Download Full ebookname - Read Now at ebookname.

com

Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplets and

Sprays 2ed. Edition William A. Sirignano

https://ebookname.com/product/fluid-dynamics-and-transport-
of-droplets-and-sprays-2ed-edition-william-a-sirignano/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Discover More Ebook - Explore Now at ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Computational Fluid Dynamics Principles and Applications

Jiri Blazek

https://ebookname.com/product/computational-fluid-dynamics-principles-
and-applications-jiri-blazek/

ebookname.com

Dynamics of Markets 2ed. Edition Joseph L. Mccauley

https://ebookname.com/product/dynamics-of-markets-2ed-edition-joseph-
l-mccauley/

ebookname.com

The Dynamics of Socio Economic Development An Introduction

2ed. Edition Szirmai A.

https://ebookname.com/product/the-dynamics-of-socio-economic-
development-an-introduction-2ed-edition-szirmai-a/

ebookname.com

Professional Cocoa Application Security 1st Edition Graham

J. Lee

https://ebookname.com/product/professional-cocoa-application-
security-1st-edition-graham-j-lee/

ebookname.com
An invitation to cognitive science 2nd Edition Lila R.
Gleitman

https://ebookname.com/product/an-invitation-to-cognitive-science-2nd-
edition-lila-r-gleitman/

ebookname.com

Working With Dreams Initiation into the Soul s Speaking

About Itself 1st Edition Wolfgang Giegerich

https://ebookname.com/product/working-with-dreams-initiation-into-the-
soul-s-speaking-about-itself-1st-edition-wolfgang-giegerich/

ebookname.com

The Method of the Divine Government Physical and Moral 2nd

Edition James Mccosh

https://ebookname.com/product/the-method-of-the-divine-government-
physical-and-moral-2nd-edition-james-mccosh/

ebookname.com

Handbook of Affective Sciences 1st Edition Richard J.

Davidson

https://ebookname.com/product/handbook-of-affective-sciences-1st-
edition-richard-j-davidson/

ebookname.com

The Importance of Being Earnest Webster s German Thesaurus

Edition Oscar Wilde

https://ebookname.com/product/the-importance-of-being-earnest-webster-
s-german-thesaurus-edition-oscar-wilde/

ebookname.com
Pharmaceutical Industry Innovation and Developments
Innovation and Developments 1st Edition David A. Mancuso

https://ebookname.com/product/pharmaceutical-industry-innovation-and-
developments-innovation-and-developments-1st-edition-david-a-mancuso/

ebookname.com
This page intentionally left blank
FLUID DYNAMICS AND TRANSPORT OF DROPLETS
AND SPRAYS

Second Edition

This book serves as both a graduate text and a reference for engineers
and scientists exploring the theoretical and computational aspects of
the fluid dynamics and transport of sprays and droplets. Attention is
given to the behavior of individual droplets, including the effects of
forced convection due to relative droplet–gas motion, Stefan convec-
tion due to the vaporization or condensation of the liquid, multicom-
ponent liquids (and slurries), and internal circulation of the liquid. This
second edition contains more information on droplet–droplet interac-
tions, the use of the mass-flux potential, conserved scalar variables,
spatial averaging and the formulation of the multicontinua equations,
the confluence of spatial averaging for sprays and filtering for tur-
bulence, direct numerical simulations and large-eddy simulations for
turbulent sprays, and high-pressure vaporization processes. Two new
chapters introduce liquid-film vaporization as an alternative to sprays
for miniature applications and a review of liquid-stream distortion and
breakup theory, which is relevant to spray formation.

William A. Sirignano is the Henry Samueli Professor of Mechanical

and Aerospace Engineering and former Dean of the School of Engi-
neering at the University of California, Irvine. Before that, he was the
George Tallman Ladd Professor and Department Head at Carnegie-
Mellon University and a professor at Princeton University. His major
research and teaching interests include spray combustion, turbulent
combustion and ignition, aerospace propulsion, fluid dynamics, and
applied mathematics. Dr. Sirignano has written more than 450 research
papers, book articles, and reports and has given more than 300 confer-
ence presentations and research seminars. He has been a formal con-
sultant to 30 industrial organizations and federal laboratories.
Sirignano is a member of the National Academy of Engineering
and a Fellow of the AIAA, ASME, AAAS, APS, and SIAM. He is the
recipient of the Pendray Aerospace Literature Award, Propellants and
Combustion Award, Energy Systems Award, Wyld Propulsion Award,
and Sustained Service Award from the AIAA; the ASME Freeman
Scholar Fluids Engineering Award; The Combustion Institute Alfred
C. Egerton Gold Medal; and the Institute for the Dynamics of Explo-
sions and Reactive Systems Oppenheim Award.
Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplets
and Sprays

SECOND EDITION

William A. Sirignano
University of California, Irvine
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521884891
© William A. Sirignano 2010

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the

provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part
may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2010

ISBN-13 978-0-511-67564-5 eBook (NetLibrary)

ISBN-13 978-0-521-88489-1 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy

of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
To my wife and children, Lynn Sirignano, Justin Sirignano,
Monica Sirignano, Jacqueline Vindler.
Contents

Preface xi
Nomenclature xiv

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Droplet-Size Determination 4

2 Isolated Spherically Symmetric Droplet Vaporization and Heating . . . . 8

2.1 Theory of Spherically Symmetric Droplet Vaporization and Heating 11
2.1.1 Gas-Phase Analysis 12
2.1.2 Liquid-Phase Analysis 19
2.1.3 Chemical Reaction 24
2.2 Radiative Heating of Droplets 26

3 Convective Droplet Vaporization, Heating, and Acceleration . . . . . . . 30

3.1 Convective Droplet Vaporization 31
3.1.1 Evaluation of Reynolds Number Magnitude 33
3.1.2 Physical Description 35
3.1.3 Approximate Analyses for Gas-Phase Boundary Layer 40
3.1.4 Approximate Analyses for Liquid-Phase Flows 47
3.1.5 Droplet Drag Coefficients 56
3.1.6 Results from Approximate Analyses 57
3.1.7 Exact Analyses for Gas-Phase and Liquid-Phase Flows 64
3.1.8 Free Convection 71
3.2 Low Reynolds Number Behavior 73
3.3 Droplet Vaporization in an Oscillating Gas 76
3.4 Individual Droplet Behavior in an Unsteady Flow 79

4 Multicomponent-Liquid Droplets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.1 Spherically Symmetric Diffusion 93
4.1.1 Continuous-Thermodynamics Models 97

vii
viii Contents

4.2 Liquid-Phase Mass Diffusion with Convective Transport 98

4.2.1 Approximate Analyses 98
4.2.2 Exact Analyses 106
4.3 Metal-Slurry Droplet Vaporization and Combustion 107
4.3.1 Burning of a Fuel Droplet Containing a Single Metal Particle 108
4.3.2 Liquid Vaporization from Fine-Metal-Slurry Droplets 116
4.3.3 Metal-Particle Combustion with Oxide Condensation 129
4.4 Emulsified-Fuel-Droplet Vaporization and Burning 130

5 Droplet Behavior under Near-Critical, Transcritical, and

Supercritical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.1 High-Pressure Droplet Behavior in a Quiescent Environment 136
5.2 Convective Effects and Secondary Atomization 143
5.3 Molecular-Dynamics Simulation of Transcritical Droplet
Vaporization 147

6 Droplet Arrays and Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

6.1 Heating and Vaporization of Droplet Arrays 153
6.2 Group Vaporization and Combustion 165
6.3 Generalized Theory for Droplet-Array Vaporization and Burning 168
6.3.1 Basic Formulation 168
6.3.2 Analysis of Vaporization Without Combustion 170
6.3.3 Combustion Analysis 173
6.3.4 Array Combustion with Nonunitary Lewis Number 179
6.3.5 Array Vaporization with Multicomponent Liquids 189
6.4 Droplet Collisions 192
6.4.1 Droplet–Droplet Collisions 193
6.4.2 Droplet–Wall Collisions 196

7 Spray Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

7.1 Averaging Process for Two-Continua Formulations 200
7.1.1 Averaging of Dependent Variables 204
7.1.2 Averaging of Derivatives 207
7.1.3 Averaged Gas-Phase Equations 210
7.1.4 Averaged Vorticity and Entropy 214
7.1.5 Averaged Liquid-Phase Partial Differential Equations 216
7.1.6 Averaged Liquid-Phase Lagrangian Equations 218
7.1.7 The Microstructure 220
7.2 Two-Continua and Multicontinua Formulations 223
7.2.1 Continuity Equations 223
7.2.2 Momentum Conservation 226
7.2.3 Energy Conservation 228
7.2.4 Hyperbolic Character of Liquid-Phase Equations 230
7.2.5 Subgrid Models for Heat, Mass, and Momentum Exchange 232
7.3 Discrete-Particle Formulation 233
7.4 Probabilistic Formulation 234
Contents ix

8 Computational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

8.1 Efficient Algorithms for Droplet Computations 237
8.2 Numerical Schemes and Optimization for Spray Computations 245
8.2.1 Two-Phase Laminar Axisymmetric Jet Flow 246
8.2.2 Axisymmetric Unsteady Sprays 255
8.2.3 Solution for Pressure 269
8.3 Point-Source Approximation in Spray Calculations 269

9 Spray Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

9.1 Spherically Symmetric Spray Phenomena 287
9.2 Counterflow Spray Flows 289
9.3 One-Dimensional Planar Spray Ignition and Flame Propagation 296
9.4 Vaporization and Combustion of Droplet Streams 301
9.5 Flame Propagation Through Metal-Slurry Sprays 305
9.6 Liquid-Fueled Combustion Instability 308
9.7 Spray Behavior in Near-Critical and Supercritical Domains 310
9.8 Influence of Supercritical Droplet Behavior on Combustion
Instability 311

10 Spray Interactions with Turbulence and Vortical Structures . . . . . . . . 314

10.1 Vortex–Spray Interactions 318
10.2 Time-Averaged Turbulence Models 321
10.3 Direct Numerical Simulation 324
10.4 Large-Eddy Simulations 329
10.4.1 Proper Two-Way Coupling for LES Closure 332
10.4.2 Gas-Phase Equations 333
10.4.3 Liquid-Phase Equations 335
10.4.4 Vortex–Droplet Interactions 336

11 Film Vaporization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

11.1 Introduction 340
11.2 Miniature Film-Combustor Concept 342
11.3 Analysis of Liquid-Film Combustor 347
11.3.1 Assumptions and Governing Equations 348
11.3.2 Liquid-Phase Thermal Analysis 349
11.3.3 Fluid-Dynamics Analysis 350
11.3.4 Scalar Analysis 351
11.3.5 Results 354
11.4 Concluding Remarks 360

12 Stability of Liquid Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

12.1 Introduction 361
12.2 Formulation of Governing Equations 364
12.3 Round Jet Analyses 366
12.3.1 Temporal Stability Analysis 367
12.3.2 Surface Energy 368
x Contents

12.3.3 Spatial Stability Analysis 370

12.3.4 Nonlinear Effects 371
12.3.5 Viscous Effects 376
12.3.6 Cavitation 376
12.4 Planar Sheet Analyses 381
12.4.1 Linear Theory 381
12.4.2 Fan Sheets 385
12.4.3 Nonlinear Theory 385
12.5 Annular Free Films 396
12.5.1 Linear Theory 397
12.5.2 Nonlinear Theory 399
12.5.3 Effect of Swirl 401
12.6 “Conical” Free Films 402
12.7 Concluding Remarks 406

Appendix A The Field Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

Appendix B Conserved Scalars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

Appendix C Droplet-Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

Bibliography 427
Index 460
Preface

The fluid dynamics and transport of sprays comprise an exciting field of broad
importance. There are many interesting applications of spray theory related to
energy and power, propulsion, heat exchange, and materials processing. Spray phe-
nomena also have natural occurrences. Spray and droplet behaviors have a strong
impact on vital economic and military issues. Examples include the diesel engine and
gas-turbine engine for automotive, power-generation, and aerospace applications.
Manufacturing technologies including droplet-based net form processing, coating,
and painting are important applications. Applications involving medication, pesti-
cides and insecticides, and other consumer uses add to the impressive list of im-
portant industries that use spray and droplet technologies. These industries involve
annual production certainly measured in tens of billions of dollars and possibly
higher. Many applications are still under development. The potentials for improved
performance, improved market shares, reduced costs, and new products and appli-
cations are immense. Continuing effort is needed to optimize the designs of spray
and droplet applications and to develop strategies and technologies for active con-
trol of sprays in order to achieve the huge potential.
In the first edition of this book and in this second edition, I have attempted to
provide some scientific foundation for movement toward the goals of optimal design
and effective application of active controls. The book, however, does not focus on
design and controls. Rather, I discuss the fluid mechanics and transport phenomena
that govern the behavior of sprays and droplets in the many important applications.
Various theoretical and computational aspects of the fluid dynamics and transport of
sprays and droplets are reviewed in detail. I undertook this writing because no pre-
vious treatise exists that broadly addresses theoretical and computational issues re-
lated to both spray and droplet behavior. There are other books that address either
sprays on a global scale or individual isolated droplets on the fine scale. However,
no other book has attempted a true integration of these two critically related topics.
My research interests have focused on the theoretical and computational aspects of
the spray problem. Therefore, this book emphasizes those aspects. Major but not
total attention is given to the works of my research team because we have many re-
search publications and review papers on this subject. On the basis of these research

xi
xii Preface

studies over the years, a decent comprehensive portrayal of the field is achievable.
I have given some emphasis to liquid-fuel droplets and to combustion applications
because my experience is centered in that domain and, more important, because the
high temperatures and rapid vaporization make the dynamics of the phenomenon
much more interesting and general. Rapidly vaporizing sprays have a richness of the
scientific phenomena and several, often disparate, time scales. The discussions are
often also relevant to other important applications including materials processing,
heat exchange, and coatings. Because the field of droplet and spray studies is still
developing in terms of both science and technology, a critical review is undertaken
here.
This book was developed largely on the basis of my lecture notes generated dur-
ing several offerings of a graduate course. This treatise can serve both as a graduate-
level text and as a reference book for scientists and engineers.
All of the material from the first edition is retained here, although much of
it has been reorganized into different chapters. Attention is given to the behavior
of individual droplets, including the effects of forced convection that are due to
relative droplet–gas motion, Stefan convection that is due to the vaporization or
condensation of the liquid, multicomponent liquids (and slurries), and internal cir-
culation of the liquid. Flow-field details in the gas boundary layer and wake and
in the liquid-droplet interior are examined. Also, the determinations of droplet lift
and drag coefficients and Nusselt and Sherwood numbers and their relationships
with Reynolds number, transfer number, Prandtl and Schmidt numbers, and spac-
ing between neighboring droplets are extensively discussed. Results from droplet
analyses are presented in a manner that makes them useful as subgrid models in
spray computations. Several examples of spray computations for which these mod-
els are used are presented. The two-phase flow equations governing spray behavior
are presented in various forms and thoroughly discussed. Attention is given to issues
of computational accuracy and efficiency. Various configurations for spray flows are
studied. Droplet interactions with vortical and turbulent fields are analyzed. Droplet
behavior under near-critical and supercritical conditions is discussed.
In addition to updating and reorganizing the material from the first edition, new
content has been added. This second edition is more than 50% longer than the first
edition. More information has been added on the topics of droplet–droplet interac-
tions, the use of the mass-flux potential, conserved scalar variables, spatial averaging
and the formulation of the multicontinua equations, the confluence of spatial aver-
aging for sprays and filtering for turbulence, direct numerical simulations and large-
eddy simulations for turbulent sprays, and high-pressure vaporization processes. A
new chapter has been included on liquid-film vaporization as an alternative to sprays
for miniature applications. Another new chapter has a review of theory on liquid-
stream distortion and breakup, which is very relevant to spray formation.
My interactions over more than three decades with 13 postdoctoral associates
and 21 graduate students on the subject of sprays have been very productive, stimu-
lating, and instructive. These junior (at the time) collaborators are well represented
in the references. They are Boris Abramzon, Suresh K. Aggarwal, Nasser Ash-
griz, Rakesh Bhatia, Jinsheng Cai, C.H. “Jeff” Chiang, Gaetano Continillo, Sadegh
Dabiri, Jean-Pierre Delplanque, Amar Duvvur, Eva Gutheil, Howard Homan,
Preface xiii

Randall Imaoka, Inchul Kim, Pedro Lara-Urbaneja, C.K. “Ed” Law, D.N. Lee,
Steven Lerner, Jun Li, Mansour Masoudi, Constantine Megaridis, Carsten Mehring,
Kamyar Molavi, Gopal Patnaik, Satya Prakash, M.S. Raju, Roger Rangel, David
Schiller, Bartendu Seth, Simone Stanchi, Douglas Talley, Albert Tong, Guang Wu,
and Jinxiang Xi. Exciting interactions with senior collaborators are also recognized:
H.A. Dwyer, D. Dunn-Rankin, S.E. Elghobashi, G.J. Fix, D.D. Joseph, F. Liu,
V.G. McDonell, B.R. Sanders, E. Suuberg, and S.C. Yao are identified here. Several
federal funding agencies and industrial organizations have been supportive of my
spray research; special recognition for continuing support goes to Julian Tishkoff of
AFOSR; David Mann, Kevin McNesby, and Ralph Anthenien of ARO; and Gabriel
Roy of ONR. Here I am acknowledging only those who worked with me or sup-
ported me specifically in the area of sprays. There are many others to thank for
associations on other scientific problem areas. Also, I am thankful for the opportu-
nities for intellectual exchanges and friendship with many individuals from around
the world who have contributed to the disciplines of fluid dynamics, transport, and
combustion and/or to technologies for energy, power, and propulsion.
 Nomenclature

a droplet acceleration; constant of curvature in stagnation-point

flow; half of undisturbed sheet thickness
a, b constants in Eq. (1.3); variable parameters in Section 3.1,
Eq. (3.48); also constant parameters in equation of state (5.3)
A constant in Section 3.1; area
à liquid-vortex strength
bT , bM corrections to transfer number
B Spalding transfer number
BH energy transfer number
BM mass transfer number
Bo = ρl a R2 /σ Bond number
cl liquid specific heat
cp specific heat at constant pressure
C D, C L drag and lift coefficients
CF friction coefficient
d droplet diameter; distance of vortex from droplet path
D mass diffusivity; droplet center-to-center spacing; drag force;
orifice diameter
e thermal energy; correction in Section 8.3 for application of am-
bient conditions
e unit vector
E activation energy
Ei externally imposed electric field
f Blasius function; droplet distribution function (probability
density function)
fH defined by Eq. (3.72e)
fi fugacity of species i
F drag force per unit mass on droplet; friction force
F Di aerodynamic forces per unit volume on droplets
F, G functions defined in Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.44)

xiv
Nomenclature xv

Fr Froude number
G response factor for combustion instability; also Chiu group
combustion number
g acceleration due to gravity
g 1 , g2 functions defined in Section 3.1 by Eq. (3.44)
Gr = g R3 /ν 2 Grashof number
h enthalpy; heat transfer coefficient; scale factors; film thickness
In modified Bessel function of the first kind
k nondimensional constant in Section 3.1; also turbulence wave
number
k, l, m, n wave numbers
kE generalized Einstein coefficient
K constant in vaporization-rate law; constants in model equa-
tions; strain rate; cavitation number
K(t, t − τ ) kernel in history integral, Section 3.4
lc characteristic length for liquid-stream pinch-off
L latent heat of vaporization; differential operator; orifice length
Le Lewis number
m droplet mass
ṁ droplet mass vaporization rate
mf mass of fluid displaced by droplet or particle
mp mass of particle or droplet
Ṁ mass source term (rate per unit volume); vaporization rate per
unit volume for spray
MA1 , MA2 acceleration numbers defined by Eqs. (3.65) and (3.68)
n droplet number density; direction normal to interface; fuel
mass flux
ni number of moles of species i
n unit normal vector
N number of droplets; number of species in multicomponent
mixture; ratio of droplet heating time to droplet lifetime
N number of droplets in array
Nu Nusselt number
Oh Ohnesorge number
p pressure
Pe Peclet number
Pr Prandtl number
qα electric charge on droplet
q̇ heat flux
Q energy per unit mass of fuel
r spherical radial coordinate
r̃ cylindrical radial coordinate
r
nondimensional annular radius perturbation
rf flame radius
R droplet radius, radius of curvature of liquid sheet
R2 droplet-radii ratio
xvi Nomenclature

R gas constant
Re = RU/ν droplet Reynolds number (In discussions in which a Reynolds
number based on diameter or some special properties is used,
it is specified in the text.)
s nondimensional radius; transformed variable defined by Eq.
(9.14b)
S superscalar; weighted area in numerical interpolation schemes;
distribution function for radiative heat transfer; jet or droplet-
surface area
Sc Schmidt number
Sh Sherwood number
St Strouhal number
t time
tc characteristic time for liquid-stream pinch-off
T temperature
u, v velocity
uo mean jet velocity
U free-stream velocity; particle or droplet velocity; Bernoulli jet
velocity
v velocity in the argument of distribution function; specific vol-
ume
v velocity vector
V volume in eight-dimensional phase space; liquid volume; char-
acteristic velocity
ẇ chemical-reaction rate, fractional change per unit time
W molecular weight
We = ρl R(U) /σ Weber number
2

x spatial coordinate; stream coordinate in planar case

X mole fraction; position
y normal coordinate in boundary layer; transverse coordinate in
planar case
y liquid sheet centerline position
ỹ liquid sheet thickness
Y nondimensional sheet centerline position
Yn mass fraction of species n
z axial or downstream spatial coordinate in cylindrical coordi-
nates; spanwise coordinate
Z nondimensional temperature

Greek Symbols
α thermal diffusivity; wave phase; growth rate
β Shvab–Zel’dovich variables
γ reciprocal of Lewis number; fraction of radiation absorbed at surface and in
interior; ratio of specific heats
circulation
Nomenclature xvii

δ distance ratio in Section 6.3; thickness of oxide layer; fraction of radiation

absorbed at droplet surface; Dirac delta function; differential quantity
δ̃ upstream distance for application of boundary condition
δ99 the point, measured from the stagnation point, where 99% of the mass frac-
tion variation has occurred
 change in a quantity
U relative droplet velocity
ε radiative emissivity
εn mass-flux fraction for species n
ε0 electrical permittivity of a vacuum
η Blasius coordinate; nondimensional radius
θ void volume fraction; porosity; azimuthal angle
κ reciprocal of characteristic length of temperature variation
λ thermal conductivity; eigenvalues
µ dynamic viscosity; chemical potential
ν stoichiometric coefficient (mass of fuel per mass of oxygen); kinematic
viscosity
ρ density
ρr ratio of particle (or droplet) density to gas density
ρ̄ bulk density
σ surface-tension coefficient; Stefan–Boltzmann constant, nondimensional
vortex-core size
τ nondimensional time; viscous stress
τH droplet-heating time
τL droplet lifetime
τ∗ droplet-heating time with uniform temperature
φ velocity potential; mass-flux potential; normalized stream function; entropy
variable defined by Eq. (7.18)
φm metal volume fraction
φr ratio of acceleration numbers defined by Eq. (3.68)
ϕ generic variable
 fractional volume of fluid
χ ratio of effective thermal diffusivity to thermal diffusivity; ratio of thermal
diffusivities for slurry droplets
ψ liquid volume fraction; stream function
ω vorticity; frequency

Subscripts
0 initial condition
∞ condition at infinity
Al aluminum property
b boiling point Al (aluminum property); bubble
c critical conditions
e edge of boundary layer
eff effective value
xviii Nomenclature

F fuel vapor
g gas phase
H related to thermal transfer
i index for vectorial component; index for initial value
j index for vectorial component
k integer index
L lift
l liquid phase
M related to mass transfer
max maximum
m index for species; index for metal
mix mixture
n, p integers for numerical mesh points
N nitrogen
ox oxide
O oxygen
p particle
P product
r, θ, z components in cylindrical coordinates
s droplet-surface condition
T related to thermal transfer
wb wet bulb
+, − upper or lower liquid–gas interface

Superscripts
k index for droplet group
. rate or time derivative


derivative; perturbation quantity
 1 Introduction

1.1 Overview
A spray is one type of two-phase flow. It involves a liquid as the dispersed or dis-
crete phase in the form of droplets or ligaments and a gas as the continuous phase. A
dusty flow is very similar to a spray except that the discrete phase is solid rather than
liquid. Bubbly flow is the opposite kind of two-phase flow wherein the gas forms the
discrete phase and the liquid is the continuous phase. Generally, the liquid density
is considerably larger than the gas density; so bubble motion involves lower kine-
matic inertia, higher drag force (for a given size and relative velocity), and different
behavior under gravity force than does droplet motion.
Important and intellectually challenging fluid-dynamic and -transport phenom-
ena can occur in many different ways with sprays. On the scale of an individual
droplet size in a spray, boundary layers and wakes develop because of relative
motion between the droplet center and the ambient gas. Other complicated and
coupled fluid-dynamic factors are abundant: shear-driven internal circulation of the
liquid in the droplet, Stefan flow that is due to vaporization or condensation, flow
modifications that are due to closely neighboring droplets in the spray, hydro-
dynamic interfacial instabilities leading to droplet-shape distortion and perhaps
droplet shattering, and droplet interactions with vortical structures in the gas flow
(e.g., turbulence).
On a much larger and coarser scale, we have the complexities of the integrated
exchanges of mass, momentum, and energy of many droplets in some subvolume of
interest with the gas flow in the same subvolume. The problem is further compli-
cated by the strong coupling of the phenomena on the different scales; one cannot
describe the mass, momentum, and energy exchanges on a large scale without de-
tailed knowledge of the fine-scale phenomena. Note that, in some practical appli-
cations, these scales can differ by several orders of magnitude so that a challenging
subgrid modelling problem results.
Detailed consideration will be given to applications in which the mass vaporiza-
tion rate is so large that the physical behavior is modified. This is the most complex
situation, and therefore its coverage leads to the most general formulation of the

1
2 Introduction

theory. In particular, as the vaporization rate increases, the coupling between the
two phases becomes stronger and, as the droplet lifetime becomes as short as some
of the other characteristic times, the transient or dynamic character of the problem
emerges in a dominant manner.
The fast vaporization rate is especially prominent in situations in which the am-
bient gas is at very high temperatures (of the order of 1000 K or higher). Combustion
with liquid fuels is the most notable example here. The spray combustion regime is
a most interesting limiting case of the more general field of thermal and dynamic be-
havior of sprays. In the high-temperature domain, rapid vaporization causes droplet
lifetimes to be as short as the time for a droplet to heat throughout its interior. It
can be shorter than the time for liquid-phase mass diffusion to result in the mixing of
various components in a multicomponent liquid. The combustion limit is inherently
transient from the perspective of the droplet, richer in terms of scientific issues, and
more challenging analytically and numerically than low-temperature spray prob-
lems. Vaporization might still be longer than other combustion processes such as
mixing or chemical reaction; therefore it could be the rate-controlling process for
energy conversion.
The spray problem can be complicated by the presence of spatial temperature
and concentration gradients and internal circulation in the liquid. Interaction among
droplets is another complication to be treated.
There is a great disparity in the magnitudes of the scales. Liquid-phase mass dif-
fusion is slower than liquid-phase heat diffusion, which, in turn, is much slower than
the diffusion of vorticity in the liquid. Transport in the gas is faster than transport
in the liquid. Droplet diameters are typically of the order of a few tens of microm-
eters (µm) to a few hundreds of micrometers in diameter. Resolution of internal
droplet gradients can imply resolution on the scale of micrometers or even on a sub-
micrometer scale. Combustor or flow chamber dimensions can be 5 to 6 orders of
magnitude greater than the required minimum resolution. Clearly, subgrid droplet-
vaporization models are required for making progress on this problem.
Experiments have been successful primarily in resolving the global character-
istics of sprays. The submillimeter scales associated with the spray problem have
made detailed experimental measurements very difficult. If an attempt is made to in-
crease droplet size, similarity is lost; the droplet Reynolds number can be kept con-
stant by decreasing velocity but the Grashof number grows, implying that buoyancy
becomes relatively more important. Also, the Weber number increases as droplet
size increases; surface tension becomes relatively less important, and the droplet is
more likely to acquire a nonspherical shape. Modern nonintrusive laser diagnostics
have made resolution possible on a scale of less than 100 µm so that, in recent years,
more experimental information has been appearing. Nevertheless, theory and com-
putation have led experiments in terms of resolving the fluid-dynamical characteris-
tics of spray flows.
Classical texts on droplets, including burning-fuel droplets, tend to consider an
isolated spherical droplet vaporizing in a stagnant environment. In the simplified
representation, the liquid has one chemical component, ambient-gas conditions are
subcritical, and vaporization occurs in a quasi-steady fashion. The classical result
is that the square of the droplet radius or diameter decreases linearly with time
1.1 Overview 3

because heat diffusion and mass diffusion in the surrounding gas film are the rate-
controlling (slowest) processes; this behavior is described as the d2 law. These im-
portant phenomena are discussed in later chapters. Although most researchers are
now addressing these relevant and interesting factors that cause major deviations
from classical behavior, there are still some researchers who persist in the study of
the classical configuration. Here we will relax these simplifications, one at a time, to
gain a more accurate and more relevant understanding. Convective effects that are
due to droplet motion or natural convection and subsequent internal liquid circu-
lation are thoroughly studied. Transient heating (or cooling) and vaporization (or
condensation) that are due to changing ambient conditions, unsteady liquid-phase
diffusion, or unsteady gas-phase diffusion are analyzed. Multicomponent-liquid (in-
cluding emulsions and slurries as well as blended liquids) droplet vaporization is
studied. Near-critical and supercritical ambient conditions (and their effects on dif-
fusion processes, phase change, solubility, and liquid-surface stripping that is due
to shear) will be discussed. Interactions of droplets with other droplets and with
turbulent or vortical structures are analyzed. Distortion of the spherical shape and
secondary atomization of the droplets are also discussed. The effects of radiative
heating of the liquid and of exothermic chemical reaction in the gas film are also
studied.
Current texts do not explain in a unified fashion the various approaches to cal-
culation of the behaviors of the many droplets present in a spray. Efficient and ac-
curate methods for predicting the trajectories, temperatures, and vaporization rates
of a large number of droplets in a spray are discussed here. Sprays in both laminar
and turbulent environments are discussed.
Some comments about primary atomization and droplet-size determination are
given in Section 1.2. In Chapters 2 and 3, we discuss the vaporization of individual
droplets and study the phenomenon on the scale of the droplet diameter. Chap-
ter 2 considers the case in which there is no relative motion between the droplet
and the distant gas, and Chapter 3 covers the situation with a relative velocity. The
theoretical models and correlations of computational results for individual droplets
can be used to describe exchanges of mass, momentum, and energy between the
phases in a spray flow. The vaporization of multicomponent droplets, including
slurry droplets, is discussed in Chapter 4. Droplet behavior under near-critical or
transcritical thermodynamic conditions is considered in Chapter 5. Secondary at-
omization and molecular-dynamic methods are also discussed there. Interactions
among droplets and their effects on the modification of the theory are discussed
in Chapter 6. The spray with its many droplets is examined first in Chapter 7. The
spray equations are examined from several aspects; in particular, two-continua, mul-
ticontinua, discrete-particle, and probabilistic formulations are given. The choice of
Eulerian or Lagrangian representation of the liquid-phase equations within these
formulations is discussed, including important computational issues and the rela-
tionship between the Lagrangian method and the method of characteristics. Some
specific computational issues are discussed in Chapter 8. Some of the theories and
information in this book have already had an impact on computational codes; mod-
ification of the codes to address more recent advances should not be difficult. One
shortcoming, of course, is the limited experimental verification, as just discussed.
4 Introduction

Applications of the spray theory to special laminar-flow configurations are discussed

in Chapter 9. Turbulence–spray interactions are surveyed in Chapter 10. Vorticity–
droplet interactions and turbulence–droplet interactions have not yet been fully in-
tegrated into a comprehensive spray theory. These interaction studies are still active
research domains, and, so far, little application to engineering practice has occurred.
In Chapter 11, we discuss exchanges of mass, momentum, and energy between the
phases for a type of configuration other than droplets and sprays, i.e., liquid films.
In Chapter 12, current research is discussed for the distortion and disintegration of
liquid streams in processes leading to the formation of sprays. Important material on
the underlying governing field equations, use of conserved scalars, and a summary
of droplet models are given in the Appendices.

1.2 Droplet-Size Determination

The droplet size is an important factor in its behavior. Droplet shape is another fac-
tor with profound implications. Surface tension will tend to minimize the droplet
surface area, given its volume, resulting in a spherical shape for sufficiently small
droplets. The size of a spherical droplet will be represented most commonly by its
diameter d or radius R. In most sprays, droplets of many different sizes will exist.
Vaporization, condensation, droplet coalescence, and droplet shattering will cause
a temporal variation in droplet sizes. For a spray, a distribution function of the in-
stantaneous diameter f (d) is typically used to describe a spray. This function gives
the number of droplets possessing a certain diameter. Often an average droplet di-
ameter dm n is taken to represent a spray. In particular,

∞
f (d)dm dd
dm n =
0∞ n
. (1.1)
0 f (d)d dd

In practice, f (d) will not be a continuous function. However, for a spray with many
droplets (millions can be common), the function is well approximated as a contin-
uously varying function. One example of an average droplet is the Sauter mean
diameter d32 , which is proportional to the ratio of the total liquid volume in a spray
to the total droplet-surface area in a spray.
The aerodynamic forces on a droplet will depend on its size in a functional man-
ner different from the dependence of droplet mass on the size. As a result, smaller
droplets undergo more rapid acceleration or deceleration than larger droplets.
Heating times and vaporization times will be shorter for smaller droplets. Accuracy
in the initial droplet-size distribution is mandatory, therefore, if we wish to predict
droplet behavior. Unfortunately, we must currently rely mostly on empirical meth-
ods to represent droplet distribution; it cannot be predicted from a first-principles
approach for most liquid-injection systems.
Liquid streams injected into a gaseous environment tend to be unstable under
a wide range of conditions. An important parameter is the Weber number,

ρU 2 L
We = , (1.2)
σ
1.2 Droplet-Size Determination 5

where ρ is the gas density, U is the relative gas–liquid velocity, L is the character-
istic dimension of the stream, and σ is the surface-tension coefficient. The Weber
number (We) is the ratio of the aerodynamic force related to dynamic pressure to
the force of surface tension. Depending on the stream shape, oscillation of the
stream and breakup occur above some critical value of the Weber number. These
interface oscillations can occur at any wavelength, but some wavelengths will have
larger rates of amplitude growth. Below the critical value of the Weber number,
the surface-tension forces are large enough to overcome the aerodynamic force that
tends to distort the stream. So here, the basic shape of the stream is maintained with-
out disintegration. At higher Weber numbers, the aerodynamic force dominates,
leading to distortion and disintegration. This process is called atomization.
Disintegration or atomization typically results in liquid ligaments or droplets
with a characteristic dimension that is smaller than the original length scale asso-
ciated with the stream. Disintegration will continue in a cascade fashion until the
decreased length scale brings the Weber number for the resulting droplets below
the critical value for the droplets. Other parameters will affect the critical value
of the Weber number; they include the ratio of liquid density to gas density and a
nondimensional representation of viscosity (e.g., Reynolds number).
Practical atomization systems use a variety of mechanisms to achieve the criti-
cal Weber numbers that are necessary. Jet atomizers use a sufficiently large pressure
drop across an orifice to obtain the necessary liquid velocity. Air-assist and air-blast
atomizers force air flow as well as liquid flow. The critical Weber number depends
on the relative air–liquid velocity here. Some atomizers use swirl vanes for the liq-
uid or air to create a tangential component of velocity; this can increase the relative
velocity. Rotary atomizers involve spinning cups or disks upon which the liquid is
flowed; the centrifugal effect creates the relative velocity. Sometimes other means
are used for atomization, including acoustic or ultrasonic oscillations, electrostatic
forces, and the injection of a bubbly liquid. An excellent review of practical atom-
ization systems is given by Lefebvre (1989).
There are three general approaches to the prediction of the droplet sizes that
result from atomization of a liquid stream. The most widely used approach involves
the use of empirical correlations. Another approach requires the solution of the
Navier–Stokes equations or of their inviscid limiting form, the Euler equations, to
predict disintegration of the liquid stream. Often the linearized form of the equa-
tions is taken. The third approach assumes that, in addition to conservation of mass
momentum and energy, the droplet-size distribution function satisfies a maximum-
entropy principle.
In the first approach, it is common practice to fit experimental data to a number-
distribution function for the droplet radius or diameter. With the current level of the
theory, this is the most commonly used approach. The Rosin–Rammler distribution
equation governs the volume of liquid contained in all droplets below a given diam-
eter d. In particular, the fractional volume of liquid (d) is described as

d  

3

0 f (d ) dd db

∞ ≡ (d) = 1 − exp − , (1.3)
3 a
0 f (d) dd
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 We’ll get along with the Dardanelles now. All this will make pulp for
paper for the National Review.

“Imperial Cæsar dead and turned to clay

Now stops a hole to keep the wind away.”

Well, I left off at the “Miasma” that, imperceptibly to each of them in

the War Council, floated down on them with rare subtle dialectical skill,
and proved so incontestably to them that cutting off the enemy’s big toe
in the East was better than stabbing him to the heart in the West; and
that the Dardanelles was better than the Baltic, and that Gallipoli
knocked spots off the Kiel Canal, or a Russian Army landed by the
British Fleet on the Baltic shore of Schleswig-Holstein.
Without any doubt, the “beseechings” of the Grand Duke Nicholas
7
in the Caucasus on January 2nd, 1915, addressed to Kitchener in
such soldierly terms, moved that great man’s heart; for say what you
will, Kitchener was a great man. But he was a great deception, all the
same, inasmuch as he couldn’t do what a lot of people thought he
could do. Like Moses, he was a great Commissariat Officer, but he was
not a Napoleon or a Moltke; he was a Carnot in excelsis, and he was
the facile dupe of his own failings. But “Speak well of those who treat
you well.” I went to him one evening at 5 p.m., with Mr. Churchill’s
knowledge, and said to him as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty that if his
myrmidons did not cease that same night from seducing men from the
private shipyards to become “Cannon-fodder” I was going to resign at 6
p.m. I explained to him the egregious folly of not pressing on our
shipbuilding to its utmost limits. He admitted the soft impeachment as
to the seduction; and there, while I waited, he wrote the telegram
calling off the seducers. If only that had been stuck to after I left the
Admiralty, we shouldn’t be rationed now in sugar nearly a year after the
Armistice, nor should we be bidding fair to become a second Carthage.
We left our element, the sea, to make ourselves into a conscript nation
fighting on the Continent with four million soldiers out of a population of
forty millions. More than all the other nations’ was our Army.
The last words of Mr. A. G. Gardiner’s article about him who is now
dictating are these: “He is fighting his last great battle. And his foe is
the veteran of the rival service. For in his struggle to establish
conscription Lord Roberts’s most formidable antagonist is the author of
the ‘Dreadnought.’”
Well, once more resuming the Dardanelles story. These side-lights
really illuminate the situation. These Armies we were raising incited us
to these wild-cat expeditions. I haven’t reckoned them up, but there
must have been a Baker’s Dozen of ’em going on. Now, do endeavour
to get this vital fact into your mind. We are an Island. Every soldier that
wants to go anywhere out of England—a sailor has got to carry him
there on his back.
Consequently, every soldier that you raise or enlist, or recruit, or
whatever the proper word is, unless he is absolutely part of a Lord
Lieutenant’s Army, never to go out of England and only recruited, like
the Militia—that splendid force!—to be called up only in case of
invasion—as I say, every soldier that is recruited on any other basis
means so much tonnage in shipping that has to be provided, not only to
take him to the Continent; but it’s got to be kept ready to bring him
back, in case of his being wounded, and all the time to take him
provisions, ammunition, stores. Those vessels again have to have
other vessels to carry out coal for those vessels, and those colliers
have again to be supplemented by other colliers to take the place of
those removed from the normal trade, and the coal mines themselves
necessitate more miners or the miners’ working beyond the hours of
fatigue to bring forth the extra coal; or else the commercial work of the
nation gets diminished and your economic resources get crippled, and
that of itself carried in extremis means finishing the war. As a matter of
fact, it has nearly finished the English Nation—the crippling of our
economic resources by endeavouring to swell ourselves out like the
Frog in Æsop’s Fables, and become a great continental Power—
forgetting the Heaven-sent gift of an incomparable Navy dating from the
time of Alfred the Great, and God’s providing a breakwater 600 miles
long (the British Islands) in front of the German Coast to stop the
German access to the ocean, and thus by easy blockade killing him
from the sea as he was killed eventually. Alas! what happened? In the
House of Commons the British Navy is called a subsidiary Service. And
then Lord Rosebery doesn’t like my “frisking”; and cartoons represent
that I want a job; and fossil Admirals call me immodest!
 Mr. Churchill was behind no one both in his enthusiasm for the
Baltic project, and also in his belief that the decisive theatre of the war
was beyond doubt in Northern waters; and both he and Mr. Lloyd
George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, magnificently responded to
the idea of constructing a great Armada of 612 vessels, to be rapidly
built—mostly in a few weeks and only a few extending over a few
months—to carry out the great purpose; and I prepared my own self
with my own hands alone, to preserve secrecy, all the arrangements for
landing three great armies at different places—two of them being feints
that could be turned into a reality. Also I made all the preparations,
shortly before these expeditions were to start, to practise them
embarking at Southampton and disembarking at Stokes Bay, so that
those who were going to work the Russian Armies would be practised
in the art, having seen the experiment conducted on a scale of twelve
inches to the foot with 50,000 men.
(We once embarked 8,000 soldiers on board the Mediterranean
Fleet in nineteen minutes, and the fleet steamed out and landed them
at similar speed. Old Abdul Hamid, the Sultan, heard of it, and he
complimented me on there being such a Navy. That was the occasion
when a red-haired, short, fat Major, livid with rage, complained to me on
the beach that a bluejacket had shoved him into the boat and said to
him “Hurry up, you bloody lobster, or I’ll be ’ung!” I explained to the
Major that the man would have been hanged; he was responsible for
getting the boat filled and shoved off in so many seconds.)
I remember that at the War Council held on January 28th, 1915, at
11.30 a.m., Mr. Churchill announced that the real purpose of the Navy
was to obtain access to the Baltic, and he illustrated that there were
three naval phases. The first phase was the clearing of the outer seas;
and that had been accomplished. The second phase was the clearing
of the North Sea. And the third phase was the clearing of the Baltic. Mr.
Churchill laid stress on the importance of this latter operation, because
Germany always had been and still was very much afraid of being
attacked in the Baltic. For this purpose special vessels were needed
and the First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher, had designed cruisers, etc., etc.,
meaning the Armada. Mr. Lloyd George said to me at another meeting
of the War Council, with all listening: “How many battleships shall we
lose in the Dardanelles?” “A dozen!” said I, “but I prefer to lose them
elsewhere.” In dictating this account I can’t represent his face when I
said this.
Here I insert a letter on the subject which I wrote to Lord Cromer in
October, 1916:—

36, Berkeley Square,

October 11th, 1916.
Dear Lord Cromer,
To-day Sir F. Cawley asked me to reconcile Kitchener’s
statement of May 14th at the War Council that the Admiralty
proposed the Dardanelles enterprise with my assertion that he
(Kitchener) did it. Please see question No. 1119. Mr. Churchill is
speaking, and Lord Kitchener said to him “could we not for
instance make a demonstration at the Dardanelles?”
I repeat that before Kitchener’s letter of Jan. 2nd to Mr.
Churchill there was no Dardanelles! Mr. Churchill had been rightly
wrapped up in the splendid project of the British Army sweeping
along the sea in association with the British Fleet. See Mr.
Churchill at Question No. 1179.
“The advance of the (British) Army along the Coast was an
attractive operation, but we could not get it settled. Sir John French
wanted very much to do it, but it fell through.”
See Lord Fisher, War Council of Jan. 13th! Sir John French
then present—(3 times he came over about it)—“Lord Fisher
demurred to any attempt to attack Zeebrugge without the co-
operation of the British Army along the coast.”
As to the Queen Elizabeth, Mr. Churchill is right in saying there
was great tension between Kitchener and myself. He came over to
the Admiralty and when I said “if the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ didn’t leave
the Dardanelles that night I should!” he got up from the table and
he left! and wrote an unpleasant letter about me to the Prime
Minister! Lucky she did leave!! The German submarine prowling
around for a fortnight looking for her (and neglecting all the other
battleships) blew up her duplicate wooden image.
 Yours, etc.,
(Signed) Fisher.
Mr. Churchill is quite correct. I backed him up till I resigned. I
would do the same again! He had courage and imagination! He
was a War Man!
If you doubt my dictum that the Cabinet Ministers only were
members of the War Council and the rest of us voice tubes to
convey information and advice, ask Hankey to come before you
again and state the status!
Otherwise the experts would be the Government! Kindly read
what Mr. Asquith said on Nov. 2nd, 1915, in Parliament. (See p.
70.)

(We had constructed a fleet of dummy battleships to draw off the

German submarines. This squadron appeared with effect in the Atlantic
and much confused the enemy.)
Mr. Asquith also was miasma-ed; and it’s not allowable to describe
the discussion that he, I, and Mr. Churchill had in the Prime Minister’s
private room, except so far as to observe that Mr. Churchill had been
strongly in favour of military co-operation with the fleet on the Belgian
Coast, and Sir John French, on three different visits to the War Council,
had assented to carrying out the operation, provided he had another
Division added to his Force. This project—so fruitful as it would have
been in its results at the early stage of the war—was, I understand,
prevented by three deterrents: (1) Lord Kitchener’s disinclination; (2)
The French didn’t want the British Army to get into Belgium; (3) The
Dardanelles came along.
I objected to any Naval action on the Belgian Coast without such
military co-operation. Those flat shores of the Belgian coast, enfiladed
by the guns of the accompanying British Fleet, rendered that enterprise
feasible, encouraging and, beyond doubt, deadly to the enemy’s sea
flank. Besides preventing Zeebrugge from being fortified and the
Belgian Coast being made use of as a jumping-off place for the air
raids on London and elsewhere, with guns capable of ranging such an
enormous distance as those mounted in the Monitors, we could have
enfiladed with great effect all attacks by the Germans.
When we got to the Council table—the members having been kept
waiting a considerable time—the Prime Minister gave the decision that
the Dardanelles project must proceed; and as I rose from the Council
8
table Kitchener followed me, and was so earnest and even emotional
that I should return that I said to myself after some delay: “Well, we can
withdraw the ships at any moment, so long as the Military don’t land,”
and I succumbed. I was mad on that Armada of 612 vessels, so
generously fostered by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill and
sustained by the Prime Minister. They were of all sorts and sizes—but
alas! as they reached completion they began to be gradually perverted
and diverted to purposes for which they were unfitted and employed in
waters to which they were unsuited. Nevertheless they made (some of
them) the Germans flee for their lives, and with such a one as the
gallant Arbuthnot or the splendid Hood, who gave their lives for nothing
at Jutland, we might have had another Quiberon.
To resume: I gave Lord Cromer, the Chairman of the Dardanelles
Commission a précis of the Dardanelles case. It doesn’t appear in the
Report of the Dardanelles Commission. I forgive him that, because,
when in his prime, he did me a good deed. It is worth relating. I
entreated him to cut a channel into Alexandria Harbour deep enough
for a Dreadnought; and he did it, though it cost a million sterling, and
thus gave us a base of incalculable advantage in certain contingencies.
I will now shortly pass in review the Dardanelles statement that I
gave Lord Cromer. Those who will read this book won’t want to be
fooled with figures. I give a figurative synopsis. Of course, as I told the
Dardanelles Commission (Cromer thought it judicious to omit my
comment, I believe), the continuation of the Dardanelles adventure
beyond the first operations, confined solely to the ships of the fleet
which could be withdrawn at any moment and the matter ended—the
continuation, I explained to the Dardanelles Commission, was largely
due to champion liars. It must ever be so in these matters. I presume
that’s how it came about that two Cabinet Ministers—no doubt so fully
fed up with the voice tube, as it has been described—told the nation
that we were within a few yards of victory at the Dardanelles, and so
justified and encouraged a continuance of that deplorable massacre.
However, no politician regards truth from the same point of view as a
gentleman. He puts on the spectacles of his Party. The suppressio veri
and the suggestio falsi flourish in politics like the green baize tree.

Sworn to no Party—of no Sect am I:

I can’t be silent and I will not lie.

Before the insertion of the following narrative prepared by me at the

time of the Dardanelles Commission I wish to interject this remark:
When sailors get round a Council Board they are almost invariably
mute. The Politicians who are round that Board are not mute; they
never would have got there if they had been mute. That’s why for the
life of me I can’t understand what on earth made David say in the
Psalms “A man full of words shall not prosper on the Earth.” They are
the very ones who do prosper! It shows what a wonderful fellow St.
Paul was; he was a bad talker and yet he got on. He gives a bit of
autobiography, and tells us that his bodily presence was weak and his
speech contemptible, though his letters were weighty and powerful.
However, in that case, another Gospel was being preached, where the
worldly wise were confounded by the worldly foolish.
While my evidence was being taken before the Dardanelles
Commission, the Secretary (Mears) was splendid in his kindness to me,
and my everlasting gratitude is with the “Dauntless Three” who broke
away from their colleagues and made an independent report. They
were Mr. Fisher—formerly Prime Minister of Australia, (a fellow
labourer), Sir Thomas Mackenzie (High Commissioner for New
Zealand), and Mr. Roch, M.P. Their Report was my life-buoy; a précis of
their Report, so far as it affects me and which I consider unanswerable,
establishes that it is the duty of any Officer, however highly placed, to
subordinate his views to that of the Government, unless he considers
such a course so vitally antagonistic to his Country’s interests as to
compel him to resign. I know of no line of action so criminally
outrageous and subversive of all discipline as that of public wrangling
between a subordinate and his superior, or the Board of Admiralty and
an Admiral afloat, or the War Office and their Commander-in-Chief in
the Field.
 This Dardanelles Commission reminds me of another “cloudy and
dark day,” as Ezekiel would describe it, when five Cabinet Ministers, at
the instigation of an Admiral recently serving, held an enquiry
absolutely technical and professional on matters about which not one
of them could give an authoritative opinion but only an opinion which
regarded political opportunism—an enquiry neither more nor less than
of my professional capacity as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty. The
trained mind of Mr. McKenna only just succeeded in saving me from
being thrown to the wolves of the hustings. But it has inflicted a mortal
wound on the discipline of the Navy. Hereafter no mutinous Admiral
need despair (only provided he has political and social influence) of
obtaining countenance for an onslaught against his superiors; and we
may yet lose the decisive battle of the world in consequence.
The following is my narrative of my connexion with the Dardanelles
Operations.
“The position will not be clear and, indeed, will be
incomprehensible, if it be not first explained how very close an official
intimacy existed between Mr. Winston Churchill and Lord Fisher for
very many years previous to the Dardanelles episode, and how Lord
Fisher thus formed the conviction that Mr. Churchill’s audacity, courage,
and imagination specially fitted him to be a War Minister.
“When, in the autumn of 1911, Mr. Winston Churchill became First
Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Fisher had retired from the position of First
Sea Lord which he had occupied from October 21st, 1904, to January
25th, 1910, amidst great turmoil all the time. During Lord Fisher’s
tenure of office as First Lord, vast Naval reforms were carried out,
including the scrapping of some 160 ships of no fighting value, and
great naval economies were effected, and all this time (except for one
unhappy lapse when Mr. Churchill resisted the additional ‘Dreadnought’
building programme) Mr. Winston Churchill was in close association
with these drastic reforms, and gave Lord Fisher all his sympathy when
hostile criticism was both malignant and perilous. For this reason, on
Mr. Churchill’s advent as First Lord of the Admiralty in the autumn of
1911, Lord Fisher most gladly complied with his request to return home
from Italy to help him to proceed with that great task that had previously
occupied Lord Fisher for six years as First Sea Lord, namely, the
preparation for a German War which Lord Fisher had predicted in 1905
would certainly occur in August, 1914, in a written memorandum, and
afterwards also personally to Sir M. Hankey, the Secretary of the
Committee of Imperial Defence, necessitating that drastic revolution in
all things Naval which brought 88 per cent. of the British Fleet into close
proximity with Germany and made its future battle ground in the North
Sea its drill ground, weeding out of the Navy inefficiency in ships,
officers, and men, and obtaining absolute fighting sea supremacy by an
unparalleled advance in types of fighting vessels.
“Mr. Churchill then at Lord Fisher’s request did a fine thing in so
disposing his patronage as First Lord as to develop Sir John Jellicoe
into his Nelsonic position. So that when the day of war came Sir John
Jellicoe became admiralissimo in spite of great professional
opposition....
“This increased Lord Fisher’s regard for Mr. Churchill, and on July
30th, 1914, at his request, Lord Fisher spent hours with him on that fifth
day before war was declared and by his wish saw Mr. Balfour to explain
to him the Naval situation. This is just mentioned to show the close
official intimacy existing between Mr. Churchill and Lord Fisher, and
when, on October 20th, 1914, Mr. Churchill asked Lord Fisher to
become First Sea Lord he gladly assented to co-operating with him in
using the great weapon Lord Fisher had helped to forge.
 [By kind permission of “The Pall Mall Gazette.”
The Kingfisher.
“This bird has a somewhat long bill and is
equipped with a brilliant blue back and tail;
the latter not of sufficient length to be in the
way. Its usual cry is much like the typical cry
of the family, but besides this it gives a low,
hoarse croak from time to time when seated
in the shadows. Although exclusively a
water bird, it is not unfrequently found at
some distance from any water. It is very
wary, keeping a good look-out, and defends
its breeding place with great courage and
daring.”—Zoological Studies.
“Mr. Churchill and Lord Fisher worked in absolute accord until it
came to the question of the Dardanelles, when Lord Fisher’s instinct
absolutely forbade him to give it any welcome. But finding himself the
one solitary person dissenting from the project in the War Council, and
knowing it to be of vital importance that he should personally see to the
completion of the great shipbuilding programme of 612 vessels initiated
on his recent advent to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, also being
confident that all these vessels could only be finished rapidly if he
remained, Lord Fisher allowed himself to be persuaded by Lord
Kitchener on January 28th, 1915, to continue as First Sea Lord. That
point now remains to be related in somewhat greater detail.
“To begin with:—When exactly 10 years previously Lord Fisher
became First Sea Lord, on October 20th, 1904, that very day occurred
the Dogger Bank incident with Russia, and the Prime Minister made a
speech at Southampton that seemed to make war with Russia a
certainty; so Lord Fisher, as First Sea Lord, immediately looked into the
Forcing of the Dardanelles in the event of Russia’s movements
necessitating British action in the Dardanelles. He then satisfied himself
that, even with military co-operation, it was mighty hazardous, and he
so represented it at that time. The proceedings of the Committee of
Imperial Defence, however, will furnish full details respecting the
Dardanelles, especially Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson’s remarks when
Director of Military Operations, and also those of Sir N. Lyttelton when
Chief of the General Staff.
“But Lord Fisher had had the great advantage of commanding a
battleship under Admiral Sir Geoffrey Phipps Hornby when, during the
Russo-Turkish War, that celebrated Flag Officer lay with the British
Fleet near Constantinople, and Lord Fisher listened at the feet of that
Naval Gamaliel when he supported Nelson’s dictum that no sailor but a
fool would ever attack a fort! Nevertheless, Nelson did attack
Copenhagen—was really beaten, but he bluffed the Danish Crown
Prince and came out ostensibly as victor. Nelson’s Commander-in-
Chief, Sir Hyde Parker, knew Nelson was beaten and signalled to him
to retreat, but Nelson disobeyed orders as he did at St. Vincent and the
Nile, and with equal judgment.
“We might have done the same bluff with the Turks, had
promptitude and decision directed us, but procrastination, indecision,
and vacillation dogged us instead. The 29th Division oscillated for
weeks between France and Turkey. (See below my notes of the War
Council Meetings of February 19th and 24th.)
“Note.—See Mr. Churchill’s statement at the 19th Meeting of the
War Council on May 14th, 1915, that had it been known three months
previously that an English army of 100,000 men would have been
available for the attack on the Dardanelles, the naval attack would
never have been undertaken.
“The War Council met on May 14th, 1915, and certain steps
proposed to be taken by Mr. Churchill immediately afterwards, decided
Lord Fisher that he could no longer support the Dardanelles operations.
He could not go further in this project with Mr. Churchill, and was
himself convinced that we should seize that moment to give up the
Dardanelles operations. So Lord Fisher went.
“Lord Fisher’s parting with Mr. Churchill was pathetic, but it was the
only way out. When the Prime Minister read to Lord Fisher Lord
Kitchener’s letter to the Prime Minister attacking Lord Fisher for
withdrawing the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ from certain destruction at the
Dardanelles, Lord Fisher then realised how splendid had been Mr.
Churchill’s support of him as to her withdrawal. A few days afterwards
the German submarine that had been hovering round the British Fleet
for a fortnight blew up the wooden image of the super-Dreadnought we
had sent out there as a bait for the German submarines, showing how
the Germans realised the ‘Queen Elizabeth’s’ value in letting all the
other older battleships alone for about a fortnight till they thought they
really had the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ in this wooden prototype!
“It must be emphasised on Mr. Churchill’s behalf that he had the
whole Naval opinion at the Admiralty as well as the Naval opinion at the
Dardanelles with him—Lord Fisher was the only dissentient.
“It must be again repeated that though Lord Fisher was so
decidedly against the Dardanelles operations from the very first, yet he
was very largely influenced to remain because he was convinced it was
of vital importance to the nation to carry out the large building
programme initiated by him, which was to enable the Navy to deal such
a decisive blow in the decisive theatre (in Northern Waters) as would
shorten the war—by the great projects alluded to by Mr. Churchill at the
9th meeting of the War Council on January 28th, 1915, when he
described the Three Naval phases of the War, leading to our
occupation of the Baltic as being the supreme end to be attained.
“Had Lord Fisher maintained his resignation on 28th January, 1915,
the Dardanelles enterprise would certainly still have gone on, because
it was considered a matter of vital political expediency (see Mr.
Balfour’s memorandum of 24th February, 1915), but those 612 new
vessels would not have been built, or they would have been so delayed
as to be useless. As it was, by Lord Fisher’s leaving the Admiralty even
so late as May 22nd, 1915, there was great delay in the completion of
the five fast Battle Cruisers and in the laying down of further Destroyers
and Submarines, and, in fact, four large Monitors (some of which had
been advanced one thousand tons) that had been considerably
advanced were stopped altogether for a time and the further building of
fast Battle Cruisers was given up. Lord Fisher had prepared a design
for a very fast Battle Cruiser carrying six 20-inch guns, and the model
was completed. She was of exceptionally light draught of water and of
exceptionally high speed. He had arranged for the manufacture of
these 20-inch guns.
“It has also to be emphasised that that programme of new vessels
owed its inception to a great plan, sketched out in secret memoranda,
which it can be confidently asserted would have produced such great
military results as would certainly have ended the war in 1915.
“These plans were in addition to that concurred in by Sir John
French in his three visits to the War Council in November, 1914, for
joint action of the British Army and the British Fleet on the Belgian
Coast.

“Note.—See Note to 8th meeting of the War Council on

January 13th, 1915, where Lord Fisher demurs to any Naval action
without the co-operation of the British Army along the coast.”

I quote here a report of the opinion of Mr. Andrew Fisher, the High
Commissioner of Australia, and formerly Prime Minister of Australia; a
member of the Dardanelles Commission, on the duty of departmental
advisers:—

“I am of opinion it would seal the fate of responsible

government if servants of the State were to share the responsibility
of Ministers to Parliament and to the people on matters of public
policy. The Minister has command of the opinions and views of all
officers of the department he administers on matters of public
 policy. Good stewardship demands from Ministers of the Crown
frank, fair, full statements of all opinions of trusted experienced
officials to colleagues when they have direct reference to matters
of high policy.” I give prominence to this because Ministers, and
Ministers only, must be responsible to the democracy.
If they find themselves in conflict with their expert advisers they
should sack the advisers or themselves resign. An official, whether
a Sea Lord or a junior clerk—having been asked a question by his
immediate chief and given his answer and the chief acts contrary
to advice—should not be subjected to reprimand for not stating to
the board of directors that he disagrees with his chief or that he
has given a reluctant consent. If there is blame it rests with the
Minister and not with his subordinates.
“I dissent in the strongest terms,” says Mr. Fisher in his Minority
Report, “from any suggestion that the Departmental Adviser of a
Minister in his company at a Council meeting should express any
views at all other than to the Minister and through him unless
specifically invited to do so.”

Sir Thomas Mackenzie expresses exactly the same view.

Mr. Asquith, in the House of Commons on November 2, 1915,
said:—

“It is the duty of the Government—of any Government—to rely

very largely upon the advice of its military and naval counsellors;
but in the long run, a Government which is worthy of the name,
which is adequate in the discharge of the trust which the nation
reposes in it, must bring all these things into some kind of
proportion one to the other, and sometimes it is not only expedient,
but necessary, to run risks and to encounter dangers which pure
naval or military policy would warn you against.”

The Government and the War Council knew my opinion—as I told

the Dardanelles Commission, it was known to all. It was known even to
the charwomen at the Admiralty. It was my duty to acquiesce cheerfully
and do my best, but when the moment came that there was jeopardy to
the Nation I resigned.
Such is the stupidity of the General Public—and such was the
stupidity of Lord Cromer—that it was not realized there would be an
end of Parliamentary Government and of the People’s will, therefore,
being followed, if experts were able to override a Government Policy.
Sea Lords are the servants of the Government. Having given their
advice, then it’s their duty to carry out the commands of the political
party in power until the moment comes when they feel they can no
longer support a policy which they are convinced is disastrous.
Here follows a summary for the Chairman of the Dardanelles
Commission of my evidence (handed to Lord Cromer, but not circulated
by him or printed in the Report of the Commission):—

“Mr. Churchill and I worked in absolute accord at the Admiralty

until it came to the question of the Dardanelles.
“I was absolutely unable to give the Dardanelles proposal any
welcome, for there was the Nelsonic dictum that ‘any sailor who
attacked a fort was a fool.’
“My direct personal knowledge of the Dardanelles problem
dates back many years. I had had the great advantage of
commanding a battleship under Admiral Sir Geoffrey Phipps
Hornby when, during the Russo-Turkish War, that celebrated flag
officer took the Fleet through the Dardanelles.
“I had again knowledge of the subject as Commander-in-Chief
of the Mediterranean Fleet for three years during the Boer War,
when for a long period the Fleet under my command lay at Lemnos
off the mouth of the Dardanelles, thus affording me means of close
study of the feasibility of forcing the Straits.
“When I became First Sea Lord on October 20th, 1904, there
arrived that very day the news of the Dogger Bank incident with
Russia.
“In my official capacity, in view of the possibility of a war with
Russia, I immediately examined the question of the forcing of the
Dardanelles, and I satisfied myself at that time that even with
military co-operation the operation was mighty hazardous.
“Basing myself on the experience gained over so many years,
when the project was mooted in the present War my opinion was
that the attempt to force the Dardanelles would not succeed.
“I was the only member of the War Council who dissented from
the project, but I did not carry my dissent to the point of resignation
because I understood that there were overwhelming political
reasons why the attempt at least should be made.
“Moreover, I felt it to be of vital importance that I should
personally see to the completion of the great shipbuilding
programme which was then under construction, which had been
initiated by me on my advent to the Admiralty, and which included
no less than 612 vessels.
“The change in my opinion as to the relative importance of the
probable failure in the Dardanelles began when the ever-increasing
drain upon the Fleet, as the result of the prosecution of the
Dardanelles undertaking, reached a point at which in my opinion it
destroyed the possibility of other naval operations which I had in
view, and even approached to jeopardising our naval supremacy in
the decisive theatre of the War.
“I may be pressed with the question why did I not carry my
objections to the point of resignation when the decision was first
reached to attack the Dardanelles with naval forces.
“In my judgment it is not the business of the chief technical
advisers of the Government to resign because their advice is not
accepted, unless they are of opinion that the operation proposed
must lead to disastrous results.
“The attempt to force the Dardanelles, though a failure, would
not have been disastrous so long as the ships employed could be
withdrawn at any moment, and only such vessels were engaged,
as in the beginning of the operations was in fact the case, as could
be spared without detriment to the general service of the Fleet.
 “I may next be asked whether I made any protest at the War
Council when the First Lord proposed the Dardanelles enterprise,
or at any later date.
“Mr. Churchill knew my opinion. I did not think it would tend
towards good relations between the First Lord and myself nor to
the smooth working of the Board of Admiralty to raise objections in
the War Council’s discussions. My opinion being known to Mr.
Churchill in what I regarded as the proper constitutional way, I
preferred thereafter to remain silent.
“When the operation was undertaken my duty from that time
onwards was confined to seeing that the Government plan was
carried out as successfully as possible with the available means.
“I did everything I could to secure its success, and I only
resigned when the drain it was making on the resources of the
Navy became so great as to jeopardise the major operations of the
Fleet.
“On May 14th, 1915, the War Council made it clear to me that
the great projects in Northern waters which I had in view in laying
down the Armada of new vessels were at an end, and the further
drain on our naval resources foreshadowed that evening convinced
me that I could no longer countenance the Dardanelles operations,
and the next day I resigned.
“It seemed to me that I was faced at last by a progressive
frustration of my main scheme of naval strategy.
“Gradually the crowning work of war construction was being
diverted and perverted from its original aim. The Monitors, for
instance, planned for the banks and shallows of Northern waters,
were sent off to the Mediterranean where they had never been
meant to operate.
“I felt I was right in remaining in office until this situation, never
contemplated at first by anyone, was accepted by the War Council.
I felt right in resigning on this decision.
 “My conduct and the interpretation of my responsibility I
respectfully submit to the judgment of the Committee. Perhaps I
may be allowed to say that as regards the opinion I held I was
right.
Fisher,
October 7th, 1916.”

This is a letter which I wrote to Colonel Sir Maurice Hankey,

Secretary of the War Council:—

September 1st, 1916.

Dear Hankey,
In reply to your letter in which you propose to give only one
extract concerning my hostility to the Dardanelles enterprise, do
you not think that the following words in the official Print of
Proceedings of War Council should be inserted in your report in
justice to me?
“19th Meeting of the War Council, May 14th, 1915.—Lord
Fisher reminded the War Council that he had been no party to the
Dardanelles operations. When the matter was first under
consideration he had stated his opinion to the Prime Minister at a
private interview.”
The reason I abstained from any further pronouncement was
stated.
Yours, etc.,
(Signed) Fisher.
I note you will kindly testify to the accuracy of my statement
that I left the Council table with the intention of resigning, but
yielded to Kitchener’s entreaty to return.
Have you the letter I wrote on January 28th, 1915, to Mr.
Asquith, beginning:—
“I am giving this note to Colonel Hankey to hand to you ...,”
because in it occur these following words:—“At any moment the
 great crisis may occur in the North Sea, for the German High Sea
Fleet may be driven to fight by the German Military Headquarters,
as part of some great German military operation.”
It looks as if Hindenburg might try such a coup now.
I heard from Jellicoe a few days since that the Zeppelins now
made the German submarines very formidable, and by way of
example he pointed out that the “Falmouth” was torpedoed even
when at a speed of 25 knots and zigzagging every five minutes.

* * * * *
In some notes compiled on this matter I find it recorded that I was
present at the meeting on the 13th January, when the plan was first
proposed and approved in principle, and was also present at the
meeting on the evening of the 28th January, when Mr. Churchill
announced that the Admiralty had decided to push on with the project.
On the morning of the 28th January I said that I had understood that
this question would not be raised to-day, and that the Prime Minister
was well aware of my own views in regard to it.
After the failure of the naval attack on the Narrows on the 18th
March, I remarked at the meeting on the 19th March that I had always
said that a loss of 12 battleships must be expected before the
Dardanelles could be forced by the Navy alone, and that I still adhered
to this view.
Also, at the meeting held on the 14th May, I reminded the War
Council that I had been no party to the Dardanelles operations. When
the matter was under consideration I had stated my opinion to the
Prime Minister at a private interview.
Some light is perhaps thrown on my general attitude towards naval
attacks by the following remark, made at the meeting held on the 13th
January, which related, not to the Dardanelles project, but to a
proposed naval attack on Zeebrugge:—
I said that the Navy had only a limited number of battleships to
lose, and would probably sustain losses in an attack on Zeebrugge. I
demurred to any attempt to attack Zeebrugge without the co-operation
of the Army along the coast.
This note is here inserted because the Dardanelles operation
interfered with the project of certain action in the Decisive Theatre of
the War explained in a Memorandum given to the Prime Minister on
January 25th, 1915, but it has been decided to be too secret for
publication even now, so it is not included in these papers.
A Memorandum was also submitted by me on General Naval
Policy, deprecating the use of Naval Force in Coast Operations
unsupported by Military Force and emphasising the supreme
importance of maintaining the unchallengeable strength of the Grand
Fleet in the Decisive Theatre.

Lord Fisher to Colonel Sir Maurice Hankey

September 6th, 1916.

Dear Hankey,
I have only just this very moment received your letter, dated
September 4th, and its enclosure, for I had suddenly to leave the
address you wrote to on important official business....
The Prime Minister and Kitchener knew from me on January
7th or January 8th that I objected to the Dardanelles enterprise, but
I admit this does not come under your official cognisance as
Secretary of the War Council, consequently I cannot press you in
the matter.
If I ever am allowed hereafter to see what you have prepared
for Lord Cromer’s Committee of Inquiry I shall be better able to
judge of its personal application to myself.
I was told yesterday by an influential Parliamentary friend that
the likelihood was that all would emerge from the Dardanelles
Inquiry as free from blame, except one person only—Lord Fisher!
That really would be comic! considering that I was the only sufferer
by it, by loss of office and of an immense certainty in my mind of
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com