• No results found

On the computation of steady hopper flows II : Von Mises materials in various geometries

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "On the computation of steady hopper flows II : Von Mises materials in various geometries"

Copied!
19
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

On the Computation of Steady Hopper Flows

II: von Mises Materials in Various Geometries

Pierre A. Gremaud

a,1

, John V. Matthews

b,2

,

Meghan O’Malley

a

aDepartment of Mathematics and Center for Research in Scientific Computation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8205, USA

bDepartment of Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0320, USA

Abstract

Similarity solutions are constructed for the flow of granular materials through hop-pers. Unlike previous work, the present approach applies to nonaxisymmetric con-tainers. The model involves ten unknowns (stresses, velocity, and plasticity function) determined by nine nonlinear first order partial differential equations together with a quadratic algebraic constraint (yield condition). A pseudospectral discretization is applied; the resulting problem is solved with a trust region method. The influence of the geometry of the hopper on the flow is illustrated by several numerical experi-ments of industrial relevance. The corresponding effects are found to be important.

Key words: elliptic, granular, similarity, spectral PACS:

1 Introduction

This is the second in a series of papers on the mechanics of a granular material under the influence of gravity flowing through converging hoppers of simple

Email addresses: gremaud@unity.ncsu.edu (Pierre A. Gremaud),

jvmatthe@math.duke.edu(John V. Matthews), msomalle@unity.ncsu.edu (Meghan O’Malley).

URLs: http://www.ncsu.edu/math/∼gremaud(Pierre A. Gremaud), http://www.math.duke.edu/∼jvmatthe (John V. Matthews).

1 Partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through grants DMS-9818900 and DMS-02044578

(2)

geometry. While such devices are common in many industrial processes, the withdrawal of stored materials from hoppers and bins is well known to be problematic. Segregation, lack of flow, flooding (uncontrolled flow) and struc-tural failures are often encountered [12]. A better understanding of such flows should lead to improved hopper design criteria.

Commonly used models are subject to severe restrictions [7,9–11,14,20,23]:

(i) The granular material is modeled as a continuum, withad hocconstitutive laws.

(ii) The flow is assumed to be steady. (iii) Only similarity solutions are considered.

(iv) The flow domain is pyramidal, i.e., it is invariant under the transforma-tion (expressed in spherical coordinates)r 7→c r, for anyc > 0.

(v) The flow domain is axisymmetric.

The combination of assumptions (iv) and (v) corresponds to a right circular cone, see Figure 1, upper left

{(r, θ, φ) : 0< r <∞,0≤θ < θw}, (θw = constant). (1)

In that case, it was observed by Jenike [10,11] in the late 1950’s that sim-ilarity solutions, as in (iii), can be constructed (see (8) below for a precise definition). To date, this approach remains a central component in silo design. In [6], we removed restrictions (iii) and (iv), see Figure 1, upper right, see also [13,15,17] for more results in that direction. In the present paper, (iii) and (iv) are retained while (v) is removed. More precisely, the hopper is an infinite pyramidal domain

{(r, θ, φ) : 0< r <∞,0≤θ <C(φ)}, (2)

whereCis a given piecewise smooth 2π-periodic function describing the bound-ary of the cross section of the hopper, see Figure 1, bottom left. The present study was started in [8], wheresmall perturbations of the axisymmetric case, specifically boundaries of equation C(φ) = θw +cosmφ, were considered.

Equations for first order corrections in were derived and solved. Here, cross sections of arbitrary shape can be considered. The authors are aware of no other contribution studying the effects of the geometry on the flow of granular materials in this setting. The case of fully three-dimensional hoppers such as the transitional hopper displayed in Figure 1, bottom right, appears to be open.

(3)

Fig. 1. Various geometries and corresponding numerical domains of resolution; top left: axisymmetric self-similar domain: Jenike’s approach on a cone reduces to solv-ing ODEs on a r constant line; top right: axisymmetric non self-similar, see e.g. part I of this series, [6]: nonlinear conservation laws are solved in the shadowed domain; bottom left: nonaxisymmetric self-similar: this paper; bottom right: general three-dimensional hopper: open problem.

Since general pyramidal hoppers are self similar (see (iv)), one could expect the radial character of the flow to hold in those cases as well. Our study, which makes use of assumptions (i) through (iv), finds this to be far from true. We show that a loss of axisymmetry in the hopper geometry induces secondary circulation as well as strong nonuniformity of the stresses in the azimuthal direction.

The paper is organized as follows. The model, geometry, and physical assump-tions are discussed in Section 2. Simple scaling arguments reveal the similarity character of the solutions in therdirection. As a result, the solutions are com-puted on spherical caps of various shapes. The numerical approach is pseu-dospectral in nature and is described in Section 3. It uses Fourier collocation in longitude and, to account for the boundary conditions, Chebyshev-Gauss-Radau collocation in latitude. Section 4 is devoted the description of several numerical experiments. Conclusions are offered in Section 5.

2 The model

(4)

the hopper. For a particular pyramidal domain, a coordinate system that is better suited to the geometry can be constructed. However, such a coordinate system is not typically orthogonal, complicating greatly the structure of the basic equations of Continuum Mechanics [2]. To simplify the numerics, such alternate coordinate systems are introduced in Section 4 through a change of variables, but the individual components of the stress tensor and velocity are still measured in terms in the original spherical coordinates.

The unknowns are the 3-component velocity vector v, the 3×3 symmetric stress tensor T, and a scalar plasticity coefficient λ. (The density ρ is a con-stant.) In total, there are 3+6+1=10 unknown functions. In writing the equa-tions for these variables, we need the strain rate tensor V =−1/2(∇v+∇vT)

and the deviatoric part of the stress tensor devT =T−1

3(trT) I. Note the sign

convention:V measures thecompressionrate of the material; analogously, pos-itive eigenvalues ofT correspond tocompressivestresses. This sign convention reflects the fact that granular materials disintegrate under tensile stresses.

Following [20], we require that these variables satisfy

∇ ·T =ρ g, (3)

V =λdevT, (4)

|devT |2= 2s2(trT /3)2, (5)

wheregis the (vector) acceleration of gravity,| · |denotes the Frobenius norm

|T |2 = 3

X

i,j=1

Tij2 = trT2

(the latter equality only for symmetric tensors), and s = sinδ, with δ being the angle of internal friction of the material under consideration (see [14]). Equation (3) expresses force balance, i.e., Newton’s second law with inertia neglected because the flow is assumed slow; it is equivalent to three scalar equations. Equations (4) and (5) are constitutive laws, the alignment con-dition (or flow rule) and the von Mises yield concon-dition3, respectively; they are equivalent to six and to one scalar equations. Thus (3–5) is a determined system, 10 equations for 10 unknowns. Since (5) contains no derivatives, this system has a differential-algebraic character. Taking the trace of (4), we see that divv = −trV = 0; thus, incompressibility is part of the constitutive assumptions. Incidentally, for a solution to be physical, the function λ in (4) must satisfy λ ≥0 everywhere; otherwise friction would be adding energy to the system rather than dissipating it. In fact, we want λ to be strictly

(5)

itive since one of the assumptions underlying the derivation of (3–5) is that material is actually deforming.

The alignment condition (4) of the eigenvectors ofT and V in effect neglects the rotation of a material element during deformation, a controversial assump-tion. There is experimental evidence that misalignment may occur under some circumstances [5]. A few alternative models which allow for the above eigen-vectors to be somewhat out of alignment have been proposed, see e.g. [23,24]. While such models have been successfully applied to axisymmetric geometries, their formulation becomes very involved in more general cases and has, to our knowledge, never been fully described. Further, there does not seem to be enough experimental data to favor one type of model over the other. We refer to [9] for a lucid, if somewhat dated, account of the situation. Our contribution to this debate is the first calculation of solutions to any model in relatively general geometries4.

We seek solutions of (3–5) in a pyramidal domain (2). On the boundary∂Ω = {(r,C(φ), φ)}, wall impenetrability imposes one boundary condition on the velocity: i.e.,

vN = 0, (6)

where vN is the normal velocity. Two additional boundary conditions come

from Coulomb’s law of sliding friction. The surface traction τ—i.e., the force exerted by the wall on the material—is given by

τi =

3

X

j=1

TijNj,

whereN is the unit interior normal to ∂Ω. If the vectorτ has normal compo-nentτN and tangential component τT =τ −τNN, then we require that

τT =−µwτN(v/|v|), (7)

whereµw is the coefficient of friction between the wall and the material. Note

that: (a) If T is positive definite (i.e., if all stresses are compressive), then

τN > 0. (b) While τN is a scalar, τT is effectively a two-component vector;

thus, (7) is equivalent to two scalar equations. (c) Because of (6), the velocity

v is tangential to∂Ω; we are assuming that v 6= 0 at the boundary.

(6)

Putting together assumptions (iii) and (iv) from the Introduction, we seek similarity solutions of the form

Tij =rTij(θ, φ), vi =

1

r2Vi(θ, φ), λ =

1

r4L(θ, φ) (8)

where Tij and vi are any component of the stress tensor and velocity

vec-tor respectively. Equations (3,4,5) lead then the following system for the ten unknowns Trr,Trθ, Tθθ, Trφ, Tθφ, Tφφ, Vr, Vθ,Vφ and L.

∂θTrθ+ csc(θ)∂φTrφ+ 3Trr− Tθθ− Tφφ+ cot(θ)Trθ =−ρgcos(θ), (9)

∂θTθθ+ csc(θ)∂φTθφ+ 4Trθ+ cot(θ) (Tθθ − Tφφ) = ρgsin(θ), (10)

∂θTθφ+ csc(θ)∂φTφφ+ 4Trφ+ 2 cot(θ)Tθφ= 0, (11)

2Vr =L(Trr− P), (12)

−1

2(∂θVr−3Vθ) =L Trθ, (13) −∂θVθ− Vr =L(Tθθ− P), (14)

−1

2(csc(θ)∂φVr−3Vφ) =L Trφ, (15)

−1

2(∂θVφ+ csc(θ)∂φVθ−cot(θ)Vφ) =L Tθφ, (16) −(csc(θ)∂φVφ+Vr+ cot(θ)Vθ) =L(Tφφ− P), (17)

|devT |2 = 2s2P2, (18)

whereT = 1rT andP = 13 trT = 13(Trr+Tθθ+Tφφ). The above equations have

to be satisfied in the spherical domain {(θ, φ);−π < φ < π,0< θ <C(φ)}.

The boundary conditions (6, 7) can be expressed in terms of the above un-knowns. The unit interior normal vectorN on the outside wallθ=C(φ) takes the form

N = [Nr, Nθ, Nφ] = [0,−sinθ,C0(φ)]/

q

sin2θ+C0(φ)2.

Therefore, when θ =C(φ), 0< φ <2π, one has

VθNθ+VφNφ= 0, (19)

Vφ(TrθNθ+TrφNφ)− Vr[−TθθNθ2Nφ+TθφNθ(1−2Nφ2) +TφφNφNθ2] = 0, (20)

(TrθNθ+TrφNφ)2+ (TθθNθNφ− TφφNθNφ+Tθφ(Nφ2−N

2

θ))

2

=µ2w(TθθNθ2+ 2TθφNθNφ+TφφNφ2)

2, (21)

where (19, 20, 21) correspond respectively to the conditions (6), τT ×v = 0, a

(7)

expressed in the new variables. Note that the above set of equations defines the unknownsVr,Vθ,Vφ andL only up to a multiplicative constant. This is a

consequence of the similarity character of the present approach and is found with Jenike’s solution as well. To eliminate this indeterminacy, we fix the value of one component of the velocity, say Vr, at one point in the computational

domain. Here, we choose

Vr(Θ0,Φ0) = v?, (22)

where Θ0 and Φ0 are defined in the next section and where v? in effect scales

the flow rate out of the hopper. For Jenike’s solution, a typical normalization is to take the maximum (radial) velocity equal to -1. All three one-parameter families of nonaxisymmetric domains considered in Section 4 admit the right circular cone as a special case. In all three cases, the boundary value v? is taken as the value of Jenike’s radial velocity at the wall under the above normalization for a right circular cone. Note that no conditions are needed at

θ = 0 (or more precisely, considering only nonsingular solutions at that point is a boundary condition). Further, 2π-periodicity is imposed in theφdirection.

Along with the above unknowns, a stream function Ψ is also computed. Under assumption (8), the incompressibility condition divv = 0 reads here

∂θ(sinθVθ) +∂φVφ= 0.

A stream function Ψ can be introduced through

∂φΨ = sinθVθ, and ∂θΨ =−Vφ.

In fact, Ψ can be characterized as the solution to a Poisson problem on the spherical cap under consideration

∆Ψ =−ξr, for 0< θ <C(φ),−π < φ < π, (23)

Ψ = 0, on θ=C(φ),−π < φ < π, (24)

where ∆ = sin1θ∂θ(sinθ∂θ·) + sin12θ∂φφ· is the Laplace operator on the sphere

and ξr is r3 times the r component of the vorticity ξ = ∇ × v, i.e., ξr =

cotθVφ+∂θVφ−sin1θ∂φVθ. As above, periodicity is assumed in theφdirection.

3 Numerical analysis

(8)

Θ =θw

θ

C(φ) and Φ =φ.

Note that{Θ,Φ}is not an orthogonal coordinate system. However, the com-putational domain is now simply (0, θw)×(−φw, φw), where φw corresponds

to the smallest interval of periodicity of the solution in the φ direction. More precisely, for a pyramidal hopper of general cross section,φw =π; for a square

cross section for instance, one can take φw = π/4 and construct the solution

from−π toπ by duplicating the solution obtained between −π/4 andπ/4 in the obvious way.

The equations (9-21) are written in the new coordinate system. The reader is spared the expression of the corresponding equations. The resulting problem can be discretized by collocation; Chebyshev collocation at the Chebyshev-Gauss-Radau points is used in Θ, while Fourier-cosine collocation at the Fourier collocation points is used in Φ. More precisely, we set

UN M(Θ,Φ) =

N−1

X

n=0

M/2−1

X

m=−M/2

Unmψn(Θ)eim π(

Φ

φw+1), (25)

where{ψn}Nn=0−1 are the Lagrange interpolation polynomials at the

Chebyshev-Gauss-Radau nodes on [0, θw], i.e.

Θj =

θw

2

1 + cos

2πj

2N −1

, j = 0, . . . , N −1. (26)

The above choice, as opposed to the more standard Chebyshev-Gauss-Lobatto collocation, see e.g. [3], §2.4, results from the nature of the boundary condi-tion along Θ = θw. For completeness, we derive below the expression of the

collocation derivative for Chebyshev-Gauss-Radau nodes (which we have not been able to find in the literature).

Lemma 1 The Lagrange interpolation polynomials on the Chebyshev-Gauss-Radau nodes (26) are given by

ψj(Θ) =

1

cj

θw −Θ

Θ−Θj

1

NT

0 N

θw

−1

+ 1

N −1T

0

N−1

θw

−1

, j = 0, . . . , N−1,

where

c0= 1−2N,

cj=−

θw

2Θj

Ncos 2πN j

2N −1+ (N−1) cos

2π(N −1)j

2N −1

!

(9)

and TN(x) = cos(Narccosx), |x| ≤ 1, is the Chebyshev polynomial of degree

N.

The above result can easily be verified through the use of L’Hospital’s rule and elementary properties of the Chebyshev polynomials. Interpolation at the nodes (26) of a function u of Θ defined in [0, θw] simply takes the form

INu(Θ) =

N−1

X

j=0

u(Θj)ψj(Θ).

By definition, the Chebyshev collocation derivative ofuat those nodes is then

(INu)0(Θl) =

N−1

X

j=0

u(Θj)ψj0(Θl) =

N−1

X

j=0

Dlju(Θj),

with Dlj = ψj0(Θl). The collocation derivative at the nodes can then be

ob-tained through matrix multiplication. Elementary albeit tedious calculations lead to the following expressions

Dlj =

                                                                         2

3θwN(N−1), if l=j = 0,

2

c0θwsin 22N2πl1(Ncos

2N πl

2N−1+(N−1) cos

2(N−1)πl

2N−1 ) if j = 0,

l= 1, . . . , N −1,

cl

cj

1

Θl−Θj if j = 1, . . . , N −1,

j 6=l, l= 0, . . . , N −1,

− 1

4Θj

3θw−2Θj

θw−Θj −

θw

4cjΘj

1

Θj(θw−Θj) ·

N2 sin(Narccos(2Θθwj−1))

+(N−1)2 sin((N−1) arccos(2Θθwj−1))

if j =l= 1, . . . , N −1.

To minimize round-off errors, trigonometric identities are used to express the quantities Θl−Θj [18], namely

Θl−Θj =θw sin

π

2N −1(j+l)

sin

π

2N −1(j −l)

, j, l = 0, . . . , N−1.

Further, as suggested in [1], the differentiation matrixD is made to represent exactly the derivative of a constant by numerically satisfying the identity

PN−1

(10)

computed using the above formula while the diagonal entries are determined by

Dll =−

N−1

X

j=0,j6=l

Dlj, l = 0, . . . , N −1.

In the Φ direction, the collocation points are taken as the usual Fourier collo-cation nodes, i.e.,

Φl=φw

2l M −1

!

, l = 0, . . . , M −1. (27)

Let U be the N × M matrix of coefficients Unm, n = 0, . . . , N − 1, m =

0, . . . , M/2−1,−M/2, . . . ,−1 for one of the variables under consideration and letW be the M ×M Fourier matrix

W =

             

1 1 1 . . . 1 1 ωM ωM2 . . . ω

M−1

M

1 ω2

M ωM4 . . . ω

2(M−1)

M

. . . .

1 ωMM−1 ωM2(M−1) . . . ωM(M−1)2

             

,

where ωM = e2πi/M is the primitive M-th root of unity. Further, if Λ is the

M ×M diagonal matrix with diagonal [0, . . . , M/2−1,−M/2, . . . ,−1], then for any pair j and l, j = 0, . . . , N −1, l = 0, . . . , M −1, the nodal values of

UN M and its derivatives can be expressed as follows

UN M(Θj,Φl) = (U W)jl,

∂ΘUN M(Θj,Φl) = (DU W)jl,

∂ΦUN M(Θj,Φl) = 4i(UΛW)jl.

Each of the ten unknowns Trr, Trθ,Tθθ, Trφ,Tθφ,Tφφ,Vr,Vθ, Vφ and L is now

expanded according to (25). Their coefficient matrices are denoted Urr, Urθ,

Uθθ,Urφ,Uθφ,Uφφ,Ur,Uθ,Uφ andU, respectively. The discretized equations5

are obtained as follows

(11)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0

100 200 300 400 500 600

eccentricity

stress difference percentage

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

p

stress difference percentage

Fig. 2.Effect of the geometry on the normal wall stress. Left: effect of the eccentric-ity in vertical hoppers with elliptical cross-sections given by (28) for E between 0 and 0.866. Right: effect of the parameterpon the normal wall stress in vertical hop-pers with square like cross-sections given by (29) for p between 2 and 20. Material parameters correspond to corn in a steel hopper: angle of internal frictionδ= 32.1◦, angle of wall friction = 11.7◦.

• equations (9-18), written in terms of (Θ,Φ), are satisfied at the collocation points {(Θj,Φl)}, j = 1, . . . , N −1,l = 0, . . . , M −1,

• at the boundary nodes {Θ0,Φl)}, l = 0, . . . , M −1, equations (9-11) are

replaced by the boundary conditions (19-21), i.e., equations (12-18) and (19-21), all written in terms of (Θ,Φ), are satisfied there,

• at (Θ0,Φ0), the boundary condition (19) is replaced by (22).

This results in a system of nonlinear equations

F(X) = 0,

where the unknownX = [Urr, Urθ, Uθθ, Urφ, Uθφ, Uφφ, Ur, Uθ, Uφ, U]T is a 10N×

M matrix and F : R10N×M

R10N×M is a quadratic function with variable

coefficients. The current nonlinear solver uses a trust region dogleg method [16] with finite difference Jacobians.

The problem (23, 24) for the stream function is discretized using the same approach as above, but is solved independently in a post-processing step.

4 Numerical results

(12)

onto a horizontal cross section and not a spherical cap as would be directly obtained from the model. The symmetry of both domain and solution is taken into account to reduce computational costs. The discretization is taken as

N = M = 20; solutions were checked to have converged as expected for spectral methods of this type (i.e., further refinement does alter the results in any significant way).

4.1 Vertical elliptical hoppers

A family of hoppers described by the following equation are considered

C(φ) = √ π/6

1−E2cos2φ, 0≤E <1, (28)

where E stands for the eccentricity. For various eccentricities, the percentage of difference between the largest and smallest values of the normal stress on a horizontal cross section of the wall was computed, see Figure 2, left. The eccentricity varies from E = 0 (circular cross section) to E = 0.866 which roughly corresponds to a 2 to 1 ratio between major and minor axes. The relative difference (as a percentage) between the largest and smallest values

σM andσm taken by the normal stress on a horizontal cross section of the wall,

i.e., 100σM−σm

σm varies correspondingly from 0 (1.81×10

−11to be precise) in the

axisymmetric case to about 600% for E = 0.866. In other words, the normal stress varies by more than a factor 6 for this range of hopper geometries.

Figure 3 clearly illustrates the effects of the loss of axisymmetry. This is fur-ther supported by Figure 4, which depicts the behavior of the normal stress along the boundary. In the present elliptical case, the normal stress reaches its maximum value at the points of largest curvature. This type of nonunifor-mity, while ignored in standard models in this field, may be at the root of very important effects such as shell buckling and other structural failure modes rou-tinely observed in silos [19]. One observes from the graph of Vr that motion

mainly takes place in a central circular core of the domain. Further, secondary circulation, while totally absent from Jenike’s theory, is clearly present here as shown by the graph of the stream function: four vortices (for the full domain) are formed. However, the angular components of the velocity, Vθ and Vφ, are

(13)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 average stress 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 λ 5 10 15 20 25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 stream function −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 x 10−3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Vr −1.4 −1.2 −1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Vθ −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 x 10−3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Vφ −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 x 10−3

Fig. 3.Flow in a vertical elliptical hopper (28) with E = 0.866 (major axis/minor axis ≈2); material parameters correspond to corn in a steel hopper: angle of inter-nal friction δ = 32.1◦, angle of wall friction = 11.7◦. Only half of the domain is represented.

4.2 Vertical square hoppers

In spite of being well-known to have suboptimal flowing properties, hoppers with square cross sections are still widely used in many applications.

A family of hoppers described by the following equation are considered

C(φ) = π/6

(14)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

−π −3π/4 −π/2 −π/4 0 π/4 π/2 3π/4 π

Fig. 4. Behavior of the normal stress along the wall; dash-dot line: vertical ellipti-cal hopper (28) with E = 0.866; solid line: vertical “square-like” hopper (29) with

p= 20; dashed line: tilted right circular hopper (30) with θw = 30◦ and a tilt angle

α= 14◦; material parameters correspond to corn in a steel hopper: angle of internal friction δ = 32.1◦, angle of wall friction = 11.7◦. For comparison purposes, the maximal values are normalized to 1.

The above domain corresponds to the unit disk with respect to the p-norm; for p2, the domain approximates a square.

In Figure 2, right, the parameter p varies from 2 (circular cross section) to 20. The relative difference (as a percentage) between the largest and smallest values σM and σm taken by the normal stress on a horizontal cross section

of the wall, i.e., 100σM−σm

σm varies correspondingly from 0 in the axisymmetric

case p= 2 to about 150%.

As can be seen from Figure 4, the nonuniformity of the stresses is less promi-nent for (almost) square hoppers than it is for elliptical ones. It is worth noting that the normal stress is largest at the corners, a feature of possible importance to structural engineers. The profile of the radial velocity Vr is much steeper

(15)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 average stress 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 λ 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 stream function −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 x 10−3

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Vr −35 −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 −5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Vθ −0.015 −0.01 −0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 −0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Vφ −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 x 10−3

Fig. 5.Flow in a vertical “square-like” hopper (29) withp= 20; material parameters correspond to corn in a steel hopper: angle of internal friction δ = 32.1◦, angle of wall friction = 11.7◦. Only a quarter of the domain is represented.

4.3 Tilted circular hoppers

Industrial applications sometimes call for the use of an off-center outlet at the bottom of a large silo. We consider here the case of tilted right circular cones. More precisely, a right circular cone of (half) opening angle θw is tilted

in the yz-plane (φ ≡ 0) by an angle α. Elementary trigonometry shows the function θ = C(φ) describing the boundary of the computational domain to be implicitly defined by

(16)

−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 average stress 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44

−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 λ 3 4 5 6 7 8

−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 stream function −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 x 10−5

−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Vr −0.6 −0.55 −0.5 −0.45 −0.4 −0.35

−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Vθ −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 x 10−4

−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Vφ −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 x 10−4

Fig. 6. Flow in a tilted right circular hopper (30) with θw = 30◦ and a tilt angle

α= 14◦; material parameters correspond to corn in a steel hopper: angle of internal friction δ = 32.1◦, angle of wall friction = 11.7◦.

(17)

Figure 6 illustrates the same fields as displayed for the previous two experi-ments. Only two circulatory cells are observed. The main component of the velocityVr is found to be more uniform than in the previous two experiments.

The same is true of the average stress and the normal stress on the wall. Figure 4 shows that the largest value of the normal stress is reached in the direction toward which the hopper is tilted.

5 Conclusions

We have shown the effects of the geometry of the containers on granular flows are to be important. Secondary circulation is brought to the fore; this phe-nomenon, while predicted in an earlier study of a linearized problem [8], is absent from other existing studies. More importantly, significant stress nonuni-formities are observed. Both results may have important practical applications in hopper and silo design and in the prediction of shell buckling. In a forth-coming paper, comparison between the present work, results obtained with other constitutive laws (such as the Matsuoka-Nakai yield condition [4]), and experimental results will be considered.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bob Behringer, Tim Kelley, Michael Rotter, Tony Royal and John Wambaugh for many helpful discussions. They are also grateful to David Schaeffer for many insightful suggestions and remarks without which this paper would not have been possible.

References

[1] A. Bayliss, A. Class and B.J. Matkowsky,Roundoff error in computing

derivatives using the Chebyshev pseudo-spectral methods, J. Comput. Phys., 116 (1994), pp. 380–383.

[2] L. Brillouin, Les lois de l’´elasticit´e en coordonn´ees quelconques, Congr`es

International de Math´ematique, Toronto, 1924, Annales de Physique, 3 (1925), pp. 251–298.

[3] C. Canuto, M.Y. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni and T.A. Zang, Spectral

Methods in Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1988.

[4] I.F. Collins,A systematic procedure for constructing critical state models in

(18)

[5] A. Drescher, An experimental investigation of flow rules for granular materials using optically sensitive glass particles, G´eotechnique, 26 (1976), pp. 591–601.

[6] P.A. Gremaud and J.V. Matthews,On the Computation of Steady Hopper

Flows: I, Stress Determination for Coulomb Materials, J. Comput. Phys., 166 (2001), p.63-83.

[7] P.A. Gremaud, J.V. Matthews and M. Shearer,Similarity solutions for

granular materials in hoppers, in: Nonlinear PDE’s, dynamics, and continuum physics, J. Bona, K. Saxton and R. Saxton Eds., pp. 79–95, Contemporary Mathematics, #255, AMS, 2000.

[8] P.A. Gremaud, J.V. Matthews and D.G. Schaeffer, Secondary

Circulation in Granular Flow Through Nonaxisymmetric Hoppers, Center for Research in Scientific Computation, NCSU, Technical Report CRSC-TR02-29, to be published in SIAM J. Appl. Math.

[9] R. Jackson,Some mathematical and physical aspects of continuum models for

the motion of granular materials, in: Theory of Dispersed Multiphase Flow, R.E. Meyer Ed., pp. 291–337, Academic Press, 1983.

[10]A.W. Jenike, Gravity flow of bluk solids, Bulletin No. 108, Utah Eng. Expt.

Station, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (1961).

[11]A.W. Jenike,A theory of flow of particulate solids in converging and diverging

channels based on a conical yield function, Powder Tech., 50 (1987), pp. 229– 236.

[12]T.M. Knowlton, J.W. Carson, G.E. Klinzing and W.C. Yang, The

importance of storage, transfer and collection, Chem. Eng. Prog., 90 (1994), pp. 44-54.

[13]J.V. Matthews, An analytical and numerical study of granular flows in

hoppers, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Mathematics, North Carolina State Univ., 2000.

[14]R.M. Nedderman, Static and kinematic of granular materials, Cambridge

University Press, 1992.

[15]E.B. Pitman, The stability of granular flow in converging hoppers, SIAM J.

Appl. Math., 48 (1988), pp. 1033–1052.

[16]M.J.D. Powell, A Fortran Subroutine for Solving Systems of Nonlinear

Algebraic Equations, Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Algebraic Equations, (P. Rabinowitz, ed.), Ch.7, 1970.

[17]J.R. Prakash and K.K. Rao, Steady compressible flow of cohesionless

granular materials through a wedge-shaped bunker, J. Fluid Mech., 225 (1991), pp. 21–80.

[18]E.E. Rothman, Reducing round-off error in Chebyshev pseudospectral

(19)

[19]J.M. Rotter, Private Communication, 2003.

[20]D.G. Schaeffer, Instability in the evolution equations describing

incompressible granular flow, J. Diff. Eq., 66 (1987), pp. 19–50.

[21]D. Schulze, Storage, Feeding, Proportioning, in: Powder Technology and

Pharmaceutical Processes, Handbook of Powder Technology Vol. 9, D. Chulia, M. Deleuil and Y. Pourcelot Eds, pp. 285–317, Elsevier, 1994.

[22]I.S. Sokolnikoff,Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, 1956.

[23]A.J.M. Spencer, Deformation of ideal granular materials, in Mechanics of

Solids, H.G. Hopkins and M.J. Sewell Eds., pp. 607–652, Pergamon Press, 1982.

[24]A.J.M. Spencer, Remarks on coaxiality in fully developed gravity flows of

References

Related documents

[r]

The commercial software Minitab® has been used to analyse experimental results based on Taguchi method to determine optimum level of RF power, gas ratio and chamber pressure

Despite the positive impact of access to microfinance, only 34% of the farmers had availed agricultural microfinance loan from formal institutions while only 18% took

Wizard of Oz for Gesture Prototyping Jorik Jonker Human Media Interaction Chair, Department of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente Date July

International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology CSEIT1726289| Received 25Nov2017 | Accepted 28Dec2017 | November December 2017

Author formulated the adversarial classifier reverse engineering problem (ACRE) as the exercise of learning enough information about a classifier to construct

And using GPU data placement optimization, we demonstrate the seamless linkage of various sources of knowledge (programs, domain experts, and hardware) enabled by ontology, and