Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:24:58.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical investigation of the breakup mode and trajectory of liquid jet in a gaseous crossflow at elevated conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2021

Y. Zhu Open the ORCID record for Y. Zhu [Opens in a new window] ,
X. Sun ,
V. Sethi ,
P. Gauthier ,
S. Guo ,
R. Bai  and
D. Yan
Y. Zhu*
Affiliation:
AECC Shenyang Engine Research Institute Department of Combustion Shenyang China and Cranfield University School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing Cranfield UK
X. Sun
Affiliation:
Cranfield University School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing Cranfield UK
V. Sethi
Affiliation:
Cranfield University School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing Cranfield UK
P. Gauthier
Affiliation:
Cranfield University School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing Cranfield UK
S. Guo
Affiliation:
AECC Shenyang Engine Research Institute Department of Combustion Shenyang China
R. Bai
Affiliation:
AECC Shenyang Engine Research Institute Department of Combustion Shenyang China
D. Yan
Affiliation:
AECC Shenyang Engine Research Institute Department of Combustion Shenyang China
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software STAR-CCM+ was used to simulate the flow and breakup characteristics of a Liquid Jet Injected into the gaseous Crossflow (LJIC) under real engine operating conditions. The reasonable calculation domain geometry and flow boundary conditions were obtained based on a civil aviation engine performance model similar to the Leap-1B engine which was developed using the GasTurb software and the preliminary design results of its low-emission combustor. The Volume of Fluid (VOF) model was applied to simulate the breakup feature of the near field of LJIC. The numerical method was validated and calibrated through comparison with the public test data at atmospheric conditions. The results showed that the numerical method can capture most of the jet breakup structure and predict the jet trajectory with an error not exceeding ±5%. The verified numerical method was applied to simulate the breakup of LJIC at the real engine operating condition. The breakup mode of LJIC was shown to be surface shear breakup at elevated condition. The trajectory of the liquid jet showed good agreement with Ragucci’s empirical correlation.

Keywords

Jet trajectorySimulationVOFBreakupElevated condition
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 125 , Issue 1291: The 25th ISABE Conference Special Issue – Part I , September 2021 , pp. 1519 - 1541
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Stickles, R. and Barrett, J. TAPS II technology final report – Technology assessment open report, Accessed April 11, 2020, from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/aircraft_technology/cleen/reports/media/TAPS_II_Public_Final_Report.pdf, 2014.Google Scholar
Wu, P.-K., Miranda, R.F. and Faeth, G.M. Effects of initial flow conditions on primary breakup of nonturbulent and turbulent round liquid jets, Atomization and Sprays, 1995, 5, (2), pp. 175–196. doi: 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v5.i2.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, P.-K., Kirkendall, K.A., Fuller, R.P. and Nejad, A.S. Breakup processes of liquid jets in subsonic crossflows, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 1997, 13, (1), pp. 64–73. doi: 10.2514/2.5151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, B.J. and McDonell, V.G. Penetration of a recessed distillate liquid jet into a crossflow at elevated pressure and temperature, ICLASS 2006 10th International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Kyoto, Japan, 2006.Google Scholar
Bellofiore, A., Cavaliere, A. and Ragucci, R. Air density effect on the atomization of liquid jets in crossflow, Combustion Science and Technology, 2007, 179, (1–2), pp. 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragucci, R., Bellofiore, A. and Cavaliere, A. Breakup and breakdown of bent kerosene jets in gas turbine conditions, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2007, 31, (II), pp. 2231–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Lin, Y., Xue, X., Gao, W. and Sung, C.J. Injection of liquid kerosene into a high-pressure subsonic air crossflow from normal temperature to elevated temperature, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, pp. 877–884, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eslamian, M., Amighi, A. and Ashgriz, N. Atomization of liquid jet in high-pressure and high-temperature subsonic crossflow, AIAA Journal, 2014, 52, (2), pp. 1374–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amighi, A. and Ashgriz, N. Trajectory of a liquid jet in a high temperature and pressure gaseous cross flow, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 2019, 141, (6), pp. 061019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, C.L., Sallam, K.A., Metwally, H.M. and Aalburg, C. Deformation and surface waves properties of round nonturbulent liquid jets in gaseous crossflow, Proceedings of 2005 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, FEDSM2005, pp. 2432–2436, 2005.Google Scholar
Li, X., Soteriou, M.C. and Hartford, E. High-fidelity simulation of high density-ratio liquid jet atomization in crossflow with experimental validation, ILASS Americas 26th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Portland, OR, 2014.Google Scholar
Li, X. and Soteriou, M.C. High fidelity simulation and analysis of liquid jet atomization in a gaseous crossflow at intermediate weber numbers, Physics of Fluids, 2016, 28, (8), pp. 082101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. and Soteriou, M.C. Detailed numerical simulation of liquid jet atomization in crossflow of increasing density, International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Elsevier Ltd, 104, pp. 214–232, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, F., Dianat, M. and McGuirk, J.J. Large eddy simulation of liquid-jet primary breakup in air crossflow, AIAA Journal, 2013, 51, (12), pp. 2878–2893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farvardin, E. and Dolatabadi, A. Simulation of biodiesel jet in cross flow, ICLASS 2012 12th Triennial International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.Google Scholar
Pai, M., Pitsch, H. and Desjardins, O. Detailed numerical simulations of primary atomization of liquid jets in crossflow, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Reston, Virginia, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, M., Arienti, M. and Soteriou, M. The impact of density ratio on the liquid core dynamics of a turbulent liquid jet injected into a crossflow, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 2011, 133, (6), pp. 061501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenzler, J., Lee, J. and Santavicca, D. Penetration of liquid jets in a crossflow, 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reston, Virigina, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X.-H, Huang, Y., Wang, S.-L. and Liu, Z.-L. Bag breakup of turbulent liquid jets in crossflows, AIAA Journal, 2012, 50, (6), pp. 1360–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar