2.1 Granular phase

The DEM is a Lagrangian method based on the resolution of contacts between particles. For each spherical particle $p$, the motion of the particle is obtained from Newton’s second law, and a momentum equation and an angular momentum conservation equation are solved:

(2.1)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle m^{p}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^{2}\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}{\text{d}t^{2}}}=\boldsymbol{f}_{g}^{p}+\boldsymbol{f}_{c}^{p}+\boldsymbol{f}_{f}^{p}, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(2.2)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle {\mathcal{I}}^{p}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D74E}^{p}}{\text{d}t}}=\boldsymbol{{\mathcal{T}}}=\boldsymbol{x}_{c}\times \boldsymbol{f}_{c}^{p}, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $m^{p}$, $\boldsymbol{x}^{p}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D74E}^{p}$ and ${\mathcal{I}}^{p}$ are respectively the mass, position, angular velocity and moment of inertia of particle $p$. The three major forces are: $\boldsymbol{f}_{g}^{p}$ the gravitational force, $\boldsymbol{f}_{c}^{p}$ the inter-particle contact forces and $\boldsymbol{f}_{f}^{p}$ the interaction forces with the fluid. The inter-particle contact forces are classically defined as a spring-dashpot system (Schwager & Poschel Reference Schwager and Poschel2007) composed of a spring of stiffness $k_{n}$ in parallel with a viscous damper of coefficient $c_{n}$ in the normal direction; and a spring of stiffness $k_{s}$ associated with a slider of friction coefficient $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{p}$ in the tangential direction. The normal and tangential contact forces read accordingly:

(2.3)$$\begin{eqnarray}\left.\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}F_{n}=-k_{n}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{n}-c_{n}\dot{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}}_{n},\\ F_{t}=-\text{min}(k_{s}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{t},\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{p}F_{n}),\end{array}\right\}\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{n}$ (respectively $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}_{t}$) is the overlap between particles in the normal (respectively tangential) direction. For each class of particles, the values of $k_{n}$ and $k_{s}$ are computed in order to stay in the rigid limit of grains (Roux & Combe Reference Roux and Combe2002; Maurin et al. Reference Maurin, Chauchat, Chareyre and Frey2015). The normal stiffness, in parallel with the viscous damper, defines a restitution coefficient representative of the loss of energy during collisions, which is fixed to $e_{n}=0.5$ for each contact. Finally, considering glass beads, the friction coefficient is fixed to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{p}=0.4$ for all particles independently of their diameter.

The third type of forces concern the interactions with the fluid which are restricted in this model to the buoyancy force and the drag force (Maurin et al. Reference Maurin, Chauchat, Chareyre and Frey2015). They are defined as

(2.4)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \boldsymbol{f}_{b}^{p}=-{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}d^{p3}}{6}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D735}P_{\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}^{\,\,f}, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(2.5)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \boldsymbol{f}_{D}^{p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}d^{p2}}{4}}C_{D}\Vert \langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p}\Vert \left(\langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p}\right), & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $d^{p}$ denotes the diameter of particle $p$, $\langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}^{f}$ is the mean fluid velocity at the position of particle $p$, $P_{\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}^{f}$ is the hydrostatic fluid pressure at the position of particle $p$ and $\boldsymbol{v}^{p}$ is the velocity of particle $p$. The drag coefficient takes into account hindrance effects (Richardson & Zaki Reference Richardson and Zaki1954) as $C_{D}=(0.4+24.4/Re_{p})(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7})^{-3.1}$, with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}$ the total solid phase (small and large particle) volume fraction and $Re_{p}=\Vert \langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p}\Vert d^{p}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}^{f}$ the particle Reynolds number.

2.2 Fluid model

At transport steady state, the total granular phase (of small and large particles) only has a streamwise component with no main transverse or vertical motion. In such a case, it can be shown (Revil-Baudard & Chauchat Reference Revil-Baudard and Chauchat2013) that the 3-D volume-averaged equation for the fluid velocity reduces to a one-dimensional (1-D) vertical equation, in which the fluid velocity is only a function of the wall-normal component, $z$, and is aligned with the streamwise direction. The fluid pressure $P^{f}$, is in this case given by the hydrostatic fluid pressure, as shown in Revil-Baudard & Chauchat (Reference Revil-Baudard and Chauchat2013). The proposed fluid model is therefore a one-dimensional turbulent model in the streamwise $x$-direction with variables only depending on $z$ and is inspired from the Euler–Euler model proposed by Revil-Baudard & Chauchat (Reference Revil-Baudard and Chauchat2013) and Chauchat (Reference Chauchat2018). The volume-averaged momentum balance for the fluid phase is as follows:

(2.6)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}){\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\langle u_{x}\rangle ^{f}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}S_{xz}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}R_{xz}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7})g_{x}-n\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p}\rangle ^{s},\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}$ is the density of the fluid, $S_{xz}$ is the effective fluid viscous shear stress of a Newtonian fluid, $R_{xz}$ is the turbulent fluid shear stress and $n\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p}\rangle ^{s}$ represents the momentum transfer associated with the interaction forces between fluid and particles.

The viscous shear stress $S_{xz}$ is taken as

(2.7)$$\begin{eqnarray}S_{xz}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7})\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}^{f}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\langle u_{x}\rangle ^{f}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}},\end{eqnarray}$$

with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}^{f}$ the pure fluid viscosity. The Reynolds shear stress $R_{xz}$ is based on an eddy viscosity concept,

(2.8)$$\begin{eqnarray}R_{xz}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7})\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}_{t}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\langle u_{x}\rangle ^{f}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

The turbulent viscosity $\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}_{t}$ follows a mixing length approach that depends on the integral of the solid volume fraction profile to account for the presence of particles (Li & Sawamoto Reference Li and Sawamoto1995),

(2.9a,b)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}_{t}=l_{m}^{2}|{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\langle u_{x}\rangle ^{f}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}|,\quad l_{m}(z)=\unicode[STIX]{x1D705}\displaystyle \int _{0}^{z}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{max}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D701})}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{max}}}\,\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D701},\end{eqnarray}$$

with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D705}=0.41$ the von Kármán constant and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{max}=0.61$ the maximal packing of the granular medium (random close packing).

The total momentum $n\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p}\rangle ^{s}$ transmitted by the fluid to the particles is computed as the sum over each class of the horizontal solid-phase average (denoted $\langle .\rangle ^{s}$) of the momentum transmitted by the drag force on each particle

(2.10)$$\begin{eqnarray}n\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p}\rangle ^{s}={\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}d_{s}^{3}/6}}\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p_{s}}\rangle ^{s}+{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}}{\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}d_{l}^{3}/6}}\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p_{l}}\rangle ^{s},\end{eqnarray}$$

and introducing the expression of the drag force (2.5),

(2.11)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle n\langle f_{f_{x}}^{p}\rangle ^{s} & = & \displaystyle {\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}}{d_{s}}}\langle C_{D}\Vert \langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p_{s}}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p_{s}}\Vert (\langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p_{s}}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p_{s}})\rangle ^{s}\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & & \displaystyle +\,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f}}{d_{l}}}\langle C_{D}\Vert \langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{x}^{p_{l}}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p_{l}}\Vert (\langle \boldsymbol{u}\rangle _{\boldsymbol{ x}^{p_{l}}}^{f}-\boldsymbol{v}^{p_{l}})\rangle ^{s},\end{eqnarray}$$

where $p_{s}$ (respectively $p_{l}$) denotes the ensemble of the small (respectively large) particles, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}$ (respectively $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}$) the volume fraction of small (respectively large) particles and $d_{s}$ (respectively $d_{l}$) the diameter of small (respectively large) particles.

The solid-phase volume average $\langle \cdot \rangle ^{s}$ is defined following Jackson (Reference Jackson2000) for which a cuboid weighting function ${\mathcal{F}}$ with the same length and width as the 3-D domain is applied. In the vertical direction, in order to capture the strong vertical gradient of the mean flow, the vertical thickness $l_{z}$ of the box is chosen as $l_{z}=d_{s}/30$. This choice of weighting function has been validated by comparison with mono-disperse turbulent bedload transport experiments in Maurin et al. (Reference Maurin, Chauchat, Chareyre and Frey2015). Therefore the mean values at position $z$ are computed as

(2.12)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}(z)=\mathop{\sum }_{p_{s}}\int _{V_{p_{s}}}{\mathcal{F}}(|z-z^{\prime }|)\,\text{d}z^{\prime }, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(2.13)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}(z)=\mathop{\sum }_{p_{l}}\int _{V_{p_{l}}}{\mathcal{F}}(|z-z^{\prime }|)\,\text{d}z^{\prime }, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(2.14)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \langle \unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}\rangle ^{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}(z)}}\mathop{\sum }_{p_{s}}\int _{V_{p_{s}}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}(z^{\prime }){\mathcal{F}}(|z-z^{\prime }|)\,\text{d}z^{\prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}(z)}}\mathop{\sum }_{p_{l}}\int _{V_{p_{l}}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}(z^{\prime }){\mathcal{F}}(|z-z^{\prime }|)\,\text{d}z^{\prime }, & \displaystyle \nonumber\\ \displaystyle & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}$ is a scalar quantity.

The fluid model, which is classical in sediment transport (e.g. Drake & Calantoni Reference Drake and Calantoni2001; Hsu & Liu Reference Hsu and Liu2004; Durán, Andreotti & Claudin Reference Durán, Andreotti and Claudin2012; Revil-Baudard & Chauchat Reference Revil-Baudard and Chauchat2013; Maurin et al. Reference Maurin, Chauchat, Chareyre and Frey2015; Chauchat Reference Chauchat2018) is only closed using a mixing length model and a closure for the drag force formulation. The latter are usual in the literature, and it has been shown in Maurin (Reference Maurin2015) and Maurin et al. (Reference Maurin, Chauchat, Chareyre and Frey2015) that the results obtained in terms of granular behaviour are very weakly sensitive to the fluid closure adopted. In this paper, the model is used for a bi-disperse situation to study size segregation in bedload sediment transport.

3.1 Numerical set-up

The numerical set-up is presented in figure 1. In the following, subscripts $l$ and $s$ denote quantities for large and small particles, respectively. Initially, large particles of diameter $d_{l}=6$ mm and fine particles of diameter $d_{s}=4$ mm (size ratio $r=1.5$) are deposited by gravity over a rough fixed bed made of large particles. The particle and fluid densities are fixed respectively to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}^{p}=2500~\text{kg}~\text{m}^{-3}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}^{f}=1000~\text{kg}~\text{m}^{-3}$. The size of the 3-D domain is $30d_{l}\times 30d_{l}$ in the horizontal plane in order to have converged average values (Maurin et al. Reference Maurin, Chauchat, Chareyre and Frey2015) and is periodic in the streamwise and spanwise directions. The number of particles of each class is assimilated into a number of layers, $N_{l}$ and $N_{s}$. The number of layers represents in terms of particle diameters the height that would be occupied by the particles if the packing fraction was exactly 0.61. Equivalently, the volume occupied by large particles (respectively small particles) is $0.61\times 30d_{l}\times 30d_{l}\times N_{l}d_{l}$ (respectively $0.61\times 30d_{l}\times 30d_{l}\times N_{s}d_{s}$). Therefore, fixing $N_{l}$ or $N_{s}$ fixes the number of particles of each class. The height of the bed at rest is defined by $H=N_{l}d_{l}+N_{s}d_{s}$ and $H$ is fixed to $10d_{l}$ in all the simulations. The number of layers of fine particles $N_{s}$ varies from $0.01$ (only a few small particles) up to $2$ layers (corresponding to figure 1), while $N_{l}$ changes accordingly in order to keep $H=10d_{l}$. The bed slope is fixed to $10\,\%$ ($5.7^{\circ }$), representative of mountain streams. The Shields number is defined as the dimensionless fluid bed shear stress $\unicode[STIX]{x1D703}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}_{f}/[(\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{p}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{f})gd_{l}]$ and simulations are performed at $\unicode[STIX]{x1D703}\simeq 0.1$. For this purpose, the free surface position is fixed and corresponds to a water depth of $h=3.1d_{l}$.

At the beginning of each simulation, the fluid flows by gravity and sets particles into motion. A first transient phase takes place, during which fluid and particles are accelerating. During this period, segregation is very fast and at the end of the transient phase, the small particles have already infiltrated into the first layers of the bed. In this paper, the study focuses on the dynamics of segregation once the system is at transport equilibrium and small particles have reached the quasi-static layer.

Figure 1.

A typical numerical set-up for $N_{s}=2$. Initially, $N_{s}$ layers of small particles ($d_{s}=3$ mm) are deposited by gravity above $N_{l}$ layers of large particles ($d_{l}=6$ mm). $N_{s}$ varies from $0.01$ until $2$ with $N_{l}$ varying accordingly in order to always have $N_{l}d_{l}+N_{s}d_{s}=10d_{l}$.

The horizontal-averaged volume fraction per unit granular volume of small (respectively large) particles is defined as $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$ (respectively $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{l}$). By definition, the two volume fractions sum to unity,

(3.1)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{l}={\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}}}=1,\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{s}$ (respectively $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}_{l}$) is the volume fraction of small (respectively large) particles defined per unit mixture volume as in the previous section. Lastly, $z_{c}$ is defined as the vertical position of the centre of mass of small particles and $\text{d}z_{c}/\text{d}t$ as its velocity.

The results are presented without dimension and the following dimensionless variables are considered:

(3.2a-c)$$\begin{eqnarray}\tilde{z}={\displaystyle \frac{z}{d_{l}}},\quad \tilde{t}=t\sqrt{g/d_{l}},\quad \widetilde{\langle v_{x}\rangle ^{p}}={\displaystyle \frac{\langle v_{x}\rangle ^{p}}{\sqrt{gd_{l}}}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

In the following, the tildes are dropped for sake of clarity.

3.3 Dependence on the inertial number

In figure 4(a), the dimensionless segregation velocity is plotted against the large particle inertial number $I=\dot{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}}_{p}d_{l}/\sqrt{P_{p}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{p}}$, where $\dot{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}}_{p}$ is the time mean fluid shear rate and $P_{p}$ is the time mean lithostatic granular pressure. The segregation velocity is higher for larger inertial number. The linearity of the curves shows that the segregation velocity is indeed a power law of the inertial number. For all the simulations a similar exponent is obtained, ranging from $0.81$ to $0.88$, and a best fit gives a value of $0.85$ for the mean exponent,

(3.4)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{c}(t)}{\text{d}t}}\propto I^{0.85}(z_{c}(t)).\end{eqnarray}$$

Interestingly, Fry et al. (Reference Fry, Umbanhowar, Ottino and Lueptow2018) obtained a very similar result for dry granular flows at higher inertial numbers ($I\in [10^{-2},1]$). They obtained an exponent $0.84$, very close to the $0.85$ exponent obtained in the present configuration. Our results suggest that the behaviour observed by Fry et al. (Reference Fry, Umbanhowar, Ottino and Lueptow2018) is valid in a wider range of inertial numbers, in particular, in the quasi-static regime ($I\in [10^{-5},10^{-1}]$).

Figure 4.

(a) Segregation velocity dependence on the local inertial number, (b) inertial number profile.

The scaling with the inertial number (3.4) is in line with the theory of Savage & Lun (Reference Savage and Lun1988) who suggested relating the segregation velocity to the shear rate. Indeed the inertial number is the dimensionless ratio between the shear rate and the square root of pressure. In the bedload configuration, the pressure increases linearly with depth while the shear rate exponentially decreases in the bed. Therefore, most of the variation of the inertial number is contained in the shear rate. A scaling with the inertial number allows the effect of pressure $P_{p}$ to be taken into account, which is small in this configuration, but the similarity with the results of Fry et al. (Reference Fry, Umbanhowar, Ottino and Lueptow2018) is encouraging in the understanding of size segregation in general.

Equation (3.4) allows the temporal evolution of the fine particles centre of mass to be understood. Figure 4(b) shows the inertial number profile for all simulations. The linearity of the curves, for $z\leqslant 8$, in the semi-log plot indicates that the inertial number is an exponential function of $z$ in the quasi-static part of the bed. Taking an exponential profile to the power $0.85$, $I^{0.85}$ is also an exponential function of $z$ and can be written as

(3.5)$$\begin{eqnarray}I^{0.85}(z)=I_{0}\text{e}^{z/c}.\end{eqnarray}$$

Introducing (3.5) into expression (3.4) leads to

(3.6)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{c}(t)}{\text{d}t}}=-b_{1}\text{e}^{z_{c}(t)/c},\end{eqnarray}$$

with $b_{1}$ a positive constant. Equation (3.6) can be integrated

(3.7)$$\begin{eqnarray}\int \text{e}^{-z_{c}/c}\,\text{d}z_{c}=\int -b_{1}\,\text{d}t,\end{eqnarray}$$

leading to

(3.8)$$\begin{eqnarray}c\text{e}^{-z_{c}/c}=b_{1}t+\text{Const}\sim b_{1}t,\end{eqnarray}$$

for long times. It can be rewritten as

(3.9)$$\begin{eqnarray}z_{c}(t)=-c\ln (t)+b_{2},\end{eqnarray}$$

where $b_{2}=-c\ln (b_{1}/c)$ is a constant. This analysis shows that the logarithmic descent of the small particle centre of mass is a consequence of the dependence of the segregation velocity on the inertial number. This is confirmed by the comparison between the coefficients $a$ in (3.3) and $c$ in (3.5), that should be equal. Fitting of the elevation of the centre of mass (figure 3c) and of $I^{0.85}$ yields coefficients $a$ and $c$ (see table 1). The maximal difference between $a$ and $c$ is approximately $3\,\%$ confirming the present analysis and showing that the inertial number is indeed the controlling parameter.

Table 1.

Values of coefficients $a$ (slope of the centre of mass) and $c$ (exponential decay of the inertial number to the power $0.85$) obtained from fitting the curves of figures 3(c) and 4(b) and the error in percentage.

Figure 5.

(a) Centre of mass velocity dependence on the inertial number at the bottom of the layer of small particles, (b) small particle concentration profiles at time $t=40\,435$ and vertical position of the bottom of the layer ($\times$).

3.4 Bottom controlled segregation

While this analysis clearly explains the trends observed, figure 4(a) shows that for a given value of the inertial number, different segregation velocities are obtained depending on the initial number of small particles, $N_{s}$.

Since the inertial number follows an exponential profile, it varies importantly throughout the layer of small particles. Thus according to (3.4) the segregation velocity should be lower at the bottom than at the top of the layer. This lower segregation velocity at the bottom of the layer implies that all the small particles above cannot move downward faster than the lowest particles in the layer. Defining the position of the bottom of the layer as $z_{b}=z_{c}-W/2$, with $W=2N_{s}d_{s}/d_{l}$ the small particle layer thickness, figure 5(a) shows the dependence of the segregation velocity on the inertial number at the bottom of the layer. All the curves collapse on a master curve and a power law relationship is found between the segregation velocity and the inertial number at the bottom of the layer $I_{b}(z_{c})=I(z_{b})$,

(3.10)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{c}(t)}{\text{d}t}}=-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}I_{b}^{0.85}(z_{c}(t)),\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}$ is a positive constant independent of the number of layers of small particles. This result shows that the segregation velocity of the layer is indeed completely controlled by the inertial number at the bottom of the layer and it does not contain any dependence on the number of small particle layers, $N_{s}$.

The layer thickness has been chosen to be two times the thickness it would occupy if only small particles were present, $W=2N_{s}d_{s}/d_{l}$. This choice is motivated by the fact that the layer is formed of a mixture of both large and small particles. Figure 5(a) shows that, for the different cases, the width obtained is indeed consistent with the actual thickness. Note that when $N_{s}$ tends to zero, $z_{b}$ tends to $z_{c}$ the centre of mass of the small particles. In the extreme case where only one small particle is present, this position corresponds to its centre. Figure 5(b) shows, at time $t=40\,435$, the profiles of small particle concentration, where the crosses denote the position of the bottom of the layer. The lower limbs of the concentration profiles are superimposed and the position of the bottom of the layer is identical for all tested values of $N_{s}$. Whatever the number of small particles, they pile up above the bottom position, where the segregation dynamics is controlled.

It is remarkable that the continuum description (3.10) is applicable even for the cases $N_{s}=0.01$ and $N_{s}=0.05$, corresponding to very few non-interacting particles and for which a continuum vision seems at first hardly relevant. This can be explained by the bottom controlled dynamics. The isolated particles are placed at the bottom position which is a stable position. Since for cases $N_{s}=0.01$ and $N_{s}=0.05$, $z_{b}$ and $z_{c}$ are located at the same elevation, the continuum description captures the dynamics of isolated particles.

This analysis highlights the dependence of segregation on the inertial number in bedload transport. Furthermore, the bottom of the small particles layer is shown to be a key position that controls segregation. In particular, it explains why the small particles infiltrate the bed as a layer of constant thickness.

3.5 Size ratio influence

The analysis presented above provides a reference position that describes the segregation dynamics. In the following, the effect of the size ratio is investigated. The previous simulations were all performed at the same size ratio, $r=1.5$. According to the dimensional analysis, the following relationship is expected:

(3.11)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{c}(t)}{\text{d}t}}=-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}{\mathcal{G}}_{1}(r)I_{b}^{0.85}(z_{c}(t)).\end{eqnarray}$$

A set of simulations in which the diameter of the small particles is varied has been performed. It covers a range of size ratios from $r=1.15$ to $3$. In all these simulations, the number of small particles layer is fixed to $N_{s}=1$. The dependence of the centre of mass velocity on the inertial number at the bottom of the layer of small particles is plotted in figure 6(a). A similar power law relationship is recovered, showing that the inertial number is still the controlling parameter. The best fit provides a $0.82$ exponent, which is in the range of values found previously. However, to remain consistent with the previous analysis an exponent of $0.85$ is used in what follows. The curves are parallel but not superimposed, which implies that, as expected, the size ratio plays an important role in the segregation dynamics. The dependence with the size ratio is presented in figure 6(b) where the ratio between the segregation velocity and the inertial number to the power $0.85$ is plotted as a function of the size ratio minus one. The dependence with the size ratio tends to zero when $r$ is close to unity, cancelling segregation in the monodisperse limit, and increases strongly when the size ratio increases. The following functional form for ${\mathcal{G}}_{1}$ is proposed:

(3.12)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\mathcal{G}}_{1}(r)=0.45(\text{e}^{(r-1)/1.59}-1),\end{eqnarray}$$

empirically fitted from the data points of figure 6(b), and plotted in dashed line in figure 6(b).

Figure 6.

(a) Centre of mass velocity dependence on the inertial number at the bottom of the layer of small particles for different size ratio. Note that for $r=2.5$, $r=2.75$ and $r=3$, simulations were performed with a $15d_{l}\times 15d_{l}$ box in order to gain computation time. (b) Best fit coefficient between the segregation velocity and the inertial number to the power $0.85$ times $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}$ as a function of the size ratio minus one (for each curve of figure 6a, one point is obtained). The function ${\mathcal{G}}_{1}$ is plotted as dashed line.

The maximal efficiency at $r=2$ reported by Golick & Daniels (Reference Golick and Daniels2009), Thornton et al. (Reference Thornton, Weinhart, Luding and Bokhove2012) and Guillard et al. (Reference Guillard, Forterre and Pouliquen2016) is not recovered in this configuration as the segregation velocity still increases for $r>2$. Further research is necessary to gain better understanding of the size ratio effect on segregation.

To summarize, the results presented here suggest that the segregation dynamics in bedload transport can be described, to leading order, by the following relationship:

(3.13)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{c}}{\text{d}t}}=-\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}{\mathcal{G}}_{1}(r)I_{b}^{0.85},\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}$ can be computed from figure 5(a) and ${\mathcal{G}}_{1}(r)$ is given by (3.12).

3.6 Dependence on the local concentration $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$

It is remarkable that the trends observed for the evolution of the centre of mass and for the segregation velocity are independent of the number of small particle layers, $N_{s}$. Indeed, as the latter is increased from 0.01 to 2, the configuration moves from a few isolated (non-interacting) small particles to two consistent layers of small particles infiltrating collectively inside the coarse bed. Therefore, it is expected that the increase of $N_{s}$, would increase the local particle concentration and reduce the segregation velocity due to particle hindrance effects.

This independence of the trend observed in the segregation velocity seems in contradiction with the literature (e.g. Savage & Lun Reference Savage and Lun1988; Dolgunin & Ukolov Reference Dolgunin and Ukolov1995; Van der Vaart et al. Reference Van der Vaart, Gajjar, Epely-Chauvin, Andreini, Gray and Ancey2015; Jones et al. Reference Jones, Isner, Xiao, Ottino, Umbanhowar and Lueptow2018), in which a major influence of the local small particle concentration on the segregation velocity has been evidenced. In order to explain this apparent contradiction and get more insight into the physical processes at play, the results are discussed in the following as a function of local mechanisms within the framework of the continuum model of Gray & Thornton (Reference Gray and Thornton2005), Thornton et al. (Reference Thornton, Gray and Hogg2006) and Gray & Chugunov (Reference Gray and Chugunov2006).

4.1 Local mechanism interpretation

In order to explain the apparent independence of the results on the concentration of small particles, a local analysis in the theoretical framework of continuum modelling is considered. The model of Thornton et al. (Reference Thornton, Gray and Hogg2006) (1.6), presented briefly in the introduction, will be used as a baseline. In the present configuration, the velocity field has only a streamwise component (along $x$) and all quantities only depend on $z$. As a first step, diffusion is not considered and (1.6) simplifies to a purely hyperbolic equation,

(4.1)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}t}}-{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}F_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}=0.\end{eqnarray}$$

Combining the form proposed in the introduction (1.7), the analysis of the DEM simulations (3.13) and the inertial number functional form (3.5), the segregation flux can be written as

(4.2)$$\begin{eqnarray}F_{s}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}{\mathcal{G}}_{1}(r)I^{0.85}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s})=S_{r0}\text{e}^{z/c}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}),\end{eqnarray}$$

with $S_{r0}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{0}{\mathcal{G}}_{1}(r)I_{0}$. The inertial number does not depend on the number of small particles (figure 4b) so $S_{r0}$ is independent on the initial number of small particles and only depends on the response of the granular mixture to the fluid flow forcing through $I_{0}$ and $c$. For $r=1.5$, the corresponding value of $S_{r0}$ obtained from the DEM simulations is: $S_{r0}=3.70\times 10^{-8}$. Due to the exponential decrease of the inertial number in the bed, the form of the segregation flux, $F_{s}$, is also exponential with $z$. May et al. (Reference May, Golick, Phillips, Shearer and Daniels2010) already proposed an analytical solution for an exponential flux, but the flow was shear driven from the bottom. Proceeding similarly, the analytical solution can be derived using the method of characteristics (appendix A) for which the initial condition is simply a step of concentration representing an initial pure layer of small particles lying on a bed made of large particles,

(4.3)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(z,t=0)=\left\{\begin{array}{@{}ll@{}}0,\quad & z<z_{i},\\ 1,\quad & z\geqslant z_{i},\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}$$

with $z_{i}=N_{l}d_{l}$. The solution is plotted in figure 7(a) for the case $N_{s}=1$ and $r=1.5$. The initial discontinuity leads to an expansion fan delimited by two characteristics (see appendix A). The first, denoted $z_{1}$, is going down and meets the bottom of the domain at time $t_{1}$, which is not reached during the simulations. The second is going up and is denoted $z_{2}$. When it meets the top of the domain at time $t_{2}$ (i.e. when the first large particle reaches the top boundary, which happens very rapidly), a shock is created that travels downward. It can be shown (see appendix A) that the analytical solution for time $t_{2}\leqslant t\leqslant t_{1}$ is

(4.4)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(z,t)=\left\{\begin{array}{@{}ll@{}}0,\quad & z<z_{1},\\ \unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{fan}(z,t),\quad & z_{1}\leqslant z\leqslant z_{2},\\ 0,\quad & z>z_{2},\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}$$

where $z_{1}$ is the characteristic curve (4.5) delimiting the bottom of the rarefaction zone, $z_{2}$ is given by the shock (4.6) delimiting the top of the rarefaction zone and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{fan}$ is the solution in the expansion fan given by (4.7):

(4.5)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle z_{1}(t)=z_{i}-c\ln \left(1+\frac{S_{r0}}{c}\text{e}^{z_{i}/c}t\right), & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(4.6)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle {\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{2}}{\text{d}t}}=-S_{r0}\text{e}^{z_{2}/c}\left(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(z_{2},t)\right), & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(4.7)$$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{fan}(z,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}-{\displaystyle \frac{c}{S_{r0}t}}\text{e}^{-z/c}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{S_{r0}t}}\text{e}^{-(z+z_{i})/(2c)}\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}t}{2c}}\right)^{2}\text{e}^{(z+z_{i})/c}}. & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

Figure 7.

(a) Case $N_{s}=1$, $r=1.5$ space–time evolution of the concentration in fine particles $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$, and (b) profiles of concentration at time $t=80\,870$ with the continuum model without diffusion for several values of $N_{s}$. Long time expression (4.9) is indicated as dashed line. The same values of $S_{r0}$ and $c$ have been used.

Despite the complexity of the solution (4.4), some simplifications can be made for long times (smaller than $t_{1}$). Indeed for $t\gg 4c/S_{r0}\text{e}^{z_{i}/c}\sim 1000$, it can be shown (see appendix A) that the square root term in (4.7) simplifies to

(4.8)$$\begin{eqnarray}1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}t}{2c}}\right)^{2}\text{e}^{(z+z_{i})/c}\sim \left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}t}{2c}}\right)^{2}\text{e}^{(z+z_{i})/c},\end{eqnarray}$$

and the volume fraction profile $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$ in the rarefaction fan simplifies as

(4.9)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{fan}(z,t)=1-{\displaystyle \frac{c}{S_{r0}t}}\text{e}^{-z/c}.\end{eqnarray}$$

Some simplifications can also be done on the boundary curves of the rarefaction zone $z_{1}$ and $z_{2}$. Introducing the long time solution (4.9) in the shock equation of $z_{2}$ (4.6), a much more simple equation of $z_{2}$ is obtained for long times

(4.10)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}z_{2}}{\text{d}t}}=-{\displaystyle \frac{c}{t}},\end{eqnarray}$$

for which the solution is

(4.11)$$\begin{eqnarray}z_{2}(t)=-c\ln (t)+\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD},\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FD}$ is an integration constant. Concerning the characteristic curve $z_{1}$, the term in the logarithm in (4.5) simplifies for long times to

(4.12)$$\begin{eqnarray}1+\frac{S_{r0}}{c}\text{e}^{z_{i}/c}t\sim \frac{S_{r0}}{c}\text{e}^{z_{i}/c}t,\end{eqnarray}$$

and the following expression is obtained for $z_{1}$:

(4.13)$$\begin{eqnarray}z_{1}(t)=-c\ln (t)-c\ln \left(\frac{S_{r0}}{c}\right).\end{eqnarray}$$

Therefore, the upper and lower bounds of the small particle layer, $z_{2}$ and $z_{1}$, both move down asymptotically as $-c\ln (t)$, and the layer thickness $z_{2}(t)-z_{1}(t)$ is constant. Lastly, the form of the flux considered in the continuum model $F_{s}\propto I^{0.85}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s})$ implies that the vertical velocity of the small particles $w_{s}=-F_{s}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$ is

(4.14)$$\begin{eqnarray}w_{s}(z,t)=-{\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{I_{0}}}I^{0.85}(z)(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(z,t)).\end{eqnarray}$$

Using (4.9), the vertical velocity can be expressed for long times as

(4.15)$$\begin{eqnarray}w_{s}(z)=-{\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{I_{0}}}I^{0.85}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{S_{r0}t}}\text{e}^{-z/c},\end{eqnarray}$$

and remembering that $I^{0.85}=I_{0}\text{e}^{z/c}$,

(4.16)$$\begin{eqnarray}w_{s}(z)=-{\displaystyle \frac{c}{t}}.\end{eqnarray}$$

Considering long time solutions and an imposed forcing by the inertial number, the model exhibits the exact same behaviour observed in the DEM simulations. First, the small particles move down as a layer into the coarse particles, with the lower and upper bounds of the small particle layer showing a logarithmic decrease with time (4.11) and (4.13). This decrease, at a common slope $-c$ related to the forcing, imposes a constant layer thickness with time, as observed in the DEM simulations. The consequence is that the segregation velocity of the small particles is the same throughout the layer (4.16). Considering the formulation of the downward velocity of small particles (4.14), this means that the product of the small particle concentration and the inertial number is constant within the small particle layer,

(4.17)$$\begin{eqnarray}w_{s}(z,t)=-{\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{I_{0}}}I^{0.85}(z)(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(z,t))=-c/t.\end{eqnarray}$$

Therefore, at a given time, the shape of the small particle concentration profile responds directly to the variation of the inertial number as a function of $z$. At a point within the layer, the decrease of inertial number observed when going inside the bed is compensated for by an increase of the term $1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$, and so a decrease of the small particle concentration. This competition between the effect of the inertial number and the local concentration results in the shape of solution profiles presented in figure 7(b) for which the expression is given by (4.9).

In order to corroborate the explanation of the mechanisms at play, the lower bound of the small particle layer $z_{1}$ for which $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}=0$ is considered. It corresponds, in figure 7(b), to the position where all profiles collapse to zero at the bottom. At this position, the segregation velocity is only a function of the inertial number at the bottom of the layer

(4.18)$$\begin{eqnarray}w_{s}(z,t)=-{\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{I_{0}}}I^{0.85}(z_{1})=-c/t.\end{eqnarray}$$

This corresponds exactly to the observations in the DEM simulations in § 3.4, where the segregation velocity was shown to collapse as a function of the inertial number at a position considered to be the bottom of the small particle layer. The correspondence between the inertial number at the bottom position $z_{b}$ observed in DEM and the one calculated from the analytical continuum model $z_{1}$ (table 2) confirms that the mechanisms described here are indeed the ones at play in the DEM simulations.

Table 2.

Mean error between the bottom position from the DEM simulations $z_{b}$ and from the continuum model $z_{1}$. The maximal error of less than $1\,\%$ between both positions suggests that they correspond.

Figure 8.

Comparison between DEM simulations (- - - -) and segregation model (——) of the profile of concentration $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$ for the case $N_{s}=1$ at time $t=80\,870$.

Finally, it is interesting to remark on figure 7(b), that all the profiles tend to zero at the same position, meaning that the bottom position is the same whatever the quantity of small particles. This confirms the DEM result that the segregation velocity is independent of $N_{s}$. Indeed, if there are more small particles, they pile up above the others without changing the position of the bottom where the segregation dynamics is controlled.

The continuum model without diffusion enabled understanding of the local segregation mechanisms and gave insights into the underlying physical mechanisms. While this model gives a good agreement at first order, as shown in figure 8, it clearly lacks diffusion in order to reproduce quantitatively the DEM simulations.

4.2 Diffusion and upscaling in a continuous framework

The continuum model used in the previous subsection can be expanded to account for diffusion (Gray & Chugunov Reference Gray and Chugunov2006), in order to quantitatively reproduce the DEM results. The equation to be solved is given by

(4.19)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}t}}-{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}F_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}={\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}\left(D{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}z}}\right),\end{eqnarray}$$

with a segregation flux of the form $F_{s}=S_{r0}\text{e}^{z/c}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s})$, with $S_{r0}=3.70\times 10^{-8}$ computed from the DEM simulations, and a diffusion coefficient $D(z)$ which is supposed to depend only on the vertical coordinate $z$. In this paper, a long time asymptotical solution is presented. At long times, DEM simulations have shown that the shape of the concentration profile $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$ is self-similar and is only advected downward like a travelling wave. Indeed, the layer of small particles moves down as a layer of constant thickness as $-c\ln (t)$ (see (3.9)) and the shape of the concentration profile does not evolve with time. The following change of variable is proposed to place the problem in the moving frame of the small particles:

(4.20a,b)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}=t,\quad \unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=z+c\ln (t).\end{eqnarray}$$

Equation (4.19) in the moving frame becomes

(4.21)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}-{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}}\text{e}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/c}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s})\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}\left(D(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-c\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F})){\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}\right).\end{eqnarray}$$

For a travelling wave, the solution to (4.21) should not depend on time $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}$. Assuming $\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}/\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}=0$, this requires that $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}D(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-c\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}))$ is independent of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}$. This implies

(4.22)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}}\left(\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}D(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-c\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}))\right)=0,\end{eqnarray}$$

and distributing the derivative with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}$, the following differential equation is obtained:

(4.23)$$\begin{eqnarray}D^{\prime }(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-c\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}))-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}D(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-c\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}))=0,\end{eqnarray}$$

for which the solution is

(4.24)$$\begin{eqnarray}D=D_{0}\text{e}^{(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-c\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}))/c}=D_{0}\text{e}^{z/c}.\end{eqnarray}$$

This shows that the only way to obtain a time-independent solution is that the diffusion coefficient has an exponential structure with the same vertical dependence as the advection flux $F_{s}$. In other words, the diffusion coefficient should also be proportional to the inertial number to the power $0.85$ in order to have a concentration profile of constant thickness. Under this assumption, equation (4.21) becomes

(4.25)$$\begin{eqnarray}c{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}-{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}\left(S_{r0}\text{e}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/c}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s})\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}\left(D_{0}\text{e}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/c}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}\right).\end{eqnarray}$$

By integration, and imposing $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}\rightarrow 0$ when $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}\rightarrow \pm \infty$, the following equation is obtained:

(4.26)$$\begin{eqnarray}{\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}}-{\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{D_{0}}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}\left[\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}-\left(1-{\displaystyle \frac{c}{S_{r0}}}\text{e}^{-\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/c}\right)\right]=0,\end{eqnarray}$$

for which the solution is

(4.27)$$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}={\displaystyle \frac{\text{e}^{-(S_{r0}/D_{0})\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}-(c^{2}/D_{0})\text{e}^{-\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/c}}}{\displaystyle C-{\displaystyle \frac{S_{r0}}{D_{0}}}\int _{-\infty }^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}(\text{e}^{-(S_{r0}/D_{0})\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}^{\prime }-(c^{2}/D_{0})\text{e}^{-\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}^{\prime }/c}})\,\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}^{\prime }}},\end{eqnarray}$$

where $C$ is a constant satisfying the mass conservation $\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}\,\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}$. The travelling wave solution has a complex dependency on $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}$ and contains an integral which cannot be computed analytically. A semi-analytical approach is developed where the integral is computed numerically and a numerical optimization is performed on the $C$ coefficient so that $\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}\,\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}$ corresponds to the initial mass of small particles introduced in the model. Figure 9 compares the travelling wave solution (4.27) with concentration profiles from the DEM simulations (case $N_{s}=1$, $r=1.5$) at different times. The $D_{0}$ coefficient was computed in order to minimize the root mean square of the difference between the DEM and the travelling wave solution. The travelling wave solution agrees very well with all DEM profiles. The width and the height of the profile are correctly predicted. However the latter is slightly below the DEM profiles. This may be explained by the uncertainties when computing the value of $S_{r0}$ from the DEM simulations.

Figure 9.

(a) Travelling wave solution (——) and concentration profiles in the moving frame from DEM simulations at different times for the case $N_{s}=1$, $r=1.5$, $Pe=3.86$. $t=40\,435$ (- - - -), $t=50\,543$ (— ⋅ —, orange), $t=60\,652$ ($\cdots \cdots$, green), $t=70\,761~\text{s}$ (-$\cdot$-$\cdot$-$\cdot$-$\cdot$-, red), $t=80\,870$ (-$\cdot \cdot$-$\cdot \cdot$-, violet). (b) Value of the Péclet number as a function of the number of layers of small particles.

In order to keep the thickness of the small particles layer constant, both the advection and the diffusion coefficients must have the same exponential vertical structure. Defining a Péclet number by the ratio between the segregation intensity and the diffusion coefficient, $Pe=S_{r}(z)/D(z)=S_{r0}/D_{0}$, the travelling wave solution leads to a constant Péclet number with depth. The relative effect of segregation and diffusion fluxes is constant and independent of $z$. At each depth, the balance between advection and diffusion has to be the same in order to be consistent with the constant layer thickness observed in the DEM simulations.

The value of the Péclet number depends on the number of layers of small particles $N_{s}$ and is plotted in figure 9(b). The value of $Pe$ increases almost linearly with $N_{s}$. Since the value of $S_{r0}$ is the same whatever the number of layers of small particles, this result suggests that the value of the diffusion coefficient decreases with $N_{s}$. This would indicate that diffusion is more efficient when there are fewer small particles. In addition, the mean value of the local concentration in small particles $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$ globally increases with $N_{s}$ (see figure 5b). Therefore, the dependence of the diffusion coefficient with $N_{s}$ could be a global manifestation of a dependence of the diffusion coefficient with the local concentration $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{s}$.

This study has shown that both the segregation flux and diffusion need to be proportional to the inertial number to the power $0.85$ in order to represent the dynamics of segregation in bedload transport.