1995
DOI: 10.1016/0009-2509(94)00211-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wall effect for a sphere falling through a non-Newtonian fluid in a rectangular duct

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, for the sphere with a diameter of 3 cm, there was a fairly large decrease the wall factor as the column width was reduced from 16 to 9 cm, respectively as geometric factor was increased. This is expected (Machac and Lecjaks, 1995,) considering the ratio between the column width and sphere diameter is relatively high at a value of 0.3. …”
Section: Effect Of Column Width On Terminal Velocitymentioning
confidence: 91%
“…However, for the sphere with a diameter of 3 cm, there was a fairly large decrease the wall factor as the column width was reduced from 16 to 9 cm, respectively as geometric factor was increased. This is expected (Machac and Lecjaks, 1995,) considering the ratio between the column width and sphere diameter is relatively high at a value of 0.3. …”
Section: Effect Of Column Width On Terminal Velocitymentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Most theoretical and experimental work has been carried out with cylindrical boundaries; however, some results are also available for boundaries of triangular and square cross-sections (Happel and Bart, 1974; Miyamura et al, 1981; Chow et al, 1989; Ilic et al, 1992;Balaramakrishna and Chhabra, 1992;Machac and Lecjaks, 1995). Most theoretical and experimental work has been carried out with cylindrical boundaries; however, some results are also available for boundaries of triangular and square cross-sections (Happel and Bart, 1974; Miyamura et al, 1981; Chow et al, 1989; Ilic et al, 1992;Balaramakrishna and Chhabra, 1992;Machac and Lecjaks, 1995).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…of particle diameter to effective container diameter [14] should be taking into consideration before building flow tank and selecting particle size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%