Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 329–338 | Cite as

Some features of spray breakup in effervescent atomizers

Research Article


The near orifice spray breakup at low GLR (gas to liquid ratio by mass) values in an effervescent atomizer is studied experimentally using water as a simulant and air as atomizing gas. From the visualizations, the near orifice spray structures are classified into three modes: discrete bubble explosions, continuous bubble explosions and annular conical spray. The breakup of the spray is quantified in terms of the mean bubble bursting distance from the orifice. The parametric study indicates that the mean bubble bursting distance mainly depends on airflow rate, jet diameter and mixture velocity. It is also observed that the jet diameter has a dominant effect on the bubble bursting distance when compared to mixture velocity at a given airflow rate. The mean bubble bursting distance is shown to be governed by a nondimensional two-phase flow number consisting of all the aforementioned parameters. The location of bubble bursting is found to be highly unsteady spatially, which is influenced by flow dynamics inside the injector. It is proposed that this unsteadiness in jet breakup length is a consequence of varying degree of bubble expansion caused due to the intermittent occurrence of single phase and two-phase flow inside the orifice.


  1. Bush SG, Sojka PE (1994) Entrainment by effervescent sprays at low mass flow rates. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Rouen, France, 609Google Scholar
  2. Chawla JB (1985) Atomization of liquids employing the low sonic velocity in liquid/gas mixtures. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, LP/1A/5/1-7Google Scholar
  3. Chen SK, Lefebvre AH (1994) Spray cone angles of effervescent atomizers. At Sprays 4(3):291Google Scholar
  4. Jedelsky J, Jicha M (2008) Unsteadiness in effervescent sprays: a new evaluation method and the influence of operational conditions. At Sprays 18(1):49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lefebvre AH, Wang XF, Martin CA (1988) Spray characteristics of aerated-liquid pressure atomizers. AIAA J Propuls Power 4(4):293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lin KC, Kennedy PJ, Jackson TA (2000) Spray penetration heights of angle injected aerated-liquid jets in supersonic crossflows, AIAA, 2000-0194Google Scholar
  7. Lin KC, Kennedy PJ, Jackson TA (2001) Structures of internal flow and the corresponding spray for aerated-liquid injectors, AIAA 2001–3569Google Scholar
  8. Luong JTK, Sojka PE (1999) Unsteadiness in effervescent sprays. At Sprays 9(1):87Google Scholar
  9. Roesler TC, Lefebvre AH (1989) Studies on aerated-liquid atomization. Int J Turbo Jet Engines 6:221Google Scholar
  10. Santangelo PJ, Sojka PE (1995) A holographic investigation of the near nozzle structure of an effervescent atomizer produced spray. At Sprays 5:137Google Scholar
  11. Sovani SD, Chou E, Sojka PE, Gore JP, Eckerle WA, Crofts JD (2000) High pressure effervescent atomization: effect of ambient pressure on spray cone angles. Fuel 80(3):427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sovani SD, Sojka PE, Lefebvre AH (2001) Effervescent atomization. Prog Energy Combust Sci 27:483–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sutherland JJ, Sojka PE, Plesniak MW (1997) Ligament controlled effervescent atomization. At Sprays 7(4):383Google Scholar
  14. Tam CJ, Stouffer SC, Lin KC, Gruber M, Jackson T (2005) Gaseous and liquid injection into high-speed crossflows, AIAA paper 2005-0301Google Scholar
  15. Whitlow JD, Lefebvre AH (1993) Effervescent atomizer operation and spray characteristics. At Sprays 3:137Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations