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

Time-Response of Recent Prefilming Airblast Atomization Models in an Oscillating Air Flow Field

[+] Author and Article Information
G. Chaussonnet

Institut für Thermische Strömungsmaschinen,
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT),
Kaiserstr. 12,
Karlsruhe 76131, Germany
e-mail: geoffroy.chaussonnet@kit.edu

A. Müller, S. Holz, R. Koch, H.-J. Bauer

Institut für Thermische Strömungsmaschinen,
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT),
Kaiserstr. 12,
Karlsruhe 76131, Germany

1Present address: JENOPTIK Robot GmbH, Monheim am Rhein, Germany.

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 5, 2017; final manuscript received July 7, 2017; published online August 16, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(12), 121501 (Aug 16, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1296; doi: 10.1115/1.4037325 History: Received July 05, 2017; Revised July 07, 2017

The present study investigates the response of recent primary breakup models in the presence of an oscillating air flow and compares them to an experiment realized by Müller (2015, “Experimentelle Untersuchung des Zerstäubungsverhaltens Luftgestützter Brennstoffdüsen bei Oszillierenden Strömungen,” Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany). The experiment showed that the oscillating flow field has a significant influence on the Sauter mean diameter (SMD) up to a given frequency. This observation highlights the low-pass filter character of the prefilming airblast atomization phenomenon, which also introduces a significant phase shift on the dynamics of SMD of the generated spray. The models are tested in their original formulations without any calibration in order to assess their robustness versus different experiments in terms of SMD and time-response to an oscillating flow field. Special emphasis is put to identify the advantages and weaknesses of theses models, in order to facilitate their future implementation in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes. It is observed that some models need an additional calibration of the time constant in order to match the time shift observed in the experiment, whereas some others show a good agreement with the experiment without any modification. Finally, it is demonstrated that the low-pass filter character of the breakup phenomenon can be retrieved by considering the history of the local gas velocity, instead of the instantaneous velocity. This might result in a higher simulation fidelity within CFD codes.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Planar model of the airblast atomizer, from Ref. [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Volume PDF of the spray superimposed with usual functions. E is the fitting error defined as ∫(f exp −ffit)2 dd.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Gas velocity (top) and SMD (bottom) of the generated spray

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

SMD of the generated spray versus the gas velocity, superimposed with the line of equation y = 1308x−0.6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Breakup mechanism proposed by Inamura et al. [11]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Breakup mechanism proposed by Eckel et al. [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Breakup mechanism proposed by Chaussonnet et al. [22]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Volume PDF with original model constants superimposed with the experiment under static conditions. Vertical dashed lines denote the SMDs.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Volume PDF of model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Volume PDF with model constants fitted on experiment. Vertical dashed lines denote the SMD.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Breakup time predicted by model 1 (), model 2 () and model 3 () superimposed with the gas velocity (line), at f = 62 Hz (top) and f = 500 Hz (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

SMD predicted by model 1 (), model 2 (), and model 3 () and measured in the experiment (line) at f = 62 Hz (top) and f = 500 Hz (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Illustration of the averaging procedure for two breakup event

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Breakup time including the velocity history predicted by model 1 (), model 2 (), and model 3 () superimposed with the gas velocity (line), at f = 62 Hz (top) and f = 500 Hz (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

SMD including the velocity history predicted by model 1 (), model 2 (), and model 3 () and measured in the experiment (line) at f = 62 Hz (top) and f = 500 Hz (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

SMD predicted by model 1 (), model 2 (), and model 3 () with calibrated time constant, superimposed with the experiment (line) at f = 62, 125, 250, and 500 Hz from top to bottom

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

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