0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Pressure-Scaling of Pressure-Swirl Atomizer Cone Angles

[+] Author and Article Information
D. R. Guildenbecher, R. R. Rachedi

Maurice J. Zucrow Laboratories, School of Mechanical Engineering,  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906-2014

P. E. Sojka

Maurice J. Zucrow Laboratories, School of Mechanical Engineering,  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906-2014sojka@ecn.purdue.edu

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 130(6), 061501 (Aug 22, 2008) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2939004 History: Received June 29, 2007; Revised March 01, 2008; Published August 22, 2008

An experimental investigation was conducted to study the effects of increased ambient pressure (up to 6.89MPa) and increased nozzle pressure drop (up to 2.8MPa) on the cone angles for sprays produced by pressure-swirl atomizers having varying amounts of initial swirl. This study extends the classical results of DeCorso and Kemeny, (1957, “Effect of Ambient and Fuel Pressure on Nozzle Spray Angle  ,” ASME Transactions, 79(3), pp. 607–615). Shadow photography was used to measure cone angles at xD0=10, 20, 40, and 60. Our lower pressure results for atomizer swirl numbers of 0.50 and 0.25 are consistent with those of DeCorso and Kemeny, who observed a decrease in cone angle with an increase in nozzle pressure drop, ΔP, and ambient density, ρair, until a minimum cone angle was reached when ΔPρair1.6100MPa(kgm3)1.6 (equivalent to 200psi(lbmft3)1.6). Results for atomizers having higher initial swirl do not match the DeCorso and Kemeny results as well, suggesting that their correlation be used with caution. Another key finding is that an increase in ΔPρair1.6 to a value of 600MPa(kgm3)1.6 leads to continued decrease in cone angle, but that a subsequent increase to 2000MPa(kgm3)1.6 has little effect on cone angle. Finally, there was little effect of nozzle pressure drop on cone angle, in contrast to findings of previous workers. These effects are hypothesized to be due to gas entrainment.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Variable swirl injector

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Shadow graph optical setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Representative spray images for Sn=0.75

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Full cone angles versus ambient pressure for Sn=0.25 and ΔP=0.69MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

θ40 versus ambient pressure for ΔP=0.69MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

θ40 versus nozzle pressure drop for Sn=0.25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of current results with those of DeCorso and Kemeny (1)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In