Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T02:36:06.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of surface physisorption on gas scattering dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2023

Yichong Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Institute of Multiscale Thermofluids, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FB, UK
Livio Gibelli*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Institute of Multiscale Thermofluids, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FB, UK
Jun Li
Affiliation:
Center for Integrative Petroleum Research, College of Petroleum Engineering and Geosciences, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
Matthew K. Borg
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Institute of Multiscale Thermofluids, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FB, UK
*
Email addresses for correspondence: yichongchen1997@gmail.com, livio.gibelli@ed.ac.uk
Email addresses for correspondence: yichongchen1997@gmail.com, livio.gibelli@ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Engineering flow systems operating under low pressures and/or at the micro/nano scale generally include a physically adsorbed gas layer next to the surface. In this paper, we develop a scattering kernel that accounts for the effect of adsorption, arising from van der Waals interactions, on the dynamics of molecules impinging on solid smooth surfaces. In the limit of low bulk density, surface adsorption becomes negligible and the scattering kernel recovers consistently the Cercignani–Lampis model, which best describes molecular collisions with a clean, smooth surface. In the limit of high bulk density, a dense adsorbed molecular layer forms next to the surface and its presence is picked up by the Maxwell model with complete diffuse reflection, which better captures the multiple collisions suffered by molecules. A weight coefficient based on the Langmuir adsorption isotherm is incorporated into the modelling to handle the transition between these two limiting conditions of low and high densities. The proposed model is validated against high-fidelity molecular dynamics simulations that are performed for a variety of gas–surface combinations and adsorbed molecular layers with different densities. It is shown that the proposed model very well captures the scattering patterns of beams of gas molecules at different velocities impinging on surfaces, as well as momentum and energy accommodation coefficients in the entire range of explored conditions.

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, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press.
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) Schematic of scattering dynamics of gas molecules near a smooth surface. During the scattering process, incident gas molecules (grey) could either suffer single or multiple collisions (both with the wall and other momentarily adsorbed gas molecules). (b) Example density profiles in the presence of argon (Ar) molecules near the platinum (Pt) surface at an equilibrium temperature of 300 K, with distinguishable features of bulk and elevated adsorption densities.

Figure 1

Table 1. Interatomic Lennard-Jones potential parameters ($\sigma, \epsilon$) used in the MD simulations. Molecular masses $m$ [u]: ${\rm Ar}=39.948$; ${\rm He}=4.0026$; ${\rm Pt}=195.084$; ${\rm Au}=196.967$.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Scattering process of argon molecules on a platinum surface at 423 K. (a) Probability histogram of the number of collisions, with the inset indicating the tracking of the scattering process. (b) TMAC vs number of collisions. (c) NEAC vs number of collisions. (d) Qualitative schematics of odd vs even collisions. Contributions to (e) TMAC and ( f) NEAC of molecules suffering two, for TMAC, and up to four, for NEAC, collisions (green colour) and multiple collisions (black colour) as functions of the reduced bulk density. Solid symbols are MD results and solid lines are the predictions of our calibrated SK, (3.3).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Variation of the general accommodation coefficients with bulk densities $\eta _b$ given by MD results for the Ar-Pt system at (a) 300 K and (b) 423 K; the He-Au system at (c) 300 K and (d) 423 K.

Figure 4

Table 2. Reference values for the intrinsic accommodation coefficients ($\alpha _{t, 0}, \alpha _{E_n, 0}$) and the calibrated constants ($\hat {K}_L, C$).

Figure 5

Table 3. Relation between the TMAC ($\alpha _t$) and the TEAC ($\alpha _{Et}$) for various SKs.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Relation between momentum and energy accommodation coefficients for the He-Au system at 423 K, given by our MD results and predicted by various SKs. (a) TEAC vs TMAC; (b) NMAC vs NEAC. Density of data points correspond to those in figure 3(d).

Figure 7

Figure 5. Re-emission probability distributions of the (a) tangential and (b) normal velocity for monoenergetic beams predicted by MD for the Ar-Pt system with a surface temperature of 423 K and $\eta _b = 0.0011$. Velocities of the beams are normalised by the most probable speed $\sqrt {2 R T}$. (c,d) MD results compared against predictions of the SKs for an example of high impinging velocity of $\xi _{t_1}' = 1.9$ and $\xi _{n}' = 1.9$.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Re-emission probability distributions of the (a) tangential and (b) normal velocity for monoenergetic beams predicted by MD for the He-Au system with a surface temperature of 423 K and $\eta _b=0.0051$. Velocities of the beams are normalised by the most probable speed $\sqrt {2 R T}$. (c,d) MD results compared against predictions of the SKs for an example case of a high impinging velocity of $\xi _{t_1}' = 1.9$ and $\xi _{n}' = 1.9$.

Figure 9

Figure 7. Beam $L^2$-norm errors between the reflected velocity distributions of monoenergetic beams predicted by existing SKs and MD results vs the impinging molecule velocity. The results refer to the Ar-Pt system at the surface temperature of 423 K and $\eta _b = 0.0011$ in the (a) tangential and (b) normal directions.

Figure 10

Figure 8. General $L^2$-norm errors, obtained by integrating the corresponding beam errors and using the Maxwellian flux as weighted factor, vs the reduced density. The results refer to the Ar-Pt system at the surface temperature of 423 K in the (a) tangential and (b) normal directions.