4.6 Article

Engineered Lateral Roughness Element Implementation and Working Fluid Alteration to Intensify Hydrodynamic Cavitating Flows on a Chip for Energy Harvesting

期刊

MICROMACHINES
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/mi11010049

关键词

cavitation on chip; energy harvesting; optimization; parametric effect study; hydrodynamic cavitation; microfluidics

资金

  1. TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) Support Program for Scientific and Technological Research Project Grant [217M869]
  2. Sabanci University Internal Project Grant [I.A.CF-18-01877]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrodynamic cavitation is considered an effective tool to be used in different applications, such as surface cleaning, ones in the food industry, energy harvesting, water treatment, biomedical applications, and heat transfer enhancement. Thus, both characterization and intensification of cavitation phenomenon are of great importance. This study involves design and optimization of cavitation on chip devices by utilizing wall roughness elements and working fluid alteration. Seven different microfluidic devices were fabricated and tested. In order to harvest more energy from cavitating flows, different roughness elements were used to decrease the inlet pressure (input to the system), at which cavitation inception occurs. The implemented wall roughness elements were engineered structures in the shape of equilateral triangles embedded in the design of the microfluidic devices. The cavitation phenomena were also studied using ethanol as the working fluid, so that the fluid behavior differences in the tested cavitation on chip devices were explained and compared. The employment of the wall roughness elements was an effective approach to optimize the performances of the devices. The experimental results exhibited entirely different flow patterns for ethanol compared to water, which suggests the dominant effect of the surface tension on hydrodynamic cavitation in microfluidic channels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据