Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design Procedure and Experimental Evaluation of Pressure-Swirl Atomizers
Design Procedure and Experimental Evaluation of Pressure-Swirl Atomizers
net/publication/43653022
CITATIONS READS
12 1,864
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Experimental investigation on the combustion process in a spark ignition optically accessible engine fueled with Syngas View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Pedro Teixeira Lacava on 25 March 2014.
work of Couto et al. [2] showed a theoretical 2 Design Considerations and Spray
formulation for estimating the Sauter Mean Predictions
Diameter of droplets generated by pressure- The following data are required for an atomizer
swirl atomizers. This was done extending the design: the liquid properties (density, surface
model of Dombrowski and Johns [3] on the tension, and viscosity), the discharging ambient
disintegration of viscous liquid sheets generated characteristics (ambient pressure and density)
by fan-spray atomizers, the results comparing and the liquid injection conditions (i.e., the mass
satisfactorily with available experimental data flow rate and the injector pressure differential).
and other existing empirical models. Bazarov First the flow number, FN, is calculated
and Yang [4] have discussed the liquid- using Equation (1):
propellant rocket engine pressure-swirl atomizer
dynamics and its relation with flow oscillations.
Paula Souza [5] presented a design procedure m L (1)
FN =
and performed an experimental analysis of a ρ L ∆PL
coaxial pressure-swirl bi-propellant atomizer for
liquid-propellant rocket engines. Jones [6]
presented a design optimization of a large Where m L is the liquid mass flow rate, ρL is
pressure-jet atomizer for furnace power plants. the liquid density, and ∆PL is the injector
Lefebvre [7] discussed the application of pressure differential.
pressure-swirl atomizers in gas turbine The nozzle discharge diameter (D0) (see
combustion chambers. Figure 1) must be chosen and the other
remaining atomizer geometrical parameters are
obtained considering the following
dimensionless groups: Ap/(Ds.D0), Ds/D0, Ls/Ds,
L0/D0, and Lp/Dp; where the Ap is the tangential
entry passage cross section area, and other
important geometrical parameters are shown in
Figure 1.
The ratio Ls/Ds should be reduced in order
to minimize the wall friction losses. However,
Fig. 1. Pressure-swirl atomizer schematics. a limiting value is needed to achieve the liquid
flow stabilization and formation of a uniform
This work describes a procedure for vortex sheet. This ratio must be higher than 0.5,
designing a pressure-swirl atomizer. The Sauter and a typical value recommended for proper
mean diameter (SMD) and the spray cone angle design is 1.0, as pointed out by Elkobt et al [8].
are evaluated with the proper atomizer The parameter L0/D0 should also be reduced to
dimensions. The SMD is estimated using the minimize friction losses in the atomizer exit.
formulation of Dombrowski and Johns, as Further, the ratio Lp/D p cannot be smaller than
extended by Couto et al. for pressure-swirl 1.3 because a short tangential inlet passage
atomizers, as already mentioned. An atomizer channel may generate a diffuse discharge
was manufactured based on the suggested leading to an unstable spray (Tipler and Wilson
design procedure and its discharge coefficient, [9]). Finally, one has to watch out for the
spray angle and SMD were measured and obvious limitations of the manufacturing
compared with the theoretical estimates of those process itself
parameters. The others two dimensionless groups, i.e.,
Ap/(Ds.D0) and Ds/D0, both have a considerable
influence in the discharge coefficient, Cd, which
can be calculated by the Equation (2).
2
DESIGN PROCEDURE AND EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF PRSSURE-SWIRL ATOMIZERS
The ratios Ap/(Ds.D0) and Ds/D0 can be where K = Ap/(Ds.D0) and X is the ratio between
obtained from empirical relations for Cd the air core area (Aa) and the nozzle orifice exit
developed by Carlisle [10], Risk and Lefebvre area (A0) , estimated by Equation (7) below:
[11], and Jones [6], Equations (3), (4), and (5),
respectively. In fact, the Cd calculated using the (7)
FN
flow parameters in Equation (2), can be used to D0 = 2.
choose appropriates values for Ap/(Ds.D0) π.(1 − X ). 2
andDs/D0 with Carlisle result (Equation (3)),
and the Cd is recovered with Risk and
Lefebvre and Jones equations (i.e., Equations. With the flow number (FN) and the spray
(4) and (5), respectively) to check for cone semiangle (θ), obtained from Equations (1)
discrepancies; Nevertheless intervals ranging and (6), it is possible to estimate the liquid sheet
from 0.19 to 1.21 and from 1.41 to 8.13 are thickness at the nozzle tip, h0, as suggested by
recommended for Ap/(Ds.D0) and Ds/D0, Couto et al. [7].
respectively (Lefebvre [1]).
0.00805.FN . ρ L (8)
Ap (3) h0 = (MKS units)
D D0 .cos θ
Cd = 0.0616 s .
D0 Ds .D0
0.5 0,25
Dombrowski and Johns [3] derived an
D Ap (4)
. expression for estimating the ligament diameter,
Cd = 0.35. s
D0 Ds .D0 DL, formed on the liquid film break up of a thin
plane sheet atomizer as the one generated by a
−0.02 −0.03 fan-spray atomizer. Couto et al. [2] extended
D .ρ .U L this result for a pressure-swirl atomizer. They
Cd = 0.45. 0 L 0 . 0 .
µL D0 (5)
assumed that the conical sheet possesses, a
0.05 0.52 0.23 rupture radius much larger than its thickness,
L Ap D that once the conical sheet is established, the
. s . . s
Ds Ds .D0 D0 amplitude of any disturbance (ripple) away from
the injector tip is much smaller than the cone
diameter (so that the ripple “sees” the conical
Equation (5) reported by Jones [6], is the sheet as a plane sheet) and that the wavelength
most elaborated one, showing that the ratios of any ripples formed in the liquid film grows
Ap/(Ds.D0) and Ds/D0 are the dominant until its amplitude is equal to the ligament
dimensionless parameters in the calculation of radius, so that one droplet is produced per
Cd. wavelength. Then, the ligament diameter is
In the present design procedure, the critical given by
atomizer dimensions are accepted or not,
depending on the calculated values of the spray
semiangle (θ) and the mean drop diameter. The
semiangle (θ) can be estimated by the
expression developed by Giffen and Muraszew
[12] for a pressure-swirl atomizer:
3
PEDRO TEIXEIRA LACAVA, DEMÉTRIO BASTOS-NETTO, AMILCAR PORTO PIMENTA
1
described for the dimensionless groups were
h04 σ 2
6
strictly respected.
DL = 0.9615 cos θ 4 .
U 0 ρa ρL (9)
Tab. 1. Atomizer design input parameters.
0,2
1
h02 ρa4U 07
3
ρL 1.00E+03 kg.m3
.1 + 2.6 µ L cos θ
2 5
72 ρL σ µL 1.00E-01 kg.m-1.s-1
σ 7.34E-02 kg.s-2
ρa 1.00E+00 kg.m3
where σ (dyne/cm) is the liquid surface tension, m L 6.00E-03 kg.s-1
ρa (g/cm3) is the density of the surrounding ∆PL 4.00E+05 Pa
medium, here taken to be the air in the D0 1.00E-03 m
combustion chamber, µL (cp) is the liquid
dynamic viscosity, and U0 (cm/s) is the velocity Tab. 2. Final results for the atomizer design.
of the liquid at the atomizer tip, given by
Equation (10). FN 3.00E-07 m2 L0/D0 1.00
X 7.30E-01 Lp/Dp 1.60
(10) h0 9.31E-05 m D0 1.00 mm
2.∆PL
U0 = Uo 28.28 m.s-1 Ds 3.00 mm
ρL DL 24.00 µm Ls 3.00 mm
SMD 45.40 µm L0 1.00 mm
According to Rayleigh mechanism (in Cd (Equation 7) 0.27 Ap 1.20 mm2
Lefebvre [1]), assuming that the collapse of a Ap/(Ds.D0) 0.40 Dp 0.60 mm
ligament with diameter DL will generate a Ds/D0 3.00 Lp 1.00 mm
droplet, then one may write (Couto et al [2]): Ls/Ds 1.00 θ 34.89o
4
DESIGN PROCEDURE AND EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF PRSSURE-SWIRL ATOMIZERS
utilized. Initially a minimum exposure time and To obtain the injector discharge coefficient,
automatic flash were used to obtain the best sprays under different operating pressures were
possible instant picture. Then a maximum discharged into a reservoir resting on a scale.
exposure time and no flash were used in order to The time taken to fill this reservoir with 2.0 kg
obtain the spray mean boundaries. of water was measured so that a mean liquid
Using the Photoshop® software, the mass flow rate could be obtained. Then,
pictures with longer exposure time were substituting the values of the injector pressure
converted to negative form, in order to improve differential and the mean mass flow rate
clarify the spray boundaries. Then, using the readings in Equation (2), the experimental
Autocad® software, the sprays half angles were discharge coefficient was estimated.
determined.
A laser scattering system (Malvern
Mastersizer X®) was used to analyse the spray 3. Results
droplet size distribution and the Sauter mean The pressure differential applied through the
diameter (SMD). When the droplets go through injector ranged from 2 atm to 6 atm. Under 2
the helium-neonium laser beam (633 nm), the atm, the liquid discharge did not generate a
circular photodiode detectors plate collects the typical spray, but only a smooth film was
laser scattered beam in angular sectors. To formed around a hollow bubble resembling an
obtain the droplet size distribution, the system onion; i.e., of no practical interest. On the other
uses the Fraunhofer diffraction theory, i.e., the side, 6 atm was the limiting pressure for the
scattering angle is related to the droplet reservoir.
diameter. The scanning time is 2ms and each Figure 4 shows (a) the liquid mass flow rate
measurement corresponds to 2000 scans and (b) the discharge coefficient, both as
operations. Figure 3 shows the atomizer coupled functions of injector pressure differential.
to the laser system and the laser beam travelling Figure 4 (b) also shows the Cd used in the
through the spray. injector design and calculated with Carlisle,
The atomizer was assembled in a 3D Lefebvre and Risk and Jones equations
positioning system, which was needed (Equations 3, 4 and 5, respectively). The
necessary to determine the best relative distance experimental results consist on the mean value
between the atomizer nozzle discharge orifice of twenty scans, and it is possible to notice that
and the center line of the laser beam. The the experimental results are quite close to the
chosen distance was 4.0 cm, as this is the design values. For instance, at the design
minimum distance for an adequate pressure differential of 4 atm, the mass flow rate
obscurescence level to be attained. For shorter and the discharge coefficient were 6.13 g/s and
distances, the obscurescence level is so high for 0.2728, respectively, quite close to the design
the laser beam travelling closer to the atomizer, values of 6 g/s and 0.2700, respectively.
that, no light signal can be detected by the The liquid film breakup as a function of the
photodiodes. pressure differential can be visualized in the
short exposition time pictures presented in
Figure 5. It is possible to observe that, in all test
runs, a smooth liquid film around a hollow core
was formed immediately after the atomizer
nozzle exit orifice, ending in a ragged edge, and
after that a well-defined hollow-cone spray was
established. It is also possible to notice that the
(a) (b) spray angle increases when the pressure
Fig. 3. (a) Atomizer coupled to the laser system; differential increases, and the liquid film length
(b) laser beam travelling through the spray. is reduced. Figure 6 displays the spray
5
PEDRO TEIXEIRA LACAVA, DEMÉTRIO BASTOS-NETTO, AMILCAR PORTO PIMENTA
6.5
6.0
5.5
2 atm 3 atm
5.0
4.5
4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 4 atm
injector pressure differential [atm]
5 atm
(a)
0.35
0.34 Experimental
0.33 design
0.32
Carlisle 6 atm
discharge coefficient
Jones
0.31
Risk-Lefebvre Fig. 5. Short exposition time for different
0.30 injection pressures.
0.29
40
0.28
39
0.27
38
0.26
37
spray semiangle [ ]
0.25 o
1 2 3 4 5 6 36
injector pressure differential [atm]
35
(b)
Fig. 4. The liquid mass flow rate (a) and the 34
6
DESIGN PROCEDURE AND EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF PRSSURE-SWIRL ATOMIZERS
Figure 7 shows the experimental results of discharge orifice straightens to form a conical
SMD measurements. Each experimental value sheet; then, as the sheet expands, its thickness is
presented in Figure 7 is the mean value of reduced becoming unstable and disintegrating
twenty scans, and repeatability was very into ligaments which collapse by action of the
satisfactory, with a maximum standard surface tension into droplets thus generating a
deviation 0,96% for 2.0 atm. The raising of the hollow cone spray. However, the pictures
atomizer pressure differential is beneficial to the presented in Figure 5, indicate that the spray is
SMD as clearly illustrated in Figure 7 for the still in a transition process from the “tulip” stage
increasing in the liquid pressure differential to the fully developed spray stage, due to the
causes the liquid to be discharged from the existence of a the smooth film in the immediate
nozzle at higher velocity, promoting a thinner neighborhood of the injector exit section, as
spray. The experimental behavior of the SMD mentioned earlier. Then, as the droplets formed
with the injector pressure differential, ∆PL , is in the ragged edge at the end of the liquid film
typical of pressure swirl atomizers and it fully will be larger than those ones formed by the
agrees with the tendency pointed out by other ligaments disintegration (Lefebvre [1]), it
authors, such as, for example, Wang and should be expected the experimental SMD to be
Lefebvre [13]. larger than the predicted one.
In spite of the SMD importance to verify
120
the spray quality, this is not enough, for it is
110 experimental necessary to make some considerations on the
theoretical behavior droplet diameter distribution behavior. Figure 8
100
presents the percentage of total droplets volume
90 for different pressure differentials. The values
were obtained directly from the data acquisition
]
80
and statistical treatment software, and they were
SMD [
7
PEDRO TEIXEIRA LACAVA, DEMÉTRIO BASTOS-NETTO, AMILCAR PORTO PIMENTA
8
DESIGN PROCEDURE AND EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF PRSSURE-SWIRL ATOMIZERS