This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
20
“vent” on one side that lets wind pass through with less turbulence—especially problematic when
the open side aligns with SW winds relative to the pile layout.
This is the most suspicious result. Using
–1.5 g/cm³):
50
the terminal boundary. In SolidWorks Flow Simulation:
o
Particle tracking is Lagrangian and post-processed on the converged flow field.
o
It assumes dilute particles (no effect on flow), tracks trajectories with drag, gravity, and
user-defined wall interactions (bounce, stick, etc.).
o
Anomalies can arise from:
Inadequate particle count or injection setup (e.g., too few injections miss low-
probability escape paths for small particles).
Wall boundary conditions—if larger particles bounce/roll more realistically while
fines stick or follow streamlines better.
Turbulent dispersion model (discrete random walk) over-predicting lateral spread
for heavier particles in certain eddies.
Mesh resolution near fences/piles—coarse mesh can cause numerical diffusion
affecting smaller particles more.
o
settle on-site anyway.
Practical Takeaways for Newport News Coal Piles
Best performers overall
o
SW wind: ½-wrap 80 ft (only 10%) or ¾-
–29%)
o
SSE wind: full-
o
WNW wind: ½-wrap 80 ft (50%) – still high, but better than taller/full options
The SW full-wrap 100 ft is one of the poorest configurations—
this combo for SW winds.
Even in ½-wrap scenarios with no upwind fence (e.g., WNW flow), the downwind fence segment
reduces escape by 15–25% via recirculation trapping
Simulation Results can be seen in Appendix D
Jump to an indexed page (88 of 88)