4.6 Article

The influence of density ratio on the primary atomization of a turbulent liquid jet in crossflow

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 2079-2088

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2010.07.002

关键词

Atomization; Level set; Jet in crossflow; Jet penetration; Drop sizes

资金

  1. CASCADE Technologies Inc. [NavAir SBIR N07-046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we study the impact of density ratio on turbulent liquid jet in crossflow penetration and atomization if all other characteristic parameters, i.e., momentum flux ratio, jet and crossflow Weber and Reynolds numbers, are maintained constant. We perform detailed simulations of the primary atomization region using the refined level set grid method to track the motion of the liquid/gas phase interface. We employ a balanced force, interface projected curvature method to ensure high accuracy of the surface tension forces, use a multi-scale approach to transfer broken-off, small scale nearly spherical drops into a Lagrangian point particle description allowing for full two-way coupling and continued secondary atomization, and employ a dynamic Smagorinsky large eddy simulation approach in the single phase regions of the flow to describe turbulence. We compare simulation results obtained previously using a liquid to gas density ratio of 10 for a momentum flux ratio 6.6, Weber number 330, and Reynolds number 14,000 liquid jet injected into a Reynolds number 740,000 gaseous crossflow to those at a density ratio of 100, a value typical for gas turbine combustors. The results show that the increase in density ratio results in a noticeable increase in jet penetration, change in drop size distribution resulting from primary atomization, change in drop velocities generated by primary atomization in the crossflow and jet direction, but virtually no change in drop velocities in the transverse direction. (C) 2010 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据