Library Subscription: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell Digital Library eBooks Journals References & Proceedings Research Collections
Atomization and Sprays
IF: 1.189 5-Year IF: 1.596 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

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

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.v20.i2.40
pages 141-162


Nicolas Fdida
Onera−The French Aerospace Lab, Palaiseau, France
Jean-Bernard Blaisot
University of Rouen
Alain Floch
Renault SAS, Centre Technique de Lardy, 1, allée Cornuel, 91510 Lardy−France
David Dechaume
Renault SAS, Centre Technique de Lardy, 1, allée Cornuel, 91510 Lardy−France


Combustion processes involved in internal combustion engines greatly depend on the characteristics of the spray. This study is focused on the comparison of three different techniques used for spray drop sizing. A diffraction granulometer (DG), a phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDA), and image analysis (IMA) have been used to characterize gasoline sprays produced by gasoline injectors of direct-injection type. Whereas studies comparing drop-sizing techniques found in the literature are mainly dealing with steady flows, attention is paid here to the unsteady nature of the spray. The differences in the measurement volumes of the different techniques are also considered. Since these diagnostics do not measure exactly the same kind of distribution, both PDA and IMA measurements were converted to concentration-dependent volume-weighted drop-size distributions to be compared to DG. The Sauter mean diameter D32 is used to characterize the spray for different time and position of the measurement volume in the spray. Velocities and droplet morphology are also considered in order to understand the behavior of the spray. The comparison between the three techniques shows a good agreement since attention is paid to the sample volume and to the acquisition time of each technique.