Analytic solutions of viscoelastic melt spinning equations with and without inertia

Renu Dhadwaland Santosh Kumar Kudtarkar Center for Mathematical modeling,

FLAME, India

Abstract We study the one-dimensional equations governing the formation of viscoelastic bres using Maxwell upper convected model as the constitutive equation. We nd analytic solutions and also the relation between the stress at the spinneret and the take-up velocity. We nd analytic solutions for the equations with and without inertia.

Keywords: Melt spinning, Maxwell model, viscoelasticity, analytic stationary solutions

Introduction

Melt-spinning is an important industrial process that has been studied widely in the past few years. There have been phenomenal advances in the mathematical modeling and simulation of melt spinning in recent times. However, it has been an uphill task to investigate the global solvability of these equations. Mechanics of steady state spinning was investigated rst by Matovich and Pearson [16] for viscous uid in elongational ow and then by Denn and Petrie [2] for viscoelastic uids. In recent times Hagen has studied forced

renu.dhadwal29@gmail.com, renu@flame.edu.in

elongation of viscous uids [10]. They have proved the existence of nonstationary solutons using semigroup theory. They have analysed in depth the local and global solvability of the viscous uid under forced elongation. Extensive studies have also been done on stability analysis of these equations ([12], [13],[14], [17] ). However these studies have been limited mainly to viscous uids. As for the non-stationary equations, stability of the spinning of viscoelastic bres has been investigated extensively by simulating the nonstationary equations and also be linearising and solving them numerically. Eects of various process conditions like spinline cooling, inertia and more recently crystallization on the spinning stability has also been investigated, ([19], [11]). However in this work we investigate the stationary melt spinning equations using the Maxwell constitutive equation. We consider the case with and without inertia. Neglecting gravity, surface tension and air drag in the momentum equation, we derive the expression for the analytic solution of the spinning equations. Usually, the boundary conditions prescribed are the diameter and velocity at the spinneret and the take-up velocity at the end of the bre. The boundary value problem is usually solved using a shooting method where the stress at the spinneret is guessed. From our analytic solution, we get the relation between the stress at the spinneret and the take-up velocity hence eliminating the need for shooting method to solve the BVP.

Description of the system

Several assumptions have been incorporated in the model. First, variation of the spinline variables across the cross section have been neglected in order to get a 1-d model (Matovich-Pearson equations). Force due to gravity, inertia, surface tension and force due to air drag have been neglected in the momentum equation. Radial stress variable is not considered. The isothernal process is considered thus neglecting the spinline cooling eects. The dimensionless transport equations governing the melt spinning process along with the Maxwell equation are given as follows.

a (av) + = 0 t z d(a ) = 0 dz 1 v 1 +v (2 + ) = t z De z De z = 0; a = 1 = v, z = 1; v = D > 1

(2.1) (2.2) (2.3) (2.4) (2.5)

V A V Here, a = A0 , v = V0 , t = TL 0 and z = Z . is the dimensionless stress variL L able where = 20 V0 , being the stress variable, 0 the zero shear viscosity. In the above, A is the spinline cross sectional area and a is the dimensionless A, V is the axial velocity and v the dimensionless V , V0 is the axial velocity at the spinneret, L is the length of the bre and T is the time. De represents the Deborah number. It is assumed that the uid is being extended downwards in the direction of increasing z. The ow domain has been normalised to the interval 0 z 1 with z = 0 denoting the spinneret and z = 1 denoting the point where the dimensionless take-up velocity D is imposed on the bre. The Giesekus model parameter is such that 0 < 1. We consider the stationary spinning equations and prove the following proposition.

Theorem 1. Eqs.(2.1)-(2.5) posess positive stationary solutions. For De > 0, v(z) is monotonically increasing z [0, 1] if and only if draw ratio D is 1 bounded such that 1 < D < 1 + De . Proof: Under the assumption of steady state, from Eqns (2.1) and (2.2) we readily obtain av = 1 a = 0 (D) (2.6) (2.7)

where 0 is the value of stress at the spinneret. This value is unknown and dependent on the draw ratio D. From the above equations we get = 0 (D)v. Substituting this in Eqn.(2.3) (without the time dependency), we get the following dierential equation in 3

variable v(z). dv (De v0 (D) + 1) = v0 (D) (2.8) dz Solving the above dierential equation and applying the boundary condition v(0) = 1, we get the solution in the following form. v(z) = exp(0 (D)(z + De De v(z)) Let g(v) = v(z) exp(0 (D)(z + De De v(z)) We observe that,
v0

(2.9)

lim g(v) = exp(0 (D)(z + De)) < 0 g(v) as v

This shows that the function g has atleast one zero in the domain [0 ). But before we can claim the existence of the solution to the spinning equations we need to prove that given D, 0 exists such that v(1) = D. For this we rst nd the relationship between 0 and D which is easily got by substituting the boundary condition v(1) = D in Eqn.(2.9). 0 = log D 1 + De(1 D) (2.10)

Therefore, for the value of 0 as given by Eq. (2.10), there exists atleast positive solution v(z) of the melt spinning equations satisfying the prescribed boundary conditions. v(z) is monotonically increasing i dv > 0. Dierentidz ating the solution (2.9) we get dv 0 v = dz 1 + 0 Dev > 0 0 > 0 From Eq.(2.10) we see that 0 > 0 1 < D < 1 1 + De . The above theorem gives us the proof for the existence of a meaningful solution. A negative stress is physically not feasible which would in turn give rise to a velocity that is monotonically decreasing which is again an industrialy irrelevant solution. By getting a bound for the draw ratio, which also tells us 4
dv dz

that the draw ratio cannot be taken to be arbitrarily large, we get physcially meaningful solutions of the melt spinning equations. A similar bound for the nbal velocity has been derives by Perera in [?]. Eq.(2.10) is an important one because it not only gives the relation between the stress at the spinneret and the take-up velocity, but furnishes other qualitative information too. For instance, by dierentiating 0 wrt De one can easily show that for > 0.5, 0 is a decreasing function of De meaning that the tension of the bre (a ) is a decreasing function of viscoelasticity for > 0.5 which as we shall see in the next section represent shear thinning uids. For < 0.5 (shear thickening uids) the tension is an increasing function of De. Later, we shall see that the spinline tension determines the stability of the spinning process.

Conclusion

We have furnished a mathematical study of the stationary viscoelastic melt spinning equations using the Giesekus constitutive equation. We have derived analytic solutions to these equations and also found the relation between the boundary conditions of stress at the spinneret and the take-up velocity. Further, we have also found analytically the value of the Giesekus model parameter for which the uid shows Newtonian behaviour and hence the transition from shear thickening to shear thinning behaviour. By simulating the non-stationary equations we study the the relation between the model parameter, viscoelasticity and bre stability. We nd that keeping De constant spinline tension is a decreasing function of implying that lower the value of the model parameter more stable is the spinning as reected by the increasing critical draw ratios. For shear thickening uids ( < 0.5) tension is an increasing function of De, implying stability with increasing viscoelasticity and for shear thinning uids ( > 0.5) tension is a decreasing function of De, implying decreasing stability with increasing viscoelasticity. To the knowledge of the authors, this is the rst time that analytic solutions to viscoelastic melt spinning equations have been furnished. The relation between the two boundary conditions is of importance since in more complicated models, while using the shooting method guessing the initial stress becomes challenging. We believe that the qualitative information that these results hold is of immense value to the understanding of the spinning equations. 5

References
[1] Cummings L and Howell P (1999) On the evolutions of nonaxissymetric viscous bers with surface tension inertia and gravity, J. Fluid. Mech. 389:361-389. [2] Denn M and Petrie C (1975), Mechanics of steady spinning of a viscoelastic liquid, AIChE Journal 21(4): 791-798 [3] Dewynne J,Ockendon J and Wilmott P (1989), On a mathematical model for ber tapering, Siam J. Appl Math 49(4)983-990 [4] Fisher R and Denn M, A theory of isothermal melt spinning and draw resonance (1976) AIChE J. 22: 236-246. [5] Forest M and Zhou H (2001), Unsteady analyses of thermal glass ber drawing process, Euro J of App Math. 12:479-496. [6] Forest M, Wang Q, and Bechtel S (1997), One-dimensional isothermal spinning models for liquid crystalline polymer bers, J. Rheology. 41(4): 821-850. [7] Gelder D (1971),The stability of ber drawing processes, Ind Eng Chem Fundam. 10: 534. [8] Geyling F and Homsy G (1980),Extensional instabilities of the glass ber drawing process. Glass Tech. 21: 95-102 [9] Gupta G and Schultz W (1998),Non-isothermal ows of a Newtonian slender glass bers. Int. J. Nonlinear Mech. 33: 151-163 [10] Hagen T and Renardy M (2001), Studies on the linear equtions of melt-spinning of viscous uids, Di Int Eqs.14: 19-36. [11] Hagen T (2002), Spinline cooling and surface tension in bre spinning Z. Angew Math Mech. 82: 545-558. [12] Hyun J (1978) Theory of draw resonance: I. Newtonian uids, AIChE J. 24:418. [13] Hyun J (1978) Theory of draw resonance: Part II. Power-law and Maxwell uids, AIChE J. 24:423. 6

[14] Kase S and Matsuo T (1965), Studies on melt spinning. I. Fundamental equations on the dynamics of melt spinnning, J Poly Sc Part A. 3: 2541-2554. [15] Lee J ,Jung H,Kim S and Hyun J (2001), Eect of uid viscoelasticity on draw resonance dynamics of melt spinning, J. Non-New. Fluid Mech. 99:159-166. [16] Matovich M and Pearson J (1969), Spinning a molten thread linesteady state isothermal viscous ows, Ind Eng Chem Funda 8: 512-519. [17] Shah Y and Pearson J (1972) On the stability of nonisothermal ber spinning, Eng Chem Fund. 11: 145-149. [18] Shah Y and Pearson J (1972b) On the stability of nonisothermal ber spinning-general case Ind Eng Chem Fund. 11: 150-153. [19] Shin D M, Lee J S, Jung H W and Hyun J C (2005), Analysis of the eect of ow-induced crystallization on the stability of low-speed spinning using linear stabolity method, Korea-Australia Rheology Journal,17(2): 63-69