4.7 Article

Two-layer thermally driven turbulence: mechanisms for interface breakup

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 913, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2021.14

关键词

Benard convection; breakup; coalescence; turbulence simulation

资金

  1. ERC-Advanced Grant [740479]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [740479] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The breakup criteria of drops or bubbles in turbulence is commonly believed to be determined by surface tension and inertia, but buoyancy can also play a significant role. Numerical studies on two-dimensional Rayleigh-Benard convection for immiscible fluid layers have shown that buoyancy can have important effects on interface breakup, leading to different types of breakup depending on the Weber number.
It is commonly accepted that the breakup criteria of drops or bubbles in turbulence is governed by surface tension and inertia. However, also buoyancy can play an important role at breakup. In order to better understand this role, here we numerically study two-dimensional Rayleigh-Benard convection for two immiscible fluid layers, in order to identify the effects of buoyancy on interface breakup. We explore the parameter space spanned by the Weber number (the ratio of inertia to surface tension) and the density ratio between the two fluids , at fixed Rayleigh number and Prandtl number . At low , the interface undulates due to plumes. When is larger than a critical value, the interface eventually breaks up. Depending on , two breakup types are observed. The first type occurs at small (e.g. air-water systems) when local filament thicknesses exceed the Hinze length scale. The second, strikingly different, type occurs at large with roughly (e.g. oil-water systems): the layers undergo a periodic overturning caused by buoyancy overwhelming surface tension. For both types, the breakup criteria can be derived from force balance arguments and show good agreement with the numerical results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据