Pergamon Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp.

635 647, 1996

Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain

0009-2509(95)00243- X

PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION IN SUSPENSION SHEAR FLOW

YU. A. BUYEVICH
National Research Council, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, U.S.A.

(First received 30 M a y 1995; revised manuscript received and accepted 16 August 1995)

Abstract The model of this paper is based on an earlier proposed constitutive equation that factors in all
normal stresses originated by random particle fluctuations. This equation is used to describe the joint effect
of thermal and shear-induced fluctuations on concentrational distributions in suspension flow. Averaged
products of fluctuation velocity components are evaluated on the basis of a rational mechanics approach
combined with a simple kinematic consideration. The momentum conservation equation for the dispersed
phase of a suspension closed by this constitutive equation is applied to unidirectional shear flow in the
gravity field and to rotational Couette flow. Coupling the thermal and shear-induced fluctuations results in
a situation where the total volume of particles suspended in a given shear flow reaches a minimum at a finite
particle size, all other things being equal. Additionally, the developed model provides a reasonable
explanation for the particle distributions observed in Couette flow. For these flows, the momentum
conservation equation can also be reformulated to yield a diffusion-like equation for the suspended
particles. However, coefficientsof mutual diffusiondue to both thermal and shear-induced fluctuations are
drastically different from corresponding self-diffusivitiesas regards both their scaling and their concentra-
tional dependence.

l. INTRODUCTION fluctuating motion across flow streamlines. Shear-in-

Suspension flows are known to display substantially
nonuniform concentration distributions which influ-
ence hydraulic flow characteristics and are of immedi-
ate concern in a great many applications: conven-
tional hydrotransport processes, micro filtration
(Henry, 1972; Madsen, 1977), field-flow fractionation
(Martin and Williams, 1992), handling of powders,
and manufacture of ceramic and some other mater-
ials. A wide variety of flow types and geometries
commonly encountered in practice could be more
than adequately described by a comparatively simple
set of governing conservation and constitutive
equations of the conventional fluid dynamics of
suspensions, if the particle distribution were uniform.
However, these equations can be proven to be insuffi-
cient for such a description if the particle distribution
is nonuniform and if the equations do not include the
dispersed phase stresses (Buyevich, 1990). Non-
uniformity may arise for varying physical reasons. To
begin with, nonuniformity may arise when external
body forces and nonlinear constituents of the inter-
phase interaction force are directed transversely to
flow streamlines. Nonuniformity may also appear
when mean flow variables, such as shear rate and
ambient fluid slip velocity, are nonhomogeneous.
The flow stratification induced by the non-
homogeneous shear that was first detected by
Gadala-Maria and Acrivos (1980) deserves special
consideration. This stratification is generally believed
to occur as a consequence of particle migration down
a gradient of the shear rate. Such a migration arises
when interparticle interactions in a sheared suspen-
sion cause suspended particles to experience random
635
duced particle diffusion in the lateral direction was
first reported by Eckstein et al. (1977) and extensively
studied afterwards by Leighton and Acrivos (1987a).
A theory of self-diffusion in the lateral and longitudi-
nal directions for suspended particles in a dilute sus-
pension has been developed in Leighton and Acrivos
(1987b), Bossis and Brady (1987), and Acrivos et al.
(1992).
The concept of shear-induced migration gave rise
to a number of attempts to address various concrete
problems of suspension fluid dynamics by means of
a corresponding particle diffusion equation that was
postulated on semi-empirical grounds. Representative
examples are to be found in works by Leighton and
Acrivos (1986), Davies and Leighton (1987), Phillips
et al. (1992), and Acrivos et al. (1993). Formulation of
the particle diffusion equations in these works has
required certain supplementary assumptions about
the general form of particle flux caused by shear-
induced fluctuations, and these assumptions are
sometimes arbitrary and rather drastic. These studies
also require the concentrational dependence of par-
ticle self-diffusivity to be expanded well beyond the
range of dilute suspensions.
Despite the apparent success of such attempts and
the verification conferred on the particle diffusion
equation by some recent experiments [see, for in-
stance, the paper by Chow et al. (1994)], there remains
a certain dissatisfaction with these studies for three
reasons. The evolution of particle distribution in
a suspension flow is likely to be governed by the
momentum balance for the dispersed phase, rather
than by its particle diffusion, no matter how
636 Yu. A. BUYEVICH
important the mechanism of random particle dis-
placements might seem to be in explaining actual
particle dislocation. Even if particle distribution were
governed by a diffusion equation, but not by an equa-
tion of particle momentum conservation, the diffusion
equation should include coefficients of mutual particle
diffusion which describe the particle migration down
a concentration gradient, rather than those of self-
diffusion which describe variations in relative particle
positions in a suspension whose averaged concentra-
tion may be uniform. There is no need to dwell upon
the physical meaning of these two types of particle
diffusion in more detail in view of Batchelor (1976)
having given an excellent discussion of this subject.
Of still more significance is the fact that introducing
a complementary diffusion equation for a two-phase
mixture is generally incompatible with using the con-
ventional continuum approach to the fluid dynamics
of this mixture, as it was convincingly demonstrated
by Shaposhnikov (1951) as far back as 1951. Without
undue attention to detail, his reasoning can be sum-
marized as follows. The mean velocity of the dispersed
phase represented in the continuum conservation
equations describes the overall mass flow of this phase
which is caused by all the relevant physical transport
mechanisms, with particle diffusion being included.
This fact enabled the author of the cited paper to
conclude that an additional diffusional flux cannot be
introduced into the mass conservation equation
without violating the very essence of continuum meth-
odology, not to mention that the momentum conser-
vation equation for the dispersed phase must never be
replaced by any diffusion equation. Thus, the diffu-
sion equation certainly cannot be used alongside the
conventional hydrodynamic equations for suspension
phases. This inappropriate usage of these equations
may perhaps prove somewhat insignificant while
studying steady concentration profiles along some
axis as long as there is no net particle flux in the
direction of this axis. However, using the diffusion and
hydrodynamic equations together to describe
transitional processes that lead to establishing steady
profiles seems to engender great error.
For this reason, preference is given in this paper to
an alternative approach which is founded on an anal-
ysis of momentum balance in dispersed phase flow.
Random particle fluctuations result in an additional
momentum transfer which produces a new system of
particulate stresses. As early as 1963, Jackson recog-
nized that such stresses come about in dispersions in
much the same way as in molecular gases, if the mean
kinetic energy of the particle fluctuations per degree of
freedom is regarded as an effective "temperature" of
the dispersed phase. After that, the same idea was
repeatedly exploited in a number of papers, including
relevant works by Buyevich (1971, 1990, 1994), Gold-
stik and Kozlov (1973) and Jenkins and McTigue
(1990). Most recently, this idea has been put forward
once again by Nott and Brady (1994) who have dis-
cussed formulation of conservation equations for
flowing quiescent suspensions in the most careful and
meticulous way. These authors have also supplied
voluminous information resulting from their
Stokesian dynamic simulation of pressure-driven sus-
pension flow in a plane channel.
There are two principal mechanisms involved in the
generation of hydrodynamically-originated particle
fluctuations. The first mechanism, that due to non-
homogeneous shear, has already been pointed out.
The second mechanism is that due to the work per-
formed by the mean relative flow of the suspending
fluid at random concentrational fluctuations
(Buyevich, 1971, 1994). The latter mechanism is essen-
tial in flows with an appreciable fluid slip velocity,
such as fluidized beds and sedimenting suspensions.
Moreover, the mean relative flow adds to particle
resuspension in the pressure-driven channel suspen-
sion flows for which the mean velocities of the disper-
sed and continuous phases do not coincide. The
present paper, however, does not delve into issues of
mean relative flow. Instead, I am going to describe the
effect of the remaining shear-induced and thermal
fluctuations within the framework of a previously
developed hydrodynamic suspension model that
allows for diffusional phenomena (Buyevich, 1990).
This paper is organized as follows. A set of fluid
dynamic equations for quiescent suspensions is briefly
outlined, then a simple approximate model of shear-
induced fluctuations is worked out to close the equa-
tion set. The closed equation set is next applied to
particular problems in order to demonstrate some
peculiarities of these fluctuations when coupled with
particulate Browning motion, and in order to get
a rough idea about the correspondence between
model expectations and experimental evidence. Fur-
ther, an equation that ought to be interpreted as
a particle diffusion equation is derived from the dis-
persed phase momentum conservation equation. This
particle diffusion equation is shown to be substan-
tially different from diffusion equations usually postu-
lated on semi-empirical grounds in attempt to de-
scribe shear-induced migration. In particular, coeffi-
cients of mutual diffusion down a concentration
gradient are proven to scale quite differently from
those of self-diffusion.
2. B A S I C M O D E L
Equations of mass (volume) and momentum conser-
vation in a flow for the phases of a monomodal
suspension are to be formulated as follows, the mater-
ial in each phase being presumed incompressible
(Buyevich, 1990):
~-~ + V'(~cs) = 0, ~ - + V.(~%) = 0, ~ + 4, - 1
- f - ~piV~ (1)
~bpj-( 0~ - k c p . V ) % = - V . I I + f - ~ b p p V ~ .
 Particle distribution in suspension shear flow
These equations are to be solved to find averaged fluid
pressure p, particle volume fraction 4,, and the mean
velocities eI and % for the continuous and dispersed
phases.
Although set (1) and the meaning of all the quantit-
ies involved have been discussed at length elsewhere,
and in particular, in Buyevich (1990), for the intended
purposes it is necessary to point out constitutive equa-
tions that will be used later on to render the set
completely closed. Effective suspension viscosity # is
expressed in a standard form,
la = layM(4,), M(4,) = (1 - 4,)-3/2
where M(4,) (M(0)= 1) is the so-called relative sus-
pension viscosity. A great number of theoretical and
empirical equations for the last function have been
proposed to date. The one noted in eq. (2) has the
advantage of simplicity. Clearly, any other suitable
equation may be employed instead of eq. (2), if neces-
sary.
Vector f in eq. (1) is understood as the interphase
interaction force related to a unit volume of the sus-
pension. Different constituents of this force have re-
cently been thoroughly and meticulously discussed
(Buyevich, 1995). However, for purposes of this paper,
only the contribution due to buoyancy is relevant and
so must be retained. It is
f = 4,pVq~, P = ~Pl + 4,Pp.
Of crucial significance is tensor H which describes
normal stresses occurring in the dispersed phase flow.
It has to be defined as
H = p p 4 , N ( 4 , ) ( w ' * w').
Here w' is the velocity of random particle fluctuations
with a mean of zero. Such fluctuations occur for
various physical reasons. The asterisk signifies the
operation of dyadic multiplication, and the angular
brackets stand for averaging over the possible realiz-
ations of random velocities. While leaving until later
a detailed discussion of various implications that the
use ofeq. (4) is likely to cause when judging about the
adequacy of some available work in the field, it is
expedient to emphasize right away that this equation
is rigorous as far as the precise form of function N(4,)
is not considered. Equation (4) can strictly be derived
in just the same manner as in the kinetic theory of
gases. It describes the tensor of momentum flux den-
sity in any assemblage of particles fluctuating with
random velocity w' entirely irrespective of physical
reasons that are responsible for the origination of
particle fluctuations.
Function N(4,) describes the effect of the particle
being forced into a confined space on momentum
transfer in the dispersed phase due to particle fluctu-
ations. For extremely dilute particulate assemblages,
N(4,) = 1. The form of this function necessarily de-
pends on the manner in which the particles exchange
fluctuational momentum and energy. Two extreme
scenarios can easily be singled out. If the particles are
large enough to ensure that most of the momentum
637
and energy exchange is brought about through direct
contact collisions, then N(4,) has to coincide with
a correction function of the concentration that is
commonly included in the equation of state. This
correction function determines the osmotic pressure
of a pseudo-gas composed of rigid particles. When
using the simple approximate statistical model by
Carnahan and Starling (1969) for a dense system of
sterically interacting and freely colliding identical
hard spheres, one gets
1 _}_ 4, _.}_ ~2 __ 4,3
(2) N(4,) = G(4,) = (1 - 4,)3 (5)
The second extreme scenario for fluctuational mo-
mentum and energy exchange occurs in collisionless
suspensions. In such suspensions, direct collisions are
supposed to be practically absent or to play only
a minor role, and the interparticle exchange is carried
out solely through random fields of ambient fluid
velocity and pressure. Then the assemblage of sus-
pended particles resembles and can be considered as
a system of solute molecules. In this case, within the
framework of the same statistical model, it can be
shown that (Buyevich, 1990)
ln(1 - 4') 1 - 24,
N(4,) = L(4,) = 2 - - ~- 3 - -
4, 1-4,
(3) 4, 1 5 - 84, - 4,2
+ 2 (1 - 4,)2 (6)
At the dilute limit, this expression tends to that ob-
tained previously by Batchelor (1976).
Functions (5) and (6) practically coincide in the low
(4)
concentration range. However, L(4,) is somewhat
smaller than G(4,) at larger concentrations. Although
the difference is not too high, and there is no urgent
need to provide for a precise choice between the
previously described extremes, one must choose be-
tween the extremes while dealing with suspensions in
which the collisions and hydrodynamic interactions
are equally significant. The elucidation of exact condi-
tions under which a suspension may be assigned with
confidence to one of the extremes requires a careful
examination of both collisions and long-range inter-
actions in groups of many particles, and so presents
a formidable task. As far as the author knows, the
problem has been rigorously addressed only in con-
nection with the dynamics of dilute gas-solid mix-
tures by Koch (1990).
This notwithstanding, colloids that feature an
intensive Brownian motion have to be regarded as
belonging to the type of collisionless suspension as
described with the aid of eq. (6). Conversely, concen-
trated suspensions of particles of approximately hun-
dredths of microns in diameter are likely to be cat-
egorized as collisional suspensions for which eq. (5) is
presumably valid. Even so, a suspension of fine par-
ticles that can justifiably be regarded as collisionless
at low concentrations may become collisonal at larger
concentrations under otherwise identical conditions.
Thus, one has to anticipate a gradual transition from
638 Yu. A. BUYEVICH
the behavior associated with eq. (6) to the behavior
that is intrinsic to eq. (5) as the suspension concentra-
tion increases.
Correction pressure function N(~b) has a distinct
statistical physical meaning. It can be unequivocally
expressed in terms of the value of the pair-distribution
function for rigid spheres attributed to the contact of
two spheres. This means that N(~b) depends on pecu-
liarities of the short-range order that establishes itself
in a flowing suspension. This order may well be ex-
pected to be different for collisional and collisionless
suspensions, and this distinction results in the differ-
ence between G(qS) and L(~b). In fact, certain assump-
tions about the properties of the short-range order are
made when simple formulae (5) and (6) are employed.
Usage of functions (5) and (6) represents an inevitable
step in the development of a fluid dynamic model for
suspensions since little is known about the inner
structure of flowing suspensions when the thermal
and hydrodynamically induced fluctuations are both
relevant.
One must bear in mind that the model by Carnahan
and Starling, not to mention many other similar stat-
istical models of dense gases, fails to be adequate at
sufficiently high concentrations. First, their model
does not at all account for the emergence of a crystal-
line phase at q5 ~ 0.55 + 0.59. Secondly, it overlooks
the possible singularity of thermodynamic functions
for a chaotically packed particulate assemblage in the
special case when that assemblage is on the verge of
the hypothetical state of close packing characterized
by a presumably infinite friction between contiguous
particles. For instance, such a singularity in a system
of identical spheres would be resulting from the model
of dense gases put forth by Enskog [see, for example,
Hirschfelder et al. (1954)] according to which a func-
tion
N(~9) : GE(~) ) = [-] -- (~/q~m) 1/33 - 1 (7)
has to be used to describe osmotic pressure instead of
eq. (5). This function goes to infinity as ~b tends to its
maximal value qSm, and this limit is empirically at-
tributed to the close-packed state.
Special attention should be given to the fact that
only normal stresses in the dispersed phase flow are
taken into consideration in the governing conserva-
tion equations (1), since other possible fluctuation
effects are supposed to play but an insignificant role
and therefore can be ignored. Ignoring all but normal
particulate stresses amounts to a neglect of (1) quasi-
viscous tangential particulate stresses originated by
particle fluctuations, and (2) all complementary stres-
ses in the continuous phase flow originated by fluid
fluctuations that inevitably accompany particle
fluctuations. It is worth noting that introducing an
additional "thermodynamic" constituent of inter-
phase interaction (Batchelor, 1976; Buyevich, 1990) is
an alternative way of describing effects caused by the
normal particulate stresses.
In what follows, only fluctuations due to particle
thermal motion and to shear-induced hydrodynamic
fluctuations are taken into account. This means that
pseudo-turbulent hydrodynamic fluctuations which
occur as a consequence of relative mean fluid flow
working at random suspension concentration fluctu-
ations (Buyevich, 1971, 1994) are regarded as relative-
ly weak and so are completely left out of considera-
tion. In turn, these omissions require that the fluid slip
velocity either be absent or small enough.
Physical origins, characteristic length and time
scales, and other properties of thermal and shear-
induced fluctuating motions differ widely from one
another. For this reason, these two fluctuation types
may justifiably be regarded as statistically indepen-
dent of one another. Tensor (w'* w'> on the right side
of eq. (4) may then be expressed as a sum of similar
tensors for the fluctuations of these types taken separ-
ately, and the averaged square of thermal fluctuation
velocity can be expressed through the system temper-
ature in the standard way. Thus,
(w' • w') = ( k T / m ) I + (w' * W'>sh (8)
where the last term on the right refers to shear-in-
duced fluctuations taken alone.
3. S H E A R - I N D U C E D F L U C T U A T I O N S
The objective of this section is to get a comparat-
ively simple albeit physically meaningful representa-
tion of the tensor (w'* w'>sh. This tensor makes its
appearance in eq. (8) and, next, in eq. (4). To this end,
it is necessary to explicitly account for key properties
of the tensor. As it follows from the work by Acrivos
and his colleagues (Leighton and Acrivos, 1987a, b;
Acrivos et al., 1992), random particle velocities due to
shear-induced fluctuations in a plane shear flow ought
to scale with 9;a. This proves the tensor under question
to be a quadratic in the spatial derivatives of the
dispersed phase mean velocity. Furthermore, in order
to comply with the principle of objectivity (Drew and
Lahey, 1979), this tensor must be dependent on those
combinations of such derivatives which have a bear-
ing on true deformation rates in the dispersed phase
flow, but not on quantities associated with its rotation
as a whole. As such, the desired tensor is solely depen-
dent on tensor E, that describes strain rates for the
dispersed phase. In other words, the desired tensor
depends exclusively on the symmetric part of the
spatial derivatives tensor for the true deformation
rates mentioned above.
The most general representation that satisfies both
the above requirements is
<w' * W'>sh = AEp.Ep + BI2(Ep)I,
I2(Ep) = ~1 Ep, ijEp, ij (9)
12 standing for the second tensor invariant, and A and
B being scalar coefficients independent of %. To find
a relation between A and B, and thereby to reduce the
uncertainty of eq. (9) to a single unknown scalar
coefficient, the analysis of simple shear flow sketched
in Fig. 1 is helpful.
 Particle distribution in suspension shear flow
Y Since the averaged displacements along the y- and
1/qlY
Fig. 1. Schematic of particle interaction in shear flow; ex-
planation is in the text.
Consider the situation in the vicinity of a spherical
particle 1 of a dilute suspension in a reference frame
having its origin at the particle center. Another sphere
2 that comes from infinity and passes near the first
sphere undergoes a displacement in a plane contain-
ing both its trajectory and the line connecting the
sphere centers, as shown in Fig. 1. The maximal dis-
placement takes place in the symmetry plane that is
normal to the above indicated plane, and at the same
time, contains the first sphere center. The theory of
similarity suggests this displacement to be fully deter-
mined by an original aiming distance r (the far-up-
stream lateral coordinate of the center of sphere 2)
scaled with a.
Additionally, let angle ~o be defined as the angle
which lies between the direction of shear (y-axis in
Fig. 1) and a line which is drawn from the reference
frame origin (the point in which the center of sphere
1 is situated) to the point of maximal displacement in
the plane of symmetry. Now, if maximal displacement
is assumed to be independent of this angle, then
l= al*(r/a), r/a being the relative aiming distance.
Displacement components along the y- and z-axes in
the symmetry plane are evidently equal to Ir = / c o s (p
and lz = 1sin tp. By definition, the initial relative velo-
city of the particles is u = Cr cos q~.
For the sake of simplicity, let us focus attention on
a macroscopically homogeneous flow (q5 = const)
under a condition of uniform shear (~ = const). In
order to evaluate averaged moduli of the first sphere's
displacement components (those caused by its interac-
tions with all the other spheres with r ~< R = aR* that
happen to intersect the symmetry plane for a unit
time) we need the help of the following integrals:
{lY}°cI~/Zd~fl
: r d r (j ~o c ° s q ~ , ~ c ° s q ~ l ~lsin q9)
~'rt/4; ( ~R" ) only slightly depend, if ever, on peculiarities of the
o c [ 1 / 2 j \ . j ° l*(~)~2d~ na4oc4)¢a (10)
the integral in the parentheses being independent of
dimensional flow characteristics.
639
z-axes are attributed to a unit time, they have to be
regarded as convenient measures of corresponding
velocity components for shear-induced fluctuations.
A result similar to that in eq. (10) could easily be
obtained from the theory of dimensionality because it
is only quantity Ca of velocity dimensionality that can
be constructed on the basis of available dimensional
parameters.
When the value of coefficient 4)¢ is determined by
a condition in which the chosen sphere's interaction
frequency with all other spheres that are passing by it
is linearly proportional to both suspension concentra-
tion and shear rate, then evaluation of the displace-
ments in eq. (10) has a bearing on dilute suspensions.
This means that particle fluctuation velocity compo-
nents in dilute suspensions can be calculated by tak-
ing corresponding mean displacements of the order of
a, which occur on the average as a result of a single
pair interaction, and then dividing them by the mean
time elapsing between successive interactions of the
chosen sphere with its neigbors (or multiplying them
by the interaction frequency).
In order to make the generalization to concentrated
suspensions, an analysis of multiparticle interactions
must be conducted. This task is far from possible at
present, mainly owing to difficulties encountered
when tackling the hydrodynamic interaction of more
than two spheres. In order to circumvent these diffi-
culties, I have decided to make use of a semi-empirical
approach based upon the indicated physical meaning
of eq. (10). As the particle volume fraction increases
while the number particle concentration is held con-
stant, the collision frequency is known to grow faster
than is required by the last proportionality in eq. (10).
This increase in collision frequency occurs due to the
well-known consequences of forcing the particles into
a confined space, and this phenomenon is usually
described with the help of the so-called Enskog factor
(Hirschfelder et al., 1954), as long as the substance
concerned is a molecular gas. The Enskog factor
equals, in fact, the contact value of the pair-distribu-
tion function, and mu~h of that has been said in the
preceding section in connection with using eq. (5) and
eq. (6) can now be repeated with respect to this factor.
The Enskog factor is expressible as X(q~)=
(4~b) l(N(~b) - 1). For instance, within the scope of
the employed Carnahan - Starling model for colli-
sional pseudo-gases composed of hard spheres,
G(qS) - 1 1 - ~b/2
Z(~) - 4~ - (1 - 4))3. (11)
In a dense system with short-range intermolecular
interactions, the growth of the collision frequency and
related effects are of purely geometrical origin and
interaction. Relative particle displacements in sheared
concentrated suspensions are affected by long-range
hydrodynamic interactions involving many particles.
However, main contributions to displacements may
640 Yu. A. BUYEVICH
also be viewed approximately as the result of particle
pair interactions, that is, elementary particle displace-
ments may be conceived as occurring in consequence
of two particles occasionally drawing close to each
other as a result of their mean relative motion. When
the particles come close to each other, the influence
of the other particles can be assumed to cause a
secondary effect on the pair interactions. Viewing
displacements in terms of pair interactions amounts
to regarding the complicated multiparticle interac-
tions involving the chosen sphere in a sheared concen-
trated suspension as a sequence of certain effective
pair interactions of this sphere with its neighbors.
Within the framework of such a model, the pair
interaction frequency in suspensions may be replaced
by the collision frequency for corresponding pseudo-
gases composed of hard particles. Then the same
factor X(q~)has to be used to account for the increase
in pair interaction frequency due to the particles being
crowded in a confined space. Thus, the last quantity
on the right side of eq. (10) has to be multiplied by
function (11).
Longitudinal components of particle fluctuations
have been completely omitted while discussing the
flow in Fig. 1. They must in any event be of the same
order of magnitude as the lateral ones, so that
<w~>~h oC <W~,2>~h0C <w~Z>sh0C ~2Z2(q~)¢Za2.
If the suspension is macroscopically in-
homogeneous and/or its shear flow is not uniform, but
length scale L of either the inhomogeneity or the
nonuniformity considerably exceeds a, the above esti-
mate is still valid. Corresponding corrections are
obviously of the order of alL, and this is easily corrob-
orated by expanding n and ~) in the integrand of the
first integral in eq. (10) into a Taylor series.
Now, let eq. (9) be applied to the plane flow shown
in Fig. 1. It is obvious that
~z
<w~2>~h = <w~2>~h = (A + B) T ,
,•2
(w~2>sh = B -2-'
Hence, also allowing for eq. (10),
A+B (~/4~2 ~2
B = T
and eq. (9) has to be rewritten as
<W' * W'>sh = C~2z2(q~)a 2 I-(=2/4 -- 1)
x Ep 'Ep - 12(Ep)l] (12)
where C is an unknown coefficient of the order of
unity. Coefficient C can depend slightly on the particle
volume fraction, due to the semi-empirical nature of
the model used to evaluate the fluctuation velocity, as
well as to the fact that multiparticle interactions have
not been considered in an explicit form. A more soph-
isticated theory is needed, of course, to find out the
coefficient, which certainly goes beyond the intended
scope of the present paper.
It is worth noting that one is able to arrive at some
informative inferences pertaining to the longitudinal
fluctuations in eq. (12), in spite of these fluctuations
having been completely overlooked in the preceding
consideration. These inferences ought to hold true to
exactly the same extent as other inferences that are
based on the rational mechanics approach.
4. PARTICLE D I S T R I B U T I O N IN U N I F O R M SHEAR LAYER
Consider, next, a one-dimensional steady laminar
horizontal plane shear flow, the geometry of which is
depicted in Fig. 1. For the sake of definitiveness,
attention is restricted to monodisperse suspensions of
negatively buoyant spheres which are heavier than the
ambient fluid. The primary goal consists in analyzing
the coupling between the thermal (Brownian) and the
shear-induced fluctuations as the normal stress
produced by them opposes the action of the grav-
ity-buoyancy force that tends to sediment the par-
ticles. In keeping with this goal, it seems reasonable to
try to make the conclusions of this analysis as trans-
parent as possible at the expense of simplifying the
necessary calculations by assuming the shear rate to
be constant throughout the entire flow domain.
Equations (4), (8) and (12) yield
Firr = ppdp N (dp)[k T /m + C q~2zz(q~)(¢a)2].
There is the only informative equation of set (1) that
does not degenerate into an identity. It can be put
forward in the following form, with allowance for
eq. (3),
dd {~bN(~b)[-~-+ C(Ta)2q~2Z2(c~)]}
- PP - P~ g ~ ( l - ~b). (13)
Pp
It is useful to introduce Brownian and hy-
drodynamic length scales, LB and Ln, which are both
independent of the particle size, in accordance with
definitions
(3kT~
L~ = \4-~ppg,J
TM, g
Ln = ~ . (14)
Then eq. (13) reduces to
d
d-~ [~bL(q~)(1 + fl~5 ~b2z2(q~)]
= --O'O~3~b(1 -- q~), ff--Pv--Pf (15)
P¢
= y/LB, ~ = a/LB, fl = C(LB/Ln).
Here L(~b) is substituted for N(~b) in accordance with
what has been discussed earlier in connection with
eqs, (4)-(6), since colloids and Brownian suspensions
could hardly be expected to be collisional in the
 Particle distribution in suspension shear flow 441

100 1~0 i r
~2.25 2 _____.--

80 0.9 1
80 75

60 60

40 40

20 20
a

0 I I 0 i
0.4 0.6 0.8 E 0.4 0.6 0.8 E

Fig. 2. Void fraction profiles in a layer of uniform shear in accordance with eq. (15) when either Brownian
motion (a) or shear-induced fluctuations (b) dominate; a = 1.5, fl = 0.01; figures at the curves give values
of :t; a thick line on (a) corresponds to ct = 1.6.

above-indicated sense. It is important to note that
both the scales in eq. (14) and the dimensionless coor-
dinate in eq. (15) are independent of particle size.
To study steady-state particle distributions over
a height located above a close-packed sediment layer,
eq. (13) has to be solved for the condition q~(0) = q~m.
The last quantity is the particle concentration value
attributed to the state of close packing. This value is
conventionally set equal to 0.6 in all subsequent calcu-
lations of this section. Profiles of voidage fraction
e = 1 - ~b at fixed fl and tr and different a are plotted
in Fig. 2. The curves show in which m a n n e r particle
distribution is affected by changes in particle size. The
influence of the dimensionless particle radius a is
certainly far from being monotonous. First, an in-
crease in the size of relatively fine particles tends to
cause the particles to sediment. After that, at even
larger sizes, the larger the particle size, the greater the
tendency of particles to be suspended.
If either the hydrodynamically induced fluctuations
are weak compared to the thermal ones (meaning that
parameter fl~5 is sufficiently small) or the suspension
is dilute enough, fl:tsq~2z2(q~) ,~ 1 and eq. (15) yields
something like the barometric formula,
~b oc exp( - a~2~).
In this case, thermal fluctuations are only important
in order to keep particles in the suspended state, and
an increase in particle size leads to a rather noticeable
sharpening of the distribution.
Conversely, when flotsdpzx2(dp) ~> 1, only shear-in-
duced fluctuations contribute to the maintenance of
a nontrivial particle distribution in the gravity field.
Derivative d ~ / d ~ is then inversely proportional to
fl~zoc (~a) z, which shows that constant shear flow
increasingly tends to suspend and carry along the
particles as both shear rate and particle size increase.
Consequently, there are two extreme types of
particle distributions: thermally-induced and
shear-induced. Distributions shown in Fig. 2(a) are
thermally-induced and are significant for colloids or
suspensions in which Brownian motion prevails.
These distributions slope relatively gently, and all the
more gently as the the particles grow finer, and they
consequently display extended exponential "tails".
The distributions in Fig. 2(b) are shear-induced. Their
upper parts are rather sharp, which marks the ex-
ternal appearance of a distinct interface between the
layer of suspended particles and the pure fluid above.
Total volume Q of the particles suspended above
a unit area of the close-packed sediment may be
regarded as a suitable measure of the tendency of flow
to suspend particles. The curves in Fig. 2 suggest that
dependence of Q on particle size is of special signifi-
cance. To study this dependence, another dimension-
less coordinate, r/, that depends on particle size, can be
appropriately introduced to yield a new formulation
of the same problem,
r / = o-~t3~ = ffo~3y/LB
(d/drl)[$L($)(1 + fl~'$zzZ(~b)]
= - ~b(l - ~b), ~b(0) = Sin. (16)
A dimensionless volume of the particles suspended
above a unit area of the sediment in an unbounded
uniform shear flow may be defined as follows:
q LB ea ° q~(t/;fleS)d~, Q= fl 4~dy. (17)
Representative solutions of problem (16) are plot-
ted in Fig. 3. It is instructive to compare them with
those in Fig. 2. The dependence of q from eq. (17) on
a dimensionless particle radius at different fl is illus-
trated by curves in Fig. 4. Each curve has a m i n i m u m
at a certain value of a which depends on ft. The
m i n i m u m displaces farther along the a-axis as fl
642 Yu. A. BUYEVlCH
position of a particle in the input cross-section for
a channel, this inference unambiguously suggests that
particle size no longer monotonously determines the
distance along the channel at which the particle is

01 0.1
expected to touch the channel bottom for the first
time. The correlation of these variables that could be
anticipated from conventional models with no ac-
count for shear-induced fluctuations may well be
wrong both quantitatively and qualitatively, with evi-
100 0.07~.~ dent implications for the design and modeling of
field-flow fractionation processes (Martin and Will-
0.05 iams, 1992).

5. ROTATIONALCOUETTE FLOW
Consider now the steady flow of a monodisperse
suspension of neutrally buoyant spherical particles
between concentric rotating cylinders, with a view in
mind to compare theoretical predictions with avail-
0.4 0.6 0.8 E able experimental data. Relevant angular and radial
components of the m o m e n t u m conservation equation
Fig. 3. Void fraction profiles in a layer of uniform shear in of the dispersed phase now read
accordance with eq. (16); figures at the curves give values of
fl0~5"
r~ (r2z) = O, z = pyM(4~)~, ? = drr r

100 I I i I I I I

z being the shear stress and w stands for the mean

80
velocity.
The first equation in (18) yields

60

where F is an integration constant and R~ and R 2 a r e

40 radii of the internal and external cylinders, respect-
ively. Hence, from the second equation in (18),

20 ~bN(q~)[ ~ - + C(Fo)2(~)Z((~)~
2\-~-~] \~-](R2~a'~=.jconst (19)

the constant to be determined from, say, a condition

I I I I 1 I
0.6 1 1.4
Fig. 4. Dimensionless volume of particles suspended over
a unit area of the sediment as a function of dimensionless
particle radius; figures at the curves give values of ft.
decreases, This m i n i m u m goes to infinity in the par-
ticular case where fl = 0, and this occurs when shear-
induced fluctuations are vanishingly negligible. On
the whole, the displacement of the m i n i m u m reflects
the fact that as the particles become larger, thermal
fluctuations weaken, and the tendency of the flow to
suspend particles diminishes, yet at the same time this
[ stipulating that the suspension concentration aver-
1.8
aged over a preassigned flow domain is given.
It is not difficult to explore the ramifications of eq.
(19) to the full. As a general observation, we can see
that Brownian motion helps to flatten particle distri-
bution across the gap between cylinders, a distribu-
tion which otherwise might be rather steep. In what
follows, attention is limited to non-Brownian suspen-
sions, in which case the term with kT/m can be
dropped out of eq. (19) and N(~) has to be identified
with G(~b) from eq. (5). In this case, eq. (19) reduces to
r _ t[j(f~3G(c~))l/4(Z(~) "~1/2 (20)

tendency is also enhanced because the intensity of

shear-induced fluctuations increases with the particle being a dimensionless constant. Note that particle
size. distribution is entirely insensitive to the constant
The last inference is obviously of immediate C [this constant was introduced into the constitutive
concern in practice. For instance, given the initial equation (12)],
 Particle distribution in suspension shear flow 643

///)
I
r I

//~//
I I I

f
R2

0.8 - Ii [] 0 -
0.8
_ ,. ,o oo
0.6 / / / I ~ / ~ D D O ~~oooO/ " y//:
///:/i~a la~5:/6
0.6 /../://oO
,.
0.,~
0

o.2 ~ 0.2 I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6
Fig. 5. Concentration profiles in rotational Couette flow, eq. Fig. 6. Concentration profiles in rotational Couette flow, eq.
(20) with G(~b)from eq. (5); 1-7:71 = 1,0.875, 0.75, 0.625, 0.5, (20) with G(~b)from eq. (5) corrected with the help of eq. (7) as
0.375 and 0.25, respectively. Dots represent experimental explained in the text; 1-4: ~P = 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 and 0.4, respec-
data by Phillips et al. (1992) at different mean concentra- tively; a thin line presents the curve of Fig. 5 at ~ = 0.5; dots
tions. represent the same as in Fig. 5.

Solutions to eq. (20) at different values of constant osmotic pressure must also infinitely increase at the
~u are plotted in Fig. 5. Experimental dots obtained by indicated limit, so that the singularities of M(q~) and
Phillips et al. (1992) are also shown in Fig. 5. The G(~b) are likely to cancel each other out. Moreover,
agreement between the model curves and dots is not comparison of the curves in Fig. 5 with those of Fig.
bad at all. However, the dots correspond to a depend- 6 proves that the effect of divergencies at ~b = q~m is
ence of q5 on r/Rz which is more gently sloping than not as high as it might have been expected before-
the dependence as given by the theoretical curves. The hand.
dots are all the more so gently sloping in the range of
high concentrations. The agreement between the 6. DIFFUSIONALREPRESENTATION
curves and dots may be somewhat improved by For reasons that should be obvious, it seems in-
allowing for the singularity of osmotic pressure at structive to reduce the m o m e n t u m conservation equa-
q~ = ~m which is ignored in eq. (5). Let G(q~) be correc- tion for the dispersed phase to a diffusion-like equa-
ted, on purely empirical grounds, by adding a singu- tion for suspended particles in which various terms
larity term GE(~b) - 1, with GE(~b) from eq. (7). This would have the meaning of either convective or diffu-
term is important only at concentrations which are sional fluxes. To do this, the m o m e n t u m conservation
sufficiently approximate to that of close packing. equation needs simply to be divided by the effective
Modified model curves are drawn, for what they are particle mobility, 6zt#a = 6n#:M(O)a, for Stokesian
worth, in Fig. 6, where the same experimental dots are spheres, and then to be multiplied by the particle
presented as well. mass. For instance, eq. (13) describing mean particle
It is worth noting that no free adjustable para- m o m e n t u m balance in the lateral direction across
meters have been used when drawing any of the a shear layer then takes the form:
curves in Fig. 5, in contrast to many other works. The
curves of Fig. 6 include the only adjustable parameter 1 kT (~a)2 m (~2Z2 (t~)l }
u s e d - - t h e particle volume fraction for the close- M(~) 6~l~:a
packed state which has been assumed to equal 0.65.
Nevertheless, the agreement between theory and ex- = (DB + Ds) d~b = q~(1 - q~) agm (21)
periments in Fig. 5 is not altogether as conclusive as it dy M(dp) 6~#fa
might initially seem because of two fallacious assump- D°B d kT
tions: eq. (2) has been assumed adequate to represent DB M(q~) dq~ (q~N(~b))' D~ - 61r~:a
the relative suspension viscosity and eq. (5) has
been chosen to represent the osmotic pressure func-
tion. One might argue that viscosity must increase Ds M(g~) (~3N(~b)Zx(¢))'
infinitely as the particle volume fraction tends to its
close-packing state value, so that model predictions in (':a)2m
D~ = C - C~c(~a)2 z (22)
Fig. 5 may be not representative enough. However, 6Xl~fa
644 Yu. A. BUYEVICH
where z is the relaxation time for a single sphere in
unbounded fluid, and x is density ratio Pp/Pl. It
should be emphasized that eq. (21) does not contain
any new information as compared with eq. (13). How-
ever, eq. (21) is formulated in terms of volume fluxes
whereas eq. (13) deals with forces.
The right-hand side of eq. (21) may be correctly
interpreted as the convective volume flux density for
the dispersed phase as it would be if only the gravity-
buoyancy force were acting on the particles, whereas
the left-hand side represents a certain total diffusional
flux, due to all the fluctuations irrespective of their
origin, taken with a negative sign.
The last flux is composed of two independent con-
stituents. The first one represents thermal fluctuations
causing the flux, so that D~ is an effective coefficient of
mutual Brownian diffusion for the suspended par-
ticles down a concentration gradient, D ° being the
Brownian diffusivity of single spheres in an un-
bounded fluid. This effective coefficient of mutual
Brownian diffusion is essentially different from either
the short- or long-range-term coefficient describing
Brownian self-diffusion of the same particles, as it is
fairly well known for concentrated particulate mix-
tures (Batchelor, 1976).
Similarly, the second contribution describes the flux
caused by shear-induced hydrodynamic particle fluc-
tuations. Quantity Ds has to be interpreted as a cor-
responding effective coefficient of mutual diffusivity in
the lateral direction, and D~ should be understood as
the proper scale for the last coefficient. Again, Ds is
different from coefficients of shear-induced self-diffu-
sion in different directions that have previously been
found to scale with 7a2 (Eckstein et al., 1977; Leighton
and Acrivos, 1987a, b; Acrivos et al., 1992). Thus, the
mutual diffusivity of particles experiencing shear-in-
duced fluctuations depends not only on particle
radius and mean shear rate, but also upon a dynamic
property of the particles--relaxation time T.
It is worth noting in this connection that an analog-
ous distinction between mutual and self diffusivities is
also specific to a diffusion produced by hydrodynami-
cally induced fluctuations of some other physical ori-
gin. For example, the self-diffusivity of particles in
a quiescent sedimenting suspension scales with a 3 g/v I
(Davies and Hassen, 1988; Ham and Homsy, 1988),
whereas the mutual diffusivity that governs the
broadening of a top region of the suspension has to be
scaled with a6g2/v} (Zimmels, 1990; Buyevich, 1993),
vy being the fluid kinematic viscosity.
7. DISCUSSION
The main achievement of the present paper consists
in the formulation of a fluid dynamic model of suspen-
sion shear flow which accounts for the dispersed
phase stresses originated by both shear-induced and
thermal fluctuations taken together with both viscous
stresses specific to the continuous phase and with
external body forces and different constituents of the
interphase interaction force. This model is presented
in a tensor covariant form which enables it to be
applied not only to planar unidirectional flows but
also to arbitrary shear flows of complicated symmet-
ries and geometries. In particular, this model yields an
understanding of shear-induced fluctuations that
could not be described using the scalar "temperature"
of the dispersed phase. Thus, this model provides
a principal opportunity to account for the directional
dependence of shear-induced migration of suspended
particles.
An attractive feature of this model is that it intro-
duces the shear-induced migration phenomena, that
is, Brownian diffusion and drift which are the result of
forces experienced by particles within the scope of
a unified analytical scheme. This scheme has been
illustrated in Section 4 where the particle concentra-
tion profile in a horizontal shear flow was discussed.
The interplay between shear-induced and thermal
fluctuations has been proven to result in a non-
monotonous dependence on the particle size of the
total amount of particles suspended over a unit area
of the sediment at any fixed shear rate. This is of
significant concern in many industrial applications in
which transport, processing, and separation of sus-
pensions are of interest.
Application of the model to radial Couette flow has
also met with success. In any event, the predicted
concentration profiles agree with experimental data
by Phillips et al. (1992), without the necessity to
choose particular values for the few adjustable para-
meters.
This model can be profitably applied to give
a clearer explanation of particle distribution in tor-
sional flow between two parallel rotating discs, an
issue much skated over by a number of researchers.
Because there exists a shear rate gradient in the radial
direction, inward particle migration toward the cen-
tral flow axis has been foreseen in some papers (Phil-
lips et al., 1992; Chow et al., 1994). However, such
a migration has not been detected in the sense that
resultant nonuniform concentration profiles have not
been actually observed. According to the developed
model, migration in the radial direction should cer-
tainly occur, but it does not mean that essentially
nonuniform profiles must necessarily evolve. Con-
clusions drawn to this effect are presumably due to
a misunderstanding.
Actually, the flow is sometimes incorrectly conceiv-
ed as one that consists of shearing surfaces resting
parallel to the disks, with each surface moving in solid
body rotation and the shear rate being uniform in the
direction normal to the discs (Phillips et al., 1992).
This corresponds to wr -- w~ = 0, w~ = ~or(z/h), h be-
ing the distance separating the discs and co standing
for a constant angular velocity. Such a flow field
agrees with the angular component of the
Navier-Stokes equation, whereas the radial compon-
ent yields an expression for the pressure,
p = po(z) -I- (p/2)o92r2(z/h)2. It is easy to see, however,
that the axial component of the Navier-Stokes equa-
tion can by no means be satisfied by the supposed
 Particle distribution in suspension shear flow
flow field, and motion in both axial and radial direc-
tions must arise. As a matter of fact, the resulting flow
in the gap between the discs includes an axisymmetric
vortex, with fluid flowing outward near the rotating
disc and inward in the vicinity of the motionless disc.
Admittedly, the vortex induces convective mixing of
the suspension which obliterates the simple picture
that could be expected if only the shear-induced dis-
persion were present. It should be stressed that the
above conclusion holds true irrespective of the flow
Reynolds number. Really, the axial pressure gradient
component is of the order of p(¢or)2z/h 2. In a crude
(but sufficient to get an order of magnitude evalu-
ation) approximation, this pressure gradient must be
compensated by the dynamic pressure gradient,
pwz~w~/~z',~ p~(wZ)/~z, whence follows w ~ t o r
WtO.
In the literature, there are examples where the diffu-
sion-equation-based model (Phillips et al., 1992) and
the Stokesian dynamics simulation (Nott and Brady,
1994) are applied to pressure-driven suspension flow
in channels. Because the shear rate disappears at the
symmetry axis or plane of the channel, the particle
volume fraction characteristic of steady concentration
profiles at that axis or plane always coincides with the
concentration (~m of the close-packed state, no matter
how small the particle concentration may be every-
where in the bulk. Such a conclusion is due, of course,
to other mechanisms which are able to give rise to
particle fluctuations being entirely ignored. In channel
flow driven by a pressure head, relative mean motion
of the phases inevitably occurs and originates
pseudo-turbulent fluctuations of particles of the type
indicated earlier (Buyevich, 1971, 1993). These fluctu-
ations as well as thermal ones contribute to effective
particulate stress in the lateral direction and make for
the smoothing out of the concentration profile in the
channel core region.
It should be stressed once again that the particle
distribution must be governed by the dispersed phase
momentum conservation equation, but by no means
by its mass conservarion equation or by a diffusion-
like equation that some researchers choose to postu-
late. The diffusion-like equation can be derived from
the momentum conservation one for comparatively
simple flows where only one space dimension is rel-
evant, but certainly cannot be looked upon as an
independent equation. In the general case, such a deri-
vation cannot be performed even formally, because
there is no possible way to reduce a vector momentum
equation to a scalar diffusion equation.
Furthermore, self-diffusion of a particle can surely
be described by dealing with random motion of this
particle alone provided that the motion properties are
known, without any allusion to other particles in the
suspension under study. This is certainly not the case
for mutual diffusion down a concentration gradient
which is a collective process including a large number
of particles by its very definition. This fundamental
distinction results in a drastic difference in the corres-
ponding self-diffusion and mutual diffusion coeffi-
645
cients, as regards both their scaling and their depend-
ence on concentration.
Some authors do not distinguish between these
coefficients, and this mere fact is likely to cause serious
mistakes when modeling suspension flow. For in-
stance, the diffusion-like equations have been postu-
lated to describe shear-driven particle distribution in
Leighton and Acrivos (1986), Davies and Leighton
(1987), Phillips et al. (1992), Acrivos et al. (1993), Nott
and Brady (1994), and in some other papers. All these
equations that are known to the present author ap-
parently presume that particle mutual diffusion coeffi-
cients scale with ~,~a2 in the same manner as particle
self-diffusivities do. As has been proven in this paper,
those coefficients must scale with ~a4/vy, that is, must
be proportional to shear rate squared.
In fact, this last scale is completely determined by
the scale that is characteristic of stresses (or of mo-
mentum flux tensor components) in the dispersed
phase. The dispersed phase can be visualized as a sys-
tem of particles involved in a fluctuating motion, and
the only dimensional parameters that are physically
relevant to this system are: (1) particle mass, (2) par-
ticle size, and (3) mean fluctuation velocity W. The
only combination of stress dimensionality that can be
built up from these parameters is m a - 3 W 2, which
determines a proper scale for the dispersed phase
stresses. For shear-induced fluctuations, W ~ ~a, and
this unequivocally yields the above result for the par-
ticle mutual diffusivity scale. It should be pointed out,
however, that the contributions to the continuous
phase stresses that are due to shear-induced fluctu-
ations have supposedly to be scaled with ~,~t~Ibecause
#r must now be considered as a relevant dimensional
parameter instead of m. The continuous phase stresses
have certainly nothing to do with the properties of
steady particle distributions, but they ought to affect
the rate with which these steady distributions estab-
lish themselves.
A weak point of the model developed is that it does
not involve an independent equation of fluctuational
energy conservation similar to the heat conduction
equation in molecular systems. A phenomenological
attempt to set forth such an equation was undertaken
by Goldshtik and Kozlov (1973) within the frame-
work of their model of fluctuations in a sheared par-
ticulate medium of high concentration. Jenkins and
McTigue (1990) proposed a fluctuational energy
equation by closely following the modern methodo-
logy of treating dry granular materials. An alternative
equation governing the transfer of particle fluctua-
tional energy in collisional dispersions of large par-
ticles has recently been derived by analogy with the
kinetic theory of gases (Buyevich, 1994). This equation
involves new terms that correspond to an increase in
fluctuational energy due to the mean relative flow
working at random concentrational fluctuations and
due to its quasi-viscous dissipation. Although the
physical mechanisms in the papers cited which are
supposed to give rise to random fluctuating motion
are different from those corresponding mechanisms
646 Yu. A. BUVEVlCH
described in this paper, one has to expect similar 9 gravity acceleration
terms to appear in any desired energy equation for L(q~) function defined in eq. (6)
shear-induced fluctuations. However, the exact form Ls, LH Brownian and hydrodynamic length scales
of the indicated terms is not clear, and more signifi- defined in eq. (14)
cantly, neither is the dependence of the fluctuational M(~) suspension relative viscosity
energy flux, which is due to the fluctuations themsel- m particle mass
ves, on mean flow variables. Recently, the problem N(~b) pressure correction function
has been thoroughly discussed by Nott and Brady n particle number concentration
(1994). p mean fluid pressure
On the whole, the model presented in this paper can Q, q dimensional and dimensionless volume of
be looked upon as a sound and useful starting point suspended particles
for attacking numerous problems in the fluid dynam- R~, R2 cylinder radii
ics of suspensions that exhibit both Brownian and w' particle fluctuation velocity
hydrodynamically induced fluctuating motion. The w mean suspension velocity in rotational flow
formulation of this model is justified by the fact that
statistical physical studies of such suspensions are far Greek letters
from remotely approaching something like an ad- ~t dimensionless particle radius
vanced state of the art for purely Brownian disper- fl parameter identified in eq. (15)
sions(Brady, 1993a,b). Moreover, this model accounts F integration constant in eq. (19)
for the essential physics of suspension flow and is shear rate
much simpler, as regards application to particular Z(~b) Enskog factor
flow problems, than meticulous and computationally e void fraction
expensive simulations of multi-particle systems based ¢, ~/ dimensionless coordinates
on the Stokesian dynamics. ~b particle volume fraction
As a final remark, the problem of the irreversibility ~b~ particle volume fraction for the close-packed
of shear-induced migration should be briefly ad- state
dressed. Leighton and Acrivos (1987b) originally sup- K density ratio
posed that this irreversibility is produced by the fact Pl fluid dynamic viscosity
that pair interparticle interactions are not themselves vl fluid kinematic viscosity
reversible, due to the slight surface roughness of the H particle stress tensor
particles. Abbot et al. (1991) implicitly assumed that Ps, Pp fluid and particle density
reversible Stokesian interactions cannot result in an a parameter defined in eq. (15)
irreversible net motion and, hence, were compelled to z particle relaxation time, also tangentional
attribute the irreversibility to the existence of some stress
hypothetical forces that do not follow from low potential of external body force field
Reynolds number hydrodynamics. As much as all this constant in eq. (20)
may be true, the phenomenon under question can
readily be viewed as one of the possible manifestations REFERENCES
of the Boltzman paradox which was resolved at the Abbott, J. R., Tetlow, N., Graham, A. I., Altobelli, S. A.,
end of the last and the beginning of the present cen- Fukushima, E., Mondy, L. A. and Stephens, T. S., 1991,
Experimental observation of particle migration in con-
tury. Reversible interparticle interactions are certainly centrated suspensions: Couette flow. J. Rheol. 35, 773.
capable of producing irreversible effects, such as Acrivos, A., Batchelor, G. K., Hinch, E. J., Koch, D. L. and
macroscopic flow or an increase in entropy, in collo- Mauri, R., 1992, Longitudinal shear-induced diffusionof
ids and suspensions, in just the same manner as re- spheres in a dilute suspension. J. Fluid Mech. 240, 651.
versible intermolecular interactions do in gaseous or Acrivos, A., Mauri, R. and Fan, X., 1993, Shear-induced
resuspensionin a Couette device. Int. J. Multiphase Flow
condensed molecular systems. 19, 797.
Batchelor, G. K., 1976, Brownian diffusion of particles with
hydrodynamic interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 74, I.
Acknowledoement--This paper was written while the author
Bossis, G. and Brady, J. F., 1987, Self-diffusionof Brownian
held a National Research Council Research Associateshipat particles in concentrated suspensions under shear. J.
the NASA Ames Research Center. chem. Phys. 87, 5437.
Brady, J. F., 1993a, Brownian motion, hydrodynamics and
NOTATION the osmotic pressure. J. chem. Phys. 98, 3335.
a particle radius Brady, J. F., 1993b,The rheologicalbehavior of concentrated
A, B, C constants in eqs (9) and (12) colloidal dispersions. J. chem. Phys. 99, 567.
Buyevich,Y. A., 1971,Statistical hydromechanicsof disperse
c1 % mean phase velocities systems. Part 1. J. Fluid Mech. 49, 489.
D,, Ds mutual diffusivities due to thermal and Buyevich,Y. A., 1990,Hydrodynamics of dispersions includ-
shear-induced fluctuations ing diffusional effects. Arch. Mech. 42, 429.
Ep dispersed phase strain rate tensor Buyevich,Y. A., 1993, Internal fluctuations in flows of finely
dispersed suspensions. Izvestiya Ross. Akad. Nauk,
f interphase interaction force Mekh. Zhidkosti i Gaza No. 3, 91.
kT temperature in energy units Buyevich,Y. A., 1994, Fluid dynamics of coarse dispersions.
G(~b) osmotic pressure function Chem. En#n# Sci. 49, 1217.
 Particle distribution in suspension shear flow
Buyevich, Y. A., 1995, Interphase interaction in fine suspen-
sion flow. Chem. Engng Sci. 50, 641.
Carnahan, N. F. and Starling, K. E., 1969, Equation of state
for noninteracting rigid spheres. J. chem. Phys. 51, 635.
Chow, A. W., Sinton, S. W., Iwamia, J. H. and Stephens, T. S.,
1994, Shear-induced particle migration in Couette and
parallel-plate viscosimeters: NMR imaging and stress
measurements. Phys. Fluids 6, 2561.
Davies, R. H. and Hassen, M. A., 1988, Spreading of the
interface at the top of a slightly polydisperse sedimenting
suspension. J. Fluid Mech. 196, 107.
Davies, R. H. and Leighton, D., 1987, Shear-induced trans-
port of a particle layer along a porous wall. Chem. Engng
Sci. 42, 275.
Drew, D. A. and Lahey, R. T., 1979, The analysis of virtual
mass effects in two-phase flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 5,
233.
Eckstein, E. C., Bailey, D. G. and Shapiro, A. H., 1977,
Self-diffusion of particles in shear flow of suspensions. J.
Fluid Mech. 79, 191.
Gadala-Maria, F. and Acrivos, A., 1980, The shear-induced
migration of particles in a concentrated suspension of
solid spheres. J. Rheol. 24, 799.
Goldstik, M. A. and Kozlov, B. N., 1973, Elementary theory
of dense disperse systems. Zh. Prikl. Mekh. Tekhn. Fiz.
No. 4, 67.
Ham, J. M. and Homsy, G. M., 1988, Hindered settling and
hydrodynamic dispersion in quiescent sedimenting sus-
pensions. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 14, 533.
Henry, J. D., 1972, Cross flow filtration. In Recent Develop-
ments in Separation Science. CRC Press, Cleveland.
Hirschfelder, J. O., Curtiss, C. F, and Bird, R., 1954, Molecu-
lar Theory of Gases and Liquids. Wiley, New York and
Chapman, London.
647
Jackson, R., 1963, The mechanics of fluidized beds. I. Trans.
Instn Chem. Engrs London 41, 13.
Jenkins, J. T. and McTigue, D. F., 1990, Transport properties
in concentrated suspensions: The role of particle fluctu-
ations. In Two-Phase Flows and Waves. Springer, New
York.
Koch, D. L., 1990, Kinetic theory for a monodisperse
gas-solid suspension. Phys. Fluids A2, 1711.
Leighton, D. and Acrivos, A., 1986, Viscous resuspension.
Chem. Engng Sci. 41, 1377.
Leighton, D. and Acrivos, A., 1987a, Measurement of shear-
induced self-diffusion in concentrated suspensions of
spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 177, 109.
Leighton, D. and Acrivos, A., 1987b, The shear-induced
migration of particles in concentrated suspensions. J.
Fluid Mech. 181, 415.
Madsen, R. E., 1977, Hyperfiltration and Ultrafiltration in
Plate-and-Frame Systems. Elsevier, New York.
Martin, M. and Williams, P. S., 1992, Theoretical basis of
field-flow fractionation. In Theoretical Advancement in
Chromatography and Related Separation Techniques.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Nott, P. R. and Brady, J. F., 1994, Pressure-driven flow of
suspensions: simulation and theory. J. Fluid Mech. 275,
157.
Phillips, R. J., Armstrong, R. C., Brown, R. A., Graham, A. L.
and Abbot, J. R., 1992, A constitutive equation for con-
centrated suspensions that accounts for shear-induced
particle migration. Phys. Fluids A4, 30.
Shaposhnikov, I. G., 1951, On the account of diffusional
phenomena in hydrodynamic equations. Zh. Exper.
Teor. Fiz. 21, 1309.
Zimmels, Y., 1990, Hydrodynamic diffusion of particulates in
sedimenting systems. Powder Technol. 61, 131.