48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference &Amp;amp; Exhibit 2012
DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-4327
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of CFD Predictions and Experimental Measurements of Liquid Jet Injection into a Vitiated Crossflow

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, current modeling tools demonstrate limitations when it comes to accurate predictions of liquid fueled systems. For example, blind predictions of basic phenomena such as liquid jet penetration or liquid fuel plume dispersion rates have been shown to vary by as much as 53% using current state of the art CFD tools [1] This inaccuracy limits the ability of the engine designers to determine how fuel type might affect fuel placement as the first step to evaluating design modifications to improve robustness in operability. As a result, it is apparent that further improvements are needed in the modeling of fuel injection phenomena such as penetration, atomization, and dispersion in order to allow confidence in simulations to reach the level where design decisions can be made with confidence.…”
Section: Background and Objectivementioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, current modeling tools demonstrate limitations when it comes to accurate predictions of liquid fueled systems. For example, blind predictions of basic phenomena such as liquid jet penetration or liquid fuel plume dispersion rates have been shown to vary by as much as 53% using current state of the art CFD tools [1] This inaccuracy limits the ability of the engine designers to determine how fuel type might affect fuel placement as the first step to evaluating design modifications to improve robustness in operability. As a result, it is apparent that further improvements are needed in the modeling of fuel injection phenomena such as penetration, atomization, and dispersion in order to allow confidence in simulations to reach the level where design decisions can be made with confidence.…”
Section: Background and Objectivementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Furthermore, previous studies of such conditions, both experimental and computational, have focused almost exclusively on co-flow and free-jet configurations. Only two prior works have targeted SICF configurations specifically, namely, the experimental work of Miniero et al (2022) and the computational work of Brown et al (2012). The former analysed the effect of the prescribed air-to-liquid mass-flow ratio (ALR) of an airblast (or air-assisted) atomiser.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%