Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

Effects of co- and counter-swirl on the droplet characteristics

in a spray flame
R. Hadef a, , B. Lenze b
a

BP 297, Institut de Genie Mecanique, Universite Larbi Ben MHidi, 04000 Oum El Bouaghi, Algeria
Engler-Bunte-Institut, Lehrstuhl fur Verbrennungstechnik, Universitat Karlsruhe (TH), Kaiserstreet 12, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
Received 2 May 2007; received in revised form 29 November 2007; accepted 30 November 2007
Available online 23 December 2007

Abstract
This paper reports measurements of droplet characteristics and flow field in a spray flame with inner and outer swirling air streams. The spatial
distribution of droplet characteristics produced by the burners airblast atomizer was measured using dual-phase Doppler anemometry (PDA). The
spray flame was operated near the lean blow-out limit at two flow conditions: co-swirling (flow rotation in the same direction) and counter-swirling
(flow rotation in opposite directions). In both cases, the flame exhibited a U-shaped form and was marked by a large central recirculation zone.
Based on the measurements of the droplet velocity components, differences between both configurations appeared for the counter-rotational setup
mainly in the near burner region, where the decrease of total swirl causes deeper penetration of the droplets from the inner duct into the combustion
chamber, resulting in a much more homogeneous distribution than the other one. The droplet size in terms of the Sauter mean diameter (SMD)
shows little variation in the change of the direction swirl condition. Application of counter-swirl results in more turbulent droplet motion.
2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Spray; Phase Doppler anemometry; Swirl; Flame; Airblast

1. Introduction
Combustion of liquid fuel is encountered in many applications such as gas turbines and diesel engines, industrial furnaces
and liquid-fuelled rocket engines. Swirl flows are widely used
in these applications. Because of performance requirements
and their effect on the design of these devices, there is a
considerable interest in identifying optimal swirl, geometrical conditions and the details of the fuel injector to achieve
specific practical goals. Numerous experiments in swirling
reacting flows have been carried out and have established the
general characteristics of swirl flows. They revealed the important influence of swirl on decreasing emissions by offering
a means to control the stability and intensity of the combustion as well as the size and shape of the flame region
[13].
Most aero-engine and gas turbine applications in service
today use a prefilming airblast atomizer because of its good

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rhadef@rocketmail.com (R. Hadef).

0255-2701/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.cep.2007.11.017

atomization characteristics, low liquid pressure requirements

and potential for achieving significant reductions in soot formation and exhaust smoke [4]. In this atomizer the fuel supply
is sandwiched between two swirling air streams.
The effect of the swirl combinations on spray characteristics has been studied by several researchers. Through their
experimental work, Aigner and Wittig [5] were able to show
that with a proper selection of swirl elements, particularly
with counter-swirl, the effectiveness of shear stresses on the
atomization edge can be increased, resulting in a finer atomization. Chin et.al. [6] explored the effect of the air swirling
orientation on the Sauter mean diameter (SMD) experimentally, and show that the least efficient atomizer configuration
is that of two counter-rotating air streams to atomize the liquid
sheet. Moreover, the lowest SMD values were achieved when
the inner air stream was co-swirling and the outer air stream
was counter-swirling with respect to the fuel swirling orientation. However, they used the atomization model proposed by
Dombrowski and Johns [7] for two-dimensional liquid sheets.
On the other hand, the application of counter-swirling stream
is better at stabilizing the flame than the co-swirling stream
[810]. Time-resolved measurements of temperature fluctu-

2210

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

ations and subsequent calculated thermal micro-time scales

within an unconfined premixed flame in a double-swirl configuration indicate a stronger radial exchange in case of the
co-swirling burner comparing to the counter-swirling one [11].
Three-dimensional laser dual-velocimetry measurements within
an isothermal flow of an airblast atomizer nozzle showed that
the flow field of the counter-swirl arrangement, compared to that
of the co-swirl configuration, exhibits a marked increase of the
mass flow recirculated in the internal recirculation zone and a
reduction of its length in the axial direction [12]. Following this
work, several studies [1317] continued to investigate the effects
of the gas swirling orientation on the spray dispersion pattern of
prefilming airblast atomizers. However, the mechanism of the
spray dispersion in such atomizer configurations has not still
completely understood and thus further research is necessary.
Therefore, the present research focuses on investigating
how the swirl configuration (co- and counter-swirling) keeping all other parameters fixed, affects the spray dispersion in
the present geometry. Measurements of droplets characteristics were obtained non-intrusively using the dual-phase Doppler
anemometry (PDA) technique. Data are presented for the mean
droplet size, velocity components, number density and axial
volume flux of fuel droplets within the spray flame.
2. Experimental setup
2.1. Atomizer
The experiments were carried out using an atmospheric airblast nozzle in a cylindrical combustion chamber with optical
access for laser diagnostics. A sketch of the experimental combustion burner under investigation is given in Fig. 1a. The nozzle
consisted of a modular arrangement of two radial swirl generators, an atomizer lip which separates the two air streams from
each other within the nozzle, and an air diffuser with a throat
diameter of D0 = 25 mm.
The liquid fuel was pressurized to 8 bar and injected by a simplex atomizer, which spread a thin wavy film onto the prefilming
surface, interfacing the inner flow. This fuel film was transported
by shear forces to the atomization edge. Upon arriving at the prefilmer lip, the liquid exited the airblast atomizer as an annular
sheet which was then subjected to high-speed swirling inner
and outer air streams. The liquid sheetair interaction generally produces waves that become unstable and disintegrate into
fragments (Fig. 1b). Under favourable conditions the oscillations are amplified, these fragments become ligaments and, in
turn, break-down into droplets by the shearing effect of the highspeed swirling air streams on both sides. This process is referred
to as primary atomization and involves the action of pressure,
aerodynamic, centrifugal, surface tension forces, and internal
effects such as turbulence and those arising from velocity profile relaxation. The droplets were then transported and mixed
with air by the swirl, and delivered to the primary zone of the
combustion chamber. The presence of the atomizing air leads
to shorter break-up length [18] and enhances liquidair mixing
[19]. It is well known that the initial thickness of the discharged
annular liquid sheet as it leaves the atomizer is the most critical

Fig. 1. (a) Presentation of the burner. (b) Double-swirler-Fuel atomization

assembly. (c) Optical arrangement of a dual-mode phase Doppler system.

dimension; it determines mean drop size in the fuel spray and

has direct impact on combustion efficiency, pollutant emissions
and combustion instability [4]. Theory predicts, and experiment
confirms, that the mean drop size is roughly proportional to the
square root of the sheet thickness [4].
2.2. Operating conditions
Co- and counter-swirling nozzles were created by replacing
the secondary swirl generator by one which offers the same
amount of swirl, but in the opposite direction. The design of
the nozzle fitting allows the mass flow rate and the preheat
temperature of primary and secondary airflow to be adjusted
independently of each other. The fuel, liquid kerosene, was fed
through an atomizer located on the burner centreline. The spray
was ignited by a high voltage spark and the flame was confined in
a cylindrical combustion chamber (i.d. 10 cm). Limitation of the
main reaction zone was provided by an orifice with 40% diameter reduction placed at the exit of the combustion chamber. The
entire burner was fixed and the optical setup was mounted on a
three-axis stepper motor traverse system.

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

The air stream through the nozzle was electrically preheated

up to 200 C and split between the inner circular passage and the
outer annular canal. The splitting of the air stream is characterized by the parameter , defined as the ratio of the inner air mass
in /M
out . For the current study, the
flow to the outer one: = M
value of was 0.6. The total mass flow rates of air and kerosene
A = 85.17 kg/h and M
F = 2.5 kg/h, respectively. This
were M
corresponds to a thermal load of 30 kW and an air-to-fuel ratio
= 2.5 which is very close to the lean blow-out limit, measured
experimentally as = 2.7 [20]. The Reynolds number is calculated as the product of the axial average air velocity at the
nozzle exit and the throat diameter of the diffuser divided by the
kinematic viscosity of air and yields approximately 46,200.
The swirl strength is characterized by the outlet swirl number
S0 , defined as the ratio of angular to axial momentum flux in the
nozzle divided by the outside nozzle radius R0 as given by:
 R0
+ u w r)r dr
(U Wr
S0 = 0  R
2
R0 0 0 (U 2 + u )r dr

2211

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of droplets number con centration [droplets/cm3 ].

where is the fluid density, r is the radial coordinate, U and W are

the axial and tangential velocity components respectively, and
u and w are their velocity fluctuations. The value of S0 should
be calculated from measured values of velocity profiles. Due
to the lack of detailed velocity measurements, the theoretical
swirl number Sth calculated from only the geometrical data of
the swirl generator is used since it is approximately equal to S0
[21]. In the present work it is of the inner airflow Sth,in = 0.46
and of the outer airflow Sth,out = 1.0 in the case of the co-swirl
and Sth,out = 0.85 at the counter-swirl. The value of resulting total
swirl number is Sth,out = 0.80 for the co-swirl configuration and
Sth,total = 0.40 for the counter-swirl configuration.
2.3. Measurement technique
Measurements of droplet size and velocity were conducted
using a commercial DANTEC dual-PDA system. The system
combines a conventional and a planar particle dynamics analyzer
(Fig. 1c) and was developed to improve measurement accuracy
of mass flux and concentration [22]. Due to its higher resolution, the size measurement was performed using the phase
difference of the conventional PDA. The planar PDA is used
to resolve the 2 ambiguity and for validation. The latter is
based on comparison of the droplet diameters measured by
the planar and conventional PDA. As both configurations are

Fig. 2. Flame form (a) and streamlines (b).

Fig. 4. Radial and axial droplet size distribution for both swirl configurations
() co-swirl () counter-swirl.

2212

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

affected differently by the slit effect, the trajectory effect, and

non-spherical droplets, erroneous measurements are rejected
[23].
The system used an argon-ion laser (INNOVA 70) operating at an output power of 200 mW. The laser beam was steered
into the fiber drive which separates the beam into two beams
of equal intensity. The beams are subsequently directed into
single-mode fibers, which steer the light to the transmitter. One
beam of each colour was frequency-shifted by 40 MHz by using
a Bragg cell for the purpose of direction recognition of the
velocities. The polarization direction was adjusted to be perpendicular to the scattering plane. In the present experiment,
two components of the velocity were measured simultaneously
with two beam pairs with wavelengths of 514.5 and 488 nm,
respectively. A 30 off-axis forward scattering configuration
with a 400 mm focal length receiving lens was selected. The

measurement volume was approximately 53 m in diameter and

2 mm in length. Due to the lens on the receiving probe a portion of approximately 200 m is cut out of the measurement
volume. The light scattered by the droplets was transmitted by
optical fibers to photodetectors, where the light signals were
converted into electronic signals. They were further processed
by a real-time signal analyzer and the data were collected by
an acquisition board installed in a personal computer. The measurements include size, velocity components number density
and turbulent kinetic energy of the droplets as well as the liquid volume flux. For each measurement location, 5000 samples
are recorded to allow a determination of the mean properties
with low statistically error. No measurement was made when
the data rate was below 5 Hz. In addition, measurements below
an axial height of 11 mm were not possible due to optical access
restrictions.

Fig. 5. (a) Axial droplets mean velocity distribution at both swirl configurations ( ) 1020 m ( ) 3040 m ( ) total droplets. (b) Radial droplets mean velocity
distribution at both swirl configurations ( ) 1020 m ( ) 3040 m ( ) total droplets. (c) Tangential droplets mean velocity distribution at both swirl configurations
( ) 1020 m ( ) 3040 m ( ) total droplets.

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

2213

Fig. 5. (Continued )

3. Results

3.2. Droplet characteristics

3.1. Flame shape

The spatial distribution of droplet number concentration (proportional to the droplet number density) is shown in Fig. 3. It
shows that the counter-swirl combinations of the swirler pair
(inner and outer swirlers) result in a larger droplet population in the inner region of the spray than the corresponding
co-swirl case. The counter-swirl case also tends to introduce
droplets into the inner region of the spray, especially in the
downstream region close to z = 15 mm, compared to the co-swirl
one.
The droplet size of interest in combustion flows is the
Sauter mean diameter, which represents the ratio of the
total volume to the total surface area of the spray droplets.
Radial and axial distributions of the SMD values for both
configurations on four measurement planes are shown in
Fig. 4.
For both cases, the largest droplets are measured roughly
in the wake of the atomizer lip, due to poor secondary atom-

Fig. 2a displays a photograph of the investigated flame. The

flame is U-shaped due to a low value of the parameter , i.e. the
airflow is mainly provided through the outer duct with strong
swirl. Fig. 2b shows pseudo-streamlines in the zr plane based
on the mean axial and radial velocity components for a stable
flame. The flow field is in the form of a one-celled great toroidal
vortex caused by the adverse pressure gradient induced by the
swirl and occupying the entire burner volume. Exhaust gas propagates radially outwards, setting up a wall jet at the enclosure.
Rounding and smoothing of wall surfaces enhance the formation
of wall jets. This recirculation zone primarily aids in flame stabilization by providing an aerodynamic blockage and reducing
gas velocities necessary to stabilize a flame. It also transports hot
and chemically active combustion species from the downstream
region of the flame to the root of the flame.

2214

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

Fig. 5. (Continued )

ization. With increasing radial distance, as well as near the

combustor exit, a considerable increase in droplet diameter is
observed. Only large droplets, due to their high inertia, are
able to penetrate the region of hot recirculating combustion
gases, so that a growth of relative concentration of droplets with
0 < SMD < 50 m within the radial range from 0 < r < 10 mm is
observed. As will be shown later on, this maximum matches
regions of very low liquid volume flux. Due to the swirling
motion of the gas flow and to resulting centrifugal forces, larger
droplets are separated from the smaller ones and cause a considerable increase in droplet size at larger radii. Due to their
larger surface to volume ratio, very small droplets evaporate
faster, resulting in a less pronounced dependence of SMD on
local measurement position with increasing axial distance from
the atomizer. This trend agrees well with the previous result
obtained at elevated pressure [24] where the qualitative sheet
stability behaviour is similar to that at atmospheric pressure
[25]. However, the most noticeable result is that the SMD of
the droplets in the counter-swirl configuration is found to be

lower than in the co-swirl configuration, particularly downstream of the atomizer edge. This is due the high shear forces
exerted by the two opposing airstreams on the liquid film
which support efficient atomization, in addition to the very
rapid decay of the air swirl component that reduces the chances
of droplet coalescence. On the other hand, since the growth
rate of disturbances on the liquidair interface (which governs the characteristics of the resulting spray) is higher in the
co-inner/counter-outer air stream combination [25], it likely produces the finest spray. This behaviour is consistent with the
earlier measurements [6]. Also, when the swirl orientation is
reversed, the change of annular liquid sheet velocity profile at
the atomizer exit contributed to this distinction as it has been
reported in the recent theoretical analyses and experimental validations [2632].
Smaller droplets vaporize faster than larger droplets, resulting in faster fuel vapour mixing with air, which induces
full vaporization of the spray at the burner exit plane (Due
to lack of droplets, measurements were not made above

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

an axial height of 35 mm in the counter-swirling configuration).

In the present study, size-dependent droplet behaviour was
investigated to increase the understanding of the spray dispersion
characteristics mentioned above. In the following, the results
for the droplet velocity components in two different size classes
(1020 and 3040 m) are also presented (Fig. 5). For convenience, they are called 15 and 35 m size classes, or simply
the smaller and the larger droplet classes, respectively. The flow
field of the droplets is described in Fig. 5 through the mean
velocity in axial, radial and tangential directions denoted by
U, V, and W, respectively, as well as by their turbulent kinetic
energy, k.
Generally, all profiles of the mean axial velocity show the typical behaviour of jets, i.e., a linear increase with radial distance
in the centre region to reach a maximum value, followed by a
decrease in the outer periphery of the spray. As the flow diverges
downstream, this maximum decreases. Compared to the co-swirl
configuration the flow field of the counter-swirl arrangement, the
droplet mean axial velocity component is higher in the centre of
the burner. This observation is more pronounced for the smaller
droplets because these follow the gas flow more closely. Previous measurements have shown a moderately higher velocity
downstream of the nozzle exit region [33]. On the other hand, the
larger droplets move in to this region more slowly, leading to a
longer residence time in the combustion zone and consequently
a more rapid vaporization.
Examination of the droplet mean radial velocity component
confirms the large spreading of the jet in the radial direction
for this configuration and the inward motion of the droplets just
downstream of the nozzle opening within the central recirculation zone within the radial range from 0 < r < 10 mm up to their
complete evaporation, i.e. at z = 30 mm.
The radial profiles of the mean tangential velocity component
for the droplets emanating from the inner duct of the atomizer are identical, since the geometry of the primary swirler
is kept constant in both cases. The radial profiles of tangential velocity caused by the outer swirler are expected to be of
the same shape, but have opposite sign. With growing axial
distance, the tangential mean velocity decreases substantially
in the central region, without any change in the periphery of
the spray for the co-swirl configuration. Further downstream,
the effect of inlet conditions vanishes and the profile becomes
uniform with a complete disappearance in the counter-rotating
swirl. The non-zero values recorded near the axis arise from
some instability of the central recirculation zone whose centre
moves slowly around the axis [34] as suggested by the higher
turbulent kinetic energy values measured on the axis, visible in
Fig. 6.
The turbulent kinetic energy radial profiles (Fig. 6) show similar behaviour for both cases. They are characterized a high peak
in the centre region of the inlet combustion chamber due to the
production of turbulence is the shear layer caused by the strong
recirculation zone where turbulence eddies are highly energetic
and anisotropic. Farther downstream, the turbulence level begins
to decay owing to the combination effect of swirling motion and
the wall friction. Firstly, the swirling motion generates a cen-

2215

Fig. 6. Radial and axial distribution of the droplets turbulent kinetic energy ()
Co-swirl () Counter-swirl.

trifugal force that drives the flow to move outwards in the radial
direction; the stronger outward radial flow transports the turbulent kinetic energy in the radial direction towards the wall faster;
finally, turbulence near the wall is dissipated quickly by the wall
viscous friction. The production of turbulence near the walls is
not significant since the velocity and the velocity gradient near
the wall are low.
However, the most noticeable finding is that the droplets
generally exhibit more significant turbulent motion in the
counter-swirl case than in the co-swirl case. This improves the
air-fuel mixing which results in a uniform temperature distribution following combustion without significant temperature
gradient, therefore reducing the formation of local hot spots
where the thermal formation of harmful oxides of nitrogen (NOx )
(exponentially dependent on the temperature) can be severe
[35,36]. On the other hand, it has been analytically demonstrate
that the ratio of NOx produced to the total mass of fuel droplets
burned is an increasing function of the droplet size (i.e., finer

2216

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

4. Conclusions

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of Sauter mean diameter and vector velocity of the
total droplets.

sprays produce less NOx ) [37]. This finding has been confirmed
experimentally [3841] and an excellent review has been written
on this subject by Sirignano [42].
Fig. 7 displays a flow field of droplets as a vector plot overlaid
on the SMD and the axial liquid flux. Every vector represents the
sum of the local axial and radial mean velocity components at
all measured positions. This figure clearly shows a radial expansion of droplets to the wall for both configurations. The impact
of counter-rotating swirl is twofold. Firstly, it causes a more
pronounced presence of the droplets in the inner central zone.
Secondly, the droplets are completely evaporated at the height
of z = 40 mm. This is due to their smaller size and perhaps to the
higher gas temperature.
Axial liquid volume flux measurements are also reported in
Fig. 8. As expected, it is closely related to the flow field of
droplets, resulting in an extremely wide cone angle of spray
dispersion. On radii R > 20 mm the cone angles of liquid flux
distribution of co- and counter-swirl show good agreement. At
smaller radii, application of counter-swirl exhibits a marked segregation of the spray into a second region of smaller cone angle
formed mainly by small drops. This is due to the higher gas phase
velocity and an increased penetration depth of the circular near
burner zone of positive axial velocity, which convects preferentially small droplets into the combustion chamber. This finding is
confirmed by the comparison of the measurements of the axial
mean droplets velocity carried out in both configurations and
displayed in Fig. 5a.

Fig. 8. Spatial distribution of mean axial liquid flux of the total droplets.

The behaviour of droplets in a spray flame formed by two

swirling annular jets has been studied using the dual-phase PDA
technique. Two swirl configurations, co- and counter-swirling,
were compared in the same operating conditions.
The counter-swirl configuration is characterized by a higher
population of droplets near the burner axis. This observation is
likely responsible for the good flame stability [33].
The results indicate that atomization is finer and more spatially dispersed in the counter-swirl configuration. The first
effect is due to the break-up phenomena of the liquid ligaments exiting the lip atomizer, and the second results from the
high additional turbulence level generated in this configuration,
leading to enhanced fuelair mixing.
This advantage leads to easier ignition, a wider burning range,
and lower pollutant emissions, which helps in improving combustion efficiency.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the BMBF for funding during the KEROMIX program and of
the DAAD for the award of a fellowship to R. Hadef.
References
[1] J.H. Kwark, Y.K. Jeong, C.H. Jeon, Y.J. Chang, Effect of swirl intensity
on the flow and combustion of a turbulent non-premixed flat flame, Flow
Turbul. Comb. 73 (2004) 231257.
[2] S. Hoffmann, B. Lenze, H. Eickhoff, Results of experiments and models for
predicting stability limits of turbulent swirling flames, J. Eng. Gas Turbines
120 (1998) 311316.
[3] A.K. Gupta, D.G. Lilley, N. Syred, Swirl Flows, Abacus Press, Turnbridge
Wells, 1984.
[4] A.H. Lefebvre, Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere, New York, 1989.
[5] M. Aigner, S. Wittig, Swirl and counter-swirl effects in prefilming airblast
atomizers, J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power 110 (1988) 105110.
[6] J.S. Chin, N.K. Rizk, M.K. Razdan, Effect of inner and outer Airflow
characteristics on high liquid pressure prefilming airblast atomization, J.
Propul. Power 16 (2000) 297301.
[7] N. Dombrowski, W.R. Johns, The Aerodynamic instability and disintegration of vicious liquid sheets, Chem. Eng. Sci. 18 (1963) 203214.
[8] A. Ateshkadi, V.G. McDonell, S.G. Samuelsen, Effect of hardware geometry on gas and drop behaviour in a radial mixer spray, Proc. Comb. Inst.
27 (1998) 19851992.
[9] K. Merkle, H. Buchner, N. Zarzalis, N.O. Sara, Influence of co- and counter
swirl on lean stability limits of an airblast nozzle, in: Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo 2003, GT2003-38004, 2003.
[10] A.K. Gupta, M.J. Lewis, M. Daurer, Swirl effects on combustion characteristics of premixed flames, J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power 123 (2001)
619626.
[11] M.D. Durbin, D.R. Ballal, Studies of lean blow-out in a step swirl combustor, J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power 118 (1996) 7277.
[12] K. Merkle, H. Haessler, H. Buchner, N. Zarzalis, Effect of co- and counterswirl on the isothermal flow- and mixture-field of an airblast atomizer
nozzle, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 24 (2003) 529537.
[13] K. Matsuura, Y. Kurosawa, Effect of swirl combinations on spray dispersion
characteristics of a multi-swirler airblast atomizer, Proc. ILASS (2005).
[14] J. Colby, S. Menon, J. Jagoda, Flow field measurements in
a counter-swirling spraycombustor, in: Proceeding of the 41st
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Paper
No.AIAA 2005-4143, 2005.

R. Hadef, B. Lenze / Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 22092217

[15] R. Kumara Gurubaran, R.I. Sujith, S.R. Chakravarthy, Flow field measurements of aprefilming airblast atomizer, in: Proceeding of the 41st
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Paper
No. AIAA 2005-4148, 2005.
[16] M.R. Soltani, K. Ghorbanian, M. Ashjaee, M.R. Morad, Spray characteristics of a liquidliquid coaxial swirl atomizer at different mass flow rates,
Aerospace Sci.Technol. 9 (2005) 592604.
[17] R. Hadef, B. Lenze, Measurements of droplets characteristics in a swirlstabilized spray flame, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 30 (2005) 117130.
[18] I.S. Carvalho, M.V. Heitor, Liquid film break-up in a model of a prefilming
airblast nozzle, Exp. Fluids 24 (1998) 408415.
[19] G. Lavergne, P. Trichet, P. Hebrard, Y. Biscos, Liquid sheet disintegration and atomization process on a simplifed airblast atomizer, J. Eng. Gas
Turbine Power 115 (1993) 461466.
[20] R. Hadef, K. Merkle, B. Lenze, W. Leuckel, An Experimental study of
airblast atomizer spray flames, J. Inst. Energy 74 (2000) 5055.
[21] W. Leuckel, Swirl intensities, Swirl types and energy losses of different
swirl generating devices. IFRF-Doc. No G02/a/16(1967), Ijmuiden.
[22] C. Tropea, T.-H. Xu, G. Grehan, F. Onofri, G. Grehan, P. Haugen, M.
Stieglmeier, Dual-mode phase-Doppler anemometry, Part. Part. Syst. Char.
13 (1996) 165170.
[23] H.-E. Albrecht, M. Borys, N. Damaschke, C. Tropea, Laser-Doppler and
Phase-Doppler Measurement Techniques, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,
2003.
[24] M. Brandt, M. Rachner, G. Schmitz, An experimental and numerical study
of kerosine spray evaporation in a premix duct for gas turbine combustors
at high pressure, Comb. Sci. Technol. 138 (1998) 313348.
[25] A.A. Ibrahim, M.A. Jog, Effect of liquid and air swirl strength and relative
rotational direction on the instability of an annular liquid sheet, Acta Mech.
186 (2006) 113133.
[26] J. Shen, X. Li, Instability of an annular viscous liquid jet, Acta Mech. 114
(1996) 167183.
[27] J. Shen, X. Li, Breakup of annular liquid jets in two gas streams, J. Propul.
Power 12 (1996) 752759.
[28] Y. Liao, S.M. Jeng, M.A. Jog, The effect of air swirl profile on the instability
of a viscous liquid jet, J. Fluid Mech. 424 (2000) 120.

2217

[29] M. Gavaises, C. Arcoumanis, Modelling of sprays from high pressure swirl

atomizers, Int. J. Engine Res. 2 (2001) 95117.
[30] A.T. Sakman, M.A. Jog, S.M. Jeng, M.A. Benjamin, Parametric study of
simplex fuel nozzle internal flow and performance, AIAA J. 38 (2000)
12141218.
[31] J. Xue, M.A. Jog, S.M. Jeng, Effect of geometric parameters on simplex
atomizer performance, AIAA J. 42 (2004) 24082415.
[32] A.A. Ibrahim, M.A. Jog, Effect of liquid swirl-velocity profile instability of a swirling annlar liquid sheet, Atomization Sprays 16 (2006) 237
264.
[33] M. Merkle, A. Ament, B. Lenze, W. Leuckel, R. Hadef, Untersuchungen
zum stabilitatsverhalten einer airblast-zerstauberduse, VDI Berichte 1492
(2000) 449454.
[34] P. Wang, X.S. Bai, M. Wessman, J. Klingmann, Large eddy simulation and
experimental studies of a confined turbulent swirling flow, Phys. Fluids 16
(2004) 33063324.
[35] T. Terazaki, S. Hayashi, The effects of fuel-air mixing on NOx formation in non-premixed swirl burners, Proc. Comb. Inst. 26 (1996) 2733
2739.
[36] A.H. Lefebvre, The role of fuel preparation in low emission combustion,
J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power 117 (1995) 617654.
[37] F.V. Bracco, Nitric Oxide Formation in droplet diffusion flames, Proc.
Comb. Inst. 14 (1973) 831842.
[38] A.A. Nizami, N.P. Cernansky, NOx formation in monodisperse fuel spray
combustion, Proc. Comb. Inst. 17 (1978).
[39] L.P. Cooper Effect of Degree of Fuel Vaporization Upon Emissions for a
Premixed Partially Vaporized Combustion System, NASA Technical Paper
1582, 1980.
[40] S.A. Drennan, V. Mandayam, Low NOx experiences firing residual oil
in industrial boilers, in: Paper presented at the 1997 AFRC International
Symposium, Ottawa, 1997.
[41] J.A. Nicholls, C.W. Kauffman, D.G. Pelaccio, D.R. Glass, J.F. Driscoll, The
effect of fuel sprays on emissions from a research gas turbine combustor,
Comb. Sci. Tech. 23 (1980) 203213.
[42] W.A. Sirignano, Fuel droplet vaporization and spray combustion theory,
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 9 (1983) 291322.