Experiments in Fluids

, 56:103 | Cite as

Spray features in the near field of a flow-blurring injector investigated by high-speed visualization and time-resolved PIV

Research Article

Abstract

In a flow-blurring (FB) injector, atomizing air stagnates and bifurcates at the gap upstream of the injector orifice. A small portion of the air penetrates into the liquid supply line to create a turbulent two-phase flow. Pressure drop across the injector orifice causes air bubbles to expand and burst thereby disintegrating the surrounding liquid into a fine spray. In previous studies, we have demonstrated clean and stable combustion of alternative liquid fuels, such as biodiesel, straight vegetable oil and glycerol by using the FB injector without requiring fuel pre-processing or combustor hardware modification. In this study, high-speed visualization and time-resolved particle image velocimetry (PIV) techniques are employed to investigate the FB spray in the near field of the injector to delineate the underlying mechanisms of atomization. Experiments are performed using water as the liquid and air as the atomizing gas for air to liquid mass ratio of 2.0. Flow visualization at the injector exit focused on a field of view with physical dimensions of 2.3 mm × 1.4 mm at spatial resolution of 7.16 µm per pixel, exposure time of 1 µs, and image acquisition rate of 100 k frames per second. Image sequences illustrate mostly fine droplets indicating that the primary breakup by FB atomization likely occurs within the injector itself. A few larger droplets appearing mainly at the injector periphery undergo secondary breakup by Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities. Time-resolved PIV is applied to quantify the droplet dynamics in the injector near field. Plots of instantaneous, mean, and root-mean-square droplet velocities are presented to reveal the secondary breakup process. Results show that the secondary atomization to produce fine and stable spray is complete within a few diameters from the injector exit. These superior characteristics of the FB injector are attractive to achieve clean combustion of different fuels in practical systems.

References

  1. Agrawal SR, Jiang L, Agrawal AK, Midkiff KC (2013) Analysis of two-phase flow inside a transparent fuel injector. In the 8th U. S. National Combustion Meeting of the Combustion Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, Paper no. 070HE-0317Google Scholar
  2. Batarseh FZM (2008) Spray generated by an airblast atomizer: atomization, propagation and aerodynamic instability. Dissertation, TU Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohn MD, Metzger BA, Linak WP, King CJ, Roberts WL (2011) Glycerol combustion and emissions. Proc Combust Inst 33(2):2717–2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dumouchel C (2008) On the experimental investigation of primary atomization of liquid streams. Exp Fluids 45:371–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faeth GM (2002) Dynamics of secondary drop breakup—a rate controlling process in dense sprays. In: Proceedings ILASS-Europe. Invited lectureGoogle Scholar
  6. Gadgil HP, Raghunandan BN (2011) Some features of spray breakup in effervescent atomizers. Exp Fluids 50:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gañán-Calvo AM (2005) Enhanced liquid atomization: from flow-focusing to flow-blurring. Appl Phys Lett 86(21):2141–2142Google Scholar
  8. Jiang L, Agrawal AK (2014a) Clean combustion of different liquid fuels using a novel injector. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 57:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang L, Agrawal AK (2014b) Combustion of Straight glycerol with/without methane using a fuel-flexible, low-emissions burner. Fuel 136:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiang L, Kolhe PS, Taylor, RP, Agrawal AK (2012a) Measurements in a combustor operated on alternative liquid fuels. In 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, Nashville, TN, USA, AIAA Paper no. 2012-0524Google Scholar
  11. Jiang L, Taylor RP, Agrawal AK (2012b) Emissions and temperature measurements in glycerol flames. In the 2012 Spring technical meeting of the central states section of the combustion institute, Dayton, OH, USA, Paper no. 030AF-0119Google Scholar
  12. Keane RD, Adrian RJ (1992) Theory of cross-correlation analysis of PIV images. Appl Sci Res 49:191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kourmatzis A, Masri AR (2014) The influence of gas phase velocity fluctuations on primary atomization and droplet deformation. Exp Fluids 55:1659. doi:10.1007/s00348-013-1659-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lefebvre AH (1980) Airblast atomization. Prog Energy Combust Sci 6(3):233–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lefebvre AH (1989) Atomization and sprays. Hemisphere Pub Corp, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Lefebvre AH (1992) Twin-fluid atomization: factors influencing mean drop size. At Sprays 2(2):101–119CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin KC, Carter C, Fezzaa K, Liu Z, Wand J (2009) Studies of pure- and aerated-liquid jets using the X-ray phase contrast imaging. 11th I class international conference on liquid atomization and spray systems, Vail, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin KC, Rajnicek C, McCall J, Carter C, Fezzaa K (2011) Investigation of pure- and aerated-liquid jets using X-ray phase contrast imaging technique. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A 649(1):194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin KC, Carter C, Smith S, Kastengren A (2014) Exploration of near-field plume properties for aerated-liquid jets using X-ray radiography. AIAA Paper no. 2014-1183Google Scholar
  20. Linne M, Sedarsky D, Meyer T, Gord J, Carter C (2010) Ballistic imaging in the near-field of an effervescent spray. Exp Fluids 49:911–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mirsepassi A, Rankin DD (2014) Particle image velocimetry in viscoelastic fluids and particle interaction effects. Exp Fluids 55:1641. doi:10.1007/s00348-013-1641-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohnesorge W (1936) Formation of drops by nozzles and the breakup of liquid jests. Z Angew Math Mech 16:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Panchasara HV, Simmons BM, Agrawal AK (2009a) Combustion performance of biodiesel and diesel–vegetable oil blends in a simulated gas turbine burner. J Eng Gas Turb Power 131(3):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Panchasara HV, Sequera D, Schreiber W, Agrawal AK (2009b) Combustion performance of a novel injector using flow-blurring for efficient fuel atomization. J Propul Power 25(4):984–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quispe CA, Coronado CR, Carvalho JA Jr (2013) Glycerol: production, consumption, prices, characterization and new trends in combustion. Renew Sust Energe Rev 27:475–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raghavan V, Rajesh S, Parag S, Avinash V (2009) Investigation of combustion characteristics of biodiesel and its blends. Combust Sci Technol 181(6):877–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayleigh L (1883) Investigation of the character of the equilibrium of an incompressible heavy fluid of variable density. Proc Lond Math Soc 14:170–177. doi:10.1112/plms/s1-14.1.170 MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Rottenkolber G, Gindele J, Raposo J, Dullenkopf K, Hentschel W, Wittig S, Spicher U, Merzkirch W (2002) Spray analysis of a gasoline direct injector by means of two-phase PIV. Exp Fluids 32:710–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarkar UK, Ramamurthi K (2007) Flow visualization of sprays formed by bubbly, slug, and annular flows in an effervescent atomizer. J Flow Vis Image Process 14:397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sedarsky D, Idlahcen S, Roze C, Blaisot JB (2013) Velocity measurements in the near field of a diesel fuel injector by ultrafast imagery. Exp Fluids 54:1451. doi:10.1007/s00348-012-1451-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shepard TG (2011) Bubble size effect on effervescent atomization. Dissertation, The University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  32. Simmons BM (2011) Atomization and combustion of liquid biofuels. Dissertation, The University of AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  33. Simmons BM, Agrawal AK (2010) Spray characteristics of a flow blurring atomizer. At Sprays 20(9):821–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmons BM, Agrawal AK (2012) Flow blurring atomization for low-emission combustion of liquid biofuels. Combust Sci Technol 184(5):660–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simmons BM, Panchasara HV, Agrawal AK (2009) A comparison of air-blast and flow blurring injectors using phase Doppler particle analyzer techniques. In ASME Turbo Expo 2009: power for Land, Sea and Air, Orlando, FL, USA, ASME Paper no. GT2009-60239Google Scholar
  36. Sovani SD, Sojka PE, Lefebvre AH (2001) Effervescent atomization. Prog Energ Combust 27(4):483–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinmetz SA, Herrington JS, Winterrowd CK, Roberts WL, Wendt JOL, Linak WP (2013) Crude glycerol combustion: particulate, acrolein, and other volatile organic emissions. Proc Combust Inst 34(2):2749–2757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szybist JP, Song J, Alam M, Boehman AL (2007) Biodiesel combustion, emissions and emission control. Fuel Process Technol 88(7):679–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor SGI (1950) The instability of liquid surfaces when accelerated in a direction perpendicular to their planes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 201(1065):192–196. doi:10.1098/rspa.1950.0052 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Tropea C (2011) Optical particle characterization in flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 43:399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang X, Huang Z, Kuti OA, Zhang W, Nishida K (2011) An experimental investigation on spray, ignition and combustion characteristics of biodiesels. Proc Combust Inst 33(2):2071–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber C (1931) Disintegration of liquid jets. Z Angew Math Mech 11:136–159CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations