Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userPolymer Maximum Drag Reduction: A Unique Transitional State
180
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The upper bound of polymer drag reduction is identified as a unique transitional state between laminar and turbulent flow corresponding to the onset of the nonlinear breakdown of flow instabilities.
rate research
Read More
In the maritime industry, the injection of air bubbles into the turbulent boundary layer under the ship hull is seen as one of the most promising techniques to reduce the overall fuel consumption. However, the exact mechanism behind bubble drag reduction is unknown. Here we show that bubble drag reduction in turbulent flow dramatically depends on the bubble size. By adding minute concentrations (6 ppm) of the surfactant Triton X-100 into otherwise completely unchanged strongly turbulent Taylor-Couette flow containing bubbles, we dramatically reduce the drag reduction from more than 40% to about 4%, corresponding to the trivial effect of the bubbles on the density and viscosity of the liquid. The reason for this striking behavior is that the addition of surfactants prevents bubble coalescence, leading to much smaller bubbles. Our result demonstrates that bubble deformability is crucial for bubble drag reduction in turbulent flow and opens the door for an optimization of the process.
We create a highly controlled lab environment-accessible to both global and local monitoring-to analyse turbulent boiling flows and in particular their shear stress in a statistically stationary state. Namely, by precisely monitoring the drag of strongly turbulent Taylor-Couette flow (the flow in between two co-axially rotating cylinders, Reynolds number $textrm{Re}approx 10^6$) during its transition from non-boiling to boiling, we show that the intuitive expectation, namely that a few volume percent of vapor bubbles would correspondingly change the global drag by a few percent, is wrong. Rather, we find that for these conditions a dramatic global drag reduction of up to 45% occurs. We connect this global result to our local observations, showing that for major drag reduction the vapor bubble deformability is crucial, corresponding to Weber numbers larger than one. We compare our findings with those for turbulent flows with gas bubbles, which obey very different physics than vapor bubbles. Nonetheless, we find remarkable similarities and explain these.
In this study we experimentally investigate bubbly drag reduction in a highly turbulent flow of water with dispersed air at $5.0 times 10^{5} leq text{Re} leq 1.7 times 10^{6}$ over a non-wetting surface containing micro-scale roughness. To do so, the Taylor-Couette geometry is used, allowing for both accurate global drag and local flow measurements. The inner cylinder - coated with a rough, hydrophobic material - is rotating, whereas the smooth outer cylinder is kept stationary. The crucial control parameter is the air volume fraction $alpha$ present in the working fluid. For small volume fractions ($alpha < {4},%$), we observe that the surface roughness from the coating increases the drag. For large volume fractions of air ($alpha geq 4,%$), the drag decreases compared to the case with both the inner and outer cylinders uncoated, i.e. smooth and hydrophilic, using the same volume fraction of air. This suggests that two competing mechanisms are at place: on the one hand the roughness invokes an extension of the log-layer - resulting in an increase in drag - and on the other hand there is a drag-reducing mechanism of the hydrophobic surface interacting with the bubbly liquid. The balance between these two effects determines whether there is overall drag reduction or drag enhancement. For further increased bubble concentration $alpha = {6},%$ we find a saturation of the drag reduction effect. Our study gives guidelines for industrial applications of bubbly drag reduction in hydrophobic wall-bounded turbulent flows.
Both experiments and direct numerical simulations have been used to demonstrate that riblets can reduce turbulent drag by as much as $10%$, but their systematic design remains an open challenge. In this paper, we develop a model-based framework to quantify the effect of streamwise-aligned spanwise-periodic riblets on kinetic energy and skin-friction drag in turbulent channel flow. We model the effect of riblets as a volume penalization in the Navier-Stokes equations and use the statistical response of the eddy-viscosity-enhanced linearized equations to quantify the effect of background turbulence on the mean velocity and skin-friction drag. For triangular riblets, our simulation-free approach reliably predicts drag-reducing trends as well as mechanisms that lead to performance deterioration for large riblets. We investigate the effect of height and spacing on drag reduction and demonstrate a correlation between energy suppression and drag-reduction for appropriately sized riblets. We also analyze the effect of riblets on drag reduction mechanisms and turbulent flow structures including very large scale motions. Our results demonstrate the utility of our approach in capturing the effect of riblets on turbulent flows using models that are tractable for analysis and optimization.
We make time resolved velocity measurements of steel spheres in free fall through liquid using a continuous ultrasound technique. We explore two different ways to induce large changes in drag on the spheres: 1) a small quantity of viscoelastic polymer added to water and 2) altering the surface of the sphere. Low concentration polymer solutions and/or a pattern of grooves in the sphere surface induce an early drag crisis, which may reduce drag by more than 50 percent compared to smooth spheres in pure water. On the other hand, random surface roughness and/or high concentration polymer solutions reduce drag progressively and suppress the drag crisis. We also present a qualititative argument which ties the drag reduction observed in low concentration polymer solutions to the Weissenberg number and normal stress difference.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
