Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T11:22:12.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamics of bubbles near a rigid surface subjected to a lithotripter shock wave. Part 2. Reflected shock intensifies non-spherical cavitation collapse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2008

M. L. CALVISI ,
J. I. ILORETA  and
A. J. SZERI
M. L. CALVISI
Affiliation:
Applied Science and Technology Graduate Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1708, USA
J. I. ILORETA
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740, USA
A. J. SZERI*
Affiliation:
Applied Science and Technology Graduate Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1708, USA Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1740, USA
*
‡Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. aszeri@me.berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we use the boundary integral method to model the non-spherical collapse of bubbles excited by lithotripter shock waves near a rigid boundary. The waves we consider are representative of those developed by shock wave lithotripsy or shock wave therapy devices, and the rigid boundaries we consider are representative of kidney stones and reflective bony tissue. This study differs from previous studies in that we account for the reflection of the incident wave and also the asymmetry of the collapse caused by the presence of the rigid surface. The presence of the boundary causes interference between reflected and incident waves. Quantities such as kinetic energy, Kelvin impulse and centroid translation are calculated in order to illuminate the physics of the collapse process. The main finding is that the dynamics of the bubble collapse depend strongly on the distance of the bubble relative to the wall when reflection is taken into account, but much less so when reflection is omitted from the model. The reflection enhances the expansion and subsequent collapse of bubbles located near the boundary owing to constructive interference between incident and reflected waves; however, further from the boundary, the dynamics of collapse are suppressed owing to destructive interference of these two waves. This result holds regardless of the initial radius of the bubble or its initial state at the time of impact with the lithotripter shock wave. Also, the work done by the lithotripter shock wave on the bubble is shown to predict strongly the maximum bubble volume regardless of the standoff distance and the presence or absence of reflection; furthermore, allowing for non-sphericity, these predictions match almost exactly those of a previously developed spherical model.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 616 , 10 December 2008 , pp. 63 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Best, J. P. 1993 The formation of toroidal bubbles upon the collapse of transient cavities. J. Fluid Mech. 251, 79–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, J. P. & Kucera, A. 1992 A numerical investigation of non-spherical rebounding bubbles. J. Fluid Mech. 245, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. R. & Gibson, D. C. 1987 Cavitation bubbles near boundaries. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 19, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. R., Taib, B. B. & Doherty, G. 1986 Transient cavities near boundaries. Part 1. Rigid boundary. J. Fluid Mech. 170, 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, N. K. & Field, J. E. 1992 Shock-induced collapse of single cavities in liquids. J. Fluid Mech. 244, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, N. K. & Field, J. E. 1995 A high-speed photographic study of cavitation damage. J. Appl. Phys. 78, 4423–4427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, N. K. & Field, J. E. 1999 Shock-induced collapse and luminescence by cavities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 357, 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvisi, M. L. 2006 Shape stability and violent collapse of microbubbles interacting with acoustic waves and shocks. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvisi, M. L., Lindau, O., Blake, J. R. & Szeri, A. J. 2007 Shape stability and violent collapse of microbubbles in acoustic traveling waves. Phys. Fluids 19, 047101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, C. C. 1989 A theoretical study of cavitation generated by an extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crum, L. A. 1979 Surface oscillations and jet development in pulsating bubbles. J. Phys. Paris 41, 285–288.Google Scholar
Ding, Z. & Gracewski, S. M. 1996 The behaviour of a gas cavity impacted by a weak or strong shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 309, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M. F., Ilinskii, Y. A., Meegan, G. D. & Zabolotskaya, E. A. 2005 Interaction of bubbles in a cluster near a rigid surface. Acoust. Res. Lett. Online 6, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iloreta, J. I., Zhou, Y., Sankin, G. N., Zhong, P. & Szeri, A. J. 2007 Assessment of shock wave lithotripters via cavitation potential. Phys. Fluids 19, 086103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iloreta, J. I., Fung, N. & Szeri, A. J. 2008 Dynamics of bubbles near a rigid surface subjected to a lithotripter shock wave. Part 1. Consequences of interference between incident and reflected waves. J. Fluid Mech. 616, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaseboer, E., Turangan, C., Fong, S. W., Liu, T. G., Hung, K. C. & Khoo, B. C. 2006 Simulations of pressure pulse-bubble interaction using boundary element method. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng. 195, 4287–4302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaseboer, E., Fong, S. W., Turangan, C. K., Khoo, B. C., Szeri, A. J., Calvisi, M. L., Sankin, G. N. & Zhong, P. 2007 Interaction of lithotripter shockwaves with single inertial cavitation bubbles. J. Fluid Mech. 593, 33–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kodama, T. & Tomita, Y. 2000 Cavitation bubble behavior and bubble–shock wave interaction near a gelatin surface as a study of in vivo bubble dynamics. Appl. Phys. B Lasers Optics 70, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindau, O. & Lauterborn, W. 2003 Cinematographic observation of the collpase and rebound of a laser-produced cavitation bubble near a wall. J. Fluid Mech. 479, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matula, T. J., Hilmo, P. R., Storey, B. D. & Szeri, A. J. 2002 Radial response of individual bubbles subjected to shock wave lithotripsy pulses in vitro. Phys. Fluids 14, 913–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohl, C. D. 2002 Cavitation inception following shock wave passage. Phys. Fluids 14, 3512–3521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohl, C. D. & Ikink, R. 2003 Shock-wave induced jetting of micron-sized bubbles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 214502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, A., Blake, J. R. & Otto, S. R. 2004 Jets in bubbles. J. Engng Maths. 48, 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipp, A., Delius, M., Scheffczyk, C., Vogel, A. & Lauterborn, W. 1993 Interaction of lithotripter-generated shock waves with air bubbles. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2496–2509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pishchalnikov, Y. A., Sapozhnikov, O. A., Bailey, M. R., Williams, J. C., Cleveland, R. O., Colonius, T., Crum, L. A., Evan, A. P. & McAteer, J. A. 2003 Cavitation bubble cluster activity in the breakage of kidney stones by lithotripter shockwaves. J. Endourol. 17, 435–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pishchalnikov, Y. A., McAteer, J. A., Williams, J. C., Pishchalnikova, I. V. & Vonderhaar, R. J. 2006 Why stones break better at slow shockwave rates than at fast rates: in vitro study with a research electrohydraulic lithotripter. J. Endourol. 20, 537–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosperetti, A. & Lezzi, A. 1986 Bubble dynamics in a compressible liquid. Part 1. First-order theory. J. Fluid Mech. 168, 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankin, G. N. & Zhong, P. 2006 Interaction between shock wave and single inertial bubbles near an elastic boundary. Phys. Rev. E 74, 046304.Google ScholarPubMed
Sankin, G. N., Simmons, W. N., Zhu, S. L. & Zhong, P. 2005 Shock wave interaction with laser-generated single bubbles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 034501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, K., Tomita, Y. & Shima, A. 1994 Numerical analysis of a gas bubble near a rigid boundary in an oscillatory pressure field. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 2416–2424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storey, B. D. & Szeri, A. J. 2000 Water vapour, sonoluminescence and sonochemistry. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 456, 1685–1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szeri, A. J., Storey, B. D., Pearson, A. & Blake, J. R. 2003 Heat and mass transfer during the violent collapse of non-spherical bubbles. Phys. Fluids 15, 2576–2586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taib, B. B. 1985 Boundary integral method applied to cavitation bubble dynamics. PhD dissertation, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
Tomita, Y. & Shima, A. 1986 Mechanisms of impulsive pressure generation and damage pit formation by bubble collapse. J. Fluid Mech. 169, 535–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabolotskaya, E. A., Ilinskii, Y. A., Meegan, G. D. & Hamilton, M. F. 2004 Bubble interactions in clouds produced during shock wave lithotripsy. Proc. IEEE Ultrasonics Symp., pp. 890–893.Google Scholar