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.v15.i6.20
pages 629-660

ELECTROSTATIC EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURAL AIR-ATOMIZED SPRAYS AND DEPOSITION. PART II: A COMPUTATIONAL STUDY

M. R. Jahannama
Atomization and Sprays Research Group, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering Department, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
A. Paul Watkins
Energy and Multiphysics Research Group, School of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Civil Engineer- ing, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

This article reports on a computational investigation of inductively charged sprays used in crop spraying. The charged sprays are produced using an air-atomizing induction-charging nozzle. In complementary research, the spray structures are experimentally characterized based on drop size and velocity data obtained using laser-based techniques, both in the free spray and in the near-target vicinity. The experimental deposition study used spectrophotometry analysis to quantify the drop residue on a grounded target. The study reported on here comprises the computational simulation of free spray and deposition aspects of charged and uncharged sprays, and uses the data obtained in the parallel investigation to determine the ability of the computational model to accurately predict such sprays. Experimental test results demonstrate the dominance of hydrodynamic effects within the charged free sprays, whereas, in the vicinity of a grounded target, the sprays are influenced by the attractive electrostatic force fields created, leading to greater drop depositions on the target than for an uncharged spray. These trends are confirmed by the computational results. However, there are differences of detail. The model generally underpredicts the effects of the electric fields on the spray motion near the target. This is probably due to an incorrect mass flux profile at the injector, leading to too little mass and, hence, charge being predicted in the target vicinity.


Articles with similar content:

ELECTROSTATIC EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURAL AIR-ATOMIZED SPRAYS AND DEPOSITION. PART I: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.15, 2005, issue 6
M. R. Jahannama, Andrew J. Yule, A. Paul Watkins
Aerosol optical properties assessed by an inversion method using the solar principal plane for non-spherical particles
ICHMT DIGITAL LIBRARY ONLINE, Vol.14, 2007, issue
F. J. Olmo, L. Alados-Arboledas, A. Quirantes, H. Lyamani
ELECTROSTATIC EFFECTS ON GASOLINE DIRECT INJECTION IN ATMOSPHERIC AMBIANCE
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.17, 2007, issue 4
Dimitros C. Kyritsis, Arturo De Risi, Eric K. Anderson, Antonio P. Carlucci
SIMULATION ON MOTION OF A GROUP OF CHARGED DROPLETS IN AN ELECTROSTATIC SPRAY PROCESS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.22, 2012, issue 1
Hongzhou He, Jun Zhang
EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDIES OF TWO-PHASE FLOWS
ICLASS 94
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Vol.0, 1994, issue
D. Bissieres, P. Beard, G. Lavergne, C. Mehring