THE PHYSICS OF FOAM. Boulder School for Condensed Matter and Materials Physics. July 1-26, 2002: Physics of Soft Condensed Matter. 1.

Transcription

1 THE PHYSICS OF FOAM Boulder School for Condensed Matter and Materials Physics July 1-26, 2002: Physics of Soft Condensed Matter 1. Introduction Formation Microscopics 2. Structure Experiment Simulation 3. Stability Coarsening Drainage 4. Rheology Linear response Rearrangement & flow Douglas J. DURIAN UCLA Physics & Astronomy Los Angeles, CA

2 Princen-Prud homme model shear a 2D honeycomb, always respecting Plateau s rules deformation is not affine: vertices must rotate to maintain stress, σ slope, G o etc. γ film a γ y strain, γ shear modulus: G o = γ film /Sqrt[3]a yield strain: γ y = 1.2

3 Yes, but Princen-Prud homme is for 2D periodic static dry foam dimensionality? generally expect G ~ Laplace pressure (surface tension/bubble size) wetness? shear modulus must vanish for wet foams dissipation? nonzero strainrate or oscillation frequency? disorder? smaller rearrangement size (not system)? smaller yield strain?

4 small-strain non-affine motion bubble motion is up & down as well as more & less (DJD) compare bonds and displacements (normalized to affine expectation) trends vs polydisersity and wetness width=0.75 width=0.1 φ=0.84 φ=1

5 Frequency dependence, G*(ω) Simplest possibility: Kelvin solid G*(ω) = G 0 + iηω {i.e. G (ω) = G 0 and G (ω) = ηω} But typical data looks much different: G (ω) isn t flat, and increases at high ω G (ω) doesn t vanish at low ω (A. Saint-Jalmes & DJD)

6 High-ω rheology Due to non-affine motion, another term dominates: G*(ω) = G 0 (1 + Sqrt[iω/ω c ]) ** shown by dotted curve for ε=0.08 foam: (A.D. Gopal & DJD) NB: This gives a robust way to extract the shear modulus from G*(ω) vs ω data. Here G o = 2300 dyne/cm 2 [**seen and explained by Liu, Ramaswamy, Mason, Gang, Weitz for compressed emulsion using DWS microrheology]

7 long-τ: rearrangements give exponential decay Short-τ DWS short-τ: thermal interface fluctuations (Y=< r 2 (τ)>) amplitude of fluctuations: microrheology: G o δ = 13± 3 angstroms kbt 1000 ± 300 dyne/cm Rδ 2 2

8 Unjamming vs gas fraction Data for shear modulus: symbols: polydisperse foam solid curve: monodisperse emulsion (Mason & Weitz) dashed curve: polydisperse emulsion (Princen & Kiss) (A. Saint-Jalmes & DJD) Couette cell cone-plate G (dyn/cm 2 ) G / (σ/r) φ polydispersity makes little or no difference! unjammed jammed

9 Behavior near the transition simulation of 2D bubble model (DJD) x20 polydisperse bubbles G width shear modulus Z coordination number better point J statistics by O Hern, Langer, Liu, Nagel 4 3 τ r φ stressrelaxation time τ r appears to diverge at φ rcp ~0.84

10 Unjamming vs time elasticity vanishes at long times stress relaxes as the bubbles coarsen time scale is set by foam age ie how long for size distribution to change not set by the time between coarsening-induced rearrangements (20s) (A.D. Gopal & DJD) Even though this is not a thermally activated mechanism like diffusion or reptation, the rheology is linear G * (ω) and G(t) date are indeed related by Fourier transform

11 Unjamming vs shear make bubbles rearrange & explore packing configurations slow shear: sudden avalanche-like rearrangements of a few bubbles at a time fast shear: rearrangements merge together into continuous smooth flow slow & jerky fast & smooth

12 Rearrangement sizes even the largest are only a few bubbles across picture of a very large event distribution of energy drops (before-after) has a cutoff {but it moves out on approach to φ c point J }

13 NB: shear deformation is uniform uniform shear-band exponential UCLA: direct observation of free surface in Couette cell viscosity and G*(ω) are indep. of sample thickness & cell geometry DWS gives expected decay time in transmission and backscattering viscous fingering morphology Hohler / Cohen-Addad lab (Marne-la-Vallee): multiple light scattering and rheology Dennin lab (UC Irvine): 2D bubble rafts and lipid monolayers Weitz lab (Exxon/Penn/Harvard): Rheology of emulsions Computer simulations: bubble model (DJD-Langer-Liu-Nagel) Surface evolver (Kraynik) 2D (Weaire) vertex model (Kawasaki)

14 important scales notation: τ oq : τ d : γ y : γ c = γ y γ = γ m y τ τ oq d : : time between coarsening - induced rearrangments duration of rearrangement events yield strain whether coarsening - or shear - induced rearrangements dominate whether rearrangements are smooth or avalanche- like values for Foamy: τ oq = 20s τ d = 0.1s γ y = 0.05 γ c = 0.003/ s γ = 0.5 / s m

15 bubble motion via DWS 1 low shear high shear (a) 1 (a) (b) (A.D. Gopal & DJD) g 1 (τ) s -1 g 1 (τ) s s s -1. γ = 0.02 s τ (sec) s -1 g1( τ ) exp 6 L l * τ o = time between rearrangements at each scattering site 2 τ τ o τ s = 30 kl * Ýγ s s -1 γ = 0.02 s τ 2 τ (sec) 2 ) g1( τ ) exp 6 L l * time for adjacent scattering sites to convect apart by λ 2 τ τ s 2

16 DWS times vs strainrate behavior changes at expected strainrate scales (A.D. Gopal & DJD) rate constant (sec -1 ) /τ 0 1/τ s. γ c = γ y /τ 0q. γ m = γ y /τ d strain rate (1/s) discrete rearrangements jammed/solid-like laminar bubble motion unjammed/liquid-like

17 Rheological signature? simplest expectation is Bingham plastic: σ = σ 1 + γτ γ and hence η = σ 1 γ + 1. y ( ) ( γ ) but 1/γ isn t seen in either data or bubble-model: no real signature of γ m in data d y. y (A.D. Gopal & DJD) m

18 Superimpose step-strain! Stress jump and relaxation time both measure elasticity 2 Stress (dyne/cm ) 2 ) Strain Strain G(0) strain rate = 0.01/s γ =0.09 τ R t (s) transient relaxation shear modulus

19 bubble motion vs rheology All measures of elasticity vanish at same point where rearrangements merge together into continuous flow unjamming shear rate = yield strain / event duration G(0,γ) [dyne/cm 2 ] τ R [sec] (c). γ =γ /τ m y d τ 0 τ S -1/2 shear rate [1/sec] This completes the connection between bubble-scale and macroscopic foam behavior

20 We ve now seen three ways to unjam a foam ie for bubbles to rearrange and explore configuration space Jamming vs liquid fraction (gas bubble packing) vs time (as foam coarsens) vs shear Trajectories in the phase diagram? does shear play role of temperature? (A.J. Liu & S.R. Nagel)

21 Three effective temperatures Compressibility & pressure fluctuations κ S 1 = A T Viscosity & shear stress fluctuations Heat capacity & energy fluctuations ( p p )2 η = A T dt σ xy (t)σ xy (0) 0 U T = 1 T 2 (I.K. Ono, C.S O Hern, DJD, S.A. Langer, A.J. Liu, S.R. Nagel) ( U U ) 2 c T s all reduce to (ds/du) -1 for equilibrated thermal systems What is their value & shear rate dependence; are they equal? Difficult to measure, so resort to simulation

22 The three T eff s agree! N=400 bubbles in 2D box at φ=0.90 area fraction T eff approaches constant at zero strain rate T eff increases very slowly with strain rate T bidisperse T p T xy T U T polydisperse γ.

23 also agree with T=(dS/dU) -1 Monte-Carlo results for Ω(U), the probability for a randomly constructed configuration to have energy U 0 log 10 (Ω) S= N= T S T U from shearing runs TU T U =U/0.65N =U/(f/2)N U/N For this system, the effective temperature has all the attributes of a true statistical mechanical temperature.

24 Mini-conclusions Statistical Mechanics works for certain driven athermal systems, unmodified but for an effective temperature When does stat-mech succeed & what sets the value of T eff? Elemental fluidized bed (R.P. Ojha, DJD) upflow of gas: many fast degrees of freedom, constant-temperature reservoir Uniformly sheared foam (I.K. Ono, C.S O Hern, DJD, S.A. Langer, A.J. Liu, S.R. Nagel) neighboring bubbles: many configurations with the same topology In general Perhaps want fluctuations to dominate the dissipation of injected energy? When does stat-mech fail & what to do then? eg anisotropic velocity fluctuations in sheared sand eg P(v)~Exp[-v 3/2 ] in shaken sand eg flocking in self-propelled particles

25 Thank you for your interest in foam! THE END.