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: 1.737 5年インパクトファクター: 1.518 SJR: 0.814 SNIP: 1.18 CiteScore™: 2.2

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

巻:
巻 30, 2020 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.i3.50
pages 241-250

COMPUTED AND MEASURED FUEL VAPOR DISTRIBUTION IN A DIESEL SPRAY

John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
Lyle M. Pickett
Combustion Research Facility, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 696, Livermore, CA 94551

要約

There is limited quantitative experimental data on fuel vapor concentrations in high-pressure vaporizing full-cone sprays injected into diesel engines. As a result, the accuracy of multidimensional models, which are routinely employed to compute such sprays, has not been quantitatively assessed. In this work, quantitative fuel vapor concentrations obtained from multidimensional computations of a diesel spray with three models are compared with measured concentrations in the vapor-phase portion downstream of liquid drop vaporization. The three models employed are a Lagrangian-drop Eulerian-fluid (LDEF) spray model, a gas jet model, and a virtual-liquid source (VLS) model. Comparison of the vapor fraction along the axial centerline during the transient development of the spray shows that the computed values are generally lower than the measured values, and the leading edge of the computed profiles shows shallower gradients of vapor fraction than in the measured spray. In the case of radial distribution, the peak values of measured and computed vapor fractions agree within 20% when the profiles are quasi-steady. The three models show similar agreement close to the orifice, but the LDEF model shows the better agreement farther downstream at quasi-steady state. During transient development, there is greater disagreement between the computed and measured profiles. The computed width of the vapor phase of the spray is generally larger than the measured one, although the half-widths show agreement within 10%. In general, the gas jet and VLS vapor fraction values are within 5% of each other at the centerline during transient development but differ more at the edge of the spray.


Articles with similar content:

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
IMPLICATIONS OF MEASURED DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FULL-CONE SPRAY MODELLING
ICLASS 94
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Vol.0, 1994, issue
J. M. MacInnes
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
DROPLET SIZE AND VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS IN A CRYOGENIC JET FLAME OF A ROCKET-TYPE COMBUSTOR USING HIGH-SPEED IMAGING
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.26, 2016, issue 5
Yves Le Sant, Arnaud Ristori, Lucien Vingert, Nicolas Fdida
LOCALLY RESOLVED INVESTIGATION OF THE VAPORIZATION OF GDI SPRAYS APPLYING DIFFERENT LASER TECHNIQUES
Atomization and Sprays, Vol.16, 2006, issue 3
Ingo Schmitz, Frank Beyrau, Alfred Leipertz, Thomas Seeger, Markus Christian Weikl