lander en-
a sand bed with adequate agreement with Metzger et al.'s [31] measure- gine plume impingement environment of the Mars science laboratory, Proceedings
ments for both the high (near sonic) and low (subsonic, turbulent) jet of the 2009 IEEE Aerospace Conference 2009, pp. 110,
velocity regimes. Predictions of the crater formation by new model AERO.2009.4839345.
[3] M. Rhodes, Introduction to Particle Technology, second ed. John Wiley & Sons,
agree quantitatively with Metzger et al.'s [31] measurements for various Chichester, 2008.
experimental conditions (e.g., jet velocities, jet diameters, gas densities, [4] Y. Guo, J.S. Curtis, Discrete element method simulations for complex granular ows,
etc.) in the low-velocity regime. In the high-velocity regime, model pre- Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 47 (2015) 2146,
dictions are in qualitative agreement with the experimental observa-
[5] P. Liu, C.M. Hrenya, Challenges of DEM: I. Competing bottlenecks in parallelization of
tions of Metzger et al. [31]. Additionally, for both velocity regimes, the gassolid ows, Powder Technol. 264 (2014) 620626,
cratering mechanisms predictions agree with the experimentally deter- powtec.2014.04.095.
mined mechanisms [31]. Possible future extensions of this work include [6] R. Jackson, Locally averaged equations of motion for a mixture of identical spherical
particles and a Newtonian uid, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52 (1997) 24572469, http://dx.doi.
investigating crater formation using newer models for frictional viscos- org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)00065-1.
ity that rely on properties measured from particles, e.g., particle-particle [7] R. Jackson, Erratum, Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 (1998) 1955.
82 C.Q. LaMarche et al. / Powder Technology 318 (2017) 6882

[8] T.B. Anderson, R. Jackson, Fluid mechanical description of uidized beds. Equations [36] J.D. Alexander, W.M. Roberds, R.F. Scott, Soil Erosion by Landing Rockets, Hayes In-
of motion, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 6 (1967) 527539, ternational Corp, Birmingham, AL, 1966.
i160024a007. [37] Visibility and dust erosion during the lunar landing, in: L. Roberts, Langley Research
[9] B.G.M. van Wachem, J.C. Schouten, C.M. van den Bleek, R. Krishna, J.L. Sinclair, Com- Center (Eds.), A Compilation of Recent Research Related to the Apollo Mission,
parative analysis of CFD models of dense gassolid systems, AICHE J. 47 (2001) National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA 1963, pp. 155170.
10351051. [38] S. Chapman, T.G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of non-Uniform Gases: An Ac-
[10] C.S. Campbell, Rapid granular ows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 22 (1990) 5792. count of the Kinetic Theory of Viscosity, Thermal Conduction and Diffusion in Gases,
[11] B. Van Wachem, J.C. Schouten, C.M. van den Bleek, R. Krishna, J.L. Sinclair, CFD third ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1970.
modeling of gas-uidized beds with a bimodal particle mixture, AICHE J. 47 [39] D. Gidaspow, Multiphase Flow and Fluidization, Academic Press, 1994.
(2001) 12921302. [40] D.G. Schaeffer, Instability in the evolution equations describing incompressible
[12] C.K.K. Lun, S.B. Savage, D.J. Jeffrey, N. Chepurniy, Kinetic theories for granular ow: granular ow, J. Differ. Equ. 66 (1987) 1950,
inelastic particles in Couette ow and slightly inelastic particles in a general ow 0396(87)90038-6.
eld, J. Fluid Mech. 140 (1984) 223256. [41] J.L. Sinclair, R. Jackson, Gas-Particle ow in a vertical pipe with particle-particle in-
[13] V. Garz, J.W. Dufty, Dense uid transport for inelastic hard spheres, Phys. Rev. E 59 teractions, AICHE J. 35 (1989) 14731486.
(1999) 5895. [42] C. Wen, Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of uidization, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 62 (1966)
[14] P.C. Johnson, R. Jackson, Frictional-collisional constitutive relations for granular ma- 100111.
terials, with applications to plane shearing, J. Fluid Mech. 176 (1987) 6793. [43] P.N. Rowe, Drag forces in a hydraulic model of a uidised bed part II, Trans. Inst.
[15] S. Chialvo, J. Sun, S. Sundaresan, Bridging the rheology of granular ows in three re- Chem. Eng. 39 (1961) 175180.
gimes, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2012), 021305. [44] S.E. Elghobashi, T.W. Abou-Arab, A two-equation turbulence model for two-phase
021305. ows, Phys. Fluids 26 (1983) 931938.
[16] J.K. Mitchell, W.N. Houston, W.D.I. Carrier, N.C. Costes, Apollo Soil Mechanics [45] C. Simonin, P.L. Viollet, Predictions of an oxygen droplet pulverization in a com-
Experiment S-200: Final Report Covering Work Performed Under NASA Contract pressible subsonic coowing hydrogen ow, Num Methods Multiphase Flows.
NAS9-11266, 15 ed., Space Science Laboratory Series, 15, issue 7, 1974. FED-91 1990, pp. 6582.
[17] R.E. Arvidson, R.C. Anderson, P. Bartlett, J.F. Bell, D. Blaney, P.R. Christensen, et al., [46] D. Cokljat, V.A. Ivanov, F.J. Sarasola, S.A. Vasquez, Multiphase k-epsilon models for
Localization and Physical Properties Experiments Conducted by Spirit at Gusev Cra- unstructured meshes, Proceedings of the 2000 ASME Fluids Engineering Division
ter, Science 305 (2004) 821824, Summer Meeting, MA, Boston 2000, pp. 18.
[18] S. Benyahia, Validation Study of Two Continuum Granular Frictional Flow Theories, [47] F.S. Lien, M.A. Leschziner, Assessment of turbulence-transport models including
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 89268932, non-linear RNG eddy-viscosity formulation and second-moment closure for ow
[19] A. Passalacqua, L. Marmo, A critical comparison of frictional stress models applied to over a backward-facing step, Comput. Fluids 23 (1994) 9831004.
the simulation of bubbling uidized beds, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 27952806, [48] B.E. Launder, On the effects of a gravitational eld on the turbulent transport of heat and momentum, J. Fluid Mech. (1975).
[20] A. Srivastava, S. Sundaresan, Analysis of a frictionalkinetic model for gasparticle [49] M.M. Gibson, B.E. Launder, Ground effects on pressure uctuations in the atmo-
ow, Powder Technol. 129 (2003) 7285. spheric boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 86 (1978) 491511.
[21] A. Boemer, H. Qi, U. Renz, Eulerian simulation of bubble formation at a jet in a two- [50] B.E. Launder, Second-moment closure: present and future? Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow
dimensional uidized bed, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 23 (1997) 927944. 10 (1989) 282300,
[22] S. Dan, W. Shuyan, L. Gougdong, W. Shuai, L. Yongjian, W. Lixin, Simulations of ow [51] D. Cokljat, M. Slack, S.A. Vasquez, A. Bakker, Reynolds-stress Model for Eulerian Mul-
behavior of gas and particles in a spouted bed using a second-order moment tiphase, Prog Comp Fluid Dynamics, 6, 2006 168178.
method-frictional stresses model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 26352648, http://dx. [52] S.B. Savage, Analyses of slow high-concentration ows of granular materials, J. Fluid Mech. 377 (1998) 126.
[23] C.R. Duarte, M. Olazar, V.V. Murata, M.A.S. Barrozo, Numerical simulation and exper- [53] A. Schoeld, P. Wroth, Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, London, 1968.
imental study of uidparticle ows in a spouted bed, Powder Technol. 188 (2009) [54] P.C. Johnson, P. Nott, R. Jackson, Frictional collisional equations of motion for partic-
195205, ulate ows and their application to chutes, J. Fluid Mech. 210 (1990) 501535.
[24] O. Gryczka, S. Heinrich, N.G. Deen, M. van Sint Annaland, J.A.M. Kuipers, M. Jacob, [55] S. Torquato, T.M. Truskett, P.G. Debenedetti, Is random close packing of spheres well
et al., Characterization and CFD-modeling of the hydrodynamics of a prismatic dened? Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 20642067,
spouted bed apparatus, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 33523375, PhysRevLett.84.2064.
10.1016/j.ces.2009.04.020. [56] N. Estrada, A. Taboada, F. Radjai, Shear strength and force transmission in granular
[25] R. Hong, H. Li, M. Cheng, J. Zhang, Numerical simulation and verication of a gas- media with rolling resistance, Phys. Rev. E 78 (2008), 021301.
solid jet uidized bed, Powder Technol. 87 (1996) 7381. [57] S. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, CRC Press, New York, 1980.
[26] S.H. Hosseini, G. Ahmadi, B. Saeedi Razavi, W. Zhong, Computational uid dynamic [58] D. Cooper, D.C. Jackson, B.E. Launder, G.X. Liao, Impinging jet studies for turbulence
simulation of hydrodynamic behavior in a two-dimensional conical spouted Bed, model assessmentI. Flow-eld experiments, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. (1993).
Energy Fuel 24 (2010) 60866098, [59] T.J. Craft, L. Graham, B.E. Launder, Impinging jet studies for turbulence model
[27] B. Peng, J. Zhu, C. Zhang, Numerical study on the effect of the air jets at the inlet dis- assessmentII. An examination of the performance of four turbulence models, Int.
tributor in the gassolids circulating uidized-bed risers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 J. Heat Mass Transf. (1993).
(2010) 53105322, [60] J.F. Kok, N.O. Renno, A comprehensive numerical model of steady state saltation
[28] K.G. Santos, V.V. Murata, M.A.S. Barrozo, Three-dimensional computational (COMSALT), J. Geophys. Res. 114 (2009), D17204.
uid dynamics modelling of spouted bed, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 87 (2009) 211219, 2009JD011702. [61] B.R. White, J.C. Schulz, Magnus effect in saltation, J. Fluid Mech. 81 (1977) 497512.
[29] R.P. Utikar, V.V. Ranade, Single jet uidized beds: experiments and CFD simulations [62] X.-Y. Zou, H. Cheng, C.-L. Zhang, Y.-Z. Zhao, Effects of the Magnus and Saffman forces
with glass and polypropylene particles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 167183, http:// on the saltation trajectories of sand grain, Geomorphology 90 (2007) 1122, http://
[30] R. Haehnel, Particle Entrainment Under non-Uniform Flow Created by an Impinging [63] R. Ocone, S. Sundaresan, R. Jackson, Gas-Particle ow in a duct of arbitrary inclina-
jet, Dartmouth College, 2011. tion with particle-particle interactions, AICHE J. 39 (1993) 12611271.
[31] P.T. Metzger, C.D. Immer, C.M. Donahue, B.T. Vu, R.C.I. Latta, M. Deyo-Svendsen, Jet- [64] N. Reuge, L. Cadoret, C. Coufort-Saudejaud, S. Pannala, M. Syamlal, B. Caussat,
induced Cratering of a Granular Surface With Application to Lunar Spaceports, J. Multiuid Eulerian modeling of dense gas-solids uidized bed hydrodynamics: in-
Aerosp. Eng. 22 (2009) 2432, uence of the dissipation parameters, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008) 55405551,
[32] N. Rajaratnam, S. Beltaos, Erosion by impinging circular turbulent jets, J. Hydraul. [65] P.T. Metzger, Personal Communication, 2010.
Div. 103 (1977) 11911205. [66] P.T. Metzger, R.C.I. Latta, J.M. Schuler, C.D. Immer, Craters formed in granular beds by
[33] N. Rajaratnam, K.A. Mazurek, Erosion of a polystyrene bed by obliquely impinging impinging jets of gas, in: M. Nakagawa, S. Ludig (Eds.),Powders and Grains, Proceed-
circular turbulent air jets, J. Hydraul. Res. 40 (2002) 709716, ings of the 6th International Conference on Powders and Grains 2009, pp. 14.
1080/00221680209499917. [67] M. Oda, I. Kotshikawa, Effect of strength anisotropy on bearing capacity of shallow
[34] M. Gunal, A. Guven, Prediction of ow patterns in scoured beds caused by sub- footing in a dense sand, Soils Found. 19 (1979) 1528.
merged horizontal jets, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33 (2006) 4148, [68] P. Jop, Y. Forterre, O. Pouliquen, A constitutive law for dense granular ows, Nature
1139/l05-079. 441 (2006) 727730,
[35] O.A. Karim, K.H.M. Ali, Prediction of ow patterns in local scour holes caused by tur- [69] C.Q. LaMarche, J.S. Curtis, Cratering of a particle bed by a subsonic turbulent jet: ef-
bulent water jets, J. Hydraul. Res. 38 (2000) 279287, fect of particle shape, size and density, Chem. Eng. Sci. 138 (2015) 432445.