4.7 Article

Spray characteristics and liquid distribution of multi-hole effervescent atomisers for industrial burners

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 286-296

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.079

关键词

Droplet size; Effervescent atomisation; Liquid-gas separation; Multi-hole atomisers; Spray unsteadiness; Two-phase flow

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic within NETME Centre TechUp [CZ.1.05/2.1.00/19.0397]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present paper provides an experimental study and optimisation of multi-hole effervescent atomisers for industrial burners using oil-based fossil, bio- or waste fuels with prospects of emission reduction. Several multi-hole nozzles were designed based on our previous work. We probed the spray quality by phase-Doppler anemometry. 3-D plots of Sauter mean diameter and mean droplet velocity demonstrate their spatial distribution within the spray. The effect of geometrical and operational factors on the spray is discussed. Droplet size-velocity correlations as well as the size and velocity distributions are presented, and differences are found against other investigations. A spray macrostructure is photographically observed and spray cone angles of the multi-hole nozzles are analysed. An internal two-phase flow is estimated using the Baker's map for horizontal two-phase flow. Our previous two-phase flow visualisations suggested a liquid-gas gravitational separation when the multi-hole atomiser operated horizontally. This issue is addressed here; the results of spray heterogeneity measurements document that fuel flow rates through individual exit holes differ significantly. This difference spans between 0 and 70% depending on the nozzle design and flow regime. Effervescent sprays are unsteady under some operating conditions; spray unsteadiness was detected at low pressure and low gas-to-liquid-ratios. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据