See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233556795

CFD Study on Compound Impaction in a Jet-in-Well Impactor

Article  in  Aerosol Science and Technology · December 2007

DOI: 10.1080/02786820701777432

CITATIONS READS
5 540

3 authors, including:

Satya Seshadri
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
12 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Satya Seshadri on 20 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)]
On: 15 October 2014, At: 04:06
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aerosol Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

CFD Study on Compound Impaction in a Jet-in-Well

Impactor
a a a
Shishan Hu , Satyanarayanan Seshadri & Andrew R. McFarland
a
Aerosol Technology Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering , Texas A&M
University, College Station , Texas, USA
Published online: 22 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Shishan Hu , Satyanarayanan Seshadri & Andrew R. McFarland (2007) CFD Study on Compound Impaction
in a Jet-in-Well Impactor, Aerosol Science and Technology, 41:12, 1102-1109, DOI: 10.1080/02786820701777432

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02786820701777432

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Aerosol Science and Technology, 41:1102–1109, 2007
Copyright
c American Association for Aerosol Research
ISSN: 0278-6826 print / 1521-7388 online
DOI: 10.1080/02786820701777432
CFD Study on Compound Impaction in a Jet-in-Well
Impactor
Shishan Hu, Satyanarayanan Seshadri, and Andrew R. McFarland
Aerosol Technology Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, USA
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014
In a classical jet impactor, the jet is assumed to impact on an
infinite plate; however, the typical construction of an impactor ne-
cessitates that a wall surrounds the jet. If the wall is close to the
jet, secondary impaction can take place on the wall. Also, for some
impactor designs, e.g., large particle scalping devices in air sam-
pling inlets, the jet is purposefully placed in a well and the overall
performance of the impactor is the compound effect of the jet im-
pacting on a collection plate and on the wall of the well. In this study
we primarily use CFD to examine the performance of compound
round jet impactors, where the ratio of well diameter to jet diame-
ter is from 3 to 15 and the particle size is in the range of 5 to 15 µm
AD. The onset of the secondary impaction occurs at a ratio of well
diameter to jet diameter of about eight with the collection on the
side wall increasing for smaller ratios. Compound impaction can
significantly enhance the overall particle collection and can result
in a much smaller value of Stk0.5 . At a ratio of well diameter to jet
diameter of 3, the value of Stk0.5 is 0.07, as compared with a classical
circular jet impactor where Stk0.5 is about 0.24 for a typical set of
operational and configuration parameters. Numerical predictions
for the jet-in-well impactors are compared with experimental re-
sults using liquid particles and good agreement is obtained. Photos
taken over a range of experimental conditions verify the strong side
wall impaction for certain conditions.
INTRODUCTION
The geometry of a classical impactor is simple and the de-
vice is both easy to fabricate and operate. Impactors have been
studied extensively for different configurations and operational
Received 28 February 2007; accepted 30 October 2007.
This work was supported by the Edgewood Chemical Biological
Center of the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering
Command under Contract DAAD13-03-C-0050 and by the Aerosol
Technology Laboratory of Texas A&M University. The authors wish
to express their appreciation to Drs. Edward W. Stuebing and Jerold R.
Bottiger of the Army for their guidance and support. We also wish to
thank our colleagues Dr. John Haglund and Dr. Sridhar Hari for their
help and suggestions.
Address correspondence to A. R. McFarland, Department of Me-
chanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77069, USA. E-mail: armcfarland@gmail.com
1102
conditions. Marple and Liu (1974) investigated the characteris-
tics of laminar jet, rectangular and round impactors using nu-
merical simulations. Their studies involved analyzing the effects
on performance of the Reynolds number, the ratio of jet char-
acteristic dimension to the distance between the jet exit plane
and plate, and the Stokes number. Hari et al. (2005) conducted
numerical studies on the sensitivities of the factors that affect
the performance of a rectangular slit impactor including gravity
and ultra-Stokesian drag. Their predictions agreed well with the
experimental results. Burwash et al. (2006) studied turbulent
dispersion effects on 5 µm particles in an axisymmetric im-
pinging jet at a Reynolds number of 104 and suggested that the
turbulent dispersion for particle deposition may be many times
of that of particle inertial impaction. They used the Shear Stress
Transport (SST) turbulent model in CFX (CFX5.7.1, ANSYS,
Inc., Canonsburg, PA) to simulate the jet and showed reasonable
agreement with the experimental observations. John (1999) gave
a simple derivation for impactors and showed Stk0.5 values of
about 0.49 and 0.25 for rectangular and circular jet, respectively.
Huang and Tsai (2002) numerically investigated the influence
of the ratio of the jet diameter to the diameter of the impaction
plate. They found that the collection efficiency increases when
the ratio decreases (same jet, larger plate) in a Reynolds number
range of 100 to 500 at a fixed Stokes number, and attributed the
phenomenon to a slower jet and gravitational effects.
In this study, numerical techniques were used to predict the
performance of jet-in-well impactors, which have the primary
application of scalping larger particles from the size distribu-
tions of sampled aerosols. Unlike classical jet impactors, the
jet-in-well impactors may exhibit compound aerosol collection,
with part of the aerosol being deposited on a collection plate
placed normal to the jet issuing from the acceleration nozzle,
and part of the collection occurring on the wall of the well,
which is normal to the jet that flows over the collection surface.
The k–ω turbulence model was used to calculate the flow field
and a Discrete Random Walk Model (DRWM) was used with a
Discrete Phase Model (DPM) to calculate particle trajectories.
Several ratios of well-to-jet sizes were simulated to characterize
the influence of the ratio on the total collection of the impactor
and on the side wall impaction. Impactors with three different
 JET-IN-WELL IMPACTOR 1103

ratios were tested with benchmark physical experiments using TABLE 1

liquid particles, which like the particles used in the numerical Design parameters of artifacts used in physical experiments
simulations, are assumed to adhere to surfaces that they contact.
There are practical applications of compound impactors. Parameter Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Westech Inc. (Atlanta, GA) provides a jet-in-well 10 µm pre- Jet diameter, D j (mm) 30.5 12.7 12.7
separator for its Andersen eight-stage impactor. ESM Andersen Well diameter DW (mm) 91.4 50.8 91.4
GmbH. (Erlangen, Germany) distributes a similar device for a Well-to-Jet ratio, χ 3 4 7.2
stack sampling system. Peters et al. (2001) developed the EPA Inlet tube diameter, Di (mm) 45.3 45.3 45.3
WINS impactor, which uses a jet-in-well impactor operated at a Gap between well and housing, 12.7 33.0 12.7
flow rate of 16.7 L/min to remove particles larger than 2.5 µm. δ (mm)
The effect of the size of the collection well on the performance Height of housing, Hc (mm) 87.9 87.9 87.9
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014

of the WINS was discussed, but no details were provided. The Jet-to-plate spacing, S (mm) 45.1 27.9 27.9
Reynolds number in the WINS is about 6,000 and Stk0.5 is 0.238. Jet-to-plate spacing ratio, S/W 1.5 2.2 2.2
Exhaust tube diameter, Do (mm) 40.1 40.1 40.1
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
With reference to Figure 1, the jet-in-well impactor con- enced to jet outlet conditions (Stk), and the ratio of well-to-jet
sidered herein is comprised of an acceleration nozzle that dis- diameters (χ ). Symbolically, these parameters are:
charges air into a well, where the flow impacts on the collection
plate (base of the well), and then is directed horizontally toward π 2
Q̇ = D U
the side wall of the well. The flow then makes another turn and 4 j
is directed upwards where it is vented from the well. Primary ρ U Dj
Re =
and secondary inertial impaction of aerosol particles take place µ
on the collection plate and the side wall, and this process will be Cc ρ P U D 2P
referred to as compound impaction. Parameters used to charac- Stk = [1]
9µ D j
terize the jet-in-well impactors include the volumetric flow rate
DW
( Q̇), the flow Reynolds number (Re), the Stokes number refer- χ =
Dj

Here, U is the spatial mean velocity at the acceleration nozzle

exit plane, D j is the diameter of the acceleration jet, DW is
the diameter of the well, ρ is the air density, µ is the dynamic
viscosity of the air, Cc is Cunningham’s correction, ρ p is the
particle density, and D p is the particle diameter.
The dimensions of the test articles used in the physical exper-
iments using monodisperse liquid particles with the jet-in-well
impactors are listed in Table 1. Three test cases were examined,
which involved use of different parameters including the ratio
of well-to-jet diameters, χ .

NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Fluent 6.2.14 (Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH) was employed to
perform the simulations using the appropriate models to calcu-
late the flow field and particle trajectories. The turbulent models
together with higher-order discretization schemes were used to
simulate the air flow because the Reynolds number was about
3,400 and turbulent flow was assumed. After calculating the
flow field, the DRWM together with the Lagrangian Discrete
Phase model, DPM, was used to calculate the particle collection
efficiency in the impactor.
For the calculations of aerosol particle collection, the particle
concentration was assumed to be dilute so the problem can be
treated as a one-way coupling simulation. The air phase acts
on the particles and determines their motion but air flow is not
FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of a jet-in-well impactor. affected by the particles.
 1104 S. HU ET AL.
In the calculation of the turbulent flow, the Reynolds number
is important for understanding flow conditions, creating the com-
putational mesh, and deciding the boundary conditions. The k–ω
model used in this study considers the low-Reynolds-number ef-
fects and it calculates the flow throughout the field including the
core region and boundary area. When k–ω is used, it is important
that the distance between the wall and the centroid of the first
cell adjacent to the wall, is chosen to properly satisfy a require-
ment that y + should be approximately unity. The dimensionless
distance, y + , is defined as (Fox et al. 2004):
yu ∗
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014
y+ = [2]
υ instantaneous fluid velocity is required for calculation of par-
Here, y is the distance from the wall, υ is the kinematic viscosity
of air, and u ∗ is the friction velocity.
With respect to the solver and solution control, a second-
order upwind scheme was selected for discretization of variables
such as momentum, turbulent kinetic energy production, and
dissipation. SIMPLEC (Van Doormaal and Raithby 1984) was
used for pressure-velocity coupling because it provides a rapid
convergence of the solution. Boundary conditions were based
on turbulence intensity and the inside diameter of the jet. The
turbulence intensity was calculated from the Reynolds number
of the jet (Fluent Documentation 2005):
0.16
i= [3]
Re1/8
The trajectory of a particle is calculated by the integration
of the force balance on the particle in the Lagrangian reference
frame to determine its location in each computational cell and
the migration between the cells. Drag force and gravity were the
external forces considered in calculating the particle trajectories,
viz:
d V p  a − V p )
C D Re p (U
= + g [4]
dt 24 τ of turbulent fluid eddies. An eddy is described by a Gaussian
where:
Cc ρ P D 2P
τ= [5]
18µ
C D = f (Re p ) [6]
and:
 a − V p |
ρ D p |U
Re p = [7]
µ TL is the fluid Lagrangian integral time scale which is deter-
Here, V p is particle velocity, τ is the aerodynamic relaxation
time in the low Reynolds number limit, U  a is undisturbed fluid
velocity at the location of the particle, g is the gravitational ac-
celeration, and C D is the drag coefficient, which is based on the
particle Reynolds number, Re p . The factor, C D Re p /24, in Equa-
tion (4) accounts for non-Stokesian behavior as the Reynolds
number increases.
For the range of Reynolds numbers under consideration, tur-
bulent dispersion can affect the particle motion and it may even
be dominant in some particle trajectory calculations. Turbulent
flow is characterized by fluctuation velocities and eddies, which
have various length and time scales. The principle of the parti-
cle motion in a turbulent flow is still not fully understood and
there is no completely accurate solution. But for engineering
applications a stochastic tracking approach, the DRWM, is used
by Fluent to predict the particle motion. In Equation (4), the
ticle motion, where the instantaneous velocity is the sum of
the mean velocity, which can be obtained from the flow field
calculations, and the fluctuating component, which needs to be
modeled. When the particle resides in one computational cell,
generally, the mean velocity can be obtained using the center
value of this cell and the random velocity fluctuations (u  , v  ,
and w ) can be calculated using the local RMS value of the ve-
locity fluctuations or turbulent kinetic energy, which in turn are
obtained from the flow field calculations, e.g.:




  
u = ζ u 2 , v = ζ v 2 , w = ζ w 2 [8]
Here, ζ is a normally distributed random number used to
generate the fluctuation velocity. If the turbulent flow is isotropic,
the turbulent kinetic energy, k, can be used in the calculation,
viz:





u = v = w 2 = 2k/3
2 2 [9]
In the DRW model, the turbulent dispersion effect is calcu-
lated as an interaction between the particles and a succession
distribution random velocity fluctuation, a time scale (lifetime),
and a length scale (size). The eddy lifetime can be calculated
from (Shirolkar et al. 1996; Fluent Documentation 2005):
τe = 2TL or τe = −TL log(r ) [10]
In Equation (10), the eddy lifetime could be based on a con-
stant of 2 for isotropic flow or use of a Random Eddy Lifetime by
involving a uniform random number r , where r ∈ [0, 1]. Here,
mined by the particle inertia and describes a time during which
the particle could maintain its original velocity before it changes
velocity and migrates to another eddy. For small particles,
which are assumed to have shorter relaxation time than the time
scales of all eddies in the turbulent flow, TL can be calculated
 JET-IN-WELL IMPACTOR
from:
k ṁ sw
TL = C L [11]
ε ṁ ref
where C L has a value of about 0.15 for the k–ω model.
The interaction time τinteraction of a particle and an eddy is
determined from the eddy life time, τe , or the particle crossing
time,τcross , i.e.:
τinteraction = min(τe , τcross ) [12]
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014
where:
 
Le
τcross = −τ ln 1 − [13]
τ | u − vp|
Here, L e is the eddy length scale and τ is the particle relax-
ation time. After the interaction time is reached, the instanta-
neous velocity is calculated using a new ζ (random number).
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The jet-in-well impactor was experimentally tested with
monodisperse liquid particles to validate the numerical predic-
tions. For aerosol generation, a vibrating orifice aerosol genera-
tor, VOAG (Model 3450, TSI Inc, Shoreview, MN) was used to
generate liquid droplets from a solution containing ethanol, oleic
acid, and a fluorescent tracer. The consistency of aerosol output
by the VOAG was monitored with an aerodynamic particle sizer,
APS (Model 3321, TSI Inc, Shoreview, MN). Here the aerosol-
to-aerosol fractional efficiency is calculated from the amounts
of particulate matter that enter and exhaust from the impactor,
without taking into consideration where particles are deposited
in the impactor. Aerosol samples were alternately collected on a
reference filter, which sampled the aerosol transmitted through
the impactor with no well in the system, and filters placed at the
outlet of the impactor with the well in place. Glass fiber filters
(Type A/D, Pall Corp., East Hills, NY) were placed at the outlet
port of the impactor to collect the aerosol particles. The exposed
glass filters were placed in solutions of isopropyl and water to
elute the fluorescent tracer. Solutions were analyzed with a fluo-
rometer (Model FM109535, Quantech Barnstead International,
Dubuque, IA). The fractional efficiency, η, of the impactor, for
the particle size being tested, was calculated from:
ṁ impactor
η =1− [14]
ṁ ref
Here, ṁ impactor is the rate of aerosol particle collection at the
outlet of the impactor with the well in place and ṁ ref is the rate
of aerosol particle collection by the reference filter.
Smooth thin plastic film was used as a substrate for collection
of particles on the side wall. The fractional efficiency ηsw of
the side wall, for the particle size being tested, was calculated
1105
from:
ηsw = [15]
Here, ṁ sw is the rate of aerosol particle collection at the side
wall of the well in the impactor.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Visual Evidence of Compound Impaction
Figure 2 shows four sets of photos that were taken after ex-
posing jet-in-well impactors for an extended period of time (typ-
ically one hour) to an aerosol formed from a solution to which
dye was added to increase contrast of the particles deposited on
filter substrates. The glass fiber filters were only used to help
qualitatively visualize the impaction of particles on the bottom
surface and side wall. All experimental tests for quantitative
analysis of particle collection were based on smooth surfaces
as described earlier. In each set of photos, the upper picture
shows the deposition on the collection plate and the lower pic-
ture shows deposition on a small section of a fibrous filter that
had been placed on the side wall of a well. When the filter placed
on the side wall is flattened, the deposition pattern becomes a
strip. It can be seen that the particle deposition patterns are quite
different in the impactors that have different combinations of
well-to-jet ratios and particle Stokes numbers.
With reference to Figure 2a, there is a circular pattern on
the collection plate with a lower density of deposition in the
center, which may be observed with unbounded circular jet im-
pactors where the less dense deposition in the center can occur
due to air stagnation effects; however, there is also a narrow
strip of deposition on the side wall, which is about 6 mm wide
and is elevated about 6 mm above the primary impaction col-
lection plate. These photos represent the Case 2 impactor listed
in Table 1, where the well-to-jet ratio is 4.0, and the particle
Stokes number is 0.12 (9.7 µm AD aerosol particles). The side-
wall strip is caused by secondary impaction, because if it were
caused by turbulent deposition, it would exhibit a more diffuse
pattern. When the velocity contours are simulated, for situa-
tions where secondary impaction is observed, e.g., Figure 3,
they show the secondary turn of the air flow impacts the side
wall at a location that starts about 5 mm above the bottom plate.
The curvature of the abrupt turn of the airstream at the sidewall is
similar to the curvature of the airstream in the primary impaction
process, and thus should result in somewhat similar impaction
characteristics.
Figure 2a and Figure 3 can be used as the basis for describ-
ing the compound impaction phenomenon. During the first turn,
when the air impacts the collection plate the particles will strike
the plate if their inertia is sufficient, and if not they will fol-
low the airstream towards the side wall. However, during the
first turn, particles that do not reach the collection plate can
move a short distance closer to the collection plate. When the
 1106 S. HU ET AL.
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014

FIG. 2. Photographs of deposition patterns observed on collection plate (upper pictures) and side walls (lower pictures) for different combinations of well-to-jet
ratio and particle Stokes numbers. Aerosol particles were collected on glass fiber filters to obtain contrast for these photographs.

air flow approaches the side wall in a small-sized well, its ve-
locity does not decrease significantly and the particles having
benefited from the first turn are closer to the collection surface,
so they can more easily be collected during the second turn of the
air.
If the Stokes number for the first turn is sufficiently high, the
particle deposition will primarily take place on the collection
surface. Figure 2b shows the patterns for particle collection with
χ = 4, and Stk = 0.27, where the value of χ is the same as that
for Figure 2a, but the Stokes number is higher. Even though the
unit sampled aerosol for a period that was twice the sampling
period used for the other samples shown in Figure 2, deposition
is not evident on the side wall.
In contrast to the results of the test conditions shown in
Figures 2a and 2b, for small values of χ and Stk, the impaction
may take place predominantly on the side wall, Figure 2c. For
this case χ = 3 and Stk = 0.06.
As should be expected, as the well-to-jet ratio increases, the
impaction process tends to that of the classical jet impactor. Fig-
ure 2d shows the deposition patterns for an arrangement with

FIG. 3. Velocity contours for the jet-in-well impactors with well-to-jet ratios of 3 and 4.
 JET-IN-WELL IMPACTOR
χ = 7.2 and Stk = 0.12 (the same value used to obtain the
photographs shown in Figure 2a). Here, the deposition is pre-
dominantly on the collection plate with no visible evidence of
deposition on the side wall.
Characterization of the Compound Impaction
Phenomenon: Total Collection
It can be expected that the total collection of a jet-in-well
impactor could increase when the well size decreases due to
the secondary impaction effect. Figure 4 shows the numerical
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014
predictions for the collection efficiency as a function of Stokes
number for jet-in-well impactors with well-to-jet ratios from 3
to 15. The geometry of the jet-in-well impactors is based on
the physical configuration shown in Figure 1. When the ratio of
well-to-jet increases from 3 to 15, the total collection decreases
and the collection curves shift toward the right. For well-to-jet
ratios in a small range from 3 to 8, the total efficiency decreases
rapidly with an increasing ratio.
The value of the cutpoint Stokes number, Stk0.5 , decreases
significantly as the well-to-jet ratio decreases from 8 to 3. For
example, at a value of χ = 3, the value of Stk0.5 = 0.07, whereas
at a value of χ = 8, the value of Stk0.5 = 0.23. However, when
the well-to-jet ratio falls in a range larger than 8, the jet-to-well
ratio has little effect on the total collection, which means that
the secondary side wall impaction is weak. This is probably
as a result of the attenuation of velocity in the radial direction
along the collection plate.
Figure 4 also shows the experimental results for the three
cases of jet-in-well impactors with well-to-jet ratios of 3, 4,
and 7.2. Numerical predictions agree well with the experimental
tests for the particles having larger Stokes numbers. However,
the numerical results over-predict particle collection for Stokes
numbers smaller than 0.04.
FIG. 4. Simulated and experimentally determined total collection as a func-
tion of Stokes number for various well-to-jet ratios. Here EXP refers to experi-
mental results.
1107
FIG. 5. The cutpoint Stokes number, Stk0.5 ,as a function of well-to-jet ratio χ .
The effect of the well-to-jet ratio on the value of Stk0.5 can
be represented by an expression, such as that given in Equation
(15) and shown plotted in Figure 5. In particular:
Stk0.5 = 0.0314e0.2486χ for: 3≤χ ≤8
[16]
Stk0.5 = 0.23 for: χ ≥8
When the ratio is less than 8, Stk0.5 will increase with the
increasing ratio and when it is larger than 8, Stk0.5 remains at
about 0.23.
Figure 6 shows the numerically predicted collection for the
bottom plate and side wall with the well-to-jet ratios of 4 and
7.2. The collection curves for the bottom plate are similar for
the two ratios because the acceleration jets are operated at the
same conditions so the primary impaction is similar; however,
the collections for the side walls are significantly different. When
the well-to-jet ratio is 4 and the secondary impaction is strong,
e.g., at a Stokes number of about 0.1, the secondary impaction is
twice the primary impaction; however, the secondary impaction
drops rapidly for higher values of Stokes number. The high level
of secondary side wall impaction may be caused by two factors.
First, the particles that are not collected on the bottom plate
could get closer to the bottom plate as discussed earlier. Second,
gravity could enhance this movement of the particles towards
the bottom plate since the first impaction and gravity have the
same direction. These two effects could concentrate the particles
in the region closer to the bottom plate and make the particles
easier to impact onto the side wall.
In Figure 6, the side wall particle collection is significantly
less for the well-to-jet ratio of 7.2 compared with the ratio of 4.
At the ratio of 7.2, the collection on the side wall is less than that
on the bottom plate for both low and high inertia particles. When
the jet is decelerated in a large well, the velocity parallel to the
collection plate, in the region of the well wall, is lower than that
in a small well. The maximum side wall collection is only about
 1108
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014
FIG. 6. Total bottom plate and side wall collection of the jet-in-well impactor
different well-to-jet ratios. (a) χ =4. (b) χ = 7.2.
10%, which is associated with particles having a Stokes number
of about 0.2 when the ratio is 7.2.
Computational results for side wall deposition over the range
of 3 ≤ χ ≤ 15 are shown in Figure 7. The peak value of side wall
deposition decreases from about 43% for χ = 3 to about 3% for
χ = 8. For larger values of the well-to-jet ratio, the secondary
deposition could be ignored.
An unusual feature of the compound impactor occurs when
the well-to-jet ratio is about 4. With reference to Figure 3(b),
which shows the velocity contours for χ = 4, the reflected flow
from the side wall interacts with the initial jet from the acceler-
ation nozzle, which could cause the total flow to fluctuate. We
suggest that if a jet-in-well impactor is to be used, χ should
be in the range of 6–8 to achieve a suitable flow field, and yet
avoid having a large-sized well. However, the smaller ratio of 3,
Figure 3a, will also provide a stable flow field, and can provide
a given cutpoint with a lower jet velocity.
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
In this study, the compound impaction effect is character-
ized for circular jet-in-well inertial impactors. The compound
impaction includes primary impaction under the acceleration
nozzle and secondary impaction at the side wall of the well,
which can significantly enhance particle collection and result
S. HU ET AL.
FIG. 7. Secondary side wall collection efficiency as a function of the well-to-
jet ratio, χ . Here EXP refers to experimental results.
in reduced values of Stk0.5 , e.g., the cutpoint Stokes number
is about 0.07 when the well-to-jet ratio is 3. Simulations were
conducted for a series of jet-in-well impactors with different
size ratios, which showed that the side wall and the total collec-
tion will decrease when the ratio increases in the range of 3–8,
beyond which the secondary side wall impaction can be ignored.
The side wall impaction is demonstrated photographically and
supported by experimental data.
Matida et al. (2004) reported that turbulent dispersion model
could cause an over-prediction of the particle deposition. For
small Stokes number particles, turbulent dispersion may be sev-
eral times higher than the inertial impaction (Burwash et al.
2006). However, for particles having larger Stokes numbers,
inertia should be dominant and predictions of the deposition
caused by inertia could be assumed to be accurate. In our exper-
iments, we noted that the model and physical experiments agree
well at a flow Reynolds number of about 3,400 except for the
small Stokes numbers.
When the Jet-to-Plate spacing ratio (S/W ) is small it may
affect the total collection efficiency. Marple (1974) and Hari
(2003) investigated this influence for a laminar round jet and they
reported that when the ratio is less than 1, Stk0.5 will increase
rapidly as the ratio increases. But it has little influence on the
Stk0.5 when the ratio is in the range of 1–3. In our study, the ratio
of the Jet-to-Plate spacing was 2.2 except for Case 1 where the
Jet-to-Plate spacing ratio we 1.5. It was assumed in our study that
the Jet-to-Plate spacing ratio did not affect the total collection
significantly.
The WINS (Peters et al. 2001) has a well-to-jet ratio of about
9.45 which falls in a large ratio range so the secondary impaction
in WINS can be ignored. The Stk0.5 of WINS is about 0.238
which is close to our numerically predicted result of 0.23.
REFERENCES
Burwash, W., Finlay, W., and Matida, E. (2006). Deposition of Particles by
a Confined Impinging Jet onto a Flat Surface at Re = 104 , Aerosol Sci.
Technol. 40:147–156.
 JET-IN-WELL IMPACTOR
Fluent 6.2 Documentation (2005), Fluent Inc. Lebanon, New Hampshire,
USA.
Fox, R. W., McDonald, A. T., and Pritchard, P. J. (2004). Introduction to Fluid
Mechanics, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Fuchs, N. A. (1964). The Mechanics of Aerosols. Pergamon Press, New
York.
Hari, S., Hassan, Y. A., and McFarland, A. R. (2005). Computational Fluid
Dynamics Simulation of a Rectangular Slit Real Impactor’s Performance,
Nuclear Engineering and Design. 235: 1015–1028.
Hari, S. (2003). Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulations of Dilute
Fluid-Particle Flows in Aerosol Concentrators. Ph.D. Dissertation. Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX.
Huang, C. H., and Tsai, C. J. (2002). Influence of Impaction Plate Diameter
Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 04:06 15 October 2014
and Particle Density on the Collection Efficiency of Round-Nozzle Inertial
Impactors, Aerosol Sci. Technol, 36:714–720.
View publication stats
1109
John, W. (1999). A Simple Derivation of the Cutpoint of an Impactor, J. Aerosol
Sci. 30(10): 1317–1320.
Matida, E. A., Finlay, W. H., Lange, C. F., and Grgic, B. (2004). Improved
Numerical Simulation of Aerosol Deposition in an Idealized Mouth-Throat,
J. Aerosol Sci. 35:1–19.
Marple, V. A. and Liu, B. Y. H. (1974). Characteristics of Laminar Jet Impactors,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 8:648–654.
Peters, T. M., Vanderpool, R. W., and Wiener, R. W. (2001), Design and
Calibration of EPA PM-2.5 Well Impactor Ninety-Six (WINS), Aerosol Sci.
Technol. 34: 389–397.
Shirolkar, J. S., Coimbra, C. F. M., and McQuay, M. Q. (1996), Fundamental
Aspects of Modeling Turbulent Particles Dispersion in Dilute Flows, Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 22:363–399.
Van Doormaal, J. P., and Raithby, G. D. (1984). Enhancements of the SIMPLE
Method for Predicting Incompressible Fluid Flows, Numerical Heat Transfer,
Part 1, 7:147–163.