Figure 1.
Sphere settling in water: terminal speed grows as radius squared while Reynolds number grows as radius cubed
. Details.
Take downward as positive and let gravity have magnitude . For a rigid sphere of density in otherwise stationary fluid of density , its weight minus buoyancy is . At terminal velocity, this balances the Stokes drag law:
This signed downward settling velocity is negative for a buoyantly rising sphere and zero for equal densities. For fixed density contrast and dynamic viscosity, the submerged weight grows as while linear drag at fixed speed grows as ; their balance gives the settling-velocity radius scaling . Meanwhile,
Thus doubling the radius multiplies the predicted Stokes settling speed by four and the particle Reynolds number by eight. This makes the formula useful for separating particles by size, while also providing its own check against extrapolation to large particles.
For a computed water example, take , , , , and . These are specified rounded inputs rather than a claim of exact water properties at every temperature. They give
The diameter is , and both the net downward weight and the upward drag force are . At this terminal velocity, falling takes . At the prediction is with ; at it is with , which is no longer a convincing small-Reynolds number case. The figure labels these as predictions of the Stokes settling velocity formula and shows where its inertia check fails.
The calculation describes the eventual terminal velocity, not the release transient governed by particle acceleration and possibly the Unsteady Stokes equation. Walls, hydrodynamic interactions, departures from a rigid sphere, or a different surface condition require a different resistance. For sufficiently small particles, Brownian motion can obscure individual settling trajectories; the formula still specifies the gravitational drift within its assumptions. The balancing argument already appears in article 43 of [ref].

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.