Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:54:37.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An experimental and numerical investigation of under-expanded turbulent jets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

A. J. Saddington ,
N. J. Lawson  and
K. Knowles
A. J. Saddington
Affiliation:
Aeromechanical Systems Group, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK
N. J. Lawson
Affiliation:
Aeromechanical Systems Group, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK
K. Knowles
Affiliation:
Aeromechanical Systems Group, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The work described here concentrates on under-expanded, axisym-metric turbulent jets issuing into quiescent conditions. Under-expanded turbulent jets are applicable to most aircraft propulsion applications that use convergent nozzles. Experimental studies used laser doppler velocimetry (LDV) and pitot probe measurements along the jet centreline. These measurements were made for two nozzle pressure ratios (2·5 and 4·0) and at various streamwise positions up to 10 nozzle diameters downstream of the nozzle exit plane. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was developed using the Fluent code and utilised the RNG K-ε two-equation turbulence model. A mesh resolution of approximately one hundredth of nozzle exit diameter was found to be sufficient to establish a mesh independent solution.

Comparison of the jet centreline axial velocity (LDV data) and pressure ratio (pitot probe data) showed good agreement with the CFD model. The correct number of shock cells had been predicted and the shock strength agreed well between the experiments and numerical model. The CFD model was, however, found to over-predict the shock cell length resulting in a longer supersonic core. There was some evidence, based on analysis of the LDV measurements that indicates the presence of swirl and jet unsteadiness, which could contribute to a shortening of the shock cell length. These effects were not modelled in the CFD. Correlation between the LDV and pitot probe measurements was generally good, however, there was some evidence that probe interference may have caused the premature decay of the jet. Overall, this work has indicated the good agreement between a CFD simulation using the RNG k-ε turbulence model and experimental data when applied to the prediction of the flowfield generated by under-expanded turbulent jets. The suitability of the LDV technique to jet flows with velocities up to 500ms-1 has also been demonstrated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1081 , March 2004 , pp. 145 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pinker, R.A. and Strange, P.J.R. The noise benefits of forced mixing, proceedings of the 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Toulouse, France, 2-4 June 1998, Paper No. AIAA-98-2256.Google Scholar
2. Bevilaqua, P.M. Advances in ejector thrust augmentation, Proceedings of the International Powered Lift Conference, Santa Clara, California, USA, 7–10 December 1987, pp 201–215.Google Scholar
3 Rao, G.A. and Mahulikar, S.P. Integrated review of stealth technology and its role in airpower, Aeronaut J, December 2002, 106, (1066), pp. 629–641.Google Scholar
4. Donaldson, C.D. and Snedeker, R.S. A study of free jet impingement. Part 1. mean properties of free and impinging jets, J Fluid Mechanics, 1971, 45, (2), pp 281–319.Google Scholar
5. Stickland, M.T. RA98 (CHAM Nozzle) Flow survey of underexpanded supersonic jets in the 5·5m low speed wind tunnel static test facility – Volume 2, Technical Report BAe-WWT-RPRES-AXR-139, BAe plc., April 1988.Google Scholar
6. Kalghatgi, G.T., Cousins, J.M., and Bray, K.N.C. Crossed beam measurements and model predictions in a rocket exhaust plume, combustion and flame, 1981, 43, pp 51–67.Google Scholar
7. Chuech, S.G., Lai, M.C., and Faeth, G. M. Structure of turbulent sonic underexpanded free jets, AIAA J, May 1989, 27, (5), pp 549–559.Google Scholar
8. Love, E.S., Grigsby, C.E., Lee, L.P. and Woodling, M.J. Experimental and theoretical studies of axisymmetric free jets, Technical Report R-6, NASA, 1958.Google Scholar
9. Knowles, K. and Wong, R.Y.T. Passive control of entrainment in supersonic jets, RAeS Aerodynamics Research Conference, London, 17-18 April 2000, pp 9.1–9.14.Google Scholar
10. Wong, R.Y.T. Enhancement of supersonic jet mixing, PhD thesis, Department of Aerospace, Power and Sensors, Cranfield University, July 2000.Google Scholar
11. Rodi, W. Turbulence models and their application in hydraulics – A state of the art review, International Association for Hydraulic Research, Rotterdamseweg 185 – PO Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands, 2nd ed., 1984.Google Scholar
12. Yakhot, A. and Orszag, S.A. Renormalisation group analysis of turbulence: I. Basic theory, J of Scientific Computing, 1986, 1, (1), pp 1–51.Google Scholar
13. Knowles, K. and Saddington, A.J. Modelling and experiments on underexpanded turbulent jet mixing, 5th International Symposium on Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Measurement, Mallorca, Spain, 16–18 September 2002.Google Scholar
14. Ashkenas, H. and Sherman, F.S. Structure and utilization of supersonic free jets in low density wind tunnels, Contractor Report CR-60423, NASA, 1964.Google Scholar
15. Dring, R. P. Sizing criteria for laser anemometry particles, J Fluids Engineering, 1982, 104, pp.15–17.Google Scholar
16. Rockwell, D. Oscillations of impinging Shear Layers, AIAA J, 1983, 21, (5), pp. 645–664.Google Scholar
17. Smith, R. An Investigation of supersonic swirling jets, Aeronaut Q, August 1973, 24, pp 167–178.Google Scholar
18. Birkby, P. and Page, G.J. Numerical predictions of turbulent underex-panded sonic jets using a pressure-based methodology, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2001, 215, (G), pp 165–173.Google Scholar