Dependence of the Drag Over Super Hydrophobic and Liquid Infused Surfaces on the Textured Surface and Weber Number

  • Edgardo J. García Cartagena
  • Isnardo Arenas
  • Matteo Bernardini
  • Stefano Leonardi
Article

Abstract

Direct Numerical Simulations of a turbulent channel flow have been performed. The lower wall of the channel is made of staggered cubes with a second fluid locked in the cavities. Two viscosity ratios have been considered, \(m=\mu _{1} / \mu _{2}= 0.02\) and 0.4 (the subscript 1 indicates the fluid in the cavities and 2 the overlying fluid) mimicking the viscosity ratio in super–hydrophobic surfaces (SHS) and liquid infused surfaces (LIS) respectively. A first set of simulations with a slippery interface has been performed and results agree well with those in literature for perfect slip conditions and Stokes approximations. To assess how the dynamics of the interface affects the drag, a second set of DNS has been carried out at \(We= 40\) and 400 corresponding to \(We^{+}\simeq 10^{-3}\) and \(10^{-2}\). The deformation of the interface is fully coupled to the Navier-Stokes equation and tracked in time using a Level Set Method. Two gas fractions, \(GF= 0.5\) and 0.875, have been considered to assess how the spacing between the cubes affects the deformation of the interface and therefore the drag. For the dimensions of the substrate here considered, under the ideal assumption of flat interface, staggered cubes with \(GF= 0.875\) provide about \(20\%\) drag reduction for \(We= 0\). However, a rapid degradation of the performances is observed when the dynamics of the interface is considered, and the same geometry increases the drag of about \(40\%\) with respect to a smooth wall. On the other hand, the detrimental effect of the dynamics of the interface is much weaker for \(GF= 0.5\) because of the reduced pitch between the cubes.

Keywords

Drag reduction Liquid infused surfaces Super-Hydrophobic surfaces DNS Level set 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosenberg, B.J., Van Buren, T., Fu, M.K., Smits, A.J.: Turbulent drag reduction over air-and liquid-impregnated surfaces. Phys. Fluids 28(1), 015103 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Buren, T., Smits, A.: Substantial drag reduction in turbulent flow using liquid-infused surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 827, 448 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wexler, J.S., Grosskopf, A., Chow, M., Fan, Y., Jacobi, I., Stone, H.A.: Robust liquid-infused surfaces through patterned wettability. Soft Matter 11 (25), 5023 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martell, M.B., Perot, J.B., Rothstein, J.P.: Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 620, 31 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martell, M.B., Rothstein, J.P., Perot, J.B.: An analysis of superhydrophobic turbulent drag reduction mechanisms using direct numerical simulation. Phys. Fluids 22(6), 1 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park, H., Park, H., Kim, J.: A numerical study of the effects of superhydrophobic surface on skin-friction drag in turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 25(11), 110815 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Türk, S., Daschiel, G., Stroh, A., Hasegawa, Y., Frohnapfel, B.: Turbulent flow over superhydrophobic surfaces with streamwise grooves. J. Fluid Mech. 747, 186–217 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fu, M.K., Arenas, I., Leonardi, S., Hultmark, M.: Liquid-infused surfaces as a passive method of turbulent drag reduction. J. Fluid Mech. 824, 688 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schönecker, C., Baier, T., Hardt, S.: Influence of the enclosed fluid on the flow over a microstructured surface in the Cassie state. J. Fluid Mech. 740, 168 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rastegari, A., Akhavan, R.: On the mechanism of turbulent drag reduction with super-hydrophobic surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 773, R4 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aljallis, E., Sarshar, M.A., Datla, R., Sikka, V., Jones, A., Choi, C.H.: Experimental study of skin friction drag reduction on superhydrophobic flat plates in high Reynolds number boundary layer flow. Phys. Fluids 25(2), 20160189 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wexler, J.S., Jacobi, I., Stone, H.A.: Shear-driven failure of liquid-infused surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(16), 1 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golovin, K.B., Gose, J.W., Perlin, M. , Ceccio, S.L., Tuteja, A.: Bioinspired surfaces for turbulent drag reduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 374(2073), 20160189 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hooper, A.P., Boyd, W.G.C.: Shear-flow instability due to a wall and a viscosity discontinuity at the interface. J. Fluid Mech. 179, 201 (1987)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hinch, E.J.: A note on the mechanism of the instability at the interface between two shearing fluids. J. Fluid Mech. 144, 463 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seo, J., García-Mayoral, R., Mani, A.: Pressure fluctuations and interfacial robustness in turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 783, 448 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orlandi, P.: Fluid flow phenomena: a numerical toolkit, vol. 55. Springer, Netherlands (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orlandi, P., Leonardi, S.: DNS of turbulent channel flows with two-and three-dimensional roughness. J. Turbul. 7, N73 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sethian, J.A., Smereka, P.: Level set methods for fluid interfaces. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35(1), 341 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osher, S., Fedkiw, R.P.: Level set methods: an overview and some recent results. J. Comput. Phys. 169(2), 463 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russo, G., Smereka, P.: A remark on computing distance functions. J. Comput. Phys. 163(1), 51 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Renardy, Y., Renardy, M.: PROST: a parabolic reconstruction of surface tension for the volume-of-fluid method. J. Comput. Phys. 183(2), 400 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ybert, C., Barentin, C., Cottin-Bizonne, C., Joseph, P., Bocquet, L.: Achieving large slip with superhydrophobic surfaces: Scaling laws for generic geometries. Phys. Fluids 19(12), 123601 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luchini, P., Manzo, F., Pozzi, A.: Resistance of a grooved surface to parallel flow and cross-flow. J. Fluid Mech. 228, 87 (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lauga, E., Stone, H.A.: Effective slip in pressure-driven Stokes flow. J. Fluid Mech. 489, 55–77 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moser, R.D., Kim, J., Mansour, N.: Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Re \(\tau = 590\). Phys. Fluids 11, 943 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leonardi, S., Orlandi, P., Djenidi, L., Antonia, R.: Structure of turbulent channel flow with square bars on one wall. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 25(3), 384 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  2. 2.Universita’ di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly
  3. 3.Departamiento de Ingenieria MecanicaUniversidad Francisco de Paula SantanderOcañaColombia

Personalised recommendations