4.6 Article

Hydrodynamic interactions between squirmers near walls: far-field dynamics and near-field cluster stability

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230223

关键词

microswimmers; biofluid mechanics; propulsion; active matter; stability; low-Reynolds-number flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Confinement increases contacts between microswimmers and affects their interactions. Boundaries can lead to the formation of clusters that would not occur in bulk fluids. Hydrodynamics plays a significant role in boundary-driven encounters between microswimmers, influencing their orientation and stability of clusters.
Confinement increases contacts between microswimmers in dilute suspensions and affects their interactions. In particular, boundaries have been shown experimentally to lead to the formation of clusters that would not occur in bulk fluids. To what extent does hydrodynamics govern these boundary-driven encounters between microswimmers? We consider theoretically the symmetric boundary-mediated encounters of model microswimmers under gravity through far-field interaction of a pair of weak squirmers, as well as the lubrication interactions occurring after contact between two or more squirmers. In the far field, the orientation of microswimmers is controlled by the wall and the squirming parameter. The presence of a second swimmer influences the orientation of the original squirmer, but for weak squirmers, most of the interaction occurs after contact. We thus analyse next the near-field reorientation of circular groups of squirmers. We show that a large number of swimmers and the presence of gravity can stabilize clusters of pullers, while the opposite is true for pushers; to be stable, clusters of pushers thus need to be governed by other interactions (e.g. phoretic). This simplified approach to the phenomenon of active clustering enables us to highlight the hydrodynamic contribution, which can be hard to isolate in experimental realizations.

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

4.6
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