Skip to main content
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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.J. P. Rothstein, “Slip on superhydrophobic surfaces,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 89109 (2010).
2.A. B. D. Cassie and S. Baxter, “Wettability of porous surfaces,” Trans. Faraday Soc. 40, 546551 (1944).
3.J. R. Philip, “Flows satisfying mixed no-slip and no-shear conditions,” Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 23, 353372 (1972).
4.J. Lauga and H. Stone, “Effective slip in pressure-driven Stokes flow,” J. Fluid Mech. 489, 5577 (2003).
5.A. V. Belyaev and O. I. Vinogradova, “Effective slip in pressure-driven flow past super-hydrophobic stripes,” J. Fluid Mech. 652, 489499 (2010).
6.M. Sbragaglia and A. Prosperetti, “A note on the effective slip properties for microchannel flows with ultrahydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 19, 043603 (2007).
7.C. Ybert, C. Barentin, and C. Cottin-Bizonne, “Achieving large slip with superhydrophobic surfaces: Scaling laws for generic geometries,” Phys. Fluids 19, 123601 (2007).
8.A. M. J. Davis and E. Lauga, “Hydrodynamic friction of fakir-like superhydrophobic surfaces,” J. Fluid Mech. 661, 402411 (2010).
9.K. Kamrin, M. Z. Bazant, and H. A. Stone, “Effective slip boundary conditions for arbitrary periodic surfaces: The surface mobility tensor,” J. Fluid Mech. 658, 409437 (2010).
10.J. Ou, J. B. Perot, and J. P. Rothstein, “Laminar drag reduction in microchannels using ultrahydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 16, 46354643 (2004).
11.J. Ou and J. P. Rothstein, “Direct velocity measurements of the flow past drag-reducing ultrahydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 17, 13606 (2005).
12.C.-H. Choi and C.-J. Kim, “Large slip of aqueous liquid flow over a nanoengineered superhydrophobic surface,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 066001 (2006).
13.C.-H. Choi, U. Ulmanella, J. Kim, C.-M. Ho, and C.-J. Kim, “Effective slip and friction reduction in nanograted superhydrophobic microchannels,” Phys. Fluids 18, 087105 (2006).
14.T. Min and J. Kim, “Effects of hydrophobic surface on skin-friction drag,” Phys. Fluids 16, L55L58 (2005).
15.M. B. Martell, J. B. Perot, and J. P. Rothstein, “Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces,” J. Fluid Mech. 620, 3141 (2009).
16.R. Daniello, N. E. Waterhouse, and J. P. Rothstein, “Drag reduction in turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 21, 085103 (2009).
17.B. Woolford, J. Prince, D. Maynes, and B. W. Webb, “Particle image velocimetry characterization of turbulent channel flow with rib patterned superhydrophobic walls,” Phys. Fluids 21, 085106 (2009).
18.M. B. Martell, J. P. Rothstein, and J. B. Perot, “An analysis of superhydrophobic turbulent drag reduction mechanisms using direct numerical simulation,” Phys. Fluids 22, 065102 (2010).
19.H. Park, G. Sun, and C.-J. Kim, “Superhydrophobic turbulent drag reduction as a function of surface grating parameters,” J. Fluid Mech. 747, 722734 (2014).
20.S. Türk, G. Daschiel, A. Stroh, Y. Hasegawa, and B. Frohnapfel, “Turbulent flow over superhydrophobic surface with streamwise grooves,” J. Fluid Mech. 747, 186217 (2014).
21.J. Seo, R. García-Mayoral, and A. Mani, “Pressure fluctuations and interfacial robustness in turbulent flows over superhydrophobic surfaces,” J. Fluid Mech. 783, 448473 (2015).
22.H. Tennekes and J. Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence (MIT Press, 1972).
23.D. Coles, “The law of the wake in the turbulent boundary layer,” J. Fluid Mech. 1, 191226 (1956).
24.P. Luchini, F. Manzo, and A. Pozzi, “Resistance of a grooved surface to parallel flow and cross-flow,” J. Fluid Mech. Digital Arch. 228, 87109 (1991).
25.J. Jiménez, “On the structure and control of near wall turbulence,” Phys. Fluids 6, 944 (1994).
26.J. Jiménez, “Turbulent flows over rough walls,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173196 (2004).
27.R. García-Mayoral and J. Jiménez, “Hydrodynamic stability and breakdown of the viscous regime over riblets,” J. Fluid Mech. 678, 317347 (2011).
28.K. Fukagata, N. Kasagi, and P. Koumoutsakos, “A theoretical prediction of friction drag reduction in turbulent flow by superhydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 18, 051703 (2006).
29.A. Busse and N. D. Sandham, “Influence of an anisotropic slip-length boundary condition on turbulent channel flow,” Phys. Fluids 24, 055111 (2012).
30.R. A. Bidkar, L. Leblanc, A. J. Kulkarni, V. Bahadur, S. L. Ceccio, and M. Perlin, “Skin-friction drag reduction in the turbulent regime using random-textured hydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Fluids 26, 085108 (2014).
31.S. Srinivasan, J. A. Kleingartner, J. B. Gilbert, R. E. Cohen, A. J. B. Milne, and G. H. McKinley, “Sustainable drag reduction in turbulent Taylor-Couette flows by depositing sprayable superhydrophobic surfaces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 014501 (2015).
32.H. Park, H. Park, and J. Kim, “A numerical study of the effects of superhydrophobic surface on skin-friction drag in turbulent channel flow,” Phys. Fluids 25, 110815 (2013).
33.T. O. Jelly, S. Y. Jung, and T. A. Zaki, “Turbulence and skin friction modification in channel flow with streamwise-aligned superhydrophobic surface texture,” Phys. Fluids 26, 095102 (2014).
34.H. Haibao, D. Peng, Z. Feng, S. Dong, and W. Yang, “Effect of hydrophobicity on turbulent boundary layer under water,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 60, 148156 (2015).
35.J. Kim and P. Moin, “Application of a fractional step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations,” J. Comput. Phys. 59, 308323 (1985).
36.C. Schönecker, T. Baier, and S. Hardt, “Influence of the enclosed fluid on the flow over a microstructured surface in the Cassie state,” J. Fluid Mech. 740, 168195 (2014).
37.J. Kim, P. Moin, and R. D. Moser, “Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number,” J. Fluid Mech. 177, 133166 (1987).
38. While in our simulations we maintained desired L+ by adjusting the texture size, we should note in practice Reynolds number is change by changing the flow rate, while keeping the fluid and geometry fixed, which inevitably leads to change of L+.
39.A. Rastegari and R. Akhavan, “On the mechanism of turbulent drag reduction with super-hydrophobic surfaces,” J. Fluid Mech. (Rapid) 773, R4 (2015).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Superhydrophobic surfaces can significantly reduce hydrodynamic skin drag by accommodating large slip velocity near the surface due to entrapment of air bubbles within their micro-scale roughness elements. While there are many Stokes flow solutions for flows near superhydrophobic surfaces that describe the relation between effective slip length and surface geometry, such relations are not fully known in the turbulent flow limit. In this work, we present a phenomenological model for the kinematics of flow near a superhydrophobic surface with periodic post-patterns at high Reynolds numbers. The model predicts an inverse square root scaling with solid fraction, and a cube root scaling of the slip length with pattern size, which is different from the reported scaling in the Stokes flow limit. A mixed model is then proposed that recovers both Stokes flow solution and the presented scaling, respectively, in the small and large texture size limits. This model is validated using direct numerical simulations of turbulent flows over superhydrophobic posts over a wide range of texture sizes from + ≈ 6 to 310 and solid fractions from = 1/9 to 1/64. Our report also embarks on the extension of friction laws of turbulent wall-bounded flows to superhydrophobic surfaces. To this end, we present a review of a simplified model for the mean velocity profile, which we call the shifted-turbulent boundary layer model, and address two previous shortcomings regarding the closure and accuracy of this model. Furthermore, we address the process of homogenization of the texture effect to an effective slip length by investigating correlations between slip velocity and shear over pattern-averaged data for streamwise and spanwise directions. For + of up to (10), shear stress and slip velocity are perfectly correlated and well described by a homogenized slip length consistent with Stokes flow solutions. In contrast, in the limit of large +, the pattern-averaged shear stress and slip velocity become uncorrelated and thus the homogenized boundary condition is unable to capture the bulk behavior of the patterned surface.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd