Shock wave propagation in bubbly liquids at small gas volume fractions

An Effect of Electrokinetics Phenomena on Nonlinear Wave Propagation in Bubbly Liquids

“…1. The experimental setup consists of a compressed gas cylinder (1), valves (2,5), a pressure gauge (3), a container for the gas-liquid mixture system (4), a potentiometer to record the electrokinetic potential (6), 2.7m long and 4mm diameter circular pipe (7), an ultra-thermostat (8), and a graduated cylinder (9). The experiments were conducted using tap water with and without the electrolyte (sodium chloride -NaCl) additive.…”

“…An analytical approach for the shock propagation in a bubbly mixture is provided by Seung and Kwak [9]. An explicit form of the wave equation in a bubbly mixture was obtained in this study.…”

Numerical simulation of cavitation-bubble expansion and collapse inside a bottle subjected to impact on its topside

“…Therefore, Pan et al proposed a new cavitation number, Ca, and experimentally verified that it can be applied as a general criterion for the onset of acceleration-induced cavitation (Fatjo, 2016;Pan et al, 2017). As well, many scholars have studied the dynamics of bubble impacted by a shock wave, and these works have demonstrated the jetting mechanism of the bubble if exposed to a shock wave (Hawker & Ventikos, 2012;Ohl and Ikink, 2003;Ohl & Ohl, 2013;Seung & Kwak, 2017). Although the criteria for the onset of cavitation under impact have been clearly established and the dynamics of bubble impacted by a shock wave have been described, the dynamic of the gas-liquid interaction in a bottle under mechanical impact is still largely unknown.…”

Engineering Method for Calculating of an Axial Valve Separator With an External Location of the Locking Part

“…The formation of the theoretical base for the development of an engineering methodology for the analytical calculation of the desired parameters of control valves in this work is carried out on the basis of the stochastic approach by the energy method (Klimontovich, 2014). This choice (Kapranova et al, 2016c) from a variety of methods for describing the cavitation phenomenon, which include deterministic (Besant, 1859;Baron Rayleigh, 1911-1919Plesset and Chapman, 1971;Chahine, 1994), stochastic (Volmer and Weber, 1926;Frenkel, 1946;Hsu, 1962;Lienhard and Karimi, 1981;Shin and Jones, 1993;Kwak and Kim, 1998;Ellas and Chambre, 2000) and combined Sokolichin et al, 1997;Koch et al, 2012;Seung and Kwak, 2017 approaches, is explained by the possibility of modeling differential functions of the distribution of the number of cavitation bubbles according to the characteristic features of the studied process (specific size of the bubbles, the degree of opening of the valve) depending on the structural, operational parameters of the regulating device and the physico-mechanical properties of the working medium (Weevers, 1982).…”

“…Usually the stochastic approach (Volmer and Weber, 1926;Frenkel, 1946;Hsu, 1962;Lienhard and Karimi, 1981;Shin and Jones, 1993;Kwak and Kim, 1998;Ellas and Chambre, 2000) [as models of homogeneous nucleation (Volmer and Weber, 1926;Frenkel, 1946;Lienhard and Karimi, 1981), their modifications with the introduction of the heterogeneity factor (Kwak and Kim, 1998;Ellas and Chambre, 2000), or heterogeneous nucleation (Hsu, 1962;Shin and Jones, 1993)] and combined one (Sokolichin et al, 1997;Koch et al, 2012;Seung and Kwak, 2017) suggest the use of the postulation of the differential distribution functions of cavitation nuclei by their size based on experimental dependences. Note that the deterministic approach (Besant, 1859;Baron Rayleigh, 1911-1919Plesset and Chapman, 1971;Chahine, 1994) is usually implemented either when describing the behavior of a single bubble of variable radius, or in modified models taking into account additional factors of inertial, thermal, and diffusion nature.…”