See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245387210

A simple method for the design of gas burner injectors

Article  in  ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 1989-1996 (vols 203-210) · February 2003
DOI: 10.1243/095440603762826558

CITATIONS READS

2 5,577

1 author:

Chris Lawn
University of London
63 PUBLICATIONS   1,114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Score Stove View project

Thermo-acoustic response of a burner View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Lawn on 16 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Simple Method for the Design of Gas Burner Injectors

by

C.J.Lawn

Department of Engineering

Queen Mary, University of London,

Mile End Rd

London E1 4NS

Prepared for submission to the Proc Inst Mech E, Part C,

Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science

May, 2002
Revised: Sept 2002
Abstract:

The performance of a fuel jet issuing through a nozzle and entraining the air for

combustion in a gas burner has been systematically investigated, using well-

established theory for such ‘injectors’ based on momentum conservation for one-

dimensional flows. Earlier applications of this theory for injector calculations are

reviewed. It is shown that neglect of property variations introduces only small errors

for the cases that are likely to be considered in such combustion problems. Design

charts are generated in which the ratio of entrained air flow to fuel flow is related to

the area ratio of the two streams at the plane of the nozzle. The ratio is a function of

generalised parameters describing the inlet and outlet resistances (ameliorated by a

diffuser), the density ratio of the fluids, and the Mach number of the nozzle.

Predictions are compared with new experimental data for an injector with mixing tube

Reynolds number in the range 2000 to 12000 and shown to agree to within 10% when

the mixing tube is of optimum length.

Keywords: Injector, jet pump, gas burner, natural aspiration.

2
NOTATION

A Cross-sectional flow area

Cp Specific heat capacity

K Total pressure loss coefficient

M Mach number

m Mass flow rate

P Mean pressure at a plane (static, except for Pf)

R Gas constant

T Mean temperature at a plane

U Mean velocity normal to a plane

α Ratio of area of air inlet to fuel jet nozzle outlet.

K2 +1
β Diffuser and burner loss coefficient parameter, β ≡ , where K2 is given
2

by eq. (5).

γ Ratio of specific heat capacities

K 1′′ − 1
ε Inlet pressure loss parameter, ε ≡ , where K1′′ is given by eq. (2).
2

ζ Ratio of density of entrained air to the nozzle fluid.

η1′ Efficiency of fuel jet nozzle, defined by eq. (A4)

ηD Efficiency of the diffuser, defined by eq. (4)

P1′ − Pa + ρ 1′U 1′ 2
ξ Fuel jet nozzle thrust parameter, ξ ≡
ρ1′U 1′ 2

ρ Density

3
Superscripts:

x′ Of the fuel jet stream

x ′′ Of the entrained air stream

Subscripts:

0,1,2,3 At the planes of air inlet, fuel jet nozzle outlet, exit of mixing tube, exit of

diffuser

a Ambient

f At fuel inlet (Pf = stagnation pressure)

4
1. INTRODUCTION

Over the last sixty years, numerous papers have been published on the performance of

jet pumps, ejectors and injectors. These terms are variously used for devices to carry

out a similar process: the use of a high velocity fluid jet to entrain a larger quantity

from another stream and hence pump the fluid in that stream to higher pressure.

According to the definition adopted in a review by Sun and Eames [1], the term

‘ejector’ is applied to a device for evacuating a vessel, whereas an ‘injector’ pumps

gas to a higher pressure when that is required. Where the fluid is a liquid, ‘jet pump’

may be used for either application.

The above review paper concentrates on applications with supersonic primary fluid.

However, the context of the present study is the application of injectors to gas burners

in which the primary fluid is normally supplied at less than 0.1 bar. Some of the early

papers to be reviewed later treat this situation, but it was found that the results were

not easily applied to a design problem where the ratio of injector passage area to

burner flow area was to be optimised for maximum entrainment of air by a fuel jet.

Moreover, the effects of resistance to flow at inlet and outlet to such injectors do not

seem to have been studied systematically.

The following simple calculation based on the same physical principles as earlier

studies of constant area mixing in the injector passage was therefore developed. It

was then checked against an iterative procedure with more accurate treatment of fluid

properties, against calculations in the literature, and finally against experimental data

from a prototype burner. The result is that the method is shown to have sufficient

5
accuracy for all practical purposes, and can be applied with ease to new design

conditions. Systematic variations of the independent parameters have been undertaken

and these results give an indication (without further calculation) of the magnitude of

the mass entrainment ratio to be expected.

2. CALCULATION PROCEDURE

The system considered is shown in Fig. 1, where the numerical subscripts denoting

the stages of the injector are shown, and the problem is treated one-dimensionally. A

central fuel jet having stagnation pressure Pf exits from a jet nozzle of area A1′ with

static pressure P1′ , density ρ1′ and velocity U 1′ , and there it is surrounded by air at

static pressure P1′′ (and the other parameters are similarly labelled), having been

drawn from stagnation in the atmosphere at Pa through an orifice having area A0′′ into

an area surrounding the jet A1′′ . Mixing takes place in a duct of constant area

A2 = A1′ + A1′′ . The mixture then diffuses to an area A3 and is discharged through a

burner and combustion chamber to stagnation at atmospheric pressure with a

resistance coefficient K3

ρ 3U 32 ρ 3U 32
K3 ≡ P3 − Pa + (1)
2 2

The air inlet has a total pressure loss coefficient K 1′′ from stagnation at Pa to plane 1

where

ρ1′′U 1′′2 ρ 1′′U 1′′2

K 1′′ ≡ Pa − P1′′− , (2)
2 2

the flow being treated as incompressible because the Mach number is<<1.

6
The fuel nozzle has an efficiency η1′ and the compressibility of the flow within it must

often be recognised, but when the pressure ratio is close to unity, it too can be

described by the incompressible form

ρ1′U 1′2 ρ1′U 1′2

K 1′ ≡ Pf − P1′ − (3).
2 2

1 − η1′
where K 1′ = . The calculation of these air and fuel inlet parameters is described
η1′

in Appendix I.

Now if the diffuser has an efficiency defined conventionally as

P3 − P2
ηD ≡ , (4)
1   A 
2

ρ 2U 22 1 −  2  
2   A3  

the overall loss coefficient of the diffuser and burner can be represented by

2
P − Pa A 
K2 ≡ 2 + 1 = (1 − η D ) + (K 3 − 1 + η D ) 2  . (5)
1  A3 
ρ 2U 22
2

Values of the diffuser efficiency can be obtained from diffuser performance charts,

such as those in Ward-Smith [2].

The problem having been thus defined, conservation of mass and axial momentum

can now be applied to determine the relationship between the entrained air velocity

and the fuel jet velocity:

m1′ + m1′′ = ρ1′U 1′ A1′ + ρ 1′′U 1′′A1′′ = ρ 2U 2 A2 = m2 (6)

7
 (P′ + ρ ′U ′ )A′ + (P ′′+ ρ ′′U ′′ )A′′ = (P
1 1 1
2
1 1 1 1
2
1 2 )
+ ρ 2U 22 A2 (7)

Solution of the above set of equations would be straightforward if the density ρ 2 were

not a function of the composition, temperature and ratio of the primary and secondary

flows. This density is determined by

(i) the steady flow energy equation, again in the low Mach number limit, assuming

perfect mixing without reaction,

m1′C ′p1T1′ + m1′′C ′p′1T1′′ = m2 C p 2T2 (8)

where the specific heat capacity for the mixture is given by

m1′C ′p1 + m1′′C ′p′1 = m2 C p 2 (9)

and the inlet temperatures are calculated in Appendix I, and

(ii) the perfect gas law with a gas constant given by

m1′ R1′ + m1′′R1′′ = m2 R2 (10)

The above equations can be solved iteratively (Pintossi, [3]) by taking the properties

at the outlet of the mixing tube to be the same as in the entrained air stream, as a first

approximation, on the basis that for combustion purposes the secondary flow will be

an order of magnitude greater than the primary. (A primary flow of methane has a

molecular weight only 55% of that of air, although this may be alleviated by up to

15% by temperature reduction in the nozzle. Thus if the air:fuel ratio is 10, the density

of the mixture may be about 6% in error.) Having calculated this first approximation

to a mass flow ratio, the properties can then be adjusted and the calculation repeated

to convergence in about 6 iterations.

8
However, as will be seen from the results, in practice the first approximation is

sufficiently accurate for most purposes, and moreover it allows an explicit solution.

P1′ − Pa + ρ 1′U 1′ 2
Dividing equation (7) by ρ1′U 1′ 2 A1′ , putting ξ ≡ , using equations (5)
ρ1′U 1′ 2

and (6) and noting that Pa is eliminated from the other terms,

2 2
 1 − K 1′′  ρ 1′′  U 1′′   A1′′   1 + K 2  ρ 1′U 1′ A1′ + ρ 1′′U 1′′A1′′   ρ 1′′  A1′ + A1′′ 
ξ +      =       (11)
 2  ρ 1′  U 1′   A1′   2  ρ 1′′U 1′ ( A1′ + A1′′)  ρ ′
 1  A ′
1 

which can be manipulated to become

2
 U ′′   U ′′   β 
{ }
ζ α (α + 1)ε + α β  1  + 2αβ  1  +  − ξ (α + 1) = 0
2
(12)
 U 1′   U 1′   ζ 

A1′′ ρ ′′ K +1 K ′′ − 1
where α ≡ ,ζ ≡ 1, β ≡ 2 , ε ≡ 1 . If the nozzle is unchoked, there is no
A1′ ρ1′ 2 2

further loss of accuracy in putting P1′ = P1′′≈ Pa , so that ξ = 1 . Solving the quadratic

(12) yields the mass flow ratio

m1′′ U ′′
= αζ 1 (13)
m1′ U 1′

as a function of the major independent variables, α , ζ β , ε and ξ . Thus if the

property differences between the induced airflow and the fully mixed flow are

ignored,

=
2 2 2
{
m1′′ − αβ + α β + α (α + 1) + α β {ξζ (α + 1) − β } } (14)
m1′ {(α + 1)ε + αβ }

9
3. COMPARISON WITH VARIABLE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS

For a particular area ratio, α=277, an outlet resistance characterised by β=0.661, and

no inlet resistance, the effect of the pressure ratio Pf/Pa on the mass flow ratio was

examined for values of ζ and ξ corresponding to methane, air and propane, with the

results shown in Fig. 2.

There is a small loss of performance as the pressure ratio increases, with a distinct

change of gradient in the mass entrainment ratio at the pressure ratio where the

injection nozzle chokes.

Also shown on Fig. 2 are the results of the iterative calculations using the spread-

sheet developed by Pintossi [3], which was for the choked condition only. With air as

the injection fluid, even at pressure ratios leading to temperatures some 50K lower

than ambient in the choked jet, the difference in the two sets of results is negligible.

However, the results for methane in the approximation of constant properties are

some 3% too high, while those for propane are some 3% low.

4. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS WORK

The first calculations similar to those in the previous section were carried out by

Keenan and Neumann [4]. They had no diffuser or outlet resistance and studied

constant area mixing with injection of air from a choked nozzle over a range of α up

to 1000. It was shown that optimum injection in their configuration occurred with the

10
nozzle outlet slightly upstream of the throat. However, the difference in entrainment

from the case with the injector at the throat was only a few percent.

Two area ratios were chosen for comparison of their data with the present

calculations, with the results shown in the Table below.

α Pf/Pa ξ ζ m1′′ / m1′ K&N [4] Present Approx

Measurement Calculation Calculation Calculation
Eq. (14) Eq. (15)
1024 4.09 1.39 0.39 28 32 31 33
1024 7.53 1.54 0.21 21 24 24 26

256 4.06 1.38 0.39 13 15 15 17

256 6.10 1.49 0.26 11 13 12 14

Essentially the calculations are in agreement, while their experimental data are some

10-15% lower. The asymptotic solution for large α and β=1 developed in Appendix II,

m1′′
= 2ξζα (15)
m1′

is seen to be only some 7% too high for an area ratio of 1024, and provides a useful

means of rapid estimation.

Von Elbe and Grumer [5] developed calculations which were specifically for low

pressure methane mixtures injected into burner tubes. They examined the effect of

having the injection plane upstream of the venturi entrance, as well as the effects of

tube length, gas flow rate, ignition and orientation of the flame. Their calculations

contained two empirical parameters to characterise the momentum fluxes, and these

were apparently sufficient to describe all the data. However, the significance of these

parameters is not obvious.

11
Another major contribution from over 50 years ago was that of Kastner and Spooner

[6], who examined experimentally a range of venturi and diffuser geometries in

association with area ratios up to 1110. Their interest was in the performance of their

‘ejectors’ in creating suction at inlet. Consequently, in some of their experiments there

was a variable inlet loss coefficient that is not easily translated to ε: in others there

was variable outlet loss. They showed, however, that the optimum mixing tube length

is about 7.5 diameters, and with this length, they confirmed that the optimum nozzle

outlet position is close to the mixing tube throat.

In a very comprehensive set of calculations, Francis [7] developed the theory for gas

burners, and compared his predictions with the experimental data of Kastner and

Spooner [6] and Prigg [8]. Good agreement was found with the former, but Prigg’s

data for mass flow ratio for small area ratios tended to fall well below predictions.

However, these predictions were based on assumptions about the ratio of mixing tube

to burner port area, and the results were therefore inconclusive. Francis’ treatment is

identical in principle to the present one, but this one is easier to appreciate and apply.

The last classic contribution to this field was that of Kentfield and Barnes [9], but

their emphasis was on the performance of ejector pumps of small area ratio (<5).

Similar methods have been codified into design procedures in an ESDU data sheet

[10] that covers area ratios up to 20.

12
5. DESIGN RESULTS

Since the stoichiometric ratios of air to fuel for the gaseous fuels of interest are >14,

only mass flow ratios of this order are to be considered further. Figure 3 shows that,

for a density ratio corresponding to methane injected at low pressure (ξ=1, ζ=1.79), a

modest degree of loss in the diffuser (β=0.793) and no inlet loss (ε = -0.5), an area

ratio of about 50 is sufficient to achieve this mass ratio. Higher injector pressures in

the choked regime give slightly improved performance, but in practice, this is

mitigated somewhat by an increase in injector jet density (a reduction in ζ) which is

seen from Fig. 4 to reduce the entrainment ratio. This mitigation arises because, for

the same momentum, the greater density corresponds to a greater mass flow through

the nozzle. The values of ζ chosen in Fig.4 correspond to the densities of methane, air

and propane in the jet when the driving pressure is Pf/Pa=1.05. It is the decrease in

density ratio as the nozzle injection temperature drops, and then the pressure rises

(after choking), that is the reason for the decrease in the performance for all three

gases as the pressure ratio increases, as already seen in Fig. 2.

Figure 5 illustrates the very dramatic effect of outlet resistance, either through

inefficient diffusion or burner resistance, upon the entrainment performance. With

only a very small resistance and almost perfect diffusion, so that β is only a little

greater than 0.5, mass ratios of over 100 are possible with area ratios α>250. With

perfect diffusion to an area 4 times that of the mixing tube and then a loss coefficient

of 150, so that β=0.793, a mass ratio of 37 is predicted. But with a loss coefficient of

1000, so that β=2.453, the mass ratio is only 14 for α=250.

13
The outlet loss is referenced to the dynamic head in the full area of the mixing tube,

rather than the air inlet, but at large area ratios, ε and β are essentially equivalent, so

that the performance depends just on the sum of these parameters. With high inlet

loss, the device becomes an ‘ejector’ and simply operates at lower pressure than in the

‘injector’ mode when the outlet resistance is dominant. Thus Fig. 6 shows essentially

the same dependence as Fig. 5, with an increment of 2.5 in ε (from –0.5 to 2.0)

reducing the mass ratio to just below the levels calculated for an increment of 1.66 in

β (from 0.79 to 2.45).

A problem of practical interest is one where the area of the burner nozzle, which

determines the fuel throughput, is held constant, and so is the burner outlet area,

which determines the velocity of the fuel-air mixture for a given equivalence ratio.

The objective is to optimise the mixing tube diameter. It has been seen from all the

preceding figures that increasing the mixing tube to nozzle flow area ratio increases

the mass ratio. However, as the mixing tube area approaches that of the outlet, the loss

of the dynamic head in the jet from the outlet becomes more significant, and so there

is an optimum. This is seen in Fig. 7 as a minimum in the predicted equivalence ratio.

For the example chosen, a burner to nozzle area ratio of 1736, the minimum occurs

for mixing tube: nozzle area ratios of about 100, and with a burner loss coefficient of

150, equivalence ratios of less than 0.8 could not be achieved without a very efficient

diffuser.

14
6. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS

A small-scale laboratory burner was constructed with the essential features of the

injection equipment design shown in Fig. 1. Three configurations were tested having

mixing tube length:diameter ratios of 7.5 (‘long’) and 2.5 (‘short’), and no mixing

tube at all. The throat of the air inlet and the mixing tube (when fitted) had a diameter

of just 20 mm, and with a nozzle internal diameter of 1.2 mm, the area ratio was 277.

Diffusion after the mixing tube (or throat) was to a diameter of 50 mm over a length

of 315 mm, giving a half-angle of 2.7º.

In the first set of ‘calibration’ experiments, the actual burner section was omitted and

replaced by an orifice of 20 mm diameter, on which was mounted a rotameter with a

light-weight float. The top of the rotameter exhausted to the laboratory. The

calibration of this rotameter was checked against a Fisher TM-24X device with forced

flow. The purpose of the rotameter was to calibrate the suction pressure in the throat

of the air inlet against the air flow rate, so that this pressure could subsequently be

used to measure the flow when only the burner was in place. With a heavier float, the

resistance would have prevented the flow rates of interest from being obtained.

However, because the pressure across the rotameter had to support the weight of the

float in a passage of varying dimensions, it varied much less with flow rate than a

fixed resistance. Thus, this configuration was one where the loss coefficient K3 varied

with flow rate, over the range from 2500 to 700, so that β was between 32 and 10. In

all these cases, the diffuser efficiency and the exit pressure loss coefficient were

calculated from pressure measurements and the resulting value of β fed into the

calculation of entrainment ratio.

15
Because of inefficiency in the nozzle, which was constructed from 40 mm of

hypodermic tube projecting from a larger diameter one, the nozzle did not quite choke

at the highest overall pressure ratio of 2.6, and so ξ=1 throughout this first set of

experiments. The measured flow rate through the nozzle was the primary independent

variable that was fed into the calculations of entrainment ratio, so as to predict the

entrained airflow.

All three mixing tube arrangements were tried with air injection through the nozzle,

with the results shown in Fig. 8. Also shown are data for the inlet restricted by a

circular plate to a 1 mm annulus which gave an inlet to throat area ratio of 0.5 and

ε=0. The pressure ratio range across the nozzle resulted in the density ratio ζ varying

from 1 down to 0.76. Finally, there are two results for methane injection, with

ζ =1.79.

Very satisfactory agreement of the predicted entrainment with that measured is seen

in all the data, apart from those with no mixing tube. The experimental results with air

injection and the optimum length of mixing tube (according to Kastner and Spooner

[6], 7.5 diameters) are actually better than predicted by about 10%, and this is a

significant discrepancy in relation to the uncertainties in the data. Shortening the

mixing tube to just 2.5 diameters only degraded the performance by about 10%,

bringing it into line with theory.

In the second set of experiments, the burner was in place and firing methane, the

nozzle flow being a mixture of methane and a diluent (usually CO2 to simulate a

16
biogas, but sometimes N2), except in one case when it was air and there was no

combustion. The density ratio ζ for the methane/diluent injection varied from 1.5 to

0.9 due to falling injection temperature (resulting from acceleration in the nozzle) and

composition. With the pressure ratio across the nozzle going up to 2.7, a few

conditions were choked, with ξ rising to 1.23. The Reynolds number in the mixing

tube ranged from 2000 to 12000, In some cases, burner and flame pressure losses

were fed into the calculations, together with the pressure rise up the diffuser. In other

cases, the averages of the results derived from the measurements (K3=150 and ηD=0.8)

were assumed, thus allowing predictions for the whole burner, rather than just for the

entrainment system. It is the predicted entrained airflows that are again compared

with the measurements in Fig. 9.

The experimental results from this set divide into four groups. The one with the long

mixing tube and air through the nozzle agrees precisely with the theory. Those with

the long mixing tube and methane/diluent lie some 10% lower than predicted, while

one set with the short mixing tube and the inlet restriction are 25% below. (This last

result is not consistent with the earlier one in the calibration experiments, possibly due

to uncertainty in the throat pressure calibration for the tight inlet restriction). With no

mixing tube, there is a degradation in performance by some 40%, which is consistent

with the calibration results.

17
7. CONCLUSION

The indications of the comparison with experimental results in the range of Reynolds

number from 2000 to 12000 is that the mass entrainment of an injector, consisting of a

nozzle set with its outlet at the throat of a well-profiled air inlet and feeding a mixing

tube of 7.5 diameters, can be predicted to within 10% for a wide range of fluid density

ratios and Mach numbers in the nozzle. Failure to treat property variations accurately

in the conservation equations results in errors of only about 3%.

The area ratio was 277 for these experiments and dependence on this parameter has

not been tested. However, this dependence is the same as that found theoretically and

experimentally by Keenan and Neumann [4], who tested area ratios up to 1100.

The outlet loss parameter was varied over a wide range in these experiments, although

it was ensured in the calculations that the exit of the mixing tube had approximately

the measured pressure relative to the injector inlet. There is therefore some confidence

in the validity of the results that have been generated by systematic variation of the

inlet and outlet loss parameters for preliminary design purposes. Moreover, design

calculations for a geometrically similar injector and burner of twice the scale of the

apparatus used in this study (with Reynolds numbers in the range 6000-20000) have

since been confirmed experimentally to within the expected ±10%.

18
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The assistance of a Third-year Project Student, Flavia Pintossi, in programming the

iterative calculation to account for variable properties, and in surveying the literature,

is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Sun, D-W and Eames, I.W, Recent developments in the design theories and

application of ejectors - a review, J.Inst. Energy, 1995, 68:65-79.

2. Ward-Smith, A.J., Internal fluid flow, 1980, New York:Oxford University

Press.

3. Pintossi, F, Naturally aspirated domestic gas burner, Third Year Project

Report, Queen Mary, 2001.

4. Keenan, J.H. and Neumann, E.P, A simple air ejector, J. Applied

Mechanics, 1942, June, A-75-81.

5. Von Elbe, G. and Grumer, J, Air entrainment in gas burners, Ind. and Eng,

Chemistry, 1948, 40:6, 1123-1129.

6. Kastner, L.J. and Spooner, J.R., An investigation of the performance and

design of the air ejector employing low pressure air as the driving fluid, Proc.

Instn. Mech. Engnrs, 1950, 162:149-166.

7. Francis, W.E, A generalised procedure for optimum design of injectors,

ejectors and jet pumps, Inst. Gas Engineers Journal, 1964, June, 399-414.

19
8. Prigg, J.A., Aerated burners, London and Southern-Junior Gas Association,

1955.

9. Kentfield, J.A.C. and Barnes, R.W., The prediction of the optimum

performance of ejectors, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engnrs, 1972, 186: 671-681.

10. Engineering Science Data Sheet 84029, Ejectors and jet pumps – design and

performance for compressible air flow, 1995.

20
 Appendix I: Air and Fuel Inlet Loss Coefficients

Referring to the air entry in Fig. 1, and assuming incompressible flow, the static

pressure in the vena contracta of any restriction is

1
P0′′ = Pa − ρ 1′′U 0′′ 2 (A1)
2

and axial momentum is assumed to be conserved in the expansion to A1′′ , yielding

A0′′  A′′ 
P1′′− P0′′ = ρ1′′U 0′′ 2 1 − 0  (A2)
A1′′  A1′′ 

K1′′ − 1 Pa − P1′′ A′′  1 A1′′ 

and ε≡ ≡ − 1 = 1  − 1 (A3)
2 ρ1′′U 1′′ 2
A0′′  2 A0′′ 

However, the fuel supply must in general be considered compressible and, with the

conventional efficiency definition for a nozzle

T01′ − T1′
η1′ ≡ , (A4)
T01′ − T1′s

where T1′s is the isentropic static temperature in the throat,

γ
 1   γ − 1 2  
−1 γ −1
P1′ = Pf 1 − 1 − 1 + M 1′   (A5)
 η1′   2  

If the Mach number in the nozzle is <<1, this becomes

ρ 1′U 1′ 2
Pf = P1′ + (A6)
2η1′

Pf − P1′ 1
so that K 1′ ≡ −1 = −1 (A7)
1
ρ1′U 1′ 2 η1′
2

At all Mach numbers, ρ1′U 1′ 2 = γP1′M 1′ 2 , and thus

21
  Pa 
1 − 
P1′ − Pa  P1′ 
ξ≡ + 1 = +1 (A8)
ρ 1′U 1′ 2 γM 1′ 2

In evaluating ξ and the Mach number for unchoked nozzle conditions, it is sufficiently

accurate for most purposes to assume P1′(= P1′′) ≈ Pa so that ξ=1.

22
 Appendix II: Asymptotic Solutions

The general solution of equation (12), which describes the injector velocity ratio if the

property differences between the induced airflow and the fully mixed flow are

ignored, together with equation (13), is

=
2 2
{ 2
}
m1′′ − αβ + α β + α (α + 1) + α β {ξζ (α + 1) − β }
(A9)
m1′ {(α + 1)ε + αβ }
If ζ ≈ 1 and there are no inlet losses so that ε = -0.5, then in the limit of α → ∞ for

β ≠ 0 .5

m1′′ ξζα
= (A10)
m1′ β − 0 .5

This limit is further simplified if β=1, signifying that there is no diffusion and no

resistance at outlet, to

m1′′
= 2ξζα (A11)
m1′

On the other hand, if β=0.5, the case of perfect diffusion but no resistance,

m1′′
= ξζα (A12)
m1′

23
List of Figure Captions:

Fig. 1. Injector Diagram and Notation

Fig. 2. Variation of Injector Performance with Nozzle Pressure Ratio.

Exact results account for variations in thermal properties.

(α=277, β=0.661, ε=−0.5, ξ varying, ζ varying for a given gas only due to nozzle exit

temperature and pressure)

Fig. 3. Comparison of Injector Performance with Variable Nozzle Pressure Ratio

after Choking

(ζ=1.79, β=0.793, ε=−0.5)

Fig. 4. Comparison of Injector Performance with Varying Density Ratio

(β=0.793, ε=−0.5, ξ=1, Pf/Pa=1.05)

Fig. 5. Comparison of Ejector Performance with Varying Outlet Resistance

(ζ=1.79, ε=−0.5, ξ=1)

Fig. 6. Comparison of Injector Performance with Varying Air Inlet Resistance

(ζ=1.79, ξ=1, β=0.793)

Fig. 7 : Prediction of the Variation of Equivalence Ratio achieved by Injection of a

Pure Methane Jet with Mixing Tube Area (Burner: Jet Area Ratio=1736 fixed),

Diffuser Efficiency and Burner Loss Coefficient (ζ=1.79)

24
Fig 8: Air Entrainment by the Injector

Comparison of Measured Flows in the Calibration Rig with Simple Theory

Fig 9 : Air Entrainment by the Injector

Comparison of Deduced Flows in the Burner Installation

with Simple Theory (CH4 with CO2 Dilution except where indicated)

25
 Combustion
Chamber

Burner

A3

Diffuser

A2

Mixing Tube

′
A1
″
A1 Injector

″ Inlet
A0
Pf

Fig. 1 : Injector Diagram and Notation

26
27
28
29
 30

View publication stats