Development of a High Transfer Efficiency Painting Technology

Using Effervescent Atomization

Charles Tricou,
Applied Research Laboratory: Penn State University
University Park, PA

Keith F. Knasiak,
Spraying Systems Co.
Wheaton, IL, USA
Abstract
The objective of this project is to develop a high-efficiency paint application system. The overall goal is
to reduce paint usage and eliminate cleanup costs associated with paint overspray. In many industrial
applications, including shipbuilding, overspray from painting operations generates substantial added cost
associated with material waste, cleanup costs and environmental emissions.
This work involves the investigation of a novel, effervescent spray atomization technique. An
experimental design approach was employed to identify critical parameters. This methodology used a four
(4) factor D-Optimal Response Surface Analysis. The design factors studied for the effervescent
atomization process are the number of holes in the gas (N2) injector, the gas-to-liquid ratio (GLR), the
total area of the holes in the gas injector and the pressure. The responses used in this analysis are: transfer
efficiency, spray fan quality, DV0.5, DV0.1, DV0.9 and D32. A prototype high-efficiency, effervescent paint
application system was designed, built and optimized with the intention of maximizing the transfer
efficiency.
The results of this investigation show that the effervescent atomization technique is capable of achieving
transfer efficiencies of 95% or higher. The Response Surface Analysis identified strong correlations
between the factors studied and measured responses. These results also show that the pressures required
to obtain a good spray pattern with high transfer efficiency are much lower for effervescent atomization
than high pressure hydraulic atomization.

2
Introduction The application of marine coatings to naval and
commercial ships is performed almost
The application of anti-corrosive and anti- exclusively using the airless paint spray process.
foulant coatings to the underwater hull of naval The airless paint spray process is well-suited for
vessels is performed using the airless paint spray the application of marine coatings, as most
process with transfer efficiencies in the range of marine coatings are highly viscous and high film
40%-60%1. There are substantial economic and thicknesses are desired. The transfer efficiency
environmental reasons to increase transfer of the airless paint spray process is dependent
efficiency and reduce overspray. upon a variety of factors, including orifice size,
paint viscosity, fluid pressure, part size, operator
The Applied Research Lab (ARL) was tasked to
skill level, distance from the substrate and
investigate effervescent atomization for the
environmental conditions such as wind speed or
spray application of marine coatings.
cross-flow air velocity. The transfer efficiency
Effervescent atomization is an atomization
of the airless paint spray process varies
technique in which a compressed gas is injected
substantially but is generally accepted as being
into a fluid slightly upstream of the nozzle
within the range of 40%-60%. Figure 1 shows
orifice, creating a bubbly-mix of compressed gas
the approximate transfer efficiency obtained
and fluid. Upon exiting the nozzle, the small
using various methods for coating application.1
bubbles of compressed gas expand rapidly,
breaking up the fluid to be atomized. Figure 1 — Approximate Transfer Efficiency of
Effervescent atomization has been used Various Paint Application Technologies.
successfully in the combustion of pulp and paper
mill waste for energy recovery.
The developmental process was focused on
technologies compatible with marine coating
operations and on technologies having a high
likelihood of success in shipyard production
environments. Such applications and
technologies have the following characteristics.
High material flow rate or production rate
High-solids and highly viscous materials
Robust operating regime
Low-technology processes
ARL utilized a design of experiments (DOE) Background
approach to investigate the effect of gas-to-
liquid ratio (GLR), pressure, and gas injector Transfer efficiency is defined as the ratio of the
tube geometries on transfer efficiency, spray weight of coatings solids deposited on a
particle size and pattern quality. substrate to the total weight of coatings solids
used in a coating application step, expressed as a
Control of paint droplet size and pattern quality percentage2. Aside from cleaning of lines and
was demonstrated for an effervescent pumps, the primary source of material loss
atomization spray device using gas-to-liquid during the airless paint spray process is due to
ratio (GLR), paint pressure, and to a lesser overspray.
extent, total area of the gas injection tube holes.

3
 A single medium-sized shipyard will use
approximately 30,000 gallons of paint per year
in the building and repair of ships. Large
shipyards will use ten times this amount
Table 1 — Economic Impact of Improving Transfer Efficiency
Assumptions:
Current Transfer Efficiency:
Transfer Efficiency of Improved Process:
Data:
Annual Avg. Paint Usage (Medium to Large Shipyards):
Gallons of paint delivered (0.7 * 30,000 gallons)
Paint cost: (per gallon)
Average Annual Overspray Cleanup cost (Detailing):
Paint VOC content
Quantitative Benefits
Gallons of paint required (@ 90% TE) to deliver 21,000 gallons
Estimated reduction in paint usage (@ constant production volume)
Estimated cost avoidance (materials)
Estimated cost avoidance (car detailing)
Total annual estimated cost avoidance
annually. The effect of increasing transfer
efficiency from 70% to 90% can be seen in
Table 1. In the shipbuilding industry, the cost of
overspray is conservatively estimated to
approach $50 Billion.
Aside from economic considerations,
environmental reasons also exist to increase
transfer efficiency and reduce overspray.
Increasingly stringent government regulations
regarding the release of toxic or hazardous
materials to the environment during ship
building and repair operations have increased
the burden on shipyards to improve
manufacturing processes. In the application of
copper-ablative antifoulant coatings to the
underwater hull of ships in drydock, release of
overspray from the paint application process
70%
90%
30,000 gal
21,000 gal
$30.00P
$25,000
340 g / liter
23,333 gal
6,667 gal
$200 K
$ 20 K
$220 K
results in the discharge of copper to inter-coastal
waterways, which is in violation of shipyard
NPDES permits. Conventional overspray
remediation techniques involve the construction
of total negative-pressure containment around
the structure being painted. For large surface
ships in drydock, such an approach is
impractical from both economic and production
process perspectives as such a containment
strategy prevents overhead crane access
necessary to perform other repair operations
during the drydock period.
4
Objective carryover of these small particles have a
potential negative impact through fouling of
Investigate effervescent atomization with the boiler tubes and other undesirable effects3.
goal of increasing transfer efficiency and
reducing overspray while producing an Overspray is comprised of very small droplets
acceptable-quality spray pattern for marine generated during the atomization process which
coating applications. do not deposit on the surface being painted and
are carried away by air currents. Through a
Literature Review mechanism known as entrainment, the fast-
moving sheet of paint accelerates air from the
The vast majority of research in spray surrounding atmosphere towards the target being
atomization deals with low-viscosity fluids painted. The collateral air stream cannot
atomized at low flow rates and pressures penetrate the surface being coated, and instead
compared to marine coatings. forms an energetic and stable wall-jet. Paint
In the atomization of fuels, the goal is to particles that do not have sufficient momentum
produce very small, uniformly-sized droplets in (mass • velocity) to penetrate and cross the wall-
order to maximize combustion efficiency and jet are carried away as overspray.4 See Figure 2.
minimize pollutant production. The fluid
Figure 2 — Diagram of the Airless Paint
characteristics, flow rates, atomization Spray Process.
techniques and production issues associated with
combustion applications bear little resemblance
to shipyard airless paint spray application
processes.
A potentially useful area of research is in the
atomization and spray application of agricultural
chemicals, which has similar concerns with
median particle size and overspray, termed
agricultural drift, as the airless paint spray
process. While the per-nozzle flow rate in these
processes are similar to that of airless paint
spray, the viscosity of the agricultural chemicals
are an order of magnitude lower than that of
marine coatings and unlike marine coatings,
behave in a Newtonian fashion.
The area of research having the most similarity
to the airless paint spray process is in the
atomization of high-solids black liquor waste.
Black liquor is a waste product produced during
the manufacture of paper. The energy content of
the black liquor is recovered through a Kwok and Liu5 and Hicks and Senser6 suggested
combustion process in a recovery boiler. Particle overspray could be reduced or eliminated by
size issues in the black liquor spray are similar controlling the size distribution of atomized
to that of the airless paint spray process. While droplets. The results of Hicks and Senser
very small droplet sizes are desirable from a heat suggest that transfer efficiency should approach
and mass transfer standpoint, entrainment and 100% if the particle fraction finer than 80 µm
could be eliminated.

5
There has been research into associated
phenomena in the application of agricultural
chemicals. In the application of agricultural
chemicals a narrow distribution of droplet sizes
is desired. Droplets should have sufficient mass
to penetrate the foliage canopy, yet should not
be so large that crops can be damaged by
fertilizer burn. If droplet sizes are too small,
agricultural chemicals can be carried great
distances and threaten nearby crops, livestock or
human habitations. Known as ‘agricultural drift’,
this overspray has been attributed to particle
sizes below 105 цm.7
The airless spray process is a form of pressure
atomization. In airless paint spray atomization
process, paint is discharged through an elliptical
orifice under high pressure to produce a thin,
fast-moving liquid sheet oriented parallel to the
major axis of the orifice that disintegrates into a
narrow elliptical spray. This process is referred
to as sheet-atomization. Fraser and Eisenklam
identified three primary modes of sheet
disintegration, rim, wave, and, perforated sheet
disintegration.8
In the rim mode, forces created by surface
tension cause the free edge of a liquid sheet to
contract into a thick rim that breaks up in a
manner similar to that of a free jet. The resulting
drops continue to move in the original flow
direction but remain attached to the receding
surface by thin threads that also break up into
rows of small drops. This mode is prominent
where the viscosity and surface tension of the
liquid is high and tends to produce large drops
with numerous small satellites. In the airless
paint spray process this mode is evident at low
atomization pressures and can be observed as
‘tails’ in the under-pressurized paint sheet.
In perforated-sheet disintegration, holes appear
in the liquid sheet, expand towards each other
and coalesce to form threads and ligaments of
irregular shape9. These ligaments break up
according to the Rayleigh instability criteria.10
Variation in the diameter of these ligaments will
result in a wide variation in drop sizes.
Another mechanism of sheet disintegration is
caused by the generation of a wave motion on
the sheet. In wavy-sheet atomization the crests
of the waves created by aerodynamic interaction
with the surrounding gas are torn away in
patches. At very high liquid velocities
corresponding to high injection pressures, sheet
disintegration occurs close to the nozzle exit.
The orderliness of the disintegration process and
the uniformity of the production of threads and
ligaments have a significant impact on drop size
distribution11. Perforations occurring in the sheet
at the same distance from the orifice have a
similar history, which produces thread diameters
and drop sizes of a uniform size. Wavy sheet
atomization, on the other hand, is highly
irregular and produces much more varied drop
sizes.
Atomizers that discharge liquids in the form of a
sheet can exhibit all three modes of sheet
disintegration and sometimes two different
modes can appear simultaneously. Although
several modes of sheet disintegration have been
identified, in all cases the final atomization
process is one in which ligaments break up into
drops according to the Rayleigh criteria.12
In pressure atomization processes, the physical
properties of the fluid to be atomized have a
significant impact on atomization and
subsequent drop size distribution of the spray.
Marine coatings are dense and highly viscous
and have surface tension characteristics that
enable flow and leveling of the coating. In
addition, epoxy anti-corrosive coatings and
antifoulant coatings exhibit strong non-
Newtonian shear-thinning behavior.
The room-temperature viscosity of marine high-
solids epoxy paint can vary from approximately
3000 mPa-sec at low shear rates (<500 s-1) to a
shear thinning limit of approximately 750 mPa-s
at high shear rates (>10,000 s-1)4. Si-Alkyd paint
used on the freeboard of the hull behaves in
near-Newtonian fashion and is relatively
insensitive to shear rate. The room-temperature
6
viscosity of Si-Alkyd paint at representative
shear rates is on the order of 450 mPa-s. In
conventional airless paint spray, the shear rate at
the nozzle is on the order of 25,000 s-1.
As described above, in the airless paint spray
process paint is forced at high pressure through a
small elliptical orifice. The paint is formed into a
thin sheet moving at high-velocity. Through a
mechanism known as entrainment, the fast-
moving sheet of paint accelerates air from the
surrounding atmosphere towards the target being
painted. The collateral air stream cannot
penetrate the surface being coated, and instead
forms an energetic and stable wall-jet. Paint
particles that do not have sufficient momentum
to penetrate and cross the wall-jet are carried
away as overspray4. Like the related
phenomenon of agricultural drift, the particles
that comprise paint overspray will travel great
distances before settling out of the air.
In the airless paint spray process it is the
combination of the production of too-small
particles in combination with air entrainment
and subsequent formation of a wall-jet that
contributes to poor transfer efficiency. The
primary parameters affecting whether a particle
will reach the intended target is the mass of the
particle, and the strength and extent of the air
currents the particle must contend with in order
to reach the target.
Effervescent Atomization
In effervescent atomization, air or gas is injected
into the fluid at some point upstream of the exit
orifice. Upon exiting the nozzle the gas bubbles
contained in the liquid stream expand rapidly
(explode) shattering the fluid into small droplets.
The separate injection of gas allows the number,
size, and spatial distribution of bubbles to be
controlled in effervescent designs.
As the gas-to-liquid ratio (GLR) is increased
across the operating range, three regimes of
atomizer operation can be identified: bubbly-
flow regime, transition regime and annular flow
regime. The bubbly-flow regime is characterized
by a well-dispersed mixture of liquid and fine
gas bubbles. As the GLR is increased, the
bubbles begin to coalesce and the atomizer
begins to exhibit instabilities. This is the
transition regime between the stable bubbly-flow
regime and a stable annular flow regime. There
may be several commonly observed two-phase
flow patterns in the transition regime, including
slug flow, plug flow, and churn flow. The
annular flow regime occurs at high GLR and is
characterized by large streams of gas surrounded
by liquid jets13.
Loebker and Empie14 studied the effect of GLR
on droplet diameter on model liquids spanning a
viscosity range from 100 mPa•s to 10,000
mPa•s. At the low end of this viscosity range
they found a hump in the MMD response in the
very low GLR range, see Figure 3.
Empie and Loebker proposed the following
explanation for the increase in MMD: In
conventional liquid-only spraying strands are
formed during liquid sheet disintegration. With a
small amount of gas added, the liquid sheet
disappears and is replaced by somewhat
uniformly distributed strands exiting directly
from the nozzle orifice oriented perpendicular to
the direction of the spray flow.
The increase in drop size at low GLR may be
due to the formation of thicker strands compared
to those produced as a result of liquid sheet
disintegration. As GLR increases strand
diameter and spacing decrease, subsequently
producing smaller drops. At higher GLR, liquid
strand disintegration occurs closer to the nozzle
and the strands become oriented in a direction
parallel to the spray flow. Increasing viscosity
results in the formation of thicker strands that
require a higher gas flow rates to disintegrate
into drops.
Another interesting result of the work performed
by Loebker and Empie was that the droplet size
distribution did not increase with the increase of
7
MMD at low GLR, and in some cases actually Figure 4 — Bubbly Flow Regime Near-
narrowed. Nozzle Structure.

Santangelo and Sojka investigated the near-

nozzle structure of an effervescent atomizer-
produced spray using focused-image
holography. They found liquid breakup in the
bubbly-flow regime to be governed by
individual bubble expansion. The liquid exits the
nozzle as a solid jet or “trunk” containing the
train of bubbles. Shortly after exiting the nozzle,
the trunk breaks up rather abruptly into
ligaments and droplets via single bubble
expansions. In the transition regime the trunk
becomes distorted, wavy, and begins to shred.
The shredding trunk breaks up into large limb-
Figure 3 — Drop Size MMD as a function of GLR

Roesler and Lefebvre studied the effervescent

and Liquid Flow rate at 100 mPa•s viscosity.
like structures which subsequently break up into
smaller branches, ligaments and drops. In the
annular flow regime the trunk is greatly reduced
in length extending only a fraction of a
millimeter from the nozzle exit. The limbs are
wavy and vary in diameter along their length.
These limbs branch off into smaller and smaller
ligaments and eventually form drops15. This
process is shown graphically in Figure 4
atomization of low-viscosity fluids in the bubbly
flow regime and found Sauter mean diameter
(SMD) to have a strong dependence on GLR and
fluid injection pressure while being nearly
independent of mass flow-rate and nozzle orifice
diameter16. Buckner and Sojka investigated
effervescent atomization in the annular flow
regime and concluded that mean droplet
diameter was a strong function of GLR while
being nearly independent of liquid viscosity,
fluid delivery pressure and total mass
flow rate17.

8
Summary of Effervescent
Spray Technology
Droplet mass mean diameter (MMD) is
relatively insensitive to viscosity and orifice
geometry in effervescent atomization. There are
distinctly different mechanisms of liquid jet
disintegration in the bubbly-flow and annular
flow regime which allow for the possibility of
independent drop size control using GLR (and to
a lesser extent, fluid injection pressure) over a
wide range of viscosity and mass flow rates.
The advantages offered by effervescent
atomization are the following: 12
Atomization is very good even at very low
injection pressures and low gas flow rates. Mean
drop sizes are comparable to those obtained with
air-assist atomizers for the same gas/liquid ratio.
The system has large holes and passages so
problems of “plugging” are greatly reduced or
eliminated.
The basic simplicity of the device lends itself to
good reliability, easy maintenance, and low cost.
Effervescent atomization is effective over an
extremely broad range of flow rates on the order
of 0.05 LPM to over 50 LPM.
Effervescent atomization can be effectively used
to atomize Newtonian and non-Newtonian
liquids spanning a viscosity range from 1 to
10,000 mPa•s.14, 17-19
Atomization quality is nearly independent of
orifice geometry.
Technical Approach
An experimental design was created to study
those parameters that can be most easily
controlled to produce a consistent, high-quality
spray in a production environment.
Due to the fillers used in paint, shear and
extensional viscosity may vary substantially
from one type of paint to another, from one
color of paint to another of the same type, and
even from one batch of paint to another.
Different paints with the same terminal viscosity
might not atomize the same way because of the
effect that the fillers used will have on
extensional viscosity. Numerous methods exist
to measure shear viscosity, but no such methods
exist to measure extensional viscosity. The
difficulty associated with measurement of
extensional viscosity and the inherent variability
of paint makes viscosity a poor control variable.
From a production standpoint, paint viscosity
may be controlled by controlling paint
temperature. “On-the-fly” adjustments of paint
temperature can be made to achieve good
atomization and pattern control. For these
reasons, and to reduce the size of the
experiment, paint viscosity was not included as a
control variable and paint from a single batch
was used to minimize batch-to-batch variations.
Limitations on the pressure capacity of the gas
flow controller dictated that the paint pressure be
kept below 1000 psi. Given these limitations on
paint pressure, two spray tip / pressure
combinations were chosen to achieve the target
production rate of approximately 0.35 gpm.
To minimize pressure pulse fluctuations caused
by standard industrial paint pumps, a long-stroke
paint pump capable of delivering 0.35 gpm for
30 seconds on a single stroke was designed and
fabricated by AST Corp of New Hope, MN.
A modified Graco plural-component mixer
manifold was used to inject Nitrogen into the
paint. The number and size of injector tube holes
was varied over a wide range to ascertain if
these parameters had a significant effect on
atomization and pattern quality.
Based on previous work of Loebker and Empie,
gas-to-liquid mass ratios of 0.0001 to 0.001 were
studied.
9
Experimental Procedure Figure 5 — Modified Graco plural component
mixer with N2 injection tube visible at the material
The paint chosen for this evaluation was outlet port.
International Coatings INTERLAC 537 Soft
White (5347), Batch# CL2318UHC5, with
specific gravity of 1.79. All experiments were
performed at room temperature. The temperature
/ viscosity profile is provided in Table 2.

Table 2 — Viscosity / Temperature profile of

INTERLAC 537 Soft White (5347).

Deg Deg Brookfield

C F (CPS units)
Brookfield Visc
5 41 6600
(Test Method 207)
Spindle #4 &
10 50 4800 RPM 20 (all
measurements)
The paint/nitrogen mixture exits the mixer
15 59 3800 manifold at the material outlet, which is directly
20 68 3300 connected to a standard Graco Plus spray gun.
25 77 3000
30 86 2750 Two of the control parameters (number of holes
in the injection tube and total injection tube
35 95 2500
area) were controlled by using interchangeable
40 104 2400 injection tube inserts mounted within the mixing
chamber of the mixer manifold. Some of these
The paint and nitrogen were mixed within a gas injection tubes are shown in Figure 6.
modified Graco Plural Component Mixer
Manifold, p/n: 241-692. In this arrangement, Figure 6 — Gas injection tube variations with
paint is provided to the “resin” side of the mix spiral hole pattern arrangement.
manifold, while nitrogen is provided to the
“hardener” side of the mixer manifold. The
central block of the mixing manifold has been
modified to allow nitrogen to flow into the
mixing chamber through a central passage, while
the paint flows into the chamber from the side.
The exit of the nitrogen passage is threaded to
allow insertion of a variety of gas injection
tubes. Variations in the number of holes and
total area of the gas injection tube are
accomplished by insertion of the appropriate
tube into the plural component mixer. The tip of
one of the gas injection tubes may be seen
protruding from the plural component mixer
material outlet in Figure 5.

10

Figure 7 — Porter Model 201 gas flow device.
Figure 8 — Effervescent atomization device with
mass flow controller and spray gun.
A Porter Model 201 gas flow mass controller,
p/n: 201-DKASVCAA (s/n: 261406000101) and
Model CM2 control module (s/n: 6306) were
used to meter nitrogen from a standard nitrogen
tank into the paint line. (Figure 7) The Model
201 gas flow controller was mounted directly to
the plural component nitrogen inlet to minimize
the distance between the mass flow controller
and the injection tube.
Two shutoff valves were utilized prevent
backflow of paint or solvent into the mass
flow controller. The entire system is shown if
Figure 8.
Two spray tips (p/n: 4001 and 40015)
manufactured by Spray Systems Inc. of Carol
Stream, Illinois were chosen to deliver
approximately 0.35 gpm at 400 and 900 psi
respectively.
Flow Rate Calculations
Flow through a nozzle is affected by pressure
and by variations in the specific gravity and
viscosity of the fluid. Typically an increase in
viscosity or specific gravity (or both) will reduce
the flow rate of a nozzle. Conversely an increase
in the pressure difference across the orifice
increases the flow rate of the nozzle. The liquid
being sprayed in this study is a latex-based paint
and can exhibit non-Newtonian shear
characteristics such that the material becomes
less viscous at high shear rates typical of these
and other paint spraying operations. Because of
this shear-thinning behavior, the viscosity was
assumed to have a small to minimal effect on the
overall nozzle flow rate. The specific gravity,
however, is quite large as compared to water
with a value of SGPaint=1.79. The pressures are
also considered to be large relative to the way
the nozzles used in this study are rated. A
definition of the 40015 and 4001 nozzles
provides that at 40 psi across the orifice the
nozzle will have a 40º spray angle and will have
flow rate of 0.10 gpm and 0.15 gpm using water.
In this study the sprays were to be operated in
the range of 400 psi to 900 psi.
Specific Gravity
Specific gravity (SG) is the ratio of the mass of a
given volume of liquid to the mass of the same
volume of water. In spraying, the main effect of
the specific gravity of a liquid (other than water)
is on the capacity of the spray nozzle. Since the
spray angle and flow values of the nozzles used
in this study are based on spraying water, a
conversion factor can be applied to determine
the nozzle capacity when using a liquid other
than water. The following formula was used to
estimate the change in flow rate due to specific
gravity:
11
 This leads to:
QLiq = QH 2O ⋅ (SG )
−0.5
where Q ≡ volumetric flowrate
1 2 p1
p1 = ρV22 → V2 =
This conversion factor [(SG)-0.5] accounts only 2 ρ
for the effect of specific gravity on capacity and Q 2 p1
does not account for other factors affecting Q = V2 A2 → =
capacity. A2 ρ

Pressure Effect 2 p1 πd 22 2 p1
Q = A2 →
ρ 4 ρ
The effect of pressure on flow rate is that as the
pressure differential across a nozzle orifice
increases the volumetric flow rate through that With incompressible flow Q1 = Q2. Using this
orifice also increases. This can also have the relation and dividing we obtain a pressure flow
effect of increasing the shear rate on the fluid. ratio as shown in the following:
This means that increasing pressure will have a
greater effect on Thixotrpic (shear-thickening) Q1 P1
=
liquids than shear-thinning or Newtonian Q2 P2
liquids.
A simple derivation using the continuity Using this equation and the known flow rates of
equation and Bernoulli’s equation can be made the nozzles selected the approximate flow rates
to estimate the change in flow rate with respect for these nozzles may be calculated at the
to pressure. The flow is assumed to be working pressures of 400 psi and 900 psi
incompressible, inviscid, and irrotational. including compensation for the specific gravity
of the paint (SGPaint= 1.79.)
Q = VA
Where V- Velocity Table 3 — Nozzle Flow as Function of Pressure
with Specific Gravity Compensation.
A- Orifice area
Pressure Flow SG Comp. Flow
Nozzle
(psi) (gpm) (gpm)
1 1 40 0.10 .075
p1 + ρV12 = p2 + ρV22 = C
2 2 4001 400 0.32 .239
Where p - Pressure 900 0.47 .351
40 0.15 .112
ρ - Density
40015 400 0.47 .351
V - Velocity 900 0.71 .530
For small nozzles, the assumption that the
internal velocity is much, much smaller than the Typical operating pressures for this paint in a
external velocity is reasonable. External pressure shipyard production situation will depend upon
is atmospheric and assumed to be negligible the paint vendor and the ambient temperature. A
compared to the pressures upstream of the 0.015 tip is normally used at pressures ranging
nozzle exit. These assumptions are shown as: from 2500 – 4000 psi.

V2 << V1 and P2 ≈ 0

12
Paint was supplied to the atomizer using a large F ( D) in the spray can be calculated using the
hydraulic cylinder capable of delivering 0.35
gpm for 30 seconds on a single stroke. This X and N parameters.
pumping arrangement eliminates pressure
fluctuations common with standard industrial
paint pumps. A linear displacement meter was ⎡ ⎛ D⎞ N ⎤
attached to the hydraulic piston to allow direct F(D) = 1- exp ⎢-⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ X ⎠ ⎥⎦
measurement of piston displacement, and hence,
total paint volume sprayed during each run. The X and N parameters for this equation were
During each trial, paint was sprayed onto generated from the actual raw data. A
0.0015” thick by 36” wide by 6’ long pre- photograph of the instrument with a typical test
weighed aluminum foil sheets. The foil was setup is shown in Figure 9.
obtained from All Foils, Inc. of Brooklyn Figure 9 — Malvern 2600
Heights, Ohio.
The foil sheets were pre-weighed using an
OHAUS 3100 x 0.01 gram Adventurer scale
with the “weigh-below” option. The weigh-
below option allows parts to be suspended from
the underside of the scale. The scale was
mounted atop a 3-sided plywood cabinet
measuring 8’ tall x 4’ wide x 2’ deep. Following
each trial, the foil sheets were immediately
weighed and laid flat to dry. Transfer efficiency
was calculated directly from the pre-spray foil
weight and post-spray foil weight.
After applying paint to the foil sheet, the particle
size distribution of the spray was characterized
using a Malvern 2600 particle analyzer. The
Malvern analyzer is a laser diffraction
instrument that measures drop size based on the
energy of the diffracted light caused by drops
The DV0.5, DV0.1, and DV0.9 diameters were used
passing through the analyzer’s sampling area.
to evaluate the drop size data. The drop size
The scattered light intensity is measured using a terminology is as follows:
series of semicircular photo diodes housed in the
DV0.5: Volume Median Diameter (also known as
receiver unit. The Rosin-Rammler distribution
VMD or MVD). A means of expressing drop
function is used to convert the light intensity
size in terms of the volume of liquid sprayed.
distribution into a drop size distribution
The VMD is a value where 50% of the total
function.
volume (or mass) of liquid sprayed is made up
Rosin-Rammler Parameters of drops with diameters larger than the median
value and 50% smaller than the median value.
The Rosin-Rammler distribution function is a This diameter is used to compare the change in
representation of the drop population and size in (or mass) of liquid sprayed is made up of drops
a spray. The exact size for every volume fraction with diameters smaller or equal to this value.

13
DV0.1: Is a value where 10 percent of the total
volume (or mass) of liquid sprayed is made up
of drops with diameters smaller or equal to this
value.
DV0.9: Is a value where 90 percent of the total
volume (or mass) of liquid sprayed is made up
of drops with diameters smaller or equal to this
value.
The particle size distribution was measured three
times for each set of conditions. DV0.5, DV0.1, and
DV0.9 and Sauter Mean Diameter were calculated
for each measurement and averaged for each
trial. A typical drop-size distribution is shown in
Figure 10. Once the foils sheets were completely
dried, an approximately 24” wide section was
cut from the middle section of each foil sheet.
Figure 10 – Drop Size Distribution
DX6 Run 21
0.1 GLR / 0.076 Area / 1 Hole / 900 psi
25.00
Dv 0.5 - 86.34 µm
20.00 Dv 0.1 - 47.70
Dv 0.9 - 125.45
D (3,2) - 72.93
15.00
Percent in
10.00
5.00
0.00
3 18.1 32.6 58.9
Particle size (µm)
The total thickness of the paint and foil was
measured at 1 cm intervals across the entire
width of the spray pattern, at each end of the 24”
section of foil. The pattern trace for Run 21 is
shown in Figure 11.
From the pattern traces, the volume of paint
contained in the “tails” was estimated by
calculating the area under the tails, and dividing
this quantity by the total area under the paint-
trace curve to arrive at an approximate
percentage of the volume of paint contained in
the tails.
The paint traces were also used to calculate a
pattern shape-factor to assess the quality of the
spray distribution. The best quality patterns
closely approximate an inverse quadratic
polynomial. The shape factor is a positive
number between 0 and 1, with the better quality
patterns having a shape factor approaching 1.
The distance from the pattern center (cm) and
whether or not the trace was measured at the top
or bottom end of the foil sheet were the two
parameters included in the model. The use of
these two variables provides information on both
the symmetry of the spray about the mid-line as
well as the stability of the spray from one point
in time to the next.
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Percent under
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
106 192 346 625
Experimental Design
Four factors were studied: Number of Holes,
Gas-to-Liquid Ratio (GLR), Total Area of Holes
in the Injection Tube, and Fluid Pressure. A
quadratic D-Optimal response surface model
was chosen to resolve 2nd order and interaction
effects.
14
Figure 11 — Pattern Trace, Run 21.

DX Run 21
0.1 GLR / 0.076 Area / 1 Hole / 900 psi

20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0
Total Thickness ( 0.001" )

12.0

Top
10.0
Bottom

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from Pattern Center (cm)

Gas injection tubes having 1, 5 and 9 holes were The quadratic D-optimal design chosen required
fabricated. The holes were arranged in a spiral a total of 24 trials, including pure replicates. The
pattern to maximize the probability of achieving quadratic D-optimal design is shown in Table 4.
a well-dispersed bubbly mix. Total area of the The results are shown in Table 5.
injection tube holes was controlled at the levels
of 0.038n2, 0.057in2 and 0.076in2. GLR was Results
varied between the levels of 0.0001 (0.01% by
Transfer Efficiency was calculated assuming a
weight) and 0.001 (0.1% by weight). Two
specific gravity of 1.79. No correction for paint
pressure levels were chosen, 400 psi and 900
compressibility has been made, even though the
psi; and two nozzles were chosen to deliver
paint is estimated to compress approximately
approximately 0.35 gpm as described earlier in
5% per 1000 psi.
this document.
Drop size data was measured directly using the
The D-Optimal is a highly efficient design. A
Malvern Analyzer.
full-factorial 2nd order experiment with three (3)
continuous and one (1) categorical variable
would require a minimum of 54 unique trials.

15
Table 4 — Experimental Design

Standard Run Number of Target GLR Actual GLR Area of Holes Pressure (psi) /
Order Order Holes (%) (%) (0.001 in2) Nozzle
20 1 1 0.055 0.0609 76 400 / 40015
21 2 5 0.01 0.0087 76 400 / 40015
10 3 1 0.1 0.1042 57 400 / 40015
17 4 1 0.01 0.0108 38 900 / 4001
3 5 1 0.1 0.1052 38 900 / 4001
18 6 9 0.01 0.0116 38 400 / 40015
4 7 9 0.1 0.1003 38 400 / 40015
19 8 1 0.1 0.1000 38 400 / 40015
13 9 1 0.055 0.0550 76 400 / 40015
24 10 9 0.1 0.1006 76 400 / 40015
1 11 1 0.01 0.0097 38 400 / 40015
16 12 5 0.0775 0.0761 57 400 / 40015
12 13 5 0.01 0.0099 76 400 / 40015
7 14 9 0.1 0.1026 76 400 / 40015
9 15 9 0.01 0.0112 57 400 / 40015
15 16 5 0.0325 0.0330 38 400 / 40015
8 17 1 0.01 0.0100 57 900 / 4001
23 18 9 0.01 0.0109 76 900 / 4001
14 19 5 0.055 0.0593 57 900 / 4001
2 20 9 0.01 0.0095 38 900 / 4001
22 21 1 0.1 0.1022 76 900 / 4001
6 22 1 0.1 0.1037 76 900 / 4001
5 23 9 0.01 0.0100 76 900 / 4001
11 24 9 0.1 0.1011 57 900 / 4001

Tail volume was estimated using a relatively factor will take into account the presence of
coarse integration technique and measuring the tails, but will also take into consideration
area under the tails and dividing by the total area asymmetry of the spray about the mid-line,
under the curve in order to arrive at an smoothness of the curve, and flatness of the
approximate percentage of the volume of paint curve near the center of the pattern.
comprising the tails.
The experimental results appear in Table 5. Each
The pattern shape factor was calculated by of the response variables is discussed
fitting the paint trace data to an inverse quadratic individually in the following sections.
polynomial and calculating the Adjusted R2
value. The Adjusted R2 value represents the
extent to which the data will fit the polynomial.
An Adjusted R2 value of 1 represents a perfect
fit to the polynomial with all data points falling
on the curve. A low Adjusted R2 value
represents a poor fit to the polynomial, with the
data falling in a random fashion. This shape

16
Table 5 — Experimental Results.

Transfer Tail
Shape Dv 0.1
Run Efficiency Volume Dv 0.5 (µm) Dv 0.9 (µm) Sauter (µm)
Factor (µm)ee
Order (%) (%)
1 96.66 34.11 0.64 111.64 58.7 167.66 92.11
2 94.97 39.83 0.43 126.26 74.4 177.86 110.10
3 96.64e 24.75e 0.77e 125.36 68.5 184.36 105.53
4 97.98 10.37 0.87 85.54 47.0 124.59 72.04
5 101.43 9.72 0.79 88.42 48.9 129.49 74.69e
6 99.40 24.33 0.56 123.47 71.6 178.15 106.88
7 96.41 23.38 0.68 120.51 65.7 178.77 101.32
8 95.10 24.21 0.74 113.26 62.6 164.45 95.80
9 95.36 20.27 0.76 115.87 65.4 166.29 98.10
10 96.07 27.80 0.74 115.44 66.1 163.72 99.27
11 97.05 22.55 0.66 123.36 73.0 174.52 107.71
12 95.79 22.49 0.78 114.35 64.0 163.94 97.37
13 97.74 22.43 0.59 116.52 67.1 164.12 100.53
14 95.24 27.16 0.79 111.10 60.6 161.52 93.38
15 97.57e 22.19 0.59 121.74 71.0 173.30 105.63
16 101.76 25.83 0.61 114.56 66.9 159.27 99.44
17 99.47 11.60 0.82 90.97 50.6 133.56 77.10
18 97.29 11.45 0.89 91.52 50.5 135.35 77.19
19 100.99 10.28 0.76 89.59 50.2 130.10 76.17
20 99.12 11.21 0.89 88.66 49.4 129.32 75.14
21 98.66 0.00 0.87e 86.37 47.7 125.45 72.93
22 97.32 6.66 0.90 94.16 51.0 140.48 78.81
23 98.66 10.99 0.85 92.75 50.8 138.73 77.97
24 95.54 0.50 0.92 90.83 49.2 135.29 75.90

Transfer Efficiency
When the transfer efficiency data is analyzed
according to a linear model, the pressure and
total area of the gas injection tube holes were
found to be significant factors affecting the
transfer efficiency. These factors explained
approximately 30% of the variation observed.
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) chart for
this response value
is shown in Table 6. The model is
shown graphically in Figure 12. The Model F-
value of 5.86 implies the model is significant.
There is less than a 0.95% chance that a ‘Model
F-Value’ this large could occur due to noise. The
Adjusted R2 value is in reasonable agreement
with the Predicted R2 value, indicating
robustness of the model.

17
Table 6 — ANOVA Results for Transfer Efficiency Linear Model

Sum of Mean
Source DF F –Value Prob > F Comment
Squares Square
Model 33.02 2 16.51 5.86 0.0095 Significant
Area 13.97 1 13.97 4.95 0.0371
Pressure 19.58 1 19.58 6.94 0.0155
Residual 59.22 21 2.82
Cor Total 92.24 23
Std. Dev. 1.68 R-Squared 0.3580
Mean 97.59 Adj R-Squared 0.2969
C.V. 1.72 Pred R-Squared 0.1566
PRESS 77.80 Adeq Precision 6.068

Figure 12 — Transfer Efficiency as a

function of Pressure and Area of Injection Tube
Holes.

T r a n s f e r E f f ic ie n c y - L in e a r M o d e l
D : P re s s u re The transfer efficiency was slightly higher for
100
the 900 psi / 40015 nozzle configuration than it
was for the 400 psi / 4001 nozzle. This result is
99
likely due to compression of the paint.
Transfer Efficiency (%)

Assuming that the paint is compressible by

98
approximately 5% per 1000 psi, the transfer
efficiency will be overestimated by
97
approximately 2% at 400 psi and 4.5% at 900
psi. The difference of 2.5% is consistent the
96 observed difference in transfer efficiency
400 psi
900 psi
between these levels. .
95
When higher–order terms are included in the
0 .0 3 8 0 .0 4 8 0 .0 5 7 0 .0 6 7 0 .0 7 6 analysis, the number of holes was also found to
be a significant factor affecting transfer
T o ta l H o le A r e a (in 2 ) efficiency. Inclusion of the 2nd order term
(Holes)2 increases the amount of variation
explained by the model to ~36%. The ANOVA
results for the quadratic model are given in
Table 7. The results are displayed graphically in
Figure 13.

18
Table 7 — ANOVA Results for Transfer not in as close agreement to the Adjusted R2
Efficiency—Quadratic Model value of 0.3624 as would be desired. This is an

Sum of Mean
Source DF F-Value Prob > F Comment
Squares Square
Model 40.60 4 10.15 3.98 0.0185 Significant
Holes 1.506E-003 1 1.506E-003 5.909E-004 0.9809
Area 12.01 1 12.01 4.71 0.0444
Pressure 22.99 1 22.99 9.02 0.0080
Holes2 14.37 1 14.37 5.64 0.0296
Residual 43.32 17 2.55
Cor Total 83.92 21
Std. Dev. 1.60 R-Squared 0.4838
Mean 97.76 Adj R-Squared 0.3624
C.V. 1.63 Pred R-Squared 0.1326
PRESS 72.79 Adeq Precision 6.760

indication that there may have been a problem

with the model or data (outliers). In this case, the
Figure — 13.-Quadratic Model of Transfer model was not as robust as it could have been.
Efficiency as a Function of Number of Injection
Tube Holes at Total Hole Area of 0.0057 in2 Due to limitations in the available gas injection
tubes available at the time of the test, there were
Transfer Efficiency two modifications to the original experimental
101
design. Run 12 should have been run with an
injection tube having 7 holes as opposed to the
5-hole tube used and Run 16 was to have used a
100
gas injection tube having a total gas injection
hole area of 0.0475 in2 instead of the 0.038 in2
Transfer Efficiency (%)

98
tube used. It is likely that the discrepancy
between Predicted R2 and Adjusted R2 is due to
97
the liberties taken with the experimental design.

96

95
400 psi
900 psi
94

1 3 5 7 9

Number of Holes
The F-Value of 3.98 indicates that the model is
significant. There is only a 1.85% chance that a
“Model F-Value” this large could occur due to
chance. The Predicted R2 value of 0.1326 was

19
Sources of Error: Transfer Efficiency
For engineering purposes, these models explain
a relatively small portion of the variation
observed. This is due in large part to the
difficulties associated with accurately measuring
the transfer efficiency on a trial-by-trial basis.
Factors that will affect measurement of transfer
efficiency are listed below.
Factors affecting the measured values of transfer
efficiency:
• Accuracy of linear displacement counter
(± 0.9568 cc)
• Volatile evaporation between end of trial and
measurement of foil weight. This will be
affected by time delays between the end of
spraying and weight measurement
• Compressibility of paint and non-linearity of
compression / pressure curve
• Expansion of paint lines
The volume of paint sprayed during each trial
was measured using a linear displacement meter.
The accuracy of measurement was ± 0.9568 cc.
With specific gravity of 1.79, the accuracy of the
volume measurement will result in an error of
± 1.2% in the measured transfer efficiency.
In addition to the uncertainty in measurement of
the piston displacement, paint compressibility
and expansion of the paint lines will also
artificially inflate the volume of paint used. This
effect will be greater for the 900 psi trials. The
total contribution of these factors to the transfer
efficiency is conservatively estimated to be less
than 5%.
DV0.1
GLR, Pressure and the GLR* Pressure
interaction term were significant factors
affecting DV0.1. These factors explained ~94% of
the variation observed in the data. The ANOVA
results for D V0.1 are shown in Table 8. The
model is shown graphically in Figure 14.
The Model F-value of 119.22 implies the model
is significant. There is less than a 0.01% chance
that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur
due to noise. The Adjusted R 2 value is in good
agreement with the Predicted R 2 value.

Table 8 — ANOVA Results for DV0.1.

Sum of Mean
Source DF F-Value Prob > F Comment
Squares Square
Model 1723.39 3 574.46 119.22 < 0.0001 Significant
GLR 44.94 1 44.94 9.33 0.0068
Pressure 1688.53 1 1688.53 350.41 < 0.0001
GLR *
33.68 1 33.68 6.99 0.0165
Pressure
Residual 86.74 18 4.82
Cor Total 1810.13 21
Std. Dev. 2.20 R-Squared 0.9521
Mean 58.98 Adj R-Squared 0.9441
C.V. 3.72 Pred R-Squared 0.9278
PRESS 130.63 Adeq Precision 22.193

20
 The interaction effect between pressure and GLR
Figure 14 — Graphic representation of GLR and is shown by the differing slopes of the lines for the
Pressure Effect on DV0.1. Solid round dots represent 400 psi / 40015 nozzle configuration and the 900
design points at which data was collected.
psi / 4001 nozzle configuration.
GLR has little effect on DV0.1. for the 900 psi /
Interaction Graph 40015 nozzle configuration, but GLR has a
73.0
substantial effect on DV0.1 for the 400 psi / 40015
400 psi
900 psi
nozzle configuration. For the 400 psi
configuration, DV0.1 becomes smaller with
increasing GLR.
66.5
DV0.5
Dv 0.1 (um)

Pressure and the Pressure*Area interaction term

60.0 were significant factors affecting D V0.5. These
factors explained ~94% of the variation observed
in the data. The ANOVA results are shown in
Table 9. The model is shown graphically in Figure
53.5
15. The Model F-value of 105.08 implies the
model is significant. There is less than a 0.01%
chance that a “Model F-Value” this large could
47.0 occur due to noise. The Adjusted R2 value of
0.9370 is in good agreement with the Predicted R2
0.0100 0.0325 0.0550 0.0775 0.1000 value of 0.9231.

GLR (%)

Table 9 — ANOVA Results for DV0.5

Source Sum of DF Mean F-Value Prob > F

Squares Square
Model 4360.55 3 1453.52 105.08 < 0.0001 significant
Area 0.29 1 0.29 0.021 0.8870
Pressure 4251.73 1 4251.73 307.38 < 0.0001
Area * Pressure 57.01 1 57.01 4.12 0.0574
Residual 248.98 18 13.83
Cor Total 4609.53 21
Std. Dev. 3.72 R-Squared 0.9460
Mean 105.20 Adj R-Squared 0.9370
C.V. 3.54 Pred R-Squared 0.9231
PRESS 354.53 Adeq Precision 20.126

21
Figure 15 — Graphic Representation of DV0.5 as a
Function of Injection Tube Area and Pressure.

The separation of the 900 psi and 400 psi lines

in the DV0.5 model shows that pressure has the
D v 0 .5
most substantial effect on DV0.1. The interaction
effect between pressure and injector hole area is
125
shown by the different slope of the lines 400 psi
(upper) and 900 psi (lower) lines.
115 The pressure effect behaves as would be
expected, with increasing pressure resulting in
smaller droplet size.
Dv 0.5 (um)

105 400 psi

900 psi
DV0.9
Pressure and the Pressure*Area interaction term
were significant factors affecting D V0.9. The
95

model explained ~89% of the variation observed

in the data. The ANOVA results are shown in
85
Table 10. The model is shown graphically in
0 .0 3 8 0 .0 4 8 0 .0 5 7 0 .0 6 7 0 .0 7 6 Figure 16.
The Model F-value of 58.81 implies the model is
G a s In je c tio n A r e a (in 2 )
significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a
“Model F-Value” this large could occur due to
noise. The “Pred R-Squared” of 0.8693 is in
good agreement with the “Adj R-Squared” of
0.8920.

Table 10 — ANOVA Results for DV0.9

Source Sum of DF Mean F Prob > F Comment

Squares Square Value
Model 7707.83 3 2569.28 58.81 < 0.0001 significant
Area 0.089 1 0.089 2.044E-003 0.9644
Pressure 7458.31 1 7458.31 170.72 < 0.0001
Area * 185.76 1 185.76 4.25 0.0539
Pressure
Residual 786.38 18 43.69
Cor Total 8494.21 21
Std. Dev. 6.61 R-Squared 0.9074
Mean 152.49 Adj R-Squared 0.8920
C.V. 4.33 Pred R-Squared 0.8693
PRESS 1110.37 Adeq Precision 15.652

22
DV0.9 shows a similar trend to that of the DV0.5 Figure 16 — Graphic Representation of DV0.5 as a
model. The separation of the 900 psi and 400 psi Function of Injection Tube Area and Pressure.
lines shows that pressure has the most
substantial effect on DV0.9, while the Pressure * D v 0 .9
Area interaction effect is shown by the differing 185

slope of the lines at 400 psi (upper) and 900 psi

(lower). 175

Sauter Mean Diameter 165

Dv 0.9 (um)
GLR, Pressure and the GLR*Pressure 154 400 psi
interaction term were significant factors 900 psi

affecting Sauter Mean Diameter. These factors 144

explained ~94% of the variation observed in the

data. The ANOVA results for Sauter Mean 134

Diameter are shown in Table 11. The model is

shown graphically in Figure 17. 124

0 .0 3 8 0 .0 4 8 0 .0 5 7 0 .0 6 7 0 .0 7 6

Table 11 — ANOVA Results for Sauter Mean

A re a (in 2 )
Diameter.

Source Sum of DF Mean F Prob > F Comment

Squares Square Value
Model 3539.07 3 1179.69 109.33 < 0.0001 Significant
GLR 42.00 1 42.00 3.89 0.0641
Pressure 3515.59 1 3515.59 325.81 < 0.0001
GLR* Pressure 34.43 1 34.43 3.19 0.0909
Residual 194.22 18 10.79
Cor Total 3733.30 21
Std. Dev. 3.28 R-Squared 0.9480
Mean 89.54 Adj R-Squared 0.9393
C.V. 3.67 Pred R-Squared 0.9215
PRESS 292.90 Adeq Precision 20.338

The Model F-value of 109.33 implies the model is As with the D V0.1 model, GLR has little effect on
significant. There is less than a 0.01% chance that D V0.1 for the 900 psi / 40015 nozzle configuration,
a “Model F-Value” this large could occur due to but GLR has a substantial effect on D V0.1 for the
noise. The “Pred R-Squared” of 0.9215 is in good 400 psi / 40015 nozzle configuration.
agreement with the “Adj R-Squared” of 0.9393.
Sauter Mean Diameter behaves similarly to DV0.1.
The interaction effect between pressure and GLR
on Sauter Mean Diameter is shown by the
differing slopes of the lines for the 400 psi / 40015
nozzle configuration and the 900 psi / 4001 nozzle
configuration.

23
Figure 17 — -Effect of GLR and Pressure on Sauter Pattern Tail Volume
Mean Diameter
GLR, Pressure and the GLR*Pressure interaction
term were significant factors affecting the size of
S a u t e r M e a n D ia m e t e r
the tails. These factors explained ~94% of the
110
variation observed in the data. The ANOVA
results for the Pattern Tail Volume are shown in
Table 13. The model is shown graphically in
Sauter Mean Diameter (um)

100

Figure 18.
90 400 psi
900 psi

80

70
D e s ig n P o in t s

0 .0 1 0 0 0 .0 3 2 5 0 .0 5 5 0 0 .0 7 7 5 0 .1 0 0 0

G L R (% )

Table 13 — ANOVA Results for Pattern Tail Volume.

Source Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F Value Prob > F Comment

Model 1450.90 3 483.63 72.11 < 0.0001 Significant

GLR 21.91 1 21.91 3.27 0.0875

Pressure 1343.74 1 1343.74 200.35 < 0.0001

GLR * Pressure 89.85 1 89.85 13.40 0.0018

Residual 120.73 18 6.71

Cor Total 1571.63 21

Std. Dev. 2.59 R-Squared 0.9232

Mean 16.83 Adj R-Squared 0.9104

C.V. 15.39 Pred R-Squared 0.8804

PRESS 187.99 Adeq Precision 18.635

24
Figure 18 — Effect of GLR and Pressure on Pattern The Model F-value of 72.11 implies the model is
Tail Volume. significant. There is less than a 0.01% chance that
a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.
A v e ra g e T a il V o lu m e The "Pred R-Squared" of 0.8804 is in reasonable
30
agreement with the "Adj R-Squared" of 0.9104.

25
As expected, the tail volume for the 900 psi / 4001
nozzle condition is consistently and substantially
Average Tail Volume (%)

20
smaller than the 400 psi / 40015 nozzle
configuration. What was not anticipated is the
15 interaction effect of pressure and GLR on the tail
volume. Increasing GLR further reduces the tail
10 volume for the 900 psi / 4001 nozzle
configuration, while increasing GLR increases the
5 tail volume for the 400 psi condition.
400 psi
900 psi
0 D e s ig n P o in ts
The presence of small bubbles in the paint would
aid in breaking up and atomizing the tails. Given
0 .0 1 0 0 0 .0 3 2 5 0 .0 5 5 0 0 .0 7 7 5 0 .1 0 0 0
the difference in pressure between the 900 psi
G L R (% ) paint and atmospheric, better atomization would
be expected for the 900 psi condition compared to
the 400 psi condition. The mere presence of small
bubbles in the paint, however, should also improve
the atomization of the tails for the 400 psi
condition as GLR increases. Examination of
Table 14 — ANOVA Results for Pattern
Shape Factor
Source Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F Value Prob > F Comment

Model 0.31 5 0.062 18.89 < 0.0001 significant

GLR 0.039 1 0.039 11.70 0.0031

Area 6.263E-004 1 6.263E-004 0.19 0.6683

Pressure 0.21 1 0.21 62.82 < 0.0001

GLR * Area 0.013 1 0.013 3.88 0.0645

GLR * Pressure 0.045 1 0.045 13.54 0.0017

Residual 0.059 18 3.300E-003

Cor Total 0.37 23

Std. Dev. 0.057 R-Squared 0.8399

Mean 0.74 Adj R-Squared 0.7955

C.V. 7.71 Pred R-Squared 0.7336

PRESS 0.099 Adeq Precision 11.834

25
Figure 18 shows that there is very little effect
on tail volume as a function of GLR for the 400
psi condition.
This, in conjunction with the transfer efficiency
data, indicates that there may be a different
atomization mechanism occurring for these two
conditions.
The fact that GLR can be used to eliminate tails
with the 900 psi / 4001 nozzle configuration is an
industrial significant and useful finding.
Pattern Shape Factor
Pressure, GLR, the GLR * Pressure interaction
term, and the Area * GLR interaction terms were
all significant factors affecting the pattern shape.
The ANOVA results for Pattern Shape Factor are
shown in Table 14. The model is shown
atomization process combined in models having
very high Adjusted R2 values. One of the
important ramifications of this result is that drop
size control using effervescent atomization in
these type of sprays (and others) is feasible.
The “hump” in the Sauter Mean diameter curve
reported by Empie for sprays involving paper mill
waste was not observed. Control of transfer
efficiency and pattern quality using effervescent
atomization is possible.
Figure 19 - Pattern Shape Factor at 0.01% GLR.
P a t te r n S h a p e F a c t o r
0 .9 5 G L R = 0 .0 1 % A r e a = 0 . 0 7 6 in 2
0 .8 5

graphically in Figure 19.

Pattern Shape Factor

The Model F-value of 18.89 implies the model is 0 .7 5

significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a
“Model F-Value” this large could occur due to
noise. The “Pred R-Squared” of 0.7336 is in 0 .6 5

reasonable agreement with the “Adj R-Squared” of

0.7955. The pattern shape factor for the 900 psi
condition is consistently better than that of the 400 0 .5 5

psi condition The pattern shape factor will take 400 psi
900 psi
into account both the tail volume, flatness and D e s ig n P o in t s
0 .4 5
smoothness of the spray pattern.

Discussion 1 3 5 7 9

N u m b e r o f H o le s
In all cases, pressure accounts for the majority of
improvement in transfer efficiency and pattern Conclusions
quality. GLR does not show a significant effect on
The effervescent spray process is capable of
transfer efficiency, but has a dramatic effect on
achieving greater than 95% transfer efficiency in
pattern quality.
marine coating operations with excellent pattern
Pressure, and the interaction effects GLR * quality and spray process control.
Pressure and Area * Pressure have a substantial
Substantial improvements in transfer efficiency,
and statistically significant effect on DV0.1, D V0.5,
drop size control and spray pattern quality can be
D V0.9 and Sauter Mean Diameter. The accuracy of
achieved utilizing this design of experiments
drop size measurement using the Malvern particle
approach.
size analyzer and consistency of the effervescent

26
References
1. SSPC Project RO — 38, The Impact of Transfer Efficiency on Shipbuilding Operations,
December 1992.

2. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test
Procedure for Equipment User, May 1989.

3. H.J. Empie, S.J. Lien, W. Yang, Drop Size Modification in Black Liquor Sprays From
Commercial Nozzles Using Pulsed Flow, Atomization and Sprays, vol. 7, pp. 457-466, 1997.

4. Gary S. Settles, A Flow Visualization Study of Airless Spray Painting, Presented at ILASS-
Americas 10th Annual Conference, May 1997, Ottawa Canada.

5. K.C. Kwok and B.Y.H. Liu; “How Atomization Affects Transfer Efficiency,” Industrial
Finishing, May 1992, pp. 28–32.

6. P.G. Hicks and D.W. Senser; “Simulation of Paint Transfer in an Air Spray Process,” ASME FED
— Vol. 178/HTD — Vol. 270, 1993, pp. 145 – 154.

7. R. Sanderson et al., Effect of Spray Additives on Droplet Size and Drift Potential of Aerial
Sprays, Proc. Brighton Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, 1993.

8. R.P. Fraser, and P. Eisenklam; Research into the Performance of atomizers for Liquids, IMP.
Coll. Chem. Eng. Soc. J., Vol. 7, 1953, pp. 52 – 68.

9. N. Dombrowski and R.P. Fraser, A Photographic investigation into the Disintegration of Viscous
Liquid Sheets, Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 18, 1963.

10. Lord Rayleigh, On the Instability of Jets, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., vol. 10, 1879.

11. Fraser, R.P., Liquid Fuel Atomization, Sixth Symposium (International) on Combustion,
Reinhold, New York, 1957, pp. 687 – 701.

12. A.H. Lefebvre, Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere, New York, 1989.

13. J.D. Whitlow and A.H. Lefebvre, Effervescent Atomizer Operation and Characteristics,
Atomization and Sprays, vol. 3, pp. 137 – 155, 1993.

14. David Loebker, and H.J. Empie, Effervescent Spraying: A New Approach to Spraying High
Solids Black Liquor, Proceedings TAPPI Engineering Conference, 1998.

15. P.J. Santangelo and P.E. Sojka, A Holographic Investigation of the Near-Nozzle Structure of an
Effervescent Atomizer — Produced Spray, Atomization and Sprays, Vol. 5, pp. 137 – 155, 1995.

16. T.C. Roesler and A.H. Lefebvre, Studies on Aerated — Liquid Atomization, Int. J. Turbo and Jet
Engines, vol. 6, pp. 221 – 230, 1989.

27
17. H.N. Buckner and P.E. Sojka, Effervescent Atomization of High — Viscosity Fluids: Part I.
Newtonian Liquids, Atomization and Sprays, vol. 1, pp. 239 – 252, 1991.

18. M.T. Lund, P.E. Sojka, and A.H. Lefebvre, Effervescent Atomization at Low Mass Flow Rates –
Part I: The Influence of Surface Tension, Atomization and Sprays, vol. 3, pp. 77 – 89, 1993.

19. H.N. Buckner and P.E. Sojka, Effervescent Atomization of High — Viscosity Fluids: Part II.
Non-Newtonian Liquids, Atomization and Sprays, vol. 3, pp. 157 – 170, 1993

WP0012 ©2005 Spraying Systems Co.

WP0012

28

WP0012 ©2005 Spraying Systems Co.