4.4 Article

Lid-driven cavity flow of viscoelastic liquids

期刊

JOURNAL OF NON-NEWTONIAN FLUID MECHANICS
卷 234, 期 -, 页码 129-138

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnnfm.2016.03.001

关键词

UCM model; Oldroyd-B model; Purely-elastic flow instability; Velocity regularization; Finite-volume method; Log-conformation tensor

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's [307499]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP-SRC, UK) [EP/M025187/1]
  3. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/75436/2010]
  4. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I004262/1]
  5. EPSRC [EP/I004262/1]
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M025187/1, EP/I004262/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. European Research Council (ERC) [307499] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  8. EPSRC [EP/M025187/1, EP/I004262/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lid-driven cavity flow is a well-known benchmark problem for the validation of new numerical methods and techniques. In experimental and numerical studies with viscoelastic fluids in such lid-driven flows, purely-elastic instabilities have been shown to appear even at very low Reynolds numbers. A finite-volume viscoelastic code, using the log-conformation formulation, is used in this work to probe the effect of viscoelasticity on the appearance of such instabilities in two-dimensional lid-driven cavities for a wide range of aspect ratios (0.125 <= Lambda = height/length <= 4.0), at different Deborah numbers under creeping-flow conditions and to understand the effects of regularization of the lid velocity. The effect of the viscoelasticity on the steady-state results and on the critical conditions for the onset of the elastic instabilities are described and compared to experimental results. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

4.4
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