Aerosol Science and Technology

ISSN: 0278-6826 (Print) 1521-7388 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

Experimental Study of the Effect of High Back-

Pressure on the Atomization of a Plain Jet Injector
Under Coaxial Air Flow

Gui Xiang Yang & Ju Shan Chin

To cite this article: Gui Xiang Yang & Ju Shan Chin (1990) Experimental Study of the Effect of
High Back-Pressure on the Atomization of a Plain Jet Injector Under Coaxial Air Flow, Aerosol
Science and Technology, 12:4, 903-910, DOI: 10.1080/02786829008959402

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829008959402

Published online: 08 Jun 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 715

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uast20

Download by: [37.238.162.99] Date: 19 December 2017, At: 12:04

 Experimental Study of the Effect of High
Back-Pressure on the Atomization of a Plain Jet
Injector Under Coaxial Air Flow
Gui Xiang Yang and Ju Shan C h n
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, People's Republic of China
An experimental study was carried out on the effect of
high back-pressure on the spray characteristics of a plain
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017
jet injector in coaxial air flow. The back-pressures tested
ranged from 100 to 1600 kPa, the velocity range of
coaxially flowing air is 60-120 m/s. The working fluid
was water. The injector hole diameter was 0.5 mm. The
key feature of the experiment was to use a convergent-
divergent nozzle connected to the atomization test cham-
ber to maintain a high back-pressure in the chamber for
atomization, and at the same time, to maintain a high-
INTRODUCTION
The effect of back-pressure on atomization is
very important both from the practical engi-
neering point of view and for its academic
interest. All liquid-fueled combustion de-
vices have fuel atomizers, and the perfor-
mance, reliability, and pollutant formation
of the combustion device, to a large extent,
depend on the atomization quality. Very of-
ten the atomization of an injector to be used
is checked by the experiment at atmospheric
back-pressure. But the actual combustion
pressure is always higher or even much higher
than atmospheric pressure. Thus it is impor-
tant to know the relationship between the
atomization data obtained at the atmo-
spheric pressure test and under high back-
pressure conditions. For academic interest,
the atomization under high back-pressure
will shed some light on the atomization
mechanism.
In the past, several researchers have stud-
ied the effect of back-pressure on atomiza-
Aerosol Science and Technology 12:903-910 (1990)
0 1990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.
velocity air flow in the atomization region. Thus, it
totally eliminated the air recirculation and droplet slow-
settling problem in the commonly used pressurized vessel
for high back-pressure atomization study. The results
show that the Sauter mean diameter decreases monotoni-
cally with the increase of back pressure. At different air
velocities, the effect of back pressure is different. The
drop size distribution becomes more non-uniform slightly
with increasing back pressure.
tion (Giffen and Lamb, 1953; Miesse, 1955;
DeCorso, 1960; Neya and Sato, 1968;
Abou-Ellail et al., 1978; Rizk and Lefebvre,
1984,1985; Dodge and Giaglow, 1985; Wang
and Lefebvre, 1987). The results are rather
different. They usually used a pressurized
vessel to receive the atomized spray. In this
case, very often there is an air recirculation
inside the vessel close to the atomization
region; this recirculation will bring small
droplets back. Also, the droplets so formed
will settle down very slowly, particularly
those small droplets. Thus the droplets which
are sampled by the instrument (such as
Malvern particle sizer) or other sampling
method are very different from what really
are formed from the atomizer. Both the re-
circulation and droplet settling will change
with the back-pressure inside the vessel, and
thus the experimental results may not show
the true effect of back-pressure on atomiza-
tion. This is the incentive for the present
authors to design a special experimental
setup which is similar to the practical condi-
 904
tion in combustion chamber to investigate
the effect of back-pressure on atomization.
The idea is to use a convergent-divergent
nozzle connected to the atomization cham-
ber to create a continuous-flow condition
and at the same time to maintain a high
back-pressure in the chamber. Such a flow
condition is fundamentally different from
that in a pressurized vessel and rather close
to the combustion chamber condition. The
purpose is to study the effect of back-pres-
sure on atomization under these high-pres-
sure continuous-flow conditions. The next
step has been to measure the drop size of air
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017
blast atomizers and pressure swirl atomizers
under the same flow condition, which has
already been finished. The results will be
presented in another paper. All the data
show the same trend that the Sauter mean
diameter (SMD) decreases with the increase
of back-pressure. In the present paper the
experimental setup, the results of the plain
jet injector and discussion on the h g h back-
pressure atomization results from different
authors are presented.
APPARATUS AND INSTRUMENTATION
The experimental setup is shown in Figure 1.
The atomization chamber is a thick-walled
cylindrical steel tube (O.D. 44 mm, wall
thickness 4 mm) connected to a continuous
high-pressure air supply. The atomization
chamber is equipped with two windows of
hgh-quality optical glass for drop size mea-
surement. The distance from the injector to
the center of the window is 90 mm, but it
can be adjusted to be increased. A conver-
gent-divergent nozzle is connected to the at-
omization chamber. In order to change air
pressure and air flow velocity in the atomiza-
tion chamber separately, a set of four con-
vergent-divergent nozzles each with different
throat diameters have been manufactured.
By changing the nozzle throat area, we are
able to have four different air velocities in
the atomization chamber at the same air
pressure or to have four different back-pres-
G. X. Yang and J. S. Chin
sure levels with the same air velocity in the
chamber.
The optical glass windows are equipped
with air film protection to prevent the win-
dows from contamination. The injector is
manufactured as a whole piece with the
mounting flange to guarantee the alignment
of the injector center line with the center
line of atomization chamber. The window
mounting pads have been carefully manufac-
tured to guarantee that the laser light beam
is truly passing through the center of the
spray and perpendicular to the center line of
the injector. Careful design and manufactur-
ing of atomization chamber, injector, and
windows are so important that otherwise the
error caused by misalignment will override
the effect of changing operational parame-
ters as shown in Chin et al. (1986) and
Zhaohet al. (1986).
The drop size distribution was measur-
ed by a Malvern model 2200 on Rosin-
Rammler mode. The drop size distribution is
represented by
where Q is the volume fraction undersize D,
D is droplet diameter, X is characteristic
diameter, at which Q = 0.632, and N is drop
size distribution parameter. The log errors
shown by Malvern instrument provided the
justification for using Rosin-Rammler distri-
bution to represent the drop size formed.
The SMD can be obtained by the follow-
ing equation:
The obscuration of the drop size measure-
ment was usually low. Only at back-pressure
1600 kPa and h g h injector pressure drop,
the maximum obscuration has reached 92%.
Whenever the obscuration is higher than
50%, the measured data are corrected by
Dodge's correlation (1984).
Water is used as atomization fluid. The
data reported in the present paper are only
 Atomization of Plain Jet Injector

High
Pressure
Air
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017

PIGURE 1. Experimental apparatus: (1) air velocity measure-

ment; (2) pressure drop across injector measurement; (3) injec-
tor; (4) Malvern particle sizer; (5) optical glass window; (6) air
supply for window protection; (7) and (8) test chamber, conver-
gent-divergent nozzle; (9) exhaust pipe; (10) pressure rneasure-
ment.

for one injector hole diameter 0.5 mm. The
experimental data points shown in this paper
were obtained repeatedly. Replicated experi-
ments were performed. Repeatability was
good.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The SMD of the plain orifice injector de-
creases with the increase of back-pressure in
the atomization chamber, as shown in Figure

FIGURE 2. Sauter mean diameter decreases monotonically with

the increase of air pressure for plain orifice injector under coaxial
air flow.
 G. X. Yang and J. S. Chin

1.6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
AIR PRESSURE Pa, 100 kPa

FIGURE 3. N decreases slightly with air pressure.

2. Within the range of air flow velocity decreases with the increase of air flow veloc-
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017

60-120 kPa and back-pressure 100-1600 ity, as shown in Figure 5.

kPa, the experimental data show clearly and The effect of increasing back-pressure on
definitely that SMD decreases monotonically SMD 1s different at different air flow veloci-
with back pressure, although the spray angle ties, and the effect of increasing air flow
is indeed very small, in all cases it is less velocity on SMD is also different at different
than lo0, and the spray is truly concentrated air back-pressures.
in a very small volume. The experimental data obtained in thls
In Figure 3, it shows that the drop size study show the following relationship ,be-
distribution parameter N in Rosin-Rammler tween SMD and back-pressure under differ-
distribution decreases slightly with the in- ent air velocities:
crease of back-pressure. Va= 60 m/s, SMD apa-0.38
The effect of increasing air flow velocity Va= 80 m/s, SMD apa-0.42
at different back-pressure levels is always to (3)
reduce the SMD of spray as expected. The Va= 100 m/s, SMD apa-0.49
results are shown in Figure 4. The N value Va= 120 m/s, SMD apa-0.51

c""l
\ -
FUEL PRESSURE DROP= 1000 kPa

I I t I
04, 6'0 80 100 120 140 I(
AIRSTREAM VELOCITY Va, m/s

FIGURE 4. SMD decreases with air velocity.

 Atomization of Plain Jet Injector
006 I - - ' -
AIRSTREAM VELOCITY V,
FIGURE 5. N decreases with air velocity.
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017
If we express the relationship as
SMD a p n ,
then
(4)
for 100 kPa < Pa < 1600 kPa. 60 < Va <
120 m/s.
The obvious trend is that at higher air
flow velocity, the effect of increasing back-
pressure will be even stronger. Equation (4)
can correlate the experimental data obtained
very well.
As the major mechanism of such lund
twin-fluid atomization is the momentum
transfer between air and liquid, high back-
pressure (high density) and high air velocity
will- dramatically increase the momentum
P
,, kPa
m/s
duce the relative velocity between air and
liquid. It is obvious that atomization fineness
decreases with increasing nozzle pressure
drop, decreasing back-pressure and decreas-
ing air velocity.
These data show clearly that a constant
exponent correlation will not correlate atom-
ization results properly and explain the rea-
son why the correlation from dilTerent re-
searchers are often rather different.
Under coaxial injection condition, as air
velocity is always higher than the injection
velocity, the effect of increasing pressure drop
across the injector is purely to reduce the
relative velocity. Just as expected, the Sauter
mean diameter increases with the increase of
injector pressure drop, as shown in Figures
6-8 for back-pressure pa = 100, 700, and
1100 kPa. The effect of increasing injector
FIGURE 6. SMD increases with injec-
tor pressure drop for coaxial flow air
blast atomization.
 G. X. Yang and J. S. Chin

90 - P a = 7 0 0 kPa

V, m/s

0 FIGURE 7. SMD increases with injec-

5 50 80 tor pressure drop for coaxial flow air
blast atomization.

3 0- _r I120

I
6 10
I
14
I
18 22
I I I
FUEL PRESSURE DROP APf, I00 kPa
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017

'0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
FUEL PRESSURE DROP A P f , 100 kPa

FIGURE 8. SMD increases with injector pressure drop for

coaxial flow air blast atomization.

Va, m/s
z 2'4! FIGURE 9. N decreases with injector
2.0 100 pressure drop for coaxial flow air blast
- atomization.

'.60 ; 6
I I
10
I
14 18
I
22
I

FUEL PRESSURE DROP A P f , 100 kPa

 Atomization of Plain Jet Injector
FUEL PRESSURE DROP APf , 100 kPa
pressure drop on N is to decrease the drop
size distribution parameter, as shown in Fig-
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017
ures 9 and 10 for back-pressure levels pa =
100 and 700 kPa. So for coaxial injection,
increasing nozzle pressure will lead to a spray
which is coarser and relatively more nonuni-
form.
DISCUSSION
There are some "anomalous" experimental
data in the literature on the effect of back
pressure on atomization. Usually it is rea-
sonable lo expect that increasing back-pres-
sure will reduce SMD, as it is the result from
several studies (Giffen and Lamb, 1953;
Neya and Sato, 1968; Abou-Ellail et al.,
1978; Rizk and Lefebvre, 1985; Dodge and
Giaglow, 1985). Giffen and Lamb (1953)
found a decrease in drop size with increasing
air back-pressure, SMD cupa-'.'. Ellail et al.
(1978) observed a dependence of SMD on pa
as SMD apa-0.26.As the results were ob-
tained in still air, that is equivalent to Va= 0
situation in Eq. (4). At Va= 0, the n value
from Eq. (4) is -0.22, which is in good
agreement with - 0.2 power in Miesse (1955)
and Giffen and Lamb (1953) and in fairly
good agreement with n = - 0.26 in Abou-
Ellail et al. (1978). Rizk and Lefebvre (1984)
found that up to air pressure 350 kPa, SMD
spa-'.', and for air pressure hgher than 350
kPa SMD cupa-0.28. These tests were also
done in still air. The reported data can be
correlated very nicely with SMD cup, - 0.19,
which is close to n = -0.22 by Eq. (4) in the
FIGURE 10. N decreases with injector
pressure drop for coaxial flow air blast
atomization.
present study. Dodge and Biaglow (1985)
studied the effect of changing air density on
atomization. They changed both air pressure
and air temperature. The results showed that
SMD apa-0.528.Thus their data cannot be
compared with the present study (as temper-
ature was changed), but in their study it was
mentioned that the n values measured in
their laboratory were normally from - 0.25
to -0.40.
On the other hand, several researchers
have reported their results as SMD increas-
ing with back pressure. Neya and Sato (1968)
obtained the results which showed the effect
of air back-pressure on SMD of simplex
atomizers as SMD which means SMD
increasing with air back-pressure. De Corso
(1960) found that there is an increase in
drop size indicated in ambient pressure go-
ing from 14.5 to 114.5 psia (100 to 789 kPa).
He reported that the explanation for the
anomalous increase in drop size may lie in
increased coalescence of the spray droplets
as the ambient pressure is increased. In both
De Corso (1960) and Neya and Sato (1968) a
closed pressurized vessel was used. The slid-
ing sample and photograph method were
used for drop size measurement. These
methods are rather sensitive to the flow pat-
tern and droplet trajectory inside the vessel.
IGzk and Lefebvre (1985) observed a decline
in atomization quality with increase in pa.
Wang and Lefebvre (1987) observed an in-
crease in SMD up to 0.4 MPa beyond which
any further increase in pa causes the SMD
to decline (for large flow number nozzle) or

has little influence on SMD (for small flow
number nozzle). Both these studies used a
closed pressurized vessel and light scattering
technique for drop size measurement.
The inconsistency in the experimental data
of the effect of back-pressure on SMD may
be caused by various reasons. Perhaps the
contraction of spray angle may provide more
opportunities for droplet coalescence and
possibly reduce the relative velocity between
drops and the surrounding air. But in the
present authors' viewpoint the experimental
setup is a very important factor. As a matter
of fact, the present authors also designed
Downloaded by [37.238.162.99] at 12:04 19 December 2017
and manufactured an experimental appara-
tus with an enclosed vessel and did some
tests. The results were not repeatable. Partic-
ularly, the measurements depended much on
the sampling position. Thus, to measure drop
size under high back-pressure, a closed pres-
surized vessel is no good. It is necessary to
create an environment where the spray is
formed under high back-pressure but at the
same time is also flowing downstream with
air flow which is similar to the flow condi-
tion in a combustion chamber, and the flow
field is straight without any recirculation or
vortex. In this case using a convergent-diver-
gent nozzle connected to the atomization
chamber to maintain the high air back-pres-
sure in the atomization chamber and also
desirable air velocity as well is a good ap-
proach. By such a kind of experimental setup
the present authors have tested plain jet at-
omizers, pressure swirl atomizers, and air
blast atomizers under high back-pressure, the
results have all shown the decrease of SMD
with increase of air back-pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
To create a flow field, where air back-
pressure for atomization is h g h while the
spray is flowing continuously with air to
avoid any recirculation and droplet slow-
settling problem, is essential to high
back-pressure atomization research.
G. X. Yang and J. S. Chin
Using a convergent-divergent nozzle con-
nected to the atomization chamber to
control the desirable flow condition for
atomization study is a good experimental
approach.
SMD decreases monotonically with the
increase of back-pressure for the plain jet
injector in a coaxial flow air stream.
NOMENCLATURE
D droplet diameter (pm)
n pressure exponent of SMD
N drop size distribution parameter in Rosin-
Rammler distribution
Pa back-pressure (kPa)
A ~f injector pressure drop (kPa)
Q Liquid volume fraction underside D
SMD Sauter mean diameter (pm)
V , air velocity (m/s)
3 characteristic diameter (pm) at which Q =
0.632
REFERENCES
Abou-Ellail, M. M. M., Elkotb, M. M., and Rafat,
N. M. (1978). In Proceedings, 1st International Con-
ference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems,
pp. 85-92.
Chin, J. S., Nickolaus, D., and Lefebvre, A. H. (1986).
Trans. ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power.
De Corso, S. M. (1960). ASME Eng. Power 82:lO.
Dodge, L. G. (1984). J. Opt. Eng. 23.
Dodge, L. G., and Giagiow, J. A. (1985). ASME Paper
85-GT-58.
Giffen, E., and Lamb, T. A. J. (1953). Motor Industry
Research Association Report, 1953/5.
Miesse, C. C. (1955). Jet Propul. 25525.
Neya, K., and Sato, S. (1968). Paper 27, Ship Research
Institute, Japan.
Rizk, N. K., and Lefebvre, A. H. (1984). Prog. Astro-
naut. Aeronaut. 95.
Rizk, N. K., and Lefebvre, A. H. (1985). AIAA J.
Propul. Power 1:200.
Wang, X. F. and Lefebvre, A. H. (1987). ASME 87-
GT-55.
Zhao, Y. H., Li, W. M., and Chin, J. S. (1986). Trans.
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbine Power.
Received July 14, 1987; accepted February 10, 1989.