4.7 Article

A study of two unequal-sized droplets undergoing oblique collision

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0038734

关键词

-

资金

  1. J. C. Bose National Fellowship of SERB, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that asymmetry in the flow field due to unequal-sized droplets and oblique collision significantly changes the collision outcomes, with permanent coalescence occurring at intermediate collision angles. Different separation mechanisms were observed for head-on and large-angle collisions, with capillary wave instability playing a role in the breakup of ligaments for large collision angles. The results also indicate that the outcome of droplet collision depends on factors such as velocity ratio and radius ratio.
The oblique collision of two unequal-sized liquid droplets in a gaseous environment is investigated numerically. It is found that the asymmetry in the flow field arising due to unequal-sized droplets and oblique collision greatly alters the collision outcomes observed in the case of the head-on collision of identical droplets. Our results reveal that permanent coalescence occurs at intermediate collision angles, but head-on and large-angle collisions result in reflexive separation and stretching separation, respectively. Moreover, we found that the end-pinching mechanism is operational in the case of head-on collision, and the capillary wave instability is responsible for the ligament breakup for large collision angles. It is also observed that the droplets coalesce permanently for low velocity ratios and high radius ratios, but for high velocity ratios and low radius ratios, the droplets coalesce temporarily and then split again. By conducting a large number of numerical simulations, the collision outcomes and the boundary separating them are plotted on R r - W e and theta - W e planes, where We, R-r, and theta represent the Weber number, radius ratio of droplets, and collision angle, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据