Library Subscription: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell Digital Library eBooks Journals References & Proceedings Research Collections
Atomization and Sprays
IF: 1.262 5-Year IF: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

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

Volumes:
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.2016015409
pages 61-79

ASSESSMENT OF DROPLET BREAKUP MODELS IN HIGH-SPEED CROSS-FLOW

Anand Bhandarkar
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India
P. Manna
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India
Debasis Chakraborty
Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058, India

ABSTRACT

The breakup process in quiescent atmosphere and high-speed cross-flow is numerically simulated. Three-dimensional RANS equations with the K-ε turbulence model are solved using commercial CFD software. Different droplet breakup models, namely, TAB, ETAB, Ritz-Diwakar, and KH-RT models are studied to assess their predictive capability in characterizing spray in high-speed cross-flow. The validation test cases include liquid injection into quiescent atmosphere, and subsonic and supersonic cross-flow. Computed droplet velocity, droplet size, and spray penetration are compared with the experimental/numerical data available in the literature. For diesel injection in quiescent atmosphere, computed spray penetration matches reasonably well with the experimental data. For subsonic cross-flow, although the penetration height is underpredicted, SMD distribution and particle velocity match reasonably well with the experimental data. The ETAB model captures the SMD values at different locations and velocities better with experimental data in comparison to the TAB model. For the supersonic cross-flow case, penetration height and SMD have a good match with the experimental data. The Stokes drag model performs better than the high-Mach and dynamic drag models. Droplet drag law for supersonic flow needs to be revised to have better predictive capability of spray characteristics in high-speed flow.


Articles with similar content:

THEORETICAL STUDY OF PARTICLE DEPOSITION ONTO A CYLINDER IN CROSS-FLOW
Proceedings of an International Conference on Mitigation of Heat Exchanger Fouling and Its Economic and Environmental Implications, Vol.0, 1999, issue
Erling Naess, A. K. Temu, Otto K. Sonju
LASER DIAGNOSTICS OF TRANSVERSE TURBULENT JETS
Journal of Flow Visualization and Image Processing, Vol.7, 2000, issue 4
V. Sivadas, B. S. Pani, K. A. Butefisch
Heat Transfer and Flow Structures for Structured Surfaces using LES and Hybrid RANS/LES Approach
ICHMT DIGITAL LIBRARY ONLINE, Vol.0, 2018, issue
Johann Turnow, Nikolai Kornev
LASER DIAGNOSTICS OF TRANSVERSE TURBULENT JETS
Journal of Flow Visualization and Image Processing, Vol.8, 2001, issue 4
V. Sivadas, B. S. Pani, K. A. Butefisch
EXPERIMENTS ON ANNULAR LIQUID JET BREAKUP
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.11, 2001, issue 5
Jihua Shen