Dimensioning a Simplex Swirl Injector

Rene Nardi Rezende1 and Vladia de Castro Perez.2

Inotech Ltd, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, 12242-460, Brazil

Amilcar Pimenta3
Instituto Tecnologico de Aeronáutica, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, 12.228-900, Brazil

Abstract

This paper presents a methodology for sizing swirl injectors that is relevant to liquid rocket
engine application, as well as, analyses the results of the experiments executed to investigate the
validity of the proposed model. On the first part of this paper, a set of equations used to define
the injector dimensions is presented. Most of the equations are well know from the literature,
however, they had to be adjusted to incorporate a deviation from the traditional approach,
which is the separation of the inlet orifice discharge coefficient calculations from the exit
orifice discharge coefficient. On the second part, actual data, collected with the aid of test
specimens designed in accordance with the methodology herein described, was compared with
values prescribed by the theoretical model. Actual and forecasted values were found to be
aligned.

Nomenclature

1-X = Liquid area ratio

A = Area, metering orifice
Cd = Discharge coefficient
Do = Diameter, exit orifice
Dp = Diameter, inlet orifice
Ds = Diameter, swirl chamber internal
Dso = Diameter, swirl chamber external
Lo = Length, exit orifice
Lp = Length, inlet orifice
Ls = Length, swirl chamber
ṁ = Mass flow
X = Open area ratio
ΔP = Pressure differential
θ = Spray cone half angle
ρ = Density

1
Technical Director, Inotech Ltd, Rua Roberval Froes 195, Sao Jose dos Campos , SP, Brazil.
2
Managing Director, Inotech Ltd, Rua Roberval Froes 195, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
3
Professor, Aeronautical Engineering, Pca Mal Eduardo Gomes 50, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil.

1
 I. Introduction

OR decades, the swirl injector used alone or in combination with other types of injectors, has demonstrated its
F effectiveness in atomizing and mixing propellants in rocket engines. On a typical duplex swirl injector, as the

one shown on Fig. (1), propellants enter the device through tangential inlet orifices, and flow away from the exit

orifice in the form of hollow conical sheet, usually with fuel in the inner cone and oxidizer on the external part.

Figure 1. Typical swirl injector at the test bench

A significant amount of swirl injector related studies, reports and papers was produced, some dedicated to

theoretical aspects, as Ref. (7), some presenting the results of experimental investigations. There are publications

covering every aspect of the injector performance, including reviews on spray angle and discharge coefficient, as per

Ref. (9), droplet size, film thickness, breakup process, etc. A typical description provided by the literature shows

liquid propellants being tangentially introduced into a swirl chamber through one or more inlet orifice and

imparting a radial and an axial velocity component. Due to centrifugal force, the swirling film is attached to the

chamber wall, as shown on Fig. (2), allowing space for a hollow gas core to be created in the center region. This

swirling film passes through the exit orifice as a thin liquid sheet hollow cylinder. The view of the exit orifice from

the bottom, as per the diagram on the right side of Fig. (2), reveals an air core surrounded by a circular ring full of

liquid. That cylinder becomes a hollow cone at a short distance from the injector face, when wave oscillations on the

liquid sheet induces the formation of holes on the cone surface, followed by its disintegration into ligaments and

2
finally into droplets, as it swirls and stretches while moving away from the injector face (Ref. (6)). In case another

propellant is atomized in the neighborhood, from a coaxial nozzle, a jet nozzle or by any other means, the film

exiting the injector impinges onto the surrounding propellant stream helping the atomizing process through the

mechanism of sheet breakup developed from the interaction with the surrounding flow.

Figure 2. Elements of a typical swirl injector.

3
 II. Problem Statement

Under the terms of the “Challenge Based Training”, Ref. (9), a group of engineering students was given the

mission to design, build and cold test a simplex swirl injector to deliver a mass flow of 0.050 kg/s at a pressure

differential of 0.3 mPa, for a new rocket engine under development.

To start with, it was suggested to use the methodology proposed by Ref. (1) to design the injector, followed by

construction of a prototype. In order to design the specified swirl injector, dimensions defined on Fig. (3) must be

defined. For the benefit of consistency, the same nomenclature presented on Ref. (1) was kept all along this work.

Dimensions identified as “Ds” and “Ls” are the internal diameter and length of the swirl chamber, while “Dso” is

the swirl chamber external diameter. “Do” and “Lo” are respectively the diameter and length of the exit orifice,

while “Dp” and “Lp” are the diameter and length of the inlet orifice. The spray cone angle is identified as “2θ”,

because calculations are based on the half cone angle (θ).

Figure 3. Injector’s main dimensions

The hydraulic flow of an incompressible fluid through an orifice is defined by Eq. (1).

ṁ
𝐴= (1)
𝐶𝑑 .√2.𝜌.∆𝑃

4
 From Eq. (1), A (m2) is the area of the metering orifice propellants go through, ṁ (kg/s) is the propellant mass

flow, Cd (dimensionless) is a discharge coefficient, ρ (Kg/m3) is the fluid density and ΔP (Pa) is the pressure

differential between the injector inlet pressure and the combustion chamber pressure. In order to proceed with the

calculations, that eventually will get the orifice area, a set of information has to be provided by the customer

(basically, m, ρ, and ΔP), leaving the discharge coeficiend (Cd) to be defined somehow. Initially, it was tried using

the method suggested by Ref. (1), that relies on the same discharge coefficient for both, the exit orifice and the inlet

orifice. In order to check that assumption, test specimens were built and tested. For example: when applying that

concept to design a 0.050 kg/sec (3 kg/min) mass flow injector, the inlet and the exit orifice area indicated by

equations found on Ref. (1) is 11 mm2. When that injector was built and tested, it delivered 0.068 kg/sec (4 kg/min),

at a differential pressure of 4 Bar. The desired mass flow of 3 kg/min was only achieved when the inlet area was

reduced to 6 mm2, something like 45% less than the original calculations said so. Actual data provided by tests with

other injectors presented a similar departure from theoretical values, requiring substantial modifications to the

original project in order to achieve the desired mass flow. It was clear that the solution was somewhere else.

In order to solve that issue, it was necessary to look at the theoretical model from a new perspective. Several test

specimen later, it became clear that the exit orifice dimensioning process should be separated from the inlet orifice

process, with the use of two different discharge coefficients. The exit orifice woud be treated as a mean to achieve

the spray cone angle, while, the responsibility to control the mass flow through the injector would be given to the

inlet orifices. Another consequence of giving the inlet orifices the responsibility for mass flow control is that

manufacturing errors can be divided between two, or even more holes, as opposed of using the only one exit hole. It

also allows to fine tune the mass flow with incremental variation on the inlet diameters, or by drilling inlet holes

with distinct diameters for calibration purpose.

III. Exit Orifice

Under the new method, the first task is the definition of the exit orifice dimensions, in such way that the required

spray cone angle is achieved. For a given mass flow rate, Ref. (3) defines that the greater the cone angle, the thinner

the liquid sheet that is formed, and hence the smaller drop sizes formed in the spray. On the other hand, Ref. (5)

suggests the use of an angle of 90 degrees or greater, while Ref. (4) links that to the need to minimizing the

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
combustion chamber length. For the purpose of this work, spray angles between 80 and 120 degrees will be

explored, with preference for the 90 degrees spray angle.

Specifically for swirl injectors, where the exit orifice presents an air core surrounded by a propellant ring,

Lefebvre (1989) uses the concept of defining the discharge coefficient in function of the “open area ratio” in

accordance with Eq. (2). For the purpose of this work, the result of Eq. (2) will be called exit discharge coefficient.

(1−𝑋)3
𝐶𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑡 = √ (1+𝑋) 0<X<1 (2)

The open area ratio is defined as the relationship between the air core area and the injector exit orifice area, as

per Eq. (3). On extreme cases, the open area ratio will assume value zero for a situation where all exit area is taken

by fuel (there is no air core), and value one, in the case all area is taken by air (there is no liquid flow).

𝐴
𝑋 = 𝐴𝑎 (3)
𝑜

Parameters on Eq. (2) and (3) are Cdout (dimensionless) exit discharge coefficient, X (dimensionless) open area

ratio, Aa (m2) air core area and Ao (m2) is the injector exit orifice area.

Reference (1) defines the spray cone half angle (θ) per Eq. (4).

𝑋.√8
sin 𝜃 = (4)
(1+√𝑋).√(1+𝑋)

With the objective of finding the exit orifice discharge coefficient, definition of the open area ratio (X) is the

critical step. With that in mind, Eq. (4) has to be rearranged, changing from its original format θ = f (X) to a more

convenient shape where X = f (θ). Using numerical analysis and setting values for the open area ratio (X) that are

larger than one and smaller than zero, it is possible to define Eq. (5).

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 𝑋 = 0,0042. 𝜃1,2714 40o ≤ θ ≤ 60o (5)

Equation 5 defines that the open area ratio is only dependent on the spray cone half angle (θ), is constant for one

specific spray angle and independent of the mass flow. Limitations were imposed on Eq. (5) so that it is valid

between 40 and 60 degrees, because injectors that fall within that range were built and tested.

Considering that the exit orifice will have a circular cross-section, its diameter can be found from Eq. (6).

Another conclusion is that it can be constructed using a rotating drilling device, in most cases a commercially

available standard drill.

4.𝐴
𝐷 = √𝜋.𝑛 (6)

From Eq. (6), D (m) is the orifice diameter, A (m2) is the orifice area and n (dimensionless) is the number of

orifices.

Dimensioning the exit orifice can be achieved with the equations above mentioned, starting with the definition of

the spray cone angle by the customer and using Eq. (5) to find X, the open area ratio. Then, apply X to Eq. (2) to get

the exit orifice discharge coefficient, use Eq. (1) to get the exit orifice area and Eq. (6) for the orifice diameter. This

sequence required to do the calculations can be summarized in terms of the diagram shown on Fig. (4), which can be

used in conjunction with a spreadsheet, Excell for example, to get faster to final results.

Figure 4. Sequence to get the exit orifice area and diameter.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Reference (1) suggests a set of rules to be used in the definition of some other dimensions of the swirl injector, in

function of the injector exit orifice diameter (Do). Refer to Eqs. (7), (8) and (9) for details.

𝐷𝑠 = 3,3. 𝐷𝑜 Swirl chamber internal diameter; (7)

𝐿𝑠 = 3,3𝐷𝑜 Swirl chamber length; (8)

𝐿𝑜 = 0,5. 𝐷𝑜 Exit orifice length. (9)

IV. Inlet Orifice

Once the exit orifice and associated dimensions are defined, the problem from this point on is concentrated on

finding the inlet orifice area, which could guarantee the desired mass flow.

A view of the exit orifice from the bottom, as shown on Fig. (2) reveals an air core surrounded by circular ring

full of liquid. An exit orifice would be properly dimensioned taking into consideration the sum of the air core area

plus the liquid ring area; however, for the inlet orifice the situation is somewhat different. Taking into consideration

that during a steady state operation there is no mass flow variation inside the injector, the mass flow leaving the

injector must be equal to the amount entering the injector. This assumption will lead to a definition of the inlet

discharge coefficient in terms of the area occupied by the propellant, the ring liquid area, at the injector exit orifice.

Introducing the concept of liquid area ratio, as the ratio of the area occupied by the liquid divided by the injector

exit orifice area we have that it equals 1-X. Replacing X, open area ratio, by 1-X on Eq. (2), it is possible do define

the inlet discharge coefficient by Eq. (10).

(𝑋)3
𝐶𝑑𝑖𝑛 = √(2−𝑋) 0<X<1 (10)

Finding the inlet orifice diameter requires the use of the same cone spray angle used to calculate the exit orifice,

followed by using Eq. (5) to find X, the open area ratio. Then, apply X to Eq. (10) to get the inlet discharge

coefficient. Use Eq. (1) to get the inlet orifice area and Eq. (6) for the orifice diameter. This sequence can be

summarized in terms of the diagram shown on Fig. (7).

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 7 – Steps needed to get the inlet orifice area and diameter.

When procedures described on Fig. (4) and (7) are applied, a chart like that shown on Fig. (8) can be obtained,

relating the discharge coefficient to the spray cone half angle. Form there it is possible to infer that while the inlet

discharge coefficient increases with the spray angle, the exit discharge coefficient takes the opposite direction,

decreasing as the spray angle increases. It is also interesting to mention that for a given spray angle, or area ratio, the

exit and the inlet discharge coefficient are constant. For example, the 45 degree spray cone half angle open area ratio

equals to 0.531 and the liquid area ratio is 0,469. From there comes that the exit discharge coefficient is 0.260 and

the inlet discharge coefficient is 0.319.

0,7
Discharge coefficient

0,6

0,5

0,4
Cd in
0,3
Cd out
0,2

0,1

0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Spray cone half angle (Degrees)

Figure 8 – Inlet and exit discharge coefficient

If mass flow does not affect the discharge coefficients, on the other hand it is an important factor determining

the exit and inlet orifices area. Taking Fig. (9) as reference, and looking at the chart on the right, conclusion is that

the exit orifice area increases with the spray cone angle and mass flow. Going to the left chart, it can be noticed that

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the larger the spray cone angle is, smaller the inlet orifice must be. Summarizing: for the same mass flow, and

pressure differential, the larger the exit orifice, the smaller the inlet orifice is.

Inlet Orifice Area (mm2) Outlet Orifice Area (mm2)

14,00
45,00
12,00 Mass Flow 40,00

10,00 35,00
5 kg/min
30,00
8,00 4 kg/min
25,00
3 kg/min
6,00 20,00
2 kg/min
4,00 15,00
1 kg/min
10,00
2,00
5,00
0,00 0,00
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Spray Cone Half Angle (degrees) Spray Cone Half Angle (degrees)

Figure 9 – Inlet and exit orifice area in function of the spray cone angle, for selected mass flows.

V. Case Study

When the work that originated this paper started, the sole objective was to build one swirl injector to deliver a

specified amount of water during the cold test. Initially, it did not work quite as expected, in a situation similar to

that described on Ref. (8), forcing the team to start all over again, redesigning the injectors in accordance with an

alternative methodology. In order to check the validity of the new approach, 15 test specimens were used to get the

data needed to compare the actual with the forecasted values. Figure 10 provides details on some of the test

specimens. It was that large amount of experimental data, collected from approximately 100 tests, that made it

possible to support the development of this new methodology.

Figure 10 – Test specimens details.

Once the test specimens design process was fully understood, actual data produced at test bench started to show

good relationship with the forecasted performance, as can be seem from data ploted on Fig. (11). Deviations from
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
expected values can be traced to manufacturing process, including surface roughness, milling and orifice drilling

tolerances, as well as, errors induced by the test bench instrumentation. Significant changes on performance were

observed due to small variations on injector dimensions, usually introduced by inconsistencies on the manufacturing

process. Because of that, a certain amount of caution must be exercised in case a decision is made to rely on this

methodology for designing injectors. Therefore, on the first trial it is recommended to leave some margin for

adjustment to be incorporated in the design, once actual data becomes available. And last but not least, the complex

relationship between the inlet orifices, the exit orifice and the swirl chamber geometry may not be completely

explained by this model, leaving the possibility for further development toward a more detailed and comprehensive

model.

Actual versus theoretical

0,7
Discharge coefficient

0,6

0,5

0,4 Cd in Theoretical
Cd out Theoretical
0,3
Cd in Actual
0,2 Cd out Actual

0,1

0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Spray cone half angle (degrees)

Figure 11. Discharge Coefficient, Actual versus Theoretical.

Confident that the new theoretical model would provide the guidance we were looking for, it was now possible

to return to the original task, which was the design of the 0.050 kg/s (3 kg/min) swirl injector. With that objective in

mind, one more test specimen was built and tested. Data showing the relationship between mass flow and

differential pressure was collected. Three sets of data were collected starting with differential pressure at 1 Bar and

going up to 5 Bar, and two sets of data were collected starting with 5 Bar and going down to 1 Bar. A total of 22

data points were collected, loaded into an Excell spreadsheet and rearranged into a single file, sorted by pressure.

Using Excel internal routine, a trend line was built and the resulting equation defined, as per Fig.(12).

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Mass Flow (Kg/s)
0,070

0,065

0,060

0,055

0,050

0,045 m = 0,0271.P 0,5577

0,040 R² = 0,9943
0,035

0,030

0,025

0,020
0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
Pressure (Bar)

Figure 12. Test specimen Mass Flow Chart and Equation.

Besides the work with the injector mass flow, some information was collected on the nature of the spray angle.

As can be seem from the sequence of slides from Fig. (13), the spray cone starts as a blob, when the pressure is low

enough, but begin to stabilize at an angle close to its final value as soon as the pressure gets a little higher. At

pressures as low as 1 Bar, the spray cone angle is already close to its final value, with no significant variation as the

pressure differential increases, at least up to the 5 Bar limit we tested.

Figure 13. Spray angle at 0,1 Bar, 0,2 Bar, 0,5 Bar, 1 Bar and 2 Bar

VI. Conclusion

This paper presented a methodology that can be used for sizing swirl injectors, with focus on achieving the

specified mass flow. Modifications were incorporated to an existing theoretical model, creating a new situation

where the exit orifice area is responsible for setting the spray cone angle, while the inlet orifice area is primarily

responsible for setting the required mass flow through the injector.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Detailed step-by-step procedures were presented, allowing calculation of the swirl injector main dimensions.

Several test specimens were designed using the procedures herein defined, built and tested. Actual data collected

from the test bench was compared with values predicted by the theoretical model and found to be aligned. One test

specimen in particular was evaluated in further details, and its equation was found.

A task that initially looked like a simple, straightforward application of a well known methodology, turned into

a lengthy journey paved with creative ideas necessary to improve an existing set of equations, in response to

information provided by experimental data. It also required the construction of test equipment of higher accuracy

than originally available and demanded significant amount of work defining a robust manufacturing process that

fitted a limited budget.

As a final comment, a recommendation is made to check the validity of the presented model over a wider range

of performance, beyond the limits of the tests shown on this paper, which would require building and testing new

test specimens of many different sizes.

References

1
Lefebvre, Arthur H, “Simplex Swirl Injector Design”, Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere, New York, 1989.
2
Bazarov V., Yang V. and Puri P., “Design and Dynamic of Jet and Swirl Injectors”, Zarchan P. (ed); Liquid Rocket

Thrust Chambers: Aspects of Modeling, Analysis and Design; AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Vol.

200, 2004, pp 19-102.

3
Rahman S.A, Pal S. and Santoro R.J., “ Swirl Coaxial Atomization Cold-Flow and Hot-Fire Experiments”, AIAA

95-0381, 33rd Aerospace Sciences meeting and Exhibit, January 9-12, 1995.
4
Chung Y, Khil T., Yoon J., Yoon Y, Bazarov V., “Experimental Study on Simplex Swirl Injector Dynamics with

Varying Geometry”, International Journal of Aeronautical & Space Science. 12(1), 57–62

(2011)DOI:10.5139/IJASS.2011.12.1.57.
5
Lacava P.T., Bastos-Netto D., Pimenta A.P.,”Design Procedure and Experimental Evaluation of Pressure-Swirl

Atomizers”, 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2004.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6
Chinn J.J., “The Internal Flow of Swirl Atomizer Nozzles”, University of Manchester Institute of Science and

Technology, October 1996.

7
Zong N. and Yang V., “Cryogenic Fluid Dynamics of Pressure Swirl Injectors at Supercritical Conditions”,

Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University,Pennsylvania 16802, USA,

27 may 2008
8
Ballester J. and Dopazo C.,“Discharge Coefficient and Spray Angle measurement for Small pressure-swirl nozzles,

Atomization and Sprays”, vol 4, pp 351-357, 1994.

9
Rezende R.N. and Perez V.C., “A new Approach to Propulsion System Development, Brazilian style”, AIAA

2013-4103, 49th AIAA/ASmE/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 14-17 July 2013.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics