International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Multiphase Flow

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

Improved hybrid model applied to liquid jet in crossflow

Douglas Hector Fontes∗, Vitor Vilela, Lucas de Souza Meira, Francisco José de Souza
School of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Uberlândia, 2121 João Naves de Ávila Avenue, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Spray formation in a liquid jet in air crossflow is investigated numerically using a hybrid approach for two
Received 9 October 2018 cases: We = 11 and We = 53, where We is the air Weber number. The VOF method was used to solve the
Revised 27 February 2019
interaction between the liquid jet column and the air flow up to the primary breakup. The Eulerian liquid
Accepted 28 February 2019
portion is converted to discrete Lagrangian drops by the use of source terms of mass and momentum and
Available online 11 March 2019
according to empirical correlations. The effects of two secondary breakup models, as well as two-way
Keywords: coupling with droplet-to-droplet collisions were evaluated in this work, in order to establish an improved
Liquid jet in crossflow hybrid model suitable to solve liquid jet in crossflow at low computational cost. The results were very
VOF Method satisfactory relating droplet velocity and mass fraction distribution for the lower Weber number case. For
Hybrid approach the higher Weber number case, the deviation of the numerical mass fraction distribution in comparison
AB-TAB model with the experimental one was less than 14 × 10−2 . Improvement to the droplet size distribution was
secondary breakup models
observed by using a new secondary breakup model, specially for the higher Weber number case.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Liquid jet in crossflow (LJIC) is an effective configuration for
spray formation in several combustion systems, such as carbure-
tors, afterburners of a jet engine, gas turbine combustors, ramjet
and scramjet combustors (Hojnacki, 1972; Inamura, 1997; Mad-
abhushi, 2003). The perpendicular interaction of the two phase
flows, whose density ratio is usually of the order of 103 and
liquids with low viscosity, generates complete disintegration of
the liquid jet in a short space (i.e. less than 10 times the jet
diameter), for viscosity is a kind of restraining force to atom-
ization so that lower viscosity may produce smaller droplets
(Strasser, 2019). The aerodynamic, viscous and surface tension
forces on LJIC influence spray formation in many aspects: liquid
jet breakup height and mode, droplets breakup mechanism and
velocity. Kelvin-Helmholtz, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, turbulent
eddies and cavitation are the main causes of primary breakup in
sprays Bravo et al. (2014). LJIC studies have related the primary
breakup instabilities and the liquid jet breakup height to the We-
ber number, We, and the momentum flux ratio, J, respectively (Wu
et al., 1997; Mazallon et al., 1998; Becker and Hassa, 2002; Sallam
et al., 2003). Additionally, the Weber number also affects the sub-
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: douglas.fontes@ufu.br (D.H. Fontes), vitor.vilela@ufu.br (V.
Vilela), lucas.meira@ufu.br (L.d. Souza Meira), francisco.souza@ufu.br (F. José de
Souza).
sequent breakup that the detached droplets experience along the
flow (Reitz, 1987; Lin and Reitz, 1998).
Numerical simulations of LJIC are essential for the design and
evaluation of many combustion systems. These simulations in-
clude the primary and secondary breakups, when drops separate
from the liquid column and from other droplets, respectively. Sim-
ulations have been performed based on the Euler-Lagrange ap-
proach, Euler-Euler approach or hybrid approach. The choice of
each method is usually related to the balance of the accuracy re-
quirement and the computational resources.
The Euler-Lagrange approach applied to LJIC consists of trans-
porting the gaseous stream based on the Eulerian reference frame
and the liquid droplets based on the Lagrangian referential. At its
early stages, this approach considered the liquid jet as Lagrangian
blobs Reitz (1987). In the blob method, a droplet with diameter
of the order of the nozzle diameter is released into the gas cross-
flow with a frequency that maintains the jet mass flow rate. The
primary breakup of the blobs and the secondary breakup of the
subsequent droplets can be modeled based on the growth of insta-
bilities, such as Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz (Bravo et al.,
2014). Reitz (1987) evaluated the LJIC using the Euler-Lagrange ap-
proach, considering droplets collision and coalescence. Different di-
ameters of the generated droplets were calculated, relating them
to the wavelengths on the blob surface. The jet penetration and
droplet sizes were in accordance with the experimental measure-
ments of Hiroyasu and Kadota (1974). In a recent work (Li et al.,
2017), LJIC in supersonic air flow (Ma = 1.94) based on the Euler-
Lagrange approach was simulated. The Kelvin-Helmholtz breakup

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.02.009
0301-9322/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
model was used to calculate the droplet stripping and secondary
breakup was simulated using Taylor Analogy Breakup (TAB) and
Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) models concomitantly; Large Eddy Simulation
was applied with modified drag coefficient and breakup models,
depending on compressible effects and droplet deformation. The
authors obtained good agreement with experimental data on jet
penetration and Sauter Mean Diameter along the streamwise di-
rection.
The main advantage of the Euler-Lagrange approach lies in its
low computational cost, since the liquid phase is solved as parcels.
On the other hand, its main disadvantage is the poor evaluation of
the interaction between liquid jet and gas crossflow, since the liq-
uid jet is usually modeled as unrealistic blobs (Reitz, 1987; Bravo
et al., 2014). Other numerical results using the Euler-Lagrange ap-
proach (Apte et al., 2003; Balasubramanyam and Chen, 2008) dis-
play good agreement regarding droplet size and velocity with ex-
periments. In general, the Euler-Lagrange approach is highly de-
pendent on empirical correlations, therefore, it is more suitable for
use in cases with great complexity and/or when the interaction of
phases is not of main importance.
A second formulation used more recently for LJIC is the
Euler-Euler approach. It may describe the two phases using sev-
eral methods, such as Front-Tracking (Tryggvason et al., 2001),
VOF (Volume of Fluid) (Hirt and Nichols, 1981) and Level Set
(Sussman et al., 1994). Since the secondary breakup usually gen-
erates droplets of the order of 10−6 m for low liquid viscosity and
high density ratios as found in water-air flows, this kind of numer-
ical simulation incurs in a high computational cost, due to the high
mesh refinement level required. Despite all improvements on par-
allel computation and computational methods, there are relatively
few works in the literature of sprays using the Euler-Euler ap-
proach. Li and Soteriou (2016) simulated LJIC using the Euler-Euler
approach with the Coupled Level Set Volume of Fluid (CLSVOF)
and Sharp Interface Ghost Fluid methods to capture the spatial and
temporal evolution of the liquid-gas interface with high density
ratio. Li and Soteriou (2016) used two meshing strategies: a uni-
form grid of 39 μm, corresponding to approximately 500 million
elements, and a dynamic adaptive mesh (AMR) with three levels
of refinement, resulting in approximately 7 million elements, re-
fined only at the interface. In order to detect the gas-liquid inter-
face at each timestep and then perform the dynamic mesh adap-
tation, a numerical approach was developed to change the way
the liquid phase is described in dilute regions from Eulerian level-
set/volume-of-fluid. Domain regions that do not meet the crite-
ria for the existence of a liquid-gas interface are then coarsened,
considerably reducing the mesh count. 50 0 0 and 24 cores of a
supercomputer were used for the uniform grid and AMR simula-
tions, respectively. The authors recognized that uniform grid sim-
ulations not only present high processing cost, but also pose sig-
nificant challenges in storing and post-processing the large set of
data. Spray simulations driven by mechanisms rather other than
LJIC can be found using Euler-Euler Lagrange methods (Shinjo and
Umemura, 2011; Chen et al., 2013; Arienti and Sussman, 2015). In
such works, the simulated region is usually in a denser region at
the proximity of the jet.
Recently, statistical learning methods have been used as an
alternative to computationally intensive methods based on the
highly accurate solution of conservation equations. Such methods
are validated with the aid of high-fidelity simulation/experimental
database, which results in considerable reduction in computational
time (Ma et al., 2015, 2016; Ling et al., 2018; Tryggvason et al.,
2016).
Alternatively, the hybrid approach uses both Euler-Lagrange and
Euler-Euler concepts. In LJIC simulations, every segregated parcel
of liquid is modeled as a Lagrangian particle, and both gas and
liquid flows are simulated with the Euler-Euler approach. The hy-
99
brid approach properly solves the liquid jet and gas crossflow in-
teractions, just as it is done in the Euler-Euler, while avoiding
the high computational cost in dilute regions, similarly to the
Euler-Lagrange. This approach also requires empirical correlations
to the primary breakup, whenever the Eulerian representation is
replaced by the Lagrangian one. Arienti et al. (2006) presented a
hybrid algorithm to solve LJIC. The VOF method with the algebraic
scheme HRIC was used. The authors used empirical correlations
from Mazallon et al. (1999) and Sallam et al. (20 03, 20 06) to solve
the primary breakup of the liquid jet. The volume flux, droplets
velocities and spatial distribution of the droplets diameters were
compared to experimental measurements, showing good agree-
ment. An important advantage of the hybrid approach used by
Arienti et al. (2006) was to suitably capture the liquid jet mor-
phology during its interaction with the air crossflow at a lower
computational cost than that of the Euler-Euler approach. The au-
thors used source terms and empirical correlations in the VOF and
momentum equations to switch between Eulerian and Lagrangian
frameworks. The secondary breakup of the droplets generated from
the liquid jet was simulated using the Taylor Analogy Breakup
(TAB) method (O’Rourke and Amsden, 1987). Droplet velocities and
diameters presented good agreement with the experimental data
(Shedd, 2009).
In the view of numerically solving the primary breakup with-
out any empirical correlations, some hybrid simulations have been
made (Li et al., 2010; Herrmann, 2010; Li and Soteriou, 2016; Ling
et al., 2017). However, in this high-fidelity simulations, the mesh
resolution required to properly solve the primary and secondary
breakups is in the order of hundreds of millions elements, as the
liquid structure is converted to a droplet only after the secondary
breakup.
The purpose of the present work is to bring some advance-
ments to the hybrid approach which uses empirical correlations. In
the previous work based on a hybrid approach using empirical cor-
relations (Arienti et al., 2006; Arienti and Soteriou, 2007; Arienti
et al., 2011), the original TAB model (O’Rourke and Amsden, 1987)
was frequently used, droplets were assumed to be perfectly spher-
ical, no analysis were made on two-way or four way coupling
and the primary breakup coefficients were not analyzed. The orig-
inal TAB model can be proven not to conserve droplet momentum
and kinetic energy. In this sense, the newly proposed secondary
breakup model developed by Dahms and Oefelein (2016), herein
named Accurate Balance TAB method (AB-TAB), is used and com-
pared with the TAB model; droplet distortion is then accounted
for during the secondary breakup; two primary breakup coeffi-
cients were investigated, considering the prediction of mass frac-
tion distribution and velocity; and two-way coupling between dis-
crete and continuous phases and droplet-to-droplet collisions are
also accounted for in the present work. The comparisons with ex-
periments demonstrate that the improved hybrid model is a feasi-
ble, low-cost approach for LJIC.
2. Setup description
The LJIC cases analyzed in this work consist of a water jet per-
pendicularly interacting with air crossflow, as evaluated experi-
mentally by Deepe (2006). This interaction breaks the liquid jet
into drops or ligaments, which in turn break into smaller droplets,
creating a liquid spray. The velocity and occurrence (which means
the number of droplets within a diameter range crossing a sam-
pling plane) of the droplets in a specific distance from the liquid
jet are important information for spray designs. Deepe (2006) ob-
tained the droplet velocity and their occurrence in specific trans-
verse planes using Mie scattering and PDPA (Phase Doppler Par-
ticle Analysis) measurements for two LJIC conditions. Table 1
100 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114

Fig. 1. Physical domain for LJIC cases.

Table 1 3. Mathematical description

Physical parameters for LJIC cases.

Case vjet vg Wejet Weg Rejet Reg J The mathematical description is composed of the following
[m/s] [m/s] [−] [−] [−] [−] [−] parts: the Eulerian and Lagrangian frameworks, in which the so-
C1 4.26 50 66 11 1 × 103 8.6 × 104 6 lution of the fluid flow PDEs (Partial Differential Equations) and
C2 13.3 110 641 53 3.4 × 103 1.9 × 105 12 the droplets transport ODE (Ordinary Differential Equations) are re-
spectively explained. The empirical models required to convert the
fluid representation from one framework to another are also pre-
sented.
Table 2
Fluids physical properties.

Property Air Water 3.1. Eulerian framework

ρ [kg/m ]
3
1.2 998
μ [Pa · s] 1.8 × 10−5 1.0 × 10−3 This section presents all Eulerian transport equations in their
σ [N/m] 0.0713 integral form using index notation. These equations were dis-
cretized by the Finite Volume Method (FVM) (Ferziger and Perić,
2002).
The time-averaged mass conservation and momentum equa-
tions are expressed by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. This set of
shows the main features of the two cases, C1 and C2, studied by equations is known as the Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-
Deepe (2006) that are analyzed numerically in this work. Stokes (URANS), Reynolds (1895),
In this table, vjet is the liquid jet area-averaged velocity entering 
the air duct; vg is the air area-averaged velocity at the air duct en- ui ni · ds = 0, (1)
ρl v2j d j ρg v2g hduct
sc

trance; W e jet = and W eg = represent the Weber

σ σ
numbers based on liquid jet flow and the air flow, respectively;    
∂
ρl v j d j ρg vg hduct ρ ui d v + ρ ui u j · n j ds = − pδi j · n j ds + ρ gi dv
Re jet = and Reg = represent the Reynolds num- ∂t cv cv
μl μg   
cs
cs 
bers based on the liquid jet flow and the air flow, respectively; and ∂ ui ∂ u
μ − ρ ui uj · n j ds
j
+ +
ρl v2j cs ∂ x j ∂ xi
J= represents the momentum flux ratio.  
ρg v2g
The physical domain used for numerical analyses, Fig. 1, con-
+ ρ fα dv + ρ sui dv + fst , (2)
cv cv
sists of a constrained region of the experimental setup. The noz-
zle center, d j = 0.259 mm, is located at 9.52 mm from the air in- where: cs and cv stand for the control surface and control volume;
flow and at 14.2 mm from the lateral walls of the duct. The nozzle δ ij is the Kronecker delta; ui are the velocity vector components;
length is 2.38 mm, which is short to prevent any turbulence on the gi are the gravity vector components; μ is the fluid dynamic vis-
flow, according to the experimental setup (Deepe, 2006). Because cosity; ρ is the fluid density; ui uj is the tensor of the fluctuating
the liquid turbulence is known to affect the atomization process, velocities, which is modeled in this work with the two-layer k − 
the jet flow was kept laminar to allow the investigation of effects turbulence closure model (Launder and Spalding, 1974); fst is the
n
of flux momentum ratio and Weber number. The duct height and surface tension source term; sui = − mdp (Fdi ) is the source term that
length are 25.4 mm and 54.5 mm, respectively. represents the exchange of momentum, related to the drag force
Table 2 depicts the physical properties of water and air: den- (described bellow), Fdi , on droplets and the number density of a
sity, ρ ; dynamic viscosity, μ; and the surface tension coefficient, drop parcel, nd ; and fα is the source term related to the change in
σ . These physical properties were used to obtain the physical con- the momentum when an Eulerian liquid portion is converted to a
ditions presented in Table 1. Lagrangian particle.
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Different RANS turbulence models may affect features of fluid
flow in some configurations as shown by Dhakal et al. (2014) that
evaluated turbulence modeling of a single-phase flow cyclone gasi-
fier. For jet in crossflow there exist many RANS turbulence models
(Karvinen and Ahlstedt, 2005; Lefantzi et al., 2013; Arunajatesan
and Laboratories, 2012), however, achieving convergence at high-
density ratio revealed to be a formidable task for k −  alternatives,
like Reynolds Stress Model (RSM). The Shear Stress Transport (SST)
was also experimented with, but the results for size distribution
and droplet velocity were indistinguishable from those obtained
with the k −  model. Therefore, the k −  model has been chosen
as a compromise between accuracy and robustness.
Furthermore, the work of Karvinen and Ahlstedt (2005) showed
that the results of standard k −  model were the closest to the
measured values, whereas results of the SST were also quite satis-
factory. The RNG k −  model and the standard k − ω model gave
nonphysical velocity profiles.
Turbulence source/sink terms for two-way coupling were not
considered in the present work. Strasser (2007) performed prelim-
inary test using a two-equation turbulence model to estimate the
influence of these terms for the current separator flow scenario.
The results with and without the source terms were indistinguish-
able.
The two-phase flow is solved as one fluid, whose physical prop-
erties depend on the local volume fraction, following the concept
of the VOF method (Ubbink, 1997). The volume fraction is de-
fined in the range 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 and expresses the ratio of liquid vol-
Vl
ume to the total volume, α = . This variable indicates which
Vl + Vg
phase is present in each numerical cell: fully liquid phase, α = 1,
fully gas phase, α = 0. Fluid density, Eq. (3), and dynamic viscos-
ity, Eq. (4), in the mass conservation and momentum equations are
weighted according to the volume fraction,
ρ = (1 − α )ρg + αρl ,
μ = (1 − α )μg + αμl ,
where the subscripts g and l indicate gas and liquid phases, respec-
tively.
The volume fraction transport equation, Eq. (5), is obtained
from the continuity equation for an individual phase.
  
∂ terms, the interphase net force between the two fluids at the sub-
α dv + α u j · n j ds = sα d v,
∂t cv cs cv
where sα is the source/sink term related to the Euler/Lagrange
frameworks exchange. It is calculated as the ratio of the liquid vol-
ume to the cell volume multiplied by the time step (Arienti et al.,
2011)
Vl α work of Liovic and Lakehal (2007), such terms are not modeled
sα = − =− , (6)
V t t for the same reasons. Their effect is undesirably embedded in the
and it assumes a positive sign if a Lagrangian droplet is converted
to the Eulerian framework. The volume fraction is converted into
Lagrangian particles from a specific column height according to the
empirical models (Wu et al., 1997; Sallam et al., 2003), so that no
marking cells algorithm is needed.
The source/sink term related to the Euler/Lagrange frameworks
exchange in the time-averaged momentum equation, Eq. (2), is
Vlvd αv
fα = − = − d,
V t t Regarding the boundary conditions, symmetry was applied to
where vd is the drop velocity vector. It considers that an amount
of momentum is lost by the continuous phase at the Euler to La-
grange conversion.
The interactions at the interface are modeled through the sur-
face tension force, which is physically discontinuous and defined
101
only at the liquid-gas interface. However, from a numerical point
of view, this effect must be mathematically modeled as continu-
ous. The Continuum Surface Force model (Brackbill et al., 1992)
was used to describe the source term due to the surface tension
force as a continuous force in the momentum equation, Eq. (2).
Thus, in the VOF method, this source term is related to the vol-
ume fraction gradient, the interface curvature, κ , and the surface
tension coefficient of the phases pair, σ , according to the Eq. (8) in
the integral form,

fst = σ κ α n j ds. (8)
sc
The interface curvature can be obtained from the divergent of
the unit vector of the interface (Ubbink, 1997), which is based on
the gradient of the volume fraction,
 
∇α
κ = −∇ · . (9)
|∇α|
Computing curvature accurately still remains a challenge in un-
structured meshes. In this work, we compute the volume fraction
derivatives, which are necessary for calculating the interface cur-
vature, based on the second-order node-averaged Gauss method
described in Maric et al. (2013). Since the volume fraction is dis-
continuous across the interface, its derivatives will be noisy. In
order to avoid this effect, the volume fraction is smoothed by a
nodal smoother prior to the derivatives calculations. This ensures
smooth derivatives. The method can be proven to be second-order
in the classical static droplet problem. Parasitic currents inevitably
appear, but their magnitude is not relevant to the velocity scales
involved in this work.
Some assumptions were made regarding the numerical model-
ing of the flow on the Eulerian framework:
(3) • Both fluids are treated under the continuum hypothesis;
• The flow equations are averaged in time - RANS approach;
• Fluid phases are considered immiscible;
(4) • No thermal effects are accounted;
• Physical properties are considered constant.
In an LES context, Liovic and Lakehal (2007) showed that by fil-
tering the single-fluid momentum equations, not only the subgrid
tensor appears. Because of the surface tension force, two additional
(5)
grid level and a non-linearity error, are produced. The latter repre-
sents the non-resolved counterpart of surface tension. Such terms
are difficult to characterize, not only because of the lack of a crit-
ical scale, but also because the resolved surface tension force it-
self is hardly computed with sufficient accuracy. In the context of
RANS, analogous terms arise in the averaging procedure. As in the
modeling, but fortunately limited to the liquid-gas interface.
The numerical mesh created to simulate the LJIC cases was
composed of hexahedra, with near wall refinement in order to
match the dimensionless wall distance y+ ≈ 1. Since the liquid-
gas interface must be well captured, high refinement was applied
also in the vicinity of the liquid jet. In order to obtain grid inde-
pendence, several mesh tests were performed, mainly monitoring
droplet velocity. Additionally, all meshes displayed orthogonality
(7) above 0.5 for all elements.
both lateral surfaces of the simulated domain; the no-slip condi-
tion was considered for the liquid and gas phases at the bottom,
top and tube walls; velocity profiles were imposed at the air and
jet inlets; the static pressure was prescribed at the duct exit. Be-
cause of the long section upstream of the test section used in the
102 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114

Fig. 2. Two possible kinds of droplets interaction.

experiments, the air inlet is fully turbulent. For the air inlet, a tur- Regarding boundary condition, droplets are allowed to escape
bulent velocity profile with turbulent length of 2.54 mm and tur- when hitting the walls, since spray-wall interaction and liquid film
bulence intensity of 3% was imposed, according to the power law, transport model are not considered in this work. Actually, the
Eq. (10), choice of droplet boundary condition was seen to be irrelevant in
 1/7 this work, since there is no film formation in the experiments con-
dw sidered.
δT > δw → u = u∞ ,
δT Droplet velocity and position are obtained from the solution of
δT < δw → u = u∞ , (10) the ordinary differential equations, Eqs. (12) and (13),
du pi
where dw is the distance to the nearest wall and δ T is the turbulent mp = Fdi + Fw,bi , (12)
boundary layer thickness at the air inlet. The turbulent boundary
dt
layer thickness is estimated following a fully developed boundary dx pi
layer on a plate, = u pi , (13)
dt
δT = 0.37(ν /u∞ )0.2 L0T .8 , (11) where: the subscript p refers to discrete particle; u and x are,
respectively, the particle velocity and position; m is the droplet
assuming LT = 200 mm Arienti and Soteriou (2007). In Arienti and
mass; and subscript i indicates the three components of a vector.
Soteriou (2007), both steady and pulsed jet flow were investigated.
Only the drag and the combined buoyancy-weight forces, respec-
In the present work, only the steady case was simulated. For the
tively Eqs. (14) and (15),
water inlet, a uniform velocity profile with turbulent length of
0.032 mm and turbulence intensity of 3% was set at the jet noz- 3ρCD
Fdi = m p (ui,t − u pi ), (14)
zle entrance. 4ρ p d p
 
ρ
3.2. Lagrangian framework Fw,bi = 1− m p gi , (15)
ρp
Droplets created in the Eulerian to Lagrangian conversion are were considered in this work. Other forces such as lift, virtual mass
modeled as discrete parcels. The physical modeling of the droplet and Basset forces, are normally not relevant because of the high
motion follows the Newton’s second law. Thus, flow forces on liquid/air density ratio.
droplets are accounted by adding source terms to the particle In Eq. (14), ui,t = ui + ui is the instantaneous fluid velocity, com-
equation motion, Eq. (12). Droplets also may affect the air flow and posed by the averaged and fluctuating velocities. The averaged
interact with other droplets. component is interpolated from the Eulerian mesh to the par-
Two-way particle coupling considers that droplets affect the air ticle position, and the fluctuating component is obtained from
flow, besides the effect of the air flow on droplets. It is modeled by the Langevin dispersion model proposed by Sommerfeld (2001).
the source term sui on the momentum equation, Eq. (2). The inter- The drag coefficient, CD , is based on the correlation of Feng and
action between droplets is usually relevant in dense spray regions, Michaelides (2001), which gives, Eq. (16),
i.e. high droplet concentration, whereas in dilute spray regions, i.e.  4
low droplet concentration, this effect can be neglected. 10 0 0 ≥ Re p > 5 → CD = 17.0Re−2 /3
Considering binary collision, droplets interaction can be of two
p
λ+2
 
kinds: grazing collision or coalescence, Fig. 2. In grazing collision, 24
0.687
 λ − 2
+ 1 + 0.15Re p
droplets keep their size but change their velocity. In coalescence, Re p λ+2
two droplets become a bigger droplet with modified velocity. Coa-     
lescence happens whenever surface tension dominates over liquid 8.0 3λ + 2 3λ + 2
0 ≤ Re p ≤ 5 → CD = 1 + 0.05 Re p
flow inertia (Reitz, 2006). The droplet Weber number represents Re p λ + 1 λ+1
the ratio of the liquid inertia and the surface tension forces. Thus,  
3λ + 2
the interaction of droplets with high Weber number generates − 0.01 Re p ln(Re p ). (16)
grazing collision instead of coalescence. The outcome of droplet λ+1
collision was modeled by the stochastic model of O’Rourke (1981).
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114 103

The present work used this correlation aiming at verifying the

influence of the viscous flow inside the droplets and their distor-
tion on spray formation in LJIC. Strictly speaking, this internal flow
is important, although the use of simpler correlations produced
similar results for the droplet velocity. The droplet Reynolds num-
ber is calculated according to
ρ|ui − u pi |d p
Re p = . (17)
μ
The interactions between droplets were evaluated considering
grazing collision and coalescence. The collision occurrence and its
outcome were modeled by the stochastic method, O’Rourke (1981).
This method considers that a collision can occur only with pairs
of parcels in the same cell. A parcel represents a number of real
droplets with the same volume and velocity. In the current hybrid
method, parcels are initially generated by primary breakup at each
timestep. Since the timestep is rather low, the liquid volume con-
verted to parcels is also very small. In most simulations, this pri- Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the Taylor Analogy Breakup.
mary parcel was made up of less than one droplet. When collision
is detected, its type is determined comparing the collision impact Table 3
The analogy between a forced mass-spring-damper system and an oscillating
parameter,
√ and distorting droplet.
b = ( r1 + r2 ) Y , (18)
Forced mass-spring-damper Oscillating and distorting Mathematical
with the critical collision impact parameter, system droplet equivalence
 

 Spring force Surface tension force k
= Ck ρσr3
2.4 rr3 − 2.4rr2 + 2.7rr
m l p

= Cd ρμrl2
= (r1 + r2 )min 1.0,
c
Damping force Viscous force
bcrit . (19) m l p
ρ u2
W ec External force Drag force F
m
= CF ρg r p
l

Where Y is a random number between 0 and 1, r1 and r2 are

respectively the radius of the biggest and smallest parcel, and Wec The diameter of the droplets generated at the column breakup
is the collisional Weber number, is estimated by the Eq. (22),
ρUrel
2
D̄
(20) dp 1/3
W ec = . = (1.5λb ) , (22)
σ d jet
Urel is the relative velocity between the parcels and D̄ is their
where λb = 16.3W e−0.79 is the dimensionless wavelength
mean diameter. Film draining between two coalescing particles is
(Sallam et al., 2003).
neglected in this work.
The shear breakup follows the model described by
3.3. Euler-Lagrange conversion Arienti et al. (2011). In this mechanism, some droplets are stripped
from the liquid column surface every time the aerodynamic forces
Primary breakup of the simulated LJIC cases consists of two exceed the cohesion forces; the criterion is
mechanisms: column and shear breakup. In both mechanisms, nu- σ
ρg |Ug − Ul |κ > Cσ , (23)
merical criteria are monitored in the Eulerian framework in or- dp
der to update the mass and momentum source terms of transport  g and U
 l are the spatial averaged velocity around the con-
where U
equations. From the Lagrangian perspective, new droplets are cre-
trol volume where the droplet is released, when the above crite-
ated whenever the breakup criteria are met. Droplet position and
rion is met, respectively for gas and liquid phases; κ is the inter-
velocity are calculated following empirical correlations and per-
face curvature; Cσ = 2.0 is a constant accounting for the nonideal-
forming mass and momentum balance. It is emphasized that, un-
ity of this process; σ is the surface tension coefficient; and dp is
like high-fidelity simulations, correlations are used instead to esti-
the droplet diameter,
mate the size of a droplet breaking off of the liquid jet.
 1/2
Wu et al. (1997) and Sallam et al. (2003) experimentally stud- dp νl y
ied the column breakup height, yb , and found it is a function of = 3.36 , y/yc ≤ 1, (24)
d jet v jet d2jet
momentum ratio, J, and jet diameter, dj ,
yb  dp
= Cb J. (21) = 0.132, y/yc > 1. (25)
dj d jet
Wu et al. (1997) and Sallam et al. (2003) obtained different values ν l is the liquid kinematic viscosity, vjet is the liquid velocity
for the empirical coefficient, respectively Cb = 3.44 and Cb = 2.6. at the nozzle inlet and yc /d jet = (0.001v jet d jet )/(νl ). The values of
According to Sallam et al. (2003), their smallest coefficient was these constants were obtained from Sallam et al. (2003).
probably due to improvements in the ability to locate the end of In particular, no significant shear breakup was observed in all
the liquid column than that available for Wu et al. (1997). As can the simulations carried out in this work. This is not surprising as
be concluded from the above correlation, the location for the re- both cases are dominated by column breakup.
lease of droplets due to column breakup changes with the feed
conditions, specifically with the momentum flux ratio. From an im- 3.4. Secondary breakup
plementation point of view, the domain is searched along the ver-
tical direction so that when the cell at yb is found, a droplet is The secondary breakup was modeled with both the original
produced. This procedure is repeated every timestep. Taylor Analogy Breakup model (TAB) (O’Rourke and Amsden, 1987)
104 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114

and the Accurate Balance equation Taylor Analogy Breakup model Breakup is triggered when the dimensionless droplet distortion,
(AB-TAB) proposed by Dahms and Oefelein (2016). The AB-TAB y, exceeds unity. However, in practice a breakup time measurement
model ensures conservation of momentum (linear and angular) is more convenient to control this event. Therefore, an expression
and kinetic energy during breakup; also, it properly accounts for for the breakup time, tB , can be obtained considering y = 1,
droplet non-sphericity effects upon secondary breakup.
1
  1 − We 
−φ ,
crit
In the original TAB model (O’Rourke and Amsden, 1987), the tB = cos (35)
breakup of an oscillating and distorting droplet is associated with ω A
a forced mass-spring-damper system, Fig. 3, where parameters A and φ are
2
d x c dx k F
  2
+ + x= , (26) 1 dy
dt 2 m dt m m A= (y − W ecrit )2 + , (36)
ω dt
where m is the mass of the system, k is the spring stiffness, c is
the damping coefficient, F is the external force applied to the sys- and
tem, and x is system shift correspondent to the droplet pole dis-  
placement. Table 3 shows all correspondences of the forced mass- 1 dy
φ = arctg . (37)
spring-damper variables to the oscillating and distorting droplet. In ω (y − W ecrit ) dt
Table 3, rp is the droplet radius; u is the relative velocity between
the droplet and the surrounding gas; CF , Ck and Cd are empirical The diameter and velocity of the droplets created at the sec-
dimensionless constants, whose values are 1/3, 8 and 5, respec- ondary breakup are calculated considering the energy conservation
tively. during breakup, as presented in the work of O’Rourke and Ams-
The dimensionless, time-dependent distortion equation can be den (1987).
written as The AB-TAB model, developed by Dahms and Oefelein (2016),
  follows the main concepts of the original TAB model. However,
t a refined balance of mass, momentum, energy and surface en-
y(t ) = W ecrit + exp − [(y0 − W ecrit ) cos(ω t )
tD ergy was assured in the calculation of secondary droplets diam-
  eter and velocity, in addition to the energy balance performed by
1 dy0 y0 − W ecrit
+ + sin(ω t )], (27) O’Rourke and Amsden (1987). Therefore, the breakup time is more
ω dt tD realistically estimated, since the oscillation energy is properly ac-
x counted, not requiring the use of the empirical value of the crit-
using y = as dimensionless distortion and Cb = 0.5.
Cb r p ical Weber number (Dahms and Oefelein, 2016). Other secondary
The critical Weber number, Eq. (28), is proportional to the breakup models, for instance the Enhanced Taylor Analogy Breakup
droplet effective Weber number, We∗ , which in turn is calculated (ETAB) (Tanner, 1997), had already been developed aiming at solv-
based on the Weber, We, and Ohnesorge, Oh, numbers of the ing some under-predictions of droplet diameter and some incon-
droplet, sistencies on the spray angle prediction of the original TAB model.
Nevertheless, empirical constants were also considered without a
CF
W ecrit = W e, (28) rigorous physical derivation. Therefore, the AB-TAB model appears
CkCb to be physically more consistent to describe the secondary breakup
than the original TAB model and similar models that make use of
We
W e∗ = , (29) empirical constants.
1 + 1.077Oh1.6

ρg u 2 r p (30)
4. Numerical methods
We = ,
σ
The in-house numerical code UNSCYFL3D was used in this
μ work. It has been extensively validated for turbulent, single-phase
Oh =  l . (31)
ρl d p σ and particle flow simulations (De Souza et al., 2012, 2014; Duarte
et al., 2015, 2017), and more recently for interfacial flow simula-
The oscillating damping time, tD , and the droplet oscillating fre- tions using the VOF method (Fontes et al., 2018). In particular, be-
quency, ω, are given by cause of number of submodels involved in the simulation of the
2ρl rd2 jet in crossflow, validations/verifications of individual elements has
tD = , (32) been carried in order to ensure that results are reproducible with
Cd μl
other codes using the same models. The implementations of cor-
and relations for primary breakup (droplet diameter and velocity) have
 been tested, as well as the liquid mass conservation during pri-
σ 1
ω= Ck − . (33) mary breakup. Furthermore, the conservation of mass, momentum
ρl r3p tD2 and kinetic energy during the secondary breakup have also been
The distortion velocity (O’Rourke and Amsden, 1987) is ex- confirmed for the AB-TAB model by simple simulations involving a
pressed as prescribed base flow and a number of parcels.
Fig. 4 shows an overview of the numerical methods applied to
dy W ecrit − y solve liquid jet in crossflow based on the hybrid approach devel-
=
dt tD oped in UNSCYFL3D.
   
t 1 dy0 y0 − W ecrit As shown in the above flowchart, even if no primary breakup
+ exp − + cos(ω t ) occurs during the current timestep, there may be droplets in-
tD ω dt tD
 side the domain, which must be transported and may undergo
secondary breakup. Regarding the numerics, the Finite Volume
− (y0 − W ecrit ) sin(ω t ) . (34)
method (Ferziger and Perić, 2002) is used to discretize the par-
tial differential equations on unstructured grids. The second-order
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 4. Flow chart of numerical methods.
Fig. 5. Grid and refinement zone near jet.
105
upwind scheme is used for the advective term in the momen-
tum equations, while for temporal discretization, the three-time-
level is employed. The SIMPLE method was applied in the velocity
and pressure coupling. For turbulence closure, the two-layer k − 
model (Ferziger and Perić, 2002) was used, so that the viscous sub-
layer is resolved. In order to improve the predictions in the near-
wall region, the standard law of wall is used. No turbulence source
terms due to the droplets are considered as preliminary simula-
tions showed them to be negligible.
The discretization of the advection term of the VOF equation,
Eq. (5), was performed by the modified High Resolution Inter-
face Capturing scheme (HRIC), which is a TVD scheme suitable for
sharp interfaces. The Momentum Interpolation Method, required
to avoid unphysical pressure fluctuations on collocated grid, was
implemented based on the works of Denner (2013) and Rhie and
Chow (1983).
The Particle Tracking Method proposed by Haselbacher et al.
(2007) has proven to be suitable for tracking particles on unstruc-
tured grids, and was applied in this work.
The timesteps were 1 and 0.1 microseconds for C1 and C2, re-
spectively. The maximum Courant numbers were lower than 2 for
both cases, also in order to maintain stability. Convergence within
each timestep is declared when the normalized residuals for all
linear systems, i.e., velocity components, volume fraction and tur-
bulence variables, reaches 0.0 0 01. For C1, typically 1 or 2 inner it-
erations were needed for convergence within each timestep. For
C2, more iterations were necessary, 7–10, mostly.
In this work, the most LJIC simulations took about ten days us-
ing a serial Intel® i7-4790k processor with 8 GB of RAM.
5. Results and discussions
In this section, the results of LJIC simulations using the im-
proved hybrid approach are presented and discussed. More specif-
ically, the following issues are addressed: strategy for domain re-
duction; LJIC characteristics; evaluation of different methods and
parameters to solve the spray formation in LJIC.
5.1. Strategy for domain reduction
LJIC simulations usually require mesh resolutions of several mil-
lion cells in order to properly represent the liquid jet interface,
hence a strategy to relax such requirement is always useful. In
this work, the symmetry assumption along the tunnel longitudinal
plane, x − plane, was evaluated based on C1, Table 1. Fig. 5 shows
the general view and the mesh refinement on the x − plane for two
analyzed domains: half domain and full domain. Cells with high
aspect ratio can be seen, which are known to deteriorate gradient
106 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 6. Comparison of volume fraction field at x − plane and droplet size distribution and velocity at z − plane for both analyzed domains.
calculations. Thus the maximum aspect ratio, nearly 200, was al-
lowed only in regions where the flow was fully developed. In prin-
ciple, such strategy should not be sensitive to the non-dimensional
parameters, even at higher Weber numbers, specifically when deal-
ing with RANS models. Because of the natural symmetry of the
configuration, in average terms, no flow asymmetry would be ex-
pected. This does not hold for the for LES/DNS simulations, as
the symmetry boundary condition cannot be applied to the in-
stantaneous flow. The use of a symmetric plane reduces the num-
ber of elements approximately by half. For C1, mesh resolutions
of ≈ 640 0 0 0 elements for full domain and of ≈ 3110 0 0 elements
for half domain were enough to describe properly the LJIC flow. In
both domains, the smallest elements have characteristic length of
about 0.03 mm.
Fig. 6 shows the similarity between the numerical results of full
and half domains. The volume fraction, α , is insensitive to that
simplification, mainly because this is a RANS simulation. If a LES
simulation were used instead, the liquid column would be time
oscillating and the symmetry assumption would be inappropriate.
The normalized mass fraction and the droplet velocity were ob-
tained at the z − plane located at 3.81 cm from the liquid jet exit
for both domains. Clearly, normalized mass fraction and velocity
are rather insensitive to the assumption of symmetric flow. There-
fore, the strategy for domain reduction considering symmetric flow
is validated and will be used throughout this work. Yet, it is impor-
tant to highlight that atomization is always unsteady. More accu-
rate turbulence models might trigger the natural unsteady behav-
ior.
Following those assessments, a mesh with about 2 million cells
was created based on the half domain. This resolution produced
grid-converged solutions for C2, which has higher Weber and mo-
mentum ratio numbers.
5.2. LJIC Characteristics using hybrid approach
In the hybrid approach, the interaction between the air cross-
flow and the liquid jet is solved through the VOF method, while
the droplets transport in the air-flow is solved as discrete particles.
Since the general features of the two-phase flow using the hy-
brid approach are quite similar for different methods and experi-
mental parameters, the flow characteristics for C1 and C2, Table 1,
are only shown for: primary breakup coefficient Cb = 3.44; original
TAB method for secondary breakup; one-way coupling.
The presence of the liquid jet in crossflow changes the gas ve-
locity field, Fig. 7, creating a downstream recirculation, while the
liquid jet is curved by the flow towards its main direction. Fig. 8
shows the streamlines of the air interacting with the liquid jet.
They are colored by the perpendicular component, y, of the gas
vorticity, and the liquid jet column is represented by the isocon-
tour α = 0.5. The recirculation structures presented in C2 are more
complex than in C1, because the air velocity and liquid column
height are higher in C2 than C1. In both cases this structure af-
fects the droplet secondary breakup, since the drops released from
the top of the column jet may be carried to this recirculation re-
gion, changing the drop Weber number that is used to calculate
the criteria for secondary breakup. It is worth mentioning that the
counter-rotating vortex, clearly identified in both cases, cannot be
represented numerically by the classical Euler-Lagrange approach,
since the liquid column is usually represented by blobs. Some more
recent, specific Lagrangean approaches may produce clusters large
enough to bend the flow.
The primary breakup represents the conversion of the Eule-
rian approach (VOF method) to the Lagrangian approach (particle
tracking). Fig. 9 shows the general view of the first and secondary
breakups: the droplets, created at the top of the liquid jet, have
large diameter and low velocity; these droplets are broken into
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 7. Streamwise velocity component.
other droplets due to the prevalence of aerodynamics forces over
surface tension forces on their surfaces; the secondary droplets, in
turn, have small diameter and are accelerated by the gas flow.
According to the operating conditions depicted in Table 1 and
Fig. 10, C1 and C2 are classified as column breakup regime. There-
fore, in both cases the primary breakup can be modeled consid-
ering only the column breakup, without breakup along the lat-
2
eral surface of the jet column, known as surface/shear breakup.
Fig. 8. Streamlines of air flow around the liquid jet.
107
These two cases were selected because of the availability of a doc-
umented experimental database. Investigations at higher momen-
tum flux ratios, i.e., with relevant surface breakup, will be carried
out in the future to test the model generality. The shear breakup
mechanism was included in all simulations, and the results were
not sensitive to it, as expected. In principle, as long as all the
mechanisms for primary droplet generation are accurately mod-
eled, the model is to be generic.
The droplet spatial distribution in the two cases are shown in
Fig. 9. Since the droplets created at the top of the liquid jet have
approximately the same velocity as the liquid jet, considering the
curvature of the liquid jets in C1 and C2, it was expected that the
release velocity of the droplets in C1 would be more perpendicular
to the air flow than in C2, in which the liquid jet is more aligned
to the air flow. Besides, the air velocity in C2 changes the droplet
direction faster than the air velocity in C1, since the bigger droplets
(higher inertia) in both cases have diameters in the same order
(10−4 m).
More droplets are generated by the secondary breakup in C2
than in C1. Due to the fact of the air velocity in C2 is higher than in
C1, the shear stress on droplets surfaces is likewise higher, surpass-
ing the surface tension forces more times than in C1. From a nu-
merical point of view, the critical Weber number is achieved more
frequently in C2 than in C1, enhancing the secondary breakup.
In both cases, the droplet velocity increases as the droplets
move away from the liquid jet nozzle, as observed in Fig. 9b and
d. As expected, the small droplets tend to achieve the equilibrium
with the air velocity more rapidly than larger droplets, due to their
low relaxation time. This fact can be verified in Fig. 6(d), where
higher velocities can be observed for small droplets at the same
cross-section sample plane.
5.3. Evaluation of primary breakup coefficients and secondary
breakup models
This section examines the effects of case, primary breakup co-
efficient and secondary breakup model over the numerical to ex-
perimental agreement. The following combinations are tested for
both cases, C1 and C2 (Factor A): two primary breakup coefficients,
Cb = 2.6 (Sallam et al., 2003) and Cb = 3.44 (Wu et al., 1997) (Fac-
tor B); two secondary breakup models, TAB O’Rourke and Ams-
den (1987) and AB-TAB (Dahms and Oefelein, 2016) (Factor C).
In the present work, a 2k=3 factorial design with three factors
is performed with no replicate (n = 1) aiming at analyzing their ef-
fects on the l2 norm of numerical and experimental mass fraction
distribution difference,


l2 = m∗num − m∗exp , (38)
108 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 9. General view of the first and secondary breakups.
Fig. 10. Map of momentum flux ratio versus Weber number for the primary
breakup of the LJIC, adapted from Wu et al. (1997).
where m∗ is the normalized mass fraction that represents the
droplet size pdf.
Factor A is quantitative and related to operation condition;
since its levels differ significantly, the simulation responses may be
nonmonotonic functions. Factor B and Factor C are categorical and
related to empirical and mathematical models, respectively; thus,
monotonic functions are expected.
The spatial and temporal integration methods, as well as the
time step and grid size, were held constant for all simulations to
isolate the chosen factors.
According to the experiment carried out by Deepe (2006), a
transverse sampling plane 3.81 cm downstream the liquid jet noz-
zle is defined to obtain the mass fraction distribution and droplet
velocity, Fig. 11.
The normalized mass fraction of the droplet size distribution
on the sampling plane is obtained by the following procedure: the
droplet diameter is divided into bins of range 3 μm; the mass of
the droplets whose diameter lies in a specific bin is accumulated;
and the final result is normalized by the total mass.
Fig. 11. Sampling plane at 3.81 cm, red line. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 12. Geometric view of a 2k=3 factorial design (Montgomery, 2013).
Regarding droplet velocity, it is temporally averaged for each
droplet diameter, and achieves a statistically steady state. In order
to obtain statistically converged results, typically five or six droplet
residence time are used. The residence time is calculated based on
an estimate for the slowest droplet and the domain length. For all
cases, longer sampling did not lead to changes in the average and
RMS results.
The applied factorial design leads to 8 simulation combinations,
i.e., 8 values of the l2 norm, which are geometrically represented
by the vertices of a cube, Fig. 12. Tables 4 and 5 show these values
for the right side face (C2) and left side face (C1) of the cube.
In Fig. 12, the symbols (1), a, b, c, ab, ac, bc, abc represent the
total of the l2 norm at all n replicates taken at the simulation com-
bination; in this work n = 1.
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114 109

Table 4 worse at C2. Besides, just for C1, there is a significant interaction
l2 − norm of the mass fraction distribution for C1.
effect, which is represented by the deviation from the dashed, par-
Secondary breakup Cb l2 allel lines.
TAB model 2.6 3.78 × 10−2 The conducted analyses restrict the factors effect on the set of
AB-TAB model 2.6 3.01 × 10−2 models, numerical parameters, and initial and boundary conditions
TAB model 3.44 3.84 × 10−2 applied in the presented simulations. Also, one cannot interpret
AB-TAB model 3.44 3.57 × 10−2 them aside from errors associated with temporal and spatial in-
tegration schemes; grid and time step dependence.
Table 5 The following sections show through tables, graphs, and figures
l2 − norm of droplet size distribution for C2. the data and results cited above, with a focus on mass fraction dis-
Secondary breakup Cb l2 tribution and velocity analyses. Also, apart from the design of ex-
periment, these sections also address the tendency of numerical
TAB model 2.6 13.97 × 10−2
agreement with the experimental data for Cb = 3.44 rather than
AB-TAB model 2.6 10.21 × 10−2
TAB model 3.44 9.80 × 10−2 Cb = 2.6 and AB-TAB rather than TAB on physical and numerical
AB-TAB model 3.44 6.56 × 10−2 perspectives.

5.3.1. Droplet size distribution

Fig. 13. Main and interaction effects of the primary breakup coefficient (blue: Cb =
2.6, red: Cb = 3.44) and secondary breakup model (TAB and AB-TAB) expressed by
the l2 norm. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
The effect of Factor A is computed as
1
F actor A = [a + ab + ac + abc − (1 ) − b − c − bc], (39)
4n
i.e., the mean difference of the l2 norm for the simulations with
high and low factor values, C2 and C1 respectively. The same pro-
cedure applies for Factors B and C.
Since the evaluated l2 norm indicates how much the numeri-
cal result disagrees with the experimental data, the factorial de-
sign shows that changing C1 to C2 decreases the numerical agree-
ment with the experimental data in 0.066. This value is the result
of Eq. (39), which can be verified summing the four outcome val-
ues of Table 5, subtracting by the sum of the four outcome values
of Table 4, and finally dividing by 4.
Changing the primary breakup coefficient from 2.6 to 3.44 and
the secondary breakup model from TAB to AB-TAB increases the
numerical agreement in 0.018 and 0.020, respectively. However,
these are the combined result considering the simulation setup
ranging from C1 to C2: changing Factor B from 2.6 to 3.44 affects
the result at C1 configuration less and in a different manner than
at C2; the same applies to Factor C. To refine this statement, sep-
arate analyses are presented onward to C1 and C2 through a 2k=2
factorial design with no replicate (n = 1), Fig. 13.
Factor A has the greatest effect over the l2 norm because the
dimensionless parameters which define C1 and C2, i.e., gas-liquid
momentum ratio, Reynolds and Weber numbers, differ signifi-
cantly; while C1 is on the bag breakup regime, C2 is on a most
severe, multi-mode regime composed by bag and shear breakups,
Fig. 10.
Fig. 13 shows how different the effects of Factor B and C at C1
and C2 are. Both cases present an improvement in the numerical
agreement (i.e., a decrease of l2 norm) changing from TAB to AB-
TAB. However, the primary breakup coefficient reports the oppo-
site pattern, i.e., the coefficient Cb = 2.6 is the best at C1 but the
Fig. 14 shows the normalized mass fraction distribution for C1
using combinations of the two column breakup coefficients and
the two secondary breakup models. The frequency of droplets
crossing the sampling plane is predominantly influenced by the
secondary breakup model, with little influence of the column
height (Cb ). The AB-TAB model presents an overall good prediction
of the droplet diameters, whereas the peak of the mass fraction
distribution is shifted to the left when the original TAB model is
used. Despite the AB-TAB appears to better predict the peak diam-
eter in terms of mass distribution, the prediction for intermediate
diameters (40 μm < Dp < 90 μm) is slightly better when the original
TAB model is used.
The l2 − norm, represented by Eq. (38), is a way to quantita-
tively assess the differences of mass fraction distribution for the
different column breakup coefficients and secondary breakup mod-
els. The l2 − norm expresses a cumulative difference between the
numerical results and the experimental data for mass fraction dis-
tribution. Table 4 presents the deviations for simulations compared
to the experimental data. Minor differences on l2 − norm are seen
for different primary and secondary breakup models. Thus, for low
Weber numbers, such as in (C1), the droplet size distribution is
reasonably predicted by either column breakup coefficient or sec-
ondary breakup model analyzed in this study. However, the AB-TAB
model is yet more appropriate to solve the secondary breakup on
LJIC, since the mass fraction distribution peak fitted well the exper-
imental data. This better prediction of the mass fraction distribu-
tion may be related to the accurate conservation of linear momen-
tum, angular momentum and kinetic energy during the breakup,
provided by the AB-TAB model.
Fig. 15 shows the numerical results for the normalized mass
fraction distribution in C2. The distributions for all models simu-
lated are shifted to the left relative to the experiments. However,
the simulation using the column breakup coefficient Cb = 3.44 and
the AB-TAB model shows the best agreement among all simula-
tions for C2. In fact, the simulations using Cb = 3.44 improve the
prediction of the mass fraction distribution despite the secondary
breakup model chosen, as well as the simulations using AB-TAB
model improve the prediction of the mass fraction distribution de-
spite the primary breakup coefficient.
In Table 5 the l2 − norm for C2 is shown, expressing the quanti-
tative differences between the models in the prediction of the size
distribution from a LJIC spray. Unlike C1, the secondary breakup
model and the column breakup height coefficient affect the mass
fraction distribution more significantly. Regarding case C2, the in-
stabilities that promote secondary breakup of the droplets are
more susceptible to appear, since the air velocity is higher and
consequently the relative velocity that a droplet experiences is also
higher. Therefore, extreme cases of spray formation in LJIC must
110 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114

Fig. 14. Droplet size distribution for C1 using different primary and secondary breakup models.

Fig. 15. Droplet size distribution for case C2 using different primary and secondary breakup models.

accurately account for the secondary breakup, as by the AB-TAB
model.
The column breakup coefficient for the column breakup height
of LJIC is obtained by experimental visualizations (Wu et al., 1997;
Sallam et al., 2003). In fact some differences in this value do exist.
In the cases simulated in this work, the coefficient Cb = 3.44 pre-
dicts better the primary breakup in the top of the liquid jet col-
umn. An explanation for this is that while in the original experi-
ments of Wu et al. (1997), the air inlet section was long enough
to ensure a fully turbulent boundary layer, in the experiments of
Sallam et al. (2003), special care was taken to ensure a uniform air
velocity profile upstream of the liquid jet. Consequently, the value
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 16. Droplet velocity for C1 at the sampling plane 3.81 cm downstream of the
liquid jet nozzle.
obtained by Wu et al. (1997) for Cb was higher (3.44), and thus
applicable to the test cases investigated in the current work.
In order to provide a sound explanation for the droplet size dis-
tributions deviations, further investigation on the numerics must
be carried. Because most of the elements in the method have been
individually validated, such as the Euler-Lagrange conversion, mass
and momentum conservation, many questions still remain regard-
ing the results of the turbulence model. As a next step in this re-
search, other turbulence models, such as the recently optimized k-
epsilon model for jets in crossflows (Lefantzi et al., 2013) will be
tested.
5.3.2. Droplet velocity
Fig. 16 shows the droplet velocity for C1 using combinations of
the two secondary breakup models and the two primary breakup
coefficients.
In general, the numerical results of droplet velocity over-
estimate the experimental data in C1. However, the numeri-
cal results fit well to the experimental data for larger droplets
(150 μm < Dp < 160 μm). Furthermore, the experimental trend of
the droplet velocity is well predicted numerically, with smaller
droplets faster than that of larger droplets. Still considering the
general results, due to the rare generation of smallest droplets
(Dp < 20 μm) upstream of the sampling plane, the droplet velocity
curve in this diameter range is not so smooth. In fact, in C1 the
secondary breakup is not so intense, as expected in this regime,
W e = 11, so that smaller droplets are not created frequently.
Fig. 17. Liquid jet curvature for C1.
111
The numerical results for droplet velocity using the different
primary and secondary breakup models are quite similar to each
other. Simulations using Cb = 3.44 showed a slight improvement
on the droplet velocity curve, that is closer to the experimen-
tal curve than by using Cb = 2.6. The simulations using differ-
ent secondary breakup models show nearly identical results for
the droplet velocity curves. The higher influence of the primary
breakup coefficient than the secondary breakup on the droplet ve-
locity was expected, since droplet velocity is basically related to
the drag force.
The release condition of the drop at the top of the liquid jet is
strongly dependent on the column breakup height. All numerical
results display a peak of droplet velocity for lower droplet diame-
ters, similarly to the experimental data. However, the peak of the
droplet velocity is better predicted when the column breakup co-
efficient Cb = 2.6 is used, regardless the secondary breakup model.
Since the liquid column jet using Cb = 2.6 is lower than that using
Cb = 3.44, a Lagrangian drop created from the primary breakup us-
ing Cb = 2.6 experiences an airflow more perpendicular than a La-
grangian drop created from the primary breakup using Cb = 3.44,
generating smaller droplet diameters. Fig. 17 shows drops creation
from the Eulerian approach (VOF) for Cb = 2.6 and Cb = 3.44. The
angle between liquid and gas flow paths is greater for Cb = 2.6
in the primary breakup region, than that using Cb = 3.44, as pre-
sented in Fig. 17. Therefore, the simulations for C1 show that the
droplet velocity is not significantly influenced by different sec-
ondary breakup models, whereas the column breakup coefficient
has a small effect on the droplet velocity for all diameters.
Fig. 18 shows the droplet velocity for C2 using combinations of
the two secondary breakup models and the two primary breakup
coefficients. For this higher Weber number case, C2, the numerical
results of the droplet velocity depart more from the experimental
data. The smaller droplets (Dp ≈ 10 μm) nearly reach the air veloc-
ity, while the larger droplets (Dp > 80 μm) are having their velocity
decreased. This discrepancy between the numerical results and ex-
periments suggest that the interaction of the air flow and the liq-
uid droplets is not being correctly accounted. Therefore, it is worth
investigating the effects of two-way coupling, which is carried out
in the next section. Obviously, C2 is more complex than C1, and the
interactions between the air flow and the liquid jet may change
the droplet velocity, consequently the droplet breakup, more in-
tensely than in C1. Different drag correlations were experimented
with, unsuccessfully.
Considering the differences on the droplet velocity for different
primary and secondary breakup models in C2, the two different
secondary breakup models present little changes on the numerical
results, in the same way as in C1. The simulations using Cb = 3.44
result in lower droplet velocity than that using Cb = 2.6, which is
112 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 18. Droplet velocity for C2 at the sampling plane 3.81 cm downstream of the
liquid jet exit.
also seen in the results for C1. Thus, independently of the Weber
number, the droplet velocity is affected by the column breakup
height, but negligibly influenced by the secondary breakup mod-
els.
The droplet velocity curves are not so smooth for large droplets
(Dp > 100 μm), because the physical condition of C2 (W e = 53) pro-
motes secondary breakup more frequently, such that the occur-
rence of larger droplets are rare. For the simulation using Cb = 2.6
(lower height of the liquid column) and AB-TAB model, no droplets
with Dp > 102.3 μm cross the sampling plane. For other simula-
tions, droplets with Dp > 100 μm cross the sampling plane with
low frequency, so that the droplet velocity curves in this diame-
ter range display some spikes.
Fig. 19. Size distribution using Cb = 3.44 and AB-TAB model.
Table 6
l2 − norm of the mass fraction distribution for C2.
Case Coupling l2
C1 One-way 3.57 × 10−2
C1 Two-way and collision 3.41 × 10−2
C2 One-way 6.56 × 10−2
C2 Two-way and collision 7.18 × 10−2
5.4. Two-way coupling and droplet collision effects
In the previous sections, results were obtained disregarding the
droplet effects on the continuous flow and droplet-to-droplet col-
lisions, i.e. one-way coupling was assumed. In this section, such
droplet effects are accounted for in order to assess their role in
the investigated cases. The two cases, C1 and C2, were solved con-
sidering droplet effects on the continuous flow and droplet-to-
droplet collisions, using the column breakup coefficient Cb = 3.44
and the AB-TAB as secondary breakup model. In general, the col-
umn breakup coefficient, Cb = 3.44, and the secondary breakup
model, AB-TAB, showed the best prediction of the mass fraction
distribution and droplet velocity for both LJIC cases.
The size distribution considering two-way coupling and droplet
collision also shows minor differences in the two cases, Fig. 19.
The l2 − norm of the mass fraction distribution of the two cases
for one-way coupling and two-way coupling with droplet collision
are presented in Table 6, showing quantitative minor differences in
using the two-way coupling and droplet collision modeling.
Fig. 20 shows the results of the droplet velocity for the two
cases with one-way coupling and with two-way coupling and
droplet collisions. Two-way coupling and droplet collision results
reveal minor changes on the droplet velocity. Actually, the droplet
concentration in the LJIC domain is considered to be low enough
so that the flow is dilute and the droplets are small (Dp < 160μm).
 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Fig. 20. Droplet velocity using Cb = 3.44 and AB-TAB model.
For this reason, droplet collision rarely happens, and the small
droplets change very little the air flow.
Considering the results obtained in this work, at the Weber and
Reynolds numbers investigated, the two-way coupling and droplet
collision modeling are unnecessary to solve the spray formation in
LJIC. The differences between the experimental and numerical re-
sults on droplet velocity may be overcome using a more accurate
turbulence closure modeling, such as Large Eddy Simulations (LES).
Considering all comparisons and analyses carried out in this
work, the hybrid model using Cb = 3.44 as the primary breakup
coefficient and the AB-TAB secondary breakup model for spray for-
mation in LJIC is the most advanced model hybrid model for low
computational cost and low Weber numbers (W e = 11 and W e =
53) in the literature.
6. Final remarks
This work aims at presenting an improved hybrid model to nu-
merically solve LJIC spray at low computational cost. The Euler ap-
proach through VOF method was used to describe the jet-air inter-
actions, whereas droplets created from the liquid jet were solved
as discrete Lagrangian droplets. Two column breakup coefficients
(Cb = 3.44 and C= 2.6), two secondary breakup models (TAB model
and AB-TAB model) and two-way coupling with droplet collision
were evaluated in order to establish an improved hybrid model
suitable to solve liquid jet in crossflow at low computational cost.
The counter-rotating vortices, related to the air-jet interactions,
were solved through the VOF method. Such interactions are not re-
solved by the use of Euler-Lagrange approach solely. On the other
hand, Lagrangian droplets originating from the Euler-Lagrange con-
version reduced dramatically the computational cost required in a
pure Euler-Euler simulation, without loss of physics of the prob-
lem. Thus, the hybrid approach was crucial to obtain a good repre-
sentation of the LJIC physics without the high mesh count usually
required for LJIC simulations.
In general, the numerical results of C1 for the mass fraction and
droplet velocity agree well with experimental data. For case C2
(higher Weber number) the AB-TAB model combined with a col-
umn breakup coefficient Cb = 3.44 was the most suitable model
in the prediction of the droplet size distribution. Two-way cou-
pling with droplet collision presented little influence on the mass
fraction and droplet velocity predictions. In fact, droplet concen-
tration in these two LJIC cases can be categorized as dilute, since
the average droplet volumetric concentration is low, of the order
of 10−5 , and the maximum value is about 0.03, at 20 jet diam-
eters downstream of the jet inlet. Therefore, the hybrid approach
using Cb = 3.44 and the AB-TAB model for LJIC sprays in this We-
ber number range (W e = 6 and W e = 11) is an improved model to
predict satisfactorily droplet size distribution and velocity at low
computational cost.
113
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aper-
feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Fi-
nance Code 001. The authors acknowledge the support given by
the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(CNPq) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais
(FAPEMIG) to this research. Also, the authors would like to ac-
knowledge Dr. Marco Arienti for useful discussions on the hybrid
method.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2019.
02.009.
References
Apte, S.V., Gorokhovski, M., Moin, P., 2003. LES Of atomizing spray with stochas-
tic modeling of secondary breakup. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 29 (9), 1503–1522.
doi:10.1016/S0301-9322(03)00111-3.
Arienti, M., Madabhushi, R.R., Slooten, P.R.V., Soteriou, M.C., 2006. Aerodynamic
blockage effect on the spray characteristics of a liquid jet atomized by cross-
flowing air. Proceedings of. ASME Turbo Expo 2006 Power for Land, Sea and Air
1 (May), 1–10.
Arienti, M., Soteriou, M.C., 2007. Dynamics of pulsed jet in crossflow. Proceedings
of. GT2007 ASME Turbo Expo 2007 1–12.
Arienti, M., Sussman, M., 2015. A high-Fidelity study of high-Pressure diesel injec-
tion. 2015 SAE Int.
Arienti, M., Wang, L., Corn, M., Li, X., Soteriou, M.C., Shedd, T.a., Herrmann, M.,
2011. Modeling wall film formation and breakup using an integrated interface-
Tracking/discrete-Phase approach. J. Eng. Gas Turbine. Power 133 (3), 031501.
doi:10.1115/1.4002019.
Arunajatesan, S., Laboratories, S.N., 2012. Evaluation of two - Equation RANS models
for simulation of jet - in - Crossflow problems. 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences.
Meeting. Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 1–14.
Balasubramanyam, M.S., Chen, C.P., 2008. Modeling liquid jet breakup in high speed
cross-flow with finite-conductivity evaporation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 51 (15–
16), 3896–3905. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.11.054.
Becker, J., Hassa, C., 2002. Breakup and atomization of a kerosene jet in crossflow
at elevated pressure. doi:10.1615/AtomizSpr.v12.i123.30.
Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B., Zemach, C., 1992. A continuum method for modeling
surface tension. J. Comput. Phys. 100 (2), 335–354. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(92)
90240-Y.
Bravo, B.L., Ivey, C.B., Kim, D., 2014. High-fidelity simulation of atomization in diesel
engine sprays. Center Turbul. Res. Proc. Summer Progr. 2014.
Chen, X., Ma, D., Yang, V., Popinet, S., 2013. High-fidelity simulations of imping-
ing jet atomization. Atomizat. Spray 23 (12), 1079–1101. doi:10.1615/AtomizSpr.
2013007619.
Dahms, R.N., Oefelein, J.C., 2016. The significance of drop non-sphericity in sprays.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 86, 67–85. doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.07.010.
De Souza, F.J., De Vasconcelos Salvo, R., De Moro Martins, D.A., 2012. Large eddy
simulation of the gas-particle flow in cyclone separators. Separat. Purif. Technol.
94, 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2012.04.006.
De Souza, F.J., Silva, A.L., Utzig, J., 2014. Four-way coupled simulations of the gas-
particle flow in a diffuser. Powder Technol. 253, 496–508. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.
2013.12.021.
Deepe, J.M., 2006. Effect of weber number on the fuel transfer function for mod-
ulated liquid jets. Thesis 119. http://search.proquest.com/docview/28834514?
accountid=2909.
Denner, F., 2013. Balanced-Force two-Phase flow modelling on unstructured and
adaptive meshes. thesis 237.
Dhakal, T.P., Walters, D.K., Strasser, W., 2014. Numerical study of gas-cyclone airflow:
an investigation of turbulence modelling approaches. Int. J. Comut. Fluid Dyn.
28 (1–2), 1–15. doi:10.1080/10618562.2013.878800.
Duarte, C.A.R., de Souza, F.J., dos Santos, V.F., 2015. Numerical investigation of mass
loading effects on elbow erosion. Powder Technol. 283, 593–606. doi:10.1016/j.
powtec.2015.06.021.
Duarte, C.A.R., de Souza, F.J., de Vasconcelos Salvo, R., dos Santos, V.F., 2017. The
role of inter-particle collisions on elbow erosion. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 89, 1–
22. doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.10.001.
Feng, Z.-G., Michaelides, E.E., 2001. Drag coefficients of viscous spheres at inter-
mediate and high reynolds numbers. J. Fluids Eng. 123 (4), 841. doi:10.1115/1.
1412458.
Ferziger, J.H., Perić, M., 2002. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, third edi-
tion Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
Fontes, D.H., Duarte, C.A.D., de Souza, F.J., 2018. Numerical simulation of a water
droplet splash: effects of density interpolation schemes. Mech. Res. Commun.
90, 18–25. doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2018.04.003.
114 D.H. Fontes, V. Vilela and L.d. Souza Meira et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 114 (2019) 98–114
Haselbacher, a., Najjar, F.M., Ferry, J.P., 2007. An efficient and robust particle-
localization algorithm for unstructured grids. J. Comput. Phys. 225 (2), 2198–
2213. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.03.018.
Herrmann, M., 2010. A parallel eulerian interface tracking/lagrangian point particle
multi-scale coupling procedure. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (3), 745–759. doi:10.1016/
j.jcp.20 09.10.0 09.
Hiroyasu, H., Kadota, T., 1974. Fuel droplet size distribution in diesel combustion
chamber. SAE Paper 2615–2624.
Hirt, C., Nichols, B., 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of
free boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. 39 (1), 201–225. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(81)
90145-5.
Hojnacki, J.T., 1972. Ramjet engine fuel injection studies. Technical report to Aero
Propulsion Lab., AFAPL-TR-72-76, 1 (September), 754–852.
Inamura, T., 1997. Spray characteristics of liquid jet traversing. J. Propul. Power 13
(2).
Karvinen, A., Ahlstedt, H., 2005. Comparison of turbulence models in case of jet in
crossflow using commercial cfd code. In: Rodi, W., Mulas, M. (Eds.), Engineer-
ing Turbulence Modelling and Experiments 6. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam,
pp. 399–408. doi:10.1016/B978-008044544-1/50038-8.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 3, 269–289.
Lefantzi, S., Ray, J., Arunajatesan, S., Dechant, L., 2013. Tuning a RANS k  model for
jet-in-crossflow simulations. report.
Li, P., Wang, Z., Sun, M., Wang, H., 2017. Numerical simulation of the gas-liquid in-
teraction of a liquid jet in supersonic crossflow. Acta Astronaut. 134 (November
2016), 333–344. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.12.025.
Li, X., Arienti, M., Soteriou, M.C., 2010. Towards an efficient, high-Fidelity methodol-
ogy for liquid jet atomization computations. Aiaa 092407.
Li, X., Soteriou, M.C., 2016. High fidelity simulation and analysis of liquid jet atom-
ization in a gaseous crossflow at intermediate weber numbers. Phys. Fluid 28
(8), 082101. doi:10.1063/1.4959290.
Lin, S.P., Reitz, R.D., 1998. Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet. Annu. Rev.
Fluid Mech. 30, 85–105.
Ling, Y., Fuster, D., Tryggvason, G., Zaleski, S., 2018. A two-phase mixing layer be-
tween parallel gas and liquid streams: multiphase turbulence statistics and in-
fluence of interfacial instability. J. Fluid Mech. 268–307. doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.
825.
Ling, Y., Fuster, D., Zaleski, S., Tryggvason, G., 2017. Spray formation in a quasiplanar
gas-liquid mixing layer at moderate density ratios: a numerical closeup. Phys.
Rev. Fluid 2, 014005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.014005.
Liovic, P., Lakehal, D., 2007. Interfaceturbulence interactions in large-scale bubbling
processes. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28 (1), 127–144. The International Confer-
ence on Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow in Microscale (HTFFM-05). doi: 10.1016/j.
ijheatfluidflow.20 06.03.0 03.
Ma, M., Lu, J., Tryggvason, G., 2015. Using statistical learning to close two-fluid
multiphase flow equations for a simple bubbly system. Phys. Fluid. 27 (9).
doi:10.1063/L4930 0 04.
Ma, M., Lu, J., Tryggvason, G., 2016. Using statistical learning to close two-fluid mul-
tiphase flow equations for bubbly flows in vertical channels. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 85, 336–347. doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.06.021.
Madabhushi, R.K., 2003. A model for numerical simulation of breakup of a liquid jet
in crossflow. Atomizat. Spray. 13, 413–424.
Maric, T., Marschall, H., Bothe, D., 2013. Vofoam - A geometrical volume of fluid
algorithm on arbitrary unstructured meshes with local dynamic adaptive mesh
refinement using openfoam. report 1–30.
Mazallon, J., Dai, Z., Faeth, G. M., 1999. Primary breakup of nonturbulent round liq-
uid jets in gas crossflows. 10.1615/AtomizSpr.v9.i3.40.
Mazallon, J., Dai, Z., Faeth, G.M., Arbor, A., 1998. Aerodynamic primary breakup at
the surface of nonturbulent round liquid jets in crossflow. AIAA J. 15.
Montgomery, D.C., 2013. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th ed John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ, 07030-5774.
O’Rourke, P., 1981. Collective drop effects on vaporizing liquid sprays. Thesis.
O’Rourke, P.J., Amsden, A.A., 1987. The TAB method for numerical calculation of
spray droplet breakup. International Fules and Lubricants Meeting and Expo-
sition, Toronto, Ontario.
Reitz, R., 2006. 4. Spray processes. Spray Course 1–44. http://www.papers2://
publication/uuid/BEE087C4- 3B90- 4D5F- 963E- 8C28C55B1ECB.
Reitz, R.D., 1987. Modeling atomization processes in high-Pressure vaporizing
sprays. Atomizat. Sprays 3, 309–337.
Reynolds, O., 1895. On the dynamical theory of incompressible viscous fluids and
the determination of the criterion. Philos. Trans. R Soc.London A 186, 123–164.
doi:10.1098/rsta.1895.0 0 04.
Rhie, C.M., Chow, W.L., 1983. Numerical study of the turbulent flow past an airfoil
with trailing edge separation. 3rd Joint Thermophysics, Fluids, Plasma and Heat
Transfer Conference 21 (11), 1525–1532. doi:10.2514/3.8284.
Sallam, K.A., Aalburg, C., Faeth, G.M., 2003. Breakup of round nonturbulent liquid
jets in gaseous cross flows. 41st Aerospace Sci. Meet. Exhibit 1–16.
Sallam, K.a., Ng, C.-L., Sankarakrishnan, R., Aalburg, C., Lee, K., 2006. Breakup
of turbulent and non-Turbulent liquid jets in gaseous crossflows. 44th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit; Reno, NV; USA; 9–12 Jan. 2006 1–13.
doi:10.2514/6.2006-1517.
Shedd, T.A., 2009. Liquid film formation by an impinging jet in a high- velocity air
stream. 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Fo-
rum and Aerospace Exposition.
Shinjo, J., Umemura, A., 2011. Detailed simulation of primary atomization mecha-
nisms in diesel jet sprays (isolated identification of liquid jet tip effects). Proc.
Combust. Inst. 33 (2), 2089–2097. doi:10.1016/j.proci.2010.07.006.
Sommerfeld, M., 2001. Validation of a stochastic lagrangian modelling approach for
inter-particle collisions in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 27 (10), 1829–1858.
Strasser, W., 2007. Discrete particle study of turbulence coupling in a confined jet
gas-liquid separator. J. Fluids Eng. 130, 011101. doi:10.1115/1.2816008.
Strasser, W., 2019. Oxidation-assisted pulsating three-stream non-newtonian slurry
atomization for energy production. Chem. Eng. Sci. 196, 214–224. doi:10.1016/j.
ces.2018.10.055.
Sussman, M., Smereka, P., Osher, S., 1994. A level set approach for computing solu-
tions to incompressible two-phase flow. 10.1006/jcph.1994.1155.
Tanner, F.X., 1997. Liquid jet atomization and droplet breakup modeling of non-
evaporating diesel fuel sprays. In: SAE Technical Paper. SAE International, p. 16.
doi:10.4271/970050.
Tryggvason, G., Bunner, B., Esmaeeli, a., Juric, D., Al-Rawahi, N., Tauber, W., Han, J.,
Nas, S., Jan, Y.J., 2001. A front-Tracking method for the computations of multi-
phase flow. J. Comput. Phys. 169 (2), 708–759. doi:10.10 06/jcph.20 01.6726.
Tryggvason, G., Ma, M., Lu, J., 2016. DNS Assisted modeling of bubbly flows in ver-
tical channels. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 184 (3), 312–320. doi:10.1364/OE.19.015955.
Ubbink, O., 1997. Numerical prediction of two fluid systems with sharp interfaces.
Thesis 69. doi:10.1145/1774088.1774119.
Wu, P.-k., Kirkendall, K.A., Fuller, R.P., 1997. Breakup processes of liquid jets in sub-
sonic crossflows. J. Propul. Power 13 (1), 64–73.