ライブラリ登録: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begellデジタルライブラリー 電子書籍 ジャーナル 参考文献と会報 リサーチ集
Atomization and Sprays
インパクトファクター: 1.262 5年インパクトファクター: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

ISSN 印刷: 1044-5110
ISSN オンライン: 1936-2684

巻:
巻 29, 2019 巻 28, 2018 巻 27, 2017 巻 26, 2016 巻 25, 2015 巻 24, 2014 巻 23, 2013 巻 22, 2012 巻 21, 2011 巻 20, 2010 巻 19, 2009 巻 18, 2008 巻 17, 2007 巻 16, 2006 巻 15, 2005 巻 14, 2004 巻 13, 2003 巻 12, 2002 巻 11, 2001 巻 10, 2000 巻 9, 1999 巻 8, 1998 巻 7, 1997 巻 6, 1996 巻 5, 1995 巻 4, 1994 巻 3, 1993 巻 2, 1992 巻 1, 1991

Atomization and Sprays

DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v20.i7.30
pages 595-609

REAL GAS EFFECTS IN MIXING-LIMITED DIESEL SPRAY VAPORIZATION MODELS

Carlo C. M. Luijten
EindhovenUniversity of Technology, Section Combustion Technology, , The Netherlands
Chris Kurvers
Eindhoven University of Technology, Section Combustion Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Netherlands

要約

The maximum penetration length of the liquid phase in diesel sprays is of paramount importance in reducing diesel engine emissions. Quasi-steady liquid length values have been successfully correlated in the literature, assuming that mixing of fuel and air is the limiting step in the evaporation process. Since fuel injection in engines takes place at high pressure, nonideal gas effects may significantly affect the phase equilibrium. In this work, real gas effects are implemented into the mixing-limited spray vaporization models of Siebers and of Versaevel et al., taking into account enhancement of the fuel-saturated vapor pressure by the high-pressure ambient gas. Results show that this effect is significant at ambient densities relevant for diesel combustion. The effect of gas pressure on mixture enthalpy (and thereby on liquid length) is also considered but found to be negligible for relevant diesel conditions. Since both models discussed are based on almost the same premises but give different results, their intrinsic differences are evaluated by deriving a new closed-form expression for the Versaevel model. It is shown that the models can be "equalized" by adding a correction factor to the Siebers model, making it physically more consistent. However, for the (limited) data set considered in this paper, this does not improve its predictive capability. It is argued that the remaining error in model predictions is most probably due to the cross-sectional averaging approach.


Articles with similar content:

A COMPARISON OF DIESEL SPRAYS CFD MODELING APPROACHES: DDM VERSUS Σ-Y EULERIAN ATOMIZATION MODEL
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.26, 2016, issue 7
Jose M. Desantes, Jose M. Pastor, Adrian Pandal, Jose M. Garcia-Oliver
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PURE AND MULTICOMPONENT FUEL DROPLET EVAPORATION IN A HEATED AIR FLOW
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.7, 1997, issue 3
G. Chen, Thomas A. Jackson, Suresh Aggarwal, G. L. Switzer
A DROP-SHATTERING COLLISION MODEL FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPRAY COMPUTATIONS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.9, 1999, issue 3
Rolf D. Reitz, Thierry L. Georjon
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MODEL AND HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS OF IMPINGING DIESEL SPRAYS ON A WALL
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.11, 2001, issue 1
Hong Sun Ryou, Seong Hyuk Lee
IGNITION OF DROPLETS: DISCUSSION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE IGNITION CRITERIA DERIVED ASSUMING GAS-PHASE QUASI-STEADINESS WITHOUT CONSIDERING FUEL VAPOR ACCUMULATION EFFECTS
ICLASS 94
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Vol.0, 1994, issue
J.C. Chang, T.S. Hsu, S.C. Wong