Advertisement

Numerical investigation into the mixing performance of micro T-mixers with different patterns of obstacles

  • A. FarahiniaEmail author
  • W. J. Zhang
Technical Paper
  • 92 Downloads

Abstract

Microsystems are made up of components < 100 μm in size. At this size range, the flow of substances typically experiences a laminar behavior with the Stokes flow condition (Re < 1). To the mixing operation, diffusion dominates the mixing, which further leads to the problem of the increased length of microchannel (mixing length for short) and increased length of time. Development of a new principle of mixing, which may increase the mixing efficiency, will be useful to alleviate this problem. There are two directions of measures for new principles: passive and active. In short, the passive principle is related to designing the structure of the mixer, while the active principle is to additional sources of energy for mixing. The mixing efficiency plays a significant role in designing micromixers as the most essential parts of lab-on-chip (LoC), because increasing this index can result in reducing mixing length so that not only it is cost-efficient but also it helps to miniaturize the LoC devices, but achieving adequate mixing performance in simple geometries is a serious challenge. This paper presents a study of the optimal design of a passive micro T-mixer, which consists of the prescribed patterns of barriers and furrows with different geometries. Simulation with COMSOL was taken to conduct this study. The study concluded that the mixing efficiency can be improved by at least 25%; as well the mixing length can be improved. Additionally, the role of the diffusion coefficient was examined, leading to the finding that a greater diffusion coefficient could result in a shorter length of microchannel for the same mixing efficiency. This finding is in agreement with the general theory of diffusion in laminar fluids.

Keywords

Micromixers COMSOL multiphysics Low Reynolds number Furrowed micro T-mixer Barriers Mixing efficiency 

List of symbols

A

Cross-sectional area (m2)

C

Concentration of reagents (mol/m3)

D

Diffusion coefficient (m2/s)

F

Force (N)

f

Mole fraction (–)

j

Diffusion (mol/s m2)

I

Identity matrix (–)

L

Microchannel length (m)

Mi

Mixing efficiency index (%)

R

Change of concentration rate (mol/s m3)

u

Velocity (m/s)

ρ

Density (kg/m3)

μ

Viscosity (Pa s)

σ

Standard deviation (–)

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Mechanical at the University of Saskatchewan for providing us the research facilities. As well, the research is made possible to the first author by the Saskatchewan Innovation and Opportunity Scholarship.

Funding

This research work is not supported by any funding agency.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Folch A (2016) Introduction to bioMEMS. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernacka-Wojcik I, Ribeiro S, Wojcik PJ, Alves PU, Busani T, Fortunato E, Baptista PV, Covas JA, Águas H, Hilliou L, Martins R (2014) Experimental optimization of a passive planar rhombic micromixer with obstacles for effective mixing in a short channel length. RSC Adv 4(99):56013–56025.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA10160J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fu L-M, Yang R-J, Lee G-B, Liu H-H (2002) Electrokinetic injection techniques in microfluidic chips. Anal Chem 74(19):5084–5091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lei L, Bergstrom D, Zhang B, Zhang H, Yin R, Song K-Y, Zhang W (2017) Micro/nanospheres generation by fluid-fluid interaction technology: a literature review. Recent Pat Nanotechnol 11(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Papadopoulos V, Kefala I, Kaprou G, Kokkoris G, Moschou D, Papadakis G, Gizeli E, Tserepi A (2014) A passive micromixer for enzymatic digestion of DNA. Microelectron Eng 124:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rudyak V, Minakov A (2014) Modeling and optimization of Y-type micromixers. Micromachines 5(4):886–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ottino JM, Wiggins S (2004) Introduction: mixing in microfluidics. The Royal Society, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wan J, Zhang W, Bergstrom D (2007) A theoretical analysis of the concept of critical clearance toward a design methodology for the flip-chip package. J Electron Packag 129(4):473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qaderi A, Jamaati J, Bahiraei M (2019) CFD simulation of combined electroosmotic-pressure driven micro-mixing in a microchannel equipped with triangular hurdle and zeta-potential heterogeneity. Chem Eng Sci 199:463–477.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2019.01.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang C, Hu Y (2010) Mixing of liquids using obstacles in y-type microchannels. Tamkang J Sci Eng 13(4):385–394Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nayak A (2014) Analysis of mixing for electroosmotic flow in micro/nano channels with heterogeneous surface potential. Int J Heat Mass Transf 75:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang Y, Weihs GF, Wiley D (2014) Approximation for modelling electro-osmotic mixing in the boundary layer of membrane systems. J Membr Sci 450:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang Y, Zhe J, Chung BTF, Dutta P (2008) A rapid magnetic particle driven micromixer. Microfluid Nanofluid 4:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alizadeh A, Zhang L, Wang M (2014) Mixing enhancement of low-Reynolds electro-osmotic flows in microchannels with temperature-patterned walls. J Colloid Interface Sci 431:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campisi M, Accoto D, Damiani F, Dario P (2009) A soft-lithographed chaotic electrokinetic micromixer for efficient chemical reactions in lab-on-chips. J Micro Nano Mech 5:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen CK, Cho CC (2008) Electrokinetically driven flow mixing utilizing chaotic electric fields. Microfluid Nanofluid 5(6):785–793.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-008-0286-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Le The H, Le Thanh H, Dong T, Ta BQ, Tran Minh N, Karlsen F (2015) An effective passive micromixer with shifted trapezoidal blades using wide Reynolds number range. Chem Eng Res Design 93:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buchegger W, Wagner C, Lendl B, Kraft M, Vellekoop M (2011) A highly uniform lamination micromixer with wedge shaped inlet channels for time resolved infrared spectroscopy. Microfluid Nanofluid 10:889–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang MZ, Yang RJ, Tai CH, Tsai CH, Fu LM (2006) Application of electrokinetic instability flow for enhanced micromixing in cross-shaped microchannel. Biomed Microdev 8:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neerincx PE, Denteneer RPJ, Peelen S, Meijer HEH (2011) Compact mixing using multiple splitting, stretching, and recombining flows. Macromol Mater Eng 296:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alam A, Afzal A, Kim KY (2014) Mixing performance of a planar micromixer with circular obstructions in a curved microchannel. Chem Eng Res Design 92(3):423–434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhattacharyya S, Bera S (2015) Combined electroosmosis-pressure driven flow and mixing in a microchannel with surface heterogeneity. Appl Math Model 39(15):4337–4350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.12.050 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamali R, Mansoorifar A, Dehghan Manshadi MK (2014) Effect of baffle geometry on mixing performance in the passive micromixer. Trans Mech Eng 38(M2):351–360Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hardt S, Pennemann H, Schönfeld F (2006) Theoretical and experimental characterization of a low-Reynolds number split-and-recombine mixer. Microfluid Nanofluid 2(3):237–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-005-0071-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gobby D, Angeli P, Gavriilidis A (2001) Mixing characteristics of T-type microfluidic mixers. J Micromech Microeng 11(2):121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jamaati J, Farahinia AR, Niazmand H (2015) Investigation of mixing in electroosmotic micromixers using Nernst–Planck equations. Modares Mech Eng 15(4):203–213Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feng X, Ren Y, Sun H, Chen X, Zhang K, Jia Y, Hou L, Xiao M, Jiang H (2019) Effect of vortex on mass transport and mixing in microcapillary channels. Chem Eng J 362:442–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ait Mouheb N, Malsch D, Montillet A, Solliec C, Henkel T (2012) Numerical and experimental investigations of mixing in T-shaped and cross-shaped micromixers. Chem Eng Sci 68(1):278–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2011.09.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soleymani A, Yousefi H, Turunen I (2008) Dimensionless number for identification of flow patterns inside a T-micromixer. Chem Eng Sci 63(21):5291–5297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang J-T, Huang K-J, Lin Y-C (2005) Geometric effects on fluid mixing in passive grooved micromixers. Lab Chip 5(10):1140–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang H, Iovenitti P, Harvey EC, Masood S, Deam R (2001) Mixing of liquids using obstacles in microchannels. In: BioMEMS and Smart Nanostructures, Adelaide, Australia. SPIE, pp 204–212Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cetkin E, Miguel AF (2019) Constructal branched micromixers with enhanced mixing efficiency: slender design, sphere mixing chamber and obstacles. Int J Heat Mass Transf 131:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Itomlenskis M, Fodor PS, Kaufman M (2008) Design of passive micromixers using the COMSOL multiphysics software package. In: Proceedings of COMSOL conference, BostonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    da Silva Júnior JL (2019) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics and its application in microfluidics. In: Process analysis, design, and intensification in microfluidics and chemical engineering. IGI Global, pp 50–78Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Conlisk AT (2012) Essentials of micro-and nanofluidics: with applications to the biological and chemical sciences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Atkins P, De Paula J (2011) Physical chemistry for the life sciences. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen JM, Horng TL, Tan WY (2006) Analysis and measurements of mixing in pressure-driven microchannel flow. Microfluid Nanofluid 2(6):455–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-006-0092-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jain M, Rao A, Nandakumar K (2013) Numerical study on shape optimization of groove micromixers. Microfluid Nanofluid 15(5):689–699.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-013-1169-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yazdi AA, Sadeghi A, Saidi MH (2015) Electrokinetic mixing at high zeta potentials: ionic size effects on cross stream diffusion. J Colloid Interface Sci 442:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mondal B, Mehta SK, Patowari PK, Pati S (2019) Numerical study of mixing in wavy micromixers: comparison between raccoon and serpentine mixer. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 136:44–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2018.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Giere S, Iliescu T, John V, Wells D (2015) SUPG reduced order models for convection-dominated convection–diffusion–reaction equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 289:454–474.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2015.01.020 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Knobloch P, Tobiska L (2009) On the stability of finite-element discretizations of convection–diffusion–reaction equations. IMA J Numer Anal 31(1):147–164.  https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drp020 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Golbabai A, Kalarestaghi N (2018) Improved localized radial basis functions with fitting factor for dominated convection–diffusion differential equations. Eng Anal Bound Elem 92:124–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2017.10.008 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanderse B, Misra S, Dubinkina S, Henkes RAWM, Oosterlee CW (2018) Numerical simulation of roll waves in pipelines using the two-fluid model. Paper presented at the 11th North American conference on multiphase production technology, Banff, Canada, 10 Dec 2018Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Matsunaga T, Lee H-J, Nishino K (2013) An approach for accurate simulation of liquid mixing in a T-shaped micromixer. Lab Chip 13(8):1515–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Khaydarov V, Borovinskaya E, Reschetilowski W (2018) Numerical and experimental investigations of a micromixer with chicane mixing geometry. Appl Sci 8(12):2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Celik IB (2008) Procedure for estimation and reporting of discretization Error in CFD applications. ASME J Fluids Eng 1(6):1–7Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee CY, Lin C, Hung M, Ma RH, Tsai CH, Lin CH, Fu LM (2006) Experimental and numerical investigation into mixing efficiency of micromixers with different geometric barriers. Mater Sci Forum 505–507:391–396.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.505-507.391
  49. 49.
    Tseng L-Y, Yang A-S, Lee C-Y, Hsieh C-Y (2011) CFD-based optimization of a diamond-obstacles inserted micromixer with boundary protrusions. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 5(2):210–222Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations