Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T10:14:36.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective boundary conditions for Stokes flow over a rough surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

Kausik Sarkar  and
Andrea Prosperetti
Kausik Sarkar
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA Present address: Dynaflow Inc., 7210 Pindell School Road, Fulton, MD 20759, USA.
Andrea Prosperetti
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ensemble averaging combined with multiple scattering ideas is applied to the Stokes flow over a stochastic rough surface. The surface roughness is modelled by compact protrusions on an underlying smooth surface. It is established that the effect of the roughness on the flow far from the boundary may be represented by replacing the no-slip condition on the exact boundary by a partial slip condition on the smooth surface. An approximate analysis is presented for a sparse distribution of arbitrarily shaped protrusions and explicit numerical results are given for hemispheres. Analogous conclusions for the two-dimensional case are obtained. It is shown that in certain cases a traction force develops on the surface at an angle with the direction of the flow.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 316 , 10 June 1996 , pp. 223 - 240
Copyright
© 1996 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

Basset, A. B. 1888 A Treatise on Hydrodynamics. Deighton, Bell, and Company (reprinted by Dover, 1961).
Batchelor, G. K. 1972 Sedimentation in a dilute dispersion of spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 52, 245–268.Google Scholar
Beavers, G. S. & Joseph, D. D. 1967 Boundary conditions at a naturally permeable wall. J. Fluid Mech. 30, 197–207.Google Scholar
Biot, M. A. 1968 Generalized boundary conditions for multiple scatter in acoustic reflection. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 44, 1616–1622.Google Scholar
Blake, J. R. 1971 A note on the image system for a Stokeslet in a no-slip boundary. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 70, 303–310.Google Scholar
Blake, J. R. & Chwang, A. T. 1974 Fundamental singularities of viscous flow. J. Engng Math. 8, 23–29.Google Scholar
Brunn, P. 1981 The hydrodynamic wall effect for a disperse system. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 7, 221–234.Google Scholar
Cortelezzi, L. & Prosperetti, A. 1981 Small-amplitude waves on the surface of a layer of viscous liquid. Q. Appl. Maths 38, 375–389; and erratum 39, 424, 1982.Google Scholar
Davis, A. M. J. 1993 Periodic blocking in parallel shear or channel flow at low Reynolds number. Phys. Fluids A 5, 800–809.Google Scholar
Davis, A. M. J., Kezirian, M. T. & Brenner, H. 1994 On the Stokes-Einstein model of surface diffusion along solid surfaces: slip boundary conditions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 165, 129–140.Google Scholar
Dussan, V., E. B. 1979 On the spreading of liquids on a solid surfaces: Static and dynamic contact lines. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 11, 371–400.Google Scholar
Foldy, L. L. 1945 The multiple scattering of waves, I. General theory of isotropic scattering by randomly distributed scatterers. Phys. Rev. 67, 107–119.Google Scholar
Haley, P. J. & Miksis, M. J. 1991 The effect of the contact line on droplet spreading. J. Fluid Mech. 223, 57–81.Google Scholar
Hasimoto, H. & Sano, O. 1980 Stokeslets and eddies in creeping flow. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 12, 335–363.Google Scholar
Hill, R. & Power, G. 1956 Extremum principles for slow viscous flow and the approximate calculation of drag. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Maths 9, 313–319.Google Scholar
Hinch, E. J. 1977 An averaged-equations approach to particle interactions in a fluid suspension. J. Fluid Mech. 83, 695–720.Google Scholar
Hocking, L. M. 1976 A moving fluid on a rough surface. J. Fluid Mech. 76, 71–95.Google Scholar
Hyman, W. A. 1972 Shear flow over a protrusion from a plane wall. J. Biomech. 5, 45–48; and addendum 643.Google Scholar
Jansons, K. M. 1985 Moving contact lines on a two-dimensional rough surface. J. Fluid Mech. 154, 1–28.Google Scholar
Jansons, K. M. 1986 Moving contact lines at non-zero capillary number. J. Fluid Mech. 167, 393–407.Google Scholar
Jansons, K. M. 1988 Determination of the macroscopic (partial) slip boundary condition for a viscous flow over a randomly rough surface with a perfect slip microscopic boundary condition. Phys. Fluids A 31, 15–17.Google Scholar
Jansons, K. M. 1994 Determination of the slip boundary condition between a gas and a solid with a random array of rough patches. IMA J. Appl. Maths 52, 25–29.Google Scholar
Kim, S. & Karrila, S. J. 1991 Microhydrodynamics: Principles and Selected Applications. Butterworth.
Landau, L. & Lifshitz, E. L. 1959 Fluid Mechanics. Pergamon.
Lorentz, H. A. 1896 Ein allgemeiner Satz, die Bewegung einer reibenden Flüssigkeit betreffend, nebst einigen Anwendungen desselben. Versl. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 5, 168–174.Google Scholar
Miksis, M. J. & Davis, S. H. 1994 Slip over rough and coated surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 273, 125–139.Google Scholar
Nield, D. A. 1983 The boundary condition for the Rayleigh–Darcy problem: limitations of the Brinkman equation. J. Fluid Mech. 128, 37–46.Google Scholar
Nye, J. F. 1969 A calculation on the sliding of ice over a wavy surface using a Newtonian viscous approximation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 311, 445–467.Google Scholar
Nye, J. F. 1970 Glacier sliding without cavitation in a linear viscous approximation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 315, 381–403.Google Scholar
Ogilvy, J. A. 1987 Wave scattering from rough surfaces. Rep. Prog. Phys. 50, 1553–1608.Google Scholar
Ogilvy, J. A. 1991 Theory of Wave Scattering from Random Rough Surfaces Adam Hilger.
O'Neill, M. E. 1968 A sphere in contact with a plane wall in a slow linear shear flow. Chem. Engng Sci. 23, 1293–1298.Google Scholar
Pozrikidis, C. 1992 Boundary Integral and Singularity Methods for Linearized Viscous Flow. Cambridge University Press.
Price, T. C. 1985 Slow linear flow past a hemispherical bump in a wall. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Maths 38, 93–104.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. 1971 A model for the boundary condition of a porous material. Part 2. J. Fluid Mech. 49, 327–336.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. 1973 On the no-slip boundary condition J. Fluid Mech. 59, 707–719.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, J. & Keller, J. B. 1989 Sedimentation of a dilute suspension. Phys. Fluids A 1, 637–643.Google Scholar
Saffman, P. G. 1971 On the boundary condition at the surface of a porous medium. Stud. Appl. Maths 1, 93–101.Google Scholar
Sarkar, K. 1994 Effective boundary conditions for rough surfaces and acoustics of oceanic bubbles. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University.
Sarkar, K. & Prosperetti, A. 1995 Effective boundary conditions for the Laplace equation with a rough boundary. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 451, 425–452.Google Scholar
Stakgold, I. 1979 Green's Functions and Boundary-Value Problems. Wiley.
Taylor, G. I. 1971 A model for the boundary condition of a porous material. Part 1. J. Fluid Mech. 49, 319–326.Google Scholar
Tuck, E. O. & Kouzoubov, A. 1991 A laminar roughness boundary condition. J. Fluid Mech. 300, 59–70.Google Scholar
Twersky, V. 1957 On scattering and reflection of sound by rough surfaces. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 29, 209–225.Google Scholar
Twersky, V. 1983 Reflection and scattering of sound by correlated rough surfaces. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73, 85–94.Google Scholar
Wang, C. Y. 1978 Drag due to a striated boundary in slow Couette flow. Phys. Fluids 21, 697–698.Google Scholar
Wang, C. Y. 1994 The Stokes drag due to the sliding of a smooth plate over a finned plate. Phys. Fluids 6, 2248–2252.Google Scholar
Weinbaum, S., Ganatos, P. & Yan, Z. Y. 1990 Numerical multipole and boundary integral equation techniques in Stokes flow. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 22, 275–316.Google Scholar