4.7 Article

Experimental study on interaction and coalescence of synchronized multiple bubbles

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4939007

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1430236, 51379039]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experiments are carried out on the interaction and coalescence of two, three, and four bubbles with approximately the same sizes, distributed evenly and symmetrically. The bubbles are generated simultaneously by electric discharges, using an in-house designed series circuit, and their interaction is captured using a high-speed camera. Particular attentions are paid to if/when coalescence of bubbles happens and the motion of the joined bubbles. Some new features are observed, which depend mainly on the dimensionless distance gamma(bb) = d(bb)/R-max, where d(bb) is the inter-bubble distance and R-max is the maximum bubble radius. For gamma(bb) > 2, a jet forms and penetrates each side bubble, directed to the center of the configuration, resulting in a protrusion. Towards the end of collapse, a large portion of bubble gases is compressed into the protrusion from the main part of the toroidal bubble. For gamma(bb) < 2, the bubbles coalesce during expansion, and the part of the joined bubble's surface distal from the center of the configuration collapses faster than elsewhere. The experiments show that the oscillation period of multi-bubbles does not change appreciably without coalescence but increases significantly with coalescence. For three bubbles initiated at collinear positions with gamma(bb) > 2, the jets that form from the side bubbles are towards the middle, and the middle bubble splits into two parts, moving towards the two side bubbles. For gamma(bb) < 2, the side bubbles merge with the middle bubble during expansion, forming an ellipsoid bubble; the joined bubble collapses predominantly from two sides, where two inward jets form towards the end of collapse. (C) 2016 AIP Publishing LLC.

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