Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции
Atomization and Sprays
Импакт фактор: 1.737 5-летний Импакт фактор: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 2.2

ISSN Печать: 1044-5110
ISSN Онлайн: 1936-2684

Выпуски:
Том 30, 2020 Том 29, 2019 Том 28, 2018 Том 27, 2017 Том 26, 2016 Том 25, 2015 Том 24, 2014 Том 23, 2013 Том 22, 2012 Том 21, 2011 Том 20, 2010 Том 19, 2009 Том 18, 2008 Том 17, 2007 Том 16, 2006 Том 15, 2005 Том 14, 2004 Том 13, 2003 Том 12, 2002 Том 11, 2001 Том 10, 2000 Том 9, 1999 Том 8, 1998 Том 7, 1997 Том 6, 1996 Том 5, 1995 Том 4, 1994 Том 3, 1993 Том 2, 1992 Том 1, 1991

Atomization and Sprays

DOI: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v5.i6.40
pages 585-601

ASSESSMENT OF A FOURIER-TRANSFORM DOPPLER SIGNAL ANALYZER AND COMPARISONS WITH A TIME-DOMAIN COUNTER PROCESSOR

J. Y. Zhu
Aerometrics, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA
E. J. Bachalo
Aerometrics, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA
R. C. Rudoff
Aerometrics, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA
William Bachalo
Artium Technologies, Inc., 150 West Iowa Avenue, Unit 202, Sunnyvale, California, USA
Vincent G. McDonell
UCI Combustion Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California at Irvine, USA

Краткое описание

Comparisons are performed between a frequency-domain processor, the Doppler signal analyzer (DSA), and a counter processor (PDPA) for phase Doppler particle size and two-component velocity measurements in a well-characterized simplex spray with and without the presence of swirl. To minimize issues associated with repeatability, symmetry, and uncertainty in measurement location, an experiment that allowed simultaneous measurements by two independent instruments with overlapping sample volumes was conducted. It was observed that the use of the frequency domain for both burst detection as well as signal processing resulted in a reduced sensitivity to detector gain for the DSA compared to the PDPA. In the particular sprays considered, consistent agreement between droplet size and droplet velocity measured by each instrument was observed. Indirect measurements (e.g., volume flux, number density) were also compared and, although good agreement was observed for the simplex spray, several issues associated with the swirling case prevented satisfactory comparison. The results demonstrate the utility of such comparative studies and also illustrate the difficulty in establishing performance in general in actual polydispersed sprays.


Articles with similar content:

DROP DISTRIBUTION EFFECTS ON PLANAR LASER IMAGING OF SPRAYS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.2, 1992, issue 2
Robert J. Santoro, W. Lee, H. M. Ryan, Sibtosh Pal
STRUCTURE OF VAPORIZING PRESSURE ATOMIZED SPRAYS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.3, 1993, issue 3
G. Scott Samuelsen, Vincent G. McDonell
LIQUID- AND VAPOR-PHASE DYNAMICS OF A SOLID-CONE PRESSURE SWIRL ATOMIZER
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.4, 1994, issue 2
James E. Peters, James A. Drallmeier
APPLICATION OF PHASE DOPPLER ANEMOMETRY IN PAINT SPRAYS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.4, 1994, issue 4
A. Lindenthal, Joachim Domnick, Cameron Tropea, T.-H. Xu
MODELING OF GROUP-HOLE-NOZZLE SPRAYS USING GRID-SIZE-, HOLE-LOCATION-, AND TIME-STEP-INDEPENDENT MODELS
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.19, 2009, issue 6
Rolf D. Reitz, Chang Sik Lee, Neerav Abani, Sung Wook Park, Hyun Kyu Suh