4.7 Article

Volume-of-fluid simulations in microfluidic T-junction devices: Influence of viscosity ratio on droplet size

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4978801

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1150836, AIR-TT 1445070]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1150836] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used volume-of-fluid (VOF) method to perform three-dimensional numerical simulations of droplet formation of Newtonian fluids in microfluidic T-junction devices. To evaluate the performance of the VOF method we examined the regimes of drop formation and determined droplet size as a function of system parameters. Comparison of the simulation results with four sets of experimental data from the literature showed good agreement, validating the VOF method. Motivated by the lack of adequate studies investigating the influence of viscosity ratio (lambda) on the generated droplet size, we mapped the dependence of drop volume on capillary number (0.001 < Ca < 0.5) and viscosity ratio (0.01 < lambda < 15). We find that for all viscosity ratios investigated, the droplet size decreases with increase in the capillary number. However, the reduction in the droplet size with the capillary number is stronger for lambda < 1 than for lambda > 1. In addition, we find that at a given capillary number, the size of droplets does not vary appreciably when lambda < 1, while it increases when lambda > 1. We develop an analytical model for predicting the droplet size that includes a viscosity-dependent breakup time for the dispersed phase. This improved model successfully predicts the effects of the viscosity ratio observed in simulations. Results from this study are useful for the design of lab-on-chip technologies and manufacture of microfluidic emulsions, where there is a need to know how system parameters influence the droplet size. Published by AIP Publishing.

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