Page 250 - Bird R.B. Transport phenomena
P. 250

234  Chapter 8  Polymeric Liquids
                           is, the  fluid  snaps back somewhat  like a rubber band.  However, whereas  a rubber  band
                           returns  to its original shape, the  fluid retreats only part way toward  its original  configu-
                           ration.
                               If  we  permit  ourselves  an  anthropomorphism,  we  can  say  that  a  rubber  band  has
                           "perfect  memory/'  since it returns  to its initial unstressed  state. The polymeric  fluid,  on
                           the  other  hand,  has  a  "fading  memory/'  since  it  gradually  "forgets"  its  original  state.
                           That is, as it recoils, its memory becomes weaker and  weaker.
                               Fluid  recoil  is  a  manifestation  of  elasticity, and  any  complete  description  of  poly-
                           meric  fluids  must be able to incorporate  the idea  of elasticity into the expression  for  the
                           stress tensor. The theory must also include the notion  of fading  memory.


      'Normal Stress"  Effects
                           Other striking differences  in the behavior  of Newtonian and polymeric liquids appear  in
                           the  "normal  stress"  effects.  The reason  for  this  nomenclature  will be  given  in  the  next
                           section.
                               A  rotating  rod  in  a beaker  of  a Newtonian  fluid  causes  the  fluid  to undergo  a  tan-
                           gential  motion.  At  steady  state,  the  fluid  surface  is  lower  near  the  rotating  rod.  Intu-
                           itively  we  know  that  this  comes about  because  the  centrifugal  force  causes the  fluid  to
                           move radially toward  the beaker wall. For a polymeric liquid, on the other hand, the  fluid
                           moves toward  the rotating rod, and, at steady state, the  fluid  surface  is as shown  in Fig.
                                                                                       4
                           8.1-3.  This  phenomenon  is  called  the  Weissenberg rod-climbing effect.  Evidently  some
                           kinds  of  forces  are  induced  that  cause  the  polymeric  liquid  to behave  in  a way  that  is
                           qualitatively different  from  that  of a Newtonian  liquid.
                               In a closely related experiment, we can put a rotating disk on the surface  of a fluid in
                           a cylindrical container  as shown  in Fig. 8.1-4.  If the  fluid  is Newtonian, the rotating  disk
                           causes the  fluid  to move in a tangential direction  (the "primary  flow"), but, in  addition,
                           the  fluid  moves  slowly  outward  toward  the  cylinder  wall  because  of  the  centrifugal
                           force, then moves downward, and then back up along the cylinder axis. This superposed
                           radial and  axial flow is weaker than the primary flow and  is termed  a "secondary  flow."
                           For  a polymeric liquid, the  fluid  also develops  a primary  tangential  flow with  a weak  ra-

















                                                                        Fig. 8.1-4.  The secondary flows in a
                                                                        cylindrical container with a rotating
                           Fig. 8.1-3.  The free surface  of a liquid near  disk at the liquid surface have the
                           a rotating rod. The polymeric liquid shows   opposite directions for Newtonian
                           the Weissenberg rod-climbing  effect.        and polymeric fluids.



                               4
                                 This phenomenon was first described by F. H. Garner and A. H. Nissan, Nature, 158, 634-635
                            (1946) and by R. J. Russel, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, University  of London (1946), p. 58. The
                           experiment was analyzed by K. Weissenberg, Nature, 159, 310-311 (1947).
   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255