Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
BioMEMS Microfluidics (BioE 494) final presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

BioMEMS Microfluidics (BioE 494) final presentation

837
views

Published on

BioMEMS Microfluidics Final Presentation

BioMEMS Microfluidics Final Presentation

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
837
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. BioMEMS Microfluidics Mixer Final Presentation 4/28/2011 K.M.Broughton
  • 2. Outline Microfluidic Mixer Design  Microfluidic Mixer Initial Thoughts  Trapezoid Mixer Design  Variation to Parameters  Variation to match Fabrication Simulation Results  Inlet Variations Parameters Explored Experimental Results Simulation v. Experimental Analysis  The Good, The Bad, and the Lessons Learned
  • 3. Microfluidic Mixer Initial Thoughts
  • 4. Trapezoid Design Mixer 50 µm  Variables  Inlet Profile  Channel Width  Angles  Height 800 µm 30°  Length 400 µm  Simulations  Approximately 25 simulations run on various variables  Found Optimized Geometry for “Perfect” Mixing  Fabricated Design  Chose design that was not optimized via simulations but was likely similar to the actual experimental result Optimized Concentration Profile
  • 5. Base Variation – Velocity Profiles 310 micron length 344 micron length 388 micron length 440 micron length Optimized
  • 6. Base Variation – Concentration Profiles 310 micron length 344 micron length 388 micron length 440 micron length Optimized
  • 7. Example of Manipulation toSimulation via Height Variation
  • 8. Inlet Variation – Velocity ProfilesSingle T InletDouble T InletSingle Y InletDouble Y InletIndependent Inlet
  • 9. Inlet Variation – Concentration Profiles Single T Inlet Double T Inlet Single Y Inlet Double Y Inlet Independent Inlet
  • 10. Inlet Variation Inlet Variations - Concentration line analysis 85% 75% Concentration percent 65% Double T Double Y 55% Y inlet 45% T inlet 35% Optimal 25% 15% 1 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 131 144 157 170 183 196 Position - each marker is valued at .25 microns
  • 11. 3D Modeling of Double T Inlet
  • 12. Simulation conformed to Experiment:Velocity and Concentrations Fast (rate .1 cc/min; Concentration profile range -50 to 50) Medium (rate .0096 cc/min; Concentration profile range -1.5 to 1)Slow (rate .009 cc/min; Concentration profile range -.2 to 1.4)
  • 13. Simulation Results
  • 14. Experimental Results – without Beads Inlet Middle Outlet Fast(rate .1 cc/min) Experimental Medium(rate .0096 cc/min) Results – No Beads Slow (rate .009 cc/min)
  • 15. Experimental Results – with Beads Inlet Middle Outlet Fast(rate .1 cc/min) Medium Experimental(rate .0096 cc/min) Results – With Beads Slow (rate .009 cc/min)
  • 16. Experimental Results
  • 17. Simulation vs. Experimental Results
  • 18. Simulation vs. Experimental Results Slope Slope 0.035 0.0308 0.0297 0.03 0.0274 0.0248 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.0184 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Fast Mid Slow Fast Mid Slow Simulation Experimental
  • 19. Simulation vs. Experimental Results % Error Simulation v. Experiment 35 30 25 Percent Error 20 15 10 5 0 Fast Mid Slow % Error 33.11688312 16.4983165 32.84671533
  • 20. Results Conclusion  Comsol Multiphysics  Useful for Design work  Easy to manipulate data to optimize  Difficult to gauge actual findings  Experiment compared to Simulations  Liked approach of beads and no beads  Would have liked running simulations with actual flow rates first  Overall Conclusions  Enjoyed have freedom to try many different design simulations  Found simulations were not good gage for experiment results in this case Optimized Concentration Profile
  • 21. Thank You!