0
Research Papers: Techniques and Procedures

A Comparison of Phase Doppler Analyzer (Dual-PDA) and Optical Patternator Data for Twin-Fluid and Pressure-Swirl Atomizer Sprays

[+] Author and Article Information
Ariel R. Muliadi

Maurice J. Zucrow Laboratories, School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2014

Paul E. Sojka1

Maurice J. Zucrow Laboratories, School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2014sojka@purdue.edu

Yudaya R. Sivathanu, Jongmook Lim

 En’Urga, Inc., West Lafayette, IN 47906

1

Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 132(6), 061402 (Jun 23, 2010) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000702 History: Received February 15, 2008; Revised November 09, 2009; Published June 23, 2010; Online June 23, 2010

The goal of this study was to determine when patternation information derived from Phase Doppler Analyzer (Dantec Dynamics, Skovlunde, Denmark, dual-PDA) measurements of volume flux, drop velocity, and mean size agreed with corresponding values measured using an optical patternator (Enurga, Inc., West Lafayette, IN, SetScan OP-600). To achieve this, data from each instrument were transformed into spatially resolved absorptances (equivalent to drop surface area per unit spray volume) and compared. Key conclusion is absorptance agreement to within 20% in many cases. However, discrepancies between phase Doppler analyzer (PDA)-calculated and optical patternator-measured absorptances become larger as the drop arrival rate increases, as the mean drop size decreases, and when a significant drop size-velocity correlation is present. These discrepancies are attributed to an underestimation of the volume flux (which becomes more important with increasing droplet arrival rate), an over-reporting of the mean drop diameter (which is the result of the restrictive data acquisition scheme applied when ensuring mass closure for the PDA measurements), the limited PDA dynamic range (which can preclude simultaneously accounting for both the largest and smallest drops in the spray), and by the optical patternator’s number-density based measurement scheme (which will not yield the same results as the flux-based PDA when a drop size-velocity correlation is present).

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The optical patternator

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptance) for spray conditions (a) 1, (b) 2, and (c) 3. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptance) for spray condition 4. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

(a) Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptance) for spray condition 5. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left; (b) D32 contour plots for spray conditions 3 (left) and 5 (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

(a) Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptance) for spray condition 6. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left; (b) D32 contour plots for spray conditions 2 (left) and 6 (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptance) for spray condition 7. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area per unit volume (absorptance) for (a) spray condition 8 and (b) spray condition 9. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left; (c) D32 contour plots for spray conditions 8 (left) and 9 (right).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

(a) Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptance) for spray condition 10. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left; (b) D10 (left) and D32 (right) for spray condition 10.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of patternator-measured and PDA-calculated droplets’ surface area densities (absorptances) for spray condition 11. Patternator-measured absorptances are shown on the right, while PDA-calculated absorptances are shown on the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

PDA-measured drop diameter versus PDA-measured drop velocity at various measurement locations (x,y) for spray condition 11

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In