Abstract
A comprehensive review of the salient features of the differentiation method of rheological analysis in Poiseuille flow from its inception circa 1928 is presented. Here no initial assumptions regarding the nature of the function relating rheological parameters to observed kinematical and dynamical parameters are required in the data-analysis process. In contrast, the integration method involves interpreting flow properties in terms of a particular ideal model. It is shown that, although both methods represent modes of solution of the same integral equation, being relatively bias-free, the differentiation method offers a more discriminating procedure for rheological analysis. The application to problems involving plane Poiseuille flow is also described.
Introduction
In most instances, the approach to the problem of interpreting the rheological properties of various compositions as they ate affected by changes in chemical or physical environment, as saying the characteristics of a particular constituent of a suspension, analyzing flow behavior in terms of interactions between components in a system, to cite but a few examples, has been in terms of what Hersey terms the integration method. Briefly, it consists of interpreting flow properties in terms of a particular ideal model. The usual practice of the integration method is to choose a model with a minimum number of parameters because, other things being equal, it is desirable to use the simplest model which will describe the behavior of a real material and yet be mathematically tract able for the requirements of data analysis. This expression is then substituted into an equation which relates observed kinematical and dynamical quantities, such as volume flux Q and pressure gradient J, and angular velocity and torque T, in a capillary and concentric cylinder apparatus, respectively. The rheological parameters appear on integrating, in an expression relating the pairs of observable quantities such as those just given. In many instances a particular model provides a good representation of rheological behavior over a reasonable range of compositional and environmental changes. just as often, however, it is obvious that the interpretation of rheological changes by the integration method is not providing realistic information about changes in flow behavior. A more general method of interpreting rheological data for a given material is to make no initial assumptions regarding the nature of the function relating rheological parameters to observed kinematical and dynamical quantities, e.g., flow rate and pressure drop in capillary flow or angular velocity and torque in a rotational viscometer. This general method Hersey terms the differentiation method. Instead of integrating, one differentiates the integral equation with respect to one of the limits, i.e., one of the boundary conditions; the resulting expression contains the same observable quantities just given, their derivatives, and the rheological function evaluated at that boundary. By obtaining these derivatives from experimental ‘data, graphically or by a computer routine, they can be substituted into the differential equation and a graphical form of the function derived.
THEORY OF THE DIFFERENTIATION METHOD FOR POISEUILLE-TYPE FLOWS
In this introductory paper, two flow cases which are important in viscometry are considered (one for the first time) from the differentiation method of analysis, flow in a cylindrical tube and flow between fixed parallel surfaces of infinite extent, the basic integral equations being formulated in a manner analogous to the way they originally appeared in the literature. In addition, the following ideal conditions will be assumed:an absence of anomalous wall effects,isotropic behavior everywhere, andsteady laminar flow conditions.
SPEJ
P. 211^
Rheological Behavior of Sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) Extract as Affected by Temperature and Concentration and Investigation of Flow Behavior with CFD
