2013
DOI: 10.1103/physreve.87.022202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shallow granular flows down flat frictional channels: Steady flows and longitudinal vortices

Abstract: Granular flows down inclined channels with smooth boundaries are common in nature and industry. Nevertheless, flat boundaries have been much less investigated than bumpy ones, which are used by most experimental and numerical studies to avoid sliding effects. Using numerical simulations of each grain and of the side walls we recover quantitatively experimental results. At larger angles we predict a rich behavior, including granular convection and inverted density profiles suggesting a Rayleigh-Bénard type of i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
73
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
7
73
1
Order By: Relevance
“…An intuitive explanation of this velocity-weakening is that, whatever the scale, higher velocities increase the fluctuations in granular flows and may locally decrease the volume fraction, possibly decreasing frictional dissipation and enabling more complex flows (vortices and so on). Indeed, recent discrete element modelling of dry granular flows highlights the appearance of possible regimes dominated by large-scale vortices, significantly reducing the effective friction 56 , although this remains to be observed in laboratory experiments. Different mechanisms may also be responsible for this friction weakening, owing to the great complexity of natural landslides that involve very different material properties (for example, composition and strength), environment variables (for example, air pressure and gravity) and physical processes at play (for example, fluid/grain interactions and erosion/deposition processes).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An intuitive explanation of this velocity-weakening is that, whatever the scale, higher velocities increase the fluctuations in granular flows and may locally decrease the volume fraction, possibly decreasing frictional dissipation and enabling more complex flows (vortices and so on). Indeed, recent discrete element modelling of dry granular flows highlights the appearance of possible regimes dominated by large-scale vortices, significantly reducing the effective friction 56 , although this remains to be observed in laboratory experiments. Different mechanisms may also be responsible for this friction weakening, owing to the great complexity of natural landslides that involve very different material properties (for example, composition and strength), environment variables (for example, air pressure and gravity) and physical processes at play (for example, fluid/grain interactions and erosion/deposition processes).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jop et al 2005) show a maximum in the thickness profile down the centre of the channel, but the variations are small in magnitude (Brodu et al 2013). Similarly, the measured transverse velocities are negligible (<1 % of the downslope magnitudes according to Jop et al 2005) and so the statements (4.2) and (4.4) are plausible as leading-order approximations.…”
Section: Steady Fully-developed Flows Between Parallel Platesmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…A large body of work in the last decade has been devoted to the so-called µ(I) rheology [4,10]. While this rheology seems to work well (and should be probably better referred to) as an empirical, macroscopic scaling law, its colinear extension to 3D [11] was shown to have some drawbacks for complex flows, particularly when approaching the quasistatic regime of flow [12,13,6]. These problems seem to be related to the local nature of the µ(I) rheology and motivated research on nonlocal models of granular flows such as fluidity-based models [14][15][16][17] and models inspired by kinetic theories [18][19][20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%