Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/etfs

On the influence of geometrical parameters on the spray characteristics of T

high shear injectors
Kuppuraj Rajamanickama,1, Aditya Potnisa,1, K.R. Sakthi Kumarb, D. Sivakumarb,
Saptarshi Basua,
⁎

a
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
b
Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India

ABSTRACT

We discuss the influence of geometrical parameters over the performance of high shear injector. High shear injector usually consists of a series of air swirlers (primary
and secondary) with diverging flare at the exit and centrally mounted fuel nozzle. In this study, we have considered only parameters pertaining to air swirler i.e.
geometrical swirl number (SNgeo), flow split ratio (γ), area ratio (Δ), flare angle (θ) and flow orientation of primary and secondary swirlers (co/counter rotation). The
above parameters were categorized into two paradigms, first, SNgeo, γ, Δ are designated as internal geometrical parameters, which induces variations in the bulk
Reynolds number at the exit. On the other hand, parameters like flare angle (θ), flow orientation doesn’t yield any variations in bulk Reynolds number. Time resolved
PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry; ~ 3500 frames/s) is employed to extract the topological structures of the flow field. The length scale (W/Df), which embodies the
radial extent of the recirculation zone is governed by near field swirl number (SN10) and Reynolds number for cases with variations in SNgeo, γ, Δ. Contrarily, with
variations in θ and flow orientation, (W/Df) is found to be a function of near field swirl number f (SN10) only. The spatial distribution of the spray shows linear
relationship with the W/Df. Finally, the droplet size spectrum obtained from 3D PDI (Phase Doppler interferometer) also shows insensitivity with respect to the
different test cases. This clearly indicates that in high shear atomizer configuration, spread of the spray can be altered without deterioration in uniformity and droplet
size distribution.

1. Introduction parameter in governing the topological structure of the spray and

Liquid fuel injection and atomization are crucial in the successful
operation of any combustion system [42,41]. Particularly, in gas tur-
bine combustors with highly turbulent swirling flows, the liquid fuel
must be distributed uniformly in the air stream to achieve an acceptable
range of premixing [21,23]. Hence, in addition to finer atomization,
uniform distribution of fuel is also critical in achieving a homogenous
mixture.
Most of the modern-day gas turbine engines utilize high shear swirl
cup/mixer to yield finely atomized spray [27,40,32]. In general, these
designs have two or three radial swirlers (see Fig. 1) with fuel injector
being mounted in a coaxial configuration. The thin liquid sheet dis-
charged from the fuel injector undergoes strong shearing action with
the airstream delivered by the swirlers. Droplet size, spatial uniformity
of the spray is strongly dictated by flow field at the swirl cup exit [39].
It is well known that the swirling flow field generated by swirl cup is
three dimensional in nature with complicated hydrodynamic topology
[26,22,31]. Furthermore, swirl flow exhibits a central toroidal re-
circulation zone (CTRZ) as a manifestation of the vortex breakdown
phenomenon [3]. The size of the CTRZ is considered as an important
subsequent flame dynamics [5]. The CTRZ in turn is influenced by
several geometrical parameters. The complete understanding of the
fundamental relationship between these parameters and topological
structures of the flow field is necessary for swirl cup design optimiza-
tion. Unlike normal flows, the swirl cup used in gas turbines has mul-
tiple swirlers namely primary and secondary. It is imperative to identify
the role of each swirler in such complicated configurations. It is cus-
tomary to utilize counter rotating swirling flows (i.e. swirl direction of
primary and secondary swirler is opposite to each other) in gas turbine
swirl cup to yield higher shear stress which essentially improves the
atomization quality. Several works [18,15] have been devoted towards
understanding the governing mechanisms between co and counter-ro-
tating swirl flows. For instance, [25] reported a decrease in the axial
extent of CTRZ with counter-rotating swirl as a manifestation of the
decay in tangential velocity. Spray characterization and combustion
studies conducted by [15] reveal that counter-rotating swirl has the
potential to yield lower droplet size and better flame stability. Fur-
thermore, the type of fuel injector (simplex, duplex, airblast) is also
found to play a major role in governing the spray topology [21]. Several
investigations [34,33,8,7] have been carried out to identify the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sbasu@iisc.ac.in (S. Basu).
1
Kuppuraj Rajamanickam and Aditya Potnis are equally contributed to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2019.109872
Received 17 May 2019; Received in revised form 8 July 2019; Accepted 9 July 2019
Available online 11 July 2019
0894-1777/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 1. High Shear Injector; (a). 3D cut-section illustrating main functional sections (1.) Simplex Injector (2.) Hollow cone spray (3.) Primary swirler (4.) Secondary
swirler (5.) Venturi (6.) Secondary passage (7.) Flare; (b). Longitudinal cross-section of injector.
functional relationship between the droplet size and nozzle operating
conditions. These studies proposed correlations to predict mean droplet
size in airblast atomizers.
Cohen and Rosfjord [6] investigated the influence of design para-
meters and fuel injector configurations in the performance of high shear
swirl cup. The major parameters being considered are primary and
secondary swirl numbers, flow split ratio, fuel injector configurations
(radial discrete jets, duplex injector, airblast injector). It is found that
spray patternation is more sensitive towards injector configuration than
the swirler geometry. In addition, they also reported the influence of
manufacturing and assembly related aspects of the injector and swirl
cup (i.e. misalignment in injector fixing, defects in injector orifice).
However, only very few studies ever made any attempt to investigate
the evolution of the flow field, patternation and droplet size as a
function of design parameters in high shear configurations.
Kilik [20] experimentally investigated the effect of blockage ratio in
flat and curved vane swirlers using hot-wire anemometry. The width of
the recirculation zone (CTRZ) is found to increase with blockage ratio.
However, in this study, only the air flow fields pertaining to various
designs have been reported. The parametric evaluation reported by
[35] also suggests that near field spray distribution is influenced by a
change in air flow pattern with respect to the various design config-
urations. Lin et al. [24] studied the effect of venturi profile and chev-
rons added to the venturi exit using high-speed PIV. It is found that
swirl strength is decreased with convergent venturi profile; hence, flow
field possesses lower turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) as compared to
other cases. In addition, the flow field acquired in reacting configura-
tion also suggests venturi with convergent profile to exhibit lower
dominant instability frequency. A monotonic increase in CTRZ width is
reported by [9] with an increase in flare angle. The turbulent kinetic
energy (TKE) maxima are observed at the center for lower flare angle
and the same is observed at the walls for higher flare angle. The un-
steadiness associated with the shear layers is found to be pronounced
for higher flare angle cases.
Though several researchers [9,24,12,27,16,17,4,19,37,13,38] at-
tempted parametric evaluation of various swirl cup designs; most of the
studies reported flow field without the presence of spray. In most cases
only droplet sizing is used as a criterion to rank the swirler designs.
However, information on flow topology, spatial distribution of droplets
in the spray (patternation) and droplet size are crucial to analyze the
sensitivity of the swirl cup.
2
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
1.1. Scope of this paper
The major idea of this paper is to understand the sensitivity of the
swirl cup with respect to design parameters. In a global sense, three
parameters namely, flow topology, spray patternation, droplet size
become crucial while selecting the atomizer. Strictly speaking, all these
parameters are highly coupled in nature. For instance, in this paper, we
will show how the spatial distribution of volume in the sprays is linked
with the size of the recirculation zone acquired from flow field data.
Here, one needs flow field data to delineate this phenomenon. Likewise,
the relationship between the flow field and resultant droplet size also
needs to be identified. Most of the past studies reported either flow field
data or only droplet size distribution or spatial volumetric distribution.
However, in this study, we have made an attempt to identify the
functional relationship between the above mentioned important para-
meters as function of various swirler designs.
In order to bridge the literature gap in swirl cup design, the paper is
organized as follows,
First, we have used PIV to rigorously characterize the evolution of
flow field topologies w.r.t different design parameters. Specifically, we
have characterized the flow field in the presence of sprays. This enabled
us to identify the optimal proportions of liquid and air flow rate at
which one retain the swirl flow structure. We have carefully selected
the design space as functions of swirl number and Reynolds number. It
is known that the size of the recirculation zone governs the spatial
distribution of volume in the sprays. Hence, one needs to know how the
design parameters govern the size of recirculation zone. We have elu-
cidated this in greater details in Section 4.
In Section 5, we have shown the linkage between spray patternation
and recirculation zone size. Finally, the influence of swirl cup design
over the droplet size distribution is delineated in Section 6. We have
quantitatively shown the relationship between flow field topology,
spray patternation and droplet size distribution.
2. Parametric space and experimental setup
2.1. High shear injector design and configurations
The high shear injectors consist of a simplex nozzle assembled co-
axially with the swirl-cup. Fig. 1 shows the internal structure of the
injector. The major difference between the high shear and low shear
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
injector lies with the intensity of shear [6]. In common practice, fuel
nozzles which have two or more swirlers are usually referred to as high
shear injectors. The nozzle used in this study has been a widely adopted
injector configuration in several gas turbine engines [43]. Hence, in
order to understand the influence of various geometrical parameters in
a realistic configuration, we have chosen this particular design. The
skeleton for this nozzle is adopted from [12,15,9,24].
The swirl cup is comprised of two radial swirlers, primary and
secondary. The simplex nozzle injects a hollow cone spray generated by
liquid pressure and angled internal passages. Swirling air stream gen-
erated by the primary swirler interacts with the hollow cone spray
further atomizing and centrifuging the droplets onto the venturi sur-
face. In common practise, simplex nozzle exit plane will be usually
flushed with primary swirler entry plane, here also, we have followed
the same practice. The spray impinges on the venturi forming a thin
film. Filming on the venturi under the centrifuging effect of swirling air,
increases the probability of uniform film thickness and better symmetry
of spray in the azimuthal plane. Primary air flows to the venturi exit
thinning the film along the profiled surface. Incoming air from the
secondary swirler merges with the primary swirling flow exiting the
venturi. The interaction of these two swirling flows results in high shear
and turbulence. The atomized spray exits swirl cup via divergent flare
(part 7 in Fig. 1a). In common practice, it is customary to add additional
linear section between the venturi and divergent portion of the flare. It
is usually refereed as mixing length (ML). The term ‘mixing length’
refers to the additional linear length over which the flow travels from
the swirler exit before it reaches the divergent portion of the Flare.
The flow subsequently exits the swirl cup through the flare. The
flare exit angle dictates the radial expansion of flow.
The swirl-cups were designed using modelling software (CATIA V5)
and manufactured via 3D printing using Polylactic Acid using Selective
Laser Sintering. 3D printing enabled creating identical models without
any misalignments or inaccuracies in assembly. The following geo-
metric parameters responsible for maximum variations in flow field and
spray topology are listed below:
1) Split Ratio of Area of Primary swirler to Area of Secondary Swirler
(γ)
2) The ratio of Total Inlet area/Total exit area = (Area of Primary
swirler + area of Secondary swirler)/Cross-sectional Area at Flare
Exit (Δ)
3) Swirl Number of Secondary Swirler (Swirl number of Primary
swirler is kept unchanged) (SNsec)
4) Flare exit angle (θ)
5) Mixing length (η)
6) Swirler configuration: Co-Rotation (COR) or Counter-Rotation (CR)
It is to be noted that the equivalent area of a swirler is calculated as
the minimum cross-sectional area between two adjacent swirler blades,
times the number of blades as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b). Minimum
cross-section area between blades governs the velocity of the flow
through the swirler. The same is considered when calculating the
equivalent area. Additionally, as illustrated in Fig. 2, change in blade
angle changes the minimum cross-sectional area and specifically does
not change the inlet or outlet area of swirler. Hence it is pertinent to
consider the influence of minimum cross-sectional area between blades
for characterizing flow behavior. Thus, the first parameter (γ) is de-
termined by varying the ratio of the height of the two swirlers (hpri, hsec;
see Fig. 1b) keeping total inlet area constant. Total inlet area is the sum
of equivalent areas of primary and secondary swirlers.
Exit area of the injector is kept fixed for all configurations. Ratio of
the area of primary swirler to that of secondary counterpart determines
the split in the volume of air between the two swirlers. This in-turn
affects the momentum ratio of air streams that mix at venturi exit. The
second parameter (Δ) is varied by changing the total inlet area for a
fixed split ratio of 40:60. Value of Δ determines flow velocity of air at
3
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
swirler entry. The third parameter (SNsec) is the geometric swirl number
of the secondary swirler. Geometric swirl number (SNgeo) is defined
using only geometrical characteristics of the swirler. It is a close ap-
proximation of the flow swirl number (SN) defined using experimen-
tally observed quantities and is illustrated in Eq. (1). It should be noted
that SNgeo is valid at a location near the swirler exit. In the absence of
any other geometrical feature such as venturi, SNgeo quantifies the re-
lative strength of swirl produced by the swirler. SNgeo is calculated
using Eq. (2) derived for radial swirlers by [36].
Ro
0
Uy U 2 r 2dr
SN =
Ro
R 0
Uy2 2 rdr (1)
where Uy is axial velocity; U is the tangential velocity; R is the char-
acteristic radius (radius of flare exit), Ro is the outer radius of the flow
at the particular axial location. The numerator denotes axial flux of
tangential momentum and denominator is radius times axial flux of
axial momentum.
1 tan
SNgeo = 0.28. ·
1 1 + tan · tan ( / z ) (2)
where is the swirler blade angle; Z is the number of blades; is the
blockage factor,
Blockage factor ( ) can be written as
Z. t
=
2· · Rinner · cos (3)
where t is blade thickness (mm); Rinner is the swirler inner radius (mm).
In this study, SNsec is varied by only changing the swirler blade
angle. Change in blade angle results in a corresponding change in
minimum distance between blades and thus the equivalent area of
swirler also changes as shown in Fig. 2(b–d). The height of swirler is
modified to compensate for the change in minimum distance between
blades to ensure that the equivalent area of the swirler is unchanged.
The fourth and fifth parameters, namely the flare exit angle (θ) and
mixing length (η) are varied with the help of interchangeable flares
(Fig. 3(a)). θ controls the direction of flow at exit i.e. the degree of flow
expansion which in-turn determines the spray cone angle. η governs the
zone available for the interaction of primary and secondary air streams
to mix within the swirl cup. The sixth parameter is the relative direction
of rotation between the two radial swirlers i.e. co-rotation (COR) or
counter-rotation (CR). The blade directions in both configurations are
illustrated in (Fig. 3(c)). The configurations are listed in Table 2. One
configuration was selected as a benchmark to study the effects of
parametric variations. This configuration is termed as a BASE and is
indicated in Table 1. Values of the parameters of the BASE configura-
tion are: Counter Rotation, SNsec = 1.143, γ = 40:60, Δ = 0.194,
θ = 50°, η = 5 mm. Rest of the configurations are designed by varying
the parameters marked in bold and keeping values of all other para-
meters unchanged (see Table 1).
3. Experimental setup
The experimental setup is illustrated in Fig. 4. The high shear in-
jector was mounted in an air plenum. The plenum had provision for
interchanging of swirl cup without disturbing the relative position of
the simplex nozzle. The plenum was supplied air from a high-pressure
line through a pressure regulator and a mass-flow controller (Alicat
Inc., accuracy ± 0.8%). The liquid used was water. Water delivery
system consisted of a water reservoir, pump, inline filters, and an inline
flowmeter (range: 0 to 5 lpm, accuracy ± 1%) for metering. Air flow-
rate and liquid flowrate were maintained at 3000 lpm and 250 mlpm
respectively and were kept constant for the whole study. The complete
injector setup was mounted over a large chamber for collection of
spray. The chamber was sufficiently large to avoid any wall effects. All
experiments were carried out in a non-reactive, unconfined
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 2. Illustration of change in equivalent area of swirler due to change in minimum distance between blades with varying swirl number. (no change in distance
between blades at inlet and outlet); (a). Blade Area at Swirler Inlet, Outlet and Minimum cross-section; (b). CR, SNsec = 0.79; (c). BASE; (d). CR, SNsec = 1.75
where:
environment at ambient pressure and temperature.
During this study, high-speed PIV, high-speed shadowgraphy, PDI
and patternation were employed to characterize the spray produced by
the injectors.
3.1. High-speed PIV
High-speed PIV was used to determine the instantaneous velocity
flowfield in the central longitudinal plane, downstream of the high
shear injector exit. A dual pulsed high repetition rate (~10 KHz) Nd:
YLF laser (with a wavelength of 527 nm and pulse energy of 30 mJ) was
used as an illumination source. The cylindrical beam from the laser
head was oriented using a fibre optic arm and converted to a thin sheet
of ~1 mm thickness using sheet making optics. A high-speed camera
(Model-Photron SA5) was oriented orthogonal to the laser sheet and
used to record the mie scattered raw images in double frame mode.
These raw images were acquired at 3.5 KHz with an acquisition time of
0.57 secs (i.e. 2000 images were considered for each test case). The
camera sensor resolution was 1024 × 1024 pixels with a rectangular
field of view of 130 mm × 130 mm; a spatial resolution of roughly
8 pixels/mm was obtained.
The complete PIV system was controlled and synchronized using a
high-speed programmable timing unit (PTU). Lavision’s Davis 8.4 was
used for control, data acquisition, vector reconstruction, and post pro-
cessing. The time interval between two pulses was chosen to be 5 µsecs.
This interval was optimized for an average local flow velocity of
~30 m/s such that maximum particle displacement lay within 1/4th of
the initial interrogation window. Vector reconstruction was carried out
using cross-correlation mode with an adaptive multi-pass algorithm
4
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
.
with decreasing size of the interrogation window. The initial and final
interrogation windows were selected as 64 × 64 pixels and
48 × 48 pixels with two passes each with a 50% overlap for the smaller
window. Velocity vectors thus calculated were filtered using a median
filter to remove spurious values. Uncertainty in velocity vectors was
carried out in Davis 8.4 using correlation statistics and the error is re-
ported to be roughly ± 1% of local velocity values.
Droplets produced by the high shear injector was used to scatter the
incident laser sheet without any external seeding. However, for estab-
lishing that the resultant flowfield is greatly influenced by the presence
of spray, high speed PIV was carried out with and without spray by
seeding the air using Alumina powder (size ~ 4 µm). In the absence of
spray, flow at the injector exit shows an average velocity up of 30 m/s
or higher. This is attributed to the deceleration of bulk flow caused by
the transfer of momentum from air to liquid thus proving that PIV with
spray is a necessity. Thus, all PIV investigations carried out as a part of
this study were conducted only in presence of spray and without any
external seeding.
3.2. Particle doppler interferometry
Phase Doppler interferometry (PDI) was used to determine the
droplet size distribution and droplet velocities in three dimensions.
Sampling locations were selected in a rectangular grid in the long-
itudinal plane along the axis of the injector, from 10 mm (y/D = 0.22)
till 60 mm (y/D = 1.33) downstream of flare exit, from the centreline
till 100 mm (r/D = 2.22). Measurements were carried in the radial di-
rection in steps of 5 mm (r/D = 0.11) while it was 10 mm (y/D = 0.22)
increment in the axial direction. Close to the injector exit, droplet
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 3. Illustration of parametric space; (a). Flare angle and Mixing Length; (b). Equivalent area of swirlers; (c). Swirl Configurations; (d). Swirler Blade Angle; (e). C/
s of the assembled high shear injector.
distribution varied significantly with changes in probe location, so a
relatively fine resolution was chosen for sampling in the radial direc-
tion.
The three-dimensional PDI (Make- Atrium Technologies Inc) system
was mounted on an automated traverse as shown in Fig. 6. The PDI
setup consisted of two transmitters emitting two (532 nm and 473 nm)
and one (561 nm) laser beams respectively along with a single receiver.
An optical lens with focal length 750 mm was used in both transmitters
5
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
and the receiver. The transmitters were aligned 30° on either side of the
axis as it was the optimal position for recording maximum scattered
light due to Mie scattering [2]. The lasers were aligned to meet at a
single point which was the measurement probe location. An oscillo-
scope was employed along with the PDI setup to check the signal output
from the receiver. The signal to noise ratio was maintained such
that > 90% of the droplets passing through were recorded successfully.
K. Rajamanickam, et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Table 1 ¯
a (Um . area )swirler (Dh )swirler
(Re)P , S =
Details of BASE injector geometry. µa (4)
Primary Swirler Secondary Swirler
P, S – stands for primary and secondary swirlers
Blade Details
Blade angle (°) 70 75
No. of blades 14 14 where (Um .¯area )swirler represents the bulk velocity at minium cross section
Thickness (mm) 1 1 area inside the primary/secondary swirler. As illsutared in Fig. 2b–d,
Dimension while changing the blade angle to vary the swirl number (SNgeo), inlet
Outer Dia (mm) 45 45 and outlet areas do not change. However, varaitions are observed with
Inner Dia (mm) 32 34 minimum area, hence, the same has been used in the Eq. (4).
Height (mm) 7.5 7.5
Geo. Swirl Number (SNgeo) 0.79 1.143 Qa
Flow split ratio 40.29% 59.71% (Um .¯area )swirler =
Aswirler (5)
3
Here represents flow split ratio; Qa - volumetric flow rate (m /s);
3.3. Spray patternation Aswirler – mimimum cross sectional area inside the swirler (m2).

Mechanical patternation was carried out for obtaining the spatial Aswirler
(Dh)swirler 2
distribution of spray in planes perpendicular to injector axis (R-θ Pswirler (6)
planes; see Fig. 5). The patternator had a grid size of 12 × 12% of the
droplets passing through were cells with each square cell of side 20 mm (Dh)swirler 2
((BladeDistminimum)swirler *hswirler )
and depth 50 mm. The edges of cells were provided with a chamfer at (BladeDistminimum)swirler + hswirler ) (7)
45° to reduce the occurrence of droplets bouncing off on impact. Each
(Dh)swirler – hydraulic diameter of swirler (m); Pswirler – perimeter of the
cell drained into a collection chamber. The volume of collected liquid
swirler (m); hswirler – height of the swirler (m) (see Fig. 1b.
was measured using measuring cylinders (accuracy 0.2 ml). The liquid
was collected for a maximum of 10 min. The time for the collection was ¯
a (Um . a .)total (Dh )total
recorded using a stopwatch. For each run, the volume collected per cell (Rem . area)total =
µa (8)
was normalized with the total volume collected in all the cells for that
run. The total volume of liquid sprayed by the high shear injector over a Qa
(U¯m . area .)total =
given time interval was calculated using the liquid flowrate (250 mlpm) (Aswirler )pri + (Aswirler )sec (9)
and checked manually using a measuring flask. The collection effi-
ciency for each run was calculated as follows. Apri + Asec
(Dh)total 2
Volume Collected Ppri + Psec (10)
Collection Efficiency =
Actual Volume sprayed
(Dh )total
The collection efficiency was found to between ~48% to 68% with
larger recirculation zone within spray resulting in a lower collection 2 ( ((BladeDistminimum )pri * hpri Zpri) + (BladeDistminimum )sec * hsec Zsec
((BladeDistminimum)pri + hpri) Zpri) + ((BladeDistminimum)sec + hsec ) Zsec ) ) (11)
efficiency value. This would be elaborated in following sections.
Since, in this study, two coaxial jets are involved (liquid and air);
hence it is customary to define another important parameter namely,
3.4. Flow parameters and test conditions
momentum ratio (MR)
In addition to the swirl number (SN) described in the previous ¯
a (Um . a .)total (A)total
section, we have also used Reynolds number to delineate the topolo- MR =
l Ul A eff (12)
gical variations in the flow field. Here, three different Reynolds num-
bers namely, bulk flow Reynolds number {(Rem . area )total} , primary and The calculated MR values across all the test cases are illustrated in
secondary swirler Reynolds number {(Re )P , (Re )S } are used. Table 3. We have MR ≫ 1, which indicates strong way gas to liquid
It should be noted that all these quantities are evaluated based on coupling. In other words, the resultant spray mimics the air flow field
the mass conservation principle. topology.

Table 2
Nomenclature and Parametric space for the configurations investigated.
Nomenclature Swirl Configuration Sec. Swirler Swirl Number (SNsec) PrimarySwirlerArea InletArea Flare Exit Angle (θ) Mixing Length (mm) (η)
(γ) (Δ)
SecondarySwirlerArea OutletArea

1 BASE Counter Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 50° 5

2 CR, γ = 50:50 Counter Rotation 1.143 50:50 0.194 50° 5
3 CR, γ = 60:40 Counter Rotation 1.143 60:40 0.194 50° 5
4 CR, Δ = 0.147 Counter Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.146 50° 5
5 CR, Δ = 0.259 Counter Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.259 50° 5
6 CR, SNsec = 0.79 Counter Rotation 0.798 40:60 0.194 50° 5
7 CR, SNsec = 1.75 Counter Rotation 1.751 40:60 0.194 50° 5
8 CR, Θ = 45°,η = 0 Counter Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 45° 0
9 CR, Θ = 50°,η = 0 Counter Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 50° 0
10 CR, Θ = 45°,η = 5 Counter Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 45° 5
11 COR, Θ = 45°,η = 0 Co Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 45° 0
12 COR, Θ = 50°,η = 0 Co Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 50° 0
13 COR, Θ = 45°,η = 5 Co Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 45° 5
14 COR, Θ = 50°,η = 5 Co Rotation 1.143 40:60 0.194 50° 5

6
K. Rajamanickam, et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Fig. 4. Schematic of experimental setup.

Fig. 5. Mechanical Patternator; (a). Top view of patternator showing cell dimensions and outline of flare diameter (in red); (b). Representative image of high shear
injector showing plane of measurement. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4. Global observations
In this section, the spatial evolution of the flow field perceived as a
function of various geometrical parameters are discussed in greater
details. The characteristic length scale which embodies the width of the
recirculation zone (W / Df ) is used as a parameter to characterize the
flow structures. The time averaged spatial structures observed across
different test cases are illustrated in Fig. 7a. In addition, the length
scales along with flow parameters pertaining to all the test cases are
shown in Table 3.
As mentioned earlier, the geometric swirl number defined in Eq. (2)
holds true only for swirler (i.e. without flare addition at the swirler
exit). Hence, the swirl number calculated based on the velocities ac-
quired from the experiments are used. Here, SN10 represents the swirl
number calculated at ~ 10 mm downstream of swirler longitudinal axis
(i.e. y ~ 10 mm). Here, the axial (Uy ) and tangential (U ) velocities are
evaluated from PDI measurements. The discussions on variations en-
countered in the SN10 across various test cases has been extensively
elaborated in Fig. S1 (supplementary material). In most of the swirl
flow literature, geometrical swirl number (Eq. (2)) is widely used. Only

7
K. Rajamanickam, et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Table 3
Experimental test cases.
Test cases Configuration (SN10) (Rem . area )P [x10^5] (Rem . area )S [x10^5] MR

W / Df L/ Df

1 BASE 1.177 0.889 2.400 0.327 0.378 28783.85

2 CR, γ = 50:50 0.754 0.850 1.778 0.361 0.355 28829.25
3 CR, γ = 60:40 0.640 0.800 1.267 0.392 0.322 28827.99
4 CR, Δ = 0.147 0.908 0.889 2.667 0.374 0.452 38378.46
5 CR, Δ = 0.259 0.966 0.733 1.889 0.280 0.310 21587.89
6 CR, SNsec = 0.79 1.041 0.800 1.956 0.327 0.393 28793.73
7 CR, SNsec = 1.75 0.895 0.889 2.178 0.327 0.357 28781.2
8 CR, Θ = 45°, η = 5 1.047 0.833 2.222 0.327 0.378 28783.85
9 CR, Θ = 45°, η = 0 1.076 0.956 2.356 0.327 0.378 28783.85
10 CR, Θ = 50°, η = 0 1.189 1.122 2.556 0.327 0.378 28783.85
11 COR, Θ = 45°, η = 5 1.310 1.078 – 0.327 0.378 28783.85
12 COR, Θ = 50°, η = 5 1.391 1.267 – 0.327 0.378 28783.85
13 COR, Θ = 45°, η = 0 1.322 1.111 – 0.327 0.378 28783.85
14 COR, Θ = 50°, η = 0 1.636 1.422 – 0.327 0.378 28783.85

a few researchers have used momentum based swirl number which is
calculated from the measured values of Uy and U from experiments.
This will be more accurate if all the velocity components are measured
in a simultaneous fashion and not averaged over the plane. However,
with planar, spatially averaged data, sometimes one may not observe
any variations in the swirl number. This may lead to the conclusion that
the flow topology remains the same. To avoid this, in this study we have
used Uy and U (acquired in same temporal space) at a spatial location
corresponding to the near field of the swirler (i.e. not planar averaged).
Hence, it is believed that SN10 become an appropriate parameter to
represent the flow field.
It is well known that, in swirling flows, higher swirl number always
yields wider recirculation zone (W / Df ) . However, this may be valid for
the single swirler configuration, however, in multi swirler configura-
tion, the spatial interaction of flows discharged from various swirlers
governs the flow topology.
The results shown in Fig. 7 b also shows increasing trend of W / Df
with respect to SN10. Though this may be true in a global sense, how-
ever, for some of the cases decrease in (W / Df ) is noticed even with the
increase in the SN10. To be more precise, in Fig. 7b, Zone A shows non-
linear relationship with SN10 while zone B shows relatively linear re-
lationship. It is necessary to identify the parameters which govern this
non-monotonic behaviour.
Here, we have shown that how the Reynolds number of primary and
secondary swirler plays a dominant role in governing the flow field in
addition to the swirl number. To precisely probe the individual char-
acteristics of each swirler, experiments have been conducted with only
primary and secondary swirler for BASE case. The time-averaged axial
velocity contours of the same is illustrated in Fig. 8a and b. For the
primary swirler, an increase in axial velocity (Uy ) is clearly witnessed.
This is compensated by reduction in recirculation length scale (W / Df ) .
For the given test case, any phenomenon which induces an increase in
axial velocity will always result in deterioration of the width of the
recirculation zone. In other words, the secondary swirler Reynolds
number (Re)S should be sufficiently large to retain the width of the
recirculation zone.
As mentioned earlier, in Table 3, test cases 2 to 7 pertain to the
variations in (Re)P , (Re)S ; we shall now investigate how Reynolds
number influences the flow structure. To correlate the combined effect
of swirl number and Reynolds number, a parameter, ' ' which embodies
the ratio between these two quantities has been used.
(SNgeo )P (Re)P
(SNgeo)S (Re)S (13)
Throughout the study, the geometric swirl number of the primary
swirler (SNgeo )pri is kept constant; hence, the parameters
(Re)P , (Re)S , (SNgeo)sec are the only variables in Eq. (13). It is very im-
portnat to note that, the parameter ' ' remains constant for cases 8 to 14,

Fig. 6. Illustration of optical arrangements involved in 3D PDI system.

8
K. Rajamanickam, et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Fig. 7. (a). Illustration of global variation of recirculation zone width W / Df across different test cases; b. variation of W / Df with near field swirl number [Zone A – Test
cases 2 to 7; Zone B – Test cases 8 to 14 as per Table 3].

in other words doesn’t have any influnce over W / Df in these cases.
For the improved clarity, the geometrical parameters in test cases 2
to 7 are tabulated in a detailed manner in Table 4. The degree of var-
iations in (W/Df) across all the test cases is compared with respect to the
BASE case (i.e. test case 1). From Eq. (13) it is obvious that increase in
either (Re)P or decrease in (Re)s causes reduction in W/Df. Inline with the
aforementioned argument, the increase in axial momentum due to
higher flow being discharged through primary swirler restricts the
spatial growth of W/Df.
As mentioned earlier, the geometrical parameters varied in this

9
K. Rajamanickam, et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Fig. 8. a and b Illustration of topological and velocity magnitude variations in primary and secondary swirler flows.

study includes split ratio (γ), the total inlet to outlet area(Δ) and sec-
ondary swirl number. Among these, parameter ‘Δ’ yields drastic var-
iation in combined primary and secondary swirler Reynolds number
(Rem . area )total (see cases 4, 5 in Table 4). For the other test cases 2 to 7
(except 4, 5), though (Re)P , (Re)S are altered, the total bulk Reynolds
number of combined primary and secondary swirler remains unaltered.
Accordingly, increase and decrease in (Rem . area )total is witnessed for
cases 4, 5 respectively. On account of this, cases 5 experiences decay in
the velocity magnitude at swirler exit. It should be noted that, all these
flow field results have been obtained in the presence of spray, i.e.
coaxial flow/atomizer configuration. In coaxial atomizer, it is well
known that decay in gas phase momentum results in deterioration of
swirl strength and generally this phenomenon is governed by a para-
meter called momentum ratio (MR). Experimental investigation carried
out by [29] illustrates the decay of swirl structure in coaxial flows
across various swirl levels (i.e. MR). Furthermore, beyond certain
threshold of MR values, flow doesn’t exhibit any changes in its topo-
logical structure. This can be better understood from the plot shown in
Fig. 9a; here, an attempt is made to evaluate the dependency of W/Df
with respect to (Rem . area)total . Compared to the BASE case, the variation
is more pronounced with case 5; while case 4 exhibits close resem-
blance to the BASE case. This may be due to the decrease in MR with
case 5 (see Table 3). Hence, the relation shown in eqn.13 is valid, only
if, (Re)P , (Re)S is changed without altering the (Rem . area)total .
Hence, the parameter ' ' should be corrected with (Rem . area)total ;
based on this Eq. (13) can be rewritten as follows
corrected 1/
(Rem . area)total
Furthermore, the correlation between the recirculation zone width
W/Df and geometrical parameters can be written as follows
W / Df f ( corrected ) (15)
1
W / Df f
(/ ¯
a (Um . a .)total (Dh )total
µa ) (16)
The parameter being represented in reciprocal manner in Eq. (14)
is just for graphical convention (i.e. to illustrate increase in W/Df trend
as shown in zone A of Fig. 7a).
Next, for the test cases 8 to 14, the parameters
(Re)P ; (Re )s ; (Rem . area)total are kept constant (i.e. = constant; see
Table 3), however, we have investigated the flow orientation (i.e. co/
counter), effect of flare configuration and angle. Since all the geome-
trical parameters are kept constant for cases 8 to 14, the correlation
shown in Eqs. (14) and (15) turn out to be only functions of swirl
number at the exit (SN10) i.e. corrected SN10
W /Df f {SN10} (17)
First, for the same flare, while the flow switches to counter rotation
from co -rotation, reduction in W/Df is observed (for e.g. case 8, 11 in
Table 3). The quantitative reason behind this can be understood from
the flow field acquired from azimuthal plane at the near field of the
swirler. As illustrated in Fig. 10a–c, decay in tangential velocity (U )
magnitude is noticed for counter rotation case (Fig. 10b). This is clearly
witnessed with the tangential velocity U plotted against radius of the
swirler (Fig. 10c). In particular, sharp decay is observed at the inner
shear layer region. Hence, the spatial decay of U becomes the gov-
erning parameter in the reduction of W/Df with counter rotation. Next,
(14)
for the given flow orientation (either co/counter rotation), increase in
flare angle shows monotonic increase in W/Df. This phenomenon also
attributed as a function of increase in U induced by flare angle ( ) . In

Table 4
Variations in flow parameters as function of geometrical variables.
Test cases Configuration Swirl Number (SN10) (SNgeo)sec (SNgeo)Pri (Rem . area )P [x105] (Rem . area )S [x105] (Rem . area )total [x105]

1 BASE 1.177 1.14 0.75 0.327 0.378 0.356

2 CR, γ = 50:50 0.754 1.14 0.75 0.361 0.355 0.358
3 CR, γ = 60:40 0.640 1.14 0.75 0.392 0.322 0.361
4 CR, Δ = 0.147 0.908 1.14 0.75 0.374 0.452 0.417
5 CR, Δ = 0.259 0.966 1.14 0.75 0.280 0.310 0.297
6 CR, SNsec = 0.79 1.041 0.79 0.75 0.327 0.393 0.364
7 CR, SNsec = 1.75 0.895 1.75 0.75 0.327 0.357 0.344

10
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 9. Influence of various design parameters over W / Df [Dashed line is illustrating the trend not based on best fit] (a). W / Df Vs (Rem . area)total ; (b). Variation of W / Df
in Zone A after correction; c. Variation of W / Df in Zone B.
addition, radial expansion in the flow field as a manifestation of U is
also clearly witnessed in Fig. 10d and e.
Unlike, test cases 1 to 7, here, it is found that the swirl number
calculated at near field (SN10) is the only parameter which governs the
topology of the final flow field. This is the reason why, for test cases 8 to
14, monotonic increase in W/Df is observed with increase in SN10. (see
Zone B in Fig. 7b). It is perceived that, W/Df in zone A, shows linear
relationship, only after considering all the geometrical parameters
(Re)P ; (Re )s ; (Rem . area)total in the correlation. This can be better under-
stood from the trend shown in Fig. 7b (Zone A) and Fig. 9b. For in-
stance, non-monotonic behaviour observed with Zone A in Fig. 7b
shows linear trend in Fig. 9b, this is due to the fact that all geometrical
parameters have been considered.
In another words,
• For Zone A f (SN , (Re )P , (Re )S , (Rem . area )total)
• For Zone B
c
c f (SN ) ; where, (Re)P ,(Re)S , (Rem . area )total) = constant
5. Spray patternation
In this section, we shall now look into the circumferential dis-
tribution of spray acquired at a particular axial plane. The volumetric
distribution of the spray across the circumferential plane is illustrated
with the help of contour plot. Two parameters namely, magnitude of
void fraction ' ' (zero volume zone; e.g. see case 14 in Fig. 11a and
spatial uniformity index ( ) is considered here. The main idea is to
understand the correlation between W/Df and , . It should be noted
that, all the volume distribution contours shown in Fig. 11a, pertains to
data collected at ~ 50 mm downstream of swirl cup exit. We have ob-
served slight variation (not shown here) in the magnitude of with
respect to the measurement locations.
The normalized volume distribution across the circumferential
plane for various test cases are illustrated in Fig. 11a. It is observed that
for some of the test cases, presence of void (zero volume) is noticed (e.g.
see case 14 in Fig. 11a). The variations incurred in circumferential
spray distribution across the test cases are quantitatively represented
11
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
with the help of calculated void area ( ) . The calculated void area is
plotted against W/Df and SN10 (Fig. 11b andc). It is found that, the near
field swirl number (SN10) plays major role in comparison to W/Df. For
instance, central void zone is witnessed for case 1, 4 and not for case 7,
though all possess same W/Df values of ~ 0.89. This is due to the fact
that SN10 value is lower for case 7, as compared to cases 1, 4. The plot
shown in Fig. 11b clearly indicates formation of void zone beyond SN10
values of ≥ 1.05. Hence, SN10 ≥ 1.05 is considered as critical value
which leads to void formation in the central zone. However, an outlier
is observed with case 4, even though its SN10 is lower than critical
value. As mentioned earlier, for case 4, 5, the changes incurred with
total Reynolds number across the swirlers results in alteration of mo-
mentum ratio. This can be more quantitively understood from the near
field velocity distribution.
The spatial distribution of droplets in the swirl flows is governed by
balance between the centrifugal and radial force (Eq. (18) and (19))
acting on the droplets. Here, centrifugal force (FC ) always favours the
dispersion of droplets towards the periphery and radial force (FR ) does
the opposite. Essentially, the condition FC FR forces a higher number
of droplets in the periphery region.
do3 (U 2 )d
l
FC
6R (18)
CD do3 (UR2 )d
g
FR
(19)
8
For brevity, the near field velocity distribution pertaining to only
five cases are shown in Fig. 12. Once again, all the cases are compared
with BASE condition (i.e. 1 in Fig. 12). As mentioned earlier, the total
Reynolds number (Rem . area )total is increased/decreased for case 4, 5
respectively. It is argued that, in coaxial atomization, decrease in gas
phase Reynolds number results in sharp decay of velocity. From Fig. 12,
it is evident that, in comparison to case 1, case 5 decay in tangential
velocity (U ) is observed. However, slight increase in U is noticed for
case 4. The increase in U associated with case 5 is the major reason for
the presence of void and vice versa for case 4. Similarly, though case 7
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 10. Spatial distribution of azimuthal velocity. (a). counter rotation; (b). co rotation; (c). velocity magnitude plot [ISL, OSL – inner, outer shear layer]; (d and e).
Illustration of radial flow spread as function of flare angle.
exhibits wider recirculation zone (W / Df 0.889) , the decay in U (see 7
in Fig. 12) restricts the formation of central void region (see 7 in
Fig. 11a).
In the test cases 8 to 14, the variations are only with respect to flow
orientation (i.e. Co/counter clockwise) and flare angle. Here, as illu-
strated in Fig. 7b and Table 3, W/Df shows monotonic response to the
SN10; the same is reflected in the calculated void area as well
(Fig. 11a–c). Furthermore, step increase in U values in comparison to
BASE (i.e. case 1) is also noticed. For brevity, only the values pertaining
to case 14 is illustrated in Fig. 12; here, an increase of ~ 15 m/s is
observed. As per Eq. (18), sharp rise in U induces higher centrifugal
force over the droplets, which essentially results in the formation of a
void in the central region. In summary, W / Df 0.9 and SN10 1 are
considered as the critical values.
0 < W / Df < 0.9; 0 < SN10 < 1 =0
W / Df 0.9; SN10 1 >0
12
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
From Fig. 11b and c, it is clear that void area ( ) exhibits linear
relationship with W/Df Furthermore, it is important to note that, unlike
the observations made in Section 4, shows monotonic behaviour
across all the regions I, II, III.
Based on the observation perceived from above discussions, the test
cases can be globally categorized into three flow regimes as illustrated
in Fig. 11b and c. Here, the swirl number SN10 1 is considered as
critical swirl number SC . The choice of SN10 1 as critical value is ar-
rived based on the trend observed with with respect to SN10 . In
common practise, the flow condition at which swirl flow exhibits ax-
isymmetric bubble breakdown is considered as critical swirl number
[3]. However, in our case, we have categorized the flow topologies
based on the magnitude of .
6. Droplet size distribution
In this section, the droplet size distribution acquired across various
spatial locations with the help of 3D PDI will be discussed. The
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 11. (a). Contours of volume distribution in circumferential plane observed at y ~ 50 mm; (b and c) – variations in size scale of central void zone.
measurement locations are illustrated in Fig. 13; the automated traverse
system is utilized to ensure the precision in the spatial movement of the
probe position. For each axial location, radial measurements are carried
out with an interval of ~ 10 mm. It should be noted that, final radial
position is decided based on the acquired droplet counts. For instance,
the outer boundary of spray in the cases with smallerW /Df is at a
shorter lengthscale. Hence, for some cases, the spray edge will be at
R ~ 50 mm, while others have a spray edge extending upto
R ~ 60–70 mm.
In general, spray injected into highly turbulent swirl jet always
exhibit smaller size droplets in the centreline (R ~ 0 mm) followed by
bigger droplets in the periphery region (R ~ spray edge). This is due to
the fact that bigger sized droplets are always centrifuged radially
13
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
outwards. Here we also observed a similar trend across all the test
cases.
Surprisingly, substantial variation in droplet size is not witnessed
with respect to the test cases. In particular, at the centreline location,
the size scale of the droplets always lies in the range of ~ 10–15 µm
across all the test cases (Fig. 14a and b). Although some variations in
droplet size are noticed among the test cases at the spray edge for
y ~ 10 mm (Fig. 14a), the variations are diminished along the axis (see
y ~ 50 mm; Fig. 14b).
In order to check the variations in the droplet size, single re-
presentative size (average of SMD acquired at all probe locations, Davg )
is calculated for each test case. The calculated average diameter across
all the test cases lies in the range of ~30–35 µm (Fig. 14c).
K. Rajamanickam, et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872

Fig. 12. Schematic illustration of radial and azimuthal velocity distribution across radial plane.

(SMD )R = 0, y = 10 + (SMD)R = 60, y = 50

Davg
n

where n- total no. of measurement location.

U¯ exit
2
Uy2 + UR2 + U 2

Here Uy, UR, U represents axial, radial, tangential components of ve-

locity obtained from PDI.

6.1. Secondary atomization

Fig. 13. PDI measurement locations.
In general spray formation process in any atomizer is broadly di-
It is believed that, in coaxial atomizers, higher shear (i.e. case which vided into two stages, primary and secondary atomization. Here ma-
exhibits higher air flow velocity) rate yields lesser droplet size. jority of primary atomization process takes place inside the atomizer. In
However, more quantitively it is governed by the important parameter other words, only secondary atomization takes place at the flare exit.
named ‘weber number’ (Eq. (20)) which defines the ratio between As per Eq. (20), in secondary atomization zone, the droplet will
aerodynamic shear and surface tension force. undergo deformation and subsequent breakup only when We ¯ >1
[11,14]. However, at the flare exit, the calculated weber number based
¯2
a Uexit Davg
on Davg and Uexit is found to be 0 < We ¯ 1 (see Fig. 15). Hence, the
¯
We
(20) extremely low We ¯ values do not allow any scope for subsequent sec-
ondary atomization, which essentially resulted in similar Davg values for
Here Davg represents averaged SMD across all the measurement location all the test cases.
shown in Fig. 13. Strictly speaking, the variations incurred with the length scale W/Df

14
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 14. (a and b) - Illustration of variations in droplet size across various spatial locations; (c) – variations in averaged droplet size as function of SN10.
Fig. 15. Variation of Weber number (We) and ohnesorge number (Oh) across
various test cases.
do induce changes in droplet size in localized zones in the spatial do-
main. For instance, the case which falls under Zone A, where W/Df is
very small, the probability of droplet collision and coalescence is more.
Essentially droplet coalescence results in an increase of droplet size in
that localized region. It is very difficult to interpret this phenomenon
from PDI data; however, this can be more quantitatively visualized with
the help of high-resolution local imaging using long distance micro-
scope (LDM).
In addition, the local strength of eddies in the flow field also governs
the spatial size distribution [1,28,30]. Similar to the observations made
with the uniformity in spatial distribution of droplets, the measured
droplet size also shows insensitivity towards the design parameters.
However, it should be noted that the variation in size may occur with
respect to spatial location across the different cases. For example, the
spray with W / Df < 0.9 may have higher droplet size at R ~ 50 mm; the
same has been observed at R ~ 60 mm for W / Df > 1 cases.
15
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
7. Summary and conclusions
The main idea of this study is to meticulously assess the sensitivity
of the swirl cup with respect to various geometrical parameters. The
criteria on which the characteristics of the atomizer are graded become
very important. Most of the past studies reported either flow field data
or only droplet size distribution or spatial volumetric distribution. For
instance, [10] reported the changes in the air flow field topology in the
similar swirler geometry as function of flare expansion angle, however,
the detailed spray characteristics are not reported. Hadef and Lenze
[15] investigated the effect of flow orientation (i.e. co/counter rotation)
in spatial distribution of droplets using PDI technique. But the flow field
information is not reported.
However, as seen above, if atomization (in particular primary) oc-
curred inside the swirl cup, it is difficult to quantify the swirl cup
performance with respect to the droplet size. It is well known that, in
addition to the droplet size, flow topology and circumferential dis-
tribution of droplets also become critical parameters in swirl cup de-
sign. Hence, in this study we have made an attempt to delineate how
the flow topology, spray patternation, droplet size influences each other
as function of swirler design. The typical approach followed is illu-
strated in Fig. 16a. In this study, more specifically, we have char-
acterized the flow field in the presence of spray. Most of the previous
studies shown injector flow field in the absence of spray, however, it is
highly important to evaluate the hydrodynamic flow topology in the
presence of spray. This enabled us to identify the optimal air and liquid
flow rate at which the swirl flow structure can be retained.
In this study, parametrical variations have been considered under
two major categories, first, variations in the swirler geometry itself (γ,
Δ, SNsec), second, downstream parameters like flare configuration and
angles.
As mentioned earlier, the idea of this paper is to establish the global
relationship between flow topology, spray patternation and droplet
size. The width of the recirculation zone W/Df is considered as a swirl
cup response parameter. For a quantitative argument, the parameter
which relates ratio between the length scale of BASE with respect to
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 16. (a). Illustration of typical injector assessment approach followed in this study; (b). Three-dimensional plot illustrates the key governing parameters across
various test cases; (b). Flow chart-based representation of key observations.
others are considered (Eq. (21)). In other words, the parameter ' ' can
be referred as sensitivity/response variable.
W / Df
(W / Df )BASE (21)
Fig. 16b illustrates the variation of swirl cup sensitivity ( ) plotted
against the experimental variables. It is clear that the length scale W / Df
much more sensitive to a change in flare angle, flow orientation than
16
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
the geometrical variables (test cases 8 to 14 in Fig. 16b).
An attempt has been made identify the functional relationship be-
tween W / Df and swirler geometrical parameters. The key governing
functional relationships are illustrated in the form of flow chart in
Fig. 16c. It is clear that, for cases 8 to 14, the length scale W / Df exhibits
linear relationship with SN10. Whereas, for cases in which swirler
geometrical parameters are varied (i.e. cases 1 to 7), in addition to
SN10, the flow parameters also govern the topology of the flow field (i.e.
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
Fig. 16. (continued)
W / Df corrected ; see Fig. 16 c). Next, the length scale of central void zone
(zero volume) is related with near field swirl number SN10. Unlike, non-
monotonicity observed with SN10 Vs W / Df , the magnitude of founds
to exhibit strong relationship with SN10 (Fig. 16c). It is very important
to note that, the spatial uniformity ‘ ‘ remains insensitive to the SN10
(i.e. f (SN10 ) ). Finally, the droplet size measurements acquired from
PDI doesn’t exhibit any trend with the SN10 , in other words, the re-
sultant droplet size is insensitive to the swirl cup design parameters
(i.e.SMD f (SN10) .
Declaration of Competing Interest
Authors declare no conflict of interest
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge financial support from DRDO
under grant no 1_C_5, DST Swarnajayanti Fellowship and DRDO Chair
Professorship.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2019.109872.
References
[1] S.K. Aggarwal, T.W. Park, Dispersion of evaporating droplets in a swirling ax-
isymmetric jet, AIAA J. 37 (1999) 1578–1587.
[2] H.-E. Albrecht, N. Damaschke, M. Borys, C. Tropea, Laser Doppler and phase
Doppler measurement techniques, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[3] P. Billant, J.-M. Chomaz, P. Huerre, Experimental study of vortex breakdown in
swirling jets, J. Fluid Mech. 376 (1998) 183–219.
[4] J. Cai, Y. Fu, A. Elkady, S. Jeng, H. Mongia, Swirl Cup Modeling Part 4: Effect of
Confinement on Flow Characteristics, 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, Nevada, 2003.
[5] S. Candel, D. Durox, T. Schuller, J.-F. Bourgouin, J.P. Moeck, Dynamics of swirling
flames, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46 (2014) 147–173.
[6] J.M. Cohen, T.J. Rosfjord, Influences on the sprays formed by high-shear fuel
17
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
nozzle/S wirler assemblies, J. Propuls. Power 9 (1993) 16–27.
[7] A. Davanlou, J.D. Lee, S. Basu, R. Kumar, Effect of viscosity and surface tension on
breakup and coalescence of bicomponent sprays, Chem. Eng. Sci. 131 (2015)
243–255.
[8] M.S. El-Shanawany, A.H. Lefebvre, Airblast atomization: the effect of linear scale on
mean drop size, ASME 1980 International Gas Turbine Conference and Products
Show. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (1980) p.
V01AT01A074–V01AT01A074.
[9] W. Estefanos, S. Tambe, S.-M. Jeng, Effect of the flare expansion angle on the mean
and dynamic behavior of swirling flow generated by a counter rotating radial-radial
swirler using a water test rig, ASME Turbo Expo 2015: Turbine Technical
Conference and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (2015) p.
V04BT04A035–V04BT04A035.
[10] W. Estefanos, S. Tambe, S.-M. Jeng, Effect of the flare expansion angle on the mean
and dynamic behavior of swirling flow generated by a counter rotating radial-radial
swirler using a water test rig, ASME Turbo Expo 2015: Turbine Technical
Conference and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (2015) p.
V04BT04A035–V04BT04A035.
[11] G.M. Faeth, L.-P. Hsiang, P.-K. Wu, Structure and breakup properties of sprays, Int.
J. Multiph. Flow 21 (1995) 99–127.
[12] Y. Fu, J. Cai, S.-M. Jeng, H. Mongia, Confinement effects on the swirling flow of a
counter-rotating swirl cup, ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea, and Air.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2005, pp. 469–478.
[13] M. Giridharan, H. Mongia, S.-M. Jeng, Swirl Cup Modeling-Part VIII: Spray
Combustion in CFM-56 Single-Cup Flame Tube, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, 2003, p. 319.
[14] D.R. Guildenbecher, C. López-Rivera, P.E. Sojka, Secondary atomization, Exp.
Fluids 46 (2009) 371.
[15] R. Hadef, B. Lenze, Effects of co-and counter-swirl on the droplet characteristics in a
spray flame, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 47 (2008) 2209–2217.
[16] G. Hsiao, H. Mongia, Swirl Cup Modeling Part 2: Inlet Conditions, 41st Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2003, p. 1350.
[17] G. Hsiao, H. Mongia, Swirl cup modeling part 3: grid independent solution with
different turbulence models, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2003, p.
1349.
[18] Y. Huang, V. Yang, Dynamics and stability of lean-premixed swirl-stabilized com-
bustion, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 35 (2009) 293–364.
[19] S.-M. Jeng, N.M. Flohre, H.C. Mongia, Swirl cup modeling- Atomization, 42 Nd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, (2004).
[20] E. Kilik, Influence of the blockage ratio on the efficiency of swirl generation with
vane swirlers, 21st Joint Propulsion Conference, 1985, p. 1103.
[21] A.H. Lefebvre, D.R. Ballal, Gas turbine combustion: alternative fuels and emissions,
CRC Press, 2010.
[22] H. Liang, T. Maxworthy, An experimental investigation of swirling jets, J. Fluid
Mech. 525 (2005) 115–159.
[23] T.C. Lieuwen, V. Yang, Combustion instabilities in gas turbine engines: operational
experience, fundamental mechanisms, and modeling, Am. Instit. Aeronaut.
Astronaut. (2005).
[24] S.-C. Lin, X. Wang, W. Estefanos, S. Tambe, S.-M. Jeng, The Effect of the Geometric
Modifications of the Venturi on the Non-Reactive Flow and Combustion Behavior
Using a Counter-Rotating Radial-Radial Swirler, ASME Turbo Expo 2017:
Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2017 V04BT04A053–V04BT04A053.
[25] K. Merkle, H. Haessler, H. Büchner, N. Zarzalis, Effect of co-and counter-swirl on the
isothermal flow-and mixture-field of an airblast atomizer nozzle, Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 24 (2003) 529–537.
[26] K. Rajamanickam, S. Basu, Insights into the dynamics of spray–swirl interactions, J.
Fluid Mech. 810 (2017) 82–126, https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2016.710.
[27] H.C. Mongia, M. Al-Roub, A. Danis, D. Elliott-Lewis, M. Jeng, A. Johnson,
V.G. McDonell, G.S. Samuelsen, S. Vise, Swirl cup modeling part 1, AIAA Pap. 3576
(2001) 2001.
[28] N. Patel, S. Menon, Simulation of spray–turbulence–flame interactions in a lean
direct injection combustor, Combust. Flame 153 (2008) 228–257.
[29] K. Rajamanickam, S. Basu, Insights into the dynamics of conical breakdown modes
in coaxial swirling flow field, J. Fluid Mech. 853 (2018) 72–110.
[30] K. Rajamanickam, S. Basu, On the dynamics of vortex–droplet interactions, dis-
persion and breakup in a coaxial swirling flow, J. Fluid Mech. 827 (2017) 572–613.
[31] K. Rajamanickam, A. Mukhopadhyay, S. Basu, On Primary Atomization in
Propulsive Device Fuel Injectors—A Short Review, Droplets and Sprays. Springer,
2018, pp. 117–140.
[32] K. Rajamanickam, S. Roy, S. Basu, Novel fuel injection systems for high-speed
combustors, Droplets and Sprays. Springer, 2018, pp. 183–216.
[33] N.K. Rizk, A.H. Lefebvre, The influence of liquid film thickness on airblast atomi-
zation, J. Eng. Power 102 (1980) 706–710.
[34] A.A. Rizkalla, A.H. Lefebvre, The influence of air and liquid properties on airblast
atomization, J. Fluids Eng. 97 (1975) 316–320.
[35] T. Rosfjord, W. Eckerle, Nozzle airflow influences on fuel patternation, 24th Joint
Propulsion Conference, 1988, p. 3140.
[36] H.J. Sheen, W.J. Chen, S.Y. Jeng, T.L. Huang, Correlation of swirl number for a
radial-type swirl generator, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 12 (1996) 444–451.
[37] E. Stevens, T. Held, H. Mongia, Swirl cup modeling part VII: partially-premixed
laminar flamelet model validation and simulation of a single-cup combustor with
gaseous n-heptane, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2003, p. 488.
[38] H. Wang, V.G. McDonell, W.A. Sows, S. Samuelsen, Experimental study of a model
gas turbine combustor swirl cup, part 11: droplet dynamics, J. Propuls. Power 10
(1994) 446–452.
K. Rajamanickam, et al.
[39] H.Y. Wang, V.G. McDonell, S. Samuelsen, Influence of Hardware Design on the Flow
Field Structures and the Patterns of Droplet Dispersion: Part I—Mean Quantities,
ASME 1993 International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (1993) V03AT15A050–V03AT15A050.
[40] S. Wang, V. Yang, G. Hsiao, S.-Y. Hsieh, H.C. Mongia, Large-eddy simulations of
gas-turbine swirl injector flow dynamics, J. Fluid Mech. 583 (2007) 99–122.
18
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 109 (2019) 109872
[41] Williams, A., 2013. Combustion of liquid fuel sprays. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[42] A. Williams, Fundamentals of oil combustion, Energy and Combustion Science.
Elsevier, 1979, pp. 135–147.
[43] W. Xiao, Y. Huang, Lean blowout limits of a gas turbine combustor operated with
aviation fuel and methane, Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2016) 1015–1024.