P. 1
Modelling of Sprinkler Sprays using Deterministic and Stochastic Approaches

Modelling of Sprinkler Sprays using Deterministic and Stochastic Approaches

|Views: 30|Likes:
Published by Aghajani
Spray and atomization
Spray and atomization

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Aghajani on Mar 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial
List Price: $4.99 Buy Now


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
See more
See less







Modelling of Sprinkler Sprays using Deterministic and Stochastic Approaches

Aghajani, H., Dembele, S.*, and Wen, J.X. Center for Fire and Explosion Studies, School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Kingston University, London SW15 3DW, UK. *Corresponding author email: s.dembele@kingston.ac.uk ABSTRACT
Modelling sprinkler atomization is a challenging task, due to the stochastic nature of the liquid sheet breakup process. The present study aims to improve prediction of the initial sprinkler spray characteristics through exploring different physics based modelling approaches. The sub-models for film flow and sheet trajectory adopted in the development of the fire sprinkler spray models are reviewed. Three new deterministic approaches for sprinkler atomization have been proposed by employing an existing film sub-model and a detailed water sheet trajectory sub-model which has never been used for fire sprinkler applications. The numerical integration of the sub-models with sheet instability theory has been explained in detail. The developed methods simulate the orthogonal impingement of water jet to a deflecting disk, with the potential to be adapted for tilted deflectors. A comparative analysis is carried out between the three introduced methods and a reference model in terms of their predictions for droplet median diameter and initial droplet location for a range of ambient temperatures and water injection pressures. The developed methodologies have been further expanded by incorporating random behaviour to the spray formation procedure. The stochastically predicted mean velocity and volume median diameter have been compared against robust experimental data and empirical correlations. The improvements obtained by the developed methodologies have been promising.

KEYWORDS: Deterministic, Modelling, Sprinkler, Stochastic. NOMENCLATURE A C Cd D d dv50 g Q r T amplitude (m) coefficient of proportionality friction coefficient diameter (m) diamater (m) volume median diameter (m) gravitational acceleration (m2/s) volumetric discharge (m3/s) radial distance/radius (m) temperature (K) time (s) velocity (m/s) volume (m3) distance from edge (m) vertical displacement below fire sprinkler angle (m) thickness (m) injection pressure (pa) kinematic viscosity (m2s-1) density (Kgm-3) wave length (m) dynamic viscosity (Pa.s) sheet deflection angle (degree) surface tension (Nm-1) Subscripts 0 jet bu break up d deflector Dr droplet f fluid g gas lig ligament s sheet stream-wise direction tangential direction

V y

Greek Δp

Proc. of the Seventh International Seminar on Fire & Explosion Hazards (ISFEH7), pp. xx-xx Edited by D. Bradley, G. Makhviladze, V. Molkov, P. Sunderland, and F. Tamanini Copyright 2013 University of Maryland. Published by Research Publishing ISBN: 978-981-08-7724-8 :: doi: 10.3850/978-981-08-7724-8_0x-0x

which has been a popular choice in numerous applications. Makhviladze. i. D0. 1. Ren et al. Sheppard also roughly correlated the radial velocity to be 0. The film is then transformed into an unconfined sheet as it expands beyond the deflector edge. of the Seventh International Seminar on Fire & Explosion Hazards (ISFEH7). laser-light shadow imaging [2-3]. Various experimental studies have been conducted to characterize the droplets size and velocity in sprinkler spray using photographic techniques [1]. With the universal growth in their utilization there has been an increasing demand for computational studies of fire suppression scenarios. The aerodynamic instability and disintegration of Proc.6(Δp/ρf)1/2 close to the sprinkler. The three main physical processes involved in atomization and their modelling methods are summarised in Fig. One of the approaches is an analytical model. /D0=C. P. However this approach remains to be fully investigated for sprinklers. At critical wave amplitudes. The spray pattern generated by sprinklers is affected by various parameters such as the injection pressure. Bradley. Predicting the film flow development over a flat plate has been addressed by two main models in the literature. the jet transforms into a film flow upon impact on the disc and moves radially outward. Among the in-use water based systems sprinkler systems are regarded as a reliable automatic fixed installation fire suppression method. and orifice diameter. A sinuous wave grows on the decaying thickness sheet. As the ligaments expand outwards. Tamanini Copyright 2013 University of Maryland. ambient conditions and sprinkler configuration. they are still used as primitive atomization models. which remains to be further tested for sprinkler applications. referred to as “Detailed Trajectory Model” (DTM). The second film model is the integral model (IM) [7]. The fragments will contract to form drops due to surface tension. respectively. pp. To resolve the sheet flow characteristics a more rigorous approach. Sunderland. [6] and Zhou and Yu [7] conducted series of experiments on simplified and commercial sprinklers. Dundas [1] suggested one of the first correlations. Both studies investigated the effect of sprinkler geometrical components on the spray formation process and provided insight to essential physics of the atomization process. The underlying simplified atomization physics resulting from a jet impinging on a horizontal disc are discussed extensively in the literature [8-11]. [11]. V.We01/3.3850/978-981-08-7724-8_0x-0x . The experiments of Sheppard [5] and Zhou et al. We0. the sheet either breaks up into cylindrical ligaments or disintegrates directly to droplet depending on the jet Weber number [8]. and F. To track the trajectory of water sheet emerging from the deflector plate. based on free-surface similarity boundary layer model (BLM).INTRODUCTION Water based fire suppression systems have received considerable attention in recent decades due to the environmental advantages water can offer as a suppression agent. C. [3] presented the variation of radial velocity and droplet sizes at all spatial locations below the investigated sprinklers. One essential feature in these computational tools is the near-field sprinkler spray model. G. aerodynamic forces cause dilatational waves to grow. assumes an inversely linear decay of sheet thickness and constant velocity of the radially expanding sheet prior to its breakup point and is referred as linear thickness decay (LTD) in Fig. Despite the insensitivity of these distributions and correlations to some key parameters relevant to the initial spray. 1. Molkov.e. Published by Research Publishing ISBN: 978-981-08-7724-8 :: doi: 10. Measurements of sprinkler spray undertaken by Yu [2] showed that any change in the sprinkler orifice diameter and the deflector geometry in an upright sprinkler affect directly the coefficient of proportionality. xx-xx Edited by D. which relates the spray volume median diameter to jet Weber number. 14]. Phase Doppler Interferometer [4] and Particle Image Velocimetry [5]. where the sheet thickness is calculated for different degrees of viscous effects. the simplest approach [12]. could be adopted [12. tend to break the ligament into smaller fragments as these waves reach their critical amplitude.

To achieve this target the combination of two film flow and two liquid sheet tracking sub-models have been integrated into the basic deterministic framework firstly proposed by Marshall and di Marzo [8] but modified by the present authors to eliminate some simplified assumption like the liner variation of the film thickness and constant sheet velocity in the sheet instability phase. Film formation comprises of regions such as stagnation point formation. The predictions of the four methods have been compared and analysed to assess their performance in predicting the droplet diameter. tines and slots. boundary layer formation and developed boundary layer.The BLM approach has been used in sprinkler spray studies by Wu et al. Some of these sub-models such as the IM and DTM in particular have been little tested for real sprinkler sprays and the present study also aims to further verify them. MATHEMATICAL MODELLING The atomization process relevant to fire sprinkler starts from the moment the liquid jet exits the orifice of sprinkler and ends when the droplets are formed. Atomization physics and modeling approaches The overall goal of the present study is to investigate and further verify modelling methodologies that are more realistic and can predict the overall characteristics of the sprinkler spray. these four methods have been further studied after introducing some random behavior in the spray formation processes. The mathematical formulation of the sub-models is presented in this section with the modifications and extensions introduced by the present authors. [9]. the ambient air properties and the sprinkler configuration parameters are required. The detailed characteristics of these regions have been reported in [11]. Figure 1 summarises the atomization physics and the sub-models employed in the present study for sprinkler spray modelling. Throughout the modelling process. In addition. Figure 1. This has resulted in three new predictive methods in addition to the method previously developed by Wu et al. [9]. initial droplet radius and velocity. In BLM the film thickness over a flat plate is given by: 3 .7th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH 2013) viscous and in-viscid liquid sheets to ligaments and droplets have been studied and reported in the literature [15-16]. the liquid. The predictions for the volume median diameter and velocity have been compared with the experimental data and empirical correlations. Film Formation To calculate the thickness and speed of the sheet leaving the sprinkler’s deflector. the film formation over the deflector should be modelled.

Sheet trajectory The sheet characteristics (local thickness and velocity) should be tracked rigorously after it leaves the deflector for a good prediction of the sheet breakup distance (distance that is takes for ligaments to disintegrate into droplets). remains unchanged and (ii) that the sheet thickness at any arbitrary point is inversely proportional to its radial distance from the stagnation point. A sheet trajectory model is needed for this purpose. This model is simplified in the current study by ignoring the swirl of the flow and formulated in a curvilinear coordinate system. for the film thickness and the film speed. (5)-(7) consists of three equations and four unknowns. The system of ordinary differential equations for the sheet velocity ( ).Proc. speed. The velocity at sprinkler orifice is estimated from Bernoulli’s equation. r. deflection angle ( ) can be expressed in the following simplified forms: (5) (6) (7) The systems of Eqs. which enables calculations of the sheet thickness. The integral model (IM) [7] consists of Eqs. initial droplet locations and droplet median diameter. thickness ( ).1. i. A more rigorous and detailed sheet trajectory model was presented by Ibrahim and McKinney [13]. of the Seventh International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH7) .: (4) This hypothesis is referred to as “Linear Thickness Decay (LTD)” model in Fig. (2)-(3). A popular hypothesis for predicting the characteristics of an attenuating sheet formed in sprinkler applications is to assume (i) that the sheet velocity. (8) To track the sheet trajectory. The initial velocity and thickness are assumed to be the free jet velocity and δ0=r0/2ri respectively. (1) The speed of the film at the deflector edge is calculated from Q=πD02U0/4=πDdδdUd. and vertical displacement while it is travelling from the deflector edge and is referred to as ‘Detailed Trajectory Model (DTM)’ in Fig.e. An additional equation could be derived from geometrical considerations of the streamline. The solution domain starts from ri=D0 to the edge of deflector where ri=rd. U0=(2Δp/ρf)1/2. deflection angle. (2) (3) Where is the average friction coefficient on the deflector surface.1. its horizontal coordinate 4 is evaluated as: . .

According to Dombrowski [15]. (12) It is known that the attenuating sheet will disintegrate after some time. Eq. i. the relation between droplet size and wave number is . The critical wave number at which the breakup will happen could be obtained from [15]: (14) In an in-viscid flow. . (13). gives the 5 . If it is assumed that the waves grow until they have amplitude equal to the radius of the ligament. and : (13) It has been observed that the ligaments produced from a liquid sheet will break up through dilatational waves. . one droplet will be produced per wave length. the sheet breakup time is found from by taking into account that the sheet disintegration distance is . (10) is: (11) Differentiating Eq. Thus by mass balance. The solution to Eq. is found from balance of two formulations. Eq. the growth of aerodynamic waves on a liquid sheet could be represented as: (10) Where f=ln(A/A0) is the natural logarithm of the ratio of wave amplitude to amplitude of initial disturbance and is defined as the dimensionless total growth of the wave. (11) with respect to maximum growth.e. Where LTD is employed. for ligament volume. a sinuous wave starts to grow on the attenuating sheet. at a location denoted as breakup radius. the critical ligament wave length for break up is . The ligament diameter. so called breakup time.7th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH 2013) (9) The system of non-linear Eqs. The sheet is assumed to breakup into cylindrical strands having radial width of one-half wavelength. V1 and V2. Ligament and droplet formation Due to existing pressure force between the upper and lower surfaces. (12) is solved by employing recursive adaptive Simpson quadrature method. (12) is rearranged in the present study into . Combining this with equation (14). Eq. inertial force and viscous force. surface tension force. As the sheet thickness varies with radial location in time and its breakup time value is not known. Where DTM is employed. and equating to zero. . gives the wave with and the corresponding values of total growth . and using a fourth-order Runge-Kutta method to yield the solutions. (5)-(9) is solved with the boundary conditions . Thus. It is found that the breakup of the liquid sheets due to the wave growth concept occurs as “f” approaches a constant value of 12 [15].

Figure 2 shows that the predictions of the IM and BLM methods are reasonably close but both under-predicted the experimental data of Zhou and Yu [7]. With the exception of Method-1 which has been studied in [9]. i. four modelling approaches are investigated based on the combination of sub-models presented above in a deterministic framework. of the Seventh International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH7) droplet diameter as . 4.e. 17]. The ligament and instability analysis in all 4 methods has been carried out using Eqs. For the present study. The structure of these methods is as BLM-LTD for Method-1. velocity and initial droplet location) for a given set of working conditions (deterministic). it is the first time these methods are proposed and investigated for sprinkler applications.Proc. 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 2 compares the film thickness calculated from the BLM and IM film models against experimental measurements along the radial distance for a simplified sprinkler with the following configuration. D0=9. the same approach as Wu et al. 69kPa. Random behaviour has been added to (i) the liquid sheet critical breakup amplitude. The predicted initial droplet diameters and initial droplet locations at low to high operating pressures. Method-1 is the one widely employed in the literature [9] and is used for the comparison as there are no experimental data for this purpose. Δp=6900pa and T=300K. Each parameter has been distributed over a 50 space domain. and (iii) the ligament breakup wavelength. The same procedure as that of Wu et al. Eq. It is estimated 105-108 particles/sec would be generated below sprinklers and the difference between minimum and maximum droplet diameters reaches to two orders of magnitude mainly due to sprinkler’s complex configuration.1 would be a single global characteristics (droplet size. Each of these parameters (µi) has been discretized over associated j-element space. Gaussian normal distribution has been adopted for (i) and gamma distribution (ii) and (iii). namely Methods 1. (ii) the liquid sheet breakup wavelength.25. Di=50. the other Methods have not been validated or verified for sprinkler applications.8mm. To the best knowledge of the authors. However more experimental data would be desirable for a detailed comparative analysis of the film thickness predictions by the IM and BLM models. [9] is adopted in this research. (15). These stochastic predictions provide a global standard representation of the spray characteristics. (15) The fluctuation intensity. the initial droplet median diameter and velocity.5mm. The prediction performance of the different combinations of sub-models is investigated in their overall capability to predict the sprinkler spray characteristics. is assumed to change uniformly between 0. However the IM is capable of predicting with a better accuracy the experiment conditions. To calculate the initial droplet location.15 and 0. STOCHASTIC MODELLING It should be noted that the main output of the modelling approaches summarized in Fig. 207kPa 6 . 3. A comparative analysis is carried out between Methods 1-4 in a deterministic framework for the prediction of the initial droplet size and initial droplet location. BLM-DTM for Method-3 and IM-DTM in Method-4. The Method-1 is taken as the basis approach in this paper and further development built on it. IM-LTD in Method-2. (11)-(14). There has been an effort to overcome the deterministic approach shortcomings by adding random behaviour to certain parameters in spray model [9. which is the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean value. [9] and Rizk and Mongia [17] has been adopted in the present study.

IM and measured film thickness along the radial distance As a consequence of larger thickness film thickness predicted by the IM (Fig.2). Methods 3 and 4 could be employed where the impingement of the jet and deflector is not orthogonal as the effect of tilting could be included in the DTM. νg = 15.68 µm2s-1. where Method-1 is shown with solid line and Method-2 in dashed line. the use of DTM in Method-3 influences the predictions towards smaller droplet diameters and slightly larger initial droplet locations in most of operating conditions.798 mPa.0728 Nm-1. Beside this. by adjusting sheet deflection angle other than 90°. it is difficult to claim the superiority of a model. νf = 0. respectively between the two methods. and Method-4 is accounted the most accurate of all four.4 0.801µm2s-1. Comparison between BLM. larger sheet breakup distance. As can be seen in Fig. In Method-3 the DTM is used as sheet trajectory model in order to resolve the evolution of the liquid sheet trajectory with greater accuracy. Method-2 predicts larger spray characteristics. 3 and 4 could be considered as more accurate than Method-1. could be a good alternative for sprinkler spray modeling. Method-4 which combines the IM and DTM is examined in Fig. The difference in predictions of droplet diameter and initial formation radius is less than 9% and 15%.2 5 10 15 20 25 Deflector Radial Distance (mm) 30 Figure 2. However without detailed experimental data for droplet locations and diameter (unavailable) for comparisons. For the calculations. smaller sheet breakup speed and smaller sheet thickness at breakup time.2 1 0. µf=0. 3 and 4. the liquid properties are taken as σ=0. The predictions of initial droplet diameters and initial droplet locations from Method-2 are larger than Method-1 by roughly 15% and 10%.83µPa. 7 .7th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH 2013) and 483kPa (horizontal lines) and ambient temperatures. The discrepancy is due to the corrected radial variation of sheet thickness with Method-3.s.8 0. respectively.s. Nevertheless the results show that Methods-2. The predicted initial droplet diameter and initial droplet location from Method-1 (solid line) and Method-3 (dashed line) are compared in Fig. The percentage of difference in initial droplet diameter and initial droplet location predictions is roughly 10% and 5%. 3-(a). µg=19. 3-(a).6 0. On the modeling point of view. 500K and 1100K (vertical lines) are qualitatively compared in Fig. 1. 3(c) where its predictions (dashed lines) are compared to Method-1. Methods-2. 3-(b).4 Film Thickness (mm) IM BLM Zhou and Yu [7] 1. which all offer more capabilities than Method-1. The spray parameters predicted with Method-4 are slightly larger than those from Method-1. 300K. 3-(b) within the same range of operating pressures and ambient temperatures as Fig. respectively between Method-3 and Method-1.

The methodologies have been further investigated by comparing their predictions of the droplet velocity with the formula of Sheppard [5] in Fig.4 1. Method-1 is at the lower bound and Method-2 at the upper band. 2. The correlation in experiment [1] is reported to be /D0=3. Stochastic Modelling The stochastic behaviour of the physical processes governing the sprinkler spray formation has been accounted with the four aforementioned atomization models combinations.9 0.4 1. 3 and 4. Comparison of predicted initial droplet location and diameter as a function of injection pressure and ambient temperature between Method-1(solid line) and (a) Method-2 (b) Method-3 (c) Method-4. 5.9 at 500K and 1100K respectively.2 1.6 0.4 and 3. of the Seventh International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH7) 1.6 Droplet Diameter (mm) 1.8 0. The results confirm the improvements achieved with Methods 3 and 4. Figure 4 shows the stochastic modelling quantitative predictions from Method-1 to Method-4 compared with Dundas [1].1. 13%.3 1.4 200 400 500K 1100K Droplet Diameter (mm) 69kPa 207kPa 483kPa 1.6 Droplet Diameter (mm) 1100K 500K 300K 300 400 500 600 Initial Droplet Location (mm) (b) 1. The mean errors between predictions and [1] at the five jet Weber numbers are about 27%.1×We0-1/3. Having verified the methodology.8 0.6 0. The sprinkler geometrical parameters are D0=12. Methods 1-4.4 1100K 500K 300K 207kPa 483kPa 69kPa 600 200 Initial Droplet Location (mm) (a) 1.2 1 0.2 1 0. Methods 3 and 4 have been verified for higher ambient temperatures and the coefficient of proportionality increases to 3.7 mm and Di=31mm at ambient temperature of 300K.4 200 69kPa 207kPa (c) 483kPa 300 400 500 600 700 Initial Droplet Radial Location (mm) ` Figure 3.4 300K 1.8 0.1 1 0.7 0. The mean velocity is predicted by about 10% 8 . respectively. Method-3 and Method-4 which both utilize the DTM are the most closest to the experimental data. 7% and 1% for Methods 1.Proc.5 0. The predictions of the coefficient of proportionality by Method-3 and Method-4 are very close to 3.6 0.

06 0. they do suffer the drawback of higher computational cost as the number of stochastic space increases.08 0.5 Jet Weber Number (We0) 105 2 Figure 4.14 0. it can be concluded that Method-3 and Method-4 are in better agreement with the experimental data.2E+5 1.12 0. This is thought to be due to more realistic treatment for underlying physics. It is noteworthy that the experimental data were not measured at the location where the initial droplet is formed. hence the air drag force has effectively reduced the velocity by some extent.2E+5 Figure 5. 3.16 0. In integrating the models for ligament and droplet formation. CPU-time for Method-1 to Method-4 was about 1. These methods have included more realistic treatment for the underlying physics of the film and sheet trajectory in comparison with Method-1. For the generated 125000 (50×50×50) samples.1 0. 9 . 10 and 40 minutes. previously developed by Wu et al. the simplification of assuming linear film thickness has also been eliminated and numerical integration has been substituted to the exact solution. Comparison is made between the predictions of the four methods for droplet median diameter and droplet velocity. but a distance further away. CONCLUSIONS Three methods (Methods-2.04 0.7th International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH 2013) more accurately with Method-4 than Method-1 which brings the prediction closer to what has been estimated by empirical formulation of Sheppard [5]. Comparison between stochastic model predictions and experimental data 35 Mean Velocity (m/s) 30 25 20 15 10 5 Sheppard [5] Method-1 Method-2 Method-3 Method-4 0 7.02 0 Method-1 Method-2 Method-3 Method-4 Dundas [1] dv50/D0 0 0. 3 and 4) using different combinations of previously developed film flow and sheet trajectory models have been developed in both the deterministic and stochastic frameworks for sprinkler spray modelling. Stochastic predictions of mean velocity compared against empirical data From the results obtained with the stochastic analysis.7E+5 Jet Reynolds Number (Re0) 2.5 1 1. 0. [9].0E+4 1. However.

Water Bells. H. p. “Injection Characteristics of Non-swirling and Swirling Annular Liquid Sheets. Taylor. “Characterizing the Initial Spray from Large Weber Number Impinging Jets.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Physical and Engineering Sciences 253: 289-295 (1959). “A Modeling Basis for Predicting the Initial Sprinkler Spray.. 4..ijmultiphaseflow. “The Radial Spread of a Liquid Jet over a Horizontal Plane. ligament diameter and eventually initial droplet size. and Mongia. Ibrahim. 2010. A. “Spray Pattern Measurements of Selected Fire Sprinklers. “Model for Airblast Atomization.W. 1986. “Non-intrusive Measurements in Fire Sprinkler Sprays. N.doi.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Method-3 and Method-4 predicted the droplet diameter with a good degree of accuracy. Clark.. Blum. 6. Sheppard.. A. and McKinney.” International Journal of Multiphase Flows.. “Quantifying the Initial Spray from Fire Sprinklers.. “Investigation of Spray Patterns of Selected Sprinklers with the FMRC Drop Size Measuring System.. G. 10. Zheng.. C. 15.. C. N. N.... Considering that the accuracy of the film thickness predictions is of crucial importance in physic-based sprinkler spray modelling as any inaccuracy in its predictions would cascade down to the predictions of the sheet thickness.” Fire Safety Journal 46: 140-150 (2011)..R. A.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 20: 481-499 (1964). S. A.” Journal of Propulsion 7: 305-311 (1991). and Marshall.” Process Safety Environmental Protection 82: 97–104 (2004). C. “Aerodynamic Instability and Disintegration of In-viscid Liquid Sheets.. 1165-1176.Z..” Proceeding of 1st International Association of Fire Safety Science.. D. 2. Y. R.I. A. 5. “Spray Characteristics of Fire Sprinklers. Marshall. IAFSS. 2008. X.W. Wu.” North-western University. Mathematical. and di Marzo. 10 . 17.. and Marshall. p. 12. Germany. Guillemin.A. A. Mathematical..” Fire safety Journal 42: 283-294 (2007). N. and Marshall. N. “Experimental Investigation of Spray Formation as Affected by Sprinkler Geometry. M.J.R. Karlsruhe. Ren. N. REFERENCES 1. and Yu.. “The Dynamics of Thin Sheets of Fluid: I.. Dundas.” Factory Mutual Research Corporation and Technical report FMRC 18792 RC73-T-40. 13. (2012) doi: http://dx. H. H. “Optimization of Sprinkler Fire Protection the Scaling of Sprinkler Discharge: Prediction of Drop Size... J. They gave the best predictions for the droplets mean velocity. Do. 11. “The Aerodynamic Instability and Disintegration of Viscous Liquid Sheets... 7.C. Physical and Engineering Sciences 329: 467-478 (1972). PhD Dissertation. MA.. and Johns. Evanston. Norwood.F. Zhou.” Chemical Engineering Science 18: 203-214 (1963). D.” Fire Safety Science-Proceeding of the 9th International Symposium. and Marshall. UK.. X. 16.” Proceedings of the IMechE 220: 203-214 (2006).W.Proc. 177-188. “Atomization and Dispersion Measurements in Fire Sprinkler Sprays. Watson. Widmann...Z. Zhou. 2002. and Lueptow.” Proceedings of 12th International Interflam Conference... Do. Yu.1016/j.Z. and Yu.” Fire Technology 37: 297-315 (2001). E.T.H. This method predicted the largest droplet sizes in all four methods. Rizk. Ren. W. Dombrowski.W.W. and Dombrowski. D’Aniele. D. Series A..” Atomization Sprays 19: 1125-1136 (2009). H.org/10. Series A. E. P.. 9.P. D.. Ren.J. “Modeling Aspects of Sprinkler Spray Dynamics in Fires. Nottingham. 3. it is thought that Method 2 should be considered as of least potential among the three methods. A. Sheppard. T.T. Blum.. IL.. 8.K. 14.M. of the Seventh International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards (ISFEH7) The predictions of Method-2 revealed that the change in the film flow sub-model led to the predictions of larger droplet median diameters and larger initial droplet radial locations with the increase in ambient temperature or injection pressure. 1974..

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->