Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Correlated collisions and history filtering: Unraveling and reproducing the statistics of coalescing particles in turbulence from the ghost-particle framework

Fanxi Gong and Ewe-Wei Saw*,†

  • *Contact author: ewsaw3@gmail.com
  • †Also at Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Tropical Atmosphere-Ocean System, Zhuhai, China.

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 114302 – Published 9 November, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/7j9f-dwhf

Abstract

This paper is aimed at understanding and predicting the statistics of coalescing particles in turbulent flow, and their relation to the physics of the simpler and better-understood system of collisionless ghost particles in turbulence. We perform three distinct families of direct numerical simulations under identical flow conditions. The first family involves ghost particles that do not mutually interact; the second contains particles (monomers) that coalesce upon collision, with lost monomers replenished by injection of new particles at random positions to maintain a constant monomer density (CR); and the third family involves particles with the same collision-coalescence kinetics but without replenishment of lost monomers. All analyses are monodisperse; only the statistics and physics of the monomers are considered. Across the range of Stokes number studied (St=0.01–3.0), we find that the collision kernel (K) and the values of radial distribution function [RDF, g(r)] near particle contact (r≈d, where d is the particle diameter) of the ghost-particle (GP) system are higher than those of the coalescing systems. We show that a velocity-filtered version of the RDF gG(−)(r) is a reasonable proxy for estimating the CR system's RDF value at contact gCR(d). We systematically report on the residual discrepancy between gG(−)(d) and gCR(d) as well as between the corresponding kernels KG and KCR. We show that the discrepancy is due to correlation among successive collisions within the GP system by showing that a history-filtered version of the GP collision kernel, which is void of such correlations, reproduces the corresponding kernel of the coalescing systems. We introduce a collision-correlation time, τcc, to quantify how long current collisions influence future collision events and show that it is finite and has a narrow range across the range of St studied. We show that when particles with past collisions within a period comparable to τcc are filtered out in the GP system, the resulting history-filtered RDF g̃G(r;τ≈τcc) reproduces the RDF of the coalescing systems (gCR(r) and gCN(r)). Finally, we show that among all history-bearing collisions in the GP system, the fraction of repeated collisions involving identical particles is an exponentially decaying function of St. This work unifies the coalescing and GP systems under a single framework and affords an elegant interpretation of the former as a history filtered equivalent of the latter.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (43)

  1. R. A. Shaw, Particle-turbulence interactions in atmospheric clouds, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35, 183 (2003).
  2. W. W. Grabowski and L.-P. Wang, Growth of cloud droplets in a turbulent environment, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45, 293 (2013).
  3. C. T. Crowe, Multiphase Flow Handbook (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2005).
  4. S. Balachandar and J. K. Eaton, Turbulent dispersed multiphase flow, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 111 (2010).
  5. J. M. Kuerten, Point-particle DNS and LES of particle-laden turbulent flow-a state-of-the-art review, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 97, 689 (2016).
  6. P. Saffman and J. Turner, On the collision of drops in turbulent clouds, J. Fluid Mech. 1, 16 (1956).
  7. S. Sundaram and L. R. Collins, Collision statistics in an isotropic particle-laden turbulent suspension. part 1. direct numerical simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 335, 75 (1997).
  8. L.-P. Wang, A. S. Wexler, and Y. Zhou, Statistical mechanical description and modelling of turbulent collision of inertial particles, J. Fluid Mech. 415, 117 (2000).
  9. L. Pan and P. Padoan, Relative velocity of inertial particles in turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech. 661, 73 (2010).
  10. B. Rosa, H. Parishani, O. Ayala, W. W. Grabowski, and L.-P. Wang, Kinematic and dynamic collision statistics of cloud droplets from high-resolution simulations, New J. Phys. 15, 045032 (2013).
  11. M. R. Maxey, The gravitational settling of aerosol particles in homogeneous turbulence and random flow fields, J. Fluid Mech. 174, 441 (1987).
  12. K. D. Squires and J. K. Eaton, Preferential concentration of particles by turbulence, Phys. Fluids 3, 1169 (1991).
  13. J. K. Eaton and J. Fessler, Preferential concentration of particles by turbulence, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 20, 169 (1994).
  14. F. Toschi and E. Bodenschatz, Lagrangian properties of particles in turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 375 (2009).
  15. R. Monchaux, M. Bourgoin, and A. Cartellier, Analyzing preferential concentration and clustering of inertial particles in turbulence, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 40, 1 (2012).
  16. E.-W. Saw, R. A. Shaw, J. P. Salazar, and L. R. Collins, Spatial clustering of polydisperse inertial particles in turbulence: Ii. comparing simulation with experiment, New J. Phys. 14, 105031 (2012).
  17. G. Falkovich, A. Fouxon, and M. Stepanov, Acceleration of rain initiation by cloud turbulence, Nature (London) 419, 151 (2002).
  18. M. Wilkinson, B. Mehlig, and V. Bezuglyy, Caustic activation of rain showers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 048501 (2006).
  19. E.-W. Saw, G. P. Bewley, E. Bodenschatz, S. Sankar Ray, and J. Bec, Extreme fluctuations of the relative velocities between droplets in turbulent airflow, Phys. Fluids 26, 111702 (2014).
  20. A. Pumir and M. Wilkinson, Collisional aggregation due to turbulence, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 7, 141 (2016).
  21. H. R. Pruppacher and J. D. Klett, Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation, Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences Library (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998), Vol. 18.
  22. W. C. Reade and L. R. Collins, Effect of preferential concentration on turbulent collision rates, Phys. Fluids 12, 2530 (2000).
  23. O. Ayala, B. Rosa, L.-P. Wang, and W. W. Grabowski, Effects of turbulence on the geometric collision rate of sedimenting droplets. Part 1. results from direct numerical simulation, New J. Phys. 10, 075015 (2008).
  24. J. Bec, L. Biferale, M. Cencini, A. Lanotte, and F. Toschi, Intermittency in the velocity distribution of heavy particles in turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 646, 527 (2010).
  25. A. D. Bragg and L. R. Collins, New insights from comparing statistical theories for inertial particles in turbulence: II. Relative velocities, New J. Phys. 16, 055014 (2014).
  26. K. Gustavsson and B. Mehlig, Statistical model for collisions and recollisions of inertial particles in mixing flows, Eur. Phys. J. E 39, 55 (2016).
  27. K. Gustavsson, B. Mehlig, and M. Wilkinson, Collisions of particles advected in random flows, New J. Phys. 10, 075014 (2008).
  28. M. Voßkuhle, A. Pumir, and E. Lévêque, Estimating the collision rate of inertial particles in a turbulent flow: Limitations of the “ghost collision” approximation, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 318, 052024 (2011).
  29. M. Voßkuhle, E. Lévêque, M. Wilkinson, and A. Pumir, Multiple collisions in turbulent flows, Phys. Rev. E 88, 063008 (2013).
  30. M. Voßkuhle, A. Pumir, E. Lévêque, and M. Wilkinson, Prevalence of the sling effect for enhancing collision rates in turbulent suspensions, J. Fluid Mech. 749, 841 (2014).
  31. E.-W. Saw and X. Meng, Intricate relations among particle collision, relative motion and clustering in turbulent clouds: Computational observation and theory, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 3779 (2022).
  32. X. Meng and E.-W. Saw, Sharp depletion of radial distribution function of particles due to collision and coagulation inside turbulent flow: A systematic study, Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 084304 (2023).
  33. X. Meng and E.-W. Saw, Effect of collision-coalescence on the mean relative velocity of particles in turbulent flow: A systematic study, Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 024301 (2026).
  34. J. Chun, D. L. Koch, S. L. Rani, A. Ahluwalia, and L. R. Collins, Clustering of aerosol particles in isotropic turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 536, 219 (2005).
  35. L. Zaichik and V. Alipchenkov, Statistical models for predicting particle dispersion and preferential concentration in turbulent flows, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 26, 416 (2005).
  36. S. Elghobashi, On predicting particle-laden turbulent flows, Appl. Sci. Res. 52, 309 (1994).
  37. C. Canuto, M. Y. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, and T. A. Zang, Spectral Methods in Fluid Dynamics (Springer, 1988).
  38. M. Mortensen and H. P. Langtangen, High performance Python for direct numerical simulations of turbulent flows, Comput. Phys. Commun. 203, 53 (2016).
  39. V. Eswaran and S. B. Pope, An examination of forcing in direct numerical simulations of turbulence, Comput. Fluids 16, 257 (1988).
  40. R. S. Rogallo, Numerical experiments in homogeneous turbulence, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Technical Memorandum No. 81315, 1981.
  41. S. B. Pope, Turbulent flows, Meas. Sci. Technol. 12, 2020 (2001).
  42. M. R. Maxey and J. J. Riley, Equation of motion for a small rigid sphere in a nonuniform flow, Phys. Fluids 26, 883 (1983).
  43. P. J. Ireland, T. Vaithianathan, P. S. Sukheswalla, B. Ray, and L. R. Collins, Highly parallel particle-laden flow solver for turbulence research, Comput. Fluids 76, 170 (2013).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation