Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/244155878
CITATIONS READS
924 4,855
1 author:
A. Haider
Texas Instruments Inc.
10 PUBLICATIONS 976 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by A. Haider on 17 April 2018.
This was done with nonlinear regression soft- numbers in the last column of Table 1. Here
ware [7] which uses the Gauss-Newton the RMS deviation measures the average
method. The experimental data used in finding fractional displacement of the measured Cn-
the best values of the four parameters were values from the correlation line. Mathemat-
the same 408 data points compiled by Turton ically,
and Levenspiel [ 51. The final equation for l/2
i-
isometric
I ch = 0.670
0.1
0.01 IO 100 IO3 IO4 IO5 IO6
dsph ” t”f
Re= cI
Fig. 1. Reported drag coefficients for spherical particles (408 data points) and nonspherical particles (506 data
points).
65
Experimental drag data for eight different Table 2 shows that the four parameters of
particle sphericities were compiled. For eqn. (4) are functions of 4, and once this
$J> 0.670, the data were adapted from functionality is established, it would make it
Pettyjohn and Christiansen [9], who studied convenient to interpolate for Cn for sphericities
the following isometric nonspherical shapes: other than the ones listed in Table 2. Keeping
this in mind, values of the four parameters
Cube octahedrons ($J= 0.906) 136 data points were plotted against 4 and a reasonable order
Octahedrons (@J= 0.846) 80 data points polynomial was fitted through the data using
Cubes (4 = 0.806) 136 data points least-squares fit. The result is
Tetrahedrons ($I= 0.670) 67 data points
A = exp(2.3288 - 6.45816 + 2.4486 rp2)
For lower sphericities, $ < 0.670, the data
used were for thin free-falling disks extracted (lOa)
from Schmiedel [lo], Squires and Squires B = 0.0964 + 0.5565 $I (lob)
[ 111, and Willmarth et al. [12]. In this case,
Cn, Re and r$were recalculated based upon C = exp(4.905 - 13.89444 + 18.4222@2
d,, using the information provided about the - 10.2599 f#JJ) (1Oc)
particles and the fluids used in the experiment.
The data were plotted for various @-values D = exp(1.4681 + 12.25844 - 20.7322 @2
and were observed to follow drag curves + 15.8855 e3) (1Od)
similar to that for spherical particles except
that the drag curves lie higher and higher as 4 Substituting the above relations into eqn. (4)
drops from unity. In other words, particles yields
TABLE 3
Deviation of predicted CD from experiment for different sphericities
1
l/3
Pt2
and the comprehensive drag equation, eqn. =
4 (13)
(ll), for all other sphericities. W(P* -Pt)
67
0.1
0.1 1.0 IO 100 IO3 IO4 IO5 IO6
dsph ” Pf
Re= ~
and
1.000 0.7554 0.8243 0.0245 Substituting eqn. (20) into eqn. (19) yields
0.906 0.9999 0.9677 0.0212 the following simple general correlation for
0.846 1.1272 0.9697 0.0257
0.806 1.2024 1.0222 0.0327
0.670 1.5469 0.9464 0.0275
TABLE 5
Best values of K1 to be used in the simple eqn. (19)
Setting Kz = 1 in eqn. (18) essentially amounts for calculating us of particles of different sphericities
to adding low and high Re contributions in
parallel. On doing this, eqn. (18) reduces to RMS deviation
the simple one-parameter expression of u,
100
IO
d,= d sph
Fig. 3. Reported terminal velocities for both spherical and nonspherical particles.
69
predicting terminal velocities for isometric Table 6 shows the goodness of fit of eqn. (21)
particles, given information on the particles to the data for different sphericities as well as
and physical properties of the fluid, the goodness of fit of all the recommended
,I
(2.3348 - 1.7439 r$) -’ equations for spheres.
u* =
I_E+
k2
d 0.5
*
0.5 < 4 < 1
Finally, Fig. 4 displays the best-fit terminal
velocity curves for different particle spher-
icities.
(21)
TABLE 6
Goodness of fit of various explicit equations for u* to the reported data
Fig. 4. Design chart for finding the terminal velocity of single free-falling particles.
70