Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering
1989
F. Tom Chang
Recommended Citation
Lennon, Gerard P. and Chang, F. Tom, "Fluidization of granular media in unbounded two-dimensional domains: numerical
calculations of incipient conditions, 70p (no date but assume 1989)" (1989). Fritz Laboratory Reports. Paper 2335.
http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/2335
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
preserve@lehigh.edu.
I
I
I FLUIDIZATION OF GRANULAR MEDIA
I
I
by
I Lehigh University
I Bethlehem, PA 18015
I
I
I
I
IMBT Hydraulics Lab Report #IHL-124-89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
I
I From the theory of flow through porous media, the
charts.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1.0 INTRODUCTION
I
I 1.1 Traditional Applications of Fluidization
I
Extensive work on one-dimensional fluidization has allowed
I the development of the theoretical minimum fluidization
I
I
I
I Cleasby, 1972; and Cleasby and Fan, 1981).
I
v = KJ (1.1)
I
I where K is the hydraulic conductivity (coefficient of
I
I
I
I 1.2 Application to the coastal Environment
I
The objective of the present study is to predict Qi' the
I superficial fluid flow rate required to initiate fluidization
I
I
I
I differential equation and boundary conditions for h are
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
t· 2.0 RANGE OF VALIDITY OF DARCY'S LAW
I J = AV + BV 2 ( 2. 1)
I·
where A and Bare coefficients to be determined (Bear, 1972).
I The second term in Eq. 2.1 is negligible compared to the first
,, limited by
section.
J = 1.02 (top of Fig. 2.1) as discussed in the next
Smaller grain sizes have lower values of maximum J
I
I
I
I
I 2.1 Experimental Data of Roberts et al. (1986)
I
I
I,
I
I Up to incipient fluidization, almost half of the flow is
into areas that won't fluidize even at much higher flow rates.
I Because of this "leakage", the flow rate required to initiate
I
I,
I
I is used to calculate the gradient (above tap 29), the gradient
I
Roberts et al. (1986) experimentally determined the
I horizontal hydraulic conductivity to be K = 0.018 cmjs in a
,,I
i
two-dimensional flow model· with virtually horizontal flow over
a four foot distance between vertical reservoirs. K was to be
I
II.
I
I
I
I
I 3.0 FINITE-ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF PRE- AND INCIPIENT FLUIDIZATION
I
I 3.1 INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I similar to the Lennon (1986) case except for a difference in
boundary conditions. The use of two separate models minimizes
I the possibility of errors in the model andjor the data set, and
I model (FEM) with the boundary element model (BEM) for a test
case (Simulation 1). The predicted head distributions vary
I slightly because the boundary element method solves the
,.
I governing differential equation exactly in the domain whereas
the FEM approximates the governing equations. Also, a slight
difference in handling the source hole configuration leads to
slight differences. Similar minor differences were observed by
I Lennon (1986).
I
I
I
I program is being developed that uses Eq. 2.1 in place of
Darcy's Law for cases where inertia terms are important. The
I results were carried out using a FORTRAN F77 compiler on a UNIX
I
I 3.3 THEORETICAL FORMULATION
I
I
a ~) + -0 - (K ~) = 0
I L(h) -
- "'x
o
(K
x "oX 3y y 3y
{ 3 .1)
I
I
I
I
I for steady state conditions. The associatedpoundary
I
3.4 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
I
I The finite element technique is similar to that used by
I
h = {N}T {h} (3.2}
I e
I
where {N} is a vector of three linearly independent basis
I
A
I
I
I
I equations are formed that can be written as [K]{h} = {R} where
[K] is a known coefficient matrix, {h} is the matrix of
I approximate head values at every node in the domain, and {R} is
I Lennon (1978).
I
I 3.5 Validation Simulations
I to the right of the pipe at (x,y) = (9.6 em, 1.6 em) may still
be within the zone where the three-dimensional nature of the
I jets has not completely spread over the experimental tank width
I
I
I
I of 30.48 em. The validation of the model using these data is
I Figure
Number
Kx, cmjs Ky' cmjs
I 3.4
3.5
0.014
0.016
0.012
0.012
I For a slightly higher flow rate and Ky = 0.008 cmjs, Figs. 3.9
I and 3.10 show the match using Kx = 0.018 and 0.02 cmjs,
I
I
I
I
I
I 3.6 Prediotive-simu'lations
I burial depth.
I hydraulic head contours obtained with the FEM are shown in Fig.
3.12.
I
I The maximum hydraulic head, hmax' at the hole in the pipe
was calculated to be 40.35 ft (12.3 m); the value of hmaxldb is
I
I
I
I but it is diffused by lower surrounding values of head.
Inspection Fig. 3.12 shows that about half of the 40.35 ft of
I head loss occurs in the immediate vicinity of the pipe, i.e.
I '
gradient above the pipe only varies slightly; hm'ax/db is about
2 where hmax is the head at the source pipe holes. Additional
I ' i .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS
I
1. The required incipient fluidization flow rate can be
I obtained from numerical simulation of flow through
porous media.
I
I 2. The finite element model· was- valida-ted with Roberts et al.
(1986) hydraulic·head and gradient data. ·
I ~ • J •
I 4. Figures 3.13a and 3.13b are useful charts for the design
flow·rate for fluidization systems in the coastal
I environment for isotropic conditions and a 10:1
I anisotropicvvalue•. of
conductivity.
ho~izontal to,.ve~rtic::al. hydraulic
I .-'
.'
5. The head loss is about twice the burial depth at incipient
I conditions, about ·twice that predicted by one-dimensional
I theory.
I
I
I
I account possible design considerations such as algae fouling,
clogging of fluidization :holes:,. ·FI.c:ml·inear flow~ ;-oel!'""tir·ree-· ... ·
I dimensional effects that conflict with the assumptions of the
I porous medium.
I
I
I
I > ' ' \ ~· · r- . - · ..: · · :l
I
I
I ··l'i···.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 5.0 FUTURE WORK
I
I '· ' .....
I
I
I '. ~. . '
~ .•
..
~ .: ~
· ..
I-": -'
"
~ ' ',f ~ •;. . ; . '.'t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
I
I
I
I • I -: : ; , 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 7 •0 REFERENCES
I
I
I Kelley, J. T., (1977). "Fluidization Applied to Sediment
Transport, Master of Science Thesis, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA.
I Lennon, G. P. (1986). "A Boundary Element Package Developed
for Three-dimensional Wave-InduceQ Forces on Buried
I Pipelines, Conference Proceedings, BETECH '86: The Boundary
Element Technology Conference, June 1986, 359-368.
Liu, P. L-F., and Lennon, G. P. (1978). "Finite Element
I Modeling of Nearshore currents," Journal of Waterway, Port.
Coastal and Ocean Division, ASCE, 104(WW2), 175-189.
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 1. IRMAY 1 S EQUATION EXPRESSED IN FORCHHEIMER 1 S FORM
I
I Al.l INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I summarized in ·re·f·erences such as Weisman et al. (1988).
Intentional 1-D fluidization often results from a well-
I distributed source of upflowing fluid under a bed of solid
I numbers, R, less than 3 the head loss through the fixed bed is
a linear function of the flow rate, where R ~ Vd eq/~ , d eq =
I
I Al. 2 EXPERIMENTAL· DATA OF ROBERTS ET AL. (1986) .
I
I
I
I Because of the uniformity of the sand, estimates of K based on
d 50 will not differ too much from estimates based on other
I sizes. The sphericity was assumed to be 0.8. Only a slight
I bed above· the supply pipe is f1u•idized alongt its entire length.
The transition from an unfluidized to a comp:letely·fluidized
I bed is .. a rathe-r unstable phenomena.. If the ·flow rate· is high
I
Head data were obtained just prior to incipient
I fluidization, and were used to estimate incipient conditions,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX 2. USER'S MANUAL: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
I INCIPIENT FLUIDIZATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I USER'S MANUAL: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF INCIPIENT FLUIDIZATION
(PROGRAM FEF)
I INTRODUCTION
A programmer's manual is presented for a finite element
I analysis package. The first program segment is a preprocessor
I that reads, prints, and scans the data, and generates required
data. Data files are created which are used in the analysis
I (second) program segment which produces the required solution.
Three types of finite elements may be used, 3-noded linear
I triangular elements, Q-8 elements, and 6-noded quadratic
I
I
I
Description of Preprocessor Program (Program PREP)
I 1.2
I
Sample input, output and generated file listings are
I available for the authors on IBM PC compatible disk files.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.3 Preprocessor
I Record Type 1 - An 80 character title (one record only)
Record Type 2 - Coefficients for Cases with lower order derivative
I AA,BB,CC
terms
- Constant values of coefficients A, B, and c in Eq. 1
(see Section 2.3)
I DD - Coefficient of h term in Eq. 1
Record Type 3 - (one record only)
NORDER Element type (only one type of element may be used in
I any grid).
1 for 3~noded linear triangular element.
2 for Q-8 (8-noded quadratic) element.
I NELEMC
3 for 6-noded quadratic triangular element.
- The number of elements for which nodal numbers will be
supplied and used to generate nodal numbers for the
I NNPC
remaining elements.
- The number of nodal points at which coordinates will be
supplied so that coordinates of the remaining nodes can
be generated.
I NPSI - Number of nodes on the boundary of D. Set = 0 for
NORDER = 1 or 3.
NPCV - If Q-8 elements are used, some midside nodes may fall
I on curved sides and their coordinates must be supplied
to implement the generation option. NPCV is the total
number of midside nodes on curved sides.
I KK
I WRITE
- Flag used to control supression of debug print
statements.
- Flag directing creation of record-image output files
and debug prints (Analysis Program).
I -1- write global stiffness matrices on file 2
o- write global stiffness matrices on file 2
o- write solution on printers
I I CASE
.ne.o- write solution on file 3
- Case being analyzed: Not used as of 1985. Set equal
to 4 for consistency with past and future versions of
I IP
program
- Number of quadrature points per Q-8 element set equal
to zero if NORDER .ne.2.
NPIN - Number of nodes where h is to be specified. If IBC =
I IBC
-1, h at all boundary nodes are set equal to zero.
- Number of nodes for boundary condition for type hi =
hj. Input appears in pairs, both node i and node j.
I Record Type 4 - Boundary Definition (As many records as needed)
NPSIA(I) - (I= 1, NPSI). The node numbers of the boundary
I points, in counterclockwise order. If NPSI = o (for
NORDER= 1 or 3), Record Type 4 is omitted.
I
I
I
I Record Type 5 - Boundary Condition, h specified (As many records as
needed).
NPIN(I), - (I = 1, NPIN) Node number where h is specified and
I PIN(I) value of h, respectively. If NPIN = -1, Record Type 5
is omitted.
Record Type 6 -Boundary Condition, h. =h .• (As many records as
I NBC(I)
needed). ~ J
- (I = 1, IBC) For the head gradient = 0 on boundary,
reduced to hi =_h., where node i is on boundary, and
I node j is in inward normal direction, input occurs
in pairs, node i first, then node j. omit if IBC = o.
I Record Type
I
9 -
-
Mid-side node records (Only if Q-8 elements used)
The mid-side node number
X(I) - The x-coordinate of node I
I Y(I) - The y-coordinate of node I
Record Type 10- The nodal points (x,y) are defined by the records in
in Record Type 8 or 9. Record type 10 consists of
I (x,y) points which may or may not correspond to a
nodal point. Whenever a point (x,y) from Record Type
10 is found to coincide with a grid point (x,y) from
I Record Type 8 or 9, the values of A, B, and c on
Record Type 10 supersede the values of A, B, and c
on Record Type 8 or 9.
XE,YE - (x,y) coordinates of Record Type 10 points
AE,BE,CE - Coefficients A,B, and c in Eq. 1 at (x,y)
I 1.4 Preprocessor Output
I The output file echos the input data, and generates the input data
file to the analysis program (see next section). The general
quantities in the output consist of:
I A preprocessor output file and generated file for Program FEF are
available from the authors on an IBM PC compatible disk file.
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ------ -~--
I 2.1 Introduction
where:
I = hydraulic conductivity in the x-direction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 2.2 Method of Weighted Residuals
With¢ representing h, the hydraulic head,
I f W L{¢) dA • 0
D
(1)
I m
E
e•l
I
Ae
{N} L(~) dA- 0 (4)
I Using
L(<P) .K l.t
xx ax2
+K
yy ()y2
if + ax + B(x,y) 11
A(x,y) 11 ay
I + C(x,y) + D¢ + E
n
i•l
pi O(x-xi' y-yi) (5)
I
I +I {N} [C]dA +I
n
t {N} Pi 6(x-xi,y-yi)dA • 0 (6)
Ae Ae i•l
il
II
I
I
I Using ~ = {N}T {<j>}
e
yields (8)
I where
[K] =
m
E [ k]
I e=l
[ k] = [ { f (-.K
a{N}
ax
T
a{N} )dA
I ax
XX
Ae
a{'N} T
+ f (-l< a{N} )dA
I Ae YY ay ay
I + f
Ae
( {N}A a {N}
ax
T
ay
T
+ {N} B a{N} )dA
I m
Ae
J
{R} = r {r} + {S}
I e=l
I
{S} = {-t {N} (i{
XX
~ +K
dX
aq,
- ) di
YY ay
{r} = -r {N} C dA
I A
e
n
I· -f
A i=l
e
r {N} Pi o(x-xi,y-yi)dA (11)
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3 Details of assembly
I Now for KXX , Kyy , and D constant in an element and expressing
I
I
I (12)
I .
Nl
-
a + b 1x + e y
1 1 8 11 + 8 21x + 8 31Y
Ni N2
1
2A
e
a + b x + e y
2 2 2 - 1
2Ae
8 12 + B22x + 8 32Y (13)
I N3 a
3
+ b x
3
+ e y
3 8
13 + 8 23 x + B33y
I r
A
(14)
e
I
I = (15)
.aN
3
tax
I
I
= (16)
I
I
'I
I
I Then
I K
XX
I
I
I
I (17)
I
I.
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I 2.4 The Dp term
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I or
A
e
I
II Proceed term by term i,j ~ 1,2 or 3
I
I
D
~ A2 (ai f (aj + bjx + cjy) dA + bi f (aj + bjx + cjy) x dA
I 4 e
I
I
I
I ,,--. . .,
I +~ ® A
+6)t_;)>
I ©~ @&
t·
I
I Redefining each circled quantity by the quantity in the hexagon
below it results in:
I
11
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I By definition A7ij • A7ji
I
I
So previous line can be written as
I
--D
2Ae
I
I --D
2Ae -- D
2Ae
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 2.s. The C(x,y) term
I I Ni C(x,y)dA
I = I Ni Nj Cj dA
• c1 I Ni N1 dA + c2 I Ni N2 dA + c3 I Ni N dA
I 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 2.6 SamEle Problem - 1 element
I 3~ 3
c
(o,•) X
i
=0 Y
i
a 0
I X
~,..
j "" 1
0
Y
j
yk ,.. 1
a 0
I 1 1
2 {0 + 1 (1-0) + 0} - -2
A•-
I (o,
c,."" .
o) (I,O)
Ca & C)
I 812 =~
813 • xiyj - yixj
Yi - Yk xi '"' 0
• 0
I 821 - -1
822 - 1
I 823 - 0
I 831 - -1
832 - 0
I s 33 • 1
I
I i
(1}[4} + (0}(0) + (0)(3} • 3
a
e e e
c2 • 821 c1 + 822 c2 + 8 23 c3
I - (-1)(4) + (1)(0) + (0)(3) - -3
I i ·e
cl., • B31cl + B32 c; + B33 c;
e
I
I
2.7 Analysis Input
I Record Type 1 - An SO-character field for titles on input, output,
and files {one record only).
I Record Type 2 - Coefficients and scaling factors (one record only)
as of July 19S3, XSCALE, YSCALE, TXX, TYY are
entered interactively.
I XSCALE
YSCALE
- Scaling factor for x coordinates
- Scaling factor for y coordinates
TXX,TYY,DD - Coefficients K , K , and D in Eq. 1. If any of
I these are vari~!es ~ifferent values for elements),
enter - 99999 for that quantity.
I Record Tyge 3 -
NELEM
NNP
{one Record only)
Total number of elements
Total number of nodes
NCOL {number of upper codiagonals) + 1 {also equal to half
I NPSI
bandwidth, NBHW)
Number of nodes on boundary
NPIN Number of nodes where h is specified
I IBC Number of nodes for boundary conditions of the type
hi= h .• Input appears in pairs, both node i and
node j~
Flag used to control supression of debug print
I KK
I WRITE
statements.
Flag for directing creation of SO-character record
{see Preprocessor Input)
I I CASE
NORDER,
Case being analyzed {see Preprocessor Input)
Type of element being analyzed {see Preprocessor
Input)
I IP Number of quadrature points per Q-S elements. Set
equal to zero if NORDER .ne. 2.
Record Tyge 4 - Boundary Definition {As many records as needed)
I NPSIA{I) (i = 1, npsi). The node numbers of the boundary
points, in counterclockwise order. Enter only if Q-8
elements are used (NORDER= 2).
I Record Tyge 5 - Boundary Condition, h specified {As many records as
needed).
I NPINA(I),
PIN{I)
(I = 1, NPIN) Node number where h is specified, and
value of h, respectively. Do not enter if NPIN = o.
Record Tyge 6 - Boundary Condition, hi = hj (As many records as
I NBC(I)
needed).
(I= 1, IBC) For condition h. =h., where node i is on
the boundary, and node j is at any location; input
I occurs in pairs, node i first then node j. Do not
enter if IBC = o.
I Record Tyge 7 - Element data for NELEM element (As many records as
needed).
nodal numbers of Ith element in counterclockwise
NOD(I,J)
I direction, J = 1, NPE, where NPE - 3 for linear
triangles, NPE = s for Q-S elements, NPE = 6 for
I
I
I
Record Type 8 - nodal Coordinate Data for NNP nodes (As many
I X(I)
Y(I)
records as needed)
The x-coordinate of node I
The y-coordinate of node I
AA(I) Coefficient (A in Eq. 1)
I BB(I)
CC(I)
Coefficient (B in Eq. 1)
Forcing function term (C in Eq. 1) at X(I), Y(I).
I output The main output includes: the element definition data (if
IWRITE ~ 0); the nodal coordinates (x,y), the solution hat
the node and the partial derivatives·of h, (if IWRITE = O).
Files File 2: Global stiffness matrix if !WRITE = -1, and element
I stiffness matrices (if !WRITE= 0).
File 3: Solution is written on file 3 if IWRITE .ne. o
(solution is not printed).
I Example output files are available from the authors on IBM PC
compatible disks.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 3. POST PROCESSOR
I
I h < h
k
h > h
i
I h > h
j
I
Figure 1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 5. NOTATION
I
I The following symbols are used in this paper:
I
a = coefficient in Irmay's (1958) Equation
I A = coefficient in Forchheimer's Equation
I b
B
= coefficient in Irmay's (1958) Equation
I d
50
= equivalent sand grain diameter exceeded by 50% of sand
I d
90
= equivalent sand grain diameter exceeded by 90% of sand
I K
Kx
= hydraulic conductivity (cmjs)
I· R =
or 1/s-m)
Reynolds number
I
I
I
I
I V or q = Specific discharge; also superficial velocity for
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Table 2.1. Variation of gradient above source pipe for Roberts
et al.'s (1986) incipient fluidization condition,
I 42 em bed.
I Head at
Elevation
Interval
Between
Average
Gradient
Between
measuring Measuring Measuring
I Measuring
Location
Location,
em
Location,
em
Location,
em
I Top of
Sand
0
I 32.1 to 42 0.87
Tap 74 3.38
I 24.5 to 32.1 0.93
I Tap 59 6.17
I Tap 44 8.96
9.2 to 16.8 1. 21
I Tap 29 12.6
I Tap 14 17.5
1. 6 to 9. 2 1. 64
I o to 1. 6
Pipe
I Weighted
Average 1.10
I
11 11
indicates data not available.
I
-
I
I
I
I
I Table 3.1. Variation of hmax/db for the simulated conditions.
I
Isotropic = 10:1
I Depth, Small Large
K /K
X X
Small Large
ft Domain* Domain** Domain* Domain**
I 5 2.47 2.50 2.16 2.24
I 10
20
2.20
1. 96
2.26
2.06
1.91
1.62
2.09
1.95
I 40 1. 69 1.87 1. 37 1. 80
I * xd = 50 ft, yd = 20 ft.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
--~~----------~~~- --.. -.. --- ..... -- .. --- .... -------- ~W-~-~~~~- j!.l%m)
O.l5 0.2 . 0,5 1 2 4
1
.... 0.1
•
i-4
z
1&1
; 0.01
tJ
s
a! 0.001
~
0.0001
0.001
I
•• 1
REYNOLDS NUMBER, R
I '
y
I db
I ...
n oi ' (,
''-./Pipe_X
t
yb
I Soil I
I (/ ..
!.!!....-o_/'
I cJn
I
I
:I
I
I
-------------------
0
-7.33
-14.67
CIJ
Q)
,..c:
(.) -22.00 ."\ FEM
!::::
·M
-36.67
-44
0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63
x, inches
su -6
~
•2.8
:>..
-16
-26
-36
-46
0 20 100 120 140 160 180
x, ern
160 180
x, em
Figure 3.3
-------------------
-36
-46
0 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
x, em
Figure 3.5 Comparison of Roberts et al.'s (1986) Test 2
observed head data (to tenths of em) with
predicted contours of hydraulic head (em) using
the finite element method for a flow rate of
0.0344 1/s-m, K = 0.016 cmjs, K = 0.012 cmjs.
X y
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
. ··..
.8 .7
1.8 . 1~',;.).1
• •· "·. • ;-;or····· ..
1.0
s 2.8 2.3
(J • •
~ -16
-26
-36
1-4
7. 1.21
•
4 2.14 1.86
• •
su 3.70 2.21
• • •
:>-.
·16
·26
·36
·46
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
x, em
·26
·36
14
4 2.21
•
3.81
•
~ ·16
·26
·36
·46
0 140 160 180
. x, em
su
~
;:..,
-16
.-26 4
-36
-46
0 80 100 120 140 160 180
x, em
-30
-40
. -50
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x/D
Figure 3.11 Computational finite element grid used in the
calculation of numerical results for design chart
using 1055 elements and 584 nodes.
-------------------
\
10 10
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
-SQOL-~~10--~~~~~~~~5~0~-6~0~~~~~~~~~100 60
x/D
Figure 3.12 Predicted hydraulic head contours for a 1 ft
(0.305 m) diameter pipe buried 20 ft (6.10 m) in a
domain with Xd = 100 ft (30.5 m) and Yd = 60 ft
( 18. 3 m) •
-------- - - - -
3.5
- - - - - - -
3.0
.0
'1:j
:::..::
~
a
. 2.5
c:t:
0
f-4
u
<
~
~ 2.0
f-4
<
11::
~
0
~
~ 1.5
1.0 4 6 a
1 10 100
db' ft
2.5
I
-----------1-------~----~---
I I
I I
I
--1 I
I I
-----------·------1----4---4---~--~-·-1-1
I I I I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 'I I I I I
I , . I I I I I
1 ..• 1 I I I I
1 1 I I I I I
I , .. I I I DOM.UN SIZE
: .:·:: I I I : :(X.,Y4:
I .:~~~~ I I I I I I I
2.0 - - - - - - . , . - - - - .J- -·- -,;:..:;,:.:.L.-- r- L - - - L-..: .J-- .L- - - - - -1- __ -1- __ L _ -'- _ .&. _ .J _ J
. . . . ...;·:;<: ,I : : :
·· ·;·, "•:·:
· .• •.• 'I
1
I
30o•z•o: I
: ' ,r I j I I
·( •· ,• · I I I I
I I I I I
: : I 120~2·0:
·;i · I I I
·,I I. I I I
I
I I
I
'I:
·I
~----Aj"""'IM..
I I
r---- r-,-,
.. ,.,._.. .. , . I I
I I -f .. I 200~20
1
: : • .: 1 200_,.0
'I I I :
.' \. r " I I .
I I I'.\' I
I
I
I
I
I ''
I'.
100~0
•·
I~ .
I .I
• I ·.· I:
100*0
y-.-:----
I •
0.5 6 8 2 4 6
2 4
1 1.P 100
DEPTH OF BURIAL, FT TO PIPE CENTERLINE
Figure 3.13b Design chart for K /K = 10 providing the
required flow ratexfa~tor (Q.jKdb) versus depth
of burial, db, for various dOmain sizes.
I
I
I
I 1.50
I 1.25
.., 1.00
I ..:
z
1.&1
0.75
I ~t:J 0.50
0.25
I
0.00
I 0 10
a. cc/s
•
DOSS TAP 1 61RUAY TAP 1 0085 TAP 6
I
I Figure Al.2 Comparison of gradient J using Irmay's equation
and Roberts et al. (1986) observed data.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
Expanded Bed Depth
Flulcllzeci/U aflulcllu4
Realoa laterface
-.....
Leakaae' Acroa
laterface
Figure Al.l Fluidized region above a source pipe for two flow
rates showing various physical processes (after
Weisman et al., 1988)