Suscripción a Biblioteca: Guest
Portal Digitalde Biblioteca Digital eLibros Revistas Referencias y Libros de Ponencias Colecciones
Atomization and Sprays
Factor de Impacto: 1.262 Factor de Impacto de 5 años: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

ISSN Imprimir: 1044-5110
ISSN En Línea: 1936-2684

Volumes:
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.2013008110
pages 697-724

COMPARISON AND CROSS-VALIDATION OF OPTICAL TECHNIQUES IN DIFFERENT SWIRL SPRAY REGIMES

Joshua Lee
University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA
Saptarshi Basu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Ranganathan Kumar
University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

SINOPSIS

This paper deals with an experimental study of pressure-swirl hydraulic injector nozzles using non-intrusive optical techniques. Experiments were conducted to study atomization characteristics using two nozzles with different orifice diameters, 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm, and injection pressures, 0.3−3.5 Mpa, which correspond to Reynolds number (Rep) = 7,000−45,000, depending on nozzle utilized. Three laser diagnostic techniques were utilized: Shadowgraph, PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry), and PDPA (Phase Doppler Particle Anemometry). Measurements made in the spray in both axial and radial directions indicate that velocity, average droplet diameter profiles, and spray dynamics are highly dependent on the nozzle characteristics and injection pressure. Limitations of these techniques in the different flow regimes, related to the primary and secondary breakups as well as coalescence, are provided. Results indicate that all three techniques provide similar results throughout the different regimes. Shadowgraph and PDPA were possible in the secondary atomization and coalescence regimes while PIV measurements could be made only at the end of secondary atomization and coalescence.