Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T13:27:42.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On viscous propulsion in active transversely isotropic media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

G. Cupples
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK Institute for Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
R. J. Dyson
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
D. J. Smith*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK Institute for Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
*
Email address for correspondence: D.J.Smith.2@bham.ac.uk

Abstract

Very low Reynolds number propulsion is a topic of enduring interest due to its importance in biological systems such as sperm migration in the female reproductive tract. Motivated by the fibrous nature of cervical mucus, several recent studies have considered the effect of anisotropic rheology; these studies have generally employed the classical swimming sheet model of G. I. Taylor. The models of Cupples et al. (J. Fluid Mech. vol. 812, 2017, pp. 501–524) and Shi & Powers (Phys. Rev. Fluids vol. 2, 2017, 123102) consider related problems which in a common limit (passive, slightly anisotropic) make different predictions regarding how swimming speed depends on alignment angle. In the present paper we find that this discrepancy is due to missing terms in the analysis of Cupples et al., and that when these terms are correctly included, the models agree in their common limit. We further explore the predictions of the corrected model for both passive and active cases; it is found that for certain combinations of alignment angle and activity parameter, propulsion is halted; in other cases the small amplitude asymptotic expansion is no longer valid, motivating future numerical study.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Mean swimming velocity comparison for passive transversely isotropic media where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=0.05$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}=0$. Three different results are compared: the incorrect calculation from Cupples et al. (2017) (dashed line), the corrected calculation (solid line) and the solution provided by Shi & Powers (2017) (dotted line). A magnified view of the first minimum in this figure has been included.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Corrected mean swimming velocity for small $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}$. Four $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}$ values are chosen, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=0$ (solid lines), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=0.01$ (dashed lines), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=1$ (dot-dashed lines) and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=5$ (dotted lines). Two $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}$ values are selected, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}=0$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}=1$ (circle markers).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Corrected mean swimming velocity for large $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}$. (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}=0$ and (b) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{3}=900$. Four choices for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}$ are compared: $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=0$ (solid lines), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=100$ (dashed lines), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=500$ (dot-dashed lines) and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}=900$ (dotted lines). Panel (a) contains a magnified view of the middle section of the results.