Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:05:28.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards the concept of hydrodynamic cavitation control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 1997

Dhiman Chatterjee  and
Vijay H. Arakeri
Dhiman Chatterjee
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Vijay H. Arakeri
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A careful study of the existing literature available in the field of cavitation reveals the potential of ultrasonics as a tool for controlling and, if possible, eliminating certain types of hydrodynamic cavitation through the manipulation of nuclei size present in a flow. A glass venturi is taken to be an ideal device to study the cavitation phenomenon at its throat and its potential control. A piezoelectric transducer, driven at the crystal resonant frequency, is used to generate an acoustic pressure field and is termed an ‘ultrasonic nuclei manipulator (UNM)'. Electrolysis bubbles serve as artificial nuclei to produce travelling bubble cavitation at the venturi throat in the absence of a UNM but this cavitation is completely eliminated when a UNM is operative. This is made possible because the nuclei, which pass through the acoustic field first, cavitate, collapse violently and perhaps fragment and go into dissolution before reaching the venturi throat. Thus, the potential nuclei for travelling bubble cavitation at the venturi throat seem to be systematically destroyed through acoustic cavitation near the UNM. From the solution to the bubble dynamics equation, it has been shown that the potential energy of a bubble at its maximum radius due to an acoustic field is negligible compared to that for the hydrodynamic field. Hence, even though the control of hydrodynamic macro cavitation achieved in this way is at the expense of acoustic micro cavitation, it can still be considered to be a significant gain. These are some of the first results in this direction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 332 , February 1997 , pp. 377 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apfel, R. E. 1981 Acoustic cavitation. Meth. Exptl Phys. 19, 355–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arakeri, V. H. & Acosta, A. J. 1973 Viscous effects in the inception of cavitation on axisymmetric bodies. Trans. ASME J. Fluids Engng 95, 519–527.Google Scholar
Arakeri, V. H. & Chakraborty, S. 1990 Studies towards potential use of ultrasonics in hydrodynamic cavitation control. Current Set 59, 1326–1333.Google Scholar
Arakeri, V. H. & Shanmuganathan, V. 1985 On the evidence for effect of bubble interference on cavitation noise. J. Fluid Mech. 159, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barger, J. E. 1964 Thresholds for acoustic cavitation. Acoustic Research Laboratory, Harvard University Tech. Mem. 57. Google Scholar
Billet, M. 1986 Importance and measurement of cavitation nuclei. In Advancements in Aerodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Hydraulics (ed. Arndt, R. E. A., Stefan, H. G., Farell, C., and Peterson, S. M.), pp. 967–988. ASCE.Google Scholar
Chahine, G. L. & Shen, Y. T. 1986 Bubble dynamics and cavitation inception in cavitation susceptibility meters. Trans. ASME J. Fluids Engng 108, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, D. 1995 Towards the concept of hydrodynamic cavitation control. MSc (Engng) Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
D'Agostino, L. & Acosta, A. J. 1983 On the design of cavitation susceptibility meters. 20th American Towing Tank Conf., Hoboken, NJ, pp 1–19.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. T. 1955 Production of accelerated cavitation damage by an acoustic field in a cylindrical cavity. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27, 913–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, P. S. & Plesset, M. S. 1950 On the stability of gas bubbles in liquid-gas solutions. J. Chem. Phys. 18, 1505–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatric, H. M. & Strasberg, M. 1956 Hydrodynamic sources of sound. 1st Symp. Naval Hyd., ONR, Washington DC, pp. 241–280.Google Scholar
Flynn, H. G. 1964 Physics of acoustic cavitation in liquids. Phys. Acoust. 13, 58–172.Google Scholar
Flynn, H. G. & Church, C. C. 1984 A mechanism for the generation of cavitation maxima by pulsed ultrasound. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 76, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, H. G. & Church, C. C. 1988 Transient pulsations of small gas bubbles in water. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 985–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, M. 1952 An experimental study of single bubble cavitation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24. 776–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holl, J. W. 1970 Nuclei and cavitation. Trans ASME J. Basic Engng 92, 681–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, R. T., Daily, J. W. & Hammitt, F. G. 1970 Cavitation. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kodama, Y., Tamiya, S., TAKE, N. & KATO, H. 1979 The effect of nuclei on the inception of bubble and sheet cavitation on axisymmetric bodies. ASME Intl Symp. on Cavitation Inception, New York (ed. Morgan, W. M. B. & Parkin, B. R.), pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
Nyborg, W. L. & Hughes, D. E. 1967 Bubble annihilation in cavitation streamers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 42, 891–894.Google Scholar
Plesset, M. S. & Prosperetti, A. 1977 Bubble dynamics and cavitation. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 9, 145–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar