Mathematical models for the sedimentation of

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions Stefan Berres1 , Raimund B¨ urger2 , and Wolfgang L. Wendland1 1

2

Institut f¨ ur Angewandte Analysis und Numerische Simulation (IANS), Universit¨ at Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany [email protected], [email protected] Departamento de Ingenier´ıa Matem´ atica, Facultad de Ciencias F´ısicas y Matem´ aticas, Universidad de Concepci´ on, Casilla 160-C, Concepci´ on, Chile [email protected]

Summary. Mathematical models for sedimentation processes are needed in numerous industrial applications for the description, simulation, design and control of solid-liquid separation processes of suspensions. The first simple but complete model describing the settling of a monodisperse suspension of small rigid spheres is the kinematic sedimentation model due to Kynch [93], which leads to a scalar nonlinear conservation law. The extension of this model to flocculated suspensions, pressure filters, polydisperse suspensions and continuously operated clarifier-thickener units give rise to a variety of time-dependent partial differential equations with intriguing non-standard properties. These properties include strongly degenerate parabolic equations, free boundary problems, strongly coupled systems of conservation laws which may fail to be hyperbolic, and conservation laws with a discontinuous flux. This contribution gives an overview of the authors’ research that has been devoted to the mathematical modeling of solid-liquid separation, the existence and uniqueness analysis of these equations, the design and convergence analysis of numerical schemes, and the application to engineering problems. Extensions to other applications and general contributions to mathematical analysis are also addressed.

Key words: sedimentation, polydisperse suspensions, mathematical model, system of conservation laws, numerical simulation

1 Introduction 1.1 Problems of sedimentation The sedimentation of suspensions involves the mechanics, flow and transport properties of mixtures of fluids and solids, droplets or bubbles. Fundamental aspects of sedimentation and related solid-liquid separation processes such as

2

Stefan Berres, Raimund B¨ urger, and Wolfgang L. Wendland

filtration or centrifugation include properties of suspensions and emulsions (rheology, particle size and shape, particle-particle interaction, surface characteristics, yield stress, concentration, viscosity), individual particles (orientation and surfactants), and sediments and porous cakes (permeability, porosity and compressibility). These processes are of critical importance for solid-liquid separations in the chemical, mining, pulp and paper, wastewater, food, pharmaceutical, ceramic and other industries. Mathematical models for these processes obviously are of theoretical as well as of practical importance. They have been widely suggested for more than half a century, starting with the celebrated paper by Kynch [93], who was the first to propose a partial differential equation (PDE), more precisely, a scalar, first-order nonlinear conservation law, together with initial and boundary conditions as a complete (albeit simple) model for the settling of a suspension. Kynch’s model was capable to capture most phenomena ranging from the dilute limit to the packed sediment. To put the authors’ research in the proper perspective, we emphasize that the available kinematic sedimentation model refers to a suspension of equal-sized hard spheres that settle in a column having neither inlets nor outlets. Our research in the project A2 has been devoted to • the mathematical modeling, • the analysis of well-posedness (existence and uniqueness), • the design and convergence analysis of numerical schemes, and • the application to engineering problems for several extensions of the classical kinematic model, including suspensions forming compressible sediments, filtration devices, continuously operated clarifier-thickener units, and polydisperse suspensions. Although all these extensions are based on engineering applications, they exhibit a variety of intriguing non-standard mathematical properties, such as nonlinear diffusion equations with strong type degeneracy, conservation laws with discontinuous flux, and strongly coupled systems of conservation laws with regions where hyperbolicity is lost. Most of this research was not part of the original project proposal, but emerged in response to continuous interaction with colleagues from mathematics and engineering, public presentations, comments on published work, and the adaptation of ideas sketched in papers by others. It also turned out that the results could also be used for other applications, such as traffic models [35, 47, 48] and population balance models of ball wear in grinding mills [42]. In addition, some general contributions to mathematical analysis have been made in [30]. 1.2 This contribution In Section 2, we briefly outline the kinematic sedimentation model, the original research problem, enumerate some of the questions stated more than a decade ago, and review the answers found during the recent years.

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions

3

A systematic review of the research performed forms the core of this paper, and is outlined in Sections 3–6. Each of these sections deals with one particular mathematical or engineering aspect. Of particular interest is the case of a monodisperse suspension with one single particle species. In Section 3 we focus on the one-dimensional flow of such mixtures in several devices, including clarifier-thickener units (Section 3.1) and pressure filtration (Section 3.2). We illustrate the non-standard features of each of these models; namely, a discontinuous flux and a diffusion term in the former and a free boundary in the latter. Considering models representing such special cases as a given input, we summarize in the subsequent sections the mathematical analysis that has been applied to some of them. All models considered give rise to time-dependent partial differential equations that have certain non-standard features. In particular, we review results for the following types of equations: strongly degenerate, non-linear parabolic-hyperbolic convection-diffusion equations (Section 3.3); conservation laws, in part with discontinuous coefficients (Section 3.4); coupled systems of scalar equations of this kind with additional equations of motion (being similar to Navier-Stokes equations), (Section 3.5). In Section 4 polydisperse suspensions are considered. In Section 4.1 a general mathematical model of suspensions is outlined, which beyond the kinematic approach features both an extension to particles with a size or density distribution (so-called polydisperse suspensions) and the formation of compressible sediments. The derivation of the model may seem fairly complex, but the final equations have the advantage that we may conveniently refer to all special models (say, for monodisperse or polydisperse suspensions, with or without sediment compressibility) as special cases. Thereafter, results for systems of conservation laws of mixed hyperbolic-elliptic type (Section 4.2) and quasilinear parabolic systems (Section 4.3) are reviewed. In Section 5, we turn to the design and analysis of numerical schemes for the different models. These schemes include finite difference, front tracking and relaxation methods, and a very recent multiresolution technique for efficient computation of discontinuous solutions. Some rather simple sedimentation and related models for simulations and applications have been implemented for practitioners in order to enable them to perform simulations with a user-friendly tool. This activity is briefly summarized in Section 6. However, all models require that certain concentrationdependent material-specific, empirical model functions are known. Clearly, this information has to be obtained from experimentation, which leads to the problem of parameter identification. Recent contributions on the numerical solution of this ill-posed inverse problem are equally reported in Section 6. Finally, Section 6 presents a brief discussion of applications of the mathematical and numerical techniques generated while studying sedimentation models to related models in alternative applications (e.g. traffic flow and population balance models). Selected open problems are addressed in Section 7.

4


2 Kinematic model of monodisperse suspensions Historically, the mathematical analysis of sedimentation processes began with the spatially one-dimensional kinematic sedimentation model due to Kynch [93], which leads to a scalar non-linear conservation law with a nonconvex, smooth flux-density function. As is well known, solutions of such equations are discontinuous in general, and need to be defined as weak solutions. In addition, a selection criterion, that is, a so-called entropy condition, needs to be postulated in order to single out the physically relevant among possibly several weak solutions. (A comprehensive treatment of the kinematic sedimentation model is given in the monograph Sedimentation and Thickening [58], while the articles [54, 64, 65] offer historical reviews on sedimentation and thickening research.) We now restate the basic properties of the kinematic sedimentation model, which represent the state of knowledge at the beginning of our research. The (idealized) suspension is considered as a continuum and the sedimentation process is represented by the continuity equation of the solid phase: ∂t φ + ∂z fbk (φ) = 0,

0 ≤ z ≤ L, t > 0,

(1)

where φ is the local volume fraction of solids as a function of height z and time t, and fbk (φ) = φvs is the Kynch batch flux density function, where vs is the solids phase velocity. The basic assumption is that the local solid-liquid relative velocity is a function of the solids volumetric concentration φ only, which for batch sedimentation in a closed column is equivalent to stating that vs = vs (φ). For the sedimentation of an initially homogeneous suspension of concentration φ0 , (1) is considered together with the initial condition   for z = L, 0 φ(z, 0) = φ0 (2) for 0 < z < L,   φmax for z = 0,

where it is assumed that the function fbk satisfies fbk (φ) = 0 for φ ≤ 0 or φ ≥ φmax and fbk (φ) < 0 for 0 < φ < φmax , where φmax is the maximum solids concentration. The knowledge of fbk is sufficient to determine φ = φ(z, t) for a given initial concentration φ0 , and the solution can be constructed by the method of characteristics. To describe the batch settling velocities of particles in real suspensions of small particles, numerous material specific constitutive equations for vs = vs (φ) or fbk (φ) = φvs (φ) were proposed (see also [23, 77, 78]). The most frequently used is the equation due to Richardson and Zaki [107]: ( u∞ φ(1 − φ)n for 0 ≤ φ ≤ 1, fbk (φ) = n > 1, (3) 0 for φ < 0 and φ > 1, where u∞ is the Stokes velocity, that is, the settling velocity of a single particle in an unbounded fluid. This equation has the inconvenience that the settling

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions a) MS-1: 0 fbk ()

0

0

max L z

S1

a 0

0

t tc

t

0

0 0

L z

clear liquid

C1

0 a 0

S1

S2

max

S1

S1

C1

0

sediment

max L z

S1

) MS-3: 0 fbk ()

S3

S2

0 0

S1

S1 S2

b) MS-2: 0 fbk ()

L z

clear liquid

5

max L z

S2

R1

S3

C1

sediment

t t1

tc

t

R1

S2

R1

0 0 0 max

L z

clear liquid

S1

0

S3

S1 R1

sediment 0

t

t1

tc

t

0

0

0 max

Fig. 1. Modes of sedimentation MS-1 to MS-3 [51]. From the left to the right, the flux plot, the settling plot showing characteristics and shock lines, and one concentration profile (for t = t∗ ) are shown for each mode. Chords in the flux plots and shocks in the settling plots having the same slopes are marked by the same symbols

velocity becomes zero at the solids concentration φ = 1, while experimentally this occurs at a maximum concentration φmax between 0.6 and 0.7. Thus hindered settling functions that are designed to describe a specific suspension should be preferred whenever available. To construct the solution of the initial value problem (1), (2), the method of characteristics is employed. This method is based on the propagation of ′ φ0 (z0 ), the initial value prescribed at z = z0 , at constant speed fbk (φ0 (z0 )) in a z versus t diagram. These straight lines, the characteristics, might intersect, which makes solutions of (1) discontinuous in general. This is due to the nonlinearity of the flux density function fbk . In fact, even for smooth initial data, a scalar conservation law with a nonlinear flux density function may produce discontinuous solutions. To outline some main properties of discontinuous solutions of (1), we consider the Riemann problem, where an initial function

6


φ0 (z) =

(

φ+ 0 φ− 0

for z > 0, for z < 0

(4)

consisting just of two constants is prescribed. Obviously, the initial-value problem (1), (2) consists of two adjacent Riemann problems producing two ‘fans’ of characteristics and discontinuities, which in this case start to interact after a finite time t1 . At discontinuities, (1) is not satisfied and is replaced by the Rankine-Hugoniot condition, which corresponds to the original conservation law and states that the local propagation velocity σ(φ+ , φ− ) of a discontinuity between the solution values φ+ above and φ− below the discontinuity is given by fbk (φ+ ) − fbk (φ− ) . (5) σ(φ+ , φ− ) = φ+ − φ− However, discontinuous solutions satisfying (1) at points of continuity and the Rankine-Hugoniot condition (5) at discontinuities are in general not unique. For this reason, an additional admissibility criterion is necessary to select the physically relevant discontinuous solution. One of these entropy criteria, which determine the unique weak solution and characterize irreversibility, is Ole˘ınik’s jump condition requiring that σ(φ, φ− ) ≥ σ(φ+ , φ− ) ≥ σ(φ, φ+ ) for all φ between φ− and φ+ .

(6)

This condition is satisfied if and only if, in an fbk versus φ plot, the chord joining the points (φ+ , fbk (φ+ )) and (φ− , fbk (φ− )) remains above the graph of fbk for φ+ < φ− and below the graph for φ+ > φ− . Discontinuities satisfying both (5) and (6) are called shocks. If, in addition, ′ ′ fbk (φ− ) = σ(φ+ , φ− ) or fbk (φ+ ) = σ(φ+ , φ− ),

(7)

the shock is called a contact discontinuity. In that case the chord is tangent + to the graph of fbk in at least one of its endpoints. If we assume that φ− 0 < φ0 − + ′ and that fbk (φ) > 0 for φ0 ≤ φ ≤ φ0 , it follows that no shock can be + constructed between φ− 0 and φ0 . In that case, the Riemann problem (1), (4) has a continuous solution  + ′  for z > fbk (φ+ φ0 0 )t, ′ −1 ′ ′ φ(z, t) = (fbk (8) ) (z/t) for fbk (φ− )t ≤ z ≤ fbk (φ+ 0 0 )t,   − − ′ φ0 for z < fbk (φ0 )t,

+ ′ −1 ′ where (fbk ) is the inverse of fbk restricted to the interval [φ− 0 , φ0 ]. This solution is called a rarefaction wave and is the unique physically relevant weak solution of the Riemann problem. A piecewise continuous function satisfying the conservation law (1) at points of continuity and (5) and (6) at discontinuities is unique. For the problem of sedimentation of an initially homogeneous suspension, giving rise to two adjacent Riemann problems only, such a solution


7

can be explicitly constructed by the method of characteristics. For example, for a flux density function fbk with up to two inflection points, there are seven qualitatively different solutions, denoted according to [93] as Modes of Sedimentation. For the simplest case of a function fbk with exactly one inflection point, three Modes of Sedimentation occur, see Figure 1. The formulation of admissibility conditions for more general discontinuous solutions (not necessarily piecewise differentiable ones) led to the concept of entropy weak solutions. Kruˇzkov presented in [91] a general existence and uniqueness result. In 1984, M.C. Bustos [57] embedded Kynch’s theory into the state of the art of mathematical analysis. In a series of papers, summarized in Chapter 7 of [58], it was confirmed that the known solutions constructed in [83, 118] are indeed special cases of entropy weak solutions. Utilizing the method of characteristics, it was possible to extend the construction of modes of sedimentation to Kynch batch flux density functions with two and more inflection points. In 1975 Petty [105] made an attempt to extend Kynch’s theory to continuous sedimentation. The basic difference to batch settling in a cylindrical vessel of height L is that the upper end z = L is identified with a feed inlet and the lower z = 0 with a discharge outlet. The vessel is fed continuously with feed suspension at the inlet (surface source) and discharged continuously through the outlet (surface sink). The overflow of clear liquid is not explicitly modeled. If q = q(t) is defined as the volume flow rate of the mixture per unit area, which can be prescribed, then Kynch’s equation for continuous sedimentation can be written as (9) ∂t φ + ∂z q(t)φ + fbk (φ) = 0.

Starting from Petty’s model [105], Bustos, Concha and Wendland [59] studied a very simple model for continuous sedimentation, in which (9) is restricted to a space interval [0, L] with Dirichlet boundary conditions at z = 0 and z = L. The problem is well posed if the boundary conditions are re-interpreted as set-valued entropy boundary conditions [61]. Experimental evidence demonstrated that while Kynch’s theory accurately predicts the sedimentation behavior of suspensions of equally sized small rigid spherical particles, this is not the case for flocculent suspensions forming compressible sediments. For such mixtures, a kinematic model is no longer sufficient and one needs to take into account dynamic effects, in particular the concept of effective solid stress. One then obtains a strongly degenerate convection-diffusion equation, i.e. Equation (1) with an additional degenerating second-order diffusion term, as a suitable extension of Kynch’s theory [56]. The resulting equation (replacing (9)) can be stated as (10) ∂t φ + ∂z q(t)φ + fbk (φ) = ∂z2 A(φ),

with

A(φ) :=

Z

0

φ

a(s) ds,

a(φ) := −

fbk(φ)σe (φ) , ∆̺gφ

(11)

8


where ∆̺ > 0 is the solid-fluid density difference, g is the acceleration of gravity, and σe is the effective solid stress function. It is assumed that the particles touch each other at a critical concentration φc ∈ [0, φmax ], and that the effective solid stress σe and its derivative σe′ satisfy ( = 0 for φ ≤ φc , σe (φ), σe′ (φ) (12) > 0 for φ > φc . Under the assumptions (11) and (12), and when (3) is used, (10) is a secondorder parabolic PDE that degenerates into first-order hyperbolic type for φ ≤ φc . Since the type degeneracy occurs on a φ-interval of positive length, equation (10) is called strongly degenerate parabolic. The basic difficulty is that the location of the type-change interface, where φ = φc , is not known beforehand. Strongly degenerating parabolic equations like (10) were little understood at the time of the initial project proposal, and the main motivation of our research was to provide a well-posedness analysis for this equation, to design numerical methods for its solution, and to apply them to practical simulations. Before formulating some specific problems during the initial stages of the project let us point out that (10) was restricted to a finite length interval [0, L], corresponding to the so-called ideal continuous thickener. At z = L, it was presumed that the concentration can be explicitly prescribed as φ(L, t) = φL (t),

t ∈ (0, T ],

(13)

while at z = 0, the total flux is reduced to its convective part, i.e. q(t)φ + fbk (φ) − ∂z A(φ) = q(t)φ

at z = 0,

which reduces to the boundary condition to fbk (φ) − ∂z A(φ) = 0

at z = 0.

(14)

It is furthermore assumed that an initial concentration is given: φ(z, 0) = φ0 (z),

z ∈ [0, L].

(15)

Equations (10) and (13)–(15) form an initial-boundary value problem (IBVP) for continuous sedimentation of a flocculated suspension, which forms compressible sediments; in short, this IBVP models sedimentation with compression. Note that it includes the problem of batch settling of a suspension whenever we set q ≡ 0 and φL ≡ 0, and that the conventional Kynch analysis is included for A ≡ 0. This problem formed the starting point of our research, which was focused on the following questions: a) Is it possible to extend existing analyses of initial-boundary value problems for conservation laws [2, 70] as well as early approaches to the existence


9

and uniqueness analysis of strongly degenerate parabolic equations [116, 117, 120, 122] to provide well-posedness (existence and uniqueness) for the IBVP (10), (13)–(15)? How does the concept of entropy solutions look like here? In particular, how does the concept of entropy boundary conditions apply here? b) Can one design an efficient numerical scheme for the IBVP and prove its convergence to an entropy solution? c) Is it possible to use the results of (a) and (b) to formulate a control problem? d) Can the model and its analysis be extended to several space dimensions? During the course of the project, these questions have been dealt with in the following way. a) Analyses of strongly degenerate parabolic equations available at the beginning of the authors’ research included the papers by Volpert [116] and Volpert and Hudjaev [117] published in the late 1960s, and contributions by Wu Zhuoqun and his collaborators from the 1980s [120, 121, 122, 123]. The analysis of the IBVP (10), (13)–(15) was the topic of the second author’s doctoral work [15], finished in 1996, which gave rise to the papers [52, 53]. The existence proof for a generalized weak solution satisfying an entropy condition (in short, entropy solution), characterized by Kruˇzkov entropy functions, was based on the vanishing viscosity method. The uniqueness proof for this problem is based on the jump condition established in [123] and relies on the assumption of a smooth diffusion coefficient. A correct formulation of the boundary conditions leads to setvalued so-called entropy boundary conditions [52]. Unfortunately, most diffusion coefficients a(φ) for the sedimentationconsolidation model do not satisfy these smoothness assumptions. In [27] an improved version of the analysis of [53] is presented, and it is shown that the viscosity method also handles even discontinuous diffusion coefficients and does not lead to new singularities. A new result by Carrillo permits to prove the uniqueness of the generalized solution by Kruˇzkov’s “doubling of variables” technique. The choice of the solution space BV , which formed the basis of the wellposedness analyses in [27, 53], turned out to be a severe restriction for the attempt to generalize the results of these papers to other initial-boundary value problems, including spatially multi-dimensional problems. In part inspired by [101], we utilized the more general concept of divergence-measure fields [63] for the analysis of a free boundary for a problem of pressure filtration [31], see also Section 3.3. It seems difficult to extend this approach to multi-dimensional degenerate parabolic equations with zero flux boundary conditions, but see [30] for a partial result. Though entropy boundary conditions ensure well-posedness of the initialboundary value problem (10), (13)–(15) [52], it turned out that these conditions are unphysical due to the violation of conservation of mass, and

10


should be replaced by zero-flux or flux-type boundary conditions. For this reason, we analyzed in [27] in parallel a second IBVP, in which the boundary condition (13) is replaced by q(t)φ + fbk (φ) − ∂z A(φ) = Ψ (t)

at z = L,

(16)

where Ψ (t) is a boundary feed flux. Well-posedness of the IBVP (10), (14), (15), (16) is shown in [27]; this includes the zero-flux initial-boundary value problem for batch settling attained by setting q ≡ 0 and Ψ ≡ 0. It should be emphasized that for the IBVP (10), (14), (15), (16) with fluxvalued boundary conditions, the boundary conditions are almost always satisfied in a pointwise sense, which makes entropy boundary conditions unnecessary. Finally, let us comment that the question of boundary conditions experienced another turn in recent years. Since modeling continuous sedimentation through feed and discharge boundary conditions (as stipulated in the Petty-Bustos model [59, 61, 105]) is unphysical, feed and discharge mechanisms should be expressed by singular source terms and flux discontinuities, see Section 3.1. b) After the well-posedness analysis had been completed [15, 52, 53], our efforts were directed to the development of numerical schemes for (10), (13)–(15) (and its variants). In the papers [17, 18, 28], operator-splitting finite difference schemes were used for numerical simulations of the problem, but they were still lacking a rigorous numerical analysis. The analysis of finite difference schemes for strongly degenerate parabolic equations was greatly advanced by the paper by Evje and Karlsen [72], who proved convergence of a monotone finite difference scheme to an entropy solution for the initial-boundary value problem of strongly degenerate convectiondiffusion equations. Though this scheme could be easily adapted to the IBVP (10), (14), (15), (16), see [34], it was not obvious how to deal with boundary conditions. This problem was solved very recently in [24, 25], where convergence of explicit and semi-implicit monotone difference methods to an entropy solution is proved. See Section 5.1 for details. c) Due to its involved nonlinear and strongly degenerate parabolic nature, the IBVP (10), (13)–(15) (and its variant) do not admit exact solution constructions. It seems therefore impossible to precisely predict the effect of control actions, such as changes of the feed flux, as is possible for the kinematic sedimentation model [60]. However, the effect of control actions, in particular changes between steady states, was simulated numerically in [17, 18, 27, 28], and later, for the clarifier-thickener model, in [22, 41, 45]. The problem of optimal control, for example with the aim to maximize the solids throughput or to minimize the fill-up time, has not yet been treated. d) To overcome the conceptual one-dimensionality of the Kynch model, we formulated in [16, 55, 56] a general continuum mechanical theory of sedimentation-consolidation processes of suspensions of fine, flocculated particles in a viscous fluid. According to the theory of mixtures, the model


11

formulation is based on the mass and linear momentum balances of the solid and the fluid components. Then, for closing the system, constitutive assumptions are introduced, and the equations are simplified following a dimensional analysis. The resulting model is a Stokes- or Navier-Stokeslike system of equations for the (incompressible) flow of the mixture, which is coupled to a strongly degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic quasilinear convection-diffusion equation for the local solids volume fraction. This model was later extended to polydisperse suspensions in [11]. In Section 4.1 we briefly outline the general derivation for the polydisperse case, and then refer to monodisperse suspensions as a special case.

3 Solid-liquid separation In this section let us consider one space dimension, for which (34) is the governing equation, and focus on a monodisperse suspension. The governing equation is (10), where the diffusion function A(·) is given by (11) and (12). If reduced to one space dimension only, the mixture flow is completely determined by boundary conditions. The non-standard property of this equation is the solution-dependent parabolic-hyperbolic type degeneracy. This spatially one-dimensional model leads to initial or initial-boundary value problems for strongly degenerating convection-diffusion equations. Similar models are also obtained for the centrifugation [19] and pressure filtration [21] of flocculated suspensions. The latter case involves a free boundary problem. These models are illustrated in [18, 19, 21] by numerical simulations, in part taking into account published experimental data. A summarizing theory of the solid-liquid separation of suspensions can be found in [81]. This model can be extended to vessels with varying cross-sectional area [26], which opens new design elements for industrial applications. 3.1 Clarifier-thickener models Let us for a moment assume that A ≡ 0. The one-dimensional sedimentation model by Kynch [93] arises as a special case of the general sedimentationconsolidation theory. For the continuous settling of an ideal suspension it leads to the conservation law (17) ∂t u + ∂x q(x, t)u + h(u) = 0,

where the solids concentration u varies with depth x and time t, and q(x, t) is the local mixture velocity. To be consistent with quoted publications, the symbol φ for the local solids concentration is replaced by u and fbk (φ) by −h(u). The simple model for continuous sedimentation of [59] reduces (17) to an interval, say x ∈ [0, L], corresponding to a cylindrical container. At the top x = 0 there is an inflow and at the bottom x = L there is a discharge for the

12


x= 1 (over ow level)

lari ation zone

sudden hanges of

ross-se tional area due to feed inlet x=0 (feed level)

-

11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 0 1 00000 11111 111 000 111 000 0 1 00000 11111 0 1

thi kening zone

volume over ow rate QL = q L S

6

1

lari ation zone volume feed rate QF = QR QL feed on entration uF

6 6 6 6 6 ? ? ? ? ?

0

thi kening zone x=1 (under ow level)

-

?

volume dis harge rate QR = q R S

1

?

depth

x

Fig. 2. (a) Clarifier-thickener with variable container cross section [39], (b) ideal clarifier-thickener with constant cross section [41]

thickened sediment. It is assumed that the thickener is fed continuously by the inflow and discharged continuously through the plughole. The mixture velocity q = qR (t) is a function of the time only, where qR can be controlled at the bottom discharge. In [59] (17) is analyzed together with Dirichlet boundary conditions, where so-called entropy boundary conditions are used in order to show existence and uniqueness of entropy solutions. This model, which can be traced back to Petty [105] has some major disadvantages like the lack of a global conservation principle. In addition, it has been recognized that the Dirichlet boundary conditions are physically unrealistic, even though they lead to a mathematically well-posed problem. They should be replaced by the change of the transport flux q(x, t)u and the assembled flux q(x, t)u + h(u), which leads to a pure initial-value problem. Moreover, the feed suspension should be fed between the discharge openings at the sediment discharge at the bottom and the overflow at the top of the container. Then the one-dimensional modeling leads to an upward-directed mixture velocity qL ≤ 0 above and a downward-directed velocity qR ≥ 0 below of the feed level. The feed source itself is described by a singular source term. Such “clarifier-thickeners” have been proposed by several authors including [62, 95] and have been analyzed thoroughly in particular by Diehl (see [68, 69] and the references therein). To sketch the mathematical models we consider a clarifier-thickener with a (generally discontinuously) varying cross-sectional area 0 < Smin ≤ S(x) ≤ Smax , see Figure 2 (a). The model is then given by the initial value problem

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions a) Initial state

b) Cake formation

t=0

0

1111111 0000000 0000000 1111111

piston

|h(0)

*

t t

1 0 0 1 000000 111111 0 1 000000 111111 0

|h(t)

111111 000000 000000 111111

< < 0 = 0

0 <

membrane

) Expression

< t < t

=0

= 0

|l (0)

13

1 0 0 1 0 1

>

lear liquid

|h(t) = l (t)

|l (t)

>

lear liquid

Fig. 3. Pressure filtration of a flocculated suspension [21]

S(x)∂t u + ∂x g(u, x) = 0, x ∈ R, t > 0; u(x, 0) = u0 (x) ∈ [0, 1], x ∈ R;  QL (u − uF ) f¨ ur x < −1,    Q (u − u ) + S(x)h(u) f¨ u r −1 < x < 0, L F g(u, x) :=  QR (u − uF ) + S(x)h(u) f¨ ur 0 < x < 1,    QR (u − uF ) f¨ ur x > 1, (18) where QR ≥ 0 and QF ≥ 0 are the prescribed volume fluxes of the suspension, which leave the container at the bottom or are fed in into the container, respectively, QL = QF − QR is the resulting volume flux at the overflow, and uF is the solids feed concentration. For simplicity, temporally constant control functions QL , QR and uF are assumed. The most reported results deal in the first instance with the case of constant cross section S ≡ const. with qL = QL /S und qR = QR /S (Figure 2 (b)). The analysis of clarifier-thickener models, including well-posedness, convergence of numerical methods and extensions to flocculated and polydisperse suspensions, has opened a new line of research within the project that generated a series of papers [10, 22, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45]. Mathematical and numerical aspects of clarifier-thickener models are further discussed in Sections 3.4 and 5.2, respectively.

14


3.2 Pressure filtration of flocculated suspensions The sedimentation-consolidation theory was also extended to pressure filtration of flocculated suspensions. A filtration device is sketched in Figure 3. The suspension is contained in a cylindrical volume, which is bounded at the top at height h = h(t) by a movable piston and at the bottom by a fixed filter (or “membrane”). This membrane is permeable for the fluid only. When the pressure σ(t) is applied to the piston, the fluid is squeezed through the filter element. Over the membrane a so-called filter cake builds up. The filter cake grows continuously and its hydraulic resistance increases accordingly, which hinders the movement of the piston. This filtration process (sedimentation and cake formation) with the mixture flow caused by the piston movement can also be described by the sedimentation-consolidation model in one space dimension. The essential idea is that a complete mathematical model can be obtained and numerically simulated by the choice of appropriate boundary conditions and the coupling of applied pressure σ(t) and piston height h(t). Here the sedimentation of the suspension inside the container is also included. The resulting pressure filtration model can be stated as follows. The field equation for the concentration φ as function of time t and height z is ∂t φ + ∂z h′ (t)φ + fbk (φ) = ∂z2 A(φ), 0 < z < h(t), t > 0. (19) The pore pressure p, which is also sought, can be calculated from φ(z, t) by ∂z p = −̺(φ)g − ∂z σe (φ),

0 < z < h(t), t > 0,

(20)

where ̺(φ) = φ̺s + (1 − φ)̺f is the local density of the mixture, if ̺s and ̺f are the densities of the solid and the liquid, respectively. Equations (19) and (20) are supplied with the initial conditions h(0) = h0 ;

φ(0, z) = φ0 (z),

0 ≤ z ≤ h0 ,

(21)

(h0 is the initial height and φ0 is the initial concentration) and the kinematic boundary conditions fbk (φ) − ∂z A(φ) (0, t) = −h′ (t)φ(0, t), t > 0, (22) fbk (φ) − ∂z A(φ) h(t), t = 0, t > 0. (23)

Conditions (22) and (23) state that the solid phase is held up at z = 0 and transported at z = h(t) with the piston velocity h′ (t). The coupling between σ(t) and h(t) is described by the dynamic boundary condition (24) σ(t) = σe φ(0, t) − g m0 + ̺f (h(t) − h0 ) − µf Rm h′ (t).

Here m0 is the initial mass of the suspension, divided by the container cross section, µf is the dynamical viscosity of the pure fluid, and Rm is the hydraulic

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions a) z [m℄

0:08 0:06 0:04 0:02 0 b)

15

pp ppp pp pp pp ppp pppp ppppppppp ppppp pppppp pppppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp ppp q q pppppp pppppp pp ppppp pppp pppppppp ppppp pppp a ppppp ppppp ppppp pppp ppppp 0:01, 0:029 pppp pppppp ppppp pppppp ppppp pppppp pp pppppp q ppppppppp pppppp ppppppp q pppppppp ppppppp pb pppppppp pppppppp ppppppp ppppp pppppppp ppppppp pppppppp pppppp ppppppppp pppp ppppppppp ppppppp pppppppp pppppp pppppppppp pppppp pppppppppp pppppppppp pppppp pppppppppp ppppp ppppppppp ppppp pppppppppp pppppppq 0:031 pppppppppp pppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppp qpppppppppp ppppppppppp ppppp pppppp pppppppppp ppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppp ppppppp ppppppppp ppppppp q 0:032 pppppppppp pppppp pppppppppp ppppppp pppppppppp ppppppq ppppppppp pppppp ppppppppppp 0:033 pppppp ppppppppp pppppppppp pppppppppp pppppppppp pppppp ppppppppp ppppppp ppppppppppp ppppppp 0:035 pppppppppp pppppp ppppppppp ppppppp pppppppppp pppppppppp p ppppppppppp p p p ppppppppp pppp pppppppp pppppppppp pppppppp ppppppp p a p p q p p ppppppppppp ppp pppp ppppp 0:04, 0:05, pppppppppp ppppppp pppppppp ppppppppppppppp pppppppppp a pppppppppppp ppppppppppppppp p p ppppppppppp p ppppppppppppppppp 0:25 q 0:26 p pppppppppp 0:275 0:29 0:1, 0:17ppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppp pppppppp a p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp ppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p ppppppppppppppppp p p a ppppp ppppppp ppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppp ppppp pppppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pp ppp pp p pp p pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppqpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p a pppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p pb pb pb pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppb p p p ppppppppppppppppppppp p p pppppb p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p ppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppp p pb pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppb ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppb p p p p p p p p p pppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

0 0:03 102:1 kPa J = 150

4

4

4 4 4

~ (t) h

AA TTAA J TA \\J T A J e\e\JT

0

4

? ?

500

z [m℄

0:08 0:06 0:04 0:02 0

4

?

4 4

?

measured height h(t)

4 = 0:01 0:02 0:03 0:029{0:031 0:05 0:25 ? 0:275

4

4 4

4

1000

?

1500

t [s℄

?

2000

0 0:03 102:1 kPa J = 150 = 3:33 s

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ||t = 0 s s s s s s s s s s s s s ps ps s s ppps s s pps s p s s ppps s ppp 200 s s s s ppps s pps ps s s ppppps s ppppppppppppppppppppppppp s ps s s ppp pps s s pp s pppp s p s pps s p pp s pps ppppp pps s ps p s s pps ppppp s ppps s p s ps ppppp s pppps s s pp s ps s ppppp ppps s s 400 s p pps s ppppp ppps s s ps p s s ppp pppps s s ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ps s ppp ppps s s s ps s pppp s p ppps 800; 1000; : : : ; 1800 s s s pp ps s ppppp s ppps s s p pps s ppppp s ppps s s p ps s ppppp s ppps 600 s s p ps s s ppppp s ppps s ps ppp s pppps s ppppp 200 s 400 s spppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 2000 pps s pppppppp s pppps s pp s s pppppp s ppppppppps s pp ps ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppps ppps s s s s s s s s s s ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ss s ppppp pp pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppp pppp pppppp ppp ppppp pppppp ppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp pp pppppppppppppppppp pp pppppppppppppppp ppp pppppppppppppppp pp

0

0:1

0:2

s

0:3 [ ℄ 0:4

Fig. 4. Simulation of a filtration experiment [111]: (a) Measured (symbols) and simulated iso-concentration lines, (b) simulated concentration profiles and concen˜ tration (dots) in height h(t), plotted in time intervals of length ∆τ [21]

resistance of the filter element. The material properties of the suspension and the filter cake are thus described by the functions fbk (φ) and σe (φ) as well as by the constants ̺¯ und µf . The filtration device is characterized by the initial height h0 and the filter resistance Rm . The externally prescribed control function is either the applied pressure σ(t) or the piston velocity h′ (t), which corresponds to the filtration rate. The choice of the control function determines the resulting mathematical model. If the piston trajectory h(t) (or the corresponding filtration rate) is prescribed, then (19) and (21)–(23) form an initial-boundary value problem and the applied pressure σ(t) necessary to perform the filtration process follows from (24). The more important and also more interesting case occurs when σ(t) is given and the piston trajectory (or the filtrate rate) h(t) is sought. Since the

16


coupling of σ(t) and h(t) by (24) involves the evaluation of the solution at z = 0, which in turn depends on h(t), we obtain a free boundary value problem for a strongly degenerate parabolic equation. This formulation is presented in [21], along with numerical simulations of pressure filtration processes, see Figure 4. For the analysis of the free boundary value problem, a new approach by the theory of divergence-measure fields is needed [31]. We elaborate on this in Section 3.3. 3.3 strongly degenerate parabolic equations The analysis of scalar, strongly degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic PDEs was initially focused on generalized entropy solutions in the space BV (QT ), where QT is the cylindrical computational domain [27, 52, 53]. It turned out that the BV framework is an excessive limitation, even for spatially one-dimensional initial-boundary value problems, which causes severe problems for the uniqueness analysis; for example, the BV analysis in [115] is based on the assumption of additional regularity properties of the weak solutions that can hardly be verified in practice. Now these problems can be solved by the recent theory of divergence-measure fields, which will briefly be outlined. To show that the generalized solution u of a conservation law or a strongly degenerate parabolic equation belongs to BV (QT ), one needs to derive estimates of k∂x uε kL1 (QT ) and k∂t uε kL1 (QT ) for solutions uε of the regularized problem. These estimates need to be uniform with respect to the regularizing parameter ε. In combination with an L∞ bound on uε , the assumptions of Kolmogorov’s compactness criterion are satisfied, which entails the existence of a limit u ∈ L∞ (QT ) ∩ BV (QT ), which represents the sought generalized solution. The significance of the space BV (QT ) is the existence of traces of the limit function u at the spatial boundary of QT provided that u ∈ BV (QT ). The analysis in [27] illustrated that these traces indeed are necessary for the existence of generalized solutions. For various reasons, the BV approach represents a strong restriction. The obvious problem lies in the difficulty, and sometimes impossibility, to obtain the required uniform estimates. Of course, this problem is even more severe when passing to multi-dimensional equations of the form ∂t u + ∇x · f (u) = ∆A(u),

(x, t) ∈ QT := Ω × (0, T ),

Ω ⊂ Rn

(25)

Here, one needs estimates on k∇x uε kL1 (QT ) . Whenever it is possible to estimate the latter quantity, but not ∂t uε , one may use Kruˇzkov’s “interpolation lemma” [91, Lemma 5] to conclude that uε converges for ε → 0 to a limit u ∈ BV1,1/2 (QT ) ⊃ BV (QT ), which means that there exists a constant K such that


ZZ

QT

ZZ

17

u(x + ∆x, t) − u(x, t) dxdt ≤ K|∆x|,

QT

u(x, t + ∆t) − u(x, t) dxdt ≤ K|∆t|1/2 .

The BV1,1/2 estimates on {uε } are sufficient for the application of Kolmogorov’s compactness criterion, which implies the existence of a limit u. The problem consists in the boundary conditions and in the uniqueness of u, since the existence of traces of a function u ∈ BV1,1/2 (QT ) is not ensured, hence boundary conditions need to be formulated without the concept of trace, and the uniqueness of generalized solutions is not obvious then. A further limitation of the BV approach becomes apparent in [46] through the restriction to a rather narrow class of admissible initial functions, which are necessary to achieve a uniform estimate of the time derivative. These difficulties of the BV approach motivated the search for a more general concept of generalized solutions. Here, the concept of so-called divergencemeasure fields, which were introduced by Anzellotti in [1], turned out to be useful. The corresponding analysis in [31] is based on the formulation by Chen and Frid [63]. We recall that u ∈ L∞ (Q) ∩ BV (Q), where Q ⊂ RN , if and only if Z N kukBV (Q) := sup u∇ · ϕ dx : ϕ ∈ C01 (Q) , kϕkL∞ (Q) ≤ 1 Q

is finite. Then the basic idea in [63] consists in replacing the property u ∈ L∞ (Q) ∩ BV (Q) by the requirement that a vector field F ∈ Lp (Q, RN ) associated with u satisfies the condition |div F|(Q) < ∞ with Z |div F|(Q) := sup F · ∇ϕ dx : ϕ ∈ C01 (Q; R), kϕkL∞ (Q) < 1 . Q

Here, we define the class of Lp divergence-measure fields by DMp (Q) = F ∈ Lp (Q; RN ) : |div F|(Q) < ∞ .

For F ∈ DMp (Q) we have that div F is a Radon measure on Q. If the components of F are Lipschitz continuous with respect to u, as in the application to conservation laws, it becomes clear that u ∈ L∞ (Q) ∩ BV (Q) implies F ∈ DM∞ (Q). Properties of L∞ divergence-measure fields are derived in [63]. In particular, a generalized Gauss-Green formula can be established for a class of bounded domains, which then allows the definition of traces. For scalar conservation laws, every convex entropy pair is an L∞ divergencemeasure field on Q = QT ⊂ RN if we consider QT = Ω×(0, T ) with a bounded spatial domain Ω ⊂ RN −1 . Using the Gauss-Green formula, Chen and Frid [63] find a corresponding weak solution for L∞ (not BV ) solutions to scalar conservation laws with boundary conditions. Moreover, they derive the entropy boundary conditions with entropy boundary fluxes introduced by Otto

18


[100, 104]. Most of the properties of Lp divergence-measure fields derived in [63] are also valid for 1 < p < ∞. The case p = 2 is of particular interest for the analysis of strongly degenerate parabolic equations, since standard a priori estimates allow to show that the Kruˇzkov entropy pair of a strongly degenerate parabolic equation represents an L2 divergence-measure field over QT . This was exploited in [101] for the proof of well-posedness of the inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem of the strongly degenerate parabolic equation (25). In [52] entropy boundary conditions are derived for strongly degenerate parabolic equations in the application to sedimentation with compression. Traces of the solution near the boundary of the computational domain can be defined only if the diffusion coefficient a(u) has certain regularity properties (for example, Lipschitz continuity). Even though the free boundary problem of pressure filtration is spatially one-dimensional, the estimate on ∂t uε required for the BV approach could not be obtained here yet. So, for the analysis the theory of divergence-measure fields is applied in [31]. 3.4 Conservation laws and related equations with discontinuous coefficients To model clarifier-thickeners, we consider conservation laws of the type ∂t u + ∂x f γ(x), u = 0, x ∈ R, t > 0, (26)

where u(x, t) is the scalar unknown and f (γ, u) is a given flux function. The salient feature of (26) is the explicit dependence of the convection term on the position x through a possibly discontinuous parameter γ(x). PDEs of this form appear in various applications such as flows in porous media [82], sedimentation processes [36, 68, 69] and models of traffic flow [35]. If the coefficient γ(x) is discontinuous, the usual Kruˇzkov theory [91] of entropy solutions breaks down. In this case, (26) is frequently written as the following 2 × 2 system of equations: ∂t γ = 0,

∂t u + ∂x f (γ, u) = 0.

(27)

When u 7→ fu (γ, u) changes sign, this system is not strictly hyperbolic and becomes resonant. One consequence of resonance is the lack of an a priori bound on the total variation of the conserved quantity u [110]. In general, no spatial BV bound for u is available, so that a singular mapping approach is employed to prove the convergence of numerical schemes and the existence of weak solutions. This method was introduced by Temple [110] and had an enormous impact: it is used in [96, 97] to prove convergence of the 2 × 2 Godunov method, in [113, 114] to show convergence of the scalar Engquist-Osher and Godunov methods, in [36, 82, 88, 89, 90] to study front tracking methods based on 2 × 2 Riemann solvers and in [86] to analyze scalar relaxation methods. The singular mapping approach consists of the construction of a


19

mapping Ψ (u) that is a continuous monotone function of u, and the derivation of a uniform bound of the total variation of Ψ (u∆ ), where u∆ is the approximate solution. This bound ensures the strong convergence of Ψ (u∆ ) to a function Ψ¯ . Finally, one proves that u := Ψ −1 (Ψ¯ ) is a weak solution. The singular mapping approach was applied for an entropy solution concept and an associated uniqueness proof in [39] for an equation with discontinuous coefficients which describes the continuous sedimentation of a monodisperse suspension. 3.5 Systems of scalar equations coupled with equations of motion The papers [49] and [50] are devoted to multi-dimensional systems of model equations for sedimentation-consolidation processes. In [50] the coupling between the conservation of mass equation for the solid phase with equations of motion for the mixture is considered, and energy estimates for several different regularizations of this system are derived. These energy estimates may be used for the future design of numerical schemes. In [49] simplified models for the sedimentation of suspensions in closed, spatially two-dimensional vessels are considered. These models are based on the theory of kinematic waves. It is proved that these models, in which the motion of the mixture is coupled with the concentration fronts by boundary conditions only, are in general not well posed due to the absence of inertial or viscous terms.

4 Polydisperse suspensions 4.1 Model equations of polydisperse suspensions We consider polydisperse suspensions of small spherical particles of a finite number N of species having the diameters d1 , . . . , dN and the densities ̺1 , . . . , ̺N , where di 6= dj or ̺i 6= ̺j for i 6= j. Each of these species is modeled as a separate solid phase, which leads to systems of conservation laws. In [46], the following multi-dimensional model equations for polydisperse mixtures are derived, starting from the mass and linear momentum balances, followed by constitutive assumptions and an order-of-magnitude analysis: ∂t φi + ∇ · φi q + fi (Φ)k = 0, i = 1, . . . , N, (28) ∇ · q = 0, (29) 1 ∇ · TE (30) ∇p = −̺(Φ)gk + f (Φ, ∇q). 1−φ Here, φi is the volumetric concentration of species i (having diameter di and density ̺i ) and Φ := (φ1 , . . . , φN )T , t is the time, q is the volume averaged

20


mixture flow velocity, k is the upwards-pointing unit vector, p is the pore pressure, ̺(Φ) := ̺1 φ1 + · · · + ̺N φN + (1 − φ)̺f is the local density of the mixture, φ := φ1 + · · · + φN is the total solids concentration, g is the acceleration of gravity, ̺f is the density of the fluid, and TE f is the viscous stress tensor of the fluid. The decisive ingredient of these equations is the solids flux density vector f := (f1 , . . . , fN )T , where the components f1 , . . . , fN are functions of Φ . Such functions have frequently been proposed in the literature as generalizations of the flux density function fbk . One example is the so-called Masliyah-LockettBassoon (MLB) model for polydisperse suspensions of spheres which might differ in size and in density [98, 102]. For i = 1, . . . , N one obtains " # N X T T M n−2 ¯ Φ) − ¯ Φ) , ̺i − ̺ δk φk (¯ ̺k − ̺ (31) fi (Φ) = µ(1 − φ) φi δi (¯ k=1

−gd21 /(18µf )

where µ = (µf is the fluid viscosity), n > 2, δi := d2i /d21 , ̺¯i := ¯ := (¯ ̺i − ̺f , i = 1, . . . , N and ̺ ̺1 , . . . , ̺¯N )T . In one space dimension, only (28) needs to be solved, where q ≡ 0 in a closed column of height L, which follows from (29) and qz = 0 at the bottom. This leads to a system of conservation laws of the form ∂t φi + ∂z fi (Φ) = 0, i = 1, . . . , N, Φ(z, 0) = Φ0 (z), 0 ≤ z ≤ L; f |z=0 = f |z=L = 0,

t > 0.

(32) (33)

As is well known, solutions of (32) are discontinuous in general, and the propagation velocity σ(Φ+ , Φ− ) of the discontinuity which separates the states Φ+ and Φ− , is given by the Rankine-Hugoniot condition fi (Φ+ ) − fi (Φ− ) = − σ(φ+ i −φi ). The system (32) is hyperbolic when all eigenvalues of the Jacobian Jf (Φ) := (∂φk fi )1≤i,k≤N are real, and strictly hyperbolic when, in addition, these are pairwise different. A system with only pairs of complex-conjugate non-real eigenvalues is elliptic. Depending on the choice of the flux function f (Φ) and parameters, the system (32) can become non-hyperbolic or, in the case N = 2, changes from hyperbolic to elliptic type [46] in a subregion of the phase space. There, for Φ ∈ E, E ⊂ D1 := {Φ ∈ RN : Φ ≥ 0, φ ≤ 1}, the system is non-hyperbolic (or elliptic) with D\E 6= ∅. The appearance of these type changes depends on the sizes and densities of the particles involved. The ellipticity is equivalent to the criterion given in [3] for the appearance of instabilities such as blobs and finger-type structures, which have been also observed experimentally. In [11], the polydisperse sedimentation model given by (28)–(30) was extended to compressible sediments. To this end, the model assumptions that had been used so far for monodisperse flocculated suspensions, in particular the effective solid stress σe , were extended to polydisperse suspensions. This leads to the following system of equations (instead of (28)), where we confine ourselves to only one space dimension: ∂t Φ + ∂z qΦ + f M (Φ) = ∂z A(Φ)∂z Φ . (34)


21

0.12 0.1

2

0.16

1

0.08 0.06

0.14

0.04

0.12

0.02

0.1

0.0 12

0.08 0.06

9

0.0 0.04 0.2 0.02

6

0.4

0.0 0

t [h℄

0.6 3

t [h℄

0.8

6 9 12

1.0

x [m℄

1.0 3

0.8 0.6 0.4 0

0.2 0.0

x [m℄

0.2

0.12

0.18

0.1

2

0.16

3

0.08 0.06

0.14 0.12 0.1

0.04

0.08

0.02

0.06

0.0

0.04

0

0.02 0.0 0

3

3

6

t [h℄

0.0 9

0.2 0.4 0.6 12

0.8 1.0

x [m℄

t [h℄

6 9 12

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

x [m℄

Fig. 5. Simulation of a tridisperse suspension with equal-density particles, d1 > d2 > d3 , and formation of a compressible sediment [11]

The diffusion matrix A(Φ), which includes the function σe (φ) and its derivative, vanishes for φ ≤ φc , and is usually non-sparse and non-symmetric. An eigenvalue analysis shows that the system (34) is parabolic for all non-trivial Φ satisfying φc < φ < φmax and that thus the application to polydisperse suspensions produces a parabolic-hyperbolic degenerate quasilinear systems of PDEs. In [11] the Kurganov-Tadmor method [92] was used for the simulation of polydisperse sedimentation with compressible sediment layers modeled by (34), see Figure 5. 4.2 Mixed hyperbolic-elliptic systems Systems of mixed hyperbolic-elliptic type also appear in transonic flow, traffic flow, one-dimensional instationary flow of a Van-der-Waals gas, in the propagation of phase boundaries in an elastic beam, and multi-phase flows in porous media. There is a particular similarity between systems of conservation laws for three-phase flows in porous media and those of the sedimentation of a bidisperse suspension. Models of multi-phase flows are the main motivation for studying systems with type change. Surveys on the theory of mixed systems of conservation laws and their applications are given in [73, 87]. The appearance of ellipticity regions raises the question about the actual effects of complex eigenvalues. In first practical numerical computations, ellipticity

22


regions did not cause instabilities. Therefore, the type change did not draw particular attention [4]. Also in the particular sample calculations for polydisperse suspensions performed in [20, 74] no oscillations appeared. (In contrast to [20], both systems solved numerically in [29] are hyperbolic.) A reason for the non-appearance of oscillations is numerical diffusion, which is artificially introduced by most finite difference schemes and thus transforms a system of conservation laws into a well-posed parabolic system. The possibility of (measure-valued) oscillatory solutions for non-hyperbolic systems of first order, however, is demonstrated analytically and numerically in [75, 76]. In [99] it is shown that the structure of the diffusion matrix D is of importance since it determines the instability region. Since the stability or admissibility of shock may depend on the form of the (nonlinear) diffusion matrix, a mixed system cannot be comprehended offhand as the viscosity limit of a parabolic system. For the MLB model, numerical and experimental investigations of hydrodynamic diffusion of polydisperse suspensions [29, 67, 112] may provide guidance. Summarizing, one can say that the mathematical and numerical theory and the general understanding of mixed systems has made enormous progress since those systems had first been investigated in applications [4]. The main questions are, however, still open. In particular, there is no general theory and no generally accepted shock admissibility criterion. Finally, one should emphasize that the complicated wave structures in the solutions of mixed systems usually are not observed in experiments. This observation has led to the conclusion that the main reason of the emergence of mixed systems is poor modeling since the mixed type often goes back to the introduction of closures of balance equations. This conclusion, however, is not valid for the models of sedimentation of polydisperse suspensions, since the instabilities predicted by the type change have been indeed observed [119]. By a perturbation approach it is shown in [46] that loss of hyperbolicity allows the appearance of instabilities also for arbitrary N . For N = 3, the discriminant I3 (Φ) := 4s3 − s2 r2 + 27t2 + 4r3 t − 18rst, r := −tr Jf , t := − det Jf , s := − ∂φ3 f1 ∂φ1 f3 + ∂φ2 f1 ∂φ1 f2 + ∂φ3 f2 ∂φ2 f3 − ∂φ1 f1 ∂φ2 f2 − ∂φ1 f1 ∂φ3 f3 − ∂φ2 f2 ∂φ3 f3 ,

(35)

of the characteristic polynomial of Jf (Φ) shows that hyperbolicity is lost precisely where I3 > 0. With φ3 = 0, this criterion is valid also for N = 2. In [46] we numerically evaluate I2 and I3 and determine instability regions for three different choices of f (Φ) (see Figure 6). Moreover, it is shown that the system (32) is strictly hyperbolic for all Φ ∈ D1 with φ < 1 for equal-density bidisperse suspensions whenever the flux vector (31) is used. The conjecture that the MLB model is strictly hyperbolic for particles of equal density, but different sizes was proved in [11] by exploiting that the


23

3

60:8

I3 > 0 (unstable)

0:7

0:6

q q q q q ppq q q q q q ppq q q ppq q pppp q ppq pq pppppp q q p ppppp q q q ppppppp ppp q q pppppp pppppppp q ppp q q q pq q pppppppppppppp ppppp q pppppppppppp q pppppp ppppp q pppp pq q q pppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp q ppppq q q pppppp pppppppp pppppppp q q pppq q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp pq q pppppppppp pp p ppppp q pppp q q pppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q pq q ppppppppppppppppppp q pq ppppppppppppppp pppppppppp q q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p pppppppppppp pq q q q q q pppppp ppppppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q ppppppppp pp pppppppppp pppp ppppppp p pppppppq q q pppppppp q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q qppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppp ppppppp ppppp q q pppppppp pp pp pppppppppppppppppppp pq ppp q pp pppp pppppppppppp ppppp pppp ppppp q pppppp ppp q pppp q ppp ppp ppppp q ppppp pp p pppp ppp pppppppp ppppppp pp q q pppppppp pppp ppp pppppppppppppp pppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq pp q pppppp q pp q ppppq q pppp pppq q ppppp ppp pp q q pq q q q pq ppp q q pq q ppq q pq q ppq pppq q q ppppppp ppp ppppppppq ppp pp pq q q pq q q pppp pq pppppppp q q ppp q pp q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq ppppp q p qq q q q ppp q pq pppppppppppp pq q ppp q q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq q q ppp q q ppppppppppppppppppppppppp p q pp q q pp q ppp q q q pppppppppppp ppppppp q q pp q q ppp q q ppppp ppp q ppppppppppppppppp q q q q pppppppppppp pppppppppppppppp q pppppp q q pppp pq ppp pp q q pq ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq ppp p q pp ppppp q ppp q q q q q q pppppp q ppp pppp q q pp q pppppppppp q q q q pppppppp p q q p q ppp p q ppppp p p p p pp p p q q p p p p q q ppppppppppppppp ppp q q q pppp ppppp q q ppp pppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppp q pq q q ppppp ppppppppppppq pppp q q ppppppppppppp q q ppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q pppp q q pppppppppppppp q ppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppp q pppp q pq q q ppppppppppppppp q q ppq pppp q pppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppq q q q pppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppp ppppppppppp pppp ppp q pppppp q pppppppppppppppppppp q q p p q p p q p p p p p p p p p q q q p p ppppp pppppppppppp p pppp q q q q q pppppppppp pppppppppppppp q pppppp pppppp pppp q pq q q pppppppppp q ppppppppppppppppppq pppppp pppppppppp q q ppppp q q ppp ppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppp q pppppp q q pppppppppp q pppppp q q q q q q pppppppp pppppppppppp q q ppppp q ppppppq q q q q pppppppppppppp q pppppp q q pppppppppp ppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq p q p p p q q p p p p p p p p p ppp p p p p p p p p p q p p p p pppppppppp pppppppppq q q q q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p q q q p pppppppp ppppppp q q ppp q ppppppppppp q q pppp ppppppppppppp q q pppppppppp q q q ppppppppp q ppppppppppppppp q ppppppppppp q q pppppppppppp q ppppq ppppppp q q ppppppppq pppppppp q ppppppppppppppp q q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppp q ppppppppp q q q q q q pppp q p p q q p p q q p q q q pp q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q ppppppppppq q q q q q q ppppppppppppppppp q p p p q q p p p q p p p q q p q p p q q q q q ppppppppppp q q q q pppppppp q q ppppppppppp q q q q q pppppppp q q ppppppppp q q q q q q ppppppppp q ppppppppppp q q q q q ppppppppp q q q q q q q q ppppppppp pppppp p q p q q q ppppppppp q q q q q q q q pppppppppp q q q q q ppppppppp q q q q q q ppppp q pppppp q pppppppp ppppppp ppppppppq q ppppq q q q q q q ppppppppp pppppppppppp pppppppppppp q ppppppp ppppppppppppppp q q q pppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp q q pppppppppp pppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppp q p q p p p q p p p p p p p p p p q p q p p p q pppppppp ppppppppppppppppppp p pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p q q q q ppppppp q q q q q q q ppppppppp q q q q q q pppppppp q q q q q q ppppppppppp q ppppppppp q q q q q q q pppppppp q q q q ppppp pq pppppp q q q q q q q q ppppppp q q q q q pppppppp q q q q q pppppppp q q q q q q ppppppp q q q q p pq q q pppppppppp q q q ppppppppppppppp q q q q q pppp q pppppppp q q pppppppppppppp p q q p p p p q p p q p pppp p p p q p p p p q pppp q q ppppp ppppp pq q q ppppp q pppppp q q ppppppppp ppppppppp q q q q pppppppppppp ppppppppp q q q q q q ppp ppppppp pppppppppp q ppppppppppppppppp q q q q ppppp q q q pppppppppppppppppp q q q q q ppppppppppppp ppppppp q q pppppp q pq q q p q p p p q p ppppppppppp p q p p ppppq pppppppp q ppppppppp q ppppppppppppp q ppppppppppppppppp q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppq q q pppppppp q q q q q q ppppppppp q q q q q q pppppppppp q q q q pppppppp q ppppppppq q q q q q ppppppp q ppppppppppppppp q p p p p q p p q q p p p p p p pp q p ppp q q ppp q pppppp q ppp q ppppppppp q q q pppppppppp q q q pp ppp q q q ppppppppp pppp pppp q q q q ppp q q pppppppppppppppp ppp ppp q q pppp q pq q q pppppp q q q q ppppppp ppppp pppp q q ppppp pq q q p q q p ppp p q q p pppp pppppp ppppp q q q ppppp q q ppppppp q q ppppppp q pppppppp q q q ppppppppp q q pppppp q ppppppppppppp q q q ppppppp q ppppppp q q q q q q ppppppppp pppppp pppppppppppppppp q q q q pppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q pppppp q pq p q p q p p p q p p p p p p q p p p p q p p p p p p q p p p ppppppppp pppppppppppp ppppppppppppp q q q q ppppppppppppppp q q pppppppppppppppp pppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q q q pppppppppppppp pppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp q q q pppppppppppppppppppppp q q ppp pppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq q pppppp q q q q q pppppppppp pp q ppp q q q ppppppppp q q ppppppppp q q q pppppp q q pq pppppppp q ppp pppp q p q p pp q q q q ppp q q q q ppppp q q qpppppppppppp ppp q pppppp q q ppp ppp q q q q ppp pppppppp pppppp q q q q ppp q q ppppp ppppp q q q ppp q pppp ppppp q ppppp q q q ppppp q ppppp ppppp q q q p p q pppp p p q pppp ppppppp pppppp q q q pppppppp q q q pppppp pppppppp q q q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppq q pppppppp q q ppppppppppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q q pppppp q pppp q p pppp q pppppppppppppppppp q ppppppppppp q pq q pppppppppppppppp ppppppp q q ppppppppppppppp q ppppppp q q q ppppppp q q ppppppppppppp q p p p ppppppppppp q p p p q p p p p p p p p q p p p p p pp q q p p p p pppppppppppppp ppppppppppp pppppppp q q pq q q q q ppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp q q q ppppp pq q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q ppppppp q q q ppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppp q q ppppppp q q q ppppppppppppppppppppp pppppp pppppppppppppppp q pppp q q pppppppp pppq q q pppppp q q q ppp q q ppp q p p p q q pp p p p p q p pp q pppppp q pppppppp pp q q q q pppppp pppppppp q q q ppp q q pppppppp pppp q pppp q q q ppp q q pppp ppp q pppp pppppp q q q pppp q ppppp q q ppppppppp p pppppp q q q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppq pppppp pppppppppp q q q pppppp pppppppppppppppppppppp p p p p p q p p p q p p p p p p p p p p p q p p p p q p q p p p p ppp p p p p q ppppppp ppppp q ppppppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppppp q pppppppp q ppppppp q q q ppppppppppp ppppp q pppp ppq q pppppppp q ppppppppppp q q ppppppp q p pq q qpppppppppp ppp q pppppp pppppppp pppppppppp q q q q ppppp q q q pp p pppppppppp pppppppppppppppp q q q pppppp q ppppppppp ppppppp q pppppp q q q q pppppppppppp q p p p p p pppppp pppppppppppppppppppp q pppppp q q ppppppppppp q q pppp ppppppp q p ppppppp q q q pppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppp q q p pp pppppp q q pppp pppppppppppppppppp q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q ppp ppppppp q q q ppppppppppppppppppp q ppppppppp q q q pppppp ppppq ppppp q ppppppppppp pp q q q q q q pppppp q pppp ppppppp q q pp p q q p p p q p q p p q p p p ppppp ppppppppp q q q q q ppppppppppp q ppppppp q q q q q ppppppppppp ppp q q q ppppppp q q p pppppppp q qppppppppppp ppp q pppppppp pq pppppppp q pppppppppppppppppppq q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppp pq q ppppp ppppppppp q q ppppp q pppppp q pppppp q q pppppp pppppp pppppp q q p p q q q p ppppp p q p p p q ppppp pppppppp ppppppp pq q ppppppppp q q q ppppppppppppp q pppppp pppppppp q q ppppppppppppppp q q q pppppp ppppp q q q ppppppppppppppp q pppppp q q pppppp q q pppppppppppppppppp q q q ppppppp q pppppp q ppppppppppppppppppp q q pppp q q q pppppp pppppp q q pppppppppppppppppppp q q q pp p p p p q p p q p p q q pp p p p ppppppppppppppppp q pppp ppppp q pppppppppppp q ppppppp q q q q q ppppp pppppppp q pppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppp q ppp q q q ppppppp q ppppp ppppp pppppppppppppp pppppq pp q q q ppp ppppp ppppppppppppp pppppppppq pppppp ppp q pp q q ppppp ppp q q ppp pppppp ppp ppppppp q q q pppppppppp p q q q pppp ppppp q ppp q q q p q pp q p p pp p q q p p p ppp p p p pppp p ppp q q ppp q q pppp q ppppp pppppp q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q pppppppp q q q q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp ppppp q pppppp q q q q pppppppppppppppppppp ppppp pppp ppp q ppppp q q ppppp pppppp q q q ppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp q pppppp q pppppppp q pppppppp q pppppppppppppppppppp q pppppp q pq q q pq ppppppp pppppp q q q pppppppppp p p p p p p p q q p p p p p q p p p p p p q p p p p p ppppppppppppppp pppp ppppp q ppppppppppp ppppp q q q ppppppp p pppp q q ppppppppppppppp ppppq ppppp q pppppppppp pppppppppppppppp q pppppppp q pq ppppppppppppppq ppppp q q ppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp q pq pppppp pppp q pq q p ppp q ppppppp q ppppp pppppppppppppppp q pppp pppp q pppppppppppp q q pppppppppppppppppppp p ppppp ppppppppppppppp ppppp q q pppppp q pppppppppppppppppppppp q pp pppppppp q pppppppppppppppp ppppppp q q ppppp q p q p q q p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p q q p p q p p pp p p p p p p p p p pppppppppppppp ppppp ppppppppppppppp pppppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q pp qpppppppppppppppppp q ppp q pppppppppppp ppppppp p q q pppp ppppppppppppp q ppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppp q q ppppppq q pppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppp q ppppppppppppp pppp q q q q ppppppppppp ppp q q ppppp q pppppppppppppppp ppp q pppppp q ppppppppppppppp ppppp pppppppppppppp ppppq ppppp q q q ppppp pppppp pppppppppppppppp ppppppppp pppppppppppp ppppppp ppppp q q pppppp q ppppp p p p p p p pp q q p p p p q p p p p p ppp p p p p p p p p p p ppppppppppp ppppppppppppp ppppppppppp ppppp pppp q pp pppppppp q q q q q pppppppppp ppppppppp p pppp pp ppppp q q pppppppppp q pppppppppppppppppp q pppppppp q q q pppppppppp pppppppppp ppppppppppp q ppppppp ppppp ppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp q q pppppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppp q pppp pppp q ppppppppppppppp pppppq q ppppppppppppp q q ppppp q q pppppppp ppppppppp pq ppppp q ppppppppppp ppppppppppp pppppppppppppp ppppppp q q pppppppp pppppppppppppp pq pppppppp pq ppppppppp ppppppqq q pppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppp q ppppppppp p p p p q p p q p p p p p p p p pp p p p p q p p p p q pppppppp ppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppp pp pppp q ppppp q qpppppp q q ppppppppppppppppppp q ppppppppp p pppppppp ppppppp pppppppp pp ppppp q q pppppp pppppp q q ppppppppppppppppppp q q q q pq pppppppp q q ppppppppp pppp pppppppp ppppppppp ppppppp p q ppppp q q q p q pppppppppppppppppppp q q q q pq pq pppppp pppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppp pppppppp pppppppp p p q q ppq ppq pq ppppppppppp pq ppppq ppppp pppppppp pppppp ppq q pp q q ppq ppppppp q ppppppp ppppppp ppppppp pppppppp pq pppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp pppppq q ppppppp ppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp pppppppppp ppppppppppp q ppppppp ppppppppppp q pppppp p ppppppppppp p p ppppppppppppp ppppp q p p p pppppppq ppppppppp p p p p p pp q p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pppppppp pppppp pppp pppppp pppppp q p pp ppppppppppppp pppppppp q ppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp pppppppppppp pppppp q pppppp pppppppppppppppp pppppp ppppppppppppppppppp q q q pppppppp ppppppppppp ppppppq pp pppppp ppp pppppp pppppppppppppppppp ppppp q pppppppp ppppq pppppppppppppp ppp ppppppppp ppp ppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp pppppppppppppppp ppq ppppppppp pq q pppppp pppppppppppp p pppppppppp pppp ppppp ppppp ppppp q ppppp ppppppp pppppppppppp ppppp ppppp ppppppppppppppppp ppppppp pppppp q q pppppppppppppp q pppppp q q p p p p ppppp pppppppppppppp pppppp pppppp ppppp ppppppp p q q p p ppppp p p ppppppp ppppppp pppppp ppppppppp ppppppppp q ppppppppppp pppppp pppppp pppp ppppppp q pppppppppppp q pppppp ppppppp ppppppp q ppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp pppppppppp ppppp pppppp ppppp ppppppp q ppppp ppppp ppq pq pppppppppp pq ppppppppppp ppppppp ppppp ppppp pppppp pppppp ppppppppppp q ppppp ppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppp q q pppppp ppppp pppppppppppp pppppp ppppppp pppppp pppppp pppppppppppppppppp q ppppppppp q ppppp pppppppp ppppp ppppppp ppppp ppppppppppppp pppp pppp pppp q q p p p ppppppppppp p p q p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p q p ppppppppppppppp ppppp ppppppppppp ppppp pppp ppppp ppppp pppp q ppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp q ppppp ppppp pppppppppppp pppp ppppp ppppp ppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppp pppq ppppp pppppppppppp q ppp pp p pppppp p ppppppppppp pppp pppp pppppppppppppp pppp q ppppp pppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppp q q ppppppq pppp ppppppppppp pppppp ppppppppppppppp pppppppp ppppp ppp q pppppp q pppppppppppp q pppp q p p ppppp p ppppppppppp p q pppp ppp ppppppppppp q pppp ppppp ppppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppppppppp ppppppp pppp q q p q q p p ppp p p p ppppppppppp p p p p p p p p ppp pppp ppppp pp q q pppp pppp q ppppppppppp pppppppp pppppppp pppppppp ppppppp ppppp pppp pppppp q pppp pppp q ppppppppp q pp p ppppppppppp p pppp p ppppp q ppppp q q ppppppppppp pppppppppppp pppppp ppppppp pppppppppppppppp q pppp pppp q pp pp q pppppppppppppp ppp pppppp ppppp pppppppppppp ppppp q pppp ppp q q ppppppppppppp pppp pppppppppppp pp pppppp pppp q ppppppppppppp p pppp pppppppppppppppp q pppp q p pppppppppp q p ppppppppppp pppppp ppppppp p p p p p p q q p ppppp ppppppppppppppp pppp pp pppp ppppp p pppppppppppppp q q ppppppppppppq ppppppppppp pq pppp pq pppp ppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp ppppppppppp pppppp ppppppp q ppppppppppppppppppppppp q ppp ppp q ppp pppppppppppppppp pppppp pppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppp q q pppp ppp q ppppppppp pppppp ppp ppp pppp pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q pp q ppp p ppp ppp ppppppp pppppppppppppq pppppppp pppp ppppp q q pppppq ppp ppp pppppp pppppp pppppp ppp ppp q q p p pp p p q q pp p p ppppp ppppp ppp ppp ppp pp q ppp ppp ppp ppp ppppppppppp q q q ppp pppppppppppp ppp ppp ppp ppp q ppp ppp ppppp q q pp pppp ppp ppp q ppppppppppppp pppp ppppp ppp q q ppp ppppp q pppppp ppp pppppppppppp pppp ppppp q pppppppp q pp q pp q ppp ppp pppppppppppp pppppppppppp q q ppppppp ppppppppp q pp pp pppppppppppppppp ppp q ppp q p pppppppp ppppppp q p p p p p q p p p p q ppp ppppppppppppp q pp pp pppppppppp q pppppppp ppppppp pppp q q ppp q pppppppppppp ppp p pppppppppppppppppppppp pp q pppp ppppppppp ppp q q pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppp pp q q pppp ppp ppppppppp pp q pppppppppppppppq q ppp p pp pppp ppp ppppppp pppppppppppppppppppp q p ppq q pq pq pq pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp q pp pppppp ppp pppppppppppppppppppq p pp q pp pp q q pp pppppppp pp pppppppppppp p p p q q p p p q p p p p p p pppppp p ppp p q q q p pppppppppppp p ppppp q pp q q ppp pppp q q pppp pppppppppp ppppp q pp pp q ppp q ppp ppp q q ppppp pppp pppp pppp q q ppppp pp ppppppppppppp ppp q q ppp ppppp q q q ppp pppp pppp pppppp q q q ppp pp ppppppp pppppp ppppppppp q q ppppppppppppppp q q ppp ppp pppp q q q q pppppp ppppppppppp pppppppppp q pp q pppppp q q q ppp pppp q p ppp ppp q q p p p q p p p q q q q p p p pppppppppppp q q p p p q q q p p q q q q p p p ppppppppppp pppppp p p q p p p pppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppp p pp ppp pppppppp ppppppppp p ppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppp pppppppp ppp ppppp ppp ppppppppp pppppppppppp p pppp ppp ppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppp pppppp p pppppp pppppp ppppppp ppppp p ppppppppppppppppp pppppppp pppp ppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp ppppppp pppppppp ppp ppppppp ppppppppppppppp ppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p p pppppppppp p p p p p pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppp ppppppppp ppppp pp p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppp

R

0:4 0:5 0:6

1

pppp pp

pppp ppp

0:7 0:8 R ppp ppppp

pp ppppp

2

Fig. 6. Three-dimensional instability region for the MLB model for N = 3 with δ22 = δ32 = 0.5, ̺¯2 /¯ ̺1 = 1, ̺¯3 /¯ ̺1 = −1/2 and n = 4.65 [46]

structure of the functional matrix Jf (Φ) admits elimination possibilities that lead to a closed formula for its characteristic polynomial. 4.3 Quasilinear parabolic systems In [9], the well-posedness of a class of Neumann problems for n × n quasilinear parabolic systems modeling the sedimentation of polydisperse suspensions with compression is discussed. After the transformation of the diffusion matrix to an upper triangular form, the classical H¨ older space theory [94] is applied. Since the Neumann boundary condition induces (in contrast to the Dirichlet boundary) a nonlinear coupling of the equations, a time stepping procedure is introduced, where the boundary conditions are piecewise linear. While for the standard (zero-flux) Neumann problem, only existence can be shown, for regularized boundary problems the well-posedness can be proved. See [9] for details.

24


5 Numerical methods 5.1 Monotone schemes for initial-boundary value problems of strongly degenerate parabolic equations Strongly degenerate convection-diffusion equations cannot be solved by standard methods for parabolic equations, since these in general converge to wrong solutions. Suitable methods can be constructed, for example, by extending a scheme for conservation laws by a conservative discretization of the degenerating diffusion term. A review of suitable methods is given in [28]. In [34] an extension of the Engquist-Osher scheme to strongly degenerate convectiondiffusion equations is given, which also includes a second-order method obtained by MUSCL-type extrapolation. For the first-order method introduced in [34] convergence to the entropy solution of the initial-boundary value problem is shown in [25]. A variant of this method is analyzed in [24]. 5.2 Methods for conservation laws with discontinuous flux In [58] continuous sedimentation processes are described by initial-boundary value problems of a scalar conservation law. However, an improved model can be achieved if the boundary conditions are replaced by continuous transitions between different flux functions, and the feed mechanism is described by a singular source term, which can be incorporated into the discontinuous change of flux functions. These so-called clarifier-thickener models may be described as initial-value problems without boundary conditions. Similar conservation equations with discontinuous flux appear in traffic flow models with abruptly changing road surface conditions and in multiphase flow in heterogeneous porous media. The convergence of the front tracking method for the simulation of continuous separation in such units is proved in [36]. Alternatively, a relaxation method may be employed [37]. For the case of a discontinuously varying vessel cross-sectional area, convergence of a monotone finite difference scheme is established in [39]. The results of [36] are summarized in [40]. For a vessel with constant cross-sectional area, convergence to the unique entropy solution is shown in [41]. The convergence of a monotone method and essential parts of the analysis could also be extended to a clarifier-thickener model for flocculated suspensions having an additional diffusion term [45]. Numerical methods for systems of conservation laws with discontinuous coefficients, which appear, for example, when the polydisperse sedimentation model is combined with the clarifier-thickener setup, are compared in [10]. The numerical simulation of (in part, flocculated) suspensions in clarifierthickeners is treated in [22, 25, 43, 103]. The finite-difference scheme which is used to solve the problem (18) is a variant of the known Engquist-Osher upwind scheme [71], which now in addition considers the spatial variation of the flux in (18), which corresponds to a variable container cross section S(x). Here, the flux g(x, u) depends on


25

a pair γ(x) := (γ 1 (x), γ 2 (x)) of spatially varying parameters, i.e. g(x, u) = f (γ(x), u). The parameter vector γ is discretized on a grid that is staggered against that of the conserved quantity u. This leads to the following scheme: if ∆x > 0 is chosen, one sets xj := j∆x and discretizes the parameter vector γ, the initial data and the cross-sectional area function by Z xj+1 Z x 1 j+ 1 1 2 u0 (x) dx, γ(x)dx, Uj0 := γ j+ 12 := ∆x xj ∆x xj− 1 2 Z x 1 j+ 1 2 Sj := S(x)dx, ∆x x 1 j−

2

respectively, then the scheme for the approximation Ujn reads: n Ujn+1 = Ujn − λj ∆− f EO γ j+ 21 , Uj+1 , Ujn , j ∈ Z, n = 1, 2, 3, . . .

with λj := ∆t/(Sj ∆x), ∆− Vj := Vj − Vj−1 , and the Engquist-Osher flux Z v 1 EO |fu (γ, w)|dw . (36) f (γ, u) + f (γ, v) − f (γ, v, u) := 2 u By the staggering of the grid, the appearance of 2 × 2-Riemann problems is avoided, which otherwise would emerge at each cell boundary. By the numerical flux function (36) a so-called upwind scheme is defined, i.e. the differences in the scheme are directed towards the incoming information. This allows the representation of shocks of the exact solution without major smearing. Figure 7 shows a simulation for the container which is sketched in Figure 2 (a). In this example an initially empty (only filled by water) container is filled with constant feed rate. At the end of the simulation the operation becomes stationary. The choice of the EO-flux is also motivated by its close relationship to, on the one hand, the so-called Kruˇzkov entropy flux F (γ, u) := sgn (u − c)(f (γ, u) − f (γ, c)) [91], and on the other hand to the so-called Temple functional [110], which enables the convergence proof for the scheme, see Section 3.4. For the case of variable container cross section in [39] the convergence of the difference scheme towards a weak solution is shown. Numerical computations are delivered in [38]. For the case of constant cross section in [41], a new entropy concept is introduced, which is based on the generalized BV space BVt (only the weak time derivative of the generalized solution is contained in BV ). For solutions in this adapted solution space, an entropy inequality with Kruˇzkov entropy functions and entropy fluxes is employed and it is shown that this entropy solution depends continuously on the initial data. This global result is new. Moreover, it is shown that the stated numerical scheme converges to the entropy solution, if the discretization parameters ∆t, ∆x converge to 0 and a CFL stability condition is satisfied. The front tracking scheme and the difference scheme are recapitulated in [40].

26


Konzentration u 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 50 40

1.0 30

0.5 20

Zeit t

0.0

10

−0.5 0

−1.0

Tiefe x

Fig. 7. Simulation of a continuous clarifier-thickener with variable cross section [39]

For the clarifier-thickener model with constant container cross section, additionally a relaxation scheme was used in [37]. The basic idea of a relaxation scheme [85] is that the conservation law of interest ∂t u+∂xf (γ(x), u) = 0 (here with the discontinuity parameter γ) is approximated by the system ∂t uτ + ∂x v τ = 0, ∂t v τ + a2 ∂x uτ = τ −1 f γ(x), uτ − v τ with linear flux terms and then to consider the limit case τ → 0. In [37] the convergence of this scheme to a weak solution could be shown. 5.3 Numerical schemes for systems of conservation laws The paper [20] is a case study in which, for the first time, settling processes of polydisperse suspensions are simulated by solving the system of conservation equations by a modern shock capturing method (the Nessyahu-Tadmor method). In [29] the Kurganov-Tadmor central scheme for systems of conservation laws is applied to the simulation of polydisperse sedimentation processes, which includes the discretization of boundary conditions. Recently, mathematical models and numerical simulations for polydisperse suspensions were applied to centrifugation [6] and fluidization [12, 14]. They were also extended to include reaction terms and applied to model sedimentation biodetectors [106].

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions 12 10 8 6 4 2

27

12 10 8 6 4 2

0.3

0.3

MRS φ1 MRS φ2

x [m]

0.2

x [m]

0.2

MRS φ1 MRS φ2

0.1

0.1

0

0 0 significant positions

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 φ1, φ2

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 significant positions

12 10 8 6 4 2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 φ1, φ2

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.7

12 10 8 6 4 2

0.3

0.3

MRS φ1 MRS φ2

x [m]

0.2

x [m]

0.2

MRS φ1 MRS φ2

0.1

0.1

0

0 0 significant positions

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 φ1, φ2

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 significant positions

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 φ1, φ2

0.5

Fig. 8. Simulation of the settling of a bidisperse suspension with small (Species 1) and large (Species 2) equal-density spherical particles, showing concentration profiles and significant positions at four different times [47]

An overview on recent developments in polydisperse sedimentation models is given in [13]. 5.4 Multiresolution methods Multi-species kinematic flow models, such as the polydisperse sedimentation model, lead to strongly coupled, nonlinear systems of first-order, spatially onedimensional conservation laws. The number of unknowns (the concentrations of the species) may be arbitrarily high. Models of this class also include a multi-species generalization of the Lighthill-Whitham-Richards traffic model. Their solutions typically involve kinematic shocks separating areas of constancy, and should be approximated by high resolution schemes. In [47] a fifth-order weighted essentially non-oscillatory (WENO) scheme is combined with a multiresolution wavelet technique that adaptively generates a sparse point representation (SPR) of the evolving numerical solution. Thus, computational effort is concentrated on zones of strong variation near shocks. Numerical examples from the traffic and sedimentation models demonstrate the efficiency of the resulting WENO multiresolution (WENO-MRS) scheme. We show in Figure 8 the simulation of the settling of a bidisperse suspension of equal-density particles, where φ1 is the concentration of the larger and φ2

28

Stefan Berres, Raimund B¨ urger, and Wolfgang L. Wendland Φ =(0.04,0.04), φ 0

1 z [m]

=0.68, δ=0.02

t=125

max

1.0 z [m]

0.8

0.8 0

Φ

0.6

m

0.6

t [s]

Φm

0

0.4

0.2

0.4

RP3 Φ Φ0 RP3 0

0 0

Φ Φ ∞ ∞

RP5 RP5 Φ’

25

RP7 Φ’∞

Φ’

RP4 RP4

Φ’’ RP6

50

75

A

a RP6 Φ’ ∞

RP8

100

0.2

Ψ Ψ

∞∞

125 t [s] 150

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Φ [ ] 0.8

Fig. 9. Fronts (left) and stationary profile (right) for Moritomi’s example, Φ0 = (0.04, 0.04), φmax = 0.68

that of the smaller particles (δ2 = 0.0635). The parameters in this case have been chosen in accordance with [109]. A similar multiresolution technique has also been applied to scalar degenerate parabolic equations modeling batch sedimentation or a diffusively corrected traffic model [48, 108]. 5.5 Front tracking for systems A method alternative to finite differences is the front tracking procedure [84]. The basis of the front tracking algorithm consists of the explicit determination of solutions of a family of Riemann problems, which are solved semianalytically by the concatenation of elementary waves [5]. Since our systems are only piecewise genuinely nonlinear, one needs to employ the Liu entropy condition. For a bidisperse suspension [109], the modes of sedimentation can be identified similar as for scalar equations. Using the output of the front tracking method, the global solution can be characterized by domains in the x-t-plane with either constant states or transitional fans. In practice, suspensions consisting of particles of different densities in addition to different sizes [14] are used to produce so-called functionally graded materials.

6 Simulation software, inverse problems, parameter identification and other applications The numerical solution of the various mathematical models can be employed for the simulation of solid-liquid separation processes and therefore for the design and control of equipment. Comparisons with experimental data performed in [17, 23, 78] confirm that batch and continuous settling processes of numerous real materials can adequately be described by a strongly degenerate

Mathematical models for the sedimentation of suspensions 3 x [mi℄

[ ars=mi℄

2

200

150

1 100

0

50

0 0.25

1

0.20 0.15

t [h℄

0.10 0.05 0.00

3

2

1

x [mi℄

0

−1

−2

2

29

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p pp p p pp p p p pp pp p p pp p p p pp p p p p pp p p pp p pp p p p p pp p p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p pp p p p pp pp pp p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p pp p p p p p p pp p p p p p p p p pp p p p p p p p p pp p pp p p p p p p p pp pp p pp p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p pp p p p pp p pp p p p p p p p pp p p p p p p p pp pp p p p p p p pp p p pp pp p p p pp pp p p p pp p p p p p p p pp p pp p p p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pp p p p p pp p p p p p pp pp p pp pp pp p p p p p pp p p p p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pp p p p p pp p p p p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p pp pp p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p pp p p p p pp pp p p p p p p p p p pp pp p pp pp pp p p p pp p p pp p pp p pp pp p pp p pp pp pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p pp p p p p p p p pp p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pp pp p p p pp pp p pp pp p p p pp p p p pp p p p p pp p p p p pp p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p pp p pp p p p pp pp p p p pp p pp p pp p pp p pp p p pp p p p p p p p p p pp p p pp p p p p p p p p p pp p pp p pp p p p pp p p p p p pp p p p p pp pp p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pp pp p p pp pp pp p p p p p p p p p p pp p pp p p p p p p p pp p p p p pp pp p p pp p p p p p p pp p p p p pp pp p p p p p pp p p p pp p pp p pp p p p p p pp p p pp p p p p p p p p p p pp pp pp p pp p p p p pp p p p p p p pp pp pp pp p pp p p p p pp p p pp p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p pp pp p p p p p pp p p p p p p pp p p p p p pp p pp p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p pp p p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p pp pp pp p p p p p p p pp p pp p p p pp pp p p p pp p p p p p p p pp p p p pp p pp p p p pp p p p p p p pp p p pp pp pp p p pp p p p p p p p p pp p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p pp pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp pp p p p pp p pp p p p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p p p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp ppp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp ppp pp pp ppp pp pp pp ppp pp ppp pp ppp ppp pp pp ppp ppp pp ppp ppp ppp pp pp ppp ppp ppp pp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pp pppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp ppppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp ppp pppp ppppp pppp ppp ppppp pppp pppp p ppp ppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pppp ppp pppp ppp ppp pppp pppp pppp ppppp pppp ppppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppppp ppppp ppp ppppp ppppp pppp pppppp ppp pppp pppp ppppp pp pppp ppppp ppppp pppp ppppp ppp pppp ppppp pppp pppp ppppp ppppp ppp pppp ppppp ppp ppppp ppppp pppp ppp ppppp pppppp ppp ppppp ppppp ppp ppppp pppp ppppp ppppp pppp pppppp ppppp pppp ppp ppp ppppp ppppp pppp pppppp pppp pppppp pppppp ppppp ppp pppp ppppp ppppppp ppppp ppp pppp pppppp pppp pppppp ppppp ppp ppppp pppppp pppp ppp pppp ppppppp ppppp pppppp ppp pppppp pppppp ppppppp pppp pppp pppp ppppppp ppppppp ppp ppp pppp ppppppp pppppp pppppp ppppp pppp pp ppppppp ppp ppppppp pppp ppppp pppppp pppppppp ppppp pppp ppppppp ppp ppppp ppppp ppppppp ppppppp ppp ppppp ppppp pppp ppppppp pppppp ppp ppppppp ppppppp pp pppp pppppp ppppp ppp pppp pppppppp pppppppp pppppp pppppppp pppppp ppppp ppp ppppp pppppppp pppppp ppp pppp pppppppp pppppp ppppp ppppp pp ppppp ppp ppppppppp ppppppp pppppp pppppppp pppp pppppppp pppp pp pppppp ppppppppp pppppp ppp ppppppp pppppppp pppppppp ppppp ppppp pp pppppp ppp ppppppppppp ppppppp ppppppp pppppppp ppppppppp pppp ppppp ppppp ppp ppp ppppppppppp ppppppppp pppppppppp pppppppp pppppppp ppppp pppp pppppp pp ppp pppppppppppp pppppppp pppppppppp pppppppp ppppppp pppp pppppp pppppp pp ppp ppppppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppp ppppppp pppp pppppp ppppppp pp pppppppppp pppppppppppppp pppppppppp ppppppppp pppppppp pppp pppp pp pppppp ppppppp ppppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppppppp pppppppp ppppppp ppp ppppp ppppp ppppppp pp pppppppppp pppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppp ppp ppp ppppp pppppp pp ppppppppp pppppppppppp ppppppppppppp ppppppppp pppppppp pppp ppp ppppp pppppp ppppppppp pp ppppppppp pppppppppppp ppppppp ppppppp ppp pp ppp ppppp pppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppp ppppppp pp pp pppppp ppp ppp ppppppp pppp pppppppp pppppppppp pppppp pp ppppp pp ppp pppppppp ppppppp pp ppp ppppppppppp ppppp pp pp pppp pppppppp pppppp ppp pppppppp ppp ppppp pp pp ppp pp pppppppp pp ppppp ppppppp ppp p pppp pp ppp ppppppp pp ppppp pppp pp pp p ppp pppppp pp pppp ppp pp ppp pp p pp ppppp ppp ppp pppp p pp pp pp p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp ppp pp pp pp pp pppp pp ppp pp ppp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp ppp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp p pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp pp pp pp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp ppp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp p pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp p pp pp pp ppp ppp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp ppp ppp pp pp pp ppp pp pp pp pp ppp pp ppp pp pp pp pp pp ppp pp pp ppp ppp ppp pp ppp ppp pp pp ppp ppp ppp pp ppp ppp ppp ppp pp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp ppp ppp pppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp ppp ppp ppp ppp pppp ppp ppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp ppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp ppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp pppp

0

0:05

0:1

0:15

0:2

t

[h℄ 0:25

Fig. 10. Simulation of the traffic density on a road with an exceptional reduced maximum velocity on a finite interval [35]: car density (left) and car trajectories (right)

convection-diffusion equation. The numerical methods have been implemented in a user-friendly software package for the simulation of industrial thickeners [79, 80]. The sedimentation models studied so far rely on material specific flux density functions and diffusion coefficients. In practice, these functions need to be determined experimentally. This leads to the inverse problem of parameter identification for a strongly degenerate parabolic equation. This problem may be stated as an optimization problem for a suitably defined cost functional. The formal gradient of this cost functional is determined by the solution of an adjoint problem, which here appears as a backward linear parabolic equation. This approach is employed in [7, 8, 66] for the parameter identification from laboratory centrifuge data. Future applications of this methodology include the determination of the particle size distribution of polydisperse mixtures. The new existence and uniqueness results for conservation equations with discontinuous flux and the convergence of a corresponding discretization are applied in [35] to establish well-posedness and to simulate numerically a model of traffic flow with driver reaction and abruptly changing road surface conditions. In the latter application, the governing equation assumes the form (37) ∂t ρ + ∂x γ(x)f (ρ) = ∂x2 D(ρ), x ∈ R, t > 0, where ρ = ρ(x, t) is the local density of cars, measured in cars per mile, γ(x) is a piecewise constant function describing the maximum velocity, which here depends on x, the function f (ρ) is given by f (ρ) = ρV (ρ), where V (ρ) is a hindrance factor with V (0) = 1, V ′ (ρ) ≤ 0 and V (ρmax ) = 0 (ρmax is a maximum car density), and the diffusion function D(ρ) is given by

30


D(ρ) :=

Z

ρ

d(s) ds,

0

d(ρ) :=

(

0 −ρvmax V ′ (ρ)(L(ρ) + τ vmax ρV ′ (ρ))

if ρ < ρc , if ρ > ρc ,

where vmax is a default maximum velocity, L(ρ) is a density-dependent anticipation distance, τ is a reaction time, and ρc is a critical density beyond which the anticipation distance and the reaction time, which are both elements of driver psychology, enter into effect. (Equation (37) is the governing equation of the so-called diffusively corrected kinematic-wave traffic model (DCKWM).) If we use the Dick-Greenberg model defined by V (ρ) = min{1, C ln(ρmax /ρ)} with the parameters C = e/7 and ρmax = 220 cars/mi, we obtain ρc = 16.7512 cars/mi. Figure 10 shows a numerical example from [35], in which we simulate the evolution of an initial traffic platoon given by ( 100 cars/mi for x ∈ [−2 mi, 2 mi], ρ(x, 0) = ρ0 (x) := 0 otherwise on an (infinite) road admitting the maximal velocity ( 70 mph for x ≤ 0 or x ≥ 1 mi, γ(x) = 25 mph for 0 < x < 1 mi. Furthermore, a sub-case of conservation laws with discontinuous flux are transport equations with a discontinuous coefficient. Such an equation arises from a population balance model for the wear of steel balls in grinding mills used in mineral processing. This model is analyzed and simulated in [42].

7 Open problems The research directions we are interested to pursue in the near future include the following problems. Up to now, the analysis has been focused on one-dimensional equations, where the priority is on the solids flow, while the equations for the fluid motion are subordinated. The one-dimensional results should be extended to the analysis of multi-dimensional coupled systems of equations of conservation and motion. The model reduction to one space dimension with discontinuous coefficients has to be taken into account. Numerical methods have to be developed and implemented for the coupling of the mass balance for the solids settling with the momentum balance for the fluid flow. Of particular interest are models for clarifier-thickeners, since they belong to the most common industrial equipment. For the analysis of entropy solutions of strongly degenerate convection-diffusion problems with initial and boundary conditions in several space dimensions (existence, uniqueness and


31

stability) the application of the newly developed theory of divergence-measure fields is planned. While in the past there was an emphasis on the treatment of monodisperse suspensions, there is a recently started and ongoing investigation of polydisperse suspensions. The goal is the characterization and determination of discontinuous solutions of systems of conservation laws modeling multispecies (polydisperse) sedimentation and multiphase flow in porous media via the solution of Riemann problems. The analytical and numerical methods have already been extended to new applications as to traffic flow and grinding mills. There are further promising applications to flow in porous media and mathematical biology. The idea is to build on analogies in the model or equation structure. During the project period numerous cooperations with academics (in mathematics, science, civil, metallurgical or chemical engineering), could be established. This multidisciplinary context is going to be extended by utilizing the accumulated knowledge to industrial large scale problems.

Acknowledgment Since March 2005, Raimund B¨ urger has been supported by Conicyt (Chile) through Fondecyt project 1050728 and Fondap in Applied Mathematics.

References 1. G. Anzellotti. Pairings between measures and functions and compensated compactness. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 135:293–318, 1983. 2. C. Bardos, A. Y. Le Roux, and J. C. Nédélec. First order quasilinear equations with boundary conditions. Comm. PDE, 4:1017–1034, 1979. 3. G. K. Batchelor and R. Janse van Rensburg. Structure formation in bidisperse sedimentation. J. Fluid Mech., 166:379–407, 1986. 4. J. Bell, J. Trangenstein, and G. Shubin. Conservation laws of mixed type describing three-phase flow in porous media. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 46:1000– 1017, 1986. 5. S. Berres. Modeling and simulations of polydisperse suspensions. Doctoral Thesis, University of Stuttgart, 2006. 6. S. Berres and R. B¨ urger. On gravity and centrifugal settling of polydisperse suspensions forming compressible sediments. Int. J. Solids Structures, 40:4965– 4987, 2003. 7. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, A. Coronel, and M. Sep´ ulveda. Numerical identification of parameters for a flocculated suspension from concentration measurements during batch centrifugation. Chem. Eng. J., 111:91–103, 2005. 8. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, A. Coronel, and M. Sep´ ulveda. Numerical identification of parameters for a strongly degenerate convection-diffusion problem modelling centrifugation of flocculated suspensions. Appl. Numer. Math., 52:311–337, 2005.

32


9. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, and H. Frid. Neumann problems for quasilinear parabolic systems modelling polydisperse suspensions. SIAM J. Math. Anal. To appear. 10. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, and K. H. Karlsen. Central schemes and systems of conservation laws with discontinuous coefficients modeling gravity separation of polydisperse suspensions. J. Comp. Appl. Math., 164-165:53–80, 2004. 11. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, and E. M. Tory. Strongly degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic systems modeling polydisperse sedimentation with compression. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 64:41–80, 2003. 12. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, and E. M. Tory. Mathematical model and numerical simulation of the liquid fluidization of polydisperse solid particle mixtures. Comput. Visual. Sci., 6:67–74, 2004. 13. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, and E. M. Tory. Applications of polydisperse sedimentation models. Chem. Eng. J., 111:105–117, 2005. 14. S. Berres, R. B¨ urger, and E. M. Tory. On mathematical models and numerical simulation of the fluidization of polydisperse suspensions. Appl. Math. Modelling, 29:159–193, 2005. 15. R. B¨ urger. Ein Anfangs-Randwertproblem einer quasilinearen parabolischen entarteten Gleichung in der Theorie der Sedimentation mit Kompression. Doctoral Thesis, University of Stuttgart, 1996. 16. R. B¨ urger. Phenomenological foundation and mathematical theory of sedimentation-consolidation processes. Chem. Eng. J., 80:177–188, 2000. 17. R. B¨ urger, M. C. Bustos, and F. Concha. Settling velocities of particulate systems: 9. Phenomenological theory of sedimentation processes: Numerical simulation of the transient behaviour of flocculated suspensions in an ideal batch or continuous thickener. Int. J. Mineral Process., 55:267–282, 1999. 18. R. B¨ urger and F. Concha. Mathematical model and numerical simulation of the settling of flocculated suspensions. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 24:1005–1023, 1998. 19. R. B¨ urger and F. Concha. Settling velocities of particulate systems: 12. Batch centrifugation of flocculated suspensions. Int. J. Mineral Process., 63:115–145, 2001. 20. R. B¨ urger, F. Concha, K.-K. Fjelde, and K. H. Karlsen. Numerical simulation of the settling of polydisperse suspensions of spheres. Powder Technol., 113:30– 54, 2000. 21. R. B¨ urger, F. Concha, and K. H. Karlsen. Phenomenological model of filtration processes: 1. Cake formation and expression. Chem. Eng. Sci., 56:4537–4553, 2001. 22. R. B¨ urger, F. Concha, K. H. Karlsen, and A. Narv´ aez. Numerical simulation of clarifier-thickener units treating ideal suspensions with a flux density function having two inflection points. Math. Comp. Modelling. To appear. 23. R. B¨ urger, F. Concha, and F. M. Tiller. Applications of the phenomenological theory to several published experimental cases of sedimentation processes. Chem. Eng. J., 80:105–117, 2000. 24. R. B¨ urger, A. Coronel, and M. Sep´ ulveda. On an upwind difference scheme for strongly degenerate parabolic equations modelling the settling of suspensions in centrifuges and non-cylindrical vessels. Appl. Numer. Math. To appear. 25. R. B¨ urger, A. Coronel, and M. Sep´ ulveda. A semi-implicit monotone difference scheme for an initial-boundary value problem of a strongly degenerate parabolic equation modelling sedimentation-consolidation processes. Math. Comp., 75:91–112, 2006.


33

26. R. B¨ urger, J. J. R. Damasceno, and K. H. Karlsen. A mathematical model for batch and continuous thickening in vessels with varying cross section. Int. J. Mineral Process., 73:183–208, 2004. 27. R. B¨ urger, S. Evje, and K. H. Karlsen. On strongly degenerating convectiondiffusion problems modeling sedimentation-consolidation processes. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 247:517–556, 2000. 28. R. B¨ urger, S. Evje, K. H. Karlsen, and K. A. Lie. Numerical methods for the simulation of the settling of flocculated suspensions. Chem. Eng. J., 80:91–104, 2000. 29. R. B¨ urger, K.-K. Fjelde, K. H¨ ofler, and K. H. Karlsen. Central difference solutions of the kinematic model of settling of polydisperse suspensions and three-dimensional particle-scale simulations. J. Eng. Math., 41:167–187, 2001. 30. R. B¨ urger, H. Frid, and K. H. Karlsen. On the well-posedness of entropy solutions to conservation laws with a zero-flux boundary condition. J. Math. Anal. Appl. To appear. 31. R. B¨ urger, H. Frid, and K. H. Karlsen. On a free boundary problem for a strongly degenerate quasilinear parabolic equation with an application to a model of pressure filtration. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 34:611–635, 2003. 32. R. B¨ urger, A. Garc´ıa, K. H. Karlsen, and J. D. Towers. A note on an extended clarifier-thickener model with singular source and sink terms. Sci. Ser. A Math. Sci. (N.S.). Submitted. 33. R. B¨ urger, A. Garc´ıa, K. H. Karlsen, and J. D. Towers. On an extended clarifier-thickener model with singular source and sink terms. Eur. J. Appl. Math. Submitted. 34. R. B¨ urger and K. H. Karlsen. On some upwind schemes for the phenomenological sedimentation-consolidation model. J. Eng. Math., 41:145–166, 2001. 35. R. B¨ urger and K. H. Karlsen. On a diffusively corrected kinematic-wave traffic model with changing road surface conditions. Math. Models Meth. Appl. Sci., 13:1767–1799, 2003. 36. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, C. Klingenberg, and N. H. Risebro. A front tracking approach to a model of continuous sedimentation in ideal clarifier-thickener units. Nonlin. Anal. Real World Appl., 4:457–481, 2003. 37. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, and N. H. Risebro. A relaxation scheme for continuous sedimentation in ideal clarifier-thickener units. Comput. Math. Applic., 50:993–1009, 2005. 38. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, N. H. Risebro, and J. D. Towers. On a model for continuous sedimentation in vessels with discontinuous cross-sectional area. In T. Y. Hou and E. Tadmor, editors, Hyperbolic Problems: Theory, Numerics, Applications. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Hyperbolic Problems (Pasadena, 2002), pages 397–406. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. 39. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, N. H. Risebro, and J. D. Towers. Monotone difference approximations for the simulation of clarifier-thickener units. Comput. Visual. Sci., 6:83–91, 2004. 40. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, N. H. Risebro, and J. D. Towers. Numerical methods for the simulation of continuous sedimentation in ideal clarifier-thickener units. Int. J. Mineral Process., 73:209–228, 2004. 41. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, N. H. Risebro, and J. D. Towers. Well-posedness in BVt and convergence of a difference scheme for continuous sedimentation in ideal clarifier-thickener units. Numer. Math., 97:25–65, 2004.

34


42. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, and J. D. Towers. Closed-form and finite difference solutions to a population balance model of grinding mills. J. Eng. Math., 51:165–195, 2005. 43. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, and J. D. Towers. Mathematical model and numerical simulation of the dynamics of flocculated suspensions in clarifier-thickeners. Chem. Eng. J., 111:119–134, 2005. 44. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, and J. D. Towers. A mathematical model of clarifierthickener units. PAMM Proc. Appl. Math. Mech., 5:589–590, 2005. 45. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, and J. D. Towers. A model of continuous sedimentation of flocculated suspensions in clarifier-thickener units. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 65:882–940, 2005. 46. R. B¨ urger, K. H. Karlsen, W. L. Wendland, and E. M. Tory. Model equations and instability regions for the sedimentation of polydisperse suspensions of spheres. ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 82:699–722, 2002. 47. R. B¨ urger and A. Kozakevicius. Adaptive multiresolution WENO schemes for multi-species kinematic flow models. J. Comp. Phys. Submitted. 48. R. B¨ urger, A. Kozakevicius, and M. Sep´ ulveda. Multiresolution schemes for strongly degenerate parabolic equations. Numer. Meth. Partial Diff. Eqns. Submitted. 49. R. B¨ urger and M. Kunik. A critical look at the kinematic-wave theory for sedimentation-consolidation processes in closed vessels. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 24:1257–1273, 2001. 50. R. B¨ urger, C. Liu, and W. L. Wendland. Existence and stability for mathematical models of sedimentation-consolidation processes in several space dimensions. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 264:288–310, 2001. 51. R. B¨ urger and E. M. Tory. On upper rarefaction waves in batch settling. Powder Technol., 108:74–87, 2000. 52. R. B¨ urger and W. L. Wendland. Entropy boundary and jump conditions in the theory of sedimentation with compression. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 21:865–882, 1998. 53. R. B¨ urger and W. L. Wendland. Existence, uniqueness and stability of generalized solutions of an initial-boundary value problem for a degenerating parabolic equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 218:207–239, 1998. 54. R. B¨ urger and W. L. Wendland. Sedimentation and suspension flows: Historical perspective and some recent developments. J. Eng. Math., 41:101–116, 2001. 55. R. B¨ urger, W. L. Wendland, and F. Concha. A mathematical model for sedimentation-consolidation processes. ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 80:S177– S178, 2000. 56. R. B¨ urger, W. L. Wendland, and F. Concha. Model equations for gravitational sedimentation-consolidation processes. ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 80:79– 92, 2000. 57. M. C. Bustos. On the Existence and Determination of Discontinuous Solutions to Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in the Theory of Sedimentation. Doctoral Thesis, TH Darmstadt, 1989. 58. M. C. Bustos, R. B¨ urger, F. Concha, and E. M. Tory. Sedimentation and Thickening. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999. 59. M. C. Bustos, F. Concha, and W. L. Wendland. Global weak solutions to the problem of continuous sedimentation of an ideal suspension. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 13:1–22, 1990.


35

60. M. C. Bustos, F. Paiva, and W. L. Wendland. Control of continuous sedimentation of ideal suspensions as an initial and boundary value problem. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 12:533–548, 1990. 61. M. C. Bustos, F. Paiva, and W. L. Wendland. Entropy boundary conditions in the theory of sedimentation of ideal suspensions. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 19:679–697, 1996. 62. J. Chancelier, M. Cohen de Lara, and F. Pacard. Analysis of a conservation pde with discontinuous flux: a model of settler. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 54:954–995, 1994. 63. G.-Q. Chen and H. Frid. Divergence-measure fields and hyperbolic conservation laws. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 147:89–118, 1999. 64. F. Concha and R. B¨ urger. A century of research in sedimentation and thickening. KONA Powder and Particle, 20:38–70, 2002. 65. F. Concha and R. B¨ urger. Thickening in the 20th century: A historical perspective. Minerals & Metallurgical Process., 20:57–67, 2003. 66. A. Coronel. Estudio de un Problema Inverso para una Ecuaci´ on Parab´ olica Degenrada con Aplicaciones a la Teor´ıa de la Sedimentaci´ on. PhD thesis, Universidad de Concepci´ on, Chile, 2004. 67. R. H. Davis. Hydrodynamic diffusion of suspended particles: A symposium. J. Fluid Mech., 310:325–335, 1996. 68. S. Diehl. A conservation law with point source and discontinuous flux function modelling continuous sedimentation. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 56:388–419, 1996. 69. S. Diehl. On scalar conservation laws with point source and discontinuous flux function. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 26:1425–1451, 1996. 70. F. Dubois and P. Le Floch. Boundary conditions for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. J. Diff. Eqns., 71:93–122, 1988. 71. B. Engquist and S. Osher. Stable and entropy satisfying approximations for transonic flow calculations. Math. Comp., 34:45–75, 1980. 72. S. Evje and K. H. Karlsen. Monotone difference approximation of BV solutions to degenerate convection-diffusion equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 37:1838– 1860, 2000. 73. A. Fitt. Mixed systems of conservation laws in industrial mathematical modelling. Surv. Math. Indust., 6:21–53, 1996. 74. K.-K. Fjelde. Numerical Schemes for Complex Nonlinear Hyperbolic Systems of Equations. PhD thesis, University of Bergen, Norway, 2000. 75. H. Frid. Existence and asymptotic behavior of measure-valued solutions for three-phase flow in porous media. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 196:614–627, 1995. 76. H. Frid and I.-S. Liu. Oscillation waves in Riemann problems inside elliptic regions for conservation laws of mixed type. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 46:913– 931, 1995. 77. P. Garrido. Validaci´ on, Simulaci´ on y Determinaci´ on de Par´ ametros en un Proceso de Espesamiento. PhD thesis, Universidad de Concepci´ on, Chile, 2005. 78. P. Garrido, R. B¨ urger, and F. Concha. Settling velocities of particulate systems: 11. Comparison of the phenomenological sedimentation-consolidation model with published experimental results. Int. J. Mineral Process., 60:213–227, 2000. 79. P. Garrido, R. Burgos, R. B¨ urger, and F. Concha. Software for the design and simulation of gravity thickeners. Minerals Eng., 16:85–92, 2003. 80. P. Garrido, R. Burgos, R. B¨ urger, and F. Concha. Settling velocities of particulate systems: 13. Software for the batch and continuous sedimentation of flocculated suspensions. Int. J. Mineral Process., 73:131–144, 2004.

36


81. P. Garrido, F. Concha, and R. B¨ urger. Settling velocities of particulate systems: 14. Unified model of sedimentation, centrifugation and filtration of flocculated suspensions. Int. J. Mineral Process., 72:57–74, 2003. 82. T. Gimse and N. Risebro. Solution of the Cauchy problem for a conservation law with a discontinuous flux function. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 23:635–648, 1992. 83. P. Grassmann and R. Straumann. Entstehen und Wandern von Unstetigkeiten der Feststoffkonzentration in Suspensionen. Chem.-Ing.-Techn., 35:477–482, 1963. 84. H. Holden and N. Risebro. Front Tracking For Conservation Laws. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2002. 85. S. Jin and Z. Xin. The relaxation schemes for systems of conservation laws in arbitrary space dimensions. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 48:235–276, 1995. 86. K. H. Karlsen, C. Klingenberg, and N. H. Risebro. A relaxation scheme for conservation laws with a discontinuous coefficient. Math. Comp., 73:1235–1259, 2004. 87. B. Keyfitz. A geometric theory of conservation laws which change type. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 75:571–581, 1995. 88. R. Klausen and N. Risebro. Stability of conservation laws with discontinuous coefficients. J. Diff. Eqns., 157:41–60, 1999. 89. C. Klingenberg and N. Risebro. Convex conservation laws with discontinuous coefficients. Comm. PDE, 20:1959–1990, 1995. 90. C. Klingenberg and N. Risebro. Stability of a resonant system of conservation laws modeling polymer flow with gravitation. J. Diff. Eqns., 170:344–380, 2001. 91. S. Kruˇzkov. First order quasilinear equations in several independent variables. Math. USSR Sb., 10:217–243, 1970. 92. A. Kurganov and E. Tadmor. New high resolution central schemes for nonlinear conservation laws and convection-diffusion equations. J. Comput. Phys., 160:241–282, 2000. 93. G. Kynch. A theory of sedimentation. Trans. Faraday Soc., 48:166–176, 1952. 94. O. A. Ladyzenskaja, V. A. Solonnikov, and N. N. Uralceva. Linear and quasilinear equations of parabolic type. American Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1968. 95. O. Lev, E. Rubin, and M. Sheintuch. Steady state analysis of a continuous clarifier-thickener system. AIChE J., 32:1516–1525, 1986. 96. L. Lin, B. Temple, and H. Wang. A comparison of convergence rates for Godunov’s method and Glimm’s method in resonant nonlinear systems of conservation laws. SIAM J. Numer. Anal, 32:824–840, 1995. 97. L. Lin, B. Temple, and H. Wang. Suppression of oscillations in Godunov’s method for a resonant non-strictly hyperbolic system. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 32:841–864, 1995. 98. M. Lockett and K. Bassoon. Sedimentation of binary particle mixtures. Powder Technol., 4:1–7, 1979. 99. A. Majda and R. Pego. Stable viscosity matrices for system of conservation laws. J. Diff. Eqns., 56:229–262, 1985. 100. J. M´ alek, J. Neˇcas, M. Rokyta, and M. Ruˇziˇcka. Weak and Measure-valued Solutions to Evolutionary PDEs. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1996. 101. C. Mascia, A. Porretta, and A. Terracina. Non-homogeneous Dirichlet problems for degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic equations. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 163:87–124, 2002.


37

102. J. Masliyah. Hindered settling in a multiple-species particle system. Chem. Eng. Sci., 34:1166–1168, 1979. 103. A. Narv´ aez. Simulaci´ on numérica de la sedimentaci´ on de suspensiones ideales en un espesador-clarificador. Master’s thesis, Universidad de Concepci´ on, Chile, 2004. 104. F. Otto. Ein Randwertproblem f¨ ur Erhaltungss¨ atze. Doctoral Thesis, Universit¨ at Bonn, 1993. 105. C. A. Petty. Continuous sedimentation of a suspension with a nonconvex flux law. Chem. Eng. Sci., 30:1451–1458, 1975. 106. S. Qian, R. B¨ urger, and H. H. Bau. Analysis of sedimentation biodetectors. Chem. Eng. Sci., 60:2585–2598, 2005. 107. J. F. Richardson and W. N. Zaki. Sedimentation and fluidization: Part I. Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. (London), 32:35–53, 1954. 108. R. Ruiz. Métodos de multiresoluci´ on y su aplicaci´ on a un modelo de ingenier´ıa. Master’s thesis, Universidad de Concepci´ on, Chile, 2005. 109. W. Schneider, G. Anestis, and U. Schaflinger. Sediment composition due to settling of particles of different sizes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 11:419–423, 1985. 110. B. Temple. Global solution of the Cauchy problem for a 2 × 2 non-strictly hyperbolic system of conservation laws. Adv. Appl. Math., 3:335–375, 1982. 111. F. Tiller, N. Hsyung, and D. Cong. Role of porosity in filtration: XII. Filtration with sedimentation. AIChE J., 41:1153–1164, 1995. 112. E. M. Tory. Stochastic sedimentation and hydrodynamic diffusion. Chem. Eng. J., 80:81–89, 2000. 113. J. Towers. Convergence of a difference scheme for conservation laws with a discontinuous flux. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 38:681–698, 2000. 114. J. Towers. A difference scheme for conservation laws with a discontinuous flux—the nonconvex case. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 39:1197–1218, 2001. 115. A. Volpert. Generalized solutions of degenerate second-order quasilinear parabolic and elliptic equations. Adv. Diff. Eqns, 5:1453–1518, 2000. 116. A. I. Volpert. The spaces BV and quasilinear equations. Math. USSR Sb., 2:225–267, 1967. 117. A. I. Volpert and S. I. Hudjaev. Cauchy’s problem for degenerate second order quasilinear parabolic equations. Math. USSR Sb., 7:365–387, 1969. 118. G. Wallis. A simplified one-dimensional representation off two-component vertical flow and its application to batch sedimentation. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Interaction between Fluids and Particles, London, June 20– 22, 1962, pages 9–16. Instn. Chem. Engrs., London, 1962. 119. R. H. Weiland, Y. P. Fessas, and B. Ramarao. On instabilities arising during sedimentation of two-component mixtures of solids. J. Fluid Mech., 142:383– 389, 1984. 120. Z. Wu. A note on the first boundary value problem for quasilinear degenerate parabolic equations. Acta Math. Sci, 4:361–373, 1982. 121. Z. Wu. A boundary value problem for quasilinear degenerate parabolic equation. MRC Technical Summary Report 2484, University of Wisconsin, USA, 1983. 122. Z. Wu and J. Wang. Some results on quasilinear degenerate parabolic equations of second order. In Proceedings of the 1980 Beijing Symposium on Differential Geometry and Differential Equations, Vol. 3, pages 1593–1609. Science Press, Beijing, Gordon & Breach, Science Publishers Inc., New York, 1982.

38


123. Z. Wu and J. Yin. Some properties of functions in BVx and their applications to the uniqueness of solutions for degenerate quasilinear parabolic equations. Northeastern Math. J., 5:395–422, 1989.