Eighth International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Pasadena, CA, USA, July 2000

CFD Analysis of Fuel Atomization, Secondary Droplet Breakup and Spray Dispersion in
the Premix Duct of a LPP Combustor

R. Schmehl, G. Maier and S. Wittig

Lehrstuhl und Institut fr Thermische Strmungsmaschinen
Universitt Karlsruhe (T.H.)
76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

Abstract
The two phase flow in the premix duct of a LPP combustor is computed using a Lagrangian droplet tracking method.
To reproduce the characteristic spray structure of an air-assisted pressure-swirl atomizer, a sheet spray model is de-
rived from measured sheet parameters and combined with an advanced concept for modeling secondary atomization
effects. The sheet spray model is used for the discretization of the initial sheet fragmentation, whereas modeling of
droplet deformation and breakup during trajectory integration accounts for air-blast effects on size distribution and
dispersion of the spray. Droplet drag increase due to subcritical deformation is approximated by a semi-empirical
correlation. Breakup modeling addresses the three distinct mechanisms bag, multimode and shear breakup which are
typically encountered in fuel-air mixing processes of combustion engines. The models include mechanism-dependent
deformation and breakup times, correlations for drag increase as well as size and velocity distribution functions of
droplet fragments. Results of the simulation are compared to Phase Doppler measurements of the spray providing
local distributions of droplet sizes, velocities and size-dependent liquid volume flux.

Introduction Due to the complexity of the atomization process and

Improving modern gas turbine efficiencies by increas-
ing the pressure level of the combustion process requires
sophisticated combustion concepts in order to meet in-
creasingly stringent limitations on pollutant emissions in
the future. Fundamental to advanced combustor designs
are characteristic strategies to inject the liquid fuel and
to mix it with the flow of compressed air, avoiding local
stochiometric reaction conditions as far as possible.
In order to develop fuel preparation systems with well
defined mixing characteristics, a profound knowledge of
two phase flow physics is of basic importance. Visual-
izations of typical atomization processes and secondary
effects employed in combustion engines are illustrated
in Fig. 1. From left to right these are pressure-swirl
the absence of practicable approaches for modeling gen-
eral liquid atomization, detailed droplet data is required
as a starting point for the numerical simulation. Since
the spray depends not only on the flow configuration but
also on a variety of operating parameters such as fuel
and air flow rates, pressures or temperatures, droplet size
and velocity correlations of a specific atomizer often can
not be applied in complex combustor designs. In many
cases, spray measurements on large scale combustor test
rigs are the only mean to provide initial spray data of
sufficient quality for the numerical simulation. In addi-
tion, turbulent spray dispersion, multicomponent droplet
evaporation or secondary spray effects as illustrated in
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 can be highly complex on a small

Figure 2: Droplet deformation and bag breakup [14]

Figure 1: Two phase flows in combustion engines

atomization [7] and air-blast atomization [10], intake
manifold injection featuring secondary atomization due
to high relative velocities [9], spray-wall interaction [9]
and wall film flow. Although Computational Fluid Dy-
namics (CFD) has established a position as an effective
analysis tool for many engineering flow applications, two
phase flows in combustors still represent one of the most
challenging objectives for numerical simulation.
Corresponding author. Email: Roland.Schmehl@its.uni-karlsruhe.de
Figure 3: Droplet impact and splashing on wall [14]
scale which has to be taken into account by advanced
physical models.
With respect to droplet deformation and breakup by
aerodynamic forces, several modeling approaches have
been proposed for the use in spray simulations. Focus-
ing on direct injection engines, one concept is based on a
simplified internal flow model of the droplet describing
droplet deformation in terms of a single shape parameter
determined by numerical integration along the trajectory
[4], [6], [2]. Although a coupled differential description
of droplet transport and deformation incorporates some
fundamental advantages, in particular for an inhomoge-
neous flow field, the presumed ellipsoidal deformation
restricts these breakup models to the shear mechanism at
high relative velocities. The approach discussed in this
paper covers the complete range of gas-droplet relative
flow conditions encountered in combustor flows. It is Figure 4: Premix duct in the combustor test rig
based on a set of experimental correlations for breakup
classification, time scales, drag increase and fragment
sizes and velocities [11], [3], [16], [14]. reduce droplet sizes by intense aerodynamic interaction
The spray simulations presented in this paper are bas- between fuel and gas flow.
ed on the computer code Ladrop, which has been devel- In addition to Phase Doppler measurements at 5 axial
oped at the Institut fr Thermische Strmungsmaschi- positions (see Fig. 18) the spray structure in the nozzle
nen [22], [1] [5], [18]. Ladrop is based on a Lagrangian near zone is analyzed by two visualization techniques.
tracking method and incorporates a selection of advanced The flashlight shadowgraph shown in Fig. 5(a) illumi-
modeling approaches for high turbulence combustor flows
at elevated pressures. Included are three different ap-
proaches for modeling turbulent spray dispersion [13]
and models for multicomponent droplet evaporation [20],
[12], spray-wall interaction [15] and droplet deforma-
tion and breakup from Refs. [21], [11], [3], [16], [14].
The computational features of the Fortran95 computer
code include stochastic sampling of droplet initial condi-
tions according to user specified distribution functions, a
database for variable thermo-physical properties of typi-
Figure 5: (a) Shadowgraph, (b) Light sheet
cal fuel components and a highly parallelized algorithm
for particle tracking in body-fitted multidomain grids.
nates a side view of the spray under atmospheric condi-
As a continuation of an earlier computational study
tions without the outer coaxial air flow using water as a
on spray-wall interaction and wall film flow [18], this
fuel substitute. The internal spray structure is revealed
paper is focusing on the effects of primary atomization,
by the laser light sheet photograph shown in Fig. 5(b)
droplet breakup and the influence on spray dispersion in
taken at real operating conditions of the combustor. The
combustor flows. A discussion of the basic Lagrangian
visualizations indicate a coarse structure of the spray in
tracking method, turbulent spray dispersion, multicom-
the outer spray region and a very fine distribution inside
ponent droplet evaporation and coupled solution of the
the spray cone. Fig. 5(a) further suggests that the conical
two phase flow field is given in Refs. [17], [12] and
sheet disintegrates along the first 1 to 2 mm. Breakup
[13].
of liquid fragments is then continued by aerodynamic in-
teraction with the highly energetic gas flow which pene-
Experimental spray analysis
trates the spray cone and drags the fine droplet fragments
To investigate fuel-air mixing isolated from simulta-
into the axis region.
neous combustion, the two phase flow field in the pre-
All results reported in this paper refer to the charac-
mix duct of a Lean Premix Prevaporize (LPP) combus-
teristic sheet parameters and the operating conditions of
tor is computed and compared to detailed spray data of a
the premix duct listed in Table 1
parallel experimental study [7], [8], [9]. Fig. 4 shows
a section of the test rig including, from left to right,
Gas Flow (Air) Fuel (Diesel) Liquid Sheet
the pressure-swirl atomizer enclosed by two coaxial air
ducts, the cylindrical premix duct (l =124 mm, di =44.6 mg 213 g/s mf 6 g/s vs 30 m/s
mm), the flame holder and part of the reaction zone. Tg 753 K Tf 350 K s 40
The inner air duct is focused directly on the conical fuel pg 4 bar hs 100m
sheet generated by the pressure-swirl atomizer. The fun-
damental idea of this concept is a combination of pres- Table 1: Parameters at the duct inlet (z = 0)
sure atomization and air-blast atomization in order to
 0.02

Volume Flux [m3 /s]

Discretization of the spray Rosin-Rammler distribution
It is a fundamental conceptual constraint of the La- D63 = 100 m n=3
grangian method that the liquid phase, from the point it

Diameters
0.01
enters the computational domain has to be represented
by individual droplets. In the sheet spray model out-
lined in Fig. 6, only the initial fragmentation of the liq- 0
0 50 100 150 200
uid sheet is taken into account for the specification of D0 [m]
droplet initial data at the nozzle. Consequently, droplet Droplet Droplet
class 1
000 air
111
class 10

000
111
0.1 0.1
Clipped Gaussian
000
111 s

Injection angles
111
000
0.08 0.08
= 40 o = 40 o
000
111

P() [1]
P() [1]
0.06
= 30 o 0.06
= 5 o
000
111
000
111 0.04 45
o
0.04
00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111 0.02 0.02 o

00
11
45

00 h
11
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

00
11
00
11
s
[] []

00
11
00 air
11
v s
0.1
Gaussian

Initial velocities
0.08
v = 30 m/s

Figure 6: Sheet spray model
velocities are sampled from distributions based on the
geometric and kinematic parameters s and vs , whereas
the mean fragment size is estimated from the mean sheet
thickness hs . Further breakup of liquid fragments by the
air blast from the inner coaxial duct is taken into account
by modeling secondary breakup during the numerical in-
tegration of the trajectories. In this way, the mist of fine
droplets visualized in outer regions of the spray can be
reproduced by secondary atomization of large droplets
which are able to penetrate the massively contracting air
blast. A similar computational approach was applied for
the simulation of a hollow cone spray used in direct in-
jection engines [2].
In the present spray computation, good agreement
with measured spray data is achieved when droplet ini-
tial conditions are stochastically sampled according to
the distribution functions given in Fig. 7. Droplet sizes
are sampled in 10 classes discretizing a Rosin-Rammler
volume distribution centered about the mean sheet thick-
ness hs . To reproduce the fine spray in the center region
of the duct, the variance of the injection angle is
increased for the smaller size classes.
Deformation and breakup regimes
Deformation and breakup of a liquid droplet by aero-
dynamic forces can be classified by two dimensionless
numbers
g u2rel D d
We = and On = . (1)
d d D d
Exposing a droplet to a gas flow of increasing veloc-
ity, significant deformation starts at Weber numbers of
unity [3]. Above a certain value the deformation leads to
droplet breakup. Depending on the intensity of the aero-
dynamic forces, three distinct mechanisms are observed.
P(v0) [1]
0.06
v = 5 m/s
0.04
0.02
0
0 30 60
v0 [m/s]
Figure 7: Discretization of droplet initial conditions
The critical Weber number Wec defines the onset
of bag breakup, which is illustrated in Fig. 2 by vi-
sualizations of a water droplet at We=10. The mech-
anism is characterized by the formation of a bag-like
fluid film which expands from a toroidal rim. For higher
Weber numbers, a fluid column remains in the center
of an umbrella-like film structure. Denoted as multi-
mode breakup, this mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 8
for We=20. Further increase of the gas velocity leads to
Figure 8: Multimode breakup [14]
a transitional breakup regime followed by shear breakup
where a liquid film is stripped off the rim of a disc shaped
droplet. This mechanism is illustrated by the sequence
given in Fig. 9 for We=70.
Figure 9: Shear breakup [14]
The breakup regimes derived from various experi-
mental studies are summarized in Fig. 10 together with
 50 by various complex flow phenomena. Evaluating a large
Shear
Breakup number of experimental data, the following correlation
40 for the total breakup time tb is given in Ref. [11]
Transition
30 We = 32(1+1.5 On1.4) tb 6 (We 12)0.25 12 < We < 18
Multimode = 2.45 (We 12)0.25 18 < We < 45 (6)
We

Breakup t
14.1 (We 12)0.25 45 < We < 351
20 1.5
Bag We = 20(1+1.2 On )
Breakup and for larger Ohnesorge numbers
10 Wec = 12(1+1.077 On1.6)
Deformation tb
= 4.5 (1 + 1.2 On0.74 ) , On > 1 (7)
-3 -2 -1 0 1
t
10 10 10 10 10
On Aerodynamic droplet drag
Figure 10: Breakup regimes (: Present simulation) Due to the excessive shape distortion, the disintegrat-
ing droplet generally experiences a substantial accelera-
tion and displacement in the gas flow. For the initial de-
the transition functions used in the present spray simu- formation phase a linear increase of the droplet diameter
lation. To account for viscosity effects , observed for up to a maximum value has been reported,
On > 0.1, a corrected Weber number is used in these re-
lations which were reported for the low Ohnesorge num- Dmax = D0 (1 + 0.19 We), (8)
ber range only,
We suggesting that the aerodynamic drag coefficient changes
Wecorr = . (2) linearly from the sphere to the disc shape value [3].
1 + 1.077 On1.6
Considering the second phase of bag and multimode
Subcritical droplet deformation breakup, the bag and umbrella-like fluid structures ex-
Droplet deformation by aerodynamic forces is a com- pand to seven times (bag) and six times (multimode) the
plex flow phenomenon. Depending on the local flow original droplet diameter [14]. However, the drag coeffi-
field around the droplet, the inhomogeneous pressure dis- cient is not further increased in the computational model
tribution on the surface leads to shape deformations which since most of the cross sectional area of these fluid struc-
can have a significant influence on the aerodynamic drag. tures consists of a thin fluid film with a low resistance
Based on a linearized theory, the following correlation to the gas flow. For the shear breakup mechanism, the
is used to approximate aerodynamic deformation effects droplet size is linearly reduced down to the maximum
on the drag coefficient in the subcritical Weber number stable diameter Dc at local flow conditions, keeping the
range [21], constant drag coefficient of the disc shape.

21 6 Secondary droplet sizes

CD = 0.28 + +
Re Re As reported in Ref. [3], the Sauter mean diameter
+ We 0.2319 0.1579 log Re + 0.0471 log2 Re D32 of the droplet fragments can be determined by a

universal dimensionless correlation. In the present study,
0.0042 log3 Re , 5 < Re < 2000 (3) the original correlation is modified to include the cor-
rected Weber number given by Eq. 2. Fitting of the orig-
Deformation and breakup time scales
The initial deformation of the droplet into a disc shape 0.5

is similar for all breakup mechanisms. Normalized by 0.4

the characteristic time
r 0.3
D0 d
t = , (4)
D 32/D 0

urel g 0.2
Water
it is suggested in Ref. [3] that the duration of this initial Glycerol 42%
Glycerol 63%
phase is constant, 0.1
n-Heptane
ti Ethyl Alcohol
= 1.6. (5) 0.2
1.5 On Wecorr
-0.25

t
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Depending on the intensity of the aerodynamic forces, On0.2Wecorr-0.25
the second phase of breakup is characterized by further Figure 11: Improved correlation for D32 (Data from [3])
distortion of the droplet leading to its final destruction
inal experimental data as illustrated in Fig. 11 leads to Secondary droplet velocities
the following improved correlation As a first order approximation, fragments from droplet
breakup inherit the velocity of the parent droplet. Since
D32
= 1.5 On0.2 We0.25
corr . (9) tiny fragments are immediately dragged with the gas flow,
D0 only larger fragments require a careful specification of
In contrast to the mean droplet size, the size distri- initial velocities. With respect to the video sequences
bution varies substantially for the different mechanisms shown in Figs. 2, 8 and 9, large fragments are identified
of breakup. Considering the bag and multimode mech- to be the core droplet after shear breakup, fragments of
anisms, the volume distribution of the droplet fragments the center column observed in multimode breakup and
can be described by a root normal distribution [19] given fragments of the toroidal rim expanding in bag breakup.
by the following density function Especially the expansion motion of rim fragments trans-
( verse to the gas flow can increase spray dispersion sub-
 2 )
x 1 x stantially. According to Fig. 13, the transverse velocity
f (D) = exp , (10)
2 2 D 2
10
We=10
with parameters We=15
8 We=20
r
D
x= = 1, = 0.238

D r,max/D 0
, (11) 6
D0.5
4
D r,max
The distribution includes fine droplets from bursting film
structures and larger fragments of the toroidal rim. Mass
2 D r,max
median diameter and Sauter mean diameter of root nor-
mal distributions are related by 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
D0.5 t/tb
= 1.2 (12)
D32 Figure 13: Rim expansion (Water droplet, from [14])
Shear breakup is characterized by continuous film
component is approximated by the mean velocity of rim
stripping leaving a larger core droplet at the end of the
expansion,
breakup process. The bimodal size distribution is re-
Dr,max D0
flected by the cumulative droplet volume illustrated in vt = . (13)
Fig. 12. It is obvious that the missing 20% correspond 2(tb ti )

100
Considering bag breakup, all secondary droplets inherit
D32,red = 54DD32 Dc this velocity component, whereas in multimode breakup,
Cumulative Volume %

c D32 the volume fraction of the center column is excluded.

80

60 Coupled solution of the two phase flow field

Mass, momentum and energy transfer between gas
40 flow and spray is taken into account by an iterative com-
putational procedure in which cycles of consecutive gas
Experiment
20
Root normal flow and spray calculations are concatenated by updating
distribution spray source terms in the gas phase transport equations.
0 For the present flow field, a convergent solution is ob-
0 1 2
D/D 0.5 tained by completion of 10 iteration cycles, employing
Figure 12: Cumulative droplet volume (Data from [3]) moderate relaxation of spray source terms ( > 0.5).
Due to the stochastical simulation of turbulent spray dis-
to the large core droplet. In the computational model, persion by means of a Gosman-Ioannides model, each
the maximum stable diameter Dc of this droplet is eval- cycle requires tracking of 10000 droplet trajectories in
uated from the critical Weber number given in Fig. 10. order to reduce statistical fluctuations of the liquid phase
As illustrated in Fig. 12, the fine fraction of the droplet flow field. With respect to breakup simulation, three
fragments is distributed according to a root normal distri- droplet fragments are used to discretize a single breakup
bution based on a reduced Sauter mean diameter D32,red event. Droplet evaporation is taken into account by a
which is derived from the Sauter mean diameter D32 Uniform-Temperature model using tetradecane as a sin-
given by Eq. 9. gle component substitute for diesel.
Results and discussion
Radial profiles of mean axial velocities (droplets and
gas flow), volume flux and Sauter mean diameter are
evaluated at axial positions of 20, 55 and 90 mm. Fig.
14 demonstrates how the computed axial velocities of
both phases are adjusting towards the end of the duct due
to momentum transfer between the phases. However, the
measured decrease of droplet velocities in the core flow
(r < 6 mm) to values below 60 m/s is not reproduced
by the simulation. The significant deviation of experi-
ment and simulation in the downstream region may be
explained by periodic instabilities in the two phase flow
which were revealed by high-speed visualizations of the
spray. It is evident from the spray pattern illustrated in
Fig. 4 and in Ref. [9] that the instabilities emerging
in the wake flow of the atomizer create transient large
scale flow fluctuations with a substantial influence on
downstream spray dispersion. However, the numerical
analysis presented in this study is based on a stationary
description of two phase flows. Since dispersion effects
by flow instabilities are not taken into account, the sim-
ulation fails to predict the measured homogenization of
velocity profiles at downstream positions z=55 and 90
mm.
The normalized axial volume flux illustrated in Fig.
15 illustrates the typical hollow-cone structure of the
spray and its increasing dispersion towards the end of the
duct. Experiment and computation agree well at z=20
mm. Further downstream, spray dispersion into the core
flow region is higher in the experiment. The disper-
sion effect of the flow instability is less significant since
flow fluctuations have a smaller impact on larger droplets
representing the major fraction of volume flux, whereas
number averaged flow variables such as mean droplet
velocities are more sensitive to the dynamics of smaller
droplets. The size distribution of the spray is character-
ized by the Sauter mean diameter illustrated in Fig. 16.
The computed profiles reproduce the tendencies of the
measured profiles reasonably well within a maximum
deviation of 20 m.
To illustrate the computational modeling of secondary
atomization, Fig. 17 shows the computed trajectory of
a deforming and disintegrating droplet in the near zone
of the atomizer. Due to its initial momentum, the droplet
keeps its velocity despite of the high relative velocities
until an increasing deformation and aerodynamic drag
causes a significant deflection from the original path.
The simulated bag breakup then results in a cluster of
diverging droplet fragments.
The coupling of gas flow and spray is demonstrated
by the distribution of temperature and fuel vapor con-
centration illustrated in Fig. 18. Since time scales of
transient droplet heating and spray transport are of the
same order in the present duct flow, spray evaporation is
significantly delayed compared to the temperature drop
in the spray region. The effect of secondary atomiza-
tion on the evaporation behavior of the spray is assessed
by the total mass fraction of fuel evaporated in the duct
flow. Neglecting secondary atomization, only 28% of
the fuel are evaporated. Modeling secondary atomiza-
tion, this value increases to 42% due to a large number
of quickly evaporating droplet fragments. Evaluating all
simulated breakup events of a Lagrangian tracking cy-
cle including 10000 primary droplets, the original corre-
lation from Ref. [3] leads to a fragment mass median
diameter of D0.5 =53m, compared to a value of 38m
obtained with Eq. 9.
Conclusions
Based on a Lagrangian droplet tracking method, a
computational approach is presented for the numerical
simulation of the characteristic spray structure generated
by an air-assisted pressure-swirl atomizer in the premix
duct of a LPP combustor. The initial fragmentation of
the liquid sheet is modeled by stochastic sampling of
droplet initial conditions according to measured sheet
parameters. Considering droplet deformation and break-
up in the subsequent region of high relative velocities, a
detailed modeling approach is presented and integrated
into the tracking method. Important modeling issues are
breakup regimes, time scales, drag increase, fragment
sizes and velocities.
The computational approach addresses several prob-
lems arising in the numerical reproduction of the spray
structure. Basically, modeling deformation effects on
droplet drag improves the description of spray dynam-
ics in high velocity gas flows. Furthermore, simulating
the temporal evolution of the breakup process essentially
creates the typical spray structure of the air-assisted at-
omizer: Due to similar time scales of droplet motion and
breakup, large droplets originating from sheet fragmen-
tation penetrate the contracting high-speed gas flow and
disintegrate in outer regions of the spray where they re-
produce the mist of fine droplets revealed by light sheet
spray visualizations.
The numerical simulation of the duct flow shows that
the size distribution of secondary droplets is highly sen-
sitive to the correlation employed for the Sauter mean
diameter. An improved fit of the experimental data from
Ref. [3] significantly reduces fragment sizes compared
to the original correlation. Since secondary droplet sizes
affect not only the dynamic behavior of the spray, but
have a particular influence on the overall fuel evapora-
tion in the duct flow, the correlation for the Sauter mean
diameter is a key component of the modeling approach
and deserves further investigation.
References
[1] M. Hallmann, M. Scheurlen, and S. Wittig. Com-
putation of Turbulent Evaporating Sprays: Eulerian
Versus Lagrangian Approach. Transactions of the
ASME, 117:112119, 1995.
[2] Z. Han, S. Parrish, P. V. Farrell, and R. D. Reitz.
Modeling Atomization Processes of Pressure-Swirl
Hollow-Cone Fuel Sprays. Atomization and
Sprays, 7:663684, 1997.
[3] L.-P. Hsiang and G. M. Faeth. Near-Limit Drop
Deformation and Secondary Breakup. Interna-
tional Journal of Multiphase Flow, 18(5):635652,
1992.
[4] E. A. Ibrahim, H. Q. Yang, and A. J. Przek-
was. Modeling of Spray Droplets Deformation and
Breakup. AIAAJournal of Propulsion and Power,
9:651654, 1993.
[5] M. Kurreck, M. Willmann, and S. Wittig. Predic-
tion of the Three-Dimensional Reacting Two Phase
Flow within a Jet-Stabilized Combustor. ASME-
Paper 96-GT-468, 1996.
[6] Z. Liu and R. D. Reitz. An Analysis of the Distor-
tion and Breakup Mechanisms of High Speed Liq-
uid Droplets. International Journal of Multiphase
Flow, 23(4):631650, 1997.
[7] G. Maier, M. Willmann, and S. Wittig. Develop-
ment and Optimization of Advanced Atomizers for
Application in Premix Ducts. In 97-GT-56. ASME,
1997.
[8] G. Maier and S. Wittig. Effects of Liquid Proper-
ties on the Operating Performance of Air-Assisted
Pressure Swirl Atomizers. In ILASS Europe, pages
193199, 1998.
[9] G. Maier and S. Wittig. Fuel Preparation and
Emission Characteristics of a Pressure Loaded LPP
Combustor. AIAA-99-3774, 1999.
[10] R. Meier, K. Merkle, G. Maier, N. Zarzalis,
W. Leukel, and S. Wittig. Development of an Im-
proved Prefilming Airblast Atomizer for Gas Tur-
bine Application. In Poceedings of the ILASS-
Europe 99 Conference, Toulouse, France, 1999.
[11] M. Pilch and C. A. Erdman. Use of Breakup Time
Data and Velocity History Data to Predict the Max-
imum Size of Stable Fragments for Acceleration-
Induced Breakup of a Liquid Drop. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow, 13(6):741757, 1987.
[12] K. Prommersberger, G. Maier, and S. Wittig. Val-
idation and Application of a Droplet Evaporation
Model for Real Aviation Fuel. In RTO-MP-14,
pages 16.116.12, 1998.
[13] B. Rembold. Untersuchung mathematischer Mod-
elle zur Beschreibung der Ausbreitung von Sprh-
strahlen in turbulenten Strmungen. In DGLR
Jahrestagung, Berlin, 1999.
[14] W. Samenfink. Sekundrzerfall von Tropfen. In
Atomization and Sprays, Short Course. Institut
fr Thermische Strmungsmaschinen, Universitt
Karlsruhe (TH), 1995.
[15] W. Samenfink, A. Elser, K. Dullenkopf, and
S. Wittig. Droplet Interaction with Shear-Driven
Liquid Films: Analysis of Deposition and Sec-
ondary Droplet Characteristics. International Jour-
nal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 20(5):462469, 1999.
[16] W. Samenfink, M. Hallmann, A. Elser, and
S. Wittig. Secondary Breakup of Liquid Droplets:
Experimental Investigation for a Numerical De-
scription. In ICLASS-94, pages 156163, 1994.
[17] R. Schmehl, G. Klose, G. Maier, and S. Wit-
tig. Efficient Numerical Calculation of Evaporating
Sprays in Combustion Chamber Flows. In RTO-
MP-14, pages 51.151.13, 1998.
[18] R. Schmehl, H. Rosskamp, M. Willmann, and
S. Wittig. CFD Analysis of Spray Propagation
and Evaporation Including Wall Film Formation
and Spray/Film. International Journal of Heat and
Fluid Flow, 20:520529, 1999.
[19] H. C. Simmons. The Correlation of Drop-Size
Distributions in Fuel Nozzle Sprays; Part I: The
Drop-Size/Volume-Fraction Distribution. ASME
Journal of Engineering for Power, 99:309314,
1977.
[20] J. Stengele, M. Willmann, and S. Wittig. Experi-
mental and Theoretical Study of Droplet Vaporiza-
tion in a High Pressure Environment. ASME 97-
GT-151, 1997.
[21] H. Wiegand. Die Einwirkung eines ebenen Str-
mungsfeldes auf frei bewegliche Tropfen und
ihren Widerstandsbeiwert im Reynoldszahlenbere-
ich von 50 bis 2000. Fortschrittberichte VDI, Reihe
7, Nr. 120, 1987.
[22] S. Wittig, W. Klausmann, B. Noll, and J. Himmels-
bach. Evaporation of Fuel Droplets in Turbulent
Combustor Flow. ASME 88-GT-107, 1988.
 Gas Phase, Calculation
Droplets, Experiment
Droplets, Calculation
100 0.4
z=20 mm z=20 mm
0.3

Vol Flux
ud [m/s]
80
0.2
60 0.1

40 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
100 0.4
z=55 mm z=55 mm
0.3

Vol Flux
ud [m/s]

80
0.2
60
0.1

40 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
100 0.4
z=90 mm z=90 mm
0.3

Vol Flux
ud [m/s]

80
0.2
60
0.1
40 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
r [mm] r [mm]

Figure 14: Mean axial droplet velocities Figure 15: Normalized volume flux
100
z=20 mm
75
D 32 [m]

50 let
rop
ld
25 ca
h eri
Sp Breakup
0
0 5 10 15 20 Formation of Bag
100
z=55 mm Beginning Deformation
75
D 32 [m]

50 Injection Vax: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

25
0
0 5 10 15 20
100
z=90 mm
75
D 32 [m]

50
25
0
0 5 10 15 20
r [mm]

Figure 16: Sauter mean diameter Figure 17: Breakup of a 60 m droplet

T [K]: 560 600 640 680 720 760

Gas phase temperature

Fuel vapor concentration

20mm 35mm 55mm 70mm 90mm

Cfuel [-]: 0 0.015 0.03 0.045

Figure 18: Two phase flow field in the premix duct