4.7 Article

Comparison between super-hydrophobic, liquid infused and rough surfaces: a direct numerical simulation study

Journal

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
Volume 869, Issue -, Pages 500-525

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2019.222

Keywords

drag reduction; turbulence simulation; turbulent boundary layers

Funding

  1. ONR MURI grants [N00014-12-01-0875, N00014-12-01-0962]
  2. Department of Defense (DoD) through the National Defense Science & Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Direct numerical simulations of two superposed fluids in a channel with a textured surface on the lower wall have been carried out. A parametric study varying the viscosity ratio between the two fluids has been performed to mimic both idealised super-hydrophobic and liquid-infused surfaces and assess its effect on the frictional, form and total drag for three different textured geometries: longitudinal square bars, transversal square bars and staggered cubes. The interface between the two fluids is assumed to be slippery in the streamwise and spanwise directions and not deformable in the vertical direction, corresponding to the ideal case of infinite surface tension. To identify the role of the fluid-fluid interface, an extra set of simulations with a single fluid has been carried out. Comparison with the cases with two fluids reveals the role of the interface in suppressing turbulent transport between the lubricating layer and the overlying flow decreasing the overall drag. In addition, the drag and the maximum wall-normal velocity fluctuations were found to be highly correlated for all the surface configurations, whether they reduce or increase the drag. This implies that the structure of the near-wall turbulence is dominated by the total shear and not by the local boundary condition of the super-hydrophobic, liquid infused or rough surfaces.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available