1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{amsbsy}

3: \usepackage{fullpage}

4: \usepackage[dvips]{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{latexsym}

6: \usepackage{psfig}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: \usepackage{rotate}

9: %\usepackage{labelfig}

10: \usepackage{amsmath}

11: \newcommand{\del}{\delta}

12: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

13: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}

14: \newcommand{\bb}{\bibitem}

15: \newcommand{\ue}{\bf{e}}

16: \newcommand{\ug}{{\bf g}}

17: \newcommand{\un}{{\bf n}}

18: \newcommand{\up}{\bf{p}}

19: \newcommand{\uq}{\bf{q}}

20: \newcommand{\uu}{{\bf u}}

21: \newcommand{\ux}{{\bf x}}

22: \newcommand{\TI}{{\bf T}^i}

23: \newcommand{\TJ}{{\bf T}^j}

24: \newcommand{\DI}{D^i}

25: \newcommand{\DDJ}{D^j}

26: \newcommand{\te}{{\mathcal E}}

27: \newcommand{\ts}{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}

28: \newcommand{\uv}{\bf v}

29: \newcommand{\ee}{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}

30: \newcommand{\bound}{\partial\Omega}

31: \newcommand{\uom}{\hbox{\boldmath{$\omega$}}}

32: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

33: 

34: \title

35: {Effective shear and extensional viscosities of

36: concentrated disordered suspensions of rigid particles.}  

37: \author{Leonid Berlyand\\

38: Department of Mathematics and Materials Research Institute\\  Penn State

39: University\\

40: University Park, PA 16802, USA\\

41:  ({\tt berlyand@math.psu.edu})\\

42: and\\ 

43: Alexander Panchenko\\

44: Department of

45: Mathematics\\

46:  Washington State University\\

47: Pullman WA 99164, USA \\

48: ({\tt

49: panchenko@math.wsu.edu})}

50: 

51: 

52: 

53: \begin{document}

54: \maketitle

55: %%%%%%%%%

56: \begin{abstract}

57: We study effective shear viscosity $\mu^\star$ and  effective extensional

58: viscosity $\lambda^\star$ of concentrated non-colloidal suspensions of rigid spherical particles. The focus is on the spatially disordered arrays, but periodic arrays are considered as well. 

59: We use recently developed discrete network approximation techniques to obtain asymptotic formulas for $\mu^\star$ and $\lambda^\star$ as the typical inter-particle distance $\delta$ tends to zero, assuming that the fluid flow is governed

60: by Stokes equations. For disordered arrays, the volume fraction alone does not determine the effective viscosity. Use of the network approximation allows us to

61: study the dependence of $\mu^\star$ and $\lambda^\star$ on variable distances between neighboring particles in such arrays. 

62: 

63: Our analysis, carried out for a two-dimensional 

64: model, can be characterized as global because it goes beyond the local analysis of flow between two particles and takes into account hydrodynamical interactions in the entire particle array.

65: Previously, asymptotic

66: formulas for $\mu^\star$ and $\lambda^\star$ 

67: were obtained via asymptotic analysis of lubrication effects 

68: in a single thin gap between two closely spaced particles. The principal conclusion in the paper is that, in general, asymptotic formulas for $\mu^\star$ and $\lambda^\star$ obtained by global analysis are different from the formulas obtained

69: from local analysis. In particular, we show that the leading term in the asymptotics of $\mu^\star$ is of lower order than suggested by the local analysis (weak blow up), while the order of the leading term in the asymptotics of $\lambda^\star$  depends on the geometry of the particle array (either weak or strong blow up).

70: We obtain geometric  conditions on a random particle array under which 

71: the asymptotic order of $\lambda^\star$ coincides with the order of the local 

72: dissipation in a gap between two neighboring particles, and show that these conditions are generic. We also provide an example of a uniformly closely packed particle array 

73: for which  the leading term in the asymptotics of $\lambda^\star$ degenerates (weak

74: blow up).

75: 

76: %shows that taking into account

77: %long-range hydrodynamic interactions (global analysis vs. local analysis)

78: %provides the correct asymptotic formulas for $\mu^\star$ and  $\lambda^\star$. 

79: 

80: 

81: 

82: 

83: \end{abstract}

84: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

85: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}} 

86: \makeatother

87: \makeatletter %\@addtoreset{figure}{section}

88: %\def\thefigure{\thesection.\arabic{figure}} 

89: \makeatother

90: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

91: \newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}[section]

92: \newtheorem{problem}{Problem}[section]

93: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

94: \newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}[section]

95: \newtheorem{property}{Property}[section]

96: \newtheorem{example}{Example}[section]

97: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[section]

98: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}[section]

99: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]

100: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[section]

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

103: \section{Introduction}  

104: Concentrated suspensions are important in many industrial applications such as

105: drilling, water-coal slurries transport, food processing, cosmetics and ceramics manufacture. 

106: In nature, flows

107: of concentrated suspensions appear as mud slides, lava flows and soils

108: liquefied by the earthquake-induced vibrations (\cite{Carr}, \cite{Cous}, \cite{Shook}).

109: 

110: 

111: An asymptotic formula for the effective viscosity of a 

112: suspension of non-colloidal particles in a Newtonian fluid, 

113: derived  in \cite{FA}, is based on the local lubrication analysis of the 

114: energy dissipation rate in the

115: narrow gap between a pair of nearly touching particles. The 

116: distance between two neighboring particles in a periodic array is the small

117: parameter in the problem. For periodic arrays, this

118: {\it inter-particle distance} is uniquely determined by the volume fraction

119: of particles, so that the asymptotics of the

120: effective viscosity is obtained as a function of  the volume fraction $\phi$

121: that is close to the 

122: maximal packing volume fraction $\phi_{rcp}$.  the asymptotics of the effective

123: viscosity obtained in \cite{FA} has the form

124: \begin{equation}

125: \label{00}

126: A\epsilon^{-1}+O(\ln\epsilon),

127: \end{equation}

128: as $\epsilon\to 0$, where $\epsilon=1-(\phi/\phi_{rcp})^{1/3}$. 

129: The formulas for effective viscosity of 

130: periodic suspensions in the whole space ${\bf R}^3$ (without boundary) subject

131: to a prescribed linear flow,

132: obtained in \cite{Keller}, also rely on the local lubrication analysis. 

133: Asymptotic representations for the components of the effective viscosity tensor 

134: calculated by \cite{Keller} are of the form 

135: \begin{equation}

136: \label{001}

137: A\epsilon^{-1}+B\ln\epsilon +O(1),

138: \end{equation}

139: Recently, concentrated random suspensions were investigated numerically

140: by \cite{Brady} using accelerated Stokesian dynamics. It was observed

141: that the behaviour of the effective high frequency dynamic shear viscosity 

142: of disordered suspensions can be accurately

143: described by the asymptotic $B\ln \epsilon$, indicating degeneration of the leading term in the asymptotic expansions (\ref{001}) (weak blow up). The authors of \cite{Brady} also show that

144: their results are in good agreement with available

145: experimental data (\cite{ShP}, \cite{VW}). 

146: This suggests that for generic random suspensions, the

147: asymptotics of the effective viscosity defined by the (properly normalized) global dissipation rate cannot be identified with the local

148: dissipation rate in a single  gap. 

149: 

150: In this paper, we use the discrete network approximation proposed in \cite{BBP} 

151: to study the asymptotics of the shear effective viscosity $\mu^\star$ and 

152: the extensional effective viscosity $\lambda^\star$ corresponding

153: to general disordered particle arrays. For such arrays, the volume fraction

154: alone is not sufficient for determining the effective viscosity.

155: Therefore,  instead of $\epsilon$, we use the 

156: inter-particle distance parameter $\delta$ that controls the distances

157: $\delta_{ij}$ between neighboring particles.

158: 

159: 

160: The mathematical construction of \cite{BBP} accounts for the 

161: long range hydrodynamical interactions between the particles, and

162: provides an algorithm for calculation of the effective viscosity, which 

163: takes into account variable distances between neighboring particles in non-periodic arrays.

164: Furthermore, in \cite{BBP} it was observed that the leading term of the asymptotics may degenerate 

165: due to the external boundary conditions and geometry of the particle array, while

166: in the scalar case (\cite{BK}) the order of the leading term is the same for all

167: particle arrays that form a connected network. This paper is devoted to a detailed

168: study of this degeneration phenomenon. In particular, we clarify the issue

169: of weak versus strong blow up in the asymptotics of the effective viscosity.

170: 

171: The definition of the effective viscosity employed in this paper differs from the

172: definition in \cite{Keller}. Their definition is closely related

173: to the definition of the effective material properties of periodic media in homogenization theory

174: (see e.g. \cite{BLP}, \cite{JKO}), where these properties are defined

175: via analysis on a periodicity

176: cell. Then these properties 

177: are determined by the properties of constituents and geometry of the periodic array,

178: independently of the external boundary conditions and applied forces.

179: Such properties are usually defined in the limit when particle size tends to

180: zero while the number of particles approaches infinity.

181: 

182: 

183: Our definition is more directly linked to the viscometric measurements

184: that necessarily involve boundary conditions. 

185: We assume that particles of a fixed size are placed in a bounded domain

186: (apparatus), and the typical distance between the

187: neighboring particles approaches zero. Thus, the total volume fraction of particles approaches the maximal packing fraction. In this case the effective viscosity

188: will be influenced not just by the inter-particle interactions but also by the forces or velocities prescribed at the boundary of the apparatus. Since we work

189: with linear models, $\mu^\star$ ($\lambda^\star$) are independent of the applied

190: shear (extension) rate. However, we also show that the asymptotic order of the effective viscosities depends on the relation between

191: the orientation of the velocity prescribed at the boundary, shape of the boundary, and orientations of the line segments connecting pairs of 

192: neighboring particles.  

193: 

194: 

195: We present sufficient conditions for degeneration

196: (weak blow up) and non-degeneration (strong blow up) of the leading term. 

197: We show that $\mu^\star$ always exhibits weak blow up, while local 

198: analysis alone predicts strong blow up. We also show that the asymptotic order

199: of $\lambda^\star$  depends on the geometry 

200: of the particle array. In the paper, we define a broad class of arrays of particles 

201: for which the leading order term of $\lambda^\star$ does not degenerate. 

202: This situation is typical in the sense that for a 

203: generic array $\mu^\star$ and $\lambda^\star$ have vastly different values, and  

204: their ratio depends on the inter-particle distance, 

205: which indicates possible non-Newtonian behaviour of the effective fluid

206: under the imposed boundary conditions. 

207: We also give an example of 

208: a closely packed particle array for which the leading term in 

209: the extensional viscosity degenerates.  

210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%   

212: \section{Mathematical model}

213: We consider a concentrated suspension of rigid, 

214: non-Brownian, neutrally buoyant

215: particles in a viscous

216: incompressible Newtonian fluid. In the two-dimensional model, 

217: the suspension occupies  a 

218: domain $\Omega$ which is a square of side length two centered at the origin.

219: The boundary of $\Omega$ is denoted by 

220: $\partial

221: \Omega$. 

222: The upper and lower sides of $\partial\Omega$ are denoted by 

223: $\partial\Omega^+=\{{\ux}: x_2=1\}$ and $\partial\Omega^-=\{{\ux}:x_2=-1\}$, respectively. We 

224: also let ${\bf e}_1, {\bf e_2}$ denote the Cartesian basis

225: vectors parallel to the sides of $\partial\Omega$.

226: The particles 

227: $D^j$, $j=1,2, \ldots, N$ are modelled as 

228: rigid disks with centers ${\bf x}^j$, placed in $\Omega$. For simplicity, we consider

229: the monodisperse case, so that all particles have radius $a$. The part of $\Omega$

230: which is not occupied by particles is the fluid domain, denoted

231: by $\Omega_F$. 

232: 

233: 

234: 

235: 

236: The fluid at low Reynolds number is 

237: governed by Stokes equations

238: \begin{equation}

239: \label{eq1}

240: \mu\Delta {\uv}-\nabla P=0,\;\;\;\;{\rm div}~{\uv}=0,\;\;\;{\rm in}\;\Omega_F.

241: \end{equation}

242: where $\mu$ is the fluid viscosity, $\uv$ the velocity field, and $P$ is 

243: the pressure. 

244: 

245: 

246: 

247: 

248: 

249: In this paper, we consider the external 

250: boundary conditions of the shear and extensional types.

251: The shear type boundary conditions are given by

252: \begin{equation}

253: \label{shear-fbc}

254: {\bf v}=

255: \left\{

256: \begin{array}{cc}

257: \gamma{\bf e}_1\;\;\;&{\rm on}~\partial\Omega^+ ,\\

258: -\gamma{\bf e}_1\;\;\;&{\rm on}~\partial\Omega^-,\\

259: \end{array}

260: \right.

261: \end{equation}

262: where $\gamma$ is a constant shear rate.

263: 

264: 

265: In the case of extensional boundary conditions the velocity is prescribed as

266: \begin{equation}

267: \label{ext-fbc}

268: {\bf v}=

269: \left\{

270: \begin{array}{cc}

271: \vep(-{\bf e}_2+x_1{\bf e}_1)\;\;\;&{\rm on}~\partial\Omega^+ ,\\

272: \vep({\bf e}_2+x_1{\bf e}_1)\;\;\;&{\rm on}~\partial\Omega^-,\\

273: \end{array}

274: \right.

275: \end{equation}

276: where $\vep$ is a constant extension rate.

277: The two remaining (vertical) sides of $\partial\Omega$ are free surfaces, where

278: the zero traction condition is prescribed. 

279: 

280: 

281: To define particle  velocities, we first recall that

282: a rigid body moving in the plane defined

283: by ${\bf e}_1, {\bf e}_2$ has a velocity vector of the form

284: \begin{equation}

285: \label{p-vel}

286: {\bf v}^j({\bf x})={\bf T}^j+\omega^j{\bf e}_3\times ({\bf x}-{\bf x}^j),\;\;\;{\bf x}\in D^j,

287: \end{equation}

288: where ${\bf e}_3$  is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane of motion. Therefore, if

289: ${\bf r}=a{\bf e}_1+b{\bf e}_2$, then

290: ${\bf e}_3\times {\bf r}=-b{\bf e}_1+a{\bf e}_2$.

291: Equation (\ref{p-vel}) shows that the   

292: velocity of a particle $D^j$, $j=1,2, \ldots, N$ is completely determined by two parameters: 

293: a constant translational velocity vector ${\bf T}^j$ and a scalar 

294: angular velocity $\omega^j$.  

295: Both ${\bf T}^j$ and $\omega^j$ are unknown and must be 

296: determined in the course of solving the problem.

297: 

298: 

299: 

300: 

301: Since each rigid disk is in equilibrium, the total force and torque

302: exerted on $D^j$ by the fluid must be zero, which provides the  

303: boundary conditions on the particle boundaries $\partial D^j$: 

304: \begin{equation}

305: \int_{\partial D^j} \ts \un^{j} \, ds = {\bf 0} \;\;\hbox{and}\;\;

306: \int_{\partial D^j} \un^{j} \times \ts \un^{(j)}\, ds = {\bf 0},

307: \;\hbox{for}\; j = 1,2 \ldots N,

308: \label{p-bc},

309: \end{equation}

310: where ${\bf n}^j$ is the exterior unit normal to $\partial D^j$, and

311: \begin{equation}

312: \label{def-stress}

313: \ts=2\mu\mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf v})-P\boldsymbol I.

314: \end{equation}

315: In (\ref{def-stress}) and throughout the paper, $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf v})$ denotes the strain rate tensor defined by

316: \begin{equation}

317: \label{strain}

318: \mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf v})=

319: \frac 12(\nabla

320: {\uv}+

321: \nabla {{\uv}}^T),

322: \end{equation}

323: the superscript $T$ stands for the transposed tensor, and $\boldsymbol I$ denotes the unit tensor.

324:  

325: 

326: 

327: Solving equation (\ref{eq1}) with the boundary

328: conditions (\ref{shear-fbc}) (or (\ref{ext-fbc})) and (\ref{p-bc})

329: is equivalent to minimizing the functional

330: \begin{equation}

331: W_{\Omega_F}(\uu) = \frac{\mu}{4} {\displaystyle

332: \sum_{i,j = 1}^n} {\displaystyle \int_{\Omega_F}} \left(\frac{\partial

333: u_i(\ux)}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j(\ux)}{\partial x_i}

334: \right)^2 d\ux,

335: \label{primal} 

336: \end{equation}

337: over the function space ${\cal U}$ of admissible velocity fields $\uu$. 

338: This space is a space of vector functions in $\Omega$ satisfying

339: either (\ref{shear-fbc}) or (\ref{ext-fbc}), and such that 

340: \begin{equation}

341: \uu = {\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^n} u_j \, {\bf e}_j,

342: ~u_j \in H^1(\Omega_F),~ j = 1 \ldots n,\; \hbox{div}\, \uu = 0, \;

343: (\ref{p-vel})\,{\rm holds}.

344: \label{sp_U}

345: \end{equation}

346: Since the fluid velocity ${\bf v}$ is the minimizer of the variational principle

347: (\ref{primal})-(\ref{sp_U}), the energy dissipation rate $E$ in the fluid (defined

348: in equation (\ref{sus-dis} below)

349: can be written as

350: \begin{equation}

351: \label{fl-dis-var}

352: E=W_{\Omega_F}({\bf v})=\min_{{\bf u}\in{\cal U}} W_{\Omega_F}({\bf u}).

353: \end{equation}

354: 

355: In next section we will see that calculation of the effective viscosities 

356: essentially amounts to calculation of $E$. 

357: 

358: 

359: 

360: 

361: 

362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

363: \section{Effective shear and extensional viscosities.}

364: \subsection{Effective dissipation rates}

365: We suppose that the suspension can be modelled on a macroscale by a single phase viscous

366: fluid, called an {\it effective fluid}. The velocity

367: field of the effective fluid is denoted by ${\uv}^0$. The effective fluid

368: is subject to the same external boundary conditions as the flow of the

369: suspension. 

370: 

371: We assume that the effective 

372: stress tensor ${\ts}^0$  satisfies the constitutive equation

373: of the form

374: \begin{equation}

375: \label{const}

376: {\ts}^0=F({\ee}({\bf v}^0)), 

377: \end{equation}

378: where $F$ is a symmetric tensor function that does not depend explicitly on ${\bf x}$. In this paper, 

379: we do not derive or postulate the 

380: precise from of the constitutive law for the

381: effective fluid. Instead, we use the fundamental principle (going back to \cite{Einst}),

382: that 

383: viscous energy dissipation rate of the suspension must be equal to the dissipation

384: rate of the effective homogeneous fluid. The dissipation rates are

385: defined by

386: \begin{equation}

387: \label{sus-dis}

388: E=\int_{\Omega_F} {\ts}\cdot {\ee}({\uv}) d{\ux}= 

389: 2\mu\int_{\Omega_F} {\ee}({\uv})\cdot {\ee}({\uv}) d{\ux}

390: \end{equation}   

391: in the suspension,

392: and 

393: \begin{equation}

394: \label{eff-dis}

395: E^0=\int_\Omega {\ts}^0 \cdot {\ee}({\uv}^0) d\ux,

396: \end{equation}

397: in the effective fluid. In the equations (\ref{sus-dis}), (\ref{eff-dis}), 

398: ${\ts}\cdot {\ee}={\ts}_{ij}{\ee}_{ij}$ is the inner product of tensors.

399: 

400: For small particle volume fractions, (\cite{Einst}, \cite{Batch}), this principle was 

401: further combined

402: with the assumption that the effective fluid is Newtonian with a constant

403: effective viscosity. 

404: %For highly concentrated

405: %suspensions, the same assumption was used in \cite{FA}.

406: However, for concentrated suspensions this assumption is not 

407: validated by rigorous mathematical derivation or experimental data and at present 

408: the problem of finding the effective constitutive law for such suspensions is still 

409: under investigation.  Some experimental studies (e.g. \cite{ShP}, \cite{VW}) suggest 

410: that the effective fluid may  be non-Newtonian. 

411: Our calculations of the effective viscosity suggest that  

412: non-Newtonian behavior is possible for irregular (non-periodic or random) suspensions. 

413: 

414: 

415: 

416: We use the rheological definitions of shear

417: and extensional viscosities as ratios of the corresponding components of the stress

418: and strain rate tensors. To calculate the asymptotics

419: of the two viscosities, we employ the network approximation introduced in   (\cite{BBP}).

420: We analyze the network functional (discrete dissipation rate) introduced in \cite{BBP}

421: and  show that the standard relation between two viscosities

422: which holds for Newtonian fluids (see \cite{Sh} ch. 9 for the 3D-case and Appendix A for 2D-case ) 

423: does not hold.

424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

426: \subsection{Shear viscosity}

427: Suppose that a homogeneous effective fluid undergoes a steady shear flow

428: with the shear rate $\gamma$. The velocity field 

429: ${\uv}_{\it sh}$ satisfies the shear type boundary conditions (\ref{shear-fbc}).

430: The effective shear viscosity is defined by (see (\ref{eo-shear}))

431: \begin{equation}

432: \label{shev1}

433: \mu^\star=\frac{S^0_{12}}{\gamma}=2 \frac{E^0}{\gamma^2 |\Omega|},

434: \end{equation}

435: where $S^0_{12}$ is the corresponding component of the effective stress tensor 

436: and $|\Omega|=\int_\Omega d\ux$.

437: Note that our definition of $F^0$ in (\ref{const}) implies that 

438: $\ts^0$ is constant when $\ee({\bf v}^0)$ is constant.

439: Since $E=E^0$, the equivalent definition is

440: \begin{equation}

441: \label{shev2}

442: \mu^\star=2 E \gamma^{-2} |\Omega|^{-1}=

443: 4\mu \gamma^{-2} |\Omega|^{-1}

444: \int_{\Omega_F} {\ee}({\uv}_{\it sh})\cdot\ee(\uv_{\it sh})d \ux

445: \end{equation}

446: Thus the calculation of $\mu^\star$ amounts to evaluation of the total dissipation rate integral

447: \begin{equation}

448: \label{dirint}

449: E_{sh}=2\mu\int_{\Omega_F} {\ee}({\uv}_{\it sh})\cdot\ee(\uv_{\it sh}){\it d}\ux,

450: \end{equation}

451: where $\uv_{\it sh}$ solves  (\ref{eq1})-(\ref{p-bc}).

452: 

453: 

454: 

455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

456: \subsection{Extensional viscosity}

457: A steady extensional flow of the effective fluid is characterized by

458: a constant extension rate $\vep$. The velocity ${\uv}^0_{\it ext}$ satisfies

459: the extensional boundary conditions (\ref{ext-fbc}).

460: The extensional viscosity (see, e.g. \cite{Sh}. ch.9) may be defined by

461: \begin{equation}

462: \label{ev}

463: \lambda^\star=\frac{S_{11}^0-S_{22}^0}{\vep},

464: \end{equation}

465: where $S_{11}^0, S_{22}^0$ are components of the effective stress tensor. 

466: Since 

467: $E^0=\int_\Omega {\ts}^0\cdot\ee({\uv})^0_{\it ext}d\ux= (S_{11}^0-S_{22}^0)\vep|\Omega|$, 

468: the effective

469: extensional viscosity can be defined 

470: in terms of the suspension dissipation rate $E$, as follows.

471: \begin{equation}

472: \label{eev1}

473: \lambda^\star=\frac{E}{\vep^2 |\Omega|}=

474: 2\mu\vep^{-2}|\Omega|^{-1}\int_{\Omega_F} {\ee} ({\uv}_{\it ext}) \cdot {\ee} 

475: ({\uv}_{\it ext}) d\ux,

476: \end{equation}

477: and  calculation of  $\lambda^\star$ again reduces to evaluation of the total dissipation 

478: rate (\ref{dirint}) with  ${\uv}_{\it sh}$ replaced by ${\uv}_{\it ext}$. 

479: In the remaining part of the paper we derive asymptotic formulas for the total 

480: dissipation rate under boundary conditions (\ref{shear-fbc}) and (\ref{ext-fbc}). 

481: 

482: 

483: 

484: 

485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% VORONOI TESS. AND NETWORK GRAPH%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

486: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

487: \section{The Network}

488: Let us consider an arbitrary distribution of circular particles (disks) $D^i$, whose centers

489: are points ${\bf x}^i$ in $\Omega$, for $i = 1,2, \ldots, N$. We suppose that $N$

490: is close to $N_{\hbox{max}}$, so that neighboring particles can be close to

491: touching one another. 

492: The network consists of vertices ${\bf x}^i$ and edges. The edges connect only 

493: vertices that correspond to 

494: `` neighboring ``  particles. Note that while for a periodic array  

495: the notion of a neighboring vertex (particle) is obvious, for 

496: non-periodic (e.g. random) arrays of particles it is not immediate. We introduce it

497: via a Voronoi tessellation, which is a partition of a plane (or a planar domain) into  

498: the union of convex  polygons $V_i$, called Voronoi cells, 

499: corresponding to the set of vertices ${\bf x}^i$. 

500: A Voronoi cell $V_i$ consists of all points in the plane 

501: which are closer to ${\bf x}^i$ 

502: than to any other vertex ${\bf x}^j, j \ne i$. 

503: 

504: 

505: The edges of $V_i$ can lie either on $\partial \Omega$ or in

506: the interior of $\Omega$. On each face of $V_i$, that lies inside

507: $\Omega$,

508: $

509: \mid \ux - {\bf x}^i \mid = \mid \ux - {\bf x}^j \mid, \;\hbox{for

510: some}\; i \ne j.

511: $

512: 

513: \begin{definition}

514: \label{def:neighbors}

515: For each $i =

516: 1,2 \ldots N$, define the index set ${\cal N}_i$ by

517: \[

518: {\cal N}_i = \left\{ j \in \{1, 2 \ldots, N\}, \; j \ne

519: i, \; \hbox{such that}\; V_i \; \hbox{and}\; V_j \; \hbox{have a

520: common edge} \right\}.

521: \]

522: We call a particle $D^j$ a {\bf neighbor} of $D^i$ if $j$ belongs to

523: ${\cal N}_i$ that is the vertices ${\bf x}^i$ and ${\bf x}^j$ have a common edge in the 

524: Voronoi tessellation.  

525: \end{definition}

526: Note, that according to this definition, two particles are not neighbors if

527: their Voronoi cells have a common vertex but do not share an edge.

528: 

529: The minimal distance between neighboring particles $\DI$ and $D^j$

530: is given by

531: \begin{equation}

532: \delta_{ij} = \mid {\bf x}^i - {\bf x}^j \mid -2a.

533: \label{gap}

534: \end{equation}

535: We call $\delta_{ij}$ {\it inter-particle distances}.

536: If a disk $\DI$ is close to the external boundary $\bound$, we define

537: the particle-boundary minimal distance $\delta_i$ by

538: \begin{equation}

539: \label{bgap}

540: \delta^i={\rm dist}({\bf x}^i, \bound)-a.

541: \end{equation}

542: 

543: 

544: To model the high concentration regime, we assume that $\delta_{ij}$ and $\delta_{i}$ 

545: satisfy

546: \begin{equation}

547: \label{ip-dist}

548: \delta_{ij}=\delta d_{ij}, \;\;\;\;\;\delta_i=\delta d_i,

549: \end{equation}

550: where $\delta$ is a small parameter in the problem, and the 

551: {\it scaled inter-particle distances} $d_{ij}, d_i$ satisfy

552: \begin{equation}

553: \label{sc-dist}

554: c \leq d_{ij}\leq 1,\;\;\;\;c \leq d_{i}\leq 1,

555: \end{equation}

556: with a fixed positive $c$ independent of $i,j$. 

557: 

558: % Note that the condition $c>0$ makes collisions impossible.

559: \begin{definition}

560: \label{def:network}

561: The centers ${\bf x}^i$ of the particles $D^i$ are called the 

562: {\bf interior vertices} of the network (graph) $\Gamma$, $i = 1, 2 \ldots N$.  

563: The {\bf interior edges}

564: $b_{ij}$ of the network connect neighboring vertices ${\bf x}^i$ and ${\bf x}^j$. If a

565: Voronoi cell $V_i$ has edges belonging to $\partial \Omega^+ \bigcup

566: \partial \Omega^-$, the corresponding ${\bf x}^i$ is called a {\bf near-boundary

567: vertex}. Each near-boundary vertex ${\bf x}^i$ is connected with

568: $\bound^\pm$

569: by an {\bf exterior edge}, which is a  segment $\tilde b_i$ perpendicular to $\bound^\pm$. 

570: This segment intersects $\bound^\pm$ at 

571: an {\bf exterior vertex} denoted by  $\tilde{\ux}^{(i)}$.

572: 

573: 

574: Finally, the {\bf network (graph)} $\Gamma$ is the collection of all interior vertices, exterior vertices, and all the edges connecting these vertices. 

575: \end{definition}

576: 

577: The set of indices of the near-boundary vertices will be denoted by $I$, that is

578: $i\in I$ if the vertex ${\bf x}^i$ is connected to $\bound$. Also, we write $i\in I^+(I^-)$

579: if ${\bf x}^i$ is connected to $\bound^+(\bound^-)$.

580: 

581: 

582: 

583: 

584: Note that $\Gamma$ is essentially the Delaunay graph dual to the Voronoi

585: tessellation, and the above notions admit straightforward generalization to 

586: three dimensions.

587: 

588: 

589: 

590:  

591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

593: \section{Network approximation of the effective viscosity}

594: \subsection{Network equations}

595: 

596: 

597: To define the network approximation, we first assign

598: a translational velocity ${\bf T}^i$ and an angular velocity 

599: $\omega^i$ of a particle $D^i$ to the corresponding interior vertex ${\bf x}^i$.

600: At the exterior vertices $\tilde {\bf x}^i$ we prescribe

601: the velocity vector ${\bf g}$ which represents the boundary conditions

602: (\ref{shear-fbc}) or (\ref{ext-fbc}). 

603: 

604: 

605: For each pair of neighboring particles $\DI$ and $D^j$ we introduce a gap $\Pi_{ij}$

606: which represents a fluid region where lubrication effects are very strong as shown on

607: Fig.1. The width $R_{ij}$ of such gap is independent of $\delta$. For technical

608: reasons it is convenient to work with non-intersecting gaps. Since the maximal number

609: of gaps adjacent to each particle is equal to the maximal coordination number (number of neighbors),

610: K, we can choose $R_{ij}=KMa$, where $M$ is sufficiently small and fixed.

611: The precise value of $M$ is not essential for our

612: purposes.

613: 

614: 

615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

616: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

617: \label{gap1}

618: \begin{center}

619: \input{gap1.pstex_t}

620: \caption{A gap $\Pi_{ij}$ between the neighboring particles $D^i$ and $D^j$.}

621: \end{center}

622: \end{figure}

623: 

624: 

625: 

626: 

627: 

628: The orientation of each interior gap $\Pi_{ij}$ relative to

629: a disk $D^i$ is specified by a unit vector 

630: \begin{equation}

631: \label{orient}

632: {\bf q}^{ij}=\frac{{\bf x}^i-{\bf x}^j}{|{\bf x}^i-{\bf x}^j|}.

633: \end{equation}

634: We also let ${\bf p}^{ij}$ be the unit vector obtained by rotating

635: ${\bf q}^{ij}$  clockwise by $\pi/2$ (see Fig.2).

636: 

637: 

638: 

639: Boundary edges and corresponding gaps are oriented perpendicular to ${\bf e}_1$. 

640: This 

641: reflects the physical fact that the zone of the largest energy

642: dissipation is located near the shortest line connecting ${\bf x}^i$ with

643: the boundary. Therefore, ${\bf q}^i={\bf e_2}$, (respectively $-{\bf e}_2$),

644: when $\DI$ is adjacent to $\bound^+$ (respectively $\bound^-$).

645: 

646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

647: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

648: \label{gap2}

649: \begin{center}

650: \input{gap2.pstex_t}

651: \caption{Assignment of ${\bf T}^i, \omega^i$ and 

652: orientation of the gap between two neighboring particles.}

653: \end{center}

654: \end{figure}

655: 

656: 

657: 

658: Next, to each edge of the network we associate a dissipation rate

659: $W^{ij}$ ($W^i$), calculated in the corresponding gap $\Pi_{ij}$ ($\Pi_i$).

660: The calculation of the dissipation rates employs lubrication approximation in the gap.

661: The velocity in the gap is decomposed into three velocities, representing

662: the "elementary" motions 

663: called {\it spring motion}, shear,  and rotation

664: (see Fig. 3). The total velocity field in a gap is the sum of

665: these elementary velocities and a "residual" velocity field, whose contribution

666: to the gap dissipation rate is $O(1)$ as $\delta\to 0$.  Lubrication approximations

667: for each of the elementary velocities and estimates for the residual

668: are obtained in \cite{BBP} where more details can be found.

669: 

670: 

671: 

672: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

673: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

674: \label{gap2}

675: \begin{center}

676: \includegraphics{elvel2.eps}

677: \caption{Three elementary motions. Arrows represent the boundary conditions.}

678: \end{center}

679: \end{figure}

680: 

681: Using approximations of the elementary velocities to calculate (up to the terms of order

682: $O(1)$ as $\delta\to 0$) the

683: dissipation rates in each gap we obtain

684: \begin{equation}

685: \label{loc1-dis}

686: \begin{array}{ccc}

687: W^{ij} & = & \hspace{-5.1cm}\delta^{-3/2} C^{ij}_{sp}\left[(\TI-\TJ) \cdot {\bf

688: q}^{ij}\right]^2+ \\

689: & & \delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{sh}\left[(\TI -\TJ)\cdot

690: {\bf p}^{ij} + a{\om}^i + a{\om}^{j} \right]^2 +

691: \delta^{-1/2}C^{ij}_{rot}a^2(\omega^i-\omega^j)^2,\\

692: \end{array} 

693: \end{equation}

694: in the interior gaps $\Pi_{ij}$,

695: and 

696: \begin{equation}

697: \label{loc1-dis}

698: W^{i}=\delta^{-3/2} C^{i}_{sp}\left[(\TI-{\bf

699: g})\cdot{\bf q}^{i} \right]^2 +\delta^{-1/2} C^{i}_{rot}a^2\left(2 {\om}^i\right)^2+ 

700: \delta^{-1/2} C_{sh}^i \left[(\TI -{\bf g})\cdot {\bf p}^{i} + a{\om}^i

701: \right]^2 

702: \end{equation}

703: in the boundary gaps $\Pi_i$. 

704: The expressions for factors $C^{ij}_{sp}, C^{ij}_{sh}$ and

705: $C^{ij}_{rot}$  and $C^i_{sp}, C^i_{sh}, C^i_{rot}$ are calculated explicitly

706: in \cite{BBP}:   

707: \begin{equation}

708: \label{net-2D-4}

709: \begin{array}{ccccccc}

710: C^{ij}_{sp} &=& \frac 34 \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{ij}}\big)^{3/2}+

711: \frac{27}{10} \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{ij}}\big)^{1/2},& \hspace{0.5cm}&

712: C^{i}_{sp} &=& \frac 34 \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{i}}\big)^{3/2}+

713: \frac{27}{10} \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{i}}\big)^{1/2},

714: \\

715: C^{ij}_{sh} & =& \frac 12 \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{ij}}\big)^{1/2},\hspace{1.4cm}&

716: \hspace{0.5cm} &

717: C^{i}_{sh} & =& \frac 12 \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{i}}\big)^{1/2},\hspace{1.4cm}

718: \\

719: C^{ij}_{rot} & =& \frac{9}{16} \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{ij}}\big)^{1/2}.\hspace{1.4cm}&

720: \hspace{0.5cm}&

721: C^{i}_{rot} & =& \frac{9}{16} \pi\mu \big(\frac{a}{d_{i}}\big)^{1/2}.\hspace{1.4cm}

722: \\

723: \end{array}

724: \end{equation}

725: In the formulas (\ref{net-2D-4}), $d_{ij}, d_i$ are the scaled inter-particle distances 

726: defined in (\ref{sc-dist}). 

727: 

728: The sum of the local dissipation rates $W^{ij}, W^i$

729: is a quadratic form 

730: \begin{equation}

731: \begin{array}{lll}

732: Q & = & \sum_{\Pi_{ij}} W^{ij} +\sum_{\Pi_i} W^i\\

733:  &= &  {\displaystyle

734: \sum_{i=1}^N} {\displaystyle \sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{c}j \in {\cal

735: N}_i\\ j < i

736: \end{array}}}}\left\{

737: \delta^{-3/2} C^{ij}_{sp}\left[(\TI-\TJ) \cdot {\bf

738: q}^{ij}\right]^2+\delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{sh}\left[(\TI -\TJ)\cdot

739: {\bf p}^{ij} + a{\om}^i + a{\om}^{j} \right]^2 \right.  \\ &&

740: +\left. \delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{rot}a^2\left({\om}^i -

741: {\om}^j\right)^2 \right\} + {\displaystyle

742: \sum_{i \in I}} \left\{ \delta^{-3/2} C^{i}_{sp}\left[(\TI-{\bf

743: g})\cdot{\bf q}^{i} \right]^2 +\delta^{-1/2} C^{i}_{rot}a^2\left(2 {\om}^i\right)^2 \right.  

744: \\ 

745: && + \left. \delta^{-1/2} C_{sh}^i \left[(\TI -{\bf g})\cdot {\bf p}^{i} + 

746: a{\om}^i

747: \right]^2 \right\},

748: \end{array}

749: \label{funct-q}

750: \end{equation}

751: where $I$ denotes the set of indices of the near-boundary vertices defined in

752: Section 4.

753: 

754: 

755: The form $Q$ is the discrete network approximation of the functional $W_{\Omega_F}$ in 

756: the variational principle (\ref{primal}). 

757: The main idea of the network approximation is that the most of the energy is dissipated

758: in the gaps $\Pi_{ij}, \Pi_i$, so that 

759: \begin{equation}

760: \label{E}

761: E=E_{net}+O(1),\;\;\;\;{\rm as}\;\delta\to 0.

762: \end{equation}

763: The discrete dissipation rate $E_{net}$ in (\ref{E}) is 

764: defined by

765: \begin{equation}

766: \label{ddrate}

767: E_{net}=\min_{{\bf T}^i, \omega^i} Q=Q({\bf T}_{min}^1, {\bf T}^2_{min},...

768: {\bf T}^N_{min}, {\om}^1_{min},...{\om}^N_{min}),

769: \end{equation}

770: where the vectors $\TI_{min}, i=1,2,\ldots, N$ and scalars ${\om}^i, i=1, 2, \ldots, N$ minimize 

771: $Q$ in (\ref{funct-q}). The minimum in (\ref{ddrate}) is taken over all possible

772: collections of ${\bf T}^i, \omega^i$.

773: 

774: It is well known that solving the minimization problem for $Q$ is

775: equivalent to solving the linear system  (Euler-Lagrange equations), which is obtained

776: by equating the gradient of $Q$ to zero. Setting to zero partial derivatives with respect to

777: $T^i_l, l=1,2$ we obtain

778: \begin{eqnarray}

779: \sum_{j \in {\cal N}_i} \left\{ \delta^{-3/2} C^{ij}_{sp}

780: \left[(\TI-\TJ)\cdot{\uq}^{ij}\right] {\uq}^{ij}\right\}+\hspace{3.65cm} 

781: \nonumber\\

782: \sum_{j \in {\cal N}_i} \left\{\delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{sh}\left[(\TI-\TJ) \cdot{\up}^{ij}+ a{\om}^i +

783: a{\om}^j \right] {\up}^{ij} \right\} +{\bf B}^i = {\bf F}^i, ~ ~

784: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

785: \label{bal-force}

786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

787: \end{eqnarray}

788: for each $i=1,2,..., N$,

789: where

790: \begin{eqnarray}

791: {\bf B}^i &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

792: \delta^{-3/2} C^{i}_{sp}(\TI \cdot {\bf

793: q}^i) {\bf q}^i 

794: + \delta^{-1/2} C^{i}_{sh} \left[

795: \TI\cdot {\bf p}^i + a {\om}^i\right] {\bf p}^i, ~

796: ~\mbox{if} ~i \in I \\ 

797: {\bf 0} ~ ~\mbox{otherwise},

798: \end{array} \right. 

799: %%%%%%%

800: \label{bd-force} \\

801: \end{eqnarray}

802: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

803: \begin{eqnarray}

804: {\bf F}^i &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

805: \delta^{-3/2} C^{i}_{sp}({\bf g} \cdot {\bf

806: q}^i) {\bf q}^i 

807: + \delta^{-1/2} C^{i}_{sh} (

808: {\bf g}\cdot {\bf p}^i) {\bf p}^i, ~

809: ~\mbox{if} ~i \in I \\ 

810: {\bf 0} ~ ~\mbox{otherwise},

811: \end{array} \right. 

812: %%%%%%%

813: \label{rhs-force} \\

814: \end{eqnarray}

815: Next, equating the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \omega^i}$ to zero we obtain

816: \begin{eqnarray}

817: \sum_{j\in

818: {\cal N}_i} \left\{ \delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{sh}\left[(\TI-\TJ)\cdot{\up}^{ij}+ a{\om}^i +

819: a{\om}^j\right]\right\} + \nonumber \\

820: \sum_{j\in

821: {\cal N}_i} \left\{ \delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{rot}\left({\om}^i -

822: {\om}^j\right)\right\} +  {\cal B}^i = {\cal M}^i,\hspace{1.5cm}

823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

824: \label{bal-torque}

825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

826: \end{eqnarray}

827: for all $i = 1, \ldots, N$, where

828: %%%%%% RHS%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

830: \begin{eqnarray}

831: {\cal B}^i &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

832: \delta^{-1/2} C_{sh}^i \left(\TI \cdot {\bf

833: p}^i +a {\om}^i\right) + 4 \delta^{-1/2} C^{i}_{rot} {\om}^i, ~

834: ~\mbox{if} ~i \in I, \\ 0 ~ ~\mbox{otherwise}. 

835: \end{array}\right.

836: %%%%%%%% 

837: \label{bd-torque} 

838: %%%%%%%%

839: \end{eqnarray}

840: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

841: \begin{eqnarray}

842: {\cal M}^i &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

843: \delta^{-1/2} C_{sh}^i \left({\bf g} \cdot {\bf

844: p}^i\right) ~

845: ~\mbox{if} ~i \in I, \\ 0 ~ ~\mbox{otherwise}. 

846: \end{array}\right.\hspace{4cm}

847: %%%%%%%% 

848: \label{torque-rhs} 

849: %%%%%%%%

850: \end{eqnarray}

851: 

852: Equations (\ref{bal-force}) and (\ref{bal-torque}) are, respectively,

853: the equations of force and torque balance of the particles,

854: and the minimization in (\ref{funct-q}) ensures that the rigid body

855: translational and angular velocities are chosen in such a way that

856: the suspension is in mechanical equilibrium. Note also that (\ref{bal-force})

857: is a system of $2N$ equations, and (\ref{bal-torque}) is a system of

858: $N$ equations. Together they form $3N$ equations for $3N$ unknowns

859: $({\bf T}^i, \omega^i)$. The coefficients and right hand side of

860: (\ref{bal-force}) are of order $\delta^{-3/2}$ and $\delta^{-1/2}$ while

861: all the coefficients in (\ref{bal-torque}) are of order $\delta^{-1/2}$.

862: When all ${\bf T}^i$ are zero (no translations), the remaining terms

863: are of order $\delta^{-1/2}$, but in the case $\omega^i=0, i=1,2,\ldots, N$

864: (no rotations), the remaining equations contain terms of order $\delta^{-3/2}$.

865: This reflects the well known fact that the contributions from local translational spring motions are stronger

866: than the contributions from rotational and other translational motions. Keeping only

867: spring translations we obtain

868: the truncated (leading order) discrete dissipation functional

869: \begin{equation}

870: \label{lead-funct}

871: \delta^{-3/2}\widehat Q=

872: \delta^{-3/2} \displaystyle{\left[\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j\in {\cal N}_i} C^{ij}_{sp}

873: (({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf q}^{ij})^2+\sum_{i\in I} C_{sp}^{i}

874: ((\TI-\ug)\cdot {\bf q}^{i})^2\right].}

875: \end{equation}

876: Then $Q$ can be decomposed as follows. 

877: \begin{equation}

878: \label{q-decomp}

879: Q= \delta^{-3/2}\widehat Q+ \delta^{-1/2} Q^\prime,

880: \end{equation}

881: where the coefficients of the forms $\widehat Q$ and $Q^\prime$ do not depend on 

882: $\delta$. 

883: 

884: 

885: We next show that the total discrete dissipation rate $E_{net}$ can be estimated by the truncated

886: dissipation rate obtained by minimizing $\widehat Q$. 

887: Let $\widehat{\TI}, i=1,2,\ldots, N$

888: denote the translational velocities which minimize $\widehat Q$ ( they are clearly 

889: independent

890: of $\delta$). Since $Q^\prime$ in (\ref{q-decomp}) is non-negative, 

891: \begin{eqnarray}

892: \delta^{-3/2}\widehat Q(\widehat{\TI})\leq \delta^{-3/2}\widehat Q(\TI_{min}, 

893: {\om}^i_{min})\leq

894: E_{net}=\nonumber \hspace{1cm}\\

895: Q(\TI_{min}, \omega^i_{\min})\leq \delta^{-3/2}\widehat 

896: Q(\widehat{\TI})+\delta^{-1/2}Q^\prime(\widehat{\TI},{\om}^i=0).

897: \label{var-in}

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: Since $Q^\prime(\widehat{\TI},{\om}^i=0)\leq C$ with $C$ independent of 

900: $\delta$ as $\delta\to 0$,

901: (\ref{var-in}) implies 

902: \begin{equation}

903: \label{lead-term}

904: E_{net}=\delta^{-3/2}\widehat E+O(\delta^{-1/2}),\;\;\;\;{\rm as}~\delta\to 0,

905: \end{equation}

906: where

907: \begin{equation}

908: \label{lead-dis}

909: \widehat E=\widehat Q(\widehat{\TI})={\displaystyle \min_{{\tiny

910: {\bf T}^1,\ldots {\bf T}^N}} \widehat Q ({\bf T}^1,\ldots {\bf T}^N}).

911: \end{equation}

912: This equation enables one to calculate the leading term in the asymptotics

913: of the effective viscosity by solving a simplified minimization problem

914: involving only the translational particle velocities. However, this algorithm

915: is useful only when 

916: \begin{equation}

917: \label{crucial}

918: \widehat E>0,

919: \end{equation}

920: because in this case the leading term in the asymptotics of the dissipation rate is of order

921: $\delta^{-3/2}$.

922: If $\min\widehat Q=0$, the leading term degenerates, and 

923: the rate of blow up in (\ref{lead-dis}) is at most $\delta^{-1/2}$. 

924: 

925: 

926: Minimization of the truncated quadratic form $\widehat Q$ corresponds to solving

927: the truncated linear system of the Euler-Lagrange equations

928: \begin{equation}

929: \label{lead-system}

930: \sum_{j\in {\cal N}_i}\big[C^{ij}_{sp} 

931: (\widehat{{\bf T}}^i-\widehat{{\bf T}}^j)\cdot{\uq}^{ij}{\uq}^{ij}\big]+

932: {\bf B}({\widehat{\TI}})={\bf R}^i,\;\;\;\;i=1,2, \ldots, N,

933: \end{equation}

934: where

935: \begin{equation}

936: \label{B}

937: {\bf B}(\widehat{\TI})=

938: \begin{cases}

939: C_{sp}^{i}

940: (\widehat{\TI}\cdot {\bf q}^{i}){\bf q}^{i},\;\;\;\;{\rm when}~i \in I&\\

941: 0 \;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm otherwise}.&\\

942: \end{cases}

943: \end{equation}

944: The right hand side vectors ${\bf R}^i$ represent external boundary conditions:

945: \begin{equation}

946: \label{lead-rhs}

947: {\bf R}^i=

948: \begin{cases}

949: C_{sp}^{i}

950: ({\bf g}\cdot {\bf q}^{i}){\bf q}^{i},\;\;\;\;{\rm when}~i \in I&\\

951: 0 \;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm otherwise}.&\\

952: \end{cases}

953: \end{equation}

954: 

955: 

956: To better see the structure of the functional $\widehat Q$ and the system (\ref{lead-system}) 

957: it is convenient to rewrite them

958: in a compact form as 

959: \begin{equation}

960: \label{comp-hatq}

961: \hat Q({\bf z})=\frac 12 A{\bf z}\cdot{\bf z}-{\bf f}\cdot {\bf z}+r,

962: \end{equation}

963: and

964: \begin{equation}

965: \label{compls}

966: A{\bf z}={\bf f},

967: \end{equation}

968: where  ${\bf z}$ is the particle velocity vector, and ${\bf f}$ is the vector of discretized

969: boundary conditions. The vectors     

970: ${\bf z}, {\bf f}\in {\bf R}^{2N}$ are defined by

971: \begin{equation}

972: \label{zf}

973:  {\bf z}=

974: \left(

975: \begin{array}{c}

976:  T^1_1\\

977:  T^1_2\\

978:  T^2_1\\

979:  T^2_2\\

980:   ...\\

981:  T^N_1\\

982:  T^N_2\\

983: \end{array}

984: \right), 

985: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

986: {\bf f}=2

987: \left(

988: \begin{array}{c}

989:  R^1_1\\

990:  R^1_2\\

991:  R^2_1\\

992:  R^2_2\\

993:   ...\\

994:  R^N_1\\

995:  R^N_2,\\

996: \end{array}

997: \right).  

998: \end{equation}

999: The fixed scalar $r$ equals $\tilde {\bf f}\cdot {\bf f}$ where components of 

1000: $\tilde{\bf f}$ are

1001: defined by the components of ${\bf f}$, as follows.  

1002: $$

1003: \tilde f_{2k-1}=\frac{1}{4 C_{sp}^k}f_{2k-1},\;\;\;\;

1004: \tilde f_{2k}=\frac{1}{4 C_{sp}^k}f_{2k}\;\;\;\;\;\;k=1,2,\ldots, N.

1005: $$

1006: The matrix $A$ in (\ref{comp-hatq}) is symmetric and non-negative definite. 

1007: Its entries are determined by the scaled inter-particle distances $d_{ij}$,

1008: particle radius $a$ and vectors 

1009: ${\bf q}^{ij}, {\bf q}^i$ defined by (\ref{orient}).

1010: The vector ${\bf f}$ and the scalar $r$ in (\ref{comp-hatq}) are determined by the 

1011: boundary conditions on $\bound^+,\bound^-$ (extensional or shear). The linear term

1012: ${\bf f}\cdot{\bf z}$ depends on the translational velocities of the particles located

1013: near $\bound^+$ or $\bound^-$.

1014: 

1015: To the leading order in $\delta$, the effective viscosity is determined by the

1016: discrete dissipation rate $\delta^{-3/2}\widehat E$ where $\widehat E$

1017: is the minimum of 

1018: $\widehat Q$. Thus the qualitative behaviour of the effective viscosity is 

1019: determined

1020: by solving (\ref{compls}). We now sketch the issues which arise in computing the leading

1021: term of the effective viscosity. First, in the case of shear viscosity,

1022: ${\bf f}=0$, which means that the shear boundary conditions do not contribute

1023: to the strong blow up. This results in the weak blow up of $\mu^\star$ (see section 6).

1024: In case of extensional conditions, ${\bf f}\ne 0$, which means that the right hand side

1025: of the full network equations (\ref{bal-force}) contains terms of order $\delta^{-3/2}$.

1026: In this case, calculation of the leading term is impeded by the fact that the matrix

1027: $A$ is not invertible. Indeed,

1028: from (\ref{lead-funct}) it is clear that the value of $\widehat Q$ does not 

1029: change when all vectors ${\bf T}^i, i=1,2, \ldots, N$ are replaced by

1030: $\TI+t{\bf e}_1$ (horizontal translation by

1031: $t{\bf e}_1$, $t$  arbitrary real). This is not surprising, 

1032: because the functional $\widehat Q$ 

1033: is invariant under horizontal translation of ${\bf T}^i$. The invariance is due

1034: to the vertical orientation of the boundary gaps 

1035: explained in section 5.1.

1036: Note that this is not equivalent to translation of a coordinate system, since ${\bf g}$

1037: is not changed. Translational invariance of $\widehat Q$ implies that 

1038: any ${\bf z}^*$ that solves the non-homogeneous system (\ref{compls}) produces other solutions

1039: of the form 

1040: $

1041: {\bf z}^*+t{\bf w}_0,

1042: $

1043: where $t$ is arbitrary real, and

1044: \begin{equation}

1045: \label{w-not}

1046: {\bf w}_0=(1,0, 1, 0, \ldots, 1,0)^T.

1047: \end{equation}

1048: This means that vectors of the form $t{\bf w}_0$ solve the homogeneous system 

1049: \begin{equation}

1050: \label{comphom}

1051: A{\bf z}={\bf 0}.

1052: \end{equation}

1053: Because of the above mentioned invariance of

1054: the functional $\widehat Q$, the leading term in the asymptotics of effective

1055: viscosity will be uniquely defined, unless (\ref{comphom}) has

1056: some other nontrivial solutions. Therefore, it makes sense to look

1057: for conditions on the network which would guarantee that every solution of the

1058: homogeneous system is of the form $t{\bf w}_0$. Then the 

1059: non-homogeneous system (\ref{compls}) would be uniquely solvable

1060: up to horizontal translation.

1061: In Section 7.3 we show that for a typical random distribution of particles

1062: this is indeed the case.

1063: 

1064: The last issue concerns the validity of the estimate (\ref{crucial}). The functional

1065: $\widehat Q$ is non-negative, but it may be zero.  When (\ref{crucial})

1066: holds, local lubrication analysis provides the correct order of the leading

1067: term in the asymptotics of the extensional effective viscosity

1068: ($\delta^{-3/2}$ in dimension two and $\delta^{-1}$ in dimension three). 

1069: If (\ref{crucial})

1070: does not hold, that is,

1071: \begin{equation}

1072: \label{anticrucial}

1073: \min \widehat Q=0,

1074: \end{equation}

1075: then the leading term in dimension two is of order $\delta^{-1/2}$, ($\ln(1/\delta)$ in 

1076: dimension three). 

1077: 

1078: Whether or not

1079: the estimate (\ref{crucial}) holds, depends on the geometry of the 

1080: particle array as well as

1081: the boundary conditions on $\bound^+$ and $\bound^-$. 

1082: In section 7.4 we show that in the case of extensional boundary conditions,

1083: (\ref{crucial}) holds for generic arrays, and thus the leading

1084: term in the asymptotic of $E_{net}$ ( and extensional effective viscosity

1085: $\lambda^*$, see (\ref{eev1})) is of the order $\delta^{-3/2}$. 

1086: However,  there exist special arrays for which the extensional effective viscosity

1087: is of order $\delta^{-1/2}$. An example of such an array is presented in section 7.5.

1088: 

1089: 

1090: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1092: \section{Effective shear viscosity}

1093: In this Section we show that in dimension two, the asymptotic order of the shear 

1094: effective viscosity $\mu^\star$ is $\delta^{-1/2}$, while

1095: the local lubrication analysis predicts

1096: the rate $\delta^{-3/2}$. In three

1097: dimensions, $\delta^{-1/2}$ and $\delta^{-3/2}$ should be replaced by, 

1098: respectively, 

1099: $\ln\delta$ and $\delta^{-1}$ (see \cite{BBP}). 

1100: The local analysis in three dimensions predicts that the asymptotics of the 

1101: shear effective viscosity $\mu^\star$ (see (\ref{shev2}))  

1102: should be of order $\delta^{-1}$, but

1103: numerical simulations in \cite{Brady} and experimental results

1104: in \cite{ShP} and \cite{VW} show that random suspensions in shear flow have effective viscosity

1105: of order $\ln \delta$.  Our estimate $\mu^\star=O(\delta^{-1/2})$ is therefore

1106: in agreement with the three-dimensional results in \cite{Brady},

1107: up to the difference in the dimension of the space. 

1108:  

1109: The decrease in the asymptotic order of $\mu^\star$ is a global

1110: phenomenon, which shows that

1111: the local analysis could be misleading, and analysis of the entire

1112: particle array leads to qualitatively different results.

1113: This fact can be explained as follows.

1114: The "strong" blow up rate ($\delta^{-1}$ in three dimensions and $\delta^{-3/2}$ in two

1115: dimensions) is obtained using classical lubrication techniques applied to two

1116: particles $D^i, D^j$ whose translational and angular velocities $\TI, \TJ, \omega^i, \omega^j$

1117: are {\it independent of $\delta$}. However, 

1118: the network analysis of the ensemble of particles, 

1119: interacting with each other and with the external boundary, shows that the above velocities 

1120: may depend on $\delta$. In the case of shear boundary conditions, the right hand side of the 

1121: network equations (\ref{bal-force}), (\ref{bal-torque}) is 

1122: of order $\delta^{-1/2}$, whereas the matrix of the network

1123: equations is of order $\delta^{-3/2}$. The solution of the network equations

1124: is thus small (of order $\delta$) which makes local and global dissipation rates small. 

1125: 

1126: When the boundary conditions are given by (\ref{shear-fbc}), the vectors ${\bf R}^i$ in

1127: (\ref{lead-rhs}) are zero (since ${\bf q}^i\cdot{\bf e}_1=0$ for all $i=1,2, \ldots, N$). 

1128: Consequently,

1129: the right hand side ${\bf f}$ in (\ref{compls}) is zero. The functional $\widehat Q$ reduces to

1130: $A{\bf z}\cdot {\bf z}$ which is clearly zero for every solution of the homogeneous system

1131: $A{\bf z}=0$. Since ${\bf z}=0$ is an admissible trial vector for $\widehat Q$, 

1132: $\widehat E=\min \widehat Q=0$, and from (\ref{lead-term}) we obtain

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: \label{shear-diss}

1135: \mu^\star= C E_{net}=O(\delta^{-1/2}),

1136: \end{equation}

1137: where $C=2\gamma^{-2}|\Omega|^{-1}$ (see (\ref{shev2})).

1138: The same conclusion can be obtained by directly estimating the minimum of

1139: the form 

1140: $Q$. Consider first the shear boundary conditions (\ref{shear-fbc}) with $\gamma=1$

1141: and a simple example of a two-disk network on Fig. 4.

1142: %%%% FIGURE%%%%%%%

1143: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1144: \label{chain}

1145: \begin{center}

1146: \includegraphics{3path1.eps}

1147: \caption{A two-disk network with shear boundary conditions.}

1148: \end{center}

1149: \end{figure}

1150: %%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1151: The functional $Q$ for this example has the form

1152: \begin{equation}

1153: \label{shearex1}

1154: \begin{array}{ccc}

1155: Q &= & \hspace{-0.3cm}\delta^{-3/2}\left\{

1156: C_{sp}^{12}\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot {\bf q}^{12}\right]^2+

1157: C_{sp}^1\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf e}_1)\cdot {\bf e}_2\right]^2+

1158: C_{sp}^2\left[({\bf T}^2+{\bf e}_1)\cdot {\bf e}_2\right]^2\right\}\\

1159: &&\hspace{-0.65cm} +\delta^{-1/2}\left\{C_{sh}^{12}\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot {\bf p}^{12}+a\omega_1+

1160: a\omega_2\right]^2+C_{rot}^{12}a^2(\omega_1-\omega_2)^2\right\}\hspace{2cm}\\

1161: &&\hspace{-2.3cm} +\delta^{-1/2}\left\{C_{sh}^1\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf e}_1)\cdot {\bf e}_1+a\omega_1\right]^2+

1162: C_{sh}^2\left[({\bf T}^2+{\bf e}_1)\cdot {\bf e}_1+a\omega_2\right]^2\right\}\\ 

1163: & &\hspace{-7.25cm}+\delta^{-1/2}\left\{4C_{rot}^1a^2{\omega_1}^2+

1164: 4C_{rot}^2a^2{\omega_2}^2\right\}.

1165: \end{array}

1166: \end{equation}

1167: The dissipation rate $E$ is the minimum of $Q$. Hence, for any collection

1168: ${\bf T}^1, {\bf T}^2, \omega_1, \omega_2$, we have $E\leq Q({\bf T}^1, 

1169: {\bf T}^2, \omega_1, \omega_2)$.

1170: In particular, choosing ${\bf T}^1={\bf T}^2={\bf 0}, \omega_1=\omega_2=0$ in 

1171: (\ref{shearex1}) we obtain

1172: $$

1173: E\leq \delta^{-1/2}(C^1_{sh}+C^2_{sh})

1174: $$

1175: Since $C_{sh}^1, C_{sh}^2$ are independent of $\delta$, the blow up rate of $E$ is 

1176: at most $\delta^{-1/2}$.

1177: 

1178: Next, consider the general case.

1179: Since for shear boundary condition $\ug \bot {\bf q}^i$ for all $i\in I$,  we obtain

1180: \begin{equation}

1181: \label{gen-ex}

1182: \begin{array}{lll}

1183: Q &= &  {\displaystyle

1184: \sum_{i=1}^N} {\displaystyle \sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{c}j \in {\cal

1185: N}_i\\ j < i

1186: \end{array}}}}\left\{

1187: \delta^{-3/2} C^{ij}_{sp}\left[(\TI-\TJ) \cdot {\bf

1188: q}^{ij}\right]^2\right\}+\\

1189: & & 

1190: {\displaystyle

1191: \sum_{i=1}^N} {\displaystyle \sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{c}j \in {\cal

1192: N}_i\\ j < i

1193: \end{array}}}}\left\{\delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{sh}\left[(\TI -\TJ)\cdot

1194: {\bf p}^{ij} + a{\om}^i + a{\om}^{j} \right]^2 \right. 

1195: +\left. \delta^{-1/2} C^{ij}_{rot}a^2\left({\om}^i -

1196: {\om}^j\right)^2 \right\} + \\

1197: & & {\displaystyle

1198: \sum_{i \in I}} \left\{ \delta^{-3/2} C^{i}_{sp}\left[\TI\cdot{\bf q}^{i} 

1199: \right]^2 +\delta^{-1/2} C^{i}_{rot}a^2\left(2 {\om}^i\right)^2 \right\} + \\

1200: & & 

1201: {\displaystyle

1202: \sum_{i \in I}}\left\{\delta^{-1/2} 

1203: C_{sh}^i \left[(\TI\cdot {\bf p}^{i}-{\bf g}\cdot{\bf p}^i + 

1204: a{\om}^i

1205: \right]^2 \right\},

1206: \end{array}

1207: \end{equation}

1208: 

1209: Choosing the trial vectors $\TI$ as $\TI=0, i=1,2, \ldots, N$ and $\omega^i=0$, $i=1,2, \dots, N$

1210: we obtain

1211: \begin{equation}

1212: \label{sp-en-shear}

1213: E_{net}=\min Q\leq Q({\bf T}^i={\bf 0}, \omega^i=0)=\delta^{-1/2} \sum_{i\in I}

1214: C_{sh}^{i}(\ug\cdot {\bf p}^{i})^2 =\gamma^2 \delta^{-1/2}\sum_{i \in I}C_{sh}^i.

1215: \end{equation}

1216: where we used the shear boundary conditions (\ref{shear-fbc}).

1217: The sum in the right hand side of (\ref{sp-en-shear}) 

1218: is independent of $\delta$ and the shear rate $\gamma$. 

1219: This estimate shows that under the boundary conditions 

1220: (\ref{shear-fbc}),

1221: the effective viscosity blows up as $\delta^{-1/2}$ at most.

1222: More precisely, we have the following\newline

1223: \noindent

1224: {\bf Conclusion.} {\it Effective shear

1225: viscosity of a concentrated suspension 

1226: has the blow up rate $\delta^{-1/2}$ in two dimensions, that is 

1227: $$

1228: \mu^\star\leq C \delta^{-1/2}\;\;\;{\rm as}~\delta\to 0,

1229: $$

1230: with $C$ independent of $\delta, \gamma$.}

1231: 

1232: 

1233: 

1234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1235: \section{Extensional effective viscosity}

1236: \subsection{Simplification of boundary conditions and outline of the method}

1237: In this Section we show that for the extensional boundary conditions, the leading term

1238: in the asymptotics of the dissipation rate $E$ from (\ref{lead-term}) may or may not be zero 

1239: depending on the geometry of

1240: a particle array, that is, the leading term in the asymptotics of the effective

1241: extensional viscosity is either of order $\delta^{-3/2}$ (strong blow up) or $\delta^{-1/2}$

1242: (weak blow up). We provide two geometric conditions on the network graph which ensure

1243: strong blow up. 

1244: 

1245: In a planar steady extensional flow of the effective fluid, the rate of strain

1246: tensor is

1247: \begin{equation}

1248: \label{eff-ext-strain}

1249: e({\bf v}^0)=

1250: \left(

1251: \begin{array}{cc}

1252: \epsilon & 0\\

1253: 0 & -\epsilon\\

1254: \end{array}

1255: \right),

1256: \end{equation}

1257: where $\epsilon$ denotes a constant extension rate. The corresponding

1258: velocity field is of the form

1259: \begin{equation}

1260: \label{ext-eff-vel}

1261: {\bf v}^0=(\epsilon x_1, -\epsilon x_2)^T,

1262: \end{equation}

1263: which gives the boundary conditions

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: \label{ext-eff-bc}

1266: {\bf v}^0= 

1267: \begin{cases}

1268: (\epsilon x_1, -\epsilon)^T, \;\;{\rm when}\;x_2=1 \;\;({\rm on}\;\partial\Omega^+),&\\

1269: (\epsilon x_1, \epsilon)^T, \;\;{\rm when}\;x_2=-1 \;\;({\rm on}\;\partial\Omega^-).&\\

1270: \end{cases}

1271: \end{equation} 

1272: We decompose ${\bf v}^0$ as 

1273: \begin{equation}

1274: \label{ext-vsplit}

1275: {\bf v}^0={\bf v}^0_{vc}+{\bf v}^0_{ge},

1276: \end{equation}

1277: where

1278: ${\bf v}^0_{vc}$ is a vertical contraction velocity

1279: satisfying

1280: \begin{equation}

1281: \label{contr-bc}

1282: {\bf v}^0_{vc}={\bf g}_{vc}=

1283: \begin{cases}

1284: -\epsilon{\bf e}_2~~~{\rm on}~\bound^+, &\\

1285: \;\;\;\epsilon {\bf e}_2~~~{\rm on}~\bound^-, &\\

1286: \end{cases}

1287: \end{equation}

1288: and ${\bf v}^0_{ge}$ is the horizontal extension velocity field 

1289: with the boundary conditions given by

1290: \begin{equation}

1291: \label{ext-bc}

1292: {\bf v}^0_{ge}={\bf g}_{ge}

1293: \begin{cases}

1294: \epsilon x_1{\bf e}_1~~~{\rm on}~\bound^+, &\\

1295: \epsilon x_1 {\bf e}_1~~{\rm on}~\bound^-. &\\

1296: \end{cases}

1297: \end{equation}

1298: Since

1299: \begin{equation}

1300: \label{ext-gsplit}

1301: {\bf g}={\bf g}_{vc}+{\bf g}_{ge},

1302: \end{equation}

1303: and ${\bf g}_{ge}\bot {\bf q}^i, i\in I$, the value of $\widehat Q$ in 

1304: (\ref{lead-funct}) does not change when ${\bf g}$ in (\ref{lead-funct}) is replaced by

1305: ${\bf g}_{vc}$. Hence,

1306: \begin{equation}

1307: \label{q-vext}

1308: Q({\bf T}^i, \omega^i, {\bf g})=\delta^{-3/2}\widehat Q({\bf T}^i,{\bf g}_{vc})+

1309: \delta^{-1/2}Q^\prime({\bf T}^i, \omega^i, {\bf g}_{vc}+{\bf g}_{ge}),

1310: \end{equation}

1311: To determine the rate of blow up of the dissipation rate, we need

1312: to analyze the minimizers of $\widehat Q({\bf T}^i,{\bf g}_{vc})$. The estimate (\ref{lead-term})

1313: implies that the second term in the right hand side of (\ref{q-vext}) is of order $\delta^{-1/2}$ 

1314: (at most). Since $\widehat Q$ is independent of $\delta$, its minimizing vectors

1315: $\widehat \TI$ are also $\delta$-independent. Consequently, the blow up rate of the 

1316: dissipation

1317: depends on whether the minimum of $\widehat Q(\TI, {\bf g}_{vc})$ is positive. If it is, 

1318: the extensional effective 

1319: viscosity  $\lambda^\star$ is of order $\delta^{-3/2}$, otherwise $\lambda^\star$ grows no 

1320: faster

1321: than $\delta^{-1/2}$. Which type of behavior occurs, depends on the validity of the estimate

1322: (\ref{crucial}). As mentioned in section 5, (\ref{crucial}) may fail for certain particle

1323: arrays. In this section we provide geometric conditions  which insure positivity of 

1324: $\min \widehat Q$, 

1325: and give examples of networks for which this minimum is zero. The principal conclusion

1326: here is that extensional viscosity of suspensions with a comparable volume fraction of particles

1327: may vary by an order of magnitude in the inter-particle distance, depending

1328: on the geometry of a particle array. 

1329: 

1330: 

1331: Our method of analysis is based on the following simple observation. The form $\widehat Q(\TI, {\bf g}_{vc})$

1332: is a sum of non-negative terms, namely

1333: \begin{equation}

1334: \label{whq-simpl}

1335: \widehat Q(\TI, {\bf g}_{vc})= 

1336: \displaystyle{\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j\in {\cal N}_i} C^{ij}_{sp}

1337: (({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf q}^{ij})^2+\sum_{i\in I} C_{sp}^{i}

1338: ((\TI-{\bf g}_{vc})\cdot {\bf q}^{i})^2.}

1339: \end{equation}

1340: This shows that $\min \widehat Q(\TI, {\bf g}_{vc})=0$ if and only if the minimizing vectors

1341: ${\TI}, i=1,2, \dots, N$ satisfy the system of equations

1342: \begin{equation}

1343: \label{ns}

1344: \begin{array}{c}

1345: ({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf q}^{ij}=0,\;\;\;\;\;i=1,2..N, j\in {\cal N}_i,\\

1346: \hspace{-2.2cm}({\TI}-{\bf g}_{vc})\cdot {\bf q}^{i}=0, \;\;\;\;\;i\in I.

1347: \end{array}

1348: \end{equation}

1349: Hence, if (\ref{ns}) does not have solutions, (\ref{crucial}) must hold. 

1350: Also, it should be noted that  if the estimate (\ref{crucial}) holds for

1351: some subgraph of the network, then it also holds for the whole network.

1352: This observation can be used to reduce the network to

1353: a simpler graph, for which it is easier to prove (\ref{crucial}).

1354: 

1355: 

1356: %%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  

1357: \subsection{Simple examples}

1358: Suppose that the boundary conditions are given by (\ref{contr-bc}) with $\epsilon=-1$.

1359: In this section we  present three simple examples of networks with small number of vertices. 

1360: One of these networks

1361: has $\widehat E=0$, and for the other two examples $\widehat E>0$. 

1362: 

1363: \noindent

1364: {\bf Example 1.} This an example of the network for which $\widehat E=0$. 

1365: To demonstrate this, we show that 

1366: there is a nontrivial particle velocity vector ${\bf z}$ such that $\widehat Q({\bf z})=0$.

1367: Consider the network on Fig. 5. 

1368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1369: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1370: \label{ex1}

1371: \begin{center}

1372: \includegraphics{ex1.eps}

1373: \caption{A network of four vertices with $\widehat E=0$.}

1374: \end{center}

1375: \end{figure}

1376: The vectors ${\bf q}^{ij}$ are defined as follows. 

1377: \begin{equation}

1378: \label{qi}

1379: \begin{array}{cc}

1380: \hspace{-3cm}{\bf q}^1={\bf e}_2, & \hspace{-4cm}{\bf q}^4=-{\bf e}_2, \\ 

1381: {\bf q}^{12}={\bf q}^{34}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\bf e}_1-{\bf e}_2),& \\

1382: {\bf q}^{13}={\bf q}^{24}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2) & \\

1383: \end{array}

1384: \end{equation}

1385: Next, define ${\bf T}^i$ as follows.

1386: \begin{equation}

1387: \label{ti}

1388: {\bf T}^1={\bf e}_2,\;\;{\bf T}^2=-{\bf e}_1,\;\;\;

1389: {\bf T}^3={\bf e}_1,\;\;\;

1390: {\bf T}^4=-{\bf e}_2.

1391: \end{equation}

1392: The functional $\widehat Q$ corresponding to this network is

1393: \begin{equation}

1394: \label{ex1q}

1395: \begin{array}{ccc}

1396: \widehat Q & = &C^1_{sp}\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf q}^1\right]^2+

1397: C^{12}_{sp}\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot{\bf q}^{12}\right]^2+\\

1398:  & & C^{13}_{sp}\left[({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^3)\cdot{\bf q}^{13}\right]^2+

1399: C^{24}_{sp}\left[({\bf T}^2-{\bf T}^{4})\cdot{\bf q}^{24}\right]^2+\\

1400:  & & C^{34}_{sp}\left[({\bf T}^3-{\bf T}^4)\cdot{\bf q}^{34}\right]^2+

1401: C^4_{sp}\left[({\bf T}^4+{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf q}^4\right]^2.

1402: \end{array}

1403: \end{equation}

1404: When ${\bf T}^i$ are defined by (\ref{ti}), all the scalar product in brackets in (\ref{ex1q})

1405: are zero, and therefore $\min\widehat Q=0$.\\

1406: \noindent

1407: {\bf Example 2.}  For the network of three vertices in Fig. 6, $\min \widehat Q>0$. To show this,

1408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1409: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1410: \label{ex1}

1411: \begin{center}

1412: \includegraphics{ex2.eps}

1413: \caption{A network of three vertices with $\widehat E>0$.}

1414: \end{center}

1415: \end{figure}

1416: consider the system corresponding to the general system (\ref{ns}). 

1417: \begin{equation}

1418: \label{ex2.1}

1419: \begin{array}{c}

1420: ({\bf T}^1+{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot {\bf q}^{12}=0,\;\;\;\;

1421: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^3)\cdot {\bf q}^{13}=0,\\

1422: ({\bf T}^2-{\bf T}^3)\cdot {\bf q}^{23}=0,

1423: \;\;\;\;({\bf T}^2-{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;\;\;

1424: ({\bf T}^3-{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0.\\

1425: \end{array}

1426: \end{equation}

1427: We prove that the system (\ref{ex2.1}) has no solutions. Indeed, the last two equations

1428: imply ${\bf T}^2=t_2{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$, ${\bf T}^3=t_3{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$, for some scalars

1429: $t_2, t_3$. Next, the first equation in the second row of (\ref{ex2.1}) yields

1430: $(t_2-t_3){\bf e}_1\cdot{\bf q}^{23}=0$, and thus $t_2=t_3=t$. Substituting 

1431: ${\bf T}^2={\bf T}^3=t{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$ into the second

1432: and third equations in the first row of (\ref{ex2.1}) we obtain

1433: \begin{equation}

1434: \label{ex2.2}

1435: \begin{array}{c}

1436: ({\bf T}^1-t{\bf e}_1-{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf q}^{12}=0,\\

1437: ({\bf T}^1-t{\bf e}_1-{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf q}^{13}=0.\\

1438: \end{array}

1439: \end{equation}

1440: Since ${\bf q}^{12}, {\bf q}^{13}$ are non-collinear, (\ref{ex2.2}) yields 

1441: ${\bf T}^1=t{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$, which contradicts the first equation in the first row of 

1442: (\ref{ex2.1}).\\

1443: \noindent

1444: {\bf Example 3.} Next, consider a rectangular network of four vertices in Fig. 7.

1445: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1446: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1447: \label{ex1}

1448: \begin{center}

1449: \includegraphics{ex3.eps}

1450: \caption{A network of four vertices with $\widehat E>0$.}

1451: \end{center}

1452: \end{figure}

1453: The system (\ref{ns}) for this example becomes

1454: \begin{equation}

1455: \label{ex3.1}

1456: \begin{array}{c}

1457: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot {\bf e}_1=0,\;\;\;\;

1458: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^4)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;\;

1459: ({\bf T}^2-{\bf T}^3)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;\;

1460: ({\bf T}^3-{\bf T}^4)\cdot {\bf e}_1=0,\;\;\;\;\\

1461: \hspace{-0.6cm}({\bf T}^1+{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;\;\;\;

1462: ({\bf T}^2+{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;\;

1463: ({\bf T}^3-{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0,\;\;\;\;

1464: ({\bf T}^4-{\bf e}_2)\cdot {\bf e}_2=0.\\

1465: \end{array}

1466: \end{equation}

1467: The last two equations in the second row of (\ref{ex3.1}) yield ${\bf T}^3=t_3{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$,

1468: ${\bf T}^4=t_4{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$, with some scalars $t_3, t_4$. Next, the second and third 

1469: equations in the first row of 

1470: (\ref{ex3.1}) produce ${\bf T}^1=t_1{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$, ${\bf T}^2=t_2{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2$,

1471: which contradict, respectively, the first and second equations in the second row.

1472: 

1473: The three examples above seem to indicate 

1474: that two basic building blocks for networks with $\widehat E>0$ (strong blow up) are

1475: triangles (Fig. 6) and  rectangles aligned with the edges of $\Omega$ (Fig. 7). 

1476: Misaligned rectangular structures such as shown in Fig. 8 would produce $\widehat E=0$ (weak blow up).

1477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1478: \subsection{Quasi-triangulated graphs}

1479: \subsubsection{Definition of quasi-triangulated graphs. Solvability of the system (\ref{compls})}

1480: The network $\Gamma$ partitions $\Omega$ into a a 

1481: disjoint union of convex polygons, which are called

1482: {\it Delaunay cells}. When points ${\bf x}^j$ are distributed randomly in  $\Omega$, the interior

1483: Delaunay cells are 

1484: typically triangles. This simple but important fact can be explained as follows.

1485: The edges of Voronoi tessellation are 

1486: perpendicular bisectors of the edges of Delaunay cells.

1487: If an interior Delaunay cell is, for instance, a quadrilateral, then

1488: any two vertices lying on a diagonal cannot be neighbors, and therefore 

1489: the point of intersection of four edges of the Voronoi tessellation must

1490: be equidistant from the four vertices. This means that a convex quadrilateral may be a Delaunay

1491: cell only if all four vertices lie on a circle. When the vertices of the network

1492: are randomly placed, the likelihood of four (or more) points lying on the same 

1493: circle is small. It is natural to call such cells the defect cells.

1494: Therefore, most of the interior Delaunay cells of a random

1495: network are triangles. Other polygonal cells (quadrilateral, pentagonal etc.)

1496: are typically small in number, isolated and are likely to be unstable in the actual flow.

1497: 

1498: 

1499: Since the exterior edges of the network are vertical, the cells adjacent to the boundary

1500: are typically quadrilateral. An example of a generic network  is shown on Fig. 8.

1501:  

1502:  

1503: %%%% FIGURE%%%%%%%

1504: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1505: \label{del1}

1506: \begin{center}

1507: \includegraphics{delaunay2.eps}

1508: \caption{An example of the network. The 

1509: shaded quadrilateral represents a defect cell.}

1510: \end{center}

1511: \end{figure}

1512: 

1513: 

1514: 

1515: 

1516: Next, we define a broad class of graphs containing

1517: generic Delaunay-type networks. The graphs in this class are

1518: called {\it quasi-triangulated}, because of the presence of triangular cells. 

1519: The number of triangular cells may be relatively small, as indicated by the examples

1520: below. We show that for quasi-triangulated graphs the leading term in the asymptotics

1521: can be effectively computed by minimizing the functional $\widehat Q$, that is the

1522: minimum is unique and can be found by solving the linear system (\ref{compls}).

1523: We also show that the crucial estimate (\ref{crucial}) holds even for more general

1524: graphs which contain a "spanning" quasi-triangulated subgraph.

1525: 

1526: 

1527: Given an arbitrary network graph $\Gamma$, we define its 

1528: maximal quasi-triangulated 

1529: subgraph $\Gamma_M$ by the following 

1530: iterative procedure.\newline

1531: \noindent

1532: {\it Step 1.} Consider interior vertices which are connected to 

1533: $\bound^-$ and call these vertices {\it generation one} vertices. All interior edges 

1534: connecting these vertices are {\it generation one} edges. Add all generation one

1535: edges and vertices to the subgraph.\newline

1536: \noindent

1537: {\it Step 2.} Consider all remaining vertices which  are connected to the vertices

1538: of the subgraph

1539: by at least two non-collinear edges. These vertices and edges belong to generation 

1540: two. Add them to the subgraph. Note that the non-collinearity condition

1541: leads to formation of "supportive triangles". \newline

1542: \noindent

1543: {\it Step 3.} Repeat step 2 until no more vertices can be added. 

1544: 

1545: 

1546: If the maximal quasi-triangulated subgraph $\Gamma_M$

1547: contains all interior vertices of $\Gamma$, we call the graph $\Gamma$ 

1548: {\it quasi-triangulated}. It turns out that for quasi-triangulated graphs

1549: the system (\ref{compls}) is "almost uniquely" solvable, that is

1550: two solutions differ by a vector of the form $t{\bf w}_0$, where ${\bf w}_0$ is defined by (\ref{w-not}), and

1551: the value of the form $Q$ for these solutions is the same.

1552: 

1553: 

1554: 

1555: \begin{proposition}

1556: \label{quasi}

1557: Suppose that the network graph $\Gamma$ is quasi-triangulated. Then there is a

1558: unique solution of the system (\ref{compls}), up to a horizontal translation.

1559: \end{proposition}

1560: 

1561: This proposition is proved in Appendix B.

1562: 

1563: 

1564: 

1565: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1566: \subsubsection{Examples of quasi-triangulated graphs}

1567: First we observe that a restriction to $\Omega$ of a periodic rectangular lattice  is not 

1568: quasi-triangulated. By contrast, a periodic triangular lattice restricted to $\Omega$ is 

1569: quasi-triangulated.

1570: (see Fig. 9). 

1571: 

1572: 

1573: 

1574: 

1575: 

1576: %%%% FIGURE%%%%%%%

1577: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1578: \label{del1}

1579: \begin{center}

1580: \includegraphics{del1.eps}

1581: \caption{A rectangular graph on the left is not quasi-triangulated. Clearly, in this case

1582: $\Gamma_F=\Gamma^-$.

1583: The triangular graph on the right

1584: is quasi-triangulated.}

1585: \end{center}

1586: \end{figure}

1587: 

1588: 

1589: In fact, if a network $\Gamma$ is not periodic, but all of its interior Delaunay cells 

1590: are triangles, 

1591: then $\Gamma$ is quasi-triangulated.

1592: The converse is false (see an example in Fig. 11). This means that the 

1593: quasi-triangulation property is 

1594: more general than triangulation property. In \cite{BBP} we considered a class of graphs

1595: containing a triangulated path (see Fig. 10). In Fig 11, we present two examples 

1596: showing that a quasi-triangulated graph need not contain a triangulated path. On 

1597: the other hand,

1598: a graph containing a triangulated path is not necessarily quasi-triangulated.

1599: However, when a triangulated path exists, it must be contained in the maximal

1600: quasi-triangulated subgraph. Therefore, in this case the maximal

1601: quasi-triangulated subgraph is spanning ("extends from top to bottom"). Below in section

1602: 7.4.1 we show that this condition is sufficient for positivity of the minimum

1603: of $\widehat Q$. 

1604: 

1605: %%%% FIGURE%%%%%%%

1606: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1607: \label{del3}

1608: \begin{center}

1609: \includegraphics{del3.eps}

1610: \caption{A triangulated path.}

1611: \end{center}

1612: \end{figure}

1613: 

1614: %%%% FIGURE%%%%%%%

1615: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1616: \label{del2}

1617: \begin{center}

1618: \includegraphics{del2.eps}

1619: \caption{The graph on the left is quasi-triangulated but does not contain a 

1620: triangulated path. The graph

1621: on the right contains a triangulated path, but is not quasi-triangulated.}

1622: \end{center}

1623: \end{figure}

1624: 

1625: 

1626: 

1627: 

1628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1629: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1630: \subsection{Strong blow up of $\lambda^\star$. Percolating rigidity networks}

1631: \subsubsection{Quasi-triangulated subgraphs}

1632: 

1633: For the rest of this section, we  consider the steady flow of the suspension 

1634: corresponding to 

1635: the boundary conditions (\ref{contr-bc}) with the extension

1636: rate $\ep=1$.

1637: 

1638: 

1639: We shall say that a network  is a {\it percolating rigidity graph} when

1640: the crucial estimate (\ref{crucial}) holds.

1641: In this subsection we show that quasi-triangulated graphs are percolating rigidity graphs.

1642: Moreover, a graph has percolating rigidity even when it is not

1643: quasi-triangulated but contains a spanning quasi-triangulated subgraph.

1644: 

1645: 

1646: \begin{proposition}

1647: \label{tricon}

1648: Suppose that the boundary conditions are given by (\ref{contr-bc}) and the network 

1649: graph $\Gamma$ contains a spanning quasi-triangulated subgraph. Then $\Gamma$ is a percolating rigidity graph. Consequently, the

1650: extensional effective viscosity  $\lambda^\star$ of suspensions corresponding to such networks

1651: is $O(\delta^{-3/2})$. 

1652: \end{proposition}

1653: 

1654: The proof of this proposition is given in Appendix C.

1655: 

1656: 

1657: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1658: \subsubsection{Networks containing a vertical path. Periodic square networks}

1659: We now present another class of percolating rigidity graphs. Namely, these

1660: are graphs that contain a path connecting $\bound^+$ and $\bound^-$, such that

1661: all edges in this path are oriented along ${\bf e}_2$-direction

1662: (vertical). The simplest representative of this class of graphs is a periodic square

1663: lattice. 

1664: A periodic square graph does not contain a spanning quasi-triangulated

1665: subgraph (in this case $\Gamma_M$ is just a path

1666: which consists of the vertices adjacent to $\bound^-$, see Fig. 9). However, the

1667: estimate (\ref{crucial}) holds for a periodic square graph such as the one shown on Fig. 9.

1668: This follows from  the more general criterion

1669: 

1670: \begin{proposition}

1671: \label{cubic}

1672: Suppose that a network graph $\Gamma$ contains a path $\Gamma^\pm$ such that

1673: 

1674: \noindent

1675: i) it connects $\bound^+$ and $\bound^-$,

1676: 

1677: 

1678: \noindent

1679: ii) all edges of $\Gamma^\pm$ are vertical.

1680: 

1681: 

1682: 

1683: Then $\Gamma$ is a percolating rigidity graph.

1684: \end{proposition}

1685: 

1686: As noted above, if a path $\Gamma^\pm$ has percolating rigidity, then

1687: the "larger" graph $\Gamma$ is also a percolating rigidity graph. Therefore, we only need

1688: to show that a path of vertical edges has percolating rigidity, that is, the quadratic form

1689: $\widehat Q$ corresponding to such path is positive-definite. 

1690: 

1691: For simplicity, consider a 

1692: path containing three 

1693: vertices. The argument can be directly generalized to an arbitrary number of vertices.

1694: As before, (\ref{crucial}) will hold if the corresponding system (\ref{ns}) has 

1695: no solutions. The latter now has the form

1696: \begin{equation}

1697: \label{vpath1}

1698: \begin{array}{c}

1699: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf e}_2=0,\\

1700: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot{\bf e}_2=0,\\

1701: ({\bf T}^2-{\bf T}^3)\cdot{\bf e}_2=0,\\

1702: ({\bf T}^3+{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf e}_2=0,\\

1703: \end{array}

1704: \end{equation}

1705: Introduce new unknown vectors $\widehat {\bf T}^i={\bf t}^i+{\bf e}_2$ $i=1,2,3$.

1706: The last equation of (\ref{vpath1}) yields $\widehat {\bf T}^3=t_3 {\bf e}_1$,

1707: where $t_3$ is a scalar. Then from the third equation we obtain $\widehat {\bf T}^2=

1708: t_2{\bf e}_1$, and then the second equation yields $\widehat{\bf T}^1=t_1{\bf e}_1$, which

1709: contradicts the first equation. The contradiction shows that the system (\ref{vpath1})

1710: has no solutions. The argument can be easily modified to show that if at least one

1711: of the edges of a path is non-vertical, then this path does not have percolating rigidity.

1712: 

1713: 

1714: Proposition \ref{cubic} shows that for rectangular lattices oriented

1715: parallel to the edges of $\bound$, asymptotics of extensional effective viscosity 

1716: is of order $\delta^{-3/2}$ which corresponds to strong blow up.

1717: Asymptotic formulas in \cite{Keller} also predict strong blow up

1718: of the extensional viscosity for cubic lattices. Thus our results are consistent

1719: with the results in \cite{Keller}. We refer to section 8 for a more detailed

1720: comparison.

1721: 

1722: 

1723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1724: \subsection{Weak blow up}

1725: In this section we present an example of a particle array for which

1726: the leading term in the asymptotics of $\lambda^\star$ is zero.

1727: Roughly speaking, the array in question is a rectangular lattice

1728: rotated so that none of its interior edges are vertical. 

1729: Let ${\bf k}$ denote a unit vector non-collinear to either ${\bf e}_1$ or ${\bf e}_2$. The interior

1730: edges of the rectangular network in Fig. 12 are either parallel or perpendicular

1731: to ${\bf k}$, while the prescribed boundary velocities are parallel to 

1732: ${\bf e}_2$.

1733: This misalignment will lead to weak blow up.

1734: To show that

1735: the system (\ref{ns}) is solvable, we 

1736: first consider a single path connecting $\bound^+$ and $\bound^-$.

1737: This path may be any of the three such paths in Fig. 12. 

1738: The argument we use admits a straightforward generalization to

1739: a network with an arbitrary number of vertices.

1740: %%%% FIGURE%%%%%%%

1741: \begin{figure}%[htbp]

1742: \label{chain}

1743: \begin{center}

1744: \includegraphics{del4.eps}

1745: \caption{A rotated rectangular lattice of 12 vertices.}

1746: \end{center}

1747: \end{figure}

1748: %%%%FIGURE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1749: 

1750: The system (\ref{ns}) written for the path has the form

1751: \begin{equation}

1752: \label{npath1}

1753: \begin{array}{c}

1754: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf e}_2=0,\\

1755: ({\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2)\cdot{\bf k}=0,\\

1756: ({\bf T}^2-{\bf T}^3)\cdot{\bf k}=0,\\

1757: ({\bf T}^3-{\bf T}^4)\cdot{\bf k}=0,\\

1758: ({\bf T}^4+{\bf e}_2)\cdot{\bf e}_2=0,\\

1759: \end{array}

1760: \end{equation}

1761: For technical reasons it is convenient to introduce new unknowns ${\bf u}_1={\bf T}^1-{\bf e}_2$, 

1762: ${\bf u}_{12}={\bf T}^1-{\bf T}^2$, ${\bf u}_{23}={\bf T}^2-{\bf T}^3$,

1763: ${\bf u}_{34}={\bf T}^3-{\bf T}^4$. The relations between ${\bf u}_{ij}$ and

1764: ${\bf T}^i$ are 

1765: \begin{eqnarray}

1766: \label{relate}

1767: {\bf T}^1={\bf u}_1+2{\bf e}_2,\nonumber\\

1768: {\bf T}^2={\bf u}_1+2{\bf e}_2-{\bf u}_{12},\nonumber\\

1769: {\bf T}^3={\bf u}_1+2{\bf e}_2-{\bf u}_{12}-{\bf u}_{23},\nonumber\\

1770: {\bf T}^4={\bf u}_1+2{\bf e}_2-{\bf u}_{12}-{\bf u}_{23}-{\bf u}_{34}\label{last}.

1771: \end{eqnarray}

1772: From the first four equations of (\ref{npath1}) we see that ${\bf u}_1=t_1{\bf e}_1$, and 

1773: ${\bf u}_{i, i+1}=t_{i,i+1}{\bf k}^\bot$, $i=1,2,3$, where

1774: ${\bf k}^\bot$ denotes a unit vector orthogonal to ${\bf k}$, and $t_1, t_{i,i+1}$ are

1775: scalars. The problems of solving

1776: (\ref{npath1}) is now reduced to finding $t_1, t_{i,i+1}$ such that the fifth equation

1777: of (\ref{npath1}) is satisfied. The fifth equation shows that 

1778: \begin{equation}

1779: \label{t4}

1780: {\bf T}^4=t_4{\bf e}_1-{\bf e}_2,

1781: \end{equation} 

1782: where $t_4$ is a scalar. Equating (\ref{t4}) and (\ref{last}) we obtain the equation

1783: for $t_1, t_{12}, t_{23}, t_{34}$ and $t_4$:

1784: \begin{equation}

1785: \label{ts}

1786: t_4{\bf e}_1=t_1{\bf e}_1+{\bf e}_2-(t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{34}){\bf k}^\bot.

1787: \end{equation}

1788: This yields two scalar equations

1789: \begin{equation}

1790: \label{first}

1791: 0=1-(t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{34}){\bf k}^\bot\cdot{\bf e}_2,

1792: \end{equation}

1793: and

1794: \begin{equation}

1795: \label{second}

1796: t_1-t_4=(t_{12}+t_{23}+t_{34}){\bf k}^\bot\cdot{\bf e}_1.

1797: \end{equation}

1798: The system of two equations (\ref{first}),(\ref{second}) for five unknowns has infinitely many

1799: nontrivial solutions as long as ${\bf k}^\bot\cdot {\bf e}_2\ne 0$ , that is, the interior 

1800: edges of the path are non-vertical.

1801: 

1802: 

1803: At the next step of construction, we consider the full lattice on Fig. 6 containing 12 vertices.

1804: The interior edges of the graph are oriented either by the unit vector ${\bf k}$ as above

1805: (longitudinal edges), or

1806: by ${\bf k}^\bot$ (latitudinal edges). 

1807: We view the graph as the union of three paths of longitudinal edges 

1808: extending from $\bound^-$ to $\bound^+$, 

1809: with latitudinal edges connecting

1810: these paths. To obtain the desired example, we choose the vectors ${\bf T}^i$ for one

1811: of the paths, as explained above. Then we prescribe the same vectors to the corresponding

1812: vertices of two remaining paths. Now, if two neighbors ${\bf x}^i$ , ${\bf x}^j$ belong

1813: to different paths, then ${\bf T}^i={\bf T}^j$, so the corresponding equation

1814: $({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf k}^\bot=0$ of the system (\ref{ns}) is satisfied. When the neighbors

1815: ${\bf x}^i, {\bf x}^j$ belong to the same path, the corresponding equation 

1816: $({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf k}=0$ is satisfied by the choice of ${\bf T}^i, {\bf T}^j$.

1817: Therefore, the whole system (\ref{ns}) in this case has infinitely many nontrivial solutions.

1818: Each of these solutions makes $\widehat Q$, and thus the leading term in the asymptotics of

1819: $\lambda^\star$, zero.

1820: 

1821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1822: \section{Comparison with some results for periodic cubic  arrays in dimension three}

1823: The main objective of network approximation is to define effective

1824: properties for non-periodic deterministic or random arrays. While techniques of

1825: periodic homogenization are well developed (\cite{BLP}, \cite{SP}, \cite{JKO} and references therein), non-periodic geometries are much less understood.

1826: In the end of this section, we compare our results applied in particular case

1827: of a periodic square array (in dimension two) with the results of \cite{Keller} 

1828: obtained for cubic arrays in dimension three. 

1829: 

1830:  

1831: The effective viscosity of an infinite periodic suspension obtained in 

1832: \cite{Keller}

1833: is the fourth order tensor ${\mbox{\boldmath $\mu$}}^\star$ (in this section we use the

1834: notation from from \cite{Keller}). 

1835: In an effective flow

1836: with the constant strain rate $\gamma$, the effective stress is

1837: \begin{equation}

1838: \label{k1}

1839: S_{ij}^0=2\mu^\star_{ijkl}\gamma_{kl}-P\delta_{ij},

1840: \end{equation} 

1841: where $P$ is an effective pressure. The authors of \cite{Keller} obtained the following formula

1842: for the components of 

1843: ${\mbox{\boldmath $\mu$}}^\star$:  

1844: \begin{equation}

1845: \label{visc-tensor}

1846: \mu^\star_{ijkl}=\frac 12 \mu (1+\beta)(\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}-

1847: \frac{2}{3}\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl})+\mu(\alpha-\beta)(\delta_{ijkl}-

1848: \frac 12 \delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}),

1849: \end{equation}

1850: where $\delta_{ijkl}=1$ if all indices are equal, otherwise $\delta_{ijkl}=0$.

1851: $\mu$ is the fluid viscosity, and $\alpha, \beta$ are functions of the small

1852: parameter $\epsilon$, related to the inter-particle distance $\delta$ as follows:

1853: \begin{equation}

1854: \label{del-ep}

1855: \epsilon=\frac{\delta}{2a+\delta}\approx \frac{\delta}{2a},\;\;\;{\rm as}\;\delta\to 0.

1856: \end{equation}

1857: When the effective flow is incompressible, $\gamma_{ii}=0$, so the formula (\ref{visc-tensor})

1858: simplifies to

1859: \begin{equation}

1860: \label{vtensor}

1861: \mu^\star_{ijkl}=\frac 12 \mu (1+\beta)(\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk})+

1862: \mu(\alpha-\beta)\delta_{ijkl}.

1863: \end{equation}

1864: 

1865: For simple cubic lattices, 

1866: up to the terms of order $O(1)$ in $\epsilon$, (\cite{Keller})

1867: \begin{equation}

1868: \label{alpha}

1869: \alpha=\frac{3}{16}\pi \epsilon^{-1}+\frac{27}{80}\pi\ln \epsilon^{-1},

1870: \end{equation}

1871: and

1872: \begin{equation}

1873: \label{beta}

1874: \beta=\frac 14 \pi\ln \epsilon^{-1}.

1875: \end{equation}

1876: 

1877: Suppose that the imposed effective flow is a steady shear with the velocity

1878: ${\bf v}=(\kappa x_3, 0, 0)$ (three-dimensional analogue of (\ref{shear-v})), 

1879: where $\kappa>0$ is a constant shear rate.

1880: The components of the corresponding strain rate tensor  ${\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}$ are

1881: $\gamma_{13}=\gamma_{31}=\kappa>0$ and $\gamma_{ij}=0$ for other values of $(i,j)$.

1882: Then, using (\ref{vtensor}), we obtain from (\ref{k1}) that the only nonzero

1883: components of the effective deviatoric stress 

1884: $2{\mbox{\boldmath $\mu$}}^\star{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}$ are

1885: \begin{equation}

1886: \label{k2}

1887: (2\mu^\star\gamma)_{13}=(2\mu^\star\gamma)_{31}=2\mu (1+\beta)\kappa.

1888: \end{equation}

1889: Since $\alpha$ is not present in (\ref{k2}), the nonzero components of the deviatoric

1890: effective stress are of order $\ln\epsilon^{-1}$ and thus the shear effective viscosity

1891: calculated by the three-dimensional analogue of 

1892: definition (\ref{shev2}) is of order $\ln\epsilon^{-1}$ (weak blow up in dimension three). The weak blow up was not identified in \cite{Keller}, but

1893: it can be easily deduced from the formulas derived there.

1894: 

1895: In the case of an extensional flow, velocity vector

1896: ${\bf v}=(\kappa x_1, \kappa x_2, -2\kappa x_3)$, (compare with (\ref{ef-v-ext})),

1897: where $\kappa>0$ is a constant extension

1898: rate. The strain rate tensor is

1899: \begin{equation}

1900: \label{ext-st-3d}

1901: {\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}=

1902: \left(

1903: \begin{array}{ccc}

1904: \kappa & 0 & 0\\

1905: 0 & \kappa & 0\\

1906: 0 & 0 & -2\kappa \\

1907: \end{array}

1908: \right)

1909: \end{equation}

1910: Then, using (\ref{k1}) and (\ref{vtensor}) we obtain the deviatoric stress

1911: \begin{equation}

1912: \label{ext-stress}

1913: 2{\mbox{\boldmath $\mu$}}^\star{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}=

1914: \left(

1915: \begin{array}{ccc}

1916: L  & 0 & 0\\

1917: 0 & L & 0\\

1918: 0 & 0 & -2L, \\

1919: \end{array}

1920: \right)

1921: \end{equation}

1922: where 

1923: \begin{equation}

1924: \label{L}

1925: L=2\kappa\mu(1+\beta)+\kappa\mu(\alpha-\beta).

1926: \end{equation}

1927: Components of the deviatoric stress contain $\alpha$ and are therefore of order $\ep^{-1}$. Consequently, the 

1928: extensional effective viscosity is of order $\ep^{-1}$

1929: (strong blow up in dimension three).

1930: 

1931: 

1932: Although Noonan and Keller did not address the issue of weak versus strong blow up

1933: for the effective viscosity in \cite{Keller}, the formulas (\ref{alpha})- (\ref{L}) 

1934: are consistent with the results for square lattices in Section 6

1935: of this paper in the following sense. If a periodicity cell corresponding to a simple 

1936: cubic lattice is subjected to a uniform shear (extensional) flow, 

1937: then the straightforward calculation presented above shows that the 

1938: shear (extensional) effective

1939: viscosity exhibits weak (strong) blow up. However, for other lattice types such

1940: as BCC and FCC, formulas from \cite{Keller} imply strong blow up of both

1941: viscosities, while our approach leads to the weak blow up of the shear viscosity

1942: for all two-dimensional lattices. Perhaps, this can be attributed to the fact

1943: that in \cite{Keller} effective viscosity is defined in a different way, as

1944: explained in the introduction. In particular, our definition takes into account

1945: boundary effects which are known to be essential in rheological measurements

1946: (\cite{VW}, \cite{ShP}).

1947: Considerations based on infinite periodic lattices cannot capture these boundary

1948: effects. Futhermore, if our approach is applied to a rectangular periodic lattice

1949: in a rectangular domain chosen so that lattice periodicity is preserved, then

1950: our results are consistent with \cite{Keller}.

1951: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1952: \section{Conclusions}

1953: We have studied properties of the network approximation

1954: of the shear effective viscosity

1955: $\mu^\star$ and extensional effective viscosity $\lambda^\star$ of two-dimensional

1956: flows of concentrated suspensions

1957: with complex geometry. The flow domain was chosen to be a square, upper

1958: and lower sides of which represented the physical flow boundary, while

1959: the other two sides were assumed to be free surfaces. 

1960: 

1961: A small inter-particle

1962: distance parameter $\delta$ was used to describe the high concentration regime

1963: for particle arrays which are not necessarily periodic (i. g. random). 

1964: In the recent paper \cite{Brady} by Sierou and Brady,

1965: the high frequency dynamic viscosity of concentrated 

1966: suspensions

1967: (see \cite{VW}) was calculated as a function of volume fraction $\phi$ by means of accelerated Stokesian dynamics

1968: simulations. Numerical results indicate

1969: a singular behaviour of the effective viscosity as $\phi$ approaches

1970: the maximal close packing fraction $\phi_{rcp}$.  We quote here from (\cite{Brady}):

1971: ''... The exact form of this singular behaviour

1972: is not known. Results from lubrication theory for cubic lattices would suggest

1973: that the singular form should consist both of $1/\epsilon$ and $\ln\epsilon$, where

1974: $\ep=1-(\phi/\phi_{rcp})^{1/3}$, but the relative amount of each term is unknown...

1975: As far as we are able to tell at this point, the $\ln\epsilon$ behaviour accurately describes

1976: the numerical data.'' 

1977: 

1978: When the volume fraction is (approximately) constant over the flow region, $\ep\approx \delta$.

1979: One of the objectives of our investigation

1980: was to address the issue of the unexpectedly weak blow up in 

1981: \cite{Brady}, and determine the asymptotic order of the effective

1982: viscosity coefficients as $\delta\to 0$.

1983: Our analysis of the shear viscosity $\mu^\star$, based on the discrete network approximation, 

1984: showed that $\mu^\star=O(\delta^{-1/2})$ as $\delta\to 0$, while

1985: the formal estimate based of the local lubrication analysis would give 

1986: a higher rate $O(\delta^{-3/2})$.   

1987: In dimension three, the corresponding rates, given by the network approximation, are, respectively, $\ln\delta$ and $\delta^{-1}$ (see \cite{BBP}).

1988: Our analysis offers an explanation of the weak blow up of the shear viscosity. This analysis is also consistent with

1989: the numerical simulations in \cite{Brady} up to the difference in

1990: the space dimension.

1991: 

1992: 

1993: We also show that the asymptotic order of the extensional viscosity $\lambda^\star$ depends on the geometry

1994: of the particle array. For generic disordered arrays the network partitions the domain into 

1995: polygons (Delaunay cells), most of which are triangles.  We have showed that for these generic 

1996: arrays $\lambda^\star=O(\delta^{-3/2})$. The same asymptotic rate is

1997: obtained for a larger class of networks called quasi-triangulated.

1998: In a quasi-triangulated network, the percentage of triangular cells may be relatively small, but

1999: the subnetwork containing triangular cells must be spanning. Another class of networks for which

2000: $\lambda^\star=O(\delta^{-3/2})$ consists of rectangular periodic arrays aligned with the boundary of the flow. More

2001: generally, the same rate is obtained for arrays containing a single spanning chain

2002: of neighboring particles, perpendicular to the part of the boundary where the velocity is prescribed.

2003: 

2004: 

2005: 

2006: We show that in case of the strong blow up,

2007: the leading term in the 

2008: asymptotics of $\lambda^\star$ can be uniquely determined by solving a simplified linear system of the 

2009: network equations, provided the array is quasi-triangulated. The simplified system, obtained by neglecting rotational and pairwise shear motions of particles,

2010: provides an efficient computational tool for evaluating the dependence of the

2011: effective viscosity on the geometry of the particle array and external boundary

2012: conditions. 

2013: When a network contains neither a spanning triangulated subgraph, nor a spanning vertical

2014: path, the extensional effective viscosity can be of order 

2015: $\delta^{-1/2}$. This weak blow up

2016: is obtained, for instance, in the case of a periodic rectangular lattice, with interior edges misaligned with the orientation of the prescribed boundary data. 

2017: 

2018: 

2019: Our results imply that  the ratio of $\lambda^\star$

2020: to $\mu^\star$ for generic disordered particle arrays is $O(\delta^{-1})$. By contrast,

2021: in a Newtonian fluid this ratio depends only on the space dimension.

2022: Therefore, our results indicate possible non-Newtonian behaviour of the effective fluid. 

2023: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2024: \section{Acknowledgments}  

2025: The authors wish to thank Professor John F. Brady for bringing the work \cite{Brady} to their attention. Work of Leonid Berlyand was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0204637. Work of Alexander Panchenko was supported in part by the ONR grant N00014-001-0853.

2026: 

2027: 

2028: 

2029: 

2030: 

2031: 

2032: 

2033: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2034: 

2035: 

2036: 

2037: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2038: \appendix

2039: \section{Shear and extensional flows. Ratio of the viscosities in a 

2040: Newtonian fluid}

2041: \label{Appendix  A}

2042: The following types of flows are relevant to our investigation.

2043: 

2044: \noindent

2045: {\it Shear flow.} Consider the steady shear flow a homogeneous fluid

2046: characterized by the constant shear rate $\gamma$. The velocity is given by

2047: \begin{equation}

2048: \label{shear-v}

2049: {\uv}^0_{sh}=

2050: \left(

2051: \begin{array}{c}

2052: \gamma x_2\\

2053: 0

2054: \end{array}

2055: \right).

2056: \end{equation}

2057: and the strain rate tensor is

2058: \begin{equation}

2059: \label{sh-strain}

2060: {\ee}_{sh}^0=\frac{1}{2}

2061: \left(

2062: \begin{array}{cc}

2063: 0 & \gamma \\

2064: \gamma & 0

2065: \end{array}

2066: \right).

2067: \end{equation} 

2068: Since the stress tensor is symmetric and independent of $\ux$, 

2069: \begin{equation}

2070: \label{eo-shear}

2071: E^0=\int_\Omega \ts^0 \cdot {\ee}_{\it sh}^0d{\ux}=\frac 12 S^0_{12}\gamma |\Omega|,

2072: \end{equation}

2073: where $|\Omega|=\int_{\Omega} d\ux$. 

2074: 

2075: In the case of a homogeneous Newtonian fluid with viscosity $\mu$, $\ts^0=2\mu {\ee}_{sh}^0-PI$,

2076: so that $S^0_{12}=\mu\gamma$. Using the formula (\ref{shev1}) we obtain

2077: \begin{equation}

2078: \label{newtmu}

2079: \mu^\star=\mu,

2080: \end{equation}

2081: as expected.

2082: 

2083: 

2084: 

2085: \noindent

2086: {\it Extensional flow.} In this case the fluid is being extended

2087: in the horizontal direction and simultaneously contracted in the vertical direction at 

2088: the same constant rate $\vep$. The velocity is

2089: \begin{equation}

2090: \label{ef-v-ext}

2091: {\uv}^0_{\it ext}=

2092: \left(

2093: \begin{array}{c}

2094: \vep x_1\\

2095: -\vep x_2

2096: \end{array}

2097: \right),

2098: \end{equation}

2099: and

2100: \begin{equation}

2101: \label{ext-strain}

2102: {\ee}_{ext}^0=

2103: \left(

2104: \begin{array}{cc}

2105: \vep & 0 \\

2106: 0 & -\vep

2107: \end{array}

2108: \right).

2109: \end{equation} 

2110: For a homogeneous Newtonian fluid, $\ts^0_{ext}=2\mu {\ee}^0_{ext}-PI$, and thus

2111: $S^0_{11}=2\mu\vep-P$, $S^0_{22}=-2\mu\vep-P$. Next using the definition (\ref{ev})

2112: we obtain

2113: \begin{equation}

2114: \label{newtev}

2115: \lambda^\star=4\mu.

2116: \end{equation}

2117: Therefore, for a Newtonian effective fluid the ratio $\lambda^\star/\mu^\star$ equals $4$ 

2118: (in two dimensions). 

2119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2120: \section{Proof of Proposition \ref{quasi}}

2121: \label{Appendix B}

2122: The proposition \ref{quasi} will be proved if we prove the following

2123: 

2124: \begin{proposition}

2125: \label{homsolve}

2126: Suppose the network graph $\Gamma$ is quasi-triangulated. Then every solution of the 

2127: homogeneous

2128: system (\ref{comphom}) is of the form $t{\bf w}_0$ where $t$ is arbitrary 

2129: real and ${\bf w}_0$

2130: is given by (\ref{w-not}).

2131: \end{proposition}

2132: \noindent

2133: {\it Proof.} 

2134: First note that (\ref{comphom}) is Euler-Lagrange system for the functional

2135: \begin{equation}

2136: \label{q-hom}

2137: Q_{hom}=\frac 12 A{\bf z}\cdot{\bf z}=

2138: \displaystyle{\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j\in {\cal N}_i} C^{ij}_{sp}

2139: (({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf q}^{ij})^2+\sum_{i\in I} C_1^{i}

2140: (\TI\cdot {\bf q}^{i})^2.}

2141: \end{equation}

2142: Clearly the minimum of $Q_{hom}$ is zero. Thus every solution of (\ref{comphom}) is a 

2143: minimizer

2144: of $Q_{hom}$. On the other hand, 

2145: $Q_{hom}({\bf T}^1,\ldots {\bf T}^N)=0$ if and only if

2146: the vectors $\TI$ satisfy the system of equations

2147: \begin{equation}

2148: \label{imp}

2149: \begin{array}{cc}

2150: ({\bf T}^i-{\bf T}^j)\cdot{\bf q}^{ij}=0,&~~~~i=1,2\ldots N,~~j\in {\cal N}_i\\

2151: \hspace{-11mm}\TI\cdot {\bf q}^{i}=0, & \hspace{-21mm}i\in I.

2152: \end{array}

2153: \end{equation}

2154: Therefore, a vector ${\bf z}=({\bf T}^1, \ldots {\bf T}^N)^T$ solves (\ref{comphom})

2155: if and only if $\TI, i=1,\ldots, N$ solve (\ref{imp}). 

2156: The solvability of (\ref{imp}) will be directly linked to

2157: the geometric structure of the graph $\Gamma$. 

2158: We begin by observing that ${\bf q}^i=\pm{\bf e}_2$. Thus the second set of equations

2159: in (\ref{imp}) yields 

2160: \begin{equation}

2161: \label{e1}

2162: \TI=t^i {\bf e}_1, i\in I,

2163: \end{equation}

2164: that is, $\TI$ are horizontal

2165: for all boundary vertices. Next, consider boundary vertices ${\bf x}^i,  i\in I^-$ 

2166: (these are vertices connected to $\bound^-$), and recall that they belong to a path

2167: $\Gamma^-$, edges of which are interior edges of $\Gamma$. 

2168: Hence, if $i_1\in I^-$, then there is at least one 

2169: $i_2\in I^-, i_2\ne i_1$ such that ${\ux}^{i_1}$ and ${\ux}^{i_2}$

2170: are connected by an {\it interior} edge $b^{i_1i_2}$. 

2171: Using the first set of equations in (\ref{imp}) and (\ref{e1}) we obtain

2172: \begin{equation}

2173: \label{e2}

2174: ({\bf T}^{i_1}-{\bf T}^{i_2})\cdot 

2175: {\bf q}^{i_1i_2}=(t^{i_1}-t^{i_2}){\bf e}_ 1\cdot{\bf q}^{i_1i_2}=0.

2176: \end{equation}    

2177: Furthermore, $b^{i_1i_2}$ is non-vertical, that is, 

2178: ${\bf q}^{i_1i_2}\cdot {\bf e}_1\ne 0$, which yields

2179: $t^{i_1}=t^{i_2}$. Since each ${\bf x}^i, i\in I^-$ is 

2180: connected to at least one other, we obtain

2181: \begin{equation}

2182: \label{i-minus}

2183: \TI=t{\bf e}_1, ~~~~i\in I^-,

2184: \end{equation}

2185: with the same scalar $t$. 

2186: 

2187: Since the graph is quasi-triangulated, there 

2188: exists an {\it interior}

2189: vertex  ${\ux}^{l_1}\in \Gamma$ , ${\ux}^{l_1}\notin \Gamma^-$, connected 

2190: to at least two

2191: vertices ${\ux}^{i_1}, {\ux}^{i_2},

2192: i_1, i_2 \in I^-$ by non-collinear edges. Then, 

2193: using the first set of equations in (\ref{imp})

2194: we obtain

2195: \begin{equation}

2196: \label{e3}

2197: \begin{array}{c}

2198: ({\bf T}^{l_1}-t{\bf e}_1)\cdot{\bf q}^{l_1,i_1}=0,\\

2199: ({\bf T}^{l_1}-t{\bf e}_1)\cdot{\bf q}^{l_1,i_2}=0.

2200: \end{array}

2201: \end{equation}

2202: Since ${\bf q}^{l_1,i_1}$ and ${\bf q}^{l_1,i_2}$ are linearly independent, 

2203: (\ref{e3}) yields

2204: ${\bf T}^{l_1}=t{\bf e}_1$. Next, let $G_1$ be the 

2205: union of $\Gamma^-$,

2206: ${\ux}^{l_1}$ and all the edges which connect ${\ux}^{l_1}$ to $\Gamma^-$.

2207: Using the definition of the quasi-triangulated graph again, we find a vertex ${\ux}^{l_2}$, not 

2208: contained in 

2209: $G_1$, and connected to $G_1$ by two non-collinear edges.

2210: Repeating the argument following (\ref{e3}), we see that ${\bf T}^{l_2}=t{\bf e}_1$.

2211: Then we choose $G_2$ to be the union of $G_1$, ${\ux}^{l_2}$ and all 

2212: edges of $\Gamma$ which connect 

2213: them. Repeating the process we find the 

2214: vertex ${\ux}_{l_3}$ and continue until we obtain

2215: \begin{equation}

2216: \label{e4}

2217: \TI =t{\bf e}_1, ~~~~~~~i=1, \dots N

2218: \end{equation}

2219: with the same scalar $t$. This means that every solution of (\ref{imp}) is of the form

2220: $t{\bf w}_0$. Since solution spaces of (\ref{imp}) and (\ref{comphom}) are the same,

2221: the proposition is proved.

2222: 

2223:  

2224: The following discrete Korn inequality follows immediately from the Proposition 

2225: \ref{homsolve}.

2226: 

2227: \begin{corollary}

2228: Suppose that $\Gamma$ is quasi-triangulated.

2229: Let $W\subset {\bf R}^{2N}$ be the one-dimensional subspace spanned by ${\bf w}_0$ from

2230: (\ref{w-not}), and let $W^\bot$ denote the orthogonal complement of $W$ in ${\bf R}^{2N}$.

2231: Also, let $Q_{hom}$ and $A$ be, respectively the quadratic form defined in (\ref{q-hom})

2232: and its matrix. 

2233: Then there is a constant $C>0$ such that the Korn-type inequality

2234: \begin{equation}

2235: \label{d-korn}

2236: \frac 12 A{\bf z}\cdot{\bf z}=Q_{hom}({\bf z})\geq C {\bf z}\cdot{\bf z}

2237: \end{equation}

2238: holds for all ${\bf z}\in W^\bot$.

2239: \end{corollary} 

2240: Another straightforward corollary is as follows.

2241: \begin{corollary}

2242: \label{u-solve}

2243: Suppose that $\Gamma$ is quasi-triangulated. Then the system

2244: $$

2245: A{\bf z}={\bf f}

2246: $$

2247: has a unique solution ${\bf z}\in W^\bot$ provided ${\bf f}\bot W$.

2248: \end{corollary}

2249: 

2250: \noindent

2251: {\bf Remark}. The projection $P_W$ onto the subspace $W$ is defined by

2252: $$

2253: P_W {\bf z}=\frac{{\bf z}\cdot{\bf w}_0}{N}{\bf w}_0.

2254: $$

2255: In terms of vectors $\TI$,

2256: $$

2257: P_W( {\bf T}^1,{\bf T}^2,\ldots {\bf T}^{N})=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n T^i_1}{N}{\bf w}_0

2258: $$

2259: Therefore, using the definition of ${\bf f}$ in terms of ${\bf R}^i$, we can write the 

2260: condition ${\bf f}\bot W$ as

2261: \begin{equation}

2262: \label{orthog}

2263: \sum_{i=1}^n R^i_1=\sum_{i=1}^N{\bf R}^i\cdot {\bf e}_1=0

2264: \end{equation}

2265:  

2266: The vectors ${\bf R}^i$ in (\ref{lead-rhs}) satisfy (\ref{orthog}), so that ${\bf f}$ in

2267: (\ref{zf}) with $R^i$ defined by (\ref{lead-rhs}) is orthogonal to $W$. 

2268: This gives the unique solvability of the network

2269: equations (\ref{compls}).

2270: 

2271: 

2272: \begin{corollary}

2273: \label{al-solve}

2274: Suppose that $\Gamma$ is quasi-triangulated.

2275: Then there is a unique ${\bf z}^*\in W^\bot$ such that every solution of (\ref{compls})

2276: is of the form ${\bf z}^*+t{\bf w}_0$, where $t{\bf w}_0\in W$.

2277: \end{corollary} 

2278: This means that solution of the network equations (\ref{compls}) is unique up to a 

2279: horizontal translation.

2280: 

2281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2282: \section{Proof of proposition \ref{tricon}}

2283: \label{Appendix C}

2284: \noindent

2285: {\it Proof.}

2286: First we observe that the form $\widehat Q$ is a sum of non-negative terms, each of 

2287: which corresponds to an edge of the network graph $\Gamma$. Removal of an edge from 

2288: $\Gamma$ corresponds to deletion of one non-negative term in $\widehat Q$. 

2289: This means that for each subgraph $\Gamma^\prime$ of $\Gamma$, 

2290: $\widehat Q(\Gamma)\geq \widehat Q(\Gamma^\prime)$. Next we choose $\Gamma^\prime$ to be

2291: the maximal quasi-triangulated subgraph of $\Gamma$. 

2292: We show that $\min \widehat Q(\Gamma^\prime)>0$. Indeed, $\min \widehat Q(\Gamma^\prime)=0$ 

2293: if and only if

2294: the corresponding system (\ref{ns}) has a solution.

2295: To show that this system

2296: has no solutions, introduce

2297: new unknowns $\hat{\bf T}^i={\bf T}^i-{\bf e}_2$. Then from

2298: (\ref{ns}) we obtain

2299: \begin{equation}

2300: \label{ns1}

2301: (\hat{\bf T}^i-\hat{\bf T}^j)\cdot {\bf q}^{ij}=0,

2302: \end{equation}

2303: \begin{equation}

2304: \label{ns2}

2305: \hat{\bf T}^i\cdot {\bf q}^i=

2306: \begin{cases}

2307: -2\;\;\;\;{\rm when}\;i\in I^+&\\

2308: 0\;\;\;\;{\rm when}\;i\in I^-.&\\

2309: \end{cases}

2310: \end{equation}

2311: Since the vectors ${\bf q}^i$ are vertical, (\ref{ns2}) yields

2312: \begin{equation}

2313: \label{bd} 

2314: \hat{\bf T}^i=t^i {\bf e}_1,\;\;\;\;i \in I^-,

2315: \end{equation}

2316: where $t^i$ is a constant. 

2317: Recall that $\Gamma$ contains a path $\Gamma^-$ which consists of all

2318: boundary vertices connected to $\bound^-$ and all interior edges

2319: connecting these vertices. Hence,

2320: each ${\bf x}^{i_1}, i_1\in I^-$ has a neighbor ${\bf x}^{i_2},

2321: i_2\in I^-$ and thus 

2322: $(t^{i_1}-t^{i_2}){\bf e}_1\cdot{\bf q}^{i_1i_2}=0$ from (\ref{ns1}).

2323: Since two boundary vertices cannot be joined by a vertical edge,

2324: ${\bf e}_1\cdot{\bf q}^{i_1i_2}\ne 0$. This implies that all

2325: $t^i, i\in I^-$ are equal, that is 

2326: \begin{equation}

2327: \label{t}

2328: \hat{\bf T}^i=t{\bf e}_1, i\in

2329: I^-,

2330: \end{equation}

2331: where $t$ is a constant. 

2332: Next, consider the boundary path $\Gamma^-$. By definition of $\Gamma^\prime$

2333: there  is a vertex ${\bf x}^{j_1}, j_1 \not\in I^-$ connected

2334: to the boundary vertices ${\bf x}^{i_1}, {\bf x}^{i_2}$, 

2335: $ i_1, i_2 \in I^-$ by non-collinear edges of $\Gamma$.

2336: Then from (\ref{ns1}) and (\ref{t}) we have

2337: $$

2338: \begin{array}{c}

2339: (\hat{\bf T}^{j_1}-t{\bf e}_1)\cdot {\bf q}^{j_1,i_1}=0,\\

2340: (\hat{\bf T}^{j_1}-t{\bf e}_1)\cdot {\bf q}^{j_1,i_2}=0.\\

2341: \end{array}

2342: $$

2343: Since ${\bf q}^{j_1,i_1}$ and ${\bf q}^{j_1,i_2}$ are linearly

2344: independent, we obtain $\hat{\bf T}^{j_1}=t{\bf e}_1$. Now this

2345: argument can be used recursively. Next we choose $G_1$ to

2346: be the union of vertices ${\bf x}^i, i\in I^-, {\bf x}^{j_1}$ and

2347: the edges of $\Gamma^\prime$ which connect these vertices. Repeating the

2348: argument, we find a vertex ${\bf x}^{j_2}\not\in G_1$,

2349: connected to at least two vertices of $G_1$ by non-collinear

2350: edges, which yields $\hat{\bf T}^{j_2}=t{\bf e}_1$, and so on, until

2351: we obtain $\hat{\bf T}^i=t{\bf e}_1$ for all vertices ${\bf x}^i$ which belong to

2352: $\Gamma^\prime$. By assumption, $\Gamma^\prime$ contains at least one vertex ${\bf x}^+ \in I^+$. 

2353: But then $\hat{\bf T}^+ \cdot {\bf q}^+=-t{\bf e}_1\cdot {\bf e}_2=0$ which contradicts

2354: (\ref{ns2}). This contradiction shows that the system (\ref{ns1}), (\ref{ns2})

2355: has no solutions.

2356: 

2357: 

2358: 

2359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% R E F E R E N C E S %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2360: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2361: \bibitem{Batch} \textsc{Batchelor, G. K. \& Green, J. T.} 1972 

2362: The determination

2363: of the bulk stress in a suspension of spherical particles to order

2364: $c^2$. {\em J. Fluid Mech.} {\bf 56} Part 3,401--427.

2365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2366: \bibitem{Bach} \textsc{Bakhvalov, N. \& Panasenko, G.} 1989

2367: {\em Homogenization: averaging processes in periodic media}. Kluwer.

2368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2369: \bibitem{BLP} \textsc{Bensoussan, A., Lions, J. L., \& Papanicolaou, G.} 1978 {\em Asymptotic analysis in periodic structures}.

2370: North-Holland.

2371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2372: \bibitem{BBP} 

2373: \textsc{Berlyand, L., Borcea, L \&  Panchenko, A.} 2003 Network approximation

2374: for effective viscosity of concentrated suspensions with complex geometries.

2375: {\em SIAM Journ. Math. Anal.}, to appear. 

2376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2377: \bibitem{BK}

2378: \textsc{Berlyand, L. \&  Kolpakov, A.} 2001 Network approximation

2379: in the limit of small inter-particle distance of the effective

2380: properties of a high-contrast random dispersed composite.

2381: {\em Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal.} {\bf 159}, 179--227.

2382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2383: \bibitem{Carr} 

2384: \textsc{Carreau, P. J. \& Cotton, F.} 2002 Rheological properties

2385: of concentrated suspensions. In: {\em Transport processes in bubbles, drops and particles}.

2386: D. De Kee and R. P. Chhabra, eds., Taylor \& Fransis.

2387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2388: \bibitem{Cous}\textsc{Coussot, P.} 2002 Flows of concentrated

2389: granular mixtures. In: {\em Transport processes in bubbles, drops and particles}.

2390: D. De Kee adn R. P. Chhabra, eds., Taylor \& Fransis.

2391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2392: \bibitem{Einst}

2393: \textsc{Einstein, A.} 1906 Eine neue Bestimmung der Molek\"{u}ldimensionen,

2394: {\em Annln. Phys.} {\bf 19} p. 289 and {\bf 34} p. 591.

2395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2396: \bibitem{FA} \textsc{

2397: Frankel, N. A. \& Akrivos, A.} 1967 On the Viscosity of

2398: a Concentrated Suspension of Solid Spheres.  {\em Chemical Engineering Science}

2399: {\bf 22}, 847--853.

2400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2401: \bibitem{JKO}

2402: \textsc{Jikov, V., Kozlov, S. \& Oleinik, O.}

2403: 1994 {\em Homogenization of differential operators and integral functionals}.

2404: Springer.

2405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2406: %\bb{Noll} W. Noll, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 1958, {\bf 2}, 197-226.

2407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2408: \bibitem{Keller} \textsc{Nunan. K. C. \&  Keller, J. B.} 1984 

2409: Effective viscosity of periodic suspensions

2410: {\em Journ. Fluid Mech.} {\bf 142}, 269--287. 

2411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2412: \bibitem{SP} \textsc{Sanchez-Palencia, E.} 1980

2413: {\em Non-homogeneous media and vibration theory}. Springer.

2414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2415: \bibitem{Sh} \textsc{Schowalter, W. R.} 1978

2416: {\em Mechanics of Non-Newtonian Fluids}. Pergamon Press.

2417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2418: \bibitem{Brady} \textsc{Sierou, A. \&  Brady, J. F.} 2001

2419: Accelerated Stokesian

2420: Dynamic simulations. {\em J. Fluid Mech.} {\bf 448}, 115--146.

2421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2422: \bibitem{ShP} \textsc{Shikata, T \& Pearson, D. S.} 1994

2423: Viscoelastic behavior of 

2424: concentrated spherical suspensions. {\em Journ. Rheology} {\bf 38}, 601--616.

2425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2426: \bibitem{Shook}

2427: \textsc{Shook, C. A. \& Rocko, M. C.} 1991 {\em Slurry flow. Principles and practice.}

2428: Butterworth-Heinemann.

2429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2430: \bibitem{VW} \textsc{Van der Werff, J. C., de Kruif, C. G.,

2431: Blom, C,  \& Mellema, J.} 1989

2432: Linear viscoelastic behavior of dense hard-sphere dispersions.

2433: {\em Phys. Rev. A}. {\bf 39}, 795--807.

2434: \end{thebibliography}

2435: 

2436: 

2437: 

2438: 

2439: \end{document}             

2440: 

2441: 

2442: