4.8 Article

A micromechanical model to predict the flow of soft particle glasses

期刊

NATURE MATERIALS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 838-843

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NMAT3119

关键词

-

资金

  1. NoE European Network Sofcomp
  2. CNRS [PICS 4176]
  3. Petroleum Research Fund (ACS PRF) [1236-AC9]
  4. National Science Foundation [CBET 0854420]
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [0854420] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soft particle glasses form a broad family of materials made of deformable particles, as diverse as microgels(1), emulsion droplets(2), star polymers(3), block copolymer micelles and proteins(4), which are jammed at volume fractions where they are in contact and interact via soft elastic repulsions. Despite a great variety of particle elasticity, soft glasses have many generic features in common. They behave like weak elastic solids at rest but flow very much like liquids above the yield stress. This unique feature is exploited to process high-performance coatings, solid inks, ceramic pastes, textured food and personal care products. Much of the understanding of these materials at volume fractions relevant in applications is empirical, and a theory connecting macroscopic flow behaviour to microstructure and particle properties remains a formidable challenge. Here we propose a micromechanical three-dimensional model that quantitatively predicts the nonlinear rheology of soft particle glasses. The shear stress and the normal stress differences depend on both the dynamic pair distribution function and the solvent-mediated EHD interactions among the deformed particles. The predictions, which have no adjustable parameters, are successfully validated with experiments on concentrated emulsions and polyelectrolyte microgel pastes, highlighting the universality of the flow properties of soft glasses. These results provide a framework for designing new soft additives with a desired rheological response.

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

4.8
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