Study on atomization and combustion characteristics of -- Fang, Xin-xin; Shen, Chi-bing -- Acta Astronautica, 136, pages 369-379, 2017 jul -- Elsevier -- 10.1016_j.actaastro.2017.03

X.-x. Fang, C.-b. Shen Acta Astronautica 136 (2017) 369–379
Fig. 6. Boundary condition and mesh of numerical simulation.
Table 3
Pressure and temperature of monitor points of different grids in pre-simulation.
Monitor points a b c d
Grids
Parameters
72,538 Pressure (MPa) 2.930 2.923 2.908 2.898
Relative deviation (%) 1.52 1.39 0.972 1.68
Temperature (×10 3 K) 2.938 2.886 2.863 2.815
Relative deviation (%) 16.17 15.07 12.50 10.31
147,196 Pressure (MPa) 2.895 2.893 2.876 2.863
Relative deviation (%) – – – –
Temperature (×10 3 K) 2.489 2.532 2.561 2.535
Relative deviation (%) – – – –
218,550 Pressure (MPa) 2.886 2.883 2.880 2.850
Relative deviation (%) −0.31 −0.35 0.14 −0.46
Temperature (×10 3 K) 2.529 2.508 2.545 2.552
Relative deviation (%) 1.58 −0.96 −0.63 0.67
Fig. 8. Atomization cone angles for different α o.
Fig. 7. Atomization cone angles for different gas-liquid mass flow ratio.
Fig. 9. Atomization cone angles for different Ls/
Dp.
liquid oxygen. In order to demonstrate the grid convergence, presimulation
was conducted. Two grids which have smaller and larger
quantity of cells were used to compare with the standard grid. The two
grids have a total of 72,538 and 218,550 cells respectively. Four points,
named a, b, c and d (see in Fig. 6) were set to compare their pressure
and temperature measured in the three grids. The positions of the four
points (a, b, c and d) are (0.03 m, 0), (0.03 m, 0.03 m), (0.12 m, 0) and
(0.12 m, 0.03 m) respectively. The results are shown in Table 3. We can
see that, compared with the results of the standard grid, the relative
deviation of the larger quantity grid is negligible, while that of the
smaller quantity grid is large. So the standard grid is suitable for the
present simulation.
4. Experimental results
In the experiments, the mass flow of the gaseous simulant were kept
unchanged, while the mass flow of the liquid simulant changed
according to different gas-liquid mass flow ratio. Fig. 7 shows the
variation curve of the atomization cone angles along with the gas-liquid
mass flow ratio in the condition of different h o (see in Fig. 5). With
increase of the gas-liquid mass flow ratio, the atomization cone angles
decrease, and the trend becomes flat. In addition, as h o grows bigger,
the atomization cone angles become smaller under the condition of
same gas-liquid mass flow ratio. It is because when h o becomes bigger,
373