Skin friction reduction in tubes with hydrophobically structured surfaces

Skin friction drag is dominant in the total drag in a tube flow. In this study pore-type poly (dimethylsiloxane) microstructures are used to reduce the contact area between water and the tube wall. The water is lifted up by the microstructures with a hydrophobic nature so that the water flows on a solid/air composite surface. The solid/air composite surface results in skin friction reduction. The hydrophobicity of the tube wall surface is adjusted by the solid fraction of the surface. Three tube models with different hydrophobicities (contact angle: No Pore = 106°, Pore30 = 131°, Pore110 = 148°) were fabricated and their flow velocities according to the water height were measured. The water flow velocities in a tube with a higher contact angle were higher than those in a tube with a lower contact angle. The relative velocities of a Pore110 tube over a No Pore tube rapidly decrease as the water height increases, and they are saturated over Reynolds number(Re) = 1,400. On the other hand, the relative velocities of a Pore30 tube slowly decrease and they are saturated over Re = 900. A Pore110 tube with a superhydrophobic surface exhibited a high skin friction reduction in the low Reynolds number region (∼ 1,400). In the saturated relative velocity region, the velocities of the Pore110 and Pore30 tubes were on average 3.3% and 2.1% higher than that of the No Pore tube. These results indicate that a tube with a higher contact angle exhibits relatively lower skin friction and delays the velocity saturation point better than a tube with a lower contact angle in the laminar flow region.

[1]  Wen Li,et al.  Anisotropic wetting behavior arising from superhydrophobic surfaces: parallel grooved structure. , 2008, Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

[2]  Andrea Mammoli,et al.  Effective slip on textured superhydrophobic surfaces , 2005 .

[3]  A. Cassie,et al.  Wettability of porous surfaces , 1944 .

[4]  Seong Min Kang,et al.  Robust superomniphobic surfaces with mushroom-like micropillar arrays , 2012 .

[5]  F. Bertrand,et al.  Turbulent drag reduction by surfactants , 2006 .

[6]  G. Karniadakis,et al.  Drag reduction in wall-bounded turbulence via a transverse travelling wave , 2002, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[7]  D. Crowdy Frictional slip lengths for unidirectional superhydrophobic grooved surfaces , 2011 .

[8]  G. Whitesides,et al.  Poly(dimethylsiloxane) as a material for fabricating microfluidic devices. , 2002, Accounts of chemical research.

[9]  Mohamed Gad-el-Hak,et al.  Compliant Coatings: A Decade of Progress , 1996 .

[10]  V. T. Truong,et al.  Drag Reduction Technologies , 2001 .

[11]  Im Deok Jung,et al.  Fabrication of nickel micromesh sheets and evaluation of their water-repellent and water-proof abilities , 2009 .

[12]  W. Reif,et al.  Hydrodynamics of the squamation in fast swimming sharks , 1982 .

[13]  M. Chaudhury,et al.  Estimation of Adhesion Hysteresis at Polymer/Oxide Interfaces Using Rolling Contact Mechanics , 1998 .

[14]  Chang-Hwan Choi,et al.  Large slip of aqueous liquid flow over a nanoengineered superhydrophobic surface. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[15]  Maurizio Quadrio,et al.  Turbulent boundary layer over riblets: Conditional analysis of ejection-like events , 1997 .

[16]  Chih-Ming Ho,et al.  Effective slip and friction reduction in nanograted superhydrophobic microchannels , 2006 .

[17]  Rameswar Bhattacharyya,et al.  DRAG REDUCTION OF A SUBMERSIBLE HULL BY ELECTROLYSIS , 1973 .

[18]  M. J. Walsh,et al.  Riblets as a Viscous Drag Reduction Technique , 1983 .

[19]  S. Lan,et al.  Experimental study on the turbulent boundary layer flow over riblets surface , 2000 .

[20]  P Tabeling,et al.  Slippage of water past superhydrophobic carbon nanotube forests in microchannels. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[21]  Max O. Kramer Boundary-Layer Stabilization by Distributed Damping , 2012 .

[22]  Young Su Kim,et al.  Superhydrophobic and superoleophobic copper plate fabrication using alkaline solution assisted surface oxidation methods , 2012 .

[23]  B. Bhushan,et al.  Shark-skin surfaces for fluid-drag reduction in turbulent flow: a review , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[24]  Microbubble drag reduction in rough walled turbulent boundary layers with comparison against polymer drag reduction , 2004 .

[25]  Jacques L. Zakin,et al.  Surfactant Drag Reduction , 1998 .

[26]  Andrea Mammoli,et al.  Drag reduction on a patterned superhydrophobic surface. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[27]  Robert Latorre Ship hull drag reduction using bottom air injection , 1997 .

[28]  Kahp Y. Suh,et al.  An optimal micropatterned end-effecter for enhancing frictional force on large intestinal surface. , 2010, ACS applied materials & interfaces.

[29]  J. Hoyt Drag-reduction effectiveness of polymer solutions in the turbulent-flow rheometer: A catalog , 1971 .

[30]  F. Nieuwstadt,et al.  The role of elongational viscosity in the mechanism of drag reduction by polymer additives , 1995 .

[31]  Surface Wettability in Terms of the Height and Depression of Diverse Microstructures and Their Sizes , 2009 .

[32]  Im Deok Jung,et al.  The effect of the surface wettability of nanoprotrusions formed on network-type microstructures , 2008 .