Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-14T06:01:41.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hydrodynamic interaction of two unequal-sized spheres in a slightly rarefied gas: resistance and mobility functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

Ruoxian Ying  and
Michael H. Peters
Ruoxian Ying
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32316-2175, USA
Michael H. Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32316-2175, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of the hydrodynamic interaction of two unequal-sized spheres in a slightly rarefied gas is treated following the singular perturbation scheme of Sone & Onishi (1978), valid at small, but finite, particle Knudsen numbers. In this method the solution to the linearized BGKW transport equation governing the gas molecular motion consists of two parts: one describing a Knudsen layer where the actual microscopic boundary conditions are applied and the other describing a Hilbert region where the Stokes equations of continuum hydrodynamics hold. The Knudsen-layer solution establishes the ‘slip’ boundary conditions for the Stokes equations. Here we clearly distinguish between particle ‘slip’ due to the type of boundary conditions and particle ‘slip’ due to lengthscale effects as measured by the Knudsen number. The present analysis has been carried out to first order in particle Knudsen number for the case of diffuse reflective molecular boundary conditions. General relationships between the first- and zero-order velocity fields, both of which are written in the form of Lamb's (1932) solution to the Stokes equation, are established. It is illustrated how these general relationships can be used to determine the force and torque acting on a single sphere translating and rotating in a slightly rarefied gas. Finally, we have treated the two-sphere problem in a slightly rarefied gas using the twin multipole expansion method of Jeffrey & Onishi (1984). Here again, general relationships are established between the solutions of the first-order fluid velocity field and the zero-order velocity field, the latter being shown to recover Jeffrey & Onishi's results for stick boundary conditions. These general relationships are subsequently used to determine the complete resistance and mobility matrices of the two-sphere system. The symmetric properties of the resistance and mobility matrices are demonstrated for slip boundary conditions, in agreement with the general proof of Landau & Lifshitz (1980) and Bedeaux, Albano & Mazur (1977).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 207 , October 1989 , pp. 353 - 378
Copyright
© 1989 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnocky, G. & Davis, R. H. 1988 The effect of Maxwell slip on the aerodynamic collision and rebound of spherical particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 121, 226–239.Google Scholar
Bedeaux, D., Albano, A. M. & Mazur, P. 1977 Brownian motion and fluctuating hydrodynamics II; A fluctuation-dissipation theorem for the slip coefficient. Physica 88 A, 574–582.Google Scholar
Bhatnagar, P. L., Gross, E. P. & Krook, M. 1954 A model for collision processes in gases. I. Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems. Phys. Rev. 94, 511–525.Google Scholar
Brenner, H. 1963 The Stokes resistance of an arbitrary particle. Chem. Engng Sci. 18, 1–25.Google Scholar
Brenner, H. 1964 The Stokes resistance of an arbitrary particle – II, An extension. Chem. Engng Sci. 19, 599–629.Google Scholar
Brock, J. R. 1980 The kinetics of ultrafine particles. In Aerosol Microphysics I. Particle Interaction (ed. W. H. Marlow). Springer.
Cercignani, C. 1975 Theory and Application of the Boltzmann Equation. Scottish Academic Press.
Cooley, M. D. A. & O'Neill, M. E. 1969 On the slow motion of two spheres in contact along their line of centres through a viscous fluid. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 66, 407–415.Google Scholar
Cukier, R. I., Kapral, R. & Mehaffey, J. R. 1981 Kinetic theory of the hydrodynamic interaction between two particles. J. Chem. Phys. 74, 2494–2504.Google Scholar
Dahneke, B. 1974 Diffusional deposition of particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 48, 520–522.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. 1972 Collision of small cloud droplets: Gas kinetic effects. J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 911–915.Google Scholar
Felderhof, B. U. 1977 Hydrodynamic interaction between two spheres. Physica 89A, 373–384.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. J., Cox, R. G. & Brenner, H. 1966 The slow motion of two identical arbitrarily oriented spheres through a viscous fluid. Chem. Engng Sci. 21, 1151–1170.Google Scholar
Goren, S. L. 1973 The hydrodynamic force resisting the approach of a sphere to a plane wall in slip flow. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 44, 356–360.Google Scholar
Grad, H. 1963 Asymptotic theory of the Boltzmann equation. Phys. Fluids 6, 147–181.Google Scholar
Happel, J. & Brenner, H. 1986 Low Reynolds Number Hydrodynamics. Martinus Nijhoff.
Hobson, E. W. 1931 Spherical and Ellipsoidal Harmonics. Cambridge University Press.
Hocking, L. M. 1973 The effect of slip on the motion of a sphere close to a wall and of two adjacent spheres. J. Engng Maths 7, 207–221.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, D. J. & Onishi, Y. 1984 Calculation of the resistance and mobility functions for two unequal spheres in low-Reynolds-number flow. J. Fluid Mech. 139, 261–290.Google Scholar
Kim, S. & Mifflin, R. T. 1985 The resistance and mobility functions for two equal spheres in low-Reynolds number flow. Phys. Fluids 28, 2033–2045.Google Scholar
Lamb, H. 1932 Hydrodynamics, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press.
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1980 Statistical Physics, Part 1, 3rd edn. Pergamon.
Marlow, W. H. 1980 The domains of aerosol physics. In Aerosol Microphysics I. Particle Interaction (ed. W. H. Marlow). Springer.
O'Neill, M. E. & Majumdar, S. R. 1970 Asymmetrical slow viscous fluid motions caused by the translation or rotation of two spheres. Part I: The determination of exact solutions for any values of the ratio of radii and separation parameters. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 21, 164–187.Google Scholar
Onishi, Y. 1984 Axisymmetric thermal-creep flow of a slightly rarefied gas induced around two unequal spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 144, 103–121.Google Scholar
Sone, Y. & Aoki, K. 1977 Forces on a spherical particle in a slightly rarefied gas. In Rarefied Gas Dynamics (ed. J. L. Potter), pp. 417–433. AIAA Prog. Astro. Aero., Vol. 51.
Sone, Y. & Onishi, Y. 1978 Kinetic theory of evaporation and condensation. Hydrodynamic equation and slip boundary condition. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 44, 1981–1994.Google Scholar
Sone, Y. & Tanaka, S. 1980 Thermal stress slip flow induced in rarefied gas between noncoaxial circular cylinders. In Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (ed. F. P. J. Rimrott & B. Tabarrok). pp. 405–416. North-Holland.
Sone, Y. & Yamamoto, K. 1968 Flow of rarefied gas through a circular pipe. Phys. Fluids 11. 1672–1678.Google Scholar
Stimson, M. & Jeffery, G. B. 1926 The motion of two spheres in a viscous fluid. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 111, 110–116.Google Scholar
Welander, P. 1954 On the temperature jump in a rarefied gas. Ark. Fys. 7, 507–553.Google Scholar
Yoon, B. J. & Kim, S. 1987 Note on the direct calculation of mobility functions for two equal-sized spheres in Stokes flow. J. Fluid Mech. 185, 437–446.Google Scholar