0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Liquid Jets in Subsonic Air Crossflow at Elevated Pressure

[+] Author and Article Information
Jinkwan Song

Combustion Research Laboratory,
School of Aerospace Systems,
University of Cincinnati,
745 Baldwin Hall,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0070
e-mail: jinkwasg@uc.edu

Charles Cary Cain

Combustion Research Laboratory,
School of Aerospace Systems,
University of Cincinnati,
745 Baldwin Hall,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0070
e-mail: cccain@gmail.com

Jong Guen Lee

Mem. ASME
Combustion Research Laboratory,
School of Aerospace Systems,
University of Cincinnati,
745 Baldwin Hall,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0070
e-mail: Jongguen.lee@uc.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 10, 2014; final manuscript received July 24, 2014; published online October 28, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(4), 041502 (Oct 28, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1369; doi: 10.1115/1.4028565 History: Received July 10, 2014; Revised July 24, 2014

The breakup, penetration, droplet size, and size distribution of a Jet A-1 fuel in air crossflow has been investigated with focus given to the impact of surrounding air pressure. Data have been collected by particle Doppler phased analyzer (PDPA), Mie-scattering with high speed photography augmented by laser sheet, and Mie-scattering with intensified charge-coupled device (ICCD) camera augmented by nanopulse lamp. Nozzle orifice diameter, do, was 0.508 mm and nozzle orifice length to diameter ratio, lo/do, was 5.5. Air crossflow velocities ranged from 29.57 to 137.15 m/s, air pressures from 2.07 to 9.65 bar, and temperature held constant at 294.26 K. Fuel flow provides a range of fuel/air momentum flux ratio (q) from 5 to 25 and Weber number from 250 to 1000. From the results, adjusted correlation of the mean drop size has been proposed using drop size data measured by PDPA as follows: (D0/D32)=0.267Wea0.44q0.08(ρl/ρa)0.30(μl/μa)-0.16. This correlation agrees well and shows roles of aerodynamic Weber number, Wea, momentum flux ratio, q, and density ratio, ρl/ρa. Change of the breakup regime map with respect to surrounding air pressure has been observed and revealed that the boundary between each breakup modes can be predicted by a transformed correlation obtained from above correlation. In addition, the spray trajectory for the maximum Mie-scattering intensity at each axial location downstream of injector is extracted from averaged Mie-scattering images. From these results, correlations with the relevant parameters including q, x/do, density ratio, viscosity ratio, and Weber number are made over a range of conditions. According to spray trajectory at the maximum Mie-scattering intensity, the effect of surrounding air pressure becomes more important in the farfield. On the other hand, effect of aerodynamic Weber number is more important in the nearfield.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Becker, J., and Hassa, C., 2002, “Breakup and Atomization of a Kerosene Jet in Crossflow at Elevated Pressure,” Atomization Sprays, 12(1–3), pp. 49–67. [CrossRef]
Tambe, S. B., Jeng, S.-M., Mongia, H., and Hsiao, G., 2005, “Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflow,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-731. [CrossRef]
Elshamy, O. M., and Jeng, S.-M., 2005, “Study of Liquid Jet in Crossflow at Elevated Ambient Pressures,” 18th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Irvine, CA, May 22–25.
Rachner, M., Becker, J., Hassa, C., and Doerr, T., 2002, “Modelling of the Atomization of a Plain Liquid Fuel Jet in Crossflow at Gas Turbine Conditions,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 6(7), pp. 495–506. [CrossRef]
Elshamy, O. M., 2006, “Experimental Investigations of Steady and Dynamic Behavior of Transverse Liquid Jets,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Amighi, A., Eslamian, M., and Ashgriz, N., 2009, “Trajectory of a Liquid Jet in High Pressure and High Temperature Subsonic Air Crossflow,” 11th International Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ICLASS 2009), Vail, CO, July 26–30.
Geery, E. L., and Margetts, M. J., 1969, “Penetration of a High-Velocity Gas Stream by a Water Jet,” J. Spacecraft, 6(1), pp. 79–81. [CrossRef]
Mazallon, J., Dai, Z., and Faeth, G. M., 1999, “Primary Breakup of Nonturbulent Round Liquid Jets in Gas Crossflows,” Atomization Sprays, 9(3), pp. 291–312 [CrossRef].
Sallam, K. A., Aalburg, C., and Faeth, G. M., 2004, “Breakup of Round Nonturbulent Liquid Jets in Gaseous Crossflow,” AIAA J., 42(12), pp. 2529–2540. [CrossRef]
Madabhushi, R. K., Leong, M. Y., Arienti, M., Brown, C. T., and McDonell, V. G., 2006, “On the Breakup Regime Map of Liquid Jet in Crossflow,” 19th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Toronto, Canada, May 23–26.
Lakhamraju, R. R., 2005, “Liquid Jet Breakup Studies in Subsonic Airstream at Elevated Temperatures,” M.Sc. thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Brown, C. T., Mondragon, U., and McDonell, V., 2013, “Behavior of Alternative Fuels Injected as a Liquid Jet Into a Crossflow,” AIAA Paper No. 2013-0161. [CrossRef]
Ragucci, R., Bellofiore, A., and Cavaliere, A., 2007, “Breakup and Breakdown of Bent Kerosene Jets in Gas Turbine Conditions,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 31(2), pp. 2231–2238. [CrossRef]
Ingebo, R. D., 1985, “Aerodynamic Effect of Combustor Inlet Air Pressure on Fuel Jet Atomization,” J. Propul. Power, 1(2), pp. 137–142. [CrossRef]
Less, D. M., and Schetz, J. A., 1986, “Transient Behavior of Liquid Jets Injected Normal to a High-Velocity Gas Stream,” AIAA J., 24(12), pp. 1979–1986. [CrossRef]
Pontus, E., Raik, O., and Jens, K., 2006, “Experimental Investigations of a Low Weber Liquid Spray in Air Cross Flow,” 10th International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Kyoto, Japan, Aug. 27–Sept. 1.
Chou, W -H., Hsiang, L -P., and Faeth, G. M., 1997, “Temporal Properties of Drop Breakup in the Shear Breakup Regime,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 23(4), pp. 651–669. [CrossRef]
Wu, P. K., Tseng, L. K., and Faeth, G. M., 1992, “Primary Breakup in Gas/Liquid Mixing Layers for Turbulent Liquids,” Atomization Sprays, 2(3), pp. 295–317 [CrossRef].
Wu, P. K., Kirkendall, K. A., Fuller, R. P., and Najad, A. S., 1997, “Breakup Processes of Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflows,” J. Propul. Power, 13(1), pp. 64–73. [CrossRef]
No, S. Y., 2013, “Empirical Correlations for Breakup Length of Liquid Jet in Uniform Cross Flow—A Review,” J. ILASS-Korea, 18(1), pp. 35–43.
No, S. Y., 2011, “Empirical Correlations for Penetration Height of Liquid Jet in Uniform Cross Flow—A Review,” J. ILASS-Korea, 16(4), pp. 176–185.
Lozano, A., Smith, S. H., Mungal, M. G., and Hanson, R. K., 1994, “Concentration Measurements in a Transverse Jet by Planar Laser-Induced Fluorescence of Acetone,” AIAA J., 32(1), pp. 218–221. [CrossRef]
Ragucci, R., Bellofiore, A., and Cavaliere, A., 2007, “Trajectory and Momentum Coherence Breakdown of a Liquid Jet in High-Density Air Cross-Flow,” Atomization Sprays, 17(1), pp. 47–70. [CrossRef]
Adelberg, M., 1967, “Breakup Rate and Penetration of a Liquid Jet in a Gas Stream,” AIAA J., 5(8), pp. 1408–1415. [CrossRef]
Stenzler, J. N., Lee, J. G., Santavicca, D. A., and Lee, W., 2006, “Penetration of Liquid Jets in a Cross-Flow,” Atomization Sprays, 16(8), pp. 887–906. [CrossRef]
Elshamy, O. M., Tambe, S. B., Cai, J., and Jeng, S.-M., 2006, “Structure of Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflow at Elevated Ambient Pressures,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-1224. [CrossRef]
Herrmann, M., Arienti, M., and Soteriou, M., 2011, “The Impact of Density Ratio on the Liquid Core Dynamics of a Turbulent Liquid Jet Injected Into a Crossflow,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 133(6), p. 061501. [CrossRef]
Song, J., Ramasubramanian, C., and Lee, J. G., 2014, “Response of Liquid Jet to Modulated Crossflow,” Atomization Sprays, 24(2), pp. 129–154. [CrossRef]
Kihm, K. D., Lyn, G. M, and Son, S. Y., 1995, “Atomization of Cross-Injecting Sprays Into Convective Air Stream,” Atomization Sprays, 5(4-5), pp. 417–433 [CrossRef].
Rosin., P., and Rammler, E., 1933, “The Laws Governing the Fineness of Powdered Coal,” J. Inst. Fuel, 7(31), pp. 29–36.
Rizk, N. K., and Lefebvre, A. H., 1985, “Drop-Size Distribution Characteristics of Spill-Return Atomizers,” J. Propul. Power, 1(3), pp. 16–33. [CrossRef]
Lefebvre, A. H., 1989, Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere, New York, Chap. 3.
Wu, P.-K., Kirkendall, K. A., Fuller, R. P., and Nejad, A. S., 1998, “Spray Structures of Liquid Jets Atomized in Subsonic Crossflows,” J. Propul. Power, 14(2), pp. 173–182. [CrossRef]
Brown, C. T., Mondragon, U. M., and McDonell, V. G., 2007, “Investigation of the Effect of Injector Discharge Coefficient in Penetration of a Plain Liquid Jet Into a Subsonic Crossflow,” 20th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spary Systems, Chicago, IL, May 15–18.
Schetz, J. A., and Padhye, A., 1977, “Penetration and Breakup of Liquids in Subsonic Airstreams,” AIAA J., 15(10), pp. 1385–1390. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

High pressure chamber geometries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Test section geometry and diagnostic equipment focuses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The comparison between present data measured by PDPA and the correlation suggested by Ingebo [14]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The adjusted correlation of the mean drop size in terms of Wea, q, ρl/ρa, and μl/μa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The effect of the surrounding air pressure on the drop size distribution; (a) Wea = 500, q = 10 and (b) Wea = 1000, q = 10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The effects of the aerodynamic Weber number and momentum flux ratio on the drop size distribution; (a) Pa = 2.07 bar, q = 10 and (b) Wea = 250

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Changes of the several different forms for mean drop size with respect to change of surrounding air pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The relation between D32 and D63.2%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Instantaneous images at each surrounding air pressure with aerodynamic Weber number of 500 and q of 10; (a) Pa = 2.07 bar (transition), (b) Pa = 3.45 bar (transition), (c) Pa = 6.89 bar (transition), and (d) Pa = 9.65 bar (transition)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Instantaneous images at each surrounding air pressure with surrounding air pressure of 6.89 bar and q of 10; (a) Wea = 250 (multimode), (b) Wea = 750 (transition), and (c) Wea = 1000 (shear)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Jet breakup regime map at each surrounding air pressure; (a) Pa = 2.07 bar, (b) Pa = 3.45 bar, (c) Pa = 6.89 bar, and (d) Pa = 9.65 bar

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The trajectory correlations of spray for the maximum Mie-scattering intensity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Nearfield correlation change with respect to aerodynamic Weber number change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Farfield correlation change with respect to aerodynamic Weber number change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Nearfield correlation change with respect to surrounding air pressure change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Farfield correlation change with respect to surrounding air pressure change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison between volume flux measured by PDPA and Mie-scattering intensity taken by high speed camera; (a) volume flux and valid rate in Wea = 250 and 1000 and (b) corrected volume flux and Mie-scattering intensity profile

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