4.7 Article

Experimental investigation of inner bubble dynamics during water droplet evaporation from heated surfaces with different roughness and wettability levels

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.119980

关键词

Bubble dynamics; Droplet evaporation; Sol-gel; Picosecond laser; Surface wettability; Surface roughness

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, MOST [MOST 108-2221-E-002-048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, sol-gel method and picosecond laser system were used to create surfaces with various roughness and wettability levels. The ranges of contact angle and surface roughness were 0 degrees-125 degrees and 0.121-0.356 mu m, respectively. The influence of surface roughness and wettability on bubble dynamics was experimentally investigated by observing droplet evaporation on heated surfaces. The results revealed that not only the surface temperature but also surface characteristics affected bubble behavior and resulted in different evaporation efficiencies. Droplets evaporated most rapidly on the laser-textured copper surface because of its hydrophobicity and enhanced surface roughness, which led to improved liquid-vapor heat transfer in active bubbles behavior. By contrast, silica-coated surfaces exhibited the lowest droplet evaporation efficiency. This evaporation efficiency was attributed to the hydrophilic wetting state and high bubble covering area, which hindered the heat transfer from the heated surface to the liquid droplet. The overall evaporation time on the laser-textured surface was approximately 77% shorter than that on other surfaces for the highest evaluated surface temperature. In addition, the experimental results of the overall evaporation time were compared with the results of the prediction model. With the increase in the temperature of the surface, the hydrophobic wetting state increased, which led to larger differences between the model and experimental results. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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