Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Steady Flow of a Fluid Stream01:27

Steady Flow of a Fluid Stream

603
Consider a control volume, such as a pipe with solid boundaries, through which fluid flows and changes direction due to the impulse exerted by the resulting force from the pipe walls. In steady flow, the mass of fluid entering the control volume at a given time, t, with velocity v1, is equal to the mass leaving after infinitesimal time dt, with velocity v2.
During this process, the momentum of the fluid within the control volume remains constant over the time interval dt. By applying the...
603
Rapidly Varying Flow01:24

Rapidly Varying Flow

345
Rapidly varying flow (RVF) in open channels is characterized by abrupt changes in flow depth over a short distance, with the rate of depth change relative to distance often approaching unity. These flows are inherently complex due to their transient and multi-dimensional nature, making exact analysis difficult. However, approximate solutions using simplified models provide valuable insights into their behavior.Key Features of Rapidly Varying FlowRVF is commonly observed in scenarios involving...
345
Uniform Depth Channel Flow: Problem Solving01:18

Uniform Depth Channel Flow: Problem Solving

389
To calculate the flow rate for a trapezoidal channel, first, identify the bottom width, side slope, and flow depth of the channel. The cross-sectional area (A) corresponding to the depth of flow (y), channel bottom width (B), and side slope (θ) is determined by:Next, calculate the wetted perimeter, which includes the bottom width and the sloped side lengths in contact with the water. Using the values of the cross-sectional area and the wetted perimeter, determine the hydraulic radius by...
389
Steady, Laminar Flow Between Parallel Plates01:17

Steady, Laminar Flow Between Parallel Plates

709
Understanding steady, laminar flow between parallel plates is essential for analyzing and designing flow in narrow rectangular channels, commonly found in various water conveyance and drainage systems. The Navier-Stokes equations govern fluid motion and are generally challenging to solve due to their nonlinearity. However, simplifications are possible in certain cases, like the steady laminar flow between parallel plates. For this scenario, we assume steady, incompressible, laminar flow.
709
Gradually Varying Flow01:29

Gradually Varying Flow

332
Gradually varying flow (GVF) in open channels describes situations where water depth changes slowly along the channel due to factors like non-uniform bed slope, channel shape variations, or obstructions. This flow type occurs when the depth adjusts gradually to balance gravitational forces, shear forces, and energy requirements, resulting in a low rate of depth change.Characteristics of Gradually Varying FlowGVF is commonly observed in natural streams, rivers, and canals, where flow depth...
332

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Optimising the manufacture of perfluorocarbon nanodroplets through varying sonication parameters.

Ultrasonics sonochemistry·2025
Same author

Size-Dependent Acoustophoresis in Rectangular Microchannels: Critical Particle Radius and Multidimensional Field Coupling Effects.

Electrophoresis·2025
Same author

Assembly and dynamic manipulations of 3D Chladni figures in a cylindrical cavity using standing bulk acoustic waves.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2025
Same author

Surgical outcomes of neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analysis.

BJS open·2024
Same author

Monitoring Live Mycobacteria in Real-Time Using a Microfluidic Acoustic-Raman Platform.

Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)·2024
Same author

Temperature Hotspot Detection on Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) Using Ultrasonic Guided Waves-A Machine Learning Approach.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 25, 2025

Fabrication, Operation and Flow Visualization in Surface-acoustic-wave-driven Acoustic-counterflow Microfluidics
12:26

Fabrication, Operation and Flow Visualization in Surface-acoustic-wave-driven Acoustic-counterflow Microfluidics

Published on: August 27, 2013

17.6K

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

Junjun Lei1, Peter Glynne-Jones1, Martyn Hill1

  • 1Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK.

Microfluidics and Nanofluidics
|April 1, 2020
PubMed
Summary

Two numerical methods for simulating acoustic streaming flows were compared. The Reynolds stress method accurately models complex flows but is computationally intensive, while the limiting velocity method is efficient for 3D outer flows in specific conditions.

Keywords:
Acoustic boundary layerAcoustic streamingAcoustofluidicsBoundary-driven streamingLimiting velocity methodReynolds stress method

More Related Videos

Induction of Microstreaming by Nonspherical Bubble Oscillations in an Acoustic Levitation System
08:19

Induction of Microstreaming by Nonspherical Bubble Oscillations in an Acoustic Levitation System

Published on: May 9, 2021

2.6K
Fabrication and Operation of Acoustofluidic Devices Supporting Bulk Acoustic Standing Waves for Sheathless Focusing of Particles
10:14

Fabrication and Operation of Acoustofluidic Devices Supporting Bulk Acoustic Standing Waves for Sheathless Focusing of Particles

Published on: March 6, 2016

13.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 25, 2025

Fabrication, Operation and Flow Visualization in Surface-acoustic-wave-driven Acoustic-counterflow Microfluidics
12:26

Fabrication, Operation and Flow Visualization in Surface-acoustic-wave-driven Acoustic-counterflow Microfluidics

Published on: August 27, 2013

17.6K
Induction of Microstreaming by Nonspherical Bubble Oscillations in an Acoustic Levitation System
08:19

Induction of Microstreaming by Nonspherical Bubble Oscillations in an Acoustic Levitation System

Published on: May 9, 2021

2.6K
Fabrication and Operation of Acoustofluidic Devices Supporting Bulk Acoustic Standing Waves for Sheathless Focusing of Particles
10:14

Fabrication and Operation of Acoustofluidic Devices Supporting Bulk Acoustic Standing Waves for Sheathless Focusing of Particles

Published on: March 6, 2016

13.3K

Area of Science:

  • Fluid dynamics
  • Acoustics
  • Numerical simulation

Background:

  • Acoustic streaming flows are crucial for acoustofluidic manipulation devices.
  • Accurate numerical simulations are needed to understand and optimize these devices.
  • Boundary-driven streaming flows present unique modeling challenges.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare two perturbation theory-based numerical methods for modeling boundary-driven acoustic streaming flows.
  • To assess the viability and applicability of the Reynolds stress and limiting velocity methods.
  • To provide guidance for selecting appropriate numerical methods in acoustofluidics.

Main Methods:

  • Reynolds stress method: Predicts streaming fields from driving terms, resolving inner and outer flow fields.
  • Limiting velocity method: Solves outer streaming fields using 'limiting velocities' as boundary conditions, ignoring the acoustic boundary layer.
  • Comparison of computational efficiency and accuracy for both 2D and 3D models.

Main Results:

  • Reynolds stress method effectively demonstrates driving mechanisms but is computationally limited to 2D models.
  • Limiting velocity method is computationally efficient for 3D outer flows when channel curvature is large compared to the acoustic boundary layer thickness.
  • The limiting velocity method requires channel scales > 100 times the acoustic boundary layer thickness for ~5% accuracy.

Conclusions:

  • Both numerical methods are viable for modeling acoustic streaming flows in acoustofluidics.
  • The choice of method depends on the specific application, dimensionality, and required accuracy.
  • This comparison aids researchers in selecting optimal methods for designing acoustofluidic particle manipulation devices.