4.5 Article

Comparing the transitional behaviour of kaolinite and bentonite suspension flows

Journal

EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS
Volume 41, Issue 13, Pages 1911-1921

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/esp.3959

Keywords

flume experiments; transitional flow; cohesion; bentonite; kaolinite

Funding

  1. UK Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C514823/1, NE/I027223/1]
  2. National Great Rivers Research and Education Center Faculty Fellowship
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/I027223/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/I027223/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Past research has demonstrated the dramatic effects that variations in suspended clay can have on the properties of flow by producing a range of transitional flows between turbulent and laminar states, depending on clay concentration and fluid shear. Past studies have been restricted to kaolinite flows, a clay mineral that has relatively weak cohesive properties. This paper extends these studies to suspension flows of bentonite, a clay mineral that attains higher viscosities at far lower volumetric concentrations within a flow. The results show that the types of transitional flow behaviour recognized in past studies can also be found in bentonite suspension flows, but at lower suspended sediment concentrations, thus demonstrating an even more dramatic effect on flow properties, and potentially on sediment transport and resulting bed morphology, than kaolinite flows. The paper proposes new stability diagrams for the phase space of bentonite flows and compares these to past work on kaolinite suspension flows. These new data suggest that the transitional-flow Reynolds number can be used to delineate the types of transitional flow across different clay types and assess modern and ancient clay-suspension flows. (c) 2016 The Authors. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available