Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

The Impact of Manifold-to-Orifice Turning Angle on Sharp-Edge Orifice Flow Characteristics in Both Cavitation and Noncavitation Turbulent Flow Regimes

[+] Author and Article Information
W. H. Nurick

 Science and Technology Applications LLC (STA), Moorpark, CA 93021wnurick@verizon.net

T. Ohanian

 Science and Technology Applications LLC (STA), Moorpark, CA 93021

D. G. Talley

 Air Force Research Laboratory Edwards Air Force Base, AFRL/PRSA, 10 East Saturn Boulevard, Edwards AFB, CA 93524-7660

P. A. Strakey

Energy Systems Dynamics Division, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, WV 26505

J. Fluids Eng 130(12), 121102 (Oct 23, 2008) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2978999 History: Received June 26, 2007; Revised July 25, 2008; Published October 23, 2008

The approach taken was to analyze the results in a manner consistent with application by design engineers to new and existing applications, while providing some insight into the processes that are occurring. This paper deals with predicting the initiation of cavitation, cavitation impacts on the contraction coefficient (Cc), as well as noncavitation impacts on discharge coefficient (Cd) from L/D of five sharp-edge orifices over a turning angle range between 60 deg and 120 deg. The results show that in the cavitation regime, Cc is controlled by the cavitation parameter (Kcav), where the data follow the 12 power with Kcav, and inception of cavitation occurs at a Kcav of 1.8. In the noncavitation regime for conditions where the cross velocity is 0 the data are consistent with the first order equation relating head loss (HL) to the dynamic pressure where KL is constant and is consistent with in-line orifices. Cross flow has a significant impact on loss coefficient and depends on both the turning angle and manifold inlet to orifice exit velocity ratio.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Correlation of KL for differing velocity ratio and turning angle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Velocity ratio impact on KL for compound angle orifices

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of KL for in-line (8) and cross velocity configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of KL between this study and constant area bending

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of Idelchik with this study for 60 deg angle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of Idelchik with this study for 90 deg angle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of AFRL cold flow test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Injector schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Cross flow test configuration for 90 deg orifices

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Illustration of flow turning for single and compound angle orifices

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Sharp-edge orifice data depicting all flow regimes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Cavitation parameter versus discharge coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Impact of cross velocity and turning angle on Cc

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Cd versus cavitation parameter for compound angle 90_60 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Impact of manifold-to-orifice velocity ratio on Cc

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Illustration of the linearity of the slope (KL) with the dynamic head




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In