13 views

Uploaded by nica_salvador

- Mills Heat Transfer
- Noise generation in the edge of the flap
- Pipe Mixing Tutorial 1
- Laboratory Work
- Rosa- Turbulence Theories.pdf
- CFD Les Modeling of Aerothermal Prediction of Jets in Cross Flow.pdf
- 1 vortice de agua (1).pdf
- Hamlington-etal-PhysRevE-2008-Local-and-nonlocal-strain-rate-fields-and-vorticity-alignment-in-turbulent-flows.pdf
- Hurricane Mesovortices
- Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Research- A Review of Commercial CFD, FE Codes and Experimental Practices
- 1984 - A Study of the Cross Flow Fan
- Panel.methods
- R/C Soaring Digest - May 2012
- Chap8FAMII
- Drag, Boundary Layer and Hull Roughness on Ship Hull Surface
- Airflow Inside a Vane Separator Zigzag Deflectors
- Optimisation of hydrodynamic cavitation using a model reaction
- b 035205016
- Shirishkumar(TuDelft)
- Open_channel_hydraulics by v t ChoW

You are on page 1of 31

particles with applications to rain in clouds

S Ghosh, J Dávila, J.C.R Hunt, A Srdic, H.J.S Fernando and P.R Jonas

Proc. R. Soc. A 2005 461, 3059-3088

doi: 10.1098/rspa.2005.1490

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/461/2062/3059.full.

html#ref-list-1

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/461/2062/3059.full.html#re

lated-urls

Email alerting service Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in

the box at the top right-hand corner of the article or click here

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

doi:10.1098/rspa.2005.1490

Published online 9 August 2005

settling particles with applications to rain

in clouds

B Y S. G HOSH 1 , J. D ÁVILA 2 , J. C. R. H UNT 3,4 , A. S RDIC 5 ,

H. J. S. F ERNANDO 5 AND P. R. J ONAS 6

1

School of the Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

(sat@env.leeds.ac.uk)

2

Grupe de Mecánica de Fluidos, E.S. Ingenieros, Universidad de Sevilla,

Camino Descubrimientos, s/n lsla Cartuja, C.P. 41092, Spain

3

Department of Space and Climate Physics and Department of Earth Sciences,

University College, London WC1E 6BT, UK

4

Delft University of Technology, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlands

5

Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program, Department of Mechanical and

Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-9809, USA

6

Department of Physics, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

From theoretical, numerical and experimental studies of small inertial particles with

density equal to b(O1) times that of the ﬂuid, it is shown that such particles are

‘centrifuged’ out of vortices and eddies in turbulence. Thus, in the presence of gravitational

acceleration g, their average sedimentation velocity VT in a size range just below a critical

radius acr is increased signiﬁcantly by up to about 80%. We show that in fully developed

turbulence, acr is determined by the circulation Gk of the smallest Kolmogorov micro-scale

eddies, but is approximately independent of the rate of turbulent energy dissipation e,

because Gk is about equal to the kinematic viscosity n. It is shown that acr varies

approximately like n2=3 gK1=3 ðbK 1ÞK1=2 and is about 20 mm (G2 mm) for water droplets in

most types of cloud. New calculations are presented to show how this phenomena causes

higher collision rates between these ‘large’ droplets and those that are smaller than acr,

leading to rapid growth rates of droplets above this critical radius. Calculations of the

resulting droplet size spectra in cloud turbulence are in good agreement with experimental

data. The analysis, which explains why cloud droplets can grow rapidly from 20 to 80 mm

irrespective of the level of cloud turbulence is also applicable where acrw1 mm for typical

sand/mud particles. This mechanism, associated with unequal droplet/particle sizes is not

dependant on higher particle concentration around vortices and the results differ

quantitatively and physically from theories based on this hypothesis.

Keywords: turbulence; coalescence; droplets; clouds

1. Introduction

The initiation of warm rain (where ice particles are not present) in the turbulent

motions within clouds has three main stages. Firstly, condensation of saturated

Accepted 1 April 2005 3059 q 2005 The Royal Society

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

water vapour on to nuclei causes the growth of droplets with radii generally

smaller than 20 mm. Secondly, there is a rapid growth of much larger droplets of

about 80 mm, and thirdly, as they settle relatively faster than the smaller

droplets, the larger droplets grow by collisions with the smaller ones and fall out

of the cloud. The second stage is still not adequately understood or accurately

modelled, in common with other processes in which the average sizes of particles

and bubbles grow in turbulent ﬂows caused by an increased rate of collision and

coalescence (Jonas 1996). The developments in the understanding the structure

of turbulence and the motion of particles in turbulence (Hunt et al. 1994, 2001;

Dávila & Hunt 2001) provides an opportunity to re-examine these problems.

There is still some controversy as to whether this mechanism also controls the

coalescence/ﬂocculation of mud/clay particles in water. The uncertainty is

partly because of the lack of experimental observations, and partly because it is

still not clear that these processes are triggered by pure collisions alone.

The growth rate of cloud particles by condensation in a supersaturated

environment decreases as the particles become larger, owing to the reduced

surface to volume ratio and as a result, even if the initial particle size spectrum is

broad, subsequent growth of the particles would lead to a narrowing of the

spectrum as the mean size increases, if all particles were exposed to the same

supersaturation. Recently, it has become possible to measure droplets with a

much higher spatial resolution. Observed droplet spectra at all levels in most

water clouds are generally broader than spectra modelled on this basis. In

addition, it is also observed that growth by coalescence is very slow until some

droplets have reached a critical radius of ca 20 mm, whereupon in deep clouds

with high values of the liquid water content, subsequent growth to drizzle size

may take only a few minutes (Jonas 1996). A major concern for researchers in the

ﬁeld of cloud physics is to ﬁnd the cause of this transition to fast growth (see

ﬁgure 1).

Many of the early calculations of particle growth in clouds were based on the

assumption that the particle grew in stagnant air. However, observations show

that most clouds are very turbulent with dissipation rates ranging from 10K4 to

10K1 m2 sK3 in cumulus clouds (Smith & Jonas 1995). In this paper, we have

critically examined the role of turbulence in inducing microphysical alterations.

In order to explain the broad spectrum observed, two main mechanisms have

been proposed; namely, collisions caused by differential settling velocities of

particles as in the third stage, and collisions forced by the turbulent eddying

motion in the clouds caused by buoyancy forces associated with long temporal

ﬂuctuations. If the effect of turbulence is not considered, the former mechanism is

too slow (Mason 1952). In one of the ﬁrst models for the effect of turbulence,

Brunk et al. (1998) suggested that straining within Kolmogorov micro-scale

eddies would accelerate the collision relative velocity of colliding droplets. Pinsky

& Khain (1997a) analysed the motion of inertial particles in turbulence using a

statistical model and numerical simulations to show how the centrifuging action

of vortical eddies tends to concentrate particles near the periphery and thereby

amplify droplet coalescence (see also Shaw 2000). However, in many

microphysical models, turbulence induced fall velocity enhancements depend

rather critically on the energy of the turbulence. Spectral broadening effects in

cloud appear whenever there are a few drops with radii of ca 20 mm. In fact,

observations indicate that the collision efﬁciencies increase around a critical size

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

1 km

newly formed

1 km rain droplet

(100;100;70)

cloud droplet (10;106;1)

aerosol

particles

(0.1;106;10–4)

Figure 1. Schematic showing the diversity of spatial scales, vortices and particle number

concentrations in cloud microphysical calculations. The numbers within brackets refer to radius in

microns, number per litre and terminal velocity of droplets in cm sK1, respectively.

of 20 mm over a wide range of turbulent energy dissipation rates (see Jonas 1996

and references therein). Thus, ideally, one should be able to derive this critical

size (over which turbulence effects can enhance droplet coalescence) theoreti-

cally. Indeed, in this paper, we have achieved this through scaling analysis (see

equation (3.5) of the present paper). In addition to the above-mentioned papers,

two review papers discuss in some detail the problem of particle–turbulence

interactions and the consequent implications for cloud microphysical appli-

cations. Vaillancourt & Yau (2000) have reviewed laboratory and numerical

work, concluding that the majority of direct numerical simulations have not

accounted for gravity and have focused on Stokes numbers close to unity where

preferential concentration is found to be the most prominent. In addition, they

argue that the effect of preferential concentration during diffusional growth

cannot be treated as a good mechanism to explain droplet spectral broadening in

adiabatic cloud cores. The other recent review paper by Shaw (2003) summarizes

recent advances in this area (including the mechanism suggested by Dávila &

Hunt (2001) and its subsequent application by Ghosh & Jonas (2001)) and, in

particular, they point out that the inﬂuence of ﬁne-scale turbulence on the

condensation process may be limited. Shaw also points to mechanisms of ﬁne-

scale intermittency, droplet number density ﬂuctuations, entrainment and

mixing in addition to the processes of collision and coalescence. From the

discussions given in these two reviews, it is clear that an exploration into

ﬂuid–particle interactions that does not depend sensitively on the droplet

clustering mechanisms should be explored further. Nevertheless, these and other

full-scale and laboratory studies agree that the coalescence of cloud droplets is

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

Goldsmith 1972). To date, there have been no attempts to explain this apparent

contradiction. Our approach considers an important mechanism in addition to

the various other mechanisms reviewed.

Apart from these areas of research interests that we have just discussed,

another active ongoing research area relates to the modiﬁcation of collision

efﬁciencies of colliding droplets in turbulence. A literature survey (including the

reviews by Shaw 2003; Vaillancourt & Yau 2000) unanimously point out that

the collision efﬁciency of cloud droplets can be increased by turbulence–particle

interactions. Pinsky et al. (2000) have calculated collision efﬁciencies of small

cloud droplets in a turbulent ﬂow and found that the mean values of the

collision efﬁciency and the kernel are higher in turbulent ﬂows than in still air.

This is an ongoing research area in cloud microphysical studies and featured

prominently at the recent 14th International Conference in Cloud Physics in

July 2004. Papers by Erlick et al. (2004), Franklin et al. (2004), Pinsky et al.

(2004) and Wang et al. (2004) have presented recent estimates on collision

efﬁciencies and collision rates in turbulence. The results from these studies have

enabled us to obtain a broad estimate of the collision kernel enhancements in

turbulence.

The objective of this paper is to apply recent research (which is reviewed in §2)

on the enhanced settling of particles in turbulent ﬂows. This leads to new

quantitative estimates for the particle motion in the typical vortices of high Re

turbulence and the consequences on the droplet distribution. It is shown how this

rational theory can be applied to various physical situations. Our calculations

and scaling analysis establish a critical droplet size for droplet fall velocity

enhancements when an ensemble of droplets interacts with a vortex. The critical

size prescribes the fall speed that should be right for this ampliﬁcation to be most

effective. In addition, our proposed mechanism, associated with unequal droplet

sizes, is not dependent on higher particle concentrations around vortices (as

proposed by Falkovich et al. 2002), where the higher number concentrations

ensure enhanced droplet collisions.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In §2, we discuss the broad issues of

the interaction between particles and ﬂuid turbulence and review the dominant

mechanisms that can affect cloud microphysical processes. In §3, we discuss the

main theoretical considerations leading to our new estimates of the average

settling rates for particles around vortices and the mechanism of enhanced

collisions between particles of different sizes. This is followed by applications of

the theory to turbulent ﬂows and comparison with laboratory experiments. In §4,

we apply our theoretical and experimental results to cloud microphysical

simulations. We evaluate the evolution of a typical cloud droplet spectrum with

and without the centrifuging action of the vortices. Finally, we evaluate raindrop

spectra with and without turbulence effects, and are able to predict the

existence/non existence of large raindrops without artiﬁcial adjustments for the

ﬁrst time. Although other mechanisms have been proposed for turbulent

enhancement of rain formation, none have been able to produce a broad

spectrum simply by including turbulence assisted collisions in the spectral

development. In §5, we discuss the wider applications of this model to particles,

droplets and bubbles in liquids.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

The interaction between particles and turbulent eddies with typical time-scale

TL are studied using numerical simulations, laboratory measurements and

theory. Some of these earlier numerical results have shown that inertial bias

causes particles to accumulate on the outside of twisted tube-like vortical

structures (Jiménez et al. 1993), with the general tendency of the particles being

to disperse faster than ﬂuid elements (e.g. Squires & Eaton 1991). Maxey &

Corrsin (1986), Maxey (1987), and Wang & Maxey (1993) showed by numerical

simulations that the settling rate VT of typical inertial particles with time-scale

tp may be slightly larger (!20%) than the terminal velocity in still ﬂuid VTO

because the particles tend to fall preferentially in the downward ﬂow regions of

the velocity ﬁeld, which are generally formed between neighbouring regions of

vorticity. In addition, some direct numerical simulation (DNS) studies by

Sundaram & Collins (1997) and Yang & Lei (1998) have also been reported with

conclusions broadly similar to those obtained from Wang & Maxey (1993).

Fevrier (2000) showed that this increase could be substantially greater for a

particular range of inertial particles for which the Stokes number StZtp/TLO0

and were found to accumulate in regions of low vorticity and high strain rates

(Squires & Eaton 1991). The earlier results of Wang & Maxey (1993) have shown

how small-scale dynamics cause intense vorticity in turbulent ﬂows to form at

dissipation-range scales and that particles accumulate in the low vorticity

regions of the ﬂow. They do not accumulate here because the ﬂow is faster and

there are straining regions. However, they do spend an increased time at particle-

stagnation points. Their numerical results in homogeneous isotropic turbulence

indicated that maximum preferential accumulation occurs when the inertial

time-scale of the particles are comparable to the smallest time-scales of the ﬂow.

Because of the intense vorticity at the dissipation range scales, this suggests that

particles accumulate in the low vorticity regions of the ﬂow and are centrifuged

away from the vortex cores. However, the fact that certain particles are deﬂected

into particular zones around vortices increases the local void fraction of the

particles. Could this effect further increase the ﬂuid interaction between these

particles and increase their fall speed (in proportion to the local concentration)?

This is the suggestion of Hainaux et al. (2000), who recently measured the fall

speed of particles in a turbulent air stream. As we shall show, this is a weaker

effect for cloud particles than the former effect of inertial particles moving in the

downﬂow side of the vortices. The question of the role of local concentration is

also important for estimating collisions between droplets; the ﬁrst mechanism we

show to be the most effective is that the relative speeds of particles and therefore

collision rates for different sizes are enhanced by their motion around turbulent

vortices. The second is that certain sizes of particles are concentrated around

these vortices, so that they encounter each other more often than in the

surrounding ﬂow and their relative acceleration is thereby affected.

To understand and model the average settling velocity VT of small dense

particles (such as cloud droplets) descending and colliding in turbulence, we

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

apply the results of Dávila & Hunt (2001) to analyse particles around an isolated

vortex with circulation G (with radius Rv and maximum velocity UvZG/Rv).

(Note that, generally, the acceleration in a Kolmogorov micro-scale eddy is small

relative to that due to gravity (i.e. e3=4 =ðn1=4 gÞ10K1 ), but there are occasional

intense vortices where this inequality does not apply). The very small particles

with radius a have an acceleration

dV 1

Z ðu C v TO K V Þ; (2.1)

dt tp

where v is the velocity of the particle and u is the unperturbed velocity of the

ﬂuid at the position of the particle. The settling or terminal velocity in still ﬂuid

estimated by using Stokes linear drag law is

where n is the kinematic viscosity of the ﬂuid (ca 10K5 m2 sK1 in air) and b is the

ratio of the density of the particle to that of the ﬂuid (ca 103 for cloud droplets).

These quantities provide the reference scales for considering how the particle

moves near a vortex. Numerically, the trajectories of the particles can be

obtained by integrating (2.1) together with dX/dtZV given certain initial

conditions (e.g. V ðX 0 ; t0 ÞZ uðX 0 ÞC V TO ). Where the ratio, u, of the terminal

velocity VTO to the maximum velocity in the vortex Uv is less than about 1.0,

Dávila & Hunt (2001) show that the effect of the vortex on the settling velocity is

determined by the non-dimensional ‘particle Froude number’ Fp, deﬁned by the

ratio of the stopping distance (VTOtp) of the droplet to the characteristic radius

(G/VTO) of the trajectory of the droplet around the vortex:

VTO tp

Fp Z : (2.4)

G=VTO

It should also be noted that the new deﬁnition of the particle Froude number in

equation (2.4) enables us to also obtain an alternative deﬁnition of the Stokes

number, which is more relevant to our analysis than the conventional deﬁnition.

The Stokes number deﬁned in Dávila & Hunt (2001) is deﬁned as tp/tr, where tr

is the residence time of a ﬂuid particle around the vortices. Further, if the

residence time of the particles to move around the vortices is much shorter than

the lifetime of the vortical structures, then particle trajectories can be calculated

by considering that the ﬂow is stationary (see Dávila & Hunt 2001). Using the

result of that paper and that of Vincent & Meneguzzi (1994), this can be

2

expressed as G=VTO / TI . TI is a time-scale of the order of the ratio of a typical

large length-scale and a typical velocity-scale, and is therefore usually in the

range of 10–100 s.

When the effect of the particle inertia is very small (Fp/1), it passes round

the vortex and the net change in VT (averaged over the whole life of the particle

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

near the vortex and over a range of starting positions on the scale of G/VTO

or Rv, whichever is the larger) from its value VTO in still ﬂuid is negligible (i.e.

vZVT/VTOx1.0). However, when the inertia is large enough that FpwO(1), the

particles are ﬂung outwards; then, v rapidly increases to a maximum value vmax

of about 2.0 (for 1.0RuR0.7, where FpxFpmax). With a small further increase in

inertia, the particles ‘crash’ through the vortex and are on average slightly

delayed, so that v is reduced to a minimum value vmin of about 0.7 (for u%1.0

where FpZFpminx4). For very large inertia or large u, the vortex has negligible

effect on the settling rate, and vZ1.0. (These values of vmax and vmin are

calculated for particles released at a level above the vortex equal to about 10

times its radius Rv, falling to an equivalent distance below the vortex.) In

addition, large inertia particles have a stopping distance VTOtp greater than the

distance between the eddies Dlv (see ﬁgure 2a) so that they average out the effect

of individual eddies and vx1. It is important to point out that vR1.0 and

Fp%1.0 for droplets with radii in the range of 5–10 mm, ensuring velocity

enhancements even in this size range. This has signiﬁcant cloud microphysical

implications. First, droplet pairs within this regime have their fall velocities

enhanced when they interact with the micro-scale vortices within clouds and this

can lead to increased collision and capturing among droplets that eventually

yield realistic spectral distributions (see ﬁgure 6). Secondly, our analysis also

supports the well-established observation that collisions between unequal droplet

sizes are favoured over collisions between droplet pairs that have similar sizes

(see ﬁgure 4a,b).

Qualitatively, these results are well known, experimentally and theoretically,

particularly the ‘centrifuging’ out of inertial particles in gas and liquid ﬂows and

changes in the settling velocities of particles in turbulent ﬂows with vortices

(Maxey 1987; Perkins et al. 1991; Fung 1993). However, a systematic calculation

for the increase and decrease in the average settling velocity over a wide

parameter range is new, as is the derivation of a new scaling in terms of (G/VTO),

to replace other deﬁnitions of the Stokes number for vortices (e.g. Marcu et al.

1995). The trapping of inertial particles in vortices (Toobey et al. 1977) found in

hydraulic ﬂows is not relevant here where b is very large.

The motions of the particles around a vortex vary greatly if their sizes lie

within certain ranges. This can substantially increase the probability of collisions

in a time tc between pairs of different sizes, with large and small radii a, a^,

respectively, having terminal fall speeds VTO ð a Þ, VTO ð^

aÞ. In still air, the

probability Pc is proportional to the length of a vertical collision line lco in which

all the larger particles must be positioned at tZ0 if they are to collide with the

smaller particle in time Dtc, where lco Z Dtc ðVTO ð a ÞK VTO ð^

aÞÞ. As the large

particle moves round a vortex (see ﬁgure 3a,b) starting at time tZ0, it collides

with a small particle also released at time tZ0, if they start on a curved ‘collision

line’ lc. If the large particle lies in the critical range where VT is signiﬁcantly

greater than VTO, then because lc is greater than lco, the probability of a collision

is proportionally greater.

In addition to the considerations described above, some other interesting

features emerge from the Dávila & Hunt (2001) theory, which relate to droplets

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

(a)

B A VTO

C

G/ VTO

Rv

∆ lv

(b)

VT

VTO 1.0

0 Fp

10–3 10–2 10–1 1 101 102

a

acr

0.3 0.45 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.25

(c)

d(VTVTO)

d(a /acr)

0

a

acr

0.3 0.45 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.25

Figure 2. Mechanisms of particles falling near vortices: (a) typical trajectories of settling particles

A, B, C moving around a vortex with strength G and radius Rv with increasing fall speed VTO.

Here, Dlv is the distance between vortices; (b) average settling velocity ratio VT/VTO versus the

particle Froude number Fp and particle radius ratio a/acr; (c) d(VT/VTO)/d(a/acr) versus a/acr.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

Figure 3. Collision mechanisms: (a) colliding droplets settling in still air in the absence of vortices

with larger and smaller radii a, a^. Note the vertical collision distance lco; (b) colliding droplets

descending near an isolated vortex. Note the curved collision line with length lc; the large droplet

collides with a smaller droplet both released at tZ0, if they start on the curved collision line; (c)

variation of lc relative to lco for still ﬂuid over a typical horizontal distance, El Z ðlc =lco K 1Þ!

ðDtc V TO Þ=ðG=V^ TO Þ for smaller particles with F^ p Z 4 and V^ TO Z 0:7, and larger particles with

F p Z 5 and V TO Z 0:8.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

interacting within intense vortex lines. Two additional collision mechanisms are

relevant to cloud microphysical calculations. Firstly, for droplets moving

between line vortices, the ratio of the average collision length to the length in

still air hlci/lco in a horizontal box of size Dlv can be expressed in a closed form

after some algebra (see appendix A):

hlc i ðG=V^ TO Þ2 D^ K l2 D

Z1C : (2.5)

lco ^ TO 1 K l

Dlv Dtc V

As before, lco is the collision distance taken by a large droplet of radius a to

collide with a small droplet of radius a^ in time Dt c in still ﬂuid

ðlco Z ðV TO K V^ TO ÞDtc Þ. V TO and V ^ TO are the settling velocities of the large

and the small droplets in still ﬂuid. Dlv is typically a measure of the distance

between the vortices, which is comparable to the vortex diameter and

lZ V^ TO =V TO ðl! 1Þ, D ^ and D are the dimensionless ‘drift’ integrals correspond-

ing to the small and large droplets. When Fp%1, both D! ^ 0 and D !0 and

2 ^

jl Dj! jDj. This results in a smaller collision distance (i.e. hlci/lco!1). This

implies that in order to have the maximum collision enhancement induced by

turbulence the droplet radii must be such that D ^ !0. Equation (2.5) shows that

hlci/lco increases in proportion to the effective trapping radius of the vortex

G=V^ TO and inversely to the assumed time between collision Dtc. Hence, we deﬁne

a normalized value of the fraction of the collision length increment for the

distance between the intense vortex lines given by El Z ðlc =lco K 1Þ

ðDtc V TO Þ=ðG=V^ TO Þ. By calculating how lc varies over a typical range of the

initial location X0, one can estimate the average value of lc, hlci, for all particles of

a particular size a descending round a typical vortex and thence the average

value of El and the probability pð a ; a^Þ that a larger particle will collide with a

smaller particle of size a^. The ratio hlci/lco is a measure of the increase in this

probability compared with collisions in still ﬂuid. The calculations show that lc

has a maximum at an initial position X0M for the small particle corresponding to

smaller velocities than in still ﬂuid, and for the large particle larger velocities

than in still ﬂuid (these particles pass close to the equilibrium points described by

Dávila & Hunt 2001). Smaller particles moving in the downﬂow side of the vortex

settle faster, which implies that lc has a minimum at X0M corresponding to

particles moving on that region. This variation is shown in ﬁgure 3c.

Considering cloud droplets settling in air with radii between 10 and 35 mm,

and with a typical vortex circulation GZ1.5!10K4 m2 sK1 (assuming G ca 10n)

and radius RvZ1.5 mm, it is found that El is negative up to droplet radii smaller

than 35 mm. This shows that for the most efﬁcient droplet capture between an

ensemble of colliding droplets, the maximum collision enhancement is achieved

when there are some droplets whose radii exceed 35 mm. However, when the

droplet radius is somewhat greater than 35 mm, El changes sign leading to

collision enhancements, since the drift integral DO0 for values of FpO1

(see ﬁg. 10 of Dávila & Hunt 2001). For Fp!1 the effect of the vortices on the

average settling velocities of droplets is smaller for the larger particles. This is

because the effective area of the line vortices that modify the droplet trajectories,

ðG=V^ TO Þ2 , decreases as a4. As in the theory of Falkovich (2002), it appears that

collision rates are not simply related to fall speed or to concentration or

probabilities of lying in the vortex core.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

Figure 4a,b shows the position of droplet pairs with radii 20 and 25 mm and 5

to 10 mm, respectively. The X- and Y-axes are each normalized with the vortex

radius Rv. These are calculated using (2.1) as in Dávila & Hunt (2001) for the

droplet pairs moving around a vortex with circulation GZ1.5!10K4 m2 sK1 and

radius RvZ1.5 mm (to consider the effect of gravity in non-horizontal vortices,

the terminal velocity should be projected on the plane perpendicular to the

vortex axis). Figure 4a shows that for the 20–25 mm droplet pair (with a 20%

difference in radius), there is a very small increase in the probability of collisions,

whereas for the 5 to 10 mm pair (with 100% difference), there are multiple

collisions (ﬁgure 4b). This indicates that this vortex–particle model is consistent

with the well-established observational result that the probability of collision

between droplets of unequal sizes is higher than the collision probability of

similarly sized droplets.

Other theories have addressed the issue of droplet spectral broadening by

invoking various mechanisms that depend sensitively on turbulent energy

dissipation (Pinsky & Khain 1997b), on enhanced droplet concentrations around

vortices (note that the higher number concentration ensures enhanced droplet

collisions) as in the Falkovich (2002) study or on particle interactions with

intense vortex tubes (as in the Shaw 2000 study), which are again concentration-

dependent. Shaw’s scale analysis also showed that the vortex tubes were

sufﬁciently intense and persistent so that they caused larger ﬂux divergences in

the local concentrations of cloud droplets. From our analysis, we have been able

to explicitly show that the probability of collision between two droplets with

widely different radii are much higher than collisions between droplets having

comparable radii—a well established observational result (Pruppacher & Klett

1997). This feature is not apparent in these earlier theories.

Collisions involving very small droplets (for which Fp!1 and u!1) can also

occur within the vortices (see ﬁgure 2a). As explained above, most of these

particles that fall towards a vortex are advected towards it and tend to be swept

around the vortex by the mean streamlines and by their own inertia in the curved

ﬂow (e.g. Squires & Eaton 1991). However, as a result of other mechanisms in the

interior of such vortices, a signiﬁcant number of small particles may be present.

This is ﬁrstly because as such vortices grow on a time-scale tv (e.g. Jiménez et al.

1993) and they surround any small particle present provided tp!tv. Then, the

vortices trap the particles for a certain time tvp. In high Reynolds number

turbulence tv wðe=nÞK1=2 w10K1 s in typical clouds (Pruppacher & Klett 1997).

Usually, the vortices last for a longer period as they decay than during their growth

phase. For a typical 10 mm droplet, tpw10K3 s, so that these droplets can certainly

be trapped. The time for such low inertial particles with a fall speed VT to escape

beyond the cavity region is given by tvpwRp/vp, where RpwG/VTO and

np wðVTO tp ÞðVTO =Rp Þ. Thence tvp wgG2 =VTO 5

(provided Fp!1). Typically,

for 10 to 20 mm particles in the atmosphere, RpwRv for micro-scale eddies and

tvpTtv. We conclude that the critical scale, small inertia, particles can remain

trapped in these vortices over the lifetime of the micro-scale vortices. (Although

direct numerical simulations cannot describe micro-scale dynamics in turbulence

with a realistic spectrum, they do show low concentrations of small inertial

particles in the most intense vortices (Squires & Eaton 1991).)

This trapping mechanism in the smallest eddies gives rise to two collision

mechanisms, which differ from those outside the vortices. The ﬁrst involves

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

(a) 25

15

5

Y(t)

–5

–15

–25

–20 –15 –10 –5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

X(t)

(b) 250

200

150

100

50

Y(t)

–50

–100

–150

–200

–250

–200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

X(t)

Figure 4. (a) Colliding droplet pairs with radii 20 and 25 mm descending near an isolated vortex

with circulation GZ1.5!10K4 m2 sK1 and radius RvZ1.5 mm calculated from the Dávila & Hunt

(2001) theory. Note the absence of collisions. (b) Colliding droplet pairs with radii 5 and 10 mm

descending near an isolated vortex with circulation GZ1.5!10K4 m2 sK1 and radius RvZ1.5 mm

calculated from the Dávila & Hunt (2001) theory. Note the presence of multiple collisions.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

Table 1. Particle settling ratios outside and inside vortices showing how in different ranges of the

stopping/vortex ratio Fp the effective particle settling velocity vZVT/VTO normalized on its value in

still ﬂuid, is increased or decreased for characteristic vortices

(Here we focus on critical particle sizes where Fpw1, which implies that for typical Kolmogorov

micro-scale eddies acrw(n/(bK1))1/2(g/RK1/4

v ); that is, acr ca 20 mm in air, acr ca 1 mm in water.)

internal particlesb v( 1½1I v( 1½2I v !1½3I v w 1½4I

a

Note that the effect on v of external particles is only signiﬁcant if VTOtp!Dlv.bParticles can only

be trapped within a vortex if tp!tv and only spend a signiﬁcant time there, in relation to its

passage around the vortex, if tvpTRv/VTO.

critical scale particles (FpT1), which are initially trapped and then thrown out,

and in doing so, collide with very small particles (Fp/1). The second involves

all the small particles (Fp!1, v!1), which are trapped and therefore collide with

any much larger particles (FpT1, vO1), which crash through these vortices

without being deﬂected.

Thus, applying the two set of results to the overall distributions of droplets

and vortices, we conclude that there are two ranges of the vortex–droplet

parameters that need to be considered (see table 1 below).

From this table, it is clear that the greatest differences of relative settling

velocity occur between particles in categories [2]E, [3]E in the table; that is,

for the external particles that lie outside the vortices and in a size range

close to that of the critical diameter acr, as deﬁned by Fpw1, uw1. For the

internal particles that are trapped, the largest difference occurs between large

particles that cut through the vortex [4]I and the small particles that are

trapped [2]I.

From the point of view of collisions, the difference in the former category of

external particles is more signiﬁcant because it applies to small particles that are

close in size to each other. These are more numerous than the larger particles and

are continuously being nucleated.

Although our calculations have been mainly concerned with cloud droplets

with radii ca 20 mm interacting with micro-scale eddies, it is also possible that

turbulence can modify the settling rates of the larger droplets interacting with

even larger eddies. However, from equation (3.5) (see §3 below), we note that

because the critical radius acr has a 1/6 power dependence on the vortex

circulation, its value even for inertial range eddies lies in the range 20–30 mm.

prediction of critical particle sizes

The previous theoretical concepts for particles near vortices are now compared

with Srdic and Fernando’s (Srdic 1998) laboratory measurements. Using the

Digimage system, they studied the effects of ‘mixing-box’ turbulence on the settling

of small dense particles in water with radii varying between 22.5 and 355 mm over

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

a range of b between 1.4 and 8.7. In these experiments, the spectrum was only large

enough for the small scales, approximate to that of high Reynolds number inertial

range turbulence over a limited range of scales (Kit et al. 1997), but the Reynolds

number was large enough (Rex200) so that there were active vortical motion with

vortices formed having diameters with typical magnitude R and circulation G(R).

These were observed to be separated by distances of the order of R. Thus, in

ﬁgure 2a, the net effect of a vortex on the fall speed is only signiﬁcant for particles

when the characteristic distance G/VTO is less than the distance Dlv between the

eddies, that is, if

VT tp ! R: (3.1)

The speeding up effect of the vortices on VT is a maximum when Fpw1, where

2

Fp Z VTO tp =G. Srdic and Fernando’s experimental results for v plotted as a

2

function of a large-scale particle Froude ratio FPL Z VTO tp =ðUL LÞ (where UL is the

maximum vortex velocity with radius L) showed that v increased from 1.3 to about

1.8 when FPL was about 0.8!10K3 (G20%), and decreased to about 0.8 for

FPL x3 ! 10 K 3 . As noted previously, in Fevrier’s (2000) simulations, this range of

increase and decrease in v was also found. For FPL greater than 4!10K3 v was equal

to 1.0. These low values of large scale FPL correspond to values of Fp of order unity

for micro-scale vortices in the ﬂow (with characteristic velocity Ukw(en)1/4 and

length-scale Rkw(e/n3)K1/4). The fact that the particle motions were primarily

distorted by small-scale vortices was conﬁrmed by the measured small spikes in the

frequency spectrum of the velocity of the particle at the micro time-scale lk/vk. The

experiment not only conﬁrmed the prediction of a signiﬁcantly larger increase than

decrease in settling velocity over a narrow parameter range, but also showed how

‘empty’ regions exist around and below the vortices from which the inertial

particles have been expelled. This was expected from the theory when the ratio

uL(ZVTO/UL) was between 0.2 and 1.2.

Applying these results to the settling of the smallest droplets in a cloud with a

radius a, it follows that v(a) can only be signiﬁcantly increased if vortical eddies

exist of scale R whose strength G is such that Fp(R)w1. Therefore, from

equations (2.2) and (2.3)

2 a 6 g2 ðb K 1Þ3

GðRÞ wVTO tp w : (3.2)

ð9=2Þ3 n3

Analysing the structure of turbulence provides an estimate for G(R) for the

vortices formed over many scales with radius R (e.g. Sundaram & Collins 1997;

Hunt 2000). At the micro-scales where RZRk, the circulation

G Z Gk wUk Rk wðenÞ1=4 ðn3 =eÞ1=4 wn: (3.3)

A key point of this theory is the observation that Gk is independent of the

energy of the turbulence. Physically, this is because as e increases, the peak

velocity Uk increases, but the radius Rk decreases by the same amount. For RO

Rk, the circulation of eddies in the inertial range G(R) increases with their

radius as

GðRÞ wnðR=Rk Þ4=3 : (3.4)

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

From equation (3.2), it follows that the smallest radius acr of droplets whose

settling velocities are increased (by up to about 80%) is given by

In air acrw20 mm, and in water, for bZ2, acrw100 mm. Note that for these

particles in the micro-scale eddies

gba2 =n

VTO =Uk w ; (3.6)

ðenÞ1=4

for aw10 mm. This shows why the turbulence must be intense enough and e

large enough for VTO/Uk(1. Thus, for droplets with a smaller radius than

20 mm, since VT increases in proportion to a2, Fp is much less than 1.0 and

therefore the particle fall speed is not on average increased (i.e. vx1). In a high

Reynolds number turbulence where there is a full inertial range of vortical

eddies varying in size (R) down to the Kolmogorov micro-scale, typical

velocities increases with radius U(R)we1/3R1/3. We can apply the formula (3.2)

to estimate the critical size of particles acr(R) that are accelerated by eddies

with scale R larger than Rk; it follows that

This shows that even the eddies that are 100 times larger than the micro-scale

eddies also tend to accelerate and concentrate particles with diameters in the

range 20–30 mm. This is why the result (3.5) is quite robust.

We also have to consider the ratio VT(acr(R))/U(R) for the critical size of

particles for eddies in this range. The typical eddy velocity U(R)w(e1/3R1/3)

increases in proportion to R1/3, and from (2.2), (3.7) (VT(acr)) increases as a2 or

R1/3. It follows that the ratio VT(acr(R))/U(R) is approximately constant so that

if (3.6) is satisﬁed the basic criterion for the ‘acceleration’ effect is satisﬁed for all

particles in this range.

When particles reach 80–100 mm, their fall speed becomes comparable with

that of the energy containing eddies in the turbulence so that U(R) reaches its

maximum value. Then, VT/U(R) increases and the acceleration effect ceases.

These calculations are consistent with the experiments of Srdic and Fernando

and earlier measurements of enhanced settling rates. In fact, experimental

evidence of much enhanced sedimentation in turbulence (by even more than

80%) was observed by Nielsen (1992). When the void fraction is greater than

the typical cloud value of about 10K5 (or the mass loading greater than 10K2),

the tendency of inertial particles in the critical range to be concentrated

(around vortices) causes them to settle even faster (Hainaux et al. 2000).

(As discussed in §2, we conclude this is not the relevant mechanism for cloud

droplet formation.)

In order to justify the applicability of the Dávila & Hunt (2001) calculations to

cloud microphysics, some further ﬂuid mechanical details need to be elaborated.

This is now discussed. First, it is important to note that the vortex representation

in the Dávila & Hunt formulation can indeed be applicable to clouds. The theory is

not only valid for horizontal vortices (see eqn (6.3) of that paper). Although the

calculation of the drift integral in the Dávila & Hunt paper is for horizontal

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

vortices, one can work with the projection of the terminal velocity on the plane

perpendicular to the vortex axis for any other orientation. We have focused on the

effect of cylindrical vortices because only in regions of strong vorticity can the

trajectories of heavy particles change so that the average velocity is altered. This is

based on the fact that slow accelerations lead to small Stokes–Froude numbers for

the particles and therefore the average velocity is close to that in still ﬂuid.

Moreover, as pointed out by Maxey (1987) and others, only regions of high

vorticity can create nearly empty regions and deviations in particle trajectories.

We ensured that the inter-vortex distance was comparable to the diameters of the

vortices. We have considered only values of vortex circulation of the order of the

kinematic viscosity, the typical values found in DNS, although Jiménez et al.

(1993) suggest that there may be a weak pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ dependence on the Reynolds number

based on the Taylor micro-scale ðGf Rel Þ.

The methodology of this calculation is not based on a precise statement that

turbulence consists exclusively of vortices. It is an approximate physical

calculation in which one isolates a mechanism that has a strong macroscopic

effect and estimates its signiﬁcance in relation to overall data. This has always

been the approach in cloud physics studies, and the earlier results have not been

in agreement with data because the collision/settling mechanism was not the

most signiﬁcant mechanism. The sign and magnitude of the effects of the

mechanism do not depend sensitively on the precise distribution and orientation

of vortices.

The laboratory experiments of homogeneous turbulence of Srdic and Fernando

(Re of about 100; Srdic 1998) show through visualization how particles of a

certain size are deﬂected/excluded from random vortices in the ﬂow. More

signiﬁcantly, they show how the mean fall speed rises (by 80%) and falls (by

20%) with turbulence relative to still ﬂuid by an amount that approximately

corresponds to the Dávila & Hunt (2001) calculation for a typical distribution of

single vortices. The separations of the vortices are comparable with the diameter

of the vortices.

For very high Reynolds number turbulence, there is still no detailed data

available; except laboratory visualizations (e.g. by Douady et al. 1991) certainly

show these structures exist and with a distribution in space (a factor of 10 radii

between them) quite comparable with the hypothesized spacing in the Davila

and Hunt model.

There is some evidence from the experiments and numerical simulations of

Perkins et al. (1991) that the increased fall speed is also found in inhomogeneous

shear ﬂows. They found that in a horizontal turbulent air jet, small inertia

particles, where VTwuo, were found to fall signiﬁcantly faster than in still air,

but for the heavier particles, where VTOuo, there was no such effect. This

explains the discrepancy presented in that paper between the experimental

results and the predictions of their stochastic simulation model which did not

account for the faster settling of particles (which is normally assumed in such

models).

Finally, we wish to point out that the Dávila and Hunt mechanism has now

been referred to in recent work concerned with rain enhancements in turbulence

as in the Falvovich (2002) paper published in Nature and also in the review paper

by Shaw (2003).

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

The collision rate C ð a ; a^Þ between larger droplets (collector droplets) of radius a

and smaller droplets (collected droplets) of radius a^ is determined by the velocity

difference DVT ða ; a^Þ between the droplets and the efﬁciency E with which they

collide. The velocity enhancements are size dependent, as was shown by Dávila &

Hunt (2001), and hence the relative velocity DVT ð a ; a^Þ between droplet pairs is

very often different from a conventional relative velocity using still air fall

velocities. Although we have seen in ﬁgure 3b,c how the collision process is

complex around a vortex, an estimate for the collision rate allowing for its

increase in these vortical ﬂows is

C ð

a ; a^Þ Z jDVT ð

a ; a^ÞjEð

a ; a^Þ; (4.1)

where Eð a ; a^Þ (O0) is the collision efﬁciency. We used the stochastic collection

equation (SCE) solver employing the ﬂux method developed by Bott (1998).

From various sensitivity studies, Bott (1998) showed that the ﬂux method

remains numerically stable for different choices of the grid mesh and the

integration time-step. The hydrodynamic collection kernel that is used in the

SCE solver is simply the collision rate given by equation (4.1) multiplied by

pða C a^Þ2 (Pruppacher & Klett 1997). In the original SCE solver developed by

Bott (1998), the collision efﬁciencies were taken from Long (1974), although Bott

(1998) used other collision efﬁciencies (e.g. Davis 1972; Hall 1980) for various

numerical experiments with satisfactory results. While evaluating the hydro-

dynamic kernels, we used look-up tables for specifying the collision efﬁciencies,

which varied with every pair of the collector and the collected drop radii. In our

paper, since we are mainly concerned with relatively small droplets (where the

collector drop radius a !40 mm) the data are taken from Davis (1972) and Jonas

(1972). Figure 5a shows the kernels with and without the effects of enhanced

sedimentation; the solid lines correspond to the case with the enhanced

sedimentation and the dashed lines to pure gravitational settling. In order to

single out the sedimentation effects exclusively, we did not enhance the

hydrodynamic kernels in this ﬁgure; that is, the same collision efﬁciencies were

used for both set of curves shown in ﬁgure 5a. Figure 5a shows that with the

effects of turbulence, which increases DVT for certain pairs of droplet radii (see

ﬁgure 2b), the hydrodynamic kernel values can be up to about 15–35% higher,

because of the enhanced sedimentation alone. This increase is evident for droplet

radii pairs up to 16 mm. For droplet pairs approaching 40 mm, there is even a

reversal of the contours. This is because with larger droplet pairs, the fall velocity

enhancements are proportionately smaller. As a result, the velocity difference

between the droplet pairs is actually smaller than the velocity difference without

turbulence effects, and this causes a reversal of the contours. However, it is

unrealistic to use still air collision efﬁciencies when one considers settling of

droplets in turbulence, because the settling rates are enhanced in turbulence, and

the collision efﬁciencies are also expected to increase, causing an overall increase

in the hydrodynamic kernel. This feature is implicit in the Dávila & Hunt (2001)

theory, which shows that with increasing settling rates, the collision efﬁciencies

are expected to be higher and can indeed be enhanced by at least 50–100%.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

(a) 40 3

–1

1×10–121×10–1

–100

0 1

0

1×10–11×

× 1

1× 1

radius of captured drops (µm) 10 –

10 713 –10

30 –1–

010 10

×11× 1×

3

1

5

–1

10

20 1×

12

–17

–

–15

10

1×10

1×3–15

1×10

– 1

0 10

12

×11–

10 –

–1

1×

10

0 –13

– 1×10 –10

7

–1

1×1

10 –12

1× –15 –15 –13

1×10

1×101×10

1×10

0 10 20 30 40

radius of capturing drops (µm)

(b) 40

2

–51

1×10–12

–10

–1001

0 1×

1×11×1

1×10–13

0

10 –1

radius of captured drops (µm)

13

30 –1–7

1× 010

×11×

1×

10 – 1

10

20

–17

1×100–15

2

–1 5

103 –1

1×1

1×0–1×10

×1 1

12

1

10 –

10

1×

0 –13

55

–0–17 1×10–10

1×1

×110 –12

11× 1×10–13

1×10

1×10–17

0 10 20 30 40

radius of capturing drops (µm)

Figure 5. (a) Collision kernel (pð a C a^Þ2 Eð a ; a^Þj) (m3 sK1) with (solid lines) and without

a ; a^ÞjDVT ð

(dotted lines) turbulence induced enhancements of the differences DVT in the settling velocities.

In order to single out the sedimentation effects, the collision efﬁciencies Eð a; a^Þ are not enhanced.

a and a^ are the radii of the larger capturing drops and the captured collected drops, respectively.

(b) Collision kernel (p a C a^Þ2 Eð a; a^Þj) (m3 sK1) with (solid lines) and without (dotted

a; a^ÞjDVT ð

lines) turbulence induced enhancements of the differences DVT in the settling velocities. In order

to include turbulence effects on the sedimentation as well as on the collision efﬁciencies Eð a; a^Þ,

the turbulent kernel is enhanced by 50%. a and a^ are the radii of the larger capturing drops and

the captured collected drops, respectively. (c) Mass distribution after 15 min without (dotted

line) and with (dashed line) the effects of turbulence induced velocity enhancements. The solid

line corresponds to the initial proﬁle represented by a gamma distribution function with a

prescribed mean radius (8 mm) and cloud water content (2.75 g mK3). Note that a bimodal

spectrum is obtained only with the faster settling rates shown in (b).

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

(c) 5

4

0 10 100 1000

radius (µm)

Figure

Figure5.5. (Continued.)

(continued.)

From Dávila & Hunt (2001) one obtains progressively decreasing velocity

enhancements with increasing droplet sizes. For example, the enhancements

decrease from 90 to 18% as the droplet radii increase from 11 to 20 mm. For the

range of droplet sizes considered in this study, the velocity ampliﬁcation effect is

the highest for the smallest droplets. With increasing droplet radii, the effect

progressively decreases; this is consistent with our discussions in §§2 and 3. Using

the Dávila & Hunt (2001) theory and the analysis of §3, our calculations are

extended over a wide range of Fp values. The computations depend sensitively on

the droplet size as the Dávila & Hunt (2001) paper implies, because the velocity

ampliﬁcation ratio v increases in proportion to (1KaD), where D is the average

value of the ‘drift integral’ (which is essentially a measure of the difference

between the vertical settling distances with and without the vortex for particles

starting at a ﬁxed point and falling for a ﬁxed period of time) for different values

of Fp and VTO appearing in the ﬂow. Here, a is the effective volume fraction

occupied by the vortices, so that a wððG=VTO Þ=Dlv Þ2 . D becomes more negative

with decreasing values of VTO, which varies as a2 for small cloud droplets; thus,

the VTO values become progressively smaller with smaller a and this causes

larger negative values of D and larger ampliﬁcation. Therefore, for the

parameters relevant to this study, the velocity ampliﬁcation effect fades with

increasing drop radii and becomes extremely small for aw40 mm.

In the recent study by Franklin et al. (2004), the authors showed that

increases in the collision kernels in turbulence can sometimes be larger by a

factor of 3. The Dávila & Hunt (2001) analysis also implicitly indicates that the

collision efﬁciencies can indeed be enhanced by up to 100%. We have performed

some sensitivity studies and found that with an increase of 50% in the collision

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

efﬁciency, the kernels with turbulence enhancements are always higher than the

still air kernels for all droplet pairs (see ﬁgure 5b). As expected, with even higher

increases in the collision efﬁciencies (not shown here for want of space) the

differences between the turbulent and the still air contours are even greater.

Although, there are two identical halves in ﬁgure 5a,b, owing to the symmetrical

kernels, only one half of the contours are considered, and the Bott (1998) code

ensures that there is no double counting. In order to study the impact of these

enhanced sedimentation rates, we applied them ﬁrst to an idealized mass

distribution (shown as the solid line in ﬁgure 5c) and used the SCE solver to

study the spectral evolution with time. The initial mass distribution corresponds

to a total cloud water content of 2.75 g mK3 and a mean radius of 8 mm. In ﬁgure

5c, we have also shown the mass distribution after 15 min without (dotted line)

and with (dashed line) the effects of turbulence induced velocity enhancements.

Note that a bimodal spectrum is obtained only with the faster settling rates

shown in ﬁgure 5b. It is well known that when a bimodal spectrum develops, the

resulting collision-induced second mode has the propensity to rapidly initiate

rain formation.

Because clouds consist of ﬁnite volumes of particles and water vapour moving

unsteadily, mainly up and down, the distribution or ‘spectrum’ of droplet sizes,

and thereby the formation of rain, have to be calculated as time dependant

processes. The development of the spectrum caused by collisions after the initial

condensational growth was calculated from the SCE (Pruppacher & Klett 1997)

using the Bott (1998) code, which accounts for the fact that not all droplets of a

given size grow at the same rate, since a small fraction of drops experience a

particularly favourable sequence of collisions and grow much more rapidly than

other drops.

Next, we show results from our model simulations where a perturbed gamma

distribution was used to create the initial distribution shown in ﬁgure 6.

The total liquid water content is 3.33 g mK3 and the mean droplet radius is

ca 7 mm. The initial mass distribution and a subsequent distribution are shown in

ﬁgure 6 where we have considered collisions between droplets over a time period

of 20 min. In these calculations, the fall velocity enhancements were calculated

using the Dávila & Hunt (2001) mechanism described earlier. The collision

kernels were enhanced by 50% (the solid lines in ﬁgure 5b) for simulating the

turbulent case. During a time span of 20 min, the small droplets with radii of

ca 10 mm can recirculate about four times within cloud eddies which typically

have length-scales of ca 50 m and circulation velocities of ca 1.0 msK1. Details of

the calculation procedure are given in appendix B. Further details of the ﬂux

method for the numerical solution of the SCE can be found from Bott (1998).

We compared our model simulations with some observed data where a

collision-induced spectrum was observed. It must be pointed out that the present

calculations include only the process of spectral broadening owing to droplet

collisions while ignoring all other dynamical effects. Thus, for the sake of

consistency, we chose observed data points with radii greater than 15 mm to

compare with model runs; these larger drops are expected to have grown from

collisions. For a deﬁnitive model simulation vis-à-vis observations, one would

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

4

mass distribution (g m–3/dln (radius))

0

1 10 100

radius (µm)

Figure 6. Mass distribution in a cumulus cloud. The solid line represents an initial distribution with

a total liquid water content of 3.33 g mK3 and a mean droplet radius of 7 mm. The broader

distribution obtained with the faster settling rates (dashed line) agree better with the observations

as compared with the case with normal settling rates (dotted line). Both correspond to a simulation

time of 20 min. With the normal settling rates a longer time-interval is necessary to have the same

spread as for the case with the faster settling rates. The observed data points ( ) are from Mason &

Jonas (1974) based on cloud top measurements for a cumulus cloud 1.4 km deep.

need to use these calculations in a cloud model with detailed dynamical and

microphysical processes. This will form the basis of a later study. For the

moment, we have aimed to determine the effect of these higher collision rates on

the large end tail of a cumulus cloud spectrum. Figure 6 incorporates some

observations reported by Mason & Jonas (1974), where they computed the mean

of two spectra observed by Warner (1969a,b) near the top of a cumulus cloud

1.4 km deep. There are two peaks in the observed distribution—one centred

around 17 mm and a second around 24 mm radius. With the turbulence-enhanced

calculations, we obtain, as expected, a broader distribution that agrees

reasonably well with the observed data points; the second peak centred at

ca 24 mm is well captured. The simulation with the enhanced fall rates indicates

the presence of coalescence induced peaks for radii larger than 30 mm. Without

these enhanced collision rates, there is no second peak. The important point is

that within a time span of 20 min, we obtain a broader spectrum with the

enhanced collision rates than a conventional run. Without these enhanced fall

rates, the simulation would have to be extended for a longer time period to fall in

the range of the observed values.

These simulations suggest that even with small increase in the collision rates

ðC ð

a ; a^ÞÞ, because the droplet number concentration N(d ) decays exponentially

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

with increasing droplet size beyond the peak at aw7 mm, there is a large increase

in the capture of the small droplets with radii of the order of 10 mm. This leads to

the subsequent maxima in the droplet size distribution, for droplets of 17 and

24 mm radius. Without the enhancement, the latter is absent and the former is

less pronounced. For the typical cumulus-like air parcel in a cloud of depth h

the period of its movement ðw h=w

with velocity w, w 250 m=0:2 m s K 1 Þ is about

20 min. The computations and observations agree somewhat better when the

ampliﬁed fall velocities are accounted for, compared with the calculations based

only on still air fall velocities. In the latter case, even after 20 min of simulation,

the mass and consequently the number concentration corresponding to drops

with radii greater than 20 mm is very small. By contrast, when the number of the

larger cloud drops begin to grow exponentially by differential settling velocities

and by turbulence-enhanced collisions, the increase in mass (and consequently

N(d )) makes the difference between rain and no rain!

In §4.3 therefore we shall examine how the turbulence assisted fall velocity

ampliﬁcations can lead to a more accurate estimation of raindrop spectra in

stratocumulus clouds.

It is well recognized today by meteorologists that even shallow layers of warm

stratocumulus clouds are capable of producing drizzle that reaches the ground.

However, as Mason (1952) ﬁrst pointed out, the production of precipitation-sized

particles by shallow layers of cloud is incompatible with simple models of drop

growth (invoking only the effects of condensation and coalescence). The

calculated growth rates were far too slow, because a drop would fall out of the

cloud long before attaining the size necessary to survive the fall to the ground.

However, Mason recognized that cloud turbulence could have an effect simply by

extending the residence time of the droplets within the cloud. This paper

provides a new approach for quantifying the effect, and a partial veriﬁcation

using new observation techniques. Measurements of turbulence and drop size

spectra can now be made on instrumented aircraft and these measurements

conﬁrm that turbulent diffusion is potentially important in determining the

vertical distribution of even quite large drops with radii of ca 100 mm, since

updraughts exceeding the terminal velocities of these large drops of ca 1 m sK1

are quite often observed. In a recent theoretical paper Ghosh & Jonas (2001)

derived some analytical expressions for the growth of drizzle drops in turbulent

clouds. Their estimates of the velocity ampliﬁcation effects were based on the

Dávila & Hunt (2001) results and their calculations showed that it was necessary

to include the dependence of the radii of the smaller captured drop in the

collection growth equation in addition to the turbulence effects. The results from

this study were more consistent with observations than those of earlier theories

(e.g. Baker 1993) which neglected these effects.

Here, we consider the evolution of drizzle and apply it to another

stratocumulus related case study, which is based on observations of an

extensive, horizontally uniform stratocumulus cloud over the North Sea on 22

July 1982. The mean depth of the cloud was ca 450 m, the cloud ‘auto-

conversion’ rate (i.e. the rate at which cloud liquid water is partitioned as rain

water) was 3.2!10K9 kg mK3 sK1, the maximum horizontally averaged cloud

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

liquid water content was 0.6 g mK3 and drizzle was observed below the cloud

down to the lowest ﬂight level (90 m above the sea level). The numerical model

developed by Nicholls (1987) describes the growth of precipitation-sized drops in

a warm stratocumulus cloud and combines the effects of stochastic turbulent

diffusions with explicit microphysical calculations. Further details of both the

observations and the model can be found in Nicholls (1987). The most signiﬁcant

fact that emerged from this study is that there was a considerable improvement

of model predictions when the effect of air turbulence was considered with

vertical r.m.s. velocity ﬂuctuations (swZ0.36 m sK1) as well as the Lagrangian

integral time-scale (TLZ360 s). Nicholls found that the distribution of mainly

the larger drops changed with sw. The concentration of droplets with radii

smaller than 20 mm responds rapidly to supersaturation and are controlled by

condensation and evaporation, and these are only minor variations with sw.

However, even with the inclusion of turbulent air velocity ﬂuctuations, the

Nicholls model still substantially under-estimated the number densities of the

larger drops. Nevertheless, this study was a signiﬁcant improvement over earlier

simpler models that ignored turbulence effects altogether. It showed for the ﬁrst

time that steady-state concentrations of precipitation sized drops are found to be

increased by some orders of magnitude when realistic levels of turbulence are

included compared with an identical situation where swZ0. This arises, as

Nicholls pointed out, because a few particles have a relatively unlikely (but

ﬁnite) chance of encountering a signiﬁcantly higher than average proportion of

updraughts. This leads to enhanced growth rates by extending their lifetimes

within cloud and in some cases by recycling drops upwards through regions of

higher liquid water content. This explains why even shallow layers of warm

cloud can produce signiﬁcant amount of drizzle.

The main limitation of the Nicholls model is that he assumed that although

the cloud droplets are moved up and down by the turbulent updraughts and

downdraughts, their fall velocities are still equal to the classical still air values.

Baker (1993) proposed an analytic version of Nicholls’ model. The non-local

turbulence closure was replaced with a stochastic diffusion equation for a

turbulent plume of sedimenting raindrops. In addition, Baker (1993) speciﬁed a

production rate for the smallest raindrops, and let the diffusing drops grow by

accretion with a time constant determined by the liquid water content and the

size-dependent fall speed. This enables one to calculate an equilibrium raindrop

size distribution as a function of height within the cloud.

In this paper, we adopted the Baker (1993) model, but included the dependence of

the radii of the smaller captured droplets in the collection equation, using the Dávila

& Hunt (2001) results to calculate the new turbulence-enhanced fall speeds. In

ﬁgure 7, we show the equilibrium raindrop spectrum at a distance of 95 m above the

cloud base. We also show results from Nicholls (1987) as described in their

‘standard’ run. The observations are shown for droplet radii that are greater than

40 mm where the two-dimensional probe measurements are expected to be free from

any counting errors. From this ﬁgure, we ﬁnd that the Nicholls model under-

estimates the number of large drops. In the next stage, we included the effects

of turbulence as by using parameters speciﬁed by Nicholls (1987), that is,

swZ0.36 m sK1 and TLZ360 s and used it in the equilibrium rain spectrum model

(for details, see Baker 1993; Ghosh & Jonas 2001). Although this second case

(marked Baker 1993 in ﬁgure 7) is an improvement over the case when swZ0, it does

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

106

104

102

conc. (cm–3 m m–1)

100

10–2

10–4 obs

this calc.

Baker (1993)

10–6 Nicholls (1987)

10–8

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200

radius ( m m)

Figure 7. Raindroplet spectra for a drizzling stratocumulus cloud with and without the effects of

turbulence assisted fall velocity enhancements. The observational points (solid squares) are from

Nicholls (1987).

not yield the right number concentrations of the larger drops. In order to match the

observational results, Nicholls (1987) had to artiﬁcially alter the spectral shape to

slightly larger radii. When we used turbulence-enhanced collision rates using the

Dávila & Hunt (2001) formalism (marked ‘this calc.’ in ﬁgure 7), we ﬁnd that the

resultant spectrum matched the observations well and without any artiﬁcial

adjustments. It yields drop number concentrations of ca 100 cmK3 for drop sizes of

ca 200 mm as is observed.

5. Wider implications

The analysis presented in this paper has shown how turbulent eddies amplify the

fall velocity of cloud droplets in the range 10–40 mm and thereby increases

collision kernels in the initial range of particle sizes and then leads to an

improved prediction of cloud and raindrop spectra. The theoretical and scaling

analysis, supported by matching laboratory experiments and numerical

simulations for settling velocities, have provided convincing results to

demonstrate the effectiveness of this centrifuging action for the ﬁrst time. In

addition, when these ampliﬁed velocities are accounted for, the predicted cloud

and raindrop spectra agree well with observations. A bimodal spectrum is easily

produced—even with empirical elements, previous calculations could not achieve

that straightforwardly.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

Our collision mechanism is consistent with the recent observational study by

Ghosh et al. (2000) and Rosenfeld (2000) concerning reduced growth of raindrop

when there is an excess of nucleation particles in urban areas. These studies

imply that in situations where cloud droplets grow in polluted air masses with a

very large number of nucleating particles, the resulting cloud droplets have

reduced sizes. This is because a great number of particles start competing with

each other for a limited amount of the available water vapour. As the droplet

sizes are reduced, the collision rates also fall, and this eventually leads to

precipitation suppression. Similarly, cloud seeding experiments afford another

application in this context. Seeding is usually achieved with larger sized particles

so that the nucleated particles can rapidly grow by collisions to yield

precipitation-sized drops. Our results suggest that if seeding experiments can

be conducted in a turbulent air mass, then the particles will actually fall faster

than their still air fall velocities. This implies that seeding with smaller sizes now

can also induce precipitation. This happens because, although the particles have

modest sizes, in turbulence, they fall faster and produce the same effect as larger

particles. The mechanism proposed in our study and its associated critical

particle size of 20 mm radii shows that if too few droplets of this size are

nucleated, by comparison with the smaller sizes, then the enhanced collision rate

and droplet growth will not occur. In addition, the bimodal ‘tail’ in the size

spectrum probably has applications in other environmental and industrial

processes involving sedimenting, coalescing and ﬂocculating particles in

turbulent ﬂows.

These calculations can also be extended to calculate the settling rates of

atmospheric aerosols and particulate matter. For example, it is now known that

heterogeneous processing on polar stratospheric cloud particles (PSCs; in

particular the larger type 2 PSCs) is crucial to the correct quantiﬁcation of

stratospheric denitriﬁcation and heterogeneous ozone depletion. It is also

expected that the estimated fall velocities of these type 2 PSCs (typically with

radii of ca 10 mm) would be higher than their still air values when one accounts

for the turbulence within the stratospheric vortex. This faster settling would

possibly lead to greater denitriﬁcation of the stratosphere, which would

eventually lead to larger heterogeneously processed ozone depletion.

In forthcoming work, the effects of including this mechanism in compu-

tational models for cloud processes will be tested—especially its interaction

between ice crystals, aerosol particles and droplets. To date, current climate

models, including those at the UK Meteorological Ofﬁce, continue to use still

air fall velocities for cloud droplets. It is expected that by using turbulence-

assisted fall velocities in climate models, one can obtain a better precipitation

characterization and forecast. In addition, recent research suggests that

turbulence effects on droplet condensational growth can also be important (see

Celani et al. 2005 and references therein). The contribution from this latter

effect may also complement the well-established turbulence effects on settling

and coalescence. In general, the implications for improving numerical models

for weather and climate predictions are also being considered. Our future work

will be aimed at formulating the above results in closed-formed parametric

results so that they can be easily incorporated into large-scale climate-

prediction models.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

We are grateful to the sponsors for their support of this research: E.C. (S.G.); Spanish Ministry of

Science and Technology (J.D.); Isaac Newton Trust (S.G., J.C.R.H.); NSF Environmental

Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry (J.C.R.H., A.S., H.J.S.F.); NERC grant to Centre for Polar

Observation and Modelling (U.C.L., J.C.R.H.). We have greatly beneﬁted from conversations with

T. Choularton, Rob Wood, Yan Yin, J.-L. Brenguier, J. Fung, M.R. Maxey and A.P. Khain. We

are grateful to A. Bott for the SCE solver.

line vortices

A solid particle released at a level YZY0 far above a vortex of circulation G, after

falling a time Dtc[2Y0/VTO will be at

Y Z Y0 K VTO Dtc C ðG=VTO ÞDhðX0 Þ; (A 1)

where Dh(X0) is the dimensionless differential settling length with respect to

settling in still ﬂuid, a function of the initial horizontal position X0 (see Dávila &

Hunt 2001). If DhO0, then the particle settles more slowly. If a small particle

(with terminal velocity V^ TO ) collides at a ﬁxed level Y1 with a larger particle

(with terminal velocity V TO ), then the collision length of particle pairs is

h K ðG=V^ TO ÞD^

h Z lco K ðG=V TO ÞðlD hÞ;

h K D^ (A 2)

where lco Z ðV TO K V

^ TO ÞDtc Z V TO Dtc ð1K lÞ with lZ V^ TO =V TO ð!1Þ. Hence

the normalized fractional increase in collision length is

lc V TO Dtc D^

h K lDh

El Z K1 Z : (A 3)

lco G=V^ TO 1 Kl

This is the formulation used to obtain ﬁgure 3c, where we have plotted El versus

the initial horizontal position of the particles X0 for critical small particles with

F^ p Z 4 and V^ TO Z 0:7, and larger particles with F p Z 5 and V TO Z 0:8.

Because the objective of these calculations is the average value of lc over all the

horizontal initial positions, we have not taken into account that the initial

horizontal positions of the larger and smaller particles may be different in order

to have a collision at the ﬁxed level Y1. From (A 3) using the deﬁnition of the

drift integral (i.e. the average settling length around the vortex)

ðN

dX0

DZ DhðX0 Þ ; (A 4)

KN G=V TO

equation (2.5) can be obtained. In addition, using (A 1), the average settling

velocity of particles moving around vortices results in

VT Z VTO ð1 K aDÞ; (A 5)

where the effective volume fraction occupied by the vortices aZ ððG=VTO Þ=Dlv Þ2 .

For a given value of the droplet radius, we ﬁrst calculate the fall velocity VTO,

the particle Froude number Fp, the volume fraction a. Then, from (A 4), the drift

integral is evaluated.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

procedure that was adopted to evaluate the time evolution of the cloud droplet

spectra. In the droplet collection model, all condensation and mixing with the

surroundings were neglected. The droplets were assumed to grow only by

coalescing with each other as they fell. Depending on their sizes, the actual fall

velocities were generally higher than their still air values and this added value

was precisely estimated using the Dávila & Hunt (2001) formalism described in

the paper. For drops with radii less than 30 mm, the still air terminal velocity

VTO was calculated as

VTOi Z kai2 ; (B 1)

where kw1.18!108 mK1 sK1 (Rogers & Yau 1994) and ai is the droplet radius.

Dávila and Hunt’s (2001) calculations depend signiﬁcantly on the droplet

radius and signiﬁcant variations are observed in the particle Froude number Fp,

the radius of the droplet trajectory around the vortex Rtraj as well as the Stokes

number St with increasing drop radii. This is shown in table 2 below.

Using the values listed in table 2, we ﬁnd that the velocity ampliﬁcation drops

from ca 90% for a drop with 11 mm radius to about ca 18% for a 20 mm radius.

Prediction of growth times for precipitation-sized drops also includes the

stochastic nature of the collection growth. Because raindrop concentrations are

typically 105–106 times smaller than cloud drop concentrations, one would expect

that the fate of the ‘favoured’ small fraction of drops that happen to grow much

faster than the average rate would be quite important in the overall process of

precipitation development (Pruppacher & Klett 1997). Our calculations have

borne out this expectation as is brieﬂy described below.

Let the number of drops with radii between ai and ai C d a be Ni per unit

volume, and let the probability that a drop of size j will encounter a collision with

one of size i in unit time be Pij (with iOj).

From the above prescription, it follows that the number of drops of size i

coalescing with drops of size j in a single time-step Dt, is

DNij Z Pij Ni Nj Dt; (B 2)

per unit time. However, the probability Pij that a drop of size i can collide with

a i ; a^j Þ and their

one of size j in unit time depends on their collection efﬁciency Eð

relative fall speeds VTi and VTj. This implies that

Pij Z Eð a i C a^j Þ2 ðVTi K VTj Þ:

a i ; a^j Þpð (B 3)

Once the values of Eð a i ; a^j Þ, VTi, VTj were estimated, the appropriate values of Pij

were calculated. For the control runs (i.e. the effect of turbulence neglected

altogether), only the still air terminal velocity of droplets (equation (B 1)) were used

while evaluating Pij . The number of drops lost in a particular class and the size

range that the resulting larger drops covered were also estimated. Finally, the new

values of the droplet concentrations were updated in each size class and the outlined

procedure repeated for every pair of drop sizes. The history of the droplet spectrum

was followed for 20 min. The SCE solver that is used is described in Bott (1998) and

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

(Fp is the particle Froude number; Rtraj, the radius of the droplet trajectory around the vortex; St,

the Stokes number; a is the drop radius; VTO, the still air fall velocity; and a is the volume

fraction.)

12 0.17280!10K1 0.35101!10K2 0.86806!10K2 0.26449 0.18838

13 0.20280!10K1 0.56740!10K2 0.73964!10K2 0.31041 0.13677

14 0.23520!10K1 0.88510!10K2 0.63776!10K2 0.36000 0.10168

15 0.27000!10K1 0.13390!10K1 0.55556!10K2 0.41327 0.77160!10K1

16 0.30720!10K1 0.19722!10K1 0.48828!10K2 0.47020 0.59605!10K1

17 0.34680!10K1 0.28374!10K1 0.43253!10K2 0.53082 0.46770!10K1

18 0.38880!10K1 0.39982!10K1 0.38580!10K2 0.59510 0.37211!10K1

19 0.43320!10K1 0.55303!10K1 0.34626!10K2 0.66306 0.29974!10K1

20 0.48000!10K1 0.75233!10K1 0.31250!10K2 0.73469 0.24414!10K1

uses an accurate ﬂux method, which ensures accurate mass conversion. The mass

averaging process consists of a two-step procedure. In the ﬁrst step, the mass

distribution of drops with mass x 0 that have been newly formed in a collision process

is entirely added to grid box k of the numerical grid mesh with xk%x 0 %xkC1. In the

second step, a certain fraction of the water mass in grid box k is transported to kC1.

This transport is achieved by means of an advection procedure. Further details of

the ﬂux method can be obtained from Bott (1998).

References

Baker, M. B. 1993 Variability in concentration of cloud condensation nuclei in the marine cloud

topped boundary layer. Tellus B 45, 458–472.

Bott, A. 1998 A ﬂux method for the numerical solution of the stochastic collection equation.

J. Atmos. Sci. 55, 2284–2293.

Brunk, B. R., Koch, D. & Lion, L. W. 1998 Observations of coagulation in isotropic turbulence.

J. Fluid Mech. 371, 81–107.

Celani, A., Falvovich, G., Mazzino, A. & Seminara, A. 2005 Droplet condensation in turbulent

ﬂows. Europhys. Lett. 70, 775–781.

Dávila, J. & Hunt, J. C. R. 2001 Settling of particles near vortices and in turbulence. J. Fluid

Mech. 440, 117–145.

Douady, S., Couder, Y. & Brachet, M. E. 1991 Direct observation of the intermittency of intense

vorticity ﬁlaments in turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 983–986.

Davis, M. H. 1972 Collisions of small droplets: gas kinetic effects. J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 911–915.

Erlick, C., Khain, A., Segal, Y., 2004 The effect of turbulent velocity ﬂuctuations on droplet

spectral broadening in stratocumulus clouds. In Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Clouds and

Precipitation, Bologna, Italy.

Falkovich, G., Fouxon, A. & Stepanov, M. G. 2002 Acceleration of rain initiation by cloud

turbulence. Nature 419, 151–154.

Fevrier, P., 2000 PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse.

Franklin, C.N., Vaillancourt, P. A., Yau, M. K., Bartello, P., 2004 Cloud droplet collision rates in

evolving turbulent ﬂows. In Proceedings of the 14th Int. Conf. on Clouds and Precipitation,

Bologna, Italy.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

J. Geophys. Res. 98, 20 287–20 297.

Ghosh, S. & Jonas, P. R. 2001 Some analytical calculations on the effect of turbulence on the

settling and growth of cloud droplets. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 3883–3886.

Ghosh, S., Jonas, P. R. & Wood, R. 2000 Some impact of pollutants on the development and

optical properties of stratocumulus clouds. Quart. J. R. Meteor. Soc. 126, 2851–2872.

Hainaux, F., Aliseda, A., Cartellier, A. & Lasheras, J. C. 2000 Settling velocity and clustering of

particles in an homogeneous and isotropic turbulence. In Advances in turbulence (ed. C. Dopazo

et al.), vol. VII, pp. 553–556. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hall, W. D. 1980 A detailed microphysical model within a two-dimensional dynamic framework:

model description and preliminary results. J. Atmos. Sci. 37, 2486–2507.

Hunt, J. C. R. 2000 Dynamics and statistics of vortical eddies in turbulence. In Proc. Conf. at Isaac

Newton Institute Cambridge on Vortex Dynamics and Turbulence (ed. J. C. Vassilicos & J. C. R.

Hunt). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunt, J. C. R., Fung, J. C. H. & Perkins, R. J. 1994 Problems in modelling disperse two-phase

ﬂows. Appl. Mech. Rev. 47, S49–S60.

Hunt, J. C. R., Sandham, N., Vassilicos, J. C., Launder, B. E., Monkewitz, P. A. & Hewitt, G. F.

2001 Developments in turbulence research; a review based on the 1999 programme of the Isaac

Newton Institute, Cambridge. J. Fluid Mech. 436, 353–391.

Jiménez, J., Wray, A. A., Saffman, P. G. & Rogallo, R. S. 1993 The structure of intense vorticity in

isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 255, 65–90.

Jonas, P. R. 1972 The collision efﬁciency of small drops. Quart. J. R. Meteor. Soc. 98, 681–683.

Jonas, P. R. 1996 Turbulence and cloud microphysics. Atmos. Res. 40, 283–306.

Jonas, P. R. & Goldsmith, P. 1972 The collection efﬁciencies of small droplets falling through a

sheared air ﬂow. J. Fluid Mech. 52, 593–608.

Kit, E., Strang, E. J. & Fernando, H. J. S. 1997 Measurement of turbulence near shear-free density

interfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 334, 293–314.

Long, A. 1974 Solutions to the droplet collection equation for polynomial kernels. J. Atmos. Sci.

31, 1040–1052.

Marcu, B., Meiburg, E. & Newton, P. K. 1995 Dynamics of heavy particles in a Burgers vortex.

Phys. Fluids 7, 400–410.

Mason, B. J. 1952 The production of rain and drizzle by coalescence in stratiform clouds. Quart.

J. R. Meteor. Soc. 78, 377–386.

Mason, B. J. & Jonas, P. R. 1974 The evolution of droplet spectra and large droplets by

condensation in cumulus clouds. Quart. J. R. Meteor. Soc. 100, 23–38.

Maxey, M. R. 1987 The gravitational settling of aerosol particles in homogeneous particles and

random ﬂow ﬁelds. J. Fluid Mech. 174, 441–465.

Maxey, M. R. & Corrsin, S. 1986 Gravitational settling of aerosol particles in randomly oriented

cellular ﬂow ﬁelds. J. Atmos. Sci. 43, 1112–1134.

Nicholls, S. 1987 A model of drizzle growth in warm, turbulent, stratiform clouds. Quart. J. R.

Meteor. Soc. 113, 1141–1170.

Nielsen, P. 1992 Effects of turbulence on settling velocity of isolated suspended particles. In Proc.

Australasian Fluid Mech. Conf., University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, pp. 179–182.

Perkins, R. J., Ghosh, S. & Phillips, J. C. 1991 Interaction of particles and coherent structures in a

plane turbulent air jet. In Advances in turbulence (ed. A. V. Johansson & P. H. Alfredsson), vol.

3, pp. 93–100. Berlin: Springer.

Pinsky, M. B. & Khain, A. P. 1997 Formation of inhomogeneity in drop concentration induced by

drop inertia and their contribution to the droplet spectral broadening. Quart. J. R. Meteor. Soc.

123, 165–186.

Pinsky, M. B. & Khain, A. P. 1997 Turbulence effects on the collision kernel. I: Formation of

velocity deviations of drops falling within a turbulent three-dimensional ﬂow. Quart. J. R.

Meteor. Soc. 123, 1517–1542.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on 4 November 2009

Pinsky, M. B., Khain, A. & Shapiro, M. 2000 Stochastic effects of cloud droplet hydrodynamic

interaction in a turbulent ﬂow. Atmos. Res. 53, 131–169.

Pinsky, M., Khain, A., Grits, B., Shapiro, M., 2004 Toward the parameterization of turbulent

effects on particle collisions in turbulent clouds. In Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Clouds and

Precipitation, Bologna, Italy.

Pruppacher, H. R. & Klett, J. D. 1997 Microphysics of clouds and precipitation. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Rogers, R. R. & Yau, M. K. 1994 A short course in cloud physics. New York: Pergamon Press.

Rosenfeld, D. 2000 Suppression of rain and snow by urban and industrial air pollution. Science 287,

1793–1796.

Shaw, R. A. 2000 Supersaturation intermittency in turbulent clouds. J. Atmos. Sci. 57, 3452–3456.

Shaw, R. A. 2003 Particle–turbulence interactions in atmospheric clouds. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.

35, 183–227.

Smith, S. A. & Jonas, P. R. 1995 Observations of the turbulent ﬂuxes in ﬁelds of cumulus clouds.

Quart. J. R. Meteor. Soc. 121, 1185–1208.

Squires, K. D. & Eaton, J. K. 1991 Preferential concentration of particles by turbulence. Phys.

Fluids A 3, 1169–1178.

Srdic, A., 1998 Interaction of dense particles with stratiﬁed and turbulent environment. PhD

thesis, Arizona State University.

Sundaram, S. & Collins, L. R. 1997 Collision statistics in an isotropic particle-laden turbulent

suspension. Part 1. Direct numerical simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 335, 75–109.

Toobey, P. F., Wick, G. K. & Isaacs, J. D. 1977 The motion of a small sphere in a rotating velocity

ﬁeld: a probable mechanism for suspending particles in turbulence. J. Geophys. Res. 82, 2096.

Vaillancourt, P. A. & Yau, M. K. 2000 Review of particle-turbulence interactions and

consequences for cloud physics. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 81, 285–298.

Vincent, A. & Meneguzzi, M. 1994 The dynamics of vorticity tubes in homogeneous turbulence.

J. Fluid. Mech. 258, 245–254.

Wang, L.-P. & Maxey, M. R. 1993 Settling velocity and concentration distribution of heavy

particles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 256, 27–68.

Wang, L.-P., Ayala, O., Kasprzac, S. E., Grabowski, W. W., 2004 Effect of turbulence on collision

efﬁciency of cloud droplets. In Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Clouds and Precipitation, Bologna, Italy.

Warner, J. 1969 The microstructure of cumulus cloud. Part I: general features of the droplet

spectrum. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 1049–1059.

Warner, J. 1969 The microstructure of cumulus cloud. Part II: the effect on droplet size

distribution of cloud nucleus spectrum and updraught velocity. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 1272–1282.

Yang, C. Y. & Lei, U. 1998 The role of the turbulent scales in the settling velocity of heavy

particles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 371, 179–205.

the authors have agreed to contribute to production costs.

- Mills Heat TransferUploaded byNatrix2
- Noise generation in the edge of the flapUploaded byJuanito Cruz
- Pipe Mixing Tutorial 1Uploaded bylaxattack22
- Laboratory WorkUploaded byTanuj Karnatak
- Rosa- Turbulence Theories.pdfUploaded bySubhendu Maity
- CFD Les Modeling of Aerothermal Prediction of Jets in Cross Flow.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- 1 vortice de agua (1).pdfUploaded byLechu Salles
- Hamlington-etal-PhysRevE-2008-Local-and-nonlocal-strain-rate-fields-and-vorticity-alignment-in-turbulent-flows.pdfUploaded bythehighlife1080
- Hurricane MesovorticesUploaded byRon Burgundy
- Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Research- A Review of Commercial CFD, FE Codes and Experimental PracticesUploaded byMostafa Rashed
- 1984 - A Study of the Cross Flow FanUploaded byTeuku Ghaisa Aufa
- Panel.methodsUploaded bySebastian Cano Campuzano
- R/C Soaring Digest - May 2012Uploaded byAviation/Space History Library
- Chap8FAMIIUploaded byVincent Seow Youk Eng
- Drag, Boundary Layer and Hull Roughness on Ship Hull SurfaceUploaded byFIRDAUS BIN MAHAMAD
- Airflow Inside a Vane Separator Zigzag DeflectorsUploaded byChulka
- Optimisation of hydrodynamic cavitation using a model reactionUploaded byMycoLogist4Life
- b 035205016Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- Shirishkumar(TuDelft)Uploaded byShirishkumar Baviskar
- Open_channel_hydraulics by v t ChoWUploaded byGaurav Pahuja
- 6819874 Turbulent FlowsUploaded bypuneshwarverma
- Us 5997293Uploaded by155
- CFD Application Tutorials 2Uploaded byJubril Akinwande

- The Sound of Music - Conductor's Piano - Vocal ScoreUploaded byEttore D'Agostino
- 6th Central Pay Commission salary calculatorUploaded byrakhonde
- Molecular and Cellular Biology, Nov. 2008, p. 6620–6631 0270-7306/08/$08.00 0Uploaded bynica_salvador
- Royal Society 2005 - 3785Uploaded bynica_salvador
- LFRamos - Review of LiteratureUploaded bynica_salvador
- ISEF Student Handbook 2010Uploaded bynica_salvador
- ISEF_forms2010Uploaded byKentKawashima

- AbsUploaded byNilson Barbosa
- Pid Temperature ControlUploaded byAnonymous OpRuX6V
- Welding+JournalUploaded bydiego
- techdoc.pdfUploaded byjoojoo987654321
- Trane Chiller catalogoUploaded byjcqadros
- Consolidation # IIT.pdfUploaded byAngel Mouri
- Screw Jack DesignUploaded byIbrahimovic Elsaied
- Me6401 Kinematics of Machinery l t p cUploaded byThiru Moorthy
- Hydraulic Symbols TutorialUploaded byAmrut Kulkarni
- 1986 Mercedes Benz Cis-e Fuel Injection System-1Uploaded byJen Steel
- Antishiphon ValveUploaded byRoshan Shanmughan
- Acker rig specs.pdfUploaded byAsif Khanzada
- How Cold Water Affects Tank CapacityUploaded byJagdeep Sekhon
- 16_as_2630_to_1.pdfUploaded byCasa Canteri
- Ridgid Saw InstructionsUploaded bysender581
- Troubleshooting Procedure - TG Fails to RotateUploaded byAbdul Arif
- sdm102eUploaded byseaqu3st
- AD00772V DEMCO Gate Valves Brochure[1]Uploaded byclaudioandrevalverde
- A-PDF Merger DEMO : Purchase From Www.a-pdF.comUploaded bymanju0806
- Yamaha XT600E Workshop Manual_verysmall.pdfUploaded byrobi robi
- Mep uscgUploaded byAdwaith Krishnan
- Datasheet 2RE69Uploaded byTarun Chandra
- Catalogo de RodamientosUploaded bymarragez
- Practica Senati AdjuntarUploaded byPauca Luis
- Cable Bridge Conveyor - New Suspension Bridge Based Conveyor SystemUploaded byCable Bridge Conveyor
- AFL Fiber Optic Hardware OPGWUploaded byRohit Dera
- M37b2 Heating, Ventilation and AC 21-33.pdfUploaded byLuis Marquez
- PKP Unipolar EncodersUploaded byAnonymous R7R3oq
- ch06awdUploaded byAgung Tri Widodo
- Finisher S1 PartesUploaded byCarlos