Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T23:37:10.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Superhydrophobic turbulent drag reduction as a function of surface grating parameters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2014

Hyungmin Park ,
Guangyi Sun  and
Chang-Jin “CJ” Kim Open the ORCID record for Chang-Jin “CJ” Kim [Opens in a new window]
Hyungmin Park*
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Guangyi Sun*
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
Chang-Jin “CJ” Kim*
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
*
†Present address: Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-744, Korea.
‡Present address: Institute of Robotics and Automatic Information System, Nankai University, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Intelligent Robotics, Tianjin 300071, China.
§Email address for correspondence: cjkim@ucla.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Despite the confirmation of slip flows and successful drag reduction (DR) in small-scaled laminar flows, the full impact of superhydrophobic (SHPo) DR remained questionable because of the sporadic and inconsistent experimental results in turbulent flows. Here we report a systematic set of bias-free reduction data obtained by measuring the skin-friction drags on a SHPo surface and a smooth surface at the same time and location in a turbulent boundary layer (TBL) flow. Each monolithic sample consists of a SHPo surface and a smooth surface suspended by flexure springs, all carved out from a $2.7 \times 2.7 {\mathrm{mm}}^{2}$ silicon chip by photolithographic microfabrication. The flow tests allow continuous monitoring of the plastron on the SHPo surfaces, so that the DR data are genuine and consistent. A family of SHPo samples with precise profiles reveals the effects of grating parameters on turbulent DR, which was measured to be as much as ${\sim }75\, \%$.

JFM classification

Flow Control: Drag reduction Micro-/Nano-fluid dynamics: MEMS/NEMS Turbulent Flows: Turbulence control
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 747 , 25 May 2014 , pp. 722 - 734
Copyright
© 2014 Cambridge University Press 

References

Bocquet, L. & Lauga, E. 2011 A smooth future? Nat. Mater. 10, 334–337.Google Scholar
Busse, A. & Sandham, N. D. 2012 Influence of an anisotropic slip-length boundary condition on turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 24, 055111.Google Scholar
Byun, D., Kim, J., Ko, H. S. & Park, H. C. 2008 Direct measurement of slip flows in superhydrophobic microchannels with transverse grooves. Phys. Fluids 20, 113601.Google Scholar
Ceccio, S. L. 2010 Friction drag reduction of external flows with bubble and gas injection. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, C.-H. & Kim, C.-J. 2006 Large slip of aqueous liquid flow over a nanoengineered superhydrophobic surface. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 066001.Google Scholar
Choi, C.-H., Ulmanella, U., Kim, J., Ho, C.-M. & Kim, C.-J. 2006 Effective slip and friction reduction in nanograted superhydrophobic microchannels. Phys. Fluids 18, 087105.Google Scholar
Daniello, R. J., Waterhouse, N. E. & Rothstein, J. P. 2009 Drag reduction in turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces. Phys. Fluids 21, 085103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emami, B., Hemeda, A. A., Amrei, M. M., Luzar, A., Gad-el-Hak, M. & Tafreshi, H. V. 2013 Predicting longevity of submerged superhydrophobic surfaces with parallel grooves. Phys. Fluids 25, 062108.Google Scholar
Fukagata, K., Kasagi, N. & Koumoutsakos, P. 2006 A theoretical prediction of friction drag reduction in turbulent flow by superhydrophobic surfaces. Phys. Fluids 18, 051703.Google Scholar
Fukuda, K., Tokunaga, J., Nobunaga, T., Nakatani, T., Iwasaki, T. & Kunitake, Y. 2000 Frictional drag reduction with air lubricant over a super-water-repellent surface. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 5, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, S., Je, J. & Choi, H. 2002 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow with permeable walls. J. Fluid Mech. 450, 259–285.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Frohnapfel, B. & Kasagi, N. 2011 Effects of spatially varying slip length on friction drag reduction in wall turbulence. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 318, 022028.Google Scholar
Henoch, C., Krupenkin, T. N., Kolodner, P., Taylor, J. A., Hodes, M. S., Lyons, A. M., Peguero, C. & Breuer, K.2006 Turbulent drag reduction using superhydrophobic surfaces, AIAA Paper 2006-3192.Google Scholar
Jeffs, K., Maynes, D. & Webb, B. W. 2010 Prediction of turbulent channel flow with superhydrophobic walls consisting of micro-ribs and cavities oriented parallel to the flow direction. Intl J. Heat Mass Transfer 53, 786–796.Google Scholar
Jiménez, J. 2004 Turbulent flows over rough walls. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshep, P., Cottin-Bizonne, C., Benoît, J.-M., Ybert, C., Journet, C., Tabeling, P. & Bocquet, L. 2006 Slippage of water past superhyrophobic carbon nanotube forests in microchannels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 156104.Google Scholar
Jung, Y. C. & Bhushan, B. 2010 Biomimetic structures for fluid drag reduction in laminar and turbulent flows. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 22, 035104.Google ScholarPubMed
Kim, J. 2011 Physics and control of wall turbulence for drag reduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369, 1396–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauga, E. & Stone, H. 2003 Effective slip in pressure-driven Stokes flow. J. Fluid Mech. 489, 55–77.Google Scholar
Lay, K. A., Ryo, Y., Simo, M., Perlin, M. & Ceccio, S. L. 2010 Partial cavity drag reduction at high Reynolds numbers. J. Ship Res. 54, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C., Choi, C.-H. & Kim, C.-J. 2008 Structured surfaces for a giant liquid slip. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 064510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C. & Kim, C.-J. 2009 Maximizing the giant liquid slip on superhydrophobic microstructures by nanostructuring their sidewalls. Langmuir 25, 12812–12818.Google Scholar
Lee, C. & Kim, C.-J. 2011 Underwater restoration and retention of gases on superhydrophobic surfaces for drag reduction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 014502.Google Scholar
Lee, C. & Kim, C.-J. 2012 Wetting and active dewetting processes of hierarchically constructed superhydrophobic surfaces fully immersed in water. J. Microelectromech. Syst. 21, 712–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martell, M. B., Perot, J. B. & Rothstein, J. P. 2009 Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 620, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martell, M. B., Rothstein, J. P. & Perot, J. B. 2010 An analysis of superhydrophobic turbulent drag reduction mechanisms using direct numerical simulation. Phys. Fluids 22, 065102.Google Scholar
Maynes, D., Jeffs, K., Woolford, B. & Webb, B. W. 2007 Laminar flow in a microchannel with hydrophobic surface patterned microribs oriented parallel to the flow direction. Phys. Fluids 19, 093603.Google Scholar
Min, T. & Kim, J. 2004 Effects of hydrophobic surface on skin-friction drag. Phys. Fluids 16, L55–L58.Google Scholar
Naughton, J. W. & Sheplak, M. 2002 Modern developments in shear-stress measurement. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 38, 515–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ou, J., Perot, B. & Rothstein, J. P. 2004 Laminar drag reduction in microchannels using ultrahydrophobic surfaces. Phys. Fluids 16, 4635–4643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H., Park, H. & Kim, J. 2013 A numerical study of the effects of superhydrophobic surface on skin-friction drag in turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 25, 110815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peguero, C. & Breuer, K. 2009 On drag reduction in turbulent channel flow over superhydrophobic surfaces. In Advances in Turbulence XII (ed. Eckhardt, B.), pp. 233–236. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, X. & Song, D.-P. 2012 Minimizing fuel emissions by optimizing vessel schedules in liner shipping with uncertain port times. Transp. Res. E 48, 863–880.Google Scholar
Rothstein, J. P. 2010 Slip on superhydrophobic surfaces. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 89–109.Google Scholar
Samaha, M. A., Tafreshi, H. V. & Gad-el-Hak, M. 2012a Influence of flow on longevity of superhydrophobic coatings. Langmuir 28, 9759–9766.Google Scholar
Samaha, M. A., Tafreshi, H. V. & Gad-el-Hak, M. 2012b Superhydrophobic surfaces: from the lotus leaf to the submarine. C.R. Méc. 340, 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, P., Peters, A. M., Pirat, C., Wessling, M., Lammertink, R. G. H. & Lohse, D. 2009 Quantifying effective slip length over micro patterned hydrophobic surfaces. Phys. Fluids 21, 112002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M. J.1982 Turbulent boundary layer drag reduction using riblets AIAA Paper 1982-0169.Google Scholar
Winkler, J. P.2008 Shipping wasting 4.37 million barrels of oil a day. Reuters Press Release, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/24/idUS82323+24-Jun-2008+BW20080624.Google Scholar
Woolford, B., Maynes, D. & Webb, B. W. 2009a Liquid flow through microchannels with grooved walls under wetting and superhydrophobic conditions. Microfluid. Nanofluid. 7, 121–135.Google Scholar
Woolford, B., Prince, J., Maynes, D. & Webb, B. W. 2009b Particle image velocimetry characterization of turbulent channel flow with rib patterned superhydrophobic walls. Phys. Fluids 21, 085106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, J., Du, X. & Shi, X. 2007 Experimental research on friction–reduction with super-hydrophobic surfaces. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 6, 58–61.Google Scholar

Park et al. supplementary movie

Comparative displacement of a SHPo surface and a smooth surface measured in in a turbulent boundary layer flow (Reτ ~ 250) – 50× slower. It is clearly seen that the SHPo surface (50 μm pitch and 90% GF) is dragged less than a smooth counterpart in a turbulent flow which indicates a skin-friction drag reduction.

Download Park et al. supplementary movie(Video)
Video 828.8 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Park et al. supplementary material

Park supplementary material

Download Park et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.5 MB