Effect of roughness and wettability of silicon wafer in cavitation erosion

Cavitation characteristics of pit structure in ultrasonic field

“…It is found that in the case of vibratory cavitation the mass loss increases drastically with the lapse of time, particularly after the incubation period, due to the removal of particles from the material surface [5][6][7][8][9] . Ahmed and Chiu studied the evolution of surface roughness in ultrasonic cavitation test [10][11][12] .…”

Effect of Initial Surface Roughness on Cavitation Erosion Resistance of Arc-Sprayed Fe-Based Amorphous/Nanocrystalline Coatings

“…In addition, the mass loss data of the coating after 600 grit grinding are very close to that of the coating after 1000 grit grinding during the first 30 min, but gradually higher than those of the coating after 1000 grit grinding when the test time exceeds 30 min. This may be because that a higher surface roughness level is helpful to increase the density of bubble nucleation near the surface of the coating specimen [28,29], which causes more impacts of the collapsing bubble on the surface and then much more mass loss of the coating. Figure 3 shows the relationship between cumulative mass loss and cavitation erosion time for the FeNiCrBSiNbW amorphous/nanocrystalline coatings with three surface roughness levels.…”

Wall wettability effect on process of collapse of single cavitation bubbles in near-wall region using pseudo-potential lattice Boltzmann method

“…Cavitation in the near-wall region has aroused considerable research interest [1][2][3][4][5] because of its promising applications to material chemistry [6,7,8,9], laboratory and industrial cleaning [10,11], surgical and medical procedures [12,13], and hydraulic energy dissipation and cavitation alleviation [14]. Various factors affect near-wall region cavitation [6,7,[15][16][17][18][19], and wall wettability is considered a critical aspect in these contexts [6,7,18,[20][21][22]. Some studies indicated that under the same ambient conditions, the probability of cavitation is clearly higher for hydrophobic surfaces [6,7] and the cavitation pressure can be of an order greater than that for hydrophilic walls [23].…”

“…Owing to the complex interactions between fluid and solid surfaces, and between the liquid and gas phases [6,24], the theoretical analysis of the cavitation phenomenon has been limited [25,26]. Although many laboratory experiments [1,2,[5][6][7]18,21,[27][28][29][30] and numerical simulations [2,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] were conducted to investigate near-wall cavitation, they focused on the morphologicalbehaviorofthecavitationbubble,andthemechanismofdamagetothe solidboundaryinresponsetocavitationincaseofconstantwallproperties [1,5,28,40].Researchontheeffectofwallwettabilityoncavitation [6,7,18,[21][22][23]32] is scarce and the range of contact angles that has been considered is inadequate.Systematicandquantitativeresearch ontheeffectsofwall wettability acrossavarietyofmaterialshasnotbeenconducted,andthusthemechanisms whereby wall wettability affects cavitation have yet to be revealed.…”

“…In this study, the effects of wall wettability on cavitation bubbles are investigated by using the 2D pseudo-potential LBM model with an MRT collision operator and the force terms proposed by Li [57,61]. Cavitation under different conditions of wall wettability is systematically studied, with θ w ranging from the hydrophilic 53 to the hydrophobic 113 to cover most common industrial surfaces [18], [59][60][61]. The effect of initial bubble distance, which ranges from 1 to 3 times of the bubble radius, is also considered.…”