Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:02:55.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vertical shear alters chemical front speed in thin-layer flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2019

Thomas D. Nevins Open the ORCID record for Thomas D. Nevins [Opens in a new window]  and
Douglas H. Kelley Open the ORCID record for Douglas H. Kelley [Opens in a new window]
Thomas D. Nevins
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14623, USA
Douglas H. Kelley*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14623, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The mixing of a reactive scalar by a fluid flow can have a significant impact on reaction dynamics and the growth of reacted regions. However, experimental studies of the fluid mechanics of reactive mixing present significant challenges and puzzling results. The observed speed at which reacted regions expand can be separated into a contribution from the underlying flow and a contribution from reaction–diffusion dynamics, which we call the chemical front speed. In prior work (Nevins & Kelley, Chaos, vol. 28 (4), 2018, 043122), we were surprised to observe that the chemical front speed increased where the underlying flow in a thin layer was faster. In this paper, we show that the increase is physical and is caused by smearing of reaction fronts by vertical shear. We show that the increase occurs not only in thin-layer flows with a free surface, but also in Hele-Shaw systems. We draw these conclusions from a series of simulations in which reaction fronts are located according to depth-averaged concentration, as is common in laboratory experiments. Where the front profile is deformed by shear, the apparent front speed changes as well. We compare the simulations to new experimental results and find close quantitative agreement. We also show that changes to the apparent front speed are reduced approximately 80 % by adding a lubrication layer.

JFM classification

Low-Reynolds-number flows: Hele-Shaw flows Reacting Flows: Laminar reacting flows Reacting Flows: Turbulent reacting flows
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 874 , 10 September 2019 , pp. 235 - 262
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2019 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, M., Celani, A., Vergni, D. & Vulpiani, A. 2001 Front propagation in laminar flows. Phys. Rev. E 64 (4), 046307.Google Scholar
Arratia, P. E. & Gollub, J. P. 2006 Predicting the progress of diffusively limited chemical reactions in the presence of chaotic advection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2), 024501.Google Scholar
Atis, S., Saha, S., Auradou, H., Salin, D. & Talon, L. 2013 Autocatalytic reaction fronts inside a porous medium of glass spheres. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (14), 148301.Google Scholar
Bargteil, D. & Solomon, T. 2012 Barriers to front propagation in ordered and disordered vortex flows. Chaos 22 (3), 037103.Google Scholar
Beauvier, E., Bodea, S. & Pocheau, A. 2017 Front propagation in a regular vortex lattice: Dependence on the vortex structure. Phys. Rev. E 96 (5), 053109.Google Scholar
Chevalier, T., Salin, D. & Talon, L. 2017 Frozen fronts selection in flow against self-sustained chemical waves. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2 (4), 043302.Google Scholar
Coriton, B., Frank, J. H. & Gomez, A. 2013 Effects of strain rate, turbulence, reactant stoichiometry and heat losses on the interaction of turbulent premixed flames with stoichiometric counterflowing combustion products. Combust. Flame 160 (11), 2442–2456.Google Scholar
Coriton, B., Frank, J. H. & Gomez, A. 2016 Interaction of turbulent premixed flames with combustion products: role of stoichiometry. Combust. Flame 170, 37–52.Google Scholar
Doan, M., Simons, J. J., Lilienthal, K., Solomon, T. & Mitchell, K. A. 2018 Barriers to front propagation in laminar, three-dimensional fluid flows. Phys. Rev. E 97 (3), 033111.Google Scholar
Dolzhanskii, F. V., Krymov, V. A. & Manin, D. Y. 1992 An advanced experimental investigation of quasi-two-dimensional shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 241, 705–722.Google Scholar
Edwards, B. F. 2002 Poiseuille advection of chemical reaction fronts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (10), 104501.Google Scholar
Esptein, I. R. 1987 Patterns in time and space. Chem. Engng News Archive 65 (13), 24–36.Google Scholar
Feeney, R., Schmidt, S. L. & Ortoleva, P. 1981 Experiments on electric field-BZ chemical wave interactions: annihilation and the crescent wave. Phys. D 2 (3), 536–544.Google Scholar
Figueroa, A., Demiaux, F., Cuevas, S. & Ramos, E. 2009 Electrically driven vortices in a weak dipolar magnetic field in a shallow electrolytic layer. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 245–261.Google Scholar
Foerster, P., Muller, S. C. & Hess, B. 1988 Curvature and propagation velocity of chemical waves. Science 241 (4866), 685–687.Google Scholar
Gendrin, C., Roggo, Y. & Collet, C. 2008 Pharmaceutical applications of vibrational chemical imaging and chemometrics: a review. J. Pharmaceut. Biomedical Analysis 48 (3), 533–553.Google Scholar
Gowen, S. & Solomon, T. 2015 Experimental studies of coherent structures in an advection-reaction-diffusion system. Chaos 25 (8), 087403.Google Scholar
Hargrove, W. W., Gardner, R. H., Turner, M. G., Romme, W. H. & Despain, D. G. 2000 Simulating fire patterns in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecological Modelling 135 (23), 243–263.Google Scholar
Keener, J. P. 1986 A geometrical theory for spiral waves in excitable media. SIAM J. Appl. Maths 46 (6), 1039–1056.Google Scholar
Kelley, D. H. & Ouellette, N. T. 2011 Onset of three-dimensionality in electromagnetically driven thin-layer flows. Phys. Fluids 23 (4), 045103.Google Scholar
Kiselev, A. & Ryzhik, L. 2001 Enhancement of the traveling front speeds in reaction-diffusion equations with advection. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré 18 (3), 309–358.Google Scholar
Kresta, S. M., Atiemo-Obeng, V. A., Paul, E. L. & Atiemo-Obeng, V. 2004 Handbook of Industrial Mixing: Science and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Leconte, M., Martin, J., Rakotomalala, N. & Salin, D. 2003 Pattern of reaction diffusion fronts in laminar flows. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (12), 128302.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J., Bargteil, D., Kingsbury, M., Mitchell, K. & Solomon, T. 2012 Invariant barriers to reactive front propagation in fluid flows. Eur. Phys. Lett. 98 (4), 44005.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. R., Li, J., Boyer, C., Solomon, T. & Mitchell, K. A. 2015 Frozen reaction fronts in steady flows: a burning-invariant-manifold perspective. Phys. Rev. E 92 (6), 063005.Google Scholar
Martin, A. P. 2003 Phytoplankton patchiness: the role of lateral stirring and mixing. Prog. Oceanogr. 57 (2), 125–174.Google Scholar
Megson, P. W., Najarian, M. L., Lilienthal, K. E. & Solomon, T. H. 2015 Pinning of reaction fronts by burning invariant manifolds in extended flows. Phys. Fluids 27 (2), 023601.Google Scholar
Mehrvarzi, C. O. & Paul, M. R. 2014 Front propagation in a chaotic flow field. Phys. Rev. E 90 (1), 012905.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. A. & Mahoney, J. R. 2012 Invariant manifolds and the geometry of front propagation in fluid flows. Chaos 22 (3), 037104.Google Scholar
Nevins, T. D. & Kelley, D. H. 2016 Optimal stretching in advection-reaction-diffusion systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (16), 164502.Google Scholar
Nevins, T. D. & Kelley, D. H. 2017 Front tracking for quantifying advection-reaction-diffusion. Chaos 27 (4), 043105.Google Scholar
Nevins, T. D. & Kelley, D. H. 2018 Front tracking velocimetry in advection-reaction-diffusion systems. Chaos 28 (4), 043122.Google Scholar
Nienow, A. W., Edwards, M. F. & Harnby, N. 1997 Mixing in the Process Industries, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Ouellette, N. T., Xu, H. & Bodenschatz, E. 2006 A quantitative study of three-dimensional Lagrangian particle tracking algorithms. Exp. Fluids 40 (2), 301–313.Google Scholar
Punckt, C., Bodega, P. S., Kaira, P. & Rotermund, H. H. 2015 Wildfires in the lab: simple experiment and models for the exploration of excitable dynamics. J. Chem. Educ. 92 (8), 1330–1337.Google Scholar
van Saarloos, W. 2003 Front propagation into unstable states. Phys. Rep. 386 (2-6), 29–222.Google Scholar
Schlick, C. P., Umbanhowar, P. B., Ottino, J. M. & Lueptow, R. M. 2014 Competitive autocatalytic reactions in chaotic flows with diffusion: Prediction using finite-time Lyapunov exponents. Chaos 24 (1), 013109.Google Scholar
Scott, S. K. 1994 Oscillations, Waves, and Chaos in Chemical Kinetics. Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
Sevčiková, H. & Marek, M. 1983 Chemical waves in electric field. Phys. D 9 (1), 140–156.Google Scholar
Sharif, J., Abid, M. & Ronney, P. D. 1999 Premixed-gas flame propagation in Hele-Shaw cells. In 1st Joint US Sections Combustion Institute Meeting. NASA.Google Scholar
Solomon, T. H. & Mezić, I. 2003 Uniform resonant chaotic mixing in fluid flows. Nature 425 (6956), 376–380.Google Scholar
Spangler, R. S. & Edwards, B. F. 2003 Poiseuille advection of chemical reaction fronts: Eikonal approximation. J. Chem. Phys. 118 (13), 5911–5915.Google Scholar
Suri, B., Tithof, J., Mitchell, R., Grigoriev, R. O. & Schatz, M. F. 2014 Velocity profile in a two-layer Kolmogorov-like flow. Phys. Fluids 26 (5), 053601.Google Scholar
Tithof, J., Martell, B. C. & Kelley, D. H. 2018 Three-dimensionality of one- and two-layer electromagnetically driven thin-layer flows. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3 (6), 064602.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Tithof, J., Nevins, T. D., Colón, R. O. & Kelley, D. H. 2017 Optimal stretching in the reacting wake of a bluff body. Chaos 27 (12), 123109.Google Scholar
Wood, P. M. & Ross, J. 1985 A quantitative study of chemical waves in the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction. J. Chem. Phys. 82 (4), 1924–1936.Google Scholar
Xin, J. 2000 Front propagation in heterogeneous media. SIAM Rev. 42 (2), 161–230.Google Scholar
Zaikin, A. N. & Zhabotinsky, A. M. 1970 Concentration wave propagation in two-dimensional liquid-phase self-oscillating system. Nature 225 (5232), 535–537.Google Scholar

Nevins and Kelley supplementary movie 1

Simulated vertical front profiles evolving under supporting and opposing flows in single- and two-layer configurations. Reacted regions are white; unreacted regions are grey. Front speed is 72 microns/s, matching the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. The two-layer configuration reduces front distortion significantly.

Download Nevins and Kelley supplementary movie 1(Video)
Video 11.7 MB

Nevins and Kelley supplementary movie 2

Simulated apparent concentration evolving under supporting flows in single- and two-layer configurations. Front speed is 72 microns/s, matching the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. The two-layer configuration reduces smearing, such that the concentration gradient at the front stays much steeper.

Download Nevins and Kelley supplementary movie 2(Video)
Video 5.3 MB

Nevins and Kelley supplementary movie 3

Apparent concentration evolving under supporting flows in single- and two-layer experiments with the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. The two-layer configuration reduces smearing, such that the concentration gradient at the front stays much steeper.

Download Nevins and Kelley supplementary movie 3(Video)
Video 7.9 MB