Comparison of droplet evaporation models for a turbulent, non-swirling jet flame with a polydisperse droplet distribution

The current investigation aims to present the numerical results of a turbulent spray jet flame in the framework of Large Eddy Simulation. The injection of n-heptane liquid fuel is achieved through the use of a pressure-swirl atomiser generating a lifted spray flame. The evolution of the sub-grid probability density function of relevant scalars is accounted for by the Eulerian stochastic field method. A non-reactive spray computation is conducted in a preliminary stage. The simulation allows for a stochastic breakup formulation in combination with a stochastic dispersion model to confirm their predictive capabilities. This is achieved as the liquid properties such as droplet diameter and velocity profiles are found to be in excellent agreement between the simulated results and measurements. The main target of the work is to assess the performance of the most widely accepted evaporation models in a turbulent droplet-laden flame. In this paper, a detailed comparison of the evaporation models is conducted thanks to a recent development in measurement techniques which allow to permit the spray temperature profiles. The time-averaged droplet temperature across the spray flame is therefore investigated in order to validate several droplet vaporisation models. All the models under consideration are found to capture the formation of a double reaction zone flame and the measured lift-off height is reproduced within a satisfactory level of accuracy. This good reproduction of the flame morphology additionally confirms the performance of the pdf approach as a closure for the unknown turbulence-chemistry interaction in this type of spray flames. However, the simulated wet-bulb temperature in the hot burnt gas between the two reaction zones in addition to the profile along the spray centre-line show a large discrepancy when compared to measurements. This large difference thus requires further investigation both in the modelling of evaporation and in the accuracy of measurement techniques. (C) 2018 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.