Inscrição na biblioteca: Guest
Portal Digital Begell Biblioteca digital da Begell eBooks Diários Referências e Anais Coleções de pesquisa
Atomization and Sprays
Fator do impacto: 1.262 FI de cinco anos: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 1.6

ISSN Imprimir: 1044-5110
ISSN On-line: 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.v15.i5.10
pages 469-488


Chul Jin Choi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Science Town, Daejeon 305-701, Korea
Sang Yong Lee
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291, Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea


The mechanism of drop formation from a thin hollow liquid (water) jet with a high-velocity core gas (air) flow was examined. Spray configuration was visualized and mean (cross-section-averaged) Sauter mean diameter (SMD), radial distribution of local SMD, and volume concentration of drops were measured for various liquid and gas injection velocities and annulus gap clearances. The atomization quality was improved with a higher flow rate of atomizing gas; however, dependence of drop size on liquid flow rate turned out to be complicated. With an increase in liquid flow rate, the mean SMD first increases, then decreases, and then increases again, up to a maximum, followed by a decreasing range. Flow regimes (laminar or turbulent) and the momentum strengths of the liquid and the gas, and their combinations, were considered as the primary factors determining the overall atomization characteristics. The aerodynamic force was proven to be dominant in the first three ranges of liquid flow rate, while the hydrodynamic force predominates in the last range.