Cluster formation
The sudden expansion of the microchannel (see Fig. 1) provides a passive means for a small number of droplets to self-assemble sequentially into clusters through the coalescence of their coating films. Figure 3 shows a series of snapshots centred on the expansion (with \(\alpha =2.0\)) which illustrate the range of behaviour observed experimentally (video in Online Supplementary Material). Upstream of the expansion, the droplets propagate in a regular train of individual coated droplets. The four droplet train parameters upstream of the expansion introduced in Sect. 2.2 vary between the images but the most significant parameter variation is in the inter-drop distance, which decreases monotonically from (a) to (g). In (a), the inter-drop distance is sufficiently large so that a train of regularly-spaced individual droplets is retained downstream of the expansion. As each droplet moves through the expansion into the enlarged channel, its velocity decreases mainly because of the reduction in the mean velocity of the suspending fluid. However, in (a) this reduction is not sufficient to enable the next droplet in the train to catch up with the droplet ahead while still propagating with a larger velocity. In Fig. 3b–f, the droplets reorganise downstream of the expansion into regularly-spaced, steadily propagating clusters of constant length. Each cluster contains individual droplets of the inner phase encapsulated in a shared coating film and separated by a thin film of coating fluid. The number of droplets in each cluster appears to increase with decreasing inter-drop distance from two to six droplets. We did not observe the formation of regular trains of finite-size clusters containing more than six droplets. Instead, for sufficiently small inter-drop distance, the droplets typically coalesced into a continuous cluster at the expansion, as shown in Fig. 3g. We also observed trains of clusters of varying size near the threshold in inter-drop distance separating two cluster sizes. We found qualitatively similar clustering behaviour to that shown in Fig. 3 in microchannels with smaller expansion factors, \(\alpha =1.5\) and 1.7. Increasing the expansion factor to \(\alpha =3.0\) led to a wider range of droplet dynamics that will be discussed briefly at the end of this section.
Figure 4a details the formation of two-droplet clusters with a series of snapshots separated by varying time intervals. In (a), droplet 1 has cleared the expansion and thus, its velocity has reduced to its value in the expanded channel because inertial effects are insignificant. Meanwhile, droplet 2 is advancing at a larger velocity in the upstream channel in (i–iv) thereby reducing its distance to droplet 1. When droplet 2 clears the expansion in (v) and thus adopts a similar velocity to droplet 1, the downstream separation distance between the two droplets \(d_{\mathrm{d}}\), indicated by the width of a filled purple rectangle, is sufficiently small for the two droplets to be attracted due to the hydrodynamic interaction in the microfluidic droplet train (Beatus et al. 2006). While the two-droplet system propagates steadily due to the flow of the outer phase, this attraction results in the elongation of the droplets (vi, vii) until their coating films coalesce to form a bridge (vii, viii). This is followed by a surface-tension-driven reorganisation of the coating films, which promotes the rapid displacement of the droplets towards each other (viii–xii) until a two-droplet cluster configuration is reached (xii). In the meantime, droplet 3 is catching up with the preceding group by propagating faster in the upstream channel (v–xiii). Once it clears the expansion (xiv), its separation from the rear of the cluster corresponds to the combined widths of the filled purple rectangle that separated droplets 1 and 2 at a similar stage and the empty purple rectangle that indicates the forward displacement of droplet 2 in response to the capillary forces driving the cluster formation. This distance is large enough so that the two-droplet cluster and droplet 3 are not attracted towards each other and continue to propagate downstream with constant separation, while droplet 3 becomes the first droplet of the next cluster.
The two-droplet cluster formation is summarised in a spatio-temporal diagram in Fig. 4b. The dark and light bands indicate the droplets of inner-phase and the outer-phase, respectively, while the dark lines correspond to the coating films. As discussed in Sect. 2.2, the straight bands of approximately constant width upstream of the expansion indicate a regular, single-droplet train. The widening of the dark band immediately downstream of the expansion indicates the reduction in velocity as the droplet passes over the expansion. When droplet 2 catches up with droplet 1 so that their separation is smaller than a critical distance \(d_{\mathrm{crit}}\), their coating films coalesce. This is indicated by the two dark bands merging so that they are only separated by a thin darker line of coating. Following the coalescence of the coating films, the kink highlighted by an arrow indicates the backward motion of droplet 1, while the triangle points to a distortion of the dark band of droplet 2 which signals a rapid forward movement. The two-droplet cluster then rapidly settles into its final configuration and propagates with constant velocity.
The spatio-temporal diagram in Fig. 4c details the formation of a six-droplet cluster; see Fig. 9 in the Appendix for the sequence of images illustrating this process. The sequential coalescence with the the rear of the cluster takes place as soon as each droplet approaches the cluster to within \(d_{\mathrm{crit}}\). For the first three droplets (2, 3 and 4), this happens before they have cleared the expansion. In fact, the location of the coalescence event is displaced further downstream from the expansion as the cluster grows (see purple ellipse). This is because each time a droplet is added to the cluster, the next droplet needs to travel further to catch up with the rear of the cluster because of surface-tension-driven reconfiguration of droplets during previous cluster formation. For each successive droplet joining the cluster, the decreasing kinks pointed to by arrows indicate that the backward motion of the cluster is suppressed and in fact, it is not measurable beyond the fourth droplet. In contrast, the forward displacement of the joining droplet is enhanced particularly from the fourth droplet as highlighted by the pointing triangles. This is because the viscous resistance to the displacement of a cluster scales approximately with the length of the cluster, i.e. the number of constitutive droplets. Hence, the displacements of the joining droplet and cluster as they move towards each other are approximately inversely proportional to the number of droplets that make them up.
We found an approximately constant value of the distance at which droplets or clusters coalesced, \(d_\mathrm {crit}={82}\,\,{{\upmu }\hbox {m}}\pm {10}\,\,{{\upmu }\hbox {m}}\), across most experiments and channels. Exceptions were for \(\alpha = 1.5\), where droplets with very thin coating co-existed at smaller distances and droplets with the thickest coating coalesced at larger distances. For all other droplets coalescence occurred if the distance between the front of the joining droplet and the rear of any cluster reached \({82}\,\,{{\upmu }\hbox {m}}\pm {10}\,\,{{\upmu }\hbox {m}}\) by the time the joining droplet has cleared the expansion. Figure 4c shows that during the formation of a cluster, each sequential coalescence event occurs further from the expansion. The location of a coalescence event was taken as the distance from the expansion where the inter-droplet distance vanished, i.e. where the light bands ended in the spatio-temporal diagram. The last coalescence event during cluster formation occurred at a similar location for all cluster sizes (0.46 mm ± 0.06 mm for \(\alpha =2.0\)).
Increasing the expansion factor to \(\alpha =3.0\) led to a wider range of droplet dynamics, as shown in Fig. 5 where all the droplet-train parameters vary between images as in Fig. 3. Although the most significant variation is in the inter-drop distance, this parameter does not decrease monotonically from (a) to (f). For example, the single droplet train retained downstream of the expansion in (a) occurs for a smaller inter-drop distance than the regular clusters of two droplets in (b). In both cases, these single files of droplets were prone to local distortion with droplets deviating from their path along the channel centreline in a manner similar to the waves excited in one-dimensional microfluidic crystals by stationary defects (Beatus et al. 2012). In (c), clusters of five droplets are generated in two stages, with the formation of alternate three-droplet and two-droplet clusters and their subsequent coalescence into clusters of five droplets as they propagate downstream. These were the longest finite-size clusters observed in a regular train and a further reduction in the inter-drop distance led to a continuous cluster of droplets connected through their coating film as shown in (d). In contrast with the other expansion factors investigated, \(\alpha =3.0\) meant that the cross-sectional dimensions of the downstream channel were sufficient to accommodate at least two typical droplets side-by-side. In (e), the train of droplets forming downstream of the expansion appears disordered with evidence of three-dimensional droplet assemblies. By contrast, in (f) the expansion enables self-assembly of droplets into a two-droplet wide continuous cluster, where droplets of the inner phase are separated by thin coating films. These are reminiscent of ordered emulsions (Seo et al. 2005) and foams (Marmottant and Raven 2009). Hence, the droplet dynamics in the microchannel with \(\alpha =3.0\) offer interesting prospects for three-dimensional self-assembly.
Interpretation
We now formalise our experimental observations for the expansion factors \(\alpha =1.5-2.0\) in order to explore in further detail how clustering in these channels depends on the properties of the droplet train. Having observed that clustering occurs if droplets approach each other to within a critical distance in the downstream channel, we calculate the inter-drop distance downstream of the expansion. For this, we consider the time elapsed between the first and second droplet clearing the expansion, see the schematic spatio-temporal diagram in Fig. 6a. In that time, the rear of the first droplet travels a distance \(l_{\mathrm {d}}+d_{\mathrm {d}}\) with velocity \(v_{\mathrm {d}}\) in the downstream channel (blue, right) while the rear of the second droplet travels \(l_{\mathrm {u}}+d_{\mathrm {u}}\) with velocity \(v_{\mathrm {u}}\) in the upstream channel (red, left). Hence,
$$\begin{aligned} d_{\mathrm {d}}=\frac{v_{\mathrm {d}}}{v_{\mathrm {u}}}(d_{\mathrm {u}}+l_{\mathrm {u}})-l_{\mathrm {d}}. \end{aligned}$$
(1)
This quantity depends on both upstream and downstream droplet lengths, upstream inter-drop distance, as well as the ratio of downstream to upstream velocities, which can all be measured experimentally. However, we are only able to measure \(d_\mathrm {d}\) directly for droplet trains which do not cluster past the expansion.
Figure 6b shows experimental measurements of the scaled downstream droplet length \(l_{\mathrm {d}}/h_{\mathrm {u}}\) as a function its upstream value \(l_{\mathrm {u}}/h_{\mathrm {u}}\). The expansion of the channel allows confined droplets to reduce their length. Whereas we would expect \(l_{\mathrm {d}}\simeq l_{\mathrm {u}}\) for droplets that are sufficiently small so that they are unconfined upstream of the expansion, predictions for the intermediate droplet sizes produced in our experiment require direct numerical simulations (Wang and Dimitrakopoulos 2011). Although for sufficiently long droplets we would expect the reduction in droplet length to scale approximately with \(\alpha\), so that \(l_{\mathrm {d}} \simeq l_{\mathrm {u}}/\alpha\), the data shown in Fig. 6b for our intermediate droplet size range is approximately similar for all three values of \(\alpha\). Hence, in our toy model, we approximate our data by a least-square linear fit, see Fig. 6b.
Figure 6c shows that the velocity ratio rescaled by the expansion factor (or droplet-mobility ratio) \(\alpha v_{\mathrm {d}}/v_{\mathrm {u}}\) collapses approximately onto a master curve as a function of the upstream droplet length. The data include experiments ranging from trains of single droplets to clusters of six in the downstream channel but they are indistinguishable in terms of their velocity ratio. This is presumably because the viscous drag exerted on a cluster is similar to that exerted on the same number of separate droplets in a train. We find that the mobility ratio increases with droplet size and reaches an approximately constant plateau value which is marginally larger than 1 for \(l_{\mathrm {u}}/h_{\mathrm {u}} \ge 1.4\). In a constant flux flow, the droplet velocity broadly increases with increasing confinement in the channel because the droplet acts as a leaky piston. For small droplets which are weakly confined upstream of the expansion (\(l_\mathrm {u}/h_\mathrm {u} < 1.4\)), a decrease in confinement downstream of the expansion means a reduction in velocity resulting in \(\alpha v_{\mathrm {d}}/v_{\mathrm {u}} < 1\). Droplets which are strongly confined upstream of the expansion (\(l_\mathrm {u}/h_\mathrm {u} > 1.4\)) remain confined downstream, so that \(\alpha v_{\mathrm {d}}/v_{\mathrm {u}} \simeq 1\). However, the reduction in mean flow downstream of the expansion means that the liquid films separating the confined droplet from the walls of the channel will be slightly thinner downstream than upstream, thus resulting in a slightly larger rescaled downstream velocity as noted above. In order to capture the observed variations in mobility ratio in our toy model— these are significant particularly in the channel with expansion factor \(\alpha =2.0\) because of the smaller droplets sizes in this channel—we approximate the data in Fig. 6c by a hyperbolic tangent function.
Figure 6d shows the downstream inter-drop distance measured experimentally for droplet trains that do not cluster as a function of its value calculated using Eq. (1). The data closely matches the solid red line of unit gradient, thus validating the expression proposed in Eq. (1) for use in cases where \(d_\mathrm {d}\) cannot be measured directly.
During the sequential formation of a droplet cluster, the surface-tension-driven reconfiguration of the coating films upon addition of a droplet led to an encapsulating film of measurable thickness as well as very thin but apparently stable films separating individual droplets within the cluster. Hence, the length of the growing cluster shown in Fig. 7a increased linearly as a function of the number of constitutive droplets, so that it was accurately captured by the relation
$$\begin{aligned} l=k l_i+2c, \end{aligned}$$
(2)
where k is the number of droplets, \(l_i\) the length of a droplet of inner phase and c is the thickness of the encapsulating film which did not vary within measurement resolution.
The transition from single droplets to clusters of two droplets downstream of the expansion occurs when the downstream inter-drop distance \(d_{\mathrm {d}}\) is reduced to the threshold value \(d_{\mathrm {crit}}\) (see Table 2). For larger clusters (\(k > 2\)), the distance \(d_{\mathrm {d,k}}\) from the front of a droplet to the rear of the preceding cluster of k droplets is different from \(d_{\mathrm {d}}\) because of the droplet reconfiguration that is associated with each droplet addition to the cluster through coalescence of the coating film. Based on the comparison shown in Fig. 7b between a droplet following a cluster of three droplets and the equivalent regular droplet train, we calculate the distance between the joining droplet and the cluster of k droplets (\(k\ge 2\)) to be
$$\begin{aligned} d_{\mathrm {d},k}= k\, d_{\mathrm {d}} + 2(k-1)c - x_k, \end{aligned}$$
(3)
where \(x_k\) is the total upstream displacement of a cluster of k droplets during formation prior to droplet \(k+1\) joining the cluster.
For a cluster of k droplets (\(k\ge 2\)) to coalesce with the next droplet, the distance separating the front of the inner joining droplet from the rear of the cluster is \(d_{\mathrm {crit}}+c\). The cluster is displaced by an approximate fraction 1/k of this distance because its length is approximately k-times that of a single drop and viscous resistance to the motion scales with the length of the cluster. Thus, we have
$$\begin{aligned} x_k=(d_{\mathrm {crit}}+c)\sum _{i=2}^{k}\frac{1}{i}, \end{aligned}$$
(4)
which yields
$$\begin{aligned} d_{\mathrm {d},k}= k\, d_{\mathrm {d}}+(2k-1)c+d_{\mathrm {crit}}-(d_{\mathrm {crit}}+c)\sum _{i=1}^{k}\frac{1}{i} \end{aligned}$$
(5)
We used Eq. (5) to calculate the number of droplets per cluster by determining the smallest value of k for which the inequality \(d_{\mathrm {d},k}>d_{\mathrm {crit}}\) was satisfied. In this case, the next droplet in the sequence would not join the cluster and thus k was the cluster size. We explored parameter values representative of the experiments by varying the upstream droplet length and the inter-drop distance. Based on our experimental measurements, we imposed constant values for the coating thickness parameter c and \(d_{\mathrm {crit}}\) (see Table 2) while values for \(l_{\mathrm {d}}\) and \(v_{\mathrm {d}}/v_{\mathrm {u}}\) were provided by the fits to the experimental data shown in Fig. 6.
Table 2 Experimental values of the critical distance for coalescence and the coating thickness used in the predictions of Fig. 8 Cluster size as function of inter-drop distance and length
The results from 184 experiments performed in microchannels with \(\alpha = {2.0}\), 1.7 and 1.5 are summarised in Fig. 8a–c, with phase diagrams showing different cluster sizes as a function of inter-drop distance and droplet length. The number of droplets per cluster is indicated by coloured numbers in (a). The coloured bands correspond to predictions of the toy model discussed in Sect. 3.2.
The variation of inter-drop distance appears to dominate the selection of the cluster size, although this is also the experimental parameter for which we can access the largest span as discussed in Sect. 2.3. Overall, the number of droplets per cluster increases as the inter-droplet distance decreases. For \(\alpha =2.0\) (a) and \(\alpha =1.7\) (b), experimental results are grouped by cluster size with each colour occupying distinct simply-connected regions of the parameter plane. For \(\alpha =1.5\) (c), the regions occupied by red and green symbols overlap but the trend remains similar overall. Outliers (e.g., red circles in the green region and green circles in the red region) correspond to droplets with either very thin or thick coating, for which the value of \(d_{\mathrm{crit}}\) is likely to differ. The multicoloured symbols correspond to individual experiments where multiple cluster sizes occurred—the pie chart colouring of the circle indicates the fraction of experiments yielding each cluster size. These mostly occur at the boundaries between regions corresponding to different cluster sizes.
Decreasing the expansion factor compresses the phase diagrams to span a smaller range of inter-drop distances. For example, for \(d_\mathrm {u}/h_\mathrm {u}={1.2}\), clusters of 4 were obtained for \(\alpha =2\), clusters of 2 for \(\alpha =1.7\) and for \(\alpha =1.5\) a single-droplet train was retained downstream of the expansion. This is because the smaller expansions are associated with a smaller drop in velocity downstream of the expansion, thus requiring more closely spaced droplets upstream of the expansion for a droplet to catch up with a cluster to within \(d_{\mathrm{crit}}\). This compression of the phase diagram was accompanied by a reduction in the maximum cluster size that could be formed in a regular train downstream of the expansion when \(\alpha\) was reduced, e.g., four droplets for \(\alpha =1.5\).
Model predictions compare favourably with the experiments in Fig. 8 where each coloured band indicates the parameter region where the model predicts a specific number of droplets per cluster. The model exhibits a similar dependence of the cluster size on the inter-drop distance as in the experiments, with larger clusters formed as the inter-drop distance decreases. However, it does not predict a limit to cluster sizes in contrast with the experiments, where cluster sizes containing more than \(6,\; 5\) and 4 droplets for \(\alpha =2.0,\; 1.7\) and 1.5, respectively, did not form consistently and were typically replaced by continuous clusters. In the model, the bands containing each cluster size narrow with increasing number of droplets per cluster to span intervals of inter-drop distance on the same order as the experimental fluctuations. We hypothesise that this prevents the formation of regular clusters and instead promotes continuous clusters. Furthermore, a reduction in the expansion factor limits the maximum cluster size observed because of the decrease in velocity contrast across the expansion, which means that the formation of large clusters requires smaller inter-drop distances that are more strongly affected by experimental fluctuations or cannot be realised at all without coalescence in the upstream channel. This is the case, for example, of the green data point in Fig. 8c at \(l_{\mathrm {u}}/h_{\mathrm {u}}=1.65\) and \(d_{\mathrm {u}}/h_{\mathrm {u}}=0.11\), for which coalescence happened in the inlet channel and which was included in the diagram to illustrate this phenomenon. We ascribe the increasing discrepancy for larger groups at \(\alpha =2\) to the sensitivity of the velocity ratio to droplet size variations for small droplets.