Library Subscription: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell Digital Library eBooks Journals References & Proceedings Research Collections
Atomization and Sprays
IF: 1.737 5-Year IF: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 2.2

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

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

Atomization and Sprays

DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v5.i6.40
pages 585-601

ASSESSMENT OF A FOURIER-TRANSFORM DOPPLER SIGNAL ANALYZER AND COMPARISONS WITH A TIME-DOMAIN COUNTER PROCESSOR

J. Y. Zhu
Aerometrics, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA
E. J. Bachalo
Aerometrics, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA
R. C. Rudoff
Aerometrics, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA
William Bachalo
Artium Technologies, Inc., 150 West Iowa Avenue, Unit 202, Sunnyvale, California, USA
Vincent G. McDonell
UCI Combustion Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California at Irvine, USA

ABSTRACT

Comparisons are performed between a frequency-domain processor, the Doppler signal analyzer (DSA), and a counter processor (PDPA) for phase Doppler particle size and two-component velocity measurements in a well-characterized simplex spray with and without the presence of swirl. To minimize issues associated with repeatability, symmetry, and uncertainty in measurement location, an experiment that allowed simultaneous measurements by two independent instruments with overlapping sample volumes was conducted. It was observed that the use of the frequency domain for both burst detection as well as signal processing resulted in a reduced sensitivity to detector gain for the DSA compared to the PDPA. In the particular sprays considered, consistent agreement between droplet size and droplet velocity measured by each instrument was observed. Indirect measurements (e.g., volume flux, number density) were also compared and, although good agreement was observed for the simplex spray, several issues associated with the swirling case prevented satisfactory comparison. The results demonstrate the utility of such comparative studies and also illustrate the difficulty in establishing performance in general in actual polydispersed sprays.


Articles with similar content:

DROP DISTRIBUTION EFFECTS ON PLANAR LASER IMAGING OF SPRAYS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.2, 1992, issue 2
Robert J. Santoro, W. Lee, H. M. Ryan, Sibtosh Pal
DENSE SPRAY CORRECTIONS FOR DIFFRACTION-BASED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.5, 1995, issue 1
James E. Peters, Christine M. Woodall, Richard O. Buckius
DROP-SIZE MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO GASOLINE SPRAYS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.20, 2010, issue 2
Jean-Bernard Blaisot, Nicolas Fdida, Alain Floch, David Dechaume
APPLICATION OF PHASE DOPPLER ANEMOMETRY IN PAINT SPRAYS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.4, 1994, issue 4
A. Lindenthal, Joachim Domnick, Cameron Tropea, T.-H. Xu
Comparative Study of the Cooling of a Hot Temperature Surface Using Sprays and Liquid Jet
International Heat Transfer Conference 15, Vol.15, 2014, issue
Alexandre Labergue, T. Aiguier, Michel GRADECK, Fabrice Lemoine