Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T22:33:47.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A variational approach to moving contact line hydrodynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2006

TIEZHENG QIAN
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
XIAO-PING WANG
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
PING SHENG
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Institute of Nano Science and Technology, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

In immiscible two-phase flows, the contact line denotes the intersection of the fluid–fluid interface with the solid wall. When one fluid displaces the other, the contact line moves along the wall. A classical problem in continuum hydrodynamics is the incompatibility between the moving contact line and the no-slip boundary condition, as the latter leads to a non-integrable singularity. The recently discovered generalized Navier boundary condition (GNBC) offers an alternative to the no-slip boundary condition which can resolve the moving contact line conundrum. We present a variational derivation of the GNBC through the principle of minimum energy dissipation (entropy production), as formulated by Onsager for small perturbations away from equilibrium. Through numerical implementation of a continuum hydrodynamic model, it is demonstrated that the GNBC can quantitatively reproduce the moving contact line slip velocity profiles obtained from molecular dynamics simulations. In particular, the transition from complete slip at the moving contact line to near-zero slip far away is shown to be governed by a power-law partial-slip regime, extending to mesoscopic length scales. The sharp (fluid–fluid) interface limit of the hydrodynamic model, together with some general implications of slip versus no slip, are discussed.

Type
Papers
Copyright
© 2006 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.)