Numerical Simulation of the Buoyancy-Driven Bouncing of a 2-D Bubble at a Horizontal Wall

Canot, Édouard; Davoust, Laurent; Hammoumi, Mohammed El; Lachkar, D.

doi:10.1007/s00162-003-0096-y

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The probability of bounce is therefore related to interrelation between rate of energy transfer and kinetics of liquid film drainage. This theoretically postulated mechanism had been confirmed later on the basis of experimental observations [9] and numerical calculations [10,11]. However, no direct experimental evidence was presented in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

On mechanism of the bubble bouncing from hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces

Zawała¹,

Zawała²,

Małysa³

2015

Annales UMCS, Chemia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The kinetics of collision and bouncing of an air bubble on hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces immersed in distilled water is reported. We carried out the experiments and compared the bubble collision and bouncing courses on the stagnant and vibrating, with a controlled frequency and amplitude, solid/liquid interface. For stagnant interface differences in the outcome of the bubble collisions with hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces are resulting from different stability of the intervening liquid film formed between the colliding bubble and these surfaces. The liquid film was unstable at Teflon surface, where the three-phase contact (TPC) and the bubble attachment were observed, after dissipation of most of the kinetic energy associated with the bubble motion. For vibrated solid surface it was shown that kinetics of the bubble bouncing is independent on the hydrophilic/hydrophobic properties of the surface. Similarly like at water/glass hydrophilic interface, even at highly hydrophobic Teflon surface time of the bubble collisions and bouncing was prolonged almost indefinitely. This was due to the fact that the energy dissipated during the collision was re-supplied via interface vibrations with a properly adjusted acceleration. The analysis of the bubble deformation degree showed that this effect is related to a constant bubble deformation, which determined constant radius of the liquid film, large enough to prevent the draining liquid film from reaching the critical thickness of rupture at the moment of collision. The results obtained prove that mechanism of the bubble bouncing from various interfaces depends on interrelation between rates of two simultaneously going processes: (i) exchange between kinetic and surface energies of the system and (ii) drainage of the liquid film separating the interacting interfaces.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

On mechanism of the bubble bouncing from hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces

Zawała¹,

Zawała²,

Małysa³

2015

Annales UMCS, Chemia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dissipation increases, however, in the vicinity of the liquid/gas interface and is the highest at the moment of bubble collision as a consequence of liquid film formation and drainage. 20 As a result, the coalescence took place when the kinetic energy associated with the bubble motion was significantly smaller than at the 1st collision.…”

Section: Water/air Interface At Rest (Set-up A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Let us analyze the results presented above from the point of view of the bouncing mechanism. It is rather commonly accepted that the bounce of a gas bubble from the interface takes place as a consequence of competition between two processes occurring simultaneously during the collision: 15,18,20,[23][24][25] (i) drainage of the liquid film, and (ii) transfer of the kinetic energy associated with the bubble motion into surface energy of the deformed (enlarged) bubble surface and local area of the water/air interface. The bounce of the bubble from the interface is, therefore, an indication that the energy transfer is faster than the film drainage to its rupture thickness.…”

Section: Pccp Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Bubble bouncing at a clean water surface

Zawała

Dorbolo

Vandewalle

et al. 2013

Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments on the coalescence time of submillimeter bubbles colliding with a distilled water/air interface either being at rest (undisturbed) or vibrating vertically (with controlled amplitude and frequency) were carried out. It was found that the outcome of the bubble collision (coalescence or bounce) depends on impact velocity and size of the bubble, i.e. the parameters determining the bubble deformation degree. With the surface at rest, when the deformation of the bubble was sufficiently high, bubble bouncing was observed. It was caused by the fact that the radius of the intervening liquid film formed between the colliding bubble and water/air interface was large enough to prevent the liquid layer from reaching its thickness of rupture within the time of bubble-interface contact. Coalescence occurred in a consecutive collision if the bubble deformation was below a threshold value, as a result of dissipation of the kinetic energy associated with the bubble motion. The hypothesis about the crucial role of the bubble deformation and size of the liquid film formed in the bouncing mechanism was confirmed in a series of experiments where the bubble collided with a vibrating water/air interface. It was shown that when the kinetic energy was properly re-supplied from an external source (interface vibrations), the spectacular phenomenon of "immortal" bubbles, dancing indefinitely at the water/air interface, was achieved. It was shown that "immortal" bubble formation is a consequence of a similarly high degree of the bubble shape deformation and consequently a large enough radius of the liquid film formed.

show abstract

“…They converted their problem into a system of integro-differential equations which they solved under the conditions of small Weber numbers and large Reynolds numbers. The boundary element method for the potential problem has been extended to accommodate the effects of viscosity in a purely irrotational flow by Georgescu, Achard & Canot (2002) to study a gas bubble bursting at a free surface and by Canot et al (2003) in their numerical simulation of J. C. Padrino and D. D. Joseph the buoyancy-driven bouncing of a two-dimensional bubble at a horizontal wall using the direct formulation of the boundary element method. Very recently, Gordillo (2008) studied the necking and break-up of a bubble under the action of gravity generated from a submerged vertical nozzle by modifying the code of RDZ for inviscid fluids to include the viscous effects of the irrotational motion of the liquid through the viscous normal stress at the interface, whereas the rotational effects in the gas (vorticity) are retained through a mechanistic model based upon the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations assuming a slender neck region that splits the gas pressure as an inviscid plus a viscous contribution.…”

Section: Boundary Integral Methods For Viscous Potential Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viscous irrotational analysis of the deformation and break-up time of a bubble or drop in uniaxial straining flow

Padrino

Joseph

2011

J. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nonlinear deformation and break-up of a bubble or drop immersed in a uniaxial extensional flow of an incompressible viscous fluid is analysed by means of viscous potential flow. In this approximation, the flow field is irrotational and viscosity enters through the balance of normal stresses at the interface. The governing equations are solved numerically to track the motion of the interface by coupling a boundary-element method with a time-integration routine. When break-up occurs, the break-up time computed here is compared with results obtained elsewhere from numerical simulations of the Navier-Stokes equations (Revuelta, Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Bazán J. Fluid Mech., vol. 551, 2006, p. 175), which thus keeps vorticity in the analysis, for several combinations of the relevant dimensionless parameters of the problem. For the bubble, for Weber numbers 3 We 6, predictions from viscous potential flow shows good agreement with the results from the Navier-Stokes equations for the bubble break-up time, whereas for larger We, the former underpredicts the results given by the latter. When viscosity is included, larger break-up times are predicted with respect to the inviscid case for the same We. For the drop, and considering moderate Reynolds numbers, Re, increasing the viscous effects of the irrotational motion produces large, elongated drops that take longer to break up in comparison with results for inviscid fluids. For larger Re, it comes as a surprise that break-up times smaller than the inviscid limit are obtained. Unfortunately, results from numerical analyses of the incompressible, unsteady Navier-Stokes equations for the case of a drop have not been presented in the literature, to the best of the authors' knowledge; hence, comparison with the viscous irrotational analysis is not possible.

show abstract

Numerical Simulation of the Buoyancy-Driven Bouncing of a 2-D Bubble at a Horizontal Wall

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

On mechanism of the bubble bouncing from hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces

On mechanism of the bubble bouncing from hydrophilic and hydrophobic solid surfaces

Bubble bouncing at a clean water surface

Viscous irrotational analysis of the deformation and break-up time of a bubble or drop in uniaxial straining flow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About