i An update to this article is included at the end

Pergamon Chemical Enoineerin 9 Science, Vol. 52, No. 15, pp. 2457 2469, 1997
~ 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0009-2509(97)00065-1 0009-2509/97 $17.00 + 0.00

Locally averaged equations of motion for

a mixture of identical spherical particles
and a Newtonian fluid
R. Jackson
Department of Chemical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, U.S.A.

(Accepted 14 September 1996)

Abstract--The equations of motion of the particles and the interstitial fluid are averaged using
a 'soft' spatial averaging procedure, thus generating equations relating local average values of
the fluid pressure, the fluid velocity, and the velocity and angular velocity of the particles. Terms
whose form is not related to the above average variables are shown to be expressible as average
values of tensor-weighted integrals of the forces exerted on the surface of a particle by the fluid,
or by contact with other particles. Other undetermined terms relate to momentum transport by
velocity fluctuations about the average values. It is shown that the equations can be reduced to
closed forms, entirely in terms of the averaged variables, in the limiting case of Stokesian
particles at very low concentration. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: Suspensions; rheology; averaging.

INTRODUCTION Prosperetti (1994).] Some authors have used local

In the past I have worked with John Villadsen on
various aspects of chemical reactor theory. This paper
describes something a little different but I hope he
may still find it of some interest, since it originated
from problems associated with fluidized-bed reactors.
In principle the motion of a suspension of solid
particles in a Newtonian fluid is completely deter-
mined by requiring the Navier-Stokes equations to be
satisfied at each point of the fluid, and equating the
rates of change of the linear and angular momentum
of each particle, respectively, to the resultant force and
the resultant torque exerted on it. In practice not only
is this a problem of impractical complexity, but its
solution would provide more detailed information
than is usually needed. Indeed, a knowledge of the
average values of the velocity of the fluid, the velo-
cities and angular velocities of the particles, and the
fluid pressure, over some appropriately small region
in the neighborhood of each point of the system of
interest, is usually all that is required. The question
therefore arises whether equations can be found
whose solutions determine these average variables
without needing to know details of the motion on
a finer scale. In general there is no guarantee of the
existence of closed relations of this sort, involving
only average values, but an extensive literature has
grown up around the process of averaging. [See, for
example, Anderson and Jackson (1967), Drew (1971),
Drew and Segel (1971), Hinch (1977), Nigmatulin
(1979), Joseph and Lundgren (1990) and Zhang and
2457
spatial averages of the variables in the system of
interest, taken over regions small compared with the
length scale of the problems considered. Others have
averaged at each point over an ensemble of macro-
scopically equivalent systems, relying on an assump-
tion of ergodicity to relate the ensemble averages to
measurements on a single system. Each approach has
advantages and drawbacks, but in cases where they
lead to disparate results this is probably an indication
that averaging does not provide an adequate descrip-
tion of the physical behavior, and consequently
closure of the equations in terms of the averaged
variables is unlikely to be successful.
The process of averaging itself is purely formal and
leaves a number of terms indeterminate. The problem
of closure is then to express these in terms of the
averaged variables themselves. There has been a
variety of approaches to this, ranging from appeals to
general principles of continuum mechanics to the ad-
option of relations based on experimental evidence.
Clearly the undetermined terms depend on details of
the motion at the scale of the particles, and in the
present paper they will be expressed explicitly in terms
of point properties of the fluid, and variables asso-
ciated with individual particles, so that the informa-
tion at the 'microscopic' level which is needed to effect
closure can be discerned clearly. Though in general
this simply illuminates the great difficulties that face
any rigorous attempt at closure, it will be shown that
the process can be carried through to completion in
one simple limiting case, namely a suspension of rigid,
2458 R. Jackson

spherical, Stokesian particles in a Newtonian, incom- aoerage, (f)f of a point property f (e.g. pressure, or
pressible fluid, at the ‘Einstein’ limit of high dilution. a component of velocity) is defined by
The method used will be local space averaging, as in
the early work of Anderson and Jackson (1967), but
Zhang and Prosperetti (1994, 1995) have recently de-
rived very similar results using ensemble averaging.
44Wf(x) =
s VJ
fWs(lx - Yl)dvy. (3)

The fact that both methods are in agreement lends Expressions for the fluid phase average values of both
added confidence in the results. space and time derivatives of point variables are easily
The motion of a suspension can be viewed in two obtained [see, for example, Anderson and Jackson
ways. Workers in the fields of fluidization and (1967)]:
gas-particle transport have sought separate equations
of motion for each of the phases, while those inte-
rested primarily in the rheology of suspensions of
small particles have viewed the suspension as a whole
as an effective medium. Communication between
these groups has not always been satisfactory, and it is - C ~~~.0y)c(,.)u(lx - yI)ds, (4)
P
hoped that the present work will contribute to a rec-
onciliation between the two viewpoints which are, of
course, entirely equivalent.

LOCAL SPACE AVERAGES

For simplicity we restrict attention to a suspension +

of identical spherical particles in an incompressible
fluid. If n is the particle radius and L the shortest
significant macroscopic length scale associated with
the motion of interest it is assumed that L>>a. This
will be referred to as the condition of separation of
scales. Local space averages are then defined with the
help of a weighting function g(r) which is a monotone
decreasing function of the separation between a pair
of points of space, denoted by r. The integral of g over
all space is normalized to unity:
m point velocity. These relations are valid provided the
4n g(r) r2 dr = 1.
I0
g will also be assumed to be differentiable as often as
required in our manipulations, and its ‘radius’, 1 is
defined by
P
1
c Js, f(y)nk(y)Uk(yb(IX - YI)ds,
(5)
Both here and in what follows the convention is
adopted that repeated suffixes are summed over the
values one to three. In eqs (4) and (5) the integrals are
taken over the surface sp of particle p and the summa-
tion is over all particles. nk denotes the kth component
of the unit normal to the particle surface, directed out
of the particle, and uk is the kth component of the
(1) distance of x from the nearest point of the boundary
of the system is considerably larger than the radius of
the weighting function. It is important to remember
that the same restriction will apply to the validity of
any result derived using eq. (4) or eq. (5).

1 n
g(r) r2 dr = g(r)? dr. Solid phase averages
s0 sI This term will be used to describe averages formed
in a manner exactly analogous to the fluid phase
Then, provided 1is chosen to satisfy a<<l<<L, averages
averages just described, except the domain of integra-
defined using g should not depend significantly on the
tion is that part of the system occupied by particles at
particular functional form of g or its radius. Several
the time in question, and is therefore the union of the
different types of average will now be defined and
interiors up of the separate particles. Thus the solids
some of their properties will be quoted.
volume fraction 4 is defined by

Fluid phase averages

The volume fraction E occupied by fluid is defined d(x) = 1 j- dlx - YI)du, (6)
at point x by P VP

and the solid phase average (f)” of any point prop-

E(X) = 1g(lx -
Jv,
yl)dl/, (2) ertyf of the solid material then follows as

where the integral is taken over the whole of the space

occupied by fluid in the system, denoted by V,. (Of
course this domain of integration changes with time
so E is a function oft, as well as x, but time dependence
will not be exhibited explicitly in formulas unless this
is necessary to avoid ambiguity.) Then thejuid phase
Expressions analogous to eqs. (4) and (5) relate aver-
ages of space and time derivatives to corresponding
derivatives of averages.
 Locally averaged equations of motion
Overall (volume) and mass-weighted averages
The overall, or volume average ( f ) of a point
propertyfis defined by
(f) (x) -- fvf(y)g(Ix - yl) dVr
= e ( x ) ( f ) f ( x ) + qS(x)(f)S(x)
and the mass-weighted average ( f ) " by
fi(f)" = pfs(f) f + p~(f)s
where pf and p~ are the densities of the fluid and solid
materials, respectively, and fi = epl + dpps. These
averages are important in formulating equations for
the motion of the mixture as a whole.
Particle-phase averages
The solid-phase averages defined above invoke the
values of point variables, such as a component of
velocity or a component of the stress tensor, within
each particle. However, since each particle is assumed
to be rigid, its motion is completely determined by the
translation of its center and rotation about the center
and, correspondingly, the distribution of stress within
the particle is not needed to determine the motion;
only the resultant force and the resultant moment are
relevant. Consequently, as pointed out by Anderson
and Jackson (1967), it is useful to introduce averages
which depend only on properties of the particle as
a whole, such as the velocity of its center of mass or its
angular velocity. These will be referred to as particle-
phase averages to distinguish them from the solid-
phase averages defined above. The number n of par-
ticles, per unit volume, at position x and a particular
time is defined by
n(x) = ~ g ( l x - xPl)
p
where x p is the position of the center of particle p at
the time in question. The particle phase average ( f ) P
of any property fP of the particle as a whole is then
given by
n(x)(f)V(x) = ~fVg(lx - xPl).
p
For this type of average there is no analog of eq. (4),
since the averaged quantity fP is not defined point-
wise, but Anderson and Jackson (1967) have shown
that the analog of eq. (5) is
0 which is the averaged momentum equation for the
n(x) @f/&)P(x) = ~-~[n(x)(f)P(x)]
+~ ~fPu~g(I x - xPl)
OXk p
where u~' denotes the kth component of the velocity of
the center of particle p. Particle-phase averages and
solid-phase averages are not identical and relations
between them will be quoted below. It must be
emphasized that eqs (8) and (9) express the overall
average and the mass average by combining the
2459
fluid-phase average with the solids-phase average, not
the particle-phase average.
Finally, with local space averages as defined above,
we should note that a second averaging process does
not leave the value of an average variable exactly
unchanged. However, the difference between an aver-
(8) age variable and the result of subjecting it to a second
averaging is small of O(12/L 2) relative to the value of
the average variable and it can, therefore, be neglected
(9) under our assumption of separation of scales.
AVERAGED EQUATIONS OF MOTION
The point continuity equation for the fluid is
OUk/&Xk= 0 and, setting f = Uk in eq. (4) and f = 1 in
eq. (5) then adding the results, this yields the following
averaged continuity equation for the fluid phase:
~e 0
+ ~f~Xk(e(Uk)I) = 0 (13)
and there is a corresponding solid-phase averaged
continuity equation, namely
&b
+ ~ (¢<uk>S) = 0. (14)
In terms of particle-phase averages, on the other hand,
the continuity equation is a conservation equation for
the number density of particles, and it is obtained
immediately on setting f - 1 in eq. (12), giving
On 0
+ ff~xk(n(uk)v) = 0. (lS)
The point momentum equation for the fluid has the
familiar form
F~bli~@k]OGikoy = -- k + Pfgi
(10) Ps L-~ + (u~uk)
where a~, are the components of the stress tensor and
g~ those of the specific gravity force vector. It is aver-
aged by multiplying both sides by g ( l x - yl) then
integrating over V¢. By using eq. (5) with f - ui and
eq. (4) with f -= UiUkon the left-hand side of the result,
and eq. (4) with f = aik on the right-hand side, we
(11) obtain
I + 0 (~(u~uk)i)] =
-- ~ ~ aik(y)nk(y)g(lx -- yl)dsy + pfegi (16)
p ~s,
fluid phase.
When writing the momentum equation for a single
(12) particle we must take into account both traction for-
ces exerted on its surface by the surrounding fluid and
contact forces where it may be in contact with one or
more of its neighbors. Since the particles are assumed
incompressible contacts occur at points, and we de-
note by fPq the force exerted on particle p by particle
q at their point of mutual contact. This takes a non
vanishing value only for a small number of particles
2460 R. Jackson
q which are in contact with particle p at the time in the term
question. Then the m o m e n t u m equation for particle
p is ~ ~ trik(y)nk(y)g(lx -- yDdsy (20)
p .]sp

p~vfi~ = .lsf,aik(y)nk(y)dsr + ~" flpq + p~vgl
q#p
where v is the volume of the particle and u~' its center
of mass velocity. The first term on the right-hand side
of this, which represents the resultant force exerted on
the particle p by the fluid, can be denoted by f/yp and in
the same way the second term, which represents the
resultant force exerted on particle p at contacts with
other particles, can be denoted byf~sp. The equation is
averaged by multiplying both sides by g(Ix - xP]) and
summing over p. Then, using eq. (12) we find that
which is found on the right-hand side of the fluid-
phase m o m e n t u m balance (16). In the former the
resultant forces due to the fluid tractions acting every-
where on the surface of the particles are first cal-
culated, then these are averaged using values of the
weighting function at the particle centers. In the latter,
on the other hand, the traction forces at all elements
of fluid-solid interface are calculated, then these are
averaged using values of the weighting function at the
location of the surface elements. The former is what we
usually think of as the average fluid-particle interac-
tion force, so it must be related to the latter expres-

F
p~v L-~~? (n <u,> ~) + ~ (n<uiu~>~)] sion. This can be accomplished by expanding the
weighting function, which appears in the integrand of
eq. (20), as a Taylor series about the center of this
= n ( f / > " + n(f?>~ + p~ng~ (17) particle:
where the first and second terms on the right-hand
g(lx - Yl) = g(lx - x'l) @(Ix - x~l) (yj _ xf)
side are the particle-phase averages of the resultant ~Xj
forces exerted on the particles by the fluid and as
a result of solid solid contacts, respectively. 1 ~29([x -- xPD
-~ (yj--xP)(ym--X~) ....
To complete the set of m o m e n t u m equations we 2 c~xj~,x,.
need the angular m o m e n t u m balance for each par-
ticle, namely (21)

But on the surface sp, y - x p = an(y), where n is the

Bh~= ~,~If~(y~--x~)amk(y)nk(y)ds~ unit outward normal to the particle p, so the above
becomes

@(Ix - xPl)
+ ~ (~q - Xf)ffmq] g(lx - y]) = g(lx - xP[) - a nj(y)
qv~p d 63xj
where I = 2a2vpJ5 is the moment of inertia of the a 2 ~ag(lx - x'[)
particle about its center, yPq is the point of contact -~ nj(y) nm(y) . . . . (21')
2 Oxi?x,,
between particles p and q, e,z,, is the Kronecker per-
mutation symbol, and the two terms within the Using this expression for g in the integrals of eq. (20),
brackets represent the moments exerted on particle and reversing the order of differentiation with respect
p by the fluid traction forces and the solid-solid con- to x and integration over y, we then obtain
tact forces, respectively. The local average of this
equation, found in the same way as eq. (17), is ~' f alk(y)nk(y)g(lx -- y])ds, = n<f{>P(x)
p dsv

I[~(n(oJi)P)+~-~k(n(o)iUk)P) ] c3 1 c32
-- - - [n<sf>P(x)] -4- - - [n<Sfm>P(x)] ....
3xj 2 3xj~x~
= a@m~g('x--p xPl)[f~f,k(y)n,(y)nk(y)dsr (22)

where
d-q~pfPmqn~qI (18)
n <f{>'(x) = Y~g(I x - x'l) ~, t, ds
P
where n pq denotes the unit outward normal to the
surface of particle p at its point of contact with par- n<s~>V(x) = a ~ g ( l x -- xV[)fs tinjds (23)
ticle q. P v

It is important to recognize that the term

n<s~m>P(x) = a 2 2 g ( l x - xPl)fs tin~nmds
P p
n(f{) p = ~g(lx~ - xPl)Qaik(y)nk(y)ds,j~ (19)

which appears on the right-hand side of the particle- and ti = ~riknk is the ith component of the traction
phase m o m e n t u m balance (17) is not the same as exerted by the fluid on the surface of the particle.
 Locally averaged equations of motion
Using eq. (22) the second term on the right-hand
side of the fluid-phase averaged m o m e n t u m balance
(16) is replaced by an infinite series of successively
higher spatial derivatives of the terms defined in eq.
(23). However, using the assumption of separation of
scales, it can be shown that this series can be trun-
cated with acceptably small error. To compare the
orders of magnitude of terms on the right-hand side of
eq. (22) replace the co-ordinates xl with dimensionless
co-ordinates Yi = xi/L. Then successive terms contain
successively increasing powers of alL as factors. How-
ever, since t~ itself would be expected to be a complic-
ated function of position on the particle surface,
containing terms that themselves depend on a, we
cannot conclude immediately that the orders of mag-
nitude of the terms in eq. (22) decrease correspond-
ingly. To resolve this we may suppose t~ to be
expanded in surface harmonics on sp. Then only the
even harmonics contribute to the first, third, fifth, etc.
terms in eq. (23), while only the odd-order harmonics
contribute to the second, fourth, sixth, etc. terms.
Thus, if some term in the expression for t~ contributes
only to even terms in the harmonic expansion, then it
will contribute only to the odd lines of eq. (23), while
any term in the expression for t~ that contributes only
to odd terms in the harmonic expansion will contrib-
ute only to even lines of eq. (23). Of course, terms in
the expression for ti that contribute to both odd and
even terms in the harmonic expansion will make con-
tributions to all lines ofeq. (23). Thus, if a certain term
in the expression for t~ contributes to a given line of eq.
(23), we can conclude that this contribution will be
small of O(a2/L 2) compared to the contribution of the
2461
such an explicit expression is available. Second, in
particular problems all or part of the first three terms
in eq. (22) may vanish identically, and in this case one
of the later terms will become the leading contributor.
This presents no difficulty provided we recognize the
possibility, since the forms of all the terms are known,
and whatever terms are needed to deliver the leading
order contributions can be included. In other words,
truncation of the series (22) is still possible, with
neglect only of terms which are small of order a2/L 2
relative to those retained, though it may be necessary
in certain problems to extend the series beyond the
third term.
Now turn attention to the second term on the
right-hand side of the particle phase m o m e n t u m bal-
ance (17), namely
n < ~ > " ( x ) = Y~g(Ix - x"l) Y. f," (24)
P q~p
and consider the double sum
~ g(Jx - yPql)ff ~
P q#P
where yPq is the position of the point of contact be-
tween particles p and q. This double sum vanishes,
since yPq -- yqP and fPq -- - fqP. Then expanding g, as
before, in a Taylor series in the components of yPq
about the point x p, we obtain
0 =~o(Ix-x'l) Zfy- a f-~-2 g ( [ x - x'l) Z f ~ PqPq
ni
p q~:p GXj p q#p
a2 ~2

same term to the second line above the line in question / . ~ JfVqnPqnpq
--~------7--'~g(lx - x p ~" x? i j m •
+ 2 GXjOX m p q~.p
but, in general, we have no basis for comparing the
magnitudes of contributions from adjacent lines, since where n pq is the unit outward normal to particle p at
they may come from different terms in t~, with differ- its point of contact with particle q. If we now define
ent dependence on a. the following quantities:
This argument suggests that all but the first two
terms on the right-hand side of eq. (22) can be ne- .<f,'>"(x) = Z o ( i x - x"l) ~ f,"q
glected, with error of O(a2/L 2) relative to the two p qv~p
terms retained. However, this is not quite correct,
since we are also interested in the overall m o m e n t u m n(s~>P(x) = a ~ g ( l x - xVl) ~ ffqny q (25)
balance for the mixture which, as we shall see, is found P q#P

by adding averaged m o m e n t u m balances for the two

phases. The term n (f/I>p appears in each of these, but n(S~m>P(x) = aZ~g(i x _ xPl) x7
/ , J i£pqnPqnpq
j m
with opposite signs, so it cancels on addition. Thus, in P q#P

the overall m o m e n t u m balance, the leading order

term containing contributions from odd harmonics of
t~ is the third term on the right-hand side of eq. (22),
rather than the first. To avoid omitting the leading
order contributions of certain terms to the overall
m o m e n t u m balance we must, therefore, retain the first
three terms of the expansion (22).
Two further comments on this truncation proced-
ure are needed• First, it is not necessarily true that the
whole content of the first three terms in eq. (22) must
be retained• When an explicit form for t~ is known it
may turn out that certain groupings within these
terms can be omitted with error of O(a2/L 2) relative
to other groupings, but this cannot be known until
the above relation may be written
O
n <~'>~(x) = 7xj In <s~j>~(x)]
1 dE
- - [n(S~js>P(x)] + ... (26)
2 OXjOXm
Then, though the right-hand side of this represents an
infinite series, following the same line of reasoning as
before it can be argued that all terms beyond those
written out explicitly in eq. (26) can be omitted, with
error of O(aZ/L 2) relative to the terms retained.
2462 R. Jackson
Using eqs (22) and (26) in eqs (16) and (17), respec- the separate particles, giving
tively, the fluid-phase and particle-phase momentum
balances now take the following forms: ~ OaskV(IX
fvOa., g ..'x - yDdV = Jv,-~Yk ,, - yl)dV
fcq f ~q f 7
,~ ~" c~aik ,,
+ 2 . / - = - - g t l x - yl)dV. (32)
p dvp o y g

+ ~Xk(n(s£)P) 21 CgXkC?Xl
82
(n(s~y') + ps.egs (27) The integral over VI has already been evaluated in
deriving the fluid-phase momentum balance, and it is
and given by the first two terms on the right-hand side of
eq. (16) or, alternatively, by the right-hand side of
+ t?
psVE~(n(u~) p) ~Xk(n(UiUk)P)]=n(fif) p eq. (27) after deleting the gravitational term. In the
integral over vp we can introduce the momentum
8 1 02 equation for solid material, namely
+ ~Xk (n(s~k)p) 2 t?XkOXI(n(s~u)P) + p, nvgi (28)
~(Tik
- ps(ti~ - g3. (33)
In both of which terms are omitted which are, in @k
general, small of O(aE/L 2) compared with terms re- But within particle p we note that
tained.
Finally the particle-phase averaged angular mo- u/(y ) : Up + QabOgPa(yb-- X~)
mentum balance (18) can now be written, without
and hence, differentiating with respect to t
approximation, as
0fly) = ~if + o)fo)f(y, - xf) - t,o~ofl[(ys -- X~)
c~ + 8 p
I [ ~ ( n ( 6 9 s ) p) ~XkXk(rl(('OsUk))] + e.iabd)~(yb-- X~). (34)
Using eqs (33) and (34), and expanding g(Ix - Yl) in
= ~,ilmEn (sfl)P.+rl (sSms)P]. (29) the form (21) we then find that

Since the average angular velocity of the particles OGsk 9(I" x -- y l ) d g = psvg(lx - x'l)(fif - o3
fVp"~-yk
does not appear explicitly in eq. (27) or eq. (28) it may
seem that these are not coupled with the angular p~va2 0g(lx - xpl) p p
momentum equation. However, this is not the case {[-O,)s 09k -- o)P(J)P(~ik] -[- F.iak(f)Pa}
5 OXk
since, for example, the distribution of traction over the
particle surfaces will depend on the angular velocity, (35)
and hence this will influence quantities such as ( s ~ ) ' .
where the result
THE MIXTURE M O M E N T U M E Q U A T I O N ya 2
f r ( Y i - xf)(y i - x;)dg = T 3ij
This is the name given to the equation obtained by
taking a local average of the point momentum bal-
has been used.
ance
We can now sum over the particles and invoke the
[-c~ui c~(UsUk)] ~ri~ momentum and angular momentum balances for
PL-& + Oyk J = ~ + pg' (30) a single particle, quoted above, to evaluate the terms
0il' - g s ) and &,P. Then, after some manipulation,
over the whole neighborhood of a point x. Equation eq. (35) gives
(30) is satisfied everywhere, with p =py at points
occupied by fluid and p = p, at points occupied by
2 [ ~g(Ix - yl)dV = n(fif> p + n(fis) p
solid. Thus, averaging the left-hand side gives p Jv, cyk
cq s ~ s 1
Ps[~(~(u,) ) +~Xk(e(UsUk) )] ----[n(s~V' - n<s{,>" + n(s~,,>" - n ( s ~ , > " ]
2 t?Xk
t? u s psa 2 ~?
[nv((cOiO)k) p -- (~l(.O,)P6Sk)]. (36)
5 ~Xk
or Finally, eq. (26) can be used to expand the second
term on the right-hand side of this and the result can
~(fi(us)") + ~-XkXk(fi(UsUk) ). (31) be combined with the expression for

Averaging the first term on the right-hand side of (30) fVs-~-yk

~ffik gtrx
~' - yl)dV
is less simple. The integral over space can be expressed
as the sum of integrals over Vs. and V~ and the integral which forms the right-hand side of eq. (27) after delet-
over V~can be broken down as a sum of integrals over ing the gravitational term. This permits eq. (32) to be
 Locally averaged equations of motion 2463
rewritten as balance (38), and these must be supplemented by the
particle-phase angular momentum balance (29). Not
~(Tik ,,
fv-~yk O(IX - y l ) d g all these are independent, of course; only two of the
first three are needed. We emphasize again that all
these equations neglect terms which are small of order
(a/L) 2 compared to terms included explicitly, but that
the higher-order terms are known and can be in-
Ps o2 p
+ ( ~ i ) p) + - i f " nv((tottot) 6ik - - (toiOk) p)
} cluded, if necessary, for problems where lower-order
terms may vanish identically.
The choice of which momentum balances to use is
1 a matter of convenience. Whenever the inertia asso-
O ~ ( n ( s £ l ) p + n(s~u)P). (37)
2 OXkOXt ciated with motion of particles relative to fluid is
important the overall momentum balance (38) takes
Using this, together with expression (31) for the left-
a very clumsy form. This is appreciated only when one
hand side, the volume averaged momentum balance
attempts to expand the momentum flux term on the
becomes
left-hand side in the usual form

~(fi(ui)m)'~kk(fi(UiUk)m)=~@~k[~(fTik)" ~<u,uk)" = f(u,>"(uk>" + ~<u',u'~)".

This generates a term that cancels the terms in the
n angular velocity averages on the right-hand side of
+ ~((s~()" + <d~)" + <s~y' + (sit)")
(38). However, as a result of the mean motion of each
phase relative to the mass average velocity, (U~U'k)m
p~a2 1 contains some complicated terms involving the rela-
tive velocity ( u ) I - ( u ) p and the average angular
1 02 velocity (to)P, as well as the averages of products of
--n((s£t) p + (Sfkl) p) + fig,. (38) deviations of fluid and particle velocities from their
20XkOXl
respective means. Thus, in cases where these inertial
Though not mentioned explicitly in the above ma- effects are important (e.g. 'two phase flow' problems,
nipulations, as in our earlier work, terms were omitted such as motion in bubbling fluidized beds) the indi-
which are small of O(a2/L 2) relative to those retained. vidual phase momentum balances (27) and (28) pres-
Though this overall momentum balance has been ent the problem more neatly than the overall
found by averaging the point condition of momentum momentum balance. On the other hand, for problems
balance through both phases, it can also be obtained where all inertial effects are negligible and any differ-
by an alternative route. If the particle phase averages ence ( u ) I - ( u ) p is not of primary interest, as in
appearing on the left-hand side of eq. (28) are replaced 'suspension rheology', the overall balance (38) takes
by solid-phase averages, using the easily derived rela- a simple form and is clearly an appropriate frame-
tions work.
(9 = nv + O(a2/L 2) (39)
T H E GENERAL CLOSURE PROBLEM
va 2
q~(u,) • = nv(u,y' - T e , , k -~-~ Zg(Ix - xPl)to~' The average momentum balances have been de-
OXk p rived by formal manipulation, together with some
+ O(a2/L 2) (40) ordering arguments, and they are by no means
a closed set of equations. Before the closure problem
and can be contemplated all averages of products appear-
va 2 (__ ing on the left-hand sides must be decomposed in the
dp(UiUk)~ = nV(UiUk)P -- --5 J pZg(IX -- X'[) following manner:
(u~ukY = <ui)S <uk) s + < u l u l /
x [to~tof - 6~fto~]
where ul denotes ui - (ui) c, the deviation of the point
+ ~,,j--~ Zo(Ix - xq)ui'~of velocity from the fluid-phase average. The second
Oxj p term can then be transposed to the right-hand side of
the equation, when it appears as a 'Reynolds' type
+ ~,~i~-Y~g(Ix - xq)ul'to~ of contribution to the effective stress tensor. A number
tTXj p
of terms of this type are generated from averages of
+ O(a2/L 2) (41) products, and these are listed below

then the result may be added to eq. (27), to give the
same overall balance (38).
We have now derived three forms of local average
momentum balances, namely the fluid-phase balance
(27), the particle-phase balance (28) and the mixture
(u~u'k) I, (u~u'k) p, (u~u'~)", (~o~tol) p, (colu'k) p .
(42)
Here it is important to note that symbols such as
u} denote different things in the different terms; for
2464
example, in the second term listed ul = u i - (uD p,
while in the third term u~ = u i - ( u D ' . To achieve
closure of the equations in the most general case each
term in (42) must be expressed in terms of local
average variables and their derivatives, and so must
each of the following quantities which appear in the
averaged equations:
\ ik/ , ( s l u ) , (s~u) p. (43)
For rigid particles in a Newtonian fluid, (aik) y can be
removed from this list since a general expression is
easily found (Joseph and Lundgren, 1990). To obtain
this first note that
k'~yk + ~Yi) g(Ix - yD d V
fv/~u, ,~u~'~ .,
:fJ r, kSYk +ouk~y~y/;gtlx-
., yl)dV
since the rate of deformation vanishes at all points
within the (rigid) particles. On the left-hand side of
this relation we note that overall spatial averaging
and spatial differentiation commute, while on the
right-hand side we introduce the following relation:
Obli ~Uk t~ik + P~ik
t~yk t~yi fl
valid for a Newtonian fluid. Then it follows that
~(uD ,~(uD e I
•((o~D + { p / )
OXk ~X i ]~
or
(aik) I = -- (P)Y61k + p_|C~(Ui)/ O(Uk)|\
\ c~xk + Oxi J
which is the required closure for this term.
The general closure problem, which requires that
all the quantities (42) and (43) be expressed in terms of
local average variables and their derivatives, is clearly
formidable. It is somewhat reduced in scope in cases
where the interaction between particles is dominated
entirely by fluid forces or entirely by contact forces. In
s p
the former case (S~k) p and (Sikt) , and in the latter
( s ~ ) p and (s~l) p can be neglected. A criterion for
distinguishing these cases, based on a Stokes number,
has been proposed by Koch (1990). Nevertheless,
complete closure has not been achieved, at even mod-
erate particle concentrations, though it is possible to
come near to this when contact interactions dominate
using the kinetic theory of granular materials. For
Stokesian particles at extremely low concentrations,
on the other hand, where the particles are so widely
separated that interaction between them is negligible,
complete closure is possible. This is the case originally
addressed by Einstein (1906) with the more limited
objective of determining the effective viscosity of
a neutrally buoyant suspension, and we shall now
examine the closure problem at this limit.
R. Jackson
CLOSURE TO ORDER ~b FOR A DILUTE SUSPENSION OF
STOKESIANPARTICLES
The particles are assumed to be Stokesian, in the
sense that inertia of the fluid can be neglected in
determining its motion relative to the particles. This
does not, necessarily, imply that fluid inertia is negli-
gible in determining the motion of the mixture relative
to the boundaries of the system (here the relevant
length scale is L, so the Reynolds number of concern is
much larger than that governing motion relative to
a particle), nor does it imply that inertia of the solid
particles can be neglected, even when considering
their motion relative to the fluid. It is also assumed
that the particles are sufficiently widely spaced that
mutual interaction via the intervening fluid is not
significant in determining their motion. Then fluctu-
ations in the velocity of individual particles about
( u ) p will not be induced by interactions, while fluctu-
ations that might be imposed by the initial conditions
of the problem will decay in a time of the order of the
Stokes relaxation time. Thus, except possibly for
a short initial time interval, (U'iU'k) p can be neglected.
The fluctuations in fluid velocity about ( u ) I are con-
sequences of constraining the flow to satisfy the
no-slip boundary condition on the surface of each
particle. But these are precisely the velocity contribu-
tions whose associated inertia is judged negligible
when asserting that the particles are Stokesian, so the
, t f
inertial term pfe(UiUk) , which contributes to the ef-
fective stress tensor in the fluid-phase averaged mo-
mentum balance, can be neglected to the same
approximation. Thus, we need not consider any con-
tributions of the 'Reynolds stress' type to the averaged
equations, except possibly in a short interval follow-
ing the initial conditions.
(44)
At the low concentration considered flow in the
neighborhood of each particle can be determined by
solving the Stokes equations, with a no-slip condition
at the surface of the translating and rotating particle
and a requirement that the velocity and pressure fields
degenerate into specified far field forms at large dis-
tances from the particle. The solution then generates
increments which must be added to the far fields to
give the complete solution for the flow and pressure in
the neighborhood of the particle. At any point occu-
pied by fluid the value of a velocity component, or the
pressure, can then be regarded as the sum of a far field
value and incremental contributions resulting from
the requirement that no-slip conditions should be
satisfied on each particle surface. The sum of the
incremental contributions should, at most be propor-
tional to the number of particles per unit volume; that
is, to the volume fraction ~b. Correspondingly the
far-field variables, used in solving the Stokes equation
for each particle, should differ from the local average
variables by terms of order ~b, at most. (It might be
thought that this argument is wrong in the case of the
velocity components since, as is well known, super-
position of the velocity perturbations due to all the
particles diverges if these perturbations are calculated
 Locally averaged equations of motion
for each particle as though it were present alone. In
reality, of course, each particle is not alone; the solu-
tion must satisfy no slip conditions at the surfaces of
all the other particles and this gives rise to a screening
effect which prevents the divergence from occurring.)
Once the velocity and pressure fields have been found
in the neighborhood of a typical particle the traction
exerted by the fluid on each element of its surface can
be found, and hence the integrals appearing in (f/I)p,
(s~) p and (s~t) p can be calculated.
Following this program we consider a particle
whose center of mass velocity is up, which is rotating
with angular velocity toP, and express the velocity field
at points distant from the particle (the far field, in the
above sense) as a multipole expansion about the
center of the particle. Then, if U denotes the far field
velocity and P the corresponding pressure field
U=Uo+D.x+toAx+K:xx+L:xxx+
P = Po + pfg.x + 2ItI:K.x + -.-
Here x is the position vector relative to the particle
center, g is the specific gravity force vector and
=
1/~Ui ~Uj~ +
Kijk 2 \ 8XjaXkJo' Lijkl 6 ~OXjOXk(~XI/]O
where the suffix zero indicates that the derivatives are
to be evaluated at the location of the center of the
particle. For this problem an expression for the trac-
tion on the particle surface, r = a, is available in
the literature (Nadim and Stone, 1991; Leal, 1992),
namely
3it
(ti)r=a = ~a (Ui -- u~) -1- 3itnb[Ciab d- 8kabnink] ((2)a -- toP)
35 5 s tinj ds
+ 5itDian a + Ita ~Tabinanb + -~eiabOcbnan c
--
3]
3z.n.ni + -~zi -- Poni - apfgknkni
q- Ita2VVVU q- ItaaVVVVU + .--
where
1 and third lines from the table make non-vanishing
~ijk = "~ (Kuk + Kkij -1- Kjki)
1
-- -~'~((~ijKppk -[" (~ikKppj q-- (~jkKppi)
Ol,, = Ktpqeqp,, + Krapqeqpt
"ti = gpp i
Note that the term in square brackets multiplying Ita
on the right-hand side of eq. (47) is a sum of products
of numerical factors of order one, second derivatives of
the far-field velocity and an even number of compo-
nents of the unit outward normal vector n at the
2465
particle surface. The quantity VVVU multiplying Ita 2
is not written out explicitly, but it is a sum of products
of numerical factors of order one, third derivatives of
the far-field velocity and an odd number of compo-
nents of the unit normal. Similarly, the quantity
VVVVU is a sum of products of factors of order one,
fourth derivatives of the far-field velocity and an even
number of components of the unit normal, and this
pattern continues for higher terms, represented by
dots. Now suppose UM is the macroscopic velocity
scale for the problem of interest, and hence the scale
for the far field velocity. Then in terms of UM and the
macroscopic length scale L the table below shows the
orders of magnitude of certain terms on the right-
hand side of eq. (40), together with the number of
multiplicative factors n~ that they contain.
Term Order of mag. No. of factors n~
.-.
5itDia rla It UM/L odd
(45)
#a [...] (ItUM/L) (a/L) even
Ita2VVVU (it UM/L) (a/L) 2 odd
Ita3VVVVU (it UM/L) (alL) 3 even
The orders of magnitude of the first two terms on the
right-hand side of eq. (47) cannot be estimated in
terms of UM and L because the first depends on the
(46) slip velocity U - up, while the second depends on the
rotational slip to - toP.
From eq. (23), to find n(flf) v and n(S~k)P we must
evaluate the following integrals:
fsf'ds and f~finJ nkds
and only those terms in the expression (47) for ti which
contain products of an even number of components of
n make nonvanishing contributions. To find n(sf) p,
on the other hand, we must evaluate the integral
and only terms in ti containing products of an odd
number of components of n make nonvanishing con-
tributions. Thus, the second and fourth lines from the
above table make nonvanishing contributions to
(47) n(f/Y) v and n(sfijk) p, and those from the fourth line
are small of O(a2/L 2) compared to those from the
second, so they can be neglected. Similarly, the first
contributions to n (s/~) p, and that from the third line is
small of O(a2/L z) compared with that from the first,
so it can be neglected. By the same token the contribu-
tions of all higher terms, represented by dots in eq.
(47), can be neglected.
With the above approximations, and using the well
known results
fs ninjds = 4ha2
T t~ij'
(48)
r ninjnknt ds = 4ha2
~,~ 15 (6Ufikl + (~ik(~lj"~- (~il(~kj)
2466 R. Jackson
it is straightforward to evaluate the required integrals, and
with the following results:
[3/~( u, I a2pf
f~ 3v# t3~U/ n(s~)" = ¢ (Y () - (uJ)61~ 5
rids = 6~zlza(Ui - u~) + ~ - c3x~ pyvgi (49)
2~ob< ~2 ( u o ) S ]
fs fin~ds = ~4ha2
; - { - Pobi~ + 3Pei~(Oga - ~o~) + 5/~Di~} × (gi6~k + g~'$ki + gk~JU)+ lxa t~Uk ~---7----~ ?
GXbCXcJ
+ O(~b2) (54)
(50)
The last term within the braces represents a sum of
f,f,njnkdS= v{-~a2(U,--U~)6.ik various second derivatives of the fluid-phase average
velocity arising from the contents of the square
brackets on the right-hand side of (51). These have not
-- ~(gi6jk + gj6ki + gk6ij) been written out with explicit coefficients because, as
we shall see, they are dominated by other terms in the
+ ~L -~,/jk~+ 5(~ubOb~+ ~kbO~) fluid-phase momentum balance and can be omitted.
Equations (44), (52)-(54) provide all that is needed
to close the fluid-phase average momentum balance
- ~(6Urk + ~ikZS)+ zi6~k • (51) (27), since the 'Reynolds' term pie (U~U'k)s can be ne-
glected, as shown above. Thus we find
Then, using the first of eq. (23) together with eq. (49)
0 s ~3 I
v" (6n#a,, Pf[~(e(Ui) )-}-~Xk(C'(Ui) (~lk)f)]
,,<Yi>" = vEg(l~-
p
x ~ 1--:-,
L - -
t ~ , - ur)

3 O2 U i PYgi];

or, replacing the far-field variables by the correspond-

ing fluid-phase averaged variables, with error of 0(40
+ 2 \ 8Xk + 8xi J

n(fS) p = vZg(Ix
v
-xPl)f9#(,/ui~,s
( 2a2 \ /
- uf) + 3 ' l-l/a<u# ~<u,>r~
/

+ 4 c~x2 PYg~ + O(dp) ~. (o9,,)v]} -9#q~2a

--ei,,k 2

But from our earlier discussion of repeated averaging [ a2

x ((ul) y - ( u i ) v) q 6 ax]. J +pygi
Y~ gIIx - x ~ l ) ( u b q x ~ l = n ( ( u b S ) ~
p 1 ~2 {3__~
= n(ui) f + O(12/L 2) 2 C~XkC~X~ ((ul)Y -- (bli)P)(~kJ

and consequently the above becomes a2

9/~b 1- ,~
n(fif) v = 5~-a~Lt~.,) - <u,>.) + 6
- PsOgi + 0((02).
The terms in this are easily recognizable; they repres-
ent the Stokes drag force, the Faxen force, and the
buoyancy force, respectively.
Similar considerations, using the second and third
of eqs (23) together with eqs (50) and (51), respectively
lead to
+ o(,/, ~)
5 pf~(giOjk + gj6kl + gk(~ij)
a2 t~2(Ui) f"]
tgx] J
q-#a2Ca~~ ' ~ .
(52) GXbGXcJ
Scrutiny of the right-hand side now reveals some
further simplifications. The terms involving compo-
nents of g in the last braces generate a contribution
that is clearly small of O(aZ/L 2) relative to the term
Plg~, so they can be omitted. Similarly the final term in
the last braces generates contributions proportional
to fourth derivatives of ( u ) I and containing a 2 as
a multiplicative factor. These are small of O(a2/L 2)
~x, ) relative to terms in the second derivatives of ( u ) y that
come from the first set of braces, so they can also be
omitted. Finally, the average continuity equation for
+ ~x, }J the fluid phase can be used to re-write the left-hand
(53) side in terms of the material derivative following the
 Locally averaged equations of motion 2467
fluid. Thus, the equation reduces to effective stress tensor for the fluid phase. It consists of
two parts, one symmetric and one antisymmetric. The
antisymmetric part vanishes if rotational relaxation is
PSe Dt - c~xi OXk t~ CqXi j complete; in other words, if the average angular velo-
cities for fluid and particles are the same. We also note
that

3 "flfct(ui)Z ~(uk)Z']
<u> = (u): + ,~[(uy - <u):]
so it appears that the symmetric part could be re-
placed by
2a2 L. . . . - (ui)v)
a2 c~2~ui)S] c12
+~ ~ J-~x--~[-~ ((u~)s with error of O(~b2), unless the slip velocity is large of
order 1/~b. This clearly exhibits the familiar Einstein
- (ui)V)] + Psgi (55) correction to the effective viscosity.
It is important to note that eq. (55) includes modifi-
where cations to the momentum equation of the pure fluid
arising from the presence of the particles, and these
Ds ~ s ~
terms are correct to O(~b). However, eqs (56) and (57)
D~t = ctt + <Uk> ~kXk"
do not include O(~b) corrections to the equations of
This form of the fluid-phase momentum balance is motion of an isolated particle. To find these it would
correct to order q5 in the particle concentration and be necessary to take into account the interactions
omits terms that are small of order a2/L 2 relative to between the particles through the motion of the inter-
those retained. vening fluid.
Similar manipulations applied to the averaged par- Finally the mixture momentum balance (38) be-
ticle-phase momentum equation (28), and angular comes
momentum equation (29) lead to the following closed
forms for these equations: U m ~ m
~(~( ~) ) + T~x l~(u~uD )
Dv(ui) v 9#[ u. f a2 ~2(ui)f]
P~' D----~ 2a z ( ( ' ) - (u'>V) + 6 8x 2 J
- + /

+ (P, - Ps)O~ (56)

and
Dv(oi) v 15p[-1 O(uk)S (~oi) v]
where
De ~
N = ~-t + <uk>PUx~"
Equation (56) calls for little comment; the forces act-
ing on the particles are gravity, buoyancy, the Stokes
drag and the Faxen force. The right-hand side of (57)
is proportional to the difference between the angular
velocity associated with the averaged fluid velocity
field, and the averaged angular velocity of the par-
ticles; in other words, to the rotational slip velocity.
Thus the mixture will relax, as expected, to a state in
which the angular velocities associated with the aver-
aged motions of both phases are the same. On the
right-hand side of eq. (55) there is a term containing
V E [ - ( ~ ( ( u ) f - ( u ) P ) l and this is clearly small of
O(a2/L 2) compared to the Stokes drag force. How-
ever, it should be retained for a reason discussed
earlier; the drag force cancels from the overall average
momentum balance for the mixture, and this then
remains as the dominant term in the slip velocity. The
content of the braces in eq. (55) can be regarded as an
5 ~ @(u,/ a(uD I']
(57)
+ ~(<~j>"<~j>",~k -
J
02 1-3m%, -s
L-y-t~,~,~ - <u,y)] + ~0,. (58)
As remarked earlier the appearance of this equation
does not reflect its true complexity. When the average
of the product of two components of u on the left-
hand side is expanded, in the usual way
(UiUk) m = (ui)m(Uk) m ~- (U~Utk) m
the second term is not negligible, even though both
(U~U'k)s and (u'iu'k) p can be neglected, as argued
above. As a result, a term appears which cancels those
terms in eq. (58) involving the angular velocity com-
ponents, but unfortunately in general other complic-
ated quadratic terms appear, involving components of
the slip velocity, the particle velocity, and the angular
velocity of the particles. However, in the common
situation where [(o)vl is of the same order of magni-
tude as [1/2Vx(u)S], expanding the left-hand side of
eq. (58) leads to the following form for the mixture
momentum balance, neglecting terms of O(aE/L 2)
2468
relative to those retained
~(~(uD") + (~(uD"(uk)")
~(p)~r - - < f (~(u,) ~{u,~))
p<.,>, o<u,>,)
+ 2 \ Oxk + 8xi J
'°~PI~((uDIp - (u,)')((uD s - (u,,)")}
a z J-3/~b,, ,1 (ui}P)]
L-q--t,u,, - J + ;g,.
The last term in the braces arises from the fact that
differences between (u} m, (u} z and ( u ) v contribute to
(U~U'k)', even though (U~U'k}y and (U~U'k}p are both
negligible. It is an inertial contribution to the effective
stress tensor and would therefore be expected to be
negligible in the present case, where the Stokes ap-
proximation has been invoked for the relative motion
of fluid and particles. The term V2[3#~b((ui)y -
(u~)P)/4], which is not inertial in origin, has neverthe-
less not appeared in discussions of the rheology of
dilute suspensions since these have focused on cases
where there is no difference between the average
velocities of the fluid and the particles or, if such
a difference exists, it corresponds simply to a uniform
sedimentation.
It was indicated earlier that the general mixture
momentum balance (38) can be obtained by translat-
ing the particle-phase momentum balance (28) into
a solid-phase momentum balance, using eqs (39)-(41),
then adding it to the fluid-phase momentum balance
(27). In the present case it might be thought that this
procedure would miss some terms of order 4) since, as
noted above, the particle momentum balance (56)
does not include O(qS) corrections. However, this is
not the case, since eq. (56) must be multiplied through
by ~b to give the form of eq. (28) applicable in the
present limit, so when added to the fluid-phase mo-
mentum balance it contributes terms of order ~b. Any
correction terms of O(~b) added to eq. (56) would
contribute at order ~b2 to the mixture momentum
balance.
Though the order of approximation in eq. (56) is
not inconsistent with that in the mixture balance (58)
it does not match that of the averaged continuity
equations (13) and (15), which are correct to all orders
of 0. This has significant consequences. For example,
if attention is confined to problems in a single, vertical
space dimension, eqs (13), (15) and (56) provide three
equations for ~b and the vertical components of ( n ) y
and ( u ) p. However, these equations are ill-posed.
A uniform suspension is predicted to be unstable
against harmonic disturbances propagating upward,
and the rate of growth increases without bound as the
wave number tends to infinity. This divergence in the
growth rate would presumably be eliminated if eq.
(56) were supplemented by corrections of O (qS),which
R. Jackson
would be expected to introduce dissipative effects.
Alternatively, if the fluid-phase continuity equation
(13) is replaced by its approximation to order zero in
q~, namely V. ( u ) : = 0, to match the order of approxi-
mation in eq. (56), the uniform suspension is then
predicted to be neutrally stable. This is the correct
result in the limit q~~ 0, but it gives no indication
whether the suspension is stable or unstable for small,
but nonvanishing values of 4~.
CONCLUSION
In the first part of this paper equations of motion
(59) for the concentration of the particles and the local
average velocities of both particles and fluid have
been derived in a form that exhibits explicitly, in terms
of microscopic variables at the scale of the individual
particles, the quantities that must be related to the
local average variables to achieve closure of the equa-
tions. These quantities are tensor-weighted integrals
of the traction forces exerted on the surface of a par-
ticle by the fluid, averaged over the particles in the
neighborhood of a point in question, analogous
quantities with the traction forces replaced by forces
exerted at points of direct solid-solid contact, and
local averages of products of components of fluctu-
ations in the velocities of both fluid and particles
about their respective mean values. In general there is
little hope of finding explicit expressions for all these,
but they could possibly be extracted from results of
planned simulations of the local motion using, for
instance, the method of 'Stokesian dynamics' when
Reynolds numbers based on the particle diameter are
small enough. Their determination might therefore
pose a goal for such simulations, and a formulation in
terms of local volume averages, rather than ensemble
averages, is then an advantage, since an ensemble of
simulations (or an ergodic hypothesis to supplement
one simulation) is not needed to evaluate them.
The general results have been presented as separate
momentum balances for the fluid and the particle
phases [eqs. (27) and (28)], and an overall momentum
balance for the mixture has also been derived [eq.
(38)]. We emphasize again that only two of these three
momentum balances are independent and the most
appropriate choice depends on the nature of the prob-
lems of interest. Thus, for suspension rheology, where
the difference between the average velocities of fluid
and particles is not important, it is appropriate to
think in terms of the suspension as a single entity,
together with its associated stress tensor whose diver-
gence appears on the right-hand side of eq. (38). This
tensor determines the resultant force exerted on solid
boundaries and hence the result of rheometric
measurements. In many problems of two-phase flow,
on the other hand, such as the motion of fluidized
suspensions, the difference between the average velo-
cities of the separate phases is of central importance
so attention naturally focuses on individual mo-
mentum balances for these phases. Despite this differ-
ence of approach it must be emphasized that any
 Locally averaged equations of motion
particular choice for the pair of independent mo-
mentum balances is equivalent to any other; there is
no single 'right' way of viewing the system, and no
conflict of principle between the points of view of
workers in two-phase flow and those in suspension
rheology.
In the second part of the paper it has been shown
that an explicit, closed form for the equations of
motion can be found at the 'Einstein' limit of a very
dilute suspension of Stokesian particles. It is also
possible to approach a complete closure for a suspen-
sion of sufficiently dense solid particles in a gas, where
contact forces dominate fluid tractions in determining
the interaction between particles, by invoking results
of the 'kinetic theory of granular materials'.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Trinity College and the De-
partment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
Cambridge University, for their hospitality during the period
when this work was initiated. In particular he acknowledges
the contribution of Dr. E. J. Hinch, who asked the right
question. Thanks are also due to Professor Andrea Pros-
peretti for showing him the work referred to as 'Zhang and
Prosperetti (1995)' prior to its publication. As mentioned
earlier, this contains results which parallel many of those
presented here, though they are obtained in terms of en-
semble averages, so the derivations differ. It is encouraging
that the two methods of averaging lead to results in substan-
tial agreement.
2469
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. B. and Jackson, R. (1967) Fluid mechan-
ical description of fluidized beds. Equations of
motion. Ind. Enyng Chem. Fundam. 6, 527-539.
Drew, D. A. (1971) Averaged field equations for two
phase media. Stud. Appl. Math. 50, 133-166.
Drew, D. A. and Segel, L. A., (1971) Averaged equa-
tions for two phase flows. Stud, Appl. Math. 50,
205-231.
Einstein, A. (1906) Eine neue Bestimmung der
Molekuldimensionen. Ann. Phys. 19, 289.
Hinch, E. J. (1977) An averaged-equation approach to
particle interactions in a fluid suspension. J. Fluid
Mech. 83, 695-720.
Joseph, D. D. and Lundgren, T. S, (1990) Ensemble
average and mixture theory equations for incom-
pressible fluid-particle suspensions. Int. J. Multi-
phase Flow 16, 35-42.
Koch, D. L. (1990) Kinetic theory for a monodisperse
gas solid suspension. Phys. Fluids A2, 1711 1723.
Leal, L. G. (1992) Laminar Flow and Convective Trans-
port Processes. Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Nadim, A. and Stone, H. A. (1991) The motion of
small particles and droplets in quadratic flows.
Stud. Appl. Math. 85, 53-73.
Nigmatulin, R. I. (1979) Spatial averaging in the
mechanics of heterogeneous and dispersed systems.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 5, 353 385.
Zhang, D. Z. and Prosperetti, A. (1994) Averaged
equations for inviscid disperse two-phase flow. J.
Fluid Mech. 267, 185-219.
Zhang, D. Z. and Prosperetti, A. (1995) private com-
munication.
 Update
Chemical Engineering Science
Volume 52, Issue 23, December 1997, Page 4433

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)80859-7
 Pergamon

Erratum
Jackson, R. (1997) Locally averaged equations of motion for a mixture
of identical spherical particles and a Newtonian fluid. Chem. Enyng Sci.
52, 2457-2469.

In eq. (45) for the ‘far field’ flow in the neighbourhood by

of a particle, the pressure field was derived from the
Df <Ui)’
velocity field using the Stokes equation, which PJ 7
neglects inertia. This is not correct. Though inertia
can be omitted in determining details of the flow
round a particle it cannot be neglected in the large
scale fluid motion. Thus, the pressure should have
been derived using the full Navier-Stokes equation.
Equation (45) should, therefore, be replaced by the
following form

ll=lJ,+D.x+wAx+K:xx+Lfxxx+ ...

(45)
.x+2&K.x+ .‘.
and

This change has consequences that propagate, in an D~(ui>P 9~ f? i2(n,)

= u (W - <tO) + T 7
obvious way, through subsequent equations, with “- Dt 2 I 1
the result that the final fluid and particle phase
D, (us>’
momentum equations, (55) and (56), must be replaced + (Ps - /Jr)% + LJf 7- (561

4433