Experiments in Fluids 23 (1997) 463—471 ( Springer-Verlag 1997
On the behaviour of solid particles in a horizontal boundary layer
with turbulence and saltation effects
A. Tanière, B. Oesterlé, J. C. Monnier
Abstract A horizontal turbulent boundary layer of air carry-
ing heavy solid particles is investigated experimentally. Mean
and r.m.s. velocities of air and particles are measured by LDA,
and particle mass flux distributions are obtained by means of
a sampling method. The influence of the saltation mechanism
is revealed by the large particle r.m.s. velocity in the near-wall
region, and by the velocity lag of the particles in the outer
region of the boundary layer, which is shown to be closely
related to their free fall velocity. The present original results are
discussed and compared with available experimental data
concerning other kinds of horizontal flows.
List of symbols
d particle diameter (m)
p p
dI dimensionless particle diameter [\d (gc /l2)1/3]
p p p
g gravitational acceleration (m s~2)
q volume flow rate (m3 s~1)
V p
Re Reynolds number in the experiments of Kaftori et al.
h l
(1995)
Re Reynolds number based on the momentum thick-
h p
ness
S Stokes number q /q
l p l
S Stokes number q /q
L p L
u
f
mean fluid velocity (m s~1)
u mean particle velocity ( s~1)
p
u` dimensionless fluid velocity (\u /u )
f q
u@ streamwise r.m.s. velocity of the fluid (m s~1)
f
u@ streamwise r.m.s. velocity of the particles (m s~1)
p
u friction velocity (m s~1)
q
uJ dimensionless friction velocity [\u (gc l)~1/3]
q q p
Received: 17 June 1996 /Accepted: 3 April 1997
A. Tanière, B. Oesterlé
Laboratoire Universitaire de Mécanique et d’Energétique de Nancy
(LUMEN) ESSTIN, Université Henri Poincaré-Nancy 1,
F-54500 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France
J. C. Monnier
Institut de Mécanique des Fluides de Lille (IMFL)
5, boulevard Paul Painlevé, F-59000 Lille, France
Correspondence to: B. Oesterlé
This research was carried out at the Départment d’Energétique
Industrielle, Ecole des Mines de Douai, France, thanks to Prof.
B. Baudoin, whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
463
U fluid free-stream velocity (m s~1)
v@ vertical r.m.s. velocity of the fluid (m s~1)
f
v@ vertical r.m.s. velocity of the particles (m s~1)
p
V particle free fall velocity (m s~1)
g
x Cartesian co-ordinate in the streamwise direction
(m)
y Cartesian co-ordinate in vertical direction (distance
from the bottom wall) (m)
y` dimensionless distance from the wall (\yu /l)
q
z horizontal transverse Cartesian co-ordinate (dis-
tance from the side wall) (m)
d boundary layer thickness (m)
e mean volume fraction of the solid phase
c density parameter [\(o [o )/o ]
p f f
l fluid kinematic viscosity (m2 s~1)
o fluid density (kg m~3)
f
o particle density (kg m~3)
q Kolmogorov time scale (s)
q time scale of large turbulent structures (s)
L
q particle relaxation time (s)
1
Introduction
Although two-phase flows are very common in industrial and
environmental processes, their knowledge is still incomplete.
As an example, we can mention the problem of contaminant
dispersion in the atmosphere, which is directly related to the
understanding of take-off phenomena and particle behaviour
in a turbulent boundary layer. This paper presents an experi-
mental investigation related to the problem of solid particle
transport in a horizontal boundary layer.
The mechanism of particle transport in boundary layers has
been investigated little as yet, except in the case of very fine
particles, whose behaviour is purely induced by turbulent
diffusion (Poreh and Hsu 1971; Lee and Dukler 1981). With
increasing particle size, inertia effects and body forces may
play a significant role on the dispersion process. An experi-
mental study of the dispersion of solid particles in a vertical
boundary layer was carried out by Rogers and Eaton (1990),
who showed that the mean fluid flow is not affected by the
presence of the particulate phase at low loading, and that the
particle velocity fluctuations are strongly attenuated in the
transverse direction. Particular attention has been paid re-
cently on the effect of organized turbulent structures: particle
transport by the bursting events of the wall region has
been studied by Rashidi et al. (1990), whereas Eaton and
 Fessler (1994) pointed out the occurrence of preferential
concentration due to coherent vortical structures. The role of
such coherent structures has been investigated experimentally
by Komori et al. (1995), as well as by Isdiyana (1993) or
Ushijima and Perkins (1995), who used a Lagrangian tech-
nique. The most comprehensive experimental work concern-
ing the particle behaviour in a horizontal turbulent boundary
layer is due to Kaftori et al. (1995), who studied the motion of
solid particles near the wall in a water channel by means of
visualization techniques and LDA, and measured the velocity,
flux and concentration distributions.
464 Studies related to particle take-off phenomena in a turbulent
boundary layer have been initiated by Bagnold (1943), who
showed that particles take off in the same manner whatever
their diameters are. After the take-off, various behaviours
are observed, since particles are more or less influenced
by the turbulence. It has been proposed recently to define
four specific behaviours (Foucaut et al. 1996), which can be
characterized by criteria based on some time scale ratios which
are similar to Stokes numbers. The particle relaxation time
q is compared to the time scale q and q of the smallest
p l L the fluid kinematic viscosity, g is the gravitational acceleration,
(Kolmogorov) and biggest turbulent structures, respectively.
For very small particles, which satisfy
q take-off friction velocity can be deduced from the take-off
Sl\ p@1 (1)
ql
the velocity fluctuations are practically equal to those of the
fluid. This behaviour is called ‘‘pure suspension’’. On the
contrary, ‘‘pure saltation’’ is observed for particles whose
behaviour is not influenced by turbulence effects, but is
governed by inertia, gravity, and particle-wall collision phe-
nomena, keeping in mind that we are dealing with a horizontal
boundary layer. Such particles, which exhibit ballistic trajecto-
ries, are characterized by the following inequality:
q work of Kaftori et al. (1995).
SL\ p A1 (2)
qL
Between such asymptotic behaviours, i.e. when the particle
relaxation time is of the same order as some time scales of the
fluid turbulent fluctuations, one may expect some evolution of
the mean relative velocity of the particles with respect to the
fluid, as well as some changes in the effect of particle—wall
interactions. This kind of mixture is called herein ‘‘interactive
medium’’. In such a medium, two possible behaviours can be
distinguished, according to the value of the ratio V /v@ , where
g f
V is the particle free fall velocity, and v@ is the vertical r.m.s.
g f
velocity of the fluid. The parameter V /v@ , which is often called
g f
the crossing-trajectory parameter, was introduced by Yudine
(1959). If this quantity is smaller than 1, we define a ‘‘modified
suspension state’’. Should it exceed 1, the ‘‘modified saltation
state’’ is defined. Hence, a continuous progress between the
two asymptotic behaviours is obtained, as illustrated in Fig. 1
by Foucaut’s take-off curve (Foucaut et al. 1996), which is
a plot of the dimensionless take-off threshold friction velocity
uJ as a function of the dimensionless particle diameter dI , these
q p
two quantities being defined by
uq
uJ q\ (3)
(gcpv)1/3
Fig. 1. Various behaviours illustrated by Foucaut’s take-off curve
(q is defined by q \v@ /g)
g g f
A B
gc 1/3
dI q\dp p (4)
v2
where u is the friction velocity, d is the particle diameter, l is
q p
and c \(o /o )[1 (o particle material density, o fluid
p p f p f
density). For a particle with given d and o , the minimum
p p
curve in Fig. 1.
The aim of the present study is to identify the particle
behaviour in the flow after take-off, by means of the experi-
mental investigation of a horizontal air—solid turbulent
boundary layer on a flat plate. The particle concentration is
sufficiently low for the disturbance of the flow and the effect of
collisions between particles being negligible. After describing
the experimental method, the flow conditions and the particle
characteristics, original results concerning the profiles of mean
and r.m.s. velocities of both phases, as well as the mass flux
distributions, are presented and discussed with reference to the
2
Experimental apparatus and techniques
2.1
Wind tunnel
The wind tunnel used in this study, sketched in Fig. 2, has
a total length of 13.2 m. The co-ordinate system referred to in
the following sections is shown in the figure. The working
section is 5.7 m long, and has a 0.5 m wide, 0.47 m high
rectangular cross-section, with smooth walls. The boundary
layer thickness is about 10 cm at the end of the test section. The
maximum velocity is 25 m/s. A rough paper tape is set at the
wall between the end of the contraction and the inlet of the test
section, in order to activate the boundary layer transition. Solid
particles are introduced in section T1 (see Fig. 2), at x\3.17 m.
Velocity and mass flux measurements are carried out in section
T2, which extends from x\5.0 m to x\5.6 m, by Laser
Doppler anemometry and by sampling, respectively. The
Dantec Laser equipment is made up of a one-component argon
Laser (power 1.6 W, wave length 514.5 nm) and a Burst
Spectrum Analyser (BSA), intended to perform the photomul-
tiplicator signal analysis.

Fig. 3. The particle feeder
2.2
Particle seeding and sampling device
In order to generate appropriate initial conditions for particle
take-off, an original seeding method was developed, which
allows particles to be introduced into the flow with a very small
initial velocity, yielding a sufficiently low particle concentra-
tion. As shown by Fig. 3, particles are stored in a small tank
located under the bottom wall of the section T1, and are intro-
duced in the flow via a 10]400 mm slot, by means of an up-
wards moving piston which is driven by an electric motor.
An endless screw demultiplying system has been chosen in
order to obtain a low piston velocity (which is controlled by the
computer) and a high torque. To avoid agglomeration of the
particles as they emerge into the flow, a grid is placed at the
upper exit of the chamber, so that homogeneous and steady
Fig. 2. Experimental facility
465
Fig. 4. Sampling system
injection conditions are obtained by controlling the piston
velocity (via the Personal Computer), which is kept strictly
constant during the time of an experiment (about 3 mn).
Particular attention was paid to setting the piston velocity at
exactly the same value, namely 0.3 mm/s, in each experiment,
in order to obtain reproducible particle concentration and
injection conditions. Under such conditions, the mean volume
fraction is about 5]10~6. Before each new experiment,
particles are manually loaded into the chamber. The particle
feeder has been tested using various kinds of particles. No
agglomeration was observed for the particles used in the
present experiments (particle characteristics are described
hereafter). The steadiness and the repeatability of the particle
flow were verified within 5% by performing successive mass
flux and velocity measurements at the same y-locations.
The sampling system is illustrated in Fig. 4: the sampling
probe, which can be displaced along the vertical direction
(y-axis), is connected to the suction device in order to satisfy
the conditions for isokinetic sampling, and to promote the
particle transit toward the collector. The entry of the sampling
probe is 3.5 mm high and 30 mm wide. For the measurement
of particle mass flux, sampling is operated during a specific
time (60 s), and the corresponding collected particle mass is
obtained by weighing on a balance having a sensitivity of 1 mg.
Any deposition in the sampling probe or in the tube is avoided
by blowing air at low pressure after each measurement. This
operation is automatically achieved by means of the computer-
controlled distributor.
 Table 1. Flow characteristics Table 3. Particle characteristic time scale ratios

x 5.06 m 5.51 m Mean diameter d 60 lm (glass) 130 lm (PVC)

p
l 1.5]10~5 m2 s~1
o 1.19 kg m~3 q /q 27.9 58.5
f p l
U 10.6 m s~1 V /v@ 0.64 1.33
g f
u 0.40 m s~1 0.39 m s~1 q /q 0.41 0.867
q p L
d 0.065 m 0.070 m
Re 6260 6700
h
q 9.05]10~4 s 9.4]10~4 s
l
q 0.061 s 0.066 s The behaviour of the particles after taking off can be
L
predicted by evaluating the Stokes numbers S and S , as well as
466 l L
the crossing-trajectory parameter V /v@ . Results presented in
Table 2. Particle data g f
Table 3 show that particles are neither in pure suspension nor
Mean diameter d 60 lm (glass) 130 lm (PVC) in pure saltation. Their behaviour will therefore be related
p
to both turbulence and particle inertia effects. A significant
Diameter standard 18.0 lm 46.2 lm velocity lag between the fluid and the particles may exist, and
deviation some particle—wall interaction effects may be expected. As it
is known, the r.m.s. fluid velocity is of the same order as
o 2500 kg m~3 1430 kg m~3
p the friction velocity u (Rotta 1962), so that the crossing
q
V
1.48]10~6 m3 s~1 q
e trajectory parameter V /v@ can be assessed in replacing v@ by u .
4.55]10~6 g f f q
q 0.0252 s 0.0529 s According to the above-mentioned criteria, the 60 lm particles
p
V
g
0.25 m s~1 0.52 m s~1 should exhibit a modified suspension behaviour, whereas
significant effects of particle—wall collisions may be expected in
the case of the 130 lm particles. Such predictions concerning
2.3 the particle behaviour need to be confirmed through compari-
Flow and particle properties son with experimental results.
The main characteristics of the flow and particles used in the
present experiments are given in Tables 1 and 2. The mean 3
velocity and turbulence intensity profiles in the pure gas Results
boundary layer, obtained by means of a single hot wire
anemometer, can be found in Foucaut’s work (1994). The 3.1
free-stream air velocity is U\10.6 m/s at x\5.06 m, and the Preliminary measurements
corresponding friction velocity is 0.40 m/s. In Table 1, d stands In order to check the two-dimensional character of the flow,
for the conventional boundary layer thickness, and Re is the fluid mean velocity profiles have been measured at two
h
Reynolds number based on the momentum thickness. The time different lateral locations, namely z\180 mm and z\250 mm
scales q and q were estimated by (distance from the side wall). Such profiles, obtained without
l L
particles, were observed to be in very good agreement,
therefore the two-dimensional boundary layer flow provided

A B
ld 1/2 d
ql+ , qL+
(0.1 U)3 0.1 U
Two kinds of spherical particles have been used in our
experimental investigations: 60 lm diameter glass beads
(density 2500 kg/m3) and 130 lm diameter PVC beads (density
1430 kg/m3). Diameter standard deviations, reported in
Table 2, show that the PVC particles have a rather wide size
distribution. The corresponding dimensionless diameters dI ,
p
according to Eq. (4), are 2.7 and 4.9, respectively. From Fig. 1,
the values of the take-off friction velocities can be deduced for
each kind of particles: one obtains 0.20 m/s for d \60 lm, and
p
0.17 m/s for d \130 lm. It can be concluded that the present
p
friction velocity of 0.40 m/s is high enough for both kinds of
particles to take off and to be transported by the boundary
layer flow. In Table 2, q denotes the volumetric solid flow
V
rate, and e is an estimate of the mean volume fraction of the
solid phase. The particle relaxation time q and free fall velocity
p
V , which are related by V \g q , were calculated using the
g g p
drag coefficient correlation proposed by Morsi and Alexander
(1972), inasmuch as the particle Reynolds numbers based on V
g
lie in the range 1—10, thus precluding the use of Stokes’ law.
(5) by the wind tunnel can be considered to be of satisfactory
quality.
The influence of the particles on the fluid flow can be
estimated in measuring the fluid velocity profile in the
presence of solid particles. Measurements have been made
possible by using incense smoke as tracer particles for the fluid
flow, and in adjusting the apparatus in order to exclude the
signals coming from the glass or PVC beads, so that only
signals diffused by tracer particles are detected. Such a distinc-
tion was performed via the Burst Spectrum Analyser, using an
amplitude discrimination technique. As emphasized by Kulick
et al. (1993), inter-phase crosstalk may be caused by large
particles passing through the edge of the measurement volume,
thus having scattering intensities which are comparable with
those of incense tracer particles. In order to reduce this source
of uncertainty, the number of fringes has been chosen as large
as possible (namely 32), and particular attention has been paid
to the scattered light amplitude reduction, as recommended by
Fessler and Eaton (1995).
The mean fluid velocity profiles obtained at x\5.06 m for
the pure gas flow and for the particle laden flow (with 60 lm
particles) are presented in Fig. 5, which is a logarithmic

Fig. 5. Influence of the solid phase on the mean fluid velocity profiles
(x\5.06 m): d Without particles, n with particles (d \60 lm); (the
p law of the wall u`\2.43 ln y`]5.6)
solid line represents the law of the wall u`\2.43 ln y`]5.6)
Fig. 6. Influence of the solid phase on the r.m.s. fluid velocity profiles
(x\5.06 m); d Without particles; n with particles (d \60 lm)
p n 60 lm particles; K 130 lm particles (the solid line represents the
presentation of the dimensionless velocity u`\u /u as
f q
a function of the dimensionless wall distance y`\yu /l (u
q f
being the local mean fluid velocity). Comparison between both
profiles shows that the flow is not significantly altered by the
particles. A slight reduction of the turbulence level near the
wall can be observed in examining the streamwise r.m.s. fluid
velocity profiles (Fig. 6). However, such a reduction was not
detected for the 130 lm particles. Taking into account the very
low concentration of the solid phase, whose local volume
fraction does not exceed 10~4, even near the wall, it is believed
that the apparent turbulence level reduction is rather due to the
noisy character of the data.
3.2
Mean velocity profiles
Particle mean velocities have been measured in averaging over
no less than 2000 particles, except near the outer edge of the
467
Fig. 7. Particle and fluid mean velocity profiles at x\5.06 m: d air,
n 60 lm particles; K 130 lm particles (the solid line represents the
Fig. 8. Particle and fluid mean velocity profiles at x\5.51 m: d air;
law of the wall u`\2.43 ln y`]5.6)
boundary layer, due to the very low concentration. In Fig. 7,
the dimensionless mean velocity profiles of the solid phase at
x\5.06 m are displayed and compared with the mean fluid
velocity profile. The same comparison at x\5.51 m is illus-
trated in Fig. 8. The fluid and particle distributions are seen to
have similar shapes. However, it can be noticed that the mean
particle velocity is lower than that of the fluid, except very close
to the wall. Such velocity distributions are similar to the
profiles observed in gas-solid pipe flows, e.g. by Tsuji and
Morikawa (1982). A linear plot of the reduced velocities u /U
p
and u /U as a function of y/d is displayed in Fig. 9, in order to
f
examine the particle behaviour near the wall. It is seen that the
particle velocity noticeably deviates from the fluid velocity, this
effect being more pronounced for larger particles. For both
diameters, the particle mean velocity reaches a nonzero value
at the wall. The presence of such a relative velocity between the
two phases confirms that the particle behaviour belongs to the
468
Fig. 9. Particle and fluid mean velocities in the near-wall region:
d air; n 60 lm particles; K 130 lm particles (measurements at
x\5.06 m and x\5.51 m have been gathered)
Fig. 10. Mean relative velocity distribution at x\5.51 m: n 60 lm
particles; K 130 lm particles
so-called interactive medium. In Fig. 10, the reduced mean
relative velocity, (u [u )/U, is plotted versus the reduced wall
f p
distance y/d, at x\5.51 m. It must be pointed out that this plot
has been obtained by measuring directly the local relative
velocity through the above-described technique, using incense
smoke and amplitude discrimination in order to get simulta-
neous measurements of the fluid and the particle velocities.
The corresponding values of the relative velocity are therefore
more accurate than the values which could have been obtained
by reading the plots in the previous figures. The negative
relative velocity at the wall is in accordance with the previous
observation, since the mean particle velocity was found to be
larger than that of the fluid close to the wall. This phenomenon
is particularly significant for the 130 lm particles, denoting the
influence of particle—wall interactions, and confirming that the
behaviour of such particles can be regarded as a modified
Fig. 11. Particle and fluid r.m.s. velocity profiles at x\5.06 m:
d u@ /u , n u@ /u (60 lm), K u@ /u (130 lm); r v@ /u ]v@ /u (60 lm),
f q p q p q f q p q
s v@ /u (130 lm)
p q
saltation behaviour. In spite of the noisy character of the data,
the relative velocity seems to pass through a maximum around
y/d+0.05 for both particle diameters. The maximum value of
the relative velocity is about 1 m/s for d \130 lm and 0.6 m/s
p
for d \60 lm. For y/d[0.2, the mean relative velocity
p
decreases with increasing y, and reaches an asymptotic value
which seems to be close to the free fall velocity V , although
g
reliable measurements for the 130 lm particles in the outer
region of the boundary layer could not be obtained due to the
low number of particles. So, both kinds of particles are seen to
exhibit the same qualitative behaviour, however a quantitative
distinction might be made in view of the magnitude of the
relative velocity, which seems to be related to the particle
free fall velocity, thus to particle inertia. Such a speculation,
which needs to be confirmed by further experiments, may be
supported by the fact that the velocity lag of the particles
outside the near-wall region is connected to the axial mo-
mentum loss undergone by the particles when impacting
the wall and rebounding. As a matter of fact, the difference
between the streamwise velocity components of a particle just
before and just after collision, which can be computed by
means of Coulomb’s law in terms of the friction and restitution
coefficients (see Oesterlé 1989), is generally of the order of the
vertical impaction velocity, which is close to V . Due to particle
g
inertia, such a velocity defect may last during the upward
motion of the particles, thus making the average particle
velocity in the outer region of the boundary layer to be
significantly smaller than the fluid velocity.
3.3
Particle velocity fluctuations
In Fig. 11, the particle streamwise and vertical r.m.s. velocities,
denoted respectively by u@ and v@ , are plotted as a function of
p p
the dimensionless wall distance y`. The particle r.m.s. vel-
ocities, non-dimensionalized by the friction velocity, are also
compared to the fluid velocity fluctuations. Concerning
the streamwise component, no significant difference can
be observed between the 60 lm and the 130 lm particles.
Fig. 12. Up and down motion of saltating particles
However, it is a little surprising that the streamwise particle
turbulence intensities are larger than those of the fluid. This
phenomenon, which is related to the measurement technique,
may be explained in keeping in mind that we are dealing here
with a flow where particles undergo the effect of inertia and
gravity. So, among the particles which are located within the
probe volume of the LDA, some are moving upwards and some
are moving downwards, as illustrated by Fig. 12. On the
average, the upwards moving particles have a smaller horizon-
tal velocity, due to the wall collision they have undergone, and
the downwards moving particles have a larger horizontal
velocity, since they have been accelerated by the fluid for
a longer time. This argument is consistent with the experi-
mental trajectories reported by Ciccone et al. (1990), who
developed an original technique to track saltating sand
particles in a turbulent boundary layer. Such velocity differ-
ences are taken into account by the BSA in performing the
averaging operation, and that is the reason why the particle
r.m.s. velocities plotted in Fig. 11 must be interpreted as
agitation velocities, not only due to fluid turbulence but also
due to inertia and gravity effects. The present results indicate
that the latter effect may prevail over the turbulence effect in
the case of saltation flows. Another cause of particle velocity
fluctuations may be the size distribution, since the particles
used here cannot be regarded as monodisperse. Soo et al.
(1960), who experimentally studied a horizontal gas—solid pipe
flow, with 100 lm and 200 lm glass particles, observed the
same fact but they did not give any explanations. In the same
kind of flow, Tsuji and Morikawa (1982) also obtained large
fluctuating velocities for 200 lm plastic particles. These
authors pointed out that the main mechanism of particle
velocity fluctuations is different from gas turbulence. Particle
velocity fluctuations exceeding the fluid turbulent fluctuations
have also been observed in a liquid-solid channel flow by
Kaftori et al. (1995), whose results will be discussed and
compared with the present results in the next section.
Contrary to streamwise fluctuations, results concerning the
transverse velocity fluctuations near the wall show a significant
difference between both kinds of particles, as can also be
seen in Fig. 13, which is a zoom of the near-wall region. In
particular, a peak appears on the 130 lm particle curve,
revealing phenomena which take place at the wall, connected
with particle rebounds. In carefully examining the values of
v@ /u near the wall, and taking into account V /u \0.63 for
p q g q
d \60 lm and V /u \1.3 for d \130 lm, it is found that the
p g q p
maximum value of v@ is close to the value of the free fall
p
velocity. The absence of such a peak for the 60 lm particles
would therefore be due to the fact that their free fall velocity is
469
Fig. 13. Vertical r.m.s. velocity profiles in the near-wall region
(x\5.06 m) r v@ /u , n v@ /u (60 lm), K v@ /u (130 lm)
f q p q p q
smaller than the value of v@ outside the near-wall region. These
p
observations clearly show that there are two different behav-
iours in the interactive medium. The difference lies essentially
in the characteristics of the transverse (or vertical) velocity
fluctuations in the near-wall region.
3.4
Mass flux measurements
It is well known that isokinetic sampling is theoretically
required for the concentration measurements to be accurate.
Isokinetic conditions, which are completed when the velocity
of air through the entry of the probe matches that of the
approaching stream, are obtained by adjusting the suction flow
rate. However, Azzi (1986) showed that there is a range of
sampling flow rates where the sampled mass is only weakly
dependent upon the suction flow rate. This fact is confirmed by
the results displayed in Fig. 14, which is a plot of the mass of
particles collected during 60 s as a function of the suction flow
rate, for three different locations of the probe. It is seen that,
for a suction rate lying between 2.5 and 3.5 m3/h, the measured
mass flux does not depend on the suction velocity (arrows
indicate the theoretical flow rate for isokinetic sampling).
Additional tests were carried out by performing, for both kinds
of particles, a mass balance using the measured values of
the mass fluxes in terms of the height y: the overall mass
conservation was satisfied within 8%. Such preliminary
measurements allow to ascertain the reliability and the
accuracy of the mass flux distributions presented hereafter.
In Fig. 15, profiles of particle mass flux at x\5.06 m have
been presented in plotting the percentage of the sampled mass
against the total collected mass versus the dimensionless wall
distance y`. Samplings were performed each 3.5 mm, which
corresponds to the height of the inlet section of the probe.
As could be expected, the particle flux is decreasing with
increasing distance from the wall for both kinds of particles,
the mass flux profiles exhibiting an exponential shape. It
can be observed that the 60 lm particles, which are lighter,
reach higher elevations than the 130 lm, and that their flux
distribution is a little more homogeneous. Near the wall, the
130 lm particle flux is larger, due to the gravity force, which
470
Fig. 14. Influence of the suction flow rate on the mass collected by the
sampling probe
Fig. 15. Profiles of particle mass flux at x\5.06 m. n 60 lm particles;
K 130 lm particles
makes heavier particles to leave more easily the turbulent
structures, and to be attracted towards the wall. Similar mass
flux distributions have been obtained by Kaftori et al. (1995),
who investigated a water channel flow carrying solid particles.
Although the carrier fluid is different, it seems interesting to
compare their experimental results with the present ones, and
to discuss the problem of coupling between turbulence and
saltation effects with relevance to the various particle behav-
iours we distinguished in the introductory section.
4 ing to notice the difference in the distributions of the present
Further discussion
So far, there have been very few measurements of average
and r.m.s. velocities in boundary layer flows carrying heavy
particles, which may significantly interact with the wall. Similar
measurements to the present were made in a horizontal water
Fig. 16. A comparison between the present mass flux profiles and the
results of Kaftori et al. (1995): K Present results, d \130 lm, S \58.5,
p l
S \0.867; n Present result, d \60 lm, S \27.9, S \0.41; ] Kaftori
L p l L
et al. (1995), d \900 lm, S \1.50, S \0.045; s Kaftori et al. (1995),
p l L
d \275 lm, S \0.138, S \0.0041; j Kaftori et al. (1995),
p l L
d \100 lm, S \0.018, S \0.0005
p l L
channel flow by Kaftori et al. (1995), who used polystyrene
particles, having a density of 1050 kg/m3, at three nominal
sizes: 100, 275 and 900 lm. Velocities and mass flux profiles of
particles were measured by LDA for three Reynolds number
Re based on water height: 5000, 10 000, 15 000. On the whole,
h
the distributions of mean velocity, r.m.s. velocities and mass
flux have the same characteristics as ours. Except in the region
close to the wall, where particles are found to have a nonzero
velocity, the mean fluid velocity was higher than the mean
particle velocity: this is quite similar to the results presented in
the previous section. The same resemblance can be found in
examining the particle flux distribution, as shown by Fig. 16,
where the results of Kaftori et al. at Re \10 000 are compared
h
with the present measurements. In order to comment the
observed profiles with relevance to the particle characteristics,
it is necessary to estimate, for each kind of particles, the time
scale ratios defined by eqs. (1) and (2). Corresponding results,
which are presented in the caption of Fig. 16, show that the
100 lm and 275 lm particles used by Kaftori et al. have a pure
suspension behaviour, according to the small value of the
Stokes number S \q /q . As a consequence, such particles are
l p l
much more homogeneously distributed throughout the flow,
though a significant increase can be observed close to the wall
for the 275 lm particles, whose behaviour is at the border of
the interactive medium. The values of S for the other particles
l
are beyond the limit of pure suspension, and that is the reason
why their mass flux profiles have similar shapes. It is interest-
130 lm particles and the 900 lm particles used by Kaftori et al.:
taking into account the distinction between the carrier fluids,
these two kinds of particles have almost the same relaxation
time q , but the corresponding Stokes numbers S are not of
p l
the same order of magnitude, due to the high value of the
Kolmogorov time scale in the water flow compared to the air
flow. Therefore, a more homogeneous flux distribution could
be expected for the 900 lm particles in water, which have
a modified suspension behaviour, than for the 130 lm particles
in air, which were shown to have a modified saltation
behaviour: this prediction is confirmed by the results displayed
in Fig. 16. This shows that the Stokes number S is a very
l
important parameter for the prediction of the particle behav-
iour, as pointed out, among others, by Eaton and Fessler (1994)
who emphasized the major role of such a Stokes number for
particle-turbulence interactions.
Hence, the saltation mechanism is believed to play a major
role in the present study, particularly for the 130 lm particles
in the neighbourhood of the wall, whereas the particle
behaviour is mainly governed by turbulent structures in the
case of Kaftori’s experiments. According to Kaftori et al.
(1995), the process of particle ejection from the wall is
associated with ‘‘high-speed sweeps’’, and the overall average
relative velocity between fluid and particles is a consequence of
particle inertia, which causes the particle velocity to be lower
than the velocity of the entraining turbulent structure. In the
case of larger particles, as in the present experiments, whose
relaxation time is of the same order as the time scale of the
large turbulent structures, the significant effect of particle—wall
interactions has been demonstrated. This effect makes the
average relative velocity, as well as the particle transverse r.m.s.
velocity close to the wall to be of the same order as the particle
free fall velocity.
References
Azzi M (1986) Etude des profiles de flux de particules dans
l’écoulement vertical établi d’une suspension gaz-solide. Thèse de
Doctorat, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France
Bagnold R (1943) The physics of blown sand and desert dunes. New
York: Morrow
Ciccone AD; Kawall JG; Keffer JF (1990) Flow visualization/digital
image analysis of saltating particle motions. Exp Fluids 9: 65—73
Eaton JK; Fessler JR (1994) Preferential concentration of particles by
turbulence. Int J Multiphase Flow 20: 169—209
Fessler JR; Eaton JK (1995) Particle-turbulence interaction in a back-
ward-facing step flow. Report no MD-70, Thermosciences Division,
Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, California
Foucaut JM (1994) Etude théorique et expérimentale des phénomènes
d’envol et de saltation de particules dans une couche limite
turbulente. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Lille I, France
Foucaut JM; Tanière A; Stanislas M (1996) A criterion for particle
suspension in a turbulent boundary layer. C. R. Acad Sci Paris 322,
IIb, 291—294
Isdiyana (1993) Simulation lagrangienne du transport des particules
solides en suspension dans une couche limite turbulente. Thèse de
Doctorat, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, France
Kaftori D; Hestroni G; Banerjee S (1995) Particle behavior in the
turbulent boundary layer. II. Velocity and distribution profiles. Phys
Fluids 7: 1107—1121
Komori S; Kurose R; Murakami Y; Hanazaki H (1995) Particle motion 471
and turbulence structure in particle-rough-wall boundary layer.
Proc 2nd Int Conf on Multiphase Flow, Kyoto, Japan, PT3, pp 31—34
Kulick JD; Fessler JR; Eaton JK (1993) On the interactions between
particles and turbulence in a fully-developed channel flow in air.
Report no MD-66. Thermosciences Division, Dept of Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford University, California
Lee N; Dukler AE (1981) A stochastic model for turbulent diffusion of
particles or drops. AIChE J 27: 552—557
Morsi SA; Alexander AJ (1972) An investigation of particle trajectories
in two phase flow systems. J Fluid Mech 55: 193—208
Oesterlé B (1989) Internal kinetic transfers in the dispersed phase of
a low concentration suspension flow. Int J Multiphase Flow 15:
155—171
Poreh M; Hsu KS (1971) Diffusion from a line source in a turbulent
boundary layer. J Heat and Mass Transfer 14: 1473—1483
Rashidi M; Hestroni G; Banerjee S (1990) Particle-turbulence
interaction in a boundary layer. Int J Multiphase Flow 16:
935—949
Rogers CB; Eaton JK (1990) The behavior of solid particles in a vertical
turbulent boundary layer in air. Int J Multiphase Flow 16: 819—834
Rotta JC (1962) Turbulent boundary layers in incompressible flow.
Prog Aerospace Sci 2: 219
Soo L; Ihrig HK; Kouh AF (1960) Experimental determination of
statistical properties of two-phase turbulent motion. Trans ASME
82: 609—621
Tsuji Y; Morikawa Y (1982) LDV measurements of an air—solid
two-phase flow in a horizontal pipe. J Fluid Mech 120: 385—409
Ushijima T; Perkins RJ (1995) The dispersion of heavy particles in
a turbulent boundary layer. Proc 2nd Int Conf of Multiphase Flow,
Kyoto, Japan, PT3, 1—7
Yudine MI (1959) Physical considerations on heavy particle disper-
sion. Proc Int Symp on Atmospheric Diffusion and Air Pollution.
Adv Geophys 6: 185—191