4.7 Article

Clogging and avalanches in quasi-two-dimensional emulsion hopper flow

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 105, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.105.014603

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-1336401, CBET-2002815]
  2. Petroleum Research Fund [47970-AC9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the flow behavior of a quasi-two-dimensional emulsion through a constricting hopper shape was experimentally and computationally investigated. The results showed that continuous droplet flow occurred at high flow rates, while droplet clogging and intermittent avalanches occurred at low flow rates. The transition between these behaviors was found to be influenced by the mean strain rate. Computational studies further revealed that the interplay between the flow rate and compliance of the system controlled the presence or absence of the avalanches.
We experimentally and computationally study the flow of a quasi-two-dimensional emulsion through a constricting hopper shape. Our area fractions are above jamming such that the droplets are always in contact with one another and are in many cases highly deformed. At the lowest flow rates, the droplets often clog and thus exit the hopper via intermittent avalanches. At the highest flow rates, the droplets exit continuously. The transition between these two types of behaviors is a fairly smooth function of the mean strain rate. The avalanches are characterized by a power-law distribution of the time interval between droplets exiting the hopper, with long intervals between the avalanches. Our computational studies reproduce the experimental observations by adding a flexible compliance to the system (in other words, a finite stiffness of the sample chamber). The compliance results in continuous flow at high flow rates, and allows the system to clog at low flow rates leading to avalanches. The computational results suggest that the interplay of the flow rate and compliance controls the presence or absence of the avalanches.

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