Two touching spherical drops in a uniaxial compressional flow: The effect of interfacial slip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a semi-analytical solution for the problem of two touching drops with slipping interfaces pushed against each other in a uniaxial compressional flow at low capillary and Reynolds numbers. The jump in the tangential velocity at the liquid-liquid interface is modeled using the Navier slip condition. Analytical solutions of the contact force, the drop-scale stresses, and the drop-scale pressure are provided as functions of the slip coefficient α, the viscosity ratio κ, and the drop size ratio k. Since unequal drop sizes are considered, two problems are solved in the tangent sphere co-ordinate system to determine the steady state position: a pair of touching drops with its contact point at the origin of an axisymmetric straining flow, and two touching drops placed in a uniform flow parallel to the axis of symmetry of the drops. A general observation is that the effect of slip is manifested most strongly for drops whose viscosity is much greater than the suspending fluid κ≫1. For highly viscous drops, the flow and stress fields transition from those corresponding to solid particles for ακ ≪ 1, to those for inviscid drops in the limit ακ ≫ 1. The analytical expressions provided here for the contact force and the stress distributions will serve to provide the restrictions that complete the definition of the lubrication flow problem in the thin film between the two colliding drops. While the contact force that drains fluid out of the thin film is relatively unaffected by slip, the tangential stress and pressure in the near-contact region are mitigated significantly for ακ ≫ 1. The latter is expected to assist coalescence at high capillary numbers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".