Measuring and assessing first and second normal stress differences of polymeric fluids with a modular cone-partitioned plate geometry

  • Salvatore Costanzo
  • Giovanni Ianniruberto
  • Giuseppe Marrucci
  • Dimitris Vlassopoulos
Original Contribution
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

We propose a simple, robust method to measure both the first and second normal stress differences of polymers, hence obtaining the full set of viscometric material functions in nonlinear shear flow. The method is based on the use of a modular cone-partitioned plate (CPP) setup with two different diameters of the inner plate, mounted on a rotational strain-controlled rheometer. The use of CPP allows extending the measured range of shear rates without edge fracture problems. The main advantage of such a protocol is that it overcomes limitations of previous approaches based on CPP (moderate temperatures not exceeding 120 °C, multiple measurements of samples with different volume) and yields data over a wide temperature range by performing a two-step measurement on two different samples with the same volume. The method was tested with two entangled polystyrene solutions at elevated temperatures, and the results were favorably compared with both the limited literature data on the second normal stress difference and the predictions obtained with a recent tube-based model of entangled polymers accounting for shear flow-induced molecular tumbling. Limitations and possible improvements of the proposed simple experimental protocol are also discussed.

Graphical abstract

The effects of edge fracture in start-up shear experiments can be circumvented with the use of a cone-partitioned plate (CPP) geometry. Such a device consists of an inner measuring plate surrounded by an outer nonmeasuring corona. The radius of the sample exceeds that of the measuring plate so that the measured volume is not affected by edge instability. However, the measured first normal stress difference is an apparent one (Napp,1), owing to the contribution of the nonmeasured part of the sample. The figure depicts a schematic design of a modular CPP geometry. Such a fixture is built in a way that the inner tool and the outer partition can be easily replaced, in order to have different measuring diameters (i.e., 6 and 10 mm). From the corresponding signals of the Napp,1, the effective first and second normal stress differences can be calculated.

Keywords

Start-up experiment Second normal stress difference Cone-partitioned plate rheometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Thomas Schweizer for providing the centering tools and for his helpful discussions.

References

  1. Adams N, Lodge AS (1964) Rheological properties of concentrated polymer solutions II. A cone-and-plate and parallel-plate pressure distribution apparatus for determining normal stress differences in steady shear flow. Phil Trans R Soc London A 256:149–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcoutlabi M, Baek SG, Magda JJ, Shi X, Hutcheson SA, McKenna GB (2009) A comparison of three different methods for measuring both normal stress differences of viscoelastic liquids in torsional rheometers. Rheol Acta 48:191–200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-008-0330-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoyagi T, Doi M (2000) Molecular dynamics simulation of entangled polymers in shear flow. Comput Theor Polym Sci 10:317–321.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1089-3156(99)00041-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baek S, Magda JJ (2003) Monolithic rheometer plate fabricated using silicon micromachining technology and containing miniature pressure sensors for N1 and N2 measurements. J Rheol 47:1249–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1595095
  5. Baig C, Mavrantzas VG, Kröger M (2010) Flow effects on melt structure and entanglement network of linear polymers: results from a nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulation study of a polyethylene melt in steady shear. Macromolecules 43:6886–6902.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma100826u CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baird DG (1975) A possible method for determining normal stress differences from hole pressure error data. Trans Soc Rheol 19:147–151.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes AH, Eastwood AR, Yates B (1975) A comparison of the rheology of two polymeric and two micellar systems. Part II: second normal stress difference. Rheol Acta 14:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bird RB, Armstrong RC, Hassager O (1977) Dynamics of polymer liquids. Volume 1. Fluid mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Boger DV, Denn MM (1980) Capillary and slit methods of normal stress measurements. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 6:163–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0257(80)80001-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boger D V, Walters K (1993) Rheological phenomena in focus. Vol. 4, 1st edn. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown EF, Burghardt WR, Kahvand H, Venerus DC (1995) Comparison of optical and mechanical measurements of second normal stress difference relaxation following step strain. Rheol Acta 34:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cao J (2011) Molecular dynamics study of polymer melts. University of ReadingGoogle Scholar
  13. Carotenuto C, Vananroye A, Vermant J, Minale M (2015) Predicting the apparent wall slip when using roughened geometries: a porous medium approach. J Rheol 59:1131–1149.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.4923405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christiansen EB, Leppard WR (1974) Steady-state and oscillatory flow properties of polymer solutions. J Rheol 18:65–86.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549327 Google Scholar
  15. Costanzo S, Huang Q, Ianniruberto G, Marrucci G, Hassager O, Vlassopoulos D (2016) Shear and extensional rheology of polystyrene melts and solutions with the same number of entanglements. Macromolecules 49:3925–3935.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b00409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Couturier É, Boyer F, Pouliquen O, Guazzelli É (2011) Suspensions in a tilted trough: second normal stress difference. J Fluid Mech 686:26–39.  https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2011.315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox WP, Merz EH (1958) Correlation of dynamic and steady flow viscosities. J Polym Sci 28:619–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crawley RL and Graessley WW (1977) Geometry effects on stress transient data obtained by cone and plate flow. Trans Soc Rheol 21(1):19-49.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549462
  19. Cwalina CD, Wagner NJ (2014) Material properties of the shear-thickened state in concentrated near hard-sphere colloidal dispersions. J Rheol 58:949–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delbiondo D, Masnada E, Merabia S et al (2013) Numerical study of a slip-link model for polymer melts and nanocomposites. J Soft Cond Matt 138:194902.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4799263 Google Scholar
  21. Doi M, Edwards SF (1979) Dynamics of concentrated polymer systems. Part 4.—Rheological properties. J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans 2 75:38-54 Google Scholar
  22. Doi M, Edwards SF (1986) The theory of polymer dynamics. Oxford Scientific Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Eggers H, Schümmer P (1994) A new method for determination of normal stress differences in highly visco-elastic substances using a modified Weissenberg rheometer. J Rheol 38:1169–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferry JD (1980) Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Fetters LJ, Lohse DJ, Colby RH (2006) Chapter 25 chain dimensions and entanglement spacings. Phys Prop Polym Handb:445–452.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69002-5
  26. Gamonpilas C, Morris JF, Denn MM (2016) Shear and normal stress measurements in non-Brownian monodisperse and bidisperse suspensions. J Rheol 60:289–296.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.4942230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gao HW, Ramachandran S, Christiansen EE (1981) Dependency of the steady-state and transient viscosity and first and second normal stress difference functions on molecular weight for linear mono and polydisperse polystyrene solutions. J Rheol 25:213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ginn RF, Metzner AB (1969) Measurements of stresses developed in steady laminar shearing flows of viscoelastic media. Trans Soc Rheol 13:429–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gleissle W (1980) Two simple time-shear rate relations combining viscosity and first normal stress coefficient in the linear and non-linear flow range. In: Astarita G, Marrucci G, Nicolais L (eds) Rheology, vol 2. Plenum, New York, pp 457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graessley WW (2008) Polymeric liquids and networks: dynamics and rheology. Garland Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham RS, Likhtman AE, McLeish TCB, Milner ST (2003) Microscopic theory of linear, entangled polymer chains under rapid deformation including chain stretch and convective constraint release. J Rheol 47:1171–1200.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1595099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen MG, Nazem F (1975) Transient normal force transducer response in a modified Weissenberg rheogoniometer. Trans Soc Rheol 19:21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harris J (1968) Measurement of normal stress differences in solutions of macromolecules. Nature 217:1248–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hemingway EJ, Kusumaatmaja H, Fielding SM (2017) Edge fracture in complex fluids. Phys Rev Lett 119:028006(5).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.028006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Higashitani K, Pritchard WG (1972) A kinematic calculation of intrinsic errors in pressure measurements made with holes. Trans Soc Rheol 16:687–696.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang Q, Alvarez NJ, Matsumiya Y, Rasmussen HK, Watanabe H, Hassager O (2013a) Extensional rheology of entangled polystyrene solutions suggests importance of nematic interactions. ACS Macro Lett 2:741–744.  https://doi.org/10.1021/mz400319v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang Q, Hengeller L, Alvarez NJ, Hassager O (2015) Bridging the gap between polymer melts and solutions in extensional rheology. Macromolecules 48:4158–4163.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.5b00849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huang Q, Mednova O, Rasmussen HK, et al (2013b) Concentrated polymer solutions are different from melts: role of entanglement molecular weight. Macromolecules 46:5026–5035.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma4008434
  39. Ianniruberto G (2015) Quantitative appraisal of a new CCR model for entangled linear polymers. J Rheol 59:211–235.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.4903495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson R, Kaye A (1966) The measurement of the normal stress differences in a liquid undergoing simple shear flow using a cone-and-plate total thrust apparatus. J Appl Phys 17:1355–1360Google Scholar
  41. Kalogrianitis SG, van Egmond JW (1997) Full tensor optical rheometry of polymer fluids. J Rheol 41:343–364.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.550806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kasehagen LJ, Macosko CW (1998) Nonlinear shear and extensional rheology of long-chain randomly branched polybutadiene. J Rheol 42:1303–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.550892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kearsley EA (1973) Measurement of normal stress by means of hole pressure. Trans Soc Rheol 17:617–628.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keentok M, Georgescu AG, Sherwood AA, Tanner RI (1980) The measurement of the second normal stress difference for some polymer solutions. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 6:303–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0257(80)80008-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keentok M, Xue SC (1999) Edge fracture in cone-plate and parallel plate flows. Rheol Acta 38:321–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kotaka T, Kurata M, Tamura M (1959) Normal stress effect in polymer solutions. J Appl Phys 30:1705–1712.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1735041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kulicke WM, Wallbaum U (1985) Determination of first and second normal stress differences in polymer solutions in steady shear flow and limitations caused by flow irregularities. Chem Eng Sci 40:961–972.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(85)85009-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuo Y, Tanner RI (1972) Laminar Newtonian flow in open channels with surface tension. Int J Mech Sci 14:861–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuo Y, Tanner RI (1974) On the use of open-channel flows to measure the second normal stress difference. Rheol Acta 13:443–456.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01521740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Larson RG (1984) A constitutive equation for polymer melts based on partially extending strand convection. J Rheol 28:545–571.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lee J-Y, Magda JJ, Hu H, Larson RG (2002) Cone angle effects, radial pressure profile, and second normal stress difference for shear-thickening wormlike micelles. J Rheol 46:195–208.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1428319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lodge AS (1964) Elastic liquids: an introductory vector treatment of finite strain polymer rheology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Lodge AS (1993) Normal stress differences from hole pressure measurements. In: Collyer AA, Clegg DW (eds) Rheological measurement. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 345–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lodge AS, Meissner J (1973) Comparison of network theory predictions with stress/time data in shear and elongation for a low-density polyethylene melt. Rheol Acta 12:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Macosko CW (1994) Rheology: principles, measurements and applications. Whiley VCH, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Magda JJ, Baek SG (1994) Concentrated entangled and semidilute entangled polystyrene solutions and the second normal stress difference. Polymer (Guildf) 35:1187–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-3861(94)90010-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Magda JJ, Baek SG, DeVries KL, Larson RG (1991) Shear flows of liquid crystal polymers: measurements of the second normal stress difference and the Doi molecular theory. Macromolecules 24:4460–4468.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00015a034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marrucci G, Greco F, Ianniruberto G (2000) Simple strain measure for entangled polymers. J Rheol 44:845–854.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.551124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marsh BD, Pearson JRA (1968) The measurement of normal-stress differences using a cone-and-plate total thrust apparatus. Rheol Acta 4:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meissner J.(1972) Modifications of the Weissenberg Rheogoniometer for Measurement of Transient Rheological Properties of Molten Polyethylene under shear. Comparison with Tensile Data. J Appl Polym Sci 16(11);2877-2899.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1972.070161114
  61. Meissner J, Garbella RW, Hostettler J (1989) Measuring normal stress differences in polymer melt shear flow. J Rheol 33:843–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Miller E, Rothstein JP (2004) Control of the sharkskin instability in the extrusion of polymer melts using induced temperature gradients. Rheol Acta 44:160–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nafar Sefiddashti MH, Edwards BJ, Khomami B (2015) Individual chain dynamics of a polyethylene melt undergoing steady shear flow. J Rheol 59(1):119-153.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.4903498
  64. Nafar Sefiddashti MH, Edwards BJ, Khomami B (2015) Individual chain dynamics of a polyethylene melt undergoing steady shear flow. J Rheol 59:119–153.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.4903498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ohl N, Gleissle W (1992) The second normal stress difference for pure and highly filled viscoelastic fluids. Rheol Acta 31:294–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olson DJ, Brown EF, Burghardt WR (1998) Second normal stress difference relaxation in a linear polymer melt following step-strain. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys 36:2671–2675.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0488(199810)36:14<2671::AID-POLB20>3.0.CO;2-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Padding JT, Briels WJ (2003) Coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations of polymer melts in transient and steady shear flow. J Chem Phys 118:10276–10286.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1572459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Park GW, Ianniruberto G (2017) Flow-induced nematic interaction and friction reduction successfully describe PS melt and solution data in extension startup and relaxation. Macromolecules 50:4787–4796.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pollett WFO (1955) Rheological behaviour of continuously sheared polythene. Br J Appl Phys 6:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pollett WFO, Cross AH (1950) A continuous-shear rheometer for measuring total stresses in rubber-like materials. J Sci Instrum 27:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pritchard WG (1971) Measurements of the viscometric functions for a fluid in steady shear flows. Philos Trans R Soc London A Math Phys Eng Sci 270:507–556.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1971.0088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ravindranath S, Wang S-Q (2008) Steady-state measurements in stress plateau region of entangled polymer solutions: controlled-rate and controlled-stress modes. J Rheol 52:957–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rubinstein M, Colby RH (2003) Polymer physics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  74. Savins JG, Metzner AB (1970) Radial (secondary) flows in rheogoniometric devices. Rheol Acta 9:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schieber JD, Nair DM, Kitkrailard T (2007) Comprehensive comparisons with nonlinear flow data of a consistently unconstrained Brownian slip-link model. J Rheol 51:1111–1141.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.2790460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schweizer T (2002) Measurement of the first and second normal stress differences in a polystyrene melt with a cone and partitioned plate tool. Rheol Acta 41:337–344.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-002-0232-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schweizer T, Bardow A (2006) The role of instrument compliance in normal force measurements of polymer melts. Rheol Acta 45:393–402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-005-0056-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schweizer T, Hostettler J, Mettler F (2008) A shear rheometer for measuring shear stress and both normal stress differences in polymer melts simultaneously: the MTR 25. Rheol Acta 47:943–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schweizer T, Schmidheiny W (2013) A cone-partitioned plate rheometer cell with three partitions (CPP3) to determine shear stress and both normal stress differences for small quantities of polymeric fluids. J Rheol 57:841–856.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.4797458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schweizer T, Stöckli M (2008) Departure from linear velocity profile at the surface of polystyrene melts during shear in cone-plate geometry. J Rheol 52:713–727.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.2896110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schweizer T, van Meerveld J, Öttinger HC (2004) Nonlinear shear rheology of polystyrene melt with narrow molecular weight distribution—experiment and theory. J Rheol 48:1345–1363.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1803577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sing A, Nott PR (2003) Experimental measurements of the normal stresses in sheared Stokesian suspensions. J Fluid Mech 490:293–320.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112003005366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Skorski S, Olmsted PD (2011) Loss of solutions in shear banding fluids driven by second normal stress differences. J Rheol 55:1219–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.3621521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Snijkers F, Vlassopoulos D (2011) Cone-partitioned-plate geometry for the ARES rheometer with temperature control. J Rheol 55:1167–1186.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.3625559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stephanou PS, Schweizer T, Kröger M (2017) Communication: appearance of undershoots in start-up shear: experimental findings captured by tumbling-snake dynamics. J Chem Phys 146:161101.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4982228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sturges LD, Joseph DD (1980) A normal stress amplifier for the second normal stress difference. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 6:325–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0257(80)80009-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sui C, McKenna GB (2007) Instability of entangled polymers in cone and plate rheometry. Rheol Acta 46:877–888.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-007-0169-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Takahashi T, Fuller G (1996) Stress tensor measurement using birefringence in oblique transmission. Rheol Acta 35:297–302.  https://doi.org/10.1678/rheology1973.24.3_111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Takahashi T, Shirakashi M, Miyamoto K, Fuller GG (2002) Development of a double-beam rheo-optical analyzer for full tensor measurement of optical anisotropy in complex fluid flow. Rheol Acta 41:448–455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-002-0226-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tanner RI (2000) Engineering rheology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  91. Tanner RI (1970) Some methods for estimating the normal stress functions in viscometric flows. Trans Soc Rheol 14:483–507.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tanner RI (1973) A correlation of normal stress data for polyisobutylene solutions. Trans Soc Rheol 17:365–373.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tanner RI, Keentok M (1983) Shear fracture in cone-plate rheometry. J Rheol 27:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tanner RI, Pipkin AC (1969) Intrinsic errors in pressure-hole measurements. Trans Soc Rheol 13:471–484.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wang SQ, Ravindranath S, Boukany PE (2011) Homogeneous shear, wall slip, and shear banding of entangled polymeric liquids in simple-shear rheometry: a roadmap of nonlinear rheology. Macromolecules 44:183–190.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma101223q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wineman AS, Pipkin AC (1966) Slow viscoelastic flow in tilted throughs. Acta Mech 2:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Xu X, Chen J, An L (2014) Shear thinning behavior of linear polymer melts under shear flow via nonequilibrium molecular dynamics. J Chem Phys 140:174902.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4873709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Electronic Structure and LaserFoundation for Research and Technology (FORTH)HeraklionGreece
  2. 2.Department of Materials Science and TechnologyUniversity of CreteHeraklionGreece
  3. 3.Laboratoire Charles Coulomb UMR 5221Université Montpellier 2MontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Department of Chemical, Materials, and Production EngineeringFederico II UniversityNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations