Example 112

EXAMPLE 112
EFFECTS OF SLIPPING ALONG SCREWS AND BACK PRESSURE ON
ENERGY DISSIPATION AND BACKFLOWS IN A TWIN SCREW EXTRUDER

DESCRIPTION

In the present case, we aim at simulating the non-isothermal flow of a polymer melt in a
portion of a twin-screw extruder, under realistic flow and thermal conditions. In particular,
the screws are rotating at an angular velocity of 60 rpm, while a counter pressure is imposed
at the exit section. A realistic rheological behaviour is selected for the fluid, which match that
of a typical polymer, with a viscosity which depends on both shear-thinning and temperature.
Eventually, slipping boundary condition will be applied on the screw wall.

With such a setup, we observe a significant backflow: at both entry and exit sections, melt
enters and leaves the flow domain. Backflows at an entry or exit can hinder the computation
of a non-isothermal flow; if care is not taken when defining the temperature boundary
condition: a specific temperature boundary condition will be used in the present application.

Fig. 1. Flow domain: velocity vectors obtained for a maximum tangential force density of
1000 Pa, under a counter pressure of 0.3 bars. Inlet and outlet sections of the flow domain are
respectively located at the bottom and the top.

January 2017 112.1 Release 18.0

 Example 112

KEYWORDS

mesh superposition technique, non-isothermal flow, twin screw extruder, backflow, incoming
fluid temperature condition, slipping along screw, energy dissipation, viscous heating

FILENAMES

twin.msh, twin_back.dat, twin_back.cons, twin_back.lst, twin_back.res, ...

NEW CONCEPT

Backflows in a non-isothermal flow

When we simulate the flow of a part of an actual flow domain (e.g. a section of a twin screw
extruder containing a few screw pitches), it may happen that fluid enters and exits entry
and/or exit sections of the current computational flow domain. For an isothermal simulation,
no specific treatment is needed. But the case may become more challenging, if the simulation
is non-isothermal. Indeed, selecting the usual “outflow” thermal condition on the outlet
section may generate unrealistic temperature distribution, and in some difficult cases, the
simulation can diverge. The problem comes from the nature of the energy equation with a
non-zero convective term Cp v.grad(T): in order to have a well posed simulation case, one
should impose the temperature at the locations on the boundaries where the fluid enters the
domain. The usual “outflow” thermal condition does not match that requirement. Invoking
the “temperature imposed” condition would fix temperature on the entire outlet section and
thus also at locations where the melt exits the domain; this would introduce too much
constraints on the temperature field and it could also generate numerical difficulties.

In order to circumvent these problems, we invoke a specific thermal boundary condition,

named “incoming fluid temperature”. The purpose of this condition is the following: for
nodes with a velocity exiting the flow domain, no condition is imposed (identical to an
“outflow” condition). But for nodes with an entering velocity, temperature will be imposed
via a penalty technique. A large penalty coefficient is required to ensure that the local
temperature is close to the prescribed one. But, the numerical system can become ill-
conditioned; hence an evolution on the penalty coefficient can be needed to reach a solution.
Moreover, adding an evolution on the parameter(s) generating the backflow can also be
useful. This last approach is followed in this example: we apply an evolution on the counter
pressure imposed at the outlet section of the flow domain. Indeed, the higher the counter
pressure, the larger the backflow.

Note 1: “upwinding” on the energy equation is needed to avoid spurious wiggles which may
develop when transport is important in the energy equation.

January 2017 112.2 Release 18.0

 Example 112

Note 2: as we have also a mix of entering and exiting velocities in the inlet section of the flow
domain, the “incoming fluid temperature” condition will be also used at the inlet.

Slip along moving part

Along the surface of moving parts, we can impose a velocity or a slipping condition. Within
the context of mesh superposition technique (MST), slipping is introduced via an expression
that is nearly equivalent to the asymptotic law, i.e. it involves an upper bound to the actual
tangential or shear stress.

Power consumption

In the flow of a highly viscous material, energy dissipation is an important contribution in the
energy equation. The dissipation originates from the viscous heating (i.e. work of internal
forces) and from the work of slipping force. In the specific context of MST simulation, both
contributions cannot be separately identified. However, the calculation and the values
reported account for the slipping along screws. Although the present case will be defined for
a specific slippage condition, calculations will be performed for different values of the upper
bound of the tangential stress, and corresponding results will be shown.

SYSTEM OF UNITS

Millimeter-gram-second-Celsius.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Fluid model: Gen. Newtonian non-isothermal flow problem.

- Viscosity:
Shear rate dependency: Bird-Carreau law:
Fac = 1000 [g/mm s]
Tnat =1 [s]
Expo = 0.4 [-]
Facinf = 0 [g/mm s]
Temperature dependency: approximate Arrhenius law:
Alfa = 2.5 10-3 [1/°C]
Talfa = 180 [°C]
- Density = 9 10-4 [g/mm3]
- Conductivity = 2.07 105 [g mm/s3 °C]
- Heat capacity = 1.86 109 [mm2/s2 °C]
- Viscous heating taken into account

Solid model for the screws:

January 2017 112.3 Release 18.0

 Example 112

- Density = 7.87 10-3 [g/mm3]

- Conductivity = 4 107 [g mm/s3 °C]
- Heat capacity = 4 108 [mm2/s2 °C]

OPERATING CONDITIONS

Flow boundary conditions for the flow domain:

- BS1: normal force imposed fn = 3 105 [Pa], tangential force vanish (exit section)
Evolution on the normal force, with f(S) = S.
- BS2: normal and tangential forces vanish (entry section)
- BS3: =6.2832 [rad/s] (60 rpm), same angular velocity and axis than moving part #1
- BS4: =6.2832 [rad/s] (60 rpm), same angular velocity and axis than moving part #2
- BS5: normal and tangential velocities vanish (barrel wall)

Rigid motion of the moving parts:

- Moving part #1: subdomain S2,

center of rotation = (0, 0, 0),
axis of rotation = (0, 0, 1),
angular velocity = 60 rpm.
Slipping boundary condition, maximum stress = 1000
[the value will be swept from 1 to 106]
- Moving part #2: subdomain S3,
center of rotation = (33.9, 0, 0),
axis of rotation = (0, 0, 1),
angular velocity = 60 rpm.
Slipping boundary condition, maximum stress = 1000
[the value will be swept from 1 to 106]

Thermal boundary conditions for the flow domain:

- BS1: incoming fluid temperature (exit)

T = 180 °C, penalty coefficient = 1010
- BS2: incoming fluid temperature (entry)
T = 180 °C, penalty coefficient = 1010
- BS3: flux imposed (boundary overlapped by moving part #1)
Flux Q = alfa * ( T – Talfa ),
with alfa = 2 105 [g/s3/°C] (= 200 W/m2/°C) and Talfa = 50 °C
- BS4: flux imposed (boundary overlapped by moving part #2)
Flux Q = alfa * ( T – Talfa ),
with alfa = 2 105 [g/s3/°C] (= 200 W/m2/°C) and Talfa = 50 °C
- BS5: flux imposed: T = 180 °C (barrel wall)
Flux Q = alfa * ( T – Talfa ),
with alfa = 2 105 [g/s3/°C] (= 200 W/m2/°C) and Talfa = 50 °C

January 2017 112.4 Release 18.0

 Example 112

POLYDATA SESSION

- read a mesh file: twin.msh

- create a new task: F.E.M., evolution type
- create a sub-task of type: Gen. Newt. non-isothermal flow problem
- domain: S1
- material data
- viscosity:
- shear rate dependence : Bird-Carreau law
fac = 1000
tnat = 1
expo = 0.4
facinf = 0
- temperature dependence: approximate Arrhenius law
alfa = 2.5 10-3
talfa = 180
- density: ro = 9 10-4
- conductivity: K = 2.07 105
- heat capacity: Cp = 1.86 109
- viscous heating taken into account
- inertia terms neglected
- average temperature = 180
- flow boundary conditions
- boundary 1: (fn,fs) imposed
EVOL on
Fn = 3 105 * f(S), with f(S) = S
EVOL off
Fs = 0
- boundary 2: (fn,fs)=(0,0)
- boundary 3: cartesian velocity imposed: Vxyz imposed
point 1 = (0,0,0)
point 2 = (0,0,1)
angular velocity = 6.2832
- boundary 4: cartesian velocity imposed: Vxyz imposed
point 1 = (33.9,0,0)
point 2 = (33.9,0,1)
angular velocity = 6.2832
- boundary 5: zero wall velocity (vn,vs)=(0,0)
- temperature boundary conditions
- boundary 1: incoming fluid temperature
imposed temperature = 180
penalty coefficient = 1010
- boundary 2: incoming fluid temperature
imposed temperature = 180
penalty coefficient = 1010

January 2017 112.5 Release 18.0

 Example 112

- boundary 3: flux density imposed

Alfa = 2 105
Talfa = 50
- boundary 4: flux density imposed
Alfa = 2 105
Talfa = 50
- boundary 5: flux density imposed
Alfa = 2 105
Talfa = 50
- interpolation
- linear velocities
- linear temperature
- add upwinding on energy equation
- ask for picard iterations
- define moving parts
- moving part #1
- domain: S2
- motion:
point of rotation axis: ( 0, 0, 0)
orientation of axis: (0, 0, 1)
angular velocity: 60 rpm.
- material data:
density: ro = 7.87 10-3
conductivity: K = 4 107
heat capacity: Cp = 4 108
- flow boundary condition
Switch to slip condition
Bounded slipping force = 1000
- moving part #2
- domain: S3
- motion:
point of rotation axis: (33.9, 0, 0)
orientation of axis: (0, 0, 1)
angular velocity: 60 rpm.
- material data:
density: ro = 7.87 10-3
conductivity: K = 4 107
heat capacity: Cp = 4 108
- flow boundary condition
Switch to slip condition
Bounded slipping force = 1000
- create a sub-task of type: Post-processor
calculate viscous heating and dissipated power (on flow domain)
- create a sub-task of type: Post-processor
calculate heat fluxes (in fact convected heat)
on boundary 1 and boundary 2 (of flow domain)

January 2017 112.6 Release 18.0

 Example 112

- numerical parameters
Evolution parameters
Initial value of S = 0
Upper limit of S = 1
Initial value of dS = 0.1
Min value of dS = 0.0001
Max value of dS = 0.1
Max number of steps = 50
- filename syntax:
- prefix: twin_back
- outputs:
- enable POLYFLOW and CFD-POST outputs
- System of units for CFD-POST: metric_mm/g/s/mA+Celsius
- save and exit:
- data file name :
twin_back.dat
- field management:
view field INSIDE#1, INSIDE#2, MVPTS_VELOCITY

POLYFLOW RUN

polyflow < twin_back.dat > twin_back.lst &

GRAPHIC POST-PROCESSING

Fig. 2. Flow rate [cm3/s] as a function of the counter pressure [bar] for various values of the
maximum tangential stress along the screws [Pa]: Beyond 1.6 bars, the melt is globally
flowing from the exit to entry of the extruder section!

January 2017 112.7 Release 18.0

 Example 112

In figure 2, we display the evolution of the flow rate as a function of the counterpressure at
the exit. As suggested above in the text, several simulations will be performed for various
values of the upper limit of the tangential stress along the screws, ranging from 1 to 10 6:
Between 0 and about 1.5 bars, the fluid is globally flowing from inlet to outlet sections of the
flow domain. Under high slipping condition, no net flow rate is observed at about 1.4
bars,while under stichk consitions, no net flow rate is observed at about 1.6 bars. Beyond this
value, the flow is globally flowing from the outlet to the inlet sections. Thus, as the counter
pressure at the outlet section is increased, more fluid is flowing backward in the extruder
section.

Fig. 3. Total energy dissipation [W] vs. flow rate [cm3/s] for various values of the maximum
tangential stress along the screws [Pa].

Before examining the temperature field, it is instructive to inspect the prediction of the total
energy dissipation. In Fig. 3, we display the total energy dissipation vs flow rate, as obtained
for variuos values of the maximum shear stress along the screws. First of all, when the
maximum value of the shear stress along the screws increases, i.e. when a stick behaviour is
approached, the energy dissipation increases at a given flow rate. From the several curves
shown in Fig. 3, we see that there is a rather visible transition from the slip to stick
behaviours. In terms of maximum shear stress at the screws, this transiton is located between
103 and 104 Pa; of course, this value is specific to the present application. The overall energy
dissipation is rather moderate: here it is worth reminding that it concerns only a portion of a
relatively small TSE device, and that the melt has a relatively low viscosity.

This global reversal of flow affects the temperature field. This can be seen in figure 4 where
we display the temperature obtained for various values of the counter presure, under nearly
stick contition on the screws (maximum stress set to 106 Pa). On the left-hand side, we show
the temperature on the barrel wall and in the exit section, for the simulation performed with
the “incoming fluid temperature” condition imposed at both inlet and outlet sections,. On the
right–hand side, we show the temperature obtained with another -and less appropriate- set of

January 2017 112.8 Release 18.0

 Example 112

conditions: a temperature of 180 °C is imposed at the inlet while Outflow condition is selected
at the exit (the corresponding setup can be loaded in POLYDATA, by reading the file
“twin_back.wrong_dat”).

Fig. 4. Temperature field for various values of the counter pressure under (nearly) stick
condition on the screws: comparison of two types of thermal boundary conditions.

With this wrong setup, we observe the overall temperature decreases in the flow domain, as
the backflow grows, and this leads to unrealistic results: where negative temperature can be
observed! Contrary to that bad behaviour, temperature remains realistic when the “incoming
fluid temperature” condition is invoked, at the cost of calculating the temperature of the

January 2017 112.9 Release 18.0

 Example 112

incoming fluid in the outlet section! Let us note that despite the use of the upwinding in the
energy equation, we still observe temperature oscillations at the barrel wall in front of the
screws tip: in that zone, the viscous heating is maximum, leading to local hot spots. This
effect should disappear with a more refined mesh.

January 2017 112.10 Release 18.0