Effect of Inner and Outer Airflow Characteristics on High Liquid Pressure Prefilming Airblast Atomization

Trends in Comprehensive Modeling of Spray Formation

“…These results are consistent with earlier A schematic of an air-blast atomizer experimental and numerical studies [66,67,68]. Chinn et al [69] used a liquid fuel to measure the drop size produced from different swirl configurations. They found that the co-swirling configuration provides smaller drop sizes compared to a counter-swirl flow.…”

“…Zhou et al [173] investigated the effect of internal disturbances to the liquid in a flat fan nozzle on the liquid sheet structure, wavelength and break up position using short duration photography and a phase Doppler analyser. Experiments of Chin et al [69] compares atomization with coand counter-swirling air streams with respect to liquid swirl direction. A combination of a co-rotating outer air stream with respect to rotational direction of the enclosed liquid film yielded the finest sprays compared to swirled configurations.…”

Dynamics and stability of lean-premixed swirl-stabilized combustion

“…Chin et al [149,150] reported experimental studies of a hybrid atomizer, where the atomization was accomplished through the combined effects of liquid pressure and airblast. Several fuel injection configurations were adopted to evaluate the effects of air/ liquid relative velocity, liquid pressure, air/liquid mass flow rate ratio, and some other key parameters on the atomization and mixing performance of injectors.…”

Flow And Flame Dynamics Of Lean Premixed Swirl Injectors

“…94 Second, the strong shear layer and highintensity turbulence near the trailing edge of the venturi in the counter-rotating case promote the development of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the liquid film and subsequently the formation of fine droplets, as suggested by Chin and his coworkers 23 in their experiments. First, the co-rotating configuration produces a large recirculation zone, which is more susceptible to flame oscillation.…”

“…Figure 10.19 shows that those pockets with intensive vorticity fluctuation are enhanced at low forcing frequencies (e.g., 500 and 1500 Hz), but suppressed at high forcing frequencies (e.g., 4000 and 13,000 Hz). 23 In spite of the modification of the flowfield between the first and second guide vanes at f F = 13 kHz, the distribution of the turbulent kinetic energy appears to be insensitive to external forcing in the bulk of the flowfield. Also included is the time trace of the mass flow rate at the injector exit, obtained by filtering out turbulent fluctuations.…”