4.7 Article

Flow-induced segregation in confined multicomponent suspensions: effects of particle size and rigidity

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 738, 期 -, 页码 423-462

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2013.592

关键词

blood flow; capsule/cell dynamics; suspensions

资金

  1. NSF [CBET-0852976, CBET-1132579]
  2. Directorate For Engineering [1132579] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of particle size and rigidity on segregation behaviour in confined simple shear flow of binary suspensions of fluid-filled elastic capsules are investigated in a model system that resembles blood. We study this problem with direct simulations as well as with a master equation model that incorporates two key sources of wall-normal particle transport: wall-induced migration and hydrodynamic pair collisions. The simulation results indicate that, in a mixture of large and small particles with equal capillary numbers, the small particles marginate, while the large particles antimarginate in their respective dilute suspensions. Here margination refers to localization of particles near walls, while antimargination refers to the opposite. In a mixture of particles with equal size and unequal capillary number, the stiffer particles marginate while the flexible particles antimarginate. The master equation model traces the origins of the segregation behaviour to the size and rigidity dependence of the wall-induced migration velocity and of the cross-stream particle displacements in various types of collisions. In particular, segregation by rigidity, especially at low volume fractions, is driven in large part by heterogeneous collisions, in which the stiff particle undergoes larger displacement. In contrast, segregation by size is driven mostly by the larger wall-induced migration velocity of larger particles. Additionally, a non-local drift-diffusion equation is derived from the master equation model, which provides further insights into the segregation behaviour.

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