| 1 | \documentclass{article} |
|---|
| 2 | \usepackage{fullpage} |
|---|
| 3 | \begin{document} |
|---|
| 4 | \begin{enumerate} |
|---|
| 5 | \item Czochralski crystal growth |
|---|
| 6 | |
|---|
| 7 | \begin{enumerate} |
|---|
| 8 | \item \label{czoch1} Cartesian coordinates clearly don't make sense here, and |
|---|
| 9 | the complexity of the spherical equations only justify their use if the |
|---|
| 10 | boundary conditions would be greatly simplified, e.g. if the crucible is |
|---|
| 11 | exactly hemispherical and the top surface of the liquid is flat. So we use |
|---|
| 12 | cylindrical coordinates. |
|---|
| 13 | |
|---|
| 14 | The liquid silicon is incompressible, and its homogeneity (the silicon is |
|---|
| 15 | very pure) suggests constant density. As a liquid metalloid, it is most |
|---|
| 16 | likely Newtonian, and unless there are very strong temperature gradients, |
|---|
| 17 | it has constant viscosity. |
|---|
| 18 | |
|---|
| 19 | Under these conditions with laminar flow, we can use the Newtonian |
|---|
| 20 | incompressible form of the Navier-Stokes equations. |
|---|
| 21 | |
|---|
| 22 | Now let's look at the other assumptions: |
|---|
| 23 | \begin{itemize} |
|---|
| 24 | \item Steady-state: the crystal and crucible are rotating at constant |
|---|
| 25 | speeds, so the only source of time-dependence is removal of the liquid as |
|---|
| 26 | the crystal grows and pulls out. Because this pullout is orders of |
|---|
| 27 | magnitude slower than the rotations, we can assume a |
|---|
| 28 | ``quasi-steady-state'' where at any given moment the flow is at |
|---|
| 29 | steady-state, but that steady-state is changing {\em very} slowly with |
|---|
| 30 | time as there is progressively less liquid in the crucible. So we can |
|---|
| 31 | cancel the time derivatives. |
|---|
| 32 | |
|---|
| 33 | \item Fully-developed flow: because this is rotating, it's hard to define |
|---|
| 34 | an fully-developed, since ``entrance length'' is essentially zero and the |
|---|
| 35 | ``overall length'' essentially infinite. |
|---|
| 36 | |
|---|
| 37 | Instead, it's better to think of it as having axial symmetry, that is, we |
|---|
| 38 | can lose the velocity derivatives in the $\theta$-direction. |
|---|
| 39 | |
|---|
| 40 | However, the centrifugal force varies greatly with both $r$ and $z$, so |
|---|
| 41 | there is likely to be significant $r$-velocity variation, and the |
|---|
| 42 | continuity equation with the time and theta derivatives cancelled tells |
|---|
| 43 | us that this will produce flow in the $z$-direction. |
|---|
| 44 | |
|---|
| 45 | \item Edge-effects: it's unclear whether the ``thickness'' or ``width'' |
|---|
| 46 | direction is the $r$- or $z$-direction, because the sizes in those two |
|---|
| 47 | directions are so similar, so we really can not neglect edge effects. |
|---|
| 48 | \end{itemize} |
|---|
| 49 | |
|---|
| 50 | The resulting equations, starting with continuity: |
|---|
| 51 | $$\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(rv_r\right) + |
|---|
| 52 | \frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z} = 0$$ |
|---|
| 53 | Motion $r$-component: |
|---|
| 54 | $$\rho\left(v_r\frac {\partial v_r}{\partial r} - \frac{v_\theta^2}{r} + |
|---|
| 55 | v_z\frac{\partial v_r}{\partial z}\right) = |
|---|
| 56 | -\frac{\partial p}{\partial r} + |
|---|
| 57 | \eta\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(\frac{1}{r} |
|---|
| 58 | \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(rv_r\right)\right)+ |
|---|
| 59 | \frac{\partial^2v_r}{\partial z^2}\right]$$ |
|---|
| 60 | Motion $\theta$-component: |
|---|
| 61 | $$\rho\left(v_r\frac{\partial v_\theta}{\partial r} + |
|---|
| 62 | \frac{v_rv_\theta}{r} + v_z\frac{\partial v_\theta}{\partial z}\right) = |
|---|
| 63 | \eta\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(\frac{1}{r} |
|---|
| 64 | \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(rv_\theta\right)\right)+ |
|---|
| 65 | \frac{\partial^2v_\theta}{\partial z^2}\right]$$ |
|---|
| 66 | Motion $z$-component: |
|---|
| 67 | $$\rho\left(v_r\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial r} + |
|---|
| 68 | v_z\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial z}\right)= |
|---|
| 69 | -\frac{\partial p}{\partial z} + |
|---|
| 70 | \eta\left[\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} |
|---|
| 71 | \left(r\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial r}\right)+ |
|---|
| 72 | \frac{\partial^2v_z}{\partial z^2}\right]+\rho g_z$$ |
|---|
| 73 | Isn't that much better? We still need a computer to solve the system |
|---|
| 74 | though. |
|---|
| 75 | |
|---|
| 76 | \item This is a bit of a trick question, as there are nonzero $r$-, $\theta$- |
|---|
| 77 | and $z$-components to flow, making it seem three-dimensional. However, |
|---|
| 78 | because velocity and pressure are not functions of $\theta$ but only of $r$ |
|---|
| 79 | and $z$, by the definition given in the problem, the flow is considered |
|---|
| 80 | two-dimensional. (Likewise, all of the problems we actually solve in this |
|---|
| 81 | course can be considered one-dimensional, even if the flow direction is |
|---|
| 82 | different from the direction in which it's varying, {\em e.g.} $x$-velocity |
|---|
| 83 | as a function of $y$.) |
|---|
| 84 | |
|---|
| 85 | Note that because of the non-zero $\theta$ velocity, some people use the |
|---|
| 86 | expression ``2.5-dimensional''... |
|---|
| 87 | \end{enumerate} |
|---|
| 88 | \end{enumerate} |
|---|
| 89 | \end{document} |
|---|