4.5 Article

Isogeometric boundary element analysis of creasing of capsule in simple shear flow

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUIDS AND STRUCTURES
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2023.104022

关键词

Capsule; Shear flow; Creasing; Kirchhoff-Love shell; Boundary element method; Isogeometric analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wrinkling and creasing of an elastic membrane in a shear flow can be influenced by shear rate and membrane thickness. The deformation type can be determined by mechanical and geometrical effects of the membrane thickness, based on the geometrical consistency of the capsule surface.
Wrinkling and creasing of an elastic membrane are post-buckling processes induced by in-plane compression. When a hyperelastic capsule is suspended in a simple shear flow, its membrane forms several wavy patterns. To elucidate the post-buckling behavior of a capsule in a Stokes shear flow, we investigated the effects of the shear rate and membrane thickness on capsule deformation by performing numerical analysis to capture the wrinkling and creasing of the capsule membrane. The deformation of the capsule was formulated based on the Kirchhoff- Love shell theory and the Stokes flow was calculated using the boundary integral equation. The capsule shape was represented by a T-spline surface. The isogeometric boundary element analysis showed that the capsule in the shear flow formed wrinkles and creases. Whereas wrinkling occurred at low shear rates, both wrinkling and creasing occurred at high shear rates depending on the membrane thickness. Based on the geometrical consistency of the capsule surface, we suggest that the deformation type can be determined by mechanical and geometrical effects of the membrane thickness, that is, the bending rigidity and ease of self-contact, respectively. This approach will be useful for investigating the geometrical consistency for further understanding the post-buckling behavior of capsules in Stokes flows.

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