Mass flux measurements of a high number density spray system using the phase Doppler particle analyzer

Bachalo, W. D.; Rudoff, R. C.; Rosa, Augusto

doi:10.2514/6.1988-236

Cited by 63 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(9) is assumed to be both known and independent of particle size. Dodge et al (1987) have suggested that both of these assumptions are open to question and Bachalo et al (1988) have confirmed that the errors due to the so-called "spot size" of the imaging lens system are size-dependent. Another source of error, at least with phase-Doppler anemometers, is that some droplets fail to satisfy validation criteria in either the frequency or phase domains, particularly if zero-crossing counters are used.…”

Section: (D~) = Nd[ I U~i a (Di) Ts]mentioning

confidence: 95%

On the measurement of particle concentration near a stagnation point

Hardalupas

Taylor

1989

Experiments in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: (D~) = Nd[ I U~i a (Di) Ts]mentioning

confidence: 95%

On the measurement of particle concentration near a stagnation point

Hardalupas

Taylor

1989

Experiments in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Due to the nature of the Gaussian intensity distribution at the probe volume and the fact that droplets much larger than the wavelength of light scatter light in proportion to their diameter squared, the cross sectional area of the probe volume varies with the particle diameter being measured [6]. Larger particles will scatter more light and therefore be detected further out from the center of the probe volume than smaller particles.…”

Section: Probe Volume Correctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Small Probe Volumes with Phase Doppler Interferometry

Strakey¹,

Talley²,

Sankar³

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S NUMBER(S) AFRL-PR-ED-TP-1998-059 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AbstractPhase Doppler interferometry utilizing a probe volume much smaller than the droplets being measured has been shown to work well when coupled with a phase and intensity validation scheme which is capable of eliminating trajectory dependent scattering errors. Measurements in monodispersed droplet streams have been performed to characterize the probe volume, and an intensity validation scheme and corresponding probe volume correction factor have been developed. Volume flux measurements in dilute sprays have shown a significant improvement over standard phase Doppler interferometry techniques at small beam waist to droplet size ratios.

show abstract

“…Figure 5 and 6 presents results of parametric studies of the instrument variables of the PDPA. Chehroudi (1990), Bachalo (1988), McDonell and Samuelsen (1990), and Presser et al (1991) showed changes in some of the results obtained by a PDPA in sprays if "optimum and/or proper" choices of these instrument variables (PM-tube voltage and shift velocity) were not made, particularly in the dense regions of sprays. Therefore, prior to final data acquisition two representative points, one within the flame and one close to the spray axis, were chosen at an axial position of 15mm to investigate the effects of these instrument parameters in order to choose the "optimum" instrument settings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%