4.6 Article

Electroviscous effects in a Carreau liquid flowing through a cylindrical microfluidic contraction

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 65, 期 23, 页码 6259-6269

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2010.09.011

关键词

Electroviscous; Microfluidic; Contraction; Electrokinetic; Shear-thinning; Carreau viscosity model

资金

  1. Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electroviscous effects in steady, pressure-driven flow of a Carreau shear-thinning liquid in a cylindrical microfluidic 4:1:4 contraction-expansion at low Reynolds number are investigated numerically by solving the equations governing the flow, the electric field, and ion transport, using a finite volume method. The channel wall is considered to have a uniform surface charge density and the liquid is assumed to be a symmetric 1:1 electrolyte solution. Predictions are presented for a range of values of the shear-thinning parameters in the Carreau model for various surface charge densities and Debye lengths. The apparent/physical viscosity ratio is shown to increase as the degree of shear-thinning increases. Thus the electroviscous effect is stronger in shear-thinning liquids than it is when the liquid is Newtonian, a result previously obtained for uniform pipe flow of power-law liquids. The trend holds true regardless of the choice of surface charge density or Debye length, although the magnitude of the trend decreases as the surface charge density and/or the Debye length is reduced. Comparison between uniform pipe flow of a Carreau liquid and the corresponding power-law liquid that approximates it at large shear rates shows that the apparent/physical viscosity ratios for the two models are almost identical. A previous prediction that a near-wall region of reduced velocity can occur for pipe flow of a shear-thinning power-law liquid when EDLs are overlapping and surface charge density is elevated is confirmed for a Carreau liquid. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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