Aerospace 10 00930

aerospace
Article
Study of Internal Flow in Open-End and Closed Pressure-Swirl
Atomizers with Variation of Geometrical Parameters
Julio Ronceros 1, * , Carlos Raymundo 1 , Eduardo Ayala 2 , Diego Rivera 2 , Leonardo Vinces 2 ,
Gustavo Ronceros 3 and Gianpierre Zapata 4
1 R&D Laboratory in Emerging Technologies, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima 15023, Peru;
carlos.raymundo@upc.edu.pe
2 Mechatronics Engineering, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima 15023, Peru;
u201411982@upc.edu.pe (E.A.); u201414022@upc.edu.pe (D.R.); leonardo.vinces@upc.pe (L.V.)
3 Course: Energy Engineering, Universidade Federal de Integração Latino-Americana (UNILA),
Foz do Iguaçu 85870-650, Brazil; gustavo_ronceros@hotmail.com
4 Escuela Superior de Ingeniera Informática, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28933 Móstoles, Spain;
g.zapata.2020@alumnos.urjc.es
* Correspondence: julio.ronceros@upc.pe
Abstract: This study delves into the examination of internal flow characteristics within closed (with
nozzles) and open-end pressure-swirl atomizers (lacking nozzles). The number of inlet channels
“n” and the opening parameter “C” were manipulated in this study, as they play a pivotal role in
understanding various atomizer attributes, such as uniformity of the air-core diameter, the discharge
coefficient, spray angle, and more, all of which hold significance in the design of bipropellant atomiz-
ers for liquid rocket engines (LREs). To validate our findings, six distinct hexahedral meshes were
generated using Ansys ICEM software 2023. Subsequently, we employed Ansys Fluent, considering
the RNG k-ε turbulence model and the VOF (volume-of-fluid) multiphase model to identify the
liquid–gas interface, to aid in analyzing the uniformity of the air core, which is directly linked to
the even distribution of mass, the mixing ratio of propellants, combustion efficiency, and stability.
The results indicate that the uniformity of the air core is not solely contingent on an increase in
Citation: Ronceros, J.; Raymundo, C.;
parameter “n” but is also influenced by an increase in the parameter “C”. It is worth noting that
Ayala, E.; Rivera, D.; Vinces, L.;
the key dimensions of these six atomizers were determined using a mathematical model based on
Ronceros, G.; Zapata, G. Study of
Abramovich and Kliachko theories.
Internal Flow in Open-End and
Closed Pressure-Swirl Atomizers
Keywords: open-end pressure-swirl atomizer; closed pressure-swirl atomizer; Abramovich theory;
with Variation of Geometrical
Parameters. Aerospace 2023, 10, 930.
Kliachko theory; nozzle-opening parameter “C”; number of inlet channels “n”
https://doi.org/10.3390/
aerospace10110930
Academic Editor: Konstantinos

1. Introduction
Kontis
Pressure-swirl atomizers find widespread application in power generation, gas tur-
Received: 17 September 2023 bines, and rocket engines [1]. Typically, these atomizers consist of tangential inlet channels,
Revised: 24 October 2023 a chamber for swirl generation, a nozzle, and a discharge orifice [2]. The distinguishing
Accepted: 27 October 2023 feature of a pressure-swirl atomizer is its ability to induce a centrifugal motion within a
Published: 31 October 2023
fluid. This fluid is introduced through periodically distributed channels around the swirl
chamber (Figure 1a), resulting in the disruption of the liquid film. The expelled liquid takes
on the form of a cone-shaped spray (Figure 1b).
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Pressure-swirl atomizers come in various types, categorized based on the angular
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. incidence of their inlet channels (tangential, helical, or conical) [3] and according to nozzle-
This article is an open access article opening parameter “C”. Pressure-swirl atomizers are classified into two main categories:
distributed under the terms and “open-end” and “closed” [4] (see Figure 2), where the parameter “C” relates the radius of
conditions of the Creative Commons the swirl chamber to the radius of the nozzle outlet orifice (see Equation (1)). In open-end
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// pressure-swirl atomizers, the radius of the swirl chamber (Rs) is equal to the radius of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the exit orifice (Rs = ro, where C = 1) [5]. In contrast, the closed atomizer always has a
4.0/). swirl-chamber radius greater than the outlet-orifice radius (Rs > ro, where C > 1).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10110930 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

radius of the exit orifice (Rs = ro, where C = 1) [5]. In contrast, the closed atomizer
radius of the exit orifice (Rs = ro, where C = 1) [5]. In contrast, the closed atomizer
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW always
has a swirl‐chamber radius greater than the outlet‐orifice radius (Rs >2 ofro,24where C
has a swirl‐chamber radius greater than the outlet‐orifice radius (Rs > ro, where C > 1).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 2 of 24

radius of the exit orifice (Rs = ro, where C = 1) [5]. In contrast, the closed atomizer always
has a swirl‐chamber radius greater than the outlet‐orifice radius (Rs > ro, where C > 1).
Figure 1. (a) Periodic inlet channels around swirl chamber and (b) spray angle and annular
Figure 1. (a) Periodic inlet channels around swirl chamber and (b) spray angle and annula
section.
section.
Figure
Figure 1.
1. (a)
(a)Periodic
Periodicinlet
inletchannels
channelsaround
around swirl
swirl chamber
chamber and
and (b)
(b) spray
spray angle
angle and
and annular
annular section.
section.
Figure 2. Geometric alterations based on the parameter ‘C’.

It 2.isGeometric
Figure important alterations
to notebased on the
that the parameter
variation of‘C’.
the parameter “C” is directly linked to the
It is important to note that the variation of the parameter “C” is directly linked to the
formation of vortices
It is important within
to within
note that thevariation
swirl chamber. Consequently, this variation influences
formation of vortices thetheswirl chamber. of the parameter
Consequently, “C” is directly
this variationlinked to the
influences
other geometric
It is important parameters
to note such
thethat as the radius of the “air core” (the cylindrical vacuum in
formation
other of vortices
geometric within
parameters such as thethe
swirl variation
chamber.
radius of the “airof core”
the parameter
Consequently, (thethis “C”vacuum
variation
cylindrical is directly
influencesin linke
Figure
formation
Figure 1b),the
other geometric
1b), the spray
ofspray
vortices angle
parameters
angle (2α),
such
within
(2α), asand
and the
the the
filmfilm
theradius
swirl of flow
the
chamber.
flow area area
“air core”coefficient
coefficient (the“φ”
Consequently, “φ”
cylindrical
(see (see Equation
vacuum
this
Equation in
variation
(2)). (2)).
in
As
As a result,
Figure
a result,the
1b), thegeometry
the geometry
spray angle of of
the the
(2α), atomizer
and
atomizerthe film directly
flow
directly area
impactsimpacts
coefficient
the the behavior
behavior“ϕ” (see
of the of thefilm,
Equation
liquid liquid film,
(2)).
other geometric parameters such as the radius of the “air core” (the cylindrical va
As a the
with
with result,
theliquid thefilm
liquid geometry of the atomizer
filmdiminishing
diminishing as the directly
pressure impacts
drop the behavior
increases [6].of the liquid film,
Figure
withThe
the 1b),
liquid thefilmspray angle as
diminishing as
the
(2α),
the
pressure
and thedrop
pressure filmincreases
drop flow area
increases
[6]. coefficient
[6]. “φ” (see Equat
Thebipropellant
bipropellant pressure‐swirl
pressure‐swirl atomizer
atomizer RD‐0110RD‐0110 incorporates
incorporates both typesbothoftypes
atom‐of atom‐
As aThe
izers,
result,
open‐end
izers, open‐end
the
bipropellant geometry
andclosed,
and closed,
of theatomizer
pressure-swirl
arranged
arranged
atomizer directly
RD-0110
concentrically
concentrically
impacts
incorporates
to ensure
to ensure the
the
both
the intersection
behavior
types of atom-
intersection
of the liqu
of the fuel
of the fuel
izers, open-end
withoxidant
the liquid and closed, arranged concentrically to ensure the intersection of the fuel
and
and oxidant sprayfilm
spray cones
conesdiminishing
at at
thetheoutlets
outletsofasboth
the
of pressure
atomizers
both drop
(see
atomizers Figure
(see increases
3). The3).
Figure [6].
utilization of
The utilization of
and oxidant spray cones at the outlets of both atomizers (see Figure 3). The utilization
The
pressure‐swirl
pressure‐swirl bipropellant
atomizers
atomizers pressure‐swirl
played
played a pivotal
a pivotal atomizer
role in
role RD‐0110
addressing
in addressing the incorporates
combustion‐stability
the both
combustion‐stability types o
of pressure-swirl atomizers played a pivotal role in addressing the combustion-stability
challenges
izers,
challenges ininthe
open‐end theRD‐0110
RD‐0110 rocket
and closed, rocket engine,
arranged
engine, which werewere primarily
concentrically
which linked
to
primarily ensureto the
linked theinteraction
tointersection
the interaction of
challenges in the RD-0110 rocket engine, which were primarily linked to the interaction
between the spray cones of the oxidant and fuel atomizers [7].
and
betweenoxidant
between thespray
the spray
spray cones
cones
cones ofof atoxidant
thethe the outlets
oxidant andand fuelof
fuelboth atomizers
atomizers
atomizers [7]. [7]. (see Figure 3). The utiliz
pressure‐swirl atomizers played a pivotal role in addressing the combustion‐
challenges in the RD‐0110 rocket engine, which were primarily linked to the int
between the spray cones of the oxidant and fuel atomizers [7].
Figure 3. Bipropellant pressure‐swirl atomizer similar to an RD‐0110 atomizer.

Figure 3. Bipropellant pressure-swirl atomizer similar to an RD-0110 atomizer.

Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24
Considering the categorization of pressure‐swirl atomizers based on their geometric

Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 characteristics, we analyzed the internal flow behavior while varying the nozzle‐opening
3 of 24
parameter “C” and the number of inlet tangential channels “n”. This analysis aims to de‐
termine their optimal design for specific applications within the combustion chambers of
rocketConsidering
engines. the categorization of pressure-swirl atomizers based on their geometric
characteristics, we analyzed the internal flow behavior while varying the nozzle-opening
R
C
parameter “C” and the number of inlet tangential channels “n”. This analysis aims to (1)
r
determine their optimal design for specific applications within the combustion chambers
of rocket engines.
Rs r
C= φ 1 (1) (2)
ro r
r2a
ϕ = 1− (2)
2. Mathematical Model for the Internal Flow
r2o
2.1. Assuming Ideal Flow
2. Mathematical Model for the Internal Flow
In this study,
2.1. Assuming we utilized the Rivas mathematical model [8], which was employed in
Ideal Flow
the context of a conical
In this study, pressure‐swirl
we utilized atomizer. This
the Rivas mathematical modelmodel yielded
[8], which wasreasonably
employed in accurate
results for determining
the context various geometric
of a conical pressure-swirl atomizer.parameters. It is important
This model yielded reasonably toaccurate
note that this
user‐friendly model canvarious
results for determining also be adaptedparameters.
geometric for atomizers It iswith tangential
important to noteinlet
thatchannels
this by
adjusting the model
user-friendly anglescan
of incidence for these
also be adapted channels with
for atomizers on the swirl chamber.
tangential In thisbyadapta‐
inlet channels
adjusting
tion, the angles
the helix angleof“ψ”
incidence
[9] is for
setthese
to 0°,channels
ensuring on that
the swirl chamber.
it lies In this adaptation,
on a vertical plane parallel to
thexz
the helix anglewhile
plane, “ψ” [9]
theisswirl 0◦ , ensuring
set to angle “β” is◦that it lies
set to 90°on a vertical
and lies onplane
the xyparallel
planeto(see
the Figure
xz 4).
plane, while the swirl angle “β” is set to 90 and lies on the xy plane (see Figure 4).
Angles of ◦ ◦
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Angles ofincidence
incidenceforfor
tangential pressure-swirl
tangential atomizer
pressure‐swirl (ψ = 0(ψand
atomizer = 90 β).= 90°).
= 0°β and
It is worth mentioning that this model draws its foundations from the Abramovich
It is[10,11],
theory worthwhich
mentioning
assumesthat
thatthis
the model
liquid isdraws its foundations
incompressible from the(µAbramovich
and frictionless = 0),
theory [10,11], which assumes that the liquid is incompressible and frictionless
and the Kliachko theory [12], which considers the viscosity of the liquid. By applying (μ = 0), and
the Kliachko theory
Abramovich’s [12],the
postulate, which considersequations
Navier–Stokes the viscosity of the liquid.
are simplified By applying
to Bernoulli’s Abramo‐
equation
vich’s postulate,
(see Equation (3)):the Navier–Stokes equations are simplified to Bernoulli’s equation (see
Equation (3)): u2 p
+ + gz = cte (3)
2 ρ
𝑢 𝑝
By applying Bernoulli’s equation (Equation𝑔𝑧 (4)) at𝑐𝑡𝑒
the radial position “ra ” which (3)
2 𝜌
is precisely at the interface between the liquid and gas, the radial component becomes
null By
when we assume
applying constant equation
Bernoulli’s axial velocity [13]. Following
(Equation this,radial
(4)) at the applying the equation
position “ra” which is
of angular momentum (Equation (5)), we can establish a relationship
precisely at the interface between the liquid and gas, the radial component for the tangential
becomes null
velocity within the air core, denoted as Wθra , in relation to the tangential velocity at the top
when we assume constant axial velocity [13]. Following this, applying the equation of
of the swirl chamber, denoted as (Wθinj ):
angular momentum (Equation (5)), we can establish a relationship for the tangential ve‐
locity within the air core, denoted as 𝑊 2, in relation
2∆P to the tangential velocity at the top
= Wzra + W2θra (4)
of the swirl chamber, denoted as (𝑊ρ ):
Wθra2ΔP
.ra = Wθinj .Rinj (5)
W W (4)
ρ
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 4 of 24
Furthermore, we can establish a connection between the pressure drop, the radius of
the outlet orifice, and the mass flow rate through the discharge coefficient (Equation (6)).
This can be conveniently organized in terms of the film flow area coefficient, denoted
as ϕ. By applying the principle of maximum mass flow rate (dCd/dϕ.), we derive the
geometric parameter of the conical pressure-swirl atomizer, denoted as “Ac ” [8], as shown
in Equation (7):
.
m
Cd = 2 √ (6)
πro 2ρ.∆P
π.ro .Rinj
Ac = cos ψ.sin β (7)
n.fp
Subsequently, in cases where the inlet channels are tangentially distributed around
the swirl chamber, the geometric parameter of the conical pressure-swirl atomizer, denoted
as “Ac ”, simplifies to the Abramovich number “A” (Equation (8)). In this configuration, the
angles “ψ” and “β” are set to 0◦ and 90◦ , respectively (see Figure 4).
It should be noted than “A” is a non-dimensional geometrical characteristic parameter
of the atomizer or “Swirl number”, which is the ratio of angular momentum to axial
momentum [14]. This parameter relates the main dimensions of the atomizer and is
therefore essential in the design and dynamics of pressure-swirl atomizers and their use
as a means of suppressing various mechanisms of high-frequency instabilities [15] in the
combustion chambers of rocket engines:
√
π.ro .Rinj 2(1 − ϕ)
A= = √ (8)
n.fp ϕ ϕ
Additionally, various parameters including the discharge coefficient and the half-angle
of the spray cone can be determined as functions of the film flow coefficient “ϕ”. These
relationships are given by Equations (9) and (10), respectively [16]:
s
ϕ3
Cd = (9)
2−ϕ
√
2 2(1 − ϕ)
sin α ∼
= √ √ (10)
1+ 1−ϕ 2−ϕ
2.2. Assuming Losses for Liquid Viscosity

Next, taking into account the viscosity of the liquid, losses in angular momentum
(K), and hydraulic losses (ξtot ) in the inlet channels (where, ξtot = ξinj + ξλ ) [15], both
the modified Bernoulli’s equation and the equivalent discharge coefficient are adjusted to
Equations (11) and (12), respectively.
Here, ξinj represents the loss coefficient in the inlet channel geometry, which is a
l
function of the tilt angle “γ” (γ = arctan( Rinjs )) and can be determined from the data
presented in Figure 5.
On the other hand, ξλ accounts for the losses due to flow friction along the chan-
nel walls (Equation (13)) and is connected to the Blasius friction coefficient (λ = 0.3164
Re−0.25 ) [15]: s
2∆p
q
Utotal = = W2za + W2θa + ξtot U2in (11)
ρ
1
Cdeq = r 2 (12)
2
1 (AK) Aro
ϕ2eq
+ 1−ϕeq + ξtot Rinj
1
Cd
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 5 of 24
1 AK Ar (12)
ξ
φ 1 φ R
l
ξ = λλ linj
ξ (13)
(13)
λ 2r
2rinj
Lossescoefficient
Figure5.5.Losses
Figure coefficient“ξ“ξ
inj” ” as
injas a function
a function of of
thethe
tilttilt angle
angle “γ”,
“γ”, adapted
adapted from
from Souza
Souza [17].
[17].
InInconclusion,
conclusion,bybyapplying
applyingthe theAbramovich
Abramovichtheory
theorytotoa areal
realflow
flow(maximum
(maximumflow),
flow),
we derive the equivalent geometric parameter according to Kliachko, denoted
we derive the equivalent geometric parameter according to Kliachko, denoted as Aeq [18], as Aeq [18],
expressed in terms of the equivalent film flow area coefficient “ϕ eq ” (Equation
expressed in terms of the equivalent film flow area coefficient “φeq” (Equation (14)). This (14)). This
leadstotothe
leads thedetermination
determinationofofthe
theequivalent
equivalentdischarge
dischargecoefficient
coefficient(Equation
(Equation(15))
(15))and
andthe
the
equivalent half-spray angle (Equation (16)) as functions
equivalent half‐spray angle (Equation (16)) as functions of φeqeq of ϕ [19]:
[19]:
√
2√ 1 − ϕeq

A = AKAK
Aeq = (14)
(14)
√
ϕeq ϕeq
1
Cd 1
Cdeq = r (15)
22−ϕφeq Ar 2 (15)
+ ξξtot Ar o
φ 3
ϕeq Rinj
R
2Cdeq Aeq
sin αeq ∼
= 2Cdr A 2 (16)
sin α ≅ 1 + 1 − ϕeq 1 − ξtot Cd2 Aro
p
eq Rinj
Ar (16)
1 1 φ 1 ξ Cd
R
3. Numerical Simulation
To conduct the numerical simulations, six distinct geometries accompanied by their
3. Numerical meshes
hexahedral were created using ICEM CFD software 2023. Variations were made
Simulation
in the nozzle-opening
To conduct parameter
the numerical “C” andsix
simulations, the number
distinct of inlet channels
geometries ”n”. by
accompanied Detailed
their
information regarding these parameters and the principal dimensions is
hexahedral meshes were created using ICEM CFD software 2023. Variations were madeprovided in Table 1.
inEnsuring mesh independence,
the nozzle‐opening parameterit“C”is essential
and the to consider
number the dimensionless
of inlet channels ”n”. wall distance,
Detailed in‐
denoted as ‘y+’ (as per Equation (17)), to identify the appropriate region for addressing
formation regarding these parameters and the principal dimensions is provided in Table
turbulence phenomena.
1. Ensuring mesh independence, it is essential to consider the dimensionless wall distance,
denoted as ‘y+’ (as per Equation (17)), to identify the appropriate region for addressing
Table 1. Dimensions and characteristics of meshes.
turbulence phenomena.
Inlet Channel
Inlet Channel Swirl-Chamber Outlet Diameter, 2ro
Meshes Cells and Nodes Length, linj
Diameter, 2rinj (mm) Diameter, 2Rs (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Mesh a (C = 1; n = 2) 5,118,846; 5,195,386 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
Mesh b (C = 1; n = 4) 4,022,457; 4,088,728 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
Mesh c (C = 1; n = 6) 5,115,184; 5,189,524 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
Mesh d (C = 2; n = 2) 5,027,856; 5,098,288 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00
Mesh e (C = 2; n = 4) 4,567,680; 4,632,935 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00
Mesh f (C = 2; n = 6) 5,407,524; 5,483,524 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00
Mesh a (C = 1; n = 2) 5,118,846; 5,195,386 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
Mesh b (C = 1; n = 4) 4,022,457; 4,088,728 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
Mesh c (C = 1; n = 6) 5,115,184; 5,189,524 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00
Mesh d (C = 2; n = 2) 5,027,856; 5,098,288 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00
Mesh e (C = 2; n = 4)
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930
4,567,680; 4,632,935 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00 6 of 24
Mesh f (C = 2; n = 6) 5,407,524; 5,483,524 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00
In Figure 6, the six meshes are illustrated (Figure 6a–f). Notably, a cylindrical region
(FigureIn 6g)
Figure
was6,introduced
the six meshes are
within illustrated
the domain to (Figure 6a–f).
aid in the Notably, a cylindrical
development region
and visualization
(Figure 6g) was introduced within the domain to aid in the development and visualization
of the spray angle. Additionally, proper refinement of boundary layers on the walls was
of the spray angle. Additionally, proper refinement of boundary layers on the walls was
taken into consideration (Figure 6h).
taken into consideration (Figure 6h).
Figure 6.
Figure (a)Mesh,
6. (a) Mesh,(a,b)
(a,b)mesh,
mesh,(b,c)
(b,c) mesh,
mesh, (c,d)
(c,d) mesh,
mesh, (d,e)
(d,e) mesh,
mesh, (e,f)
(e,f) mesh,
mesh, (f,g)
(f,g) atomizer
atomizer domain
domain
with cylindrical zone, and (h) refinement walls.
with cylindrical zone, and (h) refinement walls.
It is noteworthy that all numerical simulations were performed utilizing a 12th Gen-
eration Intel® Core™ i9-12900KF processor operating at 3.20 GHz with 64.0 GB of RAM.
ρUτ y
y+ = (17)
µ
Subsequently, while considering a range of [10–22] m/s for the free stream velocity
(U∞ ) and a hydraulic diameter for the inlet channels (Dh = 2rinj = 1 mm for all geometries),
the skin friction coefficient “Cf ” can be determined using Equation (18) [20].
By calculating the wall shear stress (τ w ) and the velocity friction (Uτ ) using
Equations (19) and (20), respectively, and taking into account the nearest cell-to-wall
𝑦 𝜇𝜇 (17)
Subsequently,
Subsequently, while
while considering
considering aa range
range of of [10–22]
[10–22] m/s
m/s for for the
the free
free stream
stream velocity
velocity
(U∞∞))and
(U andaahydraulic
hydraulicdiameter
diameterfor forthe
theinlet
inletchannels
channels(D (Dhh==2r
2rinjinj==11mm
mmfor forallallgeometries),
geometries),
the
theskin
skinfriction
frictioncoefficient
coefficient“C
“Cf”f”can
canbebedetermined
determinedusing usingEquation
Equation(18) (18)[20].
[20].
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 By calculating the wall shear stress (𝜏
By calculating the wall shear stress (𝜏w) and the velocity friction(U
w) and the velocity friction (U𝜏𝜏))using
usingEquations
7 of 24
Equations
(19)
(19) and (20), respectively, and taking into account the nearest cell‐to‐wall distance (y
and (20), respectively, and taking into account the nearest cell‐to‐wall distance (y ==
0.0016
0.0016 mm for all meshes), these values can be inserted into Equation (17). This givesus
mm for all meshes), these values can be inserted into Equation (17). This gives us
the
the range
range of
ofy+
y+values
values depicted
depicted in
in Figure
Figure 7:
7:
distance (y = 0.0016 mm for all meshes), these values can be inserted into Equation (17).
This gives us the range of y+ values depicted . 7:
in Figure
CC 0.078Re
0.078Re . (18)
(18)
Cf = 0.078Re−0.25 (18)
ττ 0.5C
0.5CρU
ρU (19)
(19)
τw = 0.5Cf ρU2∞ (19)
UU r τw (20)
(20)
Uτ = (20)
ρ
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.0
Non-dimensionalwallwall
y+
normal distance, y+
1.8
1.8
distance,
Non-dimensional
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
normal
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
88 10
10 12
12 14 14 1616 18 18 20 20 22
22 24
24
Free
Freestream
streamVelocity,
Velocity,UU∞∞(m/s)
(m/s)
Figure ++
Figure7.
Figure 7.Dimensionless
7. Dimensionlesswall
Dimensionless walldistance
wall distance(y
distance (y+)))as
(y asaaafunction
as functionof
function offree
of freestream
free streamvelocity
stream velocity(U
velocity ).).).
(U∞∞∞
(U
As depictedin inFigure
Figure7,7,7,the
therange
range + was determined to be (0.99; 1.98), which
As
Asdepicted
depicted in Figure the range ofof
of yy++ywas
was determined
determinedto tobe
be(0.99;
(0.99;1.98),
1.98),which
whichcor‐ cor‐
corresponds
responds to to
the the viscous
viscous sublayer
sublayer region
region (indicated
(indicated by by
the the
red
responds to the viscous sublayer region (indicated by the red box in Figure red
boxbox
in in Figure
Figure 8).
8). 8).
In
In In this
this
this re‐
re‐
region, it is advisable to use the “enhanced wall function” approach (y + < 5) [21].
gion,
gion,ititisisadvisable
advisableto touse
usethe
the“enhanced
“enhancedwall wallfunction”
function”approach
approach(y (y+<<5)
+
5)[21].
[21].
Figure
Figure8.
Figure 8.Velocity
8. Velocitydistribution
Velocity distributionnear
distribution nearwall
near wallin
wall inturbulent
in turbulentflow,
turbulent flow, adapted
flow,adapted from
adaptedfrom Ansys
fromAnsys [21].
Ansys[21].
[21].
Using this criterion, convergence was successfully achieved employing the k-epsilon
RNG model. It is noteworthy that the turbulence intensity (I = 0.16 Re−1/8 ) [19] and the
hydraulic diameter (Dh ) were employed as a specification method, particularly for low
Reynolds models (Re < 3 × 106 ) [22].
The numerical simulation encompasses four different cases of inlet pressure ∆P (300,
350, 400, and 450 kPa) for each mesh. These pressure variations allow the determination of
the inlet velocity, which, in turn, facilitates the calculation of the turbulence intensity (I),
where Re represents the Reynolds number within the inlet channel.
In all cases, a no-slip condition was applied to the walls of the atomizers. The chosen
turbulence model was RNG k-epsilon [23]. At the outlet of the atomizers, a gauge pressure
of zero was assumed. The working fluid used in this simulation was water and, as it exhibits
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 8 of 24
incompressible flow behavior, the continuity equations (Equation (21)) and momentum
equations (Equation (22)) are independent. In this simulation, the SIMPLE algorithm,
which stands for “Semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equations,” was utilized for
correcting the pressure–velocity field [24].
∂ρ
+ ∇.(ρu) = 0 (21)
∂t

∂ 1 1 2
(u) + ∇(uu) = −∇p + µ∇(∇.u) + µ∇ u + f (22)
∂t ρ 3
In the described equations:
“u” represents the velocity vector.
“µ” denotes the absolute viscosity of the liquid.
“f” represents the vector of volumetric forces.
“p” stands for pressure.
“ρ” is the density of the liquid.
For determining the location of the liquid/gas interface, the VOF HRIC (high-resolution
interface capture) [25] multiphase model was employed. This model facilitates the cal-
culation of the liquid film thickness, the air core, and the spray angle. The VOF model,
which stands for “Volume of Fluid,” was initially proposed by Hirt and Nichols [26]. It
operates under the assumption that the volume of one phase cannot be occupied by another.
This model relies on the concept of volumetric phase fractions, where the sum of all the
parts must add up to unity (Equation (23)), with “η” representing the volume fraction of
the fluid:
ηliquid + ηgas = 1 (23)
4. Results
In the first part of the study, the results of the mathematical model are presented,
assuming an ideal liquid where the atomizers operate at the same injection pressure as the
design point (∆P = 400 kPa). Using Equations (8)–(10), we can determine the geometric
parameters as functions of the film flow area coefficient “ϕ” (as shown in Table 2).
Table 2. Geometrical parameters obtained with the mathematical model assuming ideal liquid (for
all cases: ∆P = 400 kPa).
Mass Flow, −
Case 2α (◦ ) Dimensionless Mass Flow, m A ϕ Cd
(kg/s)
a (C = 1; n = 2) 138 0.0340 0.358 27.85 0.125 0.032
b (C = 1; n = 4) 128 0.0630 0.663 14.38 0.186 0.059
c (C = 1; n = 6) 120 0.0950 1.000 9.18 0.239 0.088
d (C = 2; n = 2) 126 0.0240 0.253 12.78 0.199 0.066
e (C = 2; n = 4) 114 0.0400 0.421 6.78 0.282 0.114
f (C = 2; n = 6) 106 0.0540 0.568 4.68 0.341 0.155
The relationship between mass flow and injection pressure can be established using
Equation (6). Consequently, the atomizer group’s maximum mass flow rate corresponds to
geometry or case “c”, due to case “c” having the maximum outlet radius (ro = Rs ) and the
largest number of inlet channels (n = 6).
To facilitate the analysis, we take the mass flow rate of case “c” as a reference. Then,
.
we proceed to determine the dimensionless mass flow using Equation (24), where “mcase ”
represents the mass flow rate for each atomizer case:
.
mcase
m= . (24)
mmax
we proceed to determine the dimensionless mass 𝑚flow using Equation (24), where “
𝑚
represents the mass flow rate for each atomizer𝑚
case:
Figure 9 depicts the dimensionless mass 𝑚 flow (𝑚) as a function of the number
𝑚
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 channels “n” and the parameter “C”. It is evident 𝑚 that the highest mass 9 of flow
24 am
six cases is attained when the atomizer is open (C = 1) and equipped with the ma
Figure 9 depicts the dimensionless mass flow (𝑚) as a function of the number o
number of channels (nmax = 6). Furthermore, it is apparent that for closed atomiz
channels “n”
Figure and the
9 depicts the parameter
dimensionless“C”.
massItflow
is evident that the
(m) as a function of highest mass
the number flow amo
of inlet
1), the dimensionless mass flow tends to decrease.
six
channels “n” and the parameter “C”. It is evident that the highest mass flow among thethe max
cases is attained when the atomizer is open (C = 1) and equipped with
number
six casesof channels
is attained (nmax
when = 6). Furthermore,
the atomizer is open (C = 1)itand
is apparent thatthe
equipped with formaximum
closed atomize
number 1.00
of channels (nmax = 6). Furthermore, it is apparent that for closed atomizers
1), the dimensionless mass flow tends to decrease.
mass flow
(C > 1), the dimensionless mass flow tends to decrease.
0.80
mass flow 1.00
0.60
Dimensionless
0.80
0.40 C=1
0.60 C=2
Dimensionless
0.20
0.40 C=1
0.00 C=2
0.20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of inlet channels, n
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 9. Dimensionless mass flow (𝑚) as a function of number of inlet channels “n” acco
the opening parameter “C”.
Figure 9. Dimensionless mass flow (m) as a function of number of inlet channels “n” according to the
Figure
opening9.parameter
Dimensionless
Figure “C”.
10 displays masstheflow (𝑚) as of
behavior a function
the filmofflow
numberareaofcoefficient
inlet channels
(φ),“n” accort
which
the openingwith
increase parameter
a higher“C”.
Figure 10 displays thenumber of the
behavior of inlet channels
film flow area “n”. Importantly,
coefficient (ϕ), whichittends
is worth
to noti
“φ” becomes
increase with a even
higherlarger
number asofthe nozzle‐opening
inlet parameter
channels “n”. Importantly, “C”
it is increases.
worth noting thatThis impl
“ϕ” Figure
becomes 10
evendisplays
larger as the
the behavior of the
nozzle-opening film flow
parameter “C” area coefficient
increases. This (φ),that
implies which te
when C > 1, the radius of the air core “ ra ” tends to increase, resulting in a redu
increase
when C >with thearadius
higher number
air core of
“ rainlet channels “n”. Importantly, it is in
worth
the notin
the liquid1, film of the
thickness. ” tends to increase, resulting in a reduction
liquid
“φ” film thickness.
becomes even larger as the nozzle‐opening parameter “C” increases. This impli
when C > 1, the radius of the air core “ ra ” tends to increase, resulting in a reduc
𝜑
the liquid0.40film thickness.

area coefficient,
0.35
0.30
𝜑
0.40
coefficient,
0.25
0.35
0.20
0.30 C=1
0.15
areaflow
0.25 C=2
0.10
0.20
Film
0.05 C=1
0.15
Film flow
0.00 C=2
0.10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.05
0.00
1 flow area
Figure 10. Film 2 coefficient
3 (ϕ) as 4a function5of number6 of inlet channels
7 according to the
opening parameter “C”.
In Figure 11, it is evident that when the parameter “C” increases (C > 1), the geometric
parameter “A” tends to decrease. It can be confirmed that the reduction in “A” becomes
more pronounced with an increase in the number of inlet channels “n”.
opening parameter
In Figure “C”.
11, it is evident that when the parameter “C” increases (C > 1), the geo
parameter “A” tends to decrease. It can be confirmed that the reduction in “A” be
moreIn Figure 11, itwith
pronounced is evident that when
an increase in thethe parameter
number “C”channels
of inlet increases“n”.
(C > 1), the geo
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930
parameter “A” tends to decrease. It can be confirmed that the reduction in “A” be
10 of 24
more pronounced with an increase in the number of inlet channels “n”.
30
A A
25
30
parameter,
20
25
parameter,
15
20 C=1
Geometric
Geometric 10
15 C=2
C=1
5
10 C=2
05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 Number of inlet channels, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 11. Geometric parameter (A) as a function of number of inlet channels according to th
ing parameter
Figure “C”. parameter (A) as a function of number of inlet channels according to the
11. Geometric
Figure
opening11. Geometric
parameter “C”. parameter (A) as a function of number of inlet channels according to th
ing parameter
Figure 12“C”.
demonstrates that the spray angle decreases notably as the number o
Figure 12 demonstrates that the spray angle decreases notably as the number of inlet
channels increases.
channels increases. It can
It can be concluded
be concluded that, this
that, among among this
family family
of six of sixthe
atomizers, atomizers,
design the
ofoftheFigure 12
the open‐end demonstrates
atomizers
open-end atomizers that
exhibits
exhibits the spray
a larger
a larger angle decreases
spray angle.
spray angle. notably as the number
channels increases. It can be concluded that, among this family of six atomizers, the
of the 140
open‐end atomizers exhibits a larger spray angle.
135
140
2α (°)2α (°)
130
135
125 C=1
angle angle
130
120
125 C=2
C=1
115
SpraySpray
120
110 C=2
115
105
110
100
105 1
3 4 2 5 6 7
100
Number of inlet channels "n"
2 31 4 5 6 7
Figure 12. Spray angle as a function of number of inlet channels according to the opening parameter
Figure 12. Spray angleNumber
“C”.
of inlet
as a function channelsof"n"
of number inlet channels according to the opening par
“C”.
FigureIndeed,
12. Spray angle as in
as observed a function
Figure 11,ofwhen
number
bothofthe
inlet channels
parameter according
“C” to the opening
and the number of pa
“C”. Indeed, as observed in Figure 11, when both the parameter “C” and the num
inlet channels “n” increase, the geometric parameter “A” tends to reach a minimum value.
Referring to Figure 13, it is apparent that as “A” decreases, the discharge coefficient “Cd”
inlet channels “n” increase, the geometric parameter “A” tends to reach a minimum
and the coefficient
Indeed, “ϕ” increase.
as observed This indicates that when “A”the
approaches zero,“C”
the air corethe num
Referring
disappearsto (raFigure
= 0), and isinapparent
13,theit film Figure 11,
thatwhen
as “A”
flow area coefficient
both parameter
decreases,
reaches the discharge
its maximum
and
value (ϕ =coefficien
1),
inlet
and channels
the “n”the
coefficient
effectively causing increase,
“φ” the geometric
increase.
pressure-swirl parameter
This indicates
atomizer to like“A”
behavethat a jettends
when “A”toapproaches
atomizer. reach a minimum
In contrast, zero,
Referring
when the to Figure
parameter 13,
“A” it is
increases,apparent
the spraythat as
angle “A”
cone decreases,
(2α) also the
increases.
core disappears (ra = 0), and the film flow area coefficient reaches its maximum valu discharge coefficien
andeffectively
1), the coefficient
By referencing
causing “φ”
Figure increase.
the13, This indicates
and considering
pressure‐swirl that
the information
atomizer when “A”aapproaches
from Figures
to behave like 9–12, it be- zero,
jet atomizer. In co
comes
core clear that
disappears these
(r observations and trends are consistent with the equations
a = 0), and the film flow area coefficient reaches its maximum val
of the
when the parameter
non-viscous mathematical “A” increases,
model used in the spray angle cone (2𝛼) also increases.
this study.
1), effectively causing
By referencing the pressure‐swirl
Figure atomizer
13, and considering toinformation
the behave like afrom jet atomizer.
Figures In co
9–12
when the
comes parameter
clear that these “A” increases, the
observations andspray
trendsangle
arecone (2𝛼) also
consistent increases.
with the equations
By referencing Figure 13, and
non‐viscous mathematical model used in this study. considering the information from Figures 9–12
comes clear that these observations and trends are consistent with the equations
non‐viscous mathematical model used in this study.
Aerospace
Aerospace2023,
2023,10,
10,x930
FOR PEER REVIEW 11 11
ofof2424
Figure13.
Figure Discharge
13.Discharge coefficient
coefficient “Cd”,
“Cd”, filmfilm
flowflow
areaarea coefficient
coefficient “ϕ”,spray
“𝜑”, and and spray angleas(2α)
angle (2𝛼) as a
a func‐
function
tion of geometrical
of geometrical parameter
parameter A, adapted
A, adapted from [18].
from [18].
InInthe
thenext
nextphase
phaseofofthis
thisstudy,
study,thethemathematical
mathematicalmodel modelconsiders
considersthe
theviscosity
viscosityofofthe
the
liquid through Equations (11)–(16). It is important to note that the same
liquid through Equations (11)–(16). It is important to note that the same injection pressure injection pressure
(∆P==400
(ΔP 400kPa)
kPa)isismaintained
maintained forfor all
all six
six cases,
cases, andand the
the respective
respectivemass
massflow
flowrates
ratesfor
foreach
eachof
them, as determined in Table 2, are imposed.
of them, as determined in Table 2, are imposed. .
Then,the
Then, thenominal
nominalparameters
parameters(mass (massflow flowrate
rate“m
“m” andinjection
” and injectionpressure
pressure“ΔP”),
“∆P”),
when related to the liquid viscosity (“Re” in the inlet channels), allow
when related to the liquid viscosity (“Re” in the inlet channels), allow the determination the determination
ofofequivalent
equivalentgeometric
geometricparameters
parameters (A(A eq , ϕeq , Cdeq , and 2αeq ). These, when coupled
eq, φeq, Cdeq, and 2αeq). These, when coupled with
with hydraulic losses “ ξtot ” and “K” (losses due to the reduction of angular movement),
hydraulic losses “ ξtot ” and “K” (losses due to the reduction of angular movement), ulti‐
ultimately lead to the calculation of the primary dimensions of the atomizer (2r , 2Rs ,
mately lead to the calculation of the primary dimensions of the atomizer (2rinj, 2Rinj s, and
and 2r ).
2ro). o
It is important to mention that the results shown in Table 3 were obtained through
It is important to mention that the results shown in Table 3 were obtained through
iterations (the third iteration with the mathematical model), with convergence focused
iterations (the third iteration with the mathematical model), with convergence focused on
on the continuity equation (U ). It should be noted that these final dimensions in the six
the continuity equation (Uin). Itinshould be noted that these final dimensions in the six ge‐
geometries were considered approximately in the six corresponding meshes detailed in
ometries were considered approximately in the six corresponding meshes detailed in Ta‐
Table 1 (with all meshes sharing dimensions: 2r = 1 mm, 2Rs = 8 mm, and linj = 5 mm).
ble 1 (with all meshes sharing dimensions: 2rinj = inj 1 mm, 2Rs = 8 mm, and linj = 5 mm).
Table 3. Equivalent parameters and final dimensions of atomizers, assuming liquid viscosity (for all
Table 3. Equivalent parameters and final dimensions of atomizers, assuming liquid viscosity (for
cases
all ∆PΔP
cases = =400
400kPa).
kPa)
Case UinU(m/s)
in Rein Aeq φeq Cdeq K ξtot 2αeq 2rinj (mm)
2rinj 2Rs (mm)
2Rs 2ro (mm)
2ro
Case Rein Aeq ϕeq Cdeq K ξtot 2αeq
a (m/s)
21.12 30,113.67 27.85 0.1254 0.0234 1.00 0.861 137.45 (mm)
1.014 (mm)
8.088 (mm)
8.088
ba 21.12
20.51 30,113.67
40,397.42 27.8514.38 0.1254
0.1858 0.0234
0.0441 1.00
1.00 0.861
0.855 137.45 0.989
127.86 1.014 8.019 8.088 8.088
8.019
cb 20.51
19.98 40,397.42
48,967.81 14.389.18 0.1858
0.2394 0.0441
0.0672 1.00
1.00 0.855
0.846 127.86 1.005
119.93 0.989 7.984 8.019 8.019
7.984
c 19.98 48,967.81 9.18 0.2394 0.0672 1.00 0.846 119.93 1.005 7.984 7.984
dd 14.00
14.00
20,608.04 10.9310.93
20,608.04
0.2173
0.2173
0.0674
0.0674
0.86
0.86
0.865
0.865
123.11
123.11
1.045
1.045
8.014
8.014
4.007
4.007
ee 12.59
12.59 25,227.42 6.226.22
25,227.42 0.2949
0.2949 0.1122
0.1122 0.92
0.92 0.866
0.866 112.12
112.12 1.006
1.006 8.016 8.016 4.008
4.008
ff 11.35
11.35 27,823.30 4.424.42
27,823.30 0.3506
0.3506 0.1499
0.1499 0.95
0.95 0.864
0.864 104.51
104.51 1.006
1.006 8.054 8.054 4.027
4.027
Analyzing the data in Table 4, it is evident that among the group of atomizers, case
Analyzing the data in Table 4, it is evident that among the group of atomizers, case “c”
“c” is the one that consumes the most propellant. This is logical as it has the highest num‐
is the one that consumes the most propellant. This is logical as it has the highest number
ber of channels (n = 6) and is an open‐end atomizer. Conversely, case “d” consumes the
of channels (n = 6) and is an open-end atomizer. Conversely, case “d” consumes the least
least amount of propellant (approximately 25% of what case “c” consumes).
amount of propellant (approximately 25% of what case “c” consumes).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 12 of 24

Table 4. Comparison of nominal mass flow rate of the mathematical model with respect to the nu‐
merical simulation RNG K‐𝜀 model (for all cases ΔP = 400 kPa).
Table 4. Comparison of nominal mass flow rate of the mathematical model with respect to the
Mass Flow Rate, Mathe‐ Mass Flow Rate, RNG
Case
numerical simulation RNG K-ε model (for all cases ∆Pk‐𝜀
= 400 kPa).(kg/s) Deviation (%)
matical Model (kg/s) Model
a (C = 1; n = 2) Mass0.034
Flow Rate, 0.038 Rate,
Mass Flow −10.53
b (C = Case
1; n = 4) 0.063 Model
Mathematical 0.070
RNG k-ε Model −10.00 (%)
Deviation
c (C = 1; n = 6) 0.095
(kg/s) 0.098
(kg/s) −3.06
d (C = 2; n = 2) 0.024 0.028 −14.29
a (C = 1; n = 2) 0.034 0.038 −10.53
e b(C(C= =2;1;n n= =
4)4) 0.040
0.063 0.044
0.070 −−9.09
10.00
f c(C(C= =2;1;n n= =
6)6) 0.054
0.095 0.057
0.098 −−5.26
3.06
d (C = 2; n = 2) 0.024 0.028 −14.29
eIn
(Caddition,
= 2; n = 4)it can be observed
0.040that the mathematical −9.09
0.044model closely approximates the
f (C = 2; n = 6) 0.054 0.057 − 5.26
values from the numerical simulation in cases “c” and “f” (both with n = 6). However,
there are greater deviations between the mathematical model and the numerical simula‐
tion In
when the numbers
addition, it can beof inlet channels
observed that theare n = 2 and n
mathematical = 4, with
model closelytheapproximates
maximum error the
occurring in case “d” (−14.29%). Despite these discrepancies, it
values from the numerical simulation in cases “c” and “f” (both with n = 6). However, is noteworthy that the
mathematical
there are greatermodel is quite
deviations accurate
between thefor all cases, especially
mathematical when
model and theproviding
numericalthe primary
simulation
dimensions
when of the atomizers
the numbers as shown
of inlet channels are nin=Table
2 and3.n = 4, with the maximum error occurring
in caseIn“d”
Figure 14, the mass
(−14.29%). flow
Despite ratesdiscrepancies,
these obtained from it the mathematical
is noteworthy thatmodel, accounting
the mathematical
for losses
model due accurate
is quite to liquidfor viscosity,
all cases,are compared
especially withproviding
when the results
theofprimary
the numerical simula‐
dimensions of
tionatomizers
the in a steady state forinfour
as shown Tabledifferential
3. pressures (ΔP: 300, 350, 400, and 450 kPa). It is
evident that the
In Figure 14,mathematical
the mass flow model
ratesprovides
obtainedgood fromapproximations
the mathematical when compared
model, with
accounting
thelosses
for numerical
due tosimulation resultsare
liquid viscosity, forcompared
cases “c” with
and “f”.
the results of the numerical simulation
From state
in a steady this comparison, it can pressures
for four differential be concluded that 350,
(∆P: 300, the 400,
accuracy
and 450 of kPa).
the mathematical
It is evident
that
modelthedepends
mathematical
on the model
number provides
of inlet good
channels,approximations
and the model whentendscompared
to performwith the
better
numerical simulation
when the number results for
of channels cases “c”
exceeds andn“f”.
2 (i.e., > 2).
0.12
Math. Model (a)

0.10 Num. Sim. (a)
Math. Model (b)
0.08 Num. Sim (b)

Mass flow rate (kg/s)
Math. Model (c)

Num. Sim. (c)
0.06
Math. Model (d)
Num. Sim. (d)
0.04 Math. Model (e)
Num. Sim. (e)
Math. Model (f)
0.02
Num. Sim. (f)
0.00
250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 500.00
Differential pressure, 𝛥P (kPa)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Mass
Mass flow
flow rate
rate as
as aa function
function of
of differential
differential pressure
pressure (∆P)
(ΔP) for
for six
six cases:
cases: case
case (a),
(a), case
case (b),
(b),
case(c),
case (c),case
case(d),
(d),case
case(e)
(e)and
andcases
cases(f).
(f).
From
Figuresthis comparison,
15–20 it can
display the be concluded
contours that the in
of total pressure accuracy
a steadyofstate
the mathematical
in two views:
model depends
(a) vertical planeon
andthe(b)
number of inlet
horizontal channels,
plane and for
(z = −2 mm) theΔP
model
= 400tends toshould
kPa. It perform bebetter
noted
when the number
that section of channels
A‐A (Figure 15a) exceeds 2 (i.e., n the
passes through > 2).axes of the inlet tangential channels of
Figures
the six 15–20 and
atomizers display the contours
is referenced as of total pressure
“horizontal in (z
plane a steady state inIntwo
= −2 mm)”. all views: (a)
cases, the
vertical plane and (b) horizontal plane (z = −2 mm) for ∆P = 400 kPa. It should be noted
that section A-A (Figure 15a) passes through the axes of the inlet tangential channels of the
Aerospace
Aerospace 2023,
2023, 10,10, x FOR
x FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 13 13
of of
24 24
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 pressure losses and vortices within the swirl chamber result from wall friction and varia‐ 13 of 24
pressure
pressure
tions thelosses
in losses andand vortices
vortices
cross‐sectional area within
within thethe
of the swirl
swirl chamber
chamber
tangential result
result
channels from
asfrom
they wall
wall
enter friction
friction
the and
swirl and varia‐
varia‐
chamber,
tions
tions
and in in
thethethe cross‐sectional
cross‐sectional
pressure area
area
drop exhibits ofaof
the the tangential
tangential
radial behavior channels
channels asas
influenced they
they enter
byenter
the thethe
angular swirl
swirl chamber,
chamber,
momentum
andandthethe
equation. pressure
pressure drop
drop exhibits
exhibits a a radial
radial behavior
behavior influenced
influenced by by
thethe angular
angular momentum
momentum
six atomizers and is referenced as “horizontal plane (z = −2 mm)”. In all cases, the pressure
equation.
equation.
Within the group of open‐end atomizers (Figures 15b, 16b, and 17), it is observable
losses andthe vortices within the swirl chamber result 15b,
from wall friction and variations in
that asWithin
Within the
the number group
group of of of open‐end
open‐end
channels atomizers
atomizers
increases, (Figures
the (Figures
total 15b,
pressure 16b,
16b, and
and 17),
17),
distribution it itmore
is is is observable
observable
uniform
the
that
that ascross-sectional
as
thethe number
number ofarea
of of theincreases,
channels
channels tangential
increases, channels
the
the total
total as they distribution
pressure
pressure enter the swirl
distribution is chamber,
is more
more and the
uniform
uniform
in proximity to the walls of the swirl chamber. The most notable instance occurs in the
pressure
in drop
proximity to toexhibits
the wallsaofradial behavior influenced by the angular momentum equation.
inopen‐end
proximity the
atomizer walls
with sixof
the the swirl
swirl
tangential chamber.
chamber.
channels TheThe most
most
(Figure notable
notable
17b). instance
instance occurs
occurs in in
thethe
open‐end atomizer with six tangential channels
open‐end atomizer with six tangential channels (Figure 17b). (Figure 17b).
(a) (b)
(a)(a) (b)(b)
Figure 15. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “a” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure
Figure
Figure 15.
15.15. Contours
Contours
Contours oftotal
of total pressure
pressure [kPa]
[kPa]
of of of case
case
“a”“a”“a”
forfor
ΔP ∆P =
= 400 400
kPa:kPa:
(a) (a) vertical
vertical planeplane
and and
(b)(b)
horizontal plane (z of total
= −2 mm).pressure [kPa] case for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and
(b) horizontal
horizontal
horizontal plane
plane
plane (z (z =(z
= −2 −2
mm).−2 mm).
=mm).
(a) (b)
(a)(a) (b)(b)
Figure 16. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “b” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure
Figure 16.16.
horizontal Contours
Contours(z of of total
total pressure
pressure [kPa]
[kPa] of of case
case “b”“b”
forfor
ΔPΔP = 400
= 400 kPa:
kPa: (a)(a) vertical
vertical plane
plane and
and (b)(b)
Figure 16.plane = −2
Contours ofmm).
total pressure [kPa] of case “b” for ∆P = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and
horizontal
horizontal plane
plane (z (z = −2
= −2 mm).
mm).
(b) horizontal plane (z = −2 mm).
(a) (b)
(a)(a) (b)(b)
Figure 17. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “c” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure
Figure 17.17. Contours
Contours of
(z =of−2 total
total pressure
pressure [kPa]
[kPa] of of case
case “c”“c”
forfor ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and
(b)(b)
horizontal
Figure 17.plane
Contours ofmm).
total pressure [kPa] of case “c”ΔPfor= 400
∆P =kPa:
400(a) vertical
kPa: plane
(a) verticaland
plane and
horizontal
horizontal plane
plane (z (z
= −2= −2 mm).
mm).
(b) horizontal plane (z = −2 mm).
In closed atomizers, the radial distribution of total pressure in the swirl chamber is
moreIn evident
closeddue to the equation
atomizers, the radialofdistribution
angular movement and the in
of total pressure increase
the swirlin chamber
the nozzle‐is
moreInevident
opening closed atomizers,
parameterdue to“C”. the
theThis radial
meansof
equation distribution
that of total
the radius
angular pressure
of the
movement outlet
and inincrease
the swirl
theorifice in chamber
decreases is
and the
the nozzle‐
more evident
thickness
opening due to
of fluid
parameter the equation
rotating
“C”. inside
This means of that
the angular
swirl movement
thechamber
radius theand
ofincreasesthe increase
(Figures
outlet orifice in the nozzle‐
18a–20a);
decreases for this
and the
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930
opening
reason,
thickness parameter
it is
of evident “C”. This
that the
fluid rotating means
pressure
inside that the radius
dropchamber
the swirl of the outlet
in the tangential orifice
increases channels decreases and
for the
is not immediate
(Figures 18a–20a); this
14 of 24
thickness
(Figures ofis fluid
reason, it18b–20b). rotating
evident The
that inside
thickness
the the swirl
of the
pressure chamber
liquid
drop in film increases
on the walls
the tangential (Figures
of the18a–20a);
channels isswirl for thisis
chamber
not immediate
reason,
(Figuresit
greater is evidentThe
in18b–20b).
closed‐end that the pressure
atomizers
thicknesscompared
of the drop in the
with
liquid tangential
open‐end
film channels
on theatomizers
walls isswirl
not immediate
(Figures
of the 15a–17a).
chamber is
(Figures
greater in18b–20b).
closed‐endTheatomizers
thicknesscompared
of the liquidwithfilm on the atomizers
open‐end walls of the swirl chamber
(Figures 15a–17a). is
greater in closed‐end atomizers compared with open‐end atomizers (Figures 15a–17a).
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
(a) 18.18.
Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “d” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
(b) =
Figure Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “d” for ∆P
Figure 18. plane
Contours 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and
horizontal (z = of
−2 total
mm).pressure [kPa] of case “d” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
(b) horizontal
Figure plane plane
18. Contours
horizontal =−
(zmm).
(z =of−2total 2 mm). [kPa] of case “d” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
pressure
horizontal plane (z = −2 mm).
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
(a) 19. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “e” for ΔP = (b)
400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure 19. plane
horizontal Contours of total
(z = −2 mm). pressure [kPa] of case “e” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure 19. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “e” for ∆P = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and
Figure 19. Contours
horizontal plane (z =of−2total
mm). pressure [kPa] of case “e” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
(b) horizontal plane (z
horizontal plane (z = −2 mm). = − 2 mm).
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
(a) 20. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “f” for ΔP = (b)
Figure 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure 20. plane
horizontal Contours of total
(z = −2 mm).pressure [kPa] of case “f” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure 20. Contours
horizontal plane (z =of−2total
mm). pressure [kPa] of case “f” for ΔP = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and (b)
Figure 20. Contours of total pressure [kPa] of case “f” for ∆P = 400 kPa: (a) vertical plane and
horizontal plane (z = −2 mm).
(b) Figures
horizontal plane
21–23 (z = −2the
present mm).
contours of (a) tangential velocity and (b) axial velocity in
Figures 21–23 present the contours of (a) tangential velocity and (b) axial velocity in
a vertical
Figuresplane in present
21–23 steady state
the for ΔP =of400
contours (a) kPa for open‐end
tangential velocity atomizers.
and 16b, In Figures
(b) axial velocity 22a
in it is
a vertical plane
Within ingroup
the steadyofstate for ΔPatomizers
open-end = 400 kPa for open‐end
(Figure 15b, atomizers.
Figure In Figures
and 22a
Figure 17),
and
aand 23a,
vertical the upper
plane in part
steady of the
state spray
for ΔP cone
= 400exhibits
kPa fora high level
open‐end of tangential
atomizers. In velocity
Figures for
22a
23a, the upper
observable that aspart of the spray
the number cone exhibits
of channels a high
increases, the level
total of tangential
pressure velocity is
distribution formore
and 23a, the upper part of the spray cone exhibits a high level of tangential velocity for
uniform in proximity to the walls of the swirl chamber. The most notable instance occurs in
the open-end atomizer with six tangential channels (Figure 17b).
In closed atomizers, the radial distribution of total pressure in the swirl chamber is
more evident due to the equation of angular movement and the increase in the nozzle-
opening parameter “C”. This means that the radius of the outlet orifice decreases and the
thickness of fluid rotating inside the swirl chamber increases (Figures 18a, 19a and 20a);
for this reason, it is evident that the pressure drop in the tangential channels is not im-
mediate (Figures 18b, 19b and 20b). The thickness of the liquid film on the walls of the
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 15 of 24
swirl chamber is greater in closed-end atomizers compared with open-end atomizers

Aerospace
Aerospace 2023,
Aerospace 2023, 10,
2023, 10, x
10,
FOR
FOR PEER
xx FOR PEER REVIEW(Figures
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
15a, 16a and 17a). 15
15 of
15 of 24
of 24
24
Figures 21–23 present the contours of (a) tangential velocity and (b) axial veloc-
ity in a vertical plane in steady state for ∆P = 400 kPa for open-end atomizers. In
Figures 22a and 23a, the upper part of the spray cone exhibits a high level of tangential
air, indicating
air,velocity
indicating aa rotational
rotational movement.
movement. This
This rotation
rotation is aa result
isThisresult of
of the
the drag effect at
at the gas–
air, indicating
for aair,
rotational movement.
indicating This
a rotational rotation
movement. is a result of
rotationthe adrag
is drag effect
effect
result at
of the the
the
draggas–
gas–
effect
liquid
liquid interface
interface and
and the
the low
low pressures
pressures recorded
recorded in
in that
that region,
region, in
in accordance
accordance with
with Ber‐
Ber‐
liquid interface
at the and interface
gas–liquid the low pressures
and the lowrecorded in that
pressures region,inin
recorded accordance
that region, inwith Ber‐
accordance
noulli’s
noulli’s principle.
principle. principle.
with Bernoulli’s
noulli’s principle.
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 21. (a)
21.21. Contours
(a) (a)
Contours of
of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity and (b)
andand contours
(b) (b)
contours of
of axial
axial velocity
velocity for ΔP
forfor == 400
ΔP∆P 400 kPa
kPakPa
Figure
Figure 21. (a) Contours
Contours of of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity and (b) contours
contours of of axial
axial velocity
velocity for ΔP = 400
= 400 kPa
(case
(case “a”).
“a”).
(case “a”).
(case “a”).
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 22.
22. (a)
(a) Contours
Contours of
of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity and
and (b)
(b) contours
contours of
of axial
axial velocity
velocity for
for ΔP
ΔP === 400
400 kPa
kPa
Figure 22.
Figure
(case “b”).
(a)
22. Contours
(a) of
Contours tangential velocity
of tangential and
velocity (b)
and contours
(b) of
contours axial velocity
of axial for
velocity ΔP
for ∆P400 kPa
= 400 kPa
(case
(case “b”).
“b”).
(case “b”).
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 23.
23. (a)
(a) Contours
Contours of
of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity and
and (b)
(b) contours
contours of
of axial
axial velocity
velocity for
for ΔP
ΔP === 400
400 kPa
kPa
Figure 23.
Figure (a)
23. Contours
(a) of
Contours tangential
of velocity
tangential and
velocity (b)
and contours
(b) of
contours axial
of velocity
axial for
velocity ΔP
for ∆P 400 kPa
= 400 kPa
(case “c”).
(case “c”).
“c”).
(case
(case “c”).
Furthermore,
Furthermore, in in Figures
Figures 21b–23b,
21b–23b, itit is
is apparent
apparent that
that air
air particles
particles are
are drawn
drawn into
into and
and
Furthermore, in Figures 21b–23b, it is apparent that air particles are drawn into and
accelerated
accelerated within
within the
the “air
“air core”
core” due
due to
to the
the centrifugal
centrifugal movement
movement of
of the
the liquid.
liquid. This
This liquid
liquid
accelerated within the “air core” due to the centrifugal movement of the liquid. This liquid
movement
movement creates
creates low
low pressures
pressures within
within this
this region
region [27].
[27].
movement creates low pressures within this region [27].
Figures
Figures 24–26
24–26 present
present the
the contours
contours of
of (a)
(a) tangential
tangential velocity
velocity and
and (b)
(b) axial
axial velocity
velocity inin
Figures 24–26 present the contours of (a) tangential velocity and (b) axial velocity in
aa vertical plane
vertical plane in
plane in steady
in steady state
steady state for
state for ΔP
for ΔP = 400
ΔP == 400
400 kPakPa for
kPa for closed
for closed atomizers.
closed atomizers. In
atomizers. In Figures
In Figures 24a–26a,
Figures 24a–26a,
24a–26a,
a vertical
the
the upper
upper part
part of
of the
the spray
spray cone
cone exhibits
exhibits aa high
high level
level of
of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity for
for air,
air, also
also
the upper part of the spray cone exhibits a high level of tangential velocity for air, also
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 16 of 24
Furthermore, in Figures 21b, 22b and 23b, it is apparent that air particles are drawn
into and accelerated within the “air core” due to the centrifugal movement of the liquid.
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW This liquid movement creates low pressures within this region [27]. 16 of 24
Aerospace
Aerospace 2023,
2023, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW Figures 24–26 present the contours of (a) tangential velocity and (b) axial velocity 16
16 of
of 24
24in a
vertical plane in steady state for ∆P = 400 kPa for closed atomizers. In Figures 24a, 25a and 26a,
the upper part of the spray cone exhibits a high level of tangential velocity for air, also
evidencing
evidencingthe the
presence of drag
presence effects
of drag at the
effects gas–liquid
at the interface
gas–liquid andand
interface the the
lowlow
pressures
pressures
evidencing
evidencing the
the presence
presence of
of drag
drag effects
effects at
at the
the gas–liquid
gas–liquid interface
interface and
and the
the low
low pressures
pressures
recorded in that
recorded region.
in that region.
recorded in that region.
recorded in that region.
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 24. (a) Contours of tangential velocity and (b) contours of axial velocity for ΔP = 400 kPa
Figure
Figure
Figure
(case 24. 24.
24.
“d”).
(a) (a) Contours
(a) Contours
Contours of of tangential
of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity
velocity andand
and (b) (b)
(b) contours
contours
contours of of axial
of axial
axial velocity
velocity
velocity for ΔP ∆P
for for
ΔP = 400
== 400
400 kPakPa
kPa
(case “d”).
(case “d”).
(case “d”).
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 25.
Figure (a)
(a) Contours
25. 25. Contours
(a) of
of tangential
Contours tangential velocity
velocity
of tangential and (b)
andand
velocity contours
(b) (b)
contours of
of axial
contours axial velocity
velocity
of axial for ΔP
for for
velocity == 400
ΔP ∆P 400 kPa
kPakPa
= 400
(case “e”).
(case
(case “e”).
“e”).
(case “e”).
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 26.
26. (a)
(a) Contours
Contours of
of tangential
tangential velocity
velocity and
and (b)
(b) contours
contours of
of axial
axial velocity
velocity for
for ΔP
ΔP == 400
400 kPa
kPa
(case “f”).
Figure 26. (a) Contours of tangential velocity and (b) contours of axial velocity for ∆P = 400 kPa
(case
(case “f”).
“f”).
(case “f”).
In Figures 24b–26b, it is apparent that air particles are drawn into and accelerated
In Figures
IntheFigures 24b–26b,
24b–26b, it is apparent that
that air particles
particles are drawn into and accelerated
within “air core” due ittoisliquid
apparent
centrifugal airmovement are drawnareas
creating into of
and
low accelerated
pressure
within the
withinthis “air core”
the region.
“air core” due to liquid
due to liquid centrifugal movement creating areas of
of lowispressure
low
within Furthermore, thecentrifugal
largest axialmovement
component creating areas
of the air velocity pressure
located
within
within this
this region.
region. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the
the largest
largest axial
axial component
component of
of the
the air
air velocity
velocity is
is located
located
further downstream of the conical spray to the air‐core region, evidencing its more uni‐
further
further downstream
downstream of
of the
the conical
conical spray
spray to
to the
the air‐core
air‐core region,
region, evidencing
evidencing its
its more
more uni‐
uni‐
form distribution.
form distribution.
formFigures
distribution.
27–29 depict the gas–liquid interface in a steady state for ΔP = 400 kPa for
Figures 27–29 depict the gas–liquid interface in a steady state for ΔP = 400 kPa for
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 17 of 24
In Figures 24b, 25b and 26b, it is apparent that air particles are drawn into and
accelerated within the “air core” due to liquid centrifugal movement creating areas of low
pressure within this region. Furthermore, the largest axial component of the air velocity is
located further downstream of the conical spray to the air-core region, evidencing its more
uniform distribution.
Figures 27–29 depict the gas–liquid interface in a steady state for ∆P =
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 400
of 24kPa for
open-end atomizers.
Figure
27.27.
Figure
Figure Contour
Contour
27. Contourofof volume
volume fraction:
ofvolume fraction:
fraction: (a) isometric
(a)(a) view,
isometric
isometric view, (b)
view,horizontal plane
plane “xy”
(b) horizontal
(b) horizontal “xy” (z
plane(z == −2
−2 mm),
“xy” mm), (c)
(z =(c)
−2 mm),
vertical
verticalplane
plane “yz”,
“yz”, and
and (d)
(d) vertical
vertical plane
plane “xz”
“xz” of
of gas–liquid
gas–liquid interface in
interface in case
case “a”
“a” for
for ΔP
ΔP == 400
400 kPa.
kPa.
(c) vertical plane “yz”, and (d) vertical plane “xz” of gas–liquid interface in case “a” for ∆P = 400 kPa.
Figure
28.28.
Figure
Figure 28.Contour of
Contourof
Contour volume
volume fraction:
ofvolume fraction:
fraction:(a) isometric
(a)(a) view,view,
isometric (b) horizontal “xy”
plane “xy”
(b) horizontal (z ==“xy”
(z
plane −2 mm),
−2 mm), −2 mm),
(c)
(z =(c)
verticalplane
vertical
(c) vertical plane“yz”,
plane “yz”, and
“yz”,and
and (d)
(d) vertical
vertical
(d) plane
plane
vertical “xz”“xz”
plane of gas–liquid interface
of gas–liquid in casein
interface “b”
“b” for ΔP
ΔP ==for
for“b”
case 400 kPa.
400∆P
kPa.
= 400 kPa.
Aerospace 2023,
Aerospace 10,10,
2023, 930x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 18
ofof2424
Figure29.
Figure 29.Contour
Contourofof volume
volume fraction:
fraction:(a)
(a)isometric
isometricview,
view,(b)
(b)horizontal
horizontalplane “xy”
plane “xy” −2 mm),
(z =(z−2=mm), (c)
(c)vertical
verticalplane
plane“yz”,
“yz”,and
and(d)
(d)vertical
verticalplane
plane“xz”
“xz”ofof
gas–liquid
gas–liquidinterface inin
interface case “c”
case ΔP∆P
forfor
“c” = 400 kPa.
= 400 kPa.
InInFigure
Figure27a, 27a,the thespray
spraygenerated
generatedby bythe
theopen-end
open‐endatomizer
atomizerwith withtwo twochannels
channels(n(n==2)
2) is not conical, making it impossible to measure the
is not conical, making it impossible to measure the spray angle. In Figure 27b, spray angle. In Figure 27b,it isit evident
is evi‐
dent
that thethat the film
liquid liquid film thickness
thickness is not constant,
is not constant, leadingleading to the
to the “air “airnot
core” core” not taking
taking a circular a
circularThis
shape. shape. This demonstrates
demonstrates that thethat the number
number of channels
of channels (n = (n 2) =is2)associated
is associated with withthe
the uniformity
uniformity of the of liquid
the liquidfilm,film, which
which is is consistentwith
consistent withthethefindings
findings of Laurila
Laurilaetetal.al.[28]. [28].
Thisnon-uniformity
This non‐uniformityaffects affectsthe themass
mass flow
flow rate distribution and and results
resultsin inananuneven
unevenspray spray
angle,asasdepicted
angle, depictedininFigure Figure27c,d.
27c,d.
ItItshould
shouldbe benoted
notedthatthatFigure
Figure 27c,d
27c,d represent perpendicular
perpendicularplanes planes(plane
(plane“yz” “yz”and and
plane “xz”); these planes facilitate the measurement of the spray
plane “xz”); these planes facilitate the measurement of the spray angle (2α), where it can be angle (2α), where it can
be verified
verified that that the difference
the difference between
between these these angles
angles is very
is very largelarge ◦ and
(116(116° and ◦ ), Therefore,
162162°), There‐
fore, numerically, an average spray angle that characterizes
numerically, an average spray angle that characterizes this atomizer could not be estimated. this atomizer could not be
estimated.
In Figure 28a, an isometric view of the atomizer “b” is presented (C = 1; n = 4), where
it can InbeFigure
seen that 28a,by an increasing
isometric view of the atomizer
the number of inlet“b” is presented
channels “n”, the (C =wave
1; n = amplitude
4), where
it can be
present in seen that by
the liquid filmincreasing
tends to the number
decrease, of inletthe
causing channels
spray to “n”,beginthe towavetakeamplitude
on a more
present conical
uniform in the liquid
shape. film
In tends
Figureto28b,
decrease, causing
the liquid filmthe spray toremains
thickness begin to“approximately”
take on a more
uniforminside
constant conicalthe shape.
swirlInchamber
Figure 28b,duethe liquid
to the film thickness
increased number remains
of inlet“approximately”
channels (n = 4).
constant inside the swirl chamber due to the increased
This enhanced uniformity leads to a more stable spray angle, as shown in Figure number of inlet channels (n 28c,d,
= 4).
This enhanced uniformity leads to a more stable spray angle,
where the measurements of the spray angles are shown (129 and 120 , respectively), which ◦ as shown
◦ in Figure 28c,d,
where
when the measurements
averaged result in theofcharacteristic
the spray angles sprayareangleshown
(2α =(129°
124.5and ◦ ) of120°,
atomizerrespectively),
“b”.
which when averaged result in the characteristic spray angle
Among the three open-end atomizers, case “c” in Figure 29 exhibits the most stability.(2α = 124.5°) of atomizer “b”.
Among the three open‐end atomizers, case “c” in Figure
In Figure 29a, an isometric view of the atomizer “c” (C = 1; n = 6) is presented, where it 29 exhibits the most stability.
In be
can Figure
seen29a,thatan theisometric view of the
wave amplitude atomizer
present in the“c” (C = is
liquid 1; minimal,
n = 6) is presented,
resulting in wherethe factit
canthe
that be seen
conical that the wave
spray amplitude
is highly uniform. present in the29b,
In Figure liquidtheisliquid
minimal, filmresulting
thicknessinisthe fact
entirely
that thedue
uniform conical
to thespray is highly
greater numberuniform.
of inletIn Figure
channels 29b,(nthe liquid
= 6), film thickness
aligning is entirelyof
with the findings
uniform due to the greater number of inlet channels (n = 6), aligning
Alves et al. [29]. Consequently, this uniformity results in better mass flow rate distribution with the findings of
Alves et al. [29]. Consequently, this uniformity
and spray-angle stability, as illustrated in Figure 29c,d. results in better mass flow rate distribution
andWhen
spray‐angle
analyzing stability, as illustrated
the three in Figureatomizers,
cases of ‘closed’ 29c,d. specifically in Figures 30–32, it
When analyzing the three cases of
is observed that in Figure 30a, the waves in the conical spray ‘closed’ atomizers, specifically
have more inamplitude
Figures 30–32, thanitin
is observed that in Figure 30a, the waves in the conical spray
cases “e” and “f”; however, this design is more stable than atomizer “a”. In Figure 30b, have more amplitude thanthe
diameter of the “air core” exhibits slight eccentricity due to the low number of inlet channels
in cases “e” and “f”; however, this design is more stable than atomizer “a”. In Figure 30b,
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 19 of 24
the diameter of the “air core” exhibits slight eccentricity due to the low number of inlet
in cases “e” and “f”; however, this design is more stable than atomizer “a”. In Figure 30b,
channels (n = 2).
the diameter of However, when
the “air core” compared
exhibits slighttoeccentricity
atomizer ‘a’due
(antoopen‐end atomizer),
the low number it per‐
of inlet
forms more effectively and displays a more uniform spray angle, as evident
channels (n = 2). However, when compared to atomizer ‘a’ (an open‐end atomizer), it per‐ in Figure
(n = 2).where
30c,d, However, when compared
2α ranges from to atomizer125°
approximately ‘a’ (an
to open-end
123°. atomizer),
Anangle,
average it performs
spray angle ofmore
ap‐
forms more effectively and displays a more uniform spray as evident in Figure
effectively and
proximately displays
124° can be aconsidered.
more uniform spray angle, as evident in Figure 30c,d, where 2α
30c,d, where 2α ranges from approximately 125° to 123°. An average spray angle of ap‐
ranges from approximately 125◦ to 123◦ . An average spray angle of approximately 124◦
proximately 124° can be considered.
can be considered.
Figure 30. Contour of

ofvolume
volumefraction: (a) isometric view, (b) horizontal plane “xy” (z = −2 mm),
− (c)
Figure 30. Contour
Figure30. Contour of volume fraction:(a)
fraction: (a)isometric
isometric view,
view, (b)(b) horizontal
horizontal plane
plane “xy”“xy”
(z = (z
−2=mm),2 mm),
(c)
vertical plane “yz”, and (d) vertical plane “xz” of gas–liquid interface in case “d” for ΔP = 400 kPa.
(c) vertical
vertical plane
plane “yz”,
“yz”, andand
(d)(d) vertical
vertical plane
plane “xz”“xz”
of of gas–liquid
interface in in case
case “d”
“d” ΔP∆P
forfor = 400
= 400 kPa.
kPa.
Figure 31. Contour of volume fraction: (a) isometric view, (b) horizontal plane “xy” (z = −2 mm),
(c) vertical plane “yz”, and (d) vertical plane “xz” of gas–liquid interface in case “e” for ∆P = 400 kPa.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 Figure 31. Contour of volume fraction: (a) isometric view, (b) horizontal plane “xy” (z = −2 mm), 20 of
(c)24
vertical plane “yz”, and (d) vertical plane “xz” of gas–liquid interface in case “e” for ΔP = 400 kPa.
Figure 32. Contour of volume fraction: (a) isometric view, (b) horizontal plane “xy” (z = −2 mm),
Figure 32. Contour of volume fraction: (a) isometric view, (b) horizontal plane “xy” (z = −2 mm), (c)
(c) vertical
vertical plane
plane “yz”,
“yz”, and
and (d)(d) vertical
vertical plane
plane “xz”
“xz” of of gas–liquid
interface in in case
case “f”“f” ΔP∆P
forfor = 400
= 400 kPa.
kPa.
In
InFigures
Figures 31a and 32a,
31a and 32a,the
thewave
waveamplitudes
amplitudes of of
thethe conical
conical spray
spray are negligible
are negligible as theas
the number of inlet channels increases. In Figures 31b and 32b, the liquid
number of inlet channels increases. In Figures 31b and 32b, the liquid film thickness re‐ film thickness
remains consistentwithin
mains consistent withinthetheswirl
swirlchamber
chamberdue duetotothe
theincreased
increasednumber
numberofofinlet
inletchannels
channels
(n(n==44and n = 6). Consequently, both cases of closed atomizers (case
and n = 6). Consequently, both cases of closed atomizers (case “e” and case “e” and case“f”)
“f”)
exhibit
exhibit improved uniformity in mass flow rate distribution and spray‐angle stability, asas
improved uniformity in mass flow rate distribution and spray-angle stability,
depicted
depictedininFigure
Figures31c,d
31c,dand
andFigure 32c,d respectively.
32c,d respectively.
Table 5 illustrates the deviations
Table 5 illustrates the deviations in in the
the spray‐angle
spray-anglemeasurements
measurementsbetween
betweenthe the math-
math‐
ematical model (accounting for losses) and the numerical simulation. It
ematical model (accounting for losses) and the numerical simulation. It is clear that the is clear that the
mathematical model closely matches the measurements provided
mathematical model closely matches the measurements provided by the VOF‐HRIC by the VOF-HRIC model.
This suggests
model. that the increase
This suggests that the in the spray
increase angle
in the is primarily
spray dependent
angle is primarily on the augmenta-
dependent on the
tion of the number of inlet channels around the swirl chamber.
augmentation of the number of inlet channels around the swirl chamber.
It is worth emphasizing that once the number of channels “n” is established, the
Table 5. Comparison of spray angle according to the mathematical model with respect to the
spray angle increases in response to the rise in differential pressure.
numerical simulation RNG k-ε/VOF model (for all cases ∆P = 400 kPa).
Table 5. Comparison of spray angle according to the mathematical model with respect to the nu‐
Case Spray Angle, 2αeq (◦ ) Deviation (%)
merical simulation RNG k‐𝜀/VOF model (for all cases ΔP = 400 kPa).
Math. Model RNG k-ε /VOF
Case Spray Angle, 2αeq (°) Deviation (%)
a (C = 1; n = 2) 137.45 ------- -------
b (C = 1; n = 4) Math.127.86
Model RNG 124.5
k‐𝜀 /VOF 2.69
a c(C
(C==1;1;nn==2)
6) 137.45
119.93 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
120.5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
−0.47
bd(C(C==1;2;nn==4)
2) 123.11
127.86 124.0
124.5 −0.72
2.69
e (C = 2; n =
c (C = 1; n = 6) 4) 112.12
119.93 117.5
120.5 −4.58
−0.47
f (C = 2; n = 6) 104.51 106.0. −1.41
d (C = 2; n = 2) 123.11 124.0 −0.72
e (C = 2; n = 4) 112.12 117.5 −4.58
f It
(Cis= worth emphasizing that
2; n = 6) once the number of 106.0.
104.51 channels “n” is established,
−1.41 the spray
angle increases in response to the rise in differential pressure.
The combination of open and closed atomizers in liquid propulsion for rocket engines,
exemplified by the RD-0110 bipropellant atomizer, is indeed a critical aspect. In this
configuration, the RD-0110 employs an open-end atomizer (nozzle-opening parameter
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 The combination of open and closed atomizers in liquid propulsion for rocket21en‐ of 24
gines, exemplified by the RD‐0110 bipropellant atomizer, is indeed a critical aspect. In this
configuration, the RD‐0110 employs an open‐end atomizer (nozzle‐opening parameter C
= 1) for the fuel (kerosene T1) and a closed atomizer (nozzle‐opening parameter C = 1.67)
Cfor
= 1)
thefor the fuel(LOX)
oxidizer (kerosene T1) and
[7]. Both a closed
atomizers atomizer
have (nozzle-opening
six inlet channels (n = 6),parameter C = 1.67)
and the number
for
of channels “n” is especially crucial to ensure the uniformity of the liquid film in the an‐of
the oxidizer (LOX) [7]. Both atomizers have six inlet channels (n = 6), and the number
channels “n” isasespecially
nular section, crucial
demonstrated into ensure29the
Figures uniformity
and 32. of the liquid film in the annular
section, as demonstrated in Figures 29 and 32.
Figure 33 presents a numerical simulation of the RD‐0110 atomizer, as conducted in
Figure
Rivas’ work.33Inpresents a numerical
Figure 33a, simulation
the total pressure of the
contour of RD-0110 atomizer,
the bipropellant as conducted
atomizer is dis‐
in Rivas’ work. In Figure 33a, the total pressure contour of the
played, with input conditions of ΔP = 150 kPa for the fuel atomizer and ΔP = 200 bipropellant atomizer
kPa for is
displayed,
the oxidizer with input conditions
atomizer. In Figure 33b, of ∆Pthe= behavior
150 kPa for the fuel
of both atomizer
fluids and ∆P
is depicted = 200
using thekPa
VOFfor
the oxidizer atomizer. In Figure 33b, the behavior of both fluids is depicted
method. It is evident that the liquid film of the fuel remains uniform and does not come using the VOF
method. It is evident that the liquid film of the fuel remains uniform and
into contact with the external nozzle wall of the cryogenic atomizer (the closed atomizer). does not come
into
Thiscontact with the
configuration external
ensures nozzle
efficient andwall of the
stable cryogenicinatomizer
combustion (the closed
a bipropellant rocketatomizer).
engine.
This configuration ensures efficient and stable combustion in a bipropellant rocket engine.
(a) (b)
Figure 33. (a) Contour of the total pressure of bipropellant atomizer [Pa], (b) contour of volume
Figure 33. (a) Contour of the total pressure of bipropellant atomizer [Pa], (b) contour of volume
fraction using the VOF method, where red color is liquid fluid and blue color is air [18].
fraction using the VOF method, where red color is liquid fluid and blue color is air [18].
5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
The objective of this study was to investigate the internal flow of six atomizers, all
The objective of this study was to investigate the internal flow of six atomizers, all
operating at the same injection pressure (ΔP = 400 kPa) according to their design and shar‐
operating at the same injection pressure (∆P = 400 kPa) according to their design and
ing common dimensions such as the inlet channel diameter (2rinj), inlet channel length (linj),
sharing common dimensions such as the inlet channel diameter (2rinj ), inlet channel length
and swirl‐chamber diameter (2Rinj). The analysis becomes particularly interesting when
(linj ), and swirl-chamber diameter (2Rinj ). The analysis becomes particularly interesting
examining how the key parameters vary in response to changes in the nozzle‐opening
when examining how the key parameters vary in response to changes in the nozzle-opening
parameter (C) and the number of channels “n”.
parameter (C) and the number of channels “n”.
One of the noteworthy findings is that certain atomizers may not be suitable for use
One of the noteworthy findings is that certain atomizers may not be suitable for use
if uniformity in the liquid film thickness and spray angle is required. For example, the
if uniformity in the liquid film thickness and spray angle is required. For example, the
open‐end atomizer “a” (C = 1), which has only two inlet channels, results in a noticeable
open-end atomizer “a” (C = 1), which has only two inlet channels, results in a noticeable
eccentricity in the diameter of the air core. Consequently, the use of this atomizer would
eccentricity in the diameter of the air core. Consequently, the use of this atomizer would
lead to an uneven distribution of mass flow rate, significantly affecting the spray angle
lead to an uneven distribution of mass flow rate, significantly affecting the spray angle (2α)
(2α) and the Sauter mean diameter (SMD). However, this issue is associated with a low
and the Sauter mean diameter (SMD). However, this issue is associated with a low number
number of channels (n = 2) and can be addressed by progressively reducing the outlet
of channels (n = 2) and can be addressed by progressively reducing the outlet diameter (2ro ),
diameter (2ro), essentially increasing the parameter (C). This adjustment stabilizes the liq‐
essentially increasing the parameter (C). This adjustment stabilizes the liquid film thickness,
uid film thickness, as observed in the closed atomizer “d” (C = 2) where there is a signifi‐
as observed in the closed atomizer “d” (C = 2) where there is a significant reduction in the
cant reduction in the eccentricity of the “air core”.
eccentricity of the “air core”.
To enhance the uniformity of the liquid film thickness, increasing the number of
inlet channels is necessary. A higher number of inlet channels allows the flow to enter at
multiple points, ensuring that centrifugal forces act uniformly on the internal flow within
the swirl chamber (in accordance with angular momentum conservation). This behavior is
demonstrated in atomizers “b”, “c”, “e”, and “f”.
The mathematical model developed by Rivas [3] demonstrates its applicability for
various types of pressure-swirl atomizers, both open-end and closed, with tangential inlet
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 22 of 24
channels. This conclusion is supported by the comparison of the mass flow results, which
show acceptable error margins when compared with the results of the numerical simulation.
Based on the inviscid analysis of the six atomizers and their number of inlet channels
“n”, it can be concluded that the open-end atomizer with six channels (atomizer “c”) always
consumes a higher mass flow rate than any closed atomizer with the same number of inlet
channels (n = 6 and C > 1), because when the opening parameter (C) increases, the outlet
orifice decreases and consequently the mass flow is obstructed
It is important to note that the geometrical parameter (A) tends to decrease as the
number of inlet channels increases, irrespective of whether it is an open-end or closed
atomizer. This implies that the curves for “C = 1” and “C = 2” may coincide at the same
geometrical parameter (A). Consequently, they would share the same spray angle (2α), flow
area coefficient (ϕ), and discharge coefficient (Cd). For example, an open-end atomizer
with six channels (C = 1, n = 6) is equivalent to a closed atomizer with three inlet channels
(C = 2, n = 3) because they share the same geometrical parameter “A” (as seen in Figure 11).
However, it is important to note that these atomizers do not have the same dimensionless
mass flow (m).
The numerical simulation of the internal flow in a steady state successfully converged
after approximately 8000 iterations, with each case taking an estimated time of 12 h. This
simulation was made possible through the use of the volume-of-fluid (VOF) model in
combination with the RNG k-ε turbulence model. It is worth noting that there is room for
improvement in the interface resolution, which can be achieved by increasing the number of
elements in the spray zone. However, this would come at the cost of higher computational
resources and longer simulation times.
In conclusion, thanks to the VOF model, the detail of the spray behavior can be visu-
alized, locating the wave amplitudes present in the conical spray. In open-end atomizers,
these wave amplitudes decrease as the number of inlet channels increases (n). Finally, it
should be noted that in this work we sought to analyze the uniformity of the mass flow
distribution, the stability of the spray angle, and other important atomization parameters,
varying the inlet channels and the parameter C.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.R., C.R., L.V. and G.R.; methodology, J.R., C.R. and G.Z.;
software, J.R., E.A. and D.R.; validation, J.R., E.A. and D.R.; formal analysis, J.R. and L.V.; investigation,
J.R., E.A. and D.R.; data curation, J.R., E.A. and D.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R., C.R.,
E.A., D.R., L.V., G.R. and G.Z.; writing—review and editing, J.R., C.R. and G.Z.; visualization, J.R.;
supervision, J.R. and G.Z.; project administration, C.R.; funding acquisition, C.R. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to thank to the “Dirección de Investigación de la Universidad
Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas” for the support provided to carry out this research work through the
UPC-EXPOST-2023-2 incentive.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
A geometrical characteristics parameter of pressure-swirl atomizer with tangential inlets

Ac geometrical characteristics parameter of pressure-swirl atomizer with conical inlets
AE equivalent geometrical characteristics parameter due to viscosity of swirl atomizers
C nozzle-opening parameter
Cd discharge coefficient
Dh hydraulic diameter
f volumetric forces
fp cross-sectional area of inlet port
I turbulence intensity
K coefficient of loss due to liquid viscosity
C nozzle-opening parameter
Cd discharge coefficient
Dh hydraulic diameter
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 f volumetric forces 23 of 24
fp cross-sectional area of inlet port
I turbulence intensity
K coefficient of loss due to liquid viscosity
n n. number
number ofof inlet
inlet channels
channels
m𝑚 mass flow
mass flow rate rate
m𝑚 dimensionless
dimensionless mass
mass flow
flow
∆P
ΔP differential
differential pressure pressure
R Ree Reynolds
Reynolds number
number
R Rs s swirl chamber
swirl chamber radius radius
R Rinj
inj radius
radius totoaxisaxis inlet
inlet channel
channel
rraa airair core
core radius
radius
ro outlet
outlet orifice
orifice radius
radius
u vectorial
vectorial velocity
velocity
Uin in inlet
inlet entrance
entrance velocity
velocity
U,W velocities
velocities
y++ dimensionless
dimensionless wall
wall distance
distance
Greek Symbols
Symbols
α half-spray
half-spray angle
angle
β swirl
swirl angle
angle
δ film
film thickness
thickness inin section
section outlet
outlet orifice,
orifice, ro-ra
ro-ra
ξ losses
losses coefficient
coefficient
η𝜂 volume
volume fraction
fraction ofof
fluid
fluid
ϕ φ film
film flow
flow area
area coefficient
coefficient
γ tilttilt
angle
angle
λ Blasius
Blasius resistance
resistance coefficient
coefficient
ϰ geometrical
geometrical atomization
atomization parameter
parameter related toto
related the liquid
the film
liquid filmthickness.
thickness.
µ μ liquid
liquid absolute
absolute viscosity
viscosity
∇∇ gradient
gradient operator
operator
ψ helix angle
helix angle
ρ𝜌 liquid
liquid density
density
σ σ liquid
liquid surface
surface tension
tension
τ𝜏 wall
wall shear
shear stress
stress
ν𝜈 liquid
liquid kinematic
kinematic viscosity
viscosity
Subscripts
Subscripts
aa airaircore
core
eqeq equivalent
equivalent parameter
parameter due
duetoto
viscosity
viscosity
inj
inj parameters related to inlet
parameters related to inlet channels. channels.
liq
liq liquid
liquid
rr radial
radial component
component
ss swirl chamber.
swirl chamber.
tot
tot total
total
θ θ tangential
tangential component
component
w w wall
wall
zz axial
axial component
component
∞∞ free
freestream
stream
References
References
1.1. Liu,
Liu,J.;J.;Zhang,
Zhang,X.-Q.;
X.-Q.;Li,
Li,Q.-L.;
Q.-L.;Wang,
Wang,Z.-G.
Z.-G.Effect
Effectofofgeometric
geometricparameters
parametersononthe
thespray
spraycone angle
cone inin
angle the pressure
the swirl
pressure injector.
swirl injector.
Proc.
Proc.Inst.
Inst.Mech.
Mech.Eng.
Eng.Part
PartGGJ. J.Aerosp.
Aerosp.Eng.
Eng.2013, 227,
2013, 342–353.
227, 342–353.https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410011432233.
[CrossRef]
2.2. Kang,
Kang,Z.;Z.;Wang,
Wang,Z.;
Z.;Li,
Li, Q.;
Q.; Cheng,
Cheng, P. Review
Review on
on pressure
pressureswirl
swirlinjector
injectorininliquid
liquidrocket
rocketengine.
engine.Acta
Acta Astronaut.
Astronaut. 2018,
2018, 145,
145, 174–
174–198.
198.
[CrossRef]
3.3. Rivas,J.R.R.
Rivas, J.R.R.Estudo
EstudoeeSimulação
Simulação Numérica
Numérica do Escoamento
Escoamento no no Interior
Interiordedeum umInjetor
InjetorCentrífugo
CentrífugoCônico.
Cônico.Master’s
Master’sThesis, Instituto
Thesis, Insti-
Tecnológico
tuto de Aeronáutica,
Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São São
JoséJosé
dos dos
Campos,
Campos,Brazil, 2009.
Brazil, 2009.
4.4. Kebriaee,A.;
Kebriaee, A.;Olyaei,
Olyaei,G.
G. Semi-analytical
Semi-analytical prediction of of macroscopic
macroscopiccharacteristics
characteristicsofofopen-end
open-endpressure-swirl
pressure-swirlinjector. Aerosp.
injector. Sci.
Aerosp.
Technol.
Sci. 2018,
Technol. 82–83,
2018, 32–37.
82–83, [CrossRef]
32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.08.037.
5. Fu, Q.-F.; Yang, L.-J.; Zhang, W.; Cui, K.-D. Spray characteristics of an open-end swirl injector. At. Sprays 2012, 22, 431–445.
[CrossRef]
6. Aminjan, K.K.; Kundu, B.; Ganji, D.D. Study of pressure swirl atomizer with tangential input at design point and outside of
design point. Phys. Fluids 2020, 32, 127113. [CrossRef]
7. Rubinsky, V.R. Combustion Instability in the RD-0110 Engine; AIAA: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; pp. 89–112.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 24 of 24
8. Rivas, J.R.; Pimenta, A.P.; Rivas, G.R. Development of a mathematical model and 3D numerical simulation of the internal flow in
a conical swirl atomizer. J. At. Sprays 2014, 24, 97–114. [CrossRef]
9. Reddy, K.U.; Mishra, D.P. Studies on spray behavior of pressure swirl atomizer in transition regime. J. Propuls. Power 2008, 24,
74–80. [CrossRef]
10. Abramovich, G.N. The Theory of Swirl Atomizers; Industrial Aerodynamics; BNT ZAGI: Moscow, Russia, 1944.
11. Abramovich, G.N. Applied Gas Dynamics; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1976.
12. Khavkin, Y.I. The Theory and Practice of Swirl Atomizers; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
13. Lefebvre, A.H. Atomization and Sprays; Hemisphere: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
14. Horvay, M.; Leuckel, W. Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Swirl Nozzles for Pressure-Jet Atomization. Ger. Chem.
Eng. 1986, 9, 276–283.
15. Bazarov, V.; Yang, V. Design and Dynamics of jet and swirl injectors. Prog. Astronaut. Aeronaut. 2004, 200, 19–103.
16. Kessaev, K.; Kupatenkov, V.D. Injectors Design for Liquid Rocket Engines; Book of Fundamental Course in Engine Design;
CTA/IAE/ASA-P: SP-São José dos Campos, Brazil, 1997; pp. 31–49.
17. Souza, J.R.P. Estudo de Um Injetor Centrífugo Bipropelente Utilizado em Motor Foguete a Propelente Líquido. Master’s Thesis,
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil, 2001.
18. Rivas, J.R. Modelo Matemático e Simulação Numérica da Atomização de Líquidos em Injetores Centrífugos de uso Aeroespacial.
Ph.D. Thesis, Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil, 2015.
19. Rivas, J.R.; Pimenta, A.P.; Salcedo, S.G.; Rivas, G.R.; Suazo, M.G. Study of internal flow of a bipropellant swirl injector of a rocket
engine. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2018, 40, 289. [CrossRef]
20. Ronceros, G.A.R. Simulação Numérica da Convecção Forçada Turbulenta Acoplada à Condução de Calor em Dutos Retangulares.
Ph.D. Thesis, ITA—Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São Jose dos Campos, Brasil, 2010.
21. ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide Release 15.0; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.pmt.usp.br/
academic/martoran/notasmodelosgrad/ANSYS%20Fluent%20Theory%20Guide%2015.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
22. Shames, I.H. Mechanics of Fluids, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
23. Orszag, S.A.; Yakhot, V.; Flannery, W.S.; Boysan, F.; Choudhury, D.; Maruzewski, J.; Patel, B. Renormalization Group Modeling
and Turbulence Simulations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Near-Wall Turbulent Flows, Tempe, AZ, USA,
15–17 March 1993.
24. Patankar, S.V. Numerical Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer; Hemisphere: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
25. Muzaferija, S.; Peric, M.; Sames, P.; Schelin, T. A two-fluid Navier-Stokes solver to simulate water entry. In Proceedings of the
Twenty-Second Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, DC, USA, 9–14 August 1998.
26. Hirt, C.W.; Nichols, B.D. Volume of fluid (VOF) Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundarys. J. Comput. Phys. 1981, 39, 201–225.
[CrossRef]
27. Malý, M.; Jedelský, J.; Sláma, J.; Janáčková, L.; Sapík, M.; Wigley, G.; Jícha, M. Internal flow and air core dynamics in Simplex and
Spill-return pressure-swirl atomizers. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2018, 123, 805–814. [CrossRef]
28. Laurila, E.; Roenby, J.; Maakala, V.; Peltonen, P.; Kahila, H.; Vuorinen, V. Analysis of viscous fluid flow in a pressure-swirl
atomizer using large-eddy simulation. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2019, 113, 371–388. [CrossRef]
29. Alexandre, A.; Pedro Teixeira, L.; Cristiane Aparecida, M. Effects of the number of tangential passages on spray characteristics of
a bipropellant atomizer. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2014, 36, 583–590. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Aerospace 10 00930

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerospace 10 00930

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aerospace

Academic Editor: Konstantinos

Aerospace 2023, 10, 930. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10110930 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 2 of 24

Figure 2. Geometric alterations based on the parameter ‘C’.

Figure 3. Bipropellant pressure‐swirl atomizer similar to an RD‐0110 atomizer.

Figure 3. Bipropellant pressure‐swirl atomizer similar to an RD‐0110 atomizer.

Considering the categorization of pressure‐swirl atomizers based on their geometric

2.2. Assuming Losses for Liquid Viscosity

the liquid0.40film thickness.

Aerospace 2023, 10, 930 12 of 24

Math. Model (a)

0.08 Num. Sim (b)

Math. Model (c)

swirl chamber is greater in closed-end atomizers compared with open-end atomizers

Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24

Figure 30. Contour of

A geometrical characteristics parameter of pressure-swirl atomizer with tangential inlets

You might also like