Experiments in Fluids

, 54:1440 | Cite as

Investigation of droplet collisions for solutions with different solids content

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The collision behaviour of droplets and the collision outcome are investigated for high viscous polymer solutions. For that purpose, two droplet chains produced by piezoelectric droplet generators are directed towards each other at a certain angle so that individual droplet pairs collide. For recording the collision event, one double-image and one high-speed CCD camera were used. One camera is positioned perpendicular to the collision plane recording the outcome of the collision, and the second camera is aligned parallel to the collision plane to assure that the droplet chains are exactly in one plane. A new approach for tracking droplets in combination with an extended particle tracking velocimetry algorithm has been developed. Time-resolved series of pictures were used to analyse the dynamics of droplet collisions. The three different water soluble substances were saccharose and 1-Ethenyl-2-pyrrolidone (PVP) with different molecular weights (K17, K30). The solvent was demineralised water. The solids contents ranged from 20 to 60 %, 5 to 25 % and 5 to 35 %, yielding dynamic viscosities in the range of 2–60 mPa s. Results were collected for different pairs of impact angles and Weber numbers in order to establish common collision maps for characterising the outcomes. Here, relative velocities between 0.5 and 4 m/s and impact parameters in the interval from 0 to 1 for equal-sized droplets (Δ = 1) have been investigated. Additionally, satellite formation will be discussed exemplarily for K30. A comparison with common models of different authors (Ashgriz and Poo in J Fluid Mech 221:183–204, 1990; Estrade et al. in Int J Heat Fluid Flow 20:486–491, 1999) mainly derived for low viscous droplets revealed that the upper limit of their validity is given by an Ohnesorge number of Oh = 0.115 and a capillary number of Ca = 0.577. For higher values of these non-dimensional parameters and hence higher dynamic viscosities, these models are unable to predict correctly the boundaries between collision scenarios. The model proposed by Jiang et al. (J Fluid Mech 234:171–190, 1992), which includes viscous dissipation, is able to predict the boundary between coalescence and stretching separation for higher viscosities (i.e. Oh > 0.115 and Ca > 0.577). However, the model constants are not identical for different solution properties. As a conclusion, an alteration of the collision appearance takes place because of the relative importance between surface tension and viscosity.

Keywords

Impact Parameter Weber Number Droplet Generator Satellite Droplet Ohnesorge Number 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of symbols

b

Lateral displacement of the centres of mass upon collision

B

Non-dimensional impact parameter

m1, m2

Mass of droplet 1 and 2 (kg)

Oh

Ohnesorge number

Ca

Capillary number

PTV

Particle tracking velocimetry

r1, d1

Radius; diameter of the larger droplet

r2, d2

Radius; diameter of the smaller droplet

urel

Relative velocity

u1, u2

Velocity of droplet 1 and 2 (m/s)

We

Weber number

α1, α2, α3

Angles between the x-axis and u 1, u 2, u 3 (°)

φ

Enclosed angle between the relative velocity vector and the position vector

σl

Surface tension of the liquid

ρl

Density of the liquid

ηl

Dynamic viscosity of the liquid

Δ

Diameter ratio

λC

Wave length at 50 % light transmission

λ

Gap between two subsequent images for the extended PTV criterion

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of this research project by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under contract no. SO 204/35-1 and 2. Furthermore, the delivery of species data by the Technical University Freiberg within the Priority Program SPP 1423 is acknowledged.

References

  1. Ashgriz N, Poo JY (1990) Coalescence and separation in binary collisions of liquid drops. J Fluid Mech 221:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blei S, Sommerfeld M (2007) CFD in drying technology-spray drying simulation. In: Tsotsas E, Majumdar AS (eds) Modern drying technology, vol 1. Computational tools at different scales, WILEY-VCH, Weinheim, pp 155–208Google Scholar
  3. Brenn G, Valkovska D, Danov KD (2001) The formation of satellite droplets by unstable binary droplet collisions. Phys Fluids 13(9):2463–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bröder D, Sommerfeld M (2007) Planar shadow image velocimetry for the analysis of the hydrodynamics in bubbly flows. Meas Sci Technol 18:2513–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubnik Z, Kadlec P, Urban D, Bruhns M (1995) Sugar technologists manual: chemical and physical data for sugar manufacturers and users. 8th edn. Verlag Dr. A. Bartens, pp 134 ff, 150 and 236Google Scholar
  6. Estrade J-P, Carentz H, Lavergne G, Biscos Y (1999) Experimental investigation of dynamic binary collision of ethanol droplets—a model for droplet coalescence and bouncing. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 20:486–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Focke C, Bothe D (2011) Computational analysis of binary collisions of shear-thinning droplets. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 166(14–15):799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foerst P (2001) In-situ Untersuchungen der Viskositaet fluider, komprimierter Lebensmittel-Modellsysteme, PhD thesis, Technische Unversitaet MuenchenGoogle Scholar
  9. Gotaas C, Havelka P, Jakobson HA, Svendsen HF (2007a) Evaluation of the impact parameter in droplet droplet collision experiments by the aliasing method. Phys Fluids 19(102105):1–11Google Scholar
  10. Gotaas C, Havelka P, Jakobson HA, Svendsen HF, Hase M, Roth N, Weigand B (2007b) Effect of viscosity on droplet droplet collision outcome Experimental study and numerical comparison. Phys Fluids 19:102106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hou SH, Schmidt DP (2006) Adaptive collision meshing and satellite droplet formation in spray simulations. Int J Multiph Flow 32:935–956MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiang YJ, Umemura A, Law CK (1992) An experimental investigation on the collision behavior of hydrocarbon droplets. J Fluid Mech 234:171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ko GH, Ryou HS (2005) Modeling of droplet collision-induced breakup process. Int J Multiph Flow 31:723–738MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kurt O, Fritsching U, Schulte G (2007) Binary collisions of droplets with fluid and suspension particles. 24th ILASS 2007Google Scholar
  15. Qian J, Law CK (1997) Regimes of coalescence and separation in droplet collision. J Fluid Mech 331:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schroeder J, Lederer M, Gaukel V, Schuchmann HP (2011) Effect of atomizer geometry and rheological properties on effervescent atomization of aqueous polyvinylpyrrolidone solutions. In: Proceeding of ILASS—Europe 2011, 24th annual conference on liquid atomization and spray systems, Estoril/PTGoogle Scholar
  17. Willis K, Orme M (2003) Binary droplet collisions in a vacuum environment: an experimental investigation of the role of viscosity. Exp Fluids 34:28–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für IngenieurwissenschaftenMartin-Luther-Universität Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations