Breakup of a surface-mounted droplet by an impinging jet flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Droplet removal under wind-forcing arises in many engineering applications, such as surface cleaning. In these applications, the efficiency of the system can be affected by droplet breakup, since smaller droplets are harder to remove. This thesis focused primarily on the breakup process of isolated surface-mounted droplets exposed to an accelerating impinging jet flow. The investigation focused on: (i) the critical flow velocities in the breakup process, and (ii) characterizing the geometry of both the originating droplet prior to breakup and the resulting child droplet. \n \nImpinging jet flows were generated using a custom jet facility in the Fluid Mechanics Research Laboratory at the University of Waterloo. The jet centerline velocity was programmed to ramp up to a target velocity, Uj = 20 m/s at four flow accelerations, dUj/dt = 1.2, 2.2, 3.2, and 4.4 m/s^2. Hot-wire anemometry was used to characterize the background flow field at the jet exit, and various wall-normal distances at the initial stream-wise location of the droplets. \n \nDistilled water droplets of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 ul were tested on an anodized aluminium substrate in the impinging jet facility at the aforementioned flow conditions. Droplets were characterized based on side-view and top-view images which were captured simultaneously during the impinging jet ramp-up. The breakup process of surface mounted droplets in an accelerating impinging jet flow comprises three distinctive consecutive stages: depinning, necking, and breakup. The critical Weber number Weh,crit, based on droplet height at depinning, at which droplets in the considered volume range depin is within the range of 3 < Weh,crit < 4 when exposed to impinging jet flow. Shortly after depinning, necking begins as a precursor to the droplet breakup. The Weber number for the onset of necking (Weh,neck) is within the range 4 < Weh,neck < 6. Finally, the necking process culminates in the droplet breaking up into two, or more, smaller child droplets. The Weber number at which breakup occurs (Weh,br) follows a power-law relationship with the Ohnesorge number (Oh). For the Ohnesorge range (8.8 x 10^-4 < Oh < 1.4 x 10^-3 investigated in the present study, Weh,br fell in the range 6 < Weh,br < 7.5 and showed little variation with the tested parameters. \n \nThe volume of the largest child droplet resulting from breakup was estimated using a 3D reconstruction of the droplet. Larger originating droplets shed larger percentages of their volumes during the breakup process. This is also the case for droplets exposed to higher flow accelerations. A linear correlation was also found between the lengths of the child droplet and that of the original droplet immediately prior to breakup. Based on this correlation, it was concluded that smaller sessile droplets and droplets exposed to lower flow accelerations likely break up into smaller volume fractions due to the lower elongation they experience. The results of this thesis provide useful guidelines for the optimization of impinging jet configurations in non-touch drying systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".