Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
out someimportant aspectsof the dragreductionphenomenonand its potentialfor practical use. The reviewis biasedtowards micellarsystemsand discussesin detailthe morphologicaldifferencesbetweendrag reducingpolymericand micellarsystems.Workrelatingto polymericsystemshas not beendealtin detailas it has beenthe subjectof earlier
reviews. Studiesrelatingto biologicaladditivesas well as suspensionshave been briefly
mentionedwithout detaileddiscussionas their potentialfor practical use presently appears to be limited.
Key words:Drag reduction review,micellarsystem, polymer additive,biologicaladdi-
In a number of practical fluid flow situations, turbulence occurs near solid surfaces and the main resistance to the flow of the fluid is associated with this turbulence. The energy losses due to turbulent friction are
of very high magnitude and this provides enough motiv~ition for unabated research to find ways for its reduction. The 1930's witnessed one of the most exciting
discoveries of fluid mechanics, namely, the observation that turbulent skin friction can be reduced by the
presence of certain additives in the flowing fluid. Various types of additives in the flowing fluid have been
found to be effective:
a) macromolecules like those of polymers or surfactants, and
b) simple solids like fine grains or fibers.
The discovery provided a physical means of reducing the tremendous energy losses due to turbulent skin
friction in the flow of fluids through conduits or, conversely, the movement of solid bodies in fluids. The research that followed this discovery focussed attention
on the nature of turbulent skin friction generated at a
solid surface by relative flow of a fluid past it.
Most of the researchers in this field have worked
with fluids at room temperature because of the practical importance of using drag reducers in ship-building
industries, for fire-fighting operations, oil-well fractur* NCL-CommunicationNo. 3384
K 732
ing processes, etc. where high temperatures are not involved. Recently the idea of using drag reducing additives in central heating systems has been evolved and
there has been some study of the effectiveness of drag
reducers at high temperatures. An epitome of the results of the tremendous work done on drag reduction
can be obtained in a number of reviews and reports
[1-17].
The present review deals with the phenomenon of
drag reduction in micellar systems, which has been
consistently neglected in earlier reviews despite the
voluminous literature available on the subject. A brief
recapitulation of the various facets of drag reduction
right from the historical beginning to its present status
has been undertaken with a view of developing a background for understanding and appreciating the phenomenon of drag reduction in general. Specific attention
has been allotted to the morphological differences between micellar and polymeric drag reducing systems.
Most of the potential uses of drag reduction have been
briefly mentioned in order to stimulate an interest for
using micellar systems in applications other than those
in which they are presently used.
2. Review of past work
2.1 Historical
The earliest works that recorded a decrease in pressure drop during turbulent flow were undertaken in
320
Navy workers to explore the potential of the drag-reducing additives for military applications. Among the
Navy researchers, it was Hoyt and Fabula [31, 32]
who made the first significant contributions. Fabula et
al. [33] were the first to identify the still most effective
drag reducer, namely, poly(ethylene oxide).
In the years that followed the above initial efforts, a
number of papers and reports appeared in various
journals for rheologists, chemical engineers, polymer
chemists, hydrodynamicists and oil technologists,
wherein the flow characteristics of drag-reducing solutions were studied for different internal and external
flow situations. In the study of internal flows, almost
every pipe-flow geometry has been considered. Apart
from straight, smooth, rough or corrugated pipes, studies have been made in curved or helicallycoiled tubes
[34-37] in orifices [38], in tube enlargements [39], in
annuli [40, 41] and in open channels [41, 42]. A great
number of theoretical and experimental studies have
been carried out for a number of external flow situations like around rotating disks [31-33, 43-63], rotating cylinders [64-74], flat plates [75-87] and spheres
[88-99].
APs APa
[4P[
-
where APs = pressure loss due to friction in unit length of the pipe
for solvent alone,
APa = pressure loss due to friction in unit length of the pipe
for the solution containing the additive.
APsolution
APsolvent
Solvent
Guar Gum
Water
Guar Gum
SeaWater
Polyethyleneoxide Water
References
Solute
321
Solvent
Poly(isodecyl
Kerosene
methacrylate)
Polymethyl
Toluene
methaerylate
Polymethyl
Monochloromethacrylate
benzene
Polyvinylalcohol Water
VinylI
Water
SodiumpolystyreneWater
sulfonate
Tri-n-butylHexane
stannylfluoride
Polystyrene
Toluene
Polystyrene
Polystyrene
Dowell-APE
Potassium
polyphosphate
Flaxmeal
Certainrubbers
References
[148]
[141,142,149]
[21]
[108,137]
[29]
[57]
[150]
[118,127,141,142,145,
151-153]
Benzene,
Methyl [127]
ethylketone
Cyclohexane
[118]
Kerosene
[154]
Watercontaining [155]
sodium
pyrophosphate
SeaWater
[156]
Organicsolvent [126]
A study of the drag reducing ability of the above polymers has led t o the conclusion that any macromolecular substance with a linear structure and high molecular weight, i. e. above 500,000, is a good drag reducer. The advantage of polymers is that they are effective
at very low concentrations; but, as they are very prone
to mechanical degradation in dilute solutions [157161] they have limited practical applicability.
322
FlowingF l u i d
References
Sand
Coal,FlyAsh,
Clay,Activated
Charcoal
Woodand
WoodPulp
Fibrous
WoodPulp
Emery
Thoria
NylonFibres
NylonFibres
NylonFibres
Water
Water
[164,165]
[163]
Water
[166-170]
Solutionof
GuarGum
Water
Water
Water
Polymer
Solution
Polymer
Solution
+ AerosolOT
Water
Water
PolymerSolution
AerosolOT
Solution
Theirmotherliquor
[171]
RayonFibres
AsbestosFibres
AsbestosFibres
AsbestosFibres
YellowDye
Crystals
[172]
[173,174]
[175-181]
[179]
[176]
[180,182]
[157,182,183-188]
[179]
[185]
References
PorphyridiumAerugineum
ProphyridiumCruentum
XanthomonasCampestris
ChaetocerosDidymus
ProtocentrumMicans
Fish Slimes
[31]
[193]
[193-195,198]
[199]
[199]
[131,199-204]
[189]
To date the effects of solids suspened in flowing liquids has not been investigated as thoroughly as that of
polymer additives, but, from the industrial point of
view, suspensions of solids have an edge over that of
polymers for the following two reasons:
1. the solid matter can be added and removed from
the flowing liquid with great ease, and
2. they suffer no mechanical degradation in most
cases except in a few as noted by some workers
[185,190,191].
323
(ii) Nonaqueoussystems
The earliest work on anionic surfactants in nonaqueous systems dates back to the Second World War
when, in the course of designing and testing flame
throwers, it was felt that there was a need for information on the flow characteristics of gasoline thickened
with aluminium soaps which were the constituents of
napalm. K.J. Mysels and his associates investigatedthe
various aspects ofthese thickened solutions and found
that the pressure loss per unit length of the pipe when
thickened gasoline fowed under turbulent conditions
was much lower than that of the pure solvent. The findings were published much later [23] and the effect
was attributed to a variable viscosity with shear rate of
the thickened fluid. However, it was Agoston et al.
[210], who later suggested, that there was a different
mode of flow of the thickenedjelly-like substances and
the gasoline. They observed drag reduction in a
0.3 cm diameter pipe at about 15 m/sec. They also
showed that in more concentrated solutions there was
a pronounced viscoelastic effect with long relaxation
times and that the pressure gradients peresisted for
several minutes after the pumping had been terminated. Apart from [23] and [210], an account of Mysels'
experiments [211] appeared many years later in 1971.
In 1960, Osterhout and Hall [28] showed that diesel
oil gelled with an unnamed soap at an unspecified concentration yielded a drag reduction of 40 to 50 % at
about 10 m/sec in 5.1 and 6.3 cm diameter pipes.
Many ye~trs after the initial demonstration of drag
reduction in nonaqueous anionic surfactant solutions,
a systematic study of these systems was initiated by
Radin et al. [212]. Among the first systems studied
were aluminium dioleate and aluminium palmitate
soap in toluene. Unlike the aqueous anionic surfactants, drag reduction did not occur until a concentration as high as 0-75 0/0 was reached. The viscosity at
324
325
326
327
328
He further postulated that the increased turbulent dissipation, which could be as high as three times that of a
normal fluid, was proportional to the increase in the
sublayer thickness of the boundary layer and thus resuked in drag reduction. Lumley [250] concurred
with Tulin's theory that the growth of the laminar sublayer could be explained by molecular extension, but
he found by calculation that the elongation itselfis very
slight. Cottrell et al. [251-253] also performed a number of experiments and found that there was only a very slight macromolecular elongation during shear
flow. However, Lumley postulated that it was the molecular entanglements, which extended cross-stream
and resisted the.formation of streamwise vortices, that
caused an ,ncrease in the sublayer thickness. But Paterson [157] found pipe drag reduction with poly(ethylene oxide) solutions as dilute as 0.03 ppm, and, at the
molecular separation distances and volume fractions
involved, it is quite unlikely that molecular entanglement could play any part in drag reduction. Nevertheless, Ellis et al. [254] showed that polymer solutions
stored for several weeks showed lower drag reduction
than freshly mixed ones, the implication being that
there has been a molecular disentanglement during
storage. But as polymer solutions may degrade in
more ways than one, their observations must be taken
with a pinch of salt. Thus the situation not being very
clear, one can disregard the 'molecular entanglement'
hypothesis only with some reservations. Little [225]
found that poly(ethylene oxide) solutions of different
molecular weights gave the same drag reduction when
their concentration was proportional to the critical
concentration at each molecular weight (i. e. the computed concentration for the polymer coils to touch
each other). Kinnier [116] made similar computations
but used the concept of 'equivalent concentration' to
correlate his data. He found that, to have equal drag reduction for different molecular weight polymer solutions, one has to have equal volumes of polymer based
upon the hydrodynamic sphere considerations.
Pfenninger [256] postulated that the molecular
stretching and the possible breaking-up of the polymer
molecules interfered with and weakened the vorticity
of the disturbances or amplified boundary-layer oscillations.
The molecular stretching itself is induced by the
mutual interactions of convoluted vortex filaments
starting as non-linear laminar oscillations close to the
wall. The drag reducing additives help to delay the
breakdown of these oscillations into turbulence. The
net effect is a partial absorption of the kinetic energy of
9
329
16 (Re- 1.o)
Poiseuille Law
and
f = 0. 079 (Re -~
Blasius Law
Thus, it is evident that for turbulent flow drag reduction, the position of the friction factor versus Reynolds number plot is always confined to the portion
between the Blasius line and Virk's maximum drag reduction asymptote.
In this section, an attempt has been made to illustrate the various approaches to a rational explanation
of the drag reduction phenomenon by the different
schools of thought. Though none of the above are
complete in themselves, it is quite clear that each embodies an element of truth on account of which it cannot simply be disregarded.
330
viour are a consequence of the significant morphological difference between a micellar-type drag reducer
and a polymeric-type drag reducer.
In the case of micellar systems, there are a number
of different types of structures suggested. All surfacrant molecules or ions, at concentrations above a minimum value characteristic of each solvent-solute system, associate to form particles called micelles. The
most common and widely supported structures for
these micelles are the spherical and the lamellar ones.
The spherical micelle is generally conceived as a small
ball-like particle of colloidal dimensions and fairly
constant in size for a given species [288]. These spherical micelles are said to exist only in relatively dilute solutions.
In concentrated solutions, however, the lamellar
micelle is favoured, the existence of which for an ionic
micelle is compatible with the thermodynamic data
and the double layer theory of charged colloids [289].
A double layer micelle, of course, is one in which the
micelle formed by 50-100 molecular size particles is
lined up in two flat layers.
Debye and Anacker [290] were the first to find that
in the presence of salt, C14 and C16 quaternary compounds had rod-shaped micelles, wherein the ions are
disposed radically about a cylindrical axis with tails
pointing inward and heads pointing outward. Successive planes of these ions are disposed parallel to one
another and perpendicular to the length of the rod.
This model fits well with the theoretical calculations
on the energy of formation of the micelles and does not
preclude the existence of double layer micelles of the
same ions under different environments [291]. It has
been postulated [208] that in a surfactant system, initially spherical micelles rearrange into cylindrical or
rod-like micelles under the influence of an electrolyte.
The current views on micelle structure are shared
by all the leading investigators in the field. They all
agree that several different structures are possible and,
in fact, exist. It is possible for transition from one type
to another to occur. Which of these structures exists in
any particular system depends entirely on the system
parameters such as the chemical nature of the surfactant, the solvent, the presence of other components
like salts, solubilized materials, temperature and the
concentration of each component.
Since drag reducing solutions show viscoelasticity
with increased concentration of the additives, a study
of the same was essential in order to develop an insight
into the morphology of the systems. Pilpel [292] has
suggested that, in soap solutions, viscoelasticity arises
from the formation of large interlinkingsecondary micelles. He reasoned out that if this viscoelasticity is merely due to physical entanglementof the micellar units,
then it was quite immaterial whether the units are lamellar, cylindrical or bead-like strings of spherical micelles. An idea of the morphological parameters for
micellar systems, for the conditions of maximum drag
reduction activity, can be obtained from Savins [207]
who estimated the same using the information of Pilpel
[293]. The shape of the micelles of a complex soap
causing the Toms effect has been discussed in detail very recently by Myska and Simeckova [294] who confirm the existence of fibrillous structure.
In the case of polymeric systems, it is generally
agreed that the morphology of a polymer in solution
resembles a loose three-dimensionalnetwork consisting of variously extended macromolecule segments
[205]. A number of studies have been made to determine the important molecular parameters of polymer
molecules for drag reduction to occur, the most recent
being those of Berman [295,296], Ting [297] and Zakin and Hunston [298]. It has been found that the molecules should be flexible [299], loosely coiled and
long-chained [118,125,300-302] with relatively small
side groups [303,304]. It has also been found that the
drag reduction effectiveness of a homologous series of
polymers increases with increasing chain length
[134,157] and that as the highest molecular weight
components disappear, the polymer solution becomes
less effective.
Thus, the morphological difference between micellar and polymeric systems explains the contrasting
drag reducing behaviour of the two systems. These
two kinds of behaviour can be reconciled if one can
realise that
(a) the flexible polymer molecule needs to be elongated be a large velocity gradient before its full drag reducing ability is developed, and
(b) the surfactant particles are oriented much more
easily at lower velocity gradients, but are broken down
at the high shear stresses associated with large velocity
gradients. Further, in terms of equivalent molecular
weight, micelles are known to have larger values [305]
than polymers and hence they would naturally shift
the onset of drag reduction to a lower shear stress value.
331
nomenon. Poreh et al. [326] have shown that the presence of drag reducers considerably reduces the power
levels in the transportation of suspensions of sand and
slag particles. Field tests in Czechoslovakia using drag
reducers for hydrotransport of fly ash from power
plants burning high ash coals [327] is also another
example of the practical use of drag reducing agents.
The only factor limiting the widespread use of polymers as drag reducers in increasing the capacity of pipelines, is the problem of degradation [328]. But, in the
case of oil pipelines which happen to be in cold areas,
the drag reducers not only decrease the pumping costs
but also retard the drop in oil temperature by lowering
the liquid-pipe wall heat transfer coefficient.
In the ship-building industry, drag reducers find
good use in the model testing of prospective new ships
[75,192,329,330]. Their presence in towing tanks has
a two-fold advantage - first, by being able to simultaneously scale the Froude and Reynglds numbers, the
operating conditions are improved, and secondly, by
lowering the drag on the model they help to bring the
wave-making resistance coefficient of the model to the
same as that of the full-scale ship.
The concept of drag reduction in external flow situations can be effectively used for reducing the drag
on full-scale ships and other submerged vessels [105,
331-335]. Since large quantities of additives are required [32, 336] the economics depend on finding very cheap drag reducers. Nevertheless, Kowalski [337]
has suggested pulse ejection of the drag reducers in order to reduce the additive requirements. Wu [338] has,
however, pointed out that ejecting dilute drag reducing solutions in the sublayer around a travelling ship
could produce extremely economical results. Canham
et al. [339] hive reported full scale trials on the 140 feet
long ship, the 'I-IMS Highburton', and obtained very
encouraging results. The tremendous research in this
area will certainly lead to the eventual commercial use
of drag reduction for ships.
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest
in using drag reducing additives as possible circulation
aids for diseases such as arteriosclerosis and coronary
thrombosis during which the blood flow is turbulent
[340-342]. Hoyt and White [128] have suggested that
poly(ethylene oxide) with plasma and dextran can be
used to reduce the pressure drop in cardiovascular systems, provided, of course, they have no adverse physiological effects. Hoyt, in particular, has patented the
use of drag reducing additives with blood transfusion
fluids [343]. Recently, it has been found that okra
gum, apart from being a good drag reducer, is a suc-
332
References
333
334
88. Acharya A, Mashelkar RA, Ulbrecht J (1976) Rheol Acta
15:454
89. Acharya A, Mashelkar RA, Ulbrecht J (1976) Rheol Acta
15:471
90. Chhabra RP, Uhlhers PHT, Boger DV (1980)J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 6:187
91. Crawford HR, Pruitt GT (1- 5 Dec 1963) presented at the
Symp on Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 56th Annual
Meeting, AIChE, Houston
92. Lang TG, Patrick HVL (1966) ASME preprint 66-WA/FE-33
93. Ruszczycky MA (1965) Nature 206:614
94. Sanders, JV (1967) Int Shipbuilding Prog 14:140
95. Subbaraman V, Mashelkar RA, Ulbrecht J (1971) Rheol Acta
10:429
96. White A (1966) Nature 211:1390
97. White A (1967) Nature 216:994
98. White DA (1966) Nature 212:277
99. Williams MC (1965) AIChE J1 11:467
100. Savins JG (1961) J1 Inst Petrol 47:329
101. Hoyt JW (1967) US Patent 3, 327, 522
102. Hoyt JW (eds) (1965) Morris AW, Wang JTS, in: Symp on
Rheology, ASME, NY 71
103. Pruitt GT, Crawford HR (April 1965) Report No DTMB-1 of
Western Co under Contract No Nonr 4306 (00)
104. Pruitt GT, Simmons CM, Neill GH, Crawford HR (1964)
SPE Paper No 997
105. Wells CS (ed) (1969) Wells CS, in: Viscous Drag Reduction,
Henum Press, NY 362
106. White A (1966) J Mechanical Engg Sci 8:452
107. Ram A, Finkelstein E, Elata C (1967) Ind Engg Chem Process
Design Dev 6:309
108. Chashehin IP, Shalavin NT, Saenko VA (1975) Int Chem Engg
15:88
109. Ellio~tJH, Stow FS Jr (1971) J Appl Polym Sci 15:2743
110. Fabula AG (ed) (1965) Lee EH, Proc 4th Intern Congr Rheol,
1963, Part 3, Inter Science Publishers, NY 455
111. Felsen IM (1971) PhD Dissertation, Univ of Maryland
112. Felsen IM, Smith TG (May 1972) Paper 13 b, 72nd National
Meeting, AIChE
113. Giles WB, Pettit WT (1967) Nature 217:470
114. Goren Y, Norbury JF (1967) Trans ASME, J1 Basic Engg
89:814
115. Henderson LH (1971) M Sc Thesis, US Naval Postgraduate
School
116. Kinnier JW (1970) Ph D Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey
117. Little RC, Patterson RL (1974)J Appl Polym Sci 18:1529
118. Peyser P, Little RC (1971)J Appl Polym Sci 15:2623
119. Pike EWA (July 1971) Admiralty Res Lab (Teddington) ARL/
C/N9
120. Ripkin JF, Pilch M (1964) St Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab
Project No 71 to DTMB Nonr 710 (49)
121. Virk PS (1966) Sc D Thesis, MIT, Mass
122. Virk PS, Merrill EW, Mickley HS, Smith KA (1966) in: Modern Developments in tile Mechanics of Continua, Academic
Press, Inc NY
123. White WD (1966) Proc 5th US National Congr ofAppl Mech,
ASME
124. Little RC (1971) J App1 Polym Sci 15:3117
125. Pruitt GT, Rosen B, Crawford HR (1966) Western Co Report
DTMB-2 Nonr 4306 (00)
126. Liaw GC (1968) Ph D Thesis, Univ of Missouri, Rolla
335
216. Lee KC, Zakin JL (1973) AIChE Chem Engg Prog Symp Series No 130 69:45
217. McMillan ML, Hershey HC, Baxter R (1971) AIChE Chem
Engg Prog Symp Series No 111 67:27
218. Zakin JL (1972) Nature Phys Sci 235:97
219. Rodriguez F (1971) Nature Phys Sci 230:152
220. Sheffer H (1948) Can J1 of Research 26B:481
221. Baker HR, Bolster NN, Leach PB, Little RC (1970) Ind Eng
Chem Product Res Develop 9:541
222. Nash T (1956) Nature 177:948
223. Nash T (1958) J Col] Sci 13:134
224. Nash T (1956) J Appl Chem 6:539
225. Gadd GE (1966) Nature 212:1348
226. White A (1967) Nature 214:585
227. Zakin JL, Poreh M, Brosh A, Warsharsky M (1971) AIChE
Chem Engg Prog Symp Series No 111, 67:85
228. White A (1968) Hendson College of Tech, Res Bull No 5,113
229. Zakin JL, Chang JL (1972) Nature Phys Sci 239:26
230. Zakin JL, Chang JL (4- 6 Sept 1974) Proc Intern Conf on
Drag Reduction, Cambridge, Eng
231. Kuriyama K (1962) Kolloid-Z 180:55
232. Becher P (ed) (1967) Schick MI, Dekker M, in: Nonionic Surfactants, NY 496
233. Shenoy AV (1976) Rheol Acta 15:658
234. Walsh M (1967) Ph D Thesis, California Inst of Tech
235. Lumley JL (1964) Physics of Fluids 7:335
236. El'perin IT, Smol'skii BM, Leventhal LI (1967) Intern Chem
Engg 7:276
237. Davies GA, Ponter AB (1966) Nature 212:66
238. Little RC (1967) Naval Res Lab Report 6542
239. Little RC (1969) Ind Eng Chem Fundamentals 8:520
240. Elata C, Poreh M (1966) Rheol Acta 5:148
241. Patterson GK, Zakin JL (1968) AIChE J114:434
242. Kinnier JW, Reister WA (1965) M S Thesis, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
243. Prather RJ (1966) M S Thesis, US Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey
244. Boggs FW, ThompsonJ (1967) US Rubber Co Research Center Report on Contract Nos Nonr-3120(00) and N00014-66C0322
245. Lockett FJ (1969) Nature 222:937
246. Black TJ (ed) (1969) Wells CS, in: Viscous Drag Reduction,
Plenum Press, NY 383
247. Ruckenstein E (1973) J Appl Polym Sci 17:3239
248. Fortuin, JMH, Klijn pJ (1982) AIChE J1 37:611
249. Tulin MP (1966) Proc 6th Symp on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Washington, ONR, ACR-136, 3
250. Lumley JL (1967) App1 Mech Reviews 20, 1139
251. Cottrell FR (1968) Sc D Thesis, MIT, Mass
252. Cottrell FR, Merrill EW, Smith KA (1969)J Polym Sci Series
A-2 7:1417
253. Cottrell FR, Merrill EW, Smith KA (1970) J Polym Sci A-2
8:287
254. Ellis AT, Ting RY, Nadolink RH (1970) AIAA paper 70-532
255. Little RC (1969) Ind Eng Chem Fundamentals 8:557
256. Pfenninger W (1967) Northrop Corp Norair Division Report
BLC-179
257. Peterlin A (1970) Nature 227:598
258. Corino ER, Brodkey RS (1969) J Fluid Mech 37:1
259. Gordon RJ (1970) J Appl Polym Sci 14:2097
260. Gordon RJ (1970) Nature 227:599
261. Latto B, Shen CH (1970) Can J1 Chem Engg 48:34
336
262. Gyr A (1974) Inst fiir Hydromechanik und Wasserwirtschaft
ETH Ziirich Report R7-74
263. Rudd MJ (197l) AIChE, Chem Engg Prog Syrup Series
No 111, 67:21
264. Rudd MJ (1972)J Fluid Mech 51:673
265. Brennen C (1970) J Fluid Mech 44:51
266. Fortuna G, Hanratty TJ (1972) J Fluid Mech 53:575
267. Kim OK, Little RC, Ting RY (1973) AIChE Chem Engg Prog
Symp Series No 130, 69:39
268. Banijamali SH, Merrill EW, Smith KA, Peebles LHJr (1974)
AIChE J1201:824
269. Lumley JL (1970) Proc Drag Reduction Workshop, ONR
Boston
270. Astarita G (1965) Ind Eng Chem Fundamentals 4:354
271. Gadd GE (1965) Nature 206:463
272. Gadd GE (1966) Nature 212:874
273. Johnson B, Barchi RH (1968) J Hydronautics 2:108
274. Walsh M (1967) Intern Shipbuilding Progress 14:134
275. Walters RR, Wells CS (1971) J Hydronautics 5:65
276. Kilian FP (1970) Mitteiltmgen der Versuchanstalt ffir Wasserbau und Schiffsban, Berlin Heft 51 and 52
277. Gadd GE (1968) Nature 217:1040
278. Kuo Y, Tanner RI (1972) Trans ASME, Jl App1 Mech 39:661
279. Gyr A (1968) Nature 219:928
280. Metzner AB, Metzner AP (1970) Rheol Acta 9:174
281. Lacey PMC (1974) Chem Engg Sci 29:1495
282. Balakrishnan C, Gordon RJ (1971) Nature Phys Sci 231:177
283. Gordon RJ, Balakrishnan C (1972) J Appl Polym Sci 16:1629
284. Virk PS (1971) J Fluid Mech 45:225
285. Virk PS (1971) J Fluid Mech 45:417
286. Virk PS, Mickley HS, Smith KA (1970) Trans ASME, J1Appl
Mech 37:488
287. Gadd GE (1971) Nature Phys Sci 230:29
288. Hartley GS (1949) Nature 163:767
289. Brady AP (1949) J1 Phys Coll Chem 53:947
290. Debye P, Anacker EW (1951) J1 Phys Coil Chem 55:644
291. Halsey GD (1953) J1 Phys Chem 57:87
292. Pilpel N (1966) Trans Faraday Soc 62:2941
293. Pilpel N (1966) Trans Faraday Soc 62:1015
294. Myska J, Simeckova M (1983) Colloid Polym Sci 261:171
295. Berman NS (1975) J AppI Polym Sci 19:908
296. Berman NS (1980) Polym Eng Sci 20:45l
297. Ting RY (1982) Chem Engg Communications 15:331
298. Zakin JL, Hunston DL (1980) J Macromol Sci Phys B18:795
299. Liaw GC, Zakin JL, Patterson GK (1971) AIChE J117:391
300. Hand JH, Williams MC (1969)J Appl Polym Sci 13:2499
301. Hand JH, Williams MC (1971) AIChE Chem Engg Prog
Symp Series No 111 67:6
302. Little RC (1971) J Colloid Interf Sci 37:811
303. Parker CA, Joyce TA (1974)J Polym Sci 18:155
304. Ting RY, Kim OK (ed) (1973) Bikales NM, in: Water-soluble
Polymers, Plenum Press, NY
305. Hersey HC, Kuo JT, McMillan ML (1975) Ind Eng Chem
Prod Res Dev 14:192
306. Melton LL, Malone WT (1974) SPE J1 56
307. Fabula AG (1971) Trans ASME, J Basic Engg 93:453
308. Rubin H (1972)J Sanitary Engg Division, Proc ASCE 98:1
309. Thorne PF (4 - 6 Sept 1974) Proc Intern Confin Drag Reduction, Cambridge, Engg
310. Thorne PF, Theobald CR, Mahendran P (1975) Fire Res Station, Borchamwood, England, Fire Res Notes 1033 and 1043
311. Anon (Aug 1966) Chem Engg, p 36
337
Author's address:
Dr. A. V. Shenoy
Chemical Engineering Division
National Chemical Laboratory
Pune 411008 (India)
23