BioMEMS Microfluidics (BioE 494) final presentation

1,483 views

Published on

BioMEMS Microfluidics Final Presentation

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,483
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

BioMEMS Microfluidics (BioE 494) final presentation

  1. 1. BioMEMS Microfluidics Mixer Final Presentation 4/28/2011 K.M.Broughton
  2. 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. 3. Microfluidic Mixer Initial Thoughts
  4. 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. 5. Base Variation – Velocity Profiles 310 micron length 344 micron length 388 micron length 440 micron length Optimized
  6. 6. Base Variation – Concentration Profiles 310 micron length 344 micron length 388 micron length 440 micron length Optimized
  7. 7. Example of Manipulation toSimulation via Height Variation
  8. 8. Inlet Variation – Velocity ProfilesSingle T InletDouble T InletSingle Y InletDouble Y InletIndependent Inlet
  9. 9. Inlet Variation – Concentration Profiles Single T Inlet Double T Inlet Single Y Inlet Double Y Inlet Independent Inlet
  10. 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. 11. 3D Modeling of Double T Inlet
  12. 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. 13. Simulation Results
  14. 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. 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. 16. Experimental Results
  17. 17. Simulation vs. Experimental Results
  18. 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. 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. 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. 21. Thank You!

×