Research Papers

Effect of Placing a Probe in an Acoustic Drop Levitator

[+] Author and Article Information
Jared N. Baucom

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,
Multifunctional Materials Branch,
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20375

Marriner H. Merrill

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,
Multifunctional Materials Branch,
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20375
e-mail: marriner.merrill@nrl.navy.mil

Christopher R. Field, Kevin J. Johnson

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory,
Naval Technical Center for Safety
and Survivability,
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20375

G. Asher Newsome

Nova Research, Inc.,
1900 Elkin Street, Suite 230,
Alexandria, VA 22308
e-mail: graham.newsome.ctr@nrl.navy.mil

1Present address: Technetics Group, Columbia, SC 29209.

2Corresponding author.

3Present address: Field R&D Services, Arlington, VA 22201.

Contributed by the Noise Control and Acoustics Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF VIBRATION AND ACOUSTICS. Manuscript received March 11, 2015; final manuscript received September 21, 2015; published online October 27, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Nicole Kessissoglou. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Vib. Acoust 138(1), 011011 (Oct 27, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: VIB-15-1088; doi: 10.1115/1.4031672 History: Received March 11, 2015; Revised September 21, 2015

In this paper, we use computational modeling to explore the effects of placing a probe within the active volume of an acoustic levitator. A two-step computational approach is used to visualize the levitation nodes using thousands of simulated particles driven by the acoustophoretic force and gravity. Our analysis shows that the size and position of a probe can strongly alter the shape, location, and intensity of existing levitation nodes. This has a direct impact on the ability to use acoustic levitation for drop suspension in the presence of disruptive probes.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Santillán, A. O. , Boullosa, R. R. , and Cutanda-Henriquez, V. , 2005, “ The Effect of the Geometry of a Resonant Cavity on the Acoustic Levitation Force,” Twelfth International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Lisbon, Portugal, July 11–14, pp. 5617–5624.
Sanchez-Salmeron, A. J. , Lopez-Tarazon, R. , Guzman-Diana, R. , and Ricolfe-Viala, C. , 2005, “ Recent Development in Micro-Handling Systems for Micro-Manufacturing,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 167(2–3), pp. 499–507. [CrossRef]
Xie, W. J. , Cao, C. D. , Lu, Y. J. , Hong, Z. Y. , and Wei, B. , 2006, “ Acoustic Method for Levitation of Small Living Animals,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 89(21), p. 214102. [CrossRef]
Park, J. K. , and Ro, P. I. , 2013, “ Noncontact Manipulation of Light Objects Based on Parameter Modulations of Acoustic Pressure Nodes,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 135(3), p. 031011. [CrossRef]
Vandaele, V. , Lambert, P. , and Delchambre, A. , 2005, “ Non-Contact Handling in Microassembly: Acoustical Levitation,” Precis. Eng., 29(4), pp. 491–505. [CrossRef]
Alambrok, S. , Marston, G. , and Pfrang, C. , 2013, “ Studying Atmospheric Aerosols by Acoustic Levitation: Linking Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) With Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS),” European Aerosol Conference (EAC 2013), Prague, Czech Republic, Sept. 1–6.
Andrade, M. A. B. , Buiochi, F. , Baer, S. , Esen, C. , Ostendorf, A. , and Adamowski, J. C. , 2012, “ Experimental Analysis of the Particle Oscillations in Acoustic Levitation,” IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, Dresden, Germany, Oct. 7–10, pp. 2006–2009.
Brotton, S. J. , and Kaiser, R. I. , 2013, “ Novel High-Temperature and Pressure-Compatible Ultrasonic Levitator Apparatus Coupled to Raman and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., 84(5), p. 055114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Field, C. R. , and Scheeline, A. , 2007, “ Design and Implementation of an Efficient Acoustically Levitated Drop Reactor for in Stillo Measurements,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., 78(12), p. 125102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stindt, A. , Albrecht, M. , Panne, U. , and Riedel, J. , 2013, “ CO2 Laser Ionization of Acoustically Levitated Droplets,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 405(22), pp. 7005–7010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Saha, A. , Basu, S. , Suryanarayana, C. , and Kumar, R. , 2010, “ Experimental Analysis of Thermo-Physical Processes in Acoustically Levitated Heated Droplets,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 53(25–26), pp. 5663–5674. [CrossRef]
Santesson, S. , and Nilsson, S. , 2004, “ Airborne Chemistry: Acoustic Levitation in Chemical Analysis,” Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 378(7), pp. 1704–1709. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Muller, P. B. , Barnkob, R. , Jensen, M. J. H. , and Bruus, H. , 2012, “ COMSOL Analysis of Acoustic Streaming and Microparticle Acoustophoresis,” COMSOL Conference, Milan, Italy, Oct. 10–12.
Silva, G. T. , 2014, “ Acoustic Radiation Force and Torque on an Absorbing Compressible Particle in an Inviscid Fluid,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 136(5), pp. 2405–2413. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
COMSOL, 2013, Particle Tracing Module User's Guide, COMSOL, Stockholm, Sweden, p. 96.
Barmatz, M. , and Collas, P. , 1985, “ Acoustic Radiation Potential on a Sphere in Plane, Cylindrical, and Spherical Standing Wave Fields,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 77(3), pp. 928–945. [CrossRef]
Silva, G. T. , and Bruus, H. , 2014, “ Acoustic Interaction Forces Between Small Particles in an Ideal Fluid,” Phys. Rev. E: Stat., Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys., 90(6), p. 063007. [CrossRef]
Shirota, M. , Yamashita, K. , and Inamura, T. , 2012, “ Orbital Motions of Bubbles in an Acoustic Field,” AIP Conf. Proc., 1474, pp. 156–159.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The distribution of standing axial pressure waves in an acoustic drop levitator depicted as a transverse wave. Nodes along the dashed axis coincide with regions of zero acoustophoretic force, where particles or droplets can be expected to levitate. This schematic assumes a dense particle levitating in a gas phase (the assumed case for a system where a sample is acoustically trapped and then probed).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A basic ADL with an idealized probe inlet (inset). The corresponding model geometry and dimensions are also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The acoustic pressure field in the modeled ADL without a probe inlet. White dashed circles show predicted levitation nodes along the axis, and black dashed circles show predicted ring-node levitation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Visualization particle locations after 400 ms. Particles are shown in a 1 mm-thick slice of the YZ-plane. The acoustic pressure field is shown in the background for comparison.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Experimental validation showing a photograph of the ADL with two levitated beads of foam (right and inset) and the predicted location of the visualization particles after 400 ms. The geometry and driving frequency were the same in each case. Off-axis levitation was also observed experimentally, though the nodes were less stable.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The effect of probe size and position on the acoustic pressure field is shown for two inlet diameters (5.0 mm on the left and 2.5 mm on the right) and positions (1, 10, and 20 mm from the centerline). The pressure field is shown in the yz-plane.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Two orthogonal views of the pressure distribution for a 2.5 mm probe located 1 mm from the centerline. The two distributions are distinctly different and indicative of the asymmetry caused by the presence of an obstruction in the ADL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Visualization particle location without (a) and with (b) a probe. (a) and (b) show all particles and indicate the slice taken to focus on the lowest node (z = 5 5 mm). In (c), the XY location of the visualization particles for the lowest node are shown without the probe (gray ring node and black center node) and with the probe (dark gray lobes left, middle, and right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Acoustic pressure as a function of height above transducer surface along the centerline of the acoustic volume for two probe diameters (5.0 mm and 2.5 mm) and three offset distances (20, 10, and 1 mm). Probe diameter only had a significant effect for the 1 mm case, as indicated.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In