4.2 Article

The effect of premature wall yield on creep testing of strongly flocculated suspensions

Journal

RHEOLOGICA ACTA
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 337-352

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00397-015-0847-x

Keywords

Suspension rheology; Creep; Vane-in-cup; Wall slip; Strongly flocculated suspension

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award through the Australian Research Council
  2. Melbourne International Research Scholarship through The University of Melbourne
  3. Nexia Solutions University Research Alliance for Particle Science and Technology
  4. University of Leeds
  5. TSEC programme KNOO
  6. EPSRC [EP/C549465/1]
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/C549465/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measuring yielding in cohesive suspensions is often hampered by slip at measurement surfaces. This paper presents creep data for strongly flocculated suspensions obtained using vane-in-cup tools with differing cup-to-vane diameter ratios. The three suspensions were titania and alumina aggregated at their isoelectric points and polymer-flocculated alumina. The aim was to find the diameter ratio where slip or premature yielding at the cup wall had no effect on the transient behaviour. The large diameter ratio results showed readily understandable material behaviour comprising linear viscoelasticity at low stresses, strain-softening close to yielding, time-dependent yield across a range of stresses and then viscous flow. Tests in small ratio geometries however showed more complex responses. Effects attributed to the cup wall included delayed softening, slip, multiple yielding and stick-slip events, and unsteady flow. The conclusion was that cups have to be relatively large to eliminate wall artefacts. A diameter ratio of three was sufficient in practice, although the minimum ratio must be material dependent.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available