Vol2 No3 6
Vol2 No3 6
Vol2 No3 6
VOL.2 NO.3
ISSN 2165-8277 (Print) ISSN 2165-8285 (Online)
http://www.researchpub.org/journal/jac/jac.html
October 2013
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.(Email:
[email protected])
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Menoufiya University, Egypt.
Therefore, and because of the random nature of the
atomization process, the resultant spray is generally
considered as a system of drops and it is usually
characterized by a spectrum of drop sizes distributed
about some arbitrarily defined mean value. Several
mathematical and empirical distribution functions have
been proposed to replace the graphical representation of
drop size distribution with expressions whose parameters
can be obtained from a limited number of drop size
measurements [1]. However, none of these empirical and
mathematical functions is universally better than any
other, and the extent to which any particular function
matches any given set of data depends mainly on the
involved disintegration mechanism.
I. INTRODUCTION
41
October 2013
2 + 2 l k 2
I 1 (kr )
I o (kr )
l 2 k 2 I 1 (kr )
k
+
(1 k 2 r 2 ).( 2
)
2
l + k 2 I o (kr )
l r
g
l
(U
(1)
i 2 2 l 2 k 2 I 1 (kr ) K o (kr )
) k ( 2
)
k
l + k 2 I o (kr ) K 1 (kr )
3
2
( + 2 l k 2 ) 2 + f
k 4 l k 3 k 2 +
+
l
l
(2)
g
l
( + iUk ) 2 = 0
42
October 2013
TABLE I
REFERENCE VALUES Of LIQUID JET PARAMETERS.
diameter and formed near the nozzle exit plane where the
jet disrupts completely. The model presented here
assumes that a spectrum of uniform drop size is obtained
during the atomization process, i.e. all drops have been
disrupted into smaller drops with an equal diameter.
When this stage is reached the drop is stable and no
further breakup can occur. In this case, the breakup was
driven by the aerodynamic force since surface tension
serves as a stabilizing force. In other words, the
aerodynamic force in this stage is large compared with
the surface tension force. This considerations lead to the
concept of neglecting the effect of the surface tension
force in the model equation, Eq.(2). In order to match this
condition, the second term in Eq.(2) is multiplied by a
factor f having a very small value of the order of 10-5.
This small value insures that the surface tension effects
are diminished. Note that in case of f=1 and =1, the
model equation is reduced to wave-breakup model [5].
Symbole
U
g
f
vf
ro
PARAMETER
Value/Units
Relative Velocity
Gas Density
Liquid Density
Surface tension
Liquid kinematic
viscosity
Jet radius
Growth rate
Wavelength
100 m/s
1.2 kg/m3
1000 kg/m3
0.07 N/m
1.3x10-6 m2/s
1 mm
s-1
m
d m = nmu
(3)
d m3
6
N=
d o2
4
u av t
(4)
u av t = i = N mu
(5)
d m = (1.5d o2 mu )1 / 3
43
(6)
or in other form,
1.5
dm = do (
mu
)1 / 3
(7)
dm =
1
ntot
October 2013
ni di
d m = ad o3 / 2 / p 1 / 3
(8)
Q = 17.76 p
(9)
(8)
44
October 2013
Fig. 4. Sample of the instability curve for Monarch 15.5 nozzle type at
an injection pressure of 7 bar.
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF THE PREDICTED UNIFORM DIAMETER USING MDD MODEL AND THE CORRELATION EQUATION (EQ.8) FOR DIFFERENT: NOZZLES TYPES,
DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Nozzle type
Monarch 15.5
Monarch 19.5
Spray Sys. Co.
TG-SS-1
Spray Sys. Co.
TG-SS-3
Spray Sys. Co.
TG-SS-5
P (bar) do (mm)
7
10
7
10
7
10
7
10
7
10
1.627
1.627
1.927
1.927
0.935
0.935
1.619
1.619
1.963
1.963
Q
(lit/hr)
46.98
56.16
46.98
56.16
46.98
56.16
46.98
56.16
46.98
56.16
uav
(m/s)
6.28
7.5
4.47
5.34
19.0
22.7
6.74
7.57
4.31
5.15
45
dm(m)
Eq.8
298.73
265.24
385.05
dm(m)
MDD
293.01
273.07
381.9
error
%
341.85
353.68
-3.4
130.14
127.6
1.9
-5.95
115.54
113.73
1.5
-5.2
296.49
291.6
1.6
-2.5
log mu
-5.2
-5.29
-5.0
-5.1
-5.8
1.9
-2.9
0.81
-5.3
263.26
270.1
-4.95
395.85
401.76
-1.4
-5.1
351.47
358.07
-1.8
VI. CONCLUSION
October 2013
Authors Profiles
REFERENCES
[1]
46