Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brandt1998 PDF
Brandt1998 PDF
Brandt1998 PDF
To cite this article: M. BRANDT , M. RACHNER & G. SCHMITZ (1998): An Experimental and Numerical Study of Kerosine Spray
Evaporation in a Premix Duct for Gas Turbine Combustors at High Pressure, Combustion Science and Technology, 138:1-6,
313-348
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
CombUS1. Sci. and Tech., 1998. Vol. 138, pp. 313-348 © 1998OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)N.V.
Reprints available directlyfrom the publisher Published by license under
Photocopyingpermitted by licenseonly the Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers imprint.
Printed in Malaysia.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
The evaporation and mixing of kerosine emerging from a flat prefilming airblast atomizer was
studied experimentally and numerically in an optical accessible, straight rectangular duct at
conditions relevant for lean premixed and prevaporized combustion. Liquid phase properties
were measured by Phase-Doppler anemometry and fuel vapour concentrations were determined
by an infrared light extinction technique. Computations were based on the Lagrangian particle
tracking technique, and captured the spray features sufficiently well with and without taking
into account the spray feedback on the gas field. A degree of evaporation of95% was measured
after IOOmm for 9 bar air pressure, 750K air temperature and 120m/s air velocity. No
autoignition of the fuel occurred. Parametric variations of pressure, temperature and velocity of
the air flow, as well as of the initial temperature of the spray and of fuel loading were conducted.
A strong influence of the initial fuel temperature on evaporation was found. The air pressure
had mainly an indirect but strong effect through atomization quality.
Keywords: Spray evaporation; high pressure; gas turbine combustion chamber; prefilming
airblast atomizer; premix duct; kerosine
1. INTRODUCTION
313
314 M. BRANDT et al.
Quartz-duct
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
z z
Cross section L y
Longitudinal section L x
FIGURE I Test cell.
2.2. Atomizers
which is limited by the autoignition of the fuel, the smallest possible dropsize
distribution has to be produced by the atomizer. Hence, in a previous
experimental study fuel injectors were tested for their suitability for use in
premix ducts at engine operating conditions (Brandt et al., 1994).
Consequently, the atomizer producing the lowest dropsize diameters, a flat
prefilming airblast atomizer (Fig. 2) was chosen for this investigation.
For this type of atomizer the fuel is spread out on the surface of the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
Insulation
21
L, Topview
4
NiNiCr Thermocouple
L, Sideview
FIGURE 2 The small, flat prefilming airblast atomizer (dimensions in brackets refer to the
larger atomizer).
KEROSINE SPRA Y EVAPORATION 317
integral values of extinction along the horizontal y-axis, i.e., along the
direction of the atomizer edge. For the fuel loading variation another
atomizer with a larger width of 30 mm and a larger slit height of 0.3 mm
(values in brackets in Fig. 2) was used. It had to be mounted vertically in the
duct (prefilming plane was now the x - z plane at y = 0). Both atomizers
were made of the same stainless steel, with a comparable wall thickness and
about the same fuel path length in the duct.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
I. IR-Detector (pbS-Detector)
(400 flm Aperture Diameter)
2. PDA Receiving Optics
3. Lens (CaF, f= 50 mm)
4. Photodetector (Si Diode)
(150 urn Aperture Diameter)
5. Lens (f= 100 mm)
6. Color Splitters
7. Test Cell
8. Chopper
9. Mirrors
10. Lens (f= 300 mm)
11. Lens (CaF, f=400 mm)
12. PDA Transmitting Optics
13. HeNe Laser (633 nm)
14. HeNe Laser (3.39 urn)
Droplet sizes and -velocities as well as liquid volume fluxes were measured
by a two component Phase Doppler Anemometer (PDA) with a covariance
processor, see DANTEC (1992). The Gaussian beam diameter in the
measurement volume was about 70 11m, the laser-power was typically 25 mW
per beam. Drop sizes assuming spherical particles were measured in first
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
order refraction. The light was polarized parallel to the scattering plane so
that at a scattering angle equal to the Brewster's angle of the fuel (~69° for
kerosine at ambient temperature), light reflection is completely absent.
However the scattering angle was limited by the optical access of the test cell
to 52°, which led to an intensity ratio of refracted to reflected light of 180.
For this setup, velocity and dropsize measurement errors due to
alignment uncertainties were below 1%. Neglecting refractive index
gradients, dropsizing errors due to the change of the refractive index of
kerosine for droplets being heated up from ambient temperature to their
wet-bulb temperature were about 3.5%. This error was computed with the
decrease of the refractive index of kerosine with temperature, which was
measured by Fitzky and Bohn (1995). In the results presented here, a
constant refractive index n = 1.46 of kerosine at ambient temperature was
used, therefore the droplet diameter are tendentially measured too large.
Dropsize measurements up to x = 30 mm from the atomizer edge were
aggravated by the atomization (droplet oscillations) and acceleration of the
liquid. Accelerated droplets might be elliptical rather than spherical. A
maximum dropsizing error might be estimated as follows: the Bond number
(Bo := ppapD~/a, where ap is the droplet acceleration) is a measure of the
acceleration force versus the surface tension force of the droplet. At
x = 30mm downstream from the atomizer, Bond numbers of 2.9 were
calculated for droplets of 261lm diameter, which represents roughly an
upper limit of the dropsize distribution of the baseline case (see Fig. 5).
According to Clift et al. (1978) this Bond number leads to unspherical
droplets with a ratio of the minor to major axis of about 0.7. The dropsize
measured by the PDA depends on the orientation of the unspherical
droplets with respect to the optical axis. Assuming that the PDA measures
randomized distributed diameters between the minor axis and the major axis
of rotational ellipsoids, we find that compared to a sphere that contains the
same volume as the ellipsoids, the mean value of the dropsize is measured
about 7% too large.
Evaporation rates of the fuel spray were obtained from liquid volume flux
measurements, which require accurate determination of the size of the
KEROSINE SPRA Y EVAPORATION 319
that slit and were crossed by the main flow direction. The algorithm used by
the instrument software requires, that the burst length of each particle
should be limited by the Gaussian beam diameter of the measurement
volume. However here, only a small amount of particles in the vicinity of the
middle of the measurement volume fulfils this condition. This leads to
smaller mean burst lengths of a particle sample, thus to a smaller
measurement cross-section and to higher measured volume fluxes. This
error was accounted for by correcting the measured burstlengths with a
simple formula derived from the geometry of the sending and receiving
optics as shown in Figure 4.
The burst length is the individual pathlength of a particle crossing the
measurement volume, and is approximated by bl = transit time- Ju~ + IV~.
Herein, Up and IVp are the particle velocity components in the x- and z-
direction. The burst lengths bl are measured over the total measurement
volume length L = L 1 + L 2 , as seen by the receiving optics. Assuming, that
all particles of a given size class cross the measurement volume with the
same probability, in section L 1 a mean burst length bl tr ue/2 is measured and
~_---'....-__-++-~__\-_~ I d,
D e-2 +------+ y
GO 100
D
50
VEVArJV 0
E ;;g
.
..:!.
40
e...
-
Q)
Q)
E
30
°90% -
.> 0
~
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
Cll >
'6 20 .>
UJ
0 0
S
0
20
10 D D
°10%
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
x [mm]
FIGURE 5 Baseline case: streamwise development of characteristic diameters and evapora-
tion rate (symbols = measurement, lines = prediction).
in section (L 2 - L,) a mean value bltrue is measured. Then for the arithmetic
mean value blmeasured over all burst lengths bl the following equation holds:
or:
(2)
p = 9 bar are measured too high. Edwards and Marx (1992) also showed
that dropsize distribution measurements are almost insensitive to particle
rejection rates up to 90%. Therefore dropsize information but no
evaporation rates are presented for upstream locations in Figures 12 and 17.
Test measurements of non-evaporating kerosine sprays in cold air, but at
realistic values of air velocity, densities and fuel flow rate showed that the
errors of the volume flux measurements were within ± 10%, if the particle
concentrations were not too high. With the exception of some evaporation
rates at x = 30 mm, the total error in the volume flux measurements results
from this error of 10% plus the dropsizing error of 3.5% due to refractive
index changes of the kerosine. The droplet volume is proportional to D 3 and
therefore the volume flux is measured up to 10% too large. These two errors
are assumed to be independent from each other, and lead with Gaussian
error propagation to error bars of + 10% and -14% of the.measured liquid
volume fluxes.
detection were adjusted to the different Mie parameter of the same particle
at different wavelengths. Computations of the Mie-scattering based on
dropsize distributions measured simultaneously by PDA showed that the
amount of light scattered and absorbed by particles in the infrared range can
be measured with an error of ± 10%. However, as kerosine is a
multicomponent fuel, the composition of which depends on its degree of
evaporation, and as the absorption coefficient of the fuel vapour depends on
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
the ambient pressure and temperature, only relative values of the fuel
vapour concentration were obtained with this technique.
With this spray code a parametric study parallel to the experiments in the
premix duct was performed. For reasons of computational economy, a
homogeneous gas field with no influence of the spray on the gas flow was
assumed. For the baseline case, 195900computational particles were tracked,
requiring about 3.5 hours on a R4400-SGI IndigoZ workstation. Addition-
ally, in order to take into account full coupling between spray and gas flow in
the duct, the TRUST-code developed at DLR Schutz et al., 1997), which is
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
based on the 3d instationary KIVA II-code, was employed. Herein the k -E-
turbulence model was used. The spray models in TRUST and in the
proprietary spray code are virtually the same. Spray feedback on the gas phase
in TRUST was done by accumulating spray source terms of mass, energy,
momentum and turbulent kinetic energy arising from passing particles in
finite volume cells of the gas solver (particle-souce-in-cell method).
The spray modelling requires detailed property data, which are provided
in a comprehensive, critical compilation of property formulas for kerosine
Jet A-I by Rachner (1998).
As will be seen later (Fig. 10), the numerical prediction of the baseline
case and the parameter study could be performed with good accuracy in a
gasfield without gradients and without spray feedback. This computation
considers a spatially homogeneous gas field for the spray with p = 9 bar,
UAir = 125m/s (> 120m/s, as the spray moves near the maximum of the flat
turbulent streamwise gas velocity profile in the duct cross-section),
VAir = WAir = 0, T A i r = 743 K « 750 K in order to take account of the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
heat losses in the duct), UrmsAir = 7 ml», VrmsAir = Wrms Air = 5 mls (typical
values from measurement), and a turbulent macro length scale
L tu r b = 0.005 m. Spray initial conditions are crucial and are discussed below
(Chapter 4.1.1).
The most important quantity for characterization of the evaporation
process in the duct is the evaporation rate. As the PDA measures volume
fluxes rather than mass fluxes, the evaporation rate was defined on a
volumetric basis: It is the difference VEVA P between the initial spray volume
flux Vo in plane x = 0 and the volume flux still passing the downstream
plane x considered, divided by the initial volume flux Vo. A global
description of the changes in the dropsize distribution due to the influence of
evaporation can be attained by considering the streamwise development of
three characteristic spray diameters: the volume undersize diameters DIO'/.
and D90 % together with the Sauter mean diameter SMD, which is a measure
of the volume-to-surface ratio of the spray. The D 90 % is the drop diameter
such that 90% of the total liquid spray volume is contained in drops of
smaller diameter. These three diameters characterize a lower, upper and
mean diameter region of the dropsize distribution and are formed by volume
flux weighted averaging of the local respective values at all measurement
points in the plane x under consideration. This gave nearly the same results
as the evaluation of these quantities from their basic definition applied to all
particles passing the plane x, as was done in the prediction.
The measured and predicted streamwise development of the integral
quantities, evaporation rate and characteristic spray diameters, is compared
in Figure 5 for the baseline case, since these are the quantities of main
interest for the combustion engineer.
It can be seen that already x = 50 mm downstream of the atomizer edge,
nearly 85% of the liquid volume is evaporated. Despite of this fast
evaporation the characteristic diameters experience but little changes over
most of the spray lifetime. Certainly, the diameter of each individual particle
in the spray will decay over the whole or a large portion of its lifetime, but
this decay is faster for smaller particles than for larger ones (see text above
Fig. 6). Depending on the relative number of large and small droplets in the
KEROSINE SPRAY EVAPORAnON 325
dropsize distribution, i.e., depending of its width and shape, this different
diameter change of the particles can lead to an increase, decrease or no
change at all of the characteristic diameters due to the course of
evaporation. In the present case little change was observed. This means
that there is a dynamic equilibrium between mass sources and mass sinks in
the diameter bins of the developing dropsize distribution over most of the
spray lifetime.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
The initial dropsize distribution for the baseline case was derived from
measurements as follows: Basically, as the initial dropsize distribution of an
evaporating spray is altered by evaporation in a manner that is not even
qualitatively known in advance, downstream measurements of the dropsize
distribution are normally little suited to extrapolate an initial distribution
for computational use. So the measurements taken closest to the atomizer
for the baseline case, which were limited by the dense spray to x = 30mm,
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
where already 77% of the initial spray volume is evaporated, could not be
used as initial dropsize distribution for the spray code. In contrast, at
ambient temperature there is nearly no evaporation of the spray and the size
distribution measured downstream of the dense spray region can be used as
a good approximation of the initial dropsize distribution. In order to find an
'equivalent' initial dropsize distribution at ambient temperature for the
baseline case, a correlation for the SMD was employed. For the small flat
prefilming airblast atomizer and the low viscosity fuel Jet A-I the SMD
produced could be correlated to the important parameters of the
atomization by (Brandt et al., 1997):
0.5
SMD ~ 10.3 . ~a.-----_ (4)
P~fr . UAir
r dN/dO
;f \, dO/dO
I 0(0)
0.75 I
CI>
::l
!
i;j
> i
~
i
!
0.150
...
~ !
c.es
,i
!
GO.O 80.0 '00.0
o [11m]
FIGURE 6 Unmodified, measured initial dropsize distribution for the baseline case.
328 M. BRANDT et al.
120 100
80
~
E ;g-
.2,
... 60
e.-
.l!l
Gl
E -
.>o
~
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
ltl 40 >
'6 40 w
.>
20
20
amount of liquid contained in the large droplets will begin to govern the
behaviour of the developing size distribution, if the total liquid volume has
diminished to the order of the fraction of liquid, that was initially in the
large droplets. Certainly, the evaporation rate will be governed then by the
large droplets too, but this occurs at a state, where most of the evaporation
has already happened. As finally the upper diameter end of the size
distribution governs the evaporation, the rise of the D 90 % is more
pronounced and occurs earlier than for the other two characteristic
diameters shown. So especially the development of the D90 % turnes out to
be sensitive to the shape of the upper diameter end of the size distribution.
Figure 8b shows the streamwise development of the initial dropsize
volumetric distribution dQ/dD. The plotted size distribution in each
streamwise plane was taken at the spray symmetry axis z = 0 (i.e., at
maximum of liquid volume flux density) and each distribution is normalized
by its maximum value.
It can be seen clearly how the initially very small wiggles at the upper end
of the distribution grow over the course of the evaporation process. As the
measurement did not exhibit this behaviour and the very few measured
particles above D = 50 urn (~0.01 % of 300000 events) are statistically not
significant, the upper end of the measured size distribution had to be
modified: The initial size distribution dQ/dD was approximated by a smooth
spline for diameters above 31 um, where the noise was no longer small
KEROSINE SPRAY EVAPORATION 329
the size distribution was only 1.5% and the original liquid volume above
671.lm was only 2%, the effect of this modification on the evaporation rate
was indeed minor, and the initial value of the D 90 % was changed only from
24.8 to 23.5I.lm. However, after this modification the streamwise develop-
ment of the characteristic diameters was now in quite good agreement with
the measurement (Fig. 5, compare to Fig. 7). The streamwise development
of this modified initial dropsize distribution, which was used as a basis for
all further predictions that will be shown, is given in Figure 8a. It should be
mentioned, that the initial size distribution could not be approximated
satisfactorily by a: Rosin-Rammler fit. A detailed study of the influence of
modifications on the measured initial size distribution for the baseline case is
given in Rachner (1996) and (in a more compressed form) in Brandt et al.
(1997).
530
..!..o
S2'~
510
><
::J
l!! ;;::::
...~
::J 500
u
Gl
:e
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
8- 490 III
E Co
...
Gl
Gl 480
0.4
"tl
Gl
U ~
:e III
III
E
Co 470 0
0.2 c:
460
much stronger than e.g., for water. So the relatively small droplet heating
from 453 to 518 K lowers its liquid density already by 8%. For that reason
the normalized liquid volume flux in Figure 9 differs from the liquid mass
flux curve.
0.8
..
~
.!..
i
0.6 R
.11
1::
.....a
0.4 .t1
tc:
50 100 150
x [mm]
fluxes measured with the PDA with the relative vapour concentrations based
on the light extinction technique that integrates along the laser beam, the
liquid volume flux measurements were integrated correspondingly.
As can be seen, the transverse spray penetration was small compared to
the streamwise position: the standard deviation Zrms at x = 150 mm was only
4 mm. Moreover, a slightly larger penetration of the fuel vapour compared
to the liquid spray was observed. As 80% of the vapour in the baseline case
is set free until x = 40 mm, the transverse spreading of the vapour is
governed in that range by the dispersion of the massively evaporating spray.
This situation changes farther downstream, where the remaining portion of
the liquid spray acts only as a weak source of vapour, so that their
transverse spreading is decoupled then, and any differences between the
transverse spreading of spray and fuel vapour are caused by particle inertia
effects. These are not negligible for the present. case, which is demonstrated
by the fact that only with proper values for the initial particle rms-velocities
E 10
.ss:
-
'C
~
8 -
6
--
.
c:
0
::J
4
-
.c
.;:
Ul
is
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
--------
120 140 160
x [mm]
Spray Vapour
ZO.1 Zrms ZO.9 ZO.1 Zrms ZO.9
--&- ~ --B- -0- -+- -.
Prefilmer 8 mm, P=9 bar,TAir=750 K, 1=125 g/s/m
baseline case, which had very little effect on the gasfield turbulence, had a
very small influence on the droplet dispersion and fuel vapour mixing. Spray
predictions of the baseline case with and without using a turbulent
dispersion model demonstrated that turbulent gas velocity fluctuations
had but a very small influence on the evaporation rate: dispersion and
evaporation turned out to be nearly uncoupled. This is consequence of the
small gradients of the gasfield in the duct: despite of different individual
droplet paths caused by the turbulent dispersion, the droplets experience
about the same gasfield surroundings. However gas turbulence has an
influence on the particle dispersion, therefore a turbulent particle dispersion
model is necessary to predict the transverse spreading of the droplet cloud.
It can be summarized that due to the small gradients in the time-averaged
gasfield, the transverse spreading of spray and vapour was only small. The
turbulent features of the gasfield were important for the spray dispersion
and vapour mixing, but had very little effect on the evaporation rate. A
doubling of the penetration width was achieved by introducing turbulence
generators in the duct (not shown here, but in Brandt et al., 1997).
In this chapter the influence of air pressure, air temperature, fuel initial
temperature, air velocity and atomizer loading is studied. These are the
operating parameters of the combustor which change during a flight cycle of
an aeroengine, and are subject to design choices of the combustion engineer.
Moreover the question whether a tractable, single-component evaporation
model can describe the behaviour of a multicomponent fuel like kerosine is
addressed, and the sensitivity of the model to (supplier dependent) changes
in fuel volatility is investigated (Chapter 4.2.3).
~ 90'
,.g
i!.....
.>080'
- II.
;;
70·
.>w 60
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
50 150
0 30 60 90 120
25
20
E 15 .
2:
c
:;: 10
lfl
a
a 30 60 90 120 150
x [mm)
air velocity of 120m/s and a fuel loading of 125g/s/m (i.e., baseline case
conditions) the air pressure in the test cell was varied from 3 bar to 14.5 bar.
As can be seen, raising the air pressure leads to a distinct increase of the
evaporation rate. Whereas at 3 bar at x = 150mm downstream of the
atomizer edge only 73% of the fuel volume was evaporated, at 14.5 bar
already at x = 60 mm evaporation rates of 97% we're found. It should be
noted here that the liquid volume flux measurements have a margin of the
relative error of + 10% and - 14%, and therefore the measured evaporation
rate (= (Vo - V)/ Vol of 73% is between 70 and 77%, whereas at 97% it lies
between 96.7 and 97.4%. This increase of the evaporation rate with the air
pressure is caused to a large extend by the better atomization at higher air
density, which is proportional to the pressure at constant temperature.
Measurements at ambient temperature, which led to the correlation of Eq.
(4), showed a decrease of the initial SMD with the air density by the factor
PA?~3. Indeed Figure 12 shows that the SMD of the spray decreases in
336 M. BRANDT et at.
the first two measurement planes with the air pressure. For a constant
pressure the SMD remains almost constant during evaporation. Only at the
highest pressures at the last measurement planes an increase in SMD is
observed. This might be caused by the very few large droplets in the size
distribution, which begin to dominate the characteristic diameters (cf
Chapter 4.1.1), as more than 99% of the spray is already evaporated.
Other factors influencing the initial spray conditions and enhancing the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
evaporation are caused by the kerosine temperature. The fuel is fed into the
test cell at ambient temperature, but it is heated up when it flows through
the atomizer surrounded by the hot air. At higher air densities the heat
transfer to the atomizer housing and the liquid is increased. The experiments
showed that for the operating conditions presented in Figure 12 the fuel
temperature near the atomizer edge increases from 400 K to 480 K, if the air
pressure is raised from 3 bar to 14.5 bar. Such an elevated spray initial
temperature augments the succeeding evaporation (see Chapter 4.2.4) and in
addition lowers the surface tension. The surface tension of kerosine Jet A-I
exhibits an almost linear decrease with temperature: It diminishes from
0.015 Njm to 0.010 Njm when the fuel temperature increases from 400 K to
480 K (Rachner, 1998) and this in turn reduces the initial dropsize diameter
(see Eq. (4», which enhances evaporation.
The influences of the increase of the air pressure from 3 bars to 14.5 bars
on the initial spray conditions may be quantified as follows:
• a decrease to 62% of the initial SMD due to the influence of the air
density on atomization (Eq. (4»
• an increase of the initial fuel temperature from 400 K to 480 K
• a decrease to 82% of the initial SM D due to the influence of the fuel
temperature on the surface tension at atomization (Eq. (4»
A separate study of the influence of the air pressure on evaporation itself
could not be conducted experimentally, because the air pressure was coupled
with fuel heating and atomization. However the effect on evaporation itself
was separated by the numerical spray simulation. Figure 13 shows three
computations made with the same initial dropsize distribution as used for
the baseline case, but at varying air pressures.
From this figure it is found in our case that pressure deteriorates tbe
evaporation process, but only moderately: at x = 30 mm the evaporation.
rate diminishes from 83% at 3 bar to 72% at 14.5 bar. Further
downstream at x = 100mm in all cases evaporation rates of more than
98% are found. This influence of raising the pressure is a result of several
interacting effects:
KEROSINE SPRA Y EVAPORAnON 337
100 _-------------,50
,~.~.~.-r.:J' - - p=3 bar
90
I," ----- p= 9 bar
80 I~"" ..........".. p =14.5 bar 40
,..-"'..-
70 ': ...............................................................
,-'" ....-
1;'
~
---·-D~~~---- E
~ 60
o
,:
....s
.. - 30 ~
.... 50 ..
~
w
.>
As the raising of pressure increases the air density, which in turn increases
the particle Reynolds number and therefore lowers its Stokes number, the
particles are faster accelerated and reach a given streamwise position in a
shorter time, so their residence time and time to evaporate is reduced.
Moreover, the elevated particle Reynolds number enhances heat and mass
transfer coefficients at the droplet. Also the fuel has to be heated up to a
higher wet-bulb temperature of 542 K at 14.5 bar compared to 469 K at 3
bar and the heat-up period of each droplet takes a longer portion of its
lifetime. Finally, the temperature dependence of fuel properties (e.g., liquid
fuel density and heat of evaporation decrease significantly with temperature)
is of influence, when droplet heating and wet-bulb temperature change.
So it can be concluded, that the measured increase of the evaporation
rates with the pressure is mainly caused by the finer spray accompanied by a
higher spray initial temperature. This effect is somewhat weakened by the
slower evaporation mechanism at higher pressures.
and this alone would give a coarser spray. In contrast, the higher air
temperature induces a higher spray initial temperature by enhanced preheat
of the fuel from the air through the atomizer housing. This higher spray
initial temperature enhances the succeeding evaporation but also reduces the
surface tension, which gives a finer spray. The surface tension effect turned
out to be somewhat more pronounced than the influence of the air density,
so that the 8MD of the spray produced by the atomizer exhibits a slight
decrease with air temperature.
These different effects on the initial spray conditions can be quantified as
follows, when raising air temperature from 650 to 850 K:
• an increase of the initial 8MD to 108% caused by the effect of the reduced
air density on atomization (Eq. (4»
100
80
;,!!
e:. 60
0
'c;.
"
>
w
40
.>
20.'"i-'-' 10
,I
I
I
In order to estimate the effect of the scattering in volatility among Jet A-I
charges, we changed the underlying vapour pressure relation for the
prediction of the T A ir = 650 K-case: The original vapour pressure curve
yields a mean boiling temperature of 478 K at I bar for Jet A-I (note that in
the TA;r = 650 K-case the droplets were heated from 414 to 503 K, so the
vapour pressure relation was applied in this range near the normal boiling
temperature). At this normal boiling temperature typically 48% of the
Jet A-I liquid volume is recovered in the ASTM-distillation apparatus
(Rachner, 1998). Now the vapour pressure curve was modified such that
340 M. BRANDT et al.
the boiling temperature at I bar was 19 K higher, which is just the maximum
deviation found among the many individual distillation curve data for
Jet A-I compiled in Rachner (1998) at the 50% -recovered temperature
compared to the typical value for Jet A-I. This temperature of 497 K
corresponds to the 76% -recovered temperature of the typical distillation
curve of Jet A-I. With this modified vapour pressure relation (and the initial
dropsize distribution of the baseline case scaled with the SM D-ratio of 1.06),
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
In order to isolate the effect of the initial spray temperature on the droplet
evaporation process itself, two predictions of the baseline case were
performed, in which only the initial spray temperature T PO was varied
from the measured value 453 K. All other parameters remained unchanged.
Two extreme values were chosen as the spray initial temperature: the fuel
supply temperature (288 K) into the test rig, and the wet-bulb temperature
(518 K). The latter value implies, that the droplets experience no heating at
all during evaporation.
KEROSINE SPRAY EVAPORATION 341
100 l--:::~~tDi~--=:::===~------,
40
80
30
~
E
~
20 0
::iE
.. - en
10
o
100 150
x [mm]
FIGURE 15 Predicted influence of droplet initial temperature on streamwise development of
Sauter-diameter and evaporation rate (all other parameters of baseline case left unchanged).
342 M. BRANDT et al.
120 mls to 100m/s. Second, the effect on the initial dropsize distribution was
approximated additionally by multiplying the diameter of all starting
computational droplets by a factor of 1.2, which is the ratio of the SMDs at
UAir = lOOmis and 120m/s according to Eq. (4). This step implies that all
initial characteristic diameters increase by this same factor.
It can be seen that the isolated effect of lowering the air velocity on the
evaporation process resulted in faster evaporation. Obviously the deteriora-
tion of heat and mass transfer at the droplets for UAir = 100mls was
overcompensated by the longer residence times. However, when additionally
taking into account the increased initial dropsizes, the evaporation becomes
slower than in the baseline case. This confirms the importance of the initial
dropsize distribution on evaporation.
100 .,;..;;_--------------,50
90
80 .......................................................... 40
70 ..... 0. 0%
...... ...... .. _---.
~
:,!! 60
e:- .>:
~
E
30 .;;!,
...
-
o
"> 50
.....~.fJI.P. · ~E
!1l
>
w 40 ...................... 20 .S!
~:.;.:.;:.;.:.;:.:=c:.=c=-"1 "C
">
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 2S0
X [mm]
For lower air velocities it should be remembered here that the SMD-
correlation given in this work was validated only for air velocities between
100 and 170 tn]«. Moreover it should be emphasized that the simple
transformation of the initial dropsize distribution by a factor derived from a
SM D-correlation presumes that the basic shape of the size distribution does
not change. However, other mechanisms for liquid disintegration and
droplet breakup, as reviewed in Lefebvre (1989, Chapter 2), become
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
1 For the investigated operating conditions the highest velocity of the fuel leaving the
atomizer slit was 3m/s, so that the relative velocity between the fuel and the air -an important
factor influencing airblast atomization- was nearly unaffected by the atomizer design and the
fuel flow rate.
344 M. BRANDT et al.
I--~:=::====~:::::=:;::::====::::;;;.l
7
~
o
100
90· ...
-
">
Q.
~ 70'
80
.>
60 .
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:27 12 May 2013
50
0 30 60 90 120 150
25
20 -
E
.:!: 15 -
c
:; 10 .
1Il
5·
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
x [rnm]
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Acknowledgements
NOMENCLATURE
Subscript Meaning
References
Bliirncke, E., Brandt, M., Eickhoff, H. and Hassa, C. (1993) Particle dispersion in highly
swirling, turbulent flows. Particle and Particle Systems Characterization, 10, 182-190.
Brandl, M., Hassa, C., Kallergis, K. and Eickhoff, H. (1994) An experimental study of fuel
injectors for premixing ducts. lCLASS-94, Rouen, France, June 1994.
Brandt, M. (1995) Liquid and gaseous fuel measurements in a premix duct. PARTEC 95, l lth
European Conferenee of /LASS Europe, Niirnberg, ISBN 3-921590-34-5.
Brandt, M., Hassa, C. and Rachner, M. (1997) Messung der Zwei-Phasen-Strornung
(Tropfengeschwindigkeit und -grobe) in einer Olvormischstrecke. Final Report TURBO-
FLAM Phase II-Vorhaben 3.2.t.8, Institute for Propulsion Technology, DLR, Cologne,
April 1997.
Clift, R., Grace, J. R. and Weber, M. E. (1978) Bubbles, drops and particles. Academic Press,
New York, ISBN 0-12-176950-X.
DANTEC (1992) PDA User's Manual. DANTEC Measurement Technology, Tonsbaken 18,
Dk-2740, Skovlunde, Denmark.
Drallmeier, J. A. (1994) Hydrocarbon vapor measurements in fuel sprays: a simplification of the
infrared extinction technique. Applied Optics, 33(30), 7175-7179.
Edwards, C. F. and Marx, K. D. (1992) Analysis of the ideal Phase-Doppler system: limitations
imposed by the single-particle constraint. Atomization and Sprays, 2, 319-366.
Fitzky, G. and Bohn, D. (1995) Messung der komplexen Brechungsindizes von Heizol EL und
Kerosin in Abhiingigkeit von Druck- und Temperatur. Bericht, Lehrstuhl und lnstitut fur
Dampf- und Gasturbinen, RWTH Aachen, Oct. 1995.
Jansen, M., Schulenberg, T. and Waldinger, D. (1991) Shop test result of V64.3 gas turbine.
ASME 91-GT-224, Orlando, Florida, June 3-6, 1991.
Kneer, R. (1993) Grundlegende Untersuchungen zur Spriihstrahlausbreitung in hochbelasteten
Brennraurnen: Tropfenverdunstung und Spriihstrahlcharakterisierung. Dissertation, In-
stitut flir Thermische Stromungsrnaschinen, Universitat Karlsruhe.
Lefebvre, A. H. (1989) Atomization and sprays. Hemisphere Publ. Corp., New York, ISBN 0-
89116-603-3.
Rachner, M. (1996) Zum EinfluB der Anfangstropfengrobenverteilung auf die Sprayausbreitung
im LPP-Vormischkanal. Internal Report DLR-IB 325-14-96, Institute for Propulsion
Technology, DLR, Cologne, Sept. 1996.
Rachner, M., Brandt, M., Eickhoff, H., Hassa, c., Braumer, A., Kramer, H., Ridder, M. and
Sick, V. (1996) A numerical and experimental study of fuel evaporation and mixing for lean
premixed combustion at high pressure. 26th Symp. (Int.) on Combustion, held at Naples,
Italy, July 28 - August 2 1996, The Combustion Institute, pp. 2741-2748.
Rachner, M. (1998) Die Stoffeigenschaften von Kerosin Jet A-I. DLR-Mitteilungen 98-01,
DLR, Cologne, March 1998.
Schutz, H., Eickhoff, H., Theisen, P., Griebel, P. and Koopman, J. (1997) Analysis of the
mixing zone of an air staged combustor. 13th Int. Sympos. on Airbreathing Engines.
(lSABE), Chattanooga, Tennessee, Sept. 7-12, 1997, International Society For Air
Breathing Engines.
Shampine, L. F. and Gordon, M. K. (1975) Computer solution of ordinary differential
equations- The initial value problem. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco,
Spadaccini, L. J. and TeVelde, J. A. (1982) Autoignition characteristics of aircraft-type fuels.
Combustion and Flame; 46, 283-300, The Combustion Institute.