Graduation Project

Penetration and dispersion research of non-reacting evaporating diesel sprays

Author: Roel Peters

Supervisors:
ir. P.J.M. Frijters dr. ir. L.M.T. Somers prof. dr. ir. R.S.G. Baert

Exam commission:
prof. dr. ir. R.S.G. Baert prof. dr. ir. L.P.H. de Goey dr. ir. L.M.T. Somers dr. ir. C.C.M. Luijten dr. ir. H.P. van Kemenade dr. R.J.H. Klein-Douwel ir. P.J.M. Frijters

Eindhoven University of Technology

Mechanical Engineering - Combustion Technology 14th March 2007

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my family, especially my parents, for the support they have given me during my study and during this graduation project. They are the persons I always could ask advise in dicult times and gave me the space to develop. Also I thank my friends for showing interest in my study. For the graduation project my special thanks goes out to my mentor Peter Frijters. Together we have solved many problems, and although several times the setbacks were very frustrating, the good humor always prevailed. Furthermore I appreciate the advise and support from Bart Somers, Rik Baert, Carlo Luijten, Xander Seijkens and all other supporting sta.

Summary
In the EHPC (Eindhoven High Pressure Cell) visualization experiments are conducted on the vapor spray and the liquid core. To obtain an idea of the reproducibility of the sprays produced by dierent nozzles or dierent holes from the same nozzle, the momentum ux of these sprays is measured. Also it is tried to determine the dimensionless parameters for several nozzles. Momentum ux measurements are performed on the sprays from various nozzles with an accuracy of at least 5 %. The momentum ux measurements are concentrated on 9 mm nozzles. Obviously due to geometrical dierences between the nozzles there are dierences in momentum ux between the sprays of various nozzles. More important are the dierences in momentum ux from individual sprays from the holes from the same nozzle. There is an asymmetrical pattern between the sprays which can mutually dier 10-15 %. This makes further comparison between visualization experiments, such as Schlieren and laser light scattering recordings, with dierent nozzles very dicult and unreliable. In visualization experiments there is the choice to use blocked (all except one hole are blocked) and unblocked nozzles. Therefore the momentum ux of spray from both types of nozzles are measured. Furthermore mass ow measurements are conducted on 7 mm nozzles to retrieve dimensionless parameters which characterize the nozzle. Unfortunately due to problems with a pressure sensor the mass ow measurements are not reliable and thus the determined dimensionless parameters are also not reliable. With Schlieren techniques the vapor spray of a diesel injection are recorded. To retrieve a good quality visualization only one spray can be recorded. Therefore the nozzle can be blocked or the thimble can be used (which does not block any hole). A blocked nozzle produces a spray which penetrates faster and has a smaller dispersion angle compared to a spray from an unblocked nozzle. This is probably caused by an altered ow through a blocked nozzle. The altered ow results in a lower level of cavitation which reduces the breakup processes that promote the dispersion of a spray. The reduced dispersion results in a faster penetration. The dispersion angle is determined at various ambient gas densities and temperatures. Due to disturbances in the surroundings of the spray the determined angle was larger than in reality. Therefore a correlation has been set up at lower ambient gas temperatures where the disturbances are not as profound. It was found that: tan(/2) = e5,08510
4

Ta 2,932

0,32831,15710 a

Ta

(1)

0,28 Furthermore an dependence on the ambient air density of 0,16 to a was found which coincides a with values mentioned in several literature sources. Also the penetration is determined of sprays injected into environments at dierent temperatures and densities. It was compared to several models described in various literature sources and all these models over predicted the penetration. Especially in the initial phase the models predicted a greater penetration velocity than was measured. The measured penetration has a dependence 0,31 0,33 on the ambient air density of a to a which coincides with values provided in several literature sources. 3167 The liquid core of a diesel spray was visualized with laser light scattering techniques. The reproducibility at high ambient air temperatures was sucient, a 2 of 0,6 mm. However, at lower

ii

ambient air temperatures the accuracy deteriorated. The fuel temperature was held constant at about 60 C. A blocked nozzle produced a larger liquid core than a nozzle where the thimble was applied on (an unblocked nozzle). A blocked nozzle produced a longer liquid core than a unblocked nozzle. The dierence of 4 mm was almost constant over a wide ambient air temperature range. The main measurement results are compared to the Siebers model and the Hiroyasu model. With the angle correlation obtained from the Schlieren experiments, and multiplied by 0,4, the measurements were similar to the predictions of the Siebers model at high ambient air temperatures and densities. At lower temperatures the Siebers model over predicted the liquid core length. At low densities the Siebers model showed an other trend than the measurement data. The Hiroyasu model over predicts the liquid core length. After subtracting a constant value from the results of the the Hiroyasu model, it produced a similar result as the Siebers model. Deviations can be caused by dierent interpretation of the liquid core length, the used correlations for the models or shortcomings in the models. Also measurement data from Sandia National Laboratories are compared with the TU/e measurements for dierent fuels (B100, FTD and DF2). There was no good comparison; especially at lower ambient air densities the Sandia measurements gave a substantially larger liquid core than the TU/e measurement. Possible errors can be caused by dierent interpretation of the liquid core length or the corrections for the Sandia measurement due to dierent measurement conditions are not sucient. Finally it is tried to describe the droplet breakup within the spray. Therefore bag-breakup and stripping-breakup are compured to the visual results. This yielded no conclusive results.

iii

List of symbols
Quantity mf ma mdrop f a g f M A Aef f Ap,S/2 A vef f v vd0 vd vg vth vdown vu p vf f U dpnozzle Pup Pdown Pa Ps Cd CM Ca Cv c Cd CaN CaN c K d0 Unit kg s1 kg s1 kg kg m3 kg m3 kg m3 N m2 m2 2 m or pixels m2 m s1 m s1 m s1 m s1 m s1 m s1 m s1 m s1 m s1 N m1 m s1 Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa m Description Fuel mass ow Air mass ow Mass of a fuel droplet Fuel density Air density (or density of combustion gases) Density of gases surrounding a droplet
f a

Momentum ux Nozzle orice (ow) area Eective ow area Area of the spray at half way the spray distance Cross section of the spray (for Siebers model only) Eective fuel velocity Fuel velocity Initial droplet velocity Velocity of a fuel droplet Velocity of the gases surrounding a fuel droplet Theoretical fuel velocity Downstream fuel velocity in the nozzle hole Upstream fuel velocity in the nozzle hole Velocity of the fuel droplets (for Hiroyasu model only) Surface tension of fuel Velocity of the fuel/air mixture (for Siebers model only) Pressure drop across the nozzle Upstream pressure in the nozzle (equal to sac volume pressure) Downstream pressure in the nozzle (equal to ambient air pressure) Pressure of the fuel/air mixture (for Siebers model only) Pressure of the saturated fuel/air mixture (for Siebers model only) Discharge coecient Dimensionless momentum coecient Area contraction coecient Dimensionless momentum coecient Critical discharge coecient Cavitation number Critical cavitation number Cavitation number by Nurick Nozzle orice diameter

iv

Quantity Ddrop a Ta Tf Ts Tf,s tevap Tdown Tup a I S s S x x+ x L L t t0 tbreakup,k tb ts L(t) (t) t+ Uf ha hf Ma Mf Za Zf a b cp,a cp,f CD SM Dk ka kf BT BM Lvap,f,s

Unit m rad Pas K K K K s K K m m m m m s s s s s m s m s1 J kg 1 J kg 1 kg mol1 kg mol1 J kg 1 K 1 J kg 1 K 1 m W m1 K 1 W m1 K 1 J kg 1

Description Droplet diameter Spray angle Dynamic viscosity of air Ambient air temperature (or combustion gas temperature) Fuel temperature Temperature of saturated fuel/air mixture (for Siebers model only) Temperature of fuel in saturated condition (for Hiroyasu model only) Time required for fuel vaporization (for Hiroyasu model only) Downstream fuel temperature in the nozzle hole Upstream fuel temperature in the nozzle hole Factor for Siebers angle Recording intensity (between 1-4096) Stoichiometric ratio Spray penetration The distance a droplet has traveled Dimensionless spray penetration Spray tip distance from the orice (for Siebers model only) Maximum spray penetration Dimensionless distance from the orice Length of the spray Dimensionless spray length Time Time of start of injection Time at which liquid core breaks up Lifetime of a droplet in the bag breakup regime Lifetime of a droplet in the stripping breakup regime Liquid core length as function of time (for Hiroyasu model only) Dimensionless time Maximum time Initial injection/fuel velocity (for Siebers model only) Specic enthalpy of air Specic enthalpy of fuel Molar mass of air or combustion gases Molar mass of the fuel Compressibility factor of air Compressibility factor of fuel Coecient to correct the determined spray angle Coecient in the Siebers model Specic heat of air Specic heat of air Drag coecient of droplets Sauter Mean Diameter for droplets at slice k Heat conductivity of air Heat conductivity of fuel Heat transfer number Mass transfer number Heat of vaporization of fuel at saturated condition

Quantity rs rd rg0 d Re We Z C D Qh

Unit m m m cc m1

Description Spray radius Droplet radius Vapor spray radius at the orice Volume fraction of fuel droplets Reynolds number Weber number Ohnesorge number Coecient, 13 Coecient, Hydraulic capacity of a nozzle

vi

Contents
1 Introduction 1

Injector nozzle research

3
4 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 12 13 15 16 17 19

2 Nozzle characteristics 2.1 Determination dimensionless parameters Cd and CM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Determination of the cavitation number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Measurement techniques 3.1 Momentum measurement technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Mass ow measurement techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Experimental results 4.1 Momentum measurement results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Analysis of a single force measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Momentum ux measurement results around fully open nozzles 4.1.3 Momentum ux prole of a single spray (blocked nozzle) . . . . 4.2 Mass ow measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Experimentally determined nozzle characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II Penetration and dispersion research of non-reacting evaporating diesel sprays 20

6 Behavior of the evaporating spray 6.1 Dispersion angle of non-evaporating and evaporating sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Penetration of non-evaporating and evaporating sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Methods for conducting experiments and analysis of Schlieren recordings 7.1 Visualization of a diesel spray with the EHPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Operation of the EHPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Schlieren visualization techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Analysis models of Schlieren recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Spray angle determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Spray length determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Error estimation of Schlieren recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Comparison of a blocked nozzle and the use of the thimble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 21 23 26 26 26 28 29 30 33 35 35 38

vii

8 Analysis of the Schlieren recordings 8.1 Dispersion angle of the spray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Penetration of the spray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 40 42

III

Liquid core research of non-reacting diesel sprays

44
45 45 50 53 53 55 55 55 60 60 62 64 65 67 70 71

9 Liquid core behavior 9.1 Siebers liquid scaling law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 The Hiroyasu spray model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Methods for conducting experiments and analysis of laser scattering recordings 10.1 Liquid core visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Model for liquid core processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 Methods for analyzing the various features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Error estimation of the laser light scattering recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1 Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 Comparison of a blocked nozzle and the use of the thimble . . . . . . . . . 11 Analysis of the laser light scattering recordings 11.1 Measurement results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Comparison with Siebers liquid scaling equation . . 11.3 Comparison to results Sandia National Laboratories 11.4 Comparison with the Hiroyasu model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV

Conclusions and recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73
74 74 74 75 76 77 77 77 77 1 4 6 12 14 15 16 18

12 Conclusion 12.1 Nozzle characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Dispersion angle and penetration of evaporating sprays . 12.3 Liquid core research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Comparison liquid core and vapor spray . . . . . . . . .

13 Recommendations 13.1 Nozzle characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Dispersion angle and penetration of evaporating sprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Liquid core research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Drawings of the thimble and nozzle B Experimental setup C Drawings of the momentum measurement setup D Momentum measurement results around 9 mm nozzles E Scheme of EHPC components F Argon addition G Schlieren reproducibility measurement results H Results main Schlieren experiments

viii

Siebers liquid scaling law input variables.

24 28 29 31

J Specications of the lter used for laser light scattering K Results Siebers main experiments L Comparison of Schlieren and laser light scattering recordings

ix

List of Figures
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Schematic view of a nozzle of a diesel DI injection unit. The tip of the nozzle is magnied [WDK+ 04]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Photograph of a nozzle which is installed in the EHPC. On the nozzle the thimble is applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Photograph of a nozzle which is installed in the EHPC without the thimble applied on it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic view of cavitation in a nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c The discharge coecient Cd as function of the cavitation number CaN . Cd and c CaN are the critical discharge coecient and the critical cavitation number respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic view of the placement of the force sensor on the nozzle for momentum measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needle lift prole of a single injection with a duration of 3 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . Force prole of a single force measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the momentum measurements around nozzle A. The arrows indicate the center position of the individual sprays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the momentum measurements around nozzle C. The arrows indicate the center position of the individual sprays. The third arrow on the left side indicates the center of the spray which is used in further visualization experiments. . . . . . Average momentum ux of the spray of nozzle type A (blue line) and C (red line). The momentum ux prole of the spray of two holes of nozzle B. The middle of the force proles are placed on the 0 mark afterwards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the mass ow measurements of one hole of nozzle B for the ve dierent injections pressures: 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the mass ow measurements of another hole of nozzle B for the ve dierent injections pressures: 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . .
a The dispersion angle versus the f ratio for non-evaporating sprays which are presented in [NS96]. The upper blue line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 340 m (triangle data points). The lower red line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 257 m (cross data points) and with d0 = 198 m (circle data points). Ta 450 K and Ta 300 K . . . . . . . . a The dispersion angle versus the f ratio for evaporating sprays which are presented in [NS96]. The dashed line are the power t curves from Fig. 6.1. The upper blue line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 340 m (triangle data points). The lower red line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 257 m (cross data points) and with d0 = 198 m (circle data points). Ta 1000 K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 5 5 6

8 9 13 13 14

3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 6.1

14 15 16 17 17

22

6.2

22

6.3

Comparison of evaporating spray penetration measurements (at Ta = 1000 K) with non-evaporating spray penetration measurements (at Ta = 451 K) which are presented in [NS96]. The injection pressure is 1370 bar 15 bar and the nozzle hole diameter d0 = 257 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Photograph of the EHPC (Eindhoven High Pressure Cell) at the TU/e. . . . . . . Pressure and temperature prole after the ignition which initiates pre-combustion. The red dashed line indicate the injection timing. Filling conditions of the EHPC: 1705 mg C2 H2 , 21715 mg N2 , 4158 mg Ar and 4555 mg O2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . A schematic of the principle of the Schlieren technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A schematic of the principle of the Schlieren technique in combination with the EHPC setup. a. injection nozzle b. liquid core c. fuel vapor d. sapphire window e. Xe-lamp f. plate with pinhole g. positive lens (f=1000 mm) h. positive lens (f=1000 mm) i. plate with pinhole j. ingoing parallel light beams k. outgoing parallel light beam l. metal casing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of a original Schlieren recording (upper image) and a articial colored Schlieren recording (lower image). The pre-combustion started 780 ms before this image. The injection started 1,15 ms before this image. The nominal conditions in the EHPC: Ta = 1305 K, a = 9,15 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1105 bar. The red line and the positions p1 and p2 indicate the area that has been analyzed for angle determination, O1 and O2 represent the origin of the lower and upper half of the spray (see section 7.2.1). The red box indicates the spray tip (see section 7.2.2). . Intensity prole from a cross section of the spray indicated by the arrow in Fig. 7.5. The derivative of the intensity prole from a cross section of the spray indicated by the arrow in Fig. 7.5. Pixel number 8,5 is the location of the boundary or edge of the spray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of 5000 permutations of 1 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of 5000 permutations of 2 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of 5000 permutations of 3 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of 5000 permutations of 4 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determination of the spray tip [NS96].; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visualization of the spray tip. The spray from a previous frame is shown and at the spray tip the spray in the current frame is shown. On the left side the dierence between the two spray is shown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The inuence of the chosen number of points that represent the spray tip on the determined penetration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The inuence of the chosen threshold for determining the spray tip on the determined penetration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray tip penetration as function of time (solid red). A power t between t = 0 ms and t = 0,94 ms is applied (solid blue line). The dashed blue lines are the 2 error bounds of the power t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray tip penetration as function of time (solid red). A power t between t = 0,165 ms and t = 0,94 ms is applied (solid blue line). The dashed blue lines are the 2 error bounds of the power t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edge recognition by the software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histogram of the tan(/2) determination of one spray during one injection. . . . . Spray tip penetration as function of time of all the reproducibility measurements. . The average spray tip penetration (solid red line) with the 2 bounds (dashed blue lines). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The correlation between spray angle and spray penetration at 0,6 ms. . . . . . . . xi

24 26

7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

27 28

29

7.5

7.6 7.7

30 32

32 32 32 33 33 33

7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13

34 34 34

7.14 7.15 7.16

35

7.17

7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22

35 36 36 37 37 38

7.23 The correlation between fuel pressure and spray penetration at 0,6 ms. . . . . . . 7.24 Dierence between spray angles of a blocked nozzle and of a nozzle on which a thimble is applied. Measured at a = 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and pf = 831 76 bar. . 7.25 Dierence in penetration between a spray produced with a blocked nozzle and of a nozzle on which a thimble is applied. Measured at a = 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and pf = 831 76 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.26 Dierence in penetration between a spray produced with a blocked nozzle and of a nozzle on which a thimble is applied at the initial phase of the injection. Measured at a = 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and pf = 831 76 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Experimental results of the Schlieren recordings. The solid lines are the linear t of the data points for each density. The dashed line indicates the correlation of Eq. 6.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schlieren recordings of a spray with Ta = 432 K, a = 15,93 kg/m3 (left side). And a spray with Ta = 1287 K, a = 16,11 kg/m3 (right side). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental results of the Schlieren recordings. The solid lines are the power ts of the data points for each ambient air temperature. The green line indicates the correlation of Eq. 6.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial spray penetration of several measurement compared to Eq. 6.11 (dashed line). The relation between penetration and ambient air density a . The solid lines are power ts through the measured points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic view of the idealized spray model used to develop the liquid length scale [Sie99, Sie98, HMS99]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic view of the Hiroyasu spray model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 39

39

39

41 42

8.2 8.3

8.4 8.5 9.1 9.2

42 43 43 47 50

10.1 Schematic view of the laser light scattering setup. a. injection nozzle b. liquid core c. fuel vapor d. sapphire window e. laser f. laser beam g. cylindrical lens h. mirror i. cylindrical lens j. scattered laser light k. 2D lens l. broadband lter m. narrow band lter n. high speed camera o. metal casing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Section AA of Fig. The horizontal arrows indicate the laser sheet. The spray is aimed at an angle of 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 A frame from a recorded mie scattering movie after the preparations are conducted by the software. The spray is articially colored (original recordings are in grayscale). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 A frame from a recorded laser light scattering movie from a relative big liquid core before and after the preparations are conducted by the software. The spray is articially colored (original recordings are in grayscale). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 The average of the intensity prole along the centerline of all frames. The centerline width is 3 pixels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 The rate of change of the average intensity prole across 10 pixels. 10.7 An example of the liquid core end determination of a large spray (Ta = 650 K, a = 25 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1162 bar). The length of the indicated liquid core length is 42,0 mm. The spray is articially colored. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 An example of the liquid core end determination of a small spray (Ta = 1500 K, a = 25 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1202 bar). The length of the indicated liquid core length is 6,9 mm. The spray is articially colored. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 The intensity prole along the centerline of a single frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10The uctuations in liquid core length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.11Example 1 of a discrete Fourier transformation of the liquid core length. . . . . . 10.12Example 2 of a discrete Fourier transformation of the liquid core length. . . . . . 10.13Example 3 of a discrete Fourier transformation of the liquid core length. . . . . . 10.14Liquid core length with a blocked nozzle (red line) and with the use of a thimble (blue line). The dotted lines represent the 2 borders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 54

55

56 58 58

58

58 59 59 61 61 62 63

xii

10.15Initial liquid speed with a blocked nozzle (red) and with the use of a thimble (blue). 63 11.1 Liquid core length (scatter plot) at 7 dierent ambient air densities and the power ts for each density (solid lines). The injection pressure was 1165 63 bar. . . . 11.2 Liquid core length solid line with the lower and upper 2 bounds (dashed line) at 7 dierent densities. The injection pressure was 1165 63 bar. . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Liquid core length (scatter plot) at 7 dierent ambient air densities and the Siebers liquid scaling equation results (solid lines) wherein Eq. 8.1 is used as a correlation for the angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Liquid core length (scatter plot) at 7 dierent ambient air densities and the Siebers liquid scaling equation results (solid lines) wherein Eq. 9.4 is used as a correlation for the angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Liquid core length as function of the ambient air density. Crosses: measured data. Circles: data points according Siebers liquid scaling equation. Solid line: power t of the experimental data. Dashed line: power t of the Siebers data points. . . . . 11.6 Relative error between measured data and Siebers liquid scaling equation. 11.7 Dierence between measured data and Siebers liquid scaling equation ((measured data)-(liquid scaling equation predictions)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 Comparison of Sandia measurements with dierent kind of fuels with our experimental results. The dierence in used orice diameter, Ca and fuel temperature is corrected for the measurement results to the measurement conducted at Sandia National Laboratories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 Comparison of Sandia measurements with dierent kind of fuels with our experimental results. The dierence in used orice diameter and Ca is corrected for the measurement results to the measurement conducted at Sandia National Laboratories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.10Comparison of the experimental results with the original Hiroyasu model (solid lines) at dierent densities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.11Comparison of the experimental results with the adjusted Hiroyasu model (solid lines) at dierent densities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1 Drawing of the top view of the thimble. The maximum angle is the space between the cone of the thimble and the spray. . . . A.2 Drawing 1/2 of a 7 mm nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3 Drawing 2/2 of a 7 mm nozzle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . given to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . illustrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 66

67

68

69 69 69

70

71 72 72 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 21 21 22

B.1 Flowchart of the experimental setup of momentum measurements of the spray. . . B.2 Flowchart of the experimental setup of mass ow measurements. . . . . . . . . . . C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing Drawing of of of of of the the the the the momentum momentum momentum momentum momentum measurement measurement measurement measurement measurement setup. setup. setup. setup. setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E.1 Scheme which relates the essential components of the EHPC. . . . . . . . . . . . . F.1 Values of cp for dierent mixtures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H.1 Power ts of the measured spray penetration of the dierent temperatures and densities. . . . . . . . . H.2 Power ts of the measured spray penetration of the dierent temperatures and a density of 16,0 kg/m3 . H.3 Power ts of the measured spray penetration of the dierent temperatures and a density of 25,2 kg/m3 . xiii main . . . main . . . main . . . Schlieren recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . Schlieren recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . Schlieren recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . at . . at . . at . .

H.4 Comparison of the power ts (solid lines) of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent densities and the measured spray penetrations of evaporating sprays presented in [NS96]. The dashed lines are the adjusted measurements according 6.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H.5 Comparison of the power ts (solid lines) of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent densities with the correlation of Eq. 6.12. . H.6 Comparison of the power ts (solid lines) of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent densities with the correlation of Eq. 6.13. . I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5 I.6 I.7 I.8 I.9 The The The The The The The The The density of diesel as function of diesel temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . specic heat of diesel as function of diesel temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . latent heat of vaporization of diesel as function of diesel temperature. . . . . partial vapor pressure of diesel as function of diesel temperature. . . . . . . . compressibility factor of diesel as function of diesel temperature. . . . . . . . specic enthalpy of diesel as function of diesel temperature. . . . . . . . . . . compressibility factor of air as function of diesel temperature and air density. specic enthalpy of diesel as function of air temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . air viscosity as function of air temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 27

L.1 Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 6,52 kg/m3 , Ta = 1009 K and pf uel = 1165 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 6,46 kg/m3 , Ta = 1006 K and pf uel = 1165 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L.2 Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 6,51 kg/m3 , Ta = 1480 K and pf uel = 1172 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 6,46 kg/m3 , Ta = 1480 K and pf uel = 1170 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L.3 Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 16,16 kg/m3 , Ta = 985 K and pf uel = 1118 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 16,01 kg/m3 , Ta = 984 K and pf uel = 1135 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L.4 Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 16,18 kg/m3 , Ta = 1492 K and pf uel = 1189 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 16,09 kg/m3 , Ta = 1493 K and pf uel = 1163 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L.5 Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 16,23 kg/m3 , Ta = 685 K and pf uel = 1124 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 16,05 kg/m3 , Ta = 682 K and pf uel = 1133 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L.6 Detailed recordings of the tip of the liquid core where breakup phenomena occur. The width of a single image is 7,8 mm and its duration is 9,8 s. The conditions were: Ta = 650 K, a = 25 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1165 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

32

32

33

33

34

xiv

List of Tables
4.1 Scheme of the nozzles that are used for the dierent experiments. Qh is the hydraulic capacity of a nozzle, expressed in cc m1 . ID is the notation which is used in this report to identify the nozzles. The L/D ratio is unknown for these nozzles and estimated at 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measured momentum of the sprays of nozzle type A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measured momentum of the sprays of nozzle type C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensionless parameters for nozzle B for two holes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measurements conditions for statistical analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schlieren measurements schedule, pf = 1167 bar 79 bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variables for Eq. 9.11 and their source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2 4.3 4.4 7.1 8.1 9.1

12 14 14 18 35 40 50 60 60 65 70 6 6 12 13 16 17 18 20 29

10.1 Measurements conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Liquid core reproducibility measurement results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Laser light scattering measurements schedule, pf = 1165 bar (nominal). . . . . . . 11.2 Measurements conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.1 Part list for the momentum measurement setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.2 Kistler FSH 9203 Force sensor specications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.1 Momentum measurement results of the nozzle A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.2 Momentum measurement results of the nozzle C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G.1 Spray angles of the Schlieren reproducibility measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . G.2 Power ts of the Schlieren reproducibility measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H.1 Measured spray angles main Schlieren experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H.2 Coecients of the power t through the measured spray penetration. . . . . . . . . K.1 Measured liquid core length in the laser light scattering experiments. . . . . . . . .

xv

Chapter 1

Introduction
In the European Union transportation by road and on water contributes about 50 % to the emission of carbon oxides, from which half originates from heavy duty diesel engines. Furthermore these engines are responsible for 20 % of the total particle emissions. Therefore more stringent legislative regulations will be enforced to reduce these emissions. However, these regulations may not increase the fuel consumption of these engines. To accomplish this the engine manufacturer has, among several other options, to realize a further optimization of the engine design. This requires a good understanding of the combustion process and how these processes are inuenced by engine design and settings. Therefore within the STW group a project is started to set up a model which describes the formation of carbon oxides and carbon particles in heavy duty diesel engines [dGKvM04]. To accomplish this it is required to obtain a good understanding of the combustion processes. The fuel spray penetration and dispersion have great inuence on these combustion processes (such as turbulent eects) and it is therefore essential to obtain a good characterization of fuel sprays. In this graduation project research is conducted on the penetration, dispersion and evaporation of fuel sprays to establish a better understanding of the behavior of such a spray. Experiments are conducted in the EHPC (Eindhoven High Pressure Cell), stationed at the Technical University Eindhoven (TU/E), to research non-reacting diesel sprays. The EHPC is a constant volume chamber, that is optically accessible, where diesel injection can be performed at conditions approaching realistic in-cylinder DI diesel engine conditions. It is important that measurement data can be compared to other experiments or models to validate them. Also it is essential to determine how much variation is present between the sprays. In this respect the nozzle of the injection unit is a critical part; it determines to a large extent the behavior of the spray. Since a wide variety of nozzles is available it is essential that the nozzle is characterized properly; only then meaningful comparisons with other experimental data or models can be made. The characterization is realized at a common rail setup at the TU/E developed by X.L.J. Seijkens. In Part I results and discussion of the characterization of the nozzles, and the dierence between the sprays are described. The spray behavior itself comprises a range of complex physical and chemical processes which are dicult to incorporate in the engine design or computer models. Therefore empirical relations have been developed for the spray behavior which are essential for the engine designer and the developers of multi-dimensional computational models. Due to time and resource restrictions this graduation project is narrowed down to non-reacting diesel sprays. Two elements of the spray can be distinguished: the diesel vapor and the liquid core of the spray. With Schlieren visualization techniques high speed recordings are made to determine the progression of the spray and spray angle in the vapor phase. Software routines are developed to analyze these recordings and determine the spray penetration and angle. In part II comparisons are made between the experimental results and the measurements conducted at Sandia National Laboratories. Furthermore the liquid core of the spray is recorded with laser light scattering techniques. Most important feature hereby is the liquid core penetration. Penetration of the liquid core is needed to promote fuel-air mixing, but can lead to greater emissions and power loss if liquid fuel impinges 1

and collects on the piston or cylinder wall. Dennis L. Siebers [Sie99, Sie98] and Hiroyuki Hiruyaso [HIY96] have developed models based on two dierent philosophies to predict the liquid core penetration. Also a number of experiments have been conducted in relation to the liquid core length at Sandia National Laboratories. These experiments and models will be compared to the results of the experiments conducted at the TU/E in part III.

Part I

Injector nozzle research

Chapter 2

Nozzle characteristics
The diesel spray produced in a DI diesel engine has great inuence on the eciency and power output of the engine. The nozzle of a DI diesel injection unit contributes for a large part to the formation of the spray. Fig. 2.1 is a schematic of such a nozzle. A technical drawing is provided in Figs. A.2-A.3 in appendix A.
Fuel supply

Needle

Hole

Sac volume

Figure 2.1: Schematic view of a nozzle of a diesel DI injection unit. The tip of the nozzle is magnied [WDK+ 04].

Several important properties of a nozzle are: The geometry of the holes The geometry of the nozzle sac volume and needle The sac volume The number of holes The angle at which the holes are aimed The diameter of the holes The number of holes A wide range of nozzle types is available of which all of the mentioned characteristics can vary. To relate further research it is essential that the results are coupled to the correct nozzle characteristics. It is not possible to fully characterize a nozzle; the geometry of the nozzle and holes are

dicult to determine but have great inuence on the development of the spray. To characterize the nozzle, including the geometry, the discharge coecient, Cd , and the momentum coecient, CM , are determined by measuring the momentum ux and mass ow of a spray [PGSG04]. The methods used to determine the momentum ux are presented in chapter 3. In section 2.1 the relation between the measured momentum ux and CM and the measured mass ow and Cd are lined out. Cavitation in the nozzle hole inuences the mass ow through the hole, this is explained in section 2.2. By determining the Cd and CM of the nozzle, the nozzle is not fully characterized but the most essential features of the nozzle are determined. This method only determines the global characteristics of a nozzle. However, in the EHPC it is practically impossible to produce valuable recordings of multiple sprays. Therefore one spray produced by a nozzle is analyzed. It is possible that each hole does not produce the same spray; there can be an asymmetry present between the dierent sprays or a defect in one or more of the holes (change of hole geometry) [KK04]. Thus it is important to know how large the dierences between the unique sprays of a nozzle are and if there is an asymmetrie present. If there is a signicant dierence between the sprays it is dicult to get a good comparison between visualization experiments conducted with dierent nozzles. To obtain an estimate for these dierences the momentum ux of sprays of a nozzle are mutually compared. Also there are two methods used to achieve a single spray. One method uses a thimble which passes one spray and collects the other sprays and drains them, as shown in Fig. 2.2. A technical drawing of the top view of the thimble is provided in Fig. A.1 in appendix A. With the other method all the holes, except the one from the desired spray, are blocked. The nozzle is then installed as shown in Fig. 2.3. Both methods successfully isolate one spray but unfortunately both methods also have a potentially dierent inuence on the nozzle characteristics. Obviously this makes comparison with other experiments more dicult. Therefore experiments are conducted to characterize an untreated nozzle and a nozzle from which all holes except one are blocked. Unfortunately there is no good method to measure the momentum and mass ow of a nozzle on which a thimble is installed. So the eect of the thimble itself cannot be determined. In chapter 4 all the experimental results are presented and in chapter 5 the conclusion and discussion of these results are presented.

Figure 2.2: Photograph of a nozzle which is installed in the EHPC. On the nozzle the thimble is applied.

Figure 2.3: Photograph of a nozzle which is installed in the EHPC without the thimble applied on it.

2.1

Determination dimensionless parameters Cd and CM

The determination of Cd and CM of the nozzle can be derived by mass and momentum balances [PGSG04]. The mass ow can be determined with the following equation: mf =
A0

vf dA

(2.1)

where v is the velocity of the fuel traveling through the hole, f the fuel density and A the control surface through which the fuel ows. The momentum ux of the spray can be calculated with the following equation: Mf =
A0

v 2 f dA

(2.2)

Due to the high ow velocity in the nozzle, areas with relative low pressure occur, see Fig. 2.4. In these areas vapor bubbles originate, a phenomenon called cavitation. The cavitation reduces the eective ow area, Aef f , as shown in Fig. 2.4.

needle

A eff

Vena contracta

nozzle A eff Low pressure zone Low pressure zones

Figure 2.4: Schematic view of cavitation in a nozzle.

Due to the decrease in the ow area the velocity increases to vef f . In reality the ow through the holes will probably develop to a poiseuille ow. But in this case it is assumed that the velocity prole of the ow is straight. The Aef f and vef f can be determined by combining Eqs. 2.1 and 2.2: vef f = Aef f Mf mf m2 f = Mf (2.3) (2.4)

With Bernoullis law the theoretical velocity can be determined (with a ow area A0 ): vth = 2dpnozzle f (2.5)

Subsequently the dimensionless coecient Cd can be determined by: Cd = mf = A0 f vth A0 mf 2f dpnozzle (2.6)

In a similar way the dimensionless coecient CM , which is the ratio of momentum, can be determined by: CM = MF Mf 2 = 2A dp A0 f uth 0 nozzle (2.7)

The nozzle can now be characterized with the two dimensionless numbers obtained with Eqs. 2.6 and 2.7. Two other dimensionless coecients which can be used: vef f Cv = (2.8) vth Aef f (2.9) Ca = A0 where vef f is determined in Eq. 2.3. With Eqs. 2.8 and 2.9, Cd and CM can be determined: Cd = Cv Ca
2 Cv

(2.10) (2.11)

CM =

Ca

2.2

Determination of the cavitation number

In section 2.1 it was lined out that cavitation inuences the coecients Cd and CM . To estimate the inuence of the cavitation, a dimensionless cavitation number can be dened. The rate of cavitation depends on the pressure drop across the nozzle orice [GAC00]: CaN = (Pup Pdown ) (Pdown Pv ) (2.12)

where Pup is the injection pressure, Pdown is the ambient pressure in which the fuel is injected and Pv is the vapor pressure. The Pv can be omitted since it is very small: CaN = Pup Pdown Pdown (2.13)

Nurick [Nur76] used another form of pressure dierence ratio referred as cavitation parameter K: K= (Pup Pv ) (Pup Pdown ) (2.14)

An expression relating the discharge coecient and the contraction coecient Cc with the cavitation parameter can be obtained: K= Cd Cc
2

(2.15)

Subsequently Cd can be expressed in terms of cavitation number CaN : Cd = Cc K 0,5 = Cc 1 + 1 CaN

0,5

(2.16) 7

Using Eq. 2.16 the mass ow of a cavitating ow can be determined.

c mf = f Cd A0

2 |dpnozzle | f

1 + CaN CaN

(2.17)

In Fig. 2.5 an example is shown in which Cd is drawn as function of CaN . Earlier experiments conducted under supervision of X.L.J. Seykens at the TU/e resulted in CaN c 0, 5. At a certain point Cd reaches a peak value at the critical CaN (CaN c ). At higher cavitation numbers than CaN c the Cd is independent of CaN and solely dependent on the Reynolds number. In the experiments to determine the momentum of the spray and in the visualization experiments in part I and II, the CaN is high resulting in a nearly constant Cd value.

Critical point

Cd

Cd

CaN

CaN

Figure 2.5: The discharge coecient Cd as function of the c cavitation number CaN . Cd and CaN c are the critical discharge coecient and the critical cavitation number respectively.

Chapter 3

Measurement techniques
To determine Cd and CM it follows from Eqs. 2.6 and 2.7 that the mass ow and momentum ux of the spray coming out of the nozzle have to be determined. Both aspects are measured with dierent experimental setups.

3.1

Momentum measurement technique

An injector is installed on a common rail system with data acquisition devices. A scheme of the total setup is shown in Fig. B.1 in appendix B. For a more complete description of the experimental setup see [SSB00] and its accompanying literature. To measure the momentum exerted by the spray a force sensor is aimed at the spray as shown in Fig. 3.1. In Figs. C.1-C.5 in appendix C the technical drawings of this setup are provided . In these drawings the sensor tip diameter is 4 mm, however the measurements are conducted with a spray tip which has a diameter of 2 mm. The specication of the Kistler FSH 9203 force sensor is provided in table C.2 in appendix C. This force is equal to the momentum ux. The spray hits the sensor tip which completely catches the spray receiving the full momentum of the spray. The sensor holder can be aimed to every hole in the nozzle.
Sensor tip Holes

Nozzle Force sensor

Sensor holder

Figure 3.1: Schematic view of the placement of the force sensor on the nozzle for momentum measurements.

Shortcoming of the momentum measurements It is geometrically impossible to place the sensor tip directly in front of the nozzle hole; the spray has to travel about 1 mm to reach the sensor tip. Nevertheless at this distance the interaction with the air surrounding the spray is minimal resulting in minimal diusion of the spray; almost no momentum loss in other directions is present. Obviously the spray will encounter air resistance but it is expected this eect is negligible with respect to the momentum of the spray. Measurements with nozzle A and dpnozzle = 1000 5 bar 9

(see table 4.1) at dierent distances from the nozzle hole show that around 1 mm distance the measured momentum ux is at its maximum. As the spray hits the sensor tip a part of the spray bounces back due to elastic collisions of droplets, which increases the measured force by the force sensor. It is dicult to estimate these additional measured forces. When the spray impinges the sensor tip a large part of its kinetic energy is lost due to viscous dissipation [GA00]. Also most of the spray is deected at an tangential or almost tangential angle. These two contribution lead to small additional forces due to elastic collisions of the droplets. The line up of the sensor holder to the injector holes also causes diculties. There is no good method to get a good alignment of these two components. Therefore measurements are conducted around a hole. When properly aligned the highest force will be measured due to minimal momentum loss in other directions (ie. force components). In part II results are presented regarding spray angles. In these results 30 degrees is the maximum angle. With this angle the sensor tip area is sucient to capture the full spray.

3.2

Mass ow measurement techniques

The mass ow measurement can only take place when all, except one, nozzle holes is blocked due to limitations of the high pressure pump. The injector nozzle is installed in a Zeuch vessel [SSB00]. The outlet of this vessel is restricted causing a back pressure in the Zeuch vessel. By adjusting this restriction the back pressure can be altered and thus also the CaN (see Eq. 2.13). After this restriction a mass ow meter is installed. In Fig. B.2 in appendix B a scheme is presented which describes the experimental setup of the mass ow measurement. Shortcoming of the mass ow measurements The fuel pressure is measured before the injector which means the pressure drop across the injector and nozzle is unknown. It is estimated the mentioned pressure drop is around 20 to 30 bar. AMESim simulation conrmed this estimation. The fuel heats up right after the restriction as the kinetic energy of the fuel is converted into heat. This obviously causes problems in determining the fuel density. The only solution to this problem is to wait till the temperature of (all) the fuel has stabilized.

10

Chapter 4

Experimental results
A selection of experimental results will be presented which characterize the type of nozzle and denes possible asymmetry of the nozzle. A momentum measurement is conducted on the nozzle which is used for spray visualization studies. The holes of this nozzle cannot be blocked as this adjustment is a permanent one and could damage the nozzle. Therefore other nozzles of similar hole geometry are used from which holes are blocked. In the experiments 7 and 9 mm nozzles are used, but only experimental data of the 9 mm is used for further analysis. The following features of the nozzles are analyzed: The force prole of one measurement is analyzed for possible ltering requirements and for an indication of the reproducibility of the measurements. A momentum measurement is conducted around two fully open 9 mm nozzles. The dierences between these measurements are analyzed. The asymmetry in the momentum measurements of each nozzle is analyzed and compared. The momentum ux of a fully open nozzle is compared to one which has all, except one, nozzle holes blocked. The mass ow through two holes of the same nozzle is measured and the Cd of these holes is determined. A range of nozzles have been used in the experiments. In table 4.1 a summary is presented of what type of nozzle are used for the experiments. All momentum ux measurements are conducted with an injection pressure dpnozzle = 1000 5 bar. Welding the nozzle holes is at this point the only reliable way to block the holes of a nozzle. Unfortunately this method is permanent. However, before this method was used, nozzle B was blocked with epoxy. This method is very unreliable, it cannot withstand high pressures for a long time. But this method is not permanent which makes it possible to repeat measurements on dierent holes of the same nozzle. This only worked with nozzle B for two neighboring holes.

11

Table 4.1: Scheme of the nozzles that are used for the dierent experiments. Qh is the hydraulic capacity of a nozzle, expressed in cc m1 . ID is the notation which is used in this report to identify the nozzles. The L/D ratio is unknown for these nozzles and estimated at 4. ID A B Nozzle type DLLZ160PV3770 684 569 06 DLLZ160PV3770 684 569 04 Q [cc m1 ] 599 594 Experiments in which it is used Momentum measurements with all holes open Momentum measurements with blocked nozzle Mass ow measurements with blocked nozzle Momentum measurements with all holes open Main Schlieren experiments Main liquid core measurements Schlieren recordings with varying fuel temp. Liquid core recording with varying fuel temp. Reproducibility test for Schlieren recordings Reproducibility test for laser light scattering Nozzle diameter [m] 199 3 206 3 Nr. of holes 6 6

DLLZ160PV3770 683 569 03

447

177 3

DLLZ160PV3770 685 569 05

346

126 3

E F

DLLZ160PV3770 685 569 10 DLLZ 160PV3770 013 10

362 762

120 193 3

8 8

4.1
4.1.1

Momentum measurement results

Analysis of a single force measurement

In Fig. 4.1 the needle lift as function of time of a single injection is shown. The excitation duration of the coil was 3 ms. In Fig. 4.2 the force prole of a single momentum measurement is shown. When the injection starts, the force sensor has a disturbance possibly caused by the vibration coming from the magnetic coil which initiates the needle lift. In rst instance needle relaxation takes place due to the elastic deformation of the needle. After the needle relaxation the needle begins to lift and a spray begins to form with ever increasing momentum. By comparing needle lift data and spray recordings it was determined that the injection starts at 13,5 % of the total needle lift due to the elastic deformation of the needle. After about 0,6 ms the needle has lifted from 13,5 % to the fully lifted position and the spray exerts a maximum force on the force sensor. This maximum force is exerted for about 2,5 ms. After this period the needle falls back on the seat in about 0,5 ms (to the 13,5 % position). Thus the total injection time is 3,6 ms. To determine the momentum of the spray, the average force is determined between in two red lines which are shown in Fig. 4.2. Considerable high frequency uctuations are present in the measured force signal. There are two main causes for these uctuations. The most important one is during the injection and originates from pressure variations in the high pressure fuel line to the injector. These are caused by the fuel pump and pressure wave interactions in the common rail. These variation have a frequency of about 3 to 5 kHz. Also in Amesim simulations a pressure wave with a frequency of 5 kHz is present between the atomizer chamber and the sac volume (thus along the injector needle). There is also a uctuating signal noticeable after the injection has completed. Sinusoidal vibrations occur, with a low frequency compared to the previous mentioned noise. These variations are caused by the mechanical vibrations in the experimental setup itself. Especially when the needle starts to

12

lift a vibration is initiated which fades out quickly. These disturbances are ltered out with small band notch lters, but there is no noticeable dierence in the results of ltered and the unltered signals. This problem can be solved by mechanically separating the dierent components from the force sensor.
460 440 420 3 needle lift [] force [N] 0 1 2 3 4 time [ms] 5 6 7 400 380 360 340 320 0 5

3 4 time [ms]

Figure 4.1: Needle lift prole of a single injection with a duration of 3 ms.

Figure 4.2: Force prole of a single force measurement.

4.1.2

Momentum ux measurement results around fully open nozzles

From two unblocked nozzles the momentum is determined at 10 intervals around the nozzle. The two nozzle types A and C are used in these experiments. The latter type is used in the main EHPC experiments. The complete measurement results are in tables D.1 and D.2 in appendix D. The 2 error is 1-2 %. The measurement data is summarized in Figs. 4.3 and 4.4. Both nozzles have 6 injection holes. In Fig. 4.3 the sprays are noticeable from the force measurements; the holes, and thus the middle of the sprays, are at approximately 20 , 70 , 130 , 200 , 260 and 320 . Around these positions the complete spray hits the sensor tip. As the sensor holer is rotated further a part of the spray misses the sensor tip causing a fast drop in the measured momentum ux. In the range of the angle of the sensor holder in which the complete spray hits the sensor the exerted momentum ux depends on the force components (ie. force directions) which results in a sinusoidal momentum ux prole within this range. After approximately 10-15 from the center of the spray the measured force drops of; the spray misses the front of the sensor tip completely but still reaches the sensor tip and therefore it registers a force of about 1,5 N . Exactly between the holes, at 100 , 170 and 350 , a relative high force is measured. Most obvious cause is that two neighboring sprays hit the force sensor instead of one. Momentum measurement around nozzles with more holes contain these peaks between every neighboring holes, supporting the statement of multiple sprays hitting the force sensor. Nevertheless the force should be around 2 1,5 N instead of the measured 4,7 4,8 N . At this point there is no good and reliable explanation for this phenomenon. Possibly the neighboring spray inuence each other in such a way that more droplets bounce back with more velocity, or a greater mass of droplets bounces back, which causes the force sensor registering a larger force. In Fig. 4.4 the results for the nozzle that is used in the main experiments with the EHPC are shown. Its prole is not as distinct as nozzle A. Obviously it is not always clear what the middle of the spray is in Fig. 4.4, only at an angle of 300 and 240 the middle of the spray can be identied. The middle of the remaining sprays are located at 60 intervals removed from the two identied sprays. In Fig. 4.4 no high measured forces between

13

5.5 5 4.5 4 average force [N] 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 angle [degrees] 300 350 average force [N]

5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 angle [degrees] 300 350

Figure 4.3: Results of the momentum measurements around nozzle A. The arrows indicate the center position of the individual sprays.

Figure 4.4: Results of the momentum measurements around nozzle C. The arrows indicate the center position of the individual sprays. The third arrow on the left side indicates the center of the spray which is used in further visualization experiments.

neighboring sprays are present. For both measurements the average momentum for each spray is determined. The angle at which the measured force is at its maximum is the center of a spray. The measuring point which represents the center position of a spray, and its two neighboring positions, are averaged to obtain the average spray momentum. In tables 4.2 and 4.3 the results are summarized. Table 4.2: Measured momentum of the sprays of nozzle type A. Hole nr. Average momentum ux [N ] 2 [N ] Relative error [%] 1 3,69 0,18 4,9 2 4,04 0,12 3,0 3 3,74 0,08 2,1 4 3,61 0,1 2,8 5 3,58 0,16 4,5 6 3,5 0,14 4,0

Table 4.3: Measured momentum of the sprays of nozzle type C. Hole nr. Average momentum ux [N ] 2 [N ] Relative error [%] 1 2,92 0,04 1,4 2 2,85 0,05 1,8 3 2,95 0,05 1,7 4 2,9 0,08 2,8 5 2,96 0,06 2,0 6 3,27 0,07 2,1

In Fig. 4.5 the data from tables 4.2 and 4.3 are graphically processed. Both nozzles show an increase in momentum ux of the sprays around one hole; hole 2 of nozzle A and hole 6 of nozzle C. For nozzle A this increase in momentum ux is about 8-15 % compared to the rest of the holes. For nozzle C this value is 10-15 %. Most probable cause is an asymmetric geometry of the needle, needle tip or more likely the geometry of the needle tip housing. The 14

distance between the needle and the hole diers for each hole, blocking the ow to the holes in a dierent degree causing an asymmetrical momentum ux distribution of the sprays. In [KK04] similar experimental results have been obtained; dierences between spray momentum ux of a single nozzle ranged from 14 % to 22 %. In [KK04] this asymmetrical phenomenon was also noticed in mass ow through the holes, ranging from 13 % to 14 %.
4.5

4 Average force [N]

3.5

2.5

3 4 Nozzle number

Figure 4.5: Average momentum ux of the spray of nozzle type A (blue line) and C (red line).

Nozzle A has a average spray momentum ux of 3,69 N and nozzle C has a average spray momentum ux of 2,97 N , which means nozzle A has 19,5 % larger momentum compared to nozzle C. Due to the larger Qh of nozzle A a larger fuel mass is injected during one injection. The momentum ux is related to the mass ow by M m2 : M = m vef f = m m f Aef f (4.1)

Nozzle A has a 19,7 % larger Qh than nozzle C which theoretically would result in a 43,4 % larger momentum ux for nozzle A. The dierence between the measured and predicted momentum ux can be caused by geometrical dierences between the two nozzles. Also the sprays from nozzle A can have a larger dispersion angle which decreases the momentum ux in axial direction. This could explain the high measured forces between the sprays as shown in Fig. 4.3, which are absent in Fig. 4.4. Unfortunately no further quantitative conclusions can be drawn on this matter. The spray coming out of hole number 3 of nozzle C will be used in further visualization experiments described in part II and III. This hole produces a spray with an average momentum compared to the other sprays produced by this nozzle.

4.1.3

Momentum ux prole of a single spray (blocked nozzle)

From Figs. 4.3 and 4.4 in section 4.1.2 it already became apparent that the momentum ux prole of a single hole is not exactly symmetrical. Therefore momentum ux measurements are conducted to obtain a momentum ux prole of a single spray. Nozzle B is used for these experiments. All holes, except one, are blocked of this nozzle and the force that the single spray exerts is measured. Measurements are conducted with small intervals in rotation of the force sensor to obtain a complete momentum ux prole of the spray. This is conducted for two neighboring sprays of the nozzle. The results are shown in Fig. 4.6. The maximum momentum ux of both 15

sprays are 4,05 0,04 N and 4,02 0,03 N , only deviating 0,7 % from each other. The angle over which the momentum ux is measured is larger for one hole. But this is not the actual spray angle, which is smaller. This is caused by the geometrical setup of the sensor tip and the nozzle. Most important result is that the geometry of the holes cause nearly symmetrical momentum ux proles. The maximum momentum ux of the spray, around 4,0 N , is considerably higher than the average momentum ux of 3,7 N of nozzle A, which is a relative dierence of 8 %. We cannot determine whether this can be attributed to an extreme asymmetry between the individual nozzle holes like found for hole 2 from nozzle A in Fig. 4.5 or due to blocking of the other holes with nozzle B. In a fully open nozzle the pressure in the sac volume drops when the needle opens. Because in this case only one hole is available the pressure drop in the sac volume is less and thus a higher pressure dierence across the nozzle hole is maintained. According to Bernoullis law (Eq. 2.5) this increased pressure dierence results in an increased ow velocity through the nozzle hole. Also the mass ow will increase due to the increased velocity. X.L.J. Seykens has used AMESim software to simulate the dierence between a normal nozzle and a nozzle from which only one hole is open. It resulted in a 5,8 % increase in mass ow and 5,1 % increase in velocity.
4.5 4 3.5 average force [N] 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 40 30 20 10 0 10 angle [degrees] 20 30 40

Figure 4.6: The momentum ux prole of the spray of two holes of nozzle B. The middle of the force proles are placed on the 0 mark afterwards. The increased mass ow and increase in velocity combined result in a 11,2 % increase in momentum ux. The real value should be slightly lower because the increase in the velocity increases the eect of cavitation which reduces the mass ow and thus also the momentum. The measured dierence of 8 % is of the same magnitude as s11,2 % making the blocking of the nozzle a probable cause for the increase in momentum.

4.2

Mass ow measurements

Due to restriction of the high pressure pump mass ow measurements are only possible with nozzles from which only one hole is open. The measurements are conducted with nozzle B. The same holes are used as in the determination of the momentum prole of a single spray. The injection pressure is held constant and the back pressure in the Zeuch vessel is changed to get a pzeuch range of prailzeuch , which is the CaN . This is done for ve dierent injection pressures. In Fig. p 4.7 and 4.8 the results are shown for the measurement of the two holes respectively. Normally the 16

lines in both gures should lie on top of each other. This is obviously not the case, especially in Fig. 4.7 (these measurements were conducted after the measurements from which the results are shown in Fig. 4.8). The probable cause of this deviation is a drift in the injection pressure sensor (i.e. common rail pressure sensor); after the high pressure pump was switched o the measured pressure remained at 10-20 bar while it should be 0 bar. This can also be noticed in the Figs. 4.7-4.8: the largest deviation is present at relative low injection pressures where the error caused by the drift results in the largest relative error. Unfortunately this problem became apparent after the epoxy blocking on nozzle B had failed and made nozzle B unsuitable for further measurements. Most important result is the Cd value at high CaN . Due to the drift in the pressure sensor it is dicult to determine a reliable Cd value. By averaging these values the Cd is 0,77 pm 0,02 for the rst hole, and 0,78 0,01 for the second hole. The CaN c in Fig. 4.7 is 2 2,5. In Fig. 4.8 the CaN c is 1,5 2. It was expected, on the basis of earlier experiments, that CaN c is around 0,5. The deviation could be caused by the drift in the pressure sensor. The measurements began with a low injection pressure and subsequently the injection pressure was increased.

100 bar 0.9 150 bar 200 bar 300 bar 0.85 Cd 400 bar 0.85 Cd 0.9

100 bar 150 bar 200 bar 300 bar 400 bar

0.8

0.8

0.75

0.75

0.7 0

30

60 CaN

90

120

150

0.7 0 30 60 CaN 90 120 150

Figure 4.7: Results of the mass ow measurements of one hole of nozzle B for the ve different injections pressures: 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 bar.

Figure 4.8: Results of the mass ow measurements of another hole of nozzle B for the ve dierent injections pressures: 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 bar.

4.3

Experimentally determined nozzle characteristics

Only from nozzle B all dimensionless parameters can be determined for two of its holes. These parameters are summarized in table 4.4. Nozzle B and A are similar as they are from the same type. Nozzle A is compared to C in section 4.1.2 (nozzle C is used in the main experiments in the EHPC). It was shown in that section that the sprays from nozzle C produced spray with substantionally lower momentum uxes. Thus it must be noticed that the dimensionless parameters in table 4.4 are not exactly similar to the dimensionless parameters of nozzle C.

17

Table 4.4: Dimensionless parameters for nozzle B for two holes. Hole nr. Mf [N ] mf [g/s] Cd Cm Cv Ca 4, 05 8,5 0,77 0,61 0,96 0,66 1 0, 04 0,1 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,04 2 4, 02 0, 03 Not measured 0,78 0,01 0,61 0,03 0,96 0,02 0,66 0,04

Results for nozzle C In section 4.1.2 it is shown that the momentum ux is asymmetrically divided over the sprays. Visualization experiments are conducted on sprays of hole 3 which has an average momentum ux for this nozzle. In section 4.1.3 it was shown that a detailed single momentum ux prole is typically symmetrical. Although this is tested with another nozzle it is assumed the same holds for hole number 3 of nozzle C.

18

Chapter 5

Conclusion
The measured force prole of the injections, for example as shown in Fig. 4.2, have a reproducibility uncertainty ranging from 1,4 to 4,5 %. For nozzle C, which is used in the visualization experiments, the reproducibility uncertainty is lower: 1,4 to 2,8 %. This uncertainty is considerable lower than other uncertainties in the visualization experimented presented in Part II and III. Therefore it is assumed that variations in the needle lift and other eects which take place before the uid exits the nozzle orice, have a negligible inuence on the visualization results. Measurements of nozzle A and C showed that the individual holes of each nozzle do not produce sprays with equal momentum ux. This asymmetry is caused by asymmetry of the needle or the sac volume geometry. Dierence between the measured momentum of the spray are as high as 22 %. This causes no problems for the performed visualization experiments. However, it is important to realize that due the asymmetry of the nozzles other (future) measurements with the same type of nozzles cannot be compared one on one. Measurements with a blocked nozzle showed that it produces sprays with a higher momentum ux compared to the sprays of a unblocked nozzle. The dierence is about 8 to 10 %. The increase is caused by the increased sac volume pressure. A blocked nozzle has better visual access but it compromises the spray characteristics. In the main measurements presented in Part II and III no blocked nozzles were used. The performed mass ow measurements are not reliable due the drift in the pressure signal of the injection pressure sensor. Also the mass ow measurements can only be conducted on a blocked nozzle (the high pressure pump cannot maintain the necessary rail pressure when all holes are open). However, it is unknown what inuence the blocking of the holes has on the ow characteristics inside the nozzle. The unreliability in the mass ow determination eects the calculated values Cd , Cv and Ca . Due to these factors the nozzle characteristics presented in table 4.4 could deviate somewhat from reality. In Part I and II visualization experiments will be presented. There is no direct relation of the visualization experiments with the momentum ux or mass ow measurements. But it is established , that substantial variations exist between the individual sprays of the holes of a nozzle. There are dierences between two nozzle of the same type. Therefore the results in Part I and II are unique for hole 3 of nozzle C.

19

Part II

Penetration and dispersion research of non-reacting evaporating diesel sprays

20

Chapter 6

Behavior of the evaporating spray

For engine designers insight in the behavior of an evaporating fuel spray is of great importance. Improvements in injection equipment reduce emissions and increase power by a more eective combustion process. The most essential aspect of the spray behavior is the dispersion and the penetration of the spray. The angle of the spray is a measure for the dispersion of the spray. This can be related to the air entrainment in the spray: Air entrainment a d0 Uf tan(/2) (6.1)

where a is the density of the ambient air, d0 is the orice diameter, Uf the velocity of the injected fuel and is the spray dispersion angle. The location of the spray tip as function of time is used as a measure for the penetration of the spray. In [NS96] results for both dispersion and penetration are presented and thoroughly analyzed, with the emphasis on the inuence of the ratio a (ambient air density. Therefore [NS96] is extensively used in this part to compare the results. In section 6.1 the trend according to various literature of the dispersion angle of non-evaporating will be lined out. Also the dierence between trends of non-evaporating and evaporating sprays will be emphasized. In section 6.2 trends and correlations according literature sources are provided for non-evaporating sprays. The dierence between non-evaporating spray penetration and evaporating spray penetration is shortly lined out. In chapter 7 the methods used for conducting the experiments are described. Also the methods used for analyzing the measurement results are described including a statistical analysis. The results of the main measurements from which the dispersion angle and penetration are determined are presented in chapter 8. Further discussion and comparison with the results presented in Part III, where the liquid core of the spray is investigated, are given in chapter 12.

6.1

Dispersion angle of non-evaporating and evaporating sprays

As the spray progresses, air entrainment causes the spray to grow in diameter, which is also referred to as the dispersion of the spray. The air entrainment occurs with a constant rate which results in a constant growth of the spray. Therefore the spray is cone shaped and the angle of this cone is a measure for the dispersion of the spray. There is no appropriate model available which can determine the dispersion angle. The measurements conducted at the TU/e can only be compared with results from other investigations. In [Sie99] the following correlation is presented for the dispersion angle: tan (/2) = 0,260 a f
0,19

0,0043

f a 21

(6.2)

where a and f is the ambient air density and fuel density, respectively. It can be noticed that the correlation Eq. 6.2 is independent on the temperature. In [HIY96] the following correlation is used: = 0,05 a dpnozzle d2 0 2 a
0,25

(6.3)

where dpnozzle is the pressure drop across the nozzle orice, d0 the nozzle orice diameter and a the dynamic viscosity of the ambient air. The in Eq. 6.3 depends both on the ambient air density and temperature. Research on the spray angle is mainly concentrated on non-evaporating sprays. Hiroyasu and Arai [HA90a] conducted experiments with ambient air densities up to 30 kg/m3 and fuel pressures up to 800 bar. They identied a complete spray regime in which the spray dispersion angle is mainly a dependent on orice parameters and the f ratio. The dependence of the dispersion angle on the ambient air density was 0,26 . Varde [VPV84] found in a similar research, with ambient air a densities up to 40 kg/m3 and injection pressures between 500 and 1500 bar, a dependence of the dispersion angle on the ambient air density of 0,33 . In another investigation Wakuri [WFAT60], a with densities less than 22 kg/m3 and injection pressures between 400 and 750 bar, an dispersion angle dependence of 0,4 is found. With injection pressures up to 1200 bar and with densities a between 15 and 55 kg/m3 a dispersion angle dependence of 0,19 is established in [BV94]. a Spray dispersion under evaporating conditions has not been extensively explored. In [SNH93] there are indications that there might be an increase in the spray dispersion angle as result of the vaporization. These measurements were executed at an ambient air density of 12,5 kg/m3 and a temperature of 773 K.
0.4 0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2 tan(/2) tan(/2) 0.1

0.2

0.1

0.004

0.01

0.03 /
a

0.1

0.3

0.004

0.01

0.03 /
a

0.1

0.3

Figure 6.1: The dispersion angle versus the a f ratio for non-evaporating sprays which are presented in [NS96]. The upper blue line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 340 m (triangle data points). The lower red line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 257 m (cross data points) and with d0 = 198 m (circle data points). Ta 450 K and Ta 300 K . 22

Figure 6.2: The dispersion angle versus the a f ratio for evaporating sprays which are presented in [NS96]. The dashed line are the power t curves from Fig. 6.1. The upper blue line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 340 m (triangle data points). The lower red line is the power t for the measurements with the nozzle with d0 = 257 m (cross data points) and with d0 = 198 m (circle data points). Ta 1000 K.

In Fig. 6.1 the results of [NS96] are shown for an non-evaporating spray. The measurement were conducted with mainly Ta 450 K and Ta 300 K. Three dierent nozzles were used in these experiments. One nozzle has a hole diameter of d0 = 340 m. The other two nozzles have a d0 = 257 m and d0 = 198 m. The measurements with the latter two nozzles produce similar results regarding the dispersion angle. This is probably caused by a dierence in the geometry 0,19 of the nozzle which compensates for the smaller d0 = 198 m. An angle dependence of a is found for these non-evaporating sprays which is similar to that what can be found in [BV94]. It a is suggested that with a high f ratio the spray behaves more like an incompressible jet. This research also showed that the inuence of the temperature on evaporating sprays seemed to be negligible. In Fig. 6.2 the results of experiments with evaporating sprays are compared to the results of the non-evaporating sprays. These measurements are mainly conducted at Ta 1000 K but also two measurements are conducted at Ta 600 K and four measurements at Ta 1400 K. a At low f ratios the evaporating sprays have considerable smaller angles compared to the nona evaporating sprays. This dierence is up to 30 %. As the f ratio goes up the dierence of the dispersion angle between the evaporating and non-evaporating sprays becomes smaller. As ambient air entrained the evaporating spray the air cools down contracts which reduces the dispersion angle of the evaporating spray compared to the non-evaporating spray. An increase in ambient air density results in a lower rate of cooling which causes the dispersion angle to be more similar to that of a non-evaporating spray. This can be noticed in Fig. 6.2. In [NS96] a second factor, probably less signicant, which causes a reduced dispersion angle for evaporating sprays is mentioned. The evaporation of the larger ballistic drops with high dispersion angles at the periphery of the spray and re-entrainment of the fuel vapor. Unfortunately due to time restrictions no further analysis is possible on this subject.

6.2

Penetration of non-evaporating and evaporating sprays

Research on penetration of non-evaporating sprays resulted in a dependence on the a of 0,23 to a 0,50 [NS96]. Very limited research is conducted to evaporating sprays and how these sprays bea have compared to the non-evaporating sprays regarding the penetration. In Fig. 6.3 the results are presented from [NS96]. The solid lines are power ts through non-evaporating spray measurements. The data points represent measurements of evaporating spray measurements. Measurements were conducted with a fuel pressure of 1370 bar 15 bar and a nozzle hole diameter of d0 = 257 m. The non-vaporing spray ambient air temperature was 451 K, and the evaporating spray ambient air temperature was 1000 K. Two important trends can be noticed in Fig. 6.3. First the penetration of both non-evaporating and evaporating sprays decrease as the ambient air density increases. Secondly at low ambient air densities the evaporating spray penetration is less than the non-evaporating spray penetration. At higher ambient air densities this dierence is smaller and the evaporating spray penetration becomes almost similar to the non-evaporating spray penetration.

23

120 fit nonvaporizing spray for a=3,3 kg/m fit nonvaporizing spray for a=6,8 kg/m
a a a 3 3

100

penetration [mm]

80

fit nonvaporizing spray for =13,9 kg/m3 fit nonvaporizing spray for =28,6 kg/m
3 3 3 3

60

fit nonvaporizing spray for =58,6 kg/m

a

data points vaporizing spray for =3,3 kg/m 40 data points vaporizing spray for a=6,8 kg/m
a a a

data points vaporizing spray for =13,9 kg/m3 20 data points vaporizing spray for =28,6 kg/m3 data points vaporizing spray for =58,6 kg/m 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 time [ms] 2 2.5 3
3

Figure 6.3: Comparison of evaporating spray penetration measurements (at Ta = 1000 K) with non-evaporating spray penetration measurements (at Ta = 451 K) which are presented in [NS96]. The injection pressure is 1370 bar 15 bar and the nozzle hole diameter d0 = 257 m. Penetration of non-evaporating sprays When diesel is injected in relative high ambient air density conditions, the dispersion angle is larger as was demonstrated in section 6.1. This increase in dispersion angle results in momentum loss of the spray in the axial direction slowing the spray down. Also there is a high level of air resistance, a greater mass of ambient air is pushed away by the spray. In [NS96] a derivation for the penetration of a non-evaporating spray is presented. This derivation is based on the works of Wakuri [WFAT60] and Hays [Hay95]. Only the end results of this derivation will be dealt with as no experiments are conducted with non-evaporating sprays. A non-dimensional relation between time and penetration resulting from the derivation is: S S t= + 2 4 1 + 16 S 2 + 1 ln 4 S + 16 1 + 16 S 2 (6.4)

where S and t can be expressed by respectively: S S= + x t t= + t (6.5) (6.6)

S is the spray tip distance from the orice of the nozzle and t the time that has passed since the beginning of the injection. Subsequently x+ and t+ can be expressed by: x+ = df 1/2 1 tan(/2) 1 t+ = df 1/2 vth tan(/2) (6.7) (6.8)

where df is the diameter of the spray close to the orice, vth the axial velocity of the fuel at the orice, = f (f is the fuel density and a the ambient air density) and the dispersion angle a of the spray. In Eq. 6.4 there are two regions that can be distinguished, a short time limit:
t0

lim S = t 24

(6.9)

and a long time limit:

t

lim S =

(6.10)

In section 8.2 the experimental results are compared to the relation Eq. 6.4 and the time limit relations Eqs. 6.9 and 6.10 will be compared. An other relation for the short time limit is given by [HA90a]: S = 0,39 2 pf p a t f (6.11)

In the long time limit two correlation from literature are know. In [HA90a] the following relation ranges from a ambient air density from 10 to 33 kg/m3 : S = 2,95 pf pa d0 t a (6.12)

In [Den71] an other long time limit relation is provided: S = 3,07 294 Ta

0,25

pf p a d0 t a

(6.13)

These can be compared to the dimensional form of Eq. 6.4: S= Cv 2Ca a tan(/2) pf p a d0 t a (6.14)

Penetration of evaporating sprays As mentioned earlier the evaporating spray have a reduced penetration at low ambient air densities. No model or correlation is available to estimate this deviation. Thus only comparisons with the TU/e measurement data can be made with the data provided in [NS96] regarding spray penetration. Also the dierences in penetration between the evaporating and the predicted non-evaporating spray (Eq. 6.4) can be made.

25

Chapter 7

Methods for conducting experiments and analysis of Schlieren recordings

7.1
7.1.1

Visualization of a diesel spray with the EHPC

Operation of the EHPC

At the University of Technology in Eindhoven a constant volume chamber is installed which is visually accessible. The setup is called EHPC which is the abbreviation for Eindhoven High Pressure Cell. In Fig. 7.1 a photograph of the EHPC is shown. Nozzle type C is used for all the visualization experiments.

Figure 7.1: Photograph of the EHPC (Eindhoven High Pressure Cell) at the TU/e.

A scheme is presented in Fig. E.1 in appendix E which relates the working of the dierent components. In the EHPC in-cylinder conditions can be simulated by the pre-combustion method [HMS99, KDFS+ 05]. To obtain the required conditions with sucient accuracy it is essential that the amount of the gasses supplied to the EHPC are accurate. Four gases are used to ll the 26

EHPC: acetylene (C2 H2 ), nitrogen, argon and oxygen. For each gas there is a mass ow controller which controls the lling processes. Unfortunately the mass ow controllers used do not perform the lling process with the desired accuracy. Therefore calculations are performed on the basis of partial pressures of the gasses to retrieve an accurate estimate of the amount gas that is supplied to the EHPC. It was found that the error in the reproducibility of the total lling procedure was 2 % or less. To reach the in-cylinder conditions the mixture of acetylene (C2 H2 ), nitrogen, argon and oxygen is ignited with the use of a sparkplug. This is often referred to as the pre-combustion technique. The global combustion reaction of acetylene is as follows: 2C2 H2 + 5O2 4CO2 + 2H2 O (7.1)

The pre-combustion causes a fast pressure and temperature rise in the EHPC. Subsequently the gasses in the EHPC cool down. In Fig. 7.2 an example is given of the pressure and temperature prole of a pre-combustion event. Initially windows made out of quartz are used which can withstand pressures up to 160 bar. To obtain higher ambient air densities sapphire windows are installed which can withstand pressures up to 300 bar. To inject at the desired temperature the injection is timed on the basis of the temperature prole (trial and error) and subsequently recorded with a high speed camera. However the amount of acetylene supplied to the EHPC has an important inuence on the peak pressure and the cooling down period. The mass fraction acetylene supplied to the EHPC is 5,26 0,15 %. An example of the accuracy of an obtained temperature: 1017 25 K. However the inaccuracy in this temperature is not only caused by the lling procedure of acetylene, the combustion itself varies due to variations in physical processes. Ideally the injection is triggered on the pressure signal but in practice this method proved not to be reliable yet.
200 180 2500 160 140 120 100 80 60 500 40 20 0 temperature [K] 0 200 400 600 time [ms] 800 1000 pressure [bar] 2000 3000

1500

1000

200

400 600 time [ms]

800

1000

Figure 7.2: Pressure and temperature prole after the ignition which initiates pre-combustion. The red dashed line indicate the injection timing. Filling conditions of the EHPC: 1705 mg C2 H2 , 21715 mg N2 , 4158 mg Ar and 4555 mg O2 . In the lling process the ratio oxygen is important. After the pre-combustion is completed fuel this ratio determines how much oxygen is left. Here research is exclusively conducted on nonreacting diesel sprays which implies that < 1 for the pre-combustion reaction. Thus less oxygen is provided than the stoichiometric quantity acetylene. Another issue is the physical properties of the mixture after pre-combustion It obviously diers from normal air which is present in a DI engine. It is expected that the most essential dierence lies in the specic heat coecient cp . Therefore argon is added to the mixture to obtain a cp value which is similar to a cp value of air. 27

In Fig. F.1 in appendix F the cp value for dierent mixtures at a temperature range of 500-1500 K is provided. To incorporate all of this, a xed ratio of acetylene, nitrogen, argon and oxygen has been set. This ratio (in moles) is determined by P. Frijters in conjunction with [Lui06] and is as follows: 1,00C2 H2 +2,17O2 +11,88N2 +1,68Ar 0,13C2 H2 +0,87H2 O+1,74CO2 +11,88N2 +1,68Ar (7.2) To change the density in the EHPC all individual amounts are multiplied by a constant factor. The fuel in the common rail is brought up to pressure by a high pressure air pump. The maximum pressure is 1600 bar. Unfortunately uctuations of 2 = 60100 bar are present in the fuel pressure due to the type of high pressure air pump used. With the current setup there is no work around for this problem. The EHPC is electrically heated to 130 C to prevent condensation on the windows of water which originates from the pre-combustion. This also heats up the injector and the fuel it contains. The injector temperature, and thus also the fuel temperature, is controller by a silicon cooling system. Experiments showed however that he fuel temperature is insensitive to the EHPC temperature and remains almost constant at 55-60 C. Problems in operation of the EHPC The EHPC setup at the TU/e has several problems which occur more frequent at higher lling densities. The most important problem is leakages due to seal failures. Also at high densities the sparkplug fouls. At these conditions the amount of nitrogen is decreased and more fuel and oxygen is added to prevent ignition fouling. Unfortunately this increases the peak pressure in the EHPC drastically as the density is already relative high. The dynamic pressure sensor in the EHPC can withstand maximal 300 bar and therefore the peak pressure is limited to 300 bar.

7.1.2

Schlieren visualization techniques

The diesel spray in the EHPC is recorded by a high speed camera. The most basic technique of recording a liquid spray is shadowgraphy [Set01]. With this technique a light source is placed at one end of the EHPC and the high speed camera on the other end. The liquid spray blocks (partially or completely) the light coming from the light source. Thus the spray will occur darker in the recording. This technique is excellent for a non-evaporating spray; it produces sharp and clear images with very low disturbances in the surroundings. However, typical in-cylinder temperatures of a diesel engine are around 1000 K. The liquid diesel spray evaporates quickly leaving only a relative small liquid core. Obviously vapor cannot be recorded with the shadowgraphy technique. To obtain recordings of the vapor the Schlieren technique [Set01] is used. This technique is based on dierences in density between the spray and the surrounding air. In Fig. 7.3 a schematic of the principle of the Schlieren technique is presented.
Plate 1 with pinhole Point lightsource Positive lens 1 Positive lens 2 Plate 2 with pinhole

Density gradient

Camera lens

Figure 7.3: A schematic of the principle of the Schlieren technique.

28

A point source of light is simulated by passing light from a Xe-lamp through a pinhole in a metal plate. The light beams will travel parallel after passing a positive lens which is placed at focal distance f from the pinhole. The light passes through a medium, in this case the gasses in the EHPC. Subsequently the light will be converged by a positive lens to a point. At the focal distance from this lens also a plate with a pinhole is placed. Behind this pinhole the camera is set up. When there is a density gradient the light will be deected. If the density gradient is sucient, and thus also the deection, the light passing through it misses the pinhole in the plate. This results in a darker spot in the recording. In Fig. 7.4 a schematic of the Schlieren setup in the EHPC is given.
l

g e f

b a

h i n

c d

Figure 7.4: A schematic of the principle of the Schlieren technique in combination with the EHPC setup. a. injection nozzle b. liquid core c. fuel vapor d. sapphire window e. Xe-lamp f. plate with pinhole g. positive lens (f=1000 mm) h. positive lens (f=1000 mm) i. plate with pinhole j. ingoing parallel light beams k. outgoing parallel light beam l. metal casing.

7.2

Analysis models of Schlieren recordings

In Matlab programs are developed that are used for analyzing the Schlieren recordings. The software determines the angle of the spray (the dispersion), which is described in section 7.2.1, and the penetration of the spray, which is described in section 7.2.2. Two dierent methods are used to determine these two aspects of the vapor spray. As mentioned before, the Schlieren recording visualizes the density gradients inside the EHPC. Unfortunately the pre-combustion causes large density gradients as well. In Fig. 7.5 a frame from a Schlieren recordings is shown. The density gradients of the vapor and of the combustion gases are clearly visible. The density gradients caused by the pre-combustion and by the spray it self produce a range of light intensities which overlap each other. This makes it dicult to isolate the spray from its surroundings and is the main challenge in developing the software. In [KDFS+ 05] software routines for analysis of shadowgraphy recordings are described. The shadowgraphy technique does not visualize the disturbances caused by the pre-combustion as pronounced as the Schlieren technique does, unfortunately this also holds for the spray itself which makes the Schlieren technique favorable with evaporating sprays. The software routines for analysis of the shadowgraphy recordings fail to make a distinction between the spray and its surroundings and is therefore not directly suitable for analysis of Schlieren recordings. The position is determined by x = positionpixels 0,39 mm. This is calibrated by recording a raster which is placed inside the EHPC at the spray position.

29

Figure 7.5: An example of a original Schlieren recording (upper image) and a articial colored Schlieren recording (lower image). The precombustion started 780 ms before this image. The injection started 1,15 ms before this image. The nominal conditions in the EHPC: Ta = 1305 K, a = 9,15 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1105 bar. The red line and the positions p1 and p2 indicate the area that has been analyzed for angle determination, O1 and O2 represent the origin of the lower and upper half of the spray (see section 7.2.1). The red box indicates the spray tip (see section 7.2.2).

7.2.1

Spray angle determination

Inadequate methods There are two important aspects in the spray angle determination: the recognition of the spray area and the method which is used to determine the angle (or dispersion) of the spray. Naber and Siebers [NS96] apply ltering to remove speckles and distortions around the spray. Subsequently a cumulative intensity histogram for each lm image set has been generated. In this histogram two peaks appear, one corresponding to the undisturbed ambient gas region with high intensity levels and another corresponding to the spray region with low intensity levels. For the threshold to separate the spray from its surroundings, the intensity midway between the two peaks in the cumulative histogram was chosen. When the spray recognition is completed the angle is determined by: = tan1 Ap,S/2 (S/2)2 (7.3)

where S is the spray distance and Ap,S/2 the area of the spray at half way the spray tip distance. In [KDFS+ 05] at each distance along the axial path a cross section is retrieved. Where the intensity is constant within certain boundaries is indicated as the ambient background. The average value of this ambient area is determined. The threshold to distinguish the ambient air and the spray is (Ibackground Ilowest value ) 80 % (I is the abbreviation for intensity). This is done from the 2 beginning of the spray till 3 of the spray tip distance. In a recorded frame the angle is determined for each boundary pixel. This angle is the angle of the line which connects the origin of the spray

30

with the boundary pixel. This origin is similar to the origins O1 and O2 shown in Fig. 7.5; unlike in [NS96] seperate origins for the upper and lower half of the spray are used. The angle of all pixels is averaged which represents the spray angle of the spray in that frame. Unfortunately neither methods are suitable to determine the angle from the TU/e recordings. The distortions caused by the pre-combustion are the main reason both methods fail. The areas surrounding the spray with low intensities due high density gradients make it impossible to isolate the spray correctly. With the method described in [NS96] the determined spray area would have a larger area than in reality causing the determined angle to be too large. In [KDFS+ 05] the determined location of the boundary between spray and the spray surroundings would deviate often from reality because spots with low intensity in the surroundings in the pre-combustion fall below the 80 % threshold. By subtracting the frame just before the spray appears from the frame which is processed, the low intensities in the surroundings of the spray are eliminated. But the subtraction also takes place in the spray deforming the spray. Furthermore the low intensity area that surrounds the spray moves around. Although the corresponding speed is slow, it is sucient to make this method inadequate. In both methods a certain intensity is used as a threshold to separate the spray from the surroundings. Problems arise with this threshold when recordings dier in illumination from each other (ie. the average intensities in the recordings dier). The derivative of the intensity as a threshold value is less sensitive to dierent illuminations between recordings. Method for analyzing TU/e measurements First an area is selected which has to be analyzed. The angle is determined over a length that ranges from 10,5 mm (p1) to 35,1 mm (p2) as shown in Fig. 7.5. From the image previous to the image where the spray begins to appear, the intensities from the (vertical) cross sections for each axial position are retrieved. This is only done in the area enclosed by p1 and p2 which is shown in Fig. 7.5 (thus the cross section are bounded by the upper and lower line in Fig. 7.5). When in a cross section there are more than 3 neighboring pixels with a lower intensity than 1500, the cross section at this axial position will be ignored for further analysis. Otherwise these dark areas will be identied as the edge of the spray while in fact it is a high density gradient in the combustion gases. Subsequently the intensities from the cross sections are retrieved from the frame that has to be analyzed. From this cross section the derivative is determined. This is done for the upper an lower half of the spray separately (the centerline in Fig. 7.5 illustrates the boundary between the upper and lower half of the spray). In Fig. 7.6 an example is presented of the intensity prole of the cross section that is indicated with the arrow in Fig. 7.5. In this gure position 1 is the lower boundary of the area between p1 and p2, and position 17 is the centerline of the spray. A high intensity can be noticed outside the spray whilst within the spray there is a low intensity. In Fig. 7.7 the derivative of Fig. 7.6 is shown. The boundary between the spray and the surroundings of the spray is located where the derivative has a minimal value (at position x). To make the estimation more accurate a linear interpolation between x 1 and x + 1 is conducted. In this way all cross sections are analyzed and the boundary between the spray and its surroundings is determined. On all determined boundary points a linear regression is applied with a xed origin. This origin is determined manually for the upper and lower half of the spray separately. Determining the origins by the software is inaccurate due the high level of distortion caused by the pre-combustion near the nozzle. The coecient of the linear regression line is the angle of the spray. The accuracy of the determination of the edge of the spray angle is 1 pixel, or 0,39 mm. This error is has probably a gaussian distribution and therefore has a limited eect on the angle determination. Furthermore the number of points that represent the edge of the spray have a inuence on the determined angle. To get an idea for the sensitivity related to this number of points 5000 random permutations are performed on a set of 48 points (which represent a upper spray edge). This is done for four cases: when 1 point is missing, 2 points are missing, 3 points are missing and 4 points are missing. The results are shown in Figs. 7.8 to 7.11. Obviously the distribution of tan(/2) becomes more wide spread as the missing points are increased. However the number of permutations resulting in the smallest values of tan(/2) are much higher than for

31

the other larger tan(/2) values (the negative sign of tan(/2) is ignored in this reasoning) and remains fairly constant around 2500 permutation which is about half of the total permutations. Thus when a larger amount of points on the edge of the spray is missing, it results in a larger spreading in tan(/2) determination but does not inuence the chance that the smallest angle is calculated.
3500 600 400 3000 200 intensity rate 2 4 6 8 10 pixel nr 12 14 16 18 2500 intensity 0 200 400 1500 600 1000 0 800

2000

8 10 pixel nr

12

14

16

Figure 7.6: Intensity prole from a cross section of the spray indicated by the arrow in Fig. 7.5.

Figure 7.7: The derivative of the intensity prole from a cross section of the spray indicated by the arrow in Fig. 7.5. Pixel number 8,5 is the location of the boundary or edge of the spray.
3000 nr of permutations 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

3000 2500 nr of permutations 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0.24 0.22 tan(/2) 0.2 0.18

0.24

0.22 tan(/2)

0.2

0.18

Figure 7.8: Histogram of 5000 permutations of 1 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination.

Figure 7.9: Histogram of 5000 permutations of 2 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. .

32

3000 2500 nr of permutations nr of permutations 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0.24 0.22 tan(/2) 0.2 0.18

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0.24 0.22 tan(/2) 0.2 0.18

Figure 7.10: Histogram of 5000 permutations of 3 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. .

Figure 7.11: Histogram of 5000 permutations of 4 missing points on the spray edge for the angle determination. .

7.2.2

Spray length determination

Inadequate methods In section 7.2.1 it was explained how in [NS96] the spray area is determined. In Fig. 7.12 a centroid is shown between /2 ( is the angle of the spray) [NS96] at the tip of the spray. When 50 % of the pixels have the intensity belonging to the spray and 50 % belongs to the surroundings of the spray, the tip of the centroid indicates the spray tip. This method is not suitable for the TU/e measurements because the spray area cannot be determined properly from these measurements.

Figure 7.12: Determination of the spray tip [NS96].;

In [KDFS+ 05] the non-evaporating spray area is laterally integrated. This integrated intensity prole is normalized between 0 and 1. The threshold to determine the spray tip is 10 % of this normalized prole. To prevent that the threshold lies within a slow decaying plateau which would cause failure in detecting the spray tip, the derivative of the normalized prole is determined. When the location of the 10 % threshold is determined it is mandatory that the derivative of the normalized prole lies under -0,015. In the TU/e recordings of evaporating sprays this method fails. As the spray tip progresses, its density gradient become less which increases the recorded intensity. Therefore at the spray tip there is no large dierence in the normalized lateral integrated intensity prole. The area around the spray tip is more like a slow decaying plateau which, as mentioned earlier, causes the recognition of the spray tip to fail. As the spray progresses there is a relative large dierence in intensity at the spray tip between the frames. In other words, the spray tip is the only macroscopic part in the recording that changes in intensity that much in such short time. This is used in the analyzing software to uniquely identify the spray tip and eliminating the surroundings because of its slow rate of intensity changes. To enhance to eect the dierence is taken between 3 frames which claries the spray tip contour. In 33

d i o r t n e c S

Fig. 7.13 the visualization of this dierence is shown. The spray tip is identied as the average position of the ve pixels with a dened threshold that lie furthest from the origin in the axial direction. The threshold for the TU/e measurements is set to 1150. This value has no physical meaning and is chosen from trial and error methods. In Fig. 7.14 the inuence of the number of points which represent the spray tip on the determined penetration is presented. The number of points is varied from 2 to 8 (5 points are taken in the eventual analysis). It can be noticed there is a low sensitivity on the chosen number of points. Furthermore in Fig. 7.15 the inuence of the chosen threshold on the determined penetration is presented. Also the determined penetration proves to be insensitive to the chosen threshold. Through the spray tip penetration a power t is performed in the form x = b ta , where x is the distance the spray tip has traveled and t is the time. The t = 0 is the time at which the spray becomes visible. The actual start of injection is about 2 to 3 frames earlier which results in an accuracy of t=0,17 ms. At t = 0 the penetration is already 3,77 mm due to the blocking of the view by the thimble. The power t is applied in two dierent time spans. First a power t is applied from t = 0 till the spray reaches the boundary of the windows. The beginning of the spray tip penetration prole has a large inuence on the power t coecients however. Therefore a second power t is applied from t = 0, 165 ms till the spray reaches the boundary of the window. In Figs. 7.16 and 7.17 an example of the spray tip penetration and its power ts are shown.

Figure 7.13: Visualization of the spray tip. The spray from a previous frame is shown and at the spray tip the spray in the current frame is shown. On the left side the dierence between the two spray is shown.

90 80 70 spray penetration [mm] 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2 pixels 5 pixels 8 pixels spray penetration [mm]

90 threshold=900 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 threshold=1150 threshold=1500

0.5

1 1.5 time [ms]

2.5

0.5

1 1.5 time [ms]

2.5

Figure 7.14: The inuence of the chosen number of points that represent the spray tip on the determined penetration.

Figure 7.15: The inuence of the chosen threshold for determining the spray tip on the determined penetration.

34

120 100 spray tip distance [mm] 80 60 40 20 0 20 0 spray tip distance [mm] 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 time [ms] 1

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 0

0.2

0.4

0.6 0.8 time [ms]

Figure 7.16: Spray tip penetration as function of time (solid red). A power t between t = 0 ms and t = 0,94 ms is applied (solid blue line). The dashed blue lines are the 2 error bounds of the power t. In the power ts it is assumed

Figure 7.17: Spray tip penetration as function of time (solid red). A power t between t = 0,165 ms and t = 0,94 ms is applied (solid blue line). The dashed blue lines are the 2 error bounds of the power t.

7.3
7.3.1

Error estimation of Schlieren recordings

Statistical analysis

To obtain an estimate of the reproducibility of the measurements and the analyzing software a series of 33 measurements is conducted under equal conditions. It should be noted that with this method also the reproducibility of the pre-combustion, the spray analysis software and the spray formation itself is analyzed. The measurement conditions were as follows: Table 7.1: Measurements conditions for statistical analysis. Parameter Ambient temperature [K] Density of air[kg/m3] [-] Injection pressure [bar] Frame rate [fps] Resolution [mm/pixel] Value 915 4,3 0,8369 1035 60738 0,39 95%-range (2) 21 0,1 0,03 35 0 0,01

Unfortunately afterwards it can be stated that the conditions do not present the conditions used in the main experiments. The distortions around the spray are not as great as in the main experiments and therefore a higher accuracy in spray angle and penetration is obtained. The angle of the spray is determined between an axial distance of 10,5 mm and 35,1 mm. Through the spray penetration prole a power t is calculated in the form x = b ta , where x is the distance the spray tip has traveled and t is the time where t = 0 is the time at which the spray becomes visible. This is done for two dierent time spans. The rst power t starts at the time at which the spray tip 35

becomes visible (at this point it already traveled 3,77 mm due the blocking of the view by the thimble) till the spray tip has reached the boundary of the window. The second power t start 0,165 ms after the sprays becomes visible till the spray has reached the border of the window. These two power ts are indicated with 1 and 2 respectively. The results of the reproducibility measurements are presented in appendix G.

Vapor spray angle statistics Fig. 7.18 is an image in which the edge of the spray, as determined by the software, is shown. It can be noticed the edge of the spray is well determined.

Figure 7.18: Edge recognition by the software. The sprays have an average angle of 10,3 1,3 . Due to time restrictions the number of experiments that had to be conducted are minimized. About 3 measurements for each conditions is realistic. It can be estimated that the the 2 is as follows: 11,57 8,99 max min = = 1,5 (7.4) 2 = 3 3 This accuracy is sucient. In Fig. 7.19 a histogram is provided in which the tan(/2) determination of one spray during an injection is given. A gaussian distribution with tan(/2) = 0,85 0,02 can be noticed. For higher ambient air densities the inaccuracy is higher due the increased distortions. For these conditions only one measurement is conducted because at this point only a indication of the angle can be obtained.
60

50

40 quantity

30

20

10

0 0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08 0.09 tan(/2)

0.1

0.11

0.12

Figure 7.19: Histogram of the tan(/2) determination of one spray during one injection.

36

Spray tip penetration In Fig. 7.20 the spray tip penetration of the 33 conducted measurements are plotted. In Fig. 7.21 the average spray tip penetration of all the measurements is shown. The dashed lines represent the 2 bounds. The relative error is also shown in Fig. 7.21. The absolute error is 2,7 1,6 mm. The relative error after 0,2 ms is 4,4 2,5 %. In [NS96] an accuracy of 7 % is established. The better accuracy in the TU/e measurements are probably due the higher spatial resolution of the recordings. The coecient a1 is 0,59 0,09 and b1 is 4,45 0,06. The average error of the power t through the measured data is 4,03 mm. The coecient a2 is 0,52 0,06 and b2 4,40 0,05. The average error of the second power t with the measured data is 2,77 mm. The second power t neglects the beginning of the spray tip penetration. This part is sensitive for errors and also has a large inuence on the power t coecients. Therefore the second power t has a higher accuracy than the rst power t which does not neglect the beginning of the spray tip penetration. In the main measurements only the second power t will be applied.
90 spray tip penetration [mm] / error [%] 80 spray tip penetration [mm] 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 time [ms] 1 average penetration upper 2 bound lower 2 bound relative error

0.2

0.4

0.6 0.8 time [ms]

Figure 7.20: Spray tip penetration as function of time of all the reproducibility measurements.

Figure 7.21: The average spray tip penetration (solid red line) with the 2 bounds (dashed blue lines).

In Fig. 7.22 the correlation between the spray angle and the penetration at 0,6 ms is shown. Also in Fig. 7.23 the correlation between the injection pressure and the penetration at 0,6 ms is shown. Both gures show no relation between spray angle and penetration or fuel pressure and penetration.

37

61 60 59 penetration [mm] penetration [mm] 9 9.5 10 10.5 [degrees] 11 11.5 12 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 8.5

61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52

1000 1050 fuel pressure [bar]

1100

Figure 7.22: The correlation between spray angle and spray penetration at 0,6 ms.

Figure 7.23: The correlation between fuel pressure and spray penetration at 0,6 ms.

7.3.2

Comparison of a blocked nozzle and the use of the thimble

To investigate the eect of the thimble and the blocking of the nozzle a series of measurements is conducted at a constant ambient air density of 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and a fuel pressure of 831 76 bar. The ambient air temperature is varied to get an error estimation over a wide temperature range. In Fig. 7.24 the results regarding the spray angle of these measurements are presented. There is no obvious relation between the determined angles and the ambient air temperature. The measured tan(/2) when the thimble was applied on the nozzle is 0,16 0,02 and with the blocked nozzle 0,13 0,02. These correspond to a theta of 18,2 2,5 and 15,8 2,5 , respectively. In part I it already became apparent that the sac volume pressure is increased when a nozzle is (partially) blocked. However in [NS96] it is found that the fuel pressure has no inuence on the dispersion angle of a spray. The cone of the thimble provides sucient space for the spray, so it can be assumed the thimble has no eect on the dispersion, thus the angle, of the spray. The only remaining explanation for the obtained result at this moment is that the ow through a blocked nozzle is inuenced in such manner that the cavitation of the fuel is altered. The cavitation promotes the breaking up of the spray, thus a reduction in cavitation causes the spray to break up not as fast as normal, reducing the dispersion angle. This also coincides with the results presented in section 10.3.2, where it is found that the liquid core of the spray is larger due to a reduction in breakup processes. The penetration of the sprays are compared in Fig. 7.25. It can be noticed that the blocked nozzle produces a spray with a overall faster spray penetration. Especially in the initial phase of the injection this penetration is considerable faster than the penetration with a nozzle with a thimble applied on it. This dierence is emphasized in Fig. 7.26. The increased penetration with a blocked nozzle is due to the momentum conservation of the spray; the decrease in dispersion results in an increased momentum in the axial direction.

38

0.18 0.17 0.16 tan(/2) 0.15 0.14 0.13 blocked nozzle 0.12 0.11 700 thimble

800 900 1000 1100 abmient gas temperature [K]

1200

Figure 7.24: Dierence between spray angles of a blocked nozzle and of a nozzle on which a thimble is applied. Measured at a = 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and pf = 831 76 bar.

90 80 penetration distance [mm] 70 penetration distance [mm] 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 blocked nozzle thimble

35 blocked nozzle 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 thimble

0.5

1 time [ms]

1.5

0.05

0.1 0.15 time [ms]

0.2

0.25

Figure 7.25: Dierence in penetration between a spray produced with a blocked nozzle and of a nozzle on which a thimble is applied. Measured at a = 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and pf = 831 76 bar.

Figure 7.26: Dierence in penetration between a spray produced with a blocked nozzle and of a nozzle on which a thimble is applied at the initial phase of the injection. Measured at a = 9,6 0,3 kg/m3 and pf = 831 76 bar.

39

Chapter 8

Analysis of the Schlieren recordings

Range of experiments A matrix has been setup for the conditions at which measurements had to be conducted. These conditions are similar to the conditions in a real DI diesel engine. All experiments are conducted with nozzle C (see table 4.1). Because o time restrictions the experiments are conducted around one fuel pressure. The fuel pressure is kept constant but nevertheless, due to technical restrictions of the fuel pump, the spreading in the fuel pressure is rather large. The distribution of the measurement intervals for the dierent temperatures and densities is tuned to the liquid core behavior. See section 11 for the reasoning behind the chosen temperature and density intervals and the explanation of the engine conditions. The desired maximum g was 42 kg/m3 , but it proved to be dicult to reach such densities; leaks in the EHPC occurred frequently at high lling pressures. Also ignition problems occurred at densities above 35 kg/m3 ; fouling of the sparkplug occurred in an unpredictable manner. For these reasons 25 kg/m3 is the maximum achieved density. In table 8.1 an overview is presented of the conducted measurements. Table 8.1: Schlieren measurements schedule, pf = 1167 bar 79 bar. HCCI 525 K 600 K Normal cond. 1000 K 1150 K X X X X X X X X Post inj. 1300 K 1500 K X X X X X X X X X X

g T 6,3 kg/m3 9,0 kg/m3 12,3 kg/m3 16,0 kg/m3 20,3 kg/m3 25,0 kg/m3

475 K

700 K

850 K

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X

8.1

Dispersion angle of the spray

In appendix H the results regarding spray angles are summarized in table H.1. In Fig. 8.1 the results of the spray dispersion angle are presented for ve dierent ambient air densities. Although there is a large spreading amongst the measurement points, there is a linear trend with the ambient air temperature. The linear coecient varies from 2,2 105 to 3,9 105 . Except for a = 20,73 a lower coecient was found. This dependence on the ambient air temperature contradicts with Eq. 6.2; in [Sie99] it was also established from other measurements that the ambient air temperature has a small inuence on the dispersion angle when the spray undergoes considerable evaporation. 40

The air contracts more in the spray at high temperature because it cools down more in comparison with a low temperature environment. Therefore at high temperatures a smaller spray angle would be expected. The linear trend between dispersion angle and ambient air temperature can be
0.22 6,43 kg/m 9,13 kg/m 0.2
3 3 3 3

16,02 kg/m 20,73 kg/m

25,19 kg/m3 Hiroyasu angle at 6,43 kg/m 0.18

3

tan()/2

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1 400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 ambient gas temperature [K]

1600

1800

Figure 8.1: Experimental results of the Schlieren recordings. The solid lines are the linear t of the data points for each density. The dashed line indicates the correlation of Eq. 6.3. explained with Fig. 8.2. On the right side in the gure a spray is shown that is injected in a low temperature environment, and on the left side a spray in a relative high temperature environment. The angle of the left spray is larger, however this increase is marginal and not comparable to the increase in Fig. 8.1. This dierence is caused by the software routine. In Fig. 8.2 the dierence of the eect from the combustion gases on the Schlieren recordings at varying temperatures can be noticed; at high temperatures the recording is severely distorted by the combustion gases. The software has diculty in separating these distortions from the actual spray. This causes the software to determine a larger spray angle than there is in reality. Although visual comparisons such as in Fig. 8.2 and the ndings in [NS96, Sie99] a correlation has been set up in which the inuence of the temperature is processed. In Fig. 8.3 the relation of the dispersion angle and a is plotted for ve dierent ambient air temperatures. A power t is applied for each curve. The dependence of the dispersion angle on a 0,16 varies between a and 0,28 . The following correlation is set up to predict the dispersion angle: a tan(/2) = e5,08510
4

Ta 2,932

0,32831,15710 a

Ta

(8.1)

In Fig. 8.3 the correlation that is used in [Sie99] is also shown. The dierence between correlation Eq. 8.1 and the correlation Eq. 6.2 can be caused by fuel type and orice geometry. However the 41

slope of both correlations is similar.

Figure 8.2: Schlieren recordings of a spray with Ta = 432 K, a = 15,93 kg/m3 (left side). And a spray with Ta = 1287 K, a = 16,11 kg/m3 (right side).

In Eq. 6.3 the dispersion angle is dependent on the temperature. This correlation is shown in Fig. 8.1. It can be noticed that there is a large dierence between the TU/e measurements and the correlation Eq. 6.3. At this point it is not clear what is the cause of this dierence but it is unlikely this can only be attributed to nozzle orice geometry dierences. Except for the Hiroyasu model (section 9.2) this correlation will not be used in further analysis.
0.2

0.175

0.15 tan()/2

0.125

0.1

T=500 K T=750 K T=1000 K T=1250 K T=1500 K Siebers angle correlation

0.05

10

15

20
3

25

30

ambient air density [kg/m ]

Figure 8.3: Experimental results of the Schlieren recordings. The solid lines are the power ts of the data points for each ambient air temperature. The green line indicates the correlation of Eq. 6.2.

8.2

Penetration of the spray

In appendix H in Figs. H.1-H.3 the results regarding spray penetration for dierent temperatures and densities are shown. There is a weak trend in spray penetration related to the ambient air temperature; at higher temperatures the penetration is larger. These slight variations in penetration are probably caused by the use of a brighter light source at higher ambient temperatures to retrieve good quality Schlieren recordings. In Fig. H.4 in appendix H the measured penetration is 42

shown at dierent ambient air densities (solid lines). It is assumed that the ambient air temperature has negligible eect on the spray penetration. In this gure the penetration of evaporating sprays presented in [NS96] are also shown (scatter points). In Fig. 6.3 these ndings are compared to non-evaporating sprays. However the measurements presented in [NS96] are conducted with a fuel pressure of 1397 bar and the nozzle orice is 257 m. Therefore the measured spray penetration is multiplied by a factor according Eq. 6.12: pf ([NS96]) pa d0 ([NS96]) pf (TU/e) pa do (TU/e)

(8.2)

The results of this adjustment a shown in Fig. H.4 as dashed lines. There is a noticeable dierence between the measurements from the TU/e and [NS96]. Initially the spray velocity found in [NS96] is larger, but after a short time it reduces to a lower velocity below the velocity of the TU/e measurements. At this point it is not clear what is the cause of this dierence. Nozzle geometry dierence can have inuence. In Figs. H.5 and H.6 a comparison is made between the measured spray penetration and the theoretical spray penetration predicted by Eqs. 6.12 and 6.14 respectively. Again, in both compatison, the spray velocity of the TU/e measurements is lower in the initial stages. After a short time the velocity of the TU/e measurements becomes higher, but the dierence is not as large as with the comparison with [NS96]. To get an better idea of the velocity dierence in the rst part of the spray penetration the measurements are compared to Eq. 6.11. In Fig. 8.4 the initial spray penetration of several measurements are plotted and compared to Eq. 6.11 (dashed line). Again it shows that the velocity in the initial stages is lower than theoretically is predicted. In Fig. 8.5 the relation between the penetration and a is shown at several time intervals. The power ts through the measured points vary from 0,31 to 0,33 . This in the range found in [NS96].
10 9 8 80 spray penetration [mm] 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.02 0.04 time [ms] 0.06 30 20 spray penetration [mm] 70 60 50 40 100 90 t=0,5 ms t=1,0 ms t=1,5 ms

10

15 time [ms]

20

25

Figure 8.4: Initial spray penetration of several measurement compared to Eq. 6.11 (dashed line).

Figure 8.5: The relation between penetration and ambient air density a . The solid lines are power ts through the measured points

43

Part III

Liquid core research of non-reacting diesel sprays

44

Chapter 9

Liquid core behavior

In the introduction it is emphasized that the penetration of the liquid core in a diesel spray is of great importance in DI engines. Sucient penetration is required to promote the fuel-air mixing process, but an excessive penetration causes the liquid fuel to collect on the piston and cylinder wall. This obviously has a negative inuence on emissions, power output and lubrication oil. The penetration of the liquid core depends on thermodynamical and uid dynamical processes. These processes are very complex in nature and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) simulations of this are dicult to set up and dicult to validate. Furthermore no analytical model is developed yet which describes these processes in a reliable manner, let alone for all these processes combined. Therefore engineers have derived phenomological relations for the liquid core penetration; the relations are based on relatively simple processes and empirical relations. By no means do these models describe the actual complex processes that occur in an injected diesel spray. To date, two models have been developed which are most used in this eld. The model developed by Dennis L. Siebers [Sie99, Sie98, HMS99] is based on the mixing and vaporization processes in the spray. This model is explained in section 9.1. Another model is developed by Hiroyuki Hiroyasu [HIY96, HA90b] which is based on the breakup of the liquid core and the vaporization of the droplets which originate from the liquid core breakup. Further explanation of this model can be found in section 9.2. Additional research is conducted to the following aspects of the spray: growth of the liquid core at the initial stages of the fuel injection breakup phenomena at the end of the liquid core dynamic movements of the liquid core in relation to the breakup process These aspects are claried in section ??. In chapter 10 methods used for recording the laser light scattering are describer. Also the software used for analyzing the recordings is claried in section 10.2. In section 10.3 the error estimation of various inuences is conducted. Comparisons will be made between the experimental results and these two models and also with experimental data from Sandia National Laboratories [Sie99, Sie98]. Furthermore with the results from Sandia National Laboratories the uctuations of the liquid core length in quasi steady state are compared. The results are presented in chapter 11. Although extensive research has been done on liquid core penetration and breakup phenomena in sprays, no suitable models are available to describe these processes in a diesel spray. To describe these processes relations from Sergei Sazhin [SCKH03, SH01] are used.

9.1

Siebers liquid scaling law

General The vaporization process of the liquid fuel core is controlled by the heat transfer between the ambient air and the fuel droplets. Siebers [Sie99, Sie98, HMS99] has developed a model which is based on this heat transfer. In this model it is assumed that in the liquid spray the fuel 45

density at any axial location of the non-reacting spray is constant over the cross section of the spray. As the spray progresses along its axial path an increasing amount of ambient air is entrained into the spray. This results in the spray getting wider further down its axial path. In Siebers model the entrained air transfers the heat to the fuel droplets resulting in the vaporization of the fuel. In the model it is calculated where along the axial path the fuel has completely vaporized, which indicates the end of the liquid core, thus dening the liquid core length. First it is explained how the gas jet theory relates to the Siebers model. Subsequently the assumption made in this model are given. Next the thermodynamical relations which lead to complete fuel evaporation are presented and also the mass balance is lined out. These two relations are used for retrieving the liquid length. Finally the parameters used for calculating the liquid core length and the errors estimation is given. Gas jet theory The model developed by Siebers is based on the gas jet theory. In this theory the entrainment of ambient gas into a gas jet is described. In Siebers model this theory is extended for a liquid fuel spray. The entrained mass of ambient air is determined, which at a distance x in the spray is linearly proportional to the orice diameter (d0 ), the axial distance from the orice (x), the fuel injection velocity (Uf ) and the spray spreading angle (): ma (x) a f d0 x Uf tan(/2) (9.1)

In Eq. 9.1 a and f are the air and fuel density respectively. The velocity of the fuel Uf is dened by Bernoullis law and depends on the pressure dierence dpnozzle over the orice: Uf = Cv 2dpnozzle f (9.2)

where Cv is a velocity coecient that is determined in Part I. In the jet theory the fuel of the spray is conserved resulting in the following mass balance equation: mf (x) = mf f d2 Uf 0
m

(9.3)

With Eq. 9.1 and Eq. 9.3 the ratio mf is dened. The liquid core length is proportional to this a ratio. This relation shows that the orice diameter d0 is linear proportional to the liquid core length. Also it shows that Uf has no inuence on the liquid core length. Eq. 9.2 relates the Uf to dpnozzle , which implies that the injection pressure has no inuence on the liquid core length either. Model used for the model In Fig. 9.1 a schematic view is given of the spray model wherein a control surface is dened. Important assumptions are made regarding the physical characteristics of the spray: quasi steady ow with uniform growth rate resulting in a constant spreading angle no velocity slip between the injected fuel and the entrained ambient air uniform velocity over the radial direction uniform fuel concentration over the radial direction uniform temperature proles over the radial direction At the axial position x = L, the liquid fuel is completely vaporized. Further assumptions regarding the thermodynamical behavior of the spray: the vapor phase of the fuel is at a saturated condition up to x = L the vapor phase of the fuel is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the entrained ambient gas and liquid phase of the fuel the recovery of kinetic energy in the fuel evaporating region of the spray is neglected 46

Entrained gas (P , Ta, ) a a

/2 Fuel (P , Tf , f ) a

x Vaporization complete (x=L)

Figure 9.1: Schematic view of the idealized spray model used to develop the liquid length scale [Sie99, Sie98, HMS99].

atomization processes or breakup processes are assumed to be much faster than the typical time scale of mixing. The angle of the spray depends on turbulence, orice geometry, injection pressure and temperature. Unfortunately at this moment there is no theory available which can determine the angle of the spray. Therefore the angle has to be deduced from experimental results with the Schlieren technique. The Siebers model makes use of an empirical equation where is the real and the idealized spray angle: tan(/2) = a tan(/2) (9.4)

where a is a t-parameter. Unfortunately this empirical relation is based on a set of measurements that are conducted at conditions dierent from the measurement conditions of the TU/e experiments. Therefore it is probable that the value for a used by Siebers will be dierent for the TU/e measurements if Eq. 9.4 will be used. Derivation of the complete fuel evaporation The entrained gas will vaporize the liquid fuel. With the assumptions made earlier it is possible to derive the mixture ratio at which complete evaporation of the liquid fuel will occur. The derivation makes use of the mass and energy balance: mf = f Af Uf = mf (L) = f (L) A(L) U (L) (9.5) (9.6) (9.7)

ma (L) = a (L) A(L) U (L) mf (L) hf (Tf , Pa ) + ma (L) ha (Ta , Pa ) = mf (L) hf (Ts ) + ma (L) ha (Ts , Pa Ps )

In Eq. 9.5 mf represents the mass ow of fuel. Since the mass of fuel is conserved throughout the spray, mf is constant and therefore mf = mf (L). The ambient gas ow ma in Eq. 9.6 that is entrained into the spray, accumulates along the spray where the total entrained ambient gas is equal to ma (L). In Eq. 9.7 hf and ha are the specic enthalpies of the fuel and of the ambient air respectively. On the left side of Eq. 9.7 the sum of the initial enthalpy is given at location x = 0 (at the orice). At the orice hf depends on the temperature of the fuel, Tf , and pressure of the fuel at the orice, which is equal to the ambient gas pressure Pa . The ha at the orice depends on the ambient gas temperature at that location, Ta , and on the ambient gas pressure, Pa . The Tf increases as the enthalpy of the fuel remains constant as it exits the nozzle orice whilst the pressure drops. To make an estimate of this increase the following equation is used: vdown = vup + 2cp,f (Tup Tdown ) 47 (9.8)

where vdown and vup is the downstream and upstream fuel velocity respectively. Tup and Tdown is the fuel temperature downstream and upstream respectively (thus Tdown = Tf ). It is estimated that vdown = 200 m/s and vup = 300 m/s. It was measured that Tup = 403 K. Solving Eq. 9.8 gives a temperature increase of 10 K resulting in Tf = 413 K. The right side of Eq. 9.7 represents the sum of the enthalpy at a distance x = L. At this location the fuel vaporization is at a saturated condition and in thermodynamic equilibrium with the ambient gas. Therefore the temperature of the saturated fuel vapor and ambient gas is the same: Ts . Because the fuel vapor is at a saturated condition Ts also denes Ps , since there is only one (unique) pressure-temperature relationship for the fuel at this point. Therefore hf is only dependent on Ts . The partial pressure of the ambient gas is Pa Ps , where Ps is the saturated vapor pressure, and ha depends on this partial pressure as well as on the temperature Ts . The ratio of the fuel and the ambient gas mass ow rates required to vaporize the fuel can be acquired. First Eq. 9.7 can be arranged to obtain the desired mass ow ratio in terms of specic enthalpy: ha (Ta , Pa ) ha (Ts , Pa Ps ) mf (L) = ma (L) hf (Ts ) hf (Tf , Pa ) (9.9)

In Eq. 9.9 the enthalpy dierence in the numerator represents the specic heat from the entrained ambient gas to heat and vaporize the fuel. Here hf (Ts ) reects on the fuel vapor and hf (Tf ) on the liquid fuel. For further derivation, the equation of state is required: P = ZRT M (9.10)

In Eq. 9.10 Z is the compressibility factor. Now it is possible to derive a equation which gives the mass ow ratio in terms of fuel and ambient gas properties, and the initial fuel and ambient gas conditions (Ta , Pa and Tf ), then Ts is the only unknown. The equation can be derived by substituting Eqs. 9.5 and 9.6 into the left side of Eq. 9.9: B= Za (Ts , Pa Ps ) Ps Mf ha (Ta , Pa ) ha (Ts , Pa Ps ) = Zf (Ts , Ps ) [Pa Ps ] Ma hf (Ts ) hf (Tf , Pa ) (9.11)

In Eq. 9.11 Mf and Ma represent the fuel and ambient molecular weight, respectively. As mentioned earlier Ts is the only unknown in Eq. 9.11, which can be determined iteratively. Once Ts is known, B can be calculated. In Eqs. 9.21 and 9.22 B is used to calculate the liquid core length. Variation of the fuel to ambient ratio along the axial length To apply the model another assumption is made: the axial variation in a vaporizing spray is similar to that in a non-vaporizing spray. Denitions used for the derivation of the fuel to ambient ratio along the axial length: A(x) = [x tan(/2)]2 Af = d2 4 f df = Ca d x+ = df f a tan(/2) (9.12) (9.13) (9.14) (9.15) (9.16)

x = x/x+

Eq. 9.12 gives the area of the spray cross section. Eq. 9.13 gives the eective area of the orice where df is the eective diameter of the orice which is dened in Eq. 9.14. The area contraction coecient Ca is determined experimentally in Part I. In Eq. 9.15 the term x+ represents a spray penetration length scale. In Eq. 9.16 the normalized x with respect to x+ is given. 48

With the additional isothermal, non-vaporizing assumptions, the following mass and momentum balances can be written for the spray: mf = f Af Uf = mf (x) (9.17) (9.18) (9.19)

ma (x) = a A(x) U (x) mf Uf = mf (x) U (x) + ma (x) U (x)

Eq. 9.18 is the same as Eq. 9.6 except a , which is the liquid fuel density, is assumed to be constant now. The area occupied in the area A(x) is neglected now. Rearranging Eqs. 9.12-9.16 and Eqs. 9.17-9.19 results in the following equation: 2 mf (x) = ma (x) 1 + 16 x2 1 (9.20)

Liquid scaling length The scaling law can now be derived in a dimensional or a non-dimensional form. The dimensionless form is derived by substituting B, which is determined in Eq. 9.11 into Eq. 9.20, and solving for L: L=b 2 +1 B(Ta , Pa , Tf )
2

(9.21)

where b relates to the 16 in Eq. 9.20. The dimensional form is derived by substituting Eqs. 9.12-9.16 into Eq. 9.21: b L= a f Ca d a tan(/2) 2 +1 B(Ta , Pa , Tf )
2

(9.22)

Setting up parameters and software programming Eq. 9.22 demands a number of parameters which can be deduced from literature or experiments. For the constants a and b Siebers used the values 0,66 and 0,41 respectively. As mentioned earlier the factor a is used by Siebers to compensate for the spray angle in the correlation Eq. 9.4. It is unlikely that the correlation Eq. 9.4 can be used for the TU/e measurements. The value a has to be adjusted rst. Also, as will become clear later on, there is not a unique way to determine the end of the liquid core in the recordings (i.e. it is not possible to determine the real end of the liquid core, only mutual comparisons can be made). It could be necessary that the value a has to be corrected for this aspect also. The density f is obtained with correlation data [Dat06], and a can be deduced from the measurement data. The discharge coecient Ca is determined in part I and the angle in part II. For the angle also the empirical Eq. 6.2 is used. The parameter B in Eq. 9.22 depends on several variables (see Eq. 9.11). In table 9.1 these variables and the way they are acquired are summarized. Notice that instead of air the properties of the combustion gases produced by the pre-combustion are used. The correlations and their trends are summarized in appendix I.

49

Table 9.1: Variables for Eq. 9.11 and their source Variable Ps Pa Ma Mf ha(TaPa) ha(Ts,PaPs) hf(Ts) hf(Tf) hvap(Tf) Name of variable Pressure at saturated condition Ambient air pressure Average molar mass of combustion gases produced by the pre-combustion Molar mass of the fuel Enthalpy of ambient air Enthalpy of the entrained air after mixing and complete evaporization Enthalpy of the fuel after mixing and complete evaporation Enthalpy of the fuel at the orice of the nozzle Evaporization enthalpy of the fuel Source Correlation acquired by Micheal Boot Measured value [VVY96] [VVY96] Correlation developed by Carlo Luijten Correlation developed by Carlo Luijten Heywood correlation [MH99] Heywood correlation [MH99] Correlation acquired by Micheal Boot Input variables Ts None None None Tf, Pa Ts, Pa, Ps Ts Tf Tf

The only unknown in determining B is Ts . By A Matlab script has been setup which calculates the correlations and subsequently determines B iteratively by variation Ts by solving Eq. 9.11. Once B is known the liquid core length can easily be calculated according Eq. to 9.22. Error sensitivity The trends of the liquid core length according to Siebers model become apparent in section 11.2 when the model is compared to the experimental data. The Siebers model makes use of several input variables which are obtained by correlations and measured values. These correlations and measured values have certain errors but it is dicult to make an error analysis of these variables; due time restriction and the focus of this project it was not possible to make an error estimate for the correlations.

9.2

The Hiroyasu spray model

General With the Hiroyasu model [HIY96, HA90b], as with the Siebers model, the liquid core length can be determined. The Hiroyasu model distinguishes two processes during the injection. First the spray will breakup in droplets and secondly the droplets will evaporate. The spray is modeled by separating it into radial slices and divided these slices in elements along the axial direction. In Fig. 9.2 a schematic view of this model is shown. In this model the number of radial slices is 5 (k = 5).

Figure 9.2: Schematic view of the Hiroyasu spray model.

50

Pre-breakup stage First the length is determined at which individual droplets begin to form. A simplied representation is used to calculate this length; it is assumed the spray will not decelerate. This assumption inuences the calculated time at which breakup occurs. Nevertheless this time is so short compared to the total evaporating process this assumption has negligible eect on the calculated liquid core length. The initial speed of the spray can be calculated by Eq. 9.2. The length of the spray before breakup is: L(t) = Cd 2dpnozzle [t t0 ] f,0 (9.23)

where p is the pressure dierence over the nozzle orice, t0 is the time at the start of injection, f,0 the fuel density at the start of injection and Cd the discharge coecient across nozzle orice. In [HA90b] an empirical relation for the breakup time is obtained from measurement results. Subsequently this empirical relation can be applied on each radial slice separately; As shown in Fig. 9.2 the breakup from the outer radial slice (k = 5) begins at the beginning of the spray. The center slice breaks up at the furthest axial position. The breakup time is divided linearly between the remaining slices. The breakup time can be determined with: tbreakup,k = 4,351
2 Cd

6k d f,0 0 5 a dpnozzle

(9.24)

where d0 is the nozzle orice diameter and k the number of the slice. An empirical formula is developed by Hiroyasu to determine the angle of the spray at time tbreakup (similar to Eq. 6.3): = 0,05 a (t0 + tbreakup,k=5 ) dpnozzle (t0 + tbreakup,k=5 ) d2 0 2 (t0 + tbreakup,k=5 ) a
1/4

(9.25)

where a and a are the density and dynamic viscosity of the ambient air respectively. This correlation does not hold for the experiments conducted at the TU/e as was shown in section 8.1. Therefore the correlation Eq. 8.1 is used for .

Post-breakup stage After tbreakup the spray breaks up in droplets. The liquid core length at this point can be determined with Eq. 9.23. The size of the droplets that originate from the breakup is assumed to be equal to the Sauter Mean Diameter which depends on uid properties and their radial position. A correlation for this diameter of the droplets [Elk82] is:
0,54 0,385 0,737 SM Dk = 3,08 f,0 f,0 0,737 0,06 (t0 + tbreakup,k ) dpnozzle (t0 + tbreakup,k ) (9.26) a f,0

The spray penetration distance can be determined by [HIY96]: Lk (t) = 2,95 dpnozzle (t) a (t)
1/4

d0 [tb t0 tbreakup,k ] + Cd

2dpnozzle tbreakup,k (9.27) f,0

Finally, to determine the liquid core length, the time required to evaporate the droplets, tb , (which have initially the size calculated with Eq. 9.26, Ddrop,tbreakup,k =0 = SM Dk ) has to be determined. Meyer and Heywood [MH99] have developed a model which simulates the droplets vaporization. The equations involved in this model are: dDdrop 4ka (t) ln (1 + BM (t)) = dt f (t0 ) cp,g (t) Ddrop ka (t) dmdrop = 2Ddrop (t) ln (1 + BM (t)) dt cp,a dTf,s dmdrop Lvap,f,s (t) BT (t) = 1 dt dt cp,f,0 mdrop BM (t) 51 (9.28) (9.29) (9.30)

where Ddrop the drop diameter, mdrop the drop mass, ka and kf the heat conductivity of air and liquid fuel respectively, cp,a the heat capacity of ambient air and cp,f,0 the heat capacity of fuel, Lvap,f,s the heat of vaporization of the fuel at saturated condition, BT and BM heat and mass transfer numbers respectively, Tf,s the temperature of the fuel in the saturated condition. The end of the liquid core is marked at the time at which a droplet is completely vaporized: its diameter Ddrop and mass mdrop has been reduced to zero (t = tevap ). The total time is t = t0 + tbreakup,k + tevap . With Eq. 9.27 the liquid core length can be calculated then. Shortcomings of the Hiroyasu model An error analysis is dicult to perform with the Hiroyasu model because it depends on many variables. The determination of tbreakup by Eq. 9.24 neglects the air resistance of the droplets which increases the calculated distance of the position where breakup start to occur; this deviation gets larger as the a gets larger. This is also the case for the distance which the droplets have traveled, which again causes the calculated liquid core length to be larger than in reality. At this point it is not possible to determine to what extent these errors inuence the calculated liquid core length.

52

Chapter 10

Methods for conducting experiments and analysis of laser scattering recordings

10.1 Liquid core visualization

Experimental setup The density gradient of the liquid core is high in comparison to the rest of the spray. Nevertheless the Schlieren visualization method is not suitable to distinguish the liquid core from the vapor; high gradients in the density of the vapor already results in a complete diversion of the light which results in equal light intensity captured by the camera for the vapor and the liquid core. Other recording methods have been developed to visualize the liquid core such as Raman scattering, photography, two wave laser absorption/scattering, Mie scattering and laser light scattering. In this research the latter technique is used. A schematic overview of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 10.1. The CW-Ar+ laser can produce a laser beam with a wavelength of 488 nm and with a maximum power of 2 W . To get a more stable laser beam, the power is reduced to a constant 1,6 W . The beam is passed through by a cylindrical, negative lens (g) to a vertical diverging sheet. A mirror deects the beam to another cylindrical lens (i) which converges the laser sheet to a parallel laser sheet, this lens is also used for ne tuning the direction of the laser beam. The lens system has created a vertical laser sheet which is aimed precisely in the middle of the spray (c). The laser sheet is partially scattered (j) in all directions by the liquid droplets in the liquid core (b). The lens (k) converges the scattered light. The converged light passes two lters: the narrow band lter (see appendix J for the specications) (m) passes the light of 488,0 1,9 nm, but also a narrow band at approximately 633 nm. Therefore also a low pass lter (see appendix J for the specications) (l) is used which also passes the light of 488 nm but blocks the light of the larger wavelengths. Finally the light is captured by a high speed camera (n) which is placed at the focal point of lens (k). Shortcomings The focusing of the camera, the alignment of the laser beam and of the fuel spray all have great inuence on the results. Deviations in the focusing will result in a hazy recording. Misalignment of either the laser beam or fuel spray will result in reduced intensities. These deviations also have to be processed in the results because it is practically impossible to maintain an exact equal alignment and focusing during a research period due to maintenance that has to be performed periodically. Other inaccuracies are caused by uctuations in the power supply, causing the laser intensity to uctuate. Also contaminations on the lenses and especially on the windows reduce the recording intensity.

53

A
o

a b d c d

k lm n

i f h g e

Figure 10.1: Schematic view of the laser light scattering setup. a. injection nozzle b. liquid core c. fuel vapor d. sapphire window e. laser f. laser beam g. cylindrical lens h. mirror i. cylindrical lens j. scattered laser light k. 2D lens l. broadband lter m. narrow band lter n. high speed camera o. metal casing.

nozzle

vapor

liquid core

Figure 10.2: Section AA of Fig. The horizontal arrows indicate the laser sheet. The spray is aimed at an angle of 37 .

54

10.2
10.2.1

Model for liquid core processing

Requirements

The software has two important goals: reducing analysis time and establishing a consistent method of determining certain properties for all the measurements. Programs to analyse droplet forming (atomization), vortices and abnormalities cannot realize these two goals. They are too timeconsuming to setup, or require too much time to develop in the rst place. Eventually the following features are incorporated in the program: determine the average liquid core length determine the uctuations in the liquid core length after it has reached a quasi steady state determine the liquid core growth in the axial directions in the rst phase of the injection Also as was mentioned in section 7.2 the position is determined by x = positionpixels 0,39 mm. This is calibrated by recording a raster which is placed in the laser sheet position.

10.2.2

Methods for analyzing the various features

Average liquid core length Preparations In the recordings the spray does not appear precisely horizontal because the nozzle is not aligned exactly to the angle of the camera. This can be easily corrected by rotating the movies in the software. Also the starting point of the spray has to be determined, this is only done once and therefore conducted manually. In case the thimble is installed, the starting point is where the spray becomes rst visible, afterwards the distance blocked by the thimble will be added to the liquid core length. Finally the centerline of the spray has to be determined. Along this centerline the intensity of the recordings will be determined which generates a prole that is used to determine the liquid core length. In Fig. 10.3 an example is given of a prepared, relatively small, spray image.

Figure 10.3: A frame from a recorded mie scattering movie after the preparations are conducted by the software. The spray is articially colored (original recordings are in grayscale).

Additional preparations for larger liquid cores Because the spray is aimed at an angle of 45 , as shown in Fig. 10.2, the laser strikes the liquid core of the spray rst on one side and subsequently will fade as it penetrates further in the spray resulting in a decrease in laser light scattering. If the liquid core is small this eect is negligible. But when the liquid core gets bigger the laser cannot fully penetrate the liquid core resulting in laser light scattering on only one side of the spray. Therefore additional preparations are needed in the software to process recordings of bigger liquid cores. The angle of rotation has to be adjusted; it is still desired to get the centerline along the spray where the intensity levels are the highest. With this centerline the length of the 55

side of the liquid core will be determined. For now it is assumed the front of the liquid core has a semi-circular prole thus by denition the length of the side of the liquid core is equal to the length of the liquid core along the spray axis. In Fig. 10.4 an example is shown of a big liquid core. It can be noticed that the liquid core seems curved in relation to the centerline. The centerline and angle are determined in such manner that to centerline crosses the beginning of the liquid core and that the liquid core length is maximized. Possible causes for this curvature will be explained later.

Figure 10.4: A frame from a recorded laser light scattering movie from a relative big liquid core before and after the preparations are conducted by the software. The spray is articially colored (original recordings are in grayscale).

Determination of the end of the liquid core To determine the liquid core length a certain threshold value has to be applied and a method to use this threshold value. Recordings at the same conditions have dierent intensity levels. These variations in intensity are caused by external factors such as laser intensity uctuations, various windows transparencies, errors in alignment of the optical devices and the fuel spray. Due to time restriction there is no practical way to estimate the inuence of these variations on the recorded intensity levels. Also a glow appears in certain recordings; it is suspected that the laser light excites molecules to a higher energy level and subsequently these molecules emit this energy by releasing a photon. This is called Rayleigh scattering. This glow obviously causes a problems in analyzing the liquid core as the software cannot distinguish the spray from the glow. Because of these reasons, in rst instance, it is not suitable to use a certain intensity level as a threshold value as is done in [Sie98]. In [Sie98] a spray is recorded by leaving the shutter of the camera open for 3 ms. Afterwards a gain is applied to retrieve an image with normal intensities. Due to this gain the low intensity distortions and low intensity spray are reduced to almost zero while the high intensity surroundings are multiplied many times. Therefore in [Sie98] an intensity threshold was suitable. However for the TU/e measurement the rate of the intensity drop at the end of a liquid core is more suitable as a threshold. It is not as sensitive for the uctuations caused by the external factors, but unfortunately the inuence of these external factors cannot be eliminated completely. The liquid core breaks up in droplets and eventually clouds form at the end of the liquid core (see Fig. L.6). The position where the intensity of these droplets or clouds have faded to a dened value will be referred to as the liquid core length. Also the spray, especially larger sprays, show a growing wave motion. These two factors cause that the centerline does not always run through all 56

the droplets which results in large variation in liquid core length determination. To work around this problem all the frames in a recording are averaged yielding an average liquid core intensity prole along the centerline. In [Sie98] a similar method is used; the camera has a low shutter speed averaging eects of turbulence. In Fig. 10.5 an average intensity prole along the centerline is shown. The centerline has a width of 3 pixels. A narrower centerline gives a intensity prole with large uctuations. A wider centerline gives a smoother but more attened intensity prole making the liquid core length determination less precise. Also a wider centerline will capture pixels outside the liquid core (for smaller liquid cores). The rate of the intensity prole shown in Fig. 10.5 can easily be calculated but because of the uctuating prole it produces a very uctuating result. Therefore the rate across several pixels is determined, in this case 10 pixels, to acquire a smoother prole. Determination of the derivation of a ltered signal resulted in smaller slope which decreases the accuracy and therefore that method is not applied. The result is shown in Fig. 10.6. The choice for a threshold value (value for rate of change) which determines the end of the liquid core is a qualitative one. It should be high enough that the threshold can be identied uniquely (ie. there are no other positions where the threshold condition is valid). Also it is mentioned earlier that the intensity levels are inuenced by external factors which also eect the rate of change of the intensity levels. Therefore a relative threshold is necessary. In the analyzing software the maximum rate of intensity is determined. The threshold 1 dI for the rate of intensity which marks the liquid core end is 3 dx max (see Fig. 10.6). Additionally an interpolation is conducted since the pixel values only have integer values. In [Sie98], which is used for later comparison with the experiment results, the intensity prole is normalized to 1. The threshold level is set at 8/256 or 0,031 of the normalized intensity level. The sensitivity of the threshold is acceptable: when the threshold of 1 is changed by 0,01, the 3 determined liquid core length changes 0,085 mm. There is about 10 % deviation in liquid core length if the threshold value is doubled. In [Sie98] a factor 2 in threshold intensity results in a 3,5 % deviation in liquid core length. The method used to analyze the TU/e recordings delivers results in which the errors are acceptable. An exception exists for larger sprays; the intensity prole of large liquid cores is too attened which results in a too attened prole of the rate of the intensity. This makes the determination of the threshold value very unreliable and thus the results for these measurement are not valuable.

57

x 10 12 11 10 average intensity level 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 0

x 10 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

max rate

rate of change of the intensity level

1/3 max rate

liquid core end

50

100

150 pixels

200

250

50

100 150 pixels

200

250

Figure 10.5: The average of the intensity prole along the centerline of all frames. The centerline width is 3 pixels.

Figure 10.6: The rate of change of the average intensity prole across 10 pixels.

In Fig. 10.7 an example of the result of the liquid core end determination of a relative large liquid core is shown. The arrow indicates the end of the liquid core. In Fig. 10.8 a similar example is shown except this is a rather small spray.

Figure 10.7: An example of the liquid core end determination of a large spray (Ta = 650 K, a = 25 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1162 bar). The length of the indicated liquid core length is 42,0 mm. The spray is articially colored.

Figure 10.8: An example of the liquid core end determination of a small spray (Ta = 1500 K, a = 25 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1202 bar). The length of the indicated liquid core length is 6,9 mm. The spray is articially colored.

Fluctuations liquid core length in quasi steady state After a short time the liquid core is in a quasi steady state. In this state, breakup processes (droplets or coulds) cause the liquid core length to uctuate (see section ?? Fig. L.6). It is of interest with which frequency and amplitude these uctuations occur. Therefore the same intensity

58

centerline is used as in the previous sections. But now a simple intensity threshold is used and each frame is analyzed separately (no summation of the intensity of the frames is conducted). In Fig. 10.9 an example is given for the intensity prole of one frame. The software starts at the end of the centerline working its way back and when it nds a value above the intensity threshold it marks the position as the liquid core end. The result is shown in Fig. 10.10. To work around the intensity uctuations caused by external factors mentioned earlier, the threshold has to be tuned in such a way that the results of this method coincide with the results of the average liquid core determination explained in the previous section. With the averaging method the liquid core end is the position where the droplets or clouds that traveled furthest fade. This position is comparable to positions of the peak value in Fig. 10.10. Thus tuning is done by choosing (trial and error) a threshold value which produces a peak value of the liquid core length that coincide with the average liquid core length. The error obviously depends on the error made with the determination of the liquid core length with the summation method.
3000 70 60 50 position [pixels] 2000 intensity 40 30 end of liquid core growth 20 10 0 0 50 100 150 pixels 200 250

2500

1500

1000

500

100

200

300 400 frame nr

500

600

Figure 10.9: The intensity prole along the centerline of a single frame. Liquid core growth

Figure 10.10: The uctuations in liquid core length.

With the data obtained with the method explained in the previous section, the growth of the liquid core in the rst stages of injection can easily be determined (see Fig. 10.10). It is essential to determine the correct moment at which the liquid core growth ends. Fortunately it appears that a ligament of fuel shoots out (representing the liquid core growth) and after this droplet has evaporated or broke up the next drop lags behind a little bit. In Fig. 10.10 this can be noticed as after the rst peak a considerable drop in liquid core length is present. By detecting the moment when the rst peak occurs the end of the liquid core growth can be determined. In section 10.2.2 it was mentioned that the error of the liquid core length in Fig. 10.10 depends on the error made with the determination with the summation method. As the determination of the liquid core also depends in a similar way on the liquid core length determination with the summation method, the same error is present.

59

10.3
10.3.1

Error estimation of the laser light scattering recordings

Statistical analysis

A series of 10 measurements is conducted under equal conditions to obtain an estimate of the reproducibility of the recordings and its analyzing software. These conditions are as follows: Table 10.1: Measurements conditions. Parameter Ambient temperature [K] Density of air [kg/m3] [-] Injection pressure [bar] Laser power [W] Frame rate [fps] Resolution [mm/pixel] Value 915 9,5 0,813 805 1,6 46986 0,39 95%-range (2) 9 0,1 0,03 100 0,05 0 0,01

The results of these measurements are presented in table 10.2: Table 10.2: Liquid core reproducibility measurement results. Meas. Nr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average liquid core length [mm] 28,95 28,09 28,39 28,47 28,60 28,66 28,22 27,93 28,30 28,74 Initial velocity [m/s] 70,98 62,99 55,75 50,72 51,55 55,51 47,57 61,87 59,26 58,94

Liquid core length statistics The liquid core length has an average value of 28,53 mm, and a of 0,3 mm. Thus the liquid core length is 28,5 0,6 mm. The error is small in relation to the variance in the fuel pressure (table 10.1). This implies that the relation L P g given in section 11 does not hold. This coincides with [Sie98, Sie99] wehere extensive proof is delivered with experimental results that pinjection has no inuence on the liquid core length. Unfortunately 10 measurements for each condition proposed in table 11.1 couldnt be performed in the available time and therefore a statistical analysis is needed to minimize the number of measurements but maintaining the desired accuracy. The goal is set to determined the liquid core length with an accuracy of 2 less then 1 mm. The quantity of measurements to reach this accuracy has to be determined. Therefore all possible permutations of 3, 4 and 5 measurements ou of the complete selection in table 10.2 are calculated and the accompanying s. Finally the spread in the range of is determined. Thus a uncertainty of the uncertainty is obtained. It is desired that it is 97,5 % certain that the uncertainty lies within the desired accuracy (or uncertainty). With this method for a number of 3 measurements a 2 of 1,04 mm is reached, for 4 measurements the 2 is 0,94 mm and for 5 measurements 0,88 mm. Taking into account the available time 3 measurements are satisfactory. An other method to obtain is to divide the dierence between

60

the maximum and minimum value through the square root of the number of measurements. With 3 measurements this results in: 2 = 29,95 27,93 = 1,17 mm 3 (10.1)

This value is higher than the earlier calculated 1,04 mm, but the dierence is acceptable and the number of 3 measurements is maintained. In [Sie98, Sie99] at these conditions a value of 21-22 mm is determined as the liquid length with HMN (heptamethylnonane) fuel. Causes for the dierences with the measured 28,5 mm are dierent fuel (HMN has about a 20 % lower evaporating enthalpy than normal diesel fuel) and dierent built-in threshold in the software. In further comparison with data from [Sie98, Sie99] the liquid core length will not be corrected to produce a better match between obtained data here and literature data as dierent fuels are used. It is assumed that pcommon rail pinjection . Liquid core length uctuations Once the liquid core has reached a quasi steady state, uctuations occur in the liquid core length (see sections ?? and ??). With the use of discrete Fourier transformation the frequencies of these uctuations are determined between 0,64 and 3,40 ms. In Figs. 10.11, 10.12 and 10.13 three examples are shown of the discrete Fourier transformations of the liquid core length from three dierent sprays (from the same nozzle). Remarkably there was much variations in these frequencies between the dierent injections. A frequency between 4 and 6, 5 kHz prevailed. After closer examination of the raw signal it came forward that also frequencies between 10 and 15 kHz are present in every measurement. All these frequencies are higher than what was found in [Sie98]. Possibly this is caused by the higher resolution and recording speed of the camera used in the conducted experiments; more detail is visible revealing phenomena that occur with a higher frequency and detail. The uctuation in the liquid core length has a 2 of 3,7 mm or 15 %. In [Sie98] a 2 of 11 % was found, which seems a satisfactory agreement after all.
discrete Fourier transformed value discrete Fourier transformed value 5 10 15 frequency [kHz] 16 25 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0 2 1,6 1,2 0,8 0,4 0

10 15 frequency [kHz]

20

25

Figure 10.11: Example 1 of a discrete Fourier transformation of the liquid core length.

Figure 10.12: Example 2 of a discrete Fourier transformation of the liquid core length.

61

2 discrete Fourier transformed value 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0

10 15 frequency [kHz]

20

25

Figure 10.13: Example 3 of a discrete Fourier transformation of the liquid core length.

Initial velocity statistics The initial velocity is of secondary interest and therefore no accuracy demands are set to the initial velocity determination. From the 10 measurements summarized in table 10.2 the result of the initial velocity: 57 5 m/s. When the same method is applied for 3 measurements, as is done with the liquid core length determination, the result for 2 is 20 m/s. The theoretical velocity determined with Eq. 9.2 is 426 26 m/s which is obviously much higher than the measured value. Nevertheless, the of the liquid decreases very rapidly, which means the velocity at the very rst moments of the injection is higher that the measured value which are conducted over a larger time span.

10.3.2

Comparison of a blocked nozzle and the use of the thimble

In section 7.3.2 the dierences between sprays produced by a blocked nozzle and a nozzle on which a thimble is applied was lined out. A decrease in the dispersion angle and an increase in the spray velocity was noticed with a blocked nozzle. To investigate the eect on the liquid core, again a series of measurements is conducted at the same conditions as summarized in table 10.1 except now the fuel pressure is 930 80 bar. Also the temperature is varied to get an error estimation over a wide temperature range. In Fig. 10.14 the results of these measurements are presented. In this gure also the power ts with its 2 error bounds are shown.

62

110 40 100 35 Initial liquid core velocity [m/s] liquid core length [mm] blocked nozzle thimble blocked nozzle thimble

90

80

30

70

25

60

700

800 900 1000 1100 ambient gas temperature [K]

1200

50 700

800 900 1000 1100 Ambient gas temperature [K]

1200

Figure 10.14: Liquid core length with a blocked nozzle (red line) and with the use of a thimble (blue line). The dotted lines represent the 2 borders.

Figure 10.15: Initial liquid speed with a blocked nozzle (red) and with the use of a thimble (blue).

It follows that the blocked nozzle produces a 4,0 1,5 mm longer liquid core than a nozzle with a thimble which is expected due to the smaller dispersion angle. As with the dispersion angle, the dierence between the blocked nozzle and the thimble is almost constant over the complete temperature range. The same conclusions can be drawn as in section 7.3.2, but it will be repeated here for matters of completeness. In Part I it was shown that a blocked nozzle produces a spray with an increased momentum ux of about 8 % due the higher sac volume pressure. But in [Sie98, Sie99] it is established that the injection pressure, which is comparable with the sac volume pressure, has no inuence on the liquid core length. This concludes that a blocked nozzle should not have a larger liquid core length than an unblocked nozzle. Also when the spray exits the nozzle is much smaller that the conical shape of the thimble. It is therefore that air ow in the cone of the thimble has negligible eect on the spray itself (such as increased air entrainment). Although it cant be veried at this moment, it is believed that the ow inside the blocked nozzle is dierent from a unblocked nozzle. This adjusted ow could decrease the level of cavitation in the spray as it exits the nozzle. This reduces the initial air entrainment reducing the spray angle and increasing the liquid core length. In Fig. 10.15 the initial liquid core speed is plotted over the same range of temperature. There is not a distinct trend for both blocked nozzle and thimble visible, although the initial liquid core speed with a blocked nozzle is signicantly higher. This coincides with the ndings in Part I and section 7.3.2. As previous mentioned the momentum ux of a blocked nozzle is higher than for a unblocked nozzle due the higher volume sac pressure. This increased pressure increases the ow velocity through the nozzle orice and thus resulting in a higher (initial) liquid core velocity. Nevertheless the increase in Fig. 10.15 is rather high: 40 %. In Part I only a velocity increase of 5,1 % was calculated with the AMESim software. It could be that the thimble decreases the velocity to a lower value increasing the gap in velocity between the blocked nozzle and the nozzle with the thimble.

63

Chapter 11

Analysis of the laser light scattering recordings

Range of experiments The range of experiments is already described in 8 but for matters of completeness it is repeated here. A matrix has been setup for the conditions at which measurements had to be conducted. Before processing this matrix, experiments are conducted to research the reproducibility, the eect of the thimble and the inuence of the fuel temperature. Because o time restrictions the experiments are conducted around one fuel pressure. The fuel pressure is kept constant but nevertheless, due to technical restriction of the fuel pump, the spreading in the fuel pressure is rather large . The temperature and density of the ambient gas are varied. Siebers and Hiroyasu models show the relation L P g (L is the liquid core length, P injection pressure). Therefore the range of g is divided according to g . The lowest g is 6,3 kg/m3 ; this value is unrealistic for engine conditions but can give insight in the spray characteristics. The desired maximum g was 42 kg/m3 but it proved to be dicult to reach such densities, leaks in the EHPC occurred frequently at high lling pressures. Also ignition problems occurred at densities above 35 kg/m3 , fouling of the sparkplug occurred in an unpredictable manner. For these reasons 30 kg/m3 is the maximum achieved density. Initially dierent fuels were to be investigated. Therefore a temperature range of 475 K and 600 K was chosen to distinguish dierent oxygenated fuels better, as they dier in boiling trajectory; eventually only diesel fuel is used instead of multiple fuels. Furthermore the range of 600 K to 700 K was chosen to investigate two stage ignition on reacting sprays but unfortunately reacting sprays were canceled due time restrictions. The range of 475 K and 700 K is also comparable to pre-injection conditions in diesel engines and HCCI techniques (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition). Normal engine condition temperatures are between 850 K and 1150 K and heavy engine or post injection conditions are comparable to 1300 K to 1500 K. In table 11.1 an overview is presented of the conducted measurements.

64

Table 11.1: Laser light scattering measurements schedule, pf = 1165 bar (nominal). HCCI 525 K 600 K Normal cond. 1000 K 1150 K X X X X X X X X X Post inj. 1300 K 1500 K X X X X X X X X X X X

g T 6,3 kg/m3 9,0 kg/m3 12,3 kg/m3 16,0 kg/m3 20,3 kg/m3 25,0 kg/m3 30,0 kg/m3

475 K

700 K

850 K

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X X

11.1

Measurement results

At the beginning of this chapter the conditions at which the measurements are conducted are lined out. The fuel pressure is kept at 1165 63 bar. In table K.1 in appendix K the measurement results are summarized. In Fig. 11.3 the determined liquid core length is plotted against the ambient air temperature for dierent ambient air densities. The liquid core length decreases with increasing temperature or density. Recordings at higher densities are less bright and therefore it is more dicult to determine the liquid core length. This is also noticeable in Fig. 11.3 where at higher densities a higher degree of spreading is present in the liquid core length. In Fig. 11.2 the power ts are shown along with the lower and upper 2 borders. In Fig. 11.5 the liquid core length as function of the ambient air density is shown for three dierent ambient air temperatures. The data for the liquid core length are derived from the power ts through the data points.

65

55 = 6,5 kg/m
a a a a a a a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

50

= 9,3 kg/m

= 12,5 kg/m 45 = 16,1 kg/m = 20,7 kg/m = 25,2 kg/m 35 = 30,3 kg/m

liquid core length [mm]

40

30

25

20

15

10 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 ambient gas temperature [K]

1400

1500

1600

Figure 11.1: Liquid core length (scatter plot) at 7 dierent ambient air densities and the power ts for each density (solid lines). The injection pressure was 1165 63 bar.

55 50 45 liquid core length [mm] 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 600 800 1000 1200 ambient gas temperature [K] 1400 1600 = 6,5 kg/m3
a a a a a a

= 9,3 kg/m

3 3

= 12,5 kg/m = 20,7 kg/m = 25,5 kg/m

= 16,1 kg/m3
3 3

Figure 11.2: Liquid core length solid line with the lower and upper 2 bounds (dashed line) at 7 dierent densities. The injection pressure was 1165 63 bar.

66

11.2

Comparison with Siebers liquid scaling equation

In section 9.1 Siebers liquid scaling equation is lined out. In Fig. 11.3 the measurement data are shown as a scatter plot and the predictions by Siebers liquid scaling equation are shown as solid lines. The angle that is used in the liquid scaling equation is determined by Eq. 8.1 and multiplied by 0,75. Such a multiplication of the angle is also conducted in [Sie99, Sie98, HMS99].
50 a = 6,5 kg/m3 45 a = 9,3 kg/m3 = 12,5 kg/m
a a a 3

40 liquid core length [mm]

= 16,1 kg/m3 = 20,7 kg/m3

35

a = 25,2 kg/m3

30

25

20

15

10 600

800

1000 1200 1400 ambient gas temperature [K]

1600

Figure 11.3: Liquid core length (scatter plot) at 7 dierent ambient air densities and the Siebers liquid scaling equation results (solid lines) wherein Eq. 8.1 is used as a correlation for the angle.

At high ambient air densities there is a good agreement between the Siebers liquid scaling equation and the measured liquid core lengths. It can be noticed from Fig. 11.3 that at lower ambient air densities the slope of the curve of the liquid scaling equation is too high. At this point there is no simple adjustment for the liquid scaling equation possible to account for this deviation. It is unlikely that the use of the thimble is the cause of this deviation: the use of the thimble produces an almost constant deviation of the liquid core length over the temperature range and thus does not eect the slope of the curves. Also it can be assumed that correlation Eq. 8.1 is not the cause of the deviation in the slope; the dispersion angle can be determined with greater accuracy at low densities compared to at high densities as demonstrated in part II. The use of poor quality correlations can be a cause of the deviation. However, in [HMS99, Sie99] similar deviations in the slope of the predicted trends are present at lower densities which indicates a possible shortcoming in the Siebers model itself. In Fig. ?? the measurement data is again shown as scattering points. However, for the dispersion angle the relation Eq. 9.4 is used as input for the Siebers liquid scaling equation. In Eq. 9.4 a=0,71 and b=0,41. This also corresponds well with the measured data. Although at low ambient air densities the Siebers model over predicts the liquid core length. This can be caused by the threshold which is applied in the software to determine the liquid core length or deviations in the correlations which are used in Siebers model.

67

50 a = 6,5 kg/m 45
3

a = 9,3 kg/m3 a = 12,5 kg/m

3 3

40 liquid core length [mm]

a = 16,1 kg/m
a a

= 20,7 kg/m3 35 = 25,2 kg/m

3

30

25

20

15

10 600

800

1000 1200 1400 ambient gas temperature [K]

1600

Figure 11.4: Liquid core length (scatter plot) at 7 dierent ambient air densities and the Siebers liquid scaling equation results (solid lines) wherein Eq. 9.4 is used as a correlation for the angle.

In Fig. 11.5 the comparison is set out as function of the ambient air density. In Fig. 11.6 and Fig. 11.7 the relative and absolute errors from Fig. 11.5 are shown. It can be noticed that at lower densities the Siebers model over predicts the liquid length compared to the measurements. At higher temperatures there is a better match between measured data and the liquid scaling equation.

68

45 T 40 T 35 liquid core length [mm] = 1000K = 1400 K

air air

Siebers model Tair = 1000K Siebers model T

air

= 1000K

30

25

20

15

10

10

15 20 3 ambient air density [kg/m ]

25

30

Figure 11.5: Liquid core length as function of the ambient air density. Crosses: measured data. Circles: data points according Siebers liquid scaling equation. Solid line: power t of the experimental data. Dashed line: power t of the Siebers data points.

3 15 Tair = 1000K 10 Tair = 1400 K 1 relative error [%] 5 absolute error [mm] 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 ambient air density [kg/m3] 2 T
air

= 1000K

Tair = 1400 K

10

15

10

15 20 25 3 ambient air density [kg/m ]

30

Figure 11.6: Relative error between measured data and Siebers liquid scaling equation.

Figure 11.7: Dierence between measured data and Siebers liquid scaling equation ((measured data)-(liquid scaling equation predictions)).

69

11.3

Comparison to results Sandia National Laboratories

At the Sandia National Laboratories extensive research is done to the liquid core length of injected sprays. Experiments have been conducted with various types of fuel. As only Diesel is used in our experiments comparison to fuels with low volatility is of interest only. The fuels at hand are DF2 (Phillips diesel fuel 2), FTD (Fischer-Tropsch diesel) and biodiesel (B100) [HMS99]. The measurements performed at Sandia are performed at dierent conditions than our experiments; the dierences in these conditions are summarized in table 11.2. Table 11.2: Measurements conditions. Fuel temperature [K] Injection pressure [bar] Nozzle orice diameter [m] Ca [-] TU/e experiments 333 1165 63 174 0,78 Sandia experiments 436-440 1400 246 0,8-0,87

From research conducted at Sandia ([Sie98, Sie99]) it was concluded that the injection pressure has no considerable eect on the liquid core length. Sandia also conducted experiments and obtained a linear relation between nozzle orice diameter and liquid core length. All the linear relations intersect the origin (0,0) which makes it possible to compare measurement data conducted with dierent nozzle orice diameters. As the liquid core length depends on Ca (Eq. 9.22) the dierence in Ca can easily be corrected. Finally the dierences in in fuel temperature are corrected by using measurements with dierent fuel temperatures presented in [Sie98]. In Fig. 11.8 a comparison is made between the Sandia experimental results and the results from our experiments. The Sandia experimental results are corrected to match the TU/e experimental results.
80 measured at a = 6,5 kg/m measured at a = 9,3 kg/m
a a a 3 3

70

measured at = 12,5 kg/m3 60 liquid core length [mm] measured at = 16,1 kg/m3 measured at = 25,2 kg/m3 50 Sandia B100 at = 7,3 kg/m
a 3

Sandia FTD at = 7,3 kg/m

a

40

Sandia DF2 at a = 7,3 kg/m

3 3

Sandia B100 at a = 14,8 kg/m 30

a

Sandia FTD at = 14,8 kg/m3 Sandia DF2 at = 14,8 kg/m3

a

20

Sandia B100 at = 30,0 kg/m3

a

Sandia FTD at = 30,0 kg/m 10 600

a

700

800

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 ambient gas temperature [K]

1400

1500

Sandia DF2 at = 30,0 kg/m

a

Figure 11.8: Comparison of Sandia measurements with dierent kind of fuels with our experimental results. The dierence in used orice diameter, Ca and fuel temperature is corrected for the measurement results to the measurement conducted at Sandia National Laboratories.

70

In Fig. 11.8 all the fuels produce a substantially longer liquid core compared to the TU/e measurements at low densities. At higher ambient air densities the results from the TU/e measurements are more comparable with the Sandia measurements of FTD and DF2 fuels. Due to higher latent heat of the B100 fuel it also has a larger liquid core length at higher ambient air densities. A dierence in nozzle geometry or liquid core end determination can account for the dierence. Also the fuel temperature correction can cause deviations, especially at low densities. In Fig. 11.9 the same data is presented as in Fig. 11.8 but without the fuel temperature correction. There is a better match for the lower densities, but at higher densities the deviations are larger than in Fig. 11.8. Therefore it can not be established with certainty that the fuel temperature correction is adequate or not.
55 measured at = 6,5 kg/m3
a a a a

50 45 liquid core length [mm] 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 600

measured at = 9,3 kg/m

3 3 3 3 3

measured at = 12,5 kg/m measured at = 16,1 kg/m measured at a = 25,2 kg/m

Sandia B100 at a = 7,3 kg/m

a

Sandia FTD at = 7,3 kg/m3 Sandia DF2 at = 7,3 kg/m3

a

Sandia B100 at = 14,8 kg/m3

a

Sandia FTD at = 14,8 kg/m

a

Sandia DF2 at = 14,8 kg/m

a a

3 3

Sandia B100 at = 30,0 kg/m Sandia FTD at a = 30,0 kg/m 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 ambient gas temperature [K] Sandia DF2 at a = 30,0 kg/m

Figure 11.9: Comparison of Sandia measurements with dierent kind of fuels with our experimental results. The dierence in used orice diameter and Ca is corrected for the measurement results to the measurement conducted at Sandia National Laboratories.

11.4

Comparison with the Hiroyasu model

In section 9.2 the Hiroyasu model is lined out. In Fig. 11.10 the original Hiroyasu model is compared to the experimental results. For the Hiroyasu model the spray angle correlation Eq. 8.1 is used. Obviously the Hiroyasu structurally predicts a larger liquid core length than is found in the TU/e experiments. The cause of this over prediction could be shortcomings of the Hiroyasu model or a faulty correlation which is used in the model. In Fig. 11.11 a constant shift is introduced to the Hiroyasu model to produce a better t with the experimental result. It can be noticed that the Hiroyasu model predictions for the dierent densities lie closer together, and therefore have slightly better resemblance with the experimental results than Siebers liquid scaling equation. After the adjustment on the Hiroyasu model the lines in Fig. 11.11 still have in general a too small slope and the experimental results for the dierent densities lie further apart than the Hiroyasu model predicts.

71

70 65 60 55 liquid core length [mm] 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 600 800 1000 1200 1400 ambient gas temperature [K] 1600 6.8 9.3 12.5 16.1 20.7 liquid core length [mm] 25.2

55 6.8 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 600 9.3 12.5 16.1 20.7 25.2

800 1000 1200 1400 ambient gas temperature [K]

1600

Figure 11.10: Comparison of the experimental results with the original Hiroyasu model (solid lines) at dierent densities.

Figure 11.11: Comparison of the experimental results with the adjusted Hiroyasu model (solid lines) at dierent densities.

72

Part IV

Conclusions and recommendations

73

Chapter 12

Conclusion
12.1 Nozzle characterization

In chapter 5 already conclusions are given for Part I but it will shortly repeated here for matters of completeness. The momentum measurements have a good reproducibility where the 2 varies from 1,4 to 4,5 %. Therefore it can be assumed that variations in momentum of each spray, caused by needle lift variations or other eects which take place before the fuel exits the nozzle orice, has negligible eect on the visualization experiments described in Part II and III. However, there are substantial dierences between the momentum ux of the individual sprays from the dierent holes. For the visualization experiments itself this is no reason for concern, but comparison with other visualization experiments (with dierent nozzles) are therefore dicult and not reliable. Although the nozzle characteristics can be fully obtained there still remains the uncertainty to what degree the nozzle is asymmetrical, which is unique for each nozzle. In the visualization experiments a spray is used which has about an average momentum ux compared to the other sprays produced by the nozzle. It was shown that a blocked nozzle produces a spray with a higher momentum compared to a unblocked nozzle. The dierence is 8 to 10 %. AMESim simulations show a higher sac volume pressure. However, the visualization experiments show that the dispersion angle decreases and the penetration velocity increases with a blocked nozzle. As both aspects should be insensitive for the pressure dierence across the nozzle orice [NS96] there is another factor which increases the momentum ux of the spray from a blocked nozzle. It is believed that the ow within a blocked nozzle is altered is such a way that the momentum could be increased due to a lower tangential force component. The performed mass ow measurements are not reliable due problems with a pressure sensor. This makes the determination of the dimensionless parameters Cd , Cv and Ca not fully reliable. Also the mass ow measurements were conducted on 7 mm nozzles and the visualization experiments are conducted with 9 mm nozzles. It can be assumed that the dimensionless parameters of the 7 mm nozzles are dierent than of the 9 mm. Therefore the retrieved results regarding the dimensionless parameters cannot be used in analyzing the visualization experiments.

12.2

Dispersion angle and penetration of evaporating sprays

Two important features of evaporating sprays are investigated: the dispersion angle and the penetration of sprays. The determination of the dispersion angle proved to be problematic; precombustion eects in the Schlieren recording disturbed the recordings to such a degree that dispersion angle determination could only be performed with a large error margin, especially at high ambient air temperatures. Therefore the angles found from the experiment are only correlated at low ambient air temperatures. 74

To date there are no reliable models provided which can predict the dispersion angle of a spray. Most important reason for this is that the inuence of the nozzle geometry is not physically fully understood. Therefore the experimental results regarding the dispersion angle are compared to empirical correlation described in [Sie99] and [HIY96]. There was a very poor comparison with the correlation provided in [HIY96]. There was a better comparison with the correlation provided in [Sie99], although there was still a dierence of a factor 2. The empirical correlation which is found for the TU/e experiments is given in Eq. 8.1. This correlation produced good results in part III where measured liquid core lengths are compared with two dierent models. Although the angle had to be corrected with a factor 0,75. The correlation provided by [Sie99] gives good results when the measured liquid core length is compared to Siebers models. This is not the case when the correlation for the angle provided in [HIY96] is used. It was found that there was a 0,28 dependence of the dispersion angle on the ambient air density of 0,16 to a . This is comparable a with values found in other literature such as [VPV84] and [HA90a]. The penetration of a spray can be determined with good accuracy. Although the use of a brighter light source at high ambient air temperatures, to retrieve good quality Schlieren recordings, can produce a lower determined penetration velocity than in reality. There are several models provided for the penetration of a spray . Mostly are related to non-evaporating sprays. These models, as also measurements from Sandia National Laboratories [NS96], provide a faster penetration than in the TU/e experiments. This can be caused by nozzle geometry dierences, or more likely, due to the use of a brighter light source with higher ambient temperatures. However, the relation 0,31 a to 0,33 is comparable of what can be found in [NS96]. a Furthermore the inuence of blocking a nozzle was compared with the use of a thimble. The dispersion angle with the use of a thimble is about 13 % larger than with a blocked nozzle. As expected, the penetration velocity of the spray when a thimble is used is also slower than with a blocked nozzle. This is consistent with the ndings in Part I where also a lower momentum ux was retrieved with a unblocked nozzle (which is comparable with using a thimble).

12.3

Liquid core research

With the performed laser light scattering recordings only one aspect was of great importance: the liquid core length. Disturbances of the pre-combustion, as was the case with the Schlieren recordings, were not present with the laser light scattering recordings. Therefore the liquid core length could be determined with high accuracy; the typical 2 was about 0,6 mm. Although it should be noted that at lower ambient air temperatures this accuracy deteriorated very fast as the boundary representing the end of the liquid core becomes more spread out. The liquid core length is determined by averaging the recording due to physical uctuations in the liquid core. These uctuations were about 15 %, this is comparable with the 11 % found in [Sie98]. The measurement results are compared to two models: Siebers liquid scaling law [Sie99, Sie98, HMS99] and the Hiroyasu model [HIY96, HA90b]. The measurement results are compared to the Siebers model using an adjusted Eq. 8.1: tan(/2) = 0,75 e5,08510
4

Ta 2,932

0,32831,15710 rhoa

Ta

(12.1)

At high ambient air densities there is a good comparison. At lower ambient air densities the the slope of the lines provided by the Siebers model dier from the measurement results. In [HMS99, Sie99] similar results are found, although the used correlations in the Siebers model can also be a cause for the deviation. The Hiroyasu model does match to the measurement results about as good as the Siebers model does, and even better at low ambient air temperatures. However, at low ambient air densities the Hiroyasu model under predicts the liquid core length, although the slope is about the same as in the measurement results. Most likely the deviation is caused by the correlations used in the Hiroyasu model. Also comparisons are made with measurements conducted at Sandia National Laboratories for dierent fuels. The liquid core length from the Sandia measurements are more spread out over 75

the dierent ambient air densities. Unfortunately the Sandia measurement were conducted with dierent nozzles and fuel temperature. It is tried to compensate for this but obviously this compensation is not sucient. Also there is probably a dierence in dening what the actual liquid core length is. The inuence of a blocked nozzle on the liquid core length is investigated. It is found that over a wide temperature range the blocked nozzle produces a liquid core that is constantly longer than the liquid core produced by a nozzle where a thimble is applied on. This is consistent with ndings in part II. The ow through a blocked nozzle is altered in such a way that a lesser degree of cavitation is present which causes the dispersion to be less.

12.4

Comparison liquid core and vapor spray

Unfortunately to date it is not possible with the EHPC setup to retrieve a Schlieren recording and a laser light scattering recording from the same injection. Therefore only comparisons can be made of the vapor spray and the liquid core from two dierent recordings. In Figs. L.1-L.5 in appendix L images of laser light scattering an Schlieren under almost the same conditions are compared. At almost all the images the liquid core falls within the boundaries of the vapor spray. Although in Fig. L.5 it is very doubtful that the laser light scattering required only captured liquid as the liquid seems to fall outside the boundaries of the vapor spray. Also at all images the initial width of the liquid core seems wider than the vapor spray. Probably this is caused by problems with the spatial resolution or uorescence eects of the laser light. Also reection from lenses, mirrors or lters can produce a more hazy images. Finally the lack of ideal focussing of the high speed camera could result in a seemingly wider liquid core. From the images in appendix L it seems however that the dispersion noticeable in the Schlieren recordings is also present in the liquid core, which of course can be expected.

76

Chapter 13

Recommendations
13.1 Nozzle characterization

The accuracy in determining the momentum ux of sprays is sucient. However, installing the force sensor mechanically independent to the rest of the experimental setup can improve the quality of the measured force signal. Also placing the force sensor at a better dened position, regarding nozzle orice distance, height and angle, can produce more accurate results. Currently it is necessary to block a nozzle partially the obtain constant high pressure injection. This is due to the limited capacity of the high pressure fuel pump. A higher capacity fuel pump can solve this problem. Although the restriction in the drain of the pressure vessel cause more problems than it already does (fuel temperature rise due blow o).

13.2

Dispersion angle and penetration of evaporating sprays

Overall recommendations for functioning of the EHPC itself are scheduled maintenance to prevent leakages. Also more advanced sprak plugs should be used to prevent ignition fouling at high densities. Better fuel temperature regulation can make research to the fuel temperature inuence possible. Best approach would be to cool down or warm up the fuel directly instead of cooling or warming up the injector holder. A very important shortcoming of the setup is the varying fuel pressure. Currently a high pressure air pump is used, but it is strongly advised to use a more constant method to obtain fuel pressures up to 1600 bar. Most problems are caused by the Schlieren technique itself. Combustion gases that originated from the pre-combustion produce a distorted recording. Using better light sources or using alternative ways to induce the Schlieren eect can reduce these distortions; now a hole-hole method is used but also a hole-needle method can be used which produces a negative recording compared to a hole-hole recording. Also more research can be conducted to use other methods to induce the Schlieren eect, such as using a razor blade. Finally the light source could be altered, a laser can be used instead of a Xe-lamp. This provides better ltering possibilities en laser produces a more homogeneous image. Finally the software routines can be improved, especially at detecting the edges of a spray when it is surrounded by disturbances. Or possibilities can be investigated to adjust the recording technique which can somehow prevent to some level the recording of these disturbances.

13.3

Liquid core research

The laser light scattering technique already produces results above our expectations. However improvements can be made by creating a method which provides a constant alignment of the laser sheet, the spray and the camera (and its focussing). Also by enhancement in ltering techniques

77

higher quality images can be obtained. This is especially of importance with reacting fuel sprays. The recordings have not reached full sharpness yet. The liquid core is still hazy. This is caused by the lack of spatial resolution but also by reections on mirrors, lenses and lters. Also focussing of the camera can possibly be improved. Another problem that has to be solved is the position of the laser sheet and the angle at which the spray is injected. The laser sheet hits the spray on one side and subsequently fades. Therefore the liquid core, especially at low temperatures (large liquid cores), seems to be rotated (which is obviously not the case) and the liquid core length cannot determined properly. A solution is to send align the spray with the laser sheet. This way the liquid core length is determined most accurately in axial direction. Finally there is a big challenge in merging the Schlieren recordings with the laser light scattering recordings. Currently these recordings have to be conducted separately which is not ideal because conditions can change slightly between recordings. It would be ideal to obtain a Schlieren recording and a laser light scattering recording from the same injection.

78

Bibliography
[BV94] [Dat06] [Den71] R.S.G. Baert and E.J. Vermeulen, Measurement and observation analysis of combustion in engines. Chalmers Liquid Fuel Database, http://tfdpc67.tfd.chalmers.se/cgi-bin/chem.cgi, 2006. J.C. Dent, A basis for the comparison of various experimental methods for studying spray penetration., vol. 96, October 1971.

[dGKvM04] L.P.H. de Goey, L.J. Korstanje, and A.A.J. van Meerveld, Schone en zuinige verbranding, overzicht van alle lopende projecten. [Elk82] [GA00] [GAC00] M. M. Elkotb, Fuel atomization for spray modeling., vol. 8, Prog. Energy Comb. Sci., October 1982. Ronald O. Grover and Dennis N. Assanis, A spray wall impingement model based upon conservation principles., MI 48109-2121 (2000). Lionel Christopher Ganippa, Sven Andersson, and Jerzy Chomiak, Investigation of the primary spray breakup close to the nozzle of a common - rail high pressure diesel injection system., SAE Paper 2000-01-2788 (2000). H. Hiroyasu and M. Arai, Structure of fuel sprays in diesel engines., vol. 99, October 1990. Hiroyuki Hiroyasu and Masataka Arai, Structues of fuel sprays in diesel engines., SAE Paper 900475 (1990). W.J. Hays, Personal communication., Bulletin of JSME, Vol 3, No. 9 (1995). Hiroyuki Hiroyasu, Hirofumi Imanishi, and Takuo Yoshizaki, Simulation study of eects of injection rate prole and air entrainment charasteristecs on d.i. diesel combustion., SAE Paper 962059 (1996). Brian S. Higgens, Charles J. Mueller, and Dennis L. Siebers, Measurements of fuel eects on liquid-phase penetration in di sprays., SAE Paper 1999-01-0519 (1999).

[HA90a] [HA90b] [Hay95] [HIY96]

[HMS99]

[KDFS+ 05] R.J.H. Klein-Douwel, P.J.M. Frijters, L.M.T. Somers, W.A. de Bier, and R.S.G. Baert., Macroscopic diesel fuel spray shadowgraphic study using high speed imaging in a high pressure cell. [KK04] [Lui06] [MH99] E. Kill and G. Krger, Correlation of spray symmetry with mass and momentum u distribution of multihole diesel nozzles. Carlo Luijten, Filling the ehpc. R. Meyer and J.B. Heywood, Evaporation of in-cylinder liquid fuel droplets in a si engine: A diagnostic-based modeling study., SAE Paper 1999-01-0567 (1999). 79

[NS96] [Nur76] [PGSG04] [QDB+ 95] [Rei87] [SCKH03] [Set01] [SH01] [Sie98] [Sie99] [SNH93] [SSB00] [VPV84] [VVY96]

Jefrey D. Naber and Dennis L. Siebers, Eects of gas density and vaporization on penetration and dispersion of diesel sprays., SAE Paper 960034 (1996). W.H. Nurick, Orice cavitation and its eect on spray mixing., vol. 98, Journal of Fluids Engineering., 1976. R. Payri, J.M. Garc F.J. Salvador, and J. Gemeno, Using spray momentum ux to a, understand the inuence of diesel nozzle geometry on spray characteristics. M.A. Quincy, P.J. DiNenno, C.L. Beyler, R.L.P. Custer, and W.D. Walton, Properties of gases and liquids., vol. 2nd edition, National Fire Protection Assoc., 1995. Robert C. Reid, Properties of gases and liquids., vol. 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, 1987. Sergei Sazhin, Cyril Crua, David Kennaird, and Morgan Heikal, The initial stage of fuel spray penetration., Fuel 82 (2003) 875-885 (2003). Gary S. Settles, Schlieren and shadowgraph techniques: visualizing phenomena in transparent media., Berlin: Springer, 2001. Sergei Sazhin and Morgan Heikal, A model for fuel spray penetration., Fuel 80 (2001) 2171-2180 (2001). Dennis L. Siebers, Liquid-phase fuel penetration in diesel sprays., SAE Paper 980809 (1998). , Scaling liquid-phase fuel penetration in diesel sprays based on mixing-limited vaporization., SAE Paper 1999-01-0528 (1999). M. Susuki, K. Nishida, and H. Hiroyasu, Simultaneous concentration measurements of vapor and liquid in an evaporating diesel spray., vol. 102, October 1993. X.L.J. Seykens, L.M.T. Somers, and R.S.G. Baert, Detailed modeling of common rail fuel injection process. K. Varde, D. Popa, and L. Varde, Spray angle and atomization in diesel sprays., vol. 93, October 1984. N.B. Vargaftik, Y.K. Vinogradov, and V.S. Yargin, Handbook of physical properties of liquids and gases, pure subtances and mixtures., vol. 3td ed., Begell House inc., 1996.

[WDK+ 04] Joachim Winter, Bernd Dittus, Andreas Kerst, Oliver Muck, Roland Schulz, and Andreas Vogel, Nozzle hole geometry - a powerful instrument for advanved spray design. [WFAT60] Y. Wakuri, M. Fujii, T. Amitani, and R. Tsuneya, Studies of the penetration of fuel spray in a diesel engine., Bulletin of JSME, Vol 3, No. 9 (1960).

80

Appendices accompanying Penetration and dispersion research of non-reacting evaporating diesel sprays
Author: Roel Peters

Eindhoven University of Technology

Mechanical Engineering - Combustion Technology 14th March 2007

Appendix A

Drawings of the thimble and nozzle

Figure A.1: Drawing of the top view of the thimble. The maximum angle is given to illustrate the space between the cone of the thimble and the spray.

Figure A.2: Drawing 1/2 of a 7 mm nozzle.

Figure A.3: Drawing 2/2 of a 7 mm nozzle.

Appendix B

Experimental setup
Low pressure pump

Fuel tank

Fuel filter

Electric motor

High pressure pump

Common rail controller

Mechanical valve

Retour

Common rail Pressure and temperature sensor

Retour

Charge amplifier

Force sensor

Injector

Computer

TUeDacs Trigger signal Low pressure High pressure Mechanical connection Signal

Figure B.1: Flowchart of the experimental setup of momentum measurements of the spray.

Fuel tank

Low pressure pump

Fuel filter

Electric motor

High pressure pump

Common rail controller

Mechanical valve

Retour

Common rail Pressure and temperature sensor

Retour

Injector

Computer

TUeDacs Trigger signal

Charge amplifier

Pressure sensor

Zeuch vessel

Pressure gauge

Restriction Zeuch vessel pressure Low pressure High pressure Mechanical connection Signal Mass flow meter Temperature guage

Figure B.2: Flowchart of the experimental setup of mass ow measurements.

Appendix C

Drawings of the momentum measurement setup

Table C.1: Part list for the momentum measurement setup. Part nr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description Support Sensor bolt Sensor tip 3A en 3B Injector Force sensor Cylinder bolt with inner haxegon Cylinder bolt with inner hexagon Article nummber FSH 9203 DIN 912 M3x5 DIN 912 M3x10 Material brass brass RVS 304 Qty 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Supplier TU/e TU/e TU/e TU/e Kistler -

Table C.2: Kistler FSH 9203 Force sensor specications. Property Range Threshold Overload Sensitivity Linearity Rigidity Natural frequency Rise time Support Operating temperature range Temperature coecient of sensitivity Insulation resistance at 20 C Capacitance Tightening torque for M3 Weight Unit N mN N pC/N %F SO N/m kHz s C % C pF Nm g Value -500...500 <1 -600/600 -45 1 40 27 15 -1500...240 -0,01 > 1013 22 < 0,5 13

Figure C.1: Drawing of the momentum measurement setup.

Figure C.2: Drawing of the momentum measurement setup. 8

Figure C.3: Drawing of the momentum measurement setup.

Figure C.4: Drawing of the momentum measurement setup.

10

Figure C.5: Drawing of the momentum measurement setup.

11

Appendix D

Momentum measurement results around 9 mm nozzles

Table D.1: Momentum measurement results of the nozzle A. Angle 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 Average measured force [N] 3,15 3,54 3,54 3,43 1,44 1,42 3,82 3,85 3,8 2,99 4,91 1,5 3,54 3,56 3,51 2,66 1,36 4,9 1,59 3,4 3,44 3,42 3,43 1,65 2,53 3,39 3,43 3,42 3,29 3,01 1,3 2 of the average force [N] 0,04 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,06 0,05 0,04 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,04 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,05 0,01 0,06 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,06 0,05 0,05 0,04

12

Angle 310 320 330 340 350

Average measured force [N] 3,39 3,44 3,33 3,06 3,15

2 of the average force [N] 0,05 0,04 0,06 0,05 0,04

Table D.2: Momentum measurement results of the nozzle C. Angle 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 Average measured force [N] 2,95 2,93 2,76 3,20 2,73 2,57 2,94 2,87 2,72 2,67 2,80 2,71 2,98 2,93 2,67 3,22 3,09 3,10 3,30 3,25 3,04 2,14 2,74 2,76 2,94 2,91 2,80 1,22 2,69 2,71 2,88 2,84 2,72 1,36 2,78 2,77 2 of the average force [N] 0,05 0,05 0,03 0,06 0,03 0,03 0,06 0,03 0,03 0,11 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,03 0,05 0,02 0,06 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,03 0,04

13

Appendix E

Scheme of EHPC components

Fuel tank

High pressure pump / manual pressure control

Common rail

Dynamic pressure sensor Control Unit C2H2 tank Mass flow meter & magnetic valve Injector Thermocouple

N2 tank

Mass flow meter & magnetic valve

Inlet valve

Nozzle

Spark plug

Ar tank

Mass flow meter & magnetic valve

Outlet valve

Dynamic pressure sensor

TUeDACS / PARSAM

O2 tank

Mass flow meter & magnetic valve

EHPC
High speed camera

Gas supply to the EHPC Signals Diesel fuel Combustion gasses

Vacuum pump One way valve

Environment

Figure E.1: Scheme which relates the essential components of the EHPC.

14

Appendix F

Argon addition
In Fig. F.1 the cp value for dierent mixtures are provided.

1.9 H 1.8 1.7

2 2 2 2 4

C H C H

Engine Air C H with Ar

2 2

specific heat [J/(kg.K)]

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

Temperature [K]

Figure F.1: Values of cp for dierent mixtures.

15

Appendix G

Schlieren reproducibility measurement results

Results of the measurements to verify the reproducibility of the Schlieren measurement and analyzing software. The calculated angles are summarized in table G.1. The coecients a and b are determined by a power t x = b ta , where x is the distance which the spray tip has traveled and t the time. The coecients a1 and b1 are the power t of the entire penetration prole and a2 and b2 are the power coecients which begins at t = 0, 165 ms and ends till the spray tip has reached the border of the windows. The penetration results are summarized in table G.2. Table G.1: Spray angles of the Schlieren reproducibility measurements. Meas. Nr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Angle [ ] 10,51 11,22 10,09 9,35 9,80 9,50 10,18 10,39 9,20 10,99 9,86 10,41 9,98 10,16 9,90 9,66 11,58 11,05 11,29 10,18 10,65 10,72 2angle [ ] 2,04 2,45 2,35 2,09 1,90 2,28 1,44 1,99 2,22 1,90 1,49 1,77 1,53 1,78 2,15 2,99 1,49 1,51 2,08 4,38 1,79 1,71

16

Meas. Nr. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Angle [ ] 9,06 10,69 10,40 8,99 9,92 9,18 10,72 10,64 11,18 10,44 10,38

2angle [ ] 2,20 1,62 1,69 1,68 2,21 1,73 1,91 1,76 1,75 1,75 2,04

Table G.2: Power ts of the Schlieren reproducibility measurements. Meas. Nr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 a1 0,65 0,60 0,60 0,63 0,60 0,61 0,58 0,65 0,67 0,65 0,64 0,55 0,67 0,57 0,57 0,55 0,57 0,63 0,55 0,57 0,56 0,56 0,61 0,55 0,57 0,54 0,62 0,62 0,54 0,54 0,59 0,53 0,51 0,52 b1 4,49 4,44 4,45 4,48 4,43 4,46 4,43 4,46 4,49 4,47 4,49 4,45 4,49 4,49 4,46 4,42 4,45 4,48 4,42 4,45 4,41 4,41 4,47 4,41 4,43 4,40 4,48 4,50 4,42 4,43 4,45 4,40 4,40 4,40 Fit error1 [mm] 3,75 5,71 4,14 4,15 5,92 3,92 4,15 9,27 4,91 6,90 7,74 1,52 7,38 2,88 3,72 3,61 3,96 6,64 1,67 1,05 2,51 2,78 3,27 1,78 5,00 3,55 4,62 3,54 3,96 3,93 4,38 1,29 2,08 1,31 a2 0,57 0,51 0,53 0,55 0,49 0,57 0,49 0,49 0,57 0,52 0,54 0,54 0,52 0,52 0,52 0,48 0,52 0,49 0,54 0,58 0,51 0,51 0,56 0,52 0,49 0,49 0,53 0,55 0,51 0,47 0,50 0,52 0,47 0,50 b2 4,44 4,39 4,40 4,43 4,37 4,43 4,38 4,38 4,41 4,39 4,43 4,45 4,40 4,45 4,42 4,38 4,41 4,39 4,41 4,46 4,38 4,38 4,43 4,40 4,38 4,37 4,42 4,45 4,40 4,39 4,40 4,40 4,38 4,39 Fit error2 [mm] 2,05 4,05 2,59 2,22 4,04 2,88 2,71 6,89 2,42 4,40 6,07 1,32 4,50 1,70 2,54 2,39 3,00 4,01 1,51 0,95 1,97 1,73 2,38 1,50 3,72 2,90 2,73 1,94 3,88 2,56 2,71 1,17 1,56 1,11

17

Appendix H

Results main Schlieren experiments

In this appendix the results of the measurements as lined out in table 8.1 are presented. In table H.1 the measured angle is presented and in table H the power t coecients of the penetration of the spray. The power t coecient is determined between t = 0,165 ms and the time at which the spray has reached the border of the window. In Figs. H.1-H.3 the penetration is plotted as function of time for dierent temperatures and densities. Table H.1: Measured spray angles main Schlieren experiments. Density [kg/m3 ] 6,39 6,38 6,46 6,41 6,41 6,46 6,44 6,46 6,47 9,14 9,14 9,13 9,15 9,14 9,11 9,13 9,13 9,13 9,14 9,15 9,13 9,13 9,15 9,13 9,12 Temperature [K] 1006,58 1006,58 1006,58 1309,14 1309,14 1309,14 1480,12 1480,12 1480,12 1018,66 1018,66 1018,66 1018,66 1486,95 1486,95 1486,95 1016,96 1016,96 1016,96 1307,46 1307,46 1307,46 1514,18 1514,18 1514,18 Spray angle [ ] 18,26 14,12 15,90 17,05 15,68 15,04 16,20 16,26 18,28 17,64 17,65 18,37 13,99 17,69 17,00 21,36 17,62 15,36 16,04 17,89 14,12 17,73 19,24 20,09 18,21 2angle [ ] 3,30 1,60 2,10 1,90 1,00 4,30 4,70 2,40 3,10 1,60 1,30 1,10 2,10 1,60 3,20 2,00 1,70 1,70 1,40 2,80 1,30 2,00 1,20 1,10 1,50

18

Density [kg/m3 ] 15,93 15,97 15,94 15,97 15,93 15,97 15,97 15,99 16,01 15,99 16,05 16,02 16,02 16,05 16,04 15,88 15,93 16,01 16,06 16,10 16,10 16,11 16,12 16,11 16,08 16,09 16,09 20,56 20,64 20,71 20,70 20,78 20,78 20,81 20,80 20,79 25,56 25,43 24,66 24,94 25,07 25,22 25,26 25,30 25,30 25,29 25,27 25,01 25,14 25,19 25,16

Temperature [K] 432,32 438,11 440,89 1179,16 1179,16 1179,16 585,40 585,40 585,40 682,13 682,13 682,13 837,20 837,20 837,20 984,20 984,20 984,20 1134,12 1134,12 1134,12 1287,42 1287,42 1287,42 1493,02 1493,02 1493,02 499,25 497,06 499,01 1162,68 1166,21 1156,47 1601,29 1600,24 1596,70 439,84 536,12 426,72 544,52 541,40 618,08 614,82 619,38 727,57 716,92 876,71 1024,99 1168,74 1300,95 1494,43 19

Spray angle [ ] 17,23 16,62 16,65 17,91 17,45 16,32 16,45 18,57 17,44 19,69 14,55 14,36 16,60 16,93 17,24 18,97 17,71 18,69 18,89 19,60 20,44 21,18 19,16 18,32 19,18 21,56 24,61 19,01 17,44 18,97 15,82 18,10 15,88 21,40 20,44 19,28 19,53 20,10 19,37 18,27 18,77 18,76 19,10 18,04 16,24 18,93 19,43 18,57 14,92 21,92 21,55

2angle [ ] 3,10 1,10 0,80 1,80 0,70 0,80 1,70 0,90 0,70 1,80 2,20 2,10 1,10 2,30 1,70 1,40 1,70 2,20 1,60 1,20 1,60 1,30 2,40 1,90 1,50 1,00 2,20 0,90 0,70 1,70 0,60 1,10 2,10 1,30 1,30 1,70 0,80 2,00 1,70 1,50 1,70 1,80 1,70 1,70 1,80 2,60 2,00 2,00 1,10 1,10 1,10

Table H.2: Coecients of the power t through the measured spray penetration. Density [kg/m3 ] 16,10 16,10 16,11 16,11 16,12 20,56 20,64 20,70 20,71 20,78 20,78 20,79 20,80 20,81 24,66 24,94 25,01 25,07 25,14 25,16 25,19 25,22 25,26 25,27 25,29 25,30 25,30 25,43 25,56 Temperature [K] 1134,1 1134,1 1287,4 1287,4 1287,4 499,2 497,1 1162,7 499,0 1166,2 1156,5 1596,7 1600,2 1601,3 426,7 544,5 1025,0 541,4 1168,7 1494,4 1301,0 618,1 614,8 876,7 716,9 727,6 619,4 536,1 439,8 Power t coecient 0,66 0,76 0,66 0,71 0,72 0,62 0,58 0,68 0,65 0,65 0,76 0,78 0,76 0,85 0,64 0,62 0,64 0,60 0,81 0,90 0,78 0,63 0,64 0,85 0,70 0,61 0,67 0,67 0,64 Average t error [mm] 5,7 5,0 5,8 5,6 3,3 3,9 5,4 5,3 4,0 5,3 3,2 4,4 4,2 5,0 2,5 3,5 4,6 4,3 3,6 4,0 2,6 3,2 6,5 5,4 5,7 3,2 3,6 1,1 2,5

20

150 T=1006 K, =6,5 kg/m T=1309 K, =6,5 kg/m T=1480 K, =6,5 kg/m T=1018 K, =9,1 kg/m spray penetration [mm] T=1486 K, =9,1 kg/m 100
3 3 3 3 3

T=498 K, =20,7 kg/m3 T=1161 K, =20,7 kg/m3 T=1599 K, =20,7 kg/m3

50

0.5

1.5 time [ms]

2.5

Figure H.1: Power ts of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent temperatures and densities.

150 T=437 K, =16,0 kg/m T=682 K, =16,0 kg/m T=837 K, =16,0 kg/m T=984 K, =16,0 kg/m 100 spray penetration [mm]
3

T=585 K, =16,0 kg/m3

3 3 3 3

T=1134 K, =16,0 kg/m T=1287 K, =16,0 kg/m T=1493 K, =16,0 kg/m

T=1197 K, =16,0 kg/m3

3 3

50

0.5

1.5 time [ms]

2.5

Figure H.2: Power ts of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent temperatures and a density of 16,0 kg/m3 .

21

150 T=433 K, =25,2 kg/m T=540 K, =25,2 kg/m T=617 K, =25,2 kg/m T=722 K, =25,2 kg/m 100
3 3 3 3

T=876 K, =25,2 kg/m3 T=1025 K, =25,2 kg/m3 T=1168 K, =25,2 kg/m3 T=1300 K, =25,2 kg/m3 T=1494 K, =25,2 kg/m3

spray penetration [mm]

50

0.5

1.5 time [ms]

2.5

Figure H.3: Power ts of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent temperatures and a density of 25,2 kg/m3 .

120

100

spray penetration [mm]

80 [NS96] a=3,3 kg/m 60 [NS96] =6,8 kg/m

a a a 3 3

[NS96] =13,9 kg/m3 [NS96] =28,6 kg/m3 40 =6,5 kg/m3 =9,1 kg/m3 20 =16,0 kg/m3 =20,7 kg/m3 =25,2 kg/m3 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 time [ms] 2 2.5 3

Figure H.4: Comparison of the power ts (solid lines) of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent densities and the measured spray penetrations of evaporating sprays presented in [NS96]. The dashed lines are the adjusted measurements according 6.12

22

120

100

spray penetration [mm]

80

60 =6,5 kg/m 40
3

=9,1 kg/m3 =16,0 kg/m =20,7 kg/m

3 3 3

20

=25,2 kg/m

0.5

1.5 time [ms]

2.5

Figure H.5: Comparison of the power ts (solid lines) of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent densities with the correlation of Eq. 6.12.

120

100

spray penetration [mm]

80

60 =6,5 kg/m 40 =9,1 kg/m

3 3

=16,0 kg/m3 =20,7 kg/m 20 =25,2 kg/m

3 3

0.5

1.5 time [ms]

2.5

Figure H.6: Comparison of the power ts (solid lines) of the measured spray penetration of the main Schlieren recordings at dierent densities with the correlation of Eq. 6.13.

23

Appendix I

Siebers liquid scaling law input variables.

In this appendix the variables which are used in Siebers liquid scaling law are summarized and the trends of these variables are shown. The fuel density [Dat06] and specic heat [Dat06] of the fuel is calculated with the following correlations:
4 3 2 f uel = 6.3973 109 Tf + 9.396 106 Tf 5.3483 103 Tf + 0.6644Tf + 909.54 18 4 Tf

(I.1) (I.2)

cpf uel = 3.1754 10

+ 1.5891 10

3 Tf

2.101 10

2 Tf

+ 4.8215Tf + 763.14

In Figs. I.1 and I.2 the diesel density and the specic heat of diesel are are shown as function of diesel temperature respectively.
x 10
5

3400 3200 specific heat of diesel [kJ/kg] 700 900 1100 1300 ambient air temperature [K] 1500

5 dynamic viscosity [Pa.s]

3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 300

4.5

3.5

2.5 500

400 500 diesel temperature [K]

600

Figure I.1: The density of diesel as function of diesel temperature.

Figure I.2: The specic heat of diesel as function of diesel temperature.

The latent heat of vaporization of diesel and the partial vapor pressure of diesel are calculated

24

with the following correlations which have been developed by Michael Boot at the TUE:
3 2 Lvapor = 1.6084 103 Tf + 1.5215Tf 801.69Tf + 4.9549 105

(I.3) + 1000.7Tf 20518 (I.4)

pvapor = 9.9609 10

5 Tf

1.2876 10

4 Tf

+ 6.0736 10

3 Tf

2 12.414Tf

In Figs. I.3 and I.4 the latent heat of vaporization of diesel and the partial vapor pressure of diesel are are shown as function of diesel temperature respectively.
x 10 3.5 latent heat of vaporization of diesel [kJ/kg] vartial vapor pressure of diesel [Pa]
5

x 10 3

2.5

1.5

2.5

0.5

2 300

350

400 450 500 diesel temperature [K]

550

600

0 300

350

400 450 500 diesel temperature [K]

550

600

Figure I.3: The latent heat of vaporization of diesel as function of diesel temperature.

Figure I.4: The partial vapor pressure of diesel as function of diesel temperature.

In Figs. I.5 and I.6 the compressibility of diesel [Rei87] and the specic enthalpy of diesel are shown as function of diesel temperature [MH99] respectively.
1.6 2 1.4 compressibility factor of diesel [] specific enthalpie of diesel [J/kg] 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 300 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x 10
5

10 400 500 600 700 diesel temperature [K] 800 11 400 450 500 550 600 diesel temperature [K] 650 700

Figure I.5: The compressibility factor of diesel as function of diesel temperature. 25

Figure I.6: The specic enthalpy of diesel as function of diesel temperature.

The compressibility factor of air is calculated with correlation from [VVY96]. The specic enthalpy of air is calculated with correlation from Carlo Luijten (Hrealmix.m, University of Eindhoven). In Figs. I.7 and I.8 the compressibility of air and the specic enthalpy of air are shown as function of air temperature respectively. Furthermore for the compressibility of air plots are made for several air densities.
3

Air density: 5 kg/m 1.6 compressibility factor of air []

x 10 5.5 5 specific enthalpie of air [J/kg] 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2

Air density: 10 kg/m3 Air density: 15 kg/m3

3

1.5

Air density: 20 kg/m

Air density: 25 kg/m3 1.4 Air density: 30 kg/m3

1.3

1.2

1.1 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 ambient air temperature temperature [K]

1.5 500

700 900 1100 1300 ambient air temperature [K]

1500

Figure I.7: The compressibility factor of air as function of diesel temperature and air density.

Figure I.8: The specic enthalpy of diesel as function of air temperature.

Finally the dynamic viscosity of air is used as an input variable in the Siebers liquid scaling law. For the calculation the following correlation is used [QDB+ 95]:
4 3 2 air = 1.3257 1017 Ta + 4.719 1014 Ta 7.1799 1011 Ta + 8.078 108 Ta 2.227 107 (I.5)

In Fig. I.9 the relation is shown between the viscosity of air and the air temperature.

26

850

800 diesel density [kg/m3]

750

700

650

600

550 300

350

400 450 500 550 diesel temperature [K]

600

Figure I.9: The air viscosity as function of air temperature.

27

Appendix J

Specications of the lter used for laser light scattering

Narrow band lter specication HFR-488 High rejection lter Substrate Material: BK7 or better Sufrace quality: 60-40 per MIL-PRF-13830B Clear aperture: > 80 (of outer diameter) Outer diameter: 12,5 mm, 0,05 mm Thickness: 3,5 mm, 0,1 mm Ring housing: black anodized aluminium Transmission at laser line: > 90 at 488,0 nm typical bandwidth: 0,38 of LambdaL Transmitted wavefront error: Lambda/4 RMS at 633 nm Low pass lter specication CG-BG-39-2.00-3.0 Schott Glass BG 39 lter thickness: 3 mm diameter: 2 inch surface gure: commercial polish clear aperture: > 90 (of outer diameter)

28

Appendix K

Results Siebers main experiments

In this appendix the measured liquid core lengths from the laser light scattering experiments are summarized. Table K.1: Measured liquid core length in the laser light scattering experiments. Density kg/m3 6,5 6,5 6,5 6,5 6,5 6,5 6,5 6,5 9,3 9,3 9,3 9,3 9,3 9,3 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,1 Temperature K 1003,9 1009,3 1300,6 1309,3 1317,5 1474,1 1480,4 1485,9 1004,3 1025,3 1026,3 1476,6 1485,5 1498,8 1014,9 1017,6 1018,4 1305,4 1307,2 1309,8 1509,8 1510,8 1522,0 678,8 682,6 685,0 836,2 836,9 838,5 983,1 984,2 Liquid core length [mm] 36,0 36,1 28,0 28,0 27,8 26,1 25,7 25,0 34,2 28,2 28,2 20,4 18,7 18,8 27,3 28,5 27,3 20,0 19,7 19,1 16,1 16,0 16,6 43,4 43,4 43,3 33,7 28,6 28,7 26,2 24,4

29

Density kg/m3 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,2 16,0 16,1 15,9 16,1 16,1 16,1 16,2 16,2 16,2 20,8 20,7 20,7 20,8 20,7 20,8 20,5 20,8 20,9 25,3 25,2 25,4 25,4 25,4 25,4 25,2 25,1 24,6 25,5 25,6 25,5 24,8 24,9 24,9 25,3 25,2 25,3 25,5 25,3 30,2 30,4 30,4

Temperature K 985,3 1090,9 1125,0 1127,7 1131,8 1133,7 1136,8 1284,9 1287,3 1290,0 1492,6 1492,8 1493,7 1026,3 1035,0 1035,0 1035,8 1035,8 1212,5 1553,3 1553,7 1554,8 652,7 653,7 654,8 758,8 759,8 759,9 894,5 897,7 949,9 1001,0 1005,1 1009,1 1175,7 1176,3 1182,5 1300,4 1300,7 1301,9 1506,2 1507,5 980,0 1005,1 1001,8

Liquid core length [mm] 26,2 20,5 20,3 19,4 20,1 19,3 21,2 17,6 17,0 16,9 13,9 13,8 12,6 19,8 19,2 19,8 16,6 18,0 18,2 11,5 10,5 10,3 45,1 45,9 45,7 30,5 30,2 30,3 23,5 24,8 24,3 20,9 20,3 22,2 18,7 16,2 15,4 15,0 15,0 14,8 10,3 10,6 21,1 19,6 18,6

30

Appendix L

Comparison of Schlieren and laser light scattering recordings

In this appendix images of Schlieren and laser light scattering recordings are compared. In each image a scale is shown. The large indications indicate 10 mm in reality and the small indications indicate 1 mm in reality.

Figure L.1: Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 6,52 kg/m3 , Ta = 1009 K and pf uel = 1165 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 6,46 kg/m3 , Ta = 1006 K and pf uel = 1165 bar.

31

Figure L.2: Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 6,51 kg/m3 , Ta = 1480 K and pf uel = 1172 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 6,46 kg/m3 , Ta = 1480 K and pf uel = 1170 bar.

Figure L.3: Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 16,16 kg/m3 , Ta = 985 K and pf uel = 1118 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 16,01 kg/m3 , Ta = 984 K and pf uel = 1135 bar.

32

Figure L.4: Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 16,18 kg/m3 , Ta = 1492 K and pf uel = 1189 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 16,09 kg/m3 , Ta = 1493 K and pf uel = 1163 bar.

Figure L.5: Laser light scattering recording conditions: a = 16,23 kg/m3 , Ta = 685 K and pf uel = 1124 bar. Schlieren recording conditions: a = 16,05 kg/m3 , Ta = 682 K and pf uel = 1133 bar.

33

Figure L.6: Detailed recordings of the tip of the liquid core where breakup phenomena occur. The width of a single image is 7,8 mm and its duration is 9,8 s. The conditions were: Ta = 650 K, a = 25 kg/m3 and pf uel = 1165 bar.

34