Abo Bibliothek: Guest
Digitales Portal Digitale Bibliothek eBooks Zeitschriften Referenzen und Berichte Forschungssammlungen
Atomization and Sprays
Impact-faktor: 1.737 5-jähriger Impact-Faktor: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 2.2

ISSN Druckformat: 1044-5110
ISSN Online: 1936-2684

Volumes:
Volumen 30, 2020 Volumen 29, 2019 Volumen 28, 2018 Volumen 27, 2017 Volumen 26, 2016 Volumen 25, 2015 Volumen 24, 2014 Volumen 23, 2013 Volumen 22, 2012 Volumen 21, 2011 Volumen 20, 2010 Volumen 19, 2009 Volumen 18, 2008 Volumen 17, 2007 Volumen 16, 2006 Volumen 15, 2005 Volumen 14, 2004 Volumen 13, 2003 Volumen 12, 2002 Volumen 11, 2001 Volumen 10, 2000 Volumen 9, 1999 Volumen 8, 1998 Volumen 7, 1997 Volumen 6, 1996 Volumen 5, 1995 Volumen 4, 1994 Volumen 3, 1993 Volumen 2, 1992 Volumen 1, 1991

Atomization and Sprays

DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.2016015409
pages 61-79

ASSESSMENT OF DROPLET BREAKUP MODELS IN HIGH-SPEED CROSS-FLOW

Anand Bhandarkar
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India
P. Manna
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India
Debasis Chakraborty
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India

ABSTRAKT

The breakup process in quiescent atmosphere and high-speed cross-flow is numerically simulated. Three-dimensional RANS equations with the K-ε turbulence model are solved using commercial CFD software. Different droplet breakup models, namely, TAB, ETAB, Ritz-Diwakar, and KH-RT models are studied to assess their predictive capability in characterizing spray in high-speed cross-flow. The validation test cases include liquid injection into quiescent atmosphere, and subsonic and supersonic cross-flow. Computed droplet velocity, droplet size, and spray penetration are compared with the experimental/numerical data available in the literature. For diesel injection in quiescent atmosphere, computed spray penetration matches reasonably well with the experimental data. For subsonic cross-flow, although the penetration height is underpredicted, SMD distribution and particle velocity match reasonably well with the experimental data. The ETAB model captures the SMD values at different locations and velocities better with experimental data in comparison to the TAB model. For the supersonic cross-flow case, penetration height and SMD have a good match with the experimental data. The Stokes drag model performs better than the high-Mach and dynamic drag models. Droplet drag law for supersonic flow needs to be revised to have better predictive capability of spray characteristics in high-speed flow.


Articles with similar content:

LINKING NOZZLE FLOW WITH SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS IN A DIESEL FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.8, 1998, issue 3
Manolis Gavaises, C. Arcoumanis
Numerical Study of Liquid Fuel Spray Characteristics
International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol.24, 1997, issue 4-6
Rolf D. Reitz, Masataka Arai, Yi Liu, Zh. Liu, T. Obokata
GASOLINE SPRAYS INJECTED AT DIFFERENT BACK PRESSURES: CALCULATIONS USING TWO ATOMIZATION MODELS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.17, 2007, issue 3
Salah S. Ibrahim, Graham Wigley, N. B. H. Abdelkarim, Assaad Masri
CFD SIMULATION OF DIESEL SPRAYS OVER A WIDE RANGE OF AMBIENT GAS DENSITIES USING AN IMPROVED GAS JET SPRAY MODEL
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.21, 2011, issue 7
Rolf D. Reitz, Choong Hoon Lee, Y. Wang
DEVELOPMENT OF A SPREAD SUBMODEL FOR SPRAY/WALL IMPACTION
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.28, 2018, issue 10
Zahra Firouznia, Hassan Khaleghi, Sajad Yazdanparast, MohammadReza Keshtkar