Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:27:01.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comprehensive mathematical model for nanofibre formation in centrifugal spinning methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2020

S. Noroozi
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
W. Arne
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer ITWM, Fraunhofer Platz 1, D-67663Kaiserslautern, Germany
R. G. Larson
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, MI 48109, USA
S. M. Taghavi*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
*
†Email address for correspondence: Seyed-Mohammad.Taghavi@gch.ulaval.ca

Abstract

Motivated by our experimental observations of nanofibre formation via the centrifugal spinning process, we develop a string model to study the behaviours of a Newtonian, viscous curved jet, in a non-orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system including both air-drag effects and solvent evaporation for the first time. In centrifugal spinning a polymeric solution emerges from the nozzle of a spinneret rotating at high speeds around its axis of symmetry and thins as it moves away from the nozzle exit until it finally lands on the collector. Except for the Newtonian fluid assumption, our model includes the key parameters of the curved jet flow, e.g. viscous, inertial, rotational, surface tension, gravitational, mass diffusion within the jet, mass diffusion into air and aerodynamic effects, via Rossby ($Rb$), Reynolds ($Re$), Weber ($We$), Froude ($Fr$), Péclet ($Pe$), air Reynolds ($Re^{\ast }$) and air Péclet ($Pe^{\ast }$) numbers, and the collector radial position (${\mathcal{R}}$). Our results, including comparison to experiments, reveal that the aerodynamic effects must be considered to enable a correct prediction of the jet trajectory and radius. Decreasing $Rb$ not only renders the jet thinning much faster, but also forces the jet to wrap tighter around the rotation axis. Increasing $Re$, $Re^{\ast }$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$ leads to a longer jet. Decreasing $We$ causes the jet to wrap tighter around the spinneret but it shows trivial effects on the solvent evaporation. Changes in $Pe$ and $Pe^{\ast }$ do not significantly affect the jet trajectory. Finally, we propose simple relations to estimate the jet radius and the jet breakup length.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) A schematic view of our CS process along with the accessories. The fibre, nozzle and collector are marked by arrows. The nozzle inner diameter is marked by $a$, the spinneret radius by $s_{0}$ and the radial position of the collector with respect to the rotation centre by ${\mathcal{R}}_{collector}$. (b) A closer view of the fibre showing the forces and the phenomena involved. In the left and right images, there are several other parameters related to the model so they are referred to and explained in the model section.

Figure 1

Table 1. Polymer solution samples used in our work. $M_{v}$ denotes the molecular weight. Data for sample (III) are extracted from Bahlouli et al. (2013).

Figure 2

Table 2. Experimental parameters (dimensional) and their ranges in our work. The ranges are based on the ambient temperature ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D703}=298~\text{K}$) and pressure ($\hat{p}=10^{5}$  Pa). The subscript $noz$ marks the polymer solution jet parameters at the nozzle exit. These parameters are assumed to be uniform within the cross-section at the nozzle exit. The asterisk ($\ast$) marks the parameters that are associated with the surrounding air. These parameters are also assumed to remain constant for each experiment.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Trajectory of a single fibre at four different times: (a) experimental image sequence at the time interval of approximately 4 ms; (b) superposition of the corresponding fibre trajectories in a frame of reference moving with the spinneret. The field of view in all the images on the left and the figure on the right is $149\times 42~\text{mm}^{2}$. The solution is sample (I), and the experimental parameters are $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}=628~\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$, ${\mathcal{R}}_{collector}=20~\text{cm}$, $a=0.58~\text{mm}$ and $RH^{\ast }=50\,\%$.

Figure 4

Table 3. Definitions of dimensionless groups along with their ranges of values in our experiments. The dimensional parameters used to define the dimensionless ones are given in table 2. The dimensional and dimensionless parameters describing properties in the air are marked with an asterisk ($\ast$).

Figure 5

Table 4. Main model output parameters. These parameters are at the leading order and they are functions of the arc length ($s$) only, except for $c$, which is a function of $s$ and $r$.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Fibre trajectory results from our model (solid line) and experiments (dots): (a) results for $Rb=0.011$, $Re=0.2$, $We=3.56$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $Pe=1.2\times 10^{5}$, $Pe^{\ast }=11.3$, ${\mathcal{R}}=2.5$, the solution is sample (I) (with $U_{noz}=0.47~\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}=550~\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$); (b) results for $Rb=0.0375$, $Re=1.79$, $Re^{\ast }=40$, $We=16$, $Pe=2.53\times 10^{5}$, $Pe^{\ast }=25.37$, ${\mathcal{R}}=2.5$, the solution is sample (II) (with $U_{noz}=1.05~\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}=350~\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$); (c) results extracted from Divvela et al. (2017) for $Rb=0.1$, $Re=23$, $We\rightarrow \infty$, $Re^{\ast }=41$ and the polymer solution is $8$ ppm Polyisobutylene with $M_{v}=1\times 10^{6}$ and Trichloroethylene as solvent, with a free end (${\mathcal{R}}\gg 1$) (with $U_{noz}=0.621~\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}=217~\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$).

Figure 7

Figure 4. Fibre radius from our model (solid line) and experiments (dots): (a) results for $Rb=0.011$, $Re=0.2$, $We=3.56$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $Pe=1.2\times 10^{5}$, $Pe^{\ast }=11.3$, ${\mathcal{R}}=2.5$, for solution sample (I) (with $U_{noz}=0.47~\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}=550~\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$); (b) results for $Rb=0.0375$, $Re=1.79$, $Re^{\ast }=40$, $We=16$, $Pe=2.53\times 10^{5}$, $Pe^{\ast }=25.37$, ${\mathcal{R}}=2.5$, for sample (II) (with $U_{noz}=1.05~\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FA}=350~\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$).

Figure 8

Figure 5. Model results for (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre radius and (c) fibre viscosity ratio versus the scaled arc length, with $Rb=0.01$, $Re=0.6$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $We=40$, $Pe=1.2\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=12$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$. The results are shown including (solid line) and excluding (dashed line) the drag force.

Figure 9

Figure 6. Predicted contours of the absolute values of (a) normal drag force, (b) tangential drag force along the fibre trajectory, with $Rb=0.01$, $Re=0.6$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $We=40$, $Pe=1.2\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=12$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$. The colour bars show the variation of drag force components $(\langle f_{drag}\rangle _{N},\langle f_{drag}\rangle _{T})$. The thickness of the fibre trajectories represents the scaled fibre diameter at each axial position, here and elsewhere.

Figure 10

Figure 7. Effect of $Rb$ on the model predictions of (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre radius and (c) fibre viscosity ratio versus the scaled arc length, with $Re=0.6$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $We=40$, $Pe=1\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=12$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$, for $Rb=0.04$ (dashed line), $Rb=0.01$ (dotted line) and $Rb=0.005$ (solid line).

Figure 11

Figure 8. Effect of $Re$ on the model predictions of (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre radius and (c) fibre viscosity ratio versus the scaled arc length, with $Rb=0.02$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $We=40$, $Pe=1\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=12$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$, for $Re=10$ (dashed line), $Re=1$ (dotted line) and $Re=0.1$ (solid line).

Figure 12

Figure 9. Effect of $Pe^{\ast }$ on the model predictions of (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre radius and (c) fibre viscosity ratio versus the scaled arc length, with $Rb=0.04$, $Re=1$, $Re^{\ast }=60$, $We=40$, $Pe=4\times 10^{4}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$, for $Pe^{\ast }=2$ (dashed line), $Pe^{\ast }=4$ (dotted line) and $Pe^{\ast }=40$ (solid line). The inset in (b) is focused on the fibre end.

Figure 13

Figure 10. Polymer concentration profile along (a) fibre trajectory and (b) fibre cross-section at the middle of the fibre and (c) fibre cross-section at the fibre end, with $Rb=0.04$, $Re=1$, $Re^{\ast }=60$, $We=40$, $Pe^{\ast }=2$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$. The first row is for $Pe=4\times 10^{3}$ and the second one is for $Pe=4\times 10^{4}$. The colour bars show the variation of the polymer concentration, $c$. The thickness of the trajectory shows the scaled fibre diameter at each position.

Figure 14

Figure 11. Effect of $We$ on the model predictions of (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre radius and (c) fibre viscosity ratio versus the scaled arc length, with $Rb=0.02$, $Re=1$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $Pe=4\times 10^{4}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$, for $We=5$ (dashed line), $We=0.5$ (dotted line) and $We=0.2$ (solid line). The first row is for $Pe^{\ast }=40$ and the second row is for $Pe^{\ast }=8$.

Figure 15

Figure 12. Effect of $Re^{\ast }$ on the model predictions of (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre radius and (c) fibre viscosity ratio versus the scaled arc length, with $Rb=0.04$, $Re=1$, $We=40$, $Pe=4\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=4$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$, with $Re^{\ast }=50$ (dashed line), $Re^{\ast }=60$ (dotted line) and $Re^{\ast }=80$ (solid line).

Figure 16

Figure 13. Polymer concentration profile along (a) fibre trajectory, (b) fibre cross-section at different arc length positions along fibre length, with $Rb=0.04$, $Re=1$, $We=40$, $Pe=4\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=4$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$. The first row is for $Re^{\ast }=60$ and the second one is for $Re^{\ast }=80$. The colour bars show the variation of the polymer concentration, $c$.

Figure 17

Figure 14. Effect of ${\mathcal{R}}$ on the model predictions of polymer concentration, jet trajectory and radius variations for $Rb=0.04$, $Re=0.6$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $We=40$, $Pe=1\times 10^{4}$ and $Pe^{\ast }=12$: (a) ${\mathcal{R}}=3$, (b) ${\mathcal{R}}=3.5$ and (c) ${\mathcal{R}}=4$. The purple circles mark the collector positions. The colour bar shows the variation of the polymer concentration, $c$.

Figure 18

Figure 15. An example of the comparison between the simulation fibre radius (thick line), $R_{i}$ (▵) and $\mathop{R}^{{\rightsquigarrow}}_{i}$ (○) versus $L$. The simulation is performed using $Rb=0.01$, $Re=0.6$, $Re^{\ast }=18$, $We=40$, $Pe=1\times 10^{4}$, $Pe^{\ast }=12$ and ${\mathcal{R}}=3$.

Figure 19

Figure 16. Predictions of the jet breakup length using (4.6). Breakup length variations (a) in the $Rb$–$Ca$ plane for constant $Re^{\ast }=18$ and (b) in the $Rb$–$Re^{\ast }$ plane for constant $Ca=10$. For both cases $\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}=0.1$.