Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers

Activity induced mixing and phase transitions of selfpropelled swimmers

Pallab Sinha Mahapatra1, a) and Sam Mathew1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai,
India
We study the mixing of active swimmers. Two different types of swimmers (modeled as particles) are placed
initially in two boxes with an interconnection between them. The mixing of the swimmers happened as they
move in a highly viscous fluid with their own selfpropelled forces. The selfpropelled force is constant and the
direction of the exerted thrust is governed by the neighboring swimmers. The overall mixing of the swimmers
depends on the magnitude of the exerted thrust, initial packing fraction and also the activity level. Different
non-equilibrium states are also identified depending on the exerted thrust and initial packing fraction.

PACS numbers: Valid PACS appear here

Keywords: Selfpropelled force, mixing, active swimmers, dense system

Indipendently moving swimmers show very interest- Box 1 Box 2

ing behaviors. As these swimmers can propell them-
selves, they are often called as self-propelled swimmers
or self-propelled particles. The collective motion of the
self-propelled swimmers are commonly observed in flocks
of birds, school of fishes1 , human crowds2 , bacterial
colonies3 , different cells4 etc. Collective behavior is also
common in the dense active particle system5–9 .
Researchers have identified global pattern in the self-
propelled system through experimental, numerical as well
as theoretical studies. Phase transitions in confined do-
main has been observed for dense active colloids6 or soft
active particles10,11 . Selfpropelled systems exhibit differ-
ent phases due to change in the activity of the particles11
or depending on the initial packing fraction6 . Ther-
mal motion, solid or gas like phases have been identi-
fied. For high viscous fluids the common phases ob-
served are “coherent flock”, the “rigid rotation”, and
the “random droplet”12 . Phase transitions of the mi-
croswimmers due to the flagellar movement and confined
geometry was reported by Tsang and Kanso13 . They
identified three phases: “chaotic swirling”, “stable cir-
culation” and “boundary aggregation”. Among the dif-
ferent available models of selfpropelled systems, models
by Vicsek14 and Tonner and Tu15 are most important.
Collective behavior or sometimes phase separation16 was
observed using Viscek model as well as without having
any alignment mechanism17 . Large scale nonequilibrium
behavior of the active particles was observed by Baskaran
and Marchetti18 .
The self propelled motion of the individual particles (or
swimmers) induces long range velocity fields, which cre-
ates the bulk motion in the liquid medium19 . From var-
ious experiments20–22 and numerical simulations23,24 it
has been found out that the self-propelled swimmers can
enhance the diffusion mixing. Mixing of the surrounding
liquid due to the movement of the swimmers, also called
biomixing24 , is very relevent for the vertical mixing in
ocean25 . In this work, we are interested in the mixing
a) Electronic mail: pallab@iitm.ac.in
FIG. 1. (Color online) The definition of the problem is pre-
sented. Swimmers are initially in two separate boxes. Ini-
tially, there are no swimmers in the connecting path between
the two boxes. Particles are colored blue for the Box1 and
pink for Box2. The self-propelled forces of these swimmers
are varied to see the effect of activity in the mixing.
of the swimmers and not the medium. Here, we have
considered the hydrodynamic interactions with the fluid
medium through Stokes drag. We have assumed that,
the fluid velocity is dependent only on the neighboring
swimmers instantaneous velocity. Thus, the fluid veloc-
ity at any point is estimated from the average velocity of
the surrounding swimmers of that point26 . Whereas, the
direction of the thrust is dependent on the local direc-
tion of the swimmers velocity. More details about this
method can be found in our earlier work on self-propelled
particles11 and dense granular mixing26 . In this work,
we have studied the mixing behavior of the self-propelled
swimmers kept in two separate boxes. There is only one
connecting passage between the two boxes as shown in
Fig. 1.
The objective of this work is to study the character-
istics of the self-propelled swimmers kept in an enclosed
space. Intermixing of the swimmers is studied by keep-
ing the swimmers in two different boxes. The mixing
behavior is compared for different coordination force of
the swimmers. The effect of self propelled force and ini-
tial packing fraction of the swimmers on mixing, are also
studied. We first describes the modeling approach and
simulation procedures. Next, we describes the results
Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers 2

and shows the effect of coordination coefficient (Cv ) and of the surrounding particles. In this approach, in a cou-
packing fraction of the swimmers (φ) on mixing index η. pled framework, we are solving the fluid velocity without
explicitly solving the Navier-Stokes equations. Here, ~v j
is the velocity of the surrounding fluid calculated from
I. MODELING AND SIMULATIONS the surrounding swimmers. The relative velocity is cal-
culated from the n neighbouring swimmers of the j th
The swimmers are modelled as soft disks of equal ra- swimmer26 ,
dius r and mass m. They are confined in an enclosure Pn
ri − ~rj k , hj ) ~v j
i=1 mi Wij (k~
containing viscous liquid. All swimmers have a self- ~v j = P n , (5)
i=1 mi Wij (k~ri − ~rj k , hj )
propelled force on which they can propel themselves.
The inertia of the fluid is small in comparison to the where the function Wij is in the Gaussian form,
swimmers11 . The force models are similar to our previ- ( 
k~
r −~r k2

k~
ri −~
rj k
ous work11,26 . exp −η ihj 2j , hj ≤ 1,
Wij = (6)
The total force on any j th swimmers F~ j is the sum of 0, otherwise.
the selfpropelled force F~sp
j
, internal (swimmer-swimmer)
Here, hj is a cut-off radius of influence for j th swimmer.
interaction force Fpp , and coordination force F~cj ,
~ j
hj corresponds to the influence zone of the swimmers that
can alter the fluid velocity. Where, η is a constant pa-
F~ j = F~sp
j
+ F~pp
j
+ F~cj . (1) rameter of value 228 . Without presence of any swimmer
in the neighborhood, the fluid velocity ~v j is considered
The self-propelled force F~sp
j
is modeled as11 , to be zero, as the fluid inertia is much smaller than the
swimmers inertia. From Eq. 4 it can be said that the sur-
F~sp
j
= mj (β − α|~vpj |2 )v̂pj . (2) rounding fluid influences the swimmers motion through
the hydrodynamic drag. This coordination force helps
Here, mj is the mass of the individual swimmer, ~vpj is in local co-ordination of the swimmers. It can be under-
the instantaneous velocity of the j th particle, v̂pj is a unit stood that random thermal motion will be observed on
vector in the direction of the velocity, and β is a thrust the swimmers in the absence of any kind of restoring or
coefficient. Here, α is a small number that restricts the dissipative force.
unbounded acceleration of the single swimmer in the di- The simulation domain is shown in Fig. 1. We per-
lute suspension limit27 . As the thrust is modelled as formed the simulation with a 2D setting and each box is
monopole force, thus α can also be rationalized as a net a square (L × L). The length of the connector is 0.4 × L
momentum sink. For dense systems α can even be set to and the width is 0.2 × L. All swimmers are considered as
zero11 . soft disks of diameter 5mm. Initially no swimmers are
The swimmer-swimmer interaction force F~pp j
is calcu- packed at the connector. We started the simulation with
zero initial velocity of the swimmers. The walls of the
lated considering the interaction between soft-spheres26
boxes are consisted of the stationary disks of the same
(   size as the swimmers.
−k ~
δ,
~
δ  > 0
F~pp
j
= n
(3)
~0, otherwise.
r −~
~ r
Here, ~δ = (|~ri − ~rj | − ((di + dj )/2)) |~rii −~rjj | , is the dis-
tance between two swimmers i and j. The position vec-
tors are ~ri and ~rj and the diameters are di and dj respec-
tively.
The coordination force F~cj , on j th swimmer arising be-
cause of the relative velocity of the swimmer and the
surrounding medium. Coordination force is a form of
drag force, is calculated from Stokes’ drag law. The co-
ordination force on any particle can be estimated as26 ,
F~cj = Cv dj ~v j − ~vpj ,


(4)
Here, Cv is the coordination coefficient analogous to the
Stokes’ drag coefficient 3πµ, where µ is the viscosity of
the fluid. Cv determines the local coordination of the
swimmer with the neighboring swimmers. In our previ-
ous work26 , we have shown that the fluid velocity can
be estimated by taking a weighted average of velocities
The position and velocity of the particles are esti-
mated from the net force on each particles. A linked list
algorithm29 is used to reduce the computational effort
while calculating the forces. The acceleration of individ-
ual particle is calculated first from the net force, by di-
viding the force with the mass of the particles. Velocity-
Verlet algorithm30 is used to numerically integrate the
position and velocity. The procedure is detailed in our
earlier work26 .
As described earlier11 , the major dimensionless group
that governs the dynamics of the system are χ, L̄ = Ld
and k̄ = kmβ
nd
. Where, χ is the ratio of the two force scales:
hydrodynamic co-ordination force (F~d ) and forces created
due to the selfpropelled thrust√(F~p ). The scale associated
with the forces are Fd ∼ Cv d βL and Fp ∼ mβ. Here,
√
βL scales the maximum possible speed of the swimmers
Fd
in each box. The expression of χ = L̄ F p
, on simplification
can be obtained as,
√
Cv L L
χ= √ . (7)
m β
Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers 3

χ = 302 χ = 3623 χ = 6039

τ = 79
τ = 158
τ = 316
τ = 632

q
L
FIG. 2. (Color online) Mixing of swimmers within the domain at different non-dimensionalized time τ = t/ β
and χ for
CaseI. Swimmers of box 1 and 2 are colored with blue and pink color respectively. (a) At χ = 302, swimmers are not mixing
to each other as the swimmers in the connecting path reached a jammed state. The swimmers inside the boxes are rotating in
the opposite directions. (b) At χ = 3623, a hollow core is formed that changes its position and size with time. The connection
between the two boxes get established and mixing is observed. (c) At χ = 6039, the motion of the swimmers are slower due to
the higher damping.

Conceptually, χ characterize the effect of hydrody-
namic drag force and self propelled thrust force. There-
fore, we have described all our results in terms of χ, to
identify the competition between these forces. In this
work, we have varied χ by changing both Cv while main-
taining other parameters constant. Although in few cases
we have changed the value of β of the swimmers in box 2,
for simplicity we have used the β value of box 1 (which
is constant throuhout) in all nondimensionalization. It
should be noted that, low χ or Cv values signifies higher
thrust force in comparison to the hydrodynamic coor-
dination force (drag force). As explained earlier11 , the
drag force plays the major role of aligning the swimmers.
With the increase of χ or Cv , the drag force increases that
dictates the transition of the swimmers from the random
fluctuating state to an ordered collective motion.
A. Mixing calculation
A mixing parameter (η) is defined based on the cor-
relation of the swimmers position with respect to the
initial position. The procedure followed here is similar
to that of the weak sense mixing parameter of Doucet et
al.31 . As the swimmers sizes are fixed, the particles dis-
tribution at any time instant is independent of the initial
distribution. The mixing calculation is done based on
the swimmers position data using Principal Component
Analysis (PCA)26,31 . In the present problem following
steps are followed for calculating the mixing indexes,
1. Based on the initial variance and mean, all swim-
mers initial positions are scaled at initial instant,
t = 0.
2. Swimmers positions at time t are scaled based on
the instantaneous variance and mean.
3. Finding out the correlation matrix ρ(Xm t , Xn 0 ),
where m = 1, 2, and n = 1, 2. X1 and X2 are
the list of x and y coordinates of the swimmers and
is a N row matrix (N is the total number of swim-
mers). The correlation matrix involves the product
of the transpose of (Xm t ) and (Xn 0 ), where t and
0 denotes the current and initial time instants re-
spectively.
4. Forming the correlation matrix C, by assigning
Cmn = ρ(Xm t , Xn 0 ).
Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers
5. Computing the symmetric matrix M , such that,
M = CC T .
6. The solution of the eigenvalue problem αM = λα.
Here, the maximum eigenvalue is λ and the corre-
sponding eigenvector is α.
7. The mixing parameter for two-dimensional space is
defined as,
p
η = λ/2. (8)
II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We performed the simulations for different packing
fraction of swimmers. We considered three cases based on
the initial packing of the swimmers in each box: CaseI =
74.62%, CaseII = 70.85% and CaseIII = 34.45%. In
each case, the same number of swimmers were packed in
the two boxes initially. Depending on the χ and β, the
overall mixing efficiency of the two boxes changes. To
see the effect of swimmers activity on mixing, we also
changed the value of β in box 2.
The mixing of the swimmers at different time instances
and χ are shown in Fig. 2 for CaseI. It can be seen from
Fig. 2, at χ = 302 swimmers are not mixing to each
other. Initially swimmers were in two different boxes
and as soon as simulation start, swimmers starts mov-
ing randomly and within few seconds they jammed the
connecting path between the two boxes. In the boxes
swimmers are rotating in opposite directions. Within a
few seconds the simulations reached a steady state and
no visible changes of the swimmers are observed with
subsequent times. In the earlier studies11 , it was ob-
served that, with the increase of χ the average velocity
of the swimmers decreases due to higher viscus damp-
ing. It was also observed that the swimmers move into a
rotational phase and show an organized motion. In the
present study, at χ = 3623 few swimmers move into other
boxes through the connecting path. At higher χ, as the
average velocity of the swimmers are low, the swimmers
didn’t jammed the connecting path. Due to the higher
centrifugal forces11 , a hollow core forms at the center of
the each boxes. With further increase of χ, an oscillatory
motion of the swimmers observed in each of the boxes.
Due to very slow motion of the swimmers, the mixing
efficiency also decreases.
Velocity vectors of the swimmers for different χ are
shown in Fig. 3. At χ = 121, random thermal motion
of the swimmers can be seen. With the increase of χ,
the drag force increases that helps in the alignment of
the swimmers. As shown earlier in Fig. 2, at χ = 3623
a hollow core forms at the centers of the boxes and the
swimmers rotate around it. It should be noted that the
size of the core changes with time and at a particular in-
stant the core sizes are different for the two boxes. With
further increase of χ, the swimmers show oscillatory pat-
tern in one box whereas, rotation in the other box. As
4
Box 1 Box 2
τ = 158 τ = 316
χ =121
χ =302
χ =3623
τ = 474
χ =6039
FIG. 3. Velocity vectors at different time instants for different
χ for CaseI. At very low χ random motion of the swimmer
is observed and at higher χ the motions are ordered. Skipped
few velocity vectors for better clarity of the image.
can be seen from Fig. 3, the left box shows oscillatory
behavior of the swimmers. It should be noted that the
direction of rotation (in rotary phase) of the swimmers
in any box is random. With multiple realization it is ex-
pected to see both clockwise and anticlockwise motion
of the swimmers in the same box. It can be seen from
Fig. 3 that at χ = 302 the swimmers are rotating in
the clockwise direction in box 1 whereas the motion is
anticlockwise at χ = 3623 in the same box.
The collective behavior of the swimmers are also stud-
ied when the thrust coefficient β of the swimmers in box
2 is higher. As a case study, β was set at 10 in box 2.
The collective behavior of the swimmers at different χ
is shown in Fig. 4. Because of the higher β, the swim-
mers in the box 2 are more active than in box 1. At
χ = 302, more active swimmers from box 2 move into
box 1 and blocked the connecting path as a plug. As
time progresses, the swimmers from box 2 show a very
slow diffusion in box 1 and the size of the plug increases
very slowly. The swimmers of the box 1 show a jammed
state whereas, the swimmers in box 2 show a rotary mo-
tion with a hollow core. At higher χ and sufficiently
longer time, the swimmers mixed with each other and
formed an unique pattern, that has not been observed
earlier. In each of the boxes, the more active swimmers
(having β = 10) from the box 2 are forming a rotating
hollow shell, surrounded by a layer of rotating swimmers
(mixture of swimmers from both the boxes) and at the
outside a layer of less active swimmers (having β = 1)
from box 1. Due to the higher momentum, the swim-
mers from box 2 moved into the core and pushed the
slower swimmers (having β = 1) to the periphery. It is
observed that the size and shape of the core changes with
time. The swimmers in the two boxes also rotate in the
Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers 5

χ = 302 χ = 3623 χ = 6039

τ = 79
τ = 158
τ = 316
τ = 632

q
FIG. 4. (Color online) Mixing of swimmers within the domain at different non-dimensionalized time τ = t/ L β
and χ for
CaseI. Swimmers of box 1 and 2 are colored with blue and pink color respectively. Self propelled coefficient β is set to 10 for
the right box and it is 1 for the left box. (a) At χ = 302, swimmers are in the jammed state in the left box whereas, rotating in
the right box. (b) At χ = 3623, a hollow core is formed that changes its position and size with time. The connection between
the two boxes get established and mixing is observed. (c) At χ = 6039, the pattern formed by the swimmers are similar to the
χ = 3623. However, the average velocity of the swimmers are much slower due to the higher damping.

RT R
opposite directions. Qualitatively it can be said that the 0 – ψdV
V – dt. Here, the total volume of the domain is
mixing of the swimmers increase with the increase of β – and the local viscous dissipation is estimated as11 ,
V
at higher χ. ( 2  2 )  2
dvx dvy dvy dvx
ψ = 2µ + +µ + .
dx dy dx dy
A. Phase transition (10)
Where, vx and vy are the instantaneous local velocity
Thermal motion, jammed state and rotary state of the components.
swimmers are identified. As discussed earlier, these phase The energy dissipation for different cases with change
transitions are mainly due to the change of viscus drag in χ is shown in Fig. 5. As shown in Fig. 5a, three phases
with the increase of either χ or β. With the increase of χ are identified for CaseI with the change in χ. With the
total dissipation of the system decreases, as the swimmers increase of χ, overall energy dissipation decreases due to
velocity decrease with the increase of χ. To quantify the decrease in swimmers velocity. As discussed earlier,
these transitions non-dimensionalized viscus dissipation at very low χ the swimmers shows a thermal motion and
is chosen as an order parameter and defined as, after reaching a critical value of χ, moved into a rota-
tional phase. This transition from thermal to the rota-
ψT tional phase can be identified from Fig. 5a. The second
Ψ= √ . (9)
Cv L2 βL transition from rotational to oscillatory phase is rather
smooth and there is almost no change in the overall slope
Here, ψ T is the total energy dissipated within the time of the Ψ curve. It has been observed that, away from the
interval 0 ≤ t ≤ T , where T is a very long time. It should thermal to rotational phase transition Ψ ∼ χ−3 . This is
be noted that Ψ represents the total entropy production due to the stokesian drag formulation and single swim-
of the system and can be used to identify the steady mer’s drag is proportional to the square of the local slip
states12 . Total energy dissipation is defined as ψ T = velocity11 . In Fig. 5b, the phase transition is shown
Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers 6

(a) (a) (b)

0.8 0.8
107
CaseI
106 ~ χ-3 0.6 0.6
-3
~χ

η
105 0.4 0.4

η
χ = 302
χ = 604
104 χ = 3623
Ψ

0.2 0.2
χ = 6039
103 0 0
10-1 100 101 102 10-1 100 101 102
τ τ
102
Thermal Rotational Oscillation
1 FIG. 6. (Color online) The mixing parameter for different χ
10 2 3 4 values for CaseI. (a) β is same for all the particles in the
10 10 10
(b) χ two boxes (β = 1). (b) Thrust coefficient in the left box is 1
107 whereas, β = 10 for the right box.
CaseII
106 CaseIII (a) (b)
0.8 0.8
105 ~ χ-3
-3
~χ 0.6
0.6
Ψ

4
10

η
0.4 0.4

Oscillation
103
102 -4.8
Rotational ~χ
101 2 3 4
10 10 10
χ
FIG. 5. Energy dissipation for different χ. (a) Phase transi-
tions with χ for CaseI. Three distinct phases namely ther-
mal, rotational and oscillatory phases are observed. (b) Phase
transition with change in χ for CaseII and CaseIII. Ther-
mal phase is not observed in the range of χ studied here. The
mixing pattern (corresponding time τ = 632) of the swimmers
for CaseII and CaseIII at χ = 3623 are shown in the inset.
for CaseII and CaseIII. Surprisingly, for CaseII and
CaseIII we have not observed any thermal motion at the
lowest χ = 302 considered in this study. Another very
interesting observation is for CaseIII, where we have
observed a sharp change in the slope of Ψ at χ = 3623.
Instead of showing transition to oscillatory phase, as ob-
served for CaseI at χ = 3623, we have seen a separated
flow pattern. As shown in the inset of Fig. 5b, in this
phase the swimmers are confined in the boxes and there
are almost no swimmers in the connecting path. The
swimmers have rotations in the opposite directions in the
two boxes. For CaseII, similar to CaseI a transition to
the oscillatory phase is observed (see the inset of Fig.
5b).
B. Mixing efficiency
In order to quantitatively identify mixing efficiency, we
defined the mixing efficiency η as described in Section
II B. Figure 6 shows the variation of η as a function of
η
χ = 302
χ = 604
0.2 χ = 3623 0.2
χ = 6039
0 0
10-1 100 101 102 10-1 100 101 102
τ τ
FIG. 7. (Color online) The mixing parameter for different χ
values for for CaseII. (a) β is same for all the particles in
the two boxes (β = 1). (b) Thrust coefficient in the left box
is 1 whereas, β = 10 for the right box.
time for different χ values for CaseI. When the thrust
coefficient is same for all the particles in box 1 and 2,
the mixing efficiency is higher (i.e. low η) at χ = 3623,
as shown in Fig. 6a. At χ = 6039, the mixing efficiency
decreases, however, the efficiency is better than χ = 604
or 302. It should be noted that, our objective of this
work is to show the mixing of self-propelled swimmers
and not to identify the best mixing criteria based on β
and χ. When the thrust coefficient is higher in box 2,
as shown in 6b, the mixing efficiency of χ = 3623 and
6039 becomes similar. It is quite evident that the higher
activity of the swimmers are able to overcome the viscus
damping effect of high χ.
It is also interesting to see the effect of packing fraction
of the swimmers in the mixing process. However, the
present model is valid for a dense suspension26 and thus,
the mixing of the swimmers are not tested for the very
dilute system. Earlier, it was observed that the velocity
of the liquid decrease with the increase of volume fraction
of the swimmers32 . Thus, it is expected that the mixing
behavior will change with the swimmers packing fraction
φ. Mixing behavior of the swimmers are shown in Fig. 7
for CaseII. It can be seen from Fig. 7, that the mixing
behavior is almost similar to CaseI, as shown in Fig. 6.
It should be noted that the mixing process is faster for
Mixing of selfpropelled swimmers
CaseII at χ = 3623. As the number of swimmers having
β = 1 is smaller in CaseII, the effective influence of
higher active swimmers are more. However, at χ = 6039,
same number of higher active swimmers from box 2 took
longer time to compensate the viscus damping effect at
higher χ. Although, the mixing efficiency became similar
at longer time.
III. CONCLUSION
Phase transition and mixing of selfpropelled swimmers
are studied in this work. Different phases of the swim-
mers, from the random motion to the rotary state are
identified. A novel state of jammed phase in one box
and rotary state in the other is also reported. Activity
induced mixing of the swimmers inside an enclosed cham-
ber is characterized by the mixing index. The thrust co-
efficient and order of viscus dissipation dictate the phase
transition and mixing of the swimmers.
Phase transitions and mixing index were identified for
different packing fraction of the swimmers. It is observed
that for very high packing fractions of ∼ 75%, the swim-
mers show thermal, rotational and oscillatory phases. In
the transitional zone of thermal to rotation, the swim-
mers are in the jammed state. For lower packing fraction
the thermal motion and this jammed states are miss-
ing and the swimmers are mostly in the rotational state.
From the phase diagram the transitions of the phases are
identified.
Mixing of the swimmers are quantitatively identified
by using a mixing parameter. The general observations
on mixing is that the mixing efficiency increases with the
increase of χ upto a certain value then it decreases. It
is also observed that with the presence of more active
swimmers (higher β) on box 2, the mixing is faster and
better at higher χ. Whereas, the effect of β is not very
significant at lower χ.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author acknowledged the financial support
from the New Faculty Initiative Grant of Indian In-
stitute of Technology Madras under the grant number
MEE171861/NFIGPALL.
REFERENCES
1 I.
Couzin, J. Krause, R. James, G. Ruxton, and N. Franks,
Journal of Theoretical Biology 218, 1 (2002).
7
2 J. Silverberg, M. Bierbaum, J. Sethna, and I. Cohen, Physical
Review Letters 110, 228701 (2013).
3 C. Dombrowski, L. Cisneros, S. Chatkaew, R. Goldstein, and
J. Kessler, Physical Review Letters 93, 098103 (2004).
4 I. Riedel, K. Kruse, and J. Howard, Science 309, 300 (2005),
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/300.full.pdf.
5 J. Deseigne, O. Dauchot, and H. Chaté, Physical Review Letters
105, 098001 (2010).
6 I. Theurkauff, C. Cottin-Bizonne, J. Palacci, C. Ybert, and
L. Bocquet, Physical Review Letters 108, 268303 (2012).
7 M. Marchetti, J. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool,
J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. Simha, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143
(2013).
8 A. Bricard, J. Caussin, N. Desreumaux, O. Dauchot, and D. Bar-
tolo, Nature 503, 95 (2013).
9 J. Caussin, A. Solon, A. Peshkov, H. Chaté, T. Dauxois,
J. Tailleur, V. Vitelli, and D. Bartolo, Physical Review Letters
112, 148102 (2014).
10 X. Yang, M. L. Manning, and M. C. Marchetti, Soft Matter 10,
6477 (2014).
11 P. Mahapatra, A. Kulkarni, S. Mathew, M. Panchagnula, and
S. Vedantam, Physical Review E 95, 062610 (2017).
12 A. A. Al Sayegh, L. Klushin, and J. Touma, Physical Review E
93, 032602 (2016).
13 A. C. H. Tsang and E. Kanso, Physical Review E 91, 043008
(2015).
14 T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet,
Physical Review Letters 75, 1226 (1995).
15 J. Toner and Y. Tu, Physical Review Letters 75, 4326 (1995).
16 A. Solon, H. Chaté, and J. Tailleur, Physical Review Letters
114, 068101 (2015).
17 J. Bialké, T. Speck, and H. Löwen, Physical Review Letters 108,
168301 (2012).
18 A. Baskaran and M. Marchetti, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 106, 15567 (2009).
19 D. O. Pushkin and J. M. Yeomans, Physical Review Letters 111,
188101 (2013).
20 X. Wu and A. Libchaber, Physical review letters 84, 3017 (2000).
21 M. Kim and K. Breuer, Physics of fluids 16, L78 (2004).
22 G. Miño, J. Dunstan, A. Rousselet, E. Clément, and R. Soto,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 729, 423 (2013).
23 P. Underhill, J. Hernandez-Ortiz, and M. Graham, Physical Re-
view Letters 100, 248101 (2008).
24 Z. Lin, J.-L. Thiffeault, and S. Childress, Journal of Fluid Me-
chanics 669, 167 (2011).
25 W. K. Dewar, R. J. Bingham, R. Iverson, D. P. Nowacek, L. C.
St Laurent, and P. H. Wiebe, Journal of Marine Research 64,
541 (2006).
26 P. Mahapatra, S. Mathew, M. Panchagnula, and S. Vedantam,
Granular Matter 18, 1 (2016).
27 D. Hinz, A. Panchenko, T. Kim, and E. Fried, Soft Matter 10,
9082 (2014).
28 C. Drumm, S. Tiwari, J. Kuhnert, and H. Bart, Computers &
Chemical Engineering 32, 2946 (2008).
29 S. Plimpton, Journal of Computational Physics 117, 1 (1995).
30 W. Swope, H. Andersen, P. Berens, and K. Wilson, The Journal
of Chemical Physics 76, 637 (1982).
31 J. Doucet, F. Bertrand, and J. Chaouki, Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 86, 1313 (2008).
32 I. Llopis and I. Pagonabarraga, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 75,
999 (2006).