화학공학소재연구정보센터
Korea-Australia Rheology Journal, Vol.33, No.3, 273-282, August, 2021
Shear rheology of circular particle suspensions in a Bingham fluid using numerical simulations
E-mail:
In this study, we performed direct simulations of particle suspensions in a simple shear flow with a viscoplastic model (Bingham fluid) using a finite-element/fictitious-domain method, as a model system for cuttings transport with a drilling mud in the oil and gas exploration. Bulk rheology and particle interaction were investigated via several example problems including single-particle, two-interacting particle, and many-particle problems for various solid fractions in both Bingham and Newtonian fluids. We report that, at low shear rate, huge reductions occur in both the relative bulk viscosity and angular velocity of particle suspension in a Bingham fluid compared to that in a Newtonian fluid. This indicates that, although particle incorporation increases bulk viscosity in a Bingham fluid, the amount of increase appears much smaller than that with the Newtonian medium, and particle motions were restricted to some extend at a low shear rate with a yield stress fluid. Moreover, the suppression in viscosity increase with particles disappears at a high shear rate, just like Newtonian particle suspension. This phenomenon has been interpreted by the suppressed particle angular rotation in a Bingham fluid. In addition, flow fields with low shear regions, where the viscosity of a Bingham fluid is high and the fluid mobility decreased significantly, on the left and right sides of a particle also confirm this interpretation. The two-interacting particle problem reveals delayed particle interaction with increased time period in particle trajectories (drafting, kissing, tumbling and separation) in a Bingham fluid. Similar behaviors with the suppression in viscosity increase can be also observed in the many-particle problem.
  1. Batchelor GK, J. Fluid Mech., 41, 545 (1970)
  2. Brady JF, Morris JF, J. Fluid Mech., 348, 103 (1997)
  3. Chateau X, Ovarlez G, Trung KL, J. Rheol., 52(2), 489 (2008)
  4. Cox RG, Brenner H, Chem. Eng. Sci., 26, 65 (1971)
  5. Dagois-Bohy S, Hormozi S, Guazzelli E, Pouliquen O, J. Fluid Mech., 776 (2015)
  6. Denn MM, Morris JF, Ann. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng., 5, 203 (2014)
  7. Derksen JJ, Comput. Chem. Eng., 35, 1200 (2011)
  8. Fahs H, Ovarlez G, Chateau X, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech., 261, 171 (2018)
  9. Firouznia M, Metzger B, Ovarlez G, Hormozi S, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech., 255, 19 (2018)
  10. Geiker MR, Brandl M, Thrane LN, Nielsen LF, Cement Concrete Aggr., 24, 3 (2002)
  11. Glowinski R, Pan TW, Hesla TI, Joseph DD, Int. J. Multiphase Flows, 25, 755 (1999)
  12. Hwang WR, Hulsen MA, Meijer HEH, J. Comput. Phys., 194, 742 (2004)
  13. Hwang WR, Hulsen MA, Meijer HEH, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech., 121(1), 15 (2004)
  14. Lees AW, Edwards SF, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys., 5, 1921 (1972)
  15. Levy T, Sanchez-Palencia E, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech., 13, 63 (1983)
  16. Mahaut F, Chateau X, Coussot P, Ovarlez G, J. Rheol., 52(1), 287 (2008)
  17. Schrauwen BA, Govaert LE, Peters GW, Meijer HE, Macromol. Symp., 185, 89 (2002)
  18. Stickel JJ, Powell RL, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 37, 129 (2005)