The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparing methods for the modelling of boundary-driven streaming in acoustofluidic devices

Comparing methods for the modelling of boundary-driven streaming in acoustofluidic devices
Comparing methods for the modelling of boundary-driven streaming in acoustofluidic devices
Numerical simulations of acoustic streaming flows can be used not only to explain the complex phenomena observed in acoustofluidic manipulation devices, but also to predict and optimise their performances. In this paper, two numerical methods based on perturbation theory are compared in order to demonstrate their viability and applicability for modelling boundary-driven streaming flows in acoustofluidic systems. It was found that the Reynolds stress method, which predicts the streaming fields from their driving terms, can effectively resolve both the inner and outer streaming fields and can be used to demonstrate the driving mechanisms of a broad range of boundary-driven streaming flows. However, computational efficiency typically limits its useful application to two-dimensional models. We highlight the close relationship between the classical boundary-driven streaming vortices and the rotationality of the Reynolds stress force field. The limiting velocity method, which ignores the acoustic boundary layer and solves the outer streaming fields by applying the ‘limiting velocities’ as boundary conditions, is more computationally efficient and can be used for predicting three-dimensional outer streaming fields and provide insight into their origins, provided that the radius of curvature of the channel surfaces is much greater than the acoustic boundary layer thickness (δv). We also show that for the limiting velocity method to be valid the channel scales must exceed a value of approximately 100 δv (for an error of ~5% on the streaming velocity magnitudes) for the case presented in this paper. Comparisons of these two numerical methods can provide effective guidance for researchers in the field of acoustofluidics on choosing appropriate methods to predict boundary-driven streaming fields in the design of acoustofluidic particle manipulation devices.
1613-4982
Lei, Junjun
7fb90120-6906-4ed2-9e12-7d0d17fffcd6
Glynne-Jones, Peter
6ca3fcbc-14db-4af9-83e2-cf7c8b91ef0d
Hill, Martyn
0cda65c8-a70f-476f-b126-d2c4460a253e
Lei, Junjun
7fb90120-6906-4ed2-9e12-7d0d17fffcd6
Glynne-Jones, Peter
6ca3fcbc-14db-4af9-83e2-cf7c8b91ef0d
Hill, Martyn
0cda65c8-a70f-476f-b126-d2c4460a253e

Lei, Junjun, Glynne-Jones, Peter and Hill, Martyn (2017) Comparing methods for the modelling of boundary-driven streaming in acoustofluidic devices. Microfluidics and Nanofluidics, 21 (2), [23]. (doi:10.1007/s10404-017-1865-z).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Numerical simulations of acoustic streaming flows can be used not only to explain the complex phenomena observed in acoustofluidic manipulation devices, but also to predict and optimise their performances. In this paper, two numerical methods based on perturbation theory are compared in order to demonstrate their viability and applicability for modelling boundary-driven streaming flows in acoustofluidic systems. It was found that the Reynolds stress method, which predicts the streaming fields from their driving terms, can effectively resolve both the inner and outer streaming fields and can be used to demonstrate the driving mechanisms of a broad range of boundary-driven streaming flows. However, computational efficiency typically limits its useful application to two-dimensional models. We highlight the close relationship between the classical boundary-driven streaming vortices and the rotationality of the Reynolds stress force field. The limiting velocity method, which ignores the acoustic boundary layer and solves the outer streaming fields by applying the ‘limiting velocities’ as boundary conditions, is more computationally efficient and can be used for predicting three-dimensional outer streaming fields and provide insight into their origins, provided that the radius of curvature of the channel surfaces is much greater than the acoustic boundary layer thickness (δv). We also show that for the limiting velocity method to be valid the channel scales must exceed a value of approximately 100 δv (for an error of ~5% on the streaming velocity magnitudes) for the case presented in this paper. Comparisons of these two numerical methods can provide effective guidance for researchers in the field of acoustofluidics on choosing appropriate methods to predict boundary-driven streaming fields in the design of acoustofluidic particle manipulation devices.

Text
Final manuscript - Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)
Text
art_10.1007_s10404-017-1865-z - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 24 January 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 7 February 2017
Published date: February 2017
Organisations: Mechatronics

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 406394
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/406394
ISSN: 1613-4982
PURE UUID: 174a4e81-ab01-4ff9-a103-a12937a48a32
ORCID for Peter Glynne-Jones: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-3953
ORCID for Martyn Hill: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6448-9448

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Mar 2017 10:46
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:10

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Junjun Lei
Author: Martyn Hill ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×