W. H.

NURICK2
Program Manager,
Rocketdyne Division/Rockwell
International,
Canoga Park, Calif.

Orifice Cavitation and Its Effect on

Spray Mixing1
Cavitation characteristics were determined for sharp-edged orifices. Both circular and
rectangular orifices were studied. A simple model is proposed, which loas experimentally verified over a range in back pressure, L/d, and entrance radius. Sharp-edge
orifices were then incorporated into unlike-impinging-doublet injector elements. The
spray mixing uniformity was determined at cavitated and noncavitated conditions.
Cavitation was shown to result in a substantial reduction in mixing uniformity for
circular orifice elements. Over an identical range in experimental conditions, the
rectangular orifice element did not experience lowered mixing uniformity. The orifice
cavitation and mixing results should find use in a wide range of applications.

Introduction
Numerous injection schemes are being used to introduce a
variety of fluids into gaseous media. Applications include combustors, spray dryers, and cooling techniques. Of fundamental
importance in any injector is its ability to obtain uniform mixing
and mass distribution. In many cases, the injection ports are
simple, cylindrical-drilled holes arranged such that a jet of fuel
will impinge on a jet of oxidizer producing intimate mixing of the
sprays and formation into small droplets. It has been well established that the ability to obtain highly uniform mixed sprays
as well as the control of the mass distribution depends on the
jet stability and internal flow characteristics. These parameters
are functions of such variables as orifice length-to-diameter
ratio, Reynolds number, and entrance condition. Recent studies
(reference [1 and 2])3 have suggested that cavitation leading to
hydraulic flip (i.e., detachment of the jet from the orifice wall)
or jet reattachment to the orifice wall in sharp-edged orifices has
a pronounced effect on the efflux jet characteristics. It has been
further suggested (reference [2]) that cavitation causes dramatic
changes in the mixing uniformity of two impinging jets of dissimilar fluids. The fact that cavitation can occur in sharp-edged
orifices has been verified in numerous studies (e.g., references [3,
4, and 5]). These studies, however, have not concentrated on
reattached jets and to the author's knowledge the pressure characteristics in the separation region of orifices of moderate lengthto-diameter ratio (~2 to 20) have not been experimentally

'This study was supported by Company IR&D (S.A. 60274)

Presently, Program Manager with Aerotherm, Mountain View, Calif.
3

Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division for publication in the

JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEEBING. Manuscript received at ASME Headquarters, September 21, 1976.

Journal of Fluids Engineering

verified. In addition, existing models for cavitation have not

been adequately proven.
This paper provides added insight into the mechanisms controlling cavitation in sharp-edged orifices and its prediction. The.
direct causal relationship between cavitation and the mixing
uniformity of an unlike-impinging-doublet element is also established.

Apparatus
Orifices. A variety of single orifices, including those fabricated from lucite, stainless steel, and aluminum, were used to
determine cavitation characteristics. Lucite was used to photographically document the orifice separation characteristics. A
summary of the orifices is provided in Table 1.
The stainless steel orifices were fabricated using both twist
drilling and Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM). Lucite
orifices were twist drilled and then polished. The entrance sharpness tolerances were maintained to 0.003 in. (0.008 cm) radius.
All were subsequently measured after fabrication. The entrance
sharpness for the lucite orifioe is listed in Table 1 as unknown
since it appeared to vary due to wear. Static pressure taps were
incorporated in the wall of the orifices at 1/4 and/or 1/2 diameter
downstream of the inlet. The tap closest to the inlet is at the
approximate location of the vena contracta and the tap at 1/2
diameter downstream is within the recompression zone.
Elements. The circular and rectangular unlike-impingingdoublet injector elements are shown in Fig. 1. The orifice sizes
were selected based on two separate criteria. First, it was desirable to operate near the optimum mixing condition for a welldesigned element (references [6 and 7]). Secondly, the element
should operate such that both orifices are either cavitating or
noncavitating at the same time. The orifice L/d for the circular
orifice elements is 10 and the rectangular orifice element is 9.
The jet's included impingement angle for all injectors is 60 deg..

Copyright 1976 by ASME

DECEMBER

1976 / 681

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 1 Summary of orifice geometry

d or W x I
(in./era)

D/d

r/d

L/d

Remarks

Material

Circular
5.0

0.060/0.152

10

5.0

0.060/0.152

20

2.88

0.060/0.152

10

0.033

2.54

0.068/0.173

10

0.044

0.125 /0.318

12 0

Stainless
Steel

L/d v a r i e d on a s i n g l e

orifice

L/d v a r i e d on a s i n g l e

orifice

L/d v a r i e d on a s i n g l e

orifice

L/d v a r i e d on a s i n g l e

orifice

d
- = 0.068 IN.
f ( 0 . 1 7 3 CM)

<f = 0.060 IN.

~~f~ (0.152 CH)

STAINLESS'STEEL.

10

12 0
2 88

0.125 /0.318

20

0 . 3 0 / D.762

Unkr own

|
Stainless
Steel

r / d vaned due to wear

2 54

J.

>y
'

DIAMETER

0 _

SHARP EDGE

Rectangular
2 54

0.173 IN. '

(0.439 CM)

0.03/0.076 x
0.1/0.254

0.03/0.076 x
0.108/0.274

0.038/0.0965
jc 0 . 0 7 5 / 0 . 1 9

5.7

0.019/0.048
x 0.015/0.38

5.5

1
0

SLIGHTLY BROKEN
OR WELL ROUNDED

Aluminum

IN

Alu1n

Jt/w - 3.6

Stainless
Steel

A/w = 1 . 9 8

Stainless
Steel

IN

= 3.3

Or- d = 0.060 IN.

) (0.152 CH)
STAINLESS STEEL
PRESSURE TAP (TYPICAL)

= 7,9

--60
^N\\\\\NVNX\XVNS.N.V.|

J_

;\VVVV\\\V\\\Vs.V\V\^ -j-

> - 0-068 IN.

|~(0.173 CM)

[1

.(

:o

0.100
IN.
-J(0.25<t CH)

SHARP EDGE
RECTANGULAR
n
0.03
,N._lP"
(0.076 CH)

0.108
C 0

IN.

^>

ALUHINUM

Fig. 1 Schematic of element designs

The orifice results of this study show t h a t hydraulic flip is

avoided only if the injector entrances are not perfectly sharp.
This may at first seem inconsistent with the experience of others,
according to which typical orifice injectors having L/d's of 10
do not experience hydraulic flip when flow is at ambient (1
atmosphere) backpressure. On reflection, however, it is not
inconsistent with the experience of others, inasmuch as injector
orifices are commonly "blind drilled" making it difficult to
achieve perfectly sharp entrances. To ensure reattachment, the
orifice inlet edges for the circular orifice unlike-doublet were
slightly broken (r/d = 0.04). Finally, for comparison, an additional circular element was made having well-rounded inlets
(r/d = 1.0) where cavitation cannot occur. The orifice sizes,
etc., are identical to the sharp-edged circular orifice element.

I
.

CAVITY PRESSURE
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
VACUUM

/^

PUMP

'
'
I

WATER
SUPPLY

'

Q*)HEISE GAGEI TEST ORIFICE

K*{WATER
TRAP
MERCURY
MANOMETER
OR
VACUUM
GAGE

UPSTREAM PRESSURE
MEASUREMENT
HEISE GAGE
GASEOUS NITROGEN
SUPPLY

T
WATER
DRAIN

Fig. 2 Orifice cavitation experimental setup

Experimental Setup
Orifice Cavitation. A schematic of the experimental setup is
presented in Fig. 2. The upstream pressure in the entrance region
to the orifice was measured with a Heise gauge. The orifice
cavity pressure was measured using a manometer. Capability
was also available for evacuating the system between the gauges
and the orifice because under some conditions the aspiration of air
from this section of line into the cavity would cause the jet to
flip. This was verified by observing tests with the cavity pressure
tap closed off and then slowly opening this measurement system.
The overall system worked extremely well. The actual flowrate
corresponding to a given upstream pressure (Pi) was determined
in separate tests using a calibrated cylinder and stopwatch.

Mixing Apparatus. Fig. 3 depicts the flow system and the

collection grid, in which squared-end, 0.25-in. (0.635 cm) tubes
are arranged in a 29 X 29 matrix. The squared ends permit
adjacent tubes to touch over their perimeters, thereby maximizing the sampling area. The shutters, which deflect the spray
away from the collector until steady-flow conditions are attained,
are employed to reduce start-and-stop transient errors. From
the collection grid (the collector grid measured 7.75 (19.7 cm)
X 7.75 (19.7 cm) in.), the tubes slant outward to a 7-(17.8 cm)
by 7- (17.8 cm) ft base in which 841 pyrex tubes are mounted
(one for each sampling station). Capacity of each pyrex tube is
650 cm3.

Nomenclature's
Ac
Ao
A\
Ce
CD
g

=
=
=

=
=

682 /

jet area at orifice exit

jet area a t vena contracta
orifice area
plenum area
contraction coefficient
orifice discharge coefficient
gravity force
DECEMBER

1976

Eh
MP
MR

= fluid total head loss across entire

Pc
orifice
P
mass fraction of trichloroethylene
Pi
plus water
VB
= mixture ratio; ratio of fluid flow- Vc
r a t e Wtriohloroethylems/Wwater

PB

= back pressure

V)

static pressure a t vena contracta

liquid vapor pressure
total pressure in plenum
average jet velocity at orifice exit
jet velocity at vena contracta
liquid flowrate
liquid density

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Flow dW'lItiolls were /lopproximately 1 minute. All tests were

{'IHlducted with the injector centered above the collector at a
!IHt,M\Ce of 2.75 (7 cm) in. from the jet impingement point.
Trichloroethylene and water were used on the basis of their
j/lllJdsJibility, /loud ease of handling. After each test the volume
nf wn.ter and trichloroethylene in each collection tube was
J1\OIIS\lred a.nd the mass a.nd mixture ratio (ma.ss of trichlorooLhylene/m/1SS of w/1ter) determined.

Results and Discussion

VI~t1~! O!>servation of Flow Charactltristlcs.

Experlm.ents

phenomenon is varying. Thll plateau corresponds to the pressure where the fuzzy region appeared near tha inlet. Because
fuzz (rather than a clear cavity) can OCCllr only when the flow is
two-phase, this phenomenon is defined as the initiation of fluid
cavitation, It is particularly interesting that this occurs when the
cavity pressure is well above the fluid vapor pressure. Finally,
further increasing the upstream pressure results in the cavity
preSSUre dropping l'l1pidly to the fluid v/lopor pressure.
Identical experiments were also conducted using the other orifices listed in Table 1. A list of the conditions at cavitation is
given in Table 2. Lastly, the circulat orifice unlike-doublet with

using

t hll h-!Cite Orifice provided visual observation of overall flow char-

Ilt!tOl'jStiCS. Flg. 4 provides photographic evidence of the cavitation phenomena. as the preSSUI'\l upstream was increased from
23.:1 (1.6 >< 105 N 1m2 ) to 29,3 (2.02 X 105 N 1m2 ) psia. First,
liS t,he pressuI'c increased, a fuzzy region appeared ne!\r the inlet
(1'1 = 24.3 (1.67 X 105 N Im~) psia). To achieve this condition,
tho sepal'a.tion region immediately lengthened to about four orifice
dlaml'lters before reatt!\Chment occurred and the jet at the exit
bec!\me bushy in appearance. Although !lot shown, the attachmont point then remained fixed until the upstrea.m pressure incrol\sQd sufficiently to cause hydraUlic flip. Subsequent to this
Heries of tests, pressure taps were incorporated into the orifice
1/4 And 1/2 d downstream of the inlet and the test series repellted. Identical results were obtained verifying that the incorpor/l.tion of the taps did not affeot the overall flow oh&racteristic~.
Orl!h:e Cilvity Pr!ls~ure as a FI!I!l:tlon of "!ow C/laracterlstlcs.
Using the lucite orifice, measurements of the pressure within the
mlVity as II function of upstrel\m pressure were ma.de. The res\llts, present!ld in Fig. 11, are particula.rly interesting in that the
1,ap lit 1/4 di/lometer registered a linear reduction of cavity presBIII'e Q.S /lo fnn(jtjQ/1 qf upstream pressure, showi/1g that the vena
Ilont,l'act!\ ill at or near tiIat locll,tion, 'l'he tap /lot 1/2 diameter also
initllllly dl'OpS linearly but hl\s higher a,bsolute pressures showing
that it is within the liq\.lid recompression zon!l. As the upstream
pressure was further increased, the cavity pressure (1/2 diameter)
rcached a plateau region, sllggesting that the reattachm&nt

TRICHLOROETHYLENt
TANK
.

4o-MICRON
FILTERS

MANIFOLOING

f::==):==:::!~(S~I':M~PL~I~F~1ED)
INJECTOR L
3 INLES
(7.62 CM)

L
SPRAY
COLLECTOR
GRIO

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of the flow system

Journal of Fluids Engineering

Fig.4

Cavitation characteristics In a sharp edged orifice

DEC E M 8 E R 1976 /

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

683

the edges slightly broken and the rectangular orifice element

were also tested. The experiments verified the condition providing cavitation and t h a t flow reattachment occurred. T h e
cavitation conditions are also presented in Table 2.
Cavitation Model. The characteristics of the flow from a
typical orifice under noncavitating conditions, wherein the flow
first contracts then expands, are shown in Fig. 6. After the flow
is re-established, then a boundary layer starts growing until exit
from the orifice. The resulting velocity profile will depend on the
orifice Reynolds number and development distance. Assuming
t h a t the diffusion losses occur only in the reattachment process,
then the flow will be ideal between the plenum (1) and the cavity
(C). The resulting Bernoulli equation for ideal flow, with Vi
assumed to be zero, is:
Pi = Po +

~ pV?

From continuity:
VcAc =

(2)

VBAB

The contraction coefficient is defined as

(3)

AB
Substituting results in

: - (tf

P i - P
1
;pVi

(4)

Further, if the discharge coefficient is defined in terms of the

total losses occurring to the exit (including friction, BordaCarnot, and turbulence losses), then

(1)

2i

VB = C D V 2 ( P , -

PB)/p

(5)

using this definition, equation (4) becomes

A /
V '

.INCEPTION OF
^ ^ C A V I T A T I O N (B)

c-^

~^C, T
V 1

CLEAR CAVITY (F)

/(ATTACHED FLOW)

VT /

\ C

(6)

Now as the flow increases, Pc eventually reaches the fluid vapor

pressure (P) and will remain constant until hydraulic flip occurs.
At cavitation equation (6) is:

P\ i - PB

iCD

20

/ P i - P v \

(CB\

(7)

/VAPOR PRESSURE
i

A similar derivation has been done by Hall [4] and Hoehn, et al.
[2]. However, while their derivations result in an identical expression for equation (7), their physical statement of the problem
is believed wrong. Their derivations result in

1*0

30

50

UPSTREAM PRESSURE (P.), PS1A (x 6.89 x 10 3 N/m 2 )

Pi - PB -

(8)

- pTV

0.30 IN.
(0.076 CM)

FYPAkKllIN ANI1
REATTACHHENT ZONE

ENTRANCE ( 7 )

LETTERS WITH ( ) REFER TO PHOTOGRAPHS IN FIG. k

i
^VENA CONTRACTA

C 0NTRACTI0N ZONE

Fig. SjCavity pressure characteristics as a function of upstream pressure obtained using transparent orifice

O r i f i c e Diameter
(in./cm)

/BOUNDARY LAYER

Tableii

/REATTACHMENT
/

Fig. S Characteristics of flow in a sharp-edged orifice

Summary of cavitation results for the various orifices studied

C
D/d

L/d

(Eq. 10)

(K

>Meas
(Eq. 14)

tC

cW

r/d

Material

Fluid

Stair
Ste e l

Water

Circular
10

5.0

0.62

2.5

0.63

20

5.0

0.62

2.5

0.63

0.060/0.152

10

2.88

Unknown

2.0

0.71

0.033

Water

0.068/0.173

10

2.54

Unknown

2.0

0.71

0.044

Trichloroethylene

0.125/0.318

0.62

2.6

0.62

Water

2.6

0.62

0.060/0.152

12

6
10

2.7

0.61

0.62

2.6

0.62

Stainless
Steel

Aluminum

0.125/0.318

20

12

Rectangular
0.03/0.076 x
0.1/0.254

2.88

0.62

2.63

0.62

Water

0.03/0.076 x
0.108/0.271

2.54

0.62

2.64

0.615

Aluminum

0.038/0.0965 x
0.075/0.19

5.7. 2.54

0.62

2.6

0.62

Stainless
Steel

Water

0.019/0.048 x
0.15/0.38

5.5

0.62

2.6

0.62

Stainless
Steel

Water

684 / DECEMBER 1976

2.54

Trichloroethylene

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

1.0

suggesting t h a t no Borda-Carnot loss exists for a sharp-edged

orifice. I t is well known that this loss is typically 0.5 for large
entry to orifice diameter ratios (reference [8]). Consequently,
writing the Bernoulli equation across the entire orifice as they
did should result in

O ^ ^

0.9

nj^"^EQ.

0.8

0.7
0.6

L/d

Pi

PB

-f>VB*

HL

(9)

and not equation (8). I t has been shown t h a t this restriction on

Cu is unnecessary in obtaining a first-order solution to the problem. In addition, using the approach presented in this paper results in no limitations on the entry dimensions or orifice length,
size, or Reynolds number as suggested by Hall.

(6)

FLUID - WATER

!
'

0.125 INCH
0.118 CM)

2.0

4.0

3.0

5.0

(P, " P^/lf, " P)

Fig. 7 Comparison of experimental measurements with cavitation

model-reattached set

Comparison of Results With the Cavitation Model

Sharp-Edged Orifices. A comparison of the experimental

measurements with equation (6) will provide verification of the
proposed model. This can be accomplished since the cavity
pressure (P c ), upstream pressure (Pi), as well as the flowrate
were determined. Application of equation (6) requires determination of the contraction coefficient, which is a function of
the area ratio between the entrance section and the orifice. An
empirical expression relating Cc to the area ratio is (reference [9]):
Ce = 0.62 + 0.38

(Ai/Ao}

op

*C

0.9
0.8

(10)

Fig. 7 is a presentation of the data obtained using the 0.125in. (0.318 cm) orifice where L/d and back pressure were varied.
The overall comparison with theory is considered excellent.
The comparison is particularly good for conditions where (Pi
P c ) / ( P i PB) was less than 1.5, and there is some scatter at
values greater than 1.5. A check of the data reveals t h a t these
values which deviate were obtained at extremely low pressure
drops (i.e., < 4 psia; 2.8 X 104 N / m 2 ) where the experimental
measurement error could govern.
While equation (6) can be used to determine the onset of cavitation, it is of little use in practice since the cavity pressure for
orifices is generally not measured. According to equation (7)
once cavitation occurs then CD should vary as the half power of
the pressure ratio, or

CD

\K~F;)

(10)

L/d = 20

13.8 PSIA ( 9 . 5 x lO1"

= 50 PSIA ( 3 . 4 X I 0 5

100 PSIA ( 6 . 9 x 10 5

150 PSIA (1.03 X 10 6

FLUID

- WATER

- 0.125

EQ.

L/d

- 10

0.9
0.8

^ Q.

K. '

'SrftS' S A W S -

tVi

Jy^gj|^rxi0Lftj<y 2^r-o

N/m 2 )

(11)*

(P, - P ^ P ,

N/m 2 )

INCH (0.318 CM)

^S

N/m 2 )
N/m 2 )

10

- P>

(11)
fl-O-

S3.

0.7
0.6

^r_xJ
FLIPPED AT P = 13.8 PSIA ( 9 . 5 X 10
B

N/m )
-1

(ID

f
If this equation is used in the flow regime before the onset o
cavitation, then the pressure ratio will not be equal to t h a t defined by equation (6), so t h a t a sharp distinction between cavitating and noncavitating flow should exist.
As a verification of this approach, the data were also analyzed
using equations (10) and (11). T h e results for the 0.125-in.
(0.318 cm) diameter orifice at L/d's of 20, 10, and 6 are shown i n
Pig. 8. For an L/d of 20 at back pressure of up to 150 psia (1.03
X 106 N / m 2 ) , the orifice flow remained attached and cavitation
occurred at

Fig. 8 Comparison of experimental results with cavitation model

using circular orifices

Another parameter of interest is the cavitation number which

has been defined by other investigators as:

P i - P
= 1.45; L/d = 20
P i - PB
Since the value of Cc is a constant for a given orifice configuration,
as the orifice is shortened, the value of the pressure ratio at
cavitation must also vary. This is shown for the L/d's of 10 and
(> in Fig. 8. Note t h a t at ambient back pressure, the L/d of 10
orifice flipped at the onset of cavitation. Also for an L/d of 6 at
ambient back pressure, hydraulic flip occurred at the onset of
cavitation; however, at 50 psia (3.4 X 105 N / m 2 ) back pressure,
the flow initially reattached (after cavitation); then with increased back pressure, hydraulic flip occurred. The same presentation for the rectangular orifices is given in Fig. 9, showing
that these orifices also experience cavitation. The experimental
results conclusively show the validity of the proposed flow model
for circular and rectangular orifices.

Journal of Fluids Engineering

DEFINED BY Ed.

t>

Ki =

v p> -p* /*..

(reference [2])

(12)

or
K, = ( P" ~ Pv- )
(references [3 and 4])
Y Pi - PB / C p i t

(13)

These definitions result in the cavitation number varying with

CD- T O avoid this, in this study the cavitation number is defined
after K n a p p [10] as:

*"(iw*r).. U)

(14)

which is equal to the constant

DECEMBER 1976 / 685

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

K, = (1/Ccf when
Pc == P from equation (7)

(15)

Equation (10) was used to independently calculate Cc and the

results presented in Fig. 10 are compared with those determined
using equations (14) and (15), when the pressure ratio and Co
are determined from the experimental data. The specific values
of K are given in Table 2. The comparisons with the model are
excellent, illustrating the appropriateness of the orifice model in
describing the flow characteristics. It is interesting to compare
the results obtained here with those found by Hall [4]. In Hall's
paper, he points out that poor agreement between his model
predictions and experiment occurred for L/d's greater than 7.
Since Hall used the data of Bergwerk to check his theory, the
reason for this becomes obvious. That is, Bergwerk's data are for
hydraulic flip, and at the larger L/d's or high back pressures,
the jets initially reattach and only after increased upstream pressure does hydraulic flip result. Note that the data in this paper
agree at L/d at least up to 20.
It is obvious from these results that orifice cavitation can be
verified in normal orifice calibration experiments where flowrate,
upstream pressure, and back pressure are measured. The cavitation number calculated from these data should be equal to the
Cc calculated from equation (10). A difference in these values is
a measure of the sharpness of the orifice inlet.
Orifice Entrance Sharpness. Experimental data have shown
(reference [8]) that a vena contracta will not form when the
entrance is rounded as little as
r > 0.14 d
This suggests that minor variations in the entrance sharpness can
result in dramatic changes in the onset of cavitation. The effect
of entrance roundness was therefore investigated to determine

O P

= 13.8 PSIA (9.5 x 10

N/m 2 )

- 63.8 PSIA <4-it x 10 5

N/m 2 )

113.8 PSIA (7.8 x 10 5

L/d

- 10

OPEN SYMBOLS

- WATER

its quantitative effect on cavitation. These results are shown in

Fig. 11.
The data reveal that the critical cavitation number decreases
linearly with orifice roundness up to the limit specified in reference [8] shown before. A "best" line drawn through the data
provides the following relationship:
(K)CTH = -

11.4 r/d

(16a)

2.6

or in terms of the contraction coefficient

(C.),/,

- 11.4 r/d

.U/r

The limits of these equations are

(166)

0 < r/d < 0.14

Equations (16a) and (16b) apply only to conditions where the
ratio of upstream diameter to orifice diameter is large so that
(Ce)r/d-o is 0.62.
Unlike-Doublet Mixing Characteristics

Mixing Quality. Following Rupe (reference [7]), we define the

mixing quality as the sum of the mass-weighted deviations in mixture ratio (ratio of fluid flowrates) from the injected mixture ratio.
Rupe considers the cumulative distribution plot for a nonuniform mixture and a monodisperse mixture as shown in Fig. 12,
(Monodisperse mixture is here defined as a two fluid mixture
having completely constant mixture ratio in both space and time.)
In Fig. 12, r = MR/(1 + MR) at any point in the mixture, and
R is the value of r corresponding to the injected mixture ratio,
With these definitions, the mass having r < R is to the right of
the monodisperse line (r = R).
The average value of the mass in each of these regions, see Fig

N/m 2 )

CLOSED SYMBOLS - TRICHL0R0ETHYLENE

ASPECT RATIO = 8

^
^ E d .

0.8
C

(11)*

r-i

k(

0.7

(P, - P / P ,

9 10
100

- PB>

1000

UPSTREAM PRESSURE, PSIA, x [ 6 . 8 9 X l o ' ]

ASPECT RATIO =

^}z-

}.k

0.9

0-7

co*

Fig. 10 Comparison of experimental data with cavitation modelback pressure varying

-o

o-^ - k

0.8

N/m 2

^ ^

0.6
D/d
d

0.5
2

<l

(P, - P / P ,

1.0
0.9

ASPECT RATIO - 2

<"

^EQ.

0.8

- P)

0.7

0.6

l>

"->

11

(ID*

^""v-

^
1
3
DEFINED BY EQ. (10)

(P, " P / P ,

10

0.10

- P>

Fig. 9 Comparison of experimental results with cavitation model

using rectangular orifices

686 / DECEMBER 1976

NO VENA CONTRACTA
REF. 8

0.5

*C

12
0.125 INCH (0.318 CM)

r-,

r/d

Fig. 11 Effect of entrance roundness on the cavitation numbercircular orifice

transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

FLUIDS: WATER AND TRICHLOROETHYLENE

MIXTURE RATIO = CONSTANT
L/d
-10
h
P
- 13.7 PSIA (9.5x10* N/m )

TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION
OF MIXTURE PRODUCED BY AN INJECTOR

RECTANGULAR
ORIFICES
SHARP-EDGE
INLET

MONODISPERSE MIXTURE

NONCAVITATED

Fig. 12

(NONCAVITATED)

Normalized mass and mixture ratio distribution plot

_l

L_

'CIRCULAR ORIFICES
SHARP EDGE (MODIFIED)
I
I
I

hO

12, designated (a) and (6), is determined as follows:

fM1"
Jo

(R - r)dMF

/ I
I Jo
(a)r

dr; f1
(R J MFB

< R

UPSTREAM PRESSURE (P,) PSIA (WATER), x[6.89 X 10 5 ] N/m

Fig. 13 Mixing characteristics as a function of upstream pressure for

various types of orifices

r)dMF

Conclusions

(jb)r > R

where MF mass fraction of the sum of both fluids at any point.

Referring to Fig. 12, averages taken in this manner simply convert the integrated area between the actual distribution curve
and the monodisperse mixture to two equivalent rectangular
areas; one having one side equal to R (from equation (17a)) and
the other having one side equal to 1 R corresponding to equation (176).
Rupe defines a term Em, which is 1 minus the sum of the two
expressions, i.e.,
Em = 1 (equation (17a) + equation (176))

(18)

From integration of equation (18), it is easily shown that t h e

most uniform mixture corresponds to an equivalent average mass
of 100 percent, and the worst distribution would correspond to
an average mass of zero.
Since distribution data are actually taken at definite locations
across the spray field, then it is more convenient to calculate
E, using a difference equation rather than the integral form of
equation (18), i.e.;
Em = 1 - XMFi (R - n)/R

+ HMFi (R - n)/(R

r < R

r > R

1)
(19)

Mixing Results. For all tests, the ratio of flowrates were held
constant and operation at cavitating or noncavitating conditions
was attained by varying the total flowrate. Cavitation was
verified in separate tests. The results for the various elements
are shown in Fig. 13. The circular orifice with well-rounded inlets gave constant mixing uniformity over the entire range evaluated. The circular element which experienced cavitation shows
that once cavitation occurred, the mixing uniformity decreased.
Interestingly, after cavitation, the reduction in mixing uniformity
increases as the flowrate increases. Under noncavitated conditions, this element had constant mixing uniformity. Note t h a t
fully rounding the orifice resulted in only a 1 to 1-1/2 percent
increase in the uniformity of mixing, illustrating the significant
effect cavitation has on the mixing from an unlike-doublet injector. The rectangular orifice unlike-doublet had a constant
level of mixing uniformity even though the flow range included
both cavitated and noncavitated conditions. These results suggest t h a t rectangular orifices should be selected for an injection
element having sharp-edged inlets, which must operate over a
wide range in flowrates and could experience cavitation.

Journal of Fluids Engineering

T h e results of this study have led to the following conclusions:

1 Cavitation occurs in sharp-edged orifices leading to either
hydraulic flip or reattachment, depending on the flow conditions
and orifice L/d.
2 The critical flow conditions producing cavitation can be
calculated using a relatively simple correlation in terms of the
cavitation number and CD3 T h e critical cavitation number is dependent on the orifice
entrance sharpness, and small deviations from sharpness have
large effects on cavitation characteristics.
4 For circular orifice unlike-impinging-doublet elements the
mixing uniformity decreases when orifice cavitation is present.
5 Rectangular orifice elements do not result in lowered mixing
uniformity at cavitation.

References
1 Ito, J. I., "A General Model Describing Hydraulic Flip in
Sharp-Edge Orifices," 7th JANNAF
Combustion Meeting, CPIA
Publication 204, Vol. 1, pp. 417-426. Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, The Johns Hopkins University, Silver Springs,
Md., 1971.
2 Hoehn, F . W., Rupe, J., and Sutter, J., "Liquid-Phase
Mixing of Bipropellant Doublets," Technical Report No. -2-1546,
J e t Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., 1972.
3 Bergwerk, W., et al., "Flow Pattern in Diesel Nozzle Spray
Holes," Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 173, No. 25, 1949, pp.
655-660.
4 Hall, G. W., "Analytical Determination of the Discharge
Characteristics of Cylindrical-Tube Orifices," / . Mech. Engr.
Sci., Vol. 1, No. 5, 1963, pp. 91-97.
5 Chew, J., and Weiss, R., "Injector Flow Hydraulic Flip
Behavior for Typical Liquid Rocket Operating Regions," CPIA
Publication 231, Dec. 1972.
6 Nurick, W., and McHale, R., NASA CR-108570, Noncircular Orifice Holes and Advanced Fabrication Techniques for
Liquid Rocket Injectors, Phase I, Rocketdyne, a Division of Rockwell International, Canoga Park, Calif., 1969.
7 Rupe, J., "A Correlation Between the Dynamic Properties
of a Pair of Impinging Streams and the Uniformity of Mixture
Ratio Distribution in the Resulting Spray," Progress Report No.
20-209, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., 28 March
1956.
8 Vennard, J., Elementary Fluid Mechanics, Wiley, New
York, 3rd ed., pp. 216-219.
9 Daily, J., and Hardemann, D., Fluid Dynamics, AddisonWesley, Mass., 1st ed., p. 318.
10 K n a p p , R. T., Cavitation, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970,
pp. 41-47.

DECEMBER

1976 /

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

687