4.7 Article

The elastocapillary Landau-Levich problem

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 735, 期 -, 页码 1-28

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2013.479

关键词

coating; lubrication theory; capillary flows

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the classical Landau-Levich dip-coating problem for the case in which the interface possesses both elasticity and surface tension. The aim of the study is to develop a complete asymptotic theory of the elastocapillary Landau-Levich problem in the limit of small flow speeds. As such, the paper also extends our previous study on purely elastic Landau-Levich flow (Dixit & Homsy J. Fluid Mech., vol. 732, 2013, pp. 5-28) to include the effect of surface tension. The elasticity of the interface is described by the Helfrich model and surface tension is modelled in the usual way. We define an elastocapillary number, epsilon, which represents the relative strength of elasticity to surface tension. Based on the size of epsilon, we can define three different regimes of interest. In each of these regimes, we carry out asymptotic expansions in the small capillary (or elasticity) numbers, which represents the balance of viscous forces to surface tension (or elasticity). In the weak elasticity regime, the film thickness is a small correction to the classical Landau-Levich law and can be written as (h) over tilde (infinity,c) = (0.9458 - 0.0839 (sic)l(c)Ca(2/3), epsilon << 1, where l(c) is the capillary length, Ca is the capillary number and (sic) = epsilon/Ca-2/3. In the elastocapillary regime, the film thickness is a function of epsilon through the power- law relationship (h) over tilde = (h) over bar (infinity,e)Lf(epsilon)Ca-4/7, epsilon similar to 0(1), where (h) over bar (infinity,e) is a numerical coefficient obtained in our previous study, L is the elastocapillary length, and f(epsilon) represents the functional dependence of film thickness on the elastocapillary parameter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据