arxiv: v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 10 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 arxiv: v [physics.flu-dyn] 0 Dec 208 Asymmetricity and sign reversal of secondary Bjerknes force from strong nonlinear coupling in cavitation bubble pairs Vikash Pandey December, 208 Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis CEES, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 066, NO-036, Oslo, NORWAY Research Centre for Arctic Petroleum Exploration ARCEx, Department of Geosciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway in Tromsø, P.O. Box 6050, N-9037, Tromsø, NORWAY Abstract Most of the current applications of acoustic cavitation use bubble-clusters that exhibit multibubble dynamics. This necessitates a complete understanding of the mutual nonlinear coupling between individual bubbles. In this study, strong nonlinear coupling is investigated in bubble-pairs which is the simplest case of a bubble-cluster. This leads to the derivation of a more comprehensive set of coupled Keller-Miksis equations KMEs that contain nonlinear coupling terms of higher order. The governing KMEs take into account the convective contribution that stems from the Navier- Stokes equation. The system of KMEs is numerically solved for acoustically excited bubble-pairs. It is shown that the higher order corrections are important in the estimation of secondary Bjerknes force for closely-spaced bubbles in asymmetric pairs. Further, asymmetricity and sign reversal of the secondary Bjerknes force is witnessed in strong acoustic field > bar. The obtained results are in agreement with the already published experimental observations. It is expected that the findings reported in this paper may have implications in industries where there is a requirement to have a control on cavitation effects. I. Introduction Acoustic cavitation is defined as the formation and pulsation of gas cavities in a liquid under the action of an acoustic field [,2]. The cavities often grow as microbubbles and exhibit a cache of exotic phenomena in their relatively short life-time. This may include; rapid oscillations, high speed liquid micro-jets, emanation of capillary waves and shock waves, and finally a violent collapse with sonoluminescence [3 5]. The motivation to study cavitation bubbles has changed in the last one century from scientific curiosity [6] to application driven. Some examples where cavitation bubbles are exploited in biomedical industry are: shockwave lithotripsy [2], delivery of drugs and contrast agents [7], and microfluidics [,8,9]. Other applications include, surface cleaning [0, ], passive remote sensing of gas seepage from ocean sediments [2], wave propagation in bubbly liquids [3,4]. However, the nonlinearity inherent in bubble Preprint submitted to Physical Review E. vikashp@ifi.uio.no Current institution.

2 dynamics make them a subject difficult for investigation [5,6]. This can be ascertained from the fact that the study of bubble dynamics has benefited chaos theory, and vice-versa [6 8]. The goal of this paper is to investigate strong nonlinear coupling in a two-bubble system which is the simplest representation of a bubble cluster. The motivation behind this study is three-fold. First, cavitation bubbles do not occur in isolation, but rather they come in ensembles or clusters where their population may vary from few tens to thousands. Such clusters are characterized by multibubble dynamics which makes their modeling difficult, both analytically and computationally [9]. The difficulties arise mainly due to the mutual nonlinear coupling between the individual bubbles of the cluster. The possibility of bubble clusters originating from a single bubble [8], and multibubbles coalescing to form single bubble indicates the importance of nonlinear coupling between bubbles [20]. On the one hand, nonlinear coupling between bubbles has been ignored by approximating a bubble cluster as a single bubble [2]. On the other hand, coupling effects between bubbles separated by small distances in stronger acoustic field may be significant enough to alter the behavior of the whole cluster [7]. Further, the nonlinearity inherent in bubble-dynamics is usually approximated by the use of linear theories [9, 5, 22]. The inadequacy of such an approach has even been accepted by the scientific community [3, 20, 23, 24] Alternatively, coupling effects are ignored by assuming bubbles to be separated by a distance much larger than their individual sizes [25]. In such cases, linear superposition of the responses from the individual bubbles is considered identical to the collective response of the bubble cluster, which may not be valid for many applications [3]. The coupling between bubbles is also known to affect the bubble-size distribution within a cluster [26], and therefore statistical techniques have been applied to study such coupling effects [27]. Since, bubble-clusters facilitate greater number of reaction sites, an understanding of bubble-bubble interactions could give an insight into the factors that lead to the difference in temperature that is observed in sonoluminescence from single bubble and multibubbles [28]. Thus, it may benefit sonochemical engineering applications where quenching of sonoluminescence is frequently encountered [6,29,30]. Moreover, it has been shown that the coupling between bubbles play an important role in the generation of shock waves and broadband cavitation noise from the collapse of bubble clouds [3 34]. Such bubble-clouds are regularly generated from ship propellers and firing of seismic guns in marine seismic explorations [35,36]. A characterization of noise spectra is essential in the designing of efficient propellers and gun-arrays as they have direct implications for underwater navigation and communication for humans and marine life [37]. Second, some recent experimental studies have shown that bubbles of different sizes when separated by a small distance could trigger a very strong mutual nonlinear coupling [0, 9, 34]. Such a case was examined in Ref. [24] using bi-spherical coordinates, but that was restricted to small amplitude oscillations. Further, it is only natural to consider closely-spaced bubbles as a scattering unit, and so the role of scattering in nonlinear coupling was studied in Ref. [9], but the approach was based on linear theories. A relatively successful theory of nonlinear coupling between bubbles was presented in Ref. [38] almost twenty years ago which also inspires the study presented in this paper. However, Keller- Miksis equations KMEs derived to describe the bubble-bubble interaction in Ref. [38] were based on assumptions that could be valid only for weak coupling. That would be plausible either under the action of a weak acoustic excitation of the bubbles, or, when bubbles are far apart from each other. An evidence of weak coupling can be seen from Fig. 5b in Ref. [38] where the radius evolution of the larger bubble remains unaffected from the smaller bubble at all times, implying none interaction from the smaller bubble. On the one hand, such an assumption of weak coupling was reasonable for applications twenty years ago. On the other hand, modern applications encounter bubbles in immediate vicinity of each other which demands a more complete theory of nonlinear coupling in bubbles [39 4]. Moreover, most equations proposed to study single and multibubble dynamics are modifications of the Rayleigh-Plesset equation that takes into account the convective contribution from the Navier-Stokes equation NSE in its derivation [6, 3, 42]. But, the theories that are currently used to study radiation-coupling effects between bubbles seem to have ignored this because of the analytic and computational complexities that 2

3 comes along with the higher order terms. Thus, contrary to the relevance of higher order terms in cavitation-like highly dynamic process [3,43 45], they were ignored in Ref. [38]. Thus, in light of this observation, the theory from Ref. [38] will be regarded as the theory of weak nonlinear coupling in the the rest of this paper. Third, since strong coupling can alter the phase of the bubble-oscillations, it may affect the secondary Bjerknes force acting between the bubbles [46]. The affects can come in three-forms; change in magnitude, sign reversal, and asymmetricity of the secondary Bjerknes force. Many studies have demonstrated the first two affects resulting from weak nonlinear coupling [38, 47, 48], but there is no clear consensus on what leads to asymmetric Bjerknes force. A time-delay in radiation due to the separation between the bubbles has been predicted as one of the possible causes for asymmetricity in Ref. [38]. Though this may not be applicable for closely spaced bubbles as then the delay is almost negligible. Another possibility as mentioned in Ref. [47] is asymmetric viscous dissipation of the forces for bubbles of different sizes. But, since the fluid was assumed to be inviscid in that study, the authors had admitted it to be counter-intuitive. Interestingly, it will be shown in this paper that asymmetricity of Bjerknes forces arises naturally from the strong nonlinear coupling in bubble-pairs. The rest of the article is organized as follows. Sec. II is divided into two subsections. In its first subsection, the established theory of weak nonlinear coupling [38], is briefly summarized. In the second subsection, the theory of strong nonlinear coupling is developed and subsequently a system of strongly coupled KMEs is derived. The numerical solutions of the KMEs are presented in Sec. III where they are also compared with the solutions from the weak nonlinear coupling. Finally, in Sec. IV, the implications of this work is discussed. II. Nonlinear coupling between a pair of bubbles It is assumed that two cavitation-bubbles with volumes V and V 2, are formed in an incompressible Newtonian fluid of density, ρ, and dynamic viscosity µ. The two bubbles referred to as B and B2, have the radii R t and R 2 t respectively, and are separated by a distance d that is measured from the bubble centers. The radial velocities of the bubble boundaries at any given time t are then expressed as, Ṙ t and Ṙ2t, where the number of over-dots represent the order of differentiation with respect to time. So, a double-dot and a triple-dot over R would imply an acceleration and jerk of the bubble boundaries respectively. The assumption of an incompressible liquid is justified for cases in which radial velocity of bubbles is much less than the speed of sound in the fluid. The bubbles are assumed spherical in shape which is valid for bubbles smaller than the wavelength of the acoustic wave that excites it. So, scattering effects are neglected too. It should also be understood that at very high frequencies there may be shape oscillations as well, but it is the volume pulsations which dominate [6]. Further, the gas inside the bubbles is considered to obey adiabatic process with no thermal or viscous dissipation. The bubbles often experience a primary Bjerknes force as a direct impact from the incident acoustic field that could displace them from their initial positions. However, this study focuses on the secondary Bjerknes force that the oscillating bubbles exert on each other through re-radiation of the incident acoustic field. Further, at short distances, secondary Bjerknes forces dominates over the primary Bjerknes force [49]. The nonlinear coupling theory developed in this paper builds on the modified KME [38], which is expressed for B2 as: Ṙ2 c R 2 R Ṙ2 2 Ṙ2 3c = + Ṙ2 c where P = P bw P stat +P v P ext. Further, pressure at the bubble wall, P bw, is P ρ + R 2 dp ρc dt, 3

4 P bw = P stat P v + 2σ R 20 R20 R 2 3γ 2σ R 2 4µṘ2 R 2, 2 where R 20 is the equilibrium radius of the bubble, P bw is the liquid pressure on the external side of the bubble wall, P ext = P s sin[2πf s t+r 2 /c] is the time-delayed external driving acoustic field with amplitude, P s, and frequency, f s. P stat is the hydrostatic pressure far away from the bubble, P v is the vapor pressure, σ is the surface tension of the bubble, c is the sound velocity in water, and γ is the the polytropic index of the bubble s gas-content. A. Weak nonlinear coupling Probably, the most used framework to account for bubble-bubble interaction was proposed in Ref. [38]. The respective formulation is summarized here. If p is the pressure set-up by the oscillating bubble, B, around its surrounding fluid, then from Eq. 3 in Ref. [38] we have p = ρ 2R Ṙ 2 +R 2 r R. 3 The radiation force exerted by B on B2 is then see Eq. 5 in Ref. [38] F2 w = ρv 2 d 2 V 4πd 2 dt 2 êr, 4 where, ê r denotes the radial unit vector, and the superscript w is used to symbolize the weak nonlinear coupling origins of the force. The secondary Bjerknes force, FB w, is calculated by timeaveraging the radiation force as see Eq. 06 in Ref. [38] FB w = Fw 2 = ρ 4πd 2 V V 2 ê r. 5 For bubbles oscillating in phase, there is attraction between the bubbles, and so the Bjerknes force is negative. On the contrary, bubbles oscillating out of phase would imply mutual repulsion, and hence a positive value of the secondary Bjerknes force. It can be seen from Eq. 5 that interchanging the indices 2 does not change the expression on the right hand side. This attributes symmetricity to the secondary Bjerknes force in the same coordinate system. Therefore, F2 w = Fw 2. 6 Substituting Eq. 3 in Eq., the governing KME for B2 is obtained as see Eq. 07 in Ref. [38] Ṙ2 c R 2 R Ṙ2 2 Ṙ2 3c = + Ṙ2 c where the coupling dose, C2 w, received by B2 from B is C w 2 = d P bw P stat +P v P ext ρ + R 2 d ρc dt [P bw P ext ] C2 w, 7 2R Ṙ 2 +R 2 R. 8 The motivation to call the last term in Eq. 7 as coupling dose stems from its units J/kg. 4

5 B. Strong nonlinear coupling The spherical coordinate system comes as a natural choice for the investigation of bubble dynamics. The fluid flow during cavitation can safely be assumed to be radially symmetric, so the mass-conservation continuity equation contains contribution only from the radial-components of the flow, none from azimuthal and polar parts. Thus, ρ t + r 2 r 2 ρu = 0, 9 r where r is the radial distance from the center of the B, and u is the radial velocity of the fluid in the immediate vicinity of the boundary of B. For an incompressible fluid, Eq. 9 reduces to r 2 u = 0. 0 r The indefinite integration of Eq. 0 gives u = C/r 2, where the integration constant C can be interpreted using dimensional analysis as volumetric flow-rate of the fluid in units of m 3 s, that is independent of r. The integration result from Eq. 0 can also be deduced from physical argument that for an incompressible fluid flow, the product of surface area and radial velocity must be identical at all radii. Further, integrating Eq. 0 over the limits R and r, we have u = R r 2Ṙ. The generalized law of conservation of momentum, i.e., the Navier-Stokes equation NSE for a purely radial flow is written as Du u Dt t +u u r = p ρ r + µ [ ρ r 2 r 2 u 2u ] r r r 2 +f ext, 2 where D/Dt is the material derivative operator expressed as the sum of an instantaneous local time derivative and a convective spatial derivative to account for the space-and-time-dependence of the macroscopic fluid velocity u, and f ext represents external body forces such as gravity, Lorentz force, etc, that could be affecting the flow. Interestingly, on substituting u = C/r 2, in the viscous term of Eq. 2, we find [ µ ρ r 2 r 2 u 2u ] r r r 2 = 0. 3 The physics underlying Eq. 3 is that that the conventional shear viscosity does not generate any resistance in a purely radially symmetric flow around a bubble, and therefore, the viscous term vanishes off completely from the momentum equation. However, as shown in Eq. 2, there is some viscous contribution that comes from the shear stress at the bubble boundary. A key feature of the NSE that can be noticed from Eq. 2 is that it is non-linear due to the convective derivative term. The convective term essentially describes the inertial acceleration that triggers phenomena of chaos and turbulence in bubble dynamics. Therefore, it is only natural to include the convective contribution in order to explore complete nonlinearity in bubble-bubble interaction. Substituting Eq. 3 in Eq. 2, and assuming that the fluid is not acted upon by any external body forces, i.e., f ext = 0, we get u t +u u r = p ρ r. 4 The local and convective derivative terms of Eq. 4 are obtained by applying the appropriate derivative operator on Eq. as 5

6 and u = t r 2 2R Ṙ 2 +R 2 R, 5 u u r = 2R4 Ṙ2 r 5, 6 respectively. Substituting Eqs. 5 and 6 in Eq. 4, we arrive at the differential equation that governs the spatial evolution of the pressure field emanating from the oscillating B as r 2 2R Ṙ 2 +R2 R 2R4 Ṙ2 r 5 = p ρ r. 7 Integrating Eq. 7 on both sides with respect to r, we get, [ ] p = ρ 2R Ṙ 2 +R 2 r R R4 Ṙ2 2r 4. 8 Interestingly, the importance of the two terms in Eq. 8 has been acknowledged in Ref. [42], where the first term that is proportional to /r was found important near bubble minima such that it accounts for the primary shock wave pressure and subsequent pressure peaks. The second term that is proportional to /r 4 was termed as the afterflow pressure which is important between pressure peaks at small distances from the bubble. The importance of the convective term has also been discussed [3], but unfortunately it was ignored in Eq. 3 to develop a theory for the weak nonlinear coupling between bubbles in Ref. [38]. The pressure gradient, p / r, set-up by B radially outward is experienced as a radiation force by B2 located at distance d from the center of B. This radiation force, F2 s, is expressed as F s 2 = V 2 p r ê r, 9 r=d where the superscript s symbolizes the strong nonlinear coupling origins of the force. Extracting p / r from Eq. 7 and substituting it in Eq. 9, we get [ ] F2 s = ρv 2 d 2 2R Ṙ 2 +R2 R 2R4 Ṙ2 d 5 ê r. 20 In contrast to most studies where secondary Bjerknes force is regarded as a classical inverse square law force along the lines of gravitational, electrostatic, and magnetic force [43], it is observed that given an appreciable contribution from the last term in Eq. 20, it may deviate from its classical consideration for small separation distances between the bubbles [22, 48]. Further, Eq. 20 can also be expressed in terms of volumes as F s 2 = ρv 2 4πd 2 [ d 2 V dt 2 2πd 3 ] 2 dv ê r. 2 dt The differences between radiation forces from strong nonlinear coupling and weak nonlinear coupling is found from comparing Eq. 2 with Eq. 4. For those times of the driving acoustic field during which B pulsates with constant velocity in a weakly coupled system, i.e., when d 2 V /dt 2 = 0, the radiation force F2 w from Eq. 4 reduces to zero. So, no force is experienced by B2. In contrast, the radiation force F2 s from Eq. 2 does not vanish. Interestingly, for those conditions of non-accelerated growth or collapse of B, an attractive force is exerted on B2 if strong coupling is taken into account. Further, 6

7 because of the squaring of the last term in Eq. 2, the convective contribution is biased in favor of attraction, but opposes repulsion between the bubbles. The force from Eq. 2 is time-averaged over the time-period, τ, of the driving acoustic field to yield the secondary Bjerknes force, F s B, as where I = τ t+τ t F s B = Fs 2 = ρ 4πd 2 [I I 2 ]ê r, 22 V 2 t d2 V t dt 2 dt, and I 2 = 2πd 3 τ t+τ t V 2 t dv t 2 dt dt, 23 and t is the dummy variable of integration. Evaluating the integrals in Eq. 23 and substituting them back in Eq. 22, we get FB s = F2 s = ρ [ 4πd 2 V V 2 + ] V 2 2πd 3 V 2 ê r. 24 Further, due to the presence of the last term in Eq. 24, it can be deduced by interchanging the indices 2 that secondary Bjerknes forces in a strongly nonlinear coupled bubble-pair may not be symmetric. Thus, F s 2 F s However, the symmetricity of the Bjerknes forces can either be restored when bubbles are separated by a large distance, d. Or, when V V =, 26 V 2 V 2 which means bubble with identical volumes pulsate in phase with identical velocities. Thus, strong nonlinear coupling effects for symmetric bubble-pairs i.e., in which bubbles are of identical size, effectively cancel out. The response of a bubble to the acoustic field emanated by another bubble is similar in principle with the way it reacts to the external driving pressure, P ext. So, for B2, we have, P = P bw P stat + P v P ext +p, where p given by Eq. 8 is evaluated at r = d. Substituting this new expression for P in Eq., we arrive at the final governing KME for B2 that encompasses all nonlinear coupling effects from B as Ṙ2 c R 2 R Ṙ2 2 Ṙ2 3c = + Ṙ2 c P bw P stat +P v P ext ρ + R 2 d ρc dt [P bw P ext ] C2, s 27 where the strong coupling dose, C s 2, can be grouped as the sum of three terms; C s 2 = T +T 2 +T 3. The three terms are: T = 2R Ṙ 2 d, 28 T 2 = 2Ṙ2R Ṙ 2 cd 2 R +2R 2 Ṙ 3 +6R 2R Ṙ R +R 2 R 2... R, 29 and T 3 = 2cd 4 cr Ṙ2 4 +Ṙ2R Ṙ2 4 +4R 2 R Ṙ3 3 +2R 2 RṘ 4 R. 30 7

8 The respective KME for B can be obtained by interchanging the indices 2 in the set of Eqs It is seen that the term T has the same expression as the coupling dose term, C2 w, from Eq. 8. However, strong nonlinear coupling has two additional terms T 2 and T 3, of which T 2 is relatively stronger as it varies as /d, in contrast to T 3 that varies as /d 4. The presence of a jerk term, i.e., the third order derivative,... R, in Eq. 28 is not new in the study of bubbles. On the one hand, it has been shown that a jerk equation is equivalent to a system of three first order, ordinary, non-linear differential equations which is a minimal setting for chaotic solutions solutions [50]. Thus, it is not surprising to observe chaos in bubble-systems [6, 8]. On the other hand, the jerk-term also invokes Ostrogradsky s instability [5] in the bubble-bubble interaction manifesting itself from radiation coupling. III. Numerical results The jerk-term is neglected to circumvent the Ostrogradsky instability in numerical solutions. Although, an approximation of the jerk-term could be possible [2, 3, 24], but it is avoided because of the skewedness from the approximation error that leads to the non-convergence of the numerical algorithms used to solve the KMEs [52]. Assuming gas bubbles to undergo adiabatic oscillations in water, the numerical values used for the physical variables are: P stat = bar = kpa, P v = kpa, σ = N/m, ρ = kgm 3, µ = kg/ms, f s = 20 khz, c = 48 m/s, and γ =.4. The set of coupled KMEs for both weak nonlinear coupling and strong nonlinear coupling are solved for three sets of bubble-pairs: 0,5, 8,7, and 50,5, where the two numeric values inside the brackets are the equilibrium radius of B, and B2, respectively. The choice of such bubble-pairs is made to compare the coupling effects from weak nonlinearity and strong nonlinearity in bubble-pairs in which bubble sizes are little asymmetric, almost symmetric, and highly asymmetric. The three pairs are studied at three different magnitudes of the driving acoustic field, P s, 0.7 atm, atm, and.3 atm. And, for each of these values of the P s, the coupling between bubble-pairs was examined for small separation distance five to ten times of the combined equilibrium radii as well as for large separation distance fifty times of the combined equilibrium radii. It was also ensured that the separation between bubbles is always greater than the combined radii of the two bubbles at any instant of time. This is done to avoid complicated bubble coalescence as it would require the study of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities [27], which is beyond the scope of the current work. At all values of the driving pressure, the weak nonlinear coupling theory and strong nonlinear coupling theory gave almost identical results for large separation distance between the bubbles. Similarly, identical results were obtained at low driving pressure, P s = 0.7 atm, for small separation distance between the bubbles. Since the focus of this paper is to present the implications of strong nonlinearity in multibubble systems, such results are not shown or discussed. Further, similar to Ref. [38], time delay between the oscillations of the bubbles is not taken into account. It is because given the maximum separation between the bubbles discussed in this study is 550 µm, that would mean a delay of d/c 0.4 µs, which is less than % of the time-period, T = 50 µs, of the driving acoustic field. Also, chaotic behavior was not observed in this study. The numerical results are summarized in Table. It is seen that for the almost symmetric bubblepair, 8,7, there is not any significant change in the secondary Bjekrnes forces for both weak and strong nonlinear coupling in regular as well as in stronger acoustic field. This is because the convective contribution to the coupling cancels out for symmetric pairs as discussed in the paragraph following Eq. 26. However, convection led contribution adds to the magnitude of the attractive Bjerknes force for all the three bubble-pair sets at P s = atm, though without any sign reversal. This can be explained from Figs. a and b, where B2 oscillates with a greater amplitude, however there is not any significant phase distortion to cause a sign reversal of the secondary Bjerknes force. In the stronger acoustic field, P s =.3 atm, strong nonlinear coupling yields a sign reversal of the Bjerknes force to a positive value in asymmetric cavitation bubble-pairs. This is reasonable as B2 oscillates with a greater 8

9 amplitude, and also out of phase for majority of the wave cycle, see Fig. d. This makes the situation quite interesting for the bubble pair 0,5, at P s =.3 atm. A repulsive force is experienced by B2, however it exerts an attractive negative force on B. So, in a laboratory setting, B2 would be repelling away from B, however it would also be attracting B to itself. The final direction of the motion of bubble-pair will depend on the resultant of the contrasting forces. Such rare sign reversals of the Bjerknes force can better be explained using the model of coupled-resonators, in which attraction and repulsion between the bubbles is dependent on the resonance of the symmetric and asymmetric mode of the bubbles close to their respective Minnaert frequencies [9,53]. A similar reasoning can be developed to describe the sign reversal in the third bubble-pair, 50, 5, in strong acoustic field. In contrast to the evidence of both repulsive and attractive secondary Bjerknes forces acting simultaneously in a cavitation bubble-pair from strong nonlinear coupling, it should be noted that weak nonlinear coupling can only lead to either repulsive, or, attractive force due to its symmetricity restrictions. P s atm.3 R 0 µm R 20 µm d µm F 2 F 2 Coupling mode 90 nn 265 nn s 7 nn 7 nn w 38 nn 52 nn s 3 nn 28 nn w 8 nn 42 nn s nn nn w +7 µn 0 µn s 4 µn 7 µn w 7 µn 8 µn s 7 µn 7 µn w 60 µn +3 µn s 0.4 µn 5 µn w Table : Comparison of secondary Bjerknes force obtained from strong nonlinear coupling, s, and weak nonlinear coupling, w, for three sets of bubble-pairs separated by small distances in regular and strong acoustic field. An interesting feature of strong nonlinear coupling at both magnitudes of the driving acoustic field is that secondary Bjerknes force lose their symmetricity, but weak nonlinear coupling yields almost symmetric values of the force as expected. It should be emphasized that contrary to the possibility of delay between bubble oscillations, and viscous dissipation proposed in Refs. [38] and [47] respectively to explain asymmetricity in secondary Bjerknes force, here it arises from the strong nonlinear coupling between bubbles. Further, the weak coupling between bubbles is evident from Figs. a and c, where radii evolution of bubbles run almost in parallel to each other. However, effects of strong nonlinear coupling are easily observed from Figs. c and d, where amplitude and phase of both bubbles change significantly. Interestingly, the effects from stronger coupling are relatively more pronounced for the smaller bubble in both regular and stronger acoustic fields. An important observation is that coupling effects on radii evolution is almost unnoticeable until ninety percent of the duration of the first wave cycle, though the effects show-up little earlier in the stronger acoustic field. This can also be observed from Figs. 2a and 2b, where the ratio of the absolute values of strong coupling dose and weak coupling dose is plotted for the two bubbles, in regular and stronger acoustic field. Surprisingly, since the ratio between the doses for the smaller bubble, B2, is less than one at multiple instances after the first wave cycle, this means that weak nonlinear coupling is not necessarily weaker in magnitude. But, rather it over-predicts 9

10 coupling dose for the smaller bubble. The opposite happens for the larger bubble, B, where weak nonlinear theory under-predicts coupling dose than it actually is Figure : Color online Radii evolution of bubble-pair; B solid line and B 2 dash-dotted line, with R 0 = 0 µm and R 20 = 5 µm for first two cycles of the driving acoustic field. Subfigures a and c correspond to weak nonlinear coupling. And, subfigures b and d correspond to strong nonlinear coupling. The top and bottom rows represent radii evolution at P s = atm, d = 75 µm, and P s =.3 atm, d = 50 µm, respectively. 0

11 Figure 2: Color online Ratio of coupling dose from strong nonlinear coupling and weak nonlinear coupling for the bubble-pair; B solid line, and B 2 dash-dotted line, with R 0 = 0 µm and R 20 = 5 µm for first two cycles of the driving acoustic field. Subfigures a and b correspond to the conditions, P s = atm, d = 75 µm, and P s =.3 atm, d = 50 µm, respectively. IV. Conclusion The implications of strong nonlinear coupling in cavitation bubble-pairs has been investigated. It is found that the strong nonlinear coupling gives different results compared to the weak nonlinear coupling for bubble-pairs separated by short distances in both regular and stronger acoustic fields. The strong coupling between bubbles may change their rate of growth and collapse as well as their phase of oscillations. This can alter the repulsive and attractive nature of the secondary Bjerknes force which pulsating bubbles exert on each other through radiation coupling. The effects of strong nonlinear coupling are even more prominent when bubbles of dissimilar sizes are closely-spaced. The sign reversal and asymmetricity of secondary Bjerknes force is found to be inherent in bubble-bubble interaction if strong coupling is taken into account. Interestingly, the inherent asymmetric nature of the secondary Bjerknes force may possibly explain why theories motivated from the study of pulsating spheres could not succeed in describing the symmetric laws of gravitation and magnetism [43]. It is expected that the results from this paper may be useful in industrial applications where manipulating bubble-clusters to control cavitation effects is required [54]. One of the examples of such an application could be in megasonic cleaning of nanodevices where a regulation on cavitation bubbles is required for cleaning without causing any pattern damage [0]. Another application may be in suppressing undesirable effects of cavitation in shock wave lithotripsy and foetal scanning, where bubble collapse could damage tissues due to excessive heating [7]. Further, given that strong coupling yields a greater magnitude of attractive forces, it could also govern clustering and coalescence of cavitation bubbles [8]. Furthermore, applications can be extended to sonochemical engineering by examining multibubble sonoluminescence in the light of strong nonlinear coupling [55].

12 Acknowledgment The theoretical part of this study was partly completed during author s postdoctoral stay at the UiT The Arctic University of Norway in Tromsø. Therefore, the author would like to acknowledge the funding provided by Statoil s Akademia program, and ARCEx Research Council of Norway grant number References [] S. Wu, Z. Zuo, H. A. Stone, and S. Liu. Motion of a free-settling spherical particle driven by a laser-induced bubble. Phys. Rev. Lett., 9:08450, 207. [2] E. Zilonova, M. Solovchuk, and T. W. H. Sheu. Bubble dynamics in viscoelastic soft tissue in high-intensity focal ultrasound thermal therapy. Ultrason. Sonochem., 40:900 9, 208. [3] W. Lauterborn and T. Kurz. Physics of bubble oscillations. Rep. Prog. Phys., 73:0650, 200. [4] P. Koukouvinis, M. Gavaises, O. Supponen, and M. Farhat. Simulation of bubble expansion and collapse in the vicinity of a free surface. Phys. Fluids, 28:05203, 206. [5] C-Y. Lai, J. Eggers, and L. Deike. Bubble bursting: Universal cavity and jet profiles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 24:4450, 208. [6] L. Rayleigh. Viii. on the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity. Philos. Mag., 34200:94 98, 97. [7] K. Kooiman, H. J. Vos, M. Versluis, and N. de Jong. Acoustic behavior of microbubbles and implications for drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 72:28 48, 204. [8] D. Rabaud, P. Thibault, M. Mathieu, and P. Marmottant. Acoustically bound microfluidic bubble crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett., 06:3450, 20. [9] M. Lanoy, C. Derec, A. Tourin, and V. Leroy. Manipulating bubbles with secondary bjerknes forces. Appl. Phys. Lett., 072:240, 205. [0] N. Ochiai and J. Ishimoto. Computational study of the dynamics of two interacting bubbles in a megasonic field. Ultrason. Sonochem., 26:35 360, 205. [] G. L. Chahine, A. Kapahi, J-K. Choi, and C-T. Hsiao. Modeling of surface cleaning by cavitation bubble dynamics and collapse. Ultrason. Sonochem., 29: , 206. [2] A. O. Maksimov, B. A. Burov, A. S. Salomatin, and D. V. Chernykh. Sounds of marine seeps: A study of bubble activity near a rigid boundary. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 363: , 204. [3] Yu. A. Ilinskii and E. A. Zabolotskaya. Cooperative radiation and scattering of acoustic waves by gas bubbles in liquids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 92: , 992. [4] J. H. Seo, S. K. Lele, and G. Tryggvason. Investigation and modeling of bubble-bubble interaction effect in homogeneous bubbly flows. Phys. Fluids, 22:063302, 200. [5] N. Sugita and T. Sugiura. Nonlinear normal modes and localization in two bubble oscillators. Ultrasonics, 74:74 85,

13 [6] Y. Zhang and Y. Zhang. Chaotic oscillations of gas bubbles under dual-frequency acoustic excitation. Ultrason. Sonochem., 40:5 57, 208. [7] W. Lauterborn and E. Cramer. Subharmonic route to chaos observed in acoustics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 47: , 98. [8] W. Lauterborn and U. Parlitz. Methods of chaos physics and their application to acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 846: , 988. [9] J. Ma, C-T. Hsiao, and G. L. Chahine. Numerical study of acoustically driven bubble cloud dynamics near a rigid wall. Ultrason. Sonochem., 40: , 208. [20] Y. A. Pishchalnikov, J. C. Williams, and J. A. McAteer. Bubble proliferation in the cavitation field of a shock wave lithotripter. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Exp. Lett., 302:EL87 EL93, 20. [2] G. L. Chahine. Pressures generated by a bubble cloud collapse. Chem. Eng. Commun., 28: , 984. [22] N. A. Pelekasis and J. A. Tsamopoulos. Bjerknes forces between two bubbles. part. response to a step change in pressure. J. Fluid Mech., 254: , 993. [23] K. Yoshida, T. Fujikawa, and Y. Watanabe. Experimental investigation on reversal of secondary bjerknes force between two bubbles in ultrasonic standing wave. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 30:35 44, 20. [24] A. O. Maksimov and V. I. Yusupov. Coupled oscillations of a pair of closely spaced bubbles. Eur. J. of Mech. B-Fluid, 60:64 74, 206. [25] G. L. Chahine and R. Duraiswami. Dynamical interactions in a multi-bubble cloud. J. Fluids Eng., 44: , December 992. [26] K. Yasui, J. Lee, T. Tuziuti, A. Towata, T. Kozuka, and Y. Iida. Influence of the bubble-bubble interaction on destruction of encapsulated microbubbles under ultrasound. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 263: , [27] J. Glimm, X. L. Li, R. Menikoff, D. H. Sharp, and Q. Zhang. A numerical study of bubble interactions in rayleigh taylor instability for compressible fluids. Phys. Fluids A-Fluid, 2: , 990. [28] T. J. Matula, R. A. Roy, P. D. Mourad, W. B. McNamara III, and K. S. Suslick. Comparison of multibubble and single-bubble sonoluminescence spectra. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75: , 995. [29] Y. T. Didenko and T. V. Gordeychuk. Multibubble sonoluminescence spectra of water which resemble single-bubble sonoluminescence. Phys. Rev. Lett., 8424:5640, [30] C. Cairós and R. Mettin. Simultaneous high-speed recording of sonoluminescence and bubble dynamics in multibubble fields. Phys. Rev. Lett., 8:06430, 207. [3] M. Ida. Bubble-bubble interaction: A potential source of cavitation noise. Phys. Rev. E, 79:06307, [32] K. Yasui, T. Tuziuti, J. Lee, T. Kozuka, A. Towata, and Y Iida. Numerical simulations of acoustic cavitation noise with the temporal fluctuation in the number of bubbles. Ultrason. Sonochem., 72: ,

14 [33] J. H. Song, K. Johansen, and P. Prentice. An analysis of the acoustic cavitation noise spectrum: The role of periodic shock waves. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 404: , 206. [34] J. Liang, G. Han, L. Fengbin, and C. Darong. Investigations on dynamics of interacting cavitation bubbles in strong acoustic fields. Ultrason. Sonochem., 34:90 97, 207. [35] K. L. de Graaf, I. Penesis, and P. A. Brandner. Modelling of seismic airgun bubble dynamics and pressure field using the gilmore equation with additional damping factors. Ocean Eng., 76:32 39, 204. [36] B. Aktas, M. Atlar, S. Turkmen, W. Shi, R. Sampson, E. Korkut, and P. Fitzsimmons. Propeller cavitation noise investigations of a research vessel using medium size cavitation tunnel tests and full-scale trials. Ocean Eng., 20:22 35, 206. [37] L. M. Watson, E. M. Dunham, and S. Ronen. Numerical modeling of seismic airguns and lowpressure sources. In SEG Tech. Prog. Expand Abstracts 206, pages Soc. Explor. Geophys., 206. [38] R. Mettin, I. Akhatov, U. Parlitz, C. D. Ohl, and W. Lauterborn. Bjerknes forces between small cavitation bubbles in a strong acoustic field. Phys. Rev. E, 56: , 997. [39] M. Ida, T. Naoe, and M. Futakawa. Direct observation and theoretical study of cavitation bubbles in liquid mercury. Phys. Rev. E, 2007:046304, [40] A. D. Maxwell, T-Y. Wang, C. A. Cain, J. B. Fowlkes, O. A. Sapozhnikov, M. R. Bailey, and Z. Xu. Cavitation clouds created by shock scattering from bubbles during histotripsy. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 304: , 20. [4] P. Wu, L. Bai, W. Lin, and X. Wang. Mechanism and dynamics of hydrodynamic-acoustic cavitation hac. Ultrason. Sonochem., 49:89 96, 208. [42] J. B. Keller and I. I. Kolodner. Damping of underwater explosion bubble oscillations. J. App. Phys., 270:52 6, 956. [43] L. A. Crums. Bjerknes forces on bubbles in a stationary sound field. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 576: , 975. [44] A. A. Doinikov. Translational motion of two interacting bubbles in a strong acoustic field. Phys. Rev. E, 64:02630, 200. [45] M. Ida. Avoided crossings in three coupled oscillators as a model system of acoustic bubble. Phys. Rev. E, 72:036306, [46] M. Ida. Alternative interpretation of the sign reversal of secondary bjerknes force acting between two pulsating gas bubbles. Phys. Rev. E, 67:05667, [47] N. A. Pelekasis, A. Gaki, A. Doinikov, and J. A. Tsamopoulos. Secondary bjerknes forces between two bubbles and the phenomenon of acoustic streamers. J. Fluid Mech., 500:33 347, [48] A. A Doinikov, R. Manasseh, and A. Ooi. Time delays in coupled multibubble systems l. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 7:47 50, [49] J. Jiao, Y. He, S. E. Kentish, M. Ashokkumar, R. Manasseh, and J. Lee. Experimental and theoretical analysis of secondary bjerknes forces between two bubbles in a standing wave. Ultrasonics, 58:35 42,

15 [50] K. E. Chlouverakis and J. C. Sprott. Chaotic hyperjerk systems. Chaos, Solitons Fract., 283: , [5] H. Motohashi and T. Suyama. Third order equations of motion and the ostrogradsky instability. Phys. Rev. D, 9:085009, 205. [52] S. M. Cox, D. Schmidt, Y. Modarres-Sadeghi, and S. N. Patek. A physical model of the extreme mantis shrimp strike: kinematics and cavitation of ninjabot. Bioinspir. Biomim., 9:0604, 204. [53] A. A. Doinikov and S. T. Zavtrak. On the mutual,interaction of two gas bubbles in a sound field. Phys. Fluids, 7, 995. [54] M. Ida, T. Naoe, and M. Futakawa. Suppression of cavitation inception by gas bubble injection: A numerical study focusing on bubble-bubble interaction. Phys. Rev. E, 76:046309, [55] N. Bremond, M. Arora, C-D. Ohl, and D. Lohse. Controlled multibubble surface cavitation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:22450,