Suscripción a Biblioteca: Guest
Portal Digitalde Biblioteca Digital eLibros Revistas Referencias y Libros de Ponencias Colecciones
Atomization and Sprays
Factor de Impacto: 1.737 Factor de Impacto de 5 años: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 2.2

ISSN Imprimir: 1044-5110
ISSN En Línea: 1936-2684

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

SINOPSIS

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:

EVAPORATIVE DIESEL SPRAY MODELING
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.17, 2007, issue 3
Jose M. Desantes, Jose M. Garcia, J. Javier Lopez, Jose M. Pastor
VALIDATION OF THE VSB2 SPRAY MODEL AGAINST SPRAY A AND SPRAY H
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.26, 2016, issue 8
Anne Kosters, A. Karlsson
DIESEL SPRAY CFD SIMULATIONS BASED ON THE Σ-Υ EULERIAN ATOMIZATION MODEL
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.23, 2013, issue 1
E. Baldwin, N. Trask, David P. Schmidt, 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
DIESEL SPRAY BEHAVIOR AT COMPRESSION RATIOS UP TO 100:1
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.20, 2010, issue 5
S. L. Miller, Matt N. Svrcek, Christopher F. Edwards