banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Predicting longevity of submerged superhydrophobic surfaces with parallel grooves
Rent this article for
View: Figures


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Schematic of a superhydrophobic surface with ridges and grooves. (b) Schematic of the air–water meniscus on one of the grooves. The shape of the meniscus is calculated by applying balance of forces between hydrostatic and trapped air pressures, and capillarity.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Schematics of the transient behavior of the air–water meniscus at (a) regime I and (b) regime II. Note that is the critical time at which the interface is separated from the sharp edges of the groove, and that is the failure time at which the interface touches the bottom of the groove.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(a) Contour plot presenting normalized critical pressure / vs. groove width and groove depth . Hydrostatic pressures smaller (greater) than this pressure correspond to regime I (regime II). Note that higher critical pressures are obtained when is large and is small (larger contributions from the entrapped air at / ≪ 1). Conditions at which the air–water interface touches the groove's bottom before reaching the critical time ( = ) are omitted from the contour plot. (b) Minimum depth of grooves with different widths and Young–Laplace contact-angles.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The curve in the plane corresponds to the groove widths and depths at which the derivative of the critical pressure with respect to the , , vanishes. In the region below the curve ( ), compression of the trapped air is the dominant effect, while in the region above the curve ( ), capillarity is dominant.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

The effects of groove width depth on failure time (in minutes) subjected to hydrostatic pressures of 0.4 m ((a) and (b)), and 2.5 m ((c) and (d)) of water.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Comparison between performance of two grooves with different widths of 20 and 100 m but otherwise identical under two different hydrostatic pressures of 14.7 kPa (the critical pressure for the narrower groove) and 100.1 kPa (critical pressure for the wider groove) in (a) and (b), respectively.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

(a) Air–water interface at different times, for a groove with = 100 m, = 30 m, and = 115°, subject to a hydrostatic pressure of 10 cm. (b) Location of the deepest point of the interface ( = 0) vs. time. (c) Surface transitioning from the Cassie state to the Wenzel state is shown with contour plots.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Failure and critical times for a groove with = 100 m, = 30 m, and = 115°, subject to a wide range of hydrostatic pressures from 10 cm to 5 m. The critical pressure for the groove is 3.5 m of water.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Predicting longevity of submerged superhydrophobic surfaces with parallel grooves