Abonnement à la biblothèque: Guest
Portail numérique Bibliothèque numérique eBooks Revues Références et comptes rendus Collections
Atomization and Sprays
Facteur d'impact: 1.262 Facteur d'impact sur 5 ans: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

ISSN Imprimer: 1044-5110
ISSN En ligne: 1936-2684

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.v7.i4.70
pages 437-456


C. Arcoumanis
School of Engineering, City University, London
D. S. Whitelaw
Thermofluids Section, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, United Kingdom
Jim H. Whitelaw
Thermofluids Section, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BX, United Kingdom


The velocity, diameter, and flux of droplets in a rectangular wind tunnel simulating an engine port have been measured in and downstream of the region of impingement of an isooctane spray directed at 20° to the bottom flat surface, both at room temperature, with a vertical distance from the injector to the wall of 32 mm, an injection pressure of 3 bar, and a frequency of injection of 10 Hz. The cross-stream airflow velocities were 5 and 15 m/s and the injection periods 10 and 20 ms. The results show that the spray impinged on the surface, which became wet as the spray continued so that small-diameter droplets formed a cloud above the plate and immediately downstream of the location of impingement, with stronger convection of these small droplets with higher air velocity. The cloud was denser with a larger quantity of injected fluid and with lower air velocity. Also, the wall film survived from one injection to the next with lower air velocity and became thicker, so that splash atomization generated large droplets for some distance downstream and probably gave way to film stripping with slightly smaller droplets immediately above the film. Similar results, with larger concentrations of larger droplets, can be expected with smaller times between injections, and a hot surface will tend to evaporate the liquid so that the film will decrease in thickness, with reduction in secondary atomization.