Effect of injector swirl number on near-field spray characteristics of a novel twin-fluid injector

  • V. Danh
  • O. S. Akinyemi
  • C. E. Taylor
  • J. T. Frank
  • L. JiangEmail author
Research Article


Compared to liquid jets/films from conventional air-blast injectors, flow blurring (FB) injection has generated fine sprays immediately at the injector exit, resulting in the clean combustion of various fuels including viscous oils. The FB atomization involves primary atomization by bubble bursting of the bubbly internal two-phase flow due to the dramatic pressure drop at the injector exit and the secondary break-up of droplets/ligaments by Rayleigh–Taylor instability. Recently, a novel swirl-burst (SB) injector has been developed to further enhance the secondary atomization, which has resulted in less lifted and cleaner flames by integrating swirling atomizing air with the FB concept. The present study investigates the effect of injector swirl number (ISN) on spray characteristics including droplet velocity and size distributions in the injector near field (8 mm ×  4 mm) using particle image velocimetry and shadowgraph imaging for the SB injectors with diameter, D, of 1.5 mm. The study investigates four ISNs from 2.0 to 3.5 with an increment of 0.5, corresponding to various swirl vane angles. Results show that all the ISNs have achieved a short break-up length (~ 1.67D) and fine atomization with final droplet diameter ranging from 12 to 40 µm and SMD around 25 µm. Droplets are evenly distributed at each axial plane for all the ISNs. Increase in the ISN results in enhanced secondary atomization and hence finer droplets within 1.67D downstream of the injector exit. Spray angles are typically narrower at the increased ISN. Regardless of the variations within the injector near field and the different spray angles, the break-up length and final droplet size are nearly independent of the ISN.

Graphical abstract



This research was funded by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Startup Fund and Louisiana Transportation Research Center [Grant number, 17-3TIRE].


  1. Adrian RJ, Westerweel J (2011) Particle image velocimetry, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bissell D, Lai W, Stegmeir M, Troolin D, Pothos S, Lengsfeld C (2014) An approach to spray characterization by combination of measurement techniques. Presented at ILASS Americas 26th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Chou WH, Hsiang LP, Faeth GM (1997) Temporal properties of drop breakup in the shear breakup regime. Int J Multiph Flow 23:651–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Durdina L, Jedelsky J, Jicha M (2012) Spray structure of a pressure-swirl atomizer for combustion applications. EPJ Web Conf 25:01010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher BT, Weismiller MR, Tuttle SG, Hinnant KM (2017) Effects of fluid properties on spray characteristics of a flow-blurring atomizer. Presented at the ASME Turbo Expo 2017: Turbomachinery Techincal Conference and Exposition, Combustion, Fuels and Emissions, Charlotte, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Gañán-Calvo AM (2005) Enhanced liquid atomization: from flow-focusing to flow-blurring. Appl Phys Lett 86:214101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hung D, Harrington DL, Gandhi AH, Markle LE, Parrish SE, Shakal JS, Sayar H, Cummings SD, Kramer JL (2008) Gasoline fuel injector spray measurement and characterization—a new sae recommended practice. SAE Tech Pap Ser. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jahanmiri M (2011) Particle image velocimetry: fundamentals and its applications. Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg. Accessed 17 Dec 2018
  9. Jain S, Somasundaram S, Anand TNC (2016) A fluorescent laser-diffuser arrangement for uniform backlighting. Meas Sci Technol 27:025406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiang L, Agrawal AK (2014) Combustion of straight glycerol with/without methane using a fuel-flexible, low-emissions burner. Fuel 136:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiang L, Agrawal AK (2015a) Spray features in the near field of a flow–blurring injector.pdf. Exp Fluids 56:103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiang L, Agrawal AK (2015b) Investigation of glycerol atomization in the near-field of a flow-blurring injector using time-resolved PIV and high-speed visualization. Flow Turbul Combust 94:323–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang L, Agrawal AK, Taylor RP (2014) Clean combustion of different liquid fuels using a novel injector. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 57:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang L, Akinyemi OS, Danh V (2017) Investigation of combustion characteristics of straight vegetable oil for a novel twin-fluid fuel injector. In: Presented at the 10th US National Combustion Meeting, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  15. Keane RD, Adrian RJ (1992) Theory of cross-correlation analysis of PIV images. Appl Sci Res 49:191–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khandelwal B, Lili D, Sethi V (2014) Design and study on performance of axial swirler for annular combustor by changing different design parameters. J Energy Inst 87:372–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kourmatzis A, Lowe A, Masri AR (2016) Combined effervescent and airblast atomization of a liquid jet. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 75:66–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lefebvre AH (1980) Airblast atomization. Prog Energy Combust Sci 6:233–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lefebvre AH (1988) A novel method of atomization with potential gas turbine applications. Def Sci J 38:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lefebvre AH, McDonell VG (2017) Atomization and sprays, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lilley DG (1977) Swirl flows in combustion: a review. AIAA J 15:1063–1078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu C, Liu F, Yang J, Mu Y, Hu C, Xu G (2018) Experimental investigations of spray generated by a pressure swirl atomizer. J Energy Inst 92(2):210–221Google Scholar
  23. Niguse YG, Agrawal AK, Taylor RP, Cox WF (2013) A novel fuel-flexible combustor for industrial applications. Presented at AFRC Industrial Combustion Symposium, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohnesorge W (1936) Formation of drops by nozzles and the breakup of liquid jets. Z Angew Math Mech 16:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panchagnula MV, Sojka PE (1999) Spatial droplet velocity and size profiles in effervescent atomizer-produced sprays. Fuel 78:729–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Panchasara H, Sequera D, Schreiber W, Agrawal AK (2009) Emission reductions in diesel and kerosene flames using a novel fuel injector. J Propuls Power 25:984–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roudini M, Wozniak G (2018) Experimental investigation of spray characteristics of pre-filming air-blast atomizers. J Appl Fluid Mech 11:1455–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simmons BM, Agarwal AK (2012) Flow blurring atomization for low-emission combustion of liquid biofuels. Combust Sci Technol 184:660–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Urbán A, Zaremba M, Malý M, Józsa V, Jedelský J (2017) Droplet dynamics and size characterization of high-velocity airblast atomization. Int J Multiph Flow 95:1–11. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weber C (1931) Disintegration of liquid jets. Z Angew Math Mech 11:136–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xue J, Jog MA, Jeng SM, Steinthorsson E, Benjamin MA (2004) Effect of geometric parameters on simplex atomizer performance. AIAA J 42:2408–2415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang T, Dong B, Chen X, Qiu Z, Jiang R, Li W (2017) Spray characteristics of pressure-swirl nozzles at different nozzle diameters. Appl Therm Eng 121:984–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of LouisianaLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Energy Institute of LouisianaUniversity of LouisianaLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations