Developing A Standard Platform To Predict The Drag Coefficient of Irregular Shape Particles

Powder Technology 395 (2022) 314–337
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Powder Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec
Developing a standard platform to predict the drag coefficient of irregular

shape particles
Amin Roostaee, Mahdi Vaezi ⁎
College of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Northern Illinois University, Still Gym 203, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Irregular particles are very common in natural transport phenomena and industrial applications. Although nu-
Received 20 February 2021 merous research studies have been conducted on irregular shape particles, there exist several issues like long
Received in revised form 30 August 2021 list of CD correlations with numerous shape factors proposed for wide range of irregular particles. This research
Accepted 1 September 2021
aimed at proposing a general CD correlation using a general shape factor applicable to various irregular shapes
Available online 24 September 2021
over a very wide range of Reynolds Number (Re). 60 reference model shapes were produced in SolidWorks®
Keywords:
to achieve a very wide range of irregularity. A general shape factor was proposed and applied together with 16
Drag coefficient previously proposed CD correlations to the 60 reference model shapes over a range of Re from 0.001 to 300,000
Irregular shapes to derive a general CD correlation using nonlinear regression analysis. 60 reference model shapes were 3D
Shape factor printed and their CDs were experimentally measured and compared with estimated values using proposed
Non-spherical particles general correlation.
Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction irregular shape particles due to the complexity of their geometries and
difficulty of choosing and applying proper shape descriptors,
Solid-fluid interactions are commonly observed in natural transport i.e., shape factors. However, there still exists many prediction models
phenomena and industrial applications. A few examples include sedi- which consider the actual shape of irregular particles. Therefore, any at-
mentation in rivers [1], volcanic ash dissipation in the atmosphere [2], tempt to derive a general formula capable of estimating the CD of
fixed and fluidized bed reactors [3], and pipeline hydro-transportation various particles, from perfect spherical to highly irregular shapes, in a
of coal [4], limestone [5], and biomass feedstock [6–10]. In all these ex- wide range of Re will be advantageous.
amples, particle and fluid motions affect each other through drag, shear The particle's basic geometry can be classified into two categories:
lift, virtual mass, and other force interactions [11]. By calculating the regular and irregular; the regular shapes can be further divided into
magnitude and direction of these forces, one can predict the solid- spherical and non-spherical groups [12]. The most well-known regular
fluid motion. Among all, drag is the force opposite to the moving direc- spherical particle is sphere and numerous studies conducted to measure
tion of the solid particle [11]. To evaluate the magnitude of it, Drag Co- its CD [16–18]. The second class; irregular shapes, are very common in
efficient (CD) of the particle needs to be first measured mostly nature and cannot be defined via basic regular shapes. Although the
experimentally. The CD depends on the particle's geometry (i.e., shape, CD of irregular shapes can sometimes be estimated through CD of most
dimension, etc.) [12], also the properties of the fluid medium. In order similar regular shape [12,19], for most irregular shapes such as
to find a relation between measured CD of a disperse particle and volcanic ash and calcareous sand particles no similar regular shape
surrounding fluid characteristics, many prediction models of CD have can be found to represent the irregularity. Therefore, the CD of
been proposed. Every model is developed for specific shape(s) of the irregularly shaped particles has been evaluated directly through
particle(s) within particular range of the corresponding particle's numerical simulations on materials like combustion residues [20],
Reynolds number (Re). Since in many solid-fluid interactions solid par- graphite dust [21] or experimental studies on shingle particles and
ticles come with a variety of geometrical shapes, for simplifying the pre- grain sized anthracites [22], volcanic rough particles [23–25],
diction models of CD, the particles are commonly assumed ideal calcareous sand particles [26], slender particles with large aspect
spherical objects [13–15]. This assumption is specifically made for ratios [27], nylon fibers [28] and Refused Drive Fuels (RDF) [29]. A com-
prehensive list of irregular particles is presented in Table 1. As it is ob-
served here, since a wide variety of shapes have been considered
irregular, numerous individual studies have been conducted to predict
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mvaezi@niu.edu (M. Vaezi).
the CD of these particles.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.09.037
0032-5910/Published by Elsevier B.V.
A. Roostaee and M. Vaezi Powder Technology 395 (2022) 314–337
Nomenclature α and β Parameters in Gogus's correlation

CD Drag coefficient ψ Particle shape factor by Dioguardi and Wang
CD,sphere Drag coefficient of sphere η Parameter in Dioguardi's and Wang's correlations
CD,Reg Drag coefficient derived from the regression analysis ρ′ Particle-to-fluid density ratio in Bagheri and
CD,pre Drag coefficient derived from correlations in Table 1 Bonadonna's correlation
CD,surf Drag coefficient derived from Eqs. (10) and (11) α2 and β2 Empirical expression in Bagheri and Bonadonna's cor-
Q1 The first quartile of CD,pre data derived from correlations relation
in Table 1 at each Re ρl Liquid density
Q3 The third quartile of CD,pre data derived from ρp Particle density
correlations in Table 1 at each Re up Particle velocity
NRMSE Average Normalized Root Mean Square error μl Liquid viscosity
N Number of corresponding CD correlations in Table 1 at
which the CD of a particle could be estimated at each
Re number
CSF Corey's sphericity shape factor
F Shape factor by Wilson and Huang Early researches on irregular shapes were focused on defining a
Err Average error between CD,Reg and CD,surf standard to measure the irregularity of particles [30,31]. Numerous
Average Deviation Average deviation or spread of CD,pre derived studies used sphere as a scale for measuring particles irregularity
from correlations in Table 1 at each Re [2,26,31,32]. The outcome was a non-dimensionalized quantity for mea-
Re Reynolds number suring the irregularity. Wadell [31] defined two scales to measure the
IR Alshibli and Alsaleh's mathematical definition of round- degree of sphericity and roundness of an irregularly shaped particle;
ness both defined with respect to perfect sphere and circle, respectively
ISPH Alshibli and Alsaleh's mathematical definition of sphe- (the terms roundness and circularity are used interchangeably in this
ricity text). The shape factor introduced by Corey [30]: Corey Shape Factor
Asph Surface area of a sphere with equivalent volume as the (CSF), is based on the longest, intermediate, and shortest dimensions
particle of the particle, and measures the degree of sphericity of an irregular
Ap Actual surface area of the particle shape. Powers [32] adopted logarithmic class intervals to two sets of
A, B, C and, D Parameters in Haider and Levenspiel's correlation clay models (one set with high sphericity and the other with low sphe-
K1 Stoke's shape factor ricity) and used the photographs to calculate the roundness of particles,
K2 Newton's shape factor known as rho or P shape factor, by visual comparison. Tran-Cong et al.
Dtube Test tube diameter (considered 1 m in this research) [33], Bagheri and Bonadonna [23], Dioguardi and Mele [24] and Wang
C Circularity shape factor by Tran-Cong et al. [26] also defined other shape factors to measure the irregularity
M, N, and n Parameters in Wu's correlation of various shapes. A comprehensive list of shape factors is presented
X Circularity shape factor by Dioguardi and Wang in Table 1. Despite all the efforts made to define a general shape factor
Pmp Maximum particle's projection perimeter to report irregularity, some issues are yet to be addressed:
Pp Perimeter of the circle equivalent to the maximum pro- • There exists no shape factor applicable to the wide variety of irregular
jection area in Dioguardi's and Wang's correlations shapes. Therefore, various researchers applied one or a more distinct
Ks Stoke's drag correction factor in Bagheri and shape factors to define the irregularity of the studied particles. Exam-
Bonadonna’ correlation ples are Wilson and Huang [2] applied a single shape factor to propose
KN Newton's drag correction factor in Bagheri and an equation to estimate the CD of volcanic particles, and Dioguardi and
Bonadonna’ correlation Mele [24] and Wang et al. [26] combined two shape factors into one.
Fs Stoke's form factor in Bagheri and Bonadonna's correla- • Usually, other definitions of shape factors cannot be calculated using
tion the shape factors reported in an experiment. For example, Wadell's
FN Newton's form factor in Bagheri and Bonadonna's corre- [31] sphericity shape factor cannot be calculated from particles char-
lation acteristics provided by Wilson and Huang [2]. In addition, the lack of
A′, B′, a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3, m, m1, and m2 access to the tested particles in each experiment prevents the possibil-
Parameters in Camenen's correlation ity of calculating other shape factors directly from the particles them-
dl Longest dimension of particle selves. However, Ueda et al. [34] recently tried to estimate various 3D
di Intermediate dimension of particle particles shape characteristics using easily measurable multiple 2D
ds Shortest dimension of particle counterparts applying genetic algorithms.
n Number of discretization points along the Re range • Sphericity and roundness shape factors have been calculated differ-
dn Diameter of sphere with equivalent projected area as ently by different authors. For instance, Powers [35] reports the sphe-
the particle ricity shape factor to range from 0.5 to 4.5 while Folk [36], Wadell [31],
da Diameter of sphere with equivalent surface area as the and Alshibli and Alsaleh [37] report the range for the same shapes be-
particle tween 0.0 to ~1.0. Accordingly, some authors applied different terms
dv Diameter of sphere with equivalent volume as the par- to categorize their irregular shapes based on their calculations. For in-
ticle stance, Swamee and Ojha [38], instead of using angular and rounded
e Elongation shape factor categories proposed by Powers [35], applied natural sediments and
f Flatness shape factor crushed rock fragment terms which are almost incomprehensible to
g Gravitational acceleration apply for the category title or name of other type of irregular particles.
ø Wadell's sphericity shape factor
λ Shape factor by Gogus
∀ Particle volume
Although there have been numerous correlations proposed to esti-
rho or P Powers's shape factor
mate the CD of irregular shapes as a function of shape factor and Re,
there exists limitations in application of those correlations. Correlation
315
Table 1
Correlations proposed to estimate the CD of irregularly shaped particles together with corresponding particles shape factors and the applicable range of Re.⁎,⁎⁎
No. Reference Type of irregular particle Re range Shape factor Drag coefficient
1 Komar and Pebbles for sediments Re < 1 CSF ¼ pdffiffisffiffiffiffi CD

¼ 0:946CSF −0:378 ð0:4 ≤ CSF < 0:8Þ
dl di 24=Re
Reimers [1] CD
24=Re ¼ 0:997CSF −0:359 Re 0:0279 ð0:4 ≤ CSF < 0:8Þ
CD
24=Re ¼ 2:18−2:09CSF ðCSF < 0:4Þ
2 Wilson and Volcanic ash such as pumices, glass 0.1 < Re < 100 F ¼ ðdi2d
þds Þ CD
¼ F −0:828 þ 2ð1:07−F Þ
l 24=Re
Huang [2] shards, and feldspar crystals
" #
3 Haider and Spherical and non-spherical 0.1 < Re < 105 ϕ¼
Asph
CD ¼ 24
1 þ A Re B þ 1þC D
Ap Re
Levenspiel particles. Re
A = exp (2.3288 − 6.4581ø + 2.4486ø2)

[48]
B = 0.0964 + 0.5565ø
C = exp (4.905 − 13.8944ø + 18.4222ø2 − 10.2599ø3)
D = exp (1.4681 + 12.2584ø − 20.7322ø2 + 158855ø3)
4 Swamee Natural sediments and crushed rock 1 < Re < 104 $ " #0:28 %1:428
CSF ¼ pdffiffisffiffiffiffi 33:78 1
and Ojha fragment (data from schulz (1954))
dl di C D ¼ 0:84 0:35 0:7 0:56
þ Re þ 700 Re
þ 1, 000CSF 4 20 0:175
ð1 þ 4:5CSF Þ Re ðCSF þ 20CSF Þ
[46] (natural sediments)
$ " #0:32 %1:25
48:5 1
C D ¼ 0:84 0:35 0:8
þ Re þ 700Re
þ 1, 000CSF 18 0:8
ð1 þ 4:5CSF Þ Re 0:64 ð CSF þ 1:05CSF Þ
(crushed rock fragments)
" #−2 " #
5 Ganser [24] All non-spherical non-isometric ReK1K2 ≤ 10e5 CD 24 0:6567 0:4305
K 2 ¼ Re K 1 K 2 1 þ 0:1118ð Re K 1 K 2 Þ
da þ 1þ
ϕ¼ dv
3305
shape Re K 1 K 2
−1
1 dn 2 −1=2 dv
K1 ¼ ð þ Ø Þ −2:25
3 dv 3 Dtube %
K2 = 101.8148(−LOG ø)0.5743
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
da ¼ 4Ap =π
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dv ¼ 3 6∀=π
" #" #
6 Gogus et al. Irregular angular particles 10 < Re < 105 λ¼ dl þdi dl di ds
C D ¼ αð Re Þ β
2ds ∀ λ
[27]
(α and β are dependent to λ and shape type)
$ #0:687 % & '2
7 Tran-cong isometric, axisymmetric, 0.15 < Re < 1500 c ¼ Pπdmpa " 0:42 dda
et al. [43] orthotropic, plane and elongated C D ¼ 24 da 1 þ 0:15
Re dv
pffiffi da Re
C
þ pffiffih
dv
v
& '−1:16 i
da
C 1 þ 4:25 & 104 dv
Re
conglomerates of spheres
h& in
8 Wu and sediment deposits 0.01 < Re < 105 CSF ¼ pdffiffisffiffiffiffi CD ¼
'
M ð1=nÞ
þ N 1=n
dl di Re
Wang [51]
M = 53.5 exp (−0.65 CSF)
N = 5.65 exp (−2.5 CSF)
n = 0.7 + 0.9 CSF
h& 'ð1=mÞ im
9 Camenen Different type of natural and crushed 0.1 < Re < 104 P C D ¼ Re A
þ B1=m
[47] sands & ( & ')a
CSF ¼ pdffiffisffiffiffiffi A0 ¼ a1 þ a2 1− sin π2 CSF 3
dl di ( & ')b
B0 ¼ b1 þ b2 1− sin π2 CSF 3
( &π ')m2
m ¼ m1 sin 2 CSF
m1 = 1.2 + 0.12P
m2 = 0.47
a1 = 24
a2 = 100
a3 = 2.1 + 0.06P
b1 = 0.39 + 0.22(6 − P)
b2 = 20
b3 = 1.75 + 0.35P
10 Dioguardi Non-spherical rough particles 0 ≤ Re ≤ 10000 Asph C d,sphere & Re '1=0:4826
ϕ¼ Ap C D ¼ Re 2 η 1:1883
ψ
and Mele
(sphericity) η = Re−0.23 (0 ≤ Re ≤ 50)
[32]
X¼
P mp
Pp
η = Re0.05 (50 ≤ Re ≤ 10000)
(circularity)
ψ ¼ ϕX
" #
11 Bagheri and non-spherical solid particles of 10−3 < Re < 3 × 105 e = di/dl C D ¼ 24K s
1 þ 0:125ð Re K n =K s Þ2=3 þ 1þ0:46K n
Re 5330
Bonadonna regular and irregular shapes (elongation) Re K n =K s
[23] f = ds/di Ks = (F1/3s + F−1/3s )/2

(flatness) KN = 10α2(−LOG FN)β2
10
α 2 ¼ 0:45 þ exp 2:5 log %%
ρ0 þ 30Þ
ð
β 2 ¼ 1− exp 3 log37ρ0 %% þ 100
ð Þ
" 3 #
d
F S ¼ f e1:3 d div ds
l
" 3 #
2 d
F N ¼ f e1:3 dl dvi ds
12 Wang et al. Calcareous sand particles of highly 0.01 ≤ Re ≤ 3700 ϕ¼
Asph
C D ¼ 0:945
C d,sphere
Re −0:01
Ap ψη
[34] irregular shape
(sphericity) η = 0.641Re0.153
P mp
X¼ Pp
(circularity)
ψ ¼ ϕX
13 Dioguardi 0.03 ≤ Re ≤ 10000 ϕ¼
Asph
Ap
316
Table 1 (continued)
No. Reference Type of irregular particle Re range Shape factor Drag coefficient
et al. [33] (sphericity) " #0:25 " # 0:08
P mp
CD ¼ 24
Re
1−ψ
Re þ1 þ 24
Re 0:1806 Re 0:6459 ψ−ð Re Þ þ 1þ6880:95
0:4251
ψ−5:05
X¼ Pp
Re
(0.335 ≤ ψ ≤ 1)
(circularity)
ψ ¼ ϕX
⁎ Dtube chosen to be 1 m here to minimize the wall effects.

⁎⁎ ρ′ considered to be 2.65 based on the density of quartz.
proposed by Tran-cong et al. [33] covers a narrow range of Re smaller 3- Proposing a general CD correlation for irregular shape particles over a
than 1500, and correlation proposed by Wilson and Huang [2] is limited wide range of Re and shape factors,
to Re between 0.1 and 100. Some correlations are not user friendly like 4- 3D printing the reference model particles and experimentally mea-
those by Swamee and ojha [38] and Camenen [39] where several terms suring settling velocity and corresponding CD in a 1.5 m tall and
should be first calculated before one can estimate the CD. A few algebraic 300 mm diameter column of water,
mathematical correlations formats do not explicitly demonstrate the ef- 5- Comparing and validating the experimental results with the those
fect of Re on CD in stokes, intermediate and Newton's regimes, e.g., the derived using the proposed general drag correlation.
correlation proposed by Swamee and Ojha [38]. Also, some correlations
do not include shape factors such as those proposed by Hottory and 2. Methodology
Sylvester [40] and She et al. [22] which cause uncertainty in predicting
the CD for irregular shape particles. Discrepancies in CD of similar 2.1. Developing reference model particles
particles estimated by various correlations have been also reported by
researchers [41]. The first system of categorizing irregularly shaped particles based on
In conclusion, despite numerous research studies conducted on ir- sphericity and roundness was proposed by Powers [32,35]. The
regular shapes, there exist several problems yet to be addressed. First, comparison-based charts for estimating roundness and sphericity
the wide variety of irregular particles have resulted in many studies to were comprised of 12 (published in 1953) [32] and 30 (published in
be conducted and, accordingly, many correlations to be proposed to 1982) [35] images of a selection of actual irregular particles with wide
predict the CD of every one shape studied. These correlations often range of shapes from discoidal to rod-like to spheroidal to spherical,
estimate the CD with wide discrepancies and low accuracy when and incorporated roundness (i.e., P shape factor) and sphericity as sug-
applied to similar irregular shapes. Second, in the absence of a general gested by Folk [36]. The roundness magnitudes, however, were to be vi-
shape factor to measure the irregularity of particles, a series of shape sually estimated. This limited number of actual images might not
factors have been proposed to describe irregular shapes, often cannot necessarily represent the particles with same or close sphericity and
be used interchangeably and cannot help compare the particles. The roundness, so one might not be able to successfully compare and accu-
third issue is there exists not a general correlation to predict the CD, rately locate an irregularly shaped particle on the chart. Alshibli and
applicable to every irregular particle. Most of the proposed Alsaleh [37] later reproduced the chart, introducing new indices to
correlations are not user-friendly, inaccurate, and limited in their mathematically calculate sphericity (Isph) and roundness (IR), as below:
range of Re.
In the present study, a wide variety of reference model particles are P mp
IR ¼ " # ð1Þ
produced in SolidWorks® according to a previously developed system of π dl þds
2
categorizing irregular particles [35], and following a series of geometri-
cal procedures to assure simplicity and reproducibility. These reference * *
shapes cover a very wide range of irregularity measured by sphericity *Dequ Dequ *
I sph ¼ ** − * ð2Þ
and roundness shape factors. Having the geometrical properties of the ds dl *
reference particles, all the shape factors listed in Table 1 can be calcu-
lated as well. Comparing a series of particle shape factors, one particular
Although they tried to incorporate mathematically-defined round-
shape factor is then chosen as the general shape factor to measure the
ness (IR) in obtaining visually-estimated roundness (P) shape factor,
irregularity of all reference modeled particles. Through a series of
they used the limited number of actual particle images same as in Pow-
data-intensive non-linear regression analyses on 16 previously pro-
er's work [35]. In all these works, no other shape factors except than
posed correlations, a general CD correlation is derived as a function of
sphericity (Isph) and roundness (IR and P) was reported. Moreover,
the general shape factor applicable to a wide variety of angular and
those charts cannot be reproduced since every image is a random
rounded irregular particles over a wide range of Re from 0.001 to
representative of several shapes in every category of irregular particles.
3 × 105. The experiments were carried out by 3D printing the
To overcome these shortcomings, instead of using the image of ac-
reference model particles and measuring their CD while dropping in a
tual irregular particles, in this study, 60 reference model shapes are pro-
column of water. A high-speed camera and frame-by-frame video track-
duced in SolidWorks® based on the definitions of Isph sphericity and IR
ing technique were used to track the falling particles and calculating
roundness shape factors (see Eqs. (1) & (2)). These model shapes
corresponding steady-state CD. Finally, the general CD correlation
cover a wide ranges of roundness (1.0 to 2.1) and sphericity (0.001 to
predictions were compared with experimental results to examine the
~25) to develop a more comprehensive chart based on the system of
precision of the proposed correlation. Accordingly, the research
categorizing proposed by Powers [35] (based on Eqs. (1) and (2), the
objectives can be summarized as:
ranges for roundness and sphericity covered by Powers are 1.0 to ~1.5
1- Producing reference model particles, and 0.00 to ~1.0, respectively). In addition, the detailed geometrical
2- Selecting a general shape factor to describe the irregularity of refer- dimensions and 10 major shape factors (including CSF, F, ϕ, ψ, C, P, X,
ence particles, e, f, and λ) are calculated as well. This information helps compare
317
irregularities using a single shape factor, also estimate particle's CD using In second step, in addition to the 30 model shapes presented in
various correlations presented in Table 1. Table 2, 30 more shapes were produced by increasing the longest di-
In the process of producing model shapes, reproducibility and sim- mension of the particle to extend the range of CSF and Isph sphericity
plicity were the main factors to consider. This enables other researchers shape factors to 0.2 and 25 from 0.75 and 1.14, respectively. All 60
to re-produce and use the exact reference shapes in their irregularly irregular shapes dimensions are presented in Appendix A.
shaped particle studies.
Here at the first step, 30 irregular shapes were produced. The follow- 2.2. Calculating the drag coefficient of model particles
ing explains the design procedure in detail:
The CD correlations in Table 1 were used to predict the CD of every
1- A dodecahedron was chosen as the base explicit geometrical shape
model particle in Table 2. For every shape, the corresponding shape
(Fig. 1(a)). A regular dodecahedron is composed of 12 pentagonal
factors were plugged into the correlations presented in Table 1 and CD
faces, 20 polyhedron vertices and 30 polyhedron edges [45].
was calculated, considering the limitations of the correlation. Up to 12
2- A triangular pyramid was added on every 12 faces of dodecahedron
correlations were used to calculate the CD of one particle considering
(Fig. 1(b)). The height of the pyramid was accordingly adjusted to
three factors listed below:
achieve the desired roundness according to Alshibli and Alsaleh's
definition of IR [37]. Equally decreasing the heights of the pyramids
• Every CD correlation is applicable within a range of Re. These ranges
decrease the IR magnitude from >1.5 (very angular) to almost 1
were thoroughly acknowledged here. For instance, Wang [26] and
(well rounded). Therefore, very angular particles can be modeled
Dioguardi [25] proposed CD correlations valid in the range of
with increased height of the pyramid and vice versa. After
0.01 ≤ Re ≤ 3700 and 0.03 ≤ Re ≤ 10000 only, respectively.
achieving the desired IR, the reference model particle was fit into a
• Some correlations limit the range of corresponding shape factors used.
box to measure the longest, intermediate, and shortest dimensions
This was noticed when plugging shape factors into CD correlations. For
of the particle. Accordingly, both the intermediate and shortest
example Komar and Reimers [1] limited the CSF to 0.8 and smaller.
dimensions of the particles (di and ds) were then adjusted through
• The specific shape of the particle (i.e., very angular, angular, sub-
stretching/compressing (using Flex command in SolidWorks®) to
angular, sub-rounded, rounded, well-rounded) for which every CD
obtain Isph = 0.00 and complete the first row of the chart in Table 2.
correlation is proposed was observed. For instance, Swamee and
3- Since only the longest and shortest dimensions of the particle could
Ojha [38] proposed two correlations to predict CD; one for natural
be changed without disturbing the maximum projection area plane,
and the other one for crushed rock sediments. Calculating the CD for
the longest dimension of the particle was increased to obtain more
rounded and angular model shapes, one should use former and
prismoidal geometrical particles. Doing this, the Isph of the
latter CD correlations, respectively. Also, authors like Dioguardi and
reference model particles increased from 0.001 to 1.14. This way,
Mele [24] and Wang et al. [26] specified the applicability of their
all the 30 shapes in Powers' chart [35] were modeled as shown at
proposed correlations for non-spherical rough particles and calcare-
the first top 5 rows in Table 2.
ous sand particles of highly irregular shapes only, respectively. There-
4- If modeling sub-discoidal or discoidal particles is of interest, flatten-
fore, these correlations were specifically applied to estimate the CD of
ing of the particle could be done by decreasing the shortest dimen-
very angular, angular, and sub-angular particles in Table 2.
sion of the model shape.
• The process of calculating CD from the correlations in Table 1 should
5- For consistency, all the model shapes were scaled to have equal vol-
be examined prior to estimating the CD. For instance, correlations
ume of 1 cm3. This made it easier to compare the dimensions of var-
proposed by Dioguardi and Mele [24], Dioguardi et al. [25], and
ious shapes since all have the same volume.
Wang et al. [26] need iterative procedure to calculate the CD.
6- All the geometrical information of the model shapes such as area,
maximum projection area, total surface area, maximum projection
perimeter etc. were measured through SolidWorks® evaluation fea-
ture. Therefore, for every design, not only the Alshibli and Alsaleh's In total, 9 correlations from Komar and Reimers [1], Haider and
roundness and sphericity shape factors (i.e., IR and Isph) were Levenspiel [42], Swamee and Ojha [38], Ganser [43], Tran-Cong et al.
calculated [37], but also 10 other commonly used shape factors as [33], Wu and Wang [44], Camenen [39], Dioguardi and Mele [24], and
listed in Table 1 were obtained and reported in Table 2. Among Bagheri and Bonadonna [23] were used to predict CD of sub-rounded,
those, CSF, F and ϕ are sphericity shape factors, C, P and X are rounded and well-rounded model particles of Table 2. 12 proposed cor-
roundness or circularity shape factors, ψ is an integration of relations by Wilson and Huang [2], Haider and Levenspiel [42], Swamee
roundness and sphericity, λ is a shape descriptor, e is elongation and Ojha [38], Ganser [43], Gogus et al. [19], Tran-Cong et al. [33], Wu
and f is flatness shape factor. and Wang [44], Camenen [39], Dioguardi and Mele [24], Bagheri and
c)
a) b)
Fig. 1. Isometric views of (a) the dodecahedron applied as the base geometrical shape to produce reference model particles, (b) the process of adding triangular pyramid on dodecahedron
surfaces c) dodecahedron with 12 triangular pyramids added on every face.
318
Table 2
The produced library of the standard irregular shapes from top view.
Less Rounded <----- Roundness -----> More Rounded

A. Roostaee and M. Vaezi
Very Angular Angular Sub-Angular Sub-Rounded Rounded Well Rounded
A B C D E F
IR >1.5 1.4 - 1.5 1.3 - 1.4 1.2 - 1.3 1.2 - 1.1 1.0 - 1.1
P
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
Isph*
319
CSF = 1.0 F = 1.0 CSF = 1.0 F = 1.0 CSF = 1.0 F = 1.0 CSF = 1.0 F = 1.0 CSF = 1.0 F = 1.00 CSF = 1.0 F = 1.00 1
0.0 - 0.1
Ø = 0.36 ISph = 0.0 Ø = 0.45 ISph = 0.0 Ø = 0.51 ISph = 0.01 Ø = 0.60 ISph = 0.0 Ø = 0.65 ISph = 0.0 Ø = 0.93 ISph = 0.0
X = 2.33 C = 0.43 X = 1.82 C = 0.55 X = 1.62 C = 0.62 X = 1.39 C = 0.72 X = 1.30 C = 0.77 X = 1.04 C = 0.96
IR = 1.72 = 0.16 IR = 1.47 = 0.25 IR = 1.36 = 0.31 IR = 1.22 = 0.43 IR = 1.16 = 0.50 IR = 1.01 = 0.90
= 10.39 e = 1.0 = 6.33 e = 1.0 = 4.93 e = 1.0 = 3.72 e = 1.0 = 3.21 e = 1.0 = 2.22 e = 1.0
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
0.1 - 0.2
CSF=0.96 F = 0.93 CSF=0.96 F = 0.91 CSF=0.95 F = 0.90 CSF=0.94 F = 0.89 CSF = 0.94 F = 0.88 CSF = 0.93 F = 0.84
More Prismoidal <------ Sphericity -------> More Spherical

X = 2.33 C = 0.43 X = 1.82 C = 0.55 X = 1.62 C = 0.62 X = 1.39 C = 0.72 X = 1.30 C = 0.77 X = 1.04 C = 0.96
IR = 1.72 = 0.16 IR = 1.47 = 0.25 IR = 1.35 = 0.31 IR = 1.20 = 0.43 IR = 1.16 = 0.50 IR = 1.01 = 0.89
= 10.77 e = 0.93 = 6.63 e = 0.91 = 5.26 e = 0.90 = 3.95 e = 0.89 = 3. 42 e = 0.88 = 2.38 e = 0.83
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
CSF=0.93 F = 0.87 CSF=0.92 F = 0.84 CSF=0.91 F = 0.82 CSF =0.89 F = 0.80 CSF = 0.89 F = 0.79 CSF = 0.86 F = 0.73 3
0.2 - 0.5
X = 2.33 C = 0.43 X = 1.83 C = 0.55 X = 1.62 C = 0.62 X = 1.40 C = 0.71 X = 1.31 C = 0.77 X = 1.05 C = 0.95
IR = 1.71 = 0.16 IR = 1.46 = 0.25 IR = 1.35 = 0.31 IR = 1.22 = 0.43 IR = 1.16 = 0.50 IR = 1.01 = 0.87
= 11.15 e = 0.87 = 6.93 e = 0.84 = 5.53 e = 0.82 = 4.18 e = 0.80 = 3.64 e = 0.79 = 2.63 e = 0.73
f =1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
320
CSF=0.85 F = 0.73 CSF=0.82 F = 0.68 CSF=0.81 F = 0.65 CSF =0.78 F = 0.62 CSF = 0.77 F = 0.60 CSF = 0.72 F = 0.52 4
0.5 -1.0
X = 2.36 C = 0.42 X = 1.86 C = 0.54 X = 1.66 C = 0.60 X = 1.44 C = 0.69 X = 1.35 C = 0.74 X = 1.11 C = 0.90
IR = 1.72 = 0.15 IR = 1.47 = 0.24 IR = 1.36 = 0.30 IR = 1.22 = 0.41 IR = 1.17 = 0.47 IR = 1.03 = 0.79
= 12.31 e = 0.73 = 7.83 e = 0.68 = 6.33 e = 0.65 = 4.87 e = 0.62 = 4.28 e = 0.60 = 3.24 e = 0.52
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
CSF=0.75 F = 0.57 CSF=0.72 F = 0.51 CSF=0.69 F = 0.48 CSF=0.67 F = 0.45 CSF = 0.65 F = 0.43 CSF = 0.65 F = 0.42 5
1.02 - 1.14
X = 2.44 C = 0.41 X = 1.95 C = 0.51 X = 1.76 C = 0.57 X = 1.54 C = 0.65 X = 1.45 C = 0.69 X = 1.17 C = 0.86
IR = 1.73 = 0.15 IR = 1.49 = 0.22 IR = 1.38 = 0.27 IR = 1.25 = 0.36 IR = 1.19 = 0.41 IR = 1.04 = 0.71
= 14.23 e = 0.57 = 9.34 e = 0.51 = 7.67 e = 0.48 = 6.03 e = 0.45 = 5.36 e = 0.43 = 3.75 e = 0.42
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
CSF=0.60 F = 0.36 CSF=0.60 F = 0.36 CSF=0.60 F = 0.36 CSF=0.59 F = 0.36 CSF = 0.61 F = 0.36 CSF = 0.59 F = 0.35 6
321
1.31 - 2.15
X = 2.73 C = 0.37 X = 2.04 C = 0.49 X = 1.85 C = 0.54 X = 1.64 C = 0.61 X = 1.47 C = 0.68 X = 1.23 C = 0.81
IR = 1.78 = 0.12 IR = 1.48 = 0.21 IR = 1.38 = 0.25 IR = 1.27 = 0.32 IR = 1.17 = 0.42 IR = 1.06 = 0.65
= 19.50 e = 0.36 = 10.80 e = 0.36 = 8.92 e = 0.36 = 7.06 e = 0.36 = 5.50 e = 0.36 = 4.26 e = 0.35
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
2.03 - 3.45
CSF=0.50 F = 0.25 CSF=0.50 F = 0.25 CSF=0.50 F = 0.25 CSF=0.49 F = 0.25 CSF = 0.51 F = 0.25 CSF = 0.50 F = 0.25
X = 3.10 C = 0.32 X = 2.27 C = 0.44 X = 1.99 C = 0.50 X = 1.81 C = 0.55 X = 1.59 C = 0.63 X = 1.36 C = 0.73
IR = 1.83 = 0.10 IR = 1.50 = 0.17 IR = 1.37 = 0.23 IR = 1.28 = 0.28 IR = 1.17 = 0.37 IR = 1.0 = 0.55
= 25.82 e = 0.25 = 13.61 e = 0.25 = 10.53 e = 0.25 = 8.74 e = 0.25 = 6.57 e = 0.25 = 5.58 e = 0.25
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
322
8
3.29 - 5.76
CSF=0.40 F = 0.16 CSF=0.38 F = 0.17 CSF=0.40 F = 0.16 CSF =0.40 F = 0.16 CSF = 0.40 F = 0.16 CSF = 0.40 F = 0.16
X = 3.71 C = 0.27 X = 2.54 C = 0.39 X = 2.32 C = 0.43 X = 2.09 C = 0.48 X = 1.83 C = 0.55 X = 1.59 C = 0.63
IR = 1.89 = 0.07 IR = 1.48 = 0.15 IR = 1.40 = 0.18 IR = 1.30 = 0.22 IR = 1.18 = 0.30 IR = 1.09 = 0.41
= 37.37 e = 0.16 = 19.13 e = 0.18 = 14.30 e = 0.16 = 11.67 e = 0.16 = 8.57 e = 0.16 = 8.04 e = 0.16
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
6.03 - 10.74
323
CSF=0.30 F = 0.09 CSF=0.30 F = 0.09 CSF=0.30 F = 0.09 CSF 0.30 F = 0.09 CSF = 0.30 F = 0.09 CSF = 0.30 F = 0.09
Ø = 0.22 ISph=10.74 Ø = 0.33 ISph = 8.13 Ø = 0.37 ISph = 7.64 Ø = 0.43 ISph = 7.04 Ø = 0.50 ISph = 6.49 Ø = 0.54 ISph = 6.03
X = 4.81 C = 0.21 X = 3.15 C = 0.32 X = 2.84 C = 0.35 X = 2.50 C = 0.40 X = 2.27 C = 0.44 X = 2.01 C = 0.50
IR = 1.95 = 0.04 IR = 1.49 = 0.10 IR = 1.39 = 0.13 IR = 1.26 = 0.17 IR = 1.19 = 0.22 IR = 1.10 = 0.27
= 62.56 e = 0.09 = 25.31 e = 0.09 = 20.90 e = 0.09 = 16.37 e = 0.09 = 12.48 e = 0.09 = 13.50 e = 0.09
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
10
13.69 - 24.98
324
CSF = 0.2 F = 0.04 CSF = 0.2 F = 0.04 CSF = 0.2 F = 0.04 CSF = 0.2 F = 0.04 CSF = 0.2 F = 0.04 CSF = 0.2 F = 0.04
Ø = 0.17 ISph=24.98 Ø = 0.27 ISph=18.20 Ø = 0.31 ISph=16.89 Ø = 0.36 ISph =15.73 Ø = 0.41 ISph = 14.80 Ø = 0.42 ISph = 13.69
X = 7.07 C = 0.14 X = 4.38 C = 0.23 X = 3.88 C = 0.26 X = 3.48 C = 0.28 X = 3.18 C = 0.31 X = 2.95 C = 0.34
IR = 2.01 = 0.02 IR = 1.48 = 0.06 IR = 1.36 = 0.08 IR = 1.25 = 0.10 IR = 1.20 = 0.13 IR = 1.10 = 0.14
=134.21 e = 0.04 = 47.67 e = 0.04 = 38.01 e = 0.04 = 31.26 e = 0.04 = 29.28 e = 0.04 = 29.01 e = 0.04
f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0 f = 1.0
⁎The Isph range for the first 5 rows adopted from Alshibli and Alsaleh [45].
Bonadonna [23], Wang [26], and Dioguardi [25] were as well applied
to predict the CD of very-angular, angular and sub-angular model
shapes.
Since there are more than one applicable correlation to estimate the
CD of a particle in Table 1 at each Re, the deviation of estimated CD values
was calculated in Eq. (3) using the average of the CD,pre values at each
!
Re, ∑C D,pre =N .
N
@ Re
0**∑C *1
*
* N D,pre −CD,pre *
B * N *C
∑B@ ∑CD,pre
C
A
n N
N
@ Re
Average Deviation ¼ & 100 ð3Þ
n
To expand the variety of produced particles in Table 2, the CD of

spherical particles at the range of Re of 0.001 to 300,000, based on the
correlation proposed by Concha and Barrientos [46] (see Eq. (4)), was
incorporated into our database. Despite the high range of Re in Eq. (4),
this correlation can predict the CD with the average relative error of
only 1.6% [46]. It is worth mentioning that the CD,sphere in Dioguardi
and Mele [24], Wang et al. [26], and Dioguardi et al. [25] have been
calculated based on Eq. (4) as well.
+ ,
9:04 2 n
C D,sphere ¼ 0:284153 1 þ 0:5
∑ βα Re α ð4Þ
Re α¼0
where β can be specified as follows:
β0 ¼ 9:620833 & 10−1

Fig. 2. 3D printed refrence model paricles. Lables adopted from Table 2.
β1 ¼ 2:736461 & 10−5
β2 ¼ −3:938611 & 10−10 2- Since each shape factor has its own pros and cons, the characteristics
of the selected shape factors in previous step were studied meticu-
β3 ¼ 2:476861 & 10−15 lously using the literature where they have been discussed. Accord-
ingly, the best one(s) in case of its appropriateness to describe the
β4 ¼ −7:159345 & 10−21 reference model particles were selected as the general shape factor
in this research.
β5 ¼ 7:437237 & 10−27 ð5Þ
2.4. Developing a general CD correlation
2.3. Determining the general shape factor After producing the model shapes and calculating corresponding
shape factors as well as CDs, an attempt was made to derive a general
In this study, 12 distinct shape factors including CSF, F, ϕ, Ψ, C, P, X, e, CD correlation to calculate the CD of irregularly shaped particles over a
f, λ, IR and Isph were examined (see definitions in Table 1) in order to find wide range of Re. This was done in two steps:
the best factor to assess the amount of irregularity. The procedure was
a) First, the CD,pre versus Re curves were plotted for every single of 60
as follows:
model shapes, using all the applicable CD correlations (listed in
1- All the shape factors were plotted against the IR and Isph and the best Table 1) and, afterwards, a non-linear regression analysis was con-
ones were selected according to their ability in distinguishing the ducted to determine the best fit and obtain a single CD,reg over the
reference model particles irregularity. corresponding range of Re.
Table 3
3D printer, post-processing, and post curing specifications.
Apparatus Brand Specifications Material and Setting
Stereolithography 3D FORM 2, Formlabs, MA, USA Build Volume: 145 × 145 × 175 mm, Laser Spot Size (FWHM): 0.1397 Type: Tough Resin⁎
printer Density:1175 kg/m3
Layer thickness: 50 μm
Post-printing parts washer Form Wash, Formlabs, MA, – Washing liquid: Isopropyl Alcohol
USA (IPA)
Washing duration: 20 min
Post-curing Form Cure, Formlabs, MA, Advanced precise heating system with temperatures up to 80 °C Cured for 60 min in 60 °C
USA 13 multi-directional LEDs for emitting optimal wavelength of light for
curing
⁎ The Tough Resin is the commercial name of a special photopolymer material produced by Formlabs for prototyping.
325
Fig. 3. Experimental setup comprised of glass tube, high-speed camera and lighting system.
Two non-linear correlations, commonly reported in literature for "+ #m

,ðmÞ
calculating CD of irregularly shaped particles as a function of Re, A
CD ¼ þ B1=m ð7Þ
were used as the base correlations through the regression analysis: Re
The first correlation, Eq. (6), was used by Haider and Levenspiel [42]
in 1989 to estimate the CD of spherical and non-spherical particles.
Other researchers including Ganser [43], Tran-Cong et al. [33] and In addition to the two correlations discussed here, other correlations
Bagheri and Bonadonna [23] later applied the exact same correlation could be applied to correlate CD, Re and shape factors. However, such
or with minor modifications. Here the coefficients A, B, C and D de- correlations are simple polynomial (e.g., correlation by Komar and
pend on the shape factor used to calculate the drag coefficient Reimers [1]) or power equations (e.g., correlation by Swamee and
(e.g., Haider and Levenspiel [42] applied Wadell [31] sphericity Ojha [38], Gogus et al. [19]) (see Table 1) incapable of simply describing
shape factor) and are determined by minimizing the sum of squares the true CD - Re relation in various flow regimes at stokes, intermediate
error between the experimental data and the CD calculated using and Newton regions.
Eq. (6) [42]. Using every one of the two correlations discussed above, 60 CD,reg –
Re curves were plotted on CD,pre – Re graphs. At the end, comparing
Eqs. (6) and (7), one only will be selected as the base regression corre-
lation.
24 " # C A common way of measuring the quality of the fit of the model in re-
CD ¼ 1 þ A Re B þ D
ð6Þ gression analysis is to calculate the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).
Re 1 þ Re
However, as normalization of RMSE allows for CD comparisons with
The second correlation, Eq. (7), was applied by Wu and Wang [44] different scales and a general scoring of the regression model
and Camenen [39]. Eq. (7) consists of two terms accounting for the robustness across CD - Re, in the present study the normalized
two asymptotic behaviors of CD – Re relation in high and low Re num- definition of RMSE, i.e., NRMSE, was applied. Various methods of RMSE
bers. Three coefficients of A, B, and m are individual functions of shape normalizations reported in the literature. Among those, some apply
factors (e.g., Wu and Wang [44] used CSF and Camenen [39] applied the mean (i.e. the mean of the predicted or response variable values at
CSF and P shape factors). The values of A, B, and m are calculated by min- each observation point), the difference between maximum and mini-
imizing the error between the experimental data points and the calcu- mum (i.e. the difference between the maximum and minimum values
lated CD using Eq. (7) [44]. It is worth mentioning that authors like of the predicted or response variable values at each observation
Rubey [47] and Cheng [48] applied the same formula for predicting point), the standard deviation (i.e. the standard deviation of the pre-
the CD of naturally worn sediment particles; however, they did not dicted or response variable values at each observation point), or the in-
relate A, B, and m to any shape factor. According to their results, A, B, terquartile range (i.e. the difference between the first quartile, Q1, and
and m cover ranges of 24 to 34, 1 to 2.1, and 1 to 1.5, respectively [44]. third quartile, Q3, of observations at each observation point). In this
Table 4
The average settling velocity and CD of 5 representative particles dropped 3 and 25 times.
Representative Average settling velocity from 3 Average CD from Average settling velocity from 25 Average CD from Average settling velocity Average CD
particles drops (mm/s) 3 drops drops (mm/s) 25 drops variation (%) variation (%)
A2 160 1.13 156 1.18 2.5 4.42

A8 91 3.48 96 3.12 5.49 10.34
D5 145 1.36 141 1.37 2.76 0.74
F1 211 0.65 208 0.66 1.42 1.59
F9 101 2.84 97 3.05 3.96 7.39
Average Variation (%) 3.23 4.89
326
Table 5
Theoretical and real ranges of all the shape factors covered by the model particles.
Shape Factor Theoretical Range Range Covered by the Model Shapes 0.9
0.8
Sphericity Shape Factors 0.7
CSF 0–1.0 0.2–1.0 0.6
F 0–1.0 0.4–1.0 0.5 ψ
ϕ 0–1.0 0.17–0.93 0.4
Isph 0 – inf. 0–24.98 0.3
0.2
Roundness (Circularity) Shape Factors 0.1
X 1.0 – inf. 1.04–7.07 0.0
(1.0-1.1)
C 0–1.0 0.14–0.96
(1.2-1.1)
P 0–6 0.5–5.5
(1.2-1.3)
(1.3-1.4)
IR 1.0 – inf. 1.01–2.01 Isph
(1.4-1.5)
5.5
(>1.5)
Other Shape Factors 4.5
e 0–1.0 0.04–1.0 3.5
2.5
f 0–1.0 0.25–1.0⁎ 1.5 P (IR)
λ 1.0 – inf. 2.22–134.21 0.5
ψ 0–1.0 0.02–0.9
⁎ f = 1.0 valid for 60 reference model particles in Table 2. 0.25 ≤ f < 1 are particularly for Fig. 4. Variation of ψ versus Isph sphericity and P and IR roundness shape factors and for the
limited number of flattened particles used for validation only (see Section 3.6). produced particles of Table 2.
research, the Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE) definition

that applies the interquartile range of the estimated CD values at each as the liquid medium. A glass column with 300 mm outer diameter and
Re, (Q3 − Q1), was used since it is less sensitive to outliers in CD at 1.5 m height (Borosilicate tubing, Cat-I Glass, IL, US) was filled with pu-
each Re Number. Also, since various correlations in Table 1 can be rified water at least one day before each experimental session to allow
applied to estimate the CD of a reference model particle, the average air bubbles to escape. To ensure the stability of rheological properties,
amount of NRMSE, i.e., NRMSE, defined in Eq. (7), was used: all sets of experiments were conducted at atmospheric pressure and
room temperatures (20–23 °C). Under these conditions, the densities
vffiffiffiffiffi+
un
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi,
2
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi and viscosities of purified water were measured 998 kg/m3 and
u ð C D,Reg −C D,pre Þ
1.002 mPa.s. Using a pair of tweezers, the printed particles were re-
t∑
i¼1 ðQ 3 −Q 1 Þ2
∑ n
@ Re leased gently one at a time at the top center of the cylindrical column
N
NRMSE ¼ ð8Þ and beneath the free surface of water. A high-definition high-speed
N video camera (PROMON U1000 Monochrome Imager, AOS Technolo-
gies, Switzerland) with 1984 × 1264 pixels per frame and 50 frame
where n and N are the number of discretization points of Re (used to per second recording rate was used to record the particle's falling. A
discretize the Re from 0.001 to 300,000) and the number of estimated CD lighting system (VL-200 LED video light panel, VILTROX, Shenzhen,
from corresponding correlations in Table 1, respectively. China) was used as well to illuminate the particles while they were set-
b) Having all the 60 regression curves of CD – Re, using Eq. (7) together tling, helping their detection in tracking software (see Fig. 3).
with their parameters of A, B, and m for all the 60 produced model To evaluate the uncertainty of measurements, a 3D printed sphere
shapes, one surface was fitted on all the curves to further relate with the same material and volume (1 cm3) printed with the same ap-
each parameter to the general shape factor, ѱ. Accordingly, to pro- paratuses (see Table 3) was used for printing reference model particles.
duce the general CD correlation, a series of mathematical equations Similar to Wang et al. [26] and Gogus et al. [19] approach, the sphere
were examined to find the one in terms of best describing the was dropped three times in the glass column and its settling was
relation between the general shape factor and the parameters in video recorded. Accordingly, Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling
the selected regression correlation (i.e., either Eq. (6) or (7)) using Tool software (Version 5.1.5) [54] was used afterwards to detect and
MATLAB fitting tool. The best mathematical equation was chosen track the falling particle and calculate the settling velocity. The sphere
based on the minimum average error calculated using Eq. (8), also terminal velocity was 265, 269, and 267 mm/s in three tries with aver-
simplicity of the equation to apply. age terminal velocity of 267 mm/s, i.e., Re of 3143 and calculated empir-
ical CD of 0.403 using Eqs. (9) and (10). The high-definition video
camera (1984 × 1264 pixels) with a recording rate of 50 FPS allowed
+ , discretization of the scene at a scale smaller than 0.26 mm per pixels.
jC D,Reg −C D,surf j
∑n C D,Reg The error in the time interval between two subsequent frames is pro-
@ Re
Err ¼ & 100 ð9Þ portional to the precision of the video camera's internal digital clock
n
and is insignificant in comparison to the distance error. The uncertainty
2.5. Experimental measurements in the particle centroid position or inevitable secondary motions are the
major sources of error in measuring the velocity of falling particles. Con-
The reference model particles together with a sphere (with the same sidering the exposure time (0.02 s) and falling velocity of particle (265,
volume as the reference model particles) CAD files were exported in a 267, and 269 mm/s), the uncertainty in the particle position Δz is be-
3D printable file format (.STL) into a Stereolithography 3D printer (see tween 5.30, 5.34, and 5.38 mm (i.e., exposure time multiplied by the
Table 3). The selected 3D printer is capable of printing the particles in falling velocity). Thus the vertical displacement of particles in the
fully solid shapes with appropriate resolution and without internal po- image, H, is 1264 × 0.26 mm, the error on the measurement velocity
rous structure. The post-washing and post-curing were performed as is 1.61, 1.62, 1.64% (100% × Δz/H). Therefore, the maximum relative
well to bring parts to their maximum mechanical properties. Fig. 2 dem- error of settling velocity measurements is about ±1.64%. A comparison
onstrated the final printed reference model particles. between the measured experimental CD in this research and the ones
To measure the CD of irregular shape particles, purified water, as the predicted by Cheng [48] and Swamee and Ojha [38] correlations for
most commonly used fluid in similar experiments [20,49–53], was used spherical particles with the CD of 0.408 and 0.380 at the same Re,
327
100000
10 Haider and Levenspiel (1989)
Swamee and Ojha (1991)
Drag Coefficient (CD)

Ganser (1992)
10000
Tren-cong et al. (2004)
1 Wu and Wang (2006)
Camenen (2007)
1000
Bagheri and Bonadonna (2016)
Dioguardi et al. (2017)
0.1
Regression
100 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds number
10
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds Number (Re) (a)
10000000
Wilson and Huang (1979)
1000 Haider and Levenspiel (1989)

1000000
Ganser (1992)
100
Gogus et al. (2001)
Tren-cong et al. (2004)
100000
10 Wu and Wang (2006)
Camenen (2007)
Dioguardi and Mele (2015)
10000 1 Wang et al. (2015)
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Bagheri and Bonadonna (2016)
Reynolds number
Regression
1000
100
10
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds Number (b)
Fig. 5. Variation of CD versus. Re for model shapes (a) F1 (Isph = 0.00, IR = 1.01, ѱ = 0.90) and (b) A10 (Isph = 24.98, IR = 2.0, ѱ = 0.02).
shows ~1.24 and ~ 5.71% difference, respectively, which demonstrated dropped in two rounds. At the first and second round they dropped at
acceptable and applicable approach of the terminal velocity measuring least 3 (same approach as Wang et al. [26] and Gogus et al. [19]) and
technique in this research. 25 times to determine the average settling velocity. It is worth mention-
ing that among all particle drops, just the successful ones, i.e., those did
ρl up dv not touch the column wall and were perfectly detected by the tracker
Re ¼ ð10Þ
μl software, were selected for measuring the terminal velocity. The final
" # terminal velocity of each particle averaged from those successful 3 and
ρp
4 ρl −1 g 25 separate successful falls and the corresponding Re and CD
C D ¼ dv ð11Þ calculated accordingly using Eqs. (9) and (10). Table 4 demonstrates
3 up 2
the average terminal velocity and the corresponding CD for those
Since the produced particles have high ranges of irregularity, a com- tested 5 representative particles. As it can be seen the average
mon approach was followed to determine enough number of drops for variation of settling velocity and CD between dropping the particles 3
all the 60 3D printed particles to reduce probable error of the average and 25 times are 3.23 and 4.89%, respectively. Therefore, for sake of
settling velocity, monitor uncertainty, and ensure repeatability and re- simplicity, similar to Wang et al. [26] and Gogus et al. [19] approach,
producibility. To do this, 5 representative particles out of 60 particles the rest of the particles were dropped 3 times through the rest of the
in Table 2 were selected (see Table 4). Each of these particles were study.
328
100000
10000
Drag Coefficient (CD) 1000
100
10
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Reynolds Number
(a)
100000
10000
1000
100
10
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Reynolds Number
(b)
Fig. 6. Variation of CD versus. Re. Box and Whisker plot for model shapes (a) F1 (Isph = 0.00, IR = 1.01 and ѱ = 0.90) and (b) A10 (Isph = 24.98, IR = 2.0 and ѱ = 0.02).
3. Results and discussion subsequent rows, the reference model particles are produced through
increasing the dl to make the particles more prismodal, with no
3.1. The extent of irregularity of the modeled reference shapes change in ds and di; therefore, f remains 1.
The produced model shapes in Table 2 cover a wide range of irregu-

larity for every shape factor discussed in Table 1. The theoretical range
for every shape factor, as well as the range achieved by the model
Average Deviation %
shapes is presented in Table 5. The model shapes appear to cover a 60

wide range for every shape factor; a range reasonably close to the theo- 50
retical range. It is worth mentioning that extending the range for sphe- 40
ricity shape factors was possible by making the model shapes more 30
prismodal [27] and the range of roundness shape factor was extended 20
10
by adding to the height of the triangular pyramid which was added on
0
every 12 faces of dodecahedron. However, here the lower range for
(>1.5)
CSF sphericity shape factor is limited to 0.2 and the upper range for IR
(1.4-1.5)
(1.3-1.4)
roundness shape factor to 2.01. Moreover, the λ shape factor is not

(1.2-1.3)
(1.2-1.1)
starting at its theoretical lower range of 1.0 since it is particularly Isph 0.5
(1.0-1.1)
1.5
designed to describe angular cubic shapes and it quantifies 1.0 for 2.5
3.5
cubic shapes only. Also the f flatness shape factor is almost 1.0 for all 4.5
the modeled reference particles produced here since (1) we are using 5.5 P (IR)
the Alshibli and Alsaleh's [37] proposed correlations for IR and Isph,
(2) in Table 2 all the reference modeled shapes produced in first row Fig. 7. The average deviation percentage versus Isph and IR for the 60 reference modeled
are spherical with equal ds and di; therefore, f equals 1, (3) in particles.
329
100000
Eq. (6), particle A10 (I_sph = 24.98, I_R =2.0, ѱ = 0.02)
10000 Eq. (7), particle A10 (I_sph = 24.98, I_R =2.0, ѱ = 0.02)
Eq. (6), particle F1 (I_sph = 0.00, I_R =1.01, ѱ = 0.90)
Drag Coefficient (CD) 1000 Eq. (7), particle F1 (I_sph = 0.00, I_R =1.01, ѱ = 0.90)
100
10
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds Number
Fig. 8. The results of the regression analysis using both Eqs. (6) and (7) for the reference modeled particles number A10 and F1.
3.2. The general shape factor X were; therefor, chosen as the preferred shape factors to define
sphericity and roundness. The ratio of ϕ/X is defined as ψ shape
As it can be seen on Table 2, two distinct shape factors are needed factor and has been previously used by Dioguardi and Mele [24],
to fully describe the model shapes; one for assessing the particle sphe- Dioguardi et al. [25], and Wang et al. [26]. Fig. 4 demonstrates the
ricity and the other one to evaluate its roundness. This has been previ- ability of ψ to distinguish the irregularity among all 60 model shapes
ously suggested by other researchers like Camenen [39], Dioguardi and versus. Isph and IR. Explicitly the particle with highest similarity to
Mele [24], Bagheri and Bonadonna [23], Wang et al. [26], and sphere, F1 on Table 2 (Isph = 0.00 and IR = 1.01), comes with the
Dioguardi et al. [25]. Through examining the sphericity shape factors highest ψ equal to 0.90 and the particle with the most irregularity,
(i.e., CSF, F, ϕ, and Isph) in Table 2, it is understood that only Wadell's A10 on Table 2 (Isph = 24.98 and IR = 2.01), comes with the lowest
sphericity, ϕ, can clearly define particles apart from one another. ψ equal to 0.02. It is worth mentioning that based on the definition
Other sphericity shape factors remain constant or change negligibly of ψ, perfect spherical particles achieve a ψ value of 1.0. Dioguardi
among the model shapes in every row of Table 2. A similar analysis et al. [25] similarly demonstrated the ψ shape factor to be a powerful
was conducted among the roundness shape factors (C, P, X, and IR). descriptor of highly irregular shapes such as volcanic particles which
Preliminary analysis demonstrated that P and IR shape factors are not can be easily measured through particle image processing techniques
suitable for distinguishing the produced particles. This is due to the and X-ray microtomography analysis [25]. Considering the results of
fact that P is visually determined and IR is defined using a 2D this study, also difficulty of applying two distinct shape factors in cal-
imaging technique and both approaches increase the error in culating CD, in this research ψ was used as the general shape factor
measuring the roundness irregularity. The X roundness shape factor to derive the general CD correlation through non-linear regression
defines irregularity better than C due to its simpler definition. ϕ and analysis.
Fig. 9. The CD – Re - ѱ surface.
330
Table 6
Comparing the deviation between the CD estimated using the correlations proposed in literature and the general CD correlation developed in this study.
Reference Re Range Maximum Mean Deviation % (The Particle Number on Table 2) Average Mean Deviation %
Komar and Reimers [1] Re < 1 16.30 (D8) 6.37

Wilson and Huang [2] 0.1 < Re < 100 65.31 (A10) 16.35
Haider and Levenspiel [49] 0.1 < Re < 105 70.53 (C1) 44.82
Swamee and Ojha [46] 1 < Re < 104 234.08 (A1) 43.42
Ganser [24] ReK1K2 ≤ 105 66.49 (B1) 39.72
Gogus et al. [27] 10 < Re < 105 180.05 (C3) 44.93
Tran-cong, et al. [43] 0.15 < Re < 1500 72.51 (C7) 24.97
Wu and Wang [52] 0.01 < Re < 105 282.33 (A1) 57.90
Camenen [48] 0.1 < Re < 104 67.92 (F4) 20.52
Dioguardi and Mele [32] 0 ≤ Re ≤ 10000 88.84 (A10) 69.88
Bagheri and Bonadonna [23] 10−3 < Re < 3 × 105 155.75 (A10) 56.42
Wang et al. [34] 0.01 ≤ Re ≤ 3700 87.68 (A10) 70.05
Dioguardi et al. [33] 0.03 ≤ Re ≤ 10000 65.29 (D10) 25.51
Average 40.07
3.3. The drag coefficient of model particles if measured by CSF and much more if evaluated by other shape
factors such as ψ. Other example is the model shapes on the first
Since all the shape factors are calculated for every model shape in row of Table 1 where all share the same CSF and, therefore, the
Table 2, the CD of every shape can be estimated using applicable magnitudes of CDs, if calculated by the correlations proposed by
correlations and range of Re in Table 1 and corresponding shape Swamee and Ojha [38] or Wu and Wang [44], would be the same
factors in Table 2. Based on Table 1, 9 and 12 distinct correlations can since both correlations use CSF as the shape factor.
be used to estimate the CD of rounded and angular particles, • Many authors like Dioguardi and Mele [24] did not specify a range for
respectively, according to the procedure explained in detail in the irregularity of the particles they tested in their experiments.
Section 2.2. Fig. 5(a) demonstrates the estimated CD by 8 correlations Therefore, their proposed correlations might be erroneously used for
in Table 1 (correlation no. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13) for the shape F1 irregular particles that the proposed correlations were not originally
(Isph = 0.00 and IR = 1.01) on Table 2. It is worth mentioning that derived for.
Komar and Reimers' CD estimation correlation [1] was not used to • Lack of a universal naming system for describing the irregular shapes
calculate CD for this particle since the particle's CSF value is beyond the may result in using a CD correlation for a particle for which it was not
applicable range of CSF specified for the correlation. The trend of the originally proposed. For example, Dioguardi, D. Mele [24] derived
CD along the Re in Fig. 5(a) shows that the 8 correlations have similar their correlations for particles they called “non-spherical rough
behavior in predicting the CD. However, as in high Re the CD depends particles”. This specific name is applicable to a wide range of
more on the shape factor [55], deviations becomes more discernible. particles with a variety of shapes and irregularities.
Fig. 5(b) shows the estimated CD by 11 correlations from the Table 1
(correlation no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) for the shape A10
(Isph = 24.98 and IR = 2.01) on Table 2. Since the ψ of A10 particle is
A visual comparison between Fig. 5(a) and (b) and other similar di-
beyond the applicable range of ψ for correlation number 13, the
agrams of other reference modeled particles demonstrated that the un-
correlation was not used for estimating the CD of this particle. As it is
certainty in predicting CD increases by increasing the irregularity. The
observed on Fig. 5(b), the CDs estimated here present more deviations
inability of some shape factors, applied by some of the correlations in
than those for F1 particle in Fig. 5(a). For instance, over a wide range
Table 1, to distinctly account for the irregularity of various particles,
of Re, correlations by Dioguardi and Mele [24] and Wang et al. [26]
caused different CD prediction per Re and, accordingly, the deviations
overestimate the CD for A10 particle. This overestimation may be
observed in Fig. 5. For a better understanding of the relationship
caused because of the wrong use of the correlations for this particle
between uncertainty in predicting the CD and the particles irregularity,
since Diaguardi and Wang did not specify any range for the shape
Box and Whisker plot of F1 and A10 shapes and all 60 particles'
factors. The different behavior of CD prediction for the A10 particle can
average deviation (see Eq. (3)) illustrated in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7,
be explained as follows:
respectively. As demonstrated in Fig. 6(a), the deviation among CDs at
• Since for irregular particles the CD depends highly on the shape factor, every Re is lower than the corresponding values in Fig. 6(b). By
particularly at high Re, lack of a general shape factor in literature completing the analysis for all 60 model particles of Table 2, it was
causes inaccuracy in measuring irregularity and uncertainty in realized that the uncertainty in predicting CD using correlations in
estimating CD. For example, the irregularity for the A1 particle is less Table 1 increases by increasing irregularity (i.e., from more rounded to
Table 7
The average relative errors in predicting the CD of spherical particles using the general correlation developed here and other correlations specifically proposed for spherical particles.
Reference CD Empirical Range of Re Average Relative

Correlation Error %
Concha and Barrientos [54] Eq. (4) Re < 300,000 9.58

" #
Clift and Gauvin [16] CD ¼ 24
1 þ 0:15 Re 0:687 þ 1þ0:42 Re < 200,000 11.76
Re 42500
Re 1:16
Swamee and Ojha [46] - h i−0:25 .0:25 Re < 150,000 11.93

& 24 '1:6 &130'0:72 i2:5 h&40, 000'2
CD ¼ 0:5 16 Re þ Re þ Re þ1
" #
Brown and Lawler [63] CD ¼ 24 0:681 0:407 Re < 200,000 10.14
Re 1 þ 0:15 Re þ 1þ 8710
hRe " #i
Cheng [56] 24
CD ¼ Re ð1 þ 0:27 Re Þ 0:43
þ 0:47 1− exp −0:04 Re 0:38 Re < 200,000 9.41
Average 10.56
331
100000 10
Clift and Gauvin (1971)

Concha (1982)
10000
1 Brown and Lawler (2003)
Cheng(2009)
proposed model
1000
0.1
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds Number (Re)
100
10
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds number (Re)
Fig. 10. The comparison of the CD versus Re using the general correlation developed here with others specifically proposed correlations to predict the CD of spherical particles.
more angular), particularly at high Re. This was previously reported by used, it is anticipated that the non-linear regression results were less
Gossens [55] and Swamee and Ojha [38] as well. The results of the aver- sensitive to CD uncertainties.
age deviation percentage in Fig. 7 confirms the same. As illustrated, the
average deviation for the angular particles in Table 2 comes out much
higher than those rounded particles. For example, the average deviation 3.4. General drag coefficient correlation
for the particles with IR > 1.5 obtains the highest values among all the
produced particles with a maximum of 50.95% for the A10 (Isph = After calculating all the credible CD estimations, a CD – Re database
24.98, IR = 2.0 and ѱ = 0.02) particle. On the other hand, the amount was obtained for all 60 model particles in Table 2 using all applicable
of CD deviations for almost all rounded particles remains very small CD correlations of Table 1. Fig. 5(a) and (b) shows the CD – Re data for
with average variation less than 9.03%. Since in this research the the F1 and A10 particles, respectively. A non-linear regression analysis
interquartile range of the estimated CD values at each Re, (Q3 – Q1 or was then conducted on every one of the 60 CD – Re database to find
the height of the boxes in the Box and Whisker plots in Fig. 6) were the best curve fit using the Eqs. (6) and (7). To do this, the NRMSE
1000000
Haider and Levenspiel (1989)
100000 Ganser (1992)

Bagheri and Bonadonna (2016)
10000 Proposed Correlation
1000
100
10
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reynolds Number (Re)
Fig. 11. the CD vs. Re variation for A10 particle with f = 0.50.
332
12 200
Error %
180
10 CD Exprimental
160
CD Predicted 140
Drag Coefficient (CD )
8
120
Error (%)
6 100
Sphere
80
4
60
40
2
20
0 0
1005
1005
1017
1021
1028
1032
1072
1089
1095
1126
1185
1209
1213
1217
1217
1236
1276
1350
1366
1386
1413
1421
1425
1452
1484
1554
1617
1645
1664
1684
1696
1711
1719
1727
1735
1747
1794
1833
1841
1841
1845
1872
1880
1939
1947
1970
1974
1978
2065
2072
2096
2096
2104
2116
2135
2147
2481
3144
816
836
865
Re
Fig. 12. Scatter Plot of experimental vs. predicted CD using general drag correlation.
definition in Eq. (7) was applied as the criteria for evaluating the good- B ¼ 0:395487ψ−0:89093
ness of fit. At the end, magnitudes of A, B, C, and D parameters were de-
rived for Eq. (6), also A, B, and m coefficients were obtained for Eq. (7) m ¼ 1:362601ψ−0:0001
for each one of the produced model particles, i.e., 120 curves were fit
to 60 CD – Re curves using two Eqs. (6) and (7). Fig. 8 presents the results Note : valid for 0:2<ψ<1:0, 0:04<e<1:0, 0:25<f <1:0 ð13Þ
of the regression using both the equations for model particles F1 (Isph =
0.00, IR = 1.01, ѱ = 0.90) and A10 (Isph = 24.98, IR = 2.0, ѱ = 0.02). It To evaluate the deviations among Eqs. (11) and (12) and previously
can be observed that both the regression equations produce almost the proposed correlations of Table 1, the relative deviation was calculated
same results with the highest average (over the range of Re) relative and presented in Table 6. The comparison showed that the correlation
error of 7.03% calculated for the particle A10. In the present research; proposed by Komar and Reimers [1] has the lowest maximum and aver-
however, since Eq. (7) has fewer number of parameters and is more age deviation, which is mainly due to the narrow range of its Re, also
user-friendly, it was selected over Eq. (6) to conduct the regression lower CD deviation at this range of Re which is, as well, demonstrated
analyses throughout the study. The regression curves from Eq. (7) dem- in Box and Whisker plot of Fig. 6(a). For broader range of Re, the
onstrated for particles F1 and A10 are presented in Fig. 8. The average correlation by Camenen [39] comes with the lowest deviation for
NRMSE for 60 reference modeled particles using Eq. (7) is 4.48. Also, 0.1 < Re < 104. The correlation by Ganser [43] demonstrates
reasonable agreement throughout wide range of Re. However, the
the highest and lowest NRMSE is 73.0 and 0.81 for the F1 and A10 par-
correlations by Wu and Wang [44] and Swamee and Ojha [38]
ticles, respectively, which is in agreement with the average deviation re-
presented the highest deviation in predicting the CD of the reference
sults in Fig. 7 since higher average deviations means higher NRMSE and model particles since they simply apply a single shape factor, CSF, to
vice versa. define the irregularity. Also, the proposed correlation by Gogus et al.
The final general CD correlation developed here is presented in [19] demonstrated high deviations which is caused by their indirect
Eqs. (11) and (12). As it is observed, the general CD correlation is a method of estimating CD of irregular particles based on regular
function of Re and ѱ. As we previously incorporated the CD of angular particles such as cubes and wedges.
spherical particles with ѱ = 1 in our CD – Re data as well, the general Except the small deviations calculated for the correlation by Komar
correlation can predict the CD for particles with ѱ ranging from 0.02 and Reimers [1], all other correlations in Table 6 demonstrate high devi-
(irregular prismoidal shapes) to 1.0 (perfect spherical shapes) over a ations which can be justified as follows:
wide range of Re from 0.001 to 300,000. This wide ranges of
irregularity and Re guarantees applicability of the general correlation • As Chhabra et al. [41] reported, the difference among the CDs
to a very wide range of particle shapes and flow regimes. The surface calculated for 1900 particles, first experimentally (from 19
created from the Eqs. (11) and (12) is shown on Fig. 9. According to independent studies) and then theoretically (using the five
Eq. (8), the average error between the 60 CD – Re curves and the surface correlations proposed by Haider and Levenspiel [42], Ganser [43],
obtained from Eqs. (11) and (12) is 21.8%. By increasing the irregularity, Chien [56], Hartman et al. [57] and, Swamee and Ojha [38]), were
i.e., decreasing the ѱ from 1.0 to 0, the amount of CD rapidly increases noticeably large. The average error between experimentally
over the range of Re. measured and theoretically calculated CDs were reported 21.5, 16.3,
"+ #m 23.5, 26.0, and 42.6%, respectively for the five correlations discussed
,ð1=mÞ
A above. Also, the maximum error was reported 275.8, 180.9, 152.5,
CD ¼ þ B1=m ð12Þ
Re 113.8, and 199.0%, respectively. It is worth mentioning that, the
Chhabra et al. [41] study was focused on non-spherical regular shapes
where the parameters can be defined as follows: such as cylinders, needles, cones, prisms, discs, rectangular, parallele-
piped and cubes. However, in this research, we studied the CD of
A ¼ 22:78396ψ−0:26397 reference model shapes with higher irregularities. Therefore the
333
maximum and average deviations between the proposed correlation 3.7. Experimental results
in this research and reference correlations in Table 6 are promising
as it was derived for estimating the CD of irregular particles. After calculating CDs using the proposed general CD correlation in
• The wide range of Re in this research, 10−3 < Re < 3 × 105, inherently Eqs. (11) and (12) for each reference model particle at wide ranges of
increases the deviation, as in Re > 100 the uncertainty in predicting Re, experiments were conducted on all the 60 3D printed reference
the CD increases based on the results on Fig. 6. particles to measure the terminal velocities and calculate the
corresponding CDs using Eq. (10). Accordingly, the CDs measured via
the experiments and those calculated using Eqs. (11) and (12) at
similar Re were compared and plotted on Fig. 12. The range of Re
3.5. Comparing the proposed and existing correlations in predicting the CD experimented here is limited to 816 ≤ Re ≤ 2481. The reason is
of spherical particles experimental limitations associated with properties of 3D printed
particles and medium liquid, as well as absence of the air or liquid
Since the CD general correlation developed here, i.e., Eqs. (11) and counter flow in the settling column.
(12), can predict the CD of spherical particles as well, a comparison The general drag correlation proposed here presented an average
was made between the developed correlation and those specifically error of 34.39% in comparison with CD of experimental results.
derived to predict the CD of spherical particles (Table 7). For doing However, the authors assume that the main causes of errors between
this, the empirical correlations by Concha and Barrientos [46], Clift the experimental and predicted CDs are as follows:
and Gauvin [14], Swamee and Ojha [38], Brown and Lawler [58],
and Cheng [48] were used. The results presented in Table 7 shows • The proposed general drag correlation in this research did not derived
the proposed general correlation generates the highest average directly from experimental results; Instead, derived from non-linear
error of 11.93% for Re < 150,000 when compared with the regression analysis using previously proposed CD correlations in the
correlation by Swamee and Ojha [38]. Also the lowest average error literature (See Table 1). Therefore, considering high irregularity of
obtained when comparing with the work by Cheng [48] with 9.41% particles (0.02 ≤ ψ ≤ 1) as well as wide range of Re covered by the
for Re < 200,000. As demonstrated in Fig. 10, the developed proposed correlation, the 34.39% error is reasonable.
general Eqs. (11) and (12), fails to follow the complex behavior of • The average error achieved here is comparable with those reported in
spherical particles in the range of Re > 10,000. The previously literature (e.g., the work by Chhabra et al. [41] on the difference
proposed correlations; however, are more capable of predicting the among the CDs experimentally and theoretically calculated for 1900
behavior since they are specifically produced for perfect spherical particles - see Section 3.4) with narrower range of irregularity or Re.
particles with no irregularity. Again it is worth mentioning that the Chhabra et al. [41] considered
non-spherical shapes in their research and not particles with high ir-
regularity like the ones were considered in this study.
3.6. The validity of the proposed general drag correlation in predicting the • The uncertainty analysis (See Section 2.5) demonstrated that uncer-
CD of flat particles tainty in detecting the falling particle's centroid position during their
fall was not a major source of error. Also, 3 repetitions of each particle
In this section, the applicability of the proposed general drag cor- drop test was sufficient to measure the average settling velocity and
relation, i.e., Eqs. (11) and (12), to estimate the CD of particles with the corresponding CD value (See Table 4). Therefore, similar to Wang
flatness values other than 1.0 are assessed. For simplicity, instead of et al. [26] claims, the authors assumed that a high portion of that
choosing all the reference model particles in Table 2, only 12 34.39% error is to be attributed to the inevitable particle's secondary
particles were selected to change their flatness magnitudes (see motions during settling test such as oscillation, rotations, tumbling
Appendix B). These shapes have been chosen to cover a wide range etc. which Eq. (10) is incapable of considering their effect. In
of general shape factor, ѱ (0.02 ≤ ψ ≤ 1). Flattening the particles, addition, as in the experiment, the tests in which the falling particle
the shortest dimension of the selected particle, ds, was changed to deviated significantly from the central vertical line of the glass
decrease the flatness from 1.0 to 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 (see step 4 of column had been discarded, the authors neglected the wall effect
Section 2.1). In total, 36 flattened particles were produced which source of error.
their dimensions and shape factors are presented in Appendix B.
Finally, the CD of the flat particles can be estimated from 4. Conclusion
correlations that considered the flat irregular particles in their
research like Haider and Levenspiel [42], Ganser [43], and Bagheri A new correlation was proposed to estimate the CD of irregular
and Bonadonna [23]. particles. In order to do this, 60 various reference model shapes were
Fig. 11 demonstrated the CD versus Re for one of the particles, A10, produced through a simple and reproducible procedure in
with f = 0.50. As demonstrated, the proposed correlation in this SolidWorks®. All geometrical characteristics and shape factors
research estimated the CD close to estimations by the previously (descriptors) of the model shapes were evaluated and the best shape
developed correlations. The overall results demonstrated that for the factor in terms of its ability in distinguishing the particles irregularity
flattened particles the average relative deviation in predicting the CD was chosen as the general shape factor. Using this general shape factor
between the proposed general drag correlation in this research and and 16 previously proposed CD correlations for 60 model shapes, a
correlations by Haider and Levenspiel [42], Ganser [43], and Bagheri general CD estimation correlation was developed using nonlinear
and Bonadonna [23] in the range of Re from 0.001 to 300,000 were regression analysis. A comparison of this correlation with those 16 pre-
54.82, 48. 61, and 33.03%, respectively. viously proposed proved the new one can simply calculate the CD of
Finally, from the discussions stated in Sections 3.4 to 3.6, it can be spherical to high irregular particles (0.02 ≤ ψ ≤ 1) at wide ranges of Re
deducted that, if an irregular particle's general shape factor, ψ, was in (0.001 to 300,000) with acceptable average range of error (~40%). The
the ranges between 0.02 and 1, the proposed general drag correlation experimental results confirmed the accuracy of the general correlation
in this research, Eqs. (11) and (12), can be used to estimate its CD. In in predicting the CD of reference model particles with average error of
addition, in this research the e and f ratios were limited between 0.04 34.39% over a range of Re from 816 to 2481. However, there exists a
and 1 and 0.25–1, respectively, to obviate the risk of faulty CD need for a more detailed experimental work in order to validate the
calculations occurs from the same ψ value between long fibers and proposed correlation and this error is likely to increase when the full
thin disks. range of Re is covered.
334
Author contribution Acknowledgements
All authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this The authors would like to thank Dr. Tariq Shamin (chair), Mr. Mike
paper. Reynolds (lab manager) and Mr. Ali Faghani (graduate student) in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at Northern Illinois University
Declaration of Competing Interest (NIU) for their help and support.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. The produced reference model particles final dimensions

Triangular pyramid elevation (mm)
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)
0.0–0.1 48.54 35 30 25 23 18
0.1–0.2 48.54 35 30 25 23 18
0.2–0.5 48.54 35 30 25 23 18
0.5–1.0 48.54 35 30 25 23 18
1.02–1.14 48.54 35 30 25 23 18
1.31–2.15 48.54 33 29 25 22 18
2.03–3.45 48.54 32 27 24 21 17.4
3.29–5.76 48.54 29 26 23 20 17.4
6.03–10.74 48.54 27 24 21 19 17.4
13.69–24.98 48.54 25 22 20 18 17.4
dl (mm)
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)
0.0–0.1 21.82 18.50 16.94 15.49 14.75 13.05

0.1–0.2 22.89 19.65 18.30 16.75 16.04 14.60
0.2–0.5 23.93 20.78 19.46 17.97 17.28 16.08
0.5–1.0 26.94 23.99 22.77 21.39 20.77 20.15
1.02–1.14 31.62 28.91 27.80 26.57 26.01 23.25
1.31–2.15 42.94 35.18 33.11 30.64 28.19 26.15
2.03–3.45 54.78 44.26 40.63 38.26 34.62 32.87
3.29–5.76 73.73 56.85 53.45 50.03 45.13 44.10
6.03–10.74 108.33 80.20 75.14 69.39 63.33 64.94
13.69–24.98 186.02 131.54 122.06 114.36 111.21 111.59
di (mm)
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)
0.0–0.1 21.82 18.50 17.09 15.49 14.75 13.05

0.1–0.2 21.30 17.94 16.52 14.90 14.14 12.17
0.2–0.5 20.82 17.45 16.02 14.38 13.62 11.75
0.5–1.0 19.62 16.23 14.80 13.18 12.42 10.49
1.02–1.14 18.10 14.78 13.39 11.82 11.10 9.76
1.31–2.15 15.53 12.80 11.96 11.05 10.18 9.21
2.03–3.45 13.75 11.11 10.20 9.56 8.75 8.25
3.29–5.76 11.85 9.00 8.62 8.04 7.25 7.12
6.03–10.74 9.78 7.22 6.79 6.24 5.71 5.87
13.69–24.98 7.46 5.30 4.91 4.60 4.55 4.48
ds (mm)
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)
0.0–0.1 21.80 18.50 17.09 15.49 14.75 13.05

0.1–0.2 21.28 17.94 16.52 14.90 14.14 12.34
0.2–0.5 20.81 17.45 16.02 14.38 13.62 11.76
0.5–1.0 19.61 16.23 14.80 13.18 12.42 10.50
1.02–1.14 18.04 14.78 13.39 11.82 11.10 9.77
1.31–2.15 15.49 12.81 11.91 10.94 10.25 9.21
2.03–3.45 13.67 11.17 10.18 9.46 8.82 8.23
3.29–5.76 11.81 9.21 8.60 7.96 7.31 7.11
6.03–10.74 9.78 7.28 6.78 6.18 5.75 5.86
13.69–24.98 7.47 5.34 4.90 4.55 4.50 4.47
335
Appendix B. The dimensions and corresponding shape factors of the selected particles from Table 2 with various flatness ratio
Base particle number f dl (mm) di(mm) ds(mm) ø X Ψ
A1 0.75 24.02 24.02 18.00 0.37 2.33 0.16

0.50 27.59 27.58 13.66 0.35 2.33 0.15
0.25 34.74 34.74 8.63 0.27 2.33 0.12
C1 0.75 18.77 18.77 14.18 0.51 1.62 0.31
0.50 21.44 21.44 10.88 0.49 1.62 0.30
0.25 27.21 27.21 6.77 0.38 1.62 0.24
D1 0.75 17.08 17.08 12.75 0.60 1.39 0.43
0.50 19.57 19.57 9.72 0.57 1.39 0.41
0.25 24.72 24.72 6.11 0.45 1.39 0.32
F1 0.75 14.31 14.31 10.86 0.91 1.04 0.88
0.50 16.45 16.44 8.23 0.83 1.04 0.80
0.25 20.97 20.96 5.08 0.63 1.04 0.60
A7 0.75 81.20 13.05 9.80 0.25 3.71 0.07
0.50 93.25 14.98 7.46 0.22 3.71 0.06
0.25 117.44 18.87 4.73 0.16 3.71 0.04
C7 0.75 44.59 11.24 8.41 0.43 1.98 0.22
0.50 50.95 12.84 6.46 0.39 1.99 0.20
0.25 64.72 16.31 4.02 0.28 1.99 0.14
D7 0.75 41.92 10.53 7.83 0.49 1.80 0.27
0.50 47.93 12.04 6.00 0.43 1.80 0.24
0.25 60.16 15.12 3.82 0.32 1.80 0.18
F7 0.75 36.20 9.10 6.78 0.70 1.36 0.51
0.50 41.61 10.46 5.15 0.60 1.36 0.44
0.25 51.78 13.00 3.36 0.43 1.36 0.32
A10 0.75 204.84 8.22 6.17 0.16 7.07 0.02
0.50 235.34 9.44 4.69 0.14 7.07 0.02
0.25 296.97 11.91 2.97 0.10 7.07 0.01
C10 0.75 133.40 5.45 4.04 0.30 3.86 0.08
0.50 151.22 6.18 3.13 0.27 3.86 0.07
0.25 191.75 7.81 1.92 0.20 3.88 0.05
D10 0.75 127.98 5.21 3.94 0.34 3.46 0.10
0.50 147.42 5.99 2.97 0.29 3.46 0.09
0.25 185.28 7.53 1.89 0.21 3.46 0.06
F10 0.75 123.08 4.94 3.67 0.38 3.21 0.12
0.50 139.55 5.60 2.85 0.33 3.21 0.10
0.25 175.47 7.05 1.80 0.24 3.21 0.07
References [17] H. Yang, M. Fan, A. Liu, L. Dong, General formulas for drag coefficient and settling ve-
locity of sphere based on theoretical law, Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 25 (2015)
[1] P.D. Komar, C. Reimers, Grain shape effects on settling rates, J. Geol. 86 (1978) 219–223.
193–209. [18] R.L. Flemmer, C. Banks, On the drag coefficient of a sphere, Powder Technol. 48
[2] L. Wilson, T. Huang, The influence of shape on the atmospheric settling velocity of (1986) 217–221.
volcanic ash particles, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 44 (1979) 311–324. [19] M. Göğüş, O. Ipekci, M. Kökpinar, Effect of particle shape on fall velocity of angular
[3] H. Cui, J.R. Grace, Fluidization of biomass particles: a review of experimental multi- particles, J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (2001) 860–869.
phase flow aspects, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 45–55. [20] M. Knoll, H. Gerhardter, R. Prieler, M. Mühlböck, P. Tomazic, C. Hochenauer, Particle
[4] V. Prasad, P. Thareja, S.P. Mehrotra, Role of rheology on the hydraulic transportation classification and drag coefficients of irregularly-shaped combustion residues with
of lignite coal and coal ash slurries in the pipeline, Int. J. Coal Prepar. Util. (2020) various size and shape, Powder Technol. 345 (2019) 405–414.
1–15. [21] Q. Sun, G. Zhao, W. Peng, J. Wang, Y. Jiang, S. Yu, Numerical predictions of the drag
[5] S. Senapati, J.K. Pothal, A. Mohanty, Effect of particle size distribution on rheology of coefficients of irregular particles in an HTGR, Ann. Nucl. Energy 115 (2018)
high concentration limestone–water slurry for economic pipeline transportation, 195–208.
Part. Sci. Technol. 37 (2019) 707–715. [22] K. She, L. Trim, D. Pope, Fall velocities of natural sediment particles: a simple math-
[6] A. Faghani, S. Sen, M. Vaezi, A. Kumar, Rheology of fibre suspension flows in the ematical presentation of the fall velocity law, J. Hydraul. Res. 43 (2005) 189–195.
pipeline hydro-transport of biomass feedstock, Biosyst. Eng. 200 (2020) 284–297. [23] G. Bagheri, C. Bonadonna, On the drag of freely falling non-spherical particles, Pow-
[7] M. Vaezi, A.K. Katta, A. Kumar, Investigation into the mechanisms of pipeline trans- der Technol. 301 (2016) 526–544.
port of slurries of wheat straw and corn stover to supply a bio-refinery, Biosyst. Eng. [24] F. Dioguardi, D. Mele, A new shape dependent drag correlation formula for non-
118 (2014) 52–67. spherical rough particles. experiments and results, Powder Technol. 277 (2015)
[8] M. Vaezi, A. Kumar, Development of correlations for the flow of agricultural residues 222–230.
as slurries in pipes for bio-refining, Biosyst. Eng. 127 (2014) 144–158. [25] F. Dioguardi, D. Mele, P. Dellino, A new one-equation model of fluid drag for irregu-
[9] M. Vaezi, A. Kumar, The flow of wheat straw suspensions in an open-impeller cen- larly shaped particles valid over a wide range of Reynolds number, J. Geophys. Res.
trifugal pump, Biomass Bioenergy 69 (2014) 106–123. Solid Earth 123 (2018) 144–156.
[10] M. Vaezi, S. Verma, A. Kumar, Application of high-frequency impedancemetry ap- [26] Y. Wang, L. Zhou, Y. Wu, Q. Yang, New simple correlation formula for the drag coef-
proach in measuring the deposition velocities of biomass and sand slurry flows in ficient of calcareous sand particles of highly irregular shape, Powder Technol. 326
pipelines, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 140 (2018) 142–154. (2018) 379–392.
[11] S. Lee, K.H. Henthorn, Particle Technology and Applications, CRC Press, 2016. [27] L. Fan, Z.-S. Mao, C. Yang, Experiment on settling of slender particles with large as-
[12] E. Loth, Drag of non-spherical solid particles of regular and irregular shape, Powder pect ratio and correlation of the drag coefficient, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43 (2004)
Technol. 182 (2008) 342–353. 7664–7670.
[13] L. Schiller, A drag coefficient correlation, Zeit. Ver. Deutsch. Ing. 77 (1933) 318–320. [28] G.Q. Qi, G.J. Nathan, R.M. Kelso, PTV measurement of drag coefficient of fibrous par-
[14] R. Clift, The motion of particles in turbulent gas-streams, Proc. Chemeca'70, 1, 1970, ticles with large aspect ratio, Powder Technol. 229 (2012) 261–269.
p. 14. [29] B. Krueger, S. Wirtz, V. Scherer, Measurement of drag coefficients of non-spherical
[15] H. Niazmand, M. Renksizbulut, Surface effects on transient three-dimensional flows particles with a camera-based method, Powder Technol. 278 (2015) 157–170.
around rotating spheres at moderate Reynolds numbers, Comput. Fluids 32 (2003) [30] A.T. Corey, Influence of Shape on the Fall Velocity of Sand Grains, Colorado A & M
1405–1433. College, 1949.
[16] R. Lunnon, Fluid resistance to moving spheres, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 118 (1928) [31] H. Wadell, Volume, shape, and roundness of rock particles, J. Geol. 40 (1932)
680–694. 443–451.
336
[32] M.C. Powers, A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles, J. Sediment. Res. 23 [53] E. Marchildon, A. Clamen, W. Gauvin, Drag and oscillatory motion of freely falling
(1953) 117–119. cylindrical particles, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 42 (1964) 178–182.
[33] S. Tran-Cong, M. Gay, E.E. Michaelides, Drag coefficients of irregularly shaped parti- [54] W.C. Douglas Brown, Robert Hanson, Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tools,
cles, Powder Technol. 139 (2004) 21–32. https://physlets.org/tracker/ 2021.
[34] T. Ueda, T. Oki, S. Koyanaka, 2D-3D conversion method for assessment of multiple [55] D. Goossens, A drag coefficient equation for natural, irregularly shaped particles, Ca-
characteristics of particle shape and size, Powder Technol. 343 (2019) 287–295. tena 14 (1987) 73–99.
[35] M.C. Powers, Comparison Chart for Estimating Roundness and Sphericity, AGI Data [56] S.-F. Chien, Settling velocity of irregularly shaped particles, SPE Drill. Complet. 9
Sheet, 18, 1982. (1994) 281–289.
[36] R.L. Folk, Student operator error in determination of roundness, sphericity, and grain
[57] M. Hartman, O. Trnka, K. Svoboda, Free settling of nonspherical particles, Ind. Eng.
size, J. Sediment. Res. 25 (1955) 297–301.
Chem. Res. 33 (1994) 1979–1983.
[37] K.A. Alshibli, M.I. Alsaleh, Characterizing surface roughness and shape of sands using
digital microscopy, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 18 (2004) 36–45. [58] P.P. Brown, D.F. Lawler, Sphere drag and settling velocity revisited, J. Environ. Eng.
129 (2003) 222–231.
[38] P.K. Swamee, C.S.P. Ojha, Drag coefficient and fall velocity of nonspherical particles,
J. Hydraul. Eng. 117 (1991) 660–667.
[39] B. Camenen, Simple and general formula for the settling velocity of particles, J.
Amin Roostaee is a graduate student in the College of Engi-
Hydraul. Eng. 133 (2007) 229–233.
neering and Engineering Technology at Northern Illinois Uni-
[40] J. Hottory, N. Sylvester, Correction-drag coefficients for irregularly shaped particles,
versity. His field of research is the mechanics of particle-fluid
Industr. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Develop. 19 (1980) 204.
interactions. Amin graduated from Shahid Bahonar Univer-
[41] R. Chhabra, L. Agarwal, N.K. Sinha, Drag on non-spherical particles: an evaluation of
sity of Kerman, Iran, in 2017. He has published several papers
available methods, Powder Technol. 101 (1999) 288–295.
in renewable energy analysis field.
[42] A. Haider, O. Levenspiel, Drag coefficient and terminal velocity of spherical and non-
spherical particles, Powder Technol. 58 (1989) 63–70.
[43] G.H. Ganser, A rational approach to drag prediction of spherical and nonspherical
particles, Powder Technol. 77 (1993) 143–152.
[44] W. Wu, S.S. Wang, Formulas for sediment porosity and settling velocity, J. Hydraul.
Eng. 132 (2006) 858–862.
[45] E.W. Weisstein, “Dodecahedron.”, From MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource,
2020.
[46] F. Concha, A. Barrientos, Settling velocities of particulate systems, 3. Power series ex-
pansion for the drag coefficient of a sphere and prediction of the settling velocity, Mahdi Vaezi is an assistant professor in the Department of
Int. J. Miner. Process. 9 (1982) 167–172. Technology at Northern Illinois University. Mahdi earned
[47] W. Ruby, Settling velocities of gravel, sand and silt particles, Am. J. Sci. 25 (1933) Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from University of Alberta
325–338. in Edmonton, Canada, in 2014. For his Ph.D. research project,
[48] N.-S. Cheng, Comparison of formulas for drag coefficient and settling velocity of Mahdi received “The Canadian Society for Bioengineers Doc-
spherical particles, Powder Technol. 189 (2009) 395–398. toral Dissertation Award 2015”. His work has been featured
[49] L.B. Esteban, J. Shrimpton, B. Ganapathisubramani, Edge effects on the fluttering in “Edmonton Journal” and” Canadian Biomass Magazine”
characteristics of freely falling planar particles, Phys. Rev. Fluids 3 (2018), 064302. as well. Mahdi's research work, broadly speaking, focuses
[50] D.E. Breakey, F. Vaezi, J.H. Masliyah, R.S. Sanders, Side-view-only determination of on multiphase flow dynamics, pipeline transport of energy
drag coefficient and settling velocity for non-spherical particles, Powder Technol. commodities, techno-economic assessment of (renewable)
339 (2018) 182–191. energy systems, (bio)energy logistics and economy, waste
[51] M.S. Mohamad, C.M. Dover, K. Sefiane, Experimental investigation of drag coefficient management/processing, life cycle assessment, and GIS anal-
of free-falling deformable liquid gallium droplet, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 84 (2018) ysis of suitability of energy facilities.
10903.
[52] B. Xu, N. Huang, W. He, Y. Chen, Investigation on terminal velocity and drag coeffi-
cient of particles with different shapes, J. Phys. (2017) 012047.
337

Developing A Standard Platform To Predict The Drag Coefficient of Irregular Shape Particles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Developing A Standard Platform To Predict The Drag Coefficient of Irregular Shape Particles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing A Standard Platform To Predict The Drag Coefficient of Irregular Shape Particles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Powder Technology 395 (2022) 314–337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Developing a standard platform to predict the drag coefﬁcient of irregular

Nomenclature α and β Parameters in Gogus's correlation

1 Komar and Pebbles for sediments Re < 1 CSF ¼ pdffiffisffiffiffiffi CD

A = exp (2.3288 − 6.4581ø + 2.4486ø2)

[23] f = ds/di Ks = (F1/3s + F−1/3s )/2

et al. [33] (sphericity) " #0:25 " # 0:08

⁎ Dtube chosen to be 1 m here to minimize the wall effects.

Less Rounded <----- Roundness -----> More Rounded

Very Angular Angular Sub-Angular Sub-Rounded Rounded Well Rounded

More Prismoidal <------ Sphericity -------> More Spherical

To expand the variety of produced particles in Table 2, the CD of

where β can be speciﬁed as follows:

β0 ¼ 9:620833 & 10−1

Apparatus Brand Speciﬁcations Material and Setting

Two non-linear correlations, commonly reported in literature for "+ #m

A2 160 1.13 156 1.18 2.5 4.42

research, the Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE) deﬁnition

Drag Coefficient (CD)

Swamee and Ojha (1991)

Drag Coefficient (CD) 1000

The produced model shapes in Table 2 cover a wide range of irregu-

shapes is presented in Table 5. The model shapes appear to cover a 60

roundness shape factor to 2.01. Moreover, the λ shape factor is not

Eq. (6), particle F1 (I_sph = 0.00, I_R =1.01, ѱ = 0.90)

Fig. 9. The CD – Re - ѱ surface.

Komar and Reimers [1] Re < 1 16.30 (D8) 6.37

Reference CD Empirical Range of Re Average Relative

Concha and Barrientos [54] Eq. (4) Re < 300,000 9.58

Swamee and Ojha [46] - h i−0:25 .0:25 Re < 150,000 11.93

Swamee and Ojha (1991)

Drag Coefficient (CD)

100000 Ganser (1992)

Bagheri and Bonadonna (2016)

10000 Proposed Correlation

Author contribution Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no known competing ﬁnancial

Appendix A. The produced reference model particles ﬁnal dimensions

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5

(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5

(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)

0.0–0.1 21.82 18.50 16.94 15.49 14.75 13.05

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5

(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)

0.0–0.1 21.82 18.50 17.09 15.49 14.75 13.05

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5

(>1.5) (1.4–1.5) (1.3–1.4) (1.2–1.3) (1.2–1.1) (1.0–1.1)

0.0–0.1 21.80 18.50 17.09 15.49 14.75 13.05

A1 0.75 24.02 24.02 18.00 0.37 2.33 0.16

You might also like