Journal of

J Mar Sci Technol (1998) 3:122-129

Marine Science
and Technology
9 SNAJ 1998

Original articles
Experimental study on microbubble ejection method for frictional
drag reduction
HIROHARU KATO, KENTO MIURA, HAJIME YAMAGUCHI,and MASARU MIYANAGA
Department of Environmental and Ocean Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656,Japan

Abstract: The formation of air bubbles ejected through a

single hole in a flat plate was observed in uniform flow of 210m/s. It was confirmed that the size of the air bubbles was
governed by main flow velocity and air flow rate. According to
previous experiments, the size of the bubbles is an important
factor in frictional drag reduction by microbubble ejection.
Usually bubbles larger than a certain diameter (for example
1 mm) have no effect on frictional drag reduction. Three different methods were proposed and tested to generate smaller
bubbles. Among them, a 2D convex (half body of an NACA
64-021 section) with ejection holes at the top was the best and
most promising. The diameter of the bubbles became about
one-third the size of the reference ejection on a flat plate.
Moreover, the bubble size did not increase with increasing
flow rate. This is a favorable characteristic for practical purposes. The skin friction force was measured directly with a
miniature floating element transducer, and decreased drastically by microbubble ejection from the top of the 2D convex
shape.
Key words: microbubble, frictional drag, drag reduction,
ejection method

Introduction
The reduction of skin friction by microbubbles is p r o m ising for practical uses such as for a ship's hull, because
the reduction rate can reach as high as 80% in the best
conditions.
T h e pioneering work was by M c C o r m i c k and
Bhattacharyya. 1 They found a reduction of drag in an
axisymmetric body by covering the surface with hydrogen bubbles. A group of scientists at Pennsylvania State

Address correspondence to: H. Kato

Received for publication on Feb. 2, 1998; accepted on Sept. 29,
1998

University m a d e extensive studies in the 1980s. 2-7

M o r e recently, Kato et al. s,9 and Guin et al. l~ measured
the reduction of skin friction directly with a miniature
floating element transducer.
Bogdevich et al. 11 showed that the reduction rate of
skin friction correlated well with the m a x i m u m gas concentration in the b o u n d a r y layer. M a d a v a n et al. 3 tried
to correlate the volumetric fraction of air Q,/(Qo + Qw)
with the reduction rate. They also e x p e r i m e n t e d by
changing the p o r e size of the porous plate through
which air was injected. Contrary to their expectations,
injection pore size had no major effect on the a m o u n t of
skin-friction reduction. Guin et al. 1~found that the nearwall void fraction tended to collapse the drag-reduction
data better than the average void fraction.
A n o t h e r important factor is the size of the bubbles.
When microbubble injection is applied to a low-speed
ship's hull model, we often observe an increase of drag.
In such cases, the d i a m e t e r of the bubbles is 2-3 ram.
Obviously the bubble size is too large c o m p a r e d with
the scale of the b o u n d a r y layer.
K a t o et al. 9 examined the effect of bubble size by
changing the main flow velocity. The bubble size
decreased according to the increase in the main flow
velocity, resulting in a larger reduction rate of skin friction. K a t o et al. 8 also changed the bubble size by changing the surface tension. W a t e r with 0.1% ethanol, whose
surface tension is lower than that of pure water, was
m o r e effective, although the difference was not large.
Examining this previous work, the authors recognized that it was important to control bubble size, in
other words, to generate bubbles smaller than a certain
diameter to reduce skin friction. W h e n we apply
microbubbles on a relatively slow ship, such as a
coaster, we need a device to control the size of the
bubbles.
In this paper, we consider the mechanism and physical properties governing the size of bubbles, then propose a few methods to control the size of bubbles. Those

H. Kato et al.: Microbubble ejection method

123

methods were examined experimentally to test whether

they were effective for generating smaller bubbles than
those ejected through holes on a flat plate.

Experimental apparatus

The experiments were done in a recirculating water

tunnel at the University of Tokyo. The tunnel has a
rectangular cross section of 120mm x 50mm.
The test body with a convex shape, was secured to the
bottom of the test section, as shown in Fig. 1. The outline of two side windows is shown by a broken line. The
test body was the same as in earlier investigations. 8,9The
wall shearing stress was measured by a floating element
transducer with an element of 5 m m diameter. The
capacity was 1 g shear force, corresponding to 500Pa of
shear stress. Four transducers were mounted flush with
the surface of the test body in the first experiment, with
no device for controlling bubble size (Fig. 1). A detailed
description of the transducer with a discussion of its
accuracy is given by Guin et al. 1~
Air flow rate was measured by a rotameter (Ueshima
Brooks, Model 1560, Tokyo, Japan) with an accuracy of
2% error. The air flow rate at the ejection hole increased a little because of the difference between the
static pressure at the rotameter and that at the ejection
point. The correction factor was 1.09-1.11. The velocity
in the boundary layer with main flow velocity was measured by a laser doppler velocimeter (Kanomax, Osaka,
Japan) with accuracy of 1% error. All the data were
installed in transient recorders with a sampling rate of
2 ms. Normally, data of 8 K were taken and processed by
a microcomputer.
During the experiment, photographs were taken
from both the top and the side simultaneously to
observe bubble formation. The size of the bubbles was
measured using a film motion analyzer (magnification
xl0). The accuracy was +0.05 mm. When a bubble was
not spherical, the two major axes were measured and
averaged as r = ~a-b.

'

FLOW
[Z~

175
~

B u b b l e formation from a single hole

Bubble formation from a single hole on a flat plate

under uniform main water flow was observed to examine the fundamental mechanism. Experimental conditions were changed widely as follows resulting in 75
cases in total.
- - Diameter of hole (D):
- - Main flow velocity (U):
- - Air flow rate (Q):

0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm

2, 4, 6, 8, and 10m/s
20, 50, 100, 150, and
230 ml/min

The air hole was drilled 2 2 m m upstream from the

center of the test body, as shown in Fig. 1. Velocity
distributions of the boundary layer at the air hole were
measured by a laser doppler velocimeter. Figure 2
shows a semilog plot of the velocity profile on the ejection hole, showing a turbulent flow even at 2 m/s.
Figure 3 shows successive pictures taken by a highspeed video recorder. Framing rates were 1200, 1800,
and 3600f/s, at 2, 4, and 6m/s, respectively. In all three
cases, the air column stretched downstream, formed
nodes, and finally broke into air bubbles.
A t the lower main flow velocity of 2 m/s, the surface
of the air column was smooth. Conversely, at the higher
velocity of 6 m/s, the surface became turbulent, and the
pitch of the node was shorter than that at the lower
velocity.

1.2
[]
/X
1.0

2m/s
4m/s
6m/s

u/U
0.8

175
100

a22~ Position of Air Hole

#l #2 #3 #4

Shearing Stress Pick-Ups

'?0-' ?d' ?0-' ?O'

0.6

J
Outline of Window

0.4

I
0.1

10
log Z

(mm)

Unit mm

Fig. 1. Details of test section

Fig. 2. Velocity distribution of the boundary layer on the

ejection hole

124

H. Kato et al.: Microbubble ejection method

Fig. 3. Formation of air bubbles. (a) U = 2m/s, framing rate 1200f/s; (b) U = 4m/s, framing rate 1800f/s; (c) U = 6m/s, framing
rate 3600 f/s

One might conceive that this mechanism is a selfexciting p h e n o m e n o n such as instability on the interface
of two fluids, or vapor column instability as proposed by
Z u b e r et al. 12 The results of analyses, however, show
that none of these are the governing mechanism of
bubble formation.
Meng and Uhlman 13 proposed an empirical formula
for the bubble size:
1

-~ = 2.4 ~ -

(1)

where d is the diameter of the bubble, D is the diameter

of the ejection hole, Q is the air flow rate, and U is the
main flow velocity. Equation 1 agrees very well with the
present experiment, regardless of the size of the air
ejection hole (Fig. 4).
The velocity inside the air column should be governed
by the main flow (water) velocity, not by the air ejection
velocity, because of the large difference in air and water
momentums. Therefore, the effective size (diameter) of
the air column is proportional to X/Q/U. We can observe those phenomena by a careful observation of the
photographs in Fig. 3. The diameter of the air column
increased considerably when it flowed downstream at
the low main flow velocity of 2 m/s (see Fig. 3a), whereas

the diameter did not increase at the high flow velocity of

6 m/s (see Fig. 3c). Moreover, a large-scale disturbance
which governs the size of the air bubbles should be
proportional to the diameter of the air column. This
mechanism is similar to a Karman vortex street, but the
wavelength of the disturbance is shorter than that of a
Karman vortex street, because the air column is flexible
and is moved transversely by the disturbance.
Examining the experimental results, it can be concluded that high water velocity and/or high disturbance
are essential to generate smaller air bubbles.

Methods of generating small air bubbles

In the present study, three different methods were proposed and tested to generate smaller air bubbles effectively. These were:
1. a 2D convex shape with an ejection hole of 1 mm
diameter at the top (in the present study, a half body
of an N A C A 64-021 section was adopted (Fig. 5));
2. a 2D convergent-divergent nozzle with an ejection
hole of 1 mm diameter at the throat (Fig. 6);
3. a transverse wire, with a diameter of 200gm, a little
upstream of an ejection hole of 1 mm diameter (Fig.
7).

H. Kato et al.: Microbubble ejection method

7

6 I~.

d/D

@
9
9

i~

D=0 5mm
D=10mm
D=l.Smm

5 [ _
4

125

30

FLOW

V'

Throat Width
1 ~ 5mm (variable)

*/~

Eq(1)

~ l . /

"

9
9

Air Hole lmm ~

Fig. 6. 2D convergent~livergent nozzle

0
0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

;~

2.5

3.0

Ul)2

Fig. 4. Diameter of air bubbles ejected on a flat plate

Air Hole lmm ~

FLOW I

~j

50

-~l

W i r e 2 0 0 lz m

~-

~
Fig. 7. Transverse wire

Fig. 5. 2D convex section with air hole

All three configurations were placed on the test body

shown in Fig. 1, keeping the hole position unchanged.
The 2D convex shape (hereafter abbreviated as "2D
convex") and the 2D convergent-divergent nozzle
(hereafter abbreviated as "2D nozzle") are to increase
the local flow velocity at the ejection point. Conversely,
the transverse wire (hereafter abbreviated as "wire") is
to increase the turbulence of flow at the ejection point.
The photographs in Fig, 8 clearly show the effects of
the three methods. A t 2 m/s, the size of the air bubbles
is a few millimeters on a fiat plate with no device, as
seen in the top photograph. T h e bubbles are leaving
from the surface because of the large buoyancy force.
The bubble size is much smaller at 2D convex and 2D
nozzle, as seen in the second and third photographs.
The effect of the wire is not obvious, as seen in the
b o t t o m photograph.
At 6 m/s, the bubble size becomes much smaller even
on the flat plate with no device. Bubbles flow along the
surface, which is favorable for drag reduction. T h e three
devices are effective in making the bubbles smaller.
However, the bubbles d o w n s t r e a m of the 2D nozzle
diffuse rather rapidly. This is because the flow separates
at the divergent part of the nozzle, and that is not desirable as a device for drag reduction. A m o n g the three
methods, the 2D convex seems the best for drag reduction by microbubbles, because the bubbles b e c o m e
smaller and do not diffuse outside of the boundary
layer.

T h e distribution of bubble size was measured for

each case by using a film analyzer to confirm the above
conclusions. Figures 9-11 are m e a n diameters d measured downstream of the 2D convex, the 2D nozzle,
and the wire, respectively. T h e diameter of bubbles
on a fiat plate with no device is also shown for
comparison.
As seen in Fig. 9, the effect of the 2D convex is
greater than expected. Firstly, the bubble size decreased
m u c h m o r e than the effect of an increment in the unif o r m flow predicted by Eq. 1. The flow velocity at the
top of the 2D convex increased about 20%. T h e r e f o r e
the decrease in bubble size should be about 10%
according to Eq. 1. However, the bubble size b e c a m e
m u c h less, as seen in Fig. 9. Secondly, the bubble size
does not increase even if the air flow rate increases f r o m
50ml/min to 230ml/min. Although the reasons are not
clear, these results are favorable for a practical purpose.
O n e possible explanation is the increase in turbulence
at the aft part of the 2D convex.
T h e characteristics of the 2D nozzle are similar to
those of the 2D convex when the nozzle throat width
was changed from 5 m m to 1 mm. W h e n the throat width
was narrower, the bubble size decreased to some extent
(Fig. 10).
The drag of the 2D nozzle was estimated by measuring the main flow velocity distribution u p s t r e a m as well
as d o w n s t r e a m of the nozzle. The drag coefficient was
CD -- 0.081 + 0.02 without air ejection. It is m u c h larger
than that of the 2D convex (CD = 0.027 + 0.02). It is a
drawback to the 2D nozzle.

E
E

.....

II

II

h~

(-~
(,,q
II

(-q
II

.,-.

L~

H. Kato et al.: Microbubble ejection method

127

Table 1. Comparison of the three devices for bubble size reduction

Flat plate
(reference)

2D
convex

2D
nozzle

Transverse
wire

Bubble size

Normal

Small

Small

Bubble position

Near wall at
high speed
Small
Yes

Near wall

Spread

Small only at
high speeds
Near wall

Small
Yes

Large
No

Small
No

Own drag
Applicability

4.0
0
O

3.5
3.0

I~ ,~

Q=50ml/min

[]

Q=100ml/min

/k

Q=150ml/min

Q=230ml/min

Open Symbols

2.5

6
O

d(mm)
5

Flat Plate

d (ram)

ZX

100ml/min

0mm

[]

100ml/min

lmm

230ml/min 0mm

230ml/min

Flat Plate

lmm

,6

A
[]

2.0

[]

1.5
<>

1.0

0.5

6[]
9

[]

0
0

10
0

U(m/s)
Fig. 9. Air bubble diameters measured downstream of the 2D
convex section

d (mm)

Nozzle Width
5.0mm
3.0ram
2.0ram
1.0mm
Open Symbols 100ml/min
Solid Symbols 230ml/min
O
A
[]

o *

Flat Plate

10

U (m/s)
Fig. 11. Air bubble diameters measured downstream of the
wire 200 I.tm in diameter
Figure 11 shows the mean bubble diameter downstream of a transverse wire of 2 0 0 g m diameter. It was
expected that disturbance by the wire would cause a
reduction in bubble size. However, the wire was effective only at large velocities (more than 6 m/s).
We summarize the results in Table 1. Comparing all
items, the 2D convex is the best, as mentioned above.

0
o

D i r e c t m e a s u r e m e n t o f w a l l s h e a r i n g stress
downstream of the 2D convex

10
U (m/s)

Fig. 10. Air bubble diameters measured downstream of the

2D convergent-divergent nozzle

As concluded in the previous section, the 2D convex

is the most promising device for skin friction reduction
by microbubbles. A 2D convex with seven air ejection
holes of 1 m m in diameter was tested, and the skin friction was measured downstream. The two photographs
in Fig. 12 show the appearance of microbubble ejection

H. Kato et al.: Microbubble ejection method

128

Cf I/Cfil

Cf2/Cfi2

Cf3/Cf~3

Cf4/Cf,4

1.2 ~
Cf/Cfo

1.0

0.6

0.4

$ 45

0.2

9
9

0.02

0.04

~9

0.06

9
A

0.08

0.1

0.12

Nominal Air Flow Rate

0.14

hBU

Reduction of wall shearing stress by air ejection from

the 2D convex section

Fig. 13.

Fig. 12. Air bubbles generated from the top of the 2D convex
section. U = 6 m/s; Q = 7 l/rain

1.2

2D Convex
Flat Plate

1.0
at 6m/s and an air ejection rate of 71/min. The microbubbles covered the downstream surface well, although
the diffusion was considerable. If we can reduce this
diffusion, the effect of microbubbles on skin friction
reduction must be greater. This is an important problem
for future research.
The reduction of skin friction (wall shearing stress) by
microbubbles was measured directly using four miniature floating element transducers, whose locations are
shown in Fig. 2. The test conditions were:
---

main flow velocity (U):

air flow rate (Q):

CffC~
0.8
\
\

0.6
0.4
0.2

5, 6, 8, and 10m/s;
0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 101/min.

Figure 13 shows the reduction rate, C/Cso (accuracy

+9%), where C~ and CI~ are skin friction coefficients
with and without microbubbles, respectively. The numbers 1-4 indicate the different transducers. The abscissa
is the nondimensional nominal air flow rate, Q/(hBU),
where h is the height of the 2D convex (5.24mm), B is
the width of the test section (50 mm), and U is the main
flow velocity.
The data diminish well with the nondimensional air
flow rate for each group. The microbubbles are very
effective near the air ejection point (see CI1/C~ol). However, the effect decreased rapidly downstream, as seen
from the data for Cj:, CO, and Cr4.
Figure 14 shows a comparison between the 2D convex and a flat plate at the same downstream location.
The abscissa is nondimensional air flow rate, Q/(6BU),
where 3 is the displacement thickness of the boundary
layer, B is the section width, and U is the main
flow velocity. The effect of the 2D convex is clear in
Fig. 14.
Although we can obtain a net reduction of drag by
injecting air at the top of the 2D convex, it is difficult to

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Air Flow Rate

1.0

Q
6 BU

Fig. 14. Comparison between the 2D convex and the flat plate
(transducer No. 1)

know whether we can get a net energy saving when we

apply microbubble ejection to the hull surface because
we need considerable energy input to eject the
microbubbles from the hull surface. According to a
recent analysis, TM we can expect a few percent net gain
in energy with a car-ferry 187m in length.

Conclusions

1. The size of the microbubbles is governed by the

main flow velocity and the air ejection flow rate when
they are generated from a hole in a flat plate. A very
simple formula (Eq. 1) by Meng and Uhlman ~3

H. Kato et al.: Microbubble ejection m e t h o d

was v a l i d , a n d w a s r e c o n f i r m e d by t h e p r e s e n t
experiment.
2. T h e e j e c t e d air f o r m s a n air c o l u m n s t r e t c h i n g d o w n s t r e a m . T h o u g h it is n o t y e t c l e a r t h e l a r g e scale disturbance caused by the ejected air column
itself can be the main mechanism generating the
microbubbles.
3. T h r e e d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d s w e r e e x a m i n e d t o g e n e r a t e
smaller bubbles:
- - a 2 D c o n v e x s h a p e w i t h a n e j e c t i o n h o l e at t h e
top;
- - a 2 D c o n v e r g e n t - d i v e r g e n t n o z z l e w i t h an e j e c t i o n h o l e at t h e t h r o a t ;
- - a t r a n s v e r s e w i r e at t h e e j e c t i o n h o l e .
Among the three methods, the 2D convex was the
m o s t e f f e c t i v e at r e d u c i n g t h e size o f air b u b b l e s .
4. It w a s a l s o c o n f i r m e d b y d i r e c t m e a s u r e m e n t o f t h e
friction that the 2D convex shape was the most promising d e v i c e to r e d u c e s k i n f r i c t i o n .

129

4.
5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

Acknowledgments. T h e

authors express their acknowle d g m e n t s t o Y. T a k a h a s h i a n d Y. Y o s h i d a , I H I C o . , f o r

v a l u a b l e d i s c u s s i o n s . T h e y a l s o t h a n k M. T s u d a f o r h e r
h e l p d u r i n g t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f this p a p e r .

11.

12.

References
1. McCormick ME, Bhattacharyya R (1973) Drag reduction of a
submersible hull by electrolysis. Nav Eng J 85:11-16
2. Madavan NK, Deutsch S, Merkle CL (1984) Drag reduction of
turbulent skin friction by microbubbles. Phys Fluids 27:356-363
3. Madavan NK, Deutsch S, Merkle CL (1985) Measurements of

13.

14.

local skin friction in a microbubble-modified turbulent boundary

layer. J Fluid Mech 156:237-256
Madavan NK, Deutsch S, Merkle CL (1985) Numerical investigation into the mechanisms of microbubble drag reduction. J Fluid
Eng 107:370-377
Merkle CL, Deutsch S, Pal Set al (1986) Microbubble drag reduction. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Berkeley, pp 199-215
Pal S, Merkle CL, Deutsch S (1988) Bubble characteristics and
trajectories in a microbubble boundary layer. Phys Fluids 31:744751
Pal S, Deutsch S, Merkle CL (1989~kA comparison of shear stress
fluctuation statistics between microbubble modified and polymer
modified turbulent boundary layers. Phys Fluids A1:1360-1362
Kato H, Miyanaga M, Haramoto Y e t al (1994) Frictional drag
reduction by injecting bubbly water into a turbulent boundary
layer. Cavitation and gas-liquid flow in fluid machinery and
devices. FED vol 190, ASME, pp 185-194
Kato H, Miyanaga M, Yamaguchi H et al (1994) Frictional drag
reduction by injecting bubbly water into a turbulent boundary
layer and the effect of plate orientation. In: Serizawa A, Fukano
T, Bataille J (eds) Advances in multiphase flow. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, Kyoto, pp 85-96
Guin MM, Kato H, Yamaguchi H, et al (1996) Reduction of skin
friction by microbubbles and its relation with nearwall bubble
concentration in a channel. J Mar Sci Technol 1:241 254
Bogdevich VG, Evseev AR, Malyaga AG et al (1977) Gassaturation effect of near-wall turbulence characteristics. 2nd
International Conference on Drag Reduction, Cambridge, UK,
BHRA, pp 25-37
Zuber N, Tribas M, Westwater JW (1961) International development heat transfer ASME, p 230
Meng JCS, Uhlman JS Jr (1989) Microbubble formulation
and splitting in a turbulent boundary layer for Turbulence
reduction. Symposium in Honor of Maurice Holton on his 70th
Birthday
Yoshida Y, Takahashi Y, Kato H et al (1998) Study on the mechanism of resistance reduction by means of micro-bubble sheet and
on applicability of the method to full-scale ship. 22nd Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington