4.7 Article

Generation of droplets via oscillations of a tapered capillary tube filled with low-viscosity liquids

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4986263

关键词

-

资金

  1. Autonomous Research Plan of Tsinghua University [20161080165]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Droplet formation via the oscillations of a tapered capillary tube is experimentally and numerically investigated using incompressible, low-viscosity Newtonian liquids. As in many other common methods of droplet generation, this technique features a transient flow that is directed out of a nozzle. However, due to the interactions of the oscillations, the tube, and the fluids, the flow rate upstream of the nozzle cannot be directly obtained. In this study, the motion of the tube is measured under the activation of a specific waveform, and the flow inside the tube and drop formation are further numerically studied using a non-inertial reference system in which the tube is stationary. The mechanism of ejection is quantitatively explained by analyzing the temporal variation in the velocity and pressure distributions inside the tube. The dynamics of drop formation, the drop velocity, and the drop radius are studied as functions of the dimensionless groups that govern the problem, including the Ohnesorge number Oh, the Weber number We, the gravitational Bond number G, and various length scale ratios. The results show that droplets are generated due to the inertia of the liquid and velocity amplification in the tapered section. By influencing the balance between the viscous effect and inertial effect of the liquid along the entire tube, the length scale ratios affect the evolution of the transient flow at the nozzle and eventually influence the drop radius and velocity. For liquids with viscosities close to that of pure water, the critical Reynolds number, at which a drop can be generated, linearly depends on the Z number (the reciprocal of Oh) at the nozzle. Published by AIP Publishing.

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