Scribd
Importer
12 vues37 pages

Atomisation Basic-Pages-2

Le processus d'atomisation consiste à convertir un liquide en petites gouttes en perturbant l'influence de la tension de surface par des forces internes et externes. Ce document examine les mécanismes de déformation et de rupture des gouttes sous l'influence des forces aérodynamiques, en mettant l'accent sur les types de déformation et les conditions critiques pour la rupture. Les résultats de diverses études expérimentales sont également discutés pour comprendre comment la viscosité et d'autres facteurs influencent la taille des gouttes produites.

Transféré par

Kunal Saroj
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
Nous prenons très au sérieux les droits relatifs au contenu. Si vous pensez qu’il s’agit de votre contenu, signalez une atteinte au droit d’auteur ici.
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez aux formats PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
12 vues37 pages

Atomisation Basic-Pages-2

Le processus d'atomisation consiste à convertir un liquide en petites gouttes en perturbant l'influence de la tension de surface par des forces internes et externes. Ce document examine les mécanismes de déformation et de rupture des gouttes sous l'influence des forces aérodynamiques, en mettant l'accent sur les types de déformation et les conditions critiques pour la rupture. Les résultats de diverses études expérimentales sont également discutés pour comprendre comment la viscosité et d'autres facteurs influencent la taille des gouttes produites.

Transféré par

Kunal Saroj
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
Nous prenons très au sérieux les droits relatifs au contenu. Si vous pensez qu’il s’agit de votre contenu, signalez une atteinte au droit d’auteur ici.
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez aux formats PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
2 Basic Processes in Atomization Introduction The atomization process is essentially one in which bulk liquid is converted into small drops. Basically, it can be considered as a disruption of the consolidating influence of surface tension by the action of internal and external forces. In the absence of such disruptive forces, surface tension tends to pull the liquid into the form of a sphere, since this has the minimum surface energy. Liquid viscosity exerts a stabilizing influ- ence by opposing any change in system geometry. On the other hand, aerodynamic forces acting on the liquid surface may promote the disruption process by applying an external distorting force to the bulk liquid. Breakup occurs when the magnitude of the disruptive force ust exceeds the consolidating surface tension force. Many of the larger drops produced in the initial disin- tegration process are unstable and undergo further dis- ruption into smaller drops. Thus, the final range of drop sizes produced in a spray depends not only on the drop sizes produced in primary atomization, but also on the extent to which these drops are further disintegrated during secondary atomization, This chapter is devoted primarily to review some of the mechanisms that have been proposed to account for the manner in which a jet or sheet emerging from an atomizer is broken down into drops. This is a rich field of research as continued emphasis on predicting drop sizes and atomization necessitates use of models of these processes that can be implemented into both low- and high-order calculations of the key processes, The process of jet disintegration is of primary impor- tance for the design of different types of plain-orifice atomizers used extensively in diesel and rocket engines The mechanisms of sheet disintegration have direct relevance to the design of rotary atomizers for spray drying and to the performance of pressure-swirl and prefilming airblast atomizers that are widely used in oil burners and gas turbine combustors. In view of their importance in the overall atomization process, the various mechanisms of liquid particle breakup are considered first. Static Drop Formation Before embarking on a discussion of practical atomi- zation processes, it is worthwhile to consider briefly the most elementary form of atomization, which is the quasi-static case of the hanging or pendant drop. This is exemplified by the slow discharge of a liquid from the end of a burette or a dripping faucet. When the gravity force on the liquid exceeds the attaching surface tension force, the liquid is pulled away from its attachment and. a drop forms. The mass of the drop formed is deter- mined by equating the gravitational and surface tension forces on the drop. For the slow emission of liquid from a thin circular tube of diameter d,, the mass of the drop. formed is do 21) g ‘The size of the spherical drop corresponding to this mass is given by 6d," pis) D. e2) For a sharp-edged opening 1 mm in diameter, Equation 22 would predict drop sizes of 36 and 26 mm for water and Kerosene, respectively. If the hole size were reduced to 10 im in diameter, the predicted drop sizes for the two liquids would be 784 and 560 ym, respectively. For the breakaway of a drop from a flat horizontal wetted surface, which involves a more complex balance of gravitational and surface tension forces, Tamada and Shibaoka [I] derived the following expression for drop @3) ‘This equation predicts that drops formed slowly by the action of gravity on a liquid film would have diame- ters of 9 and 5 mm for water and kerosene, respectively, v 18 Thus, the formation of drops by a dripping mecha nism inevitably entails large drops and low flow rates. Although common in nature, this mechanism is clearly ineffective for practical applications, most of which call for high liquid flow rates and fine atomization. Gravitational forces are significant only in the forma- tion of large drops and become negligibly small for the range of drop sizes of practical interest, which normally lie between 1 and 300 um. Breakup of Drops When atomization occurs as a result of interaction between a liquid and the surrounding air, the overall atomization process involves several interacting mech- anisms, among which is the splitting up of the larger drops during the final stages of disintegration. It is of interest, therefore, to examine the various ways in which a single drop of liquid can break up under the action of aerodynamic forces. A rigorous mathematical solution for the breakup of a drop would demand an exact knowledge of the distri- bution of aerodynamic pressures on the drop. However, as soon as the drop is deformed by these pressures, the pressure distribution around it also changes and either a state of equilibrium between the external aero: dynamic forces and the internal forces due to surface tension and viscosity is attained or further deformation follows, leading to possible breakup of the drop. The influence of variations in the distribution of air pressure around a drop was examined by Kliisener [2] Under equilibrium conditions, the internal pressure at any point on the drop surface, p, is just sufficient to bal- ance the external aerodynamic pressure p, and the sur- face tension pressure p, so that Pi= Pat Pa =constant rr) Note that, for a spherical drop, 4s pe 25) Clearly, a drop can remain stable as long as a change in air pressure at any point on its surface can be com- pensated by a corresponding change in p, such that p, remains constant. However, ify, is large compared with Pw then any appreciable change in p, cannot be com- pensated by a corresponding change in p, to maintain 1 constant. In this situation, the external pressure pa may deform the drop to an extent that leads to further reduction in p, and finally to disruption of the drop into smaller drops [3]. For these smaller drops, the higher Atomization and Sprays value of p, as indicated by Equation 2.5 may be large enough to accommodate the variations in p,. If not, fur- ther subdivision may occur until p, is large enough to maintain a constant value of p, at all points on the drop surface. When this stage is reached, the drop is stable and no further breakup can occur. These considerations lead to the concept of a critical drop size. For drops slightly larger than the critical size, the breakup time increases for decreasing size, until the stable drop has an infinite breakup time [4]. The influ- ence of liquid viscosity, by opposing deformation of the drop, isto increase the breakup time. If the aerodynamic force on the drop declines during the breakup time, no breakup may occur, although the initial aerodynamic force was large enough to produce breakup. Drop Breakup in Flowing Air The investigation of drop breakup in flowing air has a long history, dating back to the beginning of the twen- tieth century. Large free-falling drops in still air and smaller drops in a steady stream of air were first consid- ered by Lenard [5] and Hochschwender [6]. Since then, this breakup process has been studied extensively, both theoretically and experimentally [7-30]. High-speed photographs have revealed that globules or drops of liquid can split up under the action of aero- dynamic forces in a number of ways, depending on the flow pattern around them. Hinze [7] identified the fol- owing three basic types of deformation, as illustrated in Figure 21 1. The drop is flattened to form an oblate ellipsoid (enticular deformation). Subsequent deforma tion depends on the magnitude of the internal forces causing the deformation. Its conjectured that the ellipsoid is converted into a torus that gets stretched and disintegrates into small drops. 2. The initial drop becomes elongated to form a long cylindrical thread or ligament that breaks up into small drops (cigar-shaped deformation). 3. Local deformations on the drop surface cre- ate bulges and protuberances that eventually detach themselves from the parent drop to form smaller drops. Lenticular Cigaeshaped FIGURE 21 Basic types of globule deformation. (From Hinze, 10, AICHE J, 1, 289-295, 1955) Basic Processes in Atomization According to Hinze [7], deformation of type 1 occurs if the drop is subjected to aerodynamic pressures oF Vis- cous stresses produced by parallel and rotating flows. Plane hyperbolic and Couette flows are needed to pro- duce type 2 deformation, while type 3 (described as bulgy deformation) occurs in irregular flow patterns Thus, the preference for any particular type of defor- mation and breakup depends partly on the physical properties of the gas and liquid phases, namely their densities, viscosities, and interfacial tension, and also on the flow pattern around the drop. In general, the breakup of a drop in a flowing stream is controlled by the dynamic pressure, surface tension, and viscous forces. For liquids of low viscosity, the deformation of a drop is determined primarily by the ratio of the aerodynamic forces, represented by 0.5paUl2, and the surface tension forces that are related to 6/D. Forming a dimensionless group from these two oppos- ing forces yields the Weber number, p4Uli D/s. The higher the Weber number, the larger are the deforming external pressure forces compared with the reforming surface tension forces. For any given liquid, the initial condition for breakup is achieved when the aerodynamic drag is just equal to the surface tension force, that i, CoP ospallk =abo cr) Rearranging these terms provides the dimensionless group (osuzD) _ 8 3 & 7) where the subscript crit denotes that a critical condition hhas been reached. As the first term in Equation 2.7 is the Weber number, the equation may be written as Ween 28) For a relative velocity Ux the maximum stable drop size is obtained from Equation 27 as, 80 Daas = oe Copal 29) and the critical relative velocity at which the drop will disrupt is given by (2.10) 9 Many different experimental techniques have been used to investigate the breakup of large drops. They include (1) free fall from towers and stairwells, 2) sus- pension of drops in vertical wind tunnels with air veloc- ity adjusted to keep the drops stationary, and (3) use of shock tubes to create supersonic velocities. The knowl- edge gained from these studies has direct application to the analysis of sprays. Lane [18] has shown experimentally and Hinze [7] has confirmed theoretically, that the mode of drop dis- integration depends on whether the drop is subjected to steady acceleration or is suddenly exposed to a high- velocity gas stream, With steady acceleration the drop becomes increasingly flattened, and at a critical rela tive velocity itis blown out into the form of a hollow bag attached to a roughly circular rim, as illustrated in Figure 22 [31]. On disintegration the bag produces a shower of very fine drops, while the rim, which contains atleast 70% of the mass of the original drop, breaks up into larger drops. A drop suddenly exposed to a fast airstream dis- integrates in an entirely different manner. Instead of being blown out into a thin hollow bag anchored to a rim, the drop is deformed in the opposite direction and presents a convex surface to the flow of air. The edges of the saucer shape are drawn out into a thin sheet and then into fine filaments, which break into drops. For the first mode of breakup, Lane [18] has estab- lished that at normal atmospheric conditions there is a limiting value of the relative velocity Up,,, below which Dizection of motion Drop fastened oe QD CZ) oe fmm ligaments pressure Forms a Half bubble Bubble bursts Final breakup into drops of [ma FIGURE 2.2 Breakup ofa spherical drop by interaction with ambient ir. From Lane, WR, Ind. Eng. Chem, 43, 1312-1317, 1951; Simmons, HC, The stomization of liquids: Principles and methods, Parker Hannifin Report No. 7901/20, 1978) 20 breakup does not occur. For liquids whose surface ten- sions lie in the range 0,028-0.475 kg/s?, the relationship ws(s)" ‘This equation should be compared with Equation 2.10 For water, Equation 2.11 becomes en) 784 , Use TE @12) where Ur is in meters per second and p in micrometers, From the data of Merrington and Richardson [9] and Hinze [7] estimated that We,,,to be 22 for a free-falling rop. For low-viscosity liquid drops suddenly exposed to a high-velocity airstream, the critical value of the Weber number was estimated to be 13. ‘Taylor [10] has provided an explanation for the obser- vation that critical Weber numbers for drops subjected to a steady stream are almost twice as high as those for drops suddenly exposed to an airflow at a constant speed. According to Taylor, the reason for this may be seen by considering the drop as a vibrating system and comparing the suddenly applied force F;and the gradu- ally increasing force F, required to produce the same extension. The maximum distortion the drop can sus- tain without breaking occurs when F; = 0.5F;. Hinze's value of 13 for the critical Weber number may bbe compared with 8/Cp from Equation 28, 10.6 from the data of Lane [18], 103 for mercury drops in air obtained by Haas [19], and 72-16. (with an average of about 13.0) for water, methyl alcohol, and a low-viscosity silicone oil obtained by Hanson et al. [20] ‘To account for the influence of liquid viscosity on drop breakup, Hinze (7] used a viscosity group defined as, Zz 213) Re This dimensionless group represents the ratio of an internal viscosity force to an interfacial surface tension force [13].Some idea of the significance of the group may be gained by examining these forces (21]. The interfacial, tension force per unit area is represented by 6/D, while the friction force per unit area, z, is given by the product of liquid viscosity and the velocity gradient within the drop, that is, 1, 5U/6x. Ifthe drop is oscillating at its nat- ural frequency of vibration, w, then 7 is of the order u, 0. The frequency is related to the properties of the drop by 2on(n=1){n=1)(n+2) WD [ply + Parl ey) Atomization and Sprays where n depends on the mode of vibration. The most important mode is the first, for which = 2. Since the density of the liquid is usually much higher than that of the surrounding air, for n = 2 Equation 2.14 becomes au (_o ronan Sloe (2.15) ‘The ratio of the friction force to the surface tension force is thus c 4 ow oD (pa) (4) =| on (2.16) x This equation illustrates the relevance of the Ohnesorge number (Oh) to the atomization process However, as Sleicher [21] has pointed out, before the drops break up they are likely to become distorted to an extent far beyond the linear region of validity of Equation 215. Therefore, the viscosity forces repre- sented in this group may not be as important as those that resist the stretching of the drop by the flow field ‘According to Hinze [7, the effect of viscosity on the critical Weber number can be expressed by a relation of the following form Wee = Wees[ 1+ f(Oh)] 217) where We,,. is the critical Weber number for zero viscosity. ‘This form is considered acceptable because, in the lim- iting case, Oh goes to zero as 8, goes o-zer0, Thus, when 1 8 s0 small that it offers no resistance to drop defor- mation, the initial value of the Weber number, as given. by Equation 2.17, reverts to the value for zero viscosity. ‘The data of Hanson etal. [20] provide qualitative sup- port for Equation 2.17 but do not agree in detail Brodkey [22] has proposed the following empirical relationship for Oh <0 Wea = Wes +1.0770h"* 218) Which is claimed to be accurate within 20%. ‘Others proposed similar forms suggest that the appar- ent role of viscosity is to delay breakup. These include Gelfand [23] who proposed, for Oh < 4 Weer = Wea + 1.50h° e219) By inspection, the varying coefficients in Equations 2.18 and 2.19 lead to results that differ in terms of the role of Oh. Hence the precise role of Oh remained a somewhat open question. Further experimental work by Faeth and coworkers led to the development of a regime map based on We and Oh [24], which clarifies the role of these two Basic Processes in Atomization key parameters on droplet breakup. This plot is shown in Figure 2.3. The theory proposed in [2] is able to capture the behavior for a wide range of liquids and conditions. Intuitively, the drop breakup process is not instanta- neous (though it may approach this for very high Oh values under catastrophic breakup). To this end, work has been done to quantify the droplet breakup time, a value that is relevant to understanding how far droplets may travel prior to breakup. Pilch and Erdman [25] sug gested that the following estimates of the total droplet breakup time in a piecewise manner, which are easy to implement in calculations: ,=6(We-12)"* 12 1 and E, is always positive, indicating that the system is always Basic Processes in Atomization stable to this class of disturbance. When n = 0 and ‘<1, which is the case for symmetrical disturbances, Equation 2.31 shows that E, is negative and the system is unstable to this class of disturbance. Hence, a liquid. jet that is affected by surface tension forces only will become unstable to any axisymmetrical disturbance whose wavelength satisfies the inequality dnd which corresponds to yl The conclusion to be drawn from Rayleigh’s analy- sis of the breakup of nonviscous liquid jets under laminar flow conditions is that all disturbances on a jet with wavelengths greater than its circumference will grow. Furthermore, his results show that one class of disturbance will grow fastest and eventually control the breakup. Although actual liquid jets are viscous, turbulent, and subjected to surrounding air influences, the conclusions of Rayleigh have found general acceptance in later theories as valid first approximations Rayleigh’s contribution to the mathematical treatment of the breakup of ets stemmed from his recognition that jet breakup is a dynamic problem and that the rate of collapse is important. By assuming that b, in Equation 231 is proportional to exp(qi), where q is the exponential growth rate of disturbance, Rayleigh showed that the exponential growth rate of the fastest-growing distur- bance is given by ou =097{ 25) 2x9 Pu and Asay Corresponding 0 gma iS 51d . (2.33) After breakup, the cylinder of length 451d becomes a spherical drop, so that x2? =(n/6)D* 45ldx Td =(n/6)D and hence D=1894 34) ‘Thus for the Rayleigh mechanism of breakup the average drop size is nearly twice the diameter of the undisturbed jet, Figure 2.6 shows an idealization of the Rayleigh breakup for a falling liquid jet and breakup as it 25 ma) o—— 9 O ei O O ® co} FIGURE 2.6 Comparison of (a) idealized jet breakup with (b) actual breakup as indicated by high-speed photographs. actually occurs. It may be noted in Figure 2.6a that this mode of drop breakup is quite regular; the liquid jet first starts to run down and eventually collapses to form drops of uniform size and spacing. Figure 2.6b, which is based on high-speed photographs, shows the appearance of the jet in this region. The formation and growth of axisymmetric disturbances are evident, as is the characteristic dumbbell shape just prior to breakup. The jet pinches off at the ends of the con: necting cylinder, which in turn becomes unstable and breaks down into drops. The drops formed from this cylinder usually coalesce, so the end result is a pattern of large drops with small single satelite drops between them [49]. Tyler [62] later measured the frequency of formation of drops as a jet disintegrated and related it to the wave- length of the disturbance. By assuming that the volume of the spherical drops formed by disintegration of the jet is equal to the volume of a cylinder with diameter equal tothat of the undisturbed jet and with wavelength equal to the most rapidly growing disturbance, Tyler obtained the following results: 2.35) 26 = 469d (2.36) D=1924 237) In view of the close agreement between his experimen- tal results and the predictions of Rayleigh’s mathematical analysis Gee Equations 2.33 and 2.34) Tyler concluded that cylindrica ets do break up under the conditions required formaximum instability, as predicted by Rayleigh’ theory. ‘A more general theory for disintegration at low jet velocities was developed by Weber [63], who extended Rayleigh’s analysis to include viscous liquids. He assumed that any disturbance causes rotationally sym. metrical oscillations of the jet, as illustrated in Figure 27a. If the wavelength of the initial disturbance is less than guy the surface forces tend to damp out the dis turbance. If 2 is greater than hy», the surface tension forces tend to increase the disturbance, which eventu- ally leads to disintegration of the jet. There is, however, one particular wavelength, i,ny that is most favorable for drop formation. For nonviscous liquids an = Rl 38) haps = Vd = 448d 239) For viscous liquids (240) ean qe Dilation wave b——!—4 ” A qe Sinuous wave FIGURE 27 (a) Jet with rotationally symmetric disturbance and (b) jt distur. bance causing wave formation Atomization and Sprays ‘Thus, for nonviscous liquids the value of 4/d required to produce maximum instability is 4.44, which is close to the value of 4.51 predicted by Rayleigh for this case. Ilis of interest to note that the minimum wavelength is the same for both viscous and nonviscous liquids, but the optimum wavelength is greater for viscous liquids, Weber next examined the effect of air resistance on the disintegration of jets into drops. He found that air friction shortens both the minimum wavelength and the optimum wavelength for drop formation. Recalling that for nonviscous liquids and zero air velocity, in = 31d aa) =44dd 43) at 15 m/s relative air velocity, Iria = 2.24 (24s aps = 28d 245) ‘Thus, the effect of relative air velocity is to reduce the optimum wavelength for jet breakup. ‘Weber also considered the case where the air motion induces wave formation and showed that this can occur only at relative air velocities above a certain minimum value. For glycerin the minimum velocity for wave for- mation is about 20 m/s. At this velocity the theoreti- cal breakup distance is infinite. Increasing the velocity reduces the breakup distance; for example, at 25,30, and 35 m/s, the corresponding wavelengths are 39d, 30d, and 1.34, respectively Haenlein [12] presented experimental evidence in support of Weber's theoretical analysis. Using nozzles with a length-to-bore ratio of 10 and liquids of various viscosities and surface tensions, he showed that for liq- uuids of high viscosity (0.85 kg/m s) the ratio of wave- length to jet diameter producing maximum instability could range from 30 to 40, in contrast to the value of 4.5 predicted by the Rayleigh theory for nonviscous jets. Haenlein identified four distinct regimes of breakup in the disintegration of a liquid jet, 1, Drop formation without the influence of air. This is the mechanism studied by Rayleigh. The term varicose is sometimes used to describe the appearance of the jet in this regime. Radially symmetric waves, as illustrated in Figure 2.82, are formed by the interaction of primary distur- bances in the liquid and surface tension forces. This regime is characterized by a linear rela- tionship between the length of the jet prior to breakup and the jet velocity. Weber calculated

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi