View in EDS

A review of the applicability and limitations of current single droplet dynamics modelling implemented in Ansys-fluent.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A review of the applicability and limitations of current single droplet dynamics modelling implemented in Ansys-fluent.
Authors: Beshay, Peter F.R.1 (AUTHOR) peter.beshay@singaporetech.edu.sg, Goh, Max H.S.1 (AUTHOR), Ang, Elisa Y.M.1 (AUTHOR), Kang, Chang-Wei2 (AUTHOR), Ng, Teng Yong3 (AUTHOR), Wang, Peng Cheng1 (AUTHOR)
Source: International Communications in Heat & Mass Transfer. Aug2025, Vol. 166, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Levitation, Dynamic models, Air flow, Computer simulation, Physical training & conditioning
Abstract: Single droplet evaporation and motion is a multi-physics process, depending on environmental conditions and liquid physical properties. Characterizing droplet dynamics relies on robust experiments and accurate numerical models. A comprehensive review was done to collate experimental datasets which were categorized into three categories; suspended, acoustically levitated and free-falling. Moreover, an acoustic levitating and free-falling droplet test rigs were built. Numerical simulations for each dataset were performed to investigate the reliability of the numerical model. Investigations show that the numerical model could successfully predict suspended droplets evaporation in static air but showed up to 16.8 % slower evaporation rates under the influence of an upward air stream. The numerical model, however, predicted drastically slower evaporation with errors up to 465 % for acoustically levitated droplets. Free-falling droplets showed inconsistent results compared to experiments, possibly due to different methodologies and instrumentation. Some limitations and inconsistencies of the reported experimental datasets available in literature are highlighted. We conclude that there is a need to fine-tune the current drag law, specifically for larger droplets. And comprehensive experiments are required to properly characterize droplet evaporation especially for non-stationary droplets. Lastly, it is imperative to relook into the evaporation models to holistically consider the complex multi-physics involved. • Droplets dispersion behaviour prediction relies on accurate numerical models. • Model predicts suspended drop dynamics but fails for airflow or acoustic levitation. • Free-falling droplet velocity is well-predicted only for diameters under 3 mm. • Refining drag and evaporation models is crucial to better predict droplet behaviour. • Experimental inconsistencies highlight need for better datasets on moving droplets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Communications in Heat & Mass Transfer is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Single droplet evaporation and motion is a multi-physics process, depending on environmental conditions and liquid physical properties. Characterizing droplet dynamics relies on robust experiments and accurate numerical models. A comprehensive review was done to collate experimental datasets which were categorized into three categories; suspended, acoustically levitated and free-falling. Moreover, an acoustic levitating and free-falling droplet test rigs were built. Numerical simulations for each dataset were performed to investigate the reliability of the numerical model. Investigations show that the numerical model could successfully predict suspended droplets evaporation in static air but showed up to 16.8 % slower evaporation rates under the influence of an upward air stream. The numerical model, however, predicted drastically slower evaporation with errors up to 465 % for acoustically levitated droplets. Free-falling droplets showed inconsistent results compared to experiments, possibly due to different methodologies and instrumentation. Some limitations and inconsistencies of the reported experimental datasets available in literature are highlighted. We conclude that there is a need to fine-tune the current drag law, specifically for larger droplets. And comprehensive experiments are required to properly characterize droplet evaporation especially for non-stationary droplets. Lastly, it is imperative to relook into the evaporation models to holistically consider the complex multi-physics involved. • Droplets dispersion behaviour prediction relies on accurate numerical models. • Model predicts suspended drop dynamics but fails for airflow or acoustic levitation. • Free-falling droplet velocity is well-predicted only for diameters under 3 mm. • Refining drag and evaporation models is crucial to better predict droplet behaviour. • Experimental inconsistencies highlight need for better datasets on moving droplets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:07351933
DOI:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2025.109134