SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

1999-01-0528

Scaling Liquid-Phase Fuel Penetration in Diesel Sprays Based on Mixing-Limited Vaporization

Dennis L. Siebers
Sandia National Laboratories

Reprinted From: Technology for Diesel Fuel Injection and Sprays (SP-1415)

International Congress and Exposition Detroit, Michigan March 1-4, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

1999-01-0528

Scaling Liquid-Phase Fuel Penetration in Diesel Sprays Based on Mixing-Limited Vaporization

Dennis L. Siebers
Sandia National Laboratories
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
A scaling law for the maximum penetration distance of liquid-phase fuel in a diesel spray (defined as the liquid length) was developed by applying jet theory to a simplified model of a spray. The scaling law accounts for injector, fuel, and in-cylinder thermodynamic conditions on liquid length, and provides significant insight into the fuel vaporization process. As developed, the scaling law is valid for single-component fuels, but can be used to model multi-component fuels through use of single-component surrogate fuels. Close agreement between the scaling law and measured liquid length data over a very wide range of conditions is demonstrated. The agreement suggests that vaporization in sprays from current-technology, direct-injection (DI) diesel injectors is limited by mixing processes in the spray. The mixing processes include entrainment of high-temperature air and the overall transport and mixing of fuel and air throughout the spray cross-section. An implication of mixing limited vaporization is that the processes of atomization and the ensuing interphase transport of mass and energy at droplet surfaces are not limiting steps with respect to fuel vaporization in DI diesel sprays. The scaling law provides a fundamental baseline on liquid fuel penetration and vaporization in diesel sprays that can be compared with the vaporization aspects of the multi-dimensional diesel spray models under development. The scaling law can also provide design guidance on the expected maximum extent of liquid-phase fuel penetration in engines. Application of the scaling law to a heavy-duty and a light-duty DI diesel shows that liquidphase fuel impingement on piston bowl walls is not a serious concern in heavy-duty engines using a typical diesel fuel, as observed previously through experiments, but may be an issue in light-duty engines.

time, enhance the performance of diesel engines. One important issue with respect to optimizing in-cylinder processes in direct-injection (DI) diesel engines, especially in small-bore, automotive DI diesels, is the penetration and vaporization of liquid-phase fuel. Penetration of the overall spray in a DI diesel is needed to promote fuel-air mixing, but impingement and collection of liquid-phase fuel on piston bowl and other in-cylinder walls can lead to greater emissions. As a result, understanding how various parameters affect the penetration of the liquid-phase fuel and what processes control fuel vaporization in a diesel spray are important, both to the engine designer and to those developing multi-dimensional computational models for use as engine design tools. This paper presents a scaling law for the maximum penetration distance of liquid-phase fuel in a diesel spray, defined as the liquid length. The scaling law accounts for the effects of injector, fuel, and in-cylinder thermodynamic conditions on liquid length. The assumptions used in developing the scaling law, the form of the scaling law, and the close agreement achieved with experimental data provide significant insight into the processes controlling fuel vaporization and liquid-phase fuel penetration. The development of the scaling law is based on recent experimental results and conclusions presented in Ref. 1. The results and conclusions from Ref. 1 are summarized in the next section. They indicate that vaporization in a DI diesel spray is limited by mixing processes in the spray. The mixing processes include entrainment of high-temperature air and the overall transport and mixing of fuel and air throughout the spray cross-section. Injector and in-cylinder thermodynamic conditions over which the scaling law applies include conditions that occur in current and proposed DI diesels. With respect to fuels, the scaling law as developed applies strictly for single-component fuels, but can be used to model multicomponent fuels through use of surrogate single-component fuels, as will be shown for a standard #2 diesel fuel. The remainder of the paper is divided in to seven sections and two appendices. In the first section, previous research on liquid-phase fuel penetration in diesel sprays is summarized. An emphasis in this section is placed on 1

INTRODUCTION
Improvement of the diesel engine combustion process continues to be an important facet of the efforts to meet stringent new emissions regulations, and at the same

recent experimental work presented in Ref. 1, since a conclusion drawn from that work is the basis for the liquid length scaling law developed in this paper. The next five sections discuss: the derivation of the liquid length scaling law, a comparison with data, the implications of the scaling law with respect to fuel vaporization, small systematic trends in the data relative to the scaling law, and further insight drawn from the scaling law, respectively. The latter of these sections includes a discussion of expected liquid lengths in typical heavy-duty truck and proposed light-duty automotive DI diesel engines. The final section presents a summary and conclusions. In the appendices, the spray spreading angle data acquired simultaneously with the liquid length data in Ref. 1, and the orifice area-contraction coefficients for the orifices used to acquire the data in Ref. 1 are presented. Both of these data sets are required in the liquid length scaling law, but have not been previously presented.

formed after ignition. The third paper, Ref. 1, presented a comprehensive investigation of the effects of injector, fuel, and in-cylinder ambient gas conditions (i.e., pressure, temperature and density) on liquid length in a diesel spray conducted over a wide range of well characterized conditions. This latter work is summarized and discussed in more detail next, since a main conclusion derived from it forms the basis for the scaling law developed in this paper, and since the extensive data presented in it are compared with the scaling law. The following discussion on Ref. 1 only covers the points important to the development of the scaling law and/or application of the scaling law in this paper. For more extensive discussions of the experimental apparatus and techniques, the data analysis, and the results, consult Ref. 1. REVIEW OF REFERENCE 1 The investigation of liquid-phase fuel penetration presented in Ref. 1 was conducted in an optically accessible, constant-volume combustion vessel designed for conducting diesel combustion experiments at pressures up to 35 MPa. Fuel was injected with an electronically controlled, commonrail diesel fuel injector capable of injection pressures up to 200 MPa. The ambient gas composition in the combustion vessel can be varied. The ambient gas for the experiments reported in Ref. 1 was inert with a composition of 89.7% N2, 6.5% CO2, and 3.8% H2O and a molecular weight of 28.67. Inert conditions were used to focus the research on the primary mechanism for fuel vaporization, i.e., entrainment of high-temperature ambient gases [7], and to provide data for comparison with multidimensional models under simplified, well characterized conditions. The inert environment resulted in liquid lengths 4% shorter than would have been obtained in air, as a result of heat capacity effects [1]. (The liquid length scaling law developed in this paper will be used to show the inert ambient gas composition effects relative to air.) Parameters varied in the investigation in Ref. 1 included: injection pressure, orifice diameter, orifice aspect ratio, ambient gas temperature, ambient gas density, fuel temperature, and fuel volatility. The ranges considered for the engine related parameters included those in current and proposed advanced diesel engine technologies. Table 1 lists the ranges considered for the various parameters. The fuels considered were heptamethylnonane (HMN), n-hexadecane (cetane), and a standard diesel fuel (DF2). Table 2 gives some of the basic properties of the DF2. HMN and cetane were used because they are well characterized single-component fuels that span the distillation temperature range for the DF2. HMN and cetane have boiling points equivalent to the 30% and 80% temperature points on the DF2 distillation curve, or 520 K and 560 K, respectively. Properties sources for HMN and cetane are discussed later.

BACKGROUND
Research on liquid-phase fuel penetration in vaporizing sprays is beginning to provide significant improvement in our understanding of the penetration and vaporization of liquid-phase fuel in diesel sprays. Early research on liquid-phase fuel penetration primarily revealed the evolution of the penetrating tip of the liquid region in a spray, and identified several parameters important to liquidphase fuel penetration. This research is discussed in detail in Ref. 1. In summary, it showed that liquid fuel initially defines the penetrating tip of a diesel spray. This continues until the liquid fuel penetrates to a point where the total fuel evaporation rate in the spray equals the fuel injection rate. When this condition occurs, the tip of the liquid region stops penetrating and begins fluctuating about a mean axial location [2-5], with only vapor-phase fuel penetrating beyond this location. Parameters that were found to affect the location of the tip of the liquidphase fuel included the injector orifice diameter [2], ambient gas conditions [2], and fuel volatility [2], while injection pressure seemed to have little effect [3,6]. More recently, three other papers have reported results on liquid-phase fuel penetration that provide both quantitative data and an improved understanding of the processes controlling fuel vaporization. Two papers by Dec and coworkers provided data on liquid-phase fuel penetration for typical heavy-duty diesel engine conditions [7,8]. Their results on liquid length (a) confirmed the general nature of liquid-phase fuel penetration noted earlier, (b) demonstrated the strong effects of incylinder gas temperature and density on liquid length, (c) showed that liquid lengths were relatively short for typical heavy-duty engine conditions, and (d) showed that the energy for vaporizing the fuel comes mainly from hightemperature air entrained into the spray. Their last observation was based on the facts that the liquid length was established before ignition occurred, that liquid length did not shorten significantly after ignition, and that vaporization occurred largely upstream of the combustion zone 2

Important characteristics of the orifices used in the experiments are listed in Table 3 (see Ref. 1 for more details). The values given in the table for each orifice are the diameter (d), the discharge coefficient (Cd), the area-contraction coefficient (Ca) for two injection pressure differences across the orifice (72 and 138 MPa), and the length-to-diameter ratio (l/d). All the orifices had sharp edged inlets and outlets. The discharge coefficients given in Table 3 were measured with standard techniques described in Ref. [9]. The area-contraction coefficients, not previously given in Ref. 1, appear in the scaling law and are discussed in detail in Appendix B of this paper. The area-contraction coefficient accounts for flow area loss in the orifice due to cavitation or other orifice flow phenomena. In the following discussions, area-contraction coefficients for injection pressures other than listed in Table 3 were linearly interpolated from the values in the table as needed. The liquid lengths reported in Ref. 1 were time-averaged liquid lengths determined from time-averaged Mie-scattered light images of the liquid-phase fuel in a diesel spray. The liquid lengths determined from the images were repeatable to 4%, and were estimated to account for more than 97% of the liquid-phase fuel. It was also shown that the quasisteady liquid lengths reported had instantaneous turbulent fluctuations of about 11%. Table 1. Parameter ranges covered in Ref. 1.

The dominant trends observed in the liquid length data in Ref. 1 with respect to injector and in-cylinder thermodynamic conditions were that liquid length (a) decreases linearly with decreasing orifice diameter, approaching zero as the diameter approaches zero, (b) is insignificantly affected by injection pressure, and (c) decreases with increasing the ambient gas density or temperature, but in a non-linear manner. With respect to fuel parameters, liquid length was found to increase with decreasing fuel volatility, and decrease linearly with increasing fuel temperature. In addition, the results for different fuels suggested that the liquid length of a multi-component fuel is controlled by its lower volatility fractions, suggesting a batch distillation-type process with higher volatility components evaporating first and lower volatility components controlling the liquid length. Two of the most revealing trends in the previous paragraph relative to fuel vaporization and the liquid length scaling law developed in this paper are the first two. These trends can be observed in the data in Figs. 1 and 2 (reproduced from Ref. 1). Figure 1 shows the linear dependence of liquid length on orifice diameter over a wide range of conditions, while Fig. 2 shows that liquid length is insignificantly affected by injection pressure over a similar wide range of conditions. As discussed in Ref. 1, these trends strongly suggest that vaporization in a diesel spray is controlled by mixing processes in the spray, as opposed to interphase transport rates of mass, momentum, and energy at droplet surfaces. Mixing processes, as used here, refer to the entrainment of hightemperature air into the spray and the overall transport and mixing of fuel and air throughout the spray cross-section. These mixing processes are determined by the turbulence generated by the spray.
125
Ta a Pf Fuel (K) (kg/m3) (MPa)

Table 2. Phillips research grade DF2 fuel properties.

100

Liquid Length [mm]

75

696 1000 1007 1300 996 1000 1300 1000 1296

14.8 7.3 14.7 14.8 30.3 14.8 30.2 14.8 30.2

136 HMN 136 HMN 137 HMN 135 HMN 133 HMN 56 Cetane 131 Cetane 54 DF2 163 DF2

50

Table 3.

Injector tip parameters for the seven tips used in the experiments in Ref. 1. (The Ca for the 363 m orifice was not measured at 72 MPa.)
Discharge Coefficient Area-Contraction Coefficient Length-toDiameter

25

Orifice Diameter

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Orifice Diameter [m]

D
(m) 100 180 251 246 267 363 498

Cd
0.80 0.77 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.81 0.84

Ca

Ca

l/d
4.0 4.2 2.2 4.2 8.0 4.1 4.3

(72 MPa) (138 MPa) 0.91 0.86 0.85 0.82 0.88 0.79 0.89 0.81 0.89 0.82 0.85 0.94 0.88

Figure 1. Liquid length versus orifice diameter for a wide range of conditions. The terms in the legend are the ambient gas temperature (Ta) and density (a), the orifice pressure drop (Pf), and the fuel type. The lines in the figures are linear least squares fits to the data for each set of conditions given in the legend. The aspect ratio of the orifices were nominally 4.2 and 438 K, respectively. 3

125
Ta d Fuel a (K) (kg/m3) (m) Ta d Fuel a (K) (kg/m3) (m)
700 1300 1300 1000 1000 7.3 30.1 30.2 14.8 14.8 100 Cetane 498 Cetane 100 DF2 246 DF2 498 DF2

for vaporization limited by turbulent mixing processes should be no change in liquid length with an increase in injection pressure, as observed in Fig. 2. With respect to orifice diameter, Eqs. (1) and (2) show that an increase in the diameter will result in an increase in the fuel mass flow rate at any axial location proportional to the square of the orifice diameter change, but only a linear increase in the total entrained ambient gas flow rate. Thus, a linear increase in the axial length of the spray needed to entrain enough high-temperature ambient gas to vaporize the fuel is required. The net result for mixing limited vaporization should be a linear dependence of liquid length on orifice diameter, as observed in Fig. 1.
200

100

Liquid Length [mm]

75

1000 1000 1000 700 1300

7.2 14.8 30.2 14.8 14.8

246 246 246 246 246

HMN HMN HMN HMN HMN

50

25

0 25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Orifice Pressure Drop [MPa]

Figure 2. Liquid length versus the pressure drop across the injector orifice for a wide range of conditions. The term d in the legend is the orifice diameter. See Fig. 2 for definitions of the other terms. The lines in the figures are linear least squares fits to the data for each set of conditions given in the legend. The mixing limited conclusion was arrived at by examining the changes in liquid length that would be expected with a change in orifice diameter or injection pressure for two limiting cases of vaporization: control by mixing processes or control by interphase transport processes at droplet surfaces. Only control of vaporization by mixing explained the trends in Figs. 1 and 2. Vaporization limited by mixing processes was examined using jet theory. From jet theory, the mass of ambient gas entrained into a spray up to any axial distance from the orifice ( a(x)) is linearly proportional to the orifice diameter (d), the axial distance from the orifice ( x), the fuel injection velocity (Uf), and the spray spreading angle () [1], or:
 ( x ) d x U tan ( / 2), m a a f f

Droplet vaporization theory combined with the experimentally observed effects of orifice diameter and injection pressure on droplet size were used to examine vaporization limited by local interphase transport processes at droplet surfaces. The trends in liquid length estimated with respect to orifice diameter and injection pressure, however, did not agree with Figs. 1 and 2. In this limit, liquid length should decrease with a decrease in orifice diameter, but with a less than linear dependence on orifice diameter; and liquid length should increase with an increase in injection pressure. (This limit is discussed in more detail in Ref. 1). In the following section, a scaling law for liquid length in a diesel spray is developed using jet theory based on the observation that fuel vaporization in a diesel spray appears limited by mixing processes in a spray. The scaling law will help explain all of the liquid length trends observed in Ref. 1 with respect to various injector, fuel and in-cylinder thermodynamic conditions. The observations will strengthen the concept that vaporization is limited by mixing processes, as well as provide more insight on vaporization in a diesel spray.

THE SCALING LAW DEVELOPMENT

A scaling law for liquid length can be developed from an idealized diesel spray model using principles of conservation of mass, momentum and energy. This section discusses the spray model and assumptions used in deriving the scaling law and the scaling law derivation. It also discusses several details relevant to the scaling law. Many of the assumptions made in the derivation are very simplistic; however, they have proven successful in the past in allowing basic features of gas jets and sprays to be understood [e.g., 9-14]. The idealized spray model used is similar to that employed by Naber and Siebers [9] to develop a comprehensive transient diesel spray penetration correlation valid over a range of conditions similar to that in Table 1. The application of the model by Naber and Siebers, in turn, built on earlier applications of the model to diesel sprays by Wakuri [12] and Hays [13]. The difference between the current use of the spray model and the pre4

(1)

The terms a and f in Eq. (1) are the ambient gas and injected fuel densities, and the velocity Uf is set by the injection pressure through Bernoullis equation. Also from jet theory, fuel mass is conserved in the spray, and therefore, the fuel mass flow rate at any axial location ( f (x)) is the injected fuel flow rate ( f ) or:
 ( x) = m  d2 U . m f f f f

(2)

Based on Eqs (1) and (2), it was argued in Ref. 1 that an increase in injection velocity (i.e., injection pressure) will result in equal increases in the mass flow rates of the fuel and the entrained ambient gas at any axial location. As a result, fuel injection pressure should have no effect on the length of spray needed to entrain enough high-temperature ambient gas to vaporize the fuel. The net result

vious application by Naber and Siebers is the inclusion of conservation of energy considerations needed to account for fuel vaporization processes. SPRAY MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS The liquid length scaling law for diesel sprays was developed using integral control surface techniques applied to an idealized model of a diesel spray. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the idealized spray model and the control surface used for the mass, momentum, and energy balances. The idealized spray is assumed to have the following physical characteristics: (a) quasisteady flow with a uniform growth rate (i.e., a constant spreading angle ), (b) uniform velocity, fuel concentration, and temperature profiles (i.e., perfect mixing inside the spray boundaries), and (c) no velocity slip between the injected fuel and the entrained ambient gas. The first assumption is supported by the axially uniform spray angles measured in the non-head portion of a spray [9]. In addition, the first assumption has been established for the non-head region of transient gas jets [15,16]. The assumption of uniform velocity, fuel concentration, and temperature profiles is clearly a simplification. More realistic profiles could be employed, as have been used by others for analyzing turbulent jets and sprays [e.g., 14,17]; however, the form of the scaling law that is derived in this paper would be the same. The no velocity slip assumption is doubtful very near the injector orifice, but should begin applying well before the axial location of complete vaporization. This latter assumption has also been successfully applied in developing an overall transient spray penetration correlation for diesel sprays [9].

the vapor phase fuel is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the entrained ambient gas and the liquid phase fuel (i.e., all three are at the same temperature), (c) idealized phase equilibrium assumptions (i.e., Raoults and Daltons rules) apply, (d) gas absorption in the liquid phase is neglected, and (e) the recovery of kinetic energy in the fuel vaporization region of the spray is neglected. The assumption of thermodynamic equilibrium between the saturated fuel vapor and entrained ambient gas is equivalent to the adiabatic saturation1 condition discussed by El Wakil et al. [18, also see 19] for the dense inner region of a diesel spray. Whether adiabatic saturation applies in the inner region of a spray, however, has not been shown. This assumption will be examined and tested by the comparison of the scaling law to the data. The other thermodynamic assumptions will also be discussed more later, since the scaling law can be used to assess their impact as well. Finally, no consideration is given in the spray model to atomization processes or droplets. The idealized model treats the spray more as a locally homogeneous flow where the transport rates between phases at droplet surfaces are fast relative to the transport rates as a result of the mixing processes in the spray [20]. SPRAY SPREADING ANGLE The spray spreading angle in Fig. 3 will appear in the liquid length scaling law to be derived. The spreading angle is a measure of the growth rate of the spray caused by entrainment of ambient gas. The spreading angle of a diesel spray is known to be a function of orifice geometry parameters (i.e., sharp versus smooth orifice edges, the aspect ratio, the orifice orientation, etc.) and the ratio of the fuel and the ambient gas densities [e.g., 9, 21-24]. In the scaling law, the spreading angle will account for the effects these parameters on the turbulent transport of momentum from the injected fuel to the entrained gas [9]. Unfortunately, because turbulence is a major factor in determining the spray spreading angle, and because the details concerning flow through an orifice are not well understood, no comprehensive theory exists for determining the spreading angle of a spray in terms of the independent parameters involved. As a result, experimentally measured spray spreading angles will be used in the scaling law. The spray spreading angle used is one commonly measured for a diesel spray, the angle defining the spray outer boundary. These spray outer boundary angles are presented in Appendix A. They were measured simultaneously with each liquid length presented in Ref. 1, but have not been reported previously. Also discussed in Appendix A is the schlieren technique used to measure the angles. 1. Adiabatic saturation here refers to a thermodynamic equilibrium state that occurs when a liquid is adiabatically mixed with a gas in a closed volume and the vapor phase of the liquid reaches a saturated condition. 5

Entrained gas (Pa , Ta , a)

(Pa , Tf , f)

Vaporization complete (x=L)

Figure 3. Schematic of the idealized spray model used to develop the liquid length scaling law. In Fig. 3, the downstream side of the control surface (x=L) is defined to be at the axial location in the spray where the fuel has just completely vaporized (i.e., the liquid length location in the idealized spray). The thermodynamic assumptions up to this location in the spray are: (a) the vapor phase fuel is at a saturated condition, (b)

The measured angles presented in Appendix A are related to the idealized spray angle in Fig. 3 by a constant. This was shown in Ref. 9 by assuming self preserving flow and an equivalence between the mass and momentum flow rates of a real spray and the idealized spray in Fig. 3 at any axial distance x. These assumptions lead to the relationship:
tan ( / 2) = a tan (/ 2),

(3)

where is the measured spray angle for a real spray and the constant a has a value of 0.66. The value used for the constant a in Eq. (3) was derived from a best fit of transient spray penetration data to the spray penetration correlation developed by Naber and Siebers [9]. However, they also estimated a value for the constant a within a few percent of 0.66 using the self preserving flow assumption, the mass and momentum equivalence assumption, and typical radial velocity profiles in sprays, with no reference to any measured spray penetration data or spray angle data. DERIVATION The liquid length scaling law is derived by solving mass, momentum, and energy balances for the axial location at which fuel vaporization is complete in the idealized spray model (i.e., the downstream end of the control surface in Fig. 3, x=L). The derivation involves three steps. First, a relationship is derived from conservation of mass and energy for the ratio of the fuel and the ambient gas mass flow rates that results in complete fuel vaporization when the two are mixed. Second, a relationship is derived from conservation of mass and momentum for the axial variation of the ratio of the fuel and the ambient gas mass flow rates in the spray. Third, the liquid length scaling law is then derived by substituting the mass flow rate ratio determined in the first step into the relationship for the mass flow rate ratio as a function of axial distance from the second step, and solving for the axial location at which vaporization is complete, x=L. The following three sections present each of the steps, respectively. Requirement for Complete Fuel Vaporization Based on the assumptions made, there is one mixture of fuel and ambient gas that will result in complete vaporization of the fuel for any set of fuel and ambient gas properties and initial conditions. This mixture ratio can be determined from the mass and energy balances for the control surface shown in Fig. 3, and a real gas equation of state (to be discussed later). The mass and energy balances are:
 = A U = m  (L ) = (L) A(L) U (L ) m f f f f f f  (L ) = (L) A(L ) U (L) m a a

The term f in the preceding equations is the mass flow rate of the injected fuel. From conservation of fuel mass, f is also the fuel mass flow rate at the liquid length, or f (L). The term a(L ) is the total entrained ambient gas mass flow rate up to L, which is equal to the ambient gas mass flow rate through the downstream control surface at L. The terms f , Uf , and Af are the density, the axial velocity and the cross-sectional area of the fuel at the orifice exit, respectively; and the terms f (L), a(L), U(L), and A(L) are the partial fuel density, the partial ambient gas density, the spray velocity, and the spray cross-sectional area at L, respectively. By definition at x=L, the fuel is completely vaporized and the partial densities of the fuel and the ambient gas are dependent on their respective partial pressures. The terms hf and ha in Eq. (6) refer to the specific enthalpies of the fuel and ambient gas, respectively. The left side of Eq. (6) is the sum of the initial enthalpy of the fuel at the orifice exit and the enthalpy of the ambient gas entrained into the spray. The fuel at the orifice exit is assumed to be at the measured injector tip temperature, Tf , and the ambient pressure, Pa. The ambient gas specific enthalpy is determined at the measured ambient gas pressure and temperature, Ta. The right side of Eq. (6) is the sum of the enthalpies of the fuel and ambient gas at L, after mixing and complete vaporization of the fuel. By previous assumption, at this location the vaporized fuel is at a saturated condition in thermodynamic equilibrium with the ambient gas, both with a temperature Ts. Since the fuel is saturated, the saturation temperature Ts also defines the partial pressure of the vapor fuel, Ps, through the saturation pressure-temperature relationship for the fuel. The partial pressure of the entrained ambient gas in the spray is given by the difference between the ambient pressure and the partial pressure of the vaporized fuel in the spray, or Pa-Ps. The ratio of the fuel and the ambient gas mass flow rates required to vaporize the fuel is obtained by rearranging Eq. (6), and substituting in Eqs. (4-5) and the real gas equation of state of the form P=ZRT/M. First, rearranging Eq. (6) yields the desired mass flow rate ratio in terms of the specific enthalpies:
 (L ) m h (T ,P ) ha (Ts , Pa Ps ) f = a a a  ( L) m hf (Ts ) hf (Tf ,Pa ) a

(7)

The enthalpy difference in the numerator is the specific enthalpy transferred from the entrained ambient gas to heat and vaporize the fuel. The enthalpy difference in the denominator is the specific enthalpy required to heat and vaporize the liquid fuel. Next, substitution of Eq. (4-5) and the equation of state into the left side of Eq. (7) gives the fuel and the ambient gas mass flow rate ratio, now defined as B, in terms of the fuel and ambient gas properties, the initial fuel and ambient gas conditions (Ta, Pa, and Tf), and one unknown, Ts:

(4) (5)

 (L) h (T , P ) + m  (L) h (T ,P ) = m f f f a a a a a  (L) h (T ) + m  (L) h (T ,P P ). m f f s a a s a s

(6)

B=

Z a (Ts , Pa Ps ) Ps M f = Z f (Ts , Ps ) [Pa Ps ] M a ha (Ta , Pa ) ha (Ts , Pa Ps ) hf (Ts ) hf (Tf , Pa )

A( x) = [x tan(/ 2)]
Af =
(8) 2 df 4

(9)

(10) (11)

The terms Zf and Za are the vaporized fuel and ambient gas compressibilities, respectively, and Mf and Ma are fuel and ambient gas molecular weights, respectively. The unknown, Ts, in Eq. (8) can be solved for iteratively given the fuel and ambient gas properties and initial fuel and ambient gas conditions. Once determined, Ts defines B, as well as the pressures, temperatures, and enthalpies of the fuel and ambient gas at the liquid length location. The term B given by Eq (8) is analogous to the mass and thermal transfer numbers used in droplet vaporization studies [25]. Furthermore, the method of solving for Ts is analogous to that used in determining the surface temperature of a vaporizing liquid droplet [25]. Axial Variation of the Fuel/Ambient-Gas Ratio The following discusses the derivation of the relationship needed for the axial variation of the ratio of the fuel and ambient gas mass flow rates in a spray. Several definitions used in the derivation are also introduced and discussed. To derive a relationship for the axial variation of the ratio of the fuel and ambient gas mass flow rates, an additional simplifying assumption is made. The additional assumption is that the axial variation of this ratio in a vaporizing spray is similar to that in a non-vaporizing, isothermal spray. This assumption essentially implies that the droplets in the spray (non-vaporizing or vaporizing) are small enough that they follow the gas flow, or that the spray has locally homogeneous flow, as discussed in Kuo [20]. The assumption also implies that temperature effects do not significantly alter the mean fuel/ambient-gas ratio at any axial location in the spray. This additional assumption is supported by the observations made by Naber and Siebers [9] on the scaling and correlation of transient diesel spray penetration data for both non-vaporizing and vaporizing sprays. They showed that characteristic time and length scales developed from an isothermal, non-vaporizing spray analysis correlated both non-vaporizing and vaporizing transient spray penetration data. In addition, for transient spray penetrations lengths corresponding to the liquid lengths measured in Ref. 1, the non-vaporizing and vaporizing spray penetration data agreed to within a constant factor. Both observations indicate that the various effects of temperature on fuel penetration cancel to within a constant factor, and can be accounted for with a constant that will appear in the scaling law (to be discussed). The definitions employed in the derivation are:

d f = Ca d
+ x =

f df a tan (/ 2) ~ = x / x+ x

(12) (13)

Equation (9) gives the area of the spray cross-section derived from the geometry of the spray. The diameter df in the orifice area in Eq. (10) is the effective orifice diameter given by Eq. (11). In Eq. (11), the diameter d is the physical diameter of the orifice and Ca is the orifice coefficient of area-contraction. Both d and Ca are given in Table 3 for each orifice from Ref. [1]. When Cas at injection pressures other than listed in Table 3 are needed, a linear interpolation is used. Appendix B presents further discussion of Ca and its measurement. The term x+ defined in Eq. (12) is a spray penetration length scale introduced in Ref. [9], and the term in Eq. (13) is the axial distance in the spray normalized by x+. The product of df and the density ratio term in x+ has long been used to account for the effects of an injected fluid density different from the ambient gas on the momentum of steady jets [11] and transient sprays [e.g., 26]. More recently, however, Naber and Siebers [9] showed that this product alone did not account for all the density effects on a spray for the range of conditions relevant to a diesel. They found that tan( /2) term had to be included in the length scale to account for an additional effect of the density difference between the ambient gas and the injected fluid on the turbulent transport between the two fluids. With the additional isothermal, non-vaporizing assumption, the following mass and momentum balances can be written for the spray:
 = A U = m  ( x) m f f f f f  ( x ) = A( x ) U ( x ) m a a  m

(14) (15) (16)

Uf =

 m

( x ) U ( x) +

 m

a ( x ) U ( x ).

As opposed to Eq. (5), the density a in Eq. (15) is a constant. Also, as is conventionally assumed for non-vaporizing sprays [9], the area occupied by the fuel is neglected in the term A(x) in Eq. (15) Employing Eq. (3) and the definitions in Eqs. (9-13), the spray mass and momentum balances given by Eqs. (1416) can be rearranged to give the desired relationship for the axial variation of the fuel and ambient gas mass flow rates in the spray (in dimensionless from):

 ( x) m 2 f =  ( x) m a 1 + 16 ~ x2 1

(17)

Liquid Length Scaling Law The scaling law for liquid length can now be developed in either a non-dimensional or dimensional form. The dimensionless form is derived by substituting B (determined with Eq. (8)) into Eq. (17), and solving for (i.e., the corresponding to the liquid length):

2 ~ L = b B(T ,P ,T ) + 1 1 a a f

extensive property data for the ambient gas and the fuels used in the experiment are needed. These properties were determined by using computer software provided with the API Technical Data Book [28]. The API property subroutines were incorporated into a computer program written to perform the iterative solution of Eq. (8) for B and to compute the liquid fuel density at the orifice exit for each set of conditions. The software uses the threeparameter corresponding states correlation of Lee and Kesler [29] based on an equation of state of the form P=ZRT/M to compute thermodynamic properties such as enthalpy, entropy, and heat of vaporization. The properties for an extremely large number of hydrocarbon fuels (up to C 30), as well as other compounds and common gases are available in the API data base. An exception is the detailed property data for HMN. Property data for HMN only very recently became available in the DIPPR data base [30] and had to be merged into the computer software provided with the API data base.

(18a)

The dimensional form is arrived at substituting Eq. (3) and the definitions given by Eqs. (9-13) into Eq. (18a):

Ca d b f L= a a tan( / 2)

2 B(T ,P ,T ) + 1 1 a a f

(18b)

COMPARISON WITH DATA

The trends in the measured liquid length data are compared with those predicted by the scaling law in this section. The first subsection compares the dimensionless form of the scaling law given by Eq. (18a) to the liquid length data acquired for all conditions with cetane and HMN. This comparison to Eq. (18a) was used to define the value recommended for the constant b in Eqs. (18a) and (18b). The remaining subsections make detailed comparisons between the predicted and measured effects of the various parameters on liquid length. In many of the figures in the following subsections, as well as the remainder of the paper, continuous curves are plotted for liquid lengths predicted with the scaling law as a function of various parameters. The spreading angles needed in Eq. (18b) to compute these continuous curves are interpolated as required from measured spreading angle data. Equation A2 in Appendix A is used to interpolate ambient gas and fuel density effects on spreading angles for each orifice. Spray spreading angle variations for each orifice with respect to other parameters are very small (as discussed in Appendix A), and are interpolated linearly with respect to each parameter. The orifice areacontraction coefficients in Eq. (18b) for injection pressures other than the two listed in Table 3 are linearly interpolated (and in a few cases extrapolated) from the values in the table. OVERALL COMPARISON Figure 4 shows the comparison between Eq. (18a) and the measured liquid length data for cetane and HMN from Ref. 1. The figure is a plot of the measured liquid lengths normalized by x+ (symbols) versus the value for B determined from Eq. (8) for each condition and fuel. A total of approximately 75 data points are shown for each fuel that include data for conditions covering the ranges given in Table 1 and data for each of the orifices given in Table 3. Many data points lie directly on top of each other near B values of 0.25, 0.35, 8

Equation (18a) or (18b) coupled with Eq. (8) (rewritten below for completeness) form the liquid length scaling law.

B=

Z a (Ts , Pa Ps ) Ps M f = Z f (Ts , Ps ) [Pa Ps ] M a ha (Ta , Pa ) ha (Ts , Pa Ps ) hf (Ts ) hf (Tf , Pa )

(8)

The constant a in Eq. (18b) is from Eq. (3) and has a value of 0.66. A value for the constant b in Eqs. (18a) and (18b) of 0.25 results from the analysis. However, given all the simplifying assumptions made in the development of the scaling law, there is no reason to expect that this value for b will be work. Instead, the value recommended for b is 0.41. The value of 0.41 is derived from a best fit of the liquid length scaling law to the cetane and HMN liquid length data. The fit will be presented in the Comparison with Data section. This value of b appears to apply for a very wide range of fuels, since it is also valid for the methanol liquid length data presented in Ref. [27]. Examining the source of the terms in Eq. (18b) shows that the square-root term containing B accounts for the effects of parameters involved in the energy equation on the liquid length. The terms in front of the square-root term with B account for the effects of various parameters on the liquid length through their effects on the spray mass and momentum transport. The method for determining a liquid length from the scaling law is to iteratively solve Eq. (8) for Ts, which defines B for a given set of conditions. The value for B is then substituted into Eq. (18b). FUEL AND AMBIENT GAS PROPERTIES To compare the liquid length scaling law with measured liquid lengths,

0.65, 0.85, and 1.2. These values for B correspond to the thermodynamic conditions repeated for each of the various orifices and injection pressures considered. The solid curve in the figure is Eq. (18a) with the constant b set at 0.41. The value selected for the constant b was chosen to give the best fit to the liquid length data over the largest range of conditions in this figure. Figure 4 shows that there is close agreement between the scaling law and the measured data over the range of conditions considered. The standard deviation () between the scaling law and all the measured liquid lengths is 4%. The dashed lines in Fig. 4 represent a band of 8% (or 2). The data points falling outside of the 8% band (generally on the low side) are for the extreme low temperature-density conditions and the highest density conditions of the experiment, as will be shown.
6 5 4

the scaling law are at the low-temperature, low-density extreme of the data and at the high-density extreme of the data. At the low-temperature, low-density extreme, the scaling law tends to over predict the measured liquid length. At the high density extreme, an over prediction also occurs, although to a lesser extent. (The potential sources of the disagreement are discussed later.)
100
a (kg/m3 )

80

Liquid Length [mm]

3.6 7.3 14.8 30.2 59.0

60

40

20

Cetane HMN

0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

~ L 3
2 1 0 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Figure 5. Cetane liquid length as a function of gas temperature for five gas densities (a). The symbols are measured data from Ref. 1 and the curves are the scaling law predictions for each gas density. The orifice pressure drop, the orifice diameter, the ambient gas temperature, and the fuel temperature were 136 MPa, 246 m, and 438 K, respectively. The light gray region in the figure represents typical TDC gas temperatures and densities in light- and heavy-duty DI diesels.
100
a (kg/m3)

Liquid Length [mm]

Figure 4. Dimensionless liquid length ( =L/x+) versus B determined with Eq. (8) for all the conditions covered in the experiment in Ref. 1 using cetane and HMN. GAS TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY TRENDS The temperature and density trends predicted by the scaling law for cetane are compared in Fig. 5 with the measured liquid length data from Ref. [1]. Figure 6 shows the same comparison for HMN. The figures are plots of measured liquid lengths (symbols) and liquid lengths estimated using the scaling law given by Eqs. (8) and (18b) (curves) versus ambient gas temperature for five different ambient densities. The orifice diameter, the injection pressure drop across the orifice, and the fuel temperature for both figures are nominally 246 m, 136 MPa, and 438 K, respectively. The figures show that the scaling law closely predicts the strong effects of temperature and density on liquid length. This is especially true for typical small-bore automotive and heavy-duty DI diesel top-dead-center (TDC) temperatures and densities, which are represented by the shaded area centrally located in each figure. The most significant disagreements in trend between the data and 9

80

3.6 7.3 14.8 30.2 59.0

60

40

20

0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure 6. HMN liquid length as a function of gas temperature for five gas densities. The symbols are measured data from Ref. 1 and the curves are the scaling law predictions for each gas density. See Fig. 5 for the experimental conditions. The light gray region in the figure represents typical TDC gas temperatures and densities in light- and heavy-duty DI diesels.

100
Ta (K)

80

Liquid Length [mm]

60

700 850 1000 1150 1300

are the measured data for cetane at three different ambient gas conditions. The ambient gas conditions shown were selected to provide a range of liquid lengths spanning those measured in the experiments in Ref. 1. The orifice diameter and injection pressure drop across the orifice were 246 m and 135 MPa, respectively.
100

40

80
20

Liquid Length [mm]

Ta (K) a (kg/m3)

60

700 995 1295

7.3 14.8 30.3

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

40

Gas Density [kg/m 3]

Figure 7. HMN liquid length as a function of gas density for five gas temperatures ( Ta). The symbols are measured data from Ref. 1 and the curves are the scaling law predictions for each gas temperature. See Fig. 5 for the experimental conditions. Figure 7 is a plot of the same data as shown in Fig. 6 for HMN, except as a function of density for five temperatures. This figure more clearly shows the non-linearity in the effect of density on liquid length and that the scaling law models this variation very well for most conditions. The disagreement at the low density extreme is less visible in this figure because the extreme sensitivity of liquid length to gas density at the lower densities tends to mask the disagreement. FUEL VOLATILITY TRENDS Figures 5 and 6 together also show that the scaling law accurately models the range of fuel volatilities represented by HMN and cetane, a range that spans a significant portion of the volatility range of standard diesel fuel. The HMN and cetane atmospheric pressure boiling points correspond to the 30% and 80% points on a standard diesel fuel distillation curve. The overall agreement between the data and the scaling law for the two fuels is the same in each figure. Moreover, when using the same value for b in Eq. (18), similar agreement occurs between the scaling law and methanol liquid length data. These results suggest that the value of 0.41 for b applies for a wide range of singlecomponent fuels. (Methanol liquid length data is presented in a concurrent paper by Higgins et al. [30] on the effects of a wide range of fuel physical properties on liquid length. Fuels covered in the liquid length investigation in Higgins et al. include Fischer-Tropsch diesel, biodiesel, gasolines, and M-85.) FUEL TEMPERATURE TRENDS Figure 8 compares the effect of fuel temperature on liquid length measured for cetane with that predicted by the scaling law. The figure is a plot of liquid length versus the liquid fuel temperature at the orifice exit. The solid symbols in the figure 10

20

0 360

380

400

420

440

460

Fuel Temperature [K]

Figure 8. Liquid length versus the injected fuel temperature for cetane at three different ambient gas conditions given in the legend. The symbols are measured data from Ref. 1 and the curves are the scaling law predictions for each gas temperature and density condition. The orifice diameter and injection pressure drop across the orifice were 246 m and 135 MPa, respectively The lines in Fig. 8 are the scaling law predictions as a function of fuel temperature for the three ambient gas conditions. These predictions have been normalized to eliminate differences between the scaling law and the data caused by ambient gas temperature and density effects already discussed in conjunction with Figs. 5 and 6. This normalization allows the predicted trends with respect to the injected fuel temperature to be more clearly compared with the measured trends. To normalize the predictions in Fig. 8 for an ambient gas condition, the predictions are multiplied by the ratio of the measured and the predicted liquid lengths for the corresponding ambient gas condition shown in Fig. 5. Examination of Fig. 5 shows that the normalization is only significant for the 700 K, 7.3 kg/m3 condition in Fig. 8. (Note: This normalization technique will be used again in following figures, as noted, to examine predicted liquid length trends with respect to other parameters.) Comparison of the measured data to the computed lines in Fig. 8 shows that the effects of the fuel temperature on liquid length are accurately accounted for by the scaling law. The data and the scaling law show that liquid length decreases linearly with increasing fuel temperature, as previously discussed in Ref. 1. The decrease in liquid

length is about 0.2% per Kelvin increase in fuel temperature for conditions relevant to DI diesels. ORIFICE DIAMETER TRENDS By inspection of Eq. (18b), it is clear that the linear dependence of liquid length on orifice diameter observed in the experimental data in Fig. 1 is modeled by the scaling law. A comparison of the scaling law to the measured data for various orifice diameters is shown in Fig. 9 to highlight this observation. In addition, the comparison in Fig. 9 allows the predicted effects of tip to tip variations in the independently measured orifice area-contraction coefficient (see Appendix B and Table 3) and the spray spreading angle to be examined (see Appendix A).
125
Ta a Pf Fuel (K) (kg/m3) (MPa)

The open symbols in Fig. 9 are the liquid lengths predicted with the scaling law for each set of conditions and orifice. These scaling law predictions were normalized in the same manner as described for the scaling law predictions in Fig. 8. (i.e., The predictions were multiplied by measured/predicted liquid length ratios from Figs. 5 and 6 for each corresponding ambient gas condition and fuel.) As stated before, the normalization eliminates differences between the scaling law and the data caused by ambient gas temperature and density effects already discussed in conjunction with Figs. 5 and 6. With respect to Fig. 9, the normalization allows any trends with respect to the orifice diameter, the orifice area-contraction coefficient, and the spreading angle effects to be more clearly compared. The lines shown in Fig. 9 are least-squares fits to the scaling law predictions. (Lines representing continuous predictions of liquid length as a function of orifice diameter are not possible since the orifice area-contraction coefficients and the spray spreading angle do not vary in a systematic manner with orifice diameter, i.e., from orifice to orifice.) Figure 9 shows excellent agreement between the scaling law predictions and the measured liquid length data over a wide range of conditions with respect to orifice diameter. Comparison of the individual points in the figure shows that the scaling law predictions (open symbols) fall very nearly on top of the measured data (solid gray symbols). In addition, the linear dependence on orifice diameter is clearly evident from the least squares fits. This degree of agreement strongly supports the assumptions used to derive the scaling law. The point to point agreement shown in Fig. 9 also provides a check on the independently measured spray spreading angles and orifice coefficients that appear in the scaling law. Attempts to use spray angles and areacontraction coefficients averaged over all the orifices, instead of the values measured for each orifice, resulted in systematic differences between the measured and predicted liquid lengths for each orifice. INJECTION PRESSURE TRENDS Inspection of the scaling law given by Eqs. (8) and (18b) shows that the scaling law does not contain a direct injection pressure (i.e., injection velocity) dependence. This is in agreement with the general trend observed in the data in Fig. 2 which shows that injection pressure has virtually no effect on liquid length. Injection velocity appears in the mass and momentum equations used to derive the scaling law, but cancels out in the derivation, thus eliminating the major parameter affected by injection pressure. The small systematic changes in liquid length with respect to injection pressure that can be observed in Fig. 2 are the result of small systematic effects of injection pressure on the spray spreading angle and the orifice area-contraction coefficient. This is shown in Fig. 10, a plot of liquid length versus the injection pressure drop across the orifice. (For reference, typical light- to heavy11

100

Liquid Length [mm]

75

696 1000 1300 996 1000 1300

14.8 7.3 14.8 30.3 14.8 30.2

136 HMN 136 HMN 135 HMN 133 HMN 56 Cetane 131 Cetane

50

25

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Orifice Diameter [m]

Figure 9. Liquid length versus orifice diameter for a wide range of conditions. The measured data are given by the solid gray symbols, and the scaling law predictions for each condition by the open symbols. The lines in the figures are linear least squares fits to the scaling law predictions for each set of conditions given in the legend. The terms in the legend are defined in Fig. 1. The aspect ratio of the orifices were nominally 4.2 and 438 K, respectively. Figure 9 is a plot of liquid length versus orifice diameter for a diameter range from 100 to 500 m. (For reference, typical light- to heavy-duty DI diesel engine injector orifice diameters fall in the 160 to 250 m size range.) Each solid gray symbol-type in Fig. 9 represents liquid length data measured for the different orifice diameters for one fixed set of conditions. The set of conditions for each symbol is given in the legend. These measured data are a subset of the data previously shown in Fig. 1. The experimental conditions selected for Fig. 9 were chosen to include a variety of conditions and a wide range of liquid lengths. The remaining conditions previously shown in Fig. 1 were left out for clarity or because the fuel used was DF2, a multi-component fuel. The aspect ratio of the orifices and the fuel temperature for the data shown were 4.2 and 438 K, respectively.

duty DI diesel engine orifice injection pressure drops fall in the 70 MPa to 140 MPa range.)
125
Ta d Fuel a (K) (kg/m3) (m) Ta d Fuel a (K) (kg/m3) (m)
700 14.8 700 7.3 1300 30.1 246 HMN 100 Cetane 498 Cetane

100

Liquid Length [mm]

1000 7.2 600 14.8 1000 30.2

246 HMN 246 HMN 246 HMN

fice area-contraction coefficient and the spray spreading angle with injection pressure. The measured spreading angle variations with injection pressure for the specific conditions shown in Fig. 10 are shown in Fig. A3 in Appendix A. The measured orifice area-contraction coefficient variations with injection pressure are shown in Table 3 and Appendix B.

75

IMPLICATIONS OF THE MAJOR TRENDS

The comparisons in Figs. 5-9 demonstrate that the liquid length scaling law is in close agreement with the experimental data over a very wide range of fuel, injector, and ambient gas conditions. The trends in the data with respect to all major parameters are reproduced by the scaling law. This close agreement between the scaling law and liquid length data strongly supports the original premise that mixing processes in a DI diesel spray control fuel vaporization (as they have been shown to control combustion once the initial premixed burn phase is completed [19]). Moreover, the close agreement suggests that many of the assumptions applied in developing the scaling law are reasonable with respect to the overall fuel vaporization process. One critical assumption is that the fuel reaches a saturated condition in thermodynamic equilibrium with the entrained ambient gas. Achieving this condition in the dense inner region of a real spray, or at least closely approaching it, suggests a mechanism for control of vaporization by mixing. When such a saturated conditions exists, the only means to further vaporize fuel is to heat the liquid fuel to a higher temperature and/or transport fuel vapor away from the inner region of the spray. A higher liquid fuel temperature would allow further vaporization by raising the fuel vapor pressure. Transport of fuel away from the inner region of the spray (or equivalently, dilution of the spray by entrained ambient gas) would allow further fuel vaporization by lowering the vapor fuel partial pressure below the fuel saturation pressure. Since both the energy ( i.e., high-temperature ambient gas) entrainment needed to heat the fuel and the transport of fuel and ambient gas in the spray are controlled by spray mixing processes, vaporization will be controlled by mixing processes. Thermodynamic equilibrium between saturated fuel vapor and entrained ambient gas in the dense region of the spray was first discussed by El Wakil et al. [18, also see 19]. They analytically explored the possible range of fuel/air ratios and equilibrium temperatures that could exist in the dense core of a spray for adiabatic mixing, but they had no evidence or measurements that indicated adiabatic saturation occurred. The scaling law and measurements presented in this paper and Ref. 1 offer strong indirect evidence that an adiabatic saturation condition does exist in the inner region of a DI diesel spray. Direct measurement of fuel vapor concentrations and temperature, however, are needed to conclusively prove the occurrence of adiabatic saturation. 12

50

25

0 25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Orifice Pressure Drop [MPa]

Figure 10. Liquid length versus the pressure drop across the injector orifice for a wide range of conditions. The measured data are given by the solid gray symbols, and the scaling law predictions for each condition by the open symbols. The lines in the figures are linear least squares fits to the scaling law predictions for each set of conditions given in the legend. The terms in the legend are defined in Figs. 1 and 2. The aspect ratio of the orifices were nominally 4.2 and 438 K, respectively. Each solid gray symbol-type in Fig. 10 represents liquid length data measured for different injection pressures for one fixed set of conditions. The set of conditions for each symbol is given in the legend. These measured data are a subset of the data previously shown in Fig. 2. The experimental conditions selected for Fig. 10 were chosen to include a variety of conditions, a wide range of liquid lengths, and the most systematic variations of liquid length with injection pressure. The remaining conditions shown in Fig. 2 were left out for clarity or because the fuel used was DF2, a multi-component fuel. The open symbols in Fig. 10 are the predictions of liquid length made with the scaling law for each set of conditions, and the lines are least squares fits to the scaling law predictions. Like Figs. 8 and 9, the scaling law estimations in Fig. 10 have been normalized to eliminate the deviations of the scaling law from the measured data as a result of gas temperature-density effects previously discussed in conjunction with Figs. 5 and 6. Figure 10 shows that there is excellent agreement between the scaling law and the experimentally observed trends with respect to injection pressure. In every case, the liquid lengths determined with the scaling law fall very close to the measured values. The scaling law indicates that the small systematic variations in liquid length with injection pressure appear because of variations in the ori-

Deviation from Data [%]

The discussion in the previous paragraphs has an important further implication. Namely, for current-technology DI diesel conditions, local mass, momentum, and energy transport processes at droplet surfaces do not control the overall rate of vaporization. The atomization process must be producing small enough droplets with enough surface area, such that the droplet surface transport processes are fast relative to the spray mixing processes. If this were not true, the scaling law, which contains no physics regarding droplet vaporization, should not agree so closely with the data over such a wide range of conditions. The above discussion also means that better atomization (i.e., smaller droplets) alone will not promote increased fuel vaporization in a DI diesel spray. The close fit of the scaling law indicates that parameters such as injection pressure and orifice diameter affect fuel vaporization through their affect on mixing processes, not through their known affects on droplet size through atomization.

pressure at the liquid length location, L. The fuel vapor pressures were derived from the solution of Eq. (8). Data for all conditions examined for cetane and HMN are included in the figure.
60

40

Cetane HMN

20

-20

-40

0.03

0.10

0.30

1.00

DISCUSSION OF THE SECOND-ORDER TRENDS

Although very close agreement between the liquid length scaling law and the experimental data was shown, small systematic differences did appear in the trends with respect to ambient gas density and temperature. Figures 5 and 6 showed that the scaling law over estimated liquid length at the very highest high ambient gas density conditions and the very lowest ambient gas temperature and density conditions. The most likely source for the differences at the highest gas density (i.e., highest gas pressure) conditions is the simplified phase-equilibrium analysis used in the scaling law. However, the phase-equilibrium considerations may also be contributing to the deviations at the lowest temperature and density conditions through the constant b in Eqs. (18a) and (18b). This constant was set to give the best overall agreement, and therefore, may be accounting for some of non-ideal phase-equilibrium effects and distributing the rest throughout the range of ambient gas conditions considered. The phase-equilibrium assumptions used to develop the scaling law were that Raoults and Daltons rules apply, and that no gas absorption by the liquid-phase occurs. Among other simplifications, these ideal phase-equilibrium assumptions result in neglecting two non-ideal phase-equilibrium effects on fuel vapor pressure [31]. The two neglected effects on fuel vapor pressure are offsetting to some degree. The first is the increase in fuel vapor caused by ambient gas pressures greater than the fuel vapor pressure for a given temperature (i.e., the Poynting effect [31]). The second is the decrease in the fuel vapor pressure caused by gas absorption into the liquid phase at higher pressures. Figure 11 demonstrates a possible impact the ideal phase-equilibrium assumptions. This figure is a plot of the percent deviation between the predicted and the measured liquid lengths versus the fuel vapor partial 13

Vapor Pressure [MPa]

Figure 11. Percent deviation between the scaling law and the measured liquid length data versus the fuel vapor partial pressure at the liquid length location. Data for all conditions for cetane and HMN are shown. The fuel vapor partial pressures were determined from the solution of Eq. (8). Figure 11 shows that there is a strong correlation between fuel vapor partial pressure (derived from the ideal phase-equilibrium analysis) and the deviation between the data and the scaling law. The trend in Fig. 11 is the strongest correlation found between any parameter and the small systematic deviation of the scaling law from the data noted in Figs. 5 and 6. This trend suggests that a more realistic phase-equilibrium analysis, such as those used in multidimensional diesel spray models [32-34], may decrease some of the remaining differences between the scaling law and the data. This was examined by correcting the fuel vapor pressure used in ideal phase-equilibrium analysis by including estimates for the Poynting effect and the effect of gas absorption on vapor pressure. The corrections resulted in generally better agreement in Figs. 5 and 6. The use of a more realistic phase-equilibrium analysis, however, should have very little impact on the observations and conclusions of this paper. The primary effect should be better agreement in Figs. 5 and 6, and slightly lower predicted temperatures at the liquid length location (to be discussed). Another likely contributor to the differences at the low gas temperature and density conditions in Figs. 5 and 6 is the beginning of a shift in the processes controlling fuel vaporization in a spray. As lower and lower gas temperature and density conditions are considered, the local transport processes at droplet surfaces must ultimately begin controlling fuel vaporization. Consider moving

toward lower gas temperatures along the lowest ambient gas density curve in Fig. 5 with all other conditions fixed. As the gas temperature is lowered, the mass and energy transport rates at droplet surfaces will decrease, but the turbulent transport of ambient gas to the inner region of the spray and fuel transport away from the inner region do not2. Therefore, as the ambient temperature is decreased, the overall droplet surface transport rates should ultimately become slow relative to the spray mixing processes. When this transition occurs, the droplet transport processes would be unable to maintain a saturated condition in the spray inner region, and control of vaporization should shift to the droplet transport processes. (A similar shift in processes controlling vaporization probably occurs at the very tip and periphery of the liquid-phase fuel region in a spray. This shift would occur because of the rapid decline noted in the quantity of liquid phase fuel at these locations [1,7], and the in ability for the remaining liquid fuel to provide enough fuel vapor to maintain a saturated condition3.) A third factor that should be mentioned as a possible contributor to the small systematic disagreements is the recovery of the injected fuel kinetic energy as thermal energy as the spray decelerates. The specific kinetic energy of a diesel spray at an injection pressure of 140 MPa (or an injection velocity of about 600 m/s) is of the same magnitude as the specific latent heat of vaporization of diesel fuel (~200 kJ/kg). However, if kinetic energy recovery were an important factor for fuel vaporization, liquid length should show a significant decrease with increasing injection pressure ( i.e., kinetic energy). The lack of an injection pressure effect suggests that the ultimate recovery of the injected fuel kinetic energy through turbulent dissipation must occur largely downstream of the vaporization regions. A factor that does not appear to contribute to the low gas temperature-density disagreement shown in Figs. 5 and 6 is wall effect. This appears true at least for liquid lengths up to a few millimeters from the wall, which is located at 98 mm [1]. If wall effects were important, a deviation from the dominate trends observed in the fuel temperature plot (Fig. 8) and the orifice diameter plot (Fig. 9) should be noted for the longer liquid lengths that approach the wall location. The longer liquid length data in Figs. 8 and 9 show no such wall effect.

OBSERVATIONS BASED ON SCALING LAW

Additional observations regarding diesel spray vaporization processes that can be made based on the liquid length scaling law are discussed in this section. MAXIMUM LIQUID-PHASE FUEL TEMPERATURE One parameter resulting from the solution of Eq. (8) is the equilibrium temperature of the saturated fuel vapor and entrained ambient gas (Ts) at the liquid length location. This temperature is the maximum temperature that any liquid fuel reaches. Figure 12 is a plot of the equilibrium temperatures derived from Eq. (8) for cetane (solid curves) and HMN (dashed curves) for conditions corresponding to those in Figs. 5 and 6. They are plotted versus the ambient gas temperature for five different gas densities. Also included in the figure is the critical temperature for each pure fuel, represented by the horizontal arrows. The figure applies for a fuel temperature of 440 K. Parameters such as injection pressure and orifice diameter have no effect on the information presented in Fig. 12, since they do not appear in Eq. (8). Figure 12 indicates that as either the ambient gas temperature or ambient gas density increase, the final temperature of the liquid-phase fuel increases. In addition, the lower volatility fuel, cetane, reaches the higher final temperature at each condition. The trends in the figure result from the non-linear interaction of the various thermodynamic properties of each fuel with the ambient gas thermodynamic properties in Eq. (8).
800

Maximum Liquid Fuel Temperature [K]

Critical Temperatures Cetane (723 K)

700

HMN (692 K)

59.0 30.2 14.8

600

7.3 3.6

500

Gas Density (kg/m3) Cetane HMN

400 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

2. Appendix A shows that the spray spreading angle, i.e., the entrainment of ambient gas into the spray, is not affected by ambient gas temperature for a fixed ambient gas density. 3. The vaporization process as described in this paragraph is more representative of a timeaveraged picture. A description of an instantaneous picture of vaporization would probably have the same processes and transitions occurring, but on a length scale comparable with the larger scale turbulent structures in the spray. 14

Figure 12. Equilibrium temperature at the liquid length location in the spray determined from Eq. (8) for cetane and HMN versus gas temperature for five different gas densities. The conditions in the figures correspond to those in Figs. 5 and 6. As important however, Fig. 12 shows that neither fuel reaches its critical temperature for any condition, even at the most extreme ambient gas temperature and density conditions of the experiment. These extreme conditions are well beyond any conditions expected in current or

proposed advanced DI diesel engines. The same was found for many fuels explored as surrogates for diesel fuel using the scaling law (to be discussed later). This observation suggests that standard diesel fuel vaporizes through subcritical vaporization processes in a DI diesel, and never reaches supercritical conditions. This true even though the in-cylinder gas temperature and pressure are typically well above the fuel critical temperature and pressure. (Note: Estimates of the effects of the use of a more realistic phase-equilibrium analysis in the scaling law suggest that the temperatures in Fig. 12 should be slightly less than shown. Also, the critical temperature for the saturated fuel/ambient-gas mixture will be slightly less that the pure fuel critical temperature shown [31]. The general observations made, however, will not change.) ENERGY REQUIRED TO VAPORIZE FUEL The specific enthalpy (i.e., energy) required to vaporize the fuel, determined from the solution of Eq. (8), is shown in Fig. 13 for cetane (solid curves) and HMN (dashed curves). The conditions in Fig. 13 correspond to those in Fig. 12. The figure shows that as either the gas temperature or density increase, more energy is required to vaporize a given mass of fuel. This increasing specific energy requirement is a consequence of the increase in the final equilibrium temperature of saturated fuel vapor shown in Fig. 12 and the nature of the thermodynamic properties of a fuel. For any fuel (any liquid for that matter), the specific energy required to vaporize the fuel from any initial liquid state is greater for a higher final saturated vapor temperature, almost independent of the initial liquid-phase fuel pressure. This can be observed by inspection of a pressure-enthalpy diagram for any singlecomponent fuel.
1000

With respect to fuel volatility, Fig. 13 shows that the higher volatility fuel, HMN, requires less energy to vaporize for any set of conditions. This is in part due to the higher volatility of HMN (i.e., higher vapor pressure) which makes HMN easier to vaporize. But the form of the scaling law also indicates that the lower latent heat of vaporization and liquid-phase heat capacity of HMN are significant factors as well. This is dramatized by recent experimental liquid length measurements for methanol [30] which show that methanol, a very high volatility fuel relative to DF2, has liquid lengths very close to those for DF2 as a result of methanols high heat of vaporization. This implies that the use of atmospheric pressure boiling point (a measure of fuel volatility) to correlate liquid lengths, as was done in Refs. [1,8], only applies for narrow fuel classes with similar thermodynamic properties. GAS TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY EFFECTS Clear explanations for the effects of orifice diameter and injection pressure on fuel vaporization and liquid length were summarized in the Background Section. These explanations were built around Eqs. (1) and (2) and conservation of mass and momentum considerations. With the scaling law and Figs. 12 and 13, a clearer understanding of the mechanisms by which ambient gas temperature and density affect liquid length can also be provided. One obvious effect of a higher ambient gas temperature (for a constant density) is that the entrained ambient gas has a higher specific energy. This translates to the need for a shorter spray entrainment length to entrain enough energy to vaporize the fuel (i.e., a shorter liquid length). However, Fig. 12 shows that the equilibrium temperature of the vaporized fuel also increases as ambient gas temperature increases, resulting in a greater vaporization energy requirement (Fig. 13) or the need for a longer spray entrainment length. Thus, the effect of an increase in ambient gas temperature on liquid length is the net result of the higher specific energy content of the ambient gas and competing fuel property effects that lead to a greater fuel vaporization energy requirement. The balance results in the decreasing liquid length with increasing gas temperature observed in Figs. 5 and 6. Ambient gas density (for a constant temperature) also affects liquid length through two competing mechanisms. First, increasing ambient gas density affects the spray development. Equation (1) shows that as ambient gas density increases, the mass of ambient gas entrained into the spray increases. The increase in mass entrainment occurs directly as a result of the higher gas density, and also as a result of the increased spray spreading angle that occurs with increased gas density (see Appendix A). The greater mass entrainment translates to a shorter spray entrainment length requirement to entrain enough energy to vaporize the fuel. The competing mechanism is the increased equilibrium temperature (Fig. 12) and concurrent greater energy requirement for fuel vaporization dictated by the fuel properties (Fig. 13).

Total Energy to Vaporize Fuel [kJ/kg]

59.0

750

30.2 14.8 7.3 3.6

500
Gas Density (kg/m3)

250
Cetane HMN

0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure 13. The total specific energy required to vaporize cetane or HMN determined from Eq. (8) versus gas temperature for five different gas densities. The conditions in the figures correspond to those in Figs. 5, 6 and 12.

15

This greater energy requirement translates to a longer spray entrainment length requirement. As with ambient gas temperature, the balance of these mechanisms results in the decreasing liquid length with increasing ambient gas density most clearly observed in Fig. 7. AIR VERSUS INERT AMBIENT GAS EFFECTS The liquid length experiments in Ref. 1 were conducted in an inert environment composed of 89.7% N2, 6.5% CO2, and 3.8% H2O with a molecular weight of 28.67. This environment has a slightly different heat capacity and molecular weight than air, which have an effect on liquid length. The scaling law can be used to assess this effect. Figure 14 compares the liquid lengths for cetane determined with the scaling law for both the inert environment (solid curves - previously shown in Fig. 5) and air (dashed curves). The figure shows that air results in about a 4% increase in liquid length for all conditions, primarily as a result of its the lower heat capacity relative to the inert gas used in the experiments in Ref. [1]. In an engine, this means that exhaust gas recirculation will have small effects on the liquid length, not only because of potential in-cylinder gas temperature effects, but also because of heat capacity changes due to in-cylinder gas composition changes.
100
Inert Gas Air Gas Density (kg/m3)

lengths under various conditions, as will be done in the next section, and for fundamental experimental and modeling studies of diesel sprays requiring a reasonable simulation of the diesel spray evaporation process. For a single-component fuel to be a good vaporization surrogate for DF2, it must: (a) generate a spray with the same injected mass and momentum as a DF2 spray, (b) have fuel volatility characteristics similar to DF2, and (c) have energy requirements for fuel vaporization similar to DF2. Matching the injected fuel mass and momentum matches the overall spray development for both fuels (i.e., the transient penetration, the entrainment, the turbulent mixing, etc.,). Matching the fuel volatility and vaporization energy requirements matches the overall vaporization characteristics. For a fixed set on injector and ambient gas conditions, the three criteria can be met by matching fuel densities, volatilities (e.g., atmospheric pressure boiling points), and liquid lengths. A number of single-component fuels were considered in the search for a DF2 vaporization surrogate. They included fuels that have already been used in the literature as DF2 surrogates for various reasons ( e.g., n-dodecane, cetane, -methylnaphthalene, and HMN) and several other fuels whose thermodynamic property data indicated that they might make good surrogates for DF2 (e.g., n-tetradecane, -tetradecene, n-heptadecane, and n-octadecane). Detailed property data for all fuels considered are available in either Ref. [28] or [30]. Figure 15 presents the liquid lengths predicted with the scaling law for the three single-component fuels investigated (solid and dashed curves) that most closely matching those measured for DF2 (symbols). The three fuels are n-heptadecane, cetane, and -methylnaphthalene. The DF2 data was reproduced from Ref. 1, and the conditions in the figure correspond to the those in Figs. 5 and 6. Figure 15 shows that n-heptadecane provides the best match to the liquid lengths measured for DF2. The agreement shown between n-heptadecane and DF2 is as good as that observed between the scaling law and cetane or HMN in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Moreover, the density of n-heptadecane is only 7% less than the density of DF2, and its the boiling point (575 K) corresponds to the 90% point on the DF2 distillation curve. Based on the scaling of diesel spray processes presented in this paper and in Ref. [9], the 7% density difference will have less than a 4% effect on various critical spray development processes (such as ambient gas entrainment and the transient spray penetration) relative to diesel fuel. Overall, the results indicate that n-heptadecane is the best vaporization surrogate for DF2 of the fuels investigated. Figure 15 also provides an additional interesting observation. The fact that atmospheric boiling point of n-heptadecane corresponds to the temperature at the 90% point on the DF2 distillation suggests that the lower volatility fractions in DF2 control liquid length. This observation supports the suggestion in Ref. 1 that vaporization in 16

80

Liquid Length [mm]

60
3.6

40
7.3

20

14.8 30.2 59.0

0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure 14. Liquid lengths predicted for cetane injected into the inert ambient gas used in Ref. 1 and into air versus gas temperature for five gas densities. The solid curves are for the inert ambient gas and the dashed curves for air. The conditions correspond to those in Fig. 5 for cetane. VAPORIZATION SURROGATE FOR DIESEL FUEL Because single-component fuels are generally very well characterized relative to #2 diesel fuel (DF2), single-component fuels are often used as surrogates for DF2 in studies of diesel sprays. In this section, the understanding of fuel vaporization derived through the liquid length scaling law is used to select a single-component fuel that closely matches the vaporization characteristics of DF2. Such a surrogate is useful for estimating DF2 liquid

a complex fuel, such as DF2, occurs in a batch distillation mode in a diesel spray, with the less volatile, higher boiling point fractions vaporizing last, and therefore, controlling liquid length.
100
-methylnapthalene n-heptadecane cetane

80
Gas Density (kg/m3)

60

3.6

40
7.3 14.8 30.2 59.0

vaporization surrogate for DF2 (n-heptadecane) described in the previous section are used to examine the range of liquid lengths to be expected in representative large-bore, heavy-duty and small-bore, light-duty DI diesel engines. The goal is to provide a general picture of liquid fuel penetration for each of the two classes of engines over a range of operating conditions based on what is presently known about fuel vaporization. For heavy-duty DI diesels, experimental research has already shown that for a typical diesel fuel and operating conditions, liquid-phase fuel is not likely to impinge on piston bowl walls [1,7,8]. The following discussion will confirm this observation. However, for light-duty DI diesel engines, there is a concern that significant fuel impingement on piston bowl walls will occur as a result of the smaller piston bowl geometries. Table 4 gives the values of the parameters important to liquidphase fuel penetration that were selected for the hypothetical heavy-duty and light-duty DI diesel engines. The values chosen are typical of each engine class. The orifice area-contraction coefficient (Ca) selected is an average of those presented in Ref. [9] and Table 3 of this paper. An intake pressure of less than one atmosphere is intended to represent light load operation at high altitude. A fuel temperature of 100 C is used to represent a warm running engine condition; but for cold start conditions, the fuel is assumed to be at the intake air temperature. Since the cold start liquid lengths predicted are based on significant extrapolations of the scaling law beyond the fuel temperature range considered in the experiments, they should be viewed as approximations only. (Injection pressure is not included in the Table 4 because liquid lengths are nearly independent of injection pressure as shown in Figs. 2 and 10). The spray spreading angles needed in the scaling law were interpolated from the data in Appendix A. Table 4. Parameters used in scaling law for heavyand light-duty DI diesel engines.
Heavy-Duty 15 194 0.84 60-160 0.7-3.0 100 0-40 0.7-1 0-40 Light-Duty 19 160 0.84 45-120 0.7-2.3 100 0-40 0.7-1 0-40

Liquid Length [mm]

20

0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100

1200

1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure 15. A comparison of liquid lengths predicted for various single-component fuels with those measured for DF2 as a function of gas temperature for five gas densities. The symbols are the DF2 data from Ref. 1. The single-component fuels are represented by the curves as defined in the figure legend. The conditions correspond to those in Figs. 5 and 6. The liquid lengths shown in Fig. 15 for cetane and methylnaphthalene are also in reasonable agreement with those for DF2. Considering fuel density and fuel volatility in conjunction with Fig. 15, indicates that cetane is the next best vaporization surrogate. The density of cetane, like n-heptadecane, is also only 7% less than the density of the DF2, and its atmospheric pressure boiling point lies at the 80% point on the DF2 distillation curve. In the case of -methylnaphthalene, however, the fuel density consideration indicates that it is not a good vaporization surrogate. The density of -methylnaphthalene is 20% greater than the density of DF2. This large density difference will begin to result in other changes in the spray that will make the overall spray development and vaporization unrepresentative of DF2, in spite of the favorable liquid length comparison with DF2. Other single-component fuels considered, including those often used in place of DF2 in the literature, were found to have liquid lengths significantly different than the DF2 liquid lengths. None are recommended as singlecomponent fuel vaporization surrogates for DF2. LIQUID LENGTH IN LARGE-BORE AND SMALL-BORE ENGINES In this section, the scaling law is used to address the questions: Does liquid fuel impinge on piston bowl walls in a DI diesel when using a typical diesel fuel, and under what conditions? The scaling law and the 17

Compression Ratio Orifice diameter Orifice Ca Warm Running: Intake Temperature Intake Pressure Fuel temperature Cold Start: Intake Temperature Intake Pressure Fuel temperature

C atm C C atm C

Figure 16 is a plot of the liquid lengths expected in the heavy-duty engine defined in Table 4 as a function of TDC temperature for the parameter ranges given in the table. The polytropic coefficient used to convert intake temperatures and pressures in the table to TDC condi-

tions was 1.35. The expected liquid lengths for warm running engine conditions are represented by the lower gray region centered on 1000 K in the figure. The upper gray region represents the range of liquid lengths expected for cold start engine conditions. The crosshatched horizontal band running through the center of the figure between 50 and 60 mm represents typical distances between the injector and the far wall of the piston bowl in heavy-duty engines. The upper and lower edges of the region for warm running conditions represent operation at boost pressures of 0.7 atm and 3.0 atm, respectively. The left and right sides of this region correspond to operation at the lowest and the highest intake temperatures, respectively. The data point in the middle of the region for warm engine conditions (the symbol) is the liquid length measured for DF2 by Canaan et al. [8] in a diesel very close to the one defined in Table 4. The TDC gas temperature and density for the Canaan et al. data point are 992 K and 16.6 kg/m3, respectively. For reference, the liquid lengths predicted with the scaling law for lines of constant density (the light gray curves) are also included. (The dashed curves are explained later.)
100

diesel other than for cold start conditions. The warm running operating conditions for which liquid is the closest to impinging on the piston bowl are the lightest load conditions, which correspond to the upper left corner of the lower gray region. Overall, the nominal liquid penetration distance is about half-way across the piston bowl. These observations are in agreement with previous experimental results [1,7,8]. There are several caveats that must be considered with respect to Fig. 16, however. The first is spray targeting and the piston bowl shape. The figure assumes the sprays are targeted in the direction with the maximum distance to the opposing piston bowl wall. A different targeting could easily shorten the distance to the piston bowl wall and result in wall impingement of liquid-phase fuel. Second, piston movement can also shorten the distance to the wall. Third, the scaling law gives the time averaged liquid length, but turbulence causes approximately 11% fluctuations in the instantaneous liquid length [1]. The dashed lines above and below the upper border of the warm running conditions region in Fig. 16 represent the effect of turbulent fluctuations in the liquid length on the upper boarder. Factoring in turbulent fluctuations, the liquid length approaches closer to the wall at lighter load conditions, but still does not reach it. A final consideration is the effect of combustion. Experimental results in an engine indicate combustion will potential shorten the liquid length slightly, but that most vaporization is complete before the combustion zone is reached [7,8]. The liquid length predictions made with the scaling law developed for vaporizing, non-combusting sprays are therefore slightly conservative (i.e., long with respect to those expected in combusting sprays). Figure 17 shows the same information presented in Fig. 16, only for the small-bore engine defined in Table 4. The various features in the figure have the same meaning as discussed with Fig. 16. The piston bowl wall is now shown in a range typical of the smaller bore engines, 22 to 28 mm. The results indicate that liquid fuel approaches the wall more closely than in the heavy-duty engine for all conditions, and even impinges for the lighter load conditions. However, the impingement is not as severe as might have been anticipated, mainly because of the strong effect of orifice diameter on liquid length and the higher densities resulting from the higher compression ratio. Based on the scaling law, the most direct way to shorten the liquid length in the small-bore engine for all conditions is to reduce the orifice diameter. An orifice diameter of 100 m would give the same picture of liquid length relative to the piston bowl wall as observed in for the heavyduty engine in Fig. 16. An additional important point is that increased injection pressure will not make the wall impingement problem more severe than is indicated in Fig. 17 for small-bore engines.

80

Liquid Length [mm]

Cold Start Conditions

60
Piston Bowl Wall

40

Gas Density (kg/m3) 7.3

20
Warm Engine Conditions

14.8 30.2 59.0

0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100

1200

1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure 16. Liquid lengths expected in the heavy-duty diesel engine defined in Table 4. The lower gray region represents the range of liquid lengths expected for warm running engine conditions. The upper gray region represents the range of liquid lengths expected for cold start engine conditions. The cross-hatched horizontal band across the middle of the figure represents typical maximum distances from the injector to the piston bowl wall. The light gray curves are liquid lengths for lines of constant density and are included for reference. Figure 16 shows that even for the extreme range of operating conditions represented in the figure, liquid fuel is unlikely to impinge on piston bowl walls in a heavy-duty

18

50
Cold Start Conditions

40

n-hexadecane (cetane) and heptamethylnonane (HMN), and a standard #2 diesel fuel (DF2). The volatilities of the single-component fuels, cetane and HMN, span a significant fraction of the DF2 volatility range.
The comparison showed that scaling law reproduced all major trends in the experimental data with respect to various parameters shown in Ref. 1. The liquid length trends reproduced were: 1. The linear dependence of liquid length on orifice diameter 2. The decrease of liquid length toward zero as orifice diameter approaches zero. 3. The insignificant effect of injection pressure on liquid length. 4. The strong, non-linear effects of ambient gas temperature and density on liquid length. 5. The increase in liquid length with decreasing fuel volatility. 6. The linear decrease in liquid length with increasing fuel temperature. In addition, the scaling law provided new insight and/or clarification on the effects of some of the parameters observed in the experiments, and several new observations on diesel spray vaporization: 1. Fuels with properties comparable to typical diesel fuels do not appear to reach supercritical temperatures before they are completely vaporized. As a result, vaporization in a diesel spray occurs through subcritical vaporization processes for conditions relevant to present and proposed DI diesels. 2. The total energy required to vaporize a fuel is important in determining liquid length, in addition to the fuel volatility. Recent liquid length measurements for methanol [30] dramatize this observation. The recent measurements show that methanol, a very high volatility fuel relative to DF2, has liquid lengths very close to those for DF2 as a result of methanols high heat of vaporization. This observation implies that the use of atmospheric pressure boiling point (a measure of fuel volatility) to correlate liquid lengths, as was done in Refs. [1,8], only applies for fuels with similar thermodynamic properties. 3. The fuel n-heptadecane, a single-component fuel with a boiling point near the 90% temperature on the DF2 distillation curve, models the vaporization characteristics of DF2. This observation also supports the conclusion in Ref. 1 that vaporization in a multicomponent fuel, such as DF2, occurs in a batch distillation mode. Therefore, the less volatile, higher boiling point fractions control liquid length in a multicomponent fuel. The close agreement shown between the liquid length scaling law and the measured data supports the concept that vaporization in a diesel spray from current-technology DI diesel injectors approaches a limit controlled by 19

Liquid Length [mm]

Gas Density (kg/m3)

30
Piston Bowl Wall

7.3

20
14.8

10
Warm Engine Conditions

30.2 59.0

0 600

700

800

900

1000

1100 1200

1300

1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure 17. Liquid lengths expected in the light-duty diesel engine defined in Table 4. The various features are defined with Fig. 16. The caveat beyond those already discussed with Fig. 16 that needs to be addressed in conjunction with smallbore engines is the effect of high swirl flows on liquid length. High swirl is typically used in small-bore engines to compensate for the mixing the fuel jet cannot provide as a result of orifice diameter and injection pressure limitations. Although the effect of swirl on liquid length needs to be investigated, it is presently believed that since most fuel vaporization occurs in the early very high velocity region of the spray, the high swirl typical of small-bore engines will have very little effect on the general picture presented in Fig. 17.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Recent experimental research on liquid-phase fuel penetration and vaporization in sprays suggests that vaporization in a spray from a high-pressure, direct-injection (DI) diesel injector approaches a limit controlled by spray mixing processes [1]. These mixing processes include entrainment of high-temperature air and the overall transport and mixing of fuel and air throughout the spray cross-section. Based on this finding, a scaling law for the maximum penetration distance of liquid-phase fuel in an evaporating diesel spray (defined as the liquid length) was derived using jet theory applied to a simplified model of a diesel spray. The scaling law accounts for injector, fuel, and in-cylinder gas temperature, density and pressure effects on liquid length. As developed, the scaling law is valid for single-component fuels, but can be used to model multi-component fuels through use of singlecomponent surrogate fuels. A comparison of the scaling law was made with measured liquid length data previously presented in Ref. 1. The comparison covered a very wide range of conditions, including those in current-technology and proposed advanced DI diesel engines. Fuels considered in the comparison included two single-component fuels,

spray mixing processes. Furthermore, the thermodynamic equilibrium assumptions used to develop the scaling law suggest a mechanism for the limitation. Fuel vapor in the inner region of a spray, where a high number density of small droplets exist, reaches a saturated condition in thermodynamic equilibrium with the entrained ambient gas. For vaporization to proceed, ambient gas entrainment and mixing within the spray are needed to dilute and/or heat the inner region of a spray. An implication of mixing limited vaporization is that atomization and local interphase transport processes at droplet surfaces are not limiting factors for fuel vaporization, at least for current-technology DI diesel injectors. This further implies that better atomization (i.e., smaller droplets) alone will not promote increased fuel vaporization in a DI diesel spray. Parameters such as injection pressure and orifice diameter appear to affect fuel vaporization through their affect on mixing processes, not through their known affects on droplet size (i.e., atomization.) The scaling law provides a fundamental baseline on liquid fuel penetration and vaporization in diesel sprays that can be compared with the vaporization aspects of the multi-dimensional diesel spray models under development. The scaling law can also provide design guidance on the expected maximum extent of liquid-phase fuel penetration in engines. Application of the scaling law to a heavy-duty and a light-duty DI diesel shows that liquidphase fuel impingement on piston bowl walls is not a serious concern in heavy-duty engines using a typical diesel fuel, as observed previously through experiments, but may be an issue in light-duty engines.

on Fuel Distribution in an Engine-Fed Combustion Chamber, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 102, Sect. 3, pp. 11871202, 1993. 6. Yeh, C.-N., Kamimoto, T., Kobori, S., and Kosaka, H., 2-D Imaging of Fuel Vapor Concentration in a Diesel Spray via Exciplex-Based Fluorescence Technique, SAE Paper 932652, 1993. 7. Espey, C. and Dec, J. E., The Effect of TDC Temperature and Density on the Liquid-Phase Fuel Penetration in a D.I. Diesel Engine, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 104, Sect. 4, pp. 1400-1414, 1995. 8. Canaan, R. E., Dec, J. E., Green, G. M., and Daly, D. T., The Influence of Fuel Volatility on the Liquid-Phase Fuel Penetration in a Heavy-Duty D.I. Diesel Engine, SAE Paper 980510, 1998. 9. Naber, J. D. and Siebers, D. L., Effects of Gas Density and Vaporization on Penetration and Dispersion of Diesel Sprays, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 105, Sect. 3, pp. 82111, 1996. 10. Abramovich, R. G. N., The Theory of Turbulent Jets, MIT Press, pp. 586-600, 1963. 11. Thring, M. W. and Newby, M. P ., Combustion Length of Enclosed Turbulent Jets, 4th Symposium on Combustion, pp. 789-796, 1953. 12. Wakuri, Y., Fujii, M., Amitani, T., and Tsuneya, R., Studies of the Penetration of Fuel Spray in a Diesel Engine, Bulletin of JSME, Vol. 3, No. 9, 1960. 13. Hays, W. J., Personal Communication, March, 1995. 14. Adler, D. and Lyn, W-T., The Evaporation and Mixing of a Liquid Fuel Spray in a Diesel Air Swirl, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 184, pp. 171-180, 1970. 15. Witze, P . O., Hot-Film Anemometer Measurements in a Starting Turbulent Jet, AIAA Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 308-309, 1983. 16. Tomita, E., Hamamoto, Y., Tsutsumi, H., and Yoshiyama, S., Measurement of Ambient Air Entrainment into Transient Free Gas Jet by Means of Flow Visualization, SAE Paper 950056, 1995. 17. Newman, J. A. and Brzustowski, T. A., Behavior of a Liquid Jet Near the Thermodynamic Critical Region, AIAA Journal, Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 1595-1602, 1971. 18. El Wakil, M. M., Myers, P . S., and Uyehara, O. A., Fuel Vaporization and Ignition Lag in Diesel Combustion, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 64, pp. 712-729, 1956. 19. Heywood, J. B., Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York, NY, 1988. 20. Kuo, K. K., Principles of Combustion, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1986. 21. Hiroyasu, H. and Arai, M., Structure of Fuel Sprays in Diesel Engines, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 99, Sect. 3, pp. 1050-1061, 1990. 22. Varde, K., Popa, D., and Varde, L., Spray Angle and Atomization in Diesel Sprays, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 93, Sect. 4, pp. 779-787, 1984.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for this research was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Technologies and Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies. The research was performed at the Combustion Research Facility, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA.

REFERENCES
1. Siebers, D. L., Liquid-Phase Fuel Penetration in Diesel Sprays, SAE Paper 980809, 1998. 2. Browne, K. R., Partridge, I. M., and Greeves, G., Fuel Property Effects on Fuel/Air Mixing in an Experimental Diesel Engine, SAE Paper 860223, 1986. 3. Kamimoto, T., Yokota, H., and Kobayashi, H., Effect of High Pressure Injection on Soot Formation Processes in a Rapid Compression Machine to Simulate Diesel Flames, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 96, Sect. 4, pp. 4.783-4.791, 1987. 4. Hodges, J. T., Baritaud, T. A., and Heinze, T. A., Planar Liquid and Gas Fuel and Droplet Size Visualization in a DI Diesel Engine, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 100, Sect. 3, pp. 1284-1302, 1991. 5. Bower, G. R. and Foster, D. E., The Effect of Split Injection

20

23. Reitz, R. D. and Bracco, F., On the Dependence of Spray Angle and Other Spray Parameters on Nozzle Design and Operating Conditions, SAE Paper 790494, 1979. 24. Wu, K.-J., Su, C.-C., Steinberger, R. L., Santavicca, D. A. and Bracco, F. V., Measurements of the Spray Angle of Atomizing Jets, Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 105, pp. 406-413, 1983. 25. Lefebvre, A., Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere Publishing Company, New York, 1989. 26. Bracco, F. V., Modeling of Engine Sprays, Transactions of the SAE, Vol. 94, Sect. 7, pp. 144-167, 1985. 27. Higgins, B. S., Mueller, C. J., and Siebers, D. L., Measurements of Fuels Effects on Liquid-Phase Penetration in DI Sprays, SAE Paper 1999-01-0519, 1999. 28. Technical Data Book-Petroleum Refining, Twelfth Revision, American Petroleum Institute (API), Washington D. C., 1997. 29. Lee, B. I. and Kesler, M. G., A Generalized Thermodynamic Correlation Based on Three-Parameter Corresponding States, AIChE Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 510-527, 1975. 30. Physical and Thermodynamic Properties of Pure Compounds: Data Compilation, Eds., Daubert, T. E., Danner, R. P ., Design Institute for Physical Property Data (DIPPR), American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Taylor and Francis, Washington D. C., 1998. 31. Prausnitz, J. M., Lichtenthaler, R. N., and Azevedo, E. G., Molecular Thermodynamics of Fluid-Phase Equilibria, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall Publishing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986. 32. Curtis, E. W., Uludogan, A., and Reitz, R. D., A New High Pressure Droplet Vaporization Model for Diesel Engine Modeling, SAE Paper 952431, 1995. 33. Varnavas, C. and Assanis, D., A High Temperature and High Pressure Evaporation Model for the KIVA-3 Code, SAE Paper 960629, 1996. 34. Hohmann, S., Klingsporn, M., and Renz, U., An Improved Model to Describe Spray Evaporation Under Diesel-Like Conditions, SAE Paper 960630, 1996. 35. Chavez, H., Knapp, M., Kubitzek, A., Obermeier, F., and Schneider, T., Experimental Study of Cavitation in the Nozzle Hole of Diesel Injectors Using Transparent Nozzles, SAE Paper 950290, 1995. 36. Soteriou, C., Andrews, R., and Smith, M., Direct Injection Diesel Sprays and the Effect of Cavitation and Hydraulic Flip on Atomization, SAE Paper 950080, 1995.

NOMENCLATURE
a A Ax b B Ca Cd Cv d h l L
a constant with a value of 0.66 in Eq. (3) cross-sectional area of spray in the radial direction cross-sectional area of spray in the axial direction a constant with a value of 0.41 in Eq. (18) the ratio of the fuel and ambient gas mass flow rates resulting in complete vaporization of the fuel, defined by Eq. (8) orifice area-contraction coefficient orifice discharge coefficient orifice velocity coefficient orifice diameter enthalpy length of the orifice liquid length (i.e., the maximum penetration distance of liquid-phase fuel) dimensionless liquid length (=L/x+) mass flow rate momentum flow rate molecular weight pressure universal gas constant temperature axial velocity fuel velocity at orifice exit based on Bernoullis equation axial coordinate of the spray characteristic length scale defined by Eq. (12) compressibility factor

M P R T U Ub x x+ Z

Greek: full cone angle of the model spray incremental change full cone angle of the real spray density standard deviation

Subscripts:

a f s

ambient gas fuel saturated fuel vapor condition at the liquid length

21

APPENDIX A: SPRAY SPREADING ANGLE

The spray spreading angle data used in the liquid length scaling law are presented in this appendix. Both the measurement technique and the spray spreading angle data are discussed. MEASUREMENT The spray spreading angles for the vaporizing sprays were determined from time-averaged schlieren images of the sprays. The schlieren images were acquired simultaneously with the time-averaged Mie-scattered light images of the liquid-phase fuel used to determine the liquid lengths in Ref. 1. The conditions covered in the experiments are listed in Table 1 of the paper. The optical setup for the simultaneous schlieren and Mie-scattered light image acquisition is described in Ref. 1. region emanating from the injector tip located at the left side. (The white lines in Fig. A1 are discussed later.) (The location of liquid phase fuel inside the sprays in Fig. A1 can be found in Fig. 8 of Ref. 1.) Spray spreading angles were determined from the schlieren images, such as shown in Fig. A1, by a threshold intensity method. The threshold selected was halfway between the average background intensity (the light gray region in an image in Fig. A1) and the spray centerline intensity in the axial region of the spray used for determining the spray spreading angle. Any location in the region of the image used for determining the spray spreading angle with an intensity below the threshold is considered part of the spray. The region of the spray used for determining a spreading angle included the region between an axial distance 2.5 mm from the injector tip and a distance 20% beyond the measured liquid length location. The region of the spray considered was restricted axially for signal-to noise reasons. The near injector region of the spray was not used because of the noise generated in the schlieren images by the proximity to the relatively cold injector tip. The region of the spray significantly beyond the liquid length location was not considered because the schlieren effect defining the spray begins to fade out in the downstream axial direction due to ambient gas entrainment. This latter problem was mainly an issue for the shortest liquid length conditions for which the region downstream of the liquid length location was the majority of the image field. In these images, the schlieren effect induced by the spray almost completely disappeared by the right side of the image. This resulted in significant noise in the measured spreading angle when it was included in the evaluation. With the spray identified in the image through application of the threshold, the spreading angle is determined from the following expression derived from geometric considerations: Figure A1.Time-averaged schlieren images of three sprays injected from left to right into the ambient gas density (a) given in each image. The orifice pressure drop, the orifice diameter, the ambient gas temperature, the fuel temperature, and the fuel were 135 MPa, 246 m, 1000 K, 438 K and DF2, respectively. (The horizontal width of each image corresponds to 58 mm.) Figure A1 shows three example time-averaged schlieren images used for determining the spreading angle of a spray. The parameter varied from image to image in Fig. A1 is the ambient gas density, which is given in the upper left corner of the image. The injector tip in the images is located at the left edge, and the fuel is injected from left to right. The spray is the dark, cone shaped 22 A = tan 1 2 x 2 x x 2 1 2

a= 7.3 kg/m3
/2 = 5.8

14.8 kg/m 3 7.0

30.2 kg/m3 8.0

(01)

The terms x1 and x2 are the axial distances corresponding to 2.5 mm from the injector tip and a distance 20% longer than the liquid length, respectively. The area Ax is the area in the image between the distances x1 and x2 with an intensity below the threshold. The white lines in Fig. A1 represent the full spray angle () determined from each image using Eq. (A1). The values for the half angle (/2) are given in the upper left corner of each image. Spray angles identified in this manner lie in the very outer intermittent region of the spray [9]. SPREADING ANGLE DATA Figures A2 through A5 show the effects of ambient gas temperature, fuel type, injection pressure, ambient gas density, and orifice

Spray Spreading Angle (/2)

details on the spray spreading angle. The effect of ambient gas temperature and fuel type are most clearly visible in Fig. A2. Figure A2 is a plot of the spreading angles determined for cetane, HMN, and DF2 as a function of ambient gas temperature for five ambient gas densities. Each density condition is presented as a sub-plot in the figure. The spray angle for each fuel and each condition in Fig. A2 was acquired simultaneously with the liquid length at the corresponding condition in Figs. 5, 6, and 15 for each respective fuel.
Cetane HMN DF2
(kg/m3) 59.0

16
a Ta d Fuel (K) (kg/m3) (m) a Ta d Fuel (K) (kg/m3) (m) 700 14.8 700 7.3 1300 30.1 246 HMN 100 Cetane 498 Cetane

12

1000 7.2 600 14.8 1000 30.2

246 HMN 246 HMN 246 HMN

Spray Spreading Angle (/2)

11 9 7 10 ' 8 6 9' 7 5 8' 6 4 7' 5 3 600

'

'

'

'

'

'

'
30.2

'

0 25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Orifice Pressure Drop [MPa]

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'
14.8

'

'

'

'

'

'

'
7.3

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'
3.6

'

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Gas Temperature [K]

Figure A2. Spray spreading angle versus ambient gas temperature for five gas densities and three fuels. The orifice pressure drop, the orifice diameter, the ambient gas temperature, and the fuel temperature were 136 MPa, 246 m, 1000 K, and 438 K, respectively. Figure A2 shows that neither the fuel type nor the ambient gas temperature have any significant effect on the spray spreading angle for the range of temperature and fuels considered. The insignificant temperature effect agrees with previous observations for vaporizing sprays by Naber and Siebers [9]. The lack of effect of fuel type was extended to include fuels such as bio-diesel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, methanol, and gasoline in a recent investigation of alternative fuel effects on liquid length [30]. The effect of injection pressure on spreading angle is shown in Fig. A3. The conditions for which data are shown correspond to those used in Fig. 10. Some of the conditions presented in the figure were selected to show the maximum observed effect of injection pressure. The figure indicates that injection pressure also has very little effect on the spray spreading angle as previously noted for vaporizing sprays [9]. The small effect noted can either be an increase or a decrease with increasing injection pressure. The small effects observed in the figure are believed to be caused by details of the flow through the orifice.

Figure A3. Spray spreading angle versus the pressure drop across the injector orifice for conditions given in the figure legend. (The conditions correspond to those used in Fig. 10.) The terms in the legend are the ambient gas temperature (Ta) and density (a), the orifice diameter (d), and the fuel type. The lines in the figures are linear least squares fits to the data for each set of conditions given in the legend. The aspect ratio of the orifice and the fuel temperature were nominally 4.2 and 438 K, respectively.

Figure A4. The spray spreading angle acquired with the 246 m diameter orifice versus the ambient gas to fuel density ratio for all conditions for the three fuels. The curve is given by Eq. (A2). The dashed curves are Eq. (A2) shifted by 7%, which corresponds to 2 in the measured angles at any density condition. The effects of ambient gas density on the spray spreading angle are shown in Fig. A4. All the spray spreading angle data acquired with 246 m diameter orifice listed in

23

Table 3 for all three fuels (cetane, HMN, and DF2) are shown in Fig. A4 as a function of the ambient gas/fuel density ratio. This figure includes data spanning the range of conditions given in Table 1. The figure emphasizes that for a given orifice, the primary parameter affecting the spreading angle is the ambient gas/fuel density ratio [e.g., 9, 21-24]. The curve in the Fig. A4 is:

Equation (A2) is presented for two reasons. First, it was used to interpolate the spreading angle data as a function of gas and fuel densities and allow the continuous curves in various liquid length figures in the paper to be generated with the scaling law. Second, it is used in the next figure to quantify orifice dependent effects on spray spreading angle for the various orifices used in the experiment. Figure A5 is plot of the deviation of the measured spreading angles from Eq. (A2), where the constant c has been optimized to provide the best fit to the data for each of the other four orifices listed in Table 3. The value for c for each orifice is given in the figure. The data for these orifices is not as extensive as for the 246 m orifice shown in Fig. A4, but does include a number of ambient temperature and injection pressure conditions, as well as data for all three fuels for two of the orifices. The dashed lines in each figure represent 7% deviations from Eq. (A2). Figure A5 shows two important trends. First, the spreading angle for a given density ratio varies from orifice to orifice. Second, the dependence of the spreading angle on the ambient-gas/fuel density ratio is the same for each orifice. The first trend is indicated by the differing values for c given in the figure. The second trend is indicated by the fact that there is no trend in the deviation between the data and Eq. (A2) as a function of the density ratio. These trends indicate that there are orifice details that effect the flow through an orifice and the ensuing spray development, but not the relative dependence of the spray spreading angle on the ambient gas and fuel densities. The importance of orifice effects on the spray spreading angle has been noted by many others previously [e.g., 9, 21-24], however, the physical explanation of the effect remains unknown.

(A2) where the constant c is 0.260. Equation (A2) is an empirically derived equation that fits the vaporizing spray spreading angle data for the 246 m orifice. The first density ratio term in the equation with an exponent of 0.19 agrees with the density dependence observed previously for non-vaporizing sprays over a larger density ratio range [9]. The second density ratio with an exponent of 0.5 was included to account for the observed vaporization effects on the spreading angle, also previously noted [9]. The dashed lines are 7% shifts in Eq. (A2), which correspond to 2 in the angles measured at each gas density for all other conditions.
Cetane
0.3 0.0

HMN

DF2
d (m)
100

c - Eq. (A2)
0.255

Deviation from Eq. (A2)

-0.3 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.3 0.0 -0.3
0.276 498 0.258 363 0.271 180

0.010

a / f

0.100

Figure A5. The deviation of the measured spray angle data acquired for four of the orifices in Table 3 versus the ambient gas/fuel density ratio. The orifice diameters and the values used for c in Eq. (A2) for each orifice are given in the figure. The dashed curves represent 7% shifts in the constant c, which corresponds to 2 in the measured angles at any density condition.

24

APPENDIX B: ORIFICE AREA-CONTRACTION COEFFICIENT

The technique used to measure the area-contraction coefficients (Ca) in Table 3 is presented in this appendix. The technique gives an absolute measure of Ca, and is an improvement over the technique described in Ref. [9] based on a reference orifice. Before presenting the areacontraction coefficient measurement technique, however, a brief discussion is presented on the relationship of the discharge coefficient and the area-contraction coefficient, and the need for two coefficients to characterize an orifice. ORIFICE COEFFICIENTS The development of a spray is dependent on both the mass and momentum flow rates from an orifice. To characterize both flow rates, two orifice coefficients are needed. The discharge coefficient is the most commonly measured orifice coefficient. Two other orifice coefficients are the area-contraction coefficient and the velocity coefficient (Cv). They are defined such that their product equals the discharge coefficient:
C d = C a Cv

Depending on which assumption is made, errors up to 20% in the momentum flow rate can occur for typical diesel injector conditions even though the mass flow rate is correct, as will be shown in the next section. AREA-CONTRACTION COEFFICIENT The orifice area-contraction coefficients in Table 3 were determined from the spray momentum measured with a force transducer and the following relationship derived from Eqs. (B1-B4):
2  [Pf Pa ] / M C a = 2 Af C d f

(B5)

(B1)

Any two of the three coefficients (Ca, Cv, and Cd) can be used to characterize the mass and momentum flows through an orifice. Using Cv and C a, the mass flow rate ( f ) and momentum flow rate ( f ) from an orifice are given by the following:
 = C A C U m f a f f v b

The spray momentum was measured with a Kistler 6121 piezoelectric pressure transducer calibrated to measure the force (i.e., the momentum) induced by a spray impinging on the transducer diaphragm. The transducer was placed approximately 3 mm in front of the orifice. This distance was close enough to the orifice that the entire spray impinged on the central region of the transducer diaphragm, but far enough away that the flow through the orifice was not restricted. The momentum ( f in Eq. (B5)) was measured once steady flow through the orifice was established, which typically occurs in less than 100 s for the injector used [9]. (Several other transducers were tried, but the Kistler 6121 was the only one with no significant zero drift during an injection as a result of the spray impingement.) Figure B1 is a plot of the area-contraction coefficient measured as a function of injection pressure for the 267 m diameter orifice listed in Table 3 with an l/d of 8. The ambient pressure for these experiments was atmospheric (Pa = 0.101 MPa), and the fuel temperature was room temperature. Also shown in the figure are the independently measured orifice discharge coefficient and the velocity coefficient determined using Eq. (B1). The figure shows that the area-contraction coefficient decreases with increasing injection pressure, while the discharge coefficient remains nearly constant. This means the flow area is effectively decreasing as injection pressure increases, most likely as a result of increasing cavitation. In addition, the corresponding increase in Cv with increasing injection pressure indicates that the orifice exit velocity more closely approaches the Bernoulli velocity given by Eq. (B3) as injection pressure increases. This latter trend is in a agreement with the velocity measurements made by Chavez et al. [35] in an injector orifice. The area-contraction coefficient for the other orifices in Table 3 were measured at two pressures and are given in the table. Each shows a decrease with increasing injection pressure as observed in Fig. B1. The effect of fuel temperature on C a was also examined and found to be insignificant for temperatures up to 440 K. Equations (B2) and (B3) coupled with the results in Fig. B1 and Table 3 show that at the lower injection pressures considered (~80 MPa), if only a Cd is available and 25

(B2) (B3)

Mf =


 m

Cv U b

where Ub is given by Bernoullis equation:

U b = 2 [Pf Pa ] / f

(B4)

The term f is the fuel density, Af is the orifice exit area, and Pf and Pa are the fuel and ambient gas pressures, respectively. The velocity Ub is the maximum potential fluid velocity at the orifice exit, while the product Cv Ub is the average velocity at the orifice exit over the area Ca Af. The area-contraction coefficient in the above equations accounts for loss of flow area in an orifice as a result of vapor bubbles generated by cavitation reaching the orifice exit [35], hydraulic flip [36], and/or non-uniform velocity profiles at the orifice exit. Based on Eq. (B1), any change in Ca must result in change in Cv and the velocity at the orifice exit. The equations demonstrate that two coefficients are needed to characterize the mass an momentum flow rates. For the liquid length investigation presented in this paper, the area-contraction coefficient and the discharge coefficient were measured for each orifice used. The more common situation in the literature, however, is that only a discharge coefficient is available. In this case, either Ca or Cv are effectively assumed to be one.

Cv is assumed to be one, a 15% over estimate of the spray momentum would occur. Assuming Ca is one would result in a 15% under estimate of the spray momentum. At the higher injection pressures (~140 MPa), assuming a Cv of one would only result in a few percent over estimated of the momentum flux, but assuming a Ca of one would result in a 20% under estimated. These observations indicate that the details of cavitation and other orifice processes have significant effects on the entire evolution of a spray and need further investigation.
1.4
Cd Ca Cv

1.2

Orifice Coefficients

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4 40

80

120

160

200

Injection Pressure [MPa]

Figure B1. The orifice discharge, area-contraction, and velocity coefficients versus injection pressure for the 267 m diameter orifice listed in Table 3 with an l/d of 8.0.

26