4.7 Article

Constitutive relation for the system-spanning dynamically jammed region in response to impact of cornstarch and water suspensions

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 97, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.97.052602

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [DMR 1410157]
  2. Division Of Materials Research
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1410157] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We experimentally characterize the impact response of concentrated suspensions consisting of cornstarch and water. We observe that the suspensions support a large normal stress-on the order of MPa-with a delay after the impactor hits the suspension surface. We show that neither the delay nor the magnitude of the stress can yet be explained by either standard rheological models of shear thickening in terms of steady-state viscosities, or impact models based on added mass or other inertial effects. The stress increase occurs when a dynamically jammed region of the suspension in front of the impactor propagates to the opposite boundary of the container, which can support large stresses when it spans between solid boundaries. We present a constitutive relation for impact rheology to relate the force on the impactor to its displacement. This can be described in terms of an effective modulus but only after the delay required for the dynamically jammed region to span between solid boundaries. Both the modulus and the delay are reported as a function of impact velocity, fluid height, and weight fraction. We report in a companion paper the structure of the dynamically jammed region when it spans between the impactor and the opposite boundary [Allen et al., Phys. Rev. E 97, 052603 (2018)]. In a direct follow-up paper, we show that this constitutive model can be used to quantitatively predict, for example, the trajectory and penetration depth of the foot of a person walking or running on cornstarch and water [Mukhopadhyay et al., Phys. Rev. E- 97, 052604 (2018)].

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