Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

Peter Walzel, TU, Dortmund, Germany

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.5. Ultrasonic Spray Generation . . . . . . . 21

2. Fundamentals of Drop Formation . . 2 3.6. Electrosprays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1. Dripping and Jet Disintegration . . . . 2 4. Spray Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2. Sheet or Lamella Disintegration . . . . 7 4.1. Spray Evolution and Drop
2.3. Dispersion of Liquids by Gas . . . . . . . 9 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Spraying Devices and Nozzles . . . . . . 10 4.2. Drop Size Measurement and Drop
3.1. Single-Substance Pressure Nozzles . . 11 Size Distributions (DSD) . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2. Pneumatic Nozzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Efficiency of Spray Processes
3.3. Flash Spraying and Spraying and Special Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 24
with Propellants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4. Rotary Wheels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. Introduction Frequently, the sprayed liquids are not pure

liquids in the usual sense but rather solutions,
Spraying is the formation of drops from liquids melts, or suspensions, which demand somewhat
in a gas phase or vacuum. The gas density 𝜚g modified spraying technologies compared to
and liquid density 𝜚 differ by one or more orders pure liquids. Trouble is often caused by wear
of magnitude. At high discharge velocities, the and plugging, which, however, can be reduced
disintegration processes differ significantly to a minimum by suitable devices and materi-
from the dispersion processes in systems with
als. With highly abrasive suspensions, easily
small density differences. In chemical engi-
exchangeable hard-metal or ceramic inserts are
neering, spraying of liquids is operated in four
used at locations of high flow velocity. To avoid
major fields:
plugging, nozzles that produce small drops
1. Combustion of liquid fuels despite relatively large orifices, i.e., hollow
2. Production of granular materials cone nozzles, air blast nozzles, and rotary cup
3. Execution of mass-transfer operations atomizers are especially advantageous.
Although a large variety of spraying devices
4. Coating of surfaces and nozzles are on the market, highly spe-
Depending on the given problem, the desired cialized designs are only considered here to
characteristics of the spray must be adjusted. A a limited extent. Instead, the emphasis is on
narrow drop-size distribution is often desired the fundamentals of drop formation and their
in the production of granular products. A significance in practice applying to all spraying
small average drop size is usually necessary in devices. In general, an estimation of the mean
mass-transfer processes, except in countercur- drop size is possible at least for low viscosity
rent processes where the minimal drop size is liquids and liquids obeying Newtonian flow
limited. Intensive, turbulent mixing between behavior.
gas and liquid, as well as small drop sizes, For moderate flow velocities v, the mean
are required in combustion and other concur- drop size d of the spray formed is clearly linked
rent mass-transfer operations. In coating, the to the size of the discharge opening or nozzle
majority of the drops should precipitate on a diameter D. At very high discharge velocities or
target to form a uniform film. high relative velocities to the ambient gas, the
© 2019 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
DOI: 10.1002/14356007.b02_06.pub3
2 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

influence of the nozzle diameter on the mean

drop sizes (measured at large distances from
the nozzle) fades until it finally disappears. The
process of drop formation becomes dominated
by the relative velocity and momentum transfer
between the fluids involved. The related drop
size course exhibits a negative slope vs. v, i.e.,
d/D ∼ vn with n < 0. At very high discharge
velocities, the exponent decreases to n ≈ −2
and the influence of the discharge opening size
on the mean drop size disappears.

2. Fundamentals of Drop
Formation
Drops basically can be formed by dripping, jet
disintegration, sheet disintegration, and disper-
sion of liquids by gases.
Figure 1. Dripping from the underside of a porous pene-
2.1. Dripping and Jet Disintegration trated plate in the field of gravity (water)

In these drop formation ranges, the influence of

the ambient gas due to low relative velocities is acceleration magnitude g control the process.
negligible. Drops can be obtained by dripping from hor-
izontal sharp edges at limited flow rates, i.e.,
Dripping. The simplest case of drop forma- from the horizontal edge of a vertical surface or
tion is dripping directly from a solid surface. from the circumference of a rotating disc cov-
This occurs for low liquid flow rates, and a ered by a slow-moving film [5]. Their diameter
static equilibrium is developed between the is somewhat smaller compared to Equation (1)
gravitational or mass force and the surface ( )1∕2
force [1]. The drop constricts from the base 𝜎
d = 2.7 (2)
𝜌g
as soon as the gravitational force exceeds the
surface force. Thus, drops of very uniform size
In these dripping processes, the influence of
are produced. This is often important in dosing,
the viscosity 𝜇 on drop size is very small due
e.g., in pharmaceutical applications. Dripping
to low deformation velocities. In practice, drip-
is also applied in pastille forming machines on
ping from capillary tubes or tubular nozzles is a
a large technical scale up to mass flow rates
frequent case (Fig. 2). Here, the drop diameter
of t/h. The process of rapid drop formation can
d depends mainly on the capillary tube diame-
be augmented by pulsed flow at the exit holes.
ter and the liquid properties. Wetting conditions
The oscillations are caused by vibrating pistons
define the diameter of detachment D [6, 7]. The
in the duct to the nozzles or by a rotating perfo-
Bond number represents the ratio of gravity- and
rated cylinder periodically closing and opening
capillary forces:
channels to the exit holes upon rotation [2].
When dripping occurs from the underside of D2 𝜌g
horizontal plates [3, 4], drops with diameter d Bo = (3)
𝜎
arise upon complete wetting (Fig. 1)
The equilibrium between capillary force and
( 𝜚g )1∕2
2.9 < d < 3.3 (1) gravity force gives an estimate for the size of
𝜎
detaching droplets.
The surface tension 𝜎 and the density 𝜚 of ( )1∕3
d 6
the liquid in the gravitational field with the D
=
Bo
(4)
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 3

Meister [9] proposed an extended relationship

expressed here in nondimensional terms:
{ [ ( )1∕3 ]}1∕3
( ) ( )
d 6 We We
= Φ −2 + 7.3 (8)
D Bo Bo Bo2

As a result, droplets moderately increase in

size when We increases from We = 0 to We = 2
as the liquid feeds the drop during detachment.
For Bo > 20, the droplet size is practically
identical to that of drops formed on the under-
side of a liquid-saturated horizontal surface
as in Equation (1). The drop formation and
equilibrium contours are described in [10].

Jet Formation and Rayleigh-Breakup at

Low Velocity. With higher liquid throughput,
Figure 2. Dripping from tubular nozzle at very low flow i.e., increased but still moderate mean discharge
velocities (water) velocity v, cylindrical liquid jets or threads form
first and disintegrate into drops at some distance
from the outlet; this is then called laminar jet
The term (𝜎/𝜌g)1/2 = Lc indicating compara- disintegration or Rayleigh-type disintegration
ble magnitude of capillary and gravity pressure (Fig. 3). Considering small orifice diameters
is also called “capillary length.” first, i.e., Bo < 0.5, transition from dripping to
In the case of low dripping frequency, the jet formation occurs only above a certain dis-
drop size can be better estimated from [8] charge velocity exerting a minimum dynamic
pressure p𝜚 . For well-defined jet formation,
d
(
4
)1∕3 the minimum Weber number is We ≥ 4. At the
= (5) exit of holes with vertical axes in horizontally
D Bo
aligned wetted plates even higher values are
In Harkins and Brown [6] comprehensive necessary [11] and
measurements allowed finding a correction
factor Φ that can quite well be fitted within the We ≥ 8 (9)
range of 0.05 < Bo < 5 to the approximation
Φ = 0.68⋅Bo−0.068 , compare also [1, 8]. Based A bundle of many capillary tubes or bores in
on these findings, the drop size for low dis- a metal sheet enable increase of the total liquid
charge velocities, i.e., for We < 0.01 finally is throughput; in this way, a shower is obtained. If
with high accuracy the bores are too close within a plate, however,
( )1∕3
jet coalescence takes place [12].
d 6Φ
D
=
Bo
(6) Drops are formed from liquid threads
because cylindrical threads are intrinsically
The ratio of the dynamic pressure pρ ∼ 𝜌v2 unstable and on their own form axially sym-
of the flow leaving the nozzle and the capillary metrical waves leading to a smaller surface
pressure pc ∼ 𝜎/D is called Weber number, com- (dilatational or Rayleigh type waves). These
ing into play at elevated velocities waves grow when the wavelength is 𝜆 > 𝜋dth
[13]. The jet diameter dth can be set equal
v2 D𝜌
to the nozzle diameter D with little error [8].
We = (7) The fastest growing waves are those with the
𝜎
optimum wavelength [14, 15]
For somewhat higher discharge velocities,
called “dynamic dripping,” Scheele and 𝜆opt = 𝜋dth (2 + 6 Oh)1∕2 (10)
4 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

Figure 4. Laminar pulsed jet disintegration at a tubular

Figure 3. Laminar jet disintegration from tubular nozzle
nozzle forming droplets of uniform size (viscous oil)
(water)

the breakup wavelength fluctuates near its

with the Ohnesorge number optimum. In addition, satellite drops between
𝜇 the main drops are formed, and coalescence
Oh = (11)
(𝜌 𝜎 dth )1∕2 between drops may occur. Monodisperse drops,
i.e., drops of a uniform size, can be produced by
For low-viscosity liquids, 𝜆opt = 4.4⋅dth . This oscillatory stimulation, either by jet pulsation
process generates drops by pinching off the or nozzle vibration [15, 17–22] (Fig. 4). The
axis-symmetrical wave fragments contracting required stimulation frequency is fopt = v/𝜆opt ,
into spheres with a diameter even though a certain range is permitted [15].
In the case of vertical tubular ducts, grav-
d
D
= 1.88(1 + 3 Oh)1∕6 (12) ity accelerates the emerging jets, i.e., when
Bo > 0.5, smaller exit velocities or We numbers
or in the case of low viscosity d ≈ 1.9 dth . The are sufficient to form liquid threads which then
disintegration time of threads for complete drop underlie considerable extension and diame-
formation can be estimated with a relationship ter reduction before breakup. However, for
composed of an inertial and a viscosity term Bo < 0.5, the jet diameter dth is about equal
[14], however, also including the empirical to the nozzle diameter D at breakup and
factor 12 for the initial amplitude [16] of Equation (12) holds. At too large ducts, the
disturbances and amplitude growth rates liquid surface becomes finally unstable and the
[( ]
liquid emerges from the nozzle in shape of one
)1∕2
𝜌d3 th 3𝜇dth or more rivulets. This occurs when Bo > 28
tb = 12 + (13)
𝜎 𝜎 for accurately vertically aligned tubes and no
external disturbances [23]. Sometimes smaller
Within the laminar jet disintegration range, values such as Bo < 8 are stated as in [24] and
the jet length increases with the discharge are valid for slightly misaligned tubes. This
velocity lb = v⋅tb . In natural jet disintegration, instability can be suppressed, e.g., by cover-
the main drops have about the same size, as ing the outlet with a sieve. Within the range
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 5

2.0 < Bo < 28, the drop formation process at Weber numbers than given by Equation (9). This
low discharge velocities is mainly dominated by limit is then given by
the flow rate and not so much by the detachment
geometry. Wemin = Bo–3∕2 (16)
At inclined plates covered with a liquid film
flowing down to a detachment edge in the field For low viscous liquids, i.e., for 𝜇* < 0.01,
of gravity with a = g or to the circumference of and with the drop size related to the capillary
rotating wheels with a = R𝜔2 , the average spac- length d* = d/Lc , the mean size of drops gen-
ing s (pitch) between the liquid threads forming erated by the elongated jets within the range
on their own at the detachment edge is [5, 25] V̇ th∗ < 20 in the field of gravity can be given
as [26–28]:
s
5.6 ≤ ≤ 7.0 (14)
Lc
d∗ = 0.85 ⋅ V̇ th∗ 1∕4 (17)

At the bottom side of porous horizontal

plates with sufficient liquid permeation detach- The liquid viscosity as a mean influence
ment spots also form on their own with regular parameter in 𝜇* = 𝜇(g/𝜎 3 𝜌)1/4 has only minor
spacing. The drop size in the case of dripping influence on the drop size but considerable
is given by Equation (1). effect on the breakup length. 𝜇* represents an
At moderately increased liquid flow rate, Ohnesorge number formed with the capillary
a regular triangular jet pattern forms, with a length. For the breakup length and the drop
nondimensional jet spacing s* = s/Lc ≈ 7.6, see size, both related to the capillary length within
e.g. [4] and (Fig. 5). The minimum flow-rate the range V̇ th∗ ≤ 5, holds [28]:
V̇ th per jet or thread in the case of low viscous [ ]12∕5
liquids within this regime is V̇ th∗ ≈ 0.8, with lb∗ = 45 ⋅ V̇ th∗ 3∕4 1 + 0.68𝜇 ∗ (18)

V̇ th∗ = V̇ th (g3 𝜌5 ∕𝜎 5 )1∕4 corresponding to the

combination and for 0.01 < 𝜇* < 0.7 and 1 < V̇ th∗ < 16:
( )
𝜋 d∗ = 1.04 ⋅ V̇ th∗ 0.26 𝜇 ∗ 0.038
V̇ th∗ = ⋅ Bo3∕4 ⋅ We1∕2 (15) (19)
4

At vertically aligned nozzles with diameters The range of validity later was extended
according to Bo > 0.3, jets already form at lower to V̇ th∗ < 50 [28]. When the liquid viscosity
is increased at penetrated horizontal porous
plates, the thread length increases with only a
moderate increase in drop size, as expressed
by Equation (19) permitting further jet con-
traction. If the throughput is increased further,
the liquid threads progressively coalesce and
lead to an irregular pattern of thick and thin
threads.
Jet coalescence also results from increased
throughput, if horizontal detachment edges
terminate inclined surfaces covered with a
flowing film. Finally, this leads to an irregular
pattern of few thick jets [4] until locally even
sheet elements are formed. The same process
occurs on rotating atomizers such as atomizer
wheels, cups, or rotating cups [29, 30]. At
a distinct flow rate range, the liquid threads
form at the detachment spots at regular spacing
and also disintegrate according to the law of
Figure 5. Formation of regular spaced laminar jets at the
underside of a horizontal porous penetrated plate in the field Rayleigh jet disintegration. However, it has
of gravity (water) been shown [28, 31] that the relative velocity
6 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

to the stagnant environmental gas due to the A B C D E

high circumferential velocity leads to earlier
breakup and to larger drops than expected by
the already mentioned relationships.

Jets at Higher Discharge Velocities. As D

described in the previous paragraphs, due to
moderate relative flow velocities, the ambient
gas has no or only little effect on the jet behav-
ior and has, therefore, been neglected. The
situation changes when the discharge velocity
becomes even higher. Besides that, the flow
pattern of a jet upon discharge from an orifice
strongly influences the jet shape and breakup.
Simplifying there are two limiting cases.
Limiting case 1 applies to jets with a rel-
atively low degree of turbulence emerging,
e.g., from long and smooth L/D > 10 tubu-
lar nozzles with rounded inlets. These jets
need very high discharge velocities to disin-
tegrate. The gas phase has a strong influence
on breakup. It is responsible for the so-called
“Kelvin–Helmholtz instability.” Figure 6. Breakup process of jets discharged from tubular
nozzles in the field of gravity. Increasing discharge velocity
Limiting case 2 deals with the behavior of
(from right to left) A) Leaking; B) Dripping; C) Jet under
jets with a high degree of internal turbulence, gravity with low velocity; D) First wind-induced breakup;
e.g., due to reattachment in the duct after a E) Prompt fragmentation (atomization)
sharp-edged inlet, or even with spin due to an
upstream insert causing diverging streamlines
due to the shorter axis-symmetrical or dilata-
at the nozzle outlet. Disintegration may occur
tional Rayleigh waves. Typical flow pattern at
already at comparatively low velocities and
nozzles with large and small diameters is shown
takes place at even very low ambient gas pres-
in Figure 6A–E.
sure. Frequently, practical cases lie in between
A distribution of drop sizes is produced in
case 1 and 2. The issue has been elaborated in the size range of the jet diameter. The so-called
detail by Chigier and Reitz [32]. 2nd wind-induced regime is reached as soon
Overall drop-formation regimes at tubular as 13 < Weg < 40.3. Breakup is visible start-
nozzles are usually characterized by means of ing at some distance from the nozzle. With
a Re–Oh plot [33–35]. When Oh (i.e., liquid Weg = We⋅(𝜌g /𝜌) > 40, even stronger interaction
properties and nozzle diameter) is given and with the ambient gas [37] takes place. 𝜌g is the
the Weber number, i.e., the flow velocity v gas density. “Atomization” or prompt breakup
is increased, the following sequence of flow with immediate shedding of liquid portions
conditions is observed: “dripping,” “laminar or from the jet immediately upon the nozzle exit
Rayleigh jet disintegration,” “1st wind-induced can be observed when the ambient gas density
breakup,” “2nd wind-induced breakup” and or velocities are very high and Weg > 40.3 is
turbulent jet disintegration or “prompt frag- reached. This sequence is clearly true for jets
mentation,” as exemplarily shown in Figure 6E. with a lower degree of turbulence as, e.g., when
First wind-induced breakup often combined emerging from long smooth ducts. Generally,
with sinusoidal, i.e., varicose jet, deforma- the degree of turbulence depends on the duct
tion is an intermediate state followed by the geometry and flow velocity.
Rayleigh-type breakup and leads to helical However, prompt breakup also occurs at
deformations of the jet by aerodynamic forces very low ambient pressures for jets with a
[36, 37] even though breakup still takes place high degree of turbulence, e.g., emerging from
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 7

For environmental gas pressures in the range

below 10 bar, the final mean drop size, i.e., the
Sauter-mean diameter, was found in [44]:
d32
≈ 8400 ⋅ We–12∕13 Oh2∕13 (20)
D

However, the quite strong dependence of the

drop size on v, as suggested by Equation (20)
has not been confirmed on a broad base. Even
though the environmental gas clearly triggers
breakup, the environmental gas density within
the range of 0.1–1 MPa (1–10 bar) hardly causes
any change of the mean final drop size. This is
also the result of simulations for the primary
and secondary drop sizes [45–49]. The turbu-
lence in the jet can be significantly enhanced by
special flow duct geometries other than tubular,
as will be shown (Section 3.1). Smooth tubular
ducts at moderate pressures are poor spraying
nozzles, as they require excessive overhead
pressures for small mean drop sizes but allow
for large jet length and deep penetration as,
Figure 7. Jet with high degree of turbulence emerging from e.g., desired in firefighting or short time filling
a knee-shaped nozzle duct (water) with deflections (see also of cylinders with fuels in engines.
Fig. 13B)

2.2. Sheet or Lamella Disintegration

nozzles with internal deflections. An example is
shown in Figure 7. Also, divergent streamlines The production of small drops with cylindrical
at the exit caused by upstream spin inserts, or ducts has the disadvantage that either very
due to reattachment behind a cavitation area, small nozzles or very high pressures equivalent
or even due to divergent channels (diffusers) to high-energy input are needed. A convenient
show comparable behavior. In these cases, approach is to first produce thin sheets or lamel-
the gas pressure influence is ambiguous. An las, which subsequently break up into drops by
attempt has been made to correlate the breakup one of the following breaking mechanisms:
behavior of turbulent jets to the macro-scale of
the turbulence [38, 39] with its decay along the 1. Edge contraction
running length. 2. Aerodynamic waves, deformation, and rup-
At very high discharge velocities v > 100 m/s ture
under atmospheric ambient conditions, the gas 3. Fragmentation by film rupture due to turbu-
dynamic influence becomes increasingly lence and sudden local contact of surfaces
noticeable and amplifies primary disturbances
[40–42] and may also lead to so-called sec- Frequently, these disintegration mechanisms
ondary breakup of already detached large are superimposed. Generic instable liquid
drops. The transition to atomization or prompt threads with dilatational wave formation at
breakup also depends on the Reynolds num- wavelength 𝜆 > 𝜋dth lead to a smaller surface
ber or on Oh = We1/2 /Re and is shifted to and thus to increasing instability as wave
higher Weber numbers in the case of vis- growth propagates. In contrast, sheets are more
cous liquids. For round jets and atmospheric stable because each deformation enlarges the
conditions, Miesse [43] suggested for the tran- surface and must work against a restoring
sition to prompt fragmentation (atomization) force [50–52]. Most industrial atomizers form
Oh = 100⋅Re−0.92 [33, 35]. sheets that expand transversely to the main flow
8 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

A Slotted nozzle, δ = const C Impinging jet

D Fan of flat jet
δ
B y

z δ0 Rim bulge
B Detached film r, x
under gravity Divergence
δ0 E Jet
Convergence z from
swirl nozzle
v
g/a y

Convergent -
divergent flow

Figure 8. Formation of sheets. A) Slotted nozzle causing parallel streamlines giving large drops, rim-bulge not shown;
B) Extending film under gravity; C) Attenuating sheet from jet impinging on circular plate; D) Fan jet formed by
convergent-divergent flow pattern in the nozzle duct; E) Hyperbolic attenuating sheet emerging from swirl nozzle. Reproduced
with permission of SCSC [104]

direction. Thus, due to continuity, they decrease flow direction, breaking up into relatively
in thickness 𝛿 with increasing distance x from coarse drops according to the principles of
the nozzle. As the sheet thickness reduces, Rayleigh-type breakup.
they become more and more susceptible to the At the location of the bulge, the propa-
environmental gas. Owing to continuity, from a gation velocity v of the sheet is equal to the
certain distance x from the nozzle on 𝛿x = K is contraction velocity or We𝛿 = v2 𝜌𝛿/𝜎 = 2 [51,
practically constant and is named sheet thick- 56]. That means more or less zero velocity for
ness parameter [53, 54]. Relating K to the cross the drops detached, see also tulip-shaped sheet
sectional area AD of the nozzle outlet (orifice), with bulge from a swirl nozzle in Figure 9. For
the size-independent sheet number We𝜅 1/2 (𝜌g /𝜌)1/2 > 20, the sheet distinctly begins
to oscillate due to the relative velocity between
𝜅 = 𝛿x∕AD (21) the stagnant ambient gas and the sheet. The
physics of this aerodynamic wave formation
is obtained [55]. Different sheet-forming is called Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. With
options are shown in Figure 8. increasing distance, the quickly growing ampli-
The sheet number only depends on the nozzle tudes of the varicose waves (like a undulated
geometry and is identical for geometrically sim- sheet of paper) cause the sheet to break. Liq-
ilar nozzles at equal Reynolds number. It yields uid threads again are formed by contraction
the relative sheet thickness 𝛿/D at a given rela- from the brokenup sheet fragments until these
tive distance x/D from the nozzle. With circular intermediate threads finally break up into drops
orifices, AD = D2 𝜋/4 and 𝜅 = 4 𝛿x/𝜋D2 . For rel- by the Rayleigh mechanism; this observation is
ative small discharge velocities, i.e., for the basis of different breakup models [57–61].
A close look into the breakup process, however,
( )1∕2 shows a great complexity of the mechanism:
𝜌g
We ⋅ 𝜅 1∕2 ≤ 13 (22)
𝜌 Crosswise waves are also formed perpendicular
to the streamlines [62, 63] and a network of
edge contraction takes place, as a liquid threads is formed from the sheet fragments.
bulge terminates the sheet normal to the main With increasing velocity, the fragments
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 9

range. Aerodynamic wave formation also takes

place for sheets formed at nozzles and at rotary
wheels operating in the range of sheets under
conditions of low turbulence. At even higher
velocity the “shortwave” regime is reached
[59, 66] again with dilatational waves as a
major cause for breakup. They lead to relative
primary drop sizes of d/D ∼ 𝜅 1/2 𝜌*1/4 . However,
these primary drops are frequently subject to
significant secondary breakup. With increasing
velocity, due to turbulence, the mean final drop
size follows a stronger decrease with increasing
exit velocity [44, 67, 68] and it then is stated to
become more or less independent on the orifice
diameter and nozzle geometry. The following
relation is proposed for the Sauter mean drop
size similar to Equation (20), but with a lower
constant validated in [69].
d32
= 5900 We−12∕13 Oh2∕13 (24)
D

A hint for the maximum drop size: d32 ≈ 0.3

dmax is also given in [69]. It is evident that
Equation (24) suggests no influence of the
Figure 9. Tulip-shaped sheet at low velocity emerging nozzle shape as e.g. of 𝜅. Secondary breakup is
from a swirl nozzle with edge contraction leads to a bulge mainly attributed to internal turbulence rather
and detaches large drops at low exit velocities (water) than to interaction of primary drops or threads
with the surrounding atmosphere, although
this effect is not excluded. Separation of these
show stochastic behavior [64] giving rise effects, however, is difficult and they also
to irregular and erratically branched threads. depend on the flow state and the upstream
For low-viscosity liquids and moderate ambient geometry of the nozzle. At very high velocities
gas pressures, typically below 1 MPa [57, 58, v > 100 m/s turbulent disintegration dominates
65], the drop size can be estimated based on the with very short breakup length of the emerging
size of sheet fragments subsequently contract- sheets.
ing to ligaments. This varicose wave regime
represents the so-called “long-wave” regime.
( )1∕3 (
2.3. Dispersion of Liquids by Gas
)1∕6
d32 𝜎 𝜌
= C1 (𝛿x)1∕3 (23)
D v2rel 𝜌 𝜌g If a gas jet strikes a liquid surface with sufficient
relative velocity vrel , the liquid is dispersed. Dis-
with 1.4 < C1 < 1.7, vrel is the relative velocity integration of drops with diameter d in gas-flows
between sheet and gas, and d32 is the Sauter has been extensively examined [70–74]. Dis-
mean diameter of the resulting drop size distri- persion occurs when the dynamic pressure of
bution. The Sauter mean diameter has the same the gas exceeds the capillary pressure within
ratio of surface to drop volume as the whole the drop. The pressure ratio is described by the
drop size distribution. vrel ≈ v for stagnant gas gas Weber number, Wedg = v2 rel d𝜌g /𝜎.
environment. Breakup starts at 8 < Wedg < 10 when the
Under low environmental pressure and with primary drop is set into oscillation thus promot-
suspensions, stochastic rupture of the film and ing binary breakup leading to two secondary
growth of the expanding holes can be observed. droplets. At 10 < Wedg < 20, the drop is blown
However, the drop size remains in the same up into a hemispherical bag terminated by a
10 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

bulge (bag breakup mode) and subsequently with diameter D, data on drop sizes are given
bursts into small secondary drops with a in [91, 92]:
mean diameter ds /d ≥ 0.05 depending on Ohd
with Ohd = 𝜇/(d𝜌𝜎)1/2 . Within the range of d32
= 8 × 10−3 (Weg ⋅ Oh)−2∕3 (26)
20 < Wedg < 150, the secondary drop size sur- D

prisingly becomes somewhat larger and remains

with Weg = vg 2 𝜌g D/𝜎 and Oh = 𝜇/(D𝜌𝜎)1/2 , vg
nearly constant with 0.08 < ds /d < 0.1 (stamen
again is the gas velocity.
breakup mode or multimode breakup) [75].
Drop formation with pneumatic atomizers
Further decrease in secondary droplet diam-
relaying on the splitting effect of the gas is
eters appears at even higher Wedg resulting
described most often by the relationship
in the rim stripping mode or “catastrophic
breakup.” Increasing the liquid viscosity damps d32
[
(1 + 𝜇m )2
]m
oscillations and impairs breakup. For Ohd > 4, D
∼
Weg
(27)
dispersion of drops in gas flows is hardly pos-
sible any longer and ligaments are generated. D in the Weber number is a characteristic
The general splitting limit can be approximated nozzle diameter. The exponent lies in the range
by 0.4 < m < 0.6. The mixing process between
the gas flow with high velocity and the liquid
Wedg = 12 + 14 ⋅ Oh0.8 (25)
d
flow usually emerging with low velocity only
enables limited mixing or dispersion velocities
Splitting modes at various Weber and Ohne- thus reducing the gas impact on the droplets.
sorge numbers are quantified more in detail Therefore, subsequent emerging drops shield
in [73, 74, 76–79]. The Cascade Atomiza- preceding drops and the available gas velocity
tion Model (CAB) on secondary drops size then is vm = vg /(1 + 𝜇m ). This first-order con-
is explained in [80]. Transitions of breakup sideration of linear momentum explains the
regimes are also quantified in [81]. effect of the loading in Equation (27) [93] and
The general behavior and breakup of cylin- should hold for more or less all external-mixing
drical liquid jets within a gas environment nozzles. At low loadings or mass flow ratio
depends on the flow direction of the two 𝜇m = M∕ ̇ Ṁ g ≪ 1, a minimum drop size is
phases. Jet behavior and breakup under co-flow obtained. Frequently also the inverse term is
condition are reported in [32]. Depending on used, i.e., the ratio of air or more general of the
the momentum ratio of gas and liquid flow gas mass flow rate and the liquid mass flow rate
as well as liquid properties, the jet is subject ALR or GLR = Ṁ g ∕Ṁ = 1∕𝜇m , as described
to different kind of oscillations amplified by in the literature. According to Equation (27),
the relative velocity of the phases. Finally, at variation of 𝜇m gives maximum relative effi-
very high relative velocity, a stripping pro- ciencies of spraying processes, i.e., the ratio of
cess takes place with small ligaments being gain in surface compared to energy input by the
stripped off from the main jet. The size of gas at a loading of 𝜇m = 1.
drops formed decays with increasing rela-
tive velocity. In case, the gas-flow strikes a
liquid jet perpendicular (cross-flow) to its
main flow direction the jet is bent and finally 3. Spraying Devices and Nozzles
disintegrated. The process to a large extent
also depends on the liquid Reynolds number The basic principles of drop formation can
and the momentum transfer between gas and be applied to a great number of technically
the jet [82–85]. The scale of the jet turbu- employed spraying devices (atomizers) as,
lence is considered, e.g., in [86]. A liquid e.g., nozzles, or rotating and vibrating systems.
film attached to a solid surface driven by a While the energy demand is generally reduced
fast co-moving gas-flow forms waves from at large d∕D for a given mean drop size d, the
whose crests drops detach. This process has application of narrow channels or small orifices
been examined repeatedly [86–90]. For drops is often prohibited in technical application due
produced in a two-phase film flow within tubes their plugging behavior.
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 11

3.1. Single-Substance Pressure velocity frequently is unknown to the operator

Nozzles in advance. At high pressures or low viscosi-
ties, the parameters mentioned tend to reach a
Single-substance pressure nozzles are the sim- constant limiting value. Desired variations in
plest spraying devices. They convert the liquid throughput require significant pressure changes
overhead pressure Δp into velocity. The geom- according to Δp ∼ V̇ 2 , while mean drop sizes
etry of the nozzle determines the conversion simultaneously change in the case of sheet
efficiency and the usually complex vector nozzles with d32 ∼ Δp−1∕3 . Hence variations of
field of the emerging liquid. The discharge throughput often are only possible by switching
velocity v = 𝜑⋅u with u = (2Δp/𝜌)1/2 standing single nozzles on or off.
for the Bernoulli velocity (no friction) and
velocity coefficient 𝜑 characterizes the losses Sheet Nozzles. In case fine droplets are
within the nozzle due to viscous friction and required, large orifice diameters of the nozzle
turbulent dissipation. The volumetric flow rate are necessary in order to minimize the plugging
of single-substance pressure nozzles can be behavior of the spraying system. It was found
obtained with the discharge coefficient that nozzles forming attenuating sheets are able
to produce fine droplets relative to the orifice
V̇ diameter even at relatively low differential pres-
CD = (28)
AD u sure. Attenuation is achieved by sheet extension
normal to the main flow direction. Particularly
with AD being the orifice cross-sectional area.
thin sheets and correspondingly fine droplets
CD is always less than 1 as the cross-sectional
are formed at hollow cone or swirl nozzles as
area of the nozzle orifice is frequently only
long as low viscous liquids are sprayed, e.g.,
partly occupied by the liquid and friction losses
when Oh < 0.05. The larger the spray angle Θ
are also included. Furthermore, only axial
the thinner the sheet width 𝛿 at a given distance
vector components of the discharge velocity
x from the nozzle and the smaller the droplets
contribute to the flow rate. In the English liter-
compared to the orifice diameter. This effect is
ature, very often nozzle sizes are given in terms
considered by the sheet number 𝜅 = 4𝛿x/D2 𝜋.
of the “flow-number” in units of m2 :
For more viscous liquids, fan-jet nozzles are
̇
FN = M∕(Δp ⋅ 𝜌)1∕2 (29) usually employed despite the thicker sheets
compared to their orifice diameter. They still
√
The conversion, therefore, is CD = ( 2∕2) ensure relatively high discharge velocities due
FN∕A to low friction in the mostly short flow channel.
√ and in case of circular orifices CD =
(2 2∕𝜋)FN∕D2 . The flow number is obtained Hollow Cone Nozzles (HCN). HCN con-
from the mass flow rate of a standard fluid tain a swirl chamber into which the liquid
at a standard pressure drop of Δp = 0.69 MPa flows through one or more inlets with a tan-
through the given nozzle, compare also [35]. gential component (see Fig. 10A and B). A
As the “standard fluid” has very low viscos- gas core forms in the middle of the swirl
ity of 𝜈 = 0.0009 m2 /s, data obtained with chamber and leads to an annular film within
water usually indicated in nozzle catalogs for the orifice. Outside the orifice, with diameter
Δp ≥ 0.5 MPa are also useful. Of course, then D, a hyperbolic sheet forms starting at the
the properties of water have to be taken to detachment edge passing into a hollow con-
obtain ical shape at larger distances. A trumpet-like
√ shape of orifices allows for larger spray angles
Ṁ 2
FN =
u𝜌
(30) (Fig. 10C). With increasing distance, the sheet
becomes thinner and breaks up into fragments
The nozzle parameters 𝜑, CD , 𝜅, and Θ by aerodynamic wave formation. After the
depend on the nozzle geometry and on the pres- intermediate ligament stage, drops are formed
sure Reynolds number Rep = D(Δp𝜌)1/2 /𝜇. The (Fig. 11). A minimum pressure is required for
latter one has the advantage that the pressure this regime [55, 56]. For liquids with low vis-
can be recorded easily while the actual flow cosity, this minimum pressure can be obtained
12 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

A B

x
D
δ

θ
C

rE
D

Figure 10. Swirl nozzles forming hollow conical sheets. A)

Nozzle with tangential inlet (side and top views); B) Nozzle
with slotted cone insert; C) Deviation aperture or trumpet
opening for large spray angles

at Rep > 1000 and apart from the bulge forming

limit, compare Equation (22) and consecutive Figure 11. Aerodynamic wave formation and turbulence
text. on an emulsion sheet formed at a HCN swirl-type nozzle.
The spray angle Θ = 45∘ is small as typically required for
[ ( )]−1∕2 spray-drying operations. Exit velocities correspond to aero-
20 𝜌g
Wep ≥ 𝜅 , (31) dynamic wave breakup. Photo taken during work on [94].
2𝜑2 𝜌 D = 0.6 mm, Δp = 50 bar, 𝜇 = 50 mPa s

with the pressure Weber number Wep =

ΔpD∕𝜎. Common values for the velocity The spin parameter stands for the ratio of
coefficient for hollow cone nozzles operated tangential to axial velocity in the orifice. rE
at high Rep lie in the range 0.7 < 𝜑 < 0.85. If is the median radius of the entry channels
not otherwise accessible, it is recommended to into the spin chamber and AE is the total
insert 𝜑 = 0.80. The sheet number 𝜅 can easily cross-section of entry channels. Typically, the
be obtained from the spray angle Θ which is spin parameters are in the range of 1 < Δ < 4,
usually given in the brochures of the nozzle the corresponding discharge coefficients lie
manufacturers but may be smaller for liquids within 0.18 < CD < 0.38, the sheet number
with a higher viscosity than water. at 0.04 < 𝜅 < 0.16 and spray angles between
50∘ < Θ < 90∘ . The larger numbers of CD and
𝜅=
CD
(32) 𝜅 belong to the smaller spin parameter while
[2𝜋 𝜑 sin(Θ∕2)]
large spray angles Θ belong to large Δ.
Considerable deviations, however, develop
In practice, the dependence of V̇ vs. Δp with increasing viscosities [98]. In this case,
listed in the manufacturer brochures for water the velocity coefficient may significantly drop
is best taken for CD . However, CD then repre- [60, 69, 99–101]. The throughput, however,
sents “CD0 ”—a limiting case for low viscosity. increases because the annular area occu-
For low viscous liquids, sheet number and dis- pied by the liquid within the spin chamber
charge coefficients can also be calculated from increases as the gas core area shrinks while Θ is
potential theory [95–98]. Nozzle parameters to reduced.
a large extent depend on the spin parameter, The Sauter mean drop size for moder-
i.e., in the simplest case ate pressures can be estimated by means of
𝜋D rE
Equations (23), (34), or (35) according to [35,
Δ= . (33) 55]. By inserting the usually known pressure
2AE
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 13

Weber number and the sheet number the special aperture as in Figure 10C, taking advan-
following is obtained: tage of the Coanda effect [55, 112] while D now
represents the smallest diameter within the out-
( )1∕3 ( )−1∕6
d32 𝜅 𝜌g let duct. Flow-rate control is either possible by
= 1.45 . (34)
D 2𝜑 Wep 𝜌 recycling (spill return) of a liquid flow portion
from the swirl chamber without strong effects
Equation (34) considers the long-wave on the drop size [113–116] or by operating inlet
model derived by Dombrowski et al. [53, 58]. ports of different size [117]. Under suitable
For low-viscosity liquids, the results lie close operating conditions and proposed range of
to results obtained from a relationship given in swirl parameters, swirl nozzles are able to make
[35] also considering the viscosity of the liquid: the smallest orifice-diameter-related droplets in
the size range of 0.03 < d32 /D < 0.15.
( )1∕4 ( )−1∕4
d32 CD 𝜌g
= 2.3 . (35)
D Rep Wep 𝜌 Fan or Flat Jet Nozzles (FJN). Sector-
shaped sheets can be produced by suitable noz-
In [35], a more detailed calculation method zle geometries. Figure 12 shows two designs
is also presented consisting of two main terms, for fan jet nozzles. A frequent design consists
one for initial disturbances and one for the of a nozzle with a spherical bore slotted by a
wave growth behavior in the gas environment. cross groove (Fig. 12A). Another construction
It includes the sheet thickness upon discharge called tongue nozzle is shown in Figure 12B.
but requires the flow number, the spray angle A plate deflects the circular jet, leading to a
and a simplified approximation for the sheet sector-shaped sheet. The flow through such a
thickness. Recent results allow for an even nozzle causes streamlines that diverge in the slit
more detailed estimation of the mean drop size direction but converge transversally, forming a
[60, 69, 98–103], and more citations in [104]. sector-shaped sheet fan. Bulges always confine
The nozzle parameters 𝜑, 𝜅, CD , and Θ are the fan at its sides, locally leading to larger
often expressed by semi-empirical correlations drops at moderate flow velocities.
depending on geometrical parameters and Discharge coefficient, velocity coefficient,
Rep . With increasing differential pressure, a and sheet number must either be determined by
maximum spray angle is achieved. However, experiment [35, 53, 55] or by simulation, which
in the far field, the spray angle decreases as requires detailed knowledge of the nozzle con-
the smaller drops are deflected inward due to tour. Whereas, CD and Θ are available from the
the gas entrainment into the spray cone, size nozzle manufacturer, 𝜑 must be estimated or
separation of the droplets takes place within
the spray. The large drops remain on the jet
edge and a free jet resembling the single-phase A
situation develops after a maximum radial
extension at a certain relaxation length of the
largest drops [105–108]. The relationships (34)
and (35) may also be used beyond the upper
range of the long wave regime as they follow
x

about the final (secondary) drop size and their δ

θ
decay due to higher discharge velocities into
the full turbulent region. Further work on HCN
see [109–111]. B
A small increase in primary drop size is D
found with increasing ambient pressure close
to the nozzle, corresponding to the short-wave
breakup model valid for higher pressures [59,
65]. For spraying of suspensions see, e.g., [94].
As the maximum spray angle is limited by the Figure 12. Fan jet nozzles (FJN). A) Nozzle with spherical
spin to about Θ = 110∘ , it can be enlarged by a bore and transverse slit; B) Tongue nozzle
14 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

measured. For Rep > 1000, the velocity coeffi- A B

cient lies in the range of 0.85 < 𝜑 < 0.95. Fan jet
nozzles have much higher 𝜅-values compared 45
°
to hollow cone nozzles, they lie in the range D′
of 0.4 < 𝜅 < 2, leading to larger drops at the l=D′

D′
same orifice diameter and overhead pressure. 2D′ l=D′

4D′
In brochures, frequently an “equivalent orifice l=D′
diameter Dequ ” is listed. For lower Rep , i.e., D′
for viscous liquids, the velocity coefficient
decreases much less than in the case of hollow D′
cone nozzles. The equivalent cross-sectional
area AD can be used to obtain the equivalent C D
nozzle diameter Dequ = (4AD /𝜋)1/2 . The dis-
D′c
charge coefficient CD also decreases, to some
extent compensating an increase in sheet thick-
ness. For these reasons, fan jet nozzles are also
suitable for spraying highly viscous liquids
(e.g., “airless-spraying”). They are also used
for coating and descaling of surfaces as from
moving sheets and in washing plants when high
jet momentum is required. The sheet number D′ D′
can be estimated with
Figure 13. Full cone nozzles (FJN) (turbulence nozzles).
CD
𝜅 = 360 . (36) A) Nozzle with Borda inlet, flow detachment and reat-
2𝜋 Θ 𝜑 tachment; B) Nozzle with knee-shaped, sharp-edged duct;
C) Nozzle with turbulence amplifying and swirl generat-
Estimates of the drop size are possible again ing insert. Air core is avoided by the central drill hole
with Equation (34) as the breakup process com- in the insert; D) Nozzle with sharp-edged, swirl and
pares with hollow cone nozzles. Deceleration of turbulence-inducing insert
the spray by the ambient gas is less than in the
case of hollow-cone nozzles [118]. For breakup
of pulsed sheets, see [119]. [121, 122]). Disintegration at this nozzle type is
caused by the strong internal turbulence of the
Turbulence or Full Cone Nozzles (FCN). flow and superimposed radial flow divergence.
For uniform exposing of large surfaces, full Both temporally and spatially irregular-shaped
cone nozzles are frequently employed. Com- sheet structures develop, attenuate, and form
pared to swirl nozzles with air core, they first irregular ligaments and then drops, as
produce larger drops [120]. By implementing visible in Figure 7. This process is also effec-
a spin-generating insert, both swirl and strong tive in low-pressure gas environment or in
turbulence are simultaneously induced (see vacuum, indicating the basic influence of
Fig. 13C and D). The swirl also enables large the nozzle flow pattern. In [86], the breakup
spray angles, up to 110∘ or even larger with behavior and the drop size was successfully
a Coanda or trumpet opening. Frequently a correlated with the macroscale of turbulence at
uniform spray density within the spray cone is discharge.
desired, challenging efforts of manufacturers Fast jets emerging from smooth tubular
to optimize the nozzle geometry. Formation of nozzles disintegrate to fine drops only at
an air core is prevented, e.g., by an axial flow high discharge velocities as mentioned in
close to the nozzle center. Other designs, even [32]. The radial spray divergence due to tur-
though with a less uniform spray density are bulence, i.e., the spray angle is small and
the Borda aperture, as shown in Figure 13A wind-induced breakup is initiated and domi-
with deliberate detachment and reattachment of nant. In Ashgriz, Handbook of Atomization
the flow shortly ahead of discharge or repeated and Sprays [123], for the spray angle is
deflections in the nozzle duct (see Fig. 13B suggested: tan(Θ/2) = 0.31(𝜌g /𝜌)0.91 .
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 15

With very high discharge velocities, typi- role, so it can be selected large enough to
cally higher than 80 m/s, fine drops can also avoid clogging. Two major groups can be
be produced by smooth cylindrical nozzles, identified
e.g., in diesel injection [124–128] and their
size is approximately given by Equation (20). 1. external mixing nozzles: the liquid and the
The mean drop size from nozzles with a gas meet outside the nozzle immediately
turbulence-amplifying Borda inlet (Fig. 13A) upon discharge and the liquid pressure can
was found in [129]: be quite low or even “self-aspiring.”
( )1∕5 2. internal mixing nozzles: the gas and liquid
d32 𝜌g
= 400 ⋅ Wep −3∕4 Oh1∕7 , (37) meet within the nozzle. For the latter, the
D 𝜌
liquid has to be supplied with about the same
pressure as the gas.
valid within the range 20 000 < Wep < 100 000
and 2 × 10−3 < Oh < 7 × 10−2 . External mixing nozzles frequently deploy the
At high discharge velocities, secondary principle of pre-filming [134] or the break
breakup of drops must be expected. Exper- up of preformed liquid sheets [135] formed
imental data obtained in [127] for pressures in advance by some method as described in
Δp < 2 MPa were used to recalculate (KIVA Figure 14 and subject to a fast gas flow.
Software) the size of primary drops just behind In prefilming nozzles, the liquid is dis-
the nozzle based on variations of primary charged with low velocity and is spread by
drop size distributions in [130, 131]. For the the gas flow as a thin film on the nozzle sur-
Rosin−Rammler−Sperling−Bennet mean drop face as in Figure 14A, B, and D with internal
size was found swirl for the liquid. The wavy gas-driven film
dRR flows to a detachment edge where it meets the
= 21 ⋅ We−0.23 Oh0.46 . (38)
D fast-moving gas jet. There it is disintegrated
and drop formation takes place [136]. The
For the mass median drop size 1.25 < thinner the liquid film at the detachment edge,
dRR /dv.50 < 1.3 can be stated. Comparable the smaller the drops. Drop size relations for
courses of drop sizes were found for a full cone pneumatic nozzles of different design are given
nozzle according to Figure 13C in [132] at and compared in [35, 98, 123, 137]. For sim-
pressures of 0.09 < Δp < 1.08 MPa and nozzle ple nozzles with concentric channels and an
diameters of 8 < D < 12 mm within a limited annular prefilming surface as in Figure 14A
range of 1.09 × 10−3 < Oh < 1.34 × 10−3 and B, the following semi-empirical rela-
tionship can be applied for mean drop-size
d50.3
= 6 ⋅ We−0.27 Oh0.33 . (39) estimates.
D
[ ]m
d32 Wepg
The spray density captured with a mechan- = C4 ⋅ (1 + C5 Ohj ). (40)
D (1 + 𝜇M )2
ical patternator (drop collector with multiple
tubes) over the circular impingement area was It is expressed in terms of the gas Weber
not uniform but showed a lower spray density number Weg = v2 D𝜌g /𝜎 or as here the Weber
in the center and the drop size was bimodal. For number expressed with the gas pressure
obstacles in measurements at full cone nozzles,
see [133]. Δpg D
Wepg = , (41)
𝜎

the liquid load or mass flow ratio

3.2. Pneumatic Nozzles
Ṁ
𝜇M = (42)
By using compressed gases as spraying Ṁ g
agents, small drops can be produced even
at comparatively low pressures because of and the Ohnesorge number all defined with one
high relative velocities. The cross-section characteristic diameter D of the nozzle. Care
of the liquid channel plays a subordinate must be taken on its definition. Sometimes
16 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

A M Mg B C

D
Sp M
Dp
M Mg Mg
D

Figure 14. Pneumatic or twin-fluid nozzles with external mixing operation. A) Nozzle with parallel flow and prefilming
surface between liquid and gas duct; B) Nozzle with protruding prefilming surface avoids plugging of gas slot; C) Adjustable
gas annulus and spin vanes in the gas duct for larger spray angles; D) Nozzle with spin insert in the liquid duct for shear
thinning liquids, E) Tangential gas inlet for spray angles Θ > 20∘ in the vicinity of the nozzle

the so-called prefilming diameter, Dp , i.e., transfer between the phases is also considered in
the diameter of the detachment lip is used; the terms of Equation (42). It must be taken into
sometimes, e.g., the liquid orifice diameter account that calculation formulas are only valid
is implemented as is the case here. The gas for certain geometries and pressure ranges,
viscosity due to high gas Reynolds numbers see also [138, 139]. Typically for all external
and about constant drag coefficient has only mixing pneumatic nozzles, the exponent of Weg
minor influence and therefore is not considered lies within the range of −0.4 < m < −0.6.
in this relationship. Typical loading of twin fluid atomizers with
The first term in Equation (40) containing external mixing lies in the range 0.1 < 𝜇m < 2.
the gas Weber number considers the limited Too high loadings may lead to unwanted pulsa-
differential speed between gas and liquid due to tions due to increasing dynamic pressure of the
the mass flow ratio, compare Section 2.3. Drop liquid and receding prefilming effect. The spray
sizes for a nozzle according to Figure 14A were angle lies in the range of Θ ≈ 20∘ . To enlarge
obtained with LDS (laser diffraction spectrom- the spray angle, the air is occasionally fed with
eter MALVERN) at three geometrically similar swirl (Fig. 14C and E). However, this effect is
nozzles with Dp /D = 3.5, Sp /D = 0.3, Sp being limited to the vicinity of the nozzle. Reshaping
the slit width of the gas channel. Within the air to a pattern of a natural free single-phase jet
overpressure range of 0.05–0.3 MPa and liquid takes place after some distance from the nozzle.
viscosities in the range 1 < 𝜇 < 100 mPa s, the For atomization of paints, twin fluid atomizers
following data were found with D = 1.0 mm: are frequently used, compare, e.g., [140]. The
C4 = 0.35, C5 = 2.5, m = −0.4 and j = 1; see energy demand of pneumatic nozzles in their
also [93]. It is remarkable that the simple usual operation range is one order of magnitude
Equation (40) may still also be used as an higher compared to single substance or simplex
estimate for transonic (critical or choked flow) pressure nozzles for comparable liquid flow
conditions as is the case for the upper-pressure rates. Droplet size control is easier because of
limit. This may be due to the higher density of additional adjustable parameters such as gas
the gas jet when approaching sonic conditions. pressure and the cross-sectional area of the
As explained in Section 2.3, the momentum gas slot.
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 17

The other group of external mixing pneu- very small droplets with d < 5 μm either in
matic nozzles has been called prompt atomizers the laminar or in the turbulent flow range at
[35, 137, 141] or “air-blast”-nozzles as in D ≤ 200 μm.
Figure 14C. In this case, the centered liquid Nozzles with a high degree of mixing
duct with the emerging liquid jet has thin walls between liquid and gas are achieved, e.g., in
and is surrounded by an annular gas duct. For the Y-type systems (Fig. 15E). The straight
external mixing nozzles, several relationships gas channel has an inclined inlet for the liquid
are suggested [35, 123, 137], even though entering the main channel behind a small ori-
exponents in Equation (40) include the basic fice for the gas flow. Owing to back-mixing,
character of the drop size behavior, except indi- a fairly homogeneous mixture appears that is
vidual constants linked to each geometry. For finally discharged through the successive main
suspensions see [142]. Further external mixing channel. The two-phase mixture emerges from
nozzles are shown in Figure 14D and E, with the nozzle aperture with the velocity of sound,
spin in the gas channel for larger spray angles, which is very low for mixtures of fairly high
Figure 14C: nozzle for prompt fragmentation density but still remarkable compressibility as
with adjustable slot for optimum gas flow rate for mixtures of gas and liquid. It lies in the
at given gas pressure and liquid flow rate. range of 20 < ws < 70 m/s [148]. When the
Internal mixing nozzles. While nozzles with differential pressure is higher than needed to
external mixing lead to suction in the liquid accelerate the mixture to ws , the gas suddenly
channel, in nozzles with internal mixing the expands at the outlet to ambient pressure,
liquid must be fed or dosed under pressure. accelerating, and breaking up the fragments
Nozzles with internal mixing chambers are able that have been carried along (see Section 2.3).
to produce finer drops even at high ratios of The Y-type nozzles, Figure 15E, often also
liquid-to-air mass flow rates, 𝜇m > 2 and even combined in a bundle, are quite robust and
with high-viscous liquids, i.e., 𝜇 ≥ 0.3 Pa s. well suited to operate even with more viscous
Their energy requirement in terms of gas sup- and solid particle-containing liquids, e.g., for
ply energy is about 30% less than that for combustion [149, 150].
external mixing systems at equal pressure, So-called effervescent nozzles, shown in
mass flows, and nozzle dimensions. Their dis- Figure 15D, are operated in the range of higher
advantage is the need of a more complex flow loadings 𝜇M = 10 up to 20 producing a bubbly
control. Within this category, separate phase flow in the main channel first [35]. In these noz-
flow and mixed phase flow can be distinguished. zles, deliberately a quite homogeneous mixture
In Figure 15, the mixing performance of the of the phases is enforced, e.g., by the gas flow
phases increases from left to right. The first entering through small holes into a centered
principle has been applied to the so-called tube or into the mixing channel, respectively
flow focusing systems [143] and even earlier [151–160]. In another design, the liquid flow is
for spraying of mineral fibers [144] and metal divided and supplied through several capillaries
melts [145]. The design is shown in Figure 15A. (not shown) into the mixing chamber [161] for
At low gas pressures, the liquid thread emerging better control with less pulsations of the flow.
from the centered duct is elongated within the In a system, shown in Figure 15C, liquid and
gas pressure field without disturbing its surface gas are mixed in a spin chamber and released
and stays laminar, also named “flow focusing” through an annular slot providing a certain
system. Subsequent breakup occurs due to the wider spray angle.
Rayleigh principle and very small drops can be The spray pattern of pneumatic atomizers
formed however at fairly low flow rates [146]. was examined extensively in [153]. The fol-
Even mono-sized drops can be generated [146]. lowing relationship as proposed in [162] can
At higher gas pressures, the interaction of the be applied to estimate drop sizes for nozzles as
phases gets stronger and the liquid jet starts in Figure 15A, E. Compare also [163] and the
oscillating, the surface becomes blurred and overview in [164]:
detachment of filaments is visible. The drop
size distribution becomes broader, see also ( )0.39 [ ]
d32 𝜌
[147]. These nozzles can be used to produce = 0.7 0.01 ⋅ Weg−0.5 + 1.22 ⋅ Oh (1 + 𝜇M )0.28 (43)
D 𝜌g
18 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

M D
Mg A
M
C

Mg

Mg
B
M Mg
M
E

Figure 15. Pneumatic nozzles with internal mixing operation. Mixing intensity increasing from left to right: A) Nozzle with
concentric ducts for gas and liquid with separate phase flow; B) Nozzle with multiple discharge channels; C) Nozzle with spin
mixing chamber and centered pintle or deflection insert; D) Effervescent nozzle with mixing duct with radial bores for the
gas; E) Y-jet nozzle

Other nozzle types (Fig. 15C) are equipped i.e., spraying of overheated suspensions with
with premixing spin chambers with tangential water as dispersant see [170, 171]. Nucleation
components for the gas flow. A centered pintle of bubbles in the nozzle duct plays a key role in
allowing a limiting annular slot with radial the spray performance [172, 173].
orientation for the discharge of the mixture
achieves larger spray angles. Other designs
have multiple tubular openings arranged on 3.4. Rotary Wheels
a circle that are evenly supplied from a liq-
uid film distributed by a round deflector. Gas Rotary wheels are used most frequently to
driven rivulet flows emerge through holes as in make fine droplets d < 100 μm from suspen-
Figure 15B. sions and liquids with otherwise troublesome
clogging behavior. For that purpose, they are
driven by special motors with speeds up to
3.3. Flash Spraying and Spraying n = 20 000 min−1 and more. Rotary atomizers
with Propellants produce umbrella-shaped sprays with a primary
spray angle of Θ = 180∘ . This can be tolerated
Spray cans contain propellants, formerly halo- in spraying of paints, where an additional air-
genated hydrocarbons, now simple hydrocar- flow deflects the spray into axial direction and
bons, e.g., butane, together with the substance additional electrostatic charge provides for a
to be sprayed. When the valve is opened, the liq- higher yield of drops on the target. For that pur-
uid components flow through a nozzle, usually pose, electrodes emitting gas ions from coronas
a spin or hollow cone nozzle. The propellant are placed around the nozzle (see Section 3.6).
vaporizes in the nozzle and promotes disinte- In spray drying, towers with large diameters
gration of the emerging sheet by the expanding are needed to avoid wall contact of particles
bubbles of gas [165, 166]. Liquid nitrogen before solidification. In addition, the drying gas
[167] and carbon dioxide [168] can be used most often is supplied in axial direction through
as propellants as well. Cryogenic propellants an annular clearance near the wheel in order
are described in [169]. For flash atomization, to deflect the spray downward in combination
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 19

with amplified mass- and heat-transfer rates. A B

Theoretical treatment requires two ranges: V
R
1. Laminar flow conditions
2. Transitional and turbulent conditions

Formation and breakup of drops in the lam-

ω
inar flow range is quite comparable to the film ω
and subsequent drop formation in the field of
gravity at the detachment edge of a vertical or V C
inclined plate, compare Section 2.1. The liquid
R
is fed centrally onto rotating cups, disks, or
wheels. Owing to centrifugal acceleration, it
flows toward the outer rim and with increasing
flow rate dripping, thread formation and sheet
formation can be observed at given rotational
speed of the system [5, 174]. For calculation,
the acceleration due to gravity g is replaced by
the centrifugal acceleration a = R𝜔2 , where R Figure 16. Principles of rotary wheels. A) Cup sprayer for
paint application with distributor grooves on the upper sur-
is the atomizer radius and 𝜔 = 2𝜋n the angu- face (not shown) and liquid inlet through a hollow shaft; B)
lar frequency of rotation. At a given wheel Wheel with vanes for spray drying operations with com-
speed, dripping is attained at low throughput. plex fluids as suspensions (side and top view); C) Wheel
Increasing the throughput causes regular liquid with distributor and discharge holes for multiple laminar jets
threads to be formed at equal intervals along emerging from several hole decks [179]
the circumference of the atomizer. This occurs
when the flow rate per detachment point is
large enough to form liquid threads and small range, multiple grooves at the circumference of
enough to avoid coalescence of threads (see [5, cups or even numerous bores in cylinders with
174–176] and Section 2.1) i.e., for: thick walls forcing the flow to split are chosen.
The pitch of these holes must lie beyond the
1 < V̇ th∗ < 1.5 (44) natural pitch of 7⋅Lc allowing only a smaller
numbers of threads.
V̇ th∗ = V̇ th (a3 𝜌5 ∕𝜎 5 )1∕4 (see Eq. (15)), is the Figure 16 shows three types of rotating
nondimensional flow rate per liquid thread now atomizers. Figure 16A shows a cup-shaped
expressed with the centrifugal acceleration wheel frequently used for the distribution of
a = R𝜔2 . Even though formation of laminar jets paints often in combination with corona charg-
is desired due to their smaller drop size and ing (see Section 3.6). Figure 16B depicts a
higher flow rates, the thread-range in terms of rotary wheel as used for spray drying with
operation parameters range is very small and vanes. A wheel for discharge of a multitude
sensitive to local flow variation leading to local of laminar threads from holes for narrow drop
coalescence of threads [5, 177]. The number size distributions is shown in Figure 16C [179,
of threads formed at the detachment edge is 180]. Practically no pressure is needed for the
given by N ≈ Ld /7Lc where Ld is the total length liquid feed for all designs as the flow moves
of detachment edges and the capillary length toward the outer rim of the atomizer driven by
Lc = (𝜎/𝜌a)1/2 , see model in [178]. In the case the centrifugal force.
of simple disks or cups Ld = 2𝜋R corresponding The dimensionless droplet size in the thread
to the circumference of the rotating disks. In the region lies in the range of 1.5 < d* < 2.8 with
case of wheels with vanes Ld is the number of d* = d/Lc . The drops are generally smaller than
vanes multiplied by the vane height. However, in the dripping regime with d* ≈ 3 but somewhat
uniform distribution of the liquid within the larger than expected from Equation (17) or (19)
wheel is difficult. In order to maintain the [27, 28, 181, 182]. A significantly higher flow
desired thread formation in a larger flow rate rate is possible compared to sharp-edged disks
20 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

in the case of grooved bells or wheels or with transition from thread to sheet formation occurs
multiple bores still operating within the thread when the liquid flow rate per total length Ld of
regime. Bores have the advantage of avoiding the detachment edges at a given speed of the
advanced gas contact. The effect of the relative atomizer exceeds the contraction velocity of
velocity between the fast rotating wheels and the liquid film when We𝛿 > 2, see Section 2.2.
the stagnant air plays a remarkable role in the Assuming laminar film flow with a film thick-
breakup process. Owing to the gas, the thinning ness of 𝛿 = [(V∕L ̇ d ) ⋅ (3𝜇∕𝜌a)]1∕3 transition
ligaments break up closer to the wheel as the takes place at:
undisturbed ligaments and thus larger drops are
( )3∕5 ( )1∕5
formed [28, 183], as expected from purely cen- V̇ 2𝜎 3𝜇
> . (48)
trifugal or gravitational jet extension. In [182, Ld 𝜌 𝜌a
184], the gas effect was quantified and the drop
sizes were found for two regimes. In the low In that case, lamella or sheets are formed
Weg -regime forming relatively narrow drop size which disintegrate by combined mechanisms,
distributions, i.e., when Weg < Wegcr , the drop i.e., aerodynamic wave formation, turbulence,
size only moderately increases with Weg accord- and secondary breakup of large drops due
ing to to interaction with the ambient gas. How-
ever, at flow rates slightly above, given by
( )j Equation (44), contracting bulges at sheet edges
d∗ = 1.04 ⋅ V̇ th∗ 0.26 ⋅ 𝜇 ∗0.038 1 + 140 ⋅ Weg (45)
dominate the flow. This range is treated as
with the somewhat complex exponent transitional or turbulent range. It is difficult to
recommend a calculation method for this range.
( )−0.21 Depending on the shape of the atomizer with
j = 0.25 1 + 4.1 × 105 ⋅ 𝜇 ∗ . (46)
channels or vanes, local flow inhomogeneity is
In the range Weg > Wegcr , the drop size and present and strands are formed which hardly
RSF (relative span factor) increases stronger can be considered in a general model. In case of
with Weg [28]. Wegcr can be obtained from few large holes (slinger type wheel), e.g., pro-
tected by ceramic inserts in the atomizer wall,
Wegcr = 1.92 ⋅ V̇ th∗ 0.15 ⋅ 𝜇 ∗−0.39 . (47)
thick mostly turbulent ligaments emerge from
these holes under conditions of high flow rate
The gas-Weber number, in this case, is and are disrupted by a chaotic breakup process.
v2rel Lc 𝜌g ∕𝜎. The relative velocity between In [187] systematic experimental insight was
the emerging threads and the ambient gas is obtained together with modeling the width
vrel ≈ R𝜔 in case of stagnant environment. and discharge velocity of the emerging threats.
Compare also results in [185]. For more com- Frequently, at heterogeneous flow conditions,
plex flow arrangements the actual mean relative films in combination with rivulets exist [188].
velocity has to be used. Within the range Interaction with the ambient gas affects the pro-
Weg < Wegcr , the span of the drop size distri- cess, corresponding to a cross-flow situation,
bution can be held at RSF < 0.6. For definition as the threads are moving with circumferential
of RSF see Section 4.2. Microwheels are able velocity through the stagnant gas meeting the
to produce comparatively large drops in small threads in a perpendicular orientation. Assum-
containments due to their low detachment ing turbulence within rivulets together with
velocity [186]. extension as a major cause for breakup [86],
In industry, e.g., in chemical production the following relationship may be proposed for
plants, rotary atomizers are mostly operated in low viscous liquids and for ReR > 400 [33]:
the range of sheet or turbulent jet formation d32
because of the high throughput in this regime. ∼ V̇ R∗ m WenR , (49)
R
The drop size distribution is much broader
than in the thread regime, 2 < dmax /d32 < 3. with the characteristic numbers: WeR =
Furthermore, a considerable amount of very R3 𝜔2 𝜌∕𝜎, V̇ R∗ = V̇ R ∕(R5 𝜔2 b)1∕2 and ReR =
fine material is obtained. At smooth detachment V̇ R 𝜌∕b𝜇 when V̇ R is the volumetric flow rate
edges at the circumference without grooves, the in each hole or channel V̇ R = V∕N ̇ ch , b is the
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 21

internal radius or half height of the insert or a medium drop size of d32 ≈ 25 μm results.
channel, and Nch is the number of channels Here, the atomization rate of 10 cm3 /cm2 s
or inserts in the wheel. In [189] the following (=cm/s) is obtained at an oscillator amplitude
exponents were found in experiments for low Ao = 5 μm. Capillary wave atomization is only
viscosities m = −1/12 and n = −3/8 but still suitable for low viscosity liquids 𝜇 < 20 mPa s
need to be confirmed in further trials. and produces a drop distribution as demon-
Special constructions of rotary atomizers are strated in similarity trials at low frequencies
rotating porous cylinders or baskets [29, 30], [210]. A big advantage is the low momentum of
e.g., agricultural applications, the twin roller the spray able to be deposited on quite sensitive
atomizer [190, 191], and the spin top atomizer targets as cotton balls.
with pneumatic drive [192, 193] avoiding any Cavitation requires higher amplitudes and
kind of bearing for droplets d ≤ 5 μm. leads to broad drop size distribution (DSD).
The bell-shaped geometry is used, e.g., to Stationary ultrasonic waves in gases have been
spray paints in carcass finishing [194–196] reported on pilot scale for viscous liquids [206,
mostly combined with electrostatic charging of 207]. Excited jet disintegration corresponds
the droplets to improve the yield of deposition. to conditions given in Section 2.2 for small
The flow upon detachment is mostly laminar capillaries D < 300 μm, compare [15]. Plugging
but disturbed in the gas flow. Different kind of of narrow channels in nozzles or capillaries
grooves or teeth are used to divide the flow, with solid particle suspensions may also be
see. e.g. [197]. The same technology can be avoided by ultrasonic excitation, see e.g. [211].
used to fabricate fibers from polymers [198]. In the Gigahertz range, even smaller mean
Simulation of drop movement, see [199, 200]. droplets are possible with capillary waves
finally ending in the cavitation range [212, 213]
with Sauter mean diameters down to 4 μm.
3.5. Ultrasonic Spray Generation For ultra high-frequency flow through sieves
see [208, 209]. This provides about the limit
Various principles can be differentiated in “ul- of the smallest drops achieved by mechanical
trasonic spraying” [201], namely spray technologies so far with d32 = 1.6 μm at
frequencies in the 4 GHz range.
1. Capillary waves [202–205]
2. Cavitation [204]
3. Stationary ultrasonic waves in a gas [206, 3.6. Electrosprays
207]
4. Excited jet disintegration (Section 2.1) Besides initiating the dispersion of liquids by
high potentials or field forces, the charging
5. Pulsed flow through sieves [208, 209]
of sprays already produced mechanically is
also often advantageous [194, 214, 215]. The
The capillary wave is the most important
charging process of mechanically generated
principle; it enables production of drops with
sprays frequently is achieved with ion emitting
extremely low residual impulse. Carrier gas
corona electrodes under high voltage arranged
flow is, therefore, sometimes applied for droplet
around the spray source. The gas ions meet the
transport. Oscillations of surfaces mostly driven
droplets in areas of high field strength and a
by piezo elements and covered with a thin liq-
charge transfer takes place until equilibrium is
uid film generate capillary waves. These waves
reached between surface charge and the local
detach droplets from the crests at sufficient
field strength. The charging process of droplets
amplitudes. The drop size is linked to the
in the micron range practically takes place in
wavelength and can be approximated by
microseconds. Charging of droplets causes the
( )1∕3 spray particles to drift apart. In this way, coa-
𝜋𝜎
d32 ≈ 0.8 ⋅ , (50) lescence is avoided. Subsequently, the droplets
𝜌f 2
can be deposited with high yield on oppositely
where f is the excitation frequency of the piezo- charged or simply earthed targets like carcasses
electric oscillator. With water, when f = 100 kHz, of cars or leaves of crops.
22 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

If a drop is charged, it breaks apart when the the flow rate. The drop size within the mostly
repulsive force of the charges on the surface desired cone range emitting a thin Rayleigh
exceeds the surface force [216–221] that gives jet is nearly mono-disperse and the drop size
the so-called Rayleigh limit. is [123]
Q2 ( )1∕3
d𝜋𝜎 ≤ . (51) ̇
V𝜀
8 𝜋 𝜀 d2 d∼ . (52)
𝜌Ω
Q is the charge on the drop and 𝜖 the dielec-
tric constant of the liquid. It could be shown that with the specific electrical resistance of the liq-
the drop charges in simple corona systems usu- uid 𝜌Ω . Cone jets are only possible at limited
ally lie below the Rayleigh limit [222] and no dielectric permittivity 𝜀 of fluids.
secondary breakup takes place. The throughput of electrostatic atomizers
The same mechanism is valid for the detach- is relatively low, Ṁ max ≈ 1 kg∕h. However, at
ment of drops from liquid surfaces with small high field strengths, E ≥ 1010 V/m, drops can
radius of curvature, e.g., from the tip of con- be produced in the range 0.1 < d < 5 μm, the
ducting capillaries or from the outlet of a diameter depending on the liquid properties.
nonconducting capillary tube with a conducting The usual electrical potentials lie in the ranges
wire immersed in a liquid with low electrical 5 < U < 20 kV. Gas properties are limiting the
conductivity. maximum voltage. Electrospinning is a pro-
Electrostatic forces caused by the field cess working similar to electrospraying but is
strength at the liquid surface depend on the applied to viscous melts or solutions of poly-
shape of the surface, which gives to a dif- mers for the production of ultrathin fibers, see
ficult feedback situation. Even at relatively e.g. [225]. No breakup of threads takes place
low potentials, high field strength arises at due to high viscosities and solidification of the
small surface curvature radii and leads to high materials.
charges at the tip causing filament or drop
detachment. Charge transport, i.e., electrical
current between the tip and a counter electrode
or earthed surface occurs due to movement of 4. Spray Characteristics
charged drops and due to ion transport eventu-
ally caused by coronas in the gas environment 4.1. Spray Evolution and Drop
generating a complex field. Here, coronas are Interactions
limiting the maximum voltage. The same elec-
trical current must flow through the liquid up Spray breakup and drop dispersion are now sub-
to the detachment point leading to a transient ject to numerical studies including DNS (direct
situation caused by the moving charged liquid numerical simulation) and Euler–Lagrange
fragments producing their own field. calculation for drop transport [226–234]. Both
When the feed flow, as well as the voltage coalescence and secondary drop formation
to the capillary, is varied, different regimes of has been incorporated into numerical models
drop formation can be observed at the tip of a [235, 236]. Also, breakup models are used for
conducting capillary opposite to a flat electrode sheets as LISA (linearized instable sheet atom-
[222], or on a nonconducting capillary tip with ization) [66] included, e.g., in the KIVA-code
immersed metal wire. Phenomena depend to a [237] and Taylor analogy breakup model
large extent on the electric conductivity of the (TAB) as well as cascade atomization and
fluid, but also on its surface tension, its viscos- drop breakup CAB model as described, e.g., in
ity, its dielectric constant, and the field strength [80].
at the capillary tip. For overviews see [223, Studies on drop collisions and its effect on
224]. The following modes can be observed sprays were performed in [235, 236, 238–245].
when increasing the voltage applied: dripping The outcome of collisions (reflection, coales-
mode, then pulsating mode, i.e., oscillation cence, and secondary droplets) depends on the
between cone and hemispherical surface and impact Weber number, the drop Ohnesorge
then cone jet, stable or unstable depending on number and on the eccentricity of the impact.
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 23

Collision of droplets with rigid walls is elab- tion of melt droplets, or spray drying. Drop
orately described and studied in [243]. While sizes generally can be obtained by short-time
wet surfaces lead to sheet crowns and to reflec- photography either in planar mapping (shad-
tion of secondary droplets already at fairly owgraphy) of spray cutaways (dense sprays) or
low impact velocities, dry surfaces need much with holographic pictures enabling evaluation
higher velocities to cause fragmentation [244]. of the spatially distributed droplets avoiding
Application of sprays usually depends on problems with the focal depth. In combina-
the spray pattern. Pneumatic nozzles mostly tion with double exposures at defined time
lead to narrow-angle full-cone spray pattern intervals, the magnitude and direction of the
similar to a single-phase free jet [153], carry- velocity can also be determined [253, 254].
ing considerable momentum. The jet may be The laser diffraction method can measure drop
squeezed by additional gas jets emerging from sizes in the range 0.5 < d < 2000 μm quickly
the nozzle to adopt an elliptical cross section. and online. The laser diffraction spectrometer
Swirl nozzles produce a hollow conical spray (LDS) evaluates the instant and spatial drop
and, due to gas entrainment, the small drops size distribution from the diffraction pattern
are carried into the center of the cone. After caused by droplets existing within the measur-
a certain running length LR , about 2–3 times ing volume (laser beam) but does not take into
the relaxation length of the large droplets in account the individual speed of large and small
the ambient gas, the spray cone reshapes into droplets.
a jet resembling a free single-phase full-cone In addition to the measurement of single
jet with Gaussian profile [105–108, 153]. drops by the scattered light counting method
The distance of reformation scales about with [255, 256], laser phase Doppler anemometry
LR ∼ D4/3 . Complex flow conditions and tran- (PDA) is applied for simultaneous velocity and
sient distribution sprays, e.g., in piston engines drop size determination [257–264]. The local
require advanced numerical simulation [246]. droplet flux through the optical microsample
In special cases as in health applications, fine can also be determined, informing about the
droplets and their deposit is studied in the actual production rates in each size class and on
human respiratory system [247]. given trajectories. This method is very accurate
Fan jet nozzles lead to an elliptical cross but requires highly skilled staff and, due to its
section of the spray at remote distances from sensitivity is less suitable for online measure-
the nozzle [248]. Further information on spray ments. Mechanical methods such as collecting
propagation under confined and co-flow condi- of wet or even solidified droplet samples are
tions with different kinds of nozzles are given sometimes also employed [265].
in [249, 250]. Many distribution functions are used as
suitable model functions fitted to discrete data
(histogram) from the measured drop size distri-
butions: overview see [35, 137]. Most frequent
4.2. Drop Size Measurement are the RRSB (Rosin−Rammler−Sperling−
and Drop Size Distributions (DSD) Bennet) [266, 267] and the lognormal distri-
bution [268, 269] given by two parameters.
Contrary to well-stabilized liquid–liquid disper- All distribution functions may be extended
sions, sprays are highly transient and registered with further parameters, e.g., the maximum
drop size distributions depend to a large degree or minimum drop sizes as in case with ULLN
on the location and method of measurement. (upper limit logarithmic normal distribution)
This circumstance makes it very difficult to [270] or UL-RRSB as in [69]. Other distribu-
compare data from different authors, as even tion functions as the Γ-distribution [271–273]
mean particle size data are also subject to con- or Nukiyama−Tansawa distribution, see [274],
siderable uncertainties and require statistical are also proposed and justified. Even though
treatment, e.g., [251, 252]. The measuring it was attempted to link certain more complex
method should be closely linked to the appli- distribution functions to the physical back-
cation, e.g., the particle size distribution of ground of drop generation, simple relations as
solidified particles in prilling, i.e., solidifica- based on RRSB frequently fit quite well. For
24 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

Table 1. Data on drop size distributions

dv,50 /d32 dmax /dv,50 dRR /dv.50 RSF = (dv,90 −dv,10 )/dv,50 nRR

Dripping 1 1 1.01 0.2 10

Natural laminar jet 1.05–1.1 1.4 1.04 0.5 8
Sheet nozzles
Aerodynamic waves 1.2–1.4 1.5–2.2 1.2 1.5–2 2–2.5
Turbulent breakup 1.4–1.5 2–2.5 1.3 2–2.5 1.5–2
Turbulence nozzles 1.3–1.6 2.2–3.0 1.3 ≥2.2 1.5–2
Pneumatic atomizers 1.4–1.6 2.5–3.5 1.35 ≥2.5 1.2
Rotary atomizers
Laminar threads 1.1–1.2 1.4–2.0 1.1 0.5–1 3–4
Sheets 1.3–1.6 2.0–2.5 1.3 2.2–3.0 1.5–2
Turbulent jets 1.4–1.5 2–2.5 1.2 ≥2.5 1.5–2
Capillary wave/ultrasonic 1.2–1.4 1.5–2.5 1.15 2–2.2 2

the cumulative drop volume up to the size d the confidence, e.g., the relative span factor of the
following equation is obtained: distribution RSF = (dv,90 − dv,10 )/dv,50 is a better
indicator of the distribution width and is used
Q3 = 1 − exp [−d∕dRR ]nRR . (53) in numerous papers.

dRR is the RRSB-mean drop size that stands for

volumetric amount at Q3 = [1 − (1/e)] = 0.632 4.3. Efficiency of Spray Processes
and nRR is the RRSB exponent. Compare also and Special Applications
Table 1.
Narrow drop size distributions are often The efficiency of energy transformation from
desired but quite difficult to obtain on a tech- power in terms of pressure energy Wp to the
nical scale with flow rates of m3 /h. Laminar surface energy and its inverse quotient is often
or Rayleigh jet breakup is a generic princi- defined as “efficiency” e = A𝜎/Wp . It depends
ple for that purpose applied to multiple-hole on the process and considerably on the ratio
devices [15, 22, 121], rotary wheels [25–31, of the Sauter-mean droplet size of the spray
179, 181–186, 194], flow focusing nozzles to the orifice diameter [55, 137, 284, 285].
[143–147, 275], and electrostatic jet elongation This ratio is a main indicator of the practically
before breakup [218, 219, 222, 276]. Another quite important clogging behavior of a spray-
method to suppress the formation of fines ing system. In the case of simplex pressure
is the addition of high molecular polymers nozzles, hollow cone nozzles have highest
such as polyethylene oxide or polyacrylamide, efficiency rates of 0.01 < e < 0.05 over the
which may lead to increased elongation vis- recommended operating range. In the case of
cosities of the sprayed liquids [277] and could pneumatic nozzles, the efficiency typically lies
suppress fines generation. Fan jet nozzles within 0.001 < e < 0.005 with relative max-
with entrainment injectors for air bubbles are ima for 𝜇m = 1. Rotary atomizers may reach
able to generate less fines (overspray) due to efficiencies up to e = 0.03. Highest efficiency
enhanced sheet breakup [278], the same effect rates of up to e ≈ 0.3 are achieved by applying
is observed with polyether–siloxane emulsions the Rayleigh-type jet disintegration at short
triggering breakup of sheets [279, 280]. In capillaries [286]. However, besides overcoming
general, reducing overhead pressure in order to the surface energy, the droplets also must be
reduce turbulence has proven to reduce fines distributed within the gaseous environment
as well, especially in spray drying [281] or to achieve a certain distance within the gas
prilling. An approximation of the distribution atmosphere and to provide a desired mixing
width in different atomization processes is ratio for drying or for combustion to meet mass
given in [35, 69, 137, 153, 270, 282, 283] and heat balances. Also, this demand requires
and Table 1. As the maximum or minimum energy, often completely neglected in efficiency
drop size represent relatively low statistical considerations [284].
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 25

Special cases are the fragmentation of metal Dh ≈ 2 Sp m hydraulic slit diameter

melts [287–290] for the production of fine pow- Dp m prefilming diameter
E V/m strength of electrical field
ders or spray-compacted metal parts [291–294]. f s−1 frequency
Drop impingement plays a dominant role, e.g., GLR, – gas (air) to liquid mass
in scrubbers and spray cooling [295–302]. For (ALR) = Ṁ g ∕Ṁ flow ratio
cooling see [303–305]. For the significance g* = g𝜇 4 /𝜎 3 𝜌, Kapitza number
a* = a𝜇 4 /𝜎 3 𝜌
of drop size distributions in jet scrubbers, see
g m/s2 acceleration due to gravity
[306]. Destruction of droplets impinging on j, k, m, n – exponents
walls is also very important in disintegrators, nRR – exponent of the
washing towers [296, 300–302], and fuel RRSB-distribution
Nch – number of channels in
supplying systems in motors, e.g., [299]. For
rotary wheel
the application of similarity theory to different Lc m capillary length
kind of spraying principles see, e.g., [307]. Ṁ kg/s mass flow rate of liquid
The drag coefficients of drops in gas flows can Ṁ g kg/s mass flow rate of gas
be found in [308–312]. Typical challenges for Oh = 𝜇/(D𝜌𝜎)1/2 Ohnesorge number of nozzle
Ohd = 𝜇/(d𝜌𝜎)1/2 Ohnesorge number of drops
sprays in the process industry together with OhR = 𝜇/(R𝜌𝜎)1/2 Ohnesorge number of rotary atomizer
new analysis of drop forming mechanisms can Δp kg s−2 m−1 differential pressure at
be found in [250]. nozzle
The application of spray processes is also Q C electrical charge
R m radius of atomizer
treated in → Combustion, → Absorption, 1. Re = vD𝜌/𝜎 Reynolds number
Fundamentals, → Dust Separation, → Char- Rep = D(Δp𝜌)1/2 /𝜇 pressure Reynolds number
acterization of a Classification or Separation ReR = V̇ R 𝜌∕b𝜇 Reynolds number of film or rivulet flow
Process, → Drying of Solid Materials → Paints in Rotary atomizers
and Coatings, 1. Introduction, → Fungicides, RSF =
(dv,90 − dv,10 )/dv.50
– relative span factor

Agricultural, 1. Fundamentals, and → Spray rE m median radius of duct to

Forming of Metals. spin chamber
Sp m width of gas slot
s m spacing between threads
Symbols (pitch)
s* = s(𝜌g/𝜎)1/2 , dimensionless thread spacing
s* = s(𝜌a/𝜎)1/2
A = AD m2 cross-sectional area of nozzle U V voltage
orifice t S time
a = R𝜔2 m/s2 centrifugal acceleration v m/s velocity
b m half height or radius of channels vg m/s gas velocity
Bo = D2 𝜌g/𝜎 Bond number
vm m/s velocity of gas/liquid
C1 , C2 , C[3 , . . . ] – constants
mixture
CD = V∕ ̇ A(2Δp∕𝜌) 1∕2 discharge coefficient of pressure nozzles
vt m/s tangential velocity of
d m drop diameter
rotary atomizer
d m nonspecified mean drop vd m/s detachment velocity of
diameter threads
d32 m Sauter mean diameter vrel m/s relative velocity between
dth * = dth (𝜌a/𝜎)1/2 dimensionless thread diameter gas and liquid
d* = d(𝜌a/𝜎)1/2 dimensionless drop diameter V̇ m3 /s volumetric flow rate of
dRR m Rossin−Rammler−Sperling− liquid
Bennet mean drop size ̇
V̇ R = V∕N ch m3 /s volumetric flow rate of
(at Q3 = 0.632) liquid per channel
dv,0.5 m mass or volume median V̇ R∗ = V̇ R ∕(R5 𝜔2 b)1∕2 throughput number at rotary wheels
diameter (at Q3 = 0.5) V̇ th∗ = V̇ th (a3 𝜌5 /𝜎 5 )1/4 throughput number of threads
dv,0.1 m drop size at 10% of drop We = v2 D𝜌/𝜎 Weber number
volume (Q3 = 0.1) Weg = vg 2 D𝜌g /𝜎 gas Weber number
dv,0.9 m drop size at 90% of drop
Wedg = vg 2 d𝜌g /𝜎 drop gas Weber number
volume (Q3 = 0.9)
WeR = 𝜔2 R3 𝜌/𝜎 rotary atomizer Weber number
dth m thread diameter
We = v2 𝛿𝜌/𝜎 sheet Weber number
dths m thread diameter at detachment
Wep = ΔpD/𝜎 pressure Weber number
D m nozzle diameter of liquid orifice
DC m swirl chamber diameter Wepg = Δpg D/𝜎 gas pressure Weber number
Dequ m equivalent nozzle diameter x m distance from the nozzle
𝛿 m sheet thickness
26 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

𝜀 C V−1 m−1 dielectric permittivity of 4 Walzel, P. and Klaumünzner, U. (1981) German Chem. Eng.
liquid (Engl. Transl.) 4, 154–160.
𝜅 = 𝛿x/AD sheet number 5 Mehrhardt, M.R. (1978) Zerstäubung Mit Ebenen Rotierenden
𝜇 kg m−1 s−1 liquid viscosity Scheiben, Dissertation, TU Berlin.
𝜇 * = g*1/4 = a*1/4 non-dimensional liquid 6 Harkins, W.D. and Brown, F.E. (1919) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 41,
viscosities 499–524.
𝜇g kg m−1 s−1 gas viscosity 7 Hozawa, M., Tsukada, T., Imaishi, N. and Fujinawa, K. (1981)
𝜇M = M∕̇ Ṁ = 1∕GLR mass flow ratio of liquid to gas J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 14 (5), 358–364.
g
Θ – total spray angle 8 Middleman, S. (1995) Modeling of Axissymetric Flow, Aca-
𝜆 m wavelength demic Press, San Diego.
𝜑 = v/(2 Δp/𝜌) velocity coefficient 9 Scheele, G.F. and Meister, B.J. (1968) AIChE J. 14, 9–15.
𝜚 kg/m3 density of the liquid 10 Padday, J.F. and Pitt, A.R. (1972) Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc.
𝜚g kg/m3 density of the gas Lond., Ser. A 275, 489–529.
𝜌Ω C s−1 V−1 m−1 electrical conductivity of 11 Lindblad, M.R. and Schneider, J.M. (1965) J. Sci. Instrum. 42,
liquid 635–638.
𝜎 kg/s2 surface tension of liquid 12 Walzel, P. (1980) Chem. Ing. Tech. 52 (8), 652–654.
𝜔 = 2𝜋f s−1 angular frequency 13 Lord Rayleigh (1978) Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 10, 4–13.
14 Weber, C. (1931) Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 11, 136–154.
15 Brenn, G. (1999) Die gesteuerte Sprayerzeugung für
industrielle Anwendungen, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,
Habilitationsschrift.
References 16 Haehnlein, A. (1931) Forsch. Geb. Ingenieurw. 2, 139–149.
17 Berglund, R.N. and Liu, Y.H. (1973) Environ. Sci. Technol. 7
General References
(2), 147–153.
The Journal of Atomization and Spray Technology (Elsevier Applied 18 Hausner, H. and Taubenblat, P.W. (1976) Proc. Int. Powder Met.
Science), which began in 1985 with vol. 1, is a good source of infor- Conf., Princeton, NJ.
mation on spraying and atomization of liquids. It has been contin- 19 Walzel, P. (1979) Chem. Ing. Tech. 51 (5), 525. MS 692 (21 pp).
ued by the Journal Atomization & Sprays, from 1991 on by Begell 20 Schümmer, P. and Tebel, K. (1981) Chem. Ing. Tech. 12, MS,
House Inc. 961–981.
Other good sources are the Proceedings of the International 21 Heinzen, C. and Widmer, F. (2004) Herstellung von monodis-
Congresses of Liquid Atomization and Spraying Systems (ICLASS): persen Mikrokugeln mit pulsiertem Hüllstrahlprillen,
(1): Tokyo, Japan (1978), (2): Madison, Wisc., USA (1982), (3): Chem.-Ing. Tech. 69, 667–670.
London, GB (1985), (4): Sendai, Japan (1988), (5): Gaithersburgh, 22 Brandenberger, H.R. (1999) Immobilisierung von Biokatalysa-
USA (1991), (6): Rouen, France (1994), (7): Seul, Corea (1997), toren in monodisperse Alginatpartikel mittels einer Eindüsen-
(8): Pasadena, USA (2000), (9): Sorrento, Italy (2003), (10): Kyoto, und Mehrdüsenanlage, PhD Thesis ETH Zürich, Diss. No.
Japan (2006), (11): Vail, USA (2009) (12): Heidelberg, Germany 13103.
(2012), (13): Taiwan, Tainan (2015), (14): Chicago, IL, USA (2018). 23 Walzel, P. and Michalski, H. (1980) Verfahrenstechnik 14 (3),
157–159.
Ashgriz, N. (2011) Handbook of Atomization and Sprays, Springer 24 Baird, M.H. and Nirdosh, I. (1981) Can. J. Chem. Eng. 59,
Verlag, Heidelberg/New York. 369–376.
Bayvel, L. and Orzechowski, Z. (1993) Liquid Atomization, Taylor 25 Hege, H. (1964) Chem. Ing. Tech. 36, 52–59.
& Francis, Washington, DC. ISBN: 0-89116-959-8. 26 Schröder, T. (1997) Tropfenbildung an Gerinneströmungen im
Clift, R., Grace, J.R. and Weber, M.E. (1978) Bubbles, Drops, and Schwere- und Zentrifugalfeld, Dissertation Uni Essen und VDI
Particles, Academic Press, New York. Fortschr. Ber., Reihe 3, Nr. 503, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf.
Fritsching, U. (2016) Process Spray-Functional Particles Produced 27 Schneider, S. (2002) Erzeugung und Zerfall gedehnter Lami-
in Spray Processes, Final report of the DFG-research program narstrahlen im Schwerefeld, Dissertat., TU Dortmund, Shaker
“Process-Spray”, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg. Verlag, Aachen.
Lefebvre, A.H. (1989) Atomization and Sprays, Taylor & Francis, 28 Mescher, A. (2012) Einfluss der Gasführung in Sprühtrocknern
Oxford. auf den Fadenzerfall an Rotationszerstäubern, Dissertat., TU
Lefebvre, A.H. and McDonell, V.G. (2017) Atomization and Sprays, Dortmund.
CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL/London, N.Y. (New 29 Schmidt, P. (1967) Chem. Ing. Tech. 39 (5/6), 375–379.
edition). 30 Gösele, W. (1968) Chem. Ing. Tech. 40 (1/2), 37–43.
Nasr, G.G., Bendig, L. and Yule, A.J. (2002) Industrial Sprays and 31 Gramlich, S., Mescher, A., Piesche, M. and Walzel, P. (2011)
Atomization, Springer Verlag, London. Chem. Ing. Tech. 83 (3), 273–279.
Yarin, A., Roisman, I.V. and Tropea, C. (2017) Collision Phenomena 32 Chigier, N. and Reitz, R.D. (1995) Regimes of Jet Breakup
in Liquids and Solids, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mechanisms, in Recent Advantages in Spray Combustion,
Spray Atomization and Drop Burning Phenomena, (ed. K.K.
Specific References Kuo), A. IAA, Reston, VA, Chapter 4.
33 Brauer, H. (1971) Grundlagen der Einphasen- und
1 Clift, R., Grace, J.R. and Weber, M.E. (2005) Bubbles, Drops, Mehrphasenströmungen, Verlag Sauerländer, Aarau.
and Particles, Reprint Dover Publications, Mineola, NY. 34 Ohnesorge, W.V. (1936) Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 16, 355–358.
2 Walzel, P. (1996) Spray ’96 (preprints), Universität Bremen, 35 Lefebvre, A.H. (1989) Atomization and Sprays, Taylor & Fran-
p. 1/5. cis, Oxford.
3 Tanasawa, Y. and Toyoda, S. (1955) Technol. Rep. Tohoku Univ. 36 Sterling, A.M. and Sleicher, C.A. (1975) J. Fluid Mech. 68,
21, 135. 477–495.
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 27

37 Reitz, R.D. (1978) Atomization and Other Breakup Regimes of 74 Hsiang, L.P. and Faeth, G.M. (1992) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 18,
a Liquid Jet, PhD Thesis, Princeton University, NJ, USA. 635–652.
38 Sallam, K.A. and Faeth, G.M. (2003) AIAA J. 41, 1514–1524. 75 Schmelz, F. and Walzel, P. (2003) Atom. Sprays 13, 357–372.
39 Dumouchel, C. (2008) Exp. Fluids 45, 371–422. 76 Krzeczkowski, S.A. (1980) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 6, 227–239.
40 Sallam, K.A., et al. (2002) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 28, 427–449. 77 Lee, C.S. and Reitz, R.D. (2001) Atom. Sprays 11, 1–19.
41 Ménard, T., et al. (2006) ICLASS 06, Kyoto, paper ID: ICLASS 78 Park, J.-H., et al. (2002) Atom. Sprays 12, 387–401.
06-034. 79 Dai, Z. and Faeth, G.M. (2001) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27,
42 Reitz, R.D. (1987) Atom. Spray Technol. 3, 309–337. 217–236.
43 Miesse, C.C. (1955) Ind. Eng. Chem. 47, 1690–1696. 80 Tanner, F.X. and Weisser, G. (1998) Simulation of Liquid
44 Troesch, H.A. (1954) Chem. Ing. Tech. 26 (6), 311–320. Jet Atomization for Fuel Sprays by Means of Cascade Drop
45 Yi, Y. and Reitz, R.D. (2004) Atom. Sprays 14, 53–80. Breakup. SAE Techn. Paper Ser. 980808.
46 Wu, P.K., Reitz, R.D. and Bracco, F.V. (1986) Phys. Fluids 29 81 Bartz, F.O., Schmehl, R., Koch, R., and Bauer, H.J. (2010)
(4), 941–951. ILASS 2010, Brno Czech Republic.
47 Hiroyasu, H., Shimizu, M., and Arai, M. (1982) ICLASS-1982, 82 Thomas, G.O. (2003) Atom. Sprays 13, 117–129.
Madison, WI, USA. 83 Aalburg, C., Leer, B., et al. (2005) Atom. Sprays 15, 271–294.
48 Platzer, E. and Sommerfeld, M. (2004) Modeling of the 84 Ragucci, R., et al. (2007) Atom. Sprays 17, 47–70.
Turbulent Atomization of Liquids and Spray Formation, in 85 Birouk, M., et al. (2007) Atom. Sprays 17, 267–287.
Atomization and Spray Processes, Final Presentation of the 86 Lee, K. and Aalburg, C. (2007) AIAA J. 45 (8), 1907–1916.
DFG-research program, (eds. P. Walzel and C. Tropea), Shaker, 87 Miles, J.W. (1957) J. Fluid Mech. 3, 185–204.
Aachen. ISBN: 3-8322-2570-6. 88 Ostrach, S. and Koestel, A. (1965) AIChE J. 11 (2), 294–303.
49 Tanner, F.X., et al. (2006) Atom. Sprays 16, 579–597. 89 Hewitt, G.F. and Hall-Taylor, N.S. (1970) Annular Two Phase
50 Bond, W.N. (1935) Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. 47 (4), 549–558. Flow, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
51 Taylor, G.I. (1959) Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 253, 313–321. 90 Andreussi, P., Asali, J.C. and Hanratty, T.J. (1985) AIChE J. 31,
52 Squire, H.B. (1953) Brit. J. Appl. Phys. 4, 167–169. 119–126.
53 Dombrowski, N., Hasson, D. and Ward, D.E. (1960) Chem. 91 Lafaurie, B., Mantel, T., et al. (1998) ILASS-Europe, Manch-
Eng. Sci. 12, 35–50.
ester, 6–8 July, pp. 54–59.
54 Hasson, D. and Mizrahi, J. (1961) Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 39,
92 Kataoka, I., Ishii, M. and Mishima, K. (1983) J. Fluids Eng.
415–422.
105 (2), 230–238.
55 Walzel, P. (1982) Chem. Ing. Tech. 54 (4), 313–332.
93 Walzel, P. (1993) Int. J. Chem. Eng. 33 (1), 46–60.
56 Huang, I.C.P. (1970) J. Fluid Mech. 43, 305–319.
94 Mulhem, B., et al. (2006) ICLASS 06, Kyoto, paper ID:
57 Fraser, R.P., Eisenklam, P., Dombrowski, N. and Hasson, D.
ICLASS 06-143.
(1962) AIChE J. 8, 672–680.
95 Taylor, G.J. (1948) Proc. Seventh Int. Congr. Appl. Mech. 2,
58 Dombrowski, N. and Johns, W.R. (1963) Chem. Eng. Sci. 18,
392–400.
203–214.
96 Giffen, E. and Muraszev, A. (1953) Atomization of Liquid
59 Senecal, P.K., et al. (1999) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 25,
Fuels, Chapman & Hall, London.
1073–1097.
97 Söhngen, E. and Grigull, U. (1951) Forsch. Geb. Ingenieurw.
60 Nonnenmacher, S. and Piesche, M. (2000) Chem. Eng. Sci. 55,
17 (3), 77–82.
4339–4348.
98 Bayvel, L. and Orzechowski, Z. (1993) Liquid Atomization,
61 Walzel, P. and Broll, P. (2002) ILASS-Europe, preprints,
Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC. ISBN: 0-89116-959-8.
Zaragoza, Sp. 9–11 September, pp. 573–577.
62 Mehring, C. and Sirignano, W.A. (1999) J. Fluid Mech. 388, 99 Horvay, M. (1985) Theoretische und experimentelle Unter-
69–113. suchung über den Einfluß des inneren Strömungsfeldes auf die
63 Mehring, C. (2004) Modeling Thin Films for Spray Applica- Zerstäubungseigenschaften von Drall-Druckzerstäuberdüsen,
tion, in Atomization and Spray Processes, Final Presentation of Dissertat., University Karlsruhe.
the DFG Research Program, Proceedings, (eds. P. Walzel and 100 Broll, P. (2006) Erfassung der Lamellenparamter an Hohlkegel-
C. Tropea), Shaker Verlag, Aachen ISBN: 3-8322-2570-6. duesen, Dissertat., Universitaet Dortmund Shaker Verlag,
64 Landwehr, F., Feggeler, D., et al. (2006) Exp. Fluids 40, Aachen.
523–532. 101 Musemic, E. (2013) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum
65 Dahl, H.D. and Muschelknautz, E. (1992) Chem. Ing. Tech. 15, Tropfenbildungsprozess an Hohlkegeldüsen. Dissertat., TU
224–231. Dortmund.
66 Schmidt, D.P., Nouar, I., Senecal, P.K., Hoffmann, J., and Rutl, 102 Tratnig, A. (2009) Characteristics of sprays produced by pres-
C.J. (1999) Pressure Atomization in the Near Field, SAE paper sure swirl atomizers, Dissertat., TU Graz.
1999-01-0496. 103 Wimmer, E. and Brenn, G. (2013) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 53,
67 Troesch, H.A. (1999) Zerstäubung von Flüssigkeiten, VDI 100–113.
Fortschr. Ber. Reihe 3, No. 607, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf. 104 Walzel, P. (2018) Zerstäuben von Flüssigkeiten mit
68 Kennedy, J.B. (1986) J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power 108, 191–195. Einstoff-Druckdüsen in VDI-Wärmeatlas, 12th edn, Springer,
69 Dahl, H.D. (1992) Theoretische und experimentelle Unter- L4.4.
suchungen mit Hohlkegeldüsen, Dissertation, Univ. Stuttgart, 105 Rothe, P.H. and Block, J.A. (1977) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 3,
Fortschr.- Ber. VDI, R. 3, Nr. 302, VDI-Verlag, Duesseldorf. 263–272.
70 Hinze, J.O. (1955) AIChE J. 1 (3), 289–295. 106 Lee, S.Y. and Tankin, R.S. (1984) Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 27
71 Haas, F.C. (1964) AIChE J. 10 (6), 920–924. (3), 351–361.
72 Brodkey, R.S. (1967) The Phenomena of Fluid Motion, 107 Lee, S.Y. and Tankin, R.S. (1984) Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 27
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. (3), 363–374.
73 Pilch, M. and Erdmann, C.A. (1987) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 108 Walzel, P., Scislowski, J., and Schaldach, G. (2014)
13, 741–757. ILASS-Europe, Bremen, Germany.
28 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

109 Rizk, N.K. and Lefebvre, A.H. (1985) Internal flow characteris- 145 Schulz, G. (1996) World Congr. on Powder Metallurgy and Par-
tics of simplex swirl atomizers, J. Prop. Power 1 (3), 193–199. ticulate Materials, Washington, DC, USA.
110 Yule, A.J. and Chinn, J.J. (2000) Atom. Sprays 10, 121–146. 146 Schmelz, F., Schneider, S., and Walzel, P. (2000) ILASS-Europe
111 Richter, T. and Walzel, P. (1989) Chem. Ing. Tech. 61 (4), 2000, Darmstadt Germany, 11–13 September.
319–321. 147 Groom, S., et al. (2005) J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 20, 169–175.
112 Kamplade, J. (2017) Untersuchung zum Sprühverhalten von 148 Chawla, J.M. Proceedings ICLASS 85, London, UK, LP/1
Drall-Druckdüsen mit modifizierter Muendungsgeometrie. A/5/1-7.
Dissertat., TU Dortmund. 149 Mlkvik, M., et al. (2015) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 77, 19–31.
113 Lohoff, K. (1982) Gas Wärme Int. 31 (2–3), 87–93. 150 Ferreira, G., Garcia, J.A., Barreras, F. and Lozano, A. (2009)
114 Löffler-Mang, M. (1992) Düseninnenströmung, Tropfe- Fuel Process. Technol. 90 (2), 270–278.
nentstehung und Tropfenausbreitung bei rücklaufgeregelten 151 Sutherland, J., Sojka, P. and Plesniak, M. (1997) Int. J. Multi-
Drall-Druckzerstäuberdüsen, Dissertat., Univers. Stuttgart. phase Flow 23, 865–884.
115 Prosperi, B., et al. (2007) Exp. Fluids 43, 315–327. 152 Jedelsky, J., et al. (2009) Energy Fuels 23 (12), 6121–6130.
116 Maly, M., Janackova, L., Jedelsky, J., et al. (2017) ILASS 153 Loercher, M. (2002) Zerstäuben von zweiphasigen Gemischen
Europe, Valencia, Spain. aus Flüssigkeiten und Gasen, VDI-Fortschrittsber. Reihe 3, Nr.
117 Slowik, G. and Kohlmann, J. (2006) ICLASS 06, Kyoto, paper 764., PhD Thesis, Uni-Hannover.
ID: ICLASS 06-246. 154 Tate, R.W. Proceedings ICLASS 85, London, UK, II C/1/1-13.
118 Briffa, F.E.J. and Dombrowski, N. (1966) AIChE J. 12 (4), 155 Kuta, K.T., Plesniak, M.W., et al. (2003) Atom. Sprays 13,
708–717. 561–577.
119 Brenn, G., Prebeg, Z., et al. (2002) ILASS-Europe, Zaragoza, 156 Bar-Kohany, T. and Sher, E. (2004) Atom. Sprays 14, 495–509.
preprints, 9–11 September, pp. 579–584. 157 Jedelsky, J. and Jicha, M. (2006) ICLASS 06, paper ID:
120 Sada, E., Takahashi, K., Morikawa, K. and Ito, S. (1978) Can. ICLASS 06-147, Kyoto Japan.
J. Chem. Eng. 56, 455–459. 158 Mulhem, B., et al. (2003) ICLASS 03, paper 1709, Session
121 Walzel, P. (1980) Chem. Ing. Tech. 52 (6), 525–526. 17-9, Sorrento It.
122 Walzel, P. (1980) Chem. Ing. Tech. 52 (12), 985 MS), 857–880. 159 Kim, J.Y. and Lee, S.Y. (2001) Atom. Sprays 11, 735–756.
123 Ashgriz, N. (2011) Handbook of Atomization and Sprays, 160 Wade, R.A., Weerts, J.M., Sojka, P.E. and Gore, J.P. (1999)
Springer, Heidelberg/New York. Atom. Sprays 9, 651–667.
124 Grant, R.P. (1966) AIChE J. 12 (4), 669–678. 161 Schlinge, B., Mescher, A., and Walzel, P. (2012) ICLASS 12,
125 Phinney, R.E. (1973) Phys. Fluids 16 (7), 193–196. September 2–6, Heidelberg, Germany.
126 Sato, G.T., Tanabe, H., and Fujimoto, H. (1982) Proceedings 162 Nguyen, D.A. and Rhodes, M.J. (1998) Powder Technol. 99,
ICLASS 82, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 229–235. 285–292.
127 Ruiz, F. and Chigier, N. (1985) Proceedings ICLASS 85, Lon- 163 Lund, M.T., Sojka, P.E., Lefebvre, A.H. and Gosselin, P.G.
don, UK, VI B/3/1. (1993) Atom. Sprays 3 (1), 77–89.
128 Yule, A.J. and Salters, D.G. (1994) ICLASS ’94, Rouen, F., 164 Hede, P.D., Bach, P. and Jensen, A.D. (2008) Chem. Eng. Sci.
preprints II 2, pp. 236–243. 23, 3821–3842.
129 Glaser, H.W. (1986) Brennst. Wärme Kraft 38 (5), 193–200. 165 Sher, E., Bar-Kohany, T. and Rashkovan, A. (2008) Progr.
130 Yule, A.J., et al. (2000) Atom. Sprays 10, 627–646. Energ. Comb. Sci. 34 (2008), 417–439.
131 Walmsley, S.J., Watkins, A.P. and Yule, A.J. (2001) Atom. 166 Moshkovich, Y., Levy, Y., Sher, I., and Sher, E. (2017)
Sprays 11, 453–470. ILASS-Europe, E. Valencia Sp.
132 Kohnen, B.T., et al. (2011) Atom. Sprays 21, 317–325. 167 Nagel, J., Molerus, O. and Wirth, K.E. (1997) Chem. Ing. Tech.
133 Schwarzkopf, J.D., Shakal, J.S., and Bounuccelli, C. (2006) 69 (6), 1257–1258.
ICLASS-06, Kyoto, Japan. 168 Weidner, E., Petermann, M., et al. (2000) Chem. Ing. Tech. 72,
134 Dombrowski, N. and Fraser, R.P. (1954) Philos. Trans. Roy. 743–746.
Soc. Lond. Ser. A 247, 101–130. 169 Mayer, W.O. (1998) J. Prop. Power 14 (5), 835–884.
135 Carvalho, I.S., et al. (2002) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 28 (5), 170 Monse, K., Linnepe, T., et al. (2003) Chem. Ing. Tech. 26,
773–789. 1044–1046.
136 Fraser, R.P., Eisenklam, P. and Dombrowski, N. (1957) Brit. 171 Monse, K. (2009) Zur Strukturbildung von sprühgetrockneten
Chem. Eng. 2, 610–613. Partikeln, TU Dortmund, Dissertation.
137 Lefebvre, A.H. and McDonell, V.G. (2017) Atomization and 172 Rossmeissl, M. and Wirth, K.E. (2005) ILASS-Europe, 5–7
Sprays, CRC Press by Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, September, Orleans.
USA/London, NY. 173 Günther, A. and Wirth, K.-E. (2014) ILASS-Europe, Bremen,
138 Deysson, J.Y. and Karian, J. (1978) Proceedings ICLASS 78, Germany.
Tokyo, Japan, pp. 243–249. 174 Theissing, P. (1976) Erzeugung von Flüssigkeitsfilmen,
139 Nukiyama, S. and Tanasawa, Y. (1939) Trans. Soc. Mech. Eng. Flüssigkeitslamellen und Tropfen durch rotierende Scheiben,
Jpn. 5 (18), 62–67. VDI-Forschungsheft 574, VDI-Verlag, Duesseldorf.
140 Thomer, K.W. (1981) Massnahmen zum Verbessern der 175 Hinze, J.O. and Milborn, H. (1950) J. Appl. Mech. 17, 145–153.
pneumatischen Lack-Zerstäubung-Teilchengrößenbestimmung 176 Matsumoto, S., Belcher, D.W., and Crosby, E.J. ICLASS 85,
im Spritz-Strahl, Dissertat. Univ. Stuttgart. London, UK, I A/1/1-21.
141 Lasheras, J.C., Villermaux, E. and Hopfinger, E.J. (1998) J. 177 Wilhelm, S. (1992) Tropfenbildung an Lamellen und Filmen,
Fluid Mech. 357, 351–379. Dissertat. University Essen; VDI Fortschrtsber. Reihe 3, no.
142 Mulhem, B., Schulte, G. and Fritsching, U. (2006) Chem. Eng. 312.
Sci. 61, 2582–2589. 178 Hege, H. (1964) Chem. Eng. Technol. 36, 52–59.
143 Gañán-Calvo, A. and Barrero, J. (1999) J. Aerosol Sci. 30 (1), 179 German Pat. (2009) DE 10 2007 047 411 B4 2017.11.16.
117–125. 180 Walzel, P., Schaldach, G., and Wiggers, H. (2008) Paper ID:
144 Walz, A. and Mayer, M. (1966) Glastechn. Berichte 8, 359–370. ILASS08-A074, ILASS-Europe Como It., 8–10 September.
 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids 29

181 Schroeder, T. and Walzel, P. (1998) Chem. Eng. Technol. 21 (4), 213 Barreras, F., et al. (2002) Exp. Fluids 33, 405–413.
349–354. 214 Heberlein, K. (1985) Met. Oberfläche 39, 355–358.
182 Koch, M. (2003) Beitraege zur Katalysatorverkapselung im 215 Moser, E., Ganzelmeier, H. and Schmidt, K. (1981) Nachricht-
Spruehverfahren, Dissertation Universitaet Dortmund, 2003, enblatt d. Deutschen Pflanzenschutz. Deut. Pflanzenschutz 33
Schriftenreihe Mechanische Verfahrenstechnik, Shaker Verlag, (10), 145–157.
Aachen. 216 Vonnegut, B. and Neubauer, R.L. (1952) J. Colloid Sci. 7,
183 Gramlich, S., et al. (2011) Chem. Eng. Technol. 34 (6), 616–622.
921–926. 217 Drozin, V.G. (1955) J. Colloid Sci. 10, 158–164.
184 Mescher, A. and Walzel, P. (2012) ICLASS 2012, Heidelberg 218 Simm, W. (1969) Chem. Ing. Tech. 41 (8), 503–507.
Germany, September 2–6. 219 Kelly, A. (1976) J. Appl. Phys. 47 (12), 5264–5270.
185 Liebing, M., Hauber, M., Kalmbach, T., and Piesche, M. (2016) 220 Kelly, A. (1978) J. Appl. Phys. 49 (5), 2621–2628.
ILASS-Europe, Brighton, UK, 4–7 September. 221 Bailey, A.G. (1986) Atom. Spray. Technol. 2 (2), 95–134.
186 Mescher, A. and Walzel, P. (2016) Chem. Ing. Tech. 88, 1–10. 222 Wiggers, H. and Walzel, P. (1997) Chem. Ing. Tech. 69,
doi: 10.1002/cite.201500017. 1066–1073.
187 Kuhnhenn, M., Joensen, T.V., Reck, M., et al. (2018) Int. J. Mul- 223 Bailey, A.G. (1988) Electrostatic Spraying of Liquids, Res.
tiphase Flow 100, 30–40. Stud. Press Ltd, Taunton.
188 Krug, M.B., Höfler, C., and Bauer, H.-J. ILASS–Europe, 2016, 224 Michelson, D. (1990) Electrostatic Atomization, Adam Hilger,
4–7 September 2016, Brighton, UK. Bristol/New York.
189 Kuhnhenn, M. 2018 Rotary Atomizer: Investigation of 225 Wendorff, J.-H., Agarwal, S. and Greiner, A. (2012) Electro-
the Internal and External Liquid Flow and Atomization, spinning: Materials, Processing, and Applications, Wiley-VCH
Dissertation, TU Darmstadt. Verlag, Weinheim.
190 Singer, A.R., Roche, A.D. and Day, L. (1980) Powder Metall. 226 Rüger, M., et al. (2000) Atom. Sprays 10, 47–81.
23, 673–682. 227 Kim, W.T., et al. (2001) Atom. Sprays 11, 187–200.
191 Walzel, P. (1982) German Chem. Eng. (Engl. Transl.) 5, 228 Michalski, J. (2000) Atom. Sprays 10, 105–121.
121–129. 229 Salewski, M. and Fuchs, L. (2007) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 33,
192 Mitchell, T.P. and Stone, R.L. (1982) J. Phys. E., Sci. Inst. 15,
394–410.
565–569.
230 Ferrand, V., et al. (2003) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 29, 195–217.
193 Toivonen, H. and Bailey, M.R. (1986) Aerosols, Formation and
231 Bague, A., et al. (2007) paper S4_Mon_C_9, ICMF Leipzig,
Reactivity. Second International Aerosol Conference Berlin,
Germany.
Pergamon Journals, Ltd., UK.
232 Menard, T., et al. (2007) paper S4_Mon_C_8, ICMF Leipzig,
194 Domnick, J. and Thieme, M. (2006) Atom. Sprays 16, 857–874.
Germany.
195 Stevenin, C., et al. (2013) ILASS-Europe 2013, Chania Gr., 1–4
233 Heinlein, J. and Fritsching, U. (2006) Exp. Fluids 40, 464–472.
September.
234 Ertl, M. and Weigand, B. (2017) Atom. Sprays 27, 303–317.
196 Ogasawara, S. and Daikoku, M. (2009) ICLASS 2009, Vail Col-
235 Blei, S. and Sommerfeld, M. (2003) Paper 1604, Session 16-4,
orado, USA, July.
ICLASS 03, Sorrento, Italy.
197 Shirota, M., et al. (2012) ICLASS 2012, Heidelberg Germany,
236 Sommerfeld, M. and Lain, S. (2017) ILASS- Europe, Valencia,
2–6 September.
Spain.
198 Tanasawa, Y. (1978) ICLASS’78, preprints, Tokyo, Japan,
237 Torres, D.J. and Trujillo, M.F. (2006) J. Comput. Phys. 219,
pp. 427–434.
KIVA-4, 943–975.
199 Mark, A., et al. (2012) ICLASS 2012, Heidelberg Germany, 2–6
September. 238 Orme, M. (1997) Progr. Energ. Combust. Sci. 23, 65–79.
200 Andersson, B., et al. (2012) ICLASS 2012, Heidelberg Ger- 239 Post, S.L. and Abraham, J. (2002) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 28,
many, 2–6 September. 997–1019.
201 Schmidt, P. (1985) Maschinenmarkt 91 (72), 1419–1421. 240 Munnannur, A. and Reitz, R.D. (2007) Int. J. Multiphase Flow
202 Eisenmenger, W. (1959) Acustica 9, 327–340. 33, 873–896.
203 Reimann, U. and Pohlmann, R. (1976) Forschung im Ingenieur- 241 Brenn, G. and Kolobaric, V. (2006) Phys. Fluids 18. doi:
wes. 42 (1), 1–7. 10.1063/1.2225363.
204 Li, M.K. and Fogler, H.S. (1978) J. Fluid Mech. 88 (3), 242 Gao, F. and Fritsching, U. (2010) Mat.-Wissenschaft u. Werk-
499–528. stofftechn. 41 (7), 547–554.
205 Berger, L.H. (1985) Proceedings ICLASS 85, London UK, I 243 Yarin, A., Roisman, I.V. and Tropea, C. (2017) Collision
A/2/1-13. Phenomena in Liquids and Solids, Cambridge University
206 Haberfelner, H. (1978) Wasser, Luft und Betrieb 22 (10), Press, Cambridge.
556–558. 244 Walzel, P. (1980) Chem. Ing. Tech. 52 (4), 338–339.
207 Bauckhage, K. (1997) ILASS ’97, Florence, It., preprints III 5, 245 Pasternak, L. and Sommerfeld, M. (2017) ILASS-Europe,
pp. 229–2351. Valencia, Spain.
208 Ju, J., et al. (2006) ICLASS 06, Kyoto, paper ID: ICLASS 246 Nishad, K.P., Sadiki, A., and Janicka, J. (2012) ICLASS’12,
06–211. 2–6 September, Heidelberg, Germany.
209 Araki, M., et al. (2006) ICLASS 06, Kyoto, paper ID: ICLASS 247 Cui, X.G. and Gutheil, E. (2012) ICLASS’12, 2–6 September,
06–077. Heidelberg.
210 Al-Suleimani, Y., Jule, A.J., et al. (1999) preprints, 248 Jang, C., et al. (2000) Atom. Sprays 10, 159–197.
ILASS-Europe ‘99, 5–7 July, Toulouse, France, pp. 55–56. 249 Schelling, J. and Reh, L. (1999) Chem. Eng. Process. 38 (4/6),
211 Linnepe, T. (2009) Herstellen von Partikeln durch Erstarren von 383–393.
Tropfen in Wirbelschichten, Dissertat., TU Dortmund. 250 Fritsching, U. (2016) Process Spray-Functional Particles Pro-
212 Lozano, A., et al. (2017) ILASS-Europe 2017, Valencia, Spain, duced in Spray Processes, Final Report of the DFG-Research
6–8 September. Program “Process-Spray”, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
30 Spraying and Atomizing of Liquids

251 Wagner, R.M. and Drallmeier, J.A. (2001) Atom. Sprays 11, 286 Zimmels, Y. (1995) Langmuir 11 (8), 2985–2990.
255–268. 287 Kuhn, H.A. and Lawley, A. (1978) Powder Metallurgy Process-
252 Murata, S., Anezaki, Y., and Kanehara, K. (2006) Paper ID ing, Academic Press, New York/San Francisco/London.
ICLASS06-125, ICLASS, 27. 8.-1.9. Kyoto, Japan. 288 Beddow, J.K. (1978) The Production of Metal Powders by
253 Schäfer, M. (1986, 1986) Determinierte Beschreibung des Atomisation, Heyden & Son, London/Philadelphia/Rheine.
Zustandes disperser Phasen in Strömungen durch Aufnahme 289 Rai, G., Lavernia, E. and Grant, N.J. (1985) J. Met. 37 (8),
und vollständige Auswertung von Doppelimpulshologrammen 22–29.
Fortschr. Ber. VDI-Z, Reihe 3, Nr. 126, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf. 290 Bauckhage, K. (1990) Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 62 (8), 613–625.
254 Palero, V., et al. (2007) Exp. Fluids 43, 185–195. 291 Uhlenwinkel, V., Fritschig, U., and Baukhage, K. (1991) Pro-
255 Leschonski, K. (1978) Chem. Ing. Tech. 50 (3), 194–203. ceedings ICLASS, Gaithersburgh, 15–18 July.
256 Schuch, G. and Umhauer, H. (1980) Verfahrenstechnik 14 (4), 292 Baukhage, K., et al. (1990) Proceedings Powder Metallurgy
237–241. Conf., London, 2–6 July.
257 Semiat, R. and Dukler, A.E. (1981) AIChE J. 27 (1), 148–153. 293 Uhlenwinkel, V., Baukhage, K. and Seuren, B. (1992) Chem.
258 Durst, F. (1982) Trans. ASME 104, 284–296. Ing. Tech. 64 (1), 86–87.
259 Bauckhage, K. and Wassmansdorff, V. (1985) Chem. Ing. Tech. 294 Fritsching, U. and Bauckhage, K. (2006) Sprayforming of
57 (8), MS), 1388–1385. Metals, Ullmann, 7th edn, Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim 2006
260 Tropea, C., et al. (1997) ILASS ’97, Florence, preprints VI 6, Electronic Release.
pp. 382–388. 295 Reske, R. (1987) Fortschr. Ber. VDI-Z. Reihe 7 Nr. 115.
261 Albrecht, H.E., Borys, M., Damaschkle, N. and Tropea, C. 296 Mundo, C., Sommerfeld, M. and Tropea, C. (1995) Int. J. Mul-
(1999) Meas. Sci. Technol. 10 (6), 564–574. 0957-0233. tiphase Flow 21 (2), 151–173.
262 Roisman, I.V. and Tropea, C. (2001) Atom. Sprays 11, 673–705. 297 Rein, M. (1993) Fluid Dynamics Research 12, 61–93.
263 Damaschke, N., Nobach, H., and Tropea, C. (2002) Exp. Fluids, 298 Rroisman, J.T. and Tropea, C. (2005) International Journal of
32 (2), 143–152, ISSN 0723-4864. Multiphase Flow 31, 179–200.
264 Nonn, T., Jaunet, V., and Hellmann, S. (2012) ICLASS 2012, 299 Kalantari, D. and Tropea, C. (2007) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 33,
Heidelberg, Germany. 525–544.
265 Buerkholz, A. (1989) Droplet Separation, Wiley-VCH Verlag, 300 Weiss, C. (2005) Int. J. Multiphase Flow 31, 115–140.
Weinheim. 301 Marengo, M., et al. (1997) ILASS ’97, preprints VIII 5, Flo-
266 DIN 66145 (1965) Beuth Verlag, Berlin. rence, Italy, pp. 465–472.
267 ISO 13320:2009 (2009) Particle Size Analysis-Laser Diffrac- 302 Samenfink, W., et al. (1997) ILASS ’97, preprints VIII 6,
tion Methods, Beuth Verlag, Berlin. 480–486. Florence It.
268 DIN 66144 (1965) Beuth Verlag, Berlin. 303 Horacek, B., Kiger, K.T. and Kim, J.-H. (2005) J. Heat Mass
269 DIN ISO 9276-1 (2004) Beuth Verlag, Berlin. Transf. 48 (8), 1425–1438.
270 Mugele, R.A. and Evans, H.D. (1951) Ind. Eng. Chem. 43 (6), 304 Kim, J.-H. (2007) Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28 (4), 753–767.
1317–1324. 305 Todorov, T. (2007) Wärmeübergang bei der Sprühkühlung
271 Eggers, J. and Villermaux, E. (2008) Physics of liquid jets, Rep. unter Berücksichtigung der Sprühstrahlparameter, Dissertat.,
Progr. Phys. 71 (3), 1–79. TU Magdeburg.
272 Dumouchel, C., Blaisot, J.B., and Ngo, V.D. (2012) ICLASS 306 Schegk, D.D. and Löffler, F. (1987) Chem. Ing. Tech. 59 (4),
2012, Heidelberg, Germany. 319–322.
273 Dumouchel, C. and Malot, H. (1999) Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 307 Walzel, P. (1982) ICLASS 82, Proceedings, Madison, WI,
16, 220–228. USA, pp. 187–194.
274 González-Tello, P., et al. (2008) Powder Technology 186, 308 Reinhart, A. (1964) Chem. Ing. Tech. 36 (7), 740–746.
278–281. 309 Hughes, R.R. and Gilliland, E.R. (1952) Chem. Eng. Progr. 48
275 Walzel, P., Schmelz, F. and Schneider, S. (2001) Chem. Eng. (10), 497–504.
Technol. 73 (12), 1599–1602. 310 Cliffe, K.A. and Lever, D.A. (1984) AIChE Symp. Ser. 80 (236),
276 Li, L.-H. and Lai, W-H. (2006) Introduction of New Relax- 61–66.
ation Time Constant of EHDA Process from Dielectric Ana- 311 Wesselingh, J.A. (1987) Chem. Eng. Proc. 21, 9–14.
lyzing Concept, ICLASS06-031, ICLASS-Kyoto, 27 August–1 312 Helenbrook, B.T. and Edwards, C.F. (2002) Int. J. Multiphase
September, Kyoto, Japan. Flow 28, 1631–1657.
277 Giles, D.K., et al. (2005) Atom. Sprays 15, 423–438.
278 Bendig, L. ILASS-Europe ’99, 5–7 July, Toulouse, France. Further Reading
279 Opfer, L.M. (2014) Controlling Liquid Atomization using
Dilute Emulsions: Mitigation of Pesticide Spray Drift, Agranovski, I. ed. (2010) Aerosols, 1. Auflage, Wiley-VCH Verlag,
Dissertat, TU-Darmstadt. Weinheim.
280 Klostermann, M., et al. (2016) Mode of Action of Silicone Drift Maev, R.G. and Leshchynsky, V. (2008) Introduction to Low Pres-
Control Agents, in Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems: sure Gas Dynamic Spray, Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim.
36th Volume, Emerging Trends Building on a Solid Foundation, Pawlowski, L. (2008) The Science and Engineering of Thermal
ASTM International, Orlando, FL. Spray Coatings, 2nd edn, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
281 Walzel, P. (2011) Chem. Eng. Technol. 34 (7), 1039–1048. Sahzin, S. (2014) Droplets and Sprays, Springer Verlag, London.
282 Fraser, R.P. and Eisenklam, P. (1956) Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. Sirignano, W. (2010) Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplets and
34, 294–319. Sprays, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
283 Wang, H., et al. (2017) ILASS-Europe, paper ILASS2017.4614, Yarin, A.L. (1993) Free Liquid Jets and Films: Hydrodynamics and
6–8 September, Valencia, Spain. Rheology, Longman Group, England.
284 Walzel, P. (1997) ILASS ’97, preprints VII 1, Florence, Italy, Wozniak, G. (2013) Zerstäubungstechnik: Prinzipien, Verfahren,
pp. 407–413. Geräte, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
285 Walzel, P. (1998) Chem. Ing. Tech. 70, 1059–1060.