Rheology of Suspensions of Solid Particles in Power‐Law Fluids
Rajinder Pal*
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
The viscous behaviour of concentrated suspensions of solid particles in non‐Newtonian power‐law fluids is discussed here. After a brief review of the
existing models, new models are presented for the constant shear‐rate relative viscosity of concentrated suspensions with power‐law matrices. To
validate the models, experimental work is carried out on the rheology of suspensions of glass beads in aqueous polymer solution using a controlled
stress rheometer. The volume fraction of particles is varied from 0 to 44.9 %. The experimentally measured flow curves of suspensions are described
satisfactorily using the proposed models.
Keywords: suspensions, non‐Newtonian, viscosity, rheology, power‐law
INTRODUCTION
S
uspensions of solid particles in Newtonian and non‐Newtoni-
an fluids form a large group of materials of industrial
importance.[1,2] Therefore, many experimental and theoretical
studies have been carried out on the influence of particle concen-
tration on the rheology of suspensions. However, the majority of
work on suspension rheology is restricted to suspensions of particles
in Newtonian fluids. Only a handful of studies have been published
on the development of predictive models for the viscosity of
concentrated suspensions of solid particles in non‐Newtonian
fluids.[3–8] The existing models, however, fail to provide satisfactory
predictions of the shear‐dependent viscosity of suspensions of
particles in non‐Newtonian fluids.
In this article, new models are developed for the viscosity of
concentrated suspensions of particles in non‐Newtonian power‐
law fluids. To validate the models, experimental work has been
carried out on the rheology of suspensions of glass beads in
aqueous polymer solution using a controlled stress rheometer.
BACKGROUND
Relative Viscosity of Suspensions with Power‐Law Matrices
The relative viscosity of suspension is usually defined as the ratio of
the suspension viscosity to the matrix viscosity. In the case of a
Newtonian matrix, this definition poses no difficulty at all as the
matrix viscosity is constant. However, in the case of a non‐
Newtonian matrix, such as a polymer solution or a polymer melt,
this definition poses a difficulty in that the viscosity of the matrix is
not unique and it varies with the shear rate. Thus, it is possible to
define the relative viscosity of suspension of particles in non‐
Newtonian fluid in the following three different ways.
Constant shear‐rate relative viscosity (hr;g_ )
The constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity hr;g_ is defined as the ratio
of suspension viscosity at a given shear rate hjg_ to the matrix
viscosity at the same shear rate hm jg_ :
hjg_
hr;g_ ¼ : ð1Þ
hm jg_
166 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Constant shear ‐ stress relative viscosity (hr;t )
The constant‐shear‐stress relative viscosity hr,t is defined as the
ratio of suspension viscosity at a given stress h|t to the matrix
viscosity at the same shear stress hm|t:
hjt
hr;t ¼ : ð2Þ
hm jt
True relative viscosity (hr,t)
The true relative viscosity hr,t at any given shear rate g_ is defined as
the ratio of suspension viscosity at a given shear rate hjg_ to the
matrix viscosity at the actual average shear rate g_m experienced
by the matrix fluid:
hjg_
hr;t ¼ : ð3Þ
hm jg_m
Evaluation of suspension relative viscosities
The evaluation of constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity hr;g_ is
straightforward from the viscosity‐versus‐shear rate data for
suspension and matrix. Likewise, the evaluation of constant‐shear‐
stress relative viscosity hr,t is straightforward from the viscosity‐
versus‐shear stress data for suspension and matrix. However,
calculation of true relative viscosity hr;t is not so straightforward.
The main difficulty lies in the calculation of the average shear rate
experienced by the non‐Newtonian matrix fluid when the suspension
is subjected to any given macroscopic shear rate.
For power‐law suspensions, the average shear rate experienced
by the matrix fluid can be estimated from the rate of energy
dissipation in the suspension.[6] Following Laven and Stein,[6] the
*Author to whom correspondence may be addressed.
E‐mail address: rpal@uwaterloo.ca
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 93:166–173, 2015
© 2014 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.22114
Published online 14 October 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015
 _ can be
average rate of energy dissipation in the suspension (E) (II) Calculate the constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity hr;g_ of
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
written as
suspension at a shear rate of g_ 2m .
Z (III) Calculate the macroscopic shear rate g_ from Equation (12).
1
E_ ¼ hm g_ 2m dV ¼ ð1  fÞ hm g_ 2m ¼ ð1  fÞ hm g_ 2m ð4Þ
V Using the abovementioned procedure, one can generate g_ versus
ð1fÞV qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g_ 2m data. The true relative viscosity hr,t can then be calculated at
where V is the volume of the suspension, f is the volume fraction of any shear rate g_ from the suspension flow curve.
particles, g_ m is the local shear rate in the matrix fluid, g_ 2m is the
average of square of local shear rate experienced by the matrix
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi EXISTING MODELS
fluid, and h m is the matrix viscosity evaluated at g_ 2m . For
Theoretical Models
suspensions it is also possible to write
Tanaka and White[3] developed an expression for constant‐shear‐
E_ ¼ hjg_ g_ 2 ð5Þ rate relative viscosity hr;g_ of concentrated suspensions, using the
cell‐model approach of Frankel and Acrivos.[9] The matrix fluid
was assumed to follow power‐law behaviour. The Tanaka and
where g_ is the macroscopic shear rate applied to the suspension. White[3] expression for hr;g_ is as follows:
From Equations (4) and (5), it follows that h i12n
hr;g_ ¼ C ðfm jfÞ1=3  1 ð13Þ
hjg_ g_ 2 ¼ ð1  fÞ hm g_ m
2 ; ð6Þ
! where fm is the maximum packing volume fraction of particles and
hjg_ g_ 2m C is a constant. Since the right‐hand‐side of this equation is
¼ hr;t jg_ ¼ ð1  fÞ : ð7Þ
hm g_ 2 independent of shear‐rate, the presence of particles does not affect
the shear‐rate dependence of viscosity. The addition of particles to
a non‐Newtonian matrix simply shifts the viscosity‐versus‐shear
Now we assume that the suspension follows power‐law rate curve vertically upwards without affecting the shape of the
behaviour, that is curve, that is, the power‐law index n remains constant.
The limitations of the Tanaka and White model are as follows:
hjg_ ¼ Kg_ n1 (a) it is valid only in the limiting case of f ! fm, that is, highly
n1 ð8Þ
¼ Kðg_ 2 Þ 2 concentrated suspensions; (b) when the power law index n of the
matrix is 0.5, the constant‐shear‐rate viscosity hr;g_ predicted by the
where K and n are power‐law constants. From Equation (8), one model is constant, independent of the volume fraction of particles.
can write This is clearly not in agreement with the experimental observa-
tions; and (c) the model contains an unknown constant C.
!n1 Jarzebski[4] also extended the cell‐model approach of Frankel
hj g_ 2
2
and Acrivos[8] to highly concentrated suspensions of particles in a
 g_ ¼ ; ð9Þ
pffiffiffiffiffi g_ 2m non‐Newtonian matrix. The matrix fluid and the suspension were
h 2
g_ m assumed to follow power‐law behaviour. It was further assumed
that the power‐law index (n) for the matrix and the suspension are
0 1n1
2
the same although the consistency index (K) increases with the
g_ 2 B hjg_ C addition of particles. He derived the following expression for
¼ @  A : ð10Þ
g_ 2m hpffiffiffiffi the constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity hr;g_ of suspension:
g_ 2
m
 12    n
27 2n þ 1 n 1 2
hr;g_ ¼ I ð14Þ
From Equations (7) and (10), it follows that 8 n 24

0 1n1 where I is defined as

!n1
2
2

g_ 2
B ð1  fÞ hm C g_ 2m Z
¼ @  ; ð11Þ
pffiffiffiffiffi A
pj2
g_ 2 sinnþ2 u cosu du
g_ 2m h 2 I¼ h i2nþ1 : ð15Þ
g_ m 1
o ðfjfm Þ3  cosu
0 1ðnþ1
2
Þ
g_ 2 B 1f C This integral has to be solved numerically. Its value varies with n
¼ B C
@ qffiffiffiffiffiffi A : ð12Þ
g_ 2m and f/fm. According to Equation (14), the influence of dispersed‐
hr;g_ 
g_ 2m phase concentration on hr;g_ increases with the increase in power‐
law index n. When n ¼ 1, Equation (14) reduces to the Frankel
and Acrivos equation for the viscosity of a highly concentrated
Equation (12) allows one to calculate the average shear rate in
suspension of solid spherical particles in Newtonian fluid.
the matrix fluid using the following procedure:
The main limitations of the Jarzebski model (Equation (14))
(I) Assume any value of average shear rate in the matrix fluid are as follows: (a) it is valid only in the limiting case of f ! fm,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi that is, highly concentrated suspensions; and (b) the integral I
g_ 2m . (Equation (15)) has to be solved numerically.

VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 167
 Kawase and Ulbrecht[5] used Happel’s free‐surface cell model[10]
 
to develop an expression for the viscosity of concentrated f 2:5nfm
suspensions of particles in power‐law liquids. hr;g_ ¼ 1 : ð21Þ
fm
Their expression of hr;g_ is as follows:

0 1n1
2
1 þ ℓ5
B 3 C
hr;g_ ¼ 2@ A x
3 1 3 5 6
1 ℓ þ ℓ ℓ
2 2
0 0 11
2 5
9nðn  1Þ B 1 þ ℓ ð16Þ
B 3 3 CC
@12A2 þ 2A3 þ 4nð2n  1Þðn þ 1ÞA1 þ ðn  1Þ  @ AA
2 2ð2n þ 1Þ 3 1 3 5 6
1 ℓ þ ℓ ℓ
  2 2
3ð22n2 þ 29n þ 2Þ
2n þ 1

where ℓ is the ratio of cell radius to particle radius, given as 0.605/ These equations are modifications of the equations for
f, and Newtonian suspensions. Equation (20) is a modification of the

1 3 þ 2ℓ5 nðn  1Þ  2 
  2ℓ  3ℓ þ 7ℓ1  6 þ 6ℓ1 lnℓ
2 2  3ℓ1 þ 3ℓ5  2ℓ6 2ð2n þ 1Þ ð17Þ
A1 ¼   ;
 2 ð2n2 þ nÞℓ2nþ3 þ ð2n2 þ nÞℓ2nþ2  2 n2 þ n  1 ℓ2n þ 2nℓ1  ð2n þ 1Þ
3 3 3

Quemada equation[11] whereas Equation (21) is a modification

5 of the Krieger‐Dougherty equation.[12] One problem with these
1 3 þ 2ℓ nðn  1Þ 2
A2 ¼  nð2n þ 1ÞA1 ℓ2nþ3 þ ℓ ; equations is that they are not theoretically correct in the
3 2  3ℓ1 þ 3ℓ5  2ℓ6 2ð2n þ 1Þ
dilute regime[8] (f ! 0). Tanner et al.[8] have recently suggested
ð18Þ
the following expression:
3ð3 þ 2ℓ5 Þ nðn  1Þ 2
A3 ¼ 3A2 þ 2nA1 þ ℓ : ð19Þ
2  3ℓ1 þ 3ℓ5  2ℓ6 ð2n þ 1Þ

The Kawase and Ulbrecht model (Equation (16)) has some

serious limitations. As an example, Figure 1 shows predictions of
the Kawase and Ulbrecht model for suspensions of solid particles in
pseudoplastic (n < 1) matrix fluids. When n < 1, the model predicts
relative viscosities of suspensions to be lower than unity over a
wide range of particle concentrations. For example, when n ¼ 0.2,
the relative viscosity of suspension is predicted to be less than unity
up to a particle volume fraction of about 0.4. This is in contradiction
with the experimental observations. The Kawase and Ulbrecht
model completely breaks down when the matrix fluid is dilatant
(n > 1). For example, Figure 2 shows predictions of the model for
suspensions of solid particles in dilatant matrix fluids. The model
predicts reasonable values of constant‐shear‐rate relative for n
value up to 1.3. When n ¼ 1.4, it gives negative values of the
relative viscosity. This cannot be possible.

Empirical Models
A number of empirical models have been proposed to describe the
viscosity of suspensions of particles in power‐law fluids. Barnes,[7]
in his detailed review of the rheology of filled viscoelastic systems,
suggested the following expressions for the constant shear‐rate
relative viscosity of suspensions with power‐law matrices:
 2n
f
hr;g_ ¼ 1 ; ð20Þ
fm Figure 1. Relative viscosity predicted by Kawase and Ulbrecht model for
suspension of solid particles in pseudoplastic (n < 1) matrix fluid.

168 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015
 suspension of solid spherical particles in power‐law fluid can be
derived readily. From Equations (7) and (24), it follows that

 
g_ 2m 1 þ 2:5f
¼ : ð25Þ
g_ 2 1f

Upon substitution of the above relation into Equation (12),

nþ1 1n
hr;g_ ¼ ð1 þ 2:5 fÞ 2 ð1  f Þ2 : ð26Þ

This expression for hr;g_ is valid for dilute suspensions in the limit
f ! 0. Upon expansion, Equation (26) gives
     
nþ1 1n
hr;g_ ¼ 1 þ 2:5 f þ… 1  f þ …:
2 2
    ð27Þ
nþ1 n1
¼ 1 þ 2:5f þ f þ …::
2 2

Thus for dilute suspensions of spherical solid particles in power‐

law fluids, the constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity hr;g_ is

Figure 2. Relative viscosity predicted by Kawase and Ulbrecht model for     

hjg_ nþ1 n1
suspension of solid particles in dilatant (n > 1) matrix fluid. hr;g_ ¼ ¼ 1 þ 2:5 þ f: ð28Þ
hm jg_ 2 2

This equation was originally developed by Laven and Stein.[6] It

 ð0:383þ2:117nÞfm reduces to the Einstein relation (Equation (23)) when n ¼ 1, that is,
f
hr;g_ ¼ 1 : ð22Þ when the matrix fluid is Newtonian.
fm Equation (28) is valid for infinitely dilute suspensions in the
limit f ! 0. It severely under predicts the relative viscosity of
This equation generally underestimates the constant shear‐rate concentrated suspensions. In what follows, new models are
relative viscosity of suspensions with power‐law matrices. developed for the constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity of concen-
Clearly there is a need to develop viscosity models for trated suspensions of solid particles in power‐law non‐Newtonian
suspensions of particles in non‐Newtonian fluids (pseudoplastic fluids. The models are derived using the differential effective
and dilatant), covering a broad range of particle concentration. medium approach (DEMA), described in our earlier studies.[15–17]
Consider a suspension of solid particles in non‐Newtonian
power‐law matrix. Let f be the volume fraction of particles. Into
NEW MODELS this suspension, a differential quantity of new particles is added.
For dilute suspensions of solid spherical particles in Newtonian The increment increase in suspension viscosity dh resulting from
fluids, the relative viscosity is given by the celebrated Einstein the addition of new particles can be calculated from Equation (28)
equation:[13,14] by replacing hm ! h, h ! h þ dh, and f ! df. Therefore,
    
hr;t ¼ hr;g_ ¼ hr;t ¼ 1 þ 2:5f: ð23Þ dh nþ1 n1
¼ 2:5 þ df: ð29Þ
h 2 2

As the suspension and matrix both are Newtonian fluids, the

three relative viscosities, defined in Equations (1)–(3), are all the Upon integration, Equation (29) gives the following expression
same. However, for dilute suspensions of solid spherical particles for constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity:
in non‐Newtonian fluids, the Einstein equation is valid only when

   
the true relative viscosity defined in Equation (3) is used, that is nþ1 n1
hr;g_ ¼ exp 2:5 þ f : ð30Þ
2 2
hr;t ¼ 1 þ 2:5f: ð24Þ
Equation (30) will be referred to as Model 1 in the discussion to
The validity of this form of the Einstein equation has been follow.
verified experimentally for dilute suspensions of solid particles in In the derivation of Model 1 (Equation (30)), it is assumed that
power‐law non‐Newtonian fluids.[6] all the volume of the suspension before new particles are added is
The true relative viscosity hr,t is important from a theoretical available as free volume to the new particles. In reality, the free
point of view. For practical purposes, however, it is the constant‐ volume available to disperse the new particles is significantly less,
shear‐rate relative viscosity hr;g_ that is more important. The due to the volume preempted by the particles already present. Thus
expression for constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity (hr;g_ ) of dilute the increase in the actual volume fraction of the dispersed phase is

VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 169
df/(1  f), rather than df, when new particles are added. As a
result, Equation (29) is revised as
    
dh nþ1 n1 df
¼ 2:5 þ : ð31Þ
h 2 2 1f

Upon integration, Equation (31) gives

hr;g_ ¼ ð1  fÞ½2:5ð 2 Þ þ ð 2 Þ  :
nþ1 n1
ð32Þ

Equation (32) will be referred to as Model 2 in the remainder of

the paper.
Model 2 is expected to describe the viscosity of suspension of
solid particles in a power‐law matrix at low to moderate values of f
as the model does not take into account the crowding effect caused
by packing difficulty of particles. Model 2 imposes no restriction on Figure 3. Influence of n (power‐law index of matrix) on the constant‐shear‐
the value of f. The value of f could be as high as unity, which is rate relative viscosity of suspension, as predicted by the models.
impossible. To account for the crowding effect of particles, the
differential increase in the volume fraction of the dispersed phase, According to the model predictions, the relative viscosity increases
when new particles are added to the suspension, should be d[f/(1‐ with the increase in power‐law index n of the matrix, at a given
f/fm)]. This is in accordance with Mooney[18] who made a similar volume fraction of particles. As expected, the predictions of Model
adjustment in the derivation of a viscosity equation for suspension 4 are close to the predictions of Equation (22).
of solid particles in a Newtonian fluid. Thus, Equation (29) should Figure 4 shows the plots of hr;g_ versus f for various values of n, as
be re‐written as predicted from Model 4 with fm of 0.637. When the matrix fluid is
! dilatant (n > 1), the relative viscosity plot falls above the Newtonian
    
dh nþ1 n1 f plot (n ¼ 1). Also the upwards shift in the relative viscosity plot
¼ 2:5 þ d : ð33Þ
h 2 2 1  ffm increases with the increase in n, indicating an increase in relative
viscosity with the increase in n. When the matrix fluid is
pseudodoplastic (n < 1), the relative viscosity plot falls below
Upon integration, Equation (33) gives the Newtonian plot (n ¼ 1). Also the downwards shift in the relative
"     # viscosity plot increases with the decrease in n, indicating a decrease
2:5 nþ1 þ n1 f in relative viscosity with the decrease in n. Note that unlike the
hr;g_ ¼ exp 2 2
: ð34Þ
1  ffm Kawase and Ulbrecht model (Equation (16)), the present models
predict positive values of suspension relative viscosity, greater than
Equation (34) will be referred to as Model 3 in the remainder of unity, for all values of n.
the paper.
According to Krieger and Dougherty,[12] the incremental increase
in the volume fraction of the particles, when a small amount of new
particles are added to an existing suspension of concentration f,
should be df=ð1  f=fm Þ rather than d½f=ð1  f=fm Þ as visualized
by Mooney.[18] They used df=ð1  f=fm Þ as the incremental
increase in the volume fraction of the particles in the derivation
of their viscosity equation for suspension of solid particles in
Newtonian fluids. Thus Equation (29) should be revised as
    
dh nþ1 n1 df
¼ 2:5 þ  : ð35Þ
h 2 2 1 f fm

Upon integration, Equation (35) gives

 ½2:5ðnþ1
2 Þ þ ð 2 Þfm
n1
f
hr;g_ ¼ 1 : ð36Þ
fm

Equation (36) will be referred to as Model 4 in the remainder of

the paper. Note that this equation is similar to Equation (22).
Figure 3 shows the influence of n (power‐law index of matrix)
on the constant‐shear‐rate relative viscosity of suspensions, as
predicted by the models. The maximum packing volume fraction of Figure 4. Plots of hr;g_ versus f for various values of n, as predicted from
particles fm is taken to be 0.637 for Models 3, 4, and Equation (22). Model 4 (Equation (36)).

170 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015
Figure 5. Particle size distribution of glass beads.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Materials
The solids used for the preparation of solids‐in‐liquid suspensions
were glass beads, supplied by Flex‐O‐Lite, Inc. Figure 5 shows the
particle size distribution of the glass beads. The Sauter mean
diameter of the glass beads was 92 mm. The polymer used for the
preparation of dispersion medium (matrix or continuous‐phase) of
suspensions was Hercules cellulose gum ‐ type 7H4F PM. Cellulose
gum is purified sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) with a
minimum purity of 99.5 %. It is an anionic water‐soluble polymer
used in a broad range of applications in the cosmetic, food,
pharmaceutical, paper, coatings and other industries. The approxi-
mate molecular weight of the polymer is 7  105. In order to
facilitate uniform dispersion of glass beads in the polymer solution,
a non‐ionic water‐soluble surfactant Triton X‐100 was used. The
water used throughout the experiments was deionized.

Figure 6. Flow curves of matrix and suspensions as apparent viscosity

Procedure
versus shear rate.
The solids‐in‐liquid suspensions were prepared by dispersing the
known amounts of glass beads in the dispersion medium with the
help of a stirrer. The dispersion medium was an aqueous polymer/
surfactant solution consisting of 1.02 % by wt. cellulose gum (CMC)
and 2 % by wt. Triton X‐100. The volume fraction of solids was
varied from 0 to 0.449. The rheological measurements were carried
out in a Bohlin controlled‐stress rheometer (Bohlin CS‐50) at 25 8C.
The data were collected using serrated parallel plate geometry. The
serrated parallel plate geometry consisted of a stainless steel upper
plate (diameter 25 mm) and an aluminum lower plate (diameter
40 mm). While most of the data were collected using a gap width of
1 mm between the plates, some data for concentrated suspensions
were collected using different gap widths. These latter measure-
ments were done mainly to check the presence of wall effects, if any.

DISCUSSION
Figures 6 and 7 show the flow curves for polymeric matrix and
suspensions of spherical glass beads in matrix. In Figure 6, the data
are plotted as apparent viscosity versus shear rate and in Figure 7,
the same data are re‐plotted as apparent viscosity versus shear Figure 7. Flow curves of matrix and suspensions as apparent viscosity
stress. The matrix (polymer solution) and suspensions exhibit versus shear stress.

VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 171

Figure 8. Application of power‐law model to matrix fluid.
shear‐thinning behaviour. The flow curves of suspensions and
matrix are nearly parallel to each other, except at a high particle
volume fraction of 0.449 at low shear rate or shear stress. The
deviation of the highly concentrated suspension at low shear rates or
low shear stresses is likely due to non‐hydrodynamic particle‐
particle interactions. It should be noted that concentrated suspen-
Figure 9. Comparison between model predictions and experimental data
for suspensions with particle volume fractions of 0.176 and 0.289
(fm ¼ 0637).
172 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
sions often exhibit shear‐thickening behaviour[19] accompanied by
abrupt changes in the microstructure and shear stress. However, we
did not observe any such effects. The suspensions exhibited only
shear‐thinning behaviour over the range of macroscopic shear rates
covered in our experiments. There were no wall effects and
sedimentation of particles observed in our measurements. The
measurements were reproducible and the apparent viscosity versus
shear rate data for the highly concentrated suspension (f ¼ 0.449)
obtained using different gap widths between the parallel plates were
found to fall on the same curve.
Figure 8 shows the application of power‐law model (Equa-
tion (8)) to matrix fluid. As can be seen the matrix can be described
adequately by power‐law model. The plot of apparent viscosity
versus shear rate is linear on a log‐log scale. The power law index n
of the matrix fluid is 0.555. This power‐law index is used in the
models to predict the flow curves of suspensions. Figure 9 shows
comparisons between model predictions and experimental data for
suspensions with particle volume fractions of 0.176 and 0.289.
Model 3 (Equation (34)) describes the data very well, especially in
the shear rate range of about 0.1 to 100 s1. Outside this shear rate
range, the experimental data tends to fall somewhat lower than the
predictions of Model 3. This is not unexpected as the matrix fluid
(see Figure 8) and suspensions tend to deviate from the power law
behaviour at very low and very high shear rates. Models 1
(Equation (30)), 2 (Equation (32)) and 4 (Equation (36)) under
predict the viscosity of suspensions. Note that the predictions of
Figure 10. Comparison between model predictions and experimental data
for suspensions with particle volume fractions of 0.377 and 0.449
(fm ¼ 0.637).
VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015
  The following model describes the constant shear‐rate relative
viscosity of concentrated suspensions adequately:
"    
#
2:5 nþ1 þ n1 f
hr;g_ ¼ exp 2 2
:
1  ffm

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support from NSERC is appreciated.

Figure 11. Comparison between model predictions and experimental data
for a suspension with particle volume fraction of 0.449 (fm ¼ 0.68).
some of these models are not shown in the figure for the sake of
clarity. However, the Kawase and Ulbrecht model (Equation (16))
predicts the lowest values of viscosity.
Figure 10 compares model predictions with experimental data for
suspensions with particle volume fractions of 0.377 and 0.449. Once
again, Model 3 gives the closest prediction of experimental values.
Other proposed models (Models 1, 2, and 4) and the Kawase and
Ulbrecht model under predict the viscosity of suspensions. For the
most concentrated suspension with particle volume fraction of 0.449,
Model 3 predicts values of viscosity lower than the experimental
values, especially at high shear rates. The agreement between the
experimental data and predictions of Model 3 can be improved by
using a different value of the maximum packing volume fraction fm.
Note that thus far fm was taken to be 0.637 in the proposed models
(only Models 3 and 4 contain fm). Figure 11 shows comparison
between model predictions (using fm of 0.68) and experimental data
of suspension with particle volume fraction of 0.449. Now the
agreement between the experimental data and predictions of Model 3
is good. As the particles are not uniform in size (see Figure 5), it is
justified to use a value of fm higher than 0.637 which corresponds
to random close packing of uniform spheres. It is a well‐known fact
that fm increases with polydispersity of particles.[20]
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
[1] R. Pal, Rheology of Particulate Dispersions and Composites,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA 2007.
[2] R. K. Gupta, Polymer and Composite Rheology, 2nd edition
Marcel Dekker, New York 2000.
[3] H. Tanaka, J. L. White, J. Non‐Newtonian Fluid Mech. 1980, 7,
333.
[4] G. J. Jarzebski, Rheol. Acta 1981, 20, 280.
[5] Y. Kawase, J. J. Ulbrecht, Chem. Eng. Commun. 1983, 20, 127.
[6] J. Laven, H. N. Stein, J. Rheol. 1991, 35, 1523.
[7] H. Barnes, Rheol. Rev. 2003, p. 1.
[8] R. I. Tanner, F. Qi, K. D. Housiadas, J. Non‐Newtonian Fluid
Mech. 2010, 165, 1677.
[9] N. A. Frankel, A. Acrivos, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1967, 22, 417.
[10] J. Happel, J. Appl. Phys. 1957, 28, 1288.
[11] D. Quemada, Rheol. Acta 1977, 16, 82.
[12] I. M. Kriger, T. J. Dougherty, Trans. Soc. Rheol. 1959, 3, 137.
[13] A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 1906, 19, 289.
[14] A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 1911, 34, 591.
[15] R. Pal, J. Rheol. 2001, 45, 509.
[16] R. Pal, J. Non‐Newtonian Fluid Mech. 2002, 105, 21.
[17] R. Pal, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2003, 263, 296.
[18] M. Mooney, J. Colloid Sci. 1951, 6, 162.
[19] H. Barnes, J. Rheol. 1989, 33, 329.
[20] R. Pal, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 5666.
Manuscript received February 11, 2014; revised manuscript received
March 24, 2014; accepted for publication April 9, 2014.

 The viscosity expressions for suspensions of particles in power‐

law matrices, developed on the basis of cell models, have
serious limitations. For example, the Kawase and Ulbrecht
model predicts relative viscosities of less than one at low to
moderate values of particle concentration for certain values of n
less than one. It completely breaks down when the matrix is
dilatant with n > 1.3. The Tanaka and White model predicts
suspension viscosity to be independent of the particle
concentration when n ¼ 0.5.
 New models are developed for the constant shear‐rate relative
viscosity of concentrated suspensions of solid particles in
power‐law fluids.
 The viscous behaviour of suspensions of glass beads in polymer
solution was investigated experimentally using a controlled
stress rheometer. The flow curves of suspensions at different
particle concentrations were analyzed in terms of the proposed
models.

VOLUME 93, JANUARY 2015 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 173