0
Research Papers

Emulsion Jet in Crossflow Atomization Characteristics and Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
Scott B. Leask

UCI Combustion Laboratory,
University of California,
Irvine, CA 92697
e-mail: sbl@ucicl.uci.edu

Vincent G. McDonell

UCI Combustion Laboratory,
University of California,
Irvine, CA 92697
e-mail: mcdonell@ucicl.uci.edu

Scott Samuelsen

UCI Combustion Laboratory,
University of California,
Irvine, CA 92697
e-mail: gss@ucicl.uci.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received June 25, 2018; final manuscript received June 27, 2018; published online December 4, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(4), 041025 (Dec 04, 2018) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1350; doi: 10.1115/1.4040744 History: Received June 25, 2018; Revised June 27, 2018

This work presents the atomization characteristics and dynamics of water-in-heptane (W/H) emulsions injected into a gaseous crossflow. W/H mixtures were tested while varying momentum flux ratios and aerodynamic Weber numbers. Different injector orifice diameters and orifice length-to-diameter ratios were used to test the generality of the results. The atomization properties of W/H mixtures were compared with properties of neat water and neat heptane to evaluate the effect of an emulsion on droplet sizing, cross-sectional stability and dispersion, and jet penetration depth. Liquid dynamics were extracted through analyzing instantaneous spray measurements and dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) on high-speed video recordings of the atomization processes. Correlations were proposed to establish preliminary relationships between fundamental spray processes and test conditions. These correlations allowed for emulsion behavior to be compared with neat liquid behavior. The use of emulsions induces greater spray instability than through using neat liquids, likely due to the difficulty in injecting a stable emulsion. Neat liquid correlations were produced and successfully predicted various spray measurements. These correlations, however, indicate that injector geometry has an effect on spray properties, which need to be addressed independently. The emulsions are unable to adhere to the neat liquid correlations suggesting that an increased number of correlation terms are required to adequately predict emulsion behavior.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lefebvre, A. H. , and McDonell, V. G. , 2017, Atomization and Sprays, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Wang, M. , Broumand, M. , and Birouk, M. , 2016, “ Liquid Jet Trajectory in a Subsonic Gaseous Crossflow: Analysis of Published Correlations,” Atomization Sprays, 26(11), pp. 1083–1110. [CrossRef]
Law, C. K. , 1977, “ A Model for the Combustion of Oil/Water Emulsion,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 17(1–2), pp. 29–38. [CrossRef]
Reitz, R. D. , and Bracco, F. V. , 1982, “ Mechanism of Atomization of a Liquid Jet,” Phys. Fluids, 25(10), pp. 1730–1742. [CrossRef]
Wu, P. K. , Kirkendall, K. A. , and Fuller, R. P. , 1997, “ Breakup Processes of Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflows,” J. Propul. Power, 13(1), pp. 64–73. [CrossRef]
von Kuensberg Sarre, C. , Kong, S.-C. , and Reitz, R. D. , 1999, “ Modeling the Effects of Injector Nozzle Geometry on Diesel Sprays,” SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0912.
Koo, J. Y. , Hong, S. T. , Shakal, J. S. , and Goto, S. , 1997, “ Influence of Fuel Injector Nozzle Geometry on Internal and External Flow Characteristics,” SAE Paper No. 970354.
Ohrn, T. R. , Senser, D. W. , and Lefebvre, A. H. , 1991, “ Geometrical Effects on Discharge Coefficients for Plain-Orifice Atomizers,” Atomization Sprays, 1(2), pp. 137–153. [CrossRef]
Sawa, N. , and Kajitani, S. , 1992, “ Physical Properties of Emulsion Fuel (Water/Oil-Type) and Its Effect on Engine Performance Under Transient Operation,” SAE Paper No. 920198.
Bolszo, C. D. , McDonell, V. G. , Gomez, G. A. , and Samuelsen, G. S. , 2014, “ Injection of Water-in-Oil Emulsion Jets Into a Subsonic Crossflow: An Experimental Study,” Atomization Sprays, 24(4), pp. 303–348. [CrossRef]
Wu, P. K. , Kirkendall, K. A. , and Fuller, R. P. , 1998, “ Spray Structures of Liquid Jets Atomized in Subsonic Crossflows,” J. Propul. Power, 14(2), pp. 173–182. [CrossRef]
Song, J. , and Lee, J. G. , 2017, “ Characterization of Spray Formed by Diesel-Water Mixture Jet Injected Into an Air Crossflow,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-64939.
Rolo, L. I. , Caço, A. I. , Queimada, A. J. , Marrucho, I. M. , and Coutinho, J. A. P. , 2002, “ Surface Tension of Heptane, Decane, Hexadecane, Eicosane, and Some of Their Binary Mixtures,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, 47(6), pp. 1442–1445. [CrossRef]
Tu, J. H. , 2013, Dynamic Mode Decomposition: Theory and Applications, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Ingebo, R. D. , 1957, “ Drop-Size Distribution for Cross Current Breakup of Liquid Jets in Airstreams,” Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, OH, NASA Technical Note No. 4087. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930085138

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Experimental images of different breakup regimes: (a) column, (b) bag, (c) multimode, and (d) shear breakup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Adapted regime map by Wu et al. [5] with conventional and effective values for heptane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Test liquid Cd values for (a) injector 6-2 and (b) injector 9-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Spray-averaged jet trajectories for injector 6-2 and test case 1 using conventional formulation from Table 3 based on V˙/A (i.e., not accounting for Aeff)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Φ = 0.6 emulsion spray evolution with (a) a well-mixed, uniform spray prior to an intermittent burst, (b) an intermittent burst occurs causing an increase in penetration depth, (c) a decrease in penetration finally occurs before returning to a state similar to (a)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Φ = 0.6 emulsion spray displaying (a) multimode breakup shortly before (b) surface breakup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Average change in spray area for the test cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Average change in jet trajectory for the test cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Mode 1 for (left) neat water and (right) Φ = 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Mode 2 for (left) neat water and (right) Φ = 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Jet penetration length average correlation with neat liquid data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Jet penetration length average correlation with emulsion data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Sauter mean diameter correlation with neat liquid data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Sauter mean diameter correlation with neat liquid and emulsion data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Spray-averaged SMD measurements for (a) injector 6-2 and (b) injector 9-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Spray-averaged cross-sectional spray area measurements for (a) injector 6-2 and (b) injector 9-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Cross-sectional spray area correlation with neat liquid data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Cross-sectional spray area correlation with neat liquid and emulsion data

Tables

Errata

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