4.8 Article

The importance of fluctuations in fluid mixing

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0702871104

Keywords

atomistic simulation; magnetic levitation; Rayleigh-Taylor

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [K23 AG032910] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A ubiquitous example of fluid mixing is the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, in which a heavy fluid initially sits atop a light fluid in a gravitational field. The subsequent development of the unstable interface between the two fluids is marked by several stages. At first, each interface mode grows exponentially with time before transitioning to a nonlinear regime characterized by more complex hydrodynamic mixing. Unfortunately, traditional continuum modeling of this process has generally been in poor agreement with experiment. Here, we indicate that the natural, random fluctuations of the flow field present in any fluid, which are neglected in continuum models, can lead to qualitatively and quantitatively better agreement with experiment. We performed billion-particle atomistic simulations and magnetic levitation experiments with unprecedented control of initial interface conditions. A comparison between our simulations and experiments reveals good agreement in terms of the growth rate of the mixing front as well as the new observation of droplet breakup at later times. These results improve our understanding of many fluid processes, including interface phenomena that occur, for example, in supernovae, the detachment of droplets from a faucet, and ink jet printing. Such instabilities are also relevant to the possible energy source of inertial confinement fusion, in which a millimeter-sized capsule is imploded to initiate nuclear fusion reactions between deuterium and tritium. Our results suggest that the applicability of continuum models would be greatly enhanced by explicitly including the effects of random fluctuations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available