# Difference between revisions of "Liquid Flow through Aqueous Foams: The Node-Dominated Foam Drainage Equation"

(→Summary) |
(→Summary) |
||

Line 13: | Line 13: | ||

The penetration speed <math>\nu_f</math> increases with <math>V_s</math> as <math>\nu_f=\nu_0V_s^\alpha</math>, but with what power <math>\alpha</math>? | The penetration speed <math>\nu_f</math> increases with <math>V_s</math> as <math>\nu_f=\nu_0V_s^\alpha</math>, but with what power <math>\alpha</math>? | ||

− | The researchers consider two models of flow through a monodisperse foam with [[ | + | The researchers consider two models of flow through a monodisperse foam with [[Tetrakaidecahedron (Kelvin Cell)|tetrakaidecahedral]] cells. The older theory is based on assuming rigid channel walls and no-slip which results in Poiselle flow through the channels. In this theory, the nodes are not important. This theory predicts <math>\alpha=1/2</math>: |

<math>\nu_f=(V_0^{rigid}V_s)^{1/2}</math>, <math>V_0^{rigid}=\frac{\delta_a\rho gL^2}{3\delta_\epsilon\delta_\mu \mu}</math> | <math>\nu_f=(V_0^{rigid}V_s)^{1/2}</math>, <math>V_0^{rigid}=\frac{\delta_a\rho gL^2}{3\delta_\epsilon\delta_\mu \mu}</math> | ||

## Revision as of 03:20, 1 December 2009

## Overview

- [1] Koehler, S., Hilgenfeldt, S., & Stone, H. Physical Review Letters.
**82**, 21. 4232-4235 (1999). -
**Keywords:**Foam, Drainage, Plateau Border, Tetrakaidecahedron (Kelvin Cell)

## Summary

Koehler, Hilgenfeldt, and Stone write about fluid flow through the network of channels in a soap foam. The article presents an existing theory, experimental results, and a new theory more closely matching the experimental results.

The network of channels in a dry foam (much more air than liquid) is made up of the liquid layers in between polyhedral air bubbles. Along the edges of the polyhedra, there are thin "Plateau borders" or channels which meet at vertices of the polyhedra in volumes the authors call nodes. See Figure 1 for a diagram of one network unit.

The researchers seem interested in the velocity profiles in the channels and nodes, but rather than struggle to image very small channels, they decide to learn from gravity-driven bulk flow through the foam: "forced drainage." They introduce fluid to the top of a column of foam at a controlled rate <math>Q</math> and observe the front of wetter foam penetrate through the column of dry foam at velocity <math>\nu_f</math>. A quantity <math>V_s</math> is defined as the volumetric flow into the top of the tube divided by the cross-sectional area of the tube. The experimenters looked at three sizes of bubbles.

The penetration speed <math>\nu_f</math> increases with <math>V_s</math> as <math>\nu_f=\nu_0V_s^\alpha</math>, but with what power <math>\alpha</math>?

The researchers consider two models of flow through a monodisperse foam with tetrakaidecahedral cells. The older theory is based on assuming rigid channel walls and no-slip which results in Poiselle flow through the channels. In this theory, the nodes are not important. This theory predicts <math>\alpha=1/2</math>: <math>\nu_f=(V_0^{rigid}V_s)^{1/2}</math>, <math>V_0^{rigid}=\frac{\delta_a\rho gL^2}{3\delta_\epsilon\delta_\mu \mu}</math>

The new theory is termed channel-slip theory, leads to plug flow, and viscous damping in the nodes.

Equation 9 from [1]: <math>\nu_f=((V_0^{slip})^2V_s)^{1/3}</math>, <math>V_0^{slip}=\frac{2\delta_a\rho gL^2}{\mu\delta_\epsilon^{1/2}I}</math>

- I is dimensionless, viscous forces in nodes

The 1/3 power which comes out of the channel-slip theory matches the exponent of approximately .36 determined experimentally and presented in Figure 3. The front velocity increases with bubble size. This is not intuitive to me. It seems to me that bigger bubbles would have fewer channels per tube cross-sectional area. However, for the same volume fraction, the larger bubbles must have bigger channels and nodes.

## Soft Matter Details

**Experimental Methods:**

The researchers used a creative method to observe the propagation of the wetter flow through the dry foam. The added fluid had fluorescein salt which was imaged using UV light and a CCD camera. The experimenters found that the liquid fraction of the foam is proportional to the intensity of the fluorescing, so were able to "see" the front of wet foam progress.

To ensure that the experimental work is robust, the authors look at distilled water, tap water, various soap concentrations (all above the critical micelle concentration), and determine that these changes had no effect.

To keep the foam from coarsening (which it naturally would over time), the researchers constantly generate foam at the bottom of the tube so that the volume fraction at any height is constant. I'm not clear on the relative rates and how foam moving up the tube would affect the volume of fluid propagating down the tube.

**Theoretical Methods:**

To create Figure 1, Koehler *et. al.* used Surface Evolver from the University of Minnesota Geometry Center: [1].

The two different theories come from assuming that one or the other term in a sum dominates. Such approximations are often made when analyzing complex systems in soft matter. Clearly, careful consideration must be given as the results can be quite different!

The authors use dimensional analysis to develop their equation 7.