See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237725065

Identification of Bingham fluid flow parameters using a simple squeeze test

Article  in  Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics · April 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.jnnfm.2005.12.001

CITATIONS READS

33 345

3 authors:

N. Roussel Christophe Lanos

Université Gustave Eiffel Université de Rennes 1
162 PUBLICATIONS   6,049 CITATIONS    248 PUBLICATIONS   1,616 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zahia Toutou
Saint-Gobain Weber
15 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ISOBIO Project View project

Particular microstructure of Gypsum based materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zahia Toutou on 13 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7

Identification of Bingham fluid flow parameters using a simple squeeze test

Nicolas Roussel a,∗ , Christophe Lanos b , Zahia Toutou a
aDivision B.C.C., Laboratoire central des Ponts et Chaussées, 58, boulevard Lefèbvre, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France
b Laboratoire Génie Civil Génie Mécanique, I.N.S.A., 20 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes, CS 14315, 35043 Rennes Cedex, France
Received 17 January 2003; received in revised form 7 November 2005; accepted 4 December 2005

Abstract
Squeeze flow of a Bingham fluid between two parallel plates is studied by means of a variational approach [K.J. Zwick, P.S. Ayyaswamy, I.M.
Cohen, Variational analysis of the squeezing flow of a yield stress fluid, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 63 (1996) 179–199.]. The trial velocity
field consists of a central region of pure extensional flow, mid-way between the plates, and sheared regions adjacent to the plates. The width of the
region of extensional flow is chosen to minimise an energy dissipation functional. The analysis assumes that the separation of the plates is small
compared to the plate radius, and the predictions are compared with those of previously published analyses.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Squeeze test; Bingham fluid; Squeezing flow paradox; Variational approach; Extensional flow

1. Introduction
Squeeze tests are often used in practice as a straightforward
technique to determine the flow properties of highly concen-
trated suspensions such as concrete, molten polymers, ceramic
pastes, etc. Most of those materials behave as highly viscous or
quasi-plastic fluids and can be described as Bingham fluids as a
first approximation. The maximum particle size and the sliding
behaviour at the interface of such materials prevent the use of
any traditional viscometric tests (coaxial cylinders or cone-plate
apparatus for instance).
In this work, several assumptions on the flow pattern allows
the generation of a kinematically admissible velocity field in
terms of a parameter β, in respect to which a functional is min-
imised, using the fact that the upper and lower bounds of this
functional are converging for small disc separation. The com-
pression load is calculated from the dissipation inside the sample
and the obtained solution is compared with the literature.
2. Description of the squeeze test
The squeeze test is a simple compression test (plastometer
test) carried out on cylindrical samples with reduced slender-
ness. This apparatus consists in two coaxial circular parallel
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nicolas.roussel@lcpc.fr (N. Roussel).
plates, without any rotation. The upper disc can be displaced at
controlled constant velocity, while the lower one remains sta-
tionary. The squeezing of the sample between the two plates
induces a radial and axial flow. R is the radius of the plates,
h the height of the sample, F the compression load applied on
the plates and c is the compression speed (Fig. 1). The tested
material fills permanently the area between the plates. In the
following, we will speak of large and small h/R ratios. However,
it has to be noted that both small and large h/R ratios are smaller
than 1. The assumption that the thickness of the sample is small
compared to its radius is always assumed to be fulfilled.
The roughness of the plates can be also a test parameter. Use
of rough plates imposes a sticking flow; the no-slip boundary
condition is assumed to be fulfilled. On the other hand, in the case
of smooth plates, the material can slip along the solid surface.
Only rough plates and sticking flows are considered in this work.
3. Behaviour law
The yield criterion used in the Bingham behaviour law in
this study is the von Mises yield criterion [1]. It writes in three
dimensions and in the case of an axi-symmetric flow:
When
1 (d) 2 (d) 2 2
2 (σrr ) + 21 (σθθ ) + 21 (σzz
(d) ) + (σ )2 < K 2
rz i (1)
there is no velocity gradient in the sample.

0377-0257/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jnnfm.2005.12.001
2 N. Roussel et al. / J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7

where in the case of a Bingham viscoplastic fluid P,

Nomenclature
Ki
c compression speed 2f (I2 ) = √ (4)
I2 + 2η
Dij strain rate tensor
F compression force here Dij is the rate of strain tensor and I2 the second invariant of
F* reduced force, F* = −Fh/πR3 the rate of strain tensor. η is the plastic viscosity.
g global Bingham number, g = ηcR/Ki h2 Lipscomb and Denn [2] argue that, in general, complex flows
h sample height cannot admit unyielded zones and that, in the present case, the
I2 second invariant of the strain rate tensor whole of the fluid has to yield. It has been shown recently (Smyr-
Jv functional associated to the flow naios and Tsamopoulos [3], Matsoukas and Mitsoulis [4]) that
Ki plastic yield value some unyielded zones can exist around stagnation points. In the
R plates radius present work, the von Mises yield criterion is assumed to be ful-
V sample volume filled everywhere in the sample. As a consequence, there is no
z0 boundary between the two flowing zones plug flow and the unyielded zones are neglected. We will come
z0 = βh/2 back to this point in Section 6.

Greek symbols 4. Three-dimensional yield criterion

β non-dimensional parameter describing the
position of the boundary between the two flowing As noted by Wilson [5], there is an immediate difficulty con-
zones cerning the existence of yield surfaces in the material itself,
Γ energy function linked to the behaviour law which has caused some disagreement in the literature. A com-
(cf. Eq. (7)) mon assumption made while studying a squeezing flow is that
η plastic viscosity h/R is small. This led numerous authors (Scott [6] for power
(d)
σij stress tensor deviatoric part law fluids, Covey and Stanmore [7] for viscoplastic fluids or
Sherwood et al. [8] in his earlier work on non-homogeneous
yield stress fluids) to make the usual approximations of lubri-
When cation theory. The predominant stress tensor component is then
the shear stress σ rz . This approach is mono-dimensional and the
1 (d) 2 (d) 2 2
2 (σrr ) + 21 (σθθ ) + 21 (σzz
(d) ) + (σ )2 ≥ K 2
rz i (2) constitutive behaviour law becomes:
∂Vr
there is a velocity gradient. Here Ki is the yield stress. σrr
(d) , σ ,
θθ
(d)
|σrz | > Ki → σrz = 2η + Ki (5a)
∂z
σzz and σ rz are the components of the stress tensor deviatoric
(d)

part. ∂Vr
|σrz | < Ki → =0 (5b)
If (2) is true, the following general form of the behaviour law ∂z
is then used, under the assumption of an incompressible body.
where Vr is the radial flow velocity.
It links the stress tensor deviatoric part and the strain rate tensor
This simplification eases the analytic treatment of the flow
via a scalar function of the second invariant of the rate of strain
but, as a direct consequence, a paradox appears on the mid-plane.
tensor:
By symmetry, the shear stress falls to zero at z = 0. According to
(d)
σij = 2f (I2 )Dij (3) the previous behaviour law, the plastic criterion is not fulfilled
and the fluid must move as a rigid plug. But, at the same time,
the gap between the plates is being narrowed and the fluid has to
yield even on the mid-plane. The plug must therefore deform and
the solution is inconsistent. It should be noted that, even if the
obtained flow field is kinematically inconsistent, the expression
for the compression force in terms of the geometric configura-
tion of the test agrees well with the experimental values on a
variety of yield stress fluids. In fact, while integrating the com-
pression force, any error in the calculated flow field is averaged
and the overall energy dissipation stays in reasonable bounds. As
an alternative, Wilson [5] approximates the behaviour law by a
biviscosity equation. The Bingham model is then approached as
a limit of the biviscosity model. However, this alternative method
is only a way to avoid the paradox in the particular case of the
Bingham fluid. In the more general case, the inconsistency in the
calculated velocity fields is explained by the fact that the lubri-
Fig. 1. Squeeze test geometry. cation analysis only allows a one-dimensional yield criterion to
 N. Roussel et al. / J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7
be specified. Adams et al. [9] can be quoted: “A comprehensive
yield criterion is one which is based upon a combination of all
of the acting components of the stress”. Let us come back now
to the squeeze flow paradox but, this time, let us use the three-
dimensional expression of the von Mises yield criterion (2). The
symmetry imposes that there is a zone around the mid-plane
where the shear stress falls to zero. Eq. (2) then becomes:
If
1 (d) 2 (d) 2 2 invariant of the strain rates tensor:
2 (σrr ) + 21 (σθθ ) + 21 (σzz
(d) ) ≥ K 2
i √
there is a velocity gradient.
The previously neglected stress tensor components σrr (d) , σ (d)
and σzz allow the criterion to be fulfilled even on the axis. There
(d)
is no rigid plug. The fluid is yielding everywhere in the sample
as assumed in the present study. More recently, Sherwood and
Durban [10] have carried out a rigorous three-dimensional stress
analysis for generalised non-Newtonian fluids, including a Bing-
ham fluid, under slip wall boundary conditions. The present work
also follows a three-dimensional approach to a Bingham fluid
squeeze flow but under no-slip wall boundary conditions. A vari-
ational principle is used to obtain an appropriate approximated
solution.
5. Variational analysis
Using a variational principle which focuses on the rate of
energy dissipation within the control volume bounds a func-
tional, which is related to the energy of the flow. This principle
was initially applied by Prager [11] to slow Bingham fluids flow
and was then extended by Johnson [12] to creeping flows of
non-Newtonian fluids. Yoshioka and Adachi [13] showed that
this principle was applicable for fully yielded flow of yield stress
fluids.
Let us consider a control volume V, with a surface S divided
into a velocity boundary Sv and a traction boundary St . A bound-
ary value problem for the steady, inertialess flow of an incom-
pressible non-Newtonian fluid can be written [14]:
On Sv , U = Vsv
(d)
On St , n · (σij − pI) = t
(d)
In V, ∇ · (σij − pI) − f = 0
and
∇ ·U=0
f is the body force per unit volume, p the pressure, U the flow
velocity, Vsv the velocity imposed on Sv , t the imposed traction
on St and n is the unit outward normal on S. There exists strict
upper and lower bounds for the following functional, which is
directly linked to the total volumetric dissipation rate:



Jv = Γ dV − (t · U)dS (7)
V St
3
where Γ is an energy function defined by the following relation:
(d) ∂Γ
σij = (8)
∂Dij
In the squeeze flow geometry studied here, St is the free surface
at the periphery of the squeezing test. Boundary conditions are
t = 0 on St . For a Bingham fluid, the Γ function can be written
using the behaviour laws (3) and (4) in terms of the second
Γ = 2ηI2 + 2Ki I2 (9)
Zwick et al. [14] found that the lower and upper bounds of the
θθ
functional Jv associated with the flow of an Herschel–Bulkley
fluid converge (minimum principle for strain and maximum prin-
ciple for stress) for large values of a non-dimensional parameter
that reduces in the case of a Bingham fluid to:
3Fh
ĥ = (10)
2πKi R3
At the end of the test, for small h/R, the strain rate increases.
The viscous stress terms dominate the yield stress terms and the
magnitude of Eq. (10) becomes increasingly great. As the two
bounds of the functional converge for small h/R, it is not of any
interest from a practical point of view to determine both of them
in order to analyse the flow when the film thickness is small
compared to the radius of the plates. Knowing the difficulty of
finding a stress field that satisfies both the stress boundaries and
the equilibrium equations, only the upper bound of the func-
tional is calculated in the present study. The minimum principle
for strain is used to obtain an appropriate approximation of the
problem solution. A necessary step is then to find a velocity
field that satisfies the boundary conditions and the equation of
incompressibility.
6. Bingham fluid flow
The volume between the plates can be divided in two zones:
(6a) • Zone 1: the plastic criterion is reached and overcome. Shear
flow occurs in this zone.
(6b) • Zone 2: the plastic criterion is reached and the shear stress
equals zero. This zone must include the mid-plane. The flow
(6c) in this zone is extensional.
Analysing the flow pattern, zone 1 appears to be located close
to the plates where the shear stress is higher. It can be noted here
(6d) that, although plug flow cannot exist on the plane of symmetry
as shown in Section 4, some unyielded zones such as the ones
numerically predicted by Smyrnaios and Tsamopoulos [3] may
appear. These zones exist around the two stagnation points of
flow at the center of disks and cover a fraction of the axis of
symmetry. In order to simplify our chosen velocity field, we
choose here to neglect these unyielded zones and assume that
the von Mises yield criterion is fulfilled everywhere. However,
we will come back on this point in Section 9 to show that the
velocity field obtained by Smyrnaios and Tsamopoulos taking
4 N. Roussel et al. / J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7

into account these unyielded zones is probably closer to the real

velocity field. In the central zones, a predominantly extensional
flow is noted by Lanos [15].
In zone 2, the following boundary conditions and equations
must be fulfilled.
Vz (r, z = 0) = 0 (11)
The mass balance equation under the assumption of an incom-
pressible body becomes;
∂Vz ∂Vr Vr Fig. 2. Zones separation in the proposed velocity field.
=− − (12)
∂z ∂r r
and the shear stress and the associated strain rate equal zero: In zone 1, for 0 ≤ z ≤ βh/2,
  3cr
1 ∂Vz ∂Vr Vr (r, z) = (18a)
+ =0 (13) 2h(β + 2)
2 ∂r ∂z
One trivial solution for this type of extensional flow is, Sherwood 3cz
Vz (r, z) = − (18b)
and Durban [10], Lanos [15], Roussel [16]: h(β + 2)
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
Vr (r, z) A1 r In zone 2, for βh/2 ≤ z ≤ h/2,
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Vθ (r, z) ⎠ = ⎝ 0 ⎠ (14) 3cr(4z2 − 4βhz + h2 (2β − 1))
Vz (r, z) −2A1 z Vr (r, z) = − (19a)
2h3 (β3 − 2β + 2)
A1 is a parameter depending on the test geometry, the plastic c(8z3 − 12βhz2 + 6h2 z(2β − 1) − β3 h3 )
viscosity and the plastic yield value. Vz (r, z) = (19b)
2h3 (β3 − 2β + 2)
In zone 1, close to the plates, the following boundary condi-
tions and equations must be fulfilled: This velocity field is of course not the exact solution of the
  problem. It is a kinematically admissible velocity field less
h
Vr r, z = =0 (15) inconsistent than the ones obtained using a one-dimensional
2 analysis but it is still an approximation of the exact flow field.
 
h c This speed field is however similar to the one obtained numer-
Vz r, z = = (16) ically by Adams et al. [9]. It presents a central zone with a flat
2 2
radial velocity profile surrounded by two zones where the dom-
The mass balance equation is identical to Eq. (12). By an inant strain rate is the component Drz .
analogy with a simple Newtonian fluid flow, an approximation
of the solution of the mass balance equation is given by Lanos
7. Minimum principle for strain
[15] for a Bingham fluid. This solution can be considered as a
generalised Stefan [17] solution:
At this stage, the parameter β is still unknown and a family
⎛ ⎞
Vr (r, z) of velocity fields may be generated by varying β. Amongst this
⎜ ⎟ family, one velocity field is the closest to the actual flow field.
⎝ Vθ (r, z) ⎠
This particular flow field minimises the functional defined in
Vz (r, z) Section 5. β is then the free parameter with respect to which
⎛      ⎞ we will minimise the functional Jv calculated over the volume
h2 h
⎜ A2 z2 − + A3 z− r ⎟ πR2 h:
⎜ 4 2 ⎟


=⎜
⎜ 0 ⎟
⎟
√ √
⎝ ⎠ Jv = 2ηI2 + 2Ki I2 dV + 2ηI2 + 2Ki I2 dV
A2 3 A3 2 c zone 1 zone 2
− (h − 3h2 z + 4z3 ) + (h − 4hz + 4z2 ) − (20)
6 4 2
(17) Without going through all the minutiae, the value of the func-
A2 and A3 are parameters that depend on the test geometry, the tional is expressed in terms of β. If it is assumed that h  R, then,
plastic viscosity and the plastic yield value. Assuming such a conserving only the predominant terms R4 and R3 , the functional
flow pattern, zone 1 and zone 2 are then separated as shown in becomes:
Fig. 2.  
3ηcR2 2Ki R
At the boundary z = z0 = βh/2 with 0 ≤ β ≤ 1, the continuity Jv = + πcR2 (21)
h3 (1 − β)(β + 2)2 h(β + 2)
condition on axial and radial velocities and on their derivatives
must be fulfilled. By solving the continuity condition equations, This functional can be expressed in terms of the global Bingham
the velocity field then reduces to: number g = ηcR/Ki h2 which compares the magnitude of viscous
 N. Roussel et al. / J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7 5

and plastic forces [7]. The functional becomes:

 
3g 1 2πcKi R3
Jv = + (22)
2(1 − β)(β + 2)2 (β + 2) h

Differentiating (22), the β value that minimises Jv is one of the

three roots of the polynomial equation:

2β3 − 3β(3g + 2) + 4 = 0 (23)

As β must fulfil the geometrical condition 0 ≤ β ≤ 1, the solution

of the minimisation problem is
√

β = 2 (3g + 2)sin
⎛ ⎛ √  ⎞⎞
g
1 2 2(3g + 2) 3/2
(3g+2) 3
× ⎝ tan−1 ⎝
⎠⎠ (24)
3 3g (3g + 6g + 4)
2

The perfect plastic fluid is a particular case of the Bingham fluid Fig. 3. Fractures in the outcoming sample (clay paste).
with η → 0. In this case, the Bingham number g → 0 and β → 1.
The shearing flow zone disappears and the flow in the sample or, using Eq. (23) and the definition of the Bingham number:
is entirely extensional and sliding at the interface with a shear √
stress equal to the yield stress. On the other hand, the Newtonian 2πKi R2 (3 3β2 h + βR + 2R)
F =− (27)
viscous fluid is another particular case of the Bingham fluid 3βh(β + 2)
with Ki → 0. In this case, the Bingham number g → +∝ and
The load also depends on the yield stress and on the plastic
β → 0. The extensional flow zone disappears and the velocity
viscosity via the β parameter.
field calculated from (19a) and (19b) equals the theoretical flow
In the case of a perfect plastic fluid, β = 1 and η = 0, the force
field originally given by Stefan [17] for a Newtonian viscous
expression then becomes:
fluid.
2πKi R2 2πKi R3
F =− √ − (28)
8. Compression load 3 3h

Once the flow field is obtained, the constitutive law allows
the identification of the deviatoric part of the stress tensor. The
momentum equation gives the pressure gradient at the plate
interface. The compression load can then be integrated from
the pressure on the plates which is itself integrated from the
pressure gradient. But, as it will be shown in Section 9, there
has been disagreement about the stress boundary conditions at
the edge of sample (r = R). As a consequence, the integration of
the pressure gradient is not obvious. Most of the time, p(r = R,
z = h/2) = 0 is assumed but the pressure for r = R and z ≤ h/2 is
unknown. The stress in the outcoming sample that generates
the fractures shown in Fig. 3 is not taken into account in the
calculation.
In order to avoid any additional assumptions on the stress
boundary conditions, the value of the force acting on the plates
The first term is linked to the dissipation due to the extensional
flow whereas the second term is linked to the dissipation associ-
ated with the shear at the plate surface. The first term is generally
ignored by previous authors (Covey [18] or Lanos [19]) but is
taken in account by Adams et al. [9]. For perfect plastic fluid
flow, this term corresponds to p(r = R, z) = 0 and σrr (d) = 3−1/2 K
i
(effect of the traction in the outcoming sample). The load does
not depend on the compression speed. This was expected from
an analysis based upon plasticity theory. In the case of a plastic
fluid, Eq. (28) can be compared to the one obtained by Sher-
wood and Durban [10]. This expression is obtained imposing an
average boundary condition:

h/2
σrr dz = 0 at r = R (29)
−h/2

is calculated from the energy dissipation in the volume πR2 h.

31/2 Ki πR2 1/2 2πmKi R3
(d) F =− [(1 − m2 ) + m−1 A sin(m)] −
−cF = σij Dij dv = 4η(I2 )I2 dv (25) 2 3h
πR2 h πR2 h (30)
Once again, it is assumed that h  R. The terms in h2 are with m → 1 when the shear stress at the wall equals the yield
neglected and we obtain: stress. The ratio between the first terms in Eqs. (28), (30) and
√ (30 ) is 1.178. However, it has to be noted that this result cor-
6πηcR4 2πKi R2 ( 3βh + R)
F =− 3 − (26) responds to a material, which slips at the wall, with the shear
h (1 − β)(2 + β)2 h(β + 2) stress equal to the yield stress of the material and not to a no-slip
6 N. Roussel et al. / J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7

boundary condition, which is what “sticking” is usually taken
to mean.
On the other hand, using Eq. (26), in the case of a Newtonian
viscous fluid, β = 0 and Ki = 0 Pa, the load expression is equal to
the exact solution originally found by Stefan [17] with p(r = R,
term includes a correction due to the traction effect at r = R dur-
ing plastic
√ flow. With p(r = R) = 0, the correction term must be
2Ki h/ 3R.
Starting from the fixed plates case, Petrov [20] derived a solu-
tion suitable for Bingham number values g  1 (larger h/R):
z = h/2) = 0. 

4 4Rηc
3πηcR4 F = Fplast 1 + (34)
F =− (30 ) 5 Ki h 2
2h3
where Fplast is the compression force if the plastic viscosity
9. Comparison with previous solutions equals zero. This can be calculated using (27).
The solution obtained herein can be compared to these solu-
The following reduced parameters are more convenient to tions. As the compression force is calculated from the dissipation
represent the test results [19]; the reduced force F* = −Fh/πR3 and not from the pressure integration on the plates, there is no
and the geometrical ratio h/R. Using this representation, the need for a pressure boundary correction for the largest h/R (but
result for a perfect plastic fluid (Eq. (28) is a linear function still smaller than 1). The proposed solution is in good agreement
of the geometrical ratio h/R: with the corrected lubrication theory (Fig. 4) in the larger h/R
  range.
∗ 2Ki h 2Ki
F = √ + (31) The numerical simulations done by Matsoukas and Mitsoulis
3 R 3 [4] taking into account the unyielded regions confined near the
The lubrication theory, in the case of a Bingham fluid flow with center of the disks are also plotted. In the [0.01;0.1] h/R range,
a no-slip condition, gives for the compression force (Sherwood they gave the following approximation of their results:
and Durban [10]):   1.981   1.026 
ηcR2 h h
F= 1.282 1 + 1.238g (35)
2πKi R3 4πKi R3 h R R
F= + (2g)1/2 + O(g) (32)
3h 7h
For small h/R, when the viscous effects become predominant,
and the reduced force is a suitable solution should converge towards the purely viscous
  solution. This is the case for the solution obtained in this work
2Ki 4Ki ηcR 1/2
F∗ = + 2 for g  1 (33) and for Covey’s solution and the numerical results of Matsoukas
3 7h Ki
and Mitsoulis but not for the lubrication theory, Adams solution
Some corrections were made by Adams et al. [9] in order and Petrov solution. Among the three solutions that tend towards
to take into account the pressure boundary conditions at the the viscous theoretical solution, it can be noted that the numerical
edge. An additive term of order 31/2 Ki h/R appears in F* . This results obtained by Matsoukas and Mitsoulis give the lowest

Fig. 4. Comparison of various theoretical predictions of the reduced force F* = −Fh/πR3 . Compression speed = 2 mm/s, R = 0.05 m, Ki = 6.5 kPa, initial g value = 0.17
for h/R = 0.3.
 N. Roussel et al. / J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 135 (2006) 1–7
value of the compression force. As the compression speed is
constant, this means that this solution corresponds to the lowest
dissipation rate (Eq. (25)). We believe that this means that their
solution is the closest to the real velocity field.
10. Conclusion
An analytical solution of a Bingham fluid flow between two
parallel moving plates was determined. The solution obtained
is expressed in terms of compression load and plate separation
and is suitable for rapid identification of Bingham parameters
using the standard assumptions: the studied flow zone is limited
to the volume between the plates and the height of the sample is
assumed to be small compared to the plate radius.
This solution avoids the squeezing flow paradox by using
a three-dimensional approach and a three-dimensional formu-
lation of the yield criterion. This demonstrates the need to
study this type of flow using three-dimensional criteria even
if the problem symmetry and geometry tend to suggest a one-
dimensional approach. The final proposed flow field is a com-
bination of an extensional flow zone and a shear flow zone. The
thickness of the region of extensional flow is chosen to minimise
an energy dissipation functional.
Finally, the solution obtained was compared to the literature
and seems to be suitable to small and higher h/R ratios. It fulfils
two requirements: it tends towards the perfect plastic solution
for large h/R ratios and towards the Newtonian viscous solution
for small h/R ratios.
References
[1] R. von Mises, Mechanik der Plastichen Formänderung von Kristallen,
Z. Angew Math. Mech. 6 (1928).
[2] G.G. Lipscomb, M.M. Denn, Flow of Bingham fluids in complex geome-
tries, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 14 (1984) 337–346.
View publication stats
7
[3] D.N. Smyrnaios, J.A. Tsamopoulos, Squeeze flow of Bingham plastics,
J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 100 (2001) 165–190.
[4] A. Matsoukas, E. Mitsoulis, Geometry effects in squeeze flow of Bing-
ham Plastics, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 109 (2003) 231–240.
[5] S.D.R. Wilson, Squeezing flow of a Bingham material, J. Non-Newton.
Fluid Mech. 47 (1993) 211–219.
[6] J.R. Scott, Theory and application of the parallel-plate plastimeter, Trans.
Inst. Rubber Ind. 7 (1931) 169.
[7] G.H. Covey, B.R. Stanmore, Use of the parallel plate plastometer for
the characterisation of viscous fluids with a yield stress, J. Non-Newton.
Fluid Mech. 8 (1981) 249–260.
[8] J.D. Sherwood, G.H. Meeten, C.A. Farrow, N.J. Alderman, Squeeze-film
rheometry of non-uniform mudcakes, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 39
(1991) 311–334.
[9] M.J. Adams, I. Aydin, B.J. Briscoe, S.K. Sinha, A finite element analysis
of the squeeze flow of an elasto-viscoplastic paste material, J. Non-
Newton. Fluid Mech. 71 (1997) 41.
[10] J.D. Sherwood, D. Durban, Squeeze flow of a power-law viscoplastic
fluid, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 62 (1996) 35.
[11] W. Prager, Studies in Mathematics and Mechanics, R. von Mises Pre-
sentation Volume, Academic Press, New York, 1954, pp. 208–216.
[12] M.W.J.R. Johnson, On variational principles for non-Newtonians fluids,
Trans. Soc. Rheologie V (1961).
[13] N. Yoshioka, K. Adachi, On variational principles for a non Newtonian
fluids, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 4 (1971) 217.
[14] K.J. Zwick, P.S. Ayyaswamy, I.M. Cohen, Variational analysis of the
squeezing flow of a yield stress fluid, J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 63
(1996) 179–199.
[15] C. Lanos, Reverse identification method associate to compression test,
in: Proceedings of the XIIIth Int. Cong. on Rheol., vol. 2, Cambridge,
2000, pp. 312–314.
[16] N. Roussel, Analyse des écoulements de fluides homogènes complexes
et plastiques diphasiques: application à l’essai de compression simple,
PhD Thesis, I.N.S.A Rennes, France, 2001.
[17] M.J. Stefan, Akad. Wiss. Wien. Math-Natur. Klassa Abt. 2, 69, 1874.
[18] G.H. Covey, Application of the parallel plate plastometer to brown coal
rheometry, PhD Thesis, Melbourne University, 1977.
[19] C. Lanos, Méthode d’identification non-viscosimétrique de comporte-
ments de fluides, Thesis, I.N.S.A. Rennes France, 1993.
[20] A.G. Petrov, The plane problem of the extrusion of a viscoplastic
medium by parallel plates, J. Appl. Math. Mech. 62 (4) (1998) 565–573.