Plural component systems mix two or more fluids and apply the mixture to an application site. Plural component systems are often used to spray two components that, when mixed, react and cure on a surface. One particular usage for plural component systems is to generate a foam through the reaction of an A component and a B component that, when sprayed, react and cure quickly. Proper foam generation requires sufficient fluid delivery, sufficient chemical mixing, and sufficient fluid dispersal.
A plural component spray gun has three main components: a coupling block, a gun block, and a gun handle. The coupling block facilitates the two plural components entering a mixer, for example through an A-chemical or and a B-chemical port. The gun block includes filters, side seals, the mixer, and a fluid spray tip. The gun handle includes an air purge supply, a trigger mechanism, and an attachment to the gun block.
A mixer for a plural component spray gun is presented. The mixer has a first fluid component inlet configured to introduce a first fluid component into the mixer. The mixer also has a second fluid component inlet configured to introduce a second fluid component into the mixer. The first and second fluid component inlets are offset with respect to a centerline of the mixer and positioned such that a first fluid flow from the first inlet is directed away from the second inlet, and a second fluid flow from the second inlet is directed away from the first inlet.
A plural component spray gun receives at least two fluids that are reactively combined within a mixer, and then dispensed. The mixer receives each of the two fluids through a separate inlet. The mixer facilitates mixing of the plural components from their respective inlets, and emits, through an outlet, a product which is then sprayed or otherwise provided at an outlet. The mixer is responsible for effective mixing of the two components, for example a liquid component A and a liquid component B. Components A and B, when cured, can create a plurality of different materials, for example thermal insulation, protective coating, etc.
Some important process variables for plural component mixing and spraying are fluid delivery, fluid dispersal and chemical mixing. Fluid delivery is affected by flow rate control and filtering. Chemical mixing is affected by reducing jetting and reducing back pressure. Fluid dispersal is affected by spray pattern, which, in turn, can be affected by the tip geometry and/or size. Some embodiments described herein utilize a spray tip with a cat-eye outlet. However, embodiments described herein may also be used with any other suitable outlet and/or internal geometry.
Components A and B are each pumped into a plural component spray gun mixer through two separate entry points in order to reduce the risk of a crossover event, e.g. component A backflowing into a fluid line for component B and reacting within the component B fluid line. Crossover events can result in a plural component gun becoming unusable. Chemical mixing of components A and B can be improved by reducing jetting, and by reducing back pressure. Jetting can he reduced by modifying an orifice offset between entry points for components A and B. Back pressure can be reduced by modifying an orifice angle at which components A and B enter the mixer.
Fn=pAV2 sin θ (1)
Q
1=1/2Q(1+cos θ) (2)
Q
2=1/2Q(1−cos θ) (3)
In Equations 1-3, Fn is normal force 230, volumetric flow rates Q, Q1, and Q2 correspond, respectively, to flow rates 212, 232, and 234. A is the area of the nozzle, V is the velocity at the nozzle outlet, and θ is angle 222 of inclined wall 220, or the impingement angle.
Using Equation 1 it is determined that normal force 230 is maximum when the impingement angle 222 is 90°. Impinging the jet at an angle can decrease the normal force acting on the wall, which in turn, decreases the force. Flow rates 232 and 234 are also dependent on angle 222. In a scenario where angle 222 is not equal to 90°, the fluid has a higher tendency to move in a first direction as opposed to a second direction, for example, flow rate 232 is greater than flow rate 234.
As illustrated using Equations 1-3, in a first case scenario, a 90° impingement angle for an incoming component A, with respect to the inlet for component B may result in a higher back pressure, which may distribute the flow equally on both sides of a mixer. Such an equal distribution can present a disadvantage as there is only one outlet for most mixer designs. Fluid particles are diverted opposite in direction to the outlet, which restrict flow coming into the mixer. In turn, this requires more pressure to reverse the flow back towards the outlet. Since the mix chamber walls are curved, the fluid particles may have a tendency to move axially without bouncing back toward the inlet, as compared to a vertical wall.
In a second scenario, the fluid particles from liquid components A and B come to a complete rest when impinging on each other in the vicinity of their intersection within the mixer. The fluid particles may then have to be accelerated to gain axial velocity along the mixer, which affects the pressure required. Having a higher offset between inlets would decrease the impingement of the fluid components on each other, such that the pressure is solely through impingement off the chamber wall. However, having the flows of liquid components A and B impinging at each other does ensure efficient mixing.
Aside from the first and second case scenarios presented above, when the pressures at the orifices are varied by a higher amount, liquid from one inlet (for example, component A inlet) is at a higher risk of flowing into the opposite inlet (for example, component B inlet), instead of exiting, through the outlet. Such a scenario creates a crossover event, where the liquid components react and cure internally within the spray gun. In many cases, a spray gun that experienced a crossover event is no longer usable. It is desired, therefore, to improve efficiency without increasing the risk of crossover. At least some of the embodiments described herein achieve such improvements.
Several different design requirements are important to consider for a mixer. In addition to reducing crossover events, it is also desired to maintain or improve efficiency of fluid mixing within the mixer. Additionally, a functional spray pattern must be maintained by the spray gun during operation. Ideally, the mixer will also be compatible with existing plural component spray gun technology, with minimal or no retrofitting. It is also desired to maintain or increase the flow rate of fluid through the mixer. At least some embodiments herein increase the robustness of current mixer designs and make the designs more resistant to crossover, which can be caused by pressure imbalances between the two fluid entering the mixer. At least some embodiments described herein change the angle of one or both fluid component inlets, with respect to the mixer from directly perpendicular to the side walls of the mixer to an angle towards the outlet. In one embodiment, the angle is about 10°. Embodiments described herein may also increase the separation between the mixer inlets of the two fluid components. These changes can reduce back pressure on the inlet orifices, reduce jetting of the fluids into the opposite side orifice, and facilitate proper mixing of the chemicals within the mixer under all potential pressure differential conditions.
One advantage of an angled orifice is that it results in a lager axial (i.e. in the direction of the outlet) component of the fluid velocity when the two fluids components enter mixing chamber 400 through inlets 410 and 420. When the two fluids enter the mixing chamber on offset planes, voracity, or fluid rotation, is introduced, which improves the ability of the two fluids to mix and react. Angling orifices 410, 420 toward the outlet means that, as the fluid rotates in mixing chamber 400, there is less of an opportunity for it to circulate over to the opposing orifice and create a small recirculation zone that could be a trigger point for crossover in the event of a pressure loss on one side.
Orifice location is an important consideration for a crossover resistant design, in that inlet orifices 410, 420 should be offset from the centerline of the mixing chamber. In the design of
Additional simulations were also conducted using polymeric fluids. In one example, A-isocyanate and B-polyol were used. The two components entered mixers 300 and 400 at a temperature greater than room temperature. The dynamic viscosity was consequently measured using a rotary viscometer. The dynamic viscosity values were found to be A—0.045 Pa·s and B—0.145 Pa·s when A dispersed at 120±3° F. and B at 130°±30° F. CFD simulations quantified the differential pressure between the inlets. Using mixer 400, a pressure differential of 950 PSI was observed, while mixer 300 only reached a differential of 575 PSI. The larger pressure differential allows for mixer 400 to avoid crossover due to user error and/or pump malfunction. Flow rates were also calculated through the simulations with set pressures at the inlets. Mixer 400 experienced 0.147 pounds/second while mixer 300 experienced 0.108 pounds/second.
Experimental testing was also conducted between mixers 300 and 400. At a set pump pressure, gun pressures were compared for each design, using different fluids. For liquid component B, the gun pressure for mixer 400 was 260 PSI greater than that of mixer 300. For liquid component A, the gun pressure was 200 PSI. As illustrated, mixer 400 has a lower back pressure when compared to mixer 300. The lower back pressure allows for a higher flow rate a set pump pressure. This validated the simulated, higher flow rate obtained using the CFD analysis discussed above.
Tests were also conducted to intentionally cause crossover between liquid components for both mixers 300 and 400. The results are illustrated in
Additionally, densities of foam sprayed using mixers 300 and 400 were compared, and presented below as Table 1. Foam was sprayed with a 2000 PSI set point, with component A delivered at 120° F. and component B delivered at 130° F. It is noted that the two designs were tested for double pass samples, instead of a single pass with a specification of 46.45 kg/m3. The obtained density values are similar using mixer 400, indicative of similar mixing capabilities.
The CFD analysis of mixer 300 resulted in crossover at a 560 PSI differential. When testing mixer 400, crossover did not occur until a differential 950 PSI. Therefore, the chance of crossover was reduced by 70%. In a lab setting, crossover could not be induced using mixer 400.
The CFD analysis for the volume fraction demonstrated that mixing within chambers 300 and 400 are similar, with mixer 400 showing slightly improved mixing between components.
The spray pattern and spray atomization has improved when compared to mixer 300 for at least some embodiments. The spray pattern has widened in relation to that obtained using mixer 300. Additionally, as illustrated when comparing
An additional benefit of mixer 400 is the increased mass flow rate achieved. Mixer 400 was tested using the same inlet size and spray nozzle. CFD results showed that the new design out-performed the current design by 28% with regard to mass flow rate. Higher flow rates allow operators to complete jobs faster, saving operators time and money on each job, and allowing operators to complete more jobs with the same equipment. Mixer 400, and similar embodiments discussed herein, can accomplish this while, maintaining foam density standards and quality.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
The present application is based on and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62,492,669 filed May 1, 2017, the content of which application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62492669 | May 2017 | US |