0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: Combustion and Fuels

Numerical Simulation of Liquid Jet Atomization Including Turbulence Effects

[+] Author and Article Information
Huu P. Trinh

Engineering Directorate, NASA—Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812Huu.P.Trinh@nasa.gov

C. P. Chen1

Department of Chemical & Materials Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899cchen@che.uah.edu

M. S. Balasubramanyam

Department of Chemical & Materials Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 129(4), 920-928 (Mar 20, 2007) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2747253 History: Received November 03, 2005; Revised March 20, 2007

This paper describes numerical implementation and validation of a newly developed hybrid model, T-blob/T-TAB, into an existing computational fluid dynamics (CFD) program for primary and secondary breakup simulation of liquid jet atomization. This model extends two widely used models, the Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instability of Reitz (the “blob” model) (1987, Atomization Spray Technol., 3, pp. 309–337) and the Taylor-Analogy-Breakup (TAB) secondary droplet breakup of O’Rourke and Amsden (1987, SAE Technical Paper No. 872089) to include liquid turbulence effects. In the primary breakup model, the level of the turbulence effect on the liquid breakup depends on the characteristic scales and flow conditions at the liquid nozzle exit. Transition to the secondary breakup was modeled based on energy balance, and an additional turbulence force acted on parent drops was modeled and integrated into the TAB governing equation. Several assessment studies are presented, and the results indicate that the existing KH and TAB models tend to underpredict the product drop size and spray angle, whereas the current model provides superior results when compared to the measured data.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Comparison between numerical and measured tip penetration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Variations in spray angles versus back pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Predicted variations in spray shape, tip penetration, and drop size at t=2.5ms due to different back pressures using the T-blob/T-TAB model: (a) 1.1MPa, (b) 3MPa, and (c) 5MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Fuel injection velocity used in simulation for test case K

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Predicted and measured spray tip penetration for test case K

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Simulations and photographs of case K: (a) t=0.203ms, (b) 0.601ms, (c) 1.205ms, and (d) 1.8ms

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Drop size distributions along spray center line for test case K

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Off-centerline drop size distributions for test case K

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In