|
|
I checked Bai's thesis and it says the adhesion occurs for We ~1, not specifically 1 or 2. I do not have access to the reference Bai and Gosman, `Mathematical modelling of wall films formed by impinging sprays', SAE 960626, 1996 do you know if 1 or 2 is specified? I am happy to change the criterion from 1 to 2 if you believe that it is necessary and provides improved results. |
|
|
Hello, I attached a screenshot from the table of the mentioned paper. I think it's just important in some special cases. But nevertheless I thought it would be good to have consistency between the cited paper and the code.. screenshotBaiGosman.jpeg (247,614 bytes) |
|
|
The two papers listed in ThermoSurfaceFilm.H are Bai and Gosman, `Mathematical modelling of wall films formed by impinging sprays', SAE 960626, 1996 Bai et al, `Modelling of gasoline spray impingement', Atom. Sprays, vol 12, pp 1-27, 2002 Do you have them both and do they both specify We = 2? |
|
|
No I just have the newer on (from 2002) and there Bai says, they changed the transition values. And in the newer model, they set it to We = 2 |
|
|
> If you are interested in reading it... Yes I have it from the link you originally posted, by I don't have Bai and Gosman, `Mathematical modelling of wall films formed by impinging sprays', SAE 960626, 1996 see above. Have you run tests to check the influence of this value? |
|
|
Sorry didn't understood you already have the paper from 2002. And no, I didn't run tests, because I don't have a case with such small We-numbers. I just saw the difference between the new paper and the implemented code (the other parts of the code are all based on the new paper) and thought it might be worth a bug report... |
|
|
Resolved by commit 78e40da8ac26bbcd06466c307c744dbd05a0f414 It is not completely clear that this change is necessary so if issues arise please open another bug-report and I will revert this change. |
- Anonymous
