4.7 Article

Cinematographic observation of the collapse and rebound of a laser-produced cavitation bubble near a wall

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 479, 期 -, 页码 327-348

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022112002003695

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Collapse and rebound of a cavitation bubble near a wall are revisited with modern experimental means. The bubble is generated by the optical breakdown of the liquid when a strong laser pulse is focused into water. Observations are made with highspeed cinematography; framing rates range between several thousand and 100 million frames per second, and the spatial resolution is in the order of a few micrometres. After formation the bubble grows to a maximum size with a radius of 1.5 mm at the pulse energy used, and in the subsequent collapse a liquid jet evolves on the side opposite the wall and penetrates through the bubble. Using a shadowgraph technique and high framing rates, the emission of shock waves, which is observed at minimum bubble size, is resolved in detail. For a range of stand-off distances between the bubble centre and the wall, a counterjet forms during rebound. The counterjet is clearly resolved to consist of cavitation micro-bubbles, and a quantitative measure of its height evolution is given. Its emergence might be caused by a shock wave, and a possible connection of the observed shock wave scenario with the counterjet formation is discussed. No counterjets are observed when the stand-off distance is less than the maximum bubble radius, and the bubble shape becomes toroidal after the jet hits the wall. The jet impact on the wall produces a pronounced splash, which moves radially outwards in the space between the bubble and the wall. The volume compression at minimum bubble size is found to depend strongly on the stand-off distance. Some of the results are compared to numerical simulations by Tong et al. (1999), and the material presented may also be useful for comparison with future numerical work.

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