You are on page 1of 95

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF LIQUID JET BREAKUP AND

ATOMIZATION IN CROSS FLOWS



A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
Arvindh R Sharma
Faheem Hussain M
Murugan A
Vishnu Bhadran

Project work carried out at CSIR-NAL, Bangalore - 560017

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

IN

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
K.C.G. COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY
ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025
DECEMBER 2011-APRIL 2012

iii

ANNA UNIVERSITY : CHENNAI 600 025
BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this project work entitled EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF
LIQUID JET BREAKUP AND ATOMIZATION IN CROSS FLOWS is the
bona fide work of Arvindh R Sharma (Reg. No. 31108101009), Faheem Hussain M
(Reg. No. 31108101017), Murugan A (Reg. No. 31108101026) and Vishnu
Bhadran (Reg. No. 31108101052), who carried out the project work under my
supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE


Prof. R. R. Elangovan Mr. Bikash Kumar Mondal
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering Assistant Professor
KCG College of Technology Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering
Chennai-97 KCG College of Technology
Chennai-97
April, 2012

Internal Examiner External Examiner
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
iv


Declaration

We hereby declare that the entire work embodied in this dissertation has been
carried out by us and no part of it has been submitted for any degree or diploma of
any institution previously.


Arvindh R Sharma

Faheem Hussain M

Murugan A

Vishnu Bhadran

Date :
Place :
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
v

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our gratitude to the Director, NAL, for permitting us to
carry out the project at NAL. We thank Mr. C Diwakar, Joint Head, KTMD, Mrs.
Gomathy Sankaran, Group Head, KTMD, and the other staff who helped us in
getting permission to carry out our project at NAL. We also thank the Head of the
Department, Propulsion Division, Mr. M. Jayaraman, and Mr. Manjunath. P,
Deputy Head and Scientist In-Charge, Combustion activities, Propulsion Division,
for allowing us to be a part of the High Speed Combustor Test Facility, Propulsion
Division during our stay at NAL.
Our heartfelt thanks are due to our guides at NAL, Dr. Venkat Iyengar S
(Scientist, PR) and Mr. Sathiyamoorthy K (Scientist, PR), for their constant
support, mentoring, motivation and guidance without which the work attempted
would have been insurmountable. Our special thanks to Mr. J Srinivas (Technical
Officer) and Mr. Pratheesh Kumar (Technical Officer) for their invaluable help in
setting up our experimental facility. We are also grateful to the staff at Combustion
and Gas Dynamics Laboratory and High Speed Combustor Test Facility for
helping us carry out the experiments.
We thank our Principal, KCG College of Technology, Dr. T Rengaraja, for his
support of our endeavor. We sincerely thank the Head of the Department,
Aeronautical Engineering, Prof. R.R. Elangovan, for facilitating our project work
in the midst of a rigorous academic schedule. We are indebted to our guide at KCG
College, Mr. Bikash Kumar Mondal, Aeronautical Department, for his valuable
suggestions and motivation throughout the course of our work.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
vi

ABSTRACT
The penetration of water jets injected transversely in subsonic cross flows and the
droplet size distributions in the resulting sprays were experimentally studied. The
non-dimensional parameters Weber number(We) and momentum flux ratio(J) were
used to characterize the sprays. A wide range of subsonic Mach numbers and water
mass flow rates(m
f
) were used. The penetration heights were obtained at cross flow
Mach numbers 0.3 and 0.4, which represent the practical flow conditions in aero-
engines. Two plain orifice injectors with diameters of 0.8 mm and 1mm were used.
Penetration studies were carried out within x/d
j
=85. The droplet size distribution
studies were carried out at three far-field locations: (x/d
j
,y/d
j
)=(330,23),(248,23)
and (310,28.75). High speed photography was used for flow visualization and
penetration studies. Low Angle Laser Light Scattering (LALLS) was used in
studying the droplet size distributions. The penetration increased with increase in J
at a constant We while it decreased with increase in We at a constant J. The effects
of J, We, water mass flow rate and the cross flow velocity(V
a
) on droplet SMDs
and SMD distributions were analyzed. D
32
decreased with increase in J and
increase in m
f
at constant We. The effect of J and m
f
decreased as We increased to a
sufficiently high value when aerodynamic breakup and shear stripping began
dominating over column breakup. The percentage of smaller SMD droplets (within
22m) in the spray increased with increasing V
a
at a particular m
f
.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
vii

Contents

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vi
Contents ............................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xi
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... xiii
Symbols .................................................................................................................................... xiii
Subscripts ................................................................................................................................. xiv
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Atomization....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Penetration ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Spray Droplet Size ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Liquid Jets in Cross Flows ................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Applications [14] .............................................................................................................. 6
1.5.1. Afterburner ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.5.2. Ramjet ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5.3. SCRamjet .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.5.4. Reentry Vehicles ................................................................................................................... 7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Breakup Regimes and Flow Structures ............................................................................. 9
2.3 Penetration Height .......................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Atomization Process ....................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Droplet Properties and Size Distribution ........................................................................ 19
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
viii

2.6 Effects of Weber Number and Momentum Flux Ratio ................................................... 22
2.7 Effect of Injectant Properties, Injector Geometry and Injection Angle .......................... 25
2.8 Aerated Liquid Jets ......................................................................................................... 30
2.9 Turbulent and Non-Turbulent Liquid Jets ...................................................................... 32
2.10 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 33
3 MOTIVATION FOR CURRENT RESEARCH .................................................... 34
4 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ...................................................................................... 36
4.1 Test Rig ........................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Water Injection System ................................................................................................... 38
4.3 Injector ............................................................................................................................ 39
4.4 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 40
4.5 Coordinate System .......................................................................................................... 40
4.6 Diagnostic Equipment ..................................................................................................... 41
5 EXPERIMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 43
5.1 Calculation of Flow Parameters ...................................................................................... 44
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 46
6.1 Visualization of Liquid Jets in Cross Flows ................................................................... 46
6.1.1 Trajectory Details ................................................................................................................ 55
6.2 Characteristics of Spray SMD ........................................................................................ 57
6.2.1 Droplet Size Distribution .................................................................................................... 58
6.2.2 Effect of Momentum Flux Ratio (J) and Weber number (We) ........................................... 62
6.2.3 Effect of Cross Flow Weber number at different Injectant Mass Flow Rates .................... 65
6.2.4 Effect of Cross Flow Velocity ............................................................................................ 66
7 SOURCES OF ERROR ........................................................................................... 71
8 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK .............................................................. 72
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
ix

8.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 72
8.2 Scope for Future Work.................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX 1: Particle Size Measurement using Laser Diffraction .......................... 74
A.1 Principle............................................................................................................................. 74
A.2 Apparatus........................................................................................................................... 74
A.3 Optical Models .................................................................................................................. 75
A.4 Advantages of Laser Diffraction ....................................................................................... 75
A.5 Particle Size ....................................................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX 2: Sample Calculation of Experimental Conditions and Parameters ... 77
9 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 79




















Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
x

List of Tables


Table 2.1 Penetration height correlations for liquid jets in subsonic and supersonic
cross flows ................................................................................................................15
Table 2.2 Effects of Weber number on breakup regime ..........................................25
Table 6.1 Test conditions for the experiments on penetration heights ....................47
Table 6.2 Liquid column trajectory for We=130 and J=35 .....................................55
Table 6.3 Liquid column trajectory for We=130 and J=115 ...................................56
Table 6.4 Test conditions for the experiments on droplet size distributions ...........57
Table 6.5 Test conditions and SMD for Mach 0.3 test case ....................................58
Table 6.6 SMD volume distribution data .................................................................60
Table 6.7 Derived parameters ..................................................................................61
Table 6.8 SMD number distribution data ................................................................62
Table 6.9 Test conditions for effect of cross flow velocity studies .........................67
Table 6.10 Average SMDs and Cumulative Number % at 22.16 m .....................69











Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
xi

List of Figures


Fig. 2.1 Flow Characteristics of Liquid Jet in Cross Flow ....................................10
Fig. 2.2 Breakup regime map .................................................................................11
Fig. 2.3 General flow topology of jet injection in compressible cross flow .........13
Fig. 2.4 Schematic diagram of the flow structure of liquid jet in hypersonic
crossflow ..................................................................................................................13
Fig. 2.5 Comparison of penetration height for various liquid jet-to-air momentum
flux ratio ...................................................................................................................23
Fig. 2.6 Comparison of penetration heights for various injection angles ..............28
Fig. 2.7 Comparison of penetration heights for different injector diameters ........29
Fig. 2.8 Shadowgraph images of liquid jets at various liquid aeration levels. ......31
Fig. 4.1 Schematic sketch of the test rig ................................................................37
Fig. 4.2 Injector design ..........................................................................................39
Fig. 4.3 Sketch of the test-section showing injector locations ..............................41
Fig. 6.1 Instantaneous image at We=130, J=30 ......................................................48
Fig. 6.2 Averaged image at We=130, J=30 ............................................................49
Fig. 6.3 Outer and inner boundaries from averaged image at We=130, J=30 ........49
Fig. 6.4 Instantaneous image at We=130, J=35 ......................................................50
Fig. 6.5 Averaged image at We=130, J=35 ............................................................51
Fig. 6.6 Outer and inner boundaries from averaged image at We=130, J=35 ........51
Fig. 6.7 Instantaneous image at We=130, J=115 ....................................................52
Fig. 6.8 Averaged Image at We=130, J=115 ..........................................................52
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
xii

Fig. 6.9 Outer and inner boundaries of the jet from averaged image at We=130,
J=115 ........................................................................................................................53
Fig. 6.10 Instantaneous image at We=240, J=10 ....................................................53
Fig. 6.11 Averaged Image at We=240, J=10 ..........................................................54
Fig. 6.12 Outer and inner boundaries of the jet from averaged image at We=240,
J=10 ..........................................................................................................................54
Fig. 6.13 Comparison of penetration height correlations and experimental data for
We=130 and J=35 ....................................................................................................56
Fig. 6.14 Volume distribution of droplet SMDs .....................................................59
Fig. 6.15 Number distribution of droplet SMDs .....................................................61
Fig. 6.16 Effect of momentum flux ratio (J) on SMD at various Weber numbers .63
Fig. 6.17 J vs SMD trends .......................................................................................64
Fig. 6.18 Effect of Weber number (We) on SMD at various injectant mass flow
rates ..........................................................................................................................65
Fig. 6.19 Comparison of SMD number distributions at different cross flow
velocities ..................................................................................................................68
Fig. 6.20 Mach number vs Cumulative Number % at 22.16 m- Trend ................70













Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
xiii

List of Abbreviations

Symbols
D Aerodynamic drag force

a
Density of the cross flow air
V
a
Velocity of the cross flow air
d Diameter of liquid droplet
C
D
Coefficient of drag
F
ST
Force due to surface tension
Surface tension of water (0.072 N/m)
SMD, D
32
Sauter Mean Diameter of liquid droplet
We Weber number

j
Density of water (1000 kg/m3)
V
j
Velocity of water jet
d
j
Diameter of injector orifice
J Liquid jet-to-free stream air momentum flux ratio
x,y,z Distances along X,Y,Z axes respectively
M Mach number
Injection angle with respect to cross-flow direction
GLR Aerating gas-to-liquid mass ratio (in percentage)
L/D Injector nozzle internal length-to-diameter ratio
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
xiv

Specific heat ratio of air
R Specific gas constant of air
P
0
Stagnation pressure of cross flow air
P
S
Static pressure of cross flow air at the test-section
T
0
Stagnation temperature of cross flow air
T
S
Static temperature of cross flow air at the test-section
m
f
Mass flow rate of injected water
A
j
Nozzle exit orifice area
Subscripts
a Cross flow air property
j Liquid jet property
0 Stagnation condition
S Static condition













Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
1

1 INTRODUCTION


The conundrum of achieving optimum spray characteristics with a simple yet
effective injection scheme has occupied researchers for many decades. The choice
of the injection method depends on the application, which dictates the conditions
prior to injection and the desired flow conditions post injection. From fuel injection
in diesel engines to agricultural sprays, from aerosol sprays to film cooling, sprays
have a wide spectrum of applications. This also necessitates the study of various
injection techniques that can address particular requirements. Transverse injection
in cross flows is one such injection scheme which is particularly suited for
aerospace propulsion applications and promises to address the various requirements
imposed on it yet be simplistic in design and conceptualization.
The liquid spray can be defined as a collection of liquid droplets driven
through a medium, such as air. The spray is formed from the bulk liquid by a
process called atomization. The atomization is the process by which a liquid
droplet, due to the action of forces external and internal to it, undergoes
deformation and breaks down into finer sized droplets. The effectiveness of the
atomization process is the major criteria in deciding the injection scheme. Further,
spray characteristics like spray width, spray cross-sectional area, spray penetration
height, the time or distance required for optimal atomization, the droplet size
distribution across the spray, etc. are parameters that must be analyzed based on the
application.
1.1 Atomization

Lefebvre and Ballal [7] discussed the various factors that affect the atomization
process in detail. The atomization process is the result of the interplay between the
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
2

consolidating forces that are inherent to a liquid and the disruptive forces acting on
it. In the absence of disruptive forces, the surface tension of the liquid tends to
transform the liquid into a sphere, since it possesses the surface with least surface
energy. The disruptive forces, such as aerodynamic forces, try to deform the liquid.
Thus, atomization is produced when the disruptive forces exceed the consolidating
forces.
In the case of liquid jets in cross flows, the disruptive force is aerodynamic
drag. It is given by:
D
2 2
a
C d
4
V
2
1
D
|
.
|

\
|
=
t

a


The consolidating force is that of surface tension and is given by:
o td F
ST
=

The critical condition when atomization just begins is when
o t
t
d C d
4
V
2
1
D
2 2
a
=
|
.
|

\
|
a

From the above critical condition for atomization, it can be inferred that as the
droplets break down and their sizes decrease, the decrease in disruptive
aerodynamic force is relatively larger than the decrease in consolidating surface
tension force. Hence, it becomes progressively more difficult for a droplet to break
down into smaller sized droplets under a given condition.
The atomization process constitutes two regimes: 1) Primary atomization and
2) Secondary atomization. In primary atomization, the liquid jet is broken down
into bag-like structures and ligaments. These structures are further broken down
into finer droplets during secondary atomization.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
3

In addition to the effects of surface tension and aerodynamic drag, the liquid
viscosity also affects atomization. Viscosity opposes any relative motion between
various layers in a liquid, thus opposing any change in liquid geometry. This
adversely affects the atomization process.
There are three major factors affecting the atomization process [5]:
1. The relative velocity between the liquid and the surrounding medium, i.e., air.
2. The internal geometry of the injector.
3. The physical properties of the injected liquid and the surrounding medium.
1.2 Penetration

The penetration height of a liquid jet can be defined in a number of ways. One
of the definitions is that the penetration height is the maximum transverse distance
attained by a given spray plume [24]. It can also be defined as the distance from the
wall containing the injector at which the top boundary of the spray plume gets
aligned with the cross flow and becomes parallel to the wall.
The penetration height is necessary for understanding the combustor efficiency
in ramjet and scramjet combustors. It provides an idea about the mixing between
the fuel droplets and the air stream. If a fuel jet penetrates less into the cross flow, a
large area of the combustor remains unutilized for mixing, and the fuel is rather
concentrated in a narrow region of the combustor. On the other hand, with a greater
penetration, a larger area of the combustor is utilized for mixing with air. Thus,
there is better mixing with the surrounding air stream which aids in obtaining a
more uniform droplet distribution in the combustor. This will have a direct bearing
on the flame property and overall combustor operation.
The penetration height is a major factor in deciding applicability of the spray in
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
4

other spray applications as well.
1.3 Spray Droplet Size

The mean droplet sizes and the size distributions are important parameters that
help in predicting the utility of a spray for a particular application. There are several
mean diameters used to characterize the sprays, such as Arithmetic Mean Diameter
(AMD), Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) and de Brouckere Mean Diameter. Since
sprays are composed of particles of various shapes and sizes, the different mean
diameters give an idea of different aspects of the droplets such as number, surface
area and volume.
The use of liquid hydrocarbons as fuels in aero-engines such as ramjets,
scramjets and afterburners depends on the ease and completion of combustion of
these fuels in the combustor. The combustion process depends on the surface area of
the droplets, since more the surface area of a droplet for a given volume, more the
exposure to available oxygen for combustion. Thus, a mean droplet size relating the
surface area to volume of the droplets is necessary in characterizing combustion of
sprays.
The SMD or D
32
can be defined as the diameter of a droplet sphere having the
same volume-to-surface area ratio as the entire spray. It can also be described as the
mean of the moment of surface area.
2
3
32
d
d
D
E
E
=

It can be seen that the SMD provides adequately the information about the surface
area available for a given volume of spray. Therefore, SMD is used to study spray
combustion processes.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
5

1.4 Liquid Jets in Cross Flows

The transverse liquid injection into gas streams, also called Liquid Jets in
Cross Flows (LJICF), is a promising injection method suited for fuel atomization in
aero-engine combustors. Due to the normal injection, the relative velocity between
the injected liquid and the cross flow is significantly large. This aids in quick
atomization. Moreover, the spray penetration and width can be higher than the case
of angled injection. Other advantages are the simplicity of injector design and
control over the injection parameters. The injectors can produce a high relative
speed between the liquid and cross flow at lower pressures than conventional
pressure atomizers. Thus the problem of clogging of injectors can be addressed to
an extent using cross flow injection. Another important feature that is to be studied
closely is the mixing between the two media, the liquid and the gas cross flow.
The atomization of liquid jets in cross flows depends upon two major non-
dimensional parameters: 1) Weber number (We) and 2) Liquid-to-air momentum
flux ratio (J). The Weber number is the ratio of the aerodynamic force of the cross
flow to the surface tension force of the liquid. Higher the Weber number, higher is
the disruptive force of the cross flow in comparison to the consolidating force
offered by surface tension. The Weber number dictates the breakup mechanism to
some degree. Liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio (J) determines the momentum
exchange between the liquid jet and cross flow.






( )
o

o
d V V
We
2
a
2
a a a
d
=
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
a a
2
j j
V
V
J

=
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
6

1.5 Applications [14]

The increased understanding of spray structure resulting from cross flow
injection will help in optimization of combustor design in ramjets, scramjets and
afterburners. LJICF has applications in film cooling of reentry vehicles, thrust
vector control in missiles, rockets and other aircrafts as well.
The jet trajectory plays a main role in different applications. For liquid cooling
applications, a jet that bends more towards the injection wall, grazing it, and having
low penetration is more preferred. But in combustors and afterburners, a jet that
penetrates deeper is desired. The various aspects of transverse liquid jet injection
are utilized in different ways in the different applications.
1.5.1. Afterburner
The turbojet and turbofan engines employ afterburners in order to augment the
thrust by burning additional fuel in a duct downstream of the turbine and before the
exhaust nozzle. In an engine without an afterburner, the turbine blade material
considerations impose limitations on the maximum temperature of the gases leaving
the combustor. However, since the combustion in an afterburner takes place
downstream of the turbine, higher exhaust gas temperatures can be attained.
The fuel injection in an afterburner can be achieved through transverse
injection into the cross flow. This is similar to the classic case of liquid jet injection
in subsonic cross flows.
1.5.2. Ramjet
A ramjet is an engine used to power high subsonic and supersonic aircrafts. It
achieves compression of the incoming air by ram effect, thus eliminating the need
for a mechanical compressor. The air in the inlet is stagnated and enters the
combustor at a speed of about Mach 0.3. Liquid fuels can be injected into this
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
7

subsonic gaseous cross flow to achieve atomization and combustion. The fuel can
be injected from the combustor walls or from flame stabilizers.
1.5.3. SCRamjet
Supersonic Combustion Ramjet, or SCRamjet, is an engine particularly suited for
supersonic and hypersonic flight regimes. Similar to a ramjet, it compresses air by
ram effect and does without mechanical compressors. However, unlike a ramjet, the
incoming air is not slowed down to subsonic speeds. Instead, the air enters the
combustor at supersonic speeds. Hence, fuel atomization and combustion has to
occur in a supersonic airstream. The use of liquid fuels in SCRamjets will result in
development of longer range supersonic/hypersonic aircrafts since liquid fuels can
be stored more easily and have higher density than gaseous fuels. Hence testing the
viability of using transverse liquid fuel injection in scramjets is of major interest in
hypersonic aircraft development.
On injecting a liquid jet in supersonic airstream, a boundary layer separation
zone is formed upstream of the injector due to the interaction between the boundary
layer and the shock formed due to the presence of liquid jet. This is a zone where
heat transfer rate is very high. Hence, it creates a region favouring combustion.
Also, the shock system decreases the total pressure of the air stream but increases
the static temperature and slows down the air stream. These effects can be utilized
to stabilize the ignition of fuels in supersonic streams and increase overall
combustion efficiency.
1.5.4. Reentry Vehicles
Upon reentry, a hot layer of ionized gases surrounds a reentry vehicle. This layer
may disrupt the working of communication antenna and cause blackout of signals.
To prevent this, cooling of the localized area is necessary. This can be achieved with
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
8

the help of a liquid jet injected transversely which cools the desired location. The
breakup process of the liquid jet needs to be understood well in order to accurately
design the cooling system.




















Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
9

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
1


2.1 Introduction

Liquid Jets in Cross Flows (LJICF) have been the focus of many researches for
more than seven decades. A number of researches have focused on various aspects
of the phenomenon and the existing literature cover a wide range of experimental
conditions. Gaining a thorough understanding of the breakup of liquid jets in cross
flows, and identifying the specific focus area of our current research in relation to
the work that has already been done, is the aim of this review.
2.2 Breakup Regimes and Flow Structures

The breakup process of liquid jets in subsonic cross flows and the regimes in
which they occur have been reported in a number of studies.
The breakup process of liquid jets in subsonic air cross flows can be
considered to occur in three regimes: 1) column, 2) ligament and 3) droplet. After
the liquid injection, the liquid jet undergoes surface breakup with droplets stripped
away from its surface. Acceleration waves then grow on the surface. The liquid
column is flattened and deformed. Subsequently, the column disintegrates into
ligaments and droplets [23]. Gopala et al. [4] also postulated that the surface waves
formed on the liquid surface distort the liquid column. The aerodynamic forces
enhance the growth rate of the disturbances downstream, leading to the formation of
ligaments which breakup into droplets.

1
The symbols representing various parameters like momentum flux ratio, penetration height, air density, etc. are
adapted from the cited references wherever possible. In other instances, the legends used are the authors own.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
10


Fig. 2.1 Flow Characteristics of Liquid Jet in Cross Flow
Wu et al. [23]

Becker and Hassa [1] observed liquid jets with the help of time-resolved
shadowgraphs. They identified two main breakup mechanisms: 1) column breakup
and 2) surface breakup. In the column breakup zone, waves were observed on the
windward side of the jet. The wave growth leads to the instability in the column,
which fractures at a wave trough. The surface breakup proceeds with the erosion of
the liquid droplets from the jet by the cross flow air. The ligaments and droplets are
stripped off from the sides of the jet.
Becker and Hassa [1] and Wu et al. [23] provided a break-up map, a plot of J
vs We, that identified the conditions under which the column and surface break-up
occurred. At high values of J, the liquid jet column is well-defined and relatively
stable. Surface breakup occurs in this case. For a fixed J, the surface breakup is
dominant when the air flows dynamic pressure overcomes the conservative action
of surface tension of liquid, thereby stripping away droplets and ligaments. It can be
seen that in this case, the Weber number of the flow is relatively higher. At lower J,
the atomization occurs primarily because of the aerodynamic instabilities in the jet
as the jet bends and aligns with the cross flow. The column breakup mode is
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
11

dominant in this case. It is expected that for J>100, J ceases to influence the
atomization process and the We decides the mode of breakup. At any point, both the
mechanisms are at work but the dominance of one over the other is mainly
dependent on J and We.


Fig. 2.2 Breakup regime map
Wu et al. [23]

Mazallon et al. [12] reported that for conditions with low liquid viscosities,
five kinds of flows were observed: simple, deformation of the shape and trajectory
of the liquid jet without breakup, breakup of the liquid column as a whole, bag
breakup, bag/shear breakup and shear breakup. For the conditions they
investigated, they found that the column first deforms in the direction normal to the
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
12

cross flow and yields an elliptical cross section for non-turbulent injection from a
circular injector nozzle. The reduced pressure near the lateral sides of the jet as the
air stream flows past it causes lateral motion of the liquid jet. This motion is
stabilized to an extent by the surface tension of the liquid. The flattening of the
column further increases the aerodynamic drag on it which enhances the liquid jets
tendency to be deflected downstream. The breakup regime of non-turbulent round
liquid jets in cross flow and the aerodynamic secondary breakup of spherical drops
were found to be similar. Sallam et al. [19] provided corroborating evidence with
the results from their study of liquid jets in subsonic cross flows using pulsed
shadowgraph photography.
The breakup length, which is the distance between the jet orifice and the
endpoint of liquid jet core, is another important breakup characteristic. Wu et al.
[25], in their discussion on Professor Gerard Faeths work in the field of LJICF,
observed that in subsonic cross flows, the column fracture point always occurred at
x/ d
j
~ 9, when aerodynamic effects are significant. Becker and Hassa [1]
established that in subsonic flows at elevated pressure, when 2J18, the break-up
length was between x/ d
j
= 6.8 and x/ d
j
= 9.6.
Masutti et al. [11] investigated liquid injection into a hypersonic cross flow
(Mach 6) and described the flow structure. The presence of liquid jet was found to
cause a bow shock in front of it. The bow shock causes an adverse pressure gradient
which causes the boundary layer upstream to split. A separated flow region with a
separation shock appears in the flow. A velocity gradient in the direction normal to
the wall exists because of the nature of the bow shock, which has varying angle.
This causes a high shear stress. The cross flows interaction with the liquid jet
through the shear force on the liquid jet column surface causes it to bend and
disintegrate. There appear waves on the jet surface, which are believed to fold and
form a counter rotating vortex pair.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
13


Fig. 2.3 General flow topology of jet injection in compressible cross flow
Masutti et al. [11]



Fig. 2.4 Schematic diagram of the flow structure of liquid jet in hypersonic crossflow
Masutti et al. [11]

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
14

2.3 Penetration Height

Becker and Hassa [1], from their experiments on liquid jet injection at elevated
pressures (1.5 to 15 bar) and cross flow velocities 50 m/s to 100 m/s, provided some
correlations for the penetration height. The penetration height was correlated with
the liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio, J, and the axial distance, x/ d
j
.
For J in the range of 1 to 40, and We in the range of 90 to 2120, the penetration
height correlation arrived at was:
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
d
x
56 . 3 1 ln q 48 . 1
d
y
0.42

When J12, the correlation was found to be:
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
d
x
81 . 3 1 ln q 57 . 1
d
y
0.36

Further, it was suggested that the penetration near the nozzle exit is a function
of the nozzle exit diameter and liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio. For a fixed mass
flow rate of injectant, the penetration increased when the nozzle diameter
decreased.
Tambe et al. [22] conducted penetration studies in subsonic cross flows (0.23
M-0.63M) using water, Jet-A and N-Heptane as injectants. They found that the
penetration increases with an increase in momentum flux ratio but is independent of
cross flow Weber number. They also suggest that the cross flow dynamic pressure
might have an effect on penetration by suppressing it.
Schetz and Padhye [20], from their experiments of liquid jet injection in high
subsonic (0.45M and 0.75M) air streams, observed that the penetration height is
proportional to the square root of liquid injection pressure. When injectant pressure
was held constant, penetration was proportional to injectant density. When the
injector geometry and pressure were held constant, penetration was found to
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
15

decrease with increasing cross flow Mach number. In their studies, the researchers
assumed a constant drag co-efficient for the jet.
Bunce et al. [2] studied the effects of heating the cross flow air, in subsonic air
speeds (75m/s, 100 m/s and 150 m/s). They suggest that the increased air
temperature, and the resultant increase in air viscosity, causes increased drag forces
on the liquid column. Thus the liquid jet is bent more and penetrates less into the air
stream. Lakhamraju [6], from studies on subsonic cross flows (0.21M to 0.68M),
concluded that increasing air streams temperature decreased the penetration height.
Additionally, he suggested that an increase in liquid jet temperature caused a
reduction in penetration height, but an exact relationship was not established
satisfactorily.
Lin et al. [8] studied liquid jets in supersonic cross flows (Mach 1.94). They
postulated that the momentum deficit in the air stream boundary layer can aid in
achieving increased penetration height. Thus, a flow with a large boundary layer
thickness was helpful in getting a good penetration. They suggest that a relationship
exists between boundary layer thickness and penetration height.
Numerous correlations for penetration height and the trajectory exist in the
literature. Table 2.1 lists some of the correlations available in the literature.

Table 2.1 Penetration height correlations for liquid jets in subsonic and supersonic cross
flows
Author(s) Correlation Test-Conditions Methodology
Wu et al.
[23]
1997
( )( )q d x C
d
y
D
t =

J=3.38-148
We=71-1179
V
a
=68.1-141 m/s
Shadowgraphy
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
16

Wu et al.
[24]
1998
33 . 0
33 . 0
t
d
x
q 3 . 4
d
y
|
.
|

\
|
=

J=5.3-59.1
We=54-217
M=0.2-0.4
Phase Doppler
Particle
Analyzer(PDPA
)
Lin et al.
[8]
2000
0.44
0
0
0
q 4 . 8
d
h
=

J=1-18
M=1.94
x/d
0
=30
Shadowgraphy
Lin et al.
[9]
2002
( )
24 . 0
0
0.48
0 0 0
d x q 42 . 2 d h =

M=0.3
J=2-40
x/d
0
<90
Pulsed
Shadowgraphy
( )
40 . 0
0
0.33
0 0 0
d x q 17 . 3 d h =

M=0.2-0.4
J=0.5-12
x/d
0
<200
Phase Doppler
Particle
Analyzer(PDPA
)
( )
21 . 0
0
0.47
0 0 0
d x q 94 . 3 d h =

M=1.94
J=1-18.5
x/d
0
<90
Pulsed
Shadowgraphy
Becker and
Hassa [1]
2002
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
d
x
56 . 3 1 ln q 48 . 1
d
y
0.42




J=1-40
We=90-2120
x/d=2-22
V
a
=50-100 m/s

Time-resolved
shadowgraphy
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
17


|
.
|

\
|
+ =
d
x
81 . 3 1 ln q 57 . 1
d
y
0.36


J=1-12
We=90-2120
x/d=2-22
V
a
=50-100 m/s

Time-resolved
shadowgraphy
Tambe et
al. [22]
2005
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
D
z
1.66 1 ln q 55 . 1
D
y
0.53

J=0.7-10.2
We=50.5-1725.1
M=0.23-0.63
Shadowgraphy
Dixon [3]
2005
( )
0.63
40 . 0
0
6
0
q
d
x
sin 1 018 . 0
d
h
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = u

=45 ,60 ,75,90
J=1-15
M=1.94

Shadowgraphy
( )
0.38
38 . 0
0
4 . 5
0
q
d
x
sin 1 068 . 0
d
h
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = u



=45 ,60 ,75,90
J=1-14
M=1.94


Laser sheet
illumination

( )
0.31
33 . 0
0
1 . 2
0
q
d
x
sin 1 98 . 0
d
h
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = u


=45 ,60 ,75 ,90
J=1-14
M=1.94

PhaseDoppler
Particle
Analyzer
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
18

(PDPA)

Miller et al.
[13]
2008
( )
40 . 0
0
0.33
0
0
0
d x q 17 . 3
d
h
=

J=0.74-4
M=0.07-0.16
x/d=25-50
Digital
holography
Mashayek
et al. [10]
2011
39 . 0
0.36
d
x
q 6 . 2
d
z
|
.
|

\
|
=

J=6.1-34.2
We=47.6-57.2
V
a
=40.8-53.3 m/s

Pulsed-laser
Shadowgraphy

2.4 Atomization Process

Kihm et al. [5], from their studies on liquid jets in low subsonic cross flows,
suggested that the breakup and atomization of liquid jets depended on three factors:
1) liquid jet nozzle or injector geometry, 2) relative velocity of the jet to that of the
gas into which it is injected and 3) physical properties of the gas and the injected
liquid.
Atomization is produced by column breakup and surface breakup of the liquid
jet. Droplets from the surface breakup are smaller than those generated by column
breakup. Hence a large variation in drop size is observed in the spray plume [23].
Mashayek et al. [10] developed a model for liquid jets in subsonic gaseous
cross flows. In their experiments they observed that the droplets at the lower heights
are formed mainly by mass stripping from the liquid jets and have relatively smaller
droplet sizes. Also, the size of the droplets shed from the liquid jet increase with
height. The droplets near the top boundary of the spray plume are produced mainly
as a result of column breakup. So, they are the largest droplets separated directly
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
19

from the parent jets.
Tam et al. [21] describe the far field structures of pure and aerated liquid jets in
Mach 2 cross flow in their review of jet in cross flow studies. They state that the
atomization processes of both pure and aerated liquid jets were found to be
complete by x/ d
j
less than 100. This is due to the interaction between the cross flow
and the spray plumes.
The presence of large drops at the top of the spray plume can be explained on
the basis that the larger drops by virtue of their higher momentum penetrate the
farthest into the cross flow.
2.5 Droplet Properties and Size Distribution

Mashayek et al. [10] report that larger droplets are noticed near the top of the
spray plume. These droplets are formed as a result of column breakup. Also, the
smaller droplets were observed at lower heights. Wu et al. [24] conducted
experiments in subsonic cross flows (0.2 M, 0.3 M, 0.4M) and noted that smaller
droplets were observed near the bottom wall. These droplets are generated from
surface breakup and stripped away from the periphery of the liquid column by
aerodynamic forces. Becker and Hassa [1], from their experiments on subsonic
cross flows (50-100 m/s) at elevated pressure, reasoned that the larger particles, by
virtue of possessing higher momentum, longer velocity relaxation time and higher
inertia, penetrate farther into the air stream. It was also established that the SMD at
elevated pressure cross flows depended on the dynamic pressure of the cross flow
and was independent of J. The dependence was established as:
( )
24 . 0
2
U SMD



where U is the free stream air velocity and free stream air density.
Kihm et al. [5] noted that at low subsonic cross flow speeds, the peak of the
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
20

SMD size distribution shifted to larger values as the distance from the injector wall
was increased. The spray SMD was seen to monotonically increase with increasing
distance from injector wall, because larger droplets penetrated farther into the
airstream.
The cross-sectional distribution of SMD showed that larger droplets are present
in the centre area of the spray plume. From the bottom wall up, SMD first increases
to a large value, then decreases before increasing again. Near the injector, maximum
SMD is observed in the spray core regardless of the injection condition. With
increasing axial distance, the larger droplets from the spray core penetrate into the
airstream causing the SMD to peak near the top of the spray plume for the cases of
low cross flow velocities. However, for the cases of large cross flow velocities the
larger droplets mostly remain in the central portion of the spray plume. Some larger
droplets still penetrate to the top of the spray plume [24].
Tam et al. [21] noted in their review paper that the droplet size distribution
within the spray was non-uniform. The droplets were found to be concentrated in a
small area of the plume. For cases with high jet/air momentum flux ratio, larger
droplets are found in the upper portion of the spray plume while for cases with low
jet/air momentum ratio, larger droplets are found predominantly in the spray core.
When momentum flux ratio is kept constant, and the cross flow air velocity is
increased, maximum SMD location is shifted from the top of spray plume to the
spray core. This may be due to the transition of column breakup mode and the
resulting liquid-air momentum exchange. For conditions of larger liquid injection
diameter and cross flow air velocity, the momentum exchange will be more intense
thus producing an SMD peak in the spray core [24].
A reduction in maximum SMD was found to have been brought about by
increasing air velocity but the minimum SMD did not vary significantly. Hence,
SMD variation in the spray plume decreased with increasing air velocity. It was also
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
21

noted that the size of the droplets and ligaments decreased with increasing air flow
Mach number due to the increase in aerodynamic forces [23, 24]. Tambe et al. [22],
with experiments in subsonic cross flows (76-188 m/s) using PDPA measurements,
found that as the cross flow air velocity increased, the minimum SMD as well as the
range of SMDs. This is attributed to the enhanced surface breakup at higher cross
flow velocities, giving better atomization.
From the above literature, it can be concluded that at low cross flow velocities,
the largest droplets penetrate to the top of the plume while for high cross flow
velocities, the largest droplets are concentrated in the spray core. In other words, for
low momentum flux ratio, the SMD peaks in the spray core while for high
momentum flux ratio, the SMD peaks in the spray periphery [21,22,24].
Gopala et al. [4] recorded data concerning total velocity of droplets in low
subsonic cross flows (Mach 0.2) and found that till 50 injector diameters
downstream of the injector, the droplet velocity was different from cross flow
velocity. The droplet velocity reached a maximum of 95% of the cross flow velocity
and stabilized at a downstream distance of 115 injector diameters. Also, they found
that the droplet diameters stabilized at around 35 injector diameters downstream of
the injector and that larger droplets were found within 35 x/ d
j
.
In Mach 2 supersonic cross flow, atomization was observed to be complete by
x/ d
j
< 100. This is due to strong interaction between the spray plumes and
aerodynamic forces. Also, flux averaged SMD downstream of this location was
found to be constant and of the order of 10 m. The centerline droplet size
distribution, normalized by the penetration height, exhibited an S-shape. The upper
inversion point for pure and aerated liquid jets was found to be at y/h = 0.7 and y/h
= 0.5 respectively [21].
Masutti et al. [11] observed that in Mach 6 cross flow, SMD decreased
asymptotically with increasing downstream distance from injection point and
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
22

reached a constant value at a particular downstream distance. After that SMD did
not vary much with increasing x/ d
j
. This indicates that the atomization process is
complete at a particular location from injection point.
Wu et al. [25] indicate that in supersonic cross flows, the turbulent flow behind
the shock train caused enhanced mixing between the droplets and free stream air.
2.6 Effects of Weber Number and Momentum Flux Ratio

It has long been theorized that the drop size and penetration are functions of
the momentum flux ratio and the gas Weber number. Many researchers have
attempted to establish the most accurate correlation linking the above mentioned
parameters with the droplet size, column trajectory, breakup regime and other
breakup structures.
Wu et al. [23] noted that the jet penetration decreased as the momentum flux
ratio decreased. This is because the cross flows momentum increased relative to
that of the jet. Consequently, the liquid jet cannot penetrate farther. Bunce et al. [2],
Lakhamraju [6] and Miller et al. [13] also asserted that increasing the momentum
flux ratio increased the jet penetration height. Dixon [3], from his studies on angled,
aerated liquid jets in supersonic (Mach 1.94) cross flows, established that for an
increase in liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio, J, there was a small increase in the
penetration height for a normally injected, pure jet (Fig. 2.5).
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
23


Fig. 2.5 Comparison of penetration height for various liquid jet-to-air momentum flux
ratio
Dixon [3]

Nejad et al. [14], from their experiments in supersonic air cross flows (Mach
3.0), reported that at x/ d
j
= 48, y/ d
j
= 15.3, SMD decreased with increasing
momentum flux ratio while the spray penetration height increased. At a downstream
location of x/ d
j
= 82.9, y/ d
j
= 13.1, spray penetration again increased with
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
24

momentum flux ratio but SMD did not show a consistent variation with momentum
flux ratio. Additionally, SMD value was smaller for the downstream location. On
holding the momentum flux ratio constant, it was observed that SMD was smallest
at the spray periphery at x/ d
j
= 82.9. In effect, a simple relation for the variation of
SMD across spray plume could not be established.
Wu el al. [24] state that the liquid column trajectory is parabolic and the
column breaks always at the same axial location. Thus for lower momentum flux
ratios, there is a sharper curvature of the jet in the downstream direction. The
interaction between column waves and the air stream is intense and there is
significant momentum exchange. For larger momentum flux ratios, the column
curvature is not sharp. The jet penetrates farther due to its larger transverse
momentum.
The spray plume width was also seen to increase with momentum flux ratio,
but not as significant as the increase in penetration height. So, the plume exhibits
higher aspect ratio and higher cross-sectional area at higher momentum flux ratio.
Sallam et al. [18] suggest that there is no significant effect of varying
momentum flux ratio on SMD in the case of aerated liquid jets.
At a fixed momentum flux ratio, the spray penetration decreases with
increasing gas Weber number. For a fixed gas Weber number, the penetration
increases with increasing momentum flux ratio [10]
Kihm et al. [5] observed that increasing the gas Weber number decreased
atomization effectiveness because the jet was bent more and resulted in decreased
shearing area. This caused the SMDs to increase. On increasing the momentum flux
ratio, effective atomization was seen to occur, with higher penetration.
When We < 10, the aerodynamic forces are not large as compared to liquid
surface tension forces. But when We > 10, the aerodynamic forces play a major part
in the breakup process. Bag/multimode column breakup is observed when We is
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
25

small and shear column breakup dominates when We is large [23].
Gopala et al. [4] suggest that the domination of column breakup mode or shear
breakup mode over the other is decided by the Weber number and the momentum
flux ratio. They also indicate that droplets with larger SMDs are formed at lower
Weber numbers.
Mazallon et al. [12] have identified the various breakup regimes with
corresponding Weber number ranges. For the conditions they investigated (We: 2-
200 and Ohnesorge number: 0.00006-0.3), they identified four liquid column
breakup regimes (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Effects of Weber number on breakup regime
Mazallon et al. [12]
Weber
number range
We < 5 5 < We < 60 60 < We < 110 110 < We
Breakup
Regime
Liquid column
breakup
Bag breakup
Bag/Shear
breakup
Shear breakup

They also compared liquid column breakup with secondary drop breakup at
low Ohnesorge number ( Oh < 0.01 ). They found that bag/shear breakup of the
liquid jet is analogous to multimode breakup of drops and thus the original
diameters of liquid jets and drops must be used in the expressions for We and Oh.
2.7 Effect of Injectant Properties, Injector Geometry and Injection
Angle

Wu et al. [23] studied the liquid jet trajectories in subsonic air cross flows
(Mach 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4) for three different liquids- 1) water, 2) 30% alcohol/water
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
26

solution, and 3) 40% glycerol/water solution. They asserted that the water jet
showed the straightest trajectory and the glycerol/water solution jet curved the
most. The onset of surface breakup was noticed to be closer to the nozzle exit in the
case of alcohol/water solution jet. Further, droplet sizes and ligament non-
sphericities were found to be smaller for the alcohol/water jet.
It had been postulated that the spray characteristics depend on injector
geometry, injection angle, turbulence level of the liquid jet and test-section
characteristics.
Schetz and Padhye [20] examined liquid jets using different injector orifice
shapes with the same exit area. They noticed that the injector with a rectangular
cross-section which is aligned with free stream achieved the highest penetration,
while the circular injector was the next best, closely followed by the rectangular
injector aligned transverse to the free stream direction. The difference in penetration
for the last two injector shapes mentioned was not significantly large. The mean
droplet sizes were also affected by injector geometry. Rectangular injector aligned
with free stream produced droplets with least average size, while the rectangular
injector oriented transverse to the cross flow produced larger sized droplets.
Similarly, Perurena et al. [16] investigated liquid jet injection in Mach 6 hypersonic
cross flow, and observed that a streamwise rectangular injector provided higher
penetration than a circular injector, while a spanwise rectangular injector provided
lower penetration than the other two cases. This is because the lower frontal area for
a lower aspect ratio injectors, like streamwise rectangular injector, facilitate only
lesser momentum exchange between jet and free stream, thus allowing greater
penetration. Also, the lateral extension of the jet was found to increase with aspect
ratio.
Miller et al. [13] recorded the effects of changing the injector diameter in the
case of aerated liquid jets. It was observed that the SMD distribution did not vary
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
27

much for different injector diameters because SMD distribution was more a
function of thickness of liquid sheet exiting the injector, which is dependent more
on GLR than the injector diameter. However, the number of droplets observed for
the larger diameter injector was almost double the number of droplets for the
smaller diameter injector, due to the increased flow rate in the case of larger
diameter injector.
However, Nejad et al. [14] contended that in supersonic flows, a larger
diameter injector produced droplets with larger SMD.
Kihm et al. [5] observed that as the injector diameter increased, the penetration
decreased due to the decreased injection velocity with accompanying momentum
loss. Also, they reported that there was a dramatic increase in SMD with increasing
injector diameter.
Wu et al. [24] found that a smaller diameter injector with larger liquid injection
velocity contributes to larger cross-sectional area of the plume.
The injection angle is a major factor controlling liquid column fracture height
and fracture distance. As the injection angle decreases, the penetration and column
fracture height decrease while the column fracture distance increases.
Dixon [3] studied penetration of angled, aerated liquid jets in supersonic cross
flows. He observed liquid jets injected at angles 45, 60, 75 and 90 using
shadowgraphy, laser sheet illumination and Phase Doppler Particle Analyzer
(PDPA). He established that the spray penetration increases considerably with an
increase in injection angle towards 90 (Fig. 2.6). He also observed that with an
increase in injector diameter, the penetration height and the effective momentum of
the jet increases (Fig. 2.7). He concludes his thesis with the observation that the
correlations of penetration height derived from PDPA measurements are more
accurate than those obtained from shadowgraphy and laser-sheet illumination
methods. Also, he suggests that PDPA is better suited for far-field measurements
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
28

whereas shadowgraphy and laser-sheet illumination are better for near-field
measurements.

Fig. 2.6 Comparison of penetration heights for various injection angles
Dixon [3]


Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
29


Fig. 2.7 Comparison of penetration heights for different injector diameters
Dixon [3]

The effects of nozzle length/diameter (L/D) on the surface properties of
turbulent jets were studied by Osta and Sallam [15]. When the injector diameter was
constant, increase in L/D resulted in a decrease in breakup length of the jet. Also, an
increase in L/D resulted in an increase in surface activity of the jet.
Reichel et al. [17] compared a sharp-edged injector with l/d = 10 (Injector 1)
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
30

and a smooth injection orifice with l/d ~1 (Injector 2). It was observed that the
spray from the Injector 1 oscillated at 60 injector diameters downstream of the
injector by about 10 diameters. The jet from Injector 2 penetrated farther due to less
turbulence. The flow through Injector 1 was highly erratic and spread out than that
from Injector 2.
2.8 Aerated Liquid Jets

Effervescent atomization is produced by injecting an amount of gas along with
the liquid jet, at a location upstream of the liquid jet nozzle exit, in order to produce
a two-phase flow. The aeration level depends upon the ratio of aerating gas-to-
liquid mass ratio.
It is suggested that a typical aerated liquid jet produces a good spray in the far
field which is characterized by smaller droplet sizes, larger cross-sectional area,
high droplet velocities and fairly uniform volume flux distribution at lower injection
pressures than pure liquid jets, within a relatively short distance after injection [18].
In fact, aeration was shown to help achieve combustion in a direct-connect
supersonic combustor using cold JP-7 fuel, while under the same conditions, a pure
liquid jet failed to achieve combustion [25].
It was also observed that as the amount of aerating gas increased, the discharge
co-efficient decreased while the spray penetration height increased (Fig. 2.8). This
was postulated to be due to the increase in the effective momentum flux ratio due to
the aerating gas. In a highly aerated liquid jet, which is a two-phase, co-annular
flow, the liquid forms a thin, annular film around the aerating gas and travels at a
high speed [21].


Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
31


Fig. 2.8 Shadowgraph images of liquid jets at various liquid aeration levels.
Injectant: water, M = 0.3, d
0
= 1.0 mm, q
0
= 4.2
Tam et al. [21]

Miller et al. [13] differentiated the jet characteristics of a low GLR jet and high
GLR jet in a subsonic airstream, in more detail. They indicate that a liquid jet with
low GLR will exit the injector as a plume with gas bubbles traveling in the center of
the jet. In the case of a high GLR jet, the liquid will exit the injector as an annular,
thin film surrounding the gas core. The spray was found to be constituted of densely
packed, small droplets and was difficult to analyze. It was also found that changing
the GLR resulted in a change in the SMD of droplets in the immediately
downstream of the injector(0-50d). On increasing the GLR from 4% to 8%, the
SMD reduced from 151 m to 71 m, under the conditions they investigated. The
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
32

reason is that the liquid film is squeezed into a thinner sheet by the increased gas
flow rate. Also, another flow characteristic, the penetration height, was found to be
15 diameters higher at 8% GLR than at 4% GLR, because the thinner liquid jet
exited the orifice at a higher velocity than the thicker liquid jet at lower GLR. But
GLR changes did not have much effect on spray width. These results effectively
show how aerated liquid jets can be utilized for obtaining a spray with desirable
characteristics.
2.9 Turbulent and Non-Turbulent Liquid Jets

Turbulent liquid jets are produced by injectors with high length-to-diameter
ratios, typically greater than 10. Highly contracted, converging flow passages, with
L/D~0, are used to produce non-turbulent liquid jets with highly laminar internal
flow in the nozzle. Turbulence has been found to enhance the break-up process of
the liquid jets [25].
Osta and Sallam [15] investigated turbulent liquid jets in gaseous cross flows
and reported that the breakup region consists of two major regimes: 1) aerodynamic
breakup regime, which includes column, bag, multimode, shear breakup (similar in
appearance to breakup of non-turbulent liquid jets in cross flow) 2) turbulent
breakup regime. They also gave a dimensionless number that divided the two
regimes.



where, We
L
is the jet Weber number.

17000 q We
3
1
L
=
A
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
33

2.10 Conclusion

While the numerous experiments and investigations on LJICF throw light on
various aspects, there is still some obscurity and scope for further research. The
breakup regimes, the atomization process, the liquid jet penetration and the
behaviour of the SMD of the droplets on varying the parameters like Weber number
and liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio needs to be understood better. Also, the SMD
distribution of the spray, after the droplets have undergone secondary breakup, is
expected to throw new light on the jet atomization process in the far-field region.
The current research attempts to bring these aspects of jet atomization into focus.



















Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
34

3 MOTIVATION FOR CURRENT RESEARCH


The fuel injection scheme is a critical aspect in the design of ramjet, SCRamjet
combustors and afterburners. The thrust developed in these combustors depends
upon the combustion efficiency. The effective mixing between the fuel droplets and
the air stream will go a long way in improving combustion efficiency. To
understand the mixing characteristics better, knowledge of the breakup regime, the
penetration and droplet size distribution in the fuel spray is of paramount
importance.
The combustor performance also depends on other aspects such as fuel spray
droplet velocity, residence time and burning time of the fuel droplet. In supersonic
combustors, the burning time has to be very short since the residence time inside the
combustor will be very small. The fuel has to be injected, atomized, mixed with the
air and burnt within a very short span of time. The candidacy of the transverse fuel
injection scheme has to be examined and established, taking into consideration the
above mentioned considerations.
The breakup regimes give an idea of the atomization method and the drop sizes
resulting from the breakup. The understanding of dominance of one breakup regime
over another, based on parameters like J and We, help in understanding the flow
structure of liquid jets in cross flows. The penetration, on the other hand, influences
the mixing characteristics and the overall combustor performance.
The SMDs of fuel sprays and the SMD distribution give insight into the
effectiveness of the injection method. Wu et al. [24] observed that the SMD
distribution of sprays formed from transverse injection is not very three
dimensional. The authors suggest that line-of-sight measurements such as laser
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
35

diffraction can be used to satisfactorily analyze droplet size distribution. To study
the SMD distribution, Malvern Instruments Spraytec is used in the current
research. It is a diagnostic equipment working on the principle of laser diffraction
using the Mie theory optical model.
The objective of the current research is to further the understanding of the
spray characteristics resulting from liquid injection in subsonic and supersonic cross
flows. It is expected that the current research will help in the optimization of
aerospace engine combustor design.


















Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
36

4 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP


The experiments were carried out at the Combustion and Gas Dynamics
Laboratory at CSIR- National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India. The test
rig was assembled in order to produce both subsonic and supersonic flows. The test
facility consists of the following components:
Centrifugal compressors at National Trisonic Aerodynamic Facilities (NTAF)
deliver pressurized air at room temperature through pipelines to the Combustion
and Gas Dynamics Laboratory. The pressurized air delivered from NTAF is
controlled by an electrical motor-operated gate valve to supply the air at required
total pressure to the test rig through a 6 inch pipeline. The test rig comprises the
apparatus to produce air cross flow at desired Mach number and the water injection
system.
4.1 Test Rig

The air flow through the rig can be controlled with the help of a gate valve
positioned at the upstream end of the test rig. Downstream of the gate valve, the
pipeline cross-section is changed from circular to rectangular using a circular-to-
rectangular transition pipe. The 6 inch diameter circular cross-section is reduced to
a rectangular cross-section (50 mm X 70 mm) and its dimensions downstream of
the transition pipe remain the same.

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
37



Fig. 4.1 Schematic sketch of the test rig

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
38

The transition pipe is followed by a C-D nozzle capable of producing a steady
flow of Mach number 2. The C-D nozzle is used when supersonic cross flow
conditions are required.
The test-section is attached to the downstream end of the nozzle. The test-
section is 200 mm long and has a cross-section of dimensions 50 mm span X 70
mm height. Quartz glass windows are used as the side walls of the test section. The
glass windows are 3 mm thick and provide high transmission to the laser beam for
the drop size measurements. The test-section contains a port at the upstream end
where an injector can be inserted.
4.2 Water Injection System

The water injection system consists of a water reservoir with a capacity of 20
litres. The water in the reservoir is pressurized using compressed air from the
compressor, so that water can be injected at a constant pressure. The compressed air
delivered to the reservoir can be controlled using a ball valve. The pressurized air
line to the reservoir also contains a gate valve for venting excess pressure inside the
reservoir before refilling the reservoir with water. This valve is also useful to know
if the reservoir is full since excess water from the reservoir overflows through this
vent.
The pressurized water from the reservoir exits through inch aluminium
pipeline. Two gate valves in series are used to accurately control the mass flow rate
of water through the pipeline. The aluminium pipe is then connected to a inch
flexible hose. The flexible hose delivers the water to the inch aluminium pipe that
is connected to the injector.

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
39

4.3 Injector


Fig. 4.2 Injector design

The injector consists of a nozzle that is welded to the inch pipe. The nozzle
consists of an exit orifice of diameter d (0.5 mm, 0.8 mm and 1.0 mm). The hole of
diameter d extends from the exit orifice to a length of 10d inside the nozzle,
followed by a bore of inch, into which the inch pipe is inserted and welded.
The orifice length-to-hole diameter ratio, l/d, is maintained the same for all the
nozzles tested so as to reduce the geometric effect on the atomization between the
different injectors. Kihm et al. [5] used similar l/d orifices in conducting liquid jet
experiments in subsonic cross flows.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
40

4.4 Instrumentation

The electronic instrumentation is used to measure the total pressure of the air
entering the test-rig, the static pressure of the cross flowing air at the entrance to the
test-section, the water injection pressure and the mass flow rate of water. This is
accomplished with the help of three pressure transducers and a coriolis mass flow
meter.
The total pressure of the air is measured using a differential pressure
transducer, open to atmosphere on one side, and placed just upstream of the
transition pipe. The static pressure at the entrance to the test-section is measured by
another differential pressure transducer placed at that location. This transducer is
also open to the atmosphere on one side and thus measures the gauge pressure at
that location.
The water mass flow rate is measured using a mass flow meter placed
downstream of the two control valves in the inch water pipeline. The water
injection pressure is measured using an absolute pressure transducer.
The data acquisition from the transducers and the mass flow meter, and logging
are carried out using the hardware National Instruments USB-6218 and the software
National Instruments LabVIEW 8.6. NI USB-6218 is a bus-powered,
multifunction data acquisition (DAQ) system. It delivers good accuracy at fast
sampling rates. It can handle 8 analog inputs, 2 analog outputs, 8 digital inputs and
8 digital outputs with a 250 kS/s single-channel sampling rate. More information on
USB-6218 can be found in Ref. [30].
4.5 Coordinate System

A right-handed coordinate system, centered at the injection orifice, is used to
orient the measurements. The positive X-axis points in the direction of the incoming
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
41

air, the Y-axis points in the direction of water injection and the Z-axis is lies on the
plane containing the orifice such that it completes a right-handed coordinate system.
The distances along the X, Y and Z axes are denoted using the variables x, y and z
respectively.



Fig. 4.3 Sketch of the test-section showing injector locations

4.6 Diagnostic Equipment

The particles size and distribution are measured using Malvern Instruments
Spraytec particle size analyzer. The principle of laser diffraction is used in the
measurement of particle size. The optical model employed in Spraytec is Mie
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
42

theory.
The laser beam is produced by a 632.8 nm, 2 mW helium-neon laser, which
passes transversely through the spray plume. The laser beam from the transmitter on
passing through the spray plume gets diffracted to different angles based on the
particle sizes. These diffracted rays are picked up by detectors, which feed the data
to a computer. The computer then presents the processed data in the form of particle
sizes and distributions. Spraytec is chosen in this study to analyze particle size
because it can measure a wide size range of 0.1m to 2000m. A purge system is
also employed to prevent contamination of the optical lenses by spray particles
during operation. The optical alignment and background check are done
automatically by the Spraytec software.
A Photron FASTCAM SA5 high speed camera is used to capture the images
of the spray. A sigma lens with a focal length of 105 mm was used. The camera is
capable of capturing 1,024 * 1,024 pixels images at 3600 frames/second and 504 *
396 pixels images at 10000 frames/second. The Phantom FASTCAM Viewer
software can save the data in video file or picture format (in JPEG, TIFF and other
formats). The data for the entire recorded duration or a small fractional duration can
be saved in the computer. The Phantom software provides control options to setup
camera operating parameters such as frame rate and exposure time before the
camera operation.
The camera is placed on a tripod such that it captures the image of the spray
through the side glass walls of the test-section. The lighting is provided with the
help of a 500 W halogen lamp and a white background.


Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
43

5 EXPERIMENT METHODOLOGY


The experiment is conducted by following a procedure for obtaining desired
initial test conditions. The data on total pressure of the air cross flow, the air static
pressure at the test-section, the water injection pressure and mass flow of injected
water are the parameters available to set the required flow conditions.
The required cross flow conditions are first established before the water is
injected. This is because the cross flow will blow down any debris in the rig and
will help evaporating any moisture in the test-section. The air flow into the test rig
is controlled by the gate valve at the upstream end. The gate valve is opened slowly
so that a stable cross flow at the desired Mach number is established in the test-
section. The calculation of Mach number and other flow parameters are described in
detail in Appendix 2. The Mach numbers range from Mach 0.2 to Mach 2.0 during
the different test runs.
Once the desired cross flow conditions are established, the valve that controls
the supply of compressed air to pressurize the water is opened. The two valves that
control the water flow through the water injection system are controlled in order to
obtain a required mass flow rate of the water. Care must be taken to ensure that the
water jet does not impinge on the upper, side or lower walls of the test-section,
since it will result in the formation of accumulated droplets in the walls which
might get entrained into the spray.
The non-dimensional parameters, We and J, depend upon the cross flow
properties and liquid jet properties. For a given Mach number and the injector
diameter, We does not change during a test run. To increase the Weber number, the
cross flow speed can be increased. When the Weber number is fixed at a particular
Mach number, the water injection speed is varied to vary J. On increasing the water
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
44

injection pressure, the water jet speed is increased thereby increasing J.
The high-speed camera is positioned on a tripod stand and so placed as to get
images through the optically transparent side walls of the test-section. The images
were obtained at a speed of 10000 fps to 13500 fps. The focus lamps and the white
background are suitably arranged to obtain high contrast images of the spray.
Spraytec is positioned such that the laser beam passes transversely through the
spray at a desired downstream location from the injector orifice. This is done with
the help of a calibrated scale to measure axial distance from the injector and the
height above the orifice.
5.1 Calculation of Flow Parameters

The flow parameters that are calculated during the experiment include the
Mach number, the Weber number, We, and the liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio, J.
The data acquisition and the calculation of these parameters are done with the help
of National Instruments LabVIEW 8.6 software.
The Mach number is calculated from the total pressure of air entering the test
rig, P
0
and the static pressure of air in the test-section, P
S
using the formula:




The total temperature of the air, T
0
, which is the room temperature, is noted down.
Then, the static temperature at the test-section, T
S
, is given by:




2
1
1
S
0
1
P
P
1 -
2
M
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

2
0
S
M
2
1
1
T
T

+
=

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
45

From these values, the cross flow air velocity, V
a
, can be calculated as:




The density of the cross flowing air,
a
, is calculated using the formula:





The jet injector area is calculated from the jet injector exit diameter. Since the
density of injected liquid, water in this case, is known, the liquid injection velocity
can be calculated using the formula:



Where
f
m is given in terms of kg/min.
After obtaining the above values, the liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio, J, and
the Weber number, We, can be calculated using the following formulae.






( )
2
1
S a
RT M V =
S
S
a
RT
P
=
j j
f
j
A
60
m
V

=
2
a a
2
j j
V
V
J

=
o

j
2
a
d V
We
a
=
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
46

6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


6.1 Visualization of Liquid Jets in Cross Flows

In order to develop fuel injection systems with well defined mixing
characteristics leading to maximum possible combustion efficiency, a good
knowledge of the two-phase flow (spray) physics is of fundamental importance.
Visualization techniques with high spatial and temporal resolution can be used to
analyze the spray structure (breakup modes, penetration, spread), size and velocity
of the droplets and develop velocity correlations at a variety of operating
parameters such as fuel and air flow rates, pressure, and temperature.
In this study, a 500 W Halogen lamp combined with Phantom FASTCAM
high-speed camera is used for the visualization of the injection of liquid jet in cross
flows to assess the penetration heights and breakup modes. In this method
instantaneous images of the jet are captured at extremely high frame rates and
information regarding the jet column penetration, breakup modes, outer and inner
boundary of the jet is extracted. The effects of the major dimensionless parameters,
Weber number and liquid jet-to-air momentum flux ratio, are studied for a limited
set of conditions.
To examine the liquid jet behavior in cross flows, tests were conducted at two
typical mach numbers of 0.3 and 0.4, which are close to the practical situations
encountered in aero engine applications. As indicated, the backlight illumination
technique along with high speed imaging is used for flow visualization and analysis.
The Photron FASTCAM SA5 high speed camera is used in capturing the spray
images. 1000 images of 504 by 396 pixels with 256 gray levels were recorded for
each test run. The field of view was 70 mm by 90 mm.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
47

The results on the injection of liquid jet in subsonic cross flows (M = 0.3,0.4)
are presented in this thesis. The results presented in this paper are obtained with the
injectant liquid water, using a plain orifice injector with a diameter of 0.8 mm. A
steady run time of about 3-5s is obtained at M = 0.3 and 0.4 which is adequate for
image analysis and recording after a startup and stabilization run time of 10s which
is required to stabilize the liquid flow at the set mach number condition.
The test conditions for the experiments on penetration heights are given in
Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Test conditions for the experiments on penetration heights
Test Case Mach number
(M)
Weber Number
(We)
Momentum Flux
Ratio (J)
A 0.3 130 30
B 0.3 130 35
C 0.3 130 115
D 0.4 240 10


Fig. 6.1 and Fig. 6.2 show typical instantaneous and averaged images of
water jet in subsonic cross flow for Mach No 0.3 and a momentum ratio of J = 30
(Test Case A). The averaged image was obtained from 10 instantaneous images
over a 10s time period at subsonic conditions. The averaged image is used for the
determination of the penetration height of the jet. Fig. 6.3 gives the outer and inner
boundaries obtained from the averaged image. The upper edge of the average image
represents the penetration height (y) of the jet. The lower edge of the image
represents the lower or leeward surface trajectory. This coupled with the upper
surface trajectory provides an idea about the spray plume area in the test section.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
48

It is to be noted that the images obtained show the penetration heights of the jet
for a normalized longitudinal distance between 0 < x/d
j
< 85, where x is the
longitudinal distance from the jet exit and d
j
is the injector diameter. The average
error on the penetration height of the jet can be estimated to be less than 5%, which
would include the error in the image processing (determination of the upper/lower
edge of the image), volume flow rate measurements and the determination of the
Mach number. The freeware ImageJ was used for the visualization and image
processing of the jet breakup and further development.

Case A: We=130, J=30


Fig. 6.1 Instantaneous image at We=130, J=30


Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
49


Fig. 6.2 Averaged image at We=130, J=30


Fig. 6.3 Outer and inner boundaries from averaged image at We=130, J=30

Typical results of the penetration height of water jets in subsonic cross flow for
different jet/cross flow momentum flux ratios at the same Weber number of 130
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
50

(Test Cases B and C) are shown in Fig. 6.4 to Fig. 6.9. The results show an
increase in the penetration height of the liquid jet (y) as the jet/cross flow
momentum flux ratio increases from 30 to 115 for water at We=130. For a given J,
the increase in the Weber number lowers the jet penetration. Fig. 6.10, Fig. 6.11
and Fig. 6.12 show the jet penetration height for the case We=240 and J=10 (Test
Case D).

Case B: We=130 J=35


Fig. 6.4 Instantaneous image at We=130, J=35



Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
51


Fig. 6.5 Averaged image at We=130, J=35



Fig. 6.6 Outer and inner boundaries from averaged image at We=130, J=35


Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
52

Case C: We=130 J=115

Fig. 6.7 Instantaneous image at We=130, J=115




Fig. 6.8 Averaged Image at We=130, J=115

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
53


Fig. 6.9 Outer and inner boundaries of the jet from averaged image at We=130, J=115

Case D: We=240 J=10



Fig. 6.10 Instantaneous image at We=240, J=10
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
54




Fig. 6.11 Averaged Image at We=240, J=10

Fig. 6.12 Outer and inner boundaries of the jet from averaged image at We=240, J=10

The jet trajectories for Cases B and C are given in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
55

respectively.
6.1.1 Trajectory Details

Case B: We=130 J=35
Baseline: (0,0)=50.49,74.32
Table 6.2 Liquid column trajectory for We=130 and J=35
Lower Trajectory Upper Trajectory
x y
x
mm
y
mm
x/d
j
y/d
j

x y
x
mm
y
mm
x/d
j
y/d
j

51.83 71.49
1.34 2.83 1.675 3.5375
50.04 71.79
-0.45 2.53
-
0.5625
3.1625
52.43 70.45
1.94 3.87 2.425 4.8375
50.19 70.89
-0.3 3.43 -0.375 4.2875
53.17 69.40
2.68 4.92 3.35 6.15
50.79 67.91
0.3 6.41 0.375 8.0125
54.06 68.66
3.57 5.66 4.4625 7.075
51.38 65.83
0.89 8.49 1.1125 10.6125
54.81 67.91
4.32 6.41 5.4 8.0125
51.83 64.64
1.34 9.68 1.675 12.1
55.85 66.87
5.36 7.45 6.7 9.3125
52.57 63.45
2.08 10.87 2.6 13.5875
56.74 66.13
6.25 8.19 7.8125 10.2375
53.32 62.40
2.83 11.92 3.5375 14.9
58.09 65.09
7.6 9.23 9.5 11.5375
54.21 61.51
3.72 12.81 4.65 16.0125
59.13 64.04
8.64 10.28 10.8 12.85
55.11 60.62
4.62 13.7 5.775 17.125
60.47 62.70
9.98 11.62 12.475 14.525
57.49 58.98
7 15.34 8.75 19.175
62.40 61.81
11.91 12.51 14.8875 15.6375
59.13 58.23
8.64 16.09 10.8 20.1125
64.49 60.91
14 13.41 17.5 16.7625
60.77 57.64
10.28 16.68 12.85 20.85
66.13 60.32
15.64 14 19.55 17.5
62.55 57.49
12.06 16.83 15.075 21.0375

From the trajectory details in Table 6.2, a comparison was made between the
experimental data obtained and the correlations from the literature review in Table
2.1. Three correlations from the literature which matched the experimental
conditions were chosen for the comparison. It was observed that the obtained results
are closer to the correlation given by Becker and Hassa [1], while they are much
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
56

lower than the values predicted by Lin et al. [9] and Wu et al. [24]. The comparison
is presented in Fig. 6.13.


Fig. 6.13 Comparison of penetration height correlations and experimental data for We=130
and J=35

Case C: We=130 J=115
Baseline: (0,0)=50.49,74.32
Table 6.3 Liquid column trajectory for We=130 and J=115
Lower Trajectory Upper Trajectory
x y
x
mm
y
mm
x/d
j
y/d
j

x y
x
mm
y
mm
x/d
j
y/d
j

51.38 71.94
0.89 2.38 1.1125 2.975
49.74 71.94
-0.75 2.38 -0.9375 2.975
51.98 68.81
1.49 5.51 1.8625 6.8875
50.04 67.91
-0.45 6.41 -0.5625 8.0125
52.43 67.17
1.94 7.15 2.425 8.9375
50.19 65.23
-0.3 9.09 -0.375 11.3625
53.02 65.38
2.53 8.94 3.1625 11.175
50.49 63.45
0 10.87 0 13.5875
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
57

53.62 63.30
3.13 11.02 3.9125 13.775
50.94 61.21
0.45 13.11 0.5625 16.3875
54.96 61.21
4.47 13.11 5.5875 16.3875
51.68 58.53
1.19 15.79 1.4875 19.7375
56.15 59.13
5.66 15.19 7.075 18.9875
53.02 55.55
2.53 18.77 3.1625 23.4625
57.34 57.34
6.85 16.98 8.5625 21.225
54.96 51.68
4.47 22.64 5.5875 28.3
58.68 56.45
8.19 17.87 10.2375 22.3375
56.60 50.19
6.11 24.13 7.6375 30.1625
60.32 55.11
9.83 19.21 12.2875 24.0125
58.68 49.15
8.19 25.17 10.2375 31.4625
61.06 54.21
10.57 20.11 13.2125 25.1375
60.91 48.11
10.42 26.21 13.025 32.7625

6.2 Characteristics of Spray SMD

The experiments to study the droplet size distributions covered a wide range of
Mach numbers, water injection mass flow rate, liquid-to-air momentum flux ratio
(J) and Weber number (We). These test conditions are listed in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Test conditions for the experiments on droplet size distributions
Test
Case
Mach
Number
m
f

kg/min
d
j

mm
x/d
j
y/d
j
We J
No. of
Test
Runs
1 0.30 0.4-0.6 0.8 310 28.75 125 24-36 5
2 0.35 0.7-1.5 1 330 23 212 13-69 5
3 0.40 0.7-0.8 0.8 310 28.75 238 26-31 2
4 0.40 0.7-1.5 1 330 23 296 11-46 5
5 0.50 0.7-1.5 1 330 23 460 6-30 4
6 0.55 0.9-1.5 1 330 23 550 8-28 4

Two injectors with orifice diameters 0.8 mm and 1mm were used. The
experiments were conducted at two axial distances downstream of the injector
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
58

orifice, x=330 mm and x=248 mm. The injector with 0.8 mm diameter orifice was
only used at x=248mm. This corresponds to a x/d
j
of 310. The height above the
injector wall where the laser beam diagnosed drop sizes was y=23 mm for all cases.
This gives a y/d
j
of 23 for 1mm injector and y/d
j
of 28.75 for 0.8 mm injector.
Similarly, for the 1mm injector, there were two x/d
j
locations: 248 and 330. The
mass flow rate of injected water was varied from 0.4 kg/min to 1.5 kg/min for the
six test cases.
6.2.1 Droplet Size Distribution

The droplet size distributions are obtained with the help of the Malvern
Instruments Spraytec particle analyzer and the software. The software generates the
distribution data at different time instances of an experimental run. It also generates
the SMD and other derived parameters both at time instances of multiples of 2s and
the average values for the entire test run.
To illustrate, consider a set of distribution data from Test Case 1. The test
conditions are given in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Test conditions and SMD for Mach 0.3 test case
Mach
number
m
f
kg/min
J We
SMD
m
0.3 0.5 23.99 129.4544 60.85

Fig. 6.14 displays the volume distribution of the particle SMD sizes at 4s after
the laser diagnosis was begun. The volume frequency gives the percentage of
volume of a particular SMD sized droplets in the entire volume of the spray. The
cumulative volume graph at an abscissa indicates the percentage of total volume of
the spray constituted by all droplet sizes at and below the droplet size at that point.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
59

It can be noticed from the graph that the distribution is uni-modal, with a longer
forward tail. The distribution peaks at an SMD of about 100 m, corresponding to
the location of maximum volume frequency (about 8.77%). This is the mode of the
distribution. The long forward tail indicates the presence of a range of smaller SMD
droplets. However, these droplets have relatively smaller volume frequency due to
their smaller sizes.

Fig. 6.14 Volume distribution of droplet SMDs

Table 6.6 condenses the distribution data corresponding to Fig. 6.14. The table
indicates the values of %V< and %V for various droplet SMDs. These values
indicate the cumulative volume percentage and the volume frequency percentage
respectively. For instance, it can be seen that the SMD with highest volume
frequency is 101.22 m, with %V=8.77 %. Thus, this is the mode of the
distribution. The %V< value at this point is 54.19%, which means that 54.19% of
volume of the spray contains droplets of SMD lesser than and equal to 101.22 m.
Further, it can be seen that at SMD=462.33 m, the cumulative volume reaches
100%. This indicates that the spray contains droplets of SMDs up to 462.33 m
only.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
60


Table 6.6 SMD volume distribution data


Table 6.7 displays the SMD, transmission of laser, etc. at a time instance (in
this case, +4s). The transmission percentage is an indicator of the transmission
efficiency of the laser beam through the spray. Dv(10) indicates the SMD at
which cumulative volume reaches 10%. That is, in the table below, 10% of the total
volume constituted by the smallest SMD droplets is composed of SMDs 31.19 m
and lesser. Dv(50) and Dv(90) give analogous SMD values at which
cumulative volume reaches 50% and 90% respectively. D[4][3] is the de
Brouckere mean diameter of the spray and D[3][2] is the SMD of the spray.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
61

Table 6.7 Derived parameters


Fig. 6.15 gives the number distribution of the droplets. The number
distribution from laser diffraction experiments should be taken as only indicators
and not absolute results. However, they give a good idea of how the spray droplets
differ in number and how they contribute to the volume of the spray.
The cumulative number % and the number frequency % are analogous to the
cumulative volume % and volume frequency %. From the graph below, it can be
seen that the mode of the distribution is around 8 m.


Fig. 6.15 Number distribution of droplet SMDs

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
62

Analogous to Table 6.6, Table 6.8 gives the cumulative number % and number
frequency % for different SMDs. It can be seen that the mode is 8.05 m with a
number frequency of 17.04%. Clearly, a large difference in the modes of volume
and number distributions exists. This is because of the fact that although the spray
contains a large number of smaller SMD droplets, their volume is relatively smaller
than the volume of few large droplets.

Table 6.8 SMD number distribution data


6.2.2 Effect of Momentum Flux Ratio (J) and Weber number (We)

The effect of momentum flux ratio on the SMD of the spray has been an
important focus of research. Kihm et al. [5] studied effect of varying J in subsonic
flows (about 11 m/s to 43 m/s) while Nejad et al. [14] investigated effects of
varying J in Mach 3 supersonic cross flow. In both investigations, the observed
trend was that an increase in momentum flux ratio brought about effective
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
63

atomization and decreased the SMD of droplets.
In the current study, the SMD variation was studied in subsonic cross flows,
with Mach number ranging from 0.3 M-0.6M. The SMD values were studied by
varying momentum flux ratio while holding the Weber number constant. The
experiments were conducted at various Weber numbers at the location
(x/d
j
,y/d
j
)=(330,23) and with a nozzle having orifice diameter d
j
=1mm.


Fig. 6.16 Effect of momentum flux ratio (J) on SMD at various Weber numbers

Fig. 6.16 is a plot of J vs SMD at various Weber numbers. The SMD values
are shown with 5% experimental error bars. It is clearly observed that the SMD of
the droplets decrease with increasing momentum flux ratio, J. This trend is more
prominent in lower Weber numbers, We=211 and We=294, than in the higher Weber
numbers, We=510 and We=585.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
64

At lower Weber numbers, the reduction in SMD with increasing momentum
flux ratio (J) is significant. However, a predictable trend in the slopes of the curves
at different Weber numbers could not be discerned. For example, when a linear fit
was fitted on the data for the different Weber numbers, with 6% error bars for SMD
at We=211 and 5% error bars for We=294,510,585, the absolute value of the
negative slope increased from 0.311 for We=211 to 0.440 for We=294, then
decreased to 0.113 for We=510 before further decreasing to 0.062 for We=585. This
is shown in Fig. 6.17. The results indicate that a definite quantitative prediction of
the behavior of increasing Weber number on the SMD is not possible with available
data. However, it can be inferred qualitatively that increasing the Weber number
will result in a decrease in droplet SMDs at comparable J ratios.


Fig. 6.17 J vs SMD trends

Further, Fig. 6.16 shows that at very high Weber numbers, the dependence of
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
65

SMD on momentum flux ratio may be lessened. The data points for We=510 and
We=585 reveal that the SMD is almost constant for various J values. It can be
inferred that at some point, the aerodynamic breakup due to the increased Weber
number dominates over the column breakup. While the column breakup is
dependent on momentum flux ratio, aerodynamic breakup is influenced by Weber
number. Thus, there exists a Weber number at which the effect of momentum flux
ratio is nullified and the SMD depends on aerodynamic breakup alone.
6.2.3 Effect of Cross Flow Weber number at different Injectant Mass Flow
Rates

The data from Table 6.4 were compiled to study the effect of Weber number on
SMD at various injectant mass flow rates. The experiments were conducted at the
location (x/d
j
,y/d
j
)=(330,23) and with a nozzle having orifice diameter d
j
=1mm.


Fig. 6.18 Effect of Weber number (We) on SMD at various injectant mass flow rates
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
66


Fig. 6.18 is a plot of We vs SMD at three different water mass flow rates,
m
f
=0.9 kg/min, 1.3kg/min and 1.5 kg/min. The data set is fitted with 5%
experimental error bars for all the test cases. It can be seen that the SMD of the
droplets decrease with increasing Weber number for all three cases of water mass
flow rates until about We500. This decrease in SMD is more prominent for the
lower mass flow rate, m
f
=0.9 kg/min than the higher mass flow rate, m
f
=1.5 kg/min.
This is due to the interplay between the momentum flux ratio, which increases with
water mass flow rate for a given Weber number, and SMD.
The data also reveals that the SMD for all three cases approach a value of
about 25 m at We500. The SMD value is relatively stagnant at this value even for
higher Weber numbers. As mentioned earlier, this may be due to the dominance of
aerodynamic breakup at high Weber numbers over column breakup.
6.2.4 Effect of Cross Flow Velocity

The effect of cross flow velocity on the jet breakup process was studied by
comparing the numerical SMD distributions for different cross flow Mach numbers
at fixed water injection mass flow rates. The results suggest that as the cross flow
velocity increases, the number frequencies of smaller SMD droplets increase and
the overall SMD range of the distribution shrinks.
The test conditions for these cases are given in Table 6.9.

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
67

Table 6.9 Test conditions for effect of cross flow velocity studies
Trial
Number
Mach
Number
Cross
Flow
Velocity
(V
a
)
m/s
Mass
Flow
Rate
(m
f
)
kg/min
d
j

mm
x/d
j
y/d
j

1 0.35
120.12
0.90 1 330 23
2 0.52
175.94
0.90 1 330 23
3 0.56
188.70
0.91 1 330 23
4 0.733
241.95
0.90 1 330 23

To study the effect of increasing cross flow velocity on the numerical size
distribution, consider the following plots given in Fig. 6.19. The labels in the
figure, (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond to the Test Trials 1,2,3 and 4 in Table 6.9.
It is clearly observed from the figure that as the cross flow velocity increases,
the range of the SMDs in the distribution gets smaller. This fact is illustrated by the
cumulative number % curve, which attains the 100% mark at lower SMD values as
the cross flow velocity is increased. Further, the number frequency of the smaller
SMD droplets, in the range of 4 m-20 m, increases from case (a) to case (d) as
the cross flow velocity increases.
These results corroborate the findings of Wu et al. [24], who conducted
experiments in subsonic cross flows (0.2M-0.4M) and found that the maximum
SMD decreased with increasing cross flow velocity while the minimum SMD
remained relatively unchanged. This resulted in a decrease in the variation of SMD
as the cross flow velocity increased.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
68


Fig. 6.19 Comparison of SMD number distributions at different cross flow velocities
m
f
=0.9 kg/min, d=1mm, x/d
j
=330, y/d
j
=23
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
69

Table 6.10 Average SMDs and Cumulative Number % at 22.16 m
Trial
Number
Mach
Number
Cross
Flow
Velocity
(V
a
)
m/s
Mass
Flow
Rate
(m
f
)
kg/min
Average
SMD
m
Cumulative
Number %
at 22.16 m
(%N<)
%
1 0.35
120.12
0.90 41.92
87.69
2 0.52
175.94
0.90 25.02
92.56
3 0.56
188.70
0.91 24.99
93.97
4 0.733
241.95
0.90 23.87
95.76

Table 6.10 gives the values of average SMDs and the cumulative number % at
22.16 m. The values correspond to the graphical data given in Fig. 6.19. A rising
trend in the cumulative number % at 22.16 m is observed as the cross flow
velocity increases. The behavior of the average SMD values with increasing cross
flow velocity is similar to the variation of average SMD with increasing Weber
number.
Another interesting aspect was the analysis by fitting a trend line to a Mach
number vs. Cumulative number% at 22.16 m plot for the experiment conducted
at x/d
j
=330, y/d
j
=23 and m
f
=0.90 kg/min. The plot is given in Fig. 6.20.
When the trend was extrapolated to find the Mach number at which the
cumulative number% will reach 99% for 22.16 m, it yielded 0.935 M with the
logarithmic trend and 0.921 with the power trend. When similar analyses were done
for the cases at different water mass flow rates but at the same (x/d
j
,y/d
j
) and with
the same injector, it was found that it took higher Mach numbers to attain a
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
70

cumulative number % of 99% for cases with higher water mass flow rates. For
example, at m
f
=1.5 kg/min, the trend lines indicated that the required Mach number
would be 1.625 M according to logarithmic trend and 1.544 M according to power
trend. These trends suggest that as the injectant mass flow rate increases, a higher
Mach number cross flow is required to complete atomization that yields low SMD
droplets, ie, fine atomization. At lower injectant mass flow rates, a lower Mach
number cross flow can achieve the same purpose.


Fig. 6.20 Mach number vs Cumulative Number % at 22.16 m- Trend



Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
71

7 SOURCES OF ERROR


In the course of the experiments, it was noticed that the spray touched the side-
walls or the top/bottom wall of the test-section for certain injection conditions. This
caused the accumulation of water droplets at the ends of the test-section. The large,
accumulated droplets sometimes got entrained in the cross flow and passed through
the laser beam. This slightly skewed the droplet size distribution data for certain test
cases. In order to filter this error, the number distributions were used as indicators to
note when the droplets with extremely large SMD showed up in the results. While
all efforts have been taken in obtaining accurate results, a certain level of
arbitrariness has been introduced by the filtering process. However, the results were
compared with available data in the literature for conformance and the qualitative
assessment of the data is expected to be sufficiently accurate for the analysis
presented in this thesis.
For the flow visualization using high speed photography, the images obtained
over a period of time were averaged to eliminate any error that may have crept in
due to vibration of the test-rig and the liquid jet oscillations.






Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
72

8 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
8.1 Conclusions
An experimental investigation of the penetration and the droplet size
distributions resulting from liquid jet injection in subsonic cross flows has been
carried out with water as the test liquid. The experiments encompassed a wide range
of cross flow Mach numbers and water injection mass flow rates. Two plain orifice
injectors with diameter 0.8 mm and 1.0 mm were used in the study. The
experiments on droplet SMDs were carried out at locations
(x/d
j
,y/d
j
)=(330,23),(248,23) and (310,28.75). The non-dimensional parameters
Weber number (We) and liquid jet-to-air momentum flux ratio (J) were used to
characterize the sprays. High speed photography was used for flow visualization in
order to study penetration of the jets while Malvern Instruments Spraytec,
operating on Low Angle Laser Light Scattering (LALLS) was used to study droplet
SMD distributions. The results of the investigation can be summarized as follows:

1. For a particular Weber number, the penetration height increased with an
increase in the liquid jet-to-air momentum flux ratio.
2. When the momentum flux ratio was held constant, an increase in Weber
number lowered the jet penetration.
3. The SMD number distributions are uni-modal with the mode less than 10m
for all the conditions investigated in the study.
4. At a fixed Weber number, the droplet SMDs decreases with increasing
momentum flux ratio (J). The reduction in SMD with increase in J was more
prominent at lower Weber numbers (We=211, 294) than at higher Weber
numbers (We=510,585).
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
73

5. At very high Weber numbers, the effect of J on SMD reduces drastically. This
is believed to be due to the dominance of aerodynamic breakup over the
column breakup at higher Weber numbers.
6. At a fixed injectant mass flow rate, droplet SMD decreased on increasing the
Weber number. The decrease in SMD is prominent for the cases with lower
water mass flow rates.
7. The SMD of droplets approached a constant value for different water mass
flow rates as the Weber number increased to a particular value. This
phenomenon suggests that the SMD may depend more upon the aerodynamic
breakup and shear droplet stripping at higher Weber numbers than on column
breakup.
8. On increasing the cross flow velocity at a particular water mass flow rate, the
percentage of smaller SMD droplets in the spray was seen to increase. The
range of the SMD number distribution was also seen to reduce. At higher
cross flow velocities, atomization yielded a spray with finer SMD droplets.
9. As the injectant mass flow rate increases, a higher Mach number cross flow is
required to produce the same level of fine atomization that can be produced
by a lower Mach number cross flow at a lower injectant mass flow rate.
8.2 Scope for Future Work
The current study examined penetration and droplet size distributions from
transverse injection at atmospheric temperature and pressure. Future work can be
directed in studying the spray structures of liquid jets from angled injectors. Also,
the effects of heating the cross flow air can provide a more fundamental
understanding of the actual injection processes in an aero engine.

Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
74

APPENDIX 1: Particle Size Measurement using Laser
Diffraction

Particle size analysis laser diffraction has emerged as a reliable, economic and
simple to use diagnostic technique in the recent years. Also called Low Angle Laser
Light Scattering (LALLS), it is non-intrusive and caters to the needs of many
industries which require repetitive, accurate sampling of particles. The standard ISO
13320 provides guidelines on the use of laser diffraction for scientific analysis
purposes. Various industry sources and researchers have attested to its utility in
particle size measurements [26, 27, 28, 29].
A.1 Principle

Instruments working on the principle of laser diffraction, such as Malvern
Instruments Spraytec, which is used in the present study, depend on the scattering
of laser by the particles. The scattering angle of the incident laser light is inversely
proportional to the particle size and increases logarithmically with decreasing
particle size. The intensity of the scattered light is also a function of the particle
volume. Large particles scatter light at low angles and high intensity while small
particles scatter light at larger angles and low intensity.
A.2 Apparatus

The required apparatus consists of a laser source of suitable wavelength, an
array of detectors to measure the angular scattering of the laser by the particles, a
method by which the laser is passed through the particles and a means of
interpreting the optical signals, which is usually done with the help of a software.
The wavelength of the laser light source influences the sensitivity of the instrument.
Lower wavelengths, such as blue lasers, provide more sensitivity to smaller
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
75

particles in the sub-micron scale. The angular measuring range of the detectors
determines the particle size range that can be measured.
A.3 Optical Models

The data from laser diffraction can be interpreted using two major optical
models: 1) Fraunhofer approximation and 2) Mie theory.
Fraunhofer approximation was used in older instruments. It assumes the following:
- Particle size is larger than the wavelength of laser source.
- Particles are opaque, transmit no light through them and scatter light at low
angles.
- Scattering efficiency is the same for all particle sizes.
Consequently, Fraunhofer approximation is not suitable for measuring finer
particles. It does not take into consideration the refractive index of the particle
medium, either.
Mie theory, on the other hand, provides a more rigorous solution of the
equations governing light interaction with matter. This enables the measurement of
a wider range of particle sizes, typically from 0.02-2000m.
However, for using Mie theory, the refractive indices of both the particles and
the medium are to be known.
A.4 Advantages of Laser Diffraction

- This method can be used to measure a wide dynamic range of particle sizes,
typically from 0.1 to 2000 microns.
- Dry powders as well as particles in liquid suspensions and emulsions can be
studied.
- It can generate rapid and reproducible results.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
76

- The instrument does not need calibration. However, the results can be
validated against a standard.
A.5 Particle Size

Before proceeding to the measurement of particle sizes, it is important to
understand the meaning of a particular particle size measurement. A particle, which
is non- spherical, will need more than one-dimension to specify it completely.
However, for many applications, it is impractical and unnecessary to collect and
process so many dimensions. Hence, we use the concept of equivalent sphere. For
example, the volume equivalent sphere diameter of a cube with sides 1 cm will be
equal to 1.24 cm. Here, the volume of the cube is equated to the volume of an
imaginary equivalent sphere and the diameter of this equivalent sphere replaces the
actual dimensions of the cube in our considerations.
In combustion studies, we are concerned with knowing the available surface
area of a spray for a given volume. In this case, then, we use the mean of the
moment of surface area, which is the SMD, to represent the particle size. Here, we
do not consider the actual dimensions of the particles. Nor does the SMD require
the actual number of particles in the spray. Instead, it denotes the diameter of the
equivalent sphere having the same specific surface area as the entire spray.








Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
77

APPENDIX 2: Sample Calculation of Experimental
Conditions and Parameters

Let P
0
=0.99204 bar
P
S
=0.92538 bar
m
f
=0.51284 kg/min
T
0
=300 K

The parameters that are already known are:
=1.4
R=287.3 J kg
1
K
1
d
j
=0.0008 m=0.8 mm
j
A =0.0000005024 m
2
(for a 0.8 mm diameter injector nozzle)

j
=1000 kg/m
3
o =0.072 N/m




M=0.3168






S
T =294.0968 K


2
1
4 . 1
1 4 . 1
1
92538 . 0
0.99204
1 - 4 . 1
2
M
(
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
=

K
0.3168
2
1 4 . 1
1
300
T
2
S

+
=
( )
s
m
0968 . 294 287.3 4 . 1 0.3168 V 2
1
a
=
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
78



a
V =108.9588
s
m






a
=1.0952
3
m
kg









j
V =17.0130
s
m







J=22.26


W



We=144.47


3
a
m
kg
294.0968 287.3
0.92538

=
s
m
1000 0008 . 0
4
60
0.51284
V
2
j

=
t
2
2
108.9588 1.0952
0130 . 17 1000
J

=
072 . 0
0008 . 0 108.9588 0952 . 1
We
2

=
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
79

9 REFERENCES



[1] Becker, J., and Hassa, C., Breakup and Atomization of a Kerosene Jet in
Crossflow at Elevated Pressure, Atomization and Sprays, Vol. 11, 2002, pp.
49-67.
[2] Bunce, K., Lee, J. G., and Santavicca, D. A., Characterization of Liquid
Jets-in-Crossflow Under High Temperature, High Velocity Non-oscillating
and Oscillating Flow Conditions, AIAA 2006-1225, 44
th
AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January, 2006.
[3] Dixon, D. R., Structures of Angled Aerated-Liquid Jets in Mach 1.94
Supersonic Crossflow, M.S. Thesis, Air force Institute of Technology,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Baze, Ohio, March, 2005.
[4] Gopala, Y., Lubarsky, E., Bibik, O., Zinn, B. T., and Dai, Z., Experimental
Investigation of Spray Dynamics in Cross-flowing air at High Weber
Number, AIAA 2006-4568, 42
nd
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, Sacramento, California, July, 2006.
[5] Kihm, K. D., Lyn, G. M., and Son, S. Y., Atomization of Cross-Injecting
Sprays into Convective Air Stream, Atomization and Sprays, Vol. 5, 1995,
pp. 417-433.
[6] Lakhamraju, R. R., Liquid Jet Breakup Studies in Subsonic Airstream at
Elevated Temperatures, M.S. Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2005.
[7] Lefebvre, A. H., and Ballal, D. R., Gas Turbine Combustion: Alternative
Fuels and Emissions, 3
rd
Edition, CRC Press, Date of Publication April 26,
2010.
[8] Lin, K. -C., Kennedy, P. J., and Jackson, T. A., Spray Penetration Heights of
Angled-Injected Aerated-Liquid Jets in Supersonic Crossflows, AIAA 2000-
0194, 38
th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January,
2000.
[9] Lin, K. -C., Kennedy, P. J., and Jackson, T. A., "Penetration Heights of Liquid
Jets in High-Speed Crossflows, AIAA 2002-0873, 40
th
AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January, 2002.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
80

[10] Mashayek, A., Behzad, M., and Ashgriz, N., Multiple Injector Model for
Primary Breakup of a Liquid Jet in Crossflow, AIAA Journal, Vol. 49, No.
11, November, 2011, pp. 2407-2420.
[11] Masutti, D., Bernhardt, S., Asma, C. O., and Vetrano, M. R., Experimental
Characterization of Liquid Jet Atomization in Mach 6 Crossflow, AIAA
2009-4220, 39
th
AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Antonio, Texas, June,
2009.
[12] Mazallon, J., Dai, Z., and Faeth, G. M., Aerodynamic Primary Breakup at
the Surface of Nonturbulent Round Liquid Jets in Crossflow, American
Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 1997.
[13] Miller, B., Sallam, K. A., Bingabr, M., Lin, K. C., Carter, C., Breakup of
Aerated Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflow, Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Vol. 24, No. 2, March-April 2008, pp. 253-258.
[14] Nejad, A. S., Schetz, J. A., and Jakubowski, A. K., Mean Droplet Diameter
Resulting From Atomization of a Transverse Liquid Jet in a Supersonic Air
Stream, AFOSR-TR-79-0004, Air Force Office of Scientific Research,
Bolling Air Force Base, DC, November, 1978.
[15] Osta, A., and Sallam, K. A., The Effect of Nozzle Length to Diameter ratio
on the Surface Properties of Turbulent Liquid Jets in Gaseous Crossflow,
AIAA 2009-1374, 47
th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New
Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, Florida, January, 2009.
[16] Perurena, J. B., Asma, C. O., Theunissen, R., and Chazot, O., Experimental
Investigation of Liquid Jet Injection into Mach 6 Hypersonic Crossflow,
Research Article, Exp. Fluids, 46: 403-417, 2009.
[17] Reichel, J. R., Gopala, Y., Lubarsky, E., Bibik, O., and Zinn, B. T., Liquid
Fuel Jet in Crossflow Comparison between Sharp Edged and Smooth
Injection Orifice, AIAA 2007-5696, 43
rd
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 2007.
[18] Sallam, K. A., Aalburg, C., Faeth, G. M., Lin, K. -C., Carter, C. D., and
Jackson, T. A., Breakup of Aerated-Liquid Jets in Supersonic Crossflows,
AIAA 2004-970, 42
nd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno,
Nevada, January, 2004.
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
81

[19] Sallam, K. A., Aalburg, C., and Faeth, G. M., Breakup of Round
Nonturbulent Liquid Jets in Gaseous Crossflow, AIAA Journal, Vol. 42, No.
12, December, 2004, pp. 2529-2540.
[20] Schetz, J. A., and Padhye, A., Penetration and Breakup of Liquids in
Subsonic Airstreams, AIAA Journal, Vol. 15, No. 10, October 1977, pp.
1385-1390.
[21] Tam, C. -J., Cox-Stouffer, S., Lin, K. -C., Gruber, M., and Jackson, T.,
Gaseous and Liquid Injection into High-Speed Crossflows, AIAA 2005-
0301, 43
rd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada,
January, 2005.
[22] Tambe, S. B., Jeng, S. -M., Mongia, H., and Hsiao, G., Liquid Jets in
Subsonic Crossflow, AIAA 2005-731, 43
rd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January, 2005.
[23] Wu, P. K., Kirkendall, K. A., Fuller, R. P., Nejad, A. S., Breakup Processes
of Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflows, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Vol. 13, No. 1, January-February, 1997, pp. 64-73.
[24] Wu, P. K., Kirkendall, K. A., Fuller, R. P., Nejad, A. S., Spray Structures of
Liquid Jets Atomized in Subsonic Crossflows, Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Vol. 14, No. 2, March-April, 1998, pp. 173-182.
[25] Wu, P. -K., Lin, K. -C., Jackson, T. A., Effects of Flow Initial Conditions on
Spray Characteristics With and Without Crossflows, AIAA 2006-1506, 44
th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January, 2006.

Internet References

[26] Holdich, R. G., Fundamentals of Particle Technology, Midland Information
Technology and Publishing, Shepshed, Leicestershire, UK, 2002,
(http://www.particles.org.uk/particle_technology_book/particle_book.htm).
[27] Kippax, P., Measuring Particle Size using Modern Laser Diffraction
Techniques, August, 2005, (http://www.malvern.com).
[28] Rawle, A., Basic Principles of Particle Size Analysis, Technical Paper,
July, 2002, (http://www.malvern.com).
Experimental Study of Liquid Jet Breakup and Atomization in Cross Flows
82

[29] Rawle, A., Particle Sizing- An Introduction, Silver-colloids.com,
(http://www.silver-colloids.com/Tutorials/psintro.html).
[30] National Instruments, (http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/203484)