processes

Article
Spray Structure and Characteristics of a
Pressure-Swirl Dust Suppression Nozzle Using
a Phase Doppler Particle Analyze
Junpeng Wang, Cuicui Xu * , Gang Zhou and Yansong Zhang
Safety Engineering Department, College of Safety and Environmental Engineering, Shandong University of
Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China; [email protected] (J.W.); [email protected] (G.Z.);
[email protected] (Y.Z.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-0532-8605-7748




Received: 10 July 2020; Accepted: 28 August 2020; Published: 10 September 2020


Abstract: In order to understand the characteristics of the spray field of a dust suppression nozzle and
provide a reference for dust nozzle selection according to dust characteristics, a three-dimensional
phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) spray measurement system is used to analyze the droplet size
and velocity characteristics in a spray field, particularly the joint particle size–velocity distribution.
According to the results, after the ejection of the jet from the nozzle, the droplets initially maintained
some velocity; however, the distribution of particles with different sizes was not uniform. As the
spray distance increased, the droplet velocity decreased significantly, and the particle size distribution
changed very little. As the distance increased further, the large droplets separated into smaller
droplets, and their velocity decreased rapidly. The distributions of the particle size and velocity of
the droplets then became stable. Based on the particle size-velocity distribution characteristics, the
spray structure of pressure-swirl nozzles can be divided into five regions, i.e., the mixing, expansion,
stabilization, decay, and rarefied regions. The expansion, stabilization, and decay regions are the
effective dust fall areas. In addition, the droplet size in the stabilization region is the most uniform,
indicating that this region is the best dust fall region. The conclusions can provide abundant calibration
data for spray dust fall nozzles.

Keywords: pressure-swirl nozzle; PDPA; joint particle size–velocity distribution; spray structure;
dust fall

1. Introduction
With the development of efficient mechanization, the amount of coal mine dust is also increasing.
The high concentration of dust on the production site is very harmful, as it not only brings harm to
the physical and mental health of underground workers, but also threatens the production safety of
coal mines. Every year, explosion accidents and pneumoconiosis caused by high dust content in the
working environment have brought huge economic losses to the country. Therefore, the research on
dust control has important theoretical significance and social value for improving the occupational
safety of miners and ensuring production safety in an underground mine. Spray-based dust-settling
technology is the most widely used and effective dust control measure in coal mines [1–3]. When using
a spray, the eventual success with regard to dust suppression depends on multiple factors, including
inertial impaction, gravity settling, Brownian diffusion, interception, and electrostatic collection [4–9].
In 1973, an American scholar, Cheng [10], proposed a theoretical equation for the collection of airborne
dust by a water spray, which first promoted the study of “water spray theory”. Charinpanitkul
et al. [11] simulated the dust removal effects of different water mist particle sizes on dust with
different particle sizes and proposed that the maximal dust removal efficiency was also confirmed

Processes 2020, 8, 1127; doi:10.3390/pr8091127 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2020, 8, 1127 2 of 17

by water droplets with smaller size and narrower size distribution. The nozzle is a key component
of the spray dust-control system, and its atomization capability directly impacts the practical dust
suppression effect. When water is ejected from the nozzle, the distribution of the water velocity will
affect the droplet’s breakup process and thus affect the size distributions of droplets in the spray field.
Smaller droplets at a greater velocity relative to airflow display a high dust-collision and dust-capture
efficiency [12–17]. Therefore, it is vital that we investigate atomization of the nozzle to enhance the
efficiency of dust-suppression sprays.
The existing research shows that the droplet size in a spray field is an important index to evaluate
whether the droplet can effectively reduce dust [18–21]. There are many methods to measure the
droplet size in a spray field, such as the shadowgraph method and the schlieren method. With the
development of optical technology, new optical measurement technologies have been applied, which
have greatly advanced research into droplet size. At present, the mainstream testing methods include
the Malvern laser particle size analysis, laser Doppler velocimetry, phase Doppler particle analysis,
and particle image velocimetry. For example, Zhou et al. [19] used the Malvern laser particle size
analyzer to conduct tests involving the atomization particle size under various pressures. They found
that the droplet size is the smallest at the center of the spray field and gradually increases towards
the edge. For the same nozzle at different pressures, the change of the atomization particle size
of a large-diameter nozzle is not obvious, but that of small diameter nozzle is obvious. Pollock
et al. [22] used a phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) to investigate water droplet size and velocity
characteristics for hollow-cone, full-cone, flat-fan, and air-atomizing spray nozzles at similar operating
parameters. Test results indicated that the hollow-cone nozzles, especially the wider-angle nozzle,
tend to generate smaller and slower velocity droplets, while the flat-fan nozzles tend to generate larger
droplet sizes at moderate velocities. On the other hand, the full-cone (water-only and air-atomizing)
nozzles tend to generate droplet sizes in a range between those of the hollow-cone and flat-fan spray
nozzles, with noticeably higher mean droplet velocities generated from the air-atomizing sprays.
According to the above results, research on dust suppression nozzles has mainly been focused on
the effect of spray pressure and nozzle types. The spatial distribution of droplets has been limited
to the change in the central axis. There has been no analysis of droplet characteristics in the whole
spray field. Therefore, it is necessary to further study the spatial factors affecting the dust fall efficiency.
In this study, we used a three-dimensional (3-D) PDPA spray measurement system to analyze the
distributions of different droplet sizes and velocities in the spray field, particularly the joint particle
size–velocity distribution, to fully understand the spatial movements of droplets as the spray distance
increases and provide a large amount of calibration data for spray structure. Through this paper, we
can further understand the characteristics of the droplets in the spray field of the dust nozzle and
provide a reference for dust nozzle selection according to dust characteristics.

2. Experimental Setup and Procedure

2.1. Test Nozzle Specification

Pressure nozzles are widely used in response to high dust concentrations in mining and
excavation [23–25]. Pressure-swirl nozzles are the most widely used type of atomizing nozzle
in underground coal mines. Therefore, a pressure-swirl nozzle was selected as the research object of
this study, and its atomization characteristics were studied in depth. Figure 1 presents a schematic
view of the pressure-type nozzle, and Table 1 shows its specific geometric parameters.
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 3 of 17
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

(a) Physical picture (b) Internal structure

Figure 1. Distributor
Figure 1. Distributor pressure
pressure nozzle.
nozzle.

Table 1. Structural
2.2. Experimental Setup and Measurement Techniqueparameters of the nozzle.
(a) Physical picture (b) Internal structure
L1 (mm) D1 (mm) α 1 (◦ ) D2 (mm) L2 (mm) A (mm2 ) α2 (◦ )
2.2.1. Experimental System Figure 1. Distributor pressure nozzle.
5 15 100 1.5 6 1 35
All experiments were conducted using an atomizing test system based on a PDPA. Figure 2
2.2. Experimental Setup and Measurement Technique
shows a schematic diagram of the atomizing test system, which consisted of an atomizing control
2.2. Experimental Setup and Measurement Technique
system
2.2.1. and a PDPASystem
Experimental system. The atomizing control system is comprised of a water tank, pressure
gauge, high-pressure
2.2.1. Experimental water pump, and so on.
System
All experiments were conducted using an atomizing test system based on a PDPA. Figure 2
shows Alla experiments were conducted
schematic diagram using an atomizing
of the atomizing test system, testwhich
system based onof
consisted a PDPA. Figure 2control
an atomizing shows
a schematic
system and adiagram of the atomizing
PDPA system. The atomizingtest system,
controlwhich
system consisted of an atomizing
is comprised of a water control system
tank, pressure
and a PDPA system. The atomizing
gauge, high-pressure water pump, and so on. control system is comprised of a water tank, pressure gauge,
Water pump
high-pressure water pump, andPower so supply
on. Water tank
(DC 14 V)
Pressure gauge

Nozzle
3-D traverse system Transmitter
Water pump Digital delay
generator
Power supply Water tank
(DC 14 V)
Pressure gauge

Nozzle
3-D traverse system Transmitter Digital delay
Receiver
Transmitter generator
Doppler signal analyzer
（ FSA 4000 ）

Receiver
Argon ion laser
Transmitter
Beam separator Doppler signal analyzer
（ FSA
Droplet 4000
size and）
velocity analyzer

Argon ion laser

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the atomizing test system.
Beam separator
Droplet size and
A PDPA (Dantec) system was used to analyze the droplet size and velocity,
velocity analyzer as shown in Figure

3. The monochromatic light ray from the laser was split by a beam separator into six beams in three
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the atomizing test system.
Figure
different colors, i.e., green 2. Schematic
(514.5 nm), blue diagram
(488.0ofnm),
the atomizing
and violet test system.
(476.5 nm), and then sent to the
transmitters. We usedsystem
A PDPA (Dantec) the Flowsizer
was usedsoftware
to analyzetotheanalyze
dropletthe
sizedroplet velocity
and velocity, and particle
as shown in Figuresize3.
A PDPA (Dantec)
distributions. system was
The transmitters andused to analyze fixed
receivers the droplet size and velocity, as shown in Figure
The monochromatic light ray from the laser were
was split by toaabeam
3-D traverse
separator system with
into six a pitch
beams in of 0.1
three
3.
mm.TheThe
monochromatic
data could light ray and
fromautomatically
the laser wascollected,
split by a and
beam separator into sixthe
beams in spray
three
different colors, i.e., be quickly
green (514.5 nm), blue (488.0 nm), and information
violet (476.5 nm), about whole
and then sent to
different colors,
field could i.e., green
be obtained (514.5 nm),the
by controlling blue (488.0 system.
traverse nm), and violet
Table (476.5the
2 shows nm),mainandparameters
then sent to of the
the
transmitters.
PDPA. We used the Flowsizer software to analyze the droplet velocity and particle size
distributions. The transmitters and receivers were fixed to a 3-D traverse system with a pitch of 0.1
mm. The data could be quickly and automatically collected, and information about the whole spray
field could be obtained by controlling the traverse system. Table 2 shows the main parameters of the
PDPA.
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 4 of 17

the transmitters. We used the Flowsizer software to analyze the droplet velocity and particle size
distributions. The transmitters and receivers were fixed to a 3-D traverse system with a pitch of 0.1 mm.
The data could be quickly and automatically collected, and information about the whole spray field
could be
Processes obtained
2020, 8, x FORby controlling
PEER REVIEW the traverse system. Table 2 shows the main parameters of the 4PDPA.
of 17

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Installed
Installedphase
phaseDoppler
Doppler particle
particle analyzer
analyzer (PDPA)
(PDPA) system.

Table 2. Optical setup and run settings of the PDPA system.

Table 2. Optical setup and run settings of the PDPA system.
Parameters Value
Parameters Value
Bragg cell
Bragg cellfrequency
frequency 4040MHz
MHz
Focal length of transmitting probe 750 mm
Focal length of transmitting probe 750 mm
Beam diameter 1.77 mm
Beam
Beam diameter
spacing 1.7750mm
mm
Beam spacing
Scattering angle 50 mm
40◦
Scattering
Velocity measurementanglerange −313 40°
to 1600 m/s
Diameter measurement
Velocity measurement rangerange 0.5to
−313 to1600
5000 m/s
µm
Band pass filter 1–10 MHz
Diameter measurement range 0.5 to 5000 μm
Burst threshold 30–300 mV
Band pass filter 1–10 MHz
Burst threshold 30–300 mV
2.2.2. Error Analysis
2.2.2.PDPA
Error Analysis
measurement system itself has some measurement error. The Doppler frequency obtained
in the measurement has a width and is not a single frequency. This broadening phenomenon will cause
PDPA measurement system itself has some measurement error. The Doppler frequency
measurement error. There are many reasons for the broadening, such as the finite transit time of the
obtained in the measurement has a width and is not a single frequency. This broadening phenomenon
scattering particles in the measurement body, the velocity gradient, and Brownian motion of particles
will cause measurement error. There are many reasons for the broadening, such as the finite transit
in the velocity field. The error caused by frequency broadening can be suppressed by setting system
time of the scattering particles in the measurement body, the velocity gradient, and Brownian motion
parameters to match the measured flow field. Taking account of the above errors, the uncertainties in
of particles in the velocity field. The error caused by frequency broadening can be suppressed by
the PDPA measurement of drop velocity and size are estimated to be 1% and 3%, respectively.
setting system parameters to match the measured flow field. Taking account of the above errors, the
The measured values were statistically average. For each measurement point, we ceased sampling
uncertainties in the PDPA measurement of drop velocity and size are estimated to be 1% and 3%,
when either of the following conditions was satisfied: (1) the effective sample size reached 2000 or (2) the
respectively.
measurement took 15 s. Panão and his co-workers [26] also determined that if the measurements stop
The measured values were statistically average. For each measurement point, we ceased
at a sample size of 1000 drops, any mean diameter calculated would only be 1% higher than the value
sampling when either of the following conditions was satisfied: (1) the effective sample size reached
calculated if more than 3000 samples were acquired to describe the spray at that measurement point.
2000 or (2) the measurement took 15 s. Panão and his co-workers [26] also determined that if the
measurements
2.3. Testing and stop at a sample
Analytical size of 1000 drops, any mean diameter calculated would only be 1%
Methods
higher than the value calculated if more than 3000 samples were acquired to describe the spray at
When we measured
that measurement point. the spray using the PDPA, the nozzle was arranged into a rack to eject
horizontally and parallel to the X-axis of the traverse system. Therefore, the spray was ejected in
the Testing
2.3. X-direction. In the following
and Analytical Methodsexperimental analysis, we obtained the axial distribution from the
center of a cross-section at a distance of X from the nozzle. The radial distribution was obtained from
When we measured the spray using the PDPA, the nozzle was arranged into a rack to eject
horizontally and parallel to the X-axis of the traverse system. Therefore, the spray was ejected in the
X-direction. In the following experimental analysis, we obtained the axial distribution from the center
of a cross-section at a distance of X from the nozzle. The radial distribution was obtained from this
cross-section at a measurement point with a distance of Y from the center of the nozzle, and the
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 5 of 17

blocked by the nozzle. Therefore, no valid data could be obtained at the exit. Thus, we set the first
this cross-section at a measurement point with a distance of Y from the center of the nozzle, and the
measurement point distribution
tangential to be 50 mm from the
was obtained nozzle,
from and we set
this cross-section the step size
at a measurement to 50
point withmm. The step size in
a distance
the radial ofdirection
Z from the(Y)centerwasof thealso setThe
nozzle. tothree
50 light
mm.beamsThecouldspray wasatejected
not meet the exit ashorizontally
they were during
blocked by the nozzle. Therefore, no valid data could be obtained at the exit.
measurement. At greater distances, droplets near the edge of the spray field were scattered onto the Thus, we set the first
measurement point to be 50 mm from the nozzle, and we set the step size to 50 mm. The step size in
transmitter the
and receiver lenses of the PDPA system, preventing measurement. Therefore, we took X
radial direction (Y) was also set to 50 mm. The spray was ejected horizontally during measurement.
up to 1000 At
mm. Within
greater thisdroplets
distances, range, the
near thespray
edge of remained inwere
the spray field a good condition
scattered and droplets
onto the transmitter and near the
boundary didreceiver
not lenses of the PDPA
contaminate thesystem,
lenses,preventing
ensuring measurement.
successful Therefore, we took X up to 1000 mm.
measurement.
Within this range, the spray remained in a good condition and droplets near the boundary did not
The flow sizer software can display the experimental statistical results in real time, as shown in
contaminate the lenses, ensuring successful measurement.
Figure 4. The first chart
The flow shows
sizer softwarethecanSMD
display(Sauter mean diameter)
the experimental of the
statistical results droplet
in real time, asatshown
the measurement
in
point, and the statistical
Figure 4. The firstresults of D10,
chart shows D20,(Sauter
the SMD D30,meanD32diameter)
and D43ofare shownat in
the droplet thediameter
measurement statistics. The
remaining point,
chartsandshowthe statistical results of D10, D20, D30, D32 and D43 are shown in diameter statistics.
the average velocity distribution characteristics of the droplets at the
The remaining charts show the average velocity distribution characteristics of the droplets at the
measurement points. Green
measurement light light
points. Green (ch.1) represents
(ch.1) tangential
represents tangential velocity
velocity (Z-axis(Z-axis
velocity),velocity),
blue light blue light
(ch.2) represents radial velocity
(ch.2) represents (Y-axis
radial velocity velocity),
(Y-axis velocity),and
andpurple light
purple light (ch.3)
(ch.3) represents
represents axial velocity (X-
axial velocity
(X-axis
axis velocity). velocity).

Figure
Figure 4. Flowsizersoftware
4. Flowsizer software display interface.
display interface.
The specifications of the test nozzle are provided in Section 2.1. We selected an initial pressure
The specifications of the the
of 2 MPa and changed testpressure
nozzletoare3, 4, provided
and 5 MPa. in Section
Before 2.1.
testing, we We selectedthe
photographed anspray
initial pressure
of 2 MPa and changed the pressure to 3, 4, and 5 MPa. Before testing, we photographed
using high-speed cameras, and, based on the captured spray angle, we determined the number of the spray
measurement points (see Figure 5). Owing to the axial symmetry of the spray and to conserve time,
using high-speed cameras, and, based on the captured spray angle, we determined the number of
we only collected statistics on one side.
measurement points (see Figure 5). Owing to the axial symmetry of the spray and to conserve time,
we only collected statistics on one side.

500

400

300

200

100
Y (mm)

-100
 The specifications of the test nozzle are provided in Section 2.1. We selected an initial pressure
of 2 MPa and changed the pressure to 3, 4, and 5 MPa. Before testing, we photographed the spray
using high-speed cameras, and, based on the captured spray angle, we determined the number of
measurement
Processes 2020, 8, points
1127 (see Figure 5). Owing to the axial symmetry of the spray and to conserve time,
6 of 17
we only collected statistics on one side.

500

400

300

200

100

Y (mm)
0

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
X (mm)

Measuringpoint
Figure5.5.Measuring
Figure pointlayout.
layout.

Processes 2020,and
8, x Discussion
FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
3.3.Results
Results and Discussion
3.1. Droplet Size

3.1.1. Characteristics of
3.1.1. Characteristics of Particles
Particles in
in the
the Axial
Axial Direction
Direction
The
The capture
capture of
of dust by aa droplet
dust by droplet is
is the
the result
result of
of the
theinteraction
interaction events
events occurring
occurring between
between surfaces.
surfaces.
D 32,, as
D32 as the
thearea-weighted
area-weighted mean
mean diameter, is most
diameter, suitable
is most for monitoring
suitable the proportion
for monitoring of fine particles
the proportion of fine
present. Thus, the SMD (D ) was selected to illustrate the mean droplet diameter
particles present. Thus, the32 SMD (D32) was selected to illustrate the mean droplet diameter in in atomization
investigations [27–29]. Y was
atomization investigations taken Yupwas
[27–29]. to 200
takenmm uptotoensure
200 mmthattoenough measurement
ensure that points were
enough measurement
used for analysis. Figure 6 shows the comparison curves of the SMD distribution
points were used for analysis. Figure 6 shows the comparison curves of the SMD distribution along the along
axial
direction (X-direction).
the axial direction (X-direction).

240 Y=0 mm
Y=100 mm 160
Y=50 mm
Y=150 mm
220 Y=200 mm
140
200

180 120
SMD(μm)

SMD(μm)

160
100
140

80
120

100 60

80
40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
X(mm)

Figure 6. Comparison curves of the SMD distribution along the axial direction.

As the distance in the the axial

axial direction
direction increased,
increased, several stages of regular
regular variations
variations in the
the SMD
SMD
occurred. At Y Y ==00mm,
mm,the theSMD
SMDcurve
curveunderwent
underwentapproximately
approximatelyfour fourstages
stagesofofchanges:
changes:(1)(1) When
When X
X = 50–150
= 50–150 mm,
mm, thethe
SMD SMD increased
increased as Xas X increased.
increased. This isThis is due
likely likely
to due to the concentration
the concentration of the
of the droplets
droplets
just afterjust after the
leaving leaving
nozzle the [30].
nozzle [30]. sampling,
During During sampling, strong droplet
strong droplet coalescence
coalescence occurred occurred
due to
due to incomplete
incomplete atomization.
atomization. (2) When X (2)= 150–450
When Xmm, = 150–450
the SMDmm, the SMD
decreased decreased
rapidly by uprapidly
to 48.4%. byThis
up
to 48.4%. that
indicates Thisthe
indicates
splittingthat the splitting
of single dropletsofwassingle droplets was
predominant predominant
during during
this stage. (3) WhenthisX =stage.
450–
(3)
800,When X = 450–800,
the SMD fluctuatedthebetween
SMD fluctuated
90 and 110 between
μm. This90 indicates
and 110 µm.thatThis indicateswere
the droplets that stable
the droplets
under
were stable under
both internal both internal
and external forcesand
andexternal
that theforces and thatathe
SMD reached SMD reached
uniform a uniform
distribution. distribution.
(4) When X = 800–
1000 mm, the fluctuations in SMD were greater, as the amplitude increased by 16%. This suggests
that droplet collisions and coalescences became predominant. As shown in Figure 6, the variation in
SMD when Y = 50 mm was similar to that when Y = 0 mm. With an increase in the distance, the SMD
increased, indicating an increase in the area in which concentrated droplets were concentrated. The
SMD only began to decrease significantly at X = 300 mm, and it varied between 80 and 95 μm when
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 7 of 17

(4) When X = 800–1000 mm, the fluctuations in SMD were greater, as the amplitude increased by 16%.
This suggests that droplet collisions and coalescences became predominant. As shown in Figure 6,
the variation in SMD when Y = 50 mm was similar to that when Y = 0 mm. With an increase in the
distance, the SMD increased, indicating an increase in the area in which concentrated droplets were
concentrated. The SMD only began to decrease significantly at X = 300 mm, and it varied between 80
and 95 µm when X = 450 mm. The droplet collision and coalescence rates began to increase when
X = 850 mm. When Y = 100 mm, the curve began to change. The SMD did not initially increase with X.
This indicated that the droplets were directly entering the fast breakup phase.
When Y = 150 mm, the SMD initially mildly oscillated but then gradually increased. The SMD
reached the minimum value of 73.25 µm when X = 700 mm. It then increased by 49.4% at X = 1000 mm.
At Y = 200 mm, which was close to the edge of the spray field, the SMD experienced more pronounced
oscillations but was similar to the behavior at Y = 150 mm.

3.1.2. Characteristics of Particles in the Radial Direction

To further investigate the variations in SMD at each cross-section, we analyzed the SMD in the
radial direction. According to our analysis in Section 3.1.1, stage-wise changes in SMD were observed
in the axial direction. Therefore, we selected several typical cross-sections for study based on the
characteristics in each region. These cross-sections were located at X = 100, 200, 450, and 800 mm.
With a 2020,
Processes step 8,size of PEER
x FOR 50 mm, the cross-section close to the nozzle would only be able to contain
REVIEW 7 ofone
17
measurement point. Therefore, for particle size analysis, we set the step size to 20 mm to ensure
Figure 77 shows
sufficient data collection. Figure shows the
the SMD
SMD distribution
distribution along
along the
the radial
radial direction
direction in
in the
the four
four
selected cross-sections.

220 X=100 mm
X=200 mm
200 X=500 mm
X=800 mm
180

160
SMD(μm)

140

120

100

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Y(mm)

Figure
Figure 7. Comparison curve
7. Comparison curve of
of the
the axial
axial velocity
velocity along
along the
the axial
axial direction.
direction.

As shown
As shownin inFigure
Figure7,7,when
when XX = 100
= 100 mm,mm,
the the droplet
droplet radius
radius increased
increased fromfrom the center
the center to theto the
edge
edge of the spray field. This is due to the great droplet density, indicating that
of the spray field. This is due to the great droplet density, indicating that some droplets were some droplets were
overlapping. In
overlapping. In the
the other
other cross-sections
cross-sections (X (X ==200,
200,450,
450,and
and 800
800 mm),
mm), thethe SMD
SMD changed
changed in in the
the radial
direction and exhibited similar behavior, i.e., it first decreased and then increased. This indicates indicates that
that
the droplets
the droplets initially
initially separate
separate into
into smaller
smaller droplets
droplets as
as they
they spread
spread outward
outward fromfrom the center. Then,
Then,
with an increase in Y, Y, the SMD increased for the following two reasons: First, First, the
the droplets
droplets extensively
extensively
exchanged energy
exchanged energy withwith the
the environment,
environment, and and the
the loss
loss of
of kinetic
kinetic energy
energy increased
increased with with the radial
Under the
distance. Under the impact
impact ofofthe
theatmosphere,
atmosphere, inelastic
inelastic collisions
collisions caused
caused the
the SMD
SMD to toincrease.
increase. Second,
Second,
larger droplets exhibited higher inertia and smaller air resistance per unit volume, allowing them to
travel farther.
travel farther. Furthermore,
Furthermore, the the small
smalldroplets
dropletsnear
nearthetheedge
edgeofof the
the spray
spray field
field evaporated
evaporatedquickly,
quickly,
hindering measurement.

3.2. Droplet Velocity

3.2.1. Characteristics of Velocity in the Axial Direction

The velocity in the axial direction represents the kinetic energy required for the droplets to move
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 8 of 17

3.2. Droplet Velocity

3.2.1. Characteristics of Velocity in the Axial Direction

The velocity in the axial direction represents the kinetic energy required for the droplets to move
forward. A greater velocity in the axial direction means that the droplets possess higher energy to
move forward [31]. Figure 8 shows the regularity of the distribution of the axial velocity in the axial
direction. As the spray distance increased, the axial velocity decreased, but this decrease slowed
gradually. The main reason for this decrease was that the nearby spray was required to overcome the air
shear resistance to move forward. Along the axial direction of the spray (Y = 0 mm), the axial velocity
decreased significantly from near the nozzle’s exit to X = 500 mm. Over this distance, the velocity of the
droplets decreased by up to 51.3%. Along the line Y = 50 mm parallel to the axial direction, there was
still a clear decrease, which reached 51.9% at X = 500 mm. When Y was between 100 and 150 mm,
as the axial distance increased, the decrease in the axial velocity slowed. Along the line of Y = 200 mm
parallel to the spray, the axial velocity remained almost the same, maintaining a value between 1 and
4 m/s. The axial velocity decreased further from the axial direction (Y = 0 mm), but became more
stable. It can be speculated that the outer region of the spray field tended to stabilize, but the forward
momentum
Processes 2020, 8,diminished.
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

20 10
Y=0 mm Y=100 mm
18 Y=50 mm Y=150 mm
Y=200 mm 8
16
6
14

12 4
vx(m·s )
-1

vx(m·s )
-1
10 2

8
0
6
-2
4

2 -4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
X(mm)

Figure 8. Comparison
Comparison curve
curve of
of the
the radial
radial velocity along the axial direction.

The velocity in the the radial

radial direction
direction represents
represents the
the kinetic
kinetic energy
energy used
used forfor the
the droplets
droplets totoexpand.
expand.
A higher
highervelocity
velocityindicates
indicates that thethe
that droplets are more
droplets likelylikely
are more to moveto outward
move outward[32]. As[32].
shownAsinshown
Figurein
9,
the radial
Figure velocity
9, the radialexhibits
velocityaexhibits
similar ascale to the
similar axial
scale to velocity
the axialbut is 50–60%
velocity but issmaller.
50–60%This suggests
smaller. This
that the swirl
suggests structure
that the of the nozzle
swirl structure greatly
of the nozzleenhanced the radial the
greatly enhanced velocity.
radialAlong the Along
velocity. axial line
theof the
axial
spray
line of(Y
the= 0spray
mm),(Y with
= 0an increase
mm), with in
anthe distance,
increase in the radial velocity
distance, first increased
the radial gradually
velocity first and
increased
then decreased.
gradually and thenThedecreased.
increase reached
The increase at X = 150
41.5% reached mm,atafter
41.5% X = which
150 mm, theafter
velocity
whichfirst decreased
the velocity
rapidly
first but then
decreased decreased
rapidly more
but then slowly. The
decreased moredecrease
slowly. reached
The decrease at X = 500
58.2%reached 58.2%mm;
at Xbeyond this,
= 500 mm;
the radial
beyond velocity
this, was very
the radial small,
velocity wasbetween 0–3 m/s.
very small, When0–3
between Y =m/s.
50 mm
When andY Y= =50100
mmmm, andthe
Y =behaviors
100 mm,
were
the consistent
behaviors withconsistent
were those at Ywith= 0 those
mm, although withalthough
at Y = 0 mm, the initialwith
increase in theincrease
the initial radial velocity were
in the radial
9.5% andwere
velocity 4.9% 9.5%
slower,
and respectively.
4.9% slower, When Y = 150 mm
respectively. Whenand Y Y == 150
200 mm,
mm andthe radial
Y = 200velocity
mm, the decreased
radial
throughout
velocity the spray,
decreased indicating
throughout a constant
the weakening
spray, indicating in its expansion.
a constant weakening in its expansion.

10
Y=0 mm Y=100 mm
14
Y=50 mm Y=150 mm
Y=200 mm 8
12

6
10
vy(m·s )

4
-1

8
vy(m·s )
-1

2
6

4 0

2 -2
gradually and then decreased. The increase reached 41.5% at X = 150 mm, after which the velocity
first decreased rapidly but then decreased more slowly. The decrease reached 58.2% at X = 500 mm;
beyond this, the radial velocity was very small, between 0–3 m/s. When Y = 50 mm and Y = 100 mm,
the behaviors were consistent with those at Y = 0 mm, although with the initial increase in the radial
velocity were
Processes 2020, 9.5% and 4.9% slower, respectively. When Y = 150 mm and Y = 200 mm, the radial
8, 1127 9 of 17
velocity decreased throughout the spray, indicating a constant weakening in its expansion.

10
Y=0 mm Y=100 mm
14
Y=50 mm Y=150 mm
Y=200 mm 8
12

6
10

vy(m·s )
4

-1
8

vy(m·s )
-1
2
6

4 0

2 -2

0 -4
0 200 400 600 800 1000
X(mm)

Figure 9. Comparison
Comparison curve
curve of
of the radial velocity along the axial direction.
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17
3.2.2. Characteristics
3.2.2. Characteristics of of Velocity
Velocity inin the
the Radial
Radial Direction
Direction
with X = 100 mm and X = 200 mm, the decline in axial velocity was approximately parabolic; at X =
Along
Along
450 mm, with
thewith thewas
the
decline velocity
velocity
almost changes
changes alongafter
linear; along
and, the X
the radial
radial direction,
= 800direction,
mm, the axialthe changes
the changes in the
in the radial
velocity changed verydirection
radial direction
slightly,
within each
within that
unlike cross-section
eachincross-section
the previousareare also very important
also very important
cross-sections. According in the
in the formation
formation
to this analysis,of the
ofthe spray
thedroplets field.
spray field. Therefore,
lost Therefore,
momentumit itas
is
is
necessary
necessary
the to
spray to study the
study the
distance variations
variations
increased, in the velocity
in the velocity
gradually radially
radially
shifting from inin the cross-section.
the cross-section.
internal-force Here, we focused
Here, we focused
to external-force on the
on the
dominance.
changes
changes
When thein the
the axial
inaxial axial and radial
radialvelocities
anddecreased
velocity velocities
by suchusing
using the
therepresentative
an amount representative
that resultedcross-sections
in a balanceused
cross-sections used in in
between Section 3.1.2
Section as
3.1.2
the internal
ourour
as
and object of forces
object
external study. Forthe
of study.
on details,
For seesee
details,
droplets, Figures 10 and
theFigures
droplets 11.11.to stop moving forward.
10tended
and
As shown in Figure 10, the radial velocity decreased gradually in the radial direction and slowly
approached 0 at the edge18of the spray field. This indicates that the ejector pumping capability of the
X=100 mm
axial velocity declined gradually
16 towards the edge of the spray field. The
X=200 mm extent of decrease in the
X=500 mm
radial velocity with increasing14
spray distance was distinct for each cross-section:
X=800 mm
at the cross-sections

12
vx(m·s )
-1

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Y(mm)

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Comparison
Comparison curve
curve of
of the
the axial
axial velocity
velocity along
along the
the radial
radial direction.
direction.

As shown in Figure 10, 11, the

withradial velocityindecreased
an increase the spray gradually
distance, thein the radialin
changes direction andvelocity
the radial slowly
approached 0 at the edge of the spray field. This indicates that the ejector
differed between different cross-sections. When X = 100 mm and X = 200 mm, the radial velocities pumping capability of the
axial velocity
increased declined
by 68.4% andgradually towards theTherefore,
85.7%, respectively. edge of thethe spray
sprayfield. The extent
expands rapidlyof decrease in the
during this radial
interval.
velocity with increasing spray distance was distinct for each cross-section:
This was maintained until X = 450 mm, where the increase was 67.9%. This indicated that the spray at the cross-sections with
X = 100
was stillmm and X = 200
expanding mm,distance,
at this the decline in axialatvelocity
though a lowerwas approximately
rate. At Y = 800 parabolic; at X = 450
mm, the radial mm,
velocity
the declinebetween
remained was almost0 andlinear;
1 m/s. and,
At this X = 800
afterpoint, themm, the axial
expansion was velocity
solelychanged
maintained verybyslightly, unlike
the inertia of
that in the previous cross-sections. According to this analysis, the droplets
the droplets. Although it was compressed by air in the atmosphere, the spray field continued tolost momentum as the spray
distancefor
expand increased, gradually
some distance dueshifting fromHowever,
to inertia. internal-force to external-force
the radial velocity was dominance.
very small,When the axial
limiting the
velocity
space decreased
available by such anThe
for expansion. amount that resulted
expansion rate at Xin= 100
a balance
mm was between the internal
significantly higherandthanexternal
that of
forces
the on the droplets,
following the droplets
cross-sections, tended
and the to stop
radial moving
velocity forward.
in the final cross-section was one order of
As shown
magnitude lowerin Figure
than that11, at
withX =an100
increase
mm. This in the spray distance,
indicates that, nearthethe
changes in the
nozzle’s radial
exit, velocity
the spray is
differed between different cross-sections. When X = 100 mm and X = 200 mm,
locally concentrated in a small region and has high expansion energy. However, after some distance, the radial velocities
increased
the by 68.4% and
spray gradually 85.7%, and
dissipates respectively. Therefore,
loses expansion the spray expands rapidly during this interval.
energy.

14 X=100 mm
X=200 mm
12
X=500 mm
X=800 mm
10
 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Y(mm)

Figure 10. Comparison curve of the axial velocity along the radial direction.

As2020,
Processes shown in
Figure 11, with an increase in the spray distance, the changes in the radial velocity
8, 1127 10 of 17
differed between different cross-sections. When X = 100 mm and X = 200 mm, the radial velocities
increased by 68.4% and 85.7%, respectively. Therefore, the spray expands rapidly during this interval.
This was maintained until X = 450 mm, where the increase was 67.9%. This indicated that the spray
This was maintained until X = 450 mm, where the increase was 67.9%. This indicated that the spray
was still expanding at this distance, though at a lower rate. At Y = 800 mm, the radial velocity remained
was still expanding at this distance, though at a lower rate. At Y = 800 mm, the radial velocity
between 0 and 1 m/s. At this point, the expansion was solely maintained by the inertia of the droplets.
remained between 0 and 1 m/s. At this point, the expansion was solely maintained by the inertia of
Although it was compressed by air in the atmosphere, the spray field continued to expand for some
the droplets. Although it was compressed by air in the atmosphere, the spray field continued to
distance due to inertia. However, the radial velocity was very small, limiting the space available for
expand for some distance due to inertia. However, the radial velocity was very small, limiting the
expansion. The expansion rate at X = 100 mm was significantly higher than that of the following
space available for expansion. The expansion rate at X = 100 mm was significantly higher than that of
cross-sections, and the radial velocity in the final cross-section was one order of magnitude lower than
the following cross-sections, and the radial velocity in the final cross-section was one order of
that at X = 100 mm. This indicates that, near the nozzle’s exit, the spray is locally concentrated in
magnitude lower than that at X = 100 mm. This indicates that, near the nozzle’s exit, the spray is
a small region and has high expansion energy. However, after some distance, the spray gradually
locally concentrated in a small region and has high expansion energy. However, after some distance,
dissipates and loses expansion energy.
the spray gradually dissipates and loses expansion energy.

14 X=100 mm
X=200 mm
12
X=500 mm
X=800 mm
10
vy(m·s )

8
-1

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Y(mm)

Figure 11. Comparison

Comparison curve
curve of
of the
the radial
radial velocity
velocity along the radial direction.

3.3. Characteristics of the Droplets’ Joint Particle Size–Velocity Distribution

According to jet atomization theories, the particle size distribution is closely related to the velocity
distribution during spraying [33]. The velocity of the droplets directly impacts their breakup, thereby
affecting the eventual distribution of the particle sizes in the spray field. Therefore, in this section,
we consider the particle size and velocity distributions jointly to elucidate the spray’s dynamics during
its development.
Figure 12 presents a joint particle size–velocity distribution scatter plot at different locations with
an injection pressure of 2 MPa. In the region near the nozzle (X = 50 mm), both the axial and radial
velocities were highly dispersed, increasing the likelihood of smaller droplets having a higher axial
velocity. When X = 100 mm, the droplets’ axial velocity decreased significantly, but the radial velocity
increased greatly, resulting in a concentrated distribution. By comparing Figures 12a and 12b, it can
be seen that the difference in the velocity between droplets with different particle sizes decreased.
This indicated that, with the development of the spray, the velocity of droplets with small radii
decreased significantly, while larger droplets maintained a high speed. When X = 200 mm, the axial
velocity of the droplets still decreased significantly, while the radial velocity did not change greatly.
When X = 450 mm, the axial velocity decreased slightly, while the radial velocity decreased significantly.
By X = 600 mm, the average velocity of the droplets had decreased by 70%. By comparing Figure 12c,
Figure 12d, and Figure 12e, it can be seen that the number of smaller droplets increased, while the
number of larger droplets decreased but could better maintain a stable velocity. The droplets gradually
began to stratify in the spray field. At X = 600 mm, the velocity of the small droplets was very small,
while that of the larger droplets was significantly higher. It can be speculated that, during spraying,
small droplets interact with the surrounding air and gradually lose momentum. Meanwhile, large
droplets separated into smaller droplets. The rapid atomization process stabilized slowly as the spray
developed. As shown in the velocity scatter plot when X = 800 mm (Figure 12f), the number of large
comparing Figure 12c, Figure 12d, and Figure 12e, it can be seen that the number of smaller droplets
increased, while the number of larger droplets decreased but could better maintain a stable velocity.
The droplets gradually began to stratify in the spray field. At X = 600 mm, the velocity of the small
droplets was very small, while that of the larger droplets was significantly higher. It can be speculated
that, during
Processes spraying, small droplets interact with the surrounding air and gradually11 of
2020, 8, 1127 lose
17
momentum. Meanwhile, large droplets separated into smaller droplets. The rapid atomization
process stabilized slowly as the spray developed. As shown in the velocity scatter plot when X = 800
droplets increased significantly, but their velocity remained low. This indicated that these large droplets
mm (Figure 12f), the number of large droplets increased significantly, but their velocity remained
were formed by the coalescence of smaller droplets.
low. This indicated that these large droplets were formed by the coalescence of smaller droplets.

16 16 SMD(μm)
(c) (d)
14 14 6.000
12 12 50.88
10 10
95.75
140.6
vy(m·s )
vy(m·s )

-1
-1

8 8
185.5
6 6 230.4
4 4 275.3
2
320.1
2
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 365.0 11 of 17
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
-1 -1
vx(m·s ) vx(m·s )

Figure
Figure 12. Jointparticle
12. Joint particlesize–velocity
size–velocity distribution
distribution scatter
scatter plot:
plot: (a) X X =mm,
(a)= 50 50 mm,
(b) X (b) = 100(c)mm,
X mm,
= 100 X=
(c) = 200(d)
200Xmm, mm,
X = (d) = 450
450Xmm, (e)mm, = 600
(e) Xmm,
X = 600 andmm, and
(f) X (f) X
= 800 = 800 mm.
mm.

From
From the
the descriptions
descriptions above,
above, the
the development
development of of the
the spray
spray field
field can
can be
be summarized
summarized as as follows.
follows.
After
After the ejection of the jet from the nozzle, the droplets initially maintained some velocity, but
the ejection of the jet from the nozzle, the droplets initially maintained some velocity, but the
the
distribution of particles with different sizes was not uniform. As the spray distance
distribution of particles with different sizes was not uniform. As the spray distance increased, the increased,
the droplet
droplet velocity
velocity decreased
decreased significantly,
significantly, andandthe
theparticle
particlesize
sizedistribution
distribution changed
changed very
very little.
little. As
As the
the
distance increased further, the large droplets separated into smaller droplets, increasing
distance increased further, the large droplets separated into smaller droplets, increasing their number their number
accordingly,
accordingly, but
but their
their velocity
velocity decreased
decreased rapidly.
rapidly. However,
However, the the large
large droplets
droplets that
that did
did not
not break
break up,
up,
or
or did
did not
not sufficiently
sufficiently break
break up,
up, maintained
maintained their
their high
high velocity.
velocity. The
The low-speed
low-speed small
small droplets
droplets then
then
collided,
collided, producing
producing larger
larger droplets
droplets with
with low
low speeds.
speeds. The
The droplets
droplets that
that did
did not
not sufficiently
sufficiently break
break up
up
continued to separate. At this point, the distributions of the particle size and velocity of
continued to separate. At this point, the distributions of the particle size and velocity of the dropletsthe droplets
stabilized.
stabilized. As
As the
thespray
spraydistance
distanceincreased
increasedfurther,
further,thethe
droplet velocity
droplet decreased
velocity decreasedsignificantly and and
significantly the
small droplets coalesced, thus increasing the number of large droplets.
the small droplets coalesced, thus increasing the number of large droplets.

3.4. Spray Structure of the Pressure-Swirl Nozzle

In Section 3.3, we used our analysis of the joint particle size–velocity distribution to
microscopically elucidate the spray development process. However, for engineering applications, we
aim to intuitively understand the macroscopic changes in the spray field. By combining previous
experimental results, we divided the spray of pressure-swirl nozzle into five regions based on the
characteristics of the particle size–velocity distributions of the spray field, namely the mixing,
or did not sufficiently break up, maintained their high velocity. The low-speed small droplets then
collided, producing larger droplets with low speeds. The droplets that did not sufficiently break up
continued to separate. At this point, the distributions of the particle size and velocity of the droplets
stabilized. As the spray distance increased further, the droplet velocity decreased significantly and
the small droplets coalesced, thus increasing the number of large droplets.
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 12 of 17

3.4. Spray Structure of the Pressure-Swirl Nozzle

3.4. In
Spray Structure
Section 3.3,of we
the Pressure-Swirl Nozzle of the joint particle size–velocity distribution to
used our analysis
microscopically elucidate
In Section 3.3, we used the spray
our development
analysis of the jointprocess.
particleHowever, for distribution
size–velocity engineeringtoapplications, we
microscopically
aim to intuitively understand the macroscopic changes in the spray field. By combining
elucidate the spray development process. However, for engineering applications, we aim to intuitively previous
experimental
understand the results, we divided
macroscopic the in
changes spray of pressure-swirl
the spray nozzle into
field. By combining five regions
previous based on
experimental the
results,
characteristics of the particle size–velocity distributions of the spray field, namely
we divided the spray of pressure-swirl nozzle into five regions based on the characteristics of the the mixing,
expansion, stabilization,
particle size–velocity decay, and rarefied
distributions regions,
of the spray asnamely
field, shown in theFigure
mixing,13. expansion,
The operating pressure
stabilization,
of the nozzle
decay, is 2 MPa.
and rarefied regions, as shown in Figure 13. The operating pressure of the nozzle is 2 MPa.

The droplets are

aggregated due to
Droplets formed by high density
primary atomization
26m/s

Internal flow
Mixing 0
region
18-26 m/s
Expansion
region Stabilization
10-17 m/s
region Decay
7-10 m/s
region
3-6 m/s Rarefied
region
<2 m/s

Figure
Figure13.
13.Particle
Particlesize–velocity
size–velocityspray
spraypartition
partitiondiagram.
diagram.

(1) Mixing Region (X = 0–100 mm)

Atomization is completed once in this zone. The mixing region is characterized by a high spray
density, the droplets do not diffuse in the air, and the droplet velocity and particle size distributions are
non-uniform. Furthermore, it is easier for smaller droplets to obtain a higher axial velocity.

(2) Expansion Region (X = 100–400 mm)

Here, the droplets are in a discrete form. Owing to the high relative velocity between the gas and
liquid, more droplets undergo atomization for a second time under internal and external forces. As the
spray travels forward, it also spreads radially, forming a spray angle. During this process, the velocity
is reduced significantly, which is mainly due to air resistance.

(3) Stabilization Region (X = 400–800 mm)

The particles in this region originate from the breakup or cracking of particles in the expansion
region and experience great velocity dissipation. This region is characterized by having the most
droplets with different sizes that have similar velocities. There are some small droplets that have
collided and coalesced, and some high-speed, large droplets that can still break up are present.

(4) Decay Region (X = 800–1000 mm)

In the decay region, the spray concentration decreases and its velocity is extremely low. Here,
the droplets are scattered in the air and the interactions between droplets weaken, but the gas–liquid
coupling is still strong. The droplets are greatly disturbed by the spray’s entrainment, resulting in
an increase in the probability of collisions and significantly increasing the number of large droplets.
At this point, the interactions between droplets are in the form of “droplet–gas–droplet”. Some large
droplets continue to break up.
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 13 of 17

(5) Rarefied Region (spray edge)

This is the outermost region of the spray. Here, the droplets and surrounding air have completed
their momentum exchange and their velocities are almost the same. At this point, the droplets are
mainly in two forms, i.e., turbulent diffusion and evaporation, and other forms, such as collisions,
coalescences, breakups, and spinning, can all be neglected.

3.5. Effect of Water Pressure on Spray Structure

3.5.1. The Effect of Water Pressure on SMD

To present the statistics of SMD on the central axis under 2–5 MPa, the change curves of SMD are
shown in Figure 14. When the pressure is 3, 4, and 5 MPa, the changes of SMD are similar. Different
from that under 2 MPa, SMD decreases in a wave-like manner when X = 50–400 mm. After X = 800 mm,
the SMD remains stable, as opposed to the gradual increase seen under 2 MPa. Moreover, SMD tends
to be stable at 450 mm under 2 and 3 MPa. Under 4 MPa, SMD tends to be stable at 350 mm from the
nozzle; at 5 MPa, SMD tends to be stable at 100 mm from the nozzle.
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17

200 2MPa
3MPa
180 4MPa
5MPa
160
SMD/μm

140

120

100

80

60

0 200 400 600 800 1000

X/mm

Figure
Figure 14.
14. SMD
SMDdistribution
distributionalong
alongthe
the central
central axis
axis at
at different
different pressures.

3.5.2. The
3.5.2. The Effect
Effect of
of Water
Water Pressure
Pressure on
on Velocity
Velocity
Figure 15
Figure 15 shows
shows the
the change
change curves
curves of
of axial
axial and
and radial
radial velocity.
velocity. It
It can
can be
be seen
seen that
that the
the velocity
velocity
distribution along the axial direction of the spray is very similar under different pressures.
distribution along the axial direction of the spray is very similar under different pressures. Compared Compared
with 22 MPa,
with MPa, the
theaxial
axialvelocity
velocityincreases
increases1.1
1.1times
timesand
andthe
theradial
radialvelocity
velocity increases
increases 6.29
6.29 times
times when
when X
X = 600 mm and pressure = 5 MPa. The axial and radial velocity increase
= 600 mm and pressure = 5 MPa. The axial and radial velocity increase 2.65 and 38.5 times, 2.65 and 38.5 times,
respectively, whenXX==1000
respectively, when 1000mmmmand pressure= =5 5MPa.
andpressure MPa.Thus,
Thus,the
thepressure
pressure hashas
an an
obvious
obviouseffect on the
effect on
velocity change, and the momentum can still be maintained with the increase of spray
the velocity change, and the momentum can still be maintained with the increase of spray distance. distance.

35
16
2 MPa 2 MPa
30 14 3 MPa
3 MPa
4 MPa
4 MPa
25 12 5 MPa
5 MPa
9.84
10
vx/m·s-1

vy/m·s-1

20
8
15 13.94
6
11.10
10 4 3.16

2
5 6.61 0.08
0 1.35
3.04
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 X/mm
X/mm

(a) axial velocity (b) radial velocity

Figure 15. Axial and radial velocity along the axial direction under different pressures.

3.5.3. The Effect of Pressure on the Joint Particle Size–Velocity Distribution Characteristics
 Figure 15 shows the change curves of axial and radial velocity. It can be seen that the velocity
distribution along the axial direction of the spray is very similar under different pressures. Compared
with 2 MPa, the axial velocity increases 1.1 times and the radial velocity increases 6.29 times when X
= 600 mm and pressure = 5 MPa. The axial and radial velocity increase 2.65 and 38.5 times,
respectively, when X = 1000 mm and pressure = 5 MPa. Thus, the pressure has an obvious effect
Processes 2020, 8, 1127
on
14 of 17
the velocity change, and the momentum can still be maintained with the increase of spray distance.

35
16
2 MPa 2 MPa
30 14 3 MPa
3 MPa
4 MPa
4 MPa
25 12 5 MPa
5 MPa
9.84
10
vx/m·s-1

vy/m·s-1
20
8
15 13.94
6
11.10
10 4 3.16

2
5 6.61 0.08
0 1.35
3.04
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 X/mm
X/mm

(a) axial velocity (b) radial velocity

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Axial
Axialand
and radial
radial velocity
velocity along
along the
the axial
axial direction
direction under
under different
different pressures.

3.5.3. The
3.5.3. The Effect
Effect of
of Pressure
Pressure on
on the
the Joint
Joint Particle
Particle Size–Velocity
Size–Velocity Distribution
Distribution Characteristics
Characteristics
Figures 16
Figures 16and and1717show
showscatter diagrams
scatter of joint
diagrams of particle size–velocity
joint particle distribution
size–velocity under different
distribution under
the center points of X = 50 mm and X =
different pressures at the center points of X = 50 mm and X = 200 mm, respectively. Itbecan
pressures at 200 mm, respectively. It can seenbe from
seen
Figure 16 that, as the pressure increases, the velocity of the droplets becomes
from Figure 16 that, as the pressure increases, the velocity of the droplets becomes more and moremore and more dispersed.
ComparingComparing
dispersed. the SMD under different
the SMD underpressures,
differentit pressures,
can be found thatbe
it can thefound
particle size
that distribution
the of
particle size
droplets changes
distribution little. changes
of droplets The main reason
little. The for this
main phenomenon
reason is that the jetisbreaking
for this phenomenon is breaking
that the jet from the
outer edge to the core, and the concentration of the spray field near the nozzle
is from the outer edge to the core, and the concentration of the spray field near the nozzle is high. is high. At this time,
At
the external air cannot be sucked into the spray field in large quantities to fully
this time, the external air cannot be sucked into the spray field in large quantities to fully mix with mix with droplets,
Processes 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
and breakup
droplets, andis not sufficient.
breakup is not sufficient.

16 16 SMD(μm)
2MPa 3MPa
14 14
6.000
12 12 50.88
10 10 95.75
140.6
-1
-1

vy/m·s
vy/m·s

8 8
185.5
6 6 230.4
4 4 275.3
2 2
320.1
365.0
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
-1 -1
vx/m·s vx/m·s

16 16
5MPa
SMD(μm)
4MPa
14 14
6.000
12 12 50.88
10 10 95.75
-1

140.6
-1
vy/m·s

vy/m·s

8 8
185.5
6 6 230.4
4 4 275.3
2 2
320.1
365.0
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
-1
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-1
24 26 28 30 32 34
vx/m·s vx/m·s

Figure 16.Joint
Figure16. Jointparticle
particlesize–velocity
size–velocitydistribution
distributionchanges
changeswith
withpressure (X==50
pressure(X mm,YY== 0 mm).
50mm,

16 16 SMD(μm)
2MPa 3MPa
14
14 6.000
12 50.88
10
12 95.75
140.6
vy(m·s )

-1
-1

vy/m·s

8 10
185.5
6
8 230.4
4 275.3
2 6 320.1
365.0
0 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
 4 4 275.3
2 2
320.1
365.0
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
-1
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
-1
24 26 28 30 32 34
vx/m·s vx/m·s

Processes 2020, 8, 1127

Figure 16. Joint particle size–velocity distribution changes with pressure (X = 50 mm, Y = 0 mm).15 of 17

16 16 SMD(μm)
2MPa 3MPa
14
14 6.000
12 50.88
10
12 95.75
140.6
vy(m·s )

-1
-1

vy/m·s
8 10
185.5
6
8 230.4
4 275.3
2 6 320.1
365.0
0 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-1 -116 18 20 22 24 26
vx(m·s ) vx/m·s

16 16
4MPa 5MPa SMD(μm)
14 14 6.000
50.88
12 12
95.75
-1
140.6
-1

vy/m·s
10
vy/m·s

10
185.5
8 8 230.4
275.3
6 6 320.1
4
365.0
4
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-1 -116 18 20 22 24 26
vx/m·s vx/m·s

Figure 17.17.Joint
Figure Jointparticle
particlesize–velocity distribution
size–velocity changes
distribution with
changes pressure
with pressure = =200
(X(X mm,Y Y= =0 0mm).
200mm, mm).

According
Accordingtotothetheprevious
previousanalysis, whenXX==200
analysis,when 200mm,
mm,thethedroplet
dropletisisininthe
thebreakup
breakupprocess.
process.
Figure
Figure 17 shows that with the increase of pressure, the number of droplets with largeparticle
17 shows that with the increase of pressure, the number of droplets with large particlesize
size
decreased
decreased slowly.
slowly.When
When thethe
pressure increased
pressure to 4 or
increased to 54MPa,
or 5 the
MPa, number of large-size
the number droplets droplets
of large-size almost
disappeared. On the other
almost disappeared. On hand, it reflects
the other hand,that with the
it reflects increase
that of pressure,
with the increase the droplet distribution
of pressure, the droplet
ofdistribution
the measuring point
of the is more point
measuring and more uniform.
is more and moreAt this time, At
uniform. thethis
droplets stilldroplets
time, the maintainstill
large axial
maintain
and radial
large axialvelocities,
and radial which showswhich
velocities, that the spray
shows field
that thehas a strong
spray trend
field has of advance
a strong trendand expansion.
of advance and
When X = 50 mm, with the increase of pressure, the increase of axial velocity slows
expansion. When X = 50 mm, with the increase of pressure, the increase of axial velocity slows down down obviously,
while the trend of droplet size becoming smaller is very obvious, which also verifies that the breakup
of droplets is dominant at the moment.
It can be concluded that with the increase of pressure, the spray field structure has two definite
characteristics: (1) with the increase of pressure, the expansion region is advanced and the stabilization
region becomes larger; (2) with the increase of pressure, the influence of pressure change on SMD
decreases for the same measuring point.
The spray dust fall is mainly aimed at dust below 75 µm and the actual spray pressure is above
5 MPa. According to spray partition diagram, when pressure is under 5 MPa, the droplet size in the
expansion and stabilization region is about 70–100 µm, and the velocity is between 10 and 25 m/s.
In addition, some large-sized droplets will continue to break in the decay region. There are droplets
with the sizes close to that of the settling dust in these three regions. Therefore, the expansion,
stabilization, and decay regions are the effective dust fall areas of the spray. In addition, the droplet size
in the stabilization region is the most uniform, indicating that this region is the best dust-fall region.

4. Conclusions
(1) The variation of SMD in axial and radial directions of the spray has been analyzed. In the axial
direction of the spray, when X = 50–150 mm, SMD increases. When X = 150–450 mm, SMD decreases
almost by 48.4%. Then, SMD fluctuates between 90 and 110 µm. When x = 800 mm, SMD increases
gradually, and the increase rate is 16.0% until the final measurement point (x = 1000 mm). In the radial
direction, SMD first increases and then decreases.
(2) The change of velocity in axial and radial directions has been analyzed. In the axial direction
of the spray, when X = 50–500 mm, the axial velocity decays rapidly by about 50%, and then the
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 16 of 17

axial velocity decreases slowly. When X = 50–300 mm, the radial velocity increases by about 10–40%.
When x = 300–600 mm, the radial velocity decreases rapidly with an average decrease of 37.9%. Until
x = 1000 mm, the radial velocity is maintained at 1–3 m/s. The tangential velocity has no change rule.
In the radial direction, axial and radial velocities decrease steadily.
(3) The spray partition frame was determined. Based on the jet atomization theory, the spray
structure of pressure-swirl nozzles was divided into five regions, namely the mixing, expansion,
stabilization, decay, and rarefied regions. The characteristics of each region are as follows: smaller
droplets obtain a larger axial velocity more easily in the mixing region; in the expansion region,
the droplet velocity decreases significantly, and the large droplets separate into smaller droplets; in the
stabilization region, large droplets have a high velocity and the distributions of the particle size and
velocity of the droplets reach a stable state under break-up and collision; in the decay region, the droplet
velocity becomes very small, and some large droplets continue to break up under air turbulence; and in
the rarefied region, the droplets and surrounding air complete their momentum exchange and reach
similar velocities. With the increase of pressure, the expansion region was advanced, the stabilization
region became longer. Combined with the above experimental results, the spray field can be further
divided for dust control. The expansion, stabilization, and decay regions are the effective dust fall
areas and the stabilization region is the best dust fall area.

Author Contributions: J.W.: writing—original draft preparation; C.X.: writing—review and editing; G.Z.:
designed the research framework; Y.Z.: Experiment guidance. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: Natural Science Foundation of China (5200041899), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
(ZR2019MEE118, ZR2019BEE067), Qingdao science and technology plan project (19-3-2-6-zhc).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kurnia, J.C.; Sasmito, A.P.; Mujumdar, A.S. Dust dispersion and management in underground mining faces.
Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 39–44. [CrossRef]
2. Prostański, D. Use of Air-and-Water Spraying Systems for Improving Dust Control in Mines. J. Sustain. Min.
2013, 12, 29–34. [CrossRef]
3. Tessum, M.W.; Raynor, P.C. Effects of Spray Surfactant and Particle Charge on Respirable Coal Dust Capture.
Saf. Health Work. 2017, 8, 296–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Walton, W.H.; Woolcock, A. The suppression of airborne dust by water spray. Int. J. Air Pollut. 1960, 3, 129.
[PubMed]
5. Ali, M.; Yan, C.; Sun, Z.; Gu, H.; Mehboob, K. Dust particle removal efficiency of a venturi scrubber.
Ann. Nucl. Energy 2013, 54, 178–183. [CrossRef]
6. Xi, Z.; Jiang, M.; Yang, J.; Tu, X. Experimental study on advantages of foam–sol in coal dust control. Process.
Saf. Environ. Prot. 2014, 92, 637–644. [CrossRef]
7. Pawar, S.K.; Henrikson, F.; Finotello, G.; Padding, J.T.; Deen, N.G.; Jongsma, A.; Innings, F.; Kuipers, J.H.
An experimental study of droplet-particle collisions. Powder Technol. 2016, 300, 157–163. [CrossRef]
8. Azarov, A.; Zhukova, N.; Antonov, F. Water-spray systems reducing negative effects of fine-dispersion dust
at operator’s workplaces of machine-building industries. Procedia Eng. 2017, 206, 1407–1414. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, H.; Wang, C.; Wang, D. The influence of forced ventilation airflow on water spray for dust suppression
on heading face in underground coal mine. Powder Technol. 2017, 320, 498–510. [CrossRef]
10. Cheng, L. Collection of Airborne Dust by Water Sprays. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev. 1973, 12, 221–225.
[CrossRef]
11. Charinpanitkul, T.; Tanthapanichakoon, W. Deterministic model of open-space dust removal system using
water spray nozzle: Effects of polydispersity of water droplet and dust particle. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2011, 77,
382–388. [CrossRef]
12. Tamhane, T.; Joshi, J.; Mudali, K.; Natarajan, R.; Patil, R. Measurement of drop size characteristics in annular
centrifugal extractors using phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA). Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2012, 90, 985–997.
[CrossRef]
Processes 2020, 8, 1127 17 of 17

13. Zhang, Q.; Jamaleddine, T.J.; Briens, C.; Berruti, F.; Hamidi, M.; McMillan, J. Effect of nozzle inclination on jet
attrition. Powder Technol. 2013, 241, 236–243. [CrossRef]
14. Broniarz-Press, L.; Włodarczak, S.; Matuszak, M.; Ochowiak, M.; Idziak, R.; Sobiech, Ł.; Szulc, T.;
Skrzypczak, G. The effect of orifice shape and the injection pressure on enhancement of the atomization
process for pressure-swirl atomizers. Crop. Prot. 2016, 82, 65–74. [CrossRef]
15. Jayaraman, N.I.; Jankowski, R.A. Atomization of Water Sprays for Quartz Dust Control. Appl. Ind. Hyg.
1988, 3, 327–331. [CrossRef]
16. Sun, Y.; Alkhedhair, A.; Guan, Z.; Hooman, K. Numerical and experimental study on the spray characteristics
of full-cone pressure swirl atomizers. Energy 2018, 160, 678–692. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, H.; Wu, J.; Du, Y.; Wang, D. Investigation on the atomization characteristics of a solid-cone spray for
dust reduction at low and medium pressures. Adv. Powder Technol. 2019, 30, 903–910. [CrossRef]
18. Li, Q.; Lin, B.; Zhao, S.; Dai, H. Surface physical properties and its effects on the wetting behaviors of
respirable coal mine dust. Powder Technol. 2013, 233, 137–145. [CrossRef]
19. McCoy, J.F.; Schroeder, W.E.; Rajan, S.R.; Ruggieri, S.K.; Kissell, F.N. New laboratory measurement method
for water spray dust control effectiveness. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1985, 46, 735–740. [CrossRef]
20. Yu, H.; Cheng, W.; Peng, H.; Xie, Y. An investigation of the nozzle’s atomization dust suppression rules in a
fully-mechanized excavation face based on the airflow-droplet-dust three-phase coupling model. Adv. Powder
Technol. 2018, 29, 941–956. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, Q.; Zhou, G.; Qian, X.; Yuan, M.; Sun, Y.; Wang, D.; Yuan, M. Diffuse pollution characteristics
of respirable dust in fully-mechanized mining face under various velocities based on CFD investigation.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 239–250. [CrossRef]
22. Pollock, D.; Organiscak, J. Airborne Dust Capture and Induced Airflow of Various Spray Nozzle Designs.
Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 711–720. [CrossRef]
23. Kissell, F.N. Handbook for dust control in mining. In US Department of Health and Human Services; Public
Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2003.
24. Wang, P.; Tan, X.; Cheng, W.; Guo, G.; Liu, R.; Zhou, G. Dust removal efficiency of high pressure atomization
in underground coal mine. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2018, 28, 685–690. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, K.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J.; Ren, T.; Xu, X. Coal seam water infusion for dust control: A technical review.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 4537–4554. [CrossRef]
26. O Panão, M.R.; Moreira, A. A real-time assessment of measurement uncertainty in the experimental
characterization of sprays. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, 95402. [CrossRef]
27. Mandato, S.; Rondet, E.; Delaplace, G.; Barkouti, A.; Galet, L.; Accart, P.; Ruiz, T.; Cuq, B. Liquids’ atomization
with two different nozzles: Modeling of the effects of some processing and formulation conditions by
dimensional analysis. Powder Technol. 2012, 224, 323–330. [CrossRef]
28. Jedelsky, J.; Jícha, M. Energy conversion during effervescent atomization. Fuel 2013, 111, 836–844. [CrossRef]
29. Yu, Y.; Li, G.; Wang, Y.; Ding, J. Modeling the atomization of high-pressure fuel spray by using a new breakup
model. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 268–283. [CrossRef]
30. Sáenz, J.L.S.; García, J.; Calvo, E.; Cerecedo, L. Effects of droplet collision phenomena on the development of
pressure swirl sprays. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2013, 56, 160–171. [CrossRef]
31. Husted, B.P.; Petersson, P.; Lund, I.; Holmstedt, G. Comparison of PIV and PDA droplet velocity measurement
techniques on two high-pressure water mist nozzles. Fire Saf. J. 2009, 44, 1030–1045. [CrossRef]
32. Salvador, F.; Romero, J.-V.; Roselló, M.-D.; Jaramillo, D.; Rubio, F.J.S.; Romero, J.-V. Numerical simulation
of primary atomization in diesel spray at low injection pressure. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2016, 291, 94–102.
[CrossRef]
33. Delacourt, E.; Desmet, B.; Besson, B. Characterisation of very high pressure diesel sprays using digital
imaging techniques. Fuel 2005, 84, 859–867. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).