Bouncing of a bubble at a liquid–liquid interface

Singh, K.K.; Gebauer, F.; Bart, Hans‐Jörg

doi:10.1002/aic.15625

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence the most significant differences with rigid bodies are found for large Bo 1 and Bo 2 and small λ s , i.e., with large bubbles. The various regimes discussed in Sections 4.1-4.3 are successively encountered as the drop or bubble size (i.e., Bo) increases, all else being equal (Bonhomme et al 2012, Emery et al 2018: Drops that do not satisfy Equation 4 (with = 0) or Equation 6 remain trapped at the interface, possibly after a bouncing sequence (Feng et al 2016, Singh et al 2017, while slightly larger drops cross the interface in a quasi-static manner. Once released in the second fluid, they remain encapsulated in a thin shell corresponding to the remains of the film or meniscus left by the drainage process or the snapping mechanism.…”

Section: Specificities Of Deformable Drops and Bubblesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particles, Drops, and Bubbles Moving Across Sharp Interfaces and Stratified Layers

Magnaudet

Mercier

2020

Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rigid or deformable bodies moving through continuously stratified layers or across sharp interfaces are involved in a wide variety of geophysical and engineering applications, with both miscible and immiscible fluids. In most cases, the body moves while pulling a column of fluid, in which density and possibly viscosity differ from those of the neighboring fluid. The presence of this column usually increases the fluid resistance to the relative body motion, frequently slowing down its settling or rise in a dramatic manner. This column also exhibits specific dynamics that depend on the nature of the fluids and on the various physical parameters of the system, especially the strength of the density/viscosity stratification and the relative magnitude of inertia and viscous effects. In the miscible case, as stratification increases, the wake becomes dominated by the presence of a downstream jet, which may undergo a specific instability. In immiscible fluids, the viscosity contrast combined with capillary effects may lead to strikingly different evolutions of the column, including pinch-off followed by the formation of a drop that remains attached to the body, or a massive fragmentation phenomenon. This review discusses the flow organization and its consequences on the body motion under a wide range of conditions, as well as potentialities and limitations of available models aimed at predicting the body and column dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Specificities Of Deformable Drops and Bubblesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particles, Drops, and Bubbles Moving Across Sharp Interfaces and Stratified Layers

Magnaudet

Mercier

2020

Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The collision of a bubble with a liquid–liquid interface has received much less research focus compared to a solid–liquid or gas–liquid interface. Most experimental studies focused on bubbles that pass through the liquid–liquid interface with a volume of the lower liquid entrained around or behind the bubble. − These works have focused on the influence of upper and lower liquid properties, the formation of encapsulated bubbles, stages of film rupture, and identifying and classifying associated flow regimes . Numerical models of this process have relied on grid-based simulation techniques, either using commercial software such as ANSYS Fluent or other customized schemes to solve the flow equations. ,, Confining previous studies to bubbles that do not pass through the interface but instead experience a bouncing behavior similar to that seen with solid and free surface collisions significantly reduces the breadth of relevant previous works.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Bubble Collisions at Liquid–Liquid and Compound Interfaces

Emery

Kandlikar

2019

Langmuir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The collision of a bubble at liquid–liquid, solid–liquid–liquid, and gas–liquid–liquid interfaces, the latter two of which are referred to as compound interfaces, is modeled to predict the bubble’s velocity profile and the pressure buildup and drainage rate of the film(s) formed at impact. A force balance approach, previously outlined for bubble collisions at solid and free surfaces, is employed, which takes into account four forces acting on the bubble: buoyancy, drag, inertia of the surrounding liquid through an added mass force, and a film force resulting from the pressure buildup in the liquid film formed between the bubble and the interface upon impact. The augmented Young–Laplace equation is applied to define the pressure buildup in the film(s), while lubrication theory is employed to define the film drainage rate(s) through the use of the Stokes–Reynolds equation. This is the first time this modeling technique has been implemented for bubble collisions with these interface types as all previous models have relied only on grid-based simulations. The models were validated through experiments conducted here with water and silicone oils of various viscosities and from data found in literature. A reasonable agreement is observed between the theoretical and experimental velocity profiles found for these liquid combinations under varying conditions of impact velocity and top film thickness. The spatiotemporal film thickness and pressure profile evolution, features not yet able to be captured through experiment, are also presented and discussed.

show abstract

“…where F B , F S , F D , and m g a CM are buoyancy, surface/interfacial tension, drag, and inertia forces, respectively. Note that these notations have been used for the magnitudes of the forces, and the sign (direction) of each of them has been signified in Equation (13). Inertia was defined as the product of bubble mass m g , and its centre of mass acceleration a CM .…”

Section: Force Balancingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the average velocity of the bubble is less than a threshold value (that depends on the two liquids' interfacial tension and the viscosity of the heavier liquid), the bubble bounces before it passes the interface. [13] For a bubble or drop motion toward a liquid-liquid interface, film drainage and tailing mode can be observed. The film drainage is more common; however, the tailing mode occurs at low viscosity of the lighter liquid, high viscosity of the heavier liquid, and high deformability of the interface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Passage of a rising bubble through a liquid‐liquid interface: A flow map for different regimes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The passage of a rising air bubble through a stratified horizontal interface between two Newtonian liquids is studied numerically. A ternary phase-field model has been utilized for capturing the interface between three immiscible fluids. According to the previous studies, the density, viscosity, and surface tension of the two liquids, in addition to the bubble diameter, are the effective parameters of bubble interaction with the interface. By changing these variables, three main flow patterns are identified in numerical simulations. Penetration flow regime is observed when the bubble enters the upper liquid alone and does not raise the lower liquid. Entrainment flow regime occurs when the bubble lifts some of the heavier liquid to the lighter liquid but still rises alone. If the bubble holds a film of the denser liquid when it rises in the upper liquid, envelopment flow regime takes place. A flow regime map is represented to distinguish the aforementioned flow patterns using Weber and Morton numbers and determine regime transition criteria based on these two dimensionless parameters. For Weber numbers lower than 30, or Morton numbers higher than 1.7 × 10 −2 , the penetration regime is observed. On the contrary, when the Weber number is higher than 65 and the Morton number is lower than 7 × 10 −5 , the envelopment regime occurs. The entrainment pattern happens between these ranges and two additional limiting relations of 320Mo 0.18 < We < 1500Mo 0.23 .

show abstract

Bouncing of a bubble at a liquid–liquid interface

Cited by 26 publications

References 43 publications

Particles, Drops, and Bubbles Moving Across Sharp Interfaces and Stratified Layers

Particles, Drops, and Bubbles Moving Across Sharp Interfaces and Stratified Layers

Modeling Bubble Collisions at Liquid–Liquid and Compound Interfaces

Passage of a rising bubble through a liquid‐liquid interface: A flow map for different regimes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About