Experiments in Fluids 36 (2004) 627–634

DOI 10.1007/s00348-003-0736-4

Cavitation: a contributory factor in the transition from symmetric

to asymmetric jets in cross-flow nozzles
L. C. Ganippa, G. Bark, S. Andersson, J. Chomiak

627
Abstract The structure and evolution of cavitation and its Bergwerk (1959) identified the generation of cavitation in
influence on jet patterns from two transparent cross-flow nozzle flow as a possible factor affecting the dispersion of the
nozzles with holes inclined at 90 degrees (nozzle A) and liquid jet near the nozzle exit. Bergwerk observed that as
80 degrees (nozzle B) to the nozzle axis have been inves- upstream pressure was increased in the nozzle, the cavities,
tigated using high-speed motion pictures, flash photogra- which were generated at the hole inlet, extended throughout
phy and stroboscopic visualization. At the onset, the hole. These cavities increased ruffles in the spray and
cavitation inception was in the form of travelling bubbles, when flow exceeded a threshold level there was a sudden
which were transported along the flow and clearly de- transition in the appearance of the jet from ruffled to smooth
tached from the wall. As the flow was increased the bub- and glass-like, which increased the break-up length. The
bles grew and merged into a dense group of bubbles (cloud liquid jet break-up length is the distance measured down-
cavitation), partly unsteady and shedding. Further stream from the nozzle tip to the point where the liquid jet
increasing the flow caused the cavitation at the entrance tofirst disintegrates. This variable is important in the context
transform mainly into a glassy appearance and at this of jet atomization. Hiroyasu et al. (1991) observed disrup-
stage the cavitation was well inside the hole and the spray tion of cavitation bubbles at the entrance of the hole at low
appeared symmetric. When the flow was increased beyond pressures caused by a strong re-circulation zone at the en-
this stage, cavitation extended to the exit of the hole, trance of the hole. The disruption of these cavities generated
occupying a significant part of the hole on one side, intense turbulence, which perturbed the jet surface close to
resulting in a jet that atomized on the side where cavita- the jet exit, as a result of which the break-up length
tion was most extensive and a non-atomizing jet on the decreased. However, at higher pressures cavitation was
side with less cavitation. The distribution of cavitation instrong, the cavities stretched from the entrance to the exit of
the hole is very sensitive to the nozzle geometry and it the nozzle and finally there was no contact between the
substantially influences the spray dispersion. liquid and the walls of the nozzle. Under these conditions a
constricted jet issued from the entrance of the hole and
continued until the break-up length increased, resulting in a
1 non-atomizing smooth jet, as observed by Bergwerk. This
Introduction constricted, non-atomizing jet is referred to as an hydraulic
In many practical applications such as gas turbines, rocket flip (Soteriou et al. 1995). The break-up length is also
engines, gasoline and diesel engines, the liquid jet break- influenced by the turbulence generated within the nozzle.
up and subsequent events have a profound influence on Tamaki et al. (1998) and Hiroyasu (2000) concluded that the
the jet mixing and combustion processes. The exact primary factor responsible for atomization of the liquid jets
mechanism leading to the liquid jet break-up at the nozzle is the disturbance to the liquid within the nozzle’s hole
exit has not been completely elucidated, owing to the owing to the turbulence caused by cavitation.
complexities of the physical processes in the nozzle’s The nozzle inlet geometry as well as the location of the
internal flow and the environment into which the jet is injection hole and its configuration strongly affects the
injected. However Reitz and Bracco (1982) proposed that generation of turbulence, cavitation and subsequent
cavitation phenomena is an important factor (among atomization of the liquid jet (Kato et al. 1997; Kent and
others, such as turbulence and surface instability) that Brown 1983). In our previous work (Ganippa et al. 2001a,
contributes to break-up. 2001b), we have made some preliminary observations on
cavitation structures and their influence on the spray
pattern for the injection hole inclined at 90, 85, 80 and
0 degrees to the nozzle axis.
Received: 12 September 2002 / Accepted: 15 October 2003 The orifice through which the fuel leaves the nozzle
Published online: 17 March 2004 hole is inclined to the nozzle axis in many fuel injectors of

Springer-Verlag 2004 power generation systems, in particular, diesel engines.
Also, as observed by Nagasaka et al. (2000), cross flow
L. C. Ganippa (&), G. Bark, S. Andersson, J. Chomiak improves the atomization of the liquid jet. Thus, in the
Department of Thermo and Fluid Dynamics,
Chalmers University of Technology, study presented here a fundamental investigation was
41296, Gothenburg, Sweden carried out on events in cross-flow nozzles with a hole
E-mail: lionel@sci.kun.nl inclined at 90 and 80 degrees to the nozzle axis. To study
628

Fig. 1. Schematic of nozzles A, nozzle B

and the experimental test set-up

differences related to the angle of inclination on the first tank, from which it was transported to the main
reservoir through a flow control valve. In order to main-
internal flow as well as their effects on the global appear-
tain low air content in the working fluid, a vacuum pump
ance of the jet. Using the insights gained from this work, a
conceptual model is proposed for the formation of asym- was connected to the main water tank. The working fluid
metric sprays in cross-flow nozzles of applied geometry. was driven by a gear pump and passed through a filter
before reaching the settling chamber upstream of the
2 nozzle. In order to avoid any preferential direction of flow
Experiments in the settling chamber, a flat stagnation plate was placed
The schematic of the nozzles and the test set-up used in at the entrance. The turbulence level in the settling
the experiments are shown in Fig. 1a and b respectively. chamber was reduced through forcing the fluid through a
The dimensions of nozzle B are the same as that of nozzle honeycomb.
A except for the hole inclination. Throughout the experi- The pressure drop across the nozzle was measured
ments, tests were done with water as the working fluid. using a differential pressure transducer mounted on the
The set-up includes a system that supplies water to the settling chamber. Experiments were carried out using
Reynolds numbers (based on the hole diameter of 4.9 mm) 3
ranging from 50·103 to 100·103. The cavitation phenom- Results
ena occurring in the nozzle were captured using a HYCAM
high-speed 16-mm motion picture camera. In the current 3.1
work the cavitating flow in the nozzle was imaged at Cavitation observations
8,000 frames per second. To ensure the required bright-
ness, the nozzle was illuminated from above using a 3.1.1
1.2 kW HMI light. To acquire three-dimensional views of Incipient cavitation
the cavitation in the nozzle, images were taken from both The cavitation onset was in the form of travelling bubbles
the front and the side of the nozzle. Apart from high-speed and they were generated near the sharp right inlet corner
images, the pictures of cavitation and jet dispersion were of the hole. In nozzle A the bubbles were on the right side, 629
taken using a 35-mm still camera and using a flashlight Fig. 2a (side view), and in nozzle B the bubbles were on the
with a duration of 28 ls to freeze the events. left side, Fig. 3a (side view). The bubbles grew while

Fig. 2a–e. Rows 1 and 2: the

structure of cavitation within
nozzle A at different Reynolds
numbers when viewed from the
front and side, respectively.
Rows 3 and 4: spray patterns,
under various cavitating con-
ditions, from nozzle A when
viewed from the front and the
side, respectively. a Incipient
cavitation at Re57,945;
b developing cloud at
Re66,799; c developed coher-
ent cavitation at Re73,114;
d developed coherent cavita-
tion—shedding close to the
hole exit at Re80,861; e glassy
sheet cavitation at Re96,091
630

Fig. 3a–e. Rows 1 and 2: the

structure of cavitation within
nozzle B at different Reynolds
numbers when viewed from the
front and the side, respectively.
Rows 3 and 4: spray patterns,
under various cavitating con-
ditions, from nozzle B when
viewed from the front and the
side, respectively. a Incipient
cavitation at Re49,274;
b developing cloud at
Re57,076; c developed coher-
ent cavitation at Re64,650;
d developed coherent cavita-
tion—shedding close to the
hole exit at Re72,491; e glassy
sheet cavitation at Re84,075

moving downstream along the flow and collapsed before
reaching the exit of the hole. In nozzle A these bubbles
were transported along a line clearly detached from the
inner surface of the hole. This tendency was more prom-
inent at the right compared to the left side (at higher flows
when cavitation generated there also), side view of Fig. 2b.
In nozzle B the bubbles were closer to the walls both on the
left as well as on the right. When viewed from the front in
both nozzles, Figs. 2a and 3a, the bubbles were randomly
distributed in the hole.
The shift in the inception location from the right inlet
corner in nozzle A to the left inlet corner in nozzle B are
consistent with the pressure distributions, developments
of boundary layers and possible separations that can be
expected in different inlet corners. These features are
crucial in understanding the spray formation in cavitating
nozzles.
3.1.2
Developed cavitation, unsteadiness and asymmetry
The cavitation beyond inception had developed mainly
into cloudy structures, typically unsteady (similar to that
reported by Taneda (2000) and O’Hern (1991)) with a more
or less periodic shedding. When the flow was increased the
bubbles grew and merged into a ‘‘sheet of bubbles’’ as
shown in the side views of Figs. 2b and 3b. In Figs. 2c and
3c the character of bubble sheet was fully established and
regular shedding of bubble clouds (cloud refers to a group
of bubbles having a foamy appearance) developing towards wall throughout the hole. A glassy sheet was also seen on the
the horse shoe vortex as shown in the side view of Figs. 2c other side of the hole, but it did not extend to the exit of the
and 3c. From this stage the sheet was attached to the corner. hole. In general, cavitation was distributed more to the right
At higher flows the cavitation developed further and the side of the hole than the left side in nozzle A, Fig. 2e. This
sheet became partly glassy and sometimes a longitudinal asymmetrical distribution of cavitation within the hole of
vortex cavity was also observed in the hole. nozzle A and the extension of cavitation to the exit of the
Shedding induced unsteadiness to the flow from con- hole is presumed to be the major reason why the jet atom-
dition (b) until the condition where the cavitation ized on the right side of the hole, but not on the left side. The
extended to the exit of the hole, i.e. when the hole became spray appeared to be wave-like or oscillating when viewed
super-cavitating. Depending on the length of the cavity the from the front, which resulted from unsteadiness of cavi-
shed parts collapsed close to the hole exit. tation within the nozzle. Von Berg et al. (2002, 2003) per-
631
The general behaviours, under all stages, were quite formed numerical simulations of the flow in nozzle A, in the
similar for both nozzles, i.e. the cavitation pattern was not simulations the global asymmetric spray pattern was
very sensitive to the minor difference in the geometry. reproduced.
Frame rates of the high-speed films were not high enough The spray dispersion in nozzle B was similar to nozzle
to resolve the details. However, it is speculated that the re- A, except that the cavitation was distributed more on the
entrant jets could be a possible mechanism for the shed- left side of the hole under high flow conditions, as shown
ding. It is to be noted that from condition (c) and onwards in Fig. 3e. These observations indicate that the transition
the cavity thickness and shedding process cannot be from a symmetric to an asymmetric jet is due to the
analysed by the side views because the cavities in these asymmetrical distribution of cavitation within the hole and
cases are substantially curved by the cylindrical surface of the extension of cavitation to the exit of the hole.
the hole. The smooth bow-lines visible in the upstream part
of the hole in Figs. 2a–c and 3a–c produce another optical 3.3
effect that should not be misinterpreted as cavitation. Spray angle
The asymmetric distribution of cavitation inside the The spray angle was measured from the spray photographs
hole significantly alters the spray pattern. As shown in taken from the side of the nozzle. The anomalies observed
Figs. 2 and 3, a moderate change of the hole inclination in the spray pattern are due to the complex, unsteady
causes a significant difference in the spray dispersion cavitation structures that prevailed within the hole under
caused by the shift in the distribution of cavitation from the steady flow conditions. Hence, the dispersion of the
right to left, an effect clearly visible at condition (e). spray to the left and right edges of the hole is reported
from the side view. Following the edges of the spray, the
3.2 left and right half spray angles were measured at approx-
Spray pattern imately 20 orifice diameters from the nozzle exit. The
The spray structure was viewed from the side and the front schematic of the spray dispersion and the terminology
of nozzle A and nozzle B and the global structures of the used to define the left half spray angle h1 and the right half
spray dispersion under different cavitating conditions are spray angle h2 are shown in Fig. 4.
discussed in this section.
The air entrained downstream of the hole exit amplified
the instabilities, resulting in the formation of drops and
liquid blobs detached from the unstable waves seen at the
spray boundaries. The spray is very dense at the nozzle
exit and up to four or five nozzle diameters from the
nozzle’s exit. Large lumps of liquid are seen far down-
stream of the spray. These lumps are disintegrated into
droplets by shattering and stripping. Near the spray tip,
both large and small droplets were seen, which could be
due to continuing droplet destruction and droplet–droplet
interactions. Droplet–droplet collisions often result in a
number of droplets of smaller diameter, although it can
also lead to coalescence to form large droplets.
The jet appeared to be symmetric when viewed from the
front under all conditions, but when viewed from the side
the jet appeared to be symmetric only under the conditions
illustrated in Fig. 2a–d. In Fig. 2e cavitation was attached to
the right side extending to the exit of the hole. Under this
condition the jet dispersion was no longer symmetric and to
the contrary it was strongly asymmetric. Cavitation was also
seen on the other side of the hole, but it did not extend to the
exit of the hole. In the glassy sheet cavitation stage (e), a clear
asymmetry developed and was observed in the jet pattern. Fig. 4. Schematic of the spray dispersion angles: h1 (left half spray
The glassy sheet was attached to the right side of the nozzle angle) and h2 (right half spray angle)
 Figures 5 and 6 shows the left and right half spray
angles of the jet from nozzle A and nozzle B. Under
increasing flow rates the jet issuing from nozzle A
appeared to spread less to the left and more to the right.
This effect was very consistent at higher flows, especially
when the flow within nozzle A was increased to a state
where the intensity of cavitation was unevenly distributed
within the hole and the cavitation was also more of glassy
sheet. Then the left half angle of the jet was less than 5
while the right half angle of the jet increased up to 25. The
difference caused by the asymmetry of cavitation extend-
632
ing to the exit of the hole is dramatic.
In nozzle B the jet was dispersed more on to the left
25–27 compared to 6–8 dispersion on the right side of
the hole at high flow conditions. This effect was very
consistent at higher flows.
4
Discussion
The experimental results and observations indicate that
the distribution of cavitation within the hole and the
cavitation structure strongly influence the spray pattern
and atomization. The asymmetric flow created by the
geometry appears to be the origin for the asymmetric
distribution of cavitation within the hole. This asymmetric
distribution of cavitation is of fundamental importance in
the asymmetric dispersion of the spray but only if the
cavitation extends close enough to the nozzle exit. When
viewed from the side in Fig. 2a and b, the spray appeared
to be symmetric, even when the flow was asymmetric. Even
under extreme cavitation conditions when the cavitation
was asymmetrically distributed in the hole, Fig. 2c and d,
the corresponding spray appeared symmetric but as soon
as the cavitation extended to the exit of the nozzle, Fig. 2e,
a clear asymmetry in the spray dispersion was registered.
Similar observations could be made in Fig. 3. This effect is
presented in the conceptual model, which is discussed
later.
Fig. 5. Half spray angles of the jet from nozzle A at different
Reynolds numbers
Fig. 6. Half spray angles of the jet from nozzle B at different
Reynolds numbers
When the inclination of the hole was changed from its
orthogonal position, the flow asymmetry was modulated
according to the change of the local pressure fields at the
inlet corners and thus the shift in the cavitation occurred,
a tendency seen right from the incipient stage. It is also
hypothesized that the cavity length, thickness and pro-
cesses such as shedding are related mainly to the pressure
distribution in the cavitating region. Observations from
the present study indicate that the shape of the sac and the
position of the hole, and to some extent the Reynolds
number within the hole, play an important role on the
spray dispersion. The asymmetric distribution of cavita-
tion inside the hole significantly alters the spray pattern.
As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, a moderate change of the hole
inclination causes a significant difference in the spray
dispersion owing to the shift in the distribution of cavi-
tation from right to left, an effect clearly visible at condi-
tion (e).
4.1
Conceptual model for spray dispersion
The basic idea behind the conceptual model is that in a
flow system, the presence of any unsteady cavitation or
shedding or collapse, etc., or a combination of these, will
induce perturbations. These perturbations persuade the
liquid particle to have strong transverse velocity fluctua-
tions. The fluctuations of the excited particle are conse-
quently controlled by the local forces that constrain the
excited particle such as surrounding liquid, free surfaces
and solid boundaries. The dispersion of the fluid particle is
finally governed by the resultant of axial and transverse
mobility of the fluid particle.
4.2
Application of the conceptual model for asymmetric
spray dispersion
Figure 7a shows the cavitation edges within the nozzle
hole and the near-nozzle spray dispersion corresponding
to the unsteady, asymmetric cavitation stage. In these
conditions, shedding of cavitation inside the hole was
clearly seen. At the exit of the hole the spread angle of the
spray on the right was much greater than on the left.
Similar spray asymmetry can be seen in Fig. 7b, where the
internal flow corresponds to a glassy sheet cavitation
structure. These observations indicate that the cavitation
distribution within the hole are very important for
understanding the near-nozzle spray break-up. A possible
mechanism, illustrated in Fig. 8 and contributing to the
asymmetry of the spray observed from the side, was pro-
posed involving:
(a) Non-cavitating flow (homogeneous flow-incom-
pressible liquid)
Fig. 7. Edge traces of the internal nozzle flow (cavitation
structures) and the near-nozzle spray dispersion
(b) Cavitating flow with shedding of cavitation on one
side of the wall (heterogeneous flow–incompressible liquid
and a compressible cavitation bubble/vapour phase)
(c) Glassy sheet cavitation structure attached to the wall
(heterogeneous flow–incompressible liquid and com-
pressible sheet cavitation structure).
Case (a): In this case only liquid flows out of the nozzle
and no bubbles were present, representing a homogeneous
flow situation or possibly a case where there is cavitation,
neither sufficient nor extending enough through the hole to
cause significant turbulence at the exit plane. The collapse of
633
cavity has possible transverse motions in the collapse region
but in this case it is far upstream in the hole and these
fluctuations are possibly damped out and not reflected
downstream in the exit plane. The representative fluid
particles P and Q on either side of the nozzle hole inner wall
experience very small transverse motions. These transverse
fluctuations are partly damped as P and Q move toward the
outlet. In the exit plane no void cavities are present and the
fluid particles P and Q are mainly restricted by the wall and
as a result the jet dispersion is symmetric.
Case (b): In this case the flow within the hole is both
incompressible (liquid) and highly compressible (cavities).
For a given pressure drop across the hole, different flow
acceleration levels occur because of differences in the den-
sity of the liquid and vapor cloud. The shedding process as
well as the collapse of the cavities induce strong transverse
motions to the flow and in this case shedding and collapse of
larger cavities occur closer to the exit of the hole on the same
side as particle Q. Whenever particle Q is in contact with the
shed cavitation the contact surface is similar to a free sur-
face. Particle Q in the exit plane tends to move more to the
right of the hole as the transverse motions are not effectively
damped on the particle’s right side, which leads to asym-
metry of the jet, immediately at the exit of the hole. On the
contrary, particle P is on the side of the hole where there is
no cavitation and the transverse motion experienced by
particle P will be very similar to that discussed in case (a).
Thus, it is clear that in this stage shedding leads to fluctua-
tions in the spray dispersion near the nozzle exit.
Case (c): In this case the motions induced by shedding
and collapses on the left side can be further increased while
such sources of motion on the right side have possibly
decreased, but the cavitation is attached to the right side of
the hole. The interface between the fluid and cavitation acts
as a free surface to the fluid particle Q, as a result of which the
transverse motion of particle Q is no longer damped. The
mobility of liquid particles Q on the right side is maximum
and constant in time and space throughout that hole. Thus,
particle Q at the exit is dispersed on this side and there is
complete asymmetry of the jet.
If the cavity on the shedding side extends through the
outlet of the hole the re-entrant jet mainly disappears as a
source of shedding and the transverse velocities. If this
happens on both sides we approach the case of a non-
atomizing jet referred to as an hydraulic flip.
5
Conclusions
The cavitation structure and its influence on the spray
pattern from two transparent nozzles, one with a hole
634
Fig. 8. Illustration of the conceptual model showing the origin for
asymmetry in the spray dispersion: grey zone represents
cavitation
perpendicular to the nozzle axis and the other with a hole
inclined at 80 to the nozzle axis were visualized, and the
following conclusions were drawn.
The incipient cavitation bubbles grew and developed
into a dense cloud. The instabilities as well as the re-
entrant jets are supposed to cause the cavitation structures
to break off. Shedding as well as its collapse can be iden-
tified as one of the main contributors to the fluctuations in
the near-nozzle spray dispersion. Non-symmetrical dis-
tribution of cavitation within the hole and the extension of
cavitation to the nozzle exit resulted in a jet that was
atomizing on one side where the cavitation was present
within the hole and non-atomizing on the other side of the
hole where there was less cavitation. This resulted in an
asymmetric spray structure.
A conceptual model has been proposed to explain the
development of asymmetric spray atomization. In practice,
spray asymmetry can be expected at higher injection
pressures in a multi-hole nozzle.
References
Bergwerk W (1959) Flow pattern in diesel nozzle spray holes. Proc
Inst Mech Eng 173:25, 655–660
Ganippa LC, Bark G, Andersson S, Chomiak J (2001a) The structure of
cavitation and its effect on the spray pattern in a single-hole diesel
nozzle. SAE paper 2001-01-2008
Ganippa LC, Bark G, Andersson S, Chomiak J (2001b) Comparison of
cavitation phenomena in diesel nozzles. In: International Sym-
posium on Cavitation, California, 2001
Hiroyasu H (2000) Spray break-up mechanisms from the hole-type
nozzle and its applications. Atom Sprays 10:511–527
Hiroyasu H, Arai M, Shimizu M (1991) Break-up length of a liquid jet
and internal flow in a nozzle. ICLASS-91, Gaithersburg, MD, pp
275–282
Kato M, Kano H, Date K, Oya T, Niizuma K (1997) Flow analysis in
nozzle hole in consideration of cavitation. SAE Paper 970052
Kent JC, Brown GM (1983) Nozzle exit flow characteristics for square-
edged and rounded inlet geometries. Combust Sci Technol 30:121–
132
Nagasaka K, Takagi T, Koyanagi K, Yamauchi T (2000) The devel-
opment of fine atomization injector. JSAE Rev 21:309–313
O’Hern TJ (1991) An experimental investigation of turbulent shear
flow cavitation. J Fluid Mech 215:365–391
Reitz RD, Bracco FV (1982) Mechanism of atomization of a liquid jet.
Phys Fluids 25:1730–1742
Soteriou C, Andrews R, Smith M (1995) Direct injection diesel sprays
and the effect of cavitation and hydraulic flip on atomization. SAE
Paper 950080
Tamaki T, Shimizu M, Nishida K, Hiroyasu H (1998) Effect of cavi-
tating and internal flow on atomization of a liquid jet. Atom
Sprays 8:179–197
Taneda S (2000) Instability waves in the shear layer over a separation
bubble. J Fluid Dyn Res 27:335–351
von Berg E, Edelbauer W, Tatschl R, Volmajer M, Kegl B, Alajbegovic A,
Ganippa LC (2003) Validation of a CFD model for coupled
simulation of nozzle flow, primary fuel jet break-up and spray
formation. In: Proceedings of ASME Internal Combustion Engine
Conference, ICES2003-643, 11–14 May, Salzburg. ASME, New
York
von Berg E, Grief D, Tatschl R, Winklhofer E, Ganippa LC (2002)
Primary break-up model for diesel jets based on locally resolved
flow properties in the injection hole. ILASS-Europe 2002, Zar-
agoza, 9–11 September