4.5 Article

Effects of viscosity ratio and surface wettability on viscous fingering instability in rectangular channel

期刊

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0129183124500724

关键词

Viscous fingering; viscosity ratio; wettability; displacement efficiency; VOF model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the influence of viscosity ratio and surface wettability on immiscible viscous fingering instability within a rectangular channel. The findings reveal that higher viscosity ratios lead to increased displacement efficiency, while low viscosity ratios result in necking. The finger-shaped pattern splits into two parts at a wettability of 15 degrees, and no splitting occurs beyond this threshold. Furthermore, a transition from hydrophilic to superhydrophobic wettability abolishes necking and enhances displacement efficiency, with the instability shifting towards the left side.
This paper explores the impact of viscosity ratio and surface wettability on immiscible viscous fingering instability within a rectangular channel. Numerical investigations are conducted across a range of viscosity ratios (VR) from 0.0009 to 0.5 and wall wettability (theta) from 15 degrees to 150 degrees. The volume of fluid (VOF) model is employed to track the development of finger-shaped instability at the fluid interface. Our results indicate that higher viscosity ratios lead to increased displacement efficiency. Additionally, we find the formation of necking at low VR, which diminishes at higher VR values. The finger-shaped pattern splits into two parts at a wettability of 15 degrees; beyond this threshold, no such splitting occurs. Furthermore, a transition from hydrophilic to superhydrophobic wettability abolishes necking, resulting in enhanced displacement efficiency. Notably, as wettability shifts from hydrophilic to super hydrophobic, instability shifts toward the left side. These findings hold relevance for applications in drug delivery, clinical processes and oil recovery.

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

4.5
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