L.

t>
P187335 N»l V/

AGARD-AG-163

<
I I

<
<

AGARDograph No 163

on

Supersonic Ejectors
Edited by
J.J.Ginoux

DISTRIBUTION A N D AVAILABILITY
O N BACK COVER
 AGARD-AG-163

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(ORGANISATION DU TRAITE DE L'ATLANTIQUE NORD)

AGARDograph No. 163

SUPERSONIC EJECTORS

Edited by

J.J.Ginoux

Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics

72 Chaussee de Waterloo
Rhode-St-Genese
Belgium

The material in this book is an updated version of the Lectures given during Short Courses
organized at the Von Karman Institute in April 1968 and March 1969.
 THE MISSION OF AGARD

The mission of AGARD is to bring together the leading personalities of the NATO nations in the fields of
science and technology relating to aerospace for the following purposes:

- Exchanging of scientific and technical information;

- Continuously stimulating advances in the aerospace sciences relevant to strengthening the common defence
posture;

- Improving the co-operation among member nations in aerospace research and development;

- Providing scientific and technical advice and assistance to the North Atlantic Military Committee in the
field of aerospace research and development;

- Rendering scientific and technical assistance, as requested, to other NATO bodies and to member nations
in connection with research and development problems in the aerospace field.

- Providing assistance to member nations for the purpose of increasing their scientific and technical potential;

- Recommending effective ways for the member nations to use their research and development capabilities
for the common benefit of the NATO community.

The highest authority within AGARD is the National Delegates Board consisting of officially appointed senior
representatives from each Member Nation. The mission of AGARD is carried out through the Panels which are
composed for experts appointed by the National Delegates, the Consultant and Exchange Program and the Aerospace
Applications Studies Program. The results of AGARD work are reported to the Member Nations and the NATO
Authorities through the AGARD series of publications of which this is one.

Participation in AGARD activities is by invitation only and is normally limited to citizens of the NATO nations.

Published November 1972

629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5

frinted by Technical Editing and Reproduction Ltd

Harford House, 7 - 9 Charlotte St. London. W1P 1HD
 PREFACE

Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at the von Karman Institute for Fluid
Dynamics in April 1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72 scientists and engineers
from seven NATO nations participated.

They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant

Professor at VKI, now with Domier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany.

The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the
significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high
performance ejectors.

AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph

in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of copies
were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent requests
for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied.

The two first parts, by Dr H.Uebelhack, cover the classical one-dimensional

inviscid analysis and design methods for ejector systems with second throat diffusers.
In the third part, Professor A.L.Addy presents an ejector flow model, developed at
the University of Illinois, which significantly departs from the one-dimensional analyses.
Mr D.Taylor, Assistant Manager, Facility Support Branch, Engine Test Facility of ARO,
Inc., discusses in the fourth part the ejector design for a variety of applications. Finally,
Dr C.E.Peters, Research Engineer at the Engine Test Facility of ARO, Inc. analyses
ducted mixing and burning of co-axial streams.

The editor is most grateful to these lecturers who, in spite of a very heavy
workload, have kindly agreed to revise and update their original notes.

Jean J.Ginoux
Professor at VKI and
Brussels University.
Editor

iii
 Lecturers

Lecture Series Director Dr H.Uebelhack

Dornier System
Friedrichshafen
Germany.

Professor A.L.Addy
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Department
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois 61801
USA

Mr D.Taylor
Assistant Manager
Facility Support Branch
Engine Test Facility
ARO, Inc.
Tennessee 37389
USA

Dr C.Peters
Research Engineer
Engine Test Facility
ARO, Inc.
Tennessee 37389
USA

Editor

Dr J.J.Ginoux
Professor at VKI and Brussels University
Head of VKI — High Speed Department
 CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE iii

LECTURERS iv

ONE-DIMENSIONAL INVISCID ANALYSIS OF SUPERSONIC EJECTORS

by H.T.Uebelhack 1

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHOD FOR EJECTOR SYSTEMS WITH SECOND

THROAT DIFFUSERS
by H.T.Uebelhack 17

THE ANALYSIS OF SUPERSONIC EJECTOR SYSTEMS

by A.LAddy 31

EJECTOR DESIGN FOR A VARIETY OF APPLICATIONS

by D.Taylor 103

ANALYSIS OF DUCTED MIXING AND BURNING OF COAXIAL STREAMS

by C.E.Peters 165
ONE-DIMENSIONAL INVISCID ANALYSIS

OF SUPERSONIC EJECTORS

by

H.T.Uebelhack

Lecture Series Director

Dornier System
Friedrichshafen, Germany
 CONTENTS

Page

NOTATION 4

1. INVISCID ONE-DIMENSIONAL EJECTOR ANALYSIS 5

1.1 Conservation Laws S
1.2 The Supersonic-Saturated Regime 6
1.3 The Supersonic Regime 6
1.4 The Mixed Flow Regime 7

2. FRICTION 8

3. DIFFUSERS 8

4. MIXING CHAMBER LENGTH 8

5. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE 9

6. EJECTOR DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION 9

REFERENCES 10

FIGURES 11-16
 NOTATION

a speed of sound

A cross section

Cf friction coefficient

D diameter

f,q,z dimensionless functions of M

F thrust

L mixing chamber length

HI mass flow

M Mach number

P pressure

R gas constant

T temperature

u velocity

7 specific heat ratio

» mass flow rate

P density

Subscripts

the reference stations are shown in Figure 1

refers to the critical condition (M = 1)

Superscripts

a prime (') is used for the primary jet

a double prime (") is used for the secondary jet

 ONE-DIMENSIONAL INVISCID ANALYSIS
OF SUPERSONIC EJECTORS

H.T.Uebelhack

1. INVISCID ONE-DIMENSIONAL EJECTOR ANALYSIS

Experiments on ejectors have shown that a wide range of operating conditions of an ejector can be described
by fundamental conservation laws. In this analysis the geometry of the ejector is considered known (Fig. 1) and
the calculation yields a set of equations for pj,/p4 , p'd/p4 and the mass flow rate n .

One distinguishes in general two regimes of ejector operations which are termed by Fabri1 as the supersonic
regime and the mixed flow regime. The flow pattern in the ejector for these regimes is shown in Figure 2. The
supersonic regime is characterized by a certain part of the flow in the mixing chamber (which is acting at the same
time as a diffuser) being supersonic over the whole cross section. In this regime the exit pressure p 4 does not
influence the performance characteristics (p'0,Po,i").

This regime can be subdivided into:

(i) the supersonic-saturated regime, where Mj is sonic,
(ii) the actual supersonic regime, 1 > M2' > 0.3 ,
(iii) the supersonic regime with low secondary flow 0.3 > M'2' > 0 (or n •* 0). In this regime viscous effects
cannot be neglected and the present analysis gives poor results when n approaches zero. The limit
between (ii) and (iii) which is indicated by M2' ~ 0.3 is rather arbitrary. This value has been found as
an average in a series of experiments.

In the mixed flow regimes there exists a subsonic region ofthe flow pattern between the secondary flow settling
chamber and the exit of the diffuser (mixing chamber). The exit pressure p 4 thus influences the pressure pJJ in
the secondary settling chamber. The value of pJJ increases when p4 is increased and vice versa (for p. = constant).
Above a certain value of p'2' the flow in the primary nozzle will separate and thus cause the thrust of the nozzle
to decrease and influence the whole characteristic performance. This regime, however, is of little practical interest
and will not be discussed here.

In the following analysis, stagnation enthalpies of the primary and secondary jet are assumed to be equal.

1.1 Conservation Laws

Continuity Equations
The mass flow in a duct is given by

(1)
• , aOPo FT* P* . ,w a
11
- •MT7PTM(M*)' J
where

is a dimensionless function of the Mach number and the specific heat ratio only (Fig.3). It has been found useful
for numerical calculation to introduce dimensionless functions of M# .

Momentum Equation
The momentum equation can be represented by the balance of jet thrusts in different sections of the ejector.
6

The vacuum thrust is defined by

F = pA+pu2A = p 0 A ( l + 7M 2 ) —
Po (3)

or F = p 0 Af(M*)

where
,1/(7-1)
f(M*) (1 ++ M
'*) == (i M h (1 1- . 1 — - 1MMJ
i)( -^T i) . (4)

The quantity F can also be expressed in terms of the mass flow m , using Equation (2).

A A M . . . f(M*)
F = Po T - - V ( M * ) = p 0 A* — • = - . (5)
A* q(M*)
The ratio
f(MJ / 2 \!/(7-l)

where

Z(M,) = M* + TJ- (7)

M
*
.1/(7-1) p
and ( - 1 represents
U + \) Po

Using these relations in the above equation yields

F = Po — A*Z(M # )
Po
IN,
7+1
F = a^mZ(M 4 )
27

1.2 The Supersonic-Saturated Regime

The performance characteristics in this regime can be determined from the condition of sonic velocity at
Station 1 for the primary jet and Station 2 for the secondary jet only.

is
The relation between the mass flow rate <J and the stagnation pressure ratio Po/P 0 found from Equation (1).

. = ^ =£^- (9)
m A, p 0

1.3 The Supersonic Regime

The calculation of this regime is based on the following assumptions, first used in Reference 1.
(i) The primary and the secondary jets are isentropically accelerated between Stations 2 and e (Fig.4).
The mixing of the two jets is neglected.
(ii) The secondary jet reaches sonic speed at Station e.

The performance characteristics of the supersonic regime can thus be determined by applying the conservation
laws between Stations 2 and e.

For the particular case of equal stagnation temperature

=
To TQ and therefore a^ = a£ .

The momentum equation yields (Equation (8))

m'Z 2 + m"Z 2 ' = rii'Z; + m"Z;' . (10)

 Introducing the mass flow rate n = m"/m' and the condition M^e = 1 , Zj = 2 , Equation (10) takes the form

/-2

The mass flow rate n can also be expressed by Equation (1),

rh" p"A'' q(M")

m p 0 A, q(M*,)

Solving this equation for PQ/P 0 and noting that q(M^,) = 1 yields

Po 1 A"
A
Po " i

Equations (11) and (13) represent the solution for the supersonic regime. They relate PQ/PJ, and (i through
the common variable M^e .

In Equation (11) Z 2 is determined by a chosen M^e (0 < M^2 < I). The primary nozzle exit Mach number
determines Z'2 . The secondary jet cross section at e is given by Ae' = A2q(M£2) (continuity) and thus
Ag = A3 — Ajl is known. The area ration Ae/A', determines the primary Mach number Ml^e and Ze .

From Equation (13) p0'/p0 i s found directly. The whole supersonic regime can be determined by repeating
this procedure for all subsonic Ml^2 .

In the diagram in Figure 5 both the supersonic and supersonic-saturated regime are represented by straight lines
passing through the origin of the two coordinates (p0/p4,Po7p4), i-e. there is no dependence on p 4 . The slope of
these straight lines, pjj/pj,, is a function of pi and the actual geometry, A2/A! and A3/A, , only.

1.4 The Mixed Flow Regime

Increasing the exit pressure p 4 of the ejector reduces the length of the fully supersonic part of the flow field
in the mixing chamber until it breaks down (Fig.2.3). Then the flow in the exit of the primary nozzle and in the
center of the mixing chamber is still supersonic whereas the flow near the mixing chamber walls is subsonic. For
most cases, the supersonic jet attaches to one side of the wall (Coanda effect). The secondary flow stagnation
pressure in this regime is a function of the exit pressure p 4 .

The characteristics of this mixed flow regime can be determined by the continuity and momentum equations
applied between Stations 2 and 4.

The momentum equation (no friction) yields

p 0 A' 2 f(M; 2 ) + p X f ( M ; 2 ) = PonA4f(M*4) . (14)

The continuity equation reads

m' + m" = m4

or p 0 A' 1 q(M; i )(l + p) = p 04 A 4 q(M* 4 ) . (15)

Together with the definition of /u ,

" = S" = r 7 ^ q ( M ^ ' 02a)

m p 0 A,
the Equations (14) and (15) display the relation between p 0 /p 4 and PQ/P 4 for a certain mass flow rate. Here also
M+2 is the parameter relating p'o/p'0 and n . To solve the above equations an arbitrary value for pj, is assumed,
p'o then is found from Equation (12a). Equation (14) can be solved for p 04 f(M* 4 ) (introducing the same value
of M^j). In the same manner p 04 q(M A4 ) is found from Equation (15). The exit Mach number MA4 is then
determined by
P 0 4 f(M,-- / 2 \l/(7-DZ(M
p04 q ( M , j-(xh) "'-
The function Z(M#) is double valued. The subsonic solution has to be chosen in this case. The resulting
procedure to determine p 0 4 , pJJ/p4 and p 0 /p 4 is straightforward.
8

If this calculation is repeated for various M^2 the whole characteristic line for the mixed flow regime and for
a constant ii can be determined (Fig.5).

2. FRICTION

In the supersonic regimes, friction does not greatly influence the ejector performance since the distance over
which the secondary flow is accelerated to supersonic speed is rather short (of the order of two diameters).

In the mixed flow regime, however, friction at the mixing chamber walls influences the characteristic line of
this regime. If friction is considered in the theoretical calculation. Equation (14) should read

F'2 + , F ^ ' - F F = F4 , (17)

where F F can be represented approximately by

pL M2 dx
FF = C f 7 P —2 A D
-

In many cases it is justifiable to simplify Equation (18) by introducing the exit Mach number M4 .
Figure 7 shows the effect of friction on the characteristics of the mixed flow regime.

In other words, the pressure losses due to friction reduce p 4 and therefore increase both pressure ratios
p 0 / p 4 and P0/P4 • The characteristic line of the mixed flow regime is shifted as shown in Figure 7.

3. DIFFUSERS

In the preceding calculations the effect of the subsonic diffuser was not taken into account. The best possible
influence of a subsonic diffuser following Station 4 has already been given in the calculations in Section 1.4, where
p 4 and p 0 4 were determined through M^ 4 . In the ideal case, p s would equal p 0 4 (100% diffuser efficiency).
In most practical applications M A4 varies in the narrow range between 0.45 and 0.65 only. Assuming a mean exit
velocity of M # 4 = 0.55 and a diffuser efficiency of 75%, we would get an improvement in pressure ratios of 15%.
This value was found as a mean value in many experiments. The improvement of the mixed flow characteristic is
shown in Figure 8 for a p = constant line.

The pressure recovery in the mixing chamber can still be increased by using a second throat (Fig. 1). Here, the
important parameters are the contraction ratio A3/A3< and the position of the second throat with respect to the
primary nozzle exit, X/D 3 .

It was found 3 that an additional improvement in pressure recovery of the order of 30% (p 0 /p 4 ,p 0 /p 4 ) can be
realized in the transitional regime between mixed flow regime and supersonic regime (Fig.8) by a second throat.
The influence of a second throat will be discussed in detail and a calculation method will be presented in the
following chapter of this Agardograph.

4. MIXING CHAMBER LENGTH

The effect of the mixing chamber length on the ejector characteristics is shown in the experimental curve in
Figure 9. The influence of friction has already been shown in Figure 7. Using schlieren photography, one can
observe that at transition from the supersonic to the mixed flow regime a minimum length of the mixing chamber
is required in order to get approximately a uniform flow and the exit pressure p 4 . Figure 10 shows the typical
pressure distribution in the mixed flow regime, very close to transition to the supersonic regime.

From Figure 10 it can be concluded that for this particular ejector configuration and mass flow rate the
optimum mixing chamber length is ( L / D ) o p t = 12 . For larger values of L/D , the exit pressure decreases due to
friction. At lower L/D than (L/D) o p t it is not possible to reach ( p 4 ) o p t . The supersonic regime breaks down
sooner. This effect is more drastic than the effect of friction (Fig.9). It is therefore advisable to choose a
L/D > ( L / D ) o p t .

The main parameters which determine the optimum length of an ejector are:
(i) the area ratio A 3 /A, which determines the initial Mach number. At higher Mach numbers (or higher
A 3 /A,) the shock waves angles are smaller and the whole supersonic flow pattern (i.e., at transition to
the mixed flow regime) is stretched out. A larger L/D is required.
 (ii) the mass flow rate p . Larger mass flow rates smooth the above-mentioned effect. This is, however, an
upper limit of pi for the addition of a second throat.
(iii) the nozzle outlet angle. Larger nozzle outlet angles provoke a stronger interaction of the primary jet
with the secondary jet and the wall. The resulting shock waves are stronger and steeper. A lower
(L/D) o p t is therefore to be expected.

5. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE

The ejector performance characteristics were derived in Section 1 for equal stagnation enthalpies of both jets.
In the case of different stagnation enthalpies the energy equation has to be used in order to determine T 0 4 at the
exit.

In the calculation for the mixed flow regime a complete mixture of the two jets must be assumed.

In calculating the characteristics of the supersonic regime the additional assumption of no heat exchange between
Stations 2 and e is necessary.

The simplest way to show the temperature influence is to look at the supersonic-saturated regime.

From Equation (I) it follows that

p
oA . .
in = —f= x constant .
VTo

Thus, for different T 0 , Equation (9) yields

u = ^ lo
A; P ^ T ; ;
(19)
fn A2' pi

The characteristics derived for equal stagnation temperatures TJ, = TJJ can be used when the parameter p is
replaced by pTjJ/Tj, . The calculation of the supersonic regime yields the same result.

In References 4 and 5 the theoretical calculations and experimental verification are presented. Figure 11 shows
the influence of TjJ/Tj, on the supersonic regimes.

6. EJECTOR DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

The given data for the design of an ejector are mostly the total pressure of the secondary gas p„ , its mass flow
rh" and the ambient pressure p s . The design problem is to determine and to optimize the geometry of the ejector
and the mass flow rate n .

The form of the equations in Section 1 shows that an optimization of the ejector geometry, i.e. to find the
most economic geometry for the data given above, cannot be found easily.

In many cases, however, the mass flow rate is limited or fixed to a rather narrow range. The calculations there-
fore have to be performed for one or two values of n only. Figure 5 shows that the optimum operational conditions
are at transition from the supersonic to the mixed flow regime. The point of transition should be considered as the
design point. It has to be recalled that it is displaced when a second throat or a subsonic diffuser is added.

It can also be concluded from the equations in Section I that the parameter A 4 /A', (respectively A 3 /A',) has
the greatest influence on the position of the transition point.

An easy approach to the desired optimization is to choose two limits for p and to calculate the characteristics
ju = constant. If the best combination of p and A4/A", is found, the geometry can still be improved by varying
Aj/A', and by adding a supersonic-subsonic diffuser.

The primary mass flow rh' is determined by p . The total pressure p'0 at transition then determines the
primary throat cross section A', and thus the whole ejector geometry.
10

The problem of the optimization of ejectors is discussed in detail in Reference 6. In the case of very low
required pressure ratios PQ/P 5 a two stage configuration might be considered. The characteristics for a two stage
ejector are developed and compared with the single stage ejector characteristics in Reference 7.

Finally Reference 8 should be mentioned; this contains a list of almost all papers on ejectors published before
1965.

REFERENCES

1. Fabri, J. Theorie et experimentation des ejecteurs supersoniques air-air. ONERA NT 36, 1956.
Paulon, J.

2. Lukasiewicz, J. Supersonic Diffusers. ARC R & M 2501, 1946.

3. Uebelhack, H. Supersonic Air-Air Ejectors with Second Throat Diffuser. VKI TN 28.

4. Leistner, G. Experimented und theoretische Untersuchungen an einem Hochtemperatur-Uber-

schallejektor mit zylindrischer Mischkammer. Ph.D. Thesis, T.H.Darmstadt, 1966.

5. Le Grives, E. Divers regimes de melange de deux flux d'enthalpies d'arret diffirentes. ONERA
Fabri, J. T P 4 1 1 , 1966.

6. Calvet, P. Performances d'ejecteurs supersoniques air-air a milangeur cylindrique. Revue Generale

de Thermique, Jan. 1965.

7. Loser, H. Untersuchungen an ein- und zweitstufigen Uberschallejektoren mit zylindrischer

Mischkammer. Ph.D. Thesis, T.H.Darmstadt, Germany, 1965.

8. Seddon, J. Ejectors and Mixing of Streams. RAE Library Bibliography No. 252.
Dyke, M.
 II

NOZZLE 3 3'

AIR SETTLING SUPERSONIC DIFFUSER

CHAMBER (SECOND THROAT)

MIXING CHAMBER

Fig. 1 Diagram of a supersonic ejector and reference stations

FIG.2.1 SUPERSONIC REGIME NORMAL SHOCK WAVE

IN THE DIFFUSER

PC PPPx=* -i
A —

SUPERSONIC PORTION

FIG. 2.2 SUPERSONIC REGIME CLOSE TO TRANSITION

FIG. 2 3 MIXED FLOW REGIME

/0>^>c
FIG. 2 4 MIXED FLOW REGIME SUPERSONIC JET
ATTACHED TO ONE SIDE

FIG. 2 5 MIXED FLOW REGIME WITH SEPARATION IN

PRIMARY NOZZLE

Fig.2 Flow patterns in a supersonic ejector. Rising exit pressure from top to bottom
12

f
(M*)
"(Mm)
1.2
Jtoti
8

q
(Mm)

.4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 /V.

5.0
Z(M„)

4.0

3.0
Z(M*)

2.0

1.0

0 .4 .6 12 1.6 2.0 2.4 M+

Fig.3 Dimensionless functions of M#

Fig.4 Supersonic regime

 13

Fig.5 Ejector performance characteristics

w 1 .3
*2
A4
EXPERIMENTAL 6 2 5
Aj '
A /J. 1
1.0
• /V Am
*2 * = 2.78 O
^
A]
o
0.8
G >a^ >REF (1)

0.6 v^ i ^ S ^

o sf/r
0

0.4

02
• A / /
o
o A
A
o
&
0 ° 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 006 0.09 Po '
Po

Fig. 6 Supersonic regime

14

P"

.3

.2
EXPERIMENTS A L/D = 13
a L/D = 17

10 P±_
P
4

Fig.7 Effect of friction influence

Pc Po 1 . AM
p~ WITH \ 6.25
p* s 4',
SUBSONIC \
DIFFUSER \
5
A2
2.76
A1
\
4 ^•

SUBSONIC \ \ tf
DIFFUSER \ }
.3 ANL3 \
SECON,D \
THRO
A
2 \ y^

.1

P<

Fig.8 Influence of a subsonic diffuser and a second throat

 15

A-,.
-Tr- =6.25
Ai
6 A
A'l
- =2.78 *'S
A'I
X

4
S ./*

UPb*A
S^/y*
/fP EXPERIMENTAL
^ 0 L/D * 6
A L/D= 7
2
0 L/D = 6
V L/D= 9

10 12 Pa'

Fig.9 Influence of diffuser length

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 76 <-/r 20

Fig. 10 Pressure distribution in the mixing chamber, mixed flow regime

16

M
A
0.5 - 1 -

0.4

0.3
Mjm.2*

02

01

0
0.0 PQ_

Fig. 11 The influence of TQ/TJ, on the supersonic and supersonic-saturated regime, from Reference 4
 17

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHOD

FOR EJECTOR SYSTEMS WITH

SECOND THROAT DIFFUSERS

by

H.T.Uebelhack

Lecture Series Director

Dornier System
Friedrichshafen, Germany
18
 19

CONTENTS

Page

NOTATION 20

1. INTRODUCTION 21

2. THE EJECTOR CHARACTERISTICS DIAGRAM AND THE

INFLUENCE OF A SECOND THROAT DIFFUSER 21

3. FLOW MODEL 22

4. ANALYSIS 22

5. THE SECOND THROAT CONTRACTION RATIO 24

6. THE EJECTOR STARTING PRESSURES 24

7. DESIGN PROCEDURE 25

8. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS 25

REFERENCES 26

FIGURES 26-30
20

NOTATION

a speed of sound

A cross-section

D diameter, drag

h step height

L diffuser length

m mass flow

M Mach number

P pressure

T temperature

x longitudinal coordinate

y lateral coordinate or step coordinate

7 specific heat ratio

e separation angle

M mass flow ratio

p density

Subscripts

stagnation conditions

before separation

behind separation

behind reattachment

diffuser outlet section, Figure 3

* throat section

second throat section

nozzle outlet section

separation, starting (ejector)

Superscripts

a prime refers to primary jet

a double prime refers to secondary jet

 21

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHOD

FOR EJECTOR SYSTEMS WITH
SECOND THROAT DIFFUSERS

H.T.Uebelhack

1. INTRODUCTION

A second throat diffuser reduces the driving pressure as well as the suction pressure of an ejector system by up
to 30% as compared to the diffuser system with a constant cross-section diffuser. In order-to benefit from this
improvement in performance the improved starting characteristics of a second throat ejector must be known. Only
then can the whole ejector geometry, in particular the diameters in the various sections, be adapted to certain
requirements.

The performance characteristics (i.e. Pp/p 4 as a function of pj,/p 4 and M) can be determined by inviscid one-
dimensional theories 1,2 and in the lower secondary mass flow regime by additional considerations of viscous
interactions 3 . The difficulty in calculating the improved performance characteristics of a second throat ejector
system consists in determining the pressure integral over the contraction part of the supersonic (second throat)
diffuser which is required in the momentum balance.

Efforts have been made in the past decade at AEDC, Tullahoma, Tennessee, USA, to develop prediction
methods for the zero secondary flow ejector systems 4 , 5 . Extensive experimental studies at VKI, Rhode-Saint-Genese,
Belgium, on this problem have revealed two features of the second throat ejector system which can be used in
developing a prediction method for these systems:
(i) The ramp angle of the contraction portion of the supersonic diffuser is of negligible importance to the
overall ejector characteristics. Angles up to 90° were investigated. The 90° step type contraction,
therefore, can be used in defining a flow model for the second throat system. Results of studies of the
supersonic separated flow field in front of s t e p s 6 - 8 , in particular the drag of the step, can be introduced
into the analysis.
(ii) The starting pressure ratio (p' 0 /p 4 ) s is not affected by small secondary mass flows. The starting pressure
ratio which is at the same time the pressure ratio for the design and operation of a second throat ejector
system, can therefore be determined for zero secondary mass flow. This ratio remains constant for
secondary mass flow ratios up to n ~ 0.25, which is also the limit for second throat diffuser operations.

In the following paragraphs a flow model based on the above observations will be defined which permits the
determination of the starting and operating characteristics of a second throat ejector system. The working equations
will be derived briefly and the design procedure is described. The limits of application are discussed and comparisons
with experiments are made.

2. THE EJECTOR CHARACTERISTICS DIAGRAM AND THE

INFLUENCE OF A SECOND THROAT DIFFUSER

The representation of the ejector performance characteristics will be the same as the one utilized in the one-
dimensional analysis in Chapter 1 of this Agardograph. For a better understanding of the final results, the influence
of different diffuser shapes should be briefly demonstrated in a schematic performance characteristic diagram.

In Figure 1 the performance characteristics for an arbitrary ejector system and one mass flow ratio, n , is
shown. The branch marked 0 represents the supersonic regime. The exit pressure has no infleunce on the
secondary pressure pj| in this operational mode. The mixed flow regime, where the secondary pressure is usually
highly influenced by the exit pressure is represented by the branches 1, 2 and 3 for various diffuser shapes. The
curve 1 would be typical for a constant cross-section diffuser without, and the curve 2 with, a subsonic (divergent)
diffuser part. A contraction of the diffuser pipe will act as a supersonic diffuser and will deliver a characteristic
line shown as curve 3. The branch marked 4 would be the mixed flow regime with separation in the driving nozzle,
an operational mode of merely academic interest.

In the following representation only the intersection points between the mixed flow and the supersonic regime
will be shown for various mass flow ratios, n . Those starting points give at the same time design and operational
condition. For given geometry and mass flow they represent an optimum (minimum pJJ) operation.
22

3. FLOW MODEL

As mentioned earlier the flow model used in the following calculation is based on two features of second throat
diffusers which have mainly been found experimentally:
(i) the angle of the contraction part of a second throat diffuser has no influence on the overall starting and
operational conditions of the system. The experimental results of flows over rectangular front steps can
thus be introduced in the momentum balance during the analysis.
(ii) the starting pressure ratio of the driving gas is for second throat systems, in contrast to constant cross-
section diffusers, independent of the secondary mass flow. The analysis to determine the driving pressure
of a second throat system carried out for zero secondary mass flow, therefore, is also valid for operations
with secondary mass flow up to n ca 0.25 .

In addition the following assumption and methods will be introduced for the calculation of the starting character-
istics of a second throat system:

The calculations of the base pressure p^ , the initial pressure p, , initial Mach number M, , and finally the
step pressure integral are carried out successively.
(iii) The base pressure pJJ can be determined in several different ways:
(a) By means of Korst's base pressure theory, i.e. the combination of the shear layer characteristics with
an appropriate reattachment criterion (Ref.3).
(b) Higher secondary mass flows are treated by the one-dimensional ejector theory presented in Chapter 1
of this Agardograph.
(c) Conical nozzles of 10 to 20° half-angle produce a base pressure (with zero mass bleed) which is very
close to the static pressure of an isentropic expansion from stagnation conditions to the diffuser area
ratio, A d /A* (Fig.2).
(d) Contoured nozzles of zero outlet angle produce an appreciably lower base pressure which can be
taken from Figure 2 for various geometries (experimental results).
(iv) The jet boundary Mach number is determined by the isentropic two-dimensional expansion from stagnation
to base pressure at zero secondary flow.
(v) The flow angle of the jet boundary is given by a two-dimensional Prandtl-Meyer expansion at the exit of
the nozzle.
(vi) The initial pressure p, and the initial Mach number \S\, are then calculated by the two-dimensional
oblique shock equations. The geometrical parameter, A,j/Ae , which determines the relative length of the
jet boundary, must be less than four in order to avoid curvature of the jet boundary due to the axisymmetric
nature of the flow. In practical applications A(j/Ae is not larger than two.
The step pressure integral will be calculated by the experimentally obtained relation7'8

„ . ft* = 1.1 M . (1)

J Pi h

4. ANALYSIS
In the following analysis the major aim is to determine the one-dimensional supersonic Mach number in the
section after the contraction. The pressure recovery then can be determined by normal shock equations.

Apart from two-dimensional considerations in the region between the nozzle exit plane and the contraction
plane, the calculation is strictly one-dimensional.
 23

Conservation Laws
The momentum equation applied over a control volume (Fig.3) between the nozzle exit (subscript e) and the
second throat contraction (subscript **) yields

Ad Ae
pj^(1 +7 M | . ) + 4 ' -fm% Ad
; A
** = f S S - ^ ^ S d + T M l U ) . (2)
Po A* Po A* stJp p,h p0 A* Po** Po A*

the equation having been normalized by p' 0 A*. The calculation will be carried out as stated in Section 3 for zero
secondary mass flow.

Equating the mass flows in the primary nozzle throat section and in the second throat section yields

u
** _ P* A+
a
(3)
* P** A**

The ratio u ^ / a # in this equation represents the "star" Mach number in the second throat section, ( M A ) ^ .
Equation (3) can be further transformed into

P* Po Po** A*
(M*)** = Po? Po** P** A** ' (4)

where p' 0 is the density in the primary settling chamber (pressure pj,) and p 0 * * • P 0 **/RT 0 . The density ratios
can be expressed by the local Mach number through the energy equation and isentropic flow relations

2 \»«7-» pn * * 2 1/(7-0
PjP
• • ' & $ P** -O* ^-*-) (5)

The state equation yields for adiabatic flow, T 0 = T j , ,

Po**/Po =
Po**/Po • (6)

Introducing Equations (5) and (6) into Equation (4), we get

/ 22 y/( 7 -D//
y/w-u 77_
- i1 y/(7-D
v K ^
Mi (7)
A** Po**

The relation between the Mach number M AA in the second throat and the "star" Mach number (M^) + + based
on the critical speed of sound, a*, is
11/2
7+ 1 I
(M*)« (8)
7-1. + 2 I
7 - 1 M^j

Introducing Equation (8) into Equation (7) and solving for A ^ p J , ^ / A # p J , yields

1/2
2 \l/(7-D/ T - l 1/(7-0 7 - . / 2
Po** A ^ _ ' 1+ 1 +
(9)
M**
Po A # \y +1 7 + 1 V" ( 7 - DMJ,

When Equation (9) is introduced into Equation (2) and P**/p 0 ** is replaced by

1 \(T-D/7
**. -
Po**
(.•^n.)
fi-f
V
MJ
7
2
(10)

the right-hand side (RHS) of Equation (2) becomes a function of the Mach number in the second throat section only:

/ _ _ , \(7-0/7/ 2 \*/(7-l)/ 7 - l \l K f l ) y - 1 1/2

RHS = 1 + 1 + (l+7Mi*)-(2a)
7+ 1 (7-DMJ

This form of Equation (2a) enables one to determine the Mach number M*A , which itself permits the calculation of
the ratio of the total pressures, P 0 **/P o • T h e M a c h number M4 in the exit section and the pressure ratio p 0 * * / P 4
24

can then be calculated by normal shock equations. This finally enables one to calculate the starting pressure ratio of
the second throat ejector system, (PQ/P 4 ) S by

Pot Po (11)
(Po/PA =
P4 P 0 * *

5. THE SECOND THROAT CONTRACTION RATIO

Experiments have shown that the decrease of the ejector starting pressure, (pj,/p4)s of a second throat system
is approximately proportional to the second throat contraction ratio A ^ / A j (Refs.9,10). It is therefore desirable
to know and to work with the lowest value of J ^ ^ / A J for which starting is possible.

The limit of the contraction ratio, A ^ / A j , can be calculated by one-dimensional flow equations and the
following argument:

When starting the ejector system (increasing pj,/p4) a normal shock wave moves downstream.

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

M rf >/ M<l

/ / / / / / / / l / / / / / J J / y / / / / / / / / ? / - /

The mass flow in the system must be swallowed by the second throat. The limiting contraction of the second
throat is thus dictated by the necessary re-acceleration of the subsonic flow behind the shock wave to sonic velocity.
A further decrease of the second throat section would cause choking and would make it impossible to start the
second throat system. The contraction limit turns out to be a function of the supersonic Mach number before the
second throat only:
/ 2 2
- i V 2 / 27 V / C lr )- i ) / 2 1 \ "2 / 7 - 1 1 \i/(7-D
*** = (i^iy (ji_\^- (,, 1+
2 _Lv A 7-1 IV
r — 1 f l - 7-~— — \ . (12)
Ad \, 7
7 ++1 l/ / \V77++ l1// V
V 2 7 M2J
27 77 -- l1MMy y V"
V
For Mach numbers Mj approaching infinity the contraction ratio approaches asymptotically to A#A/A,j = 0.6
for 7 = 1.4 .

The lower limit of the contraction ratio /V^/A,- was also determined experimentally9'11. It is shown in
Figure 4 as a function of the nozzle exit area ratio A e /A # . Because of the three-dimensionality of the flow during
the starting process (flow separation, oblique shock waves), this limit was found to be lower than that obtained from
a one-dimensional calculation. For high expansion rates (A e /A* > 10) it is practically constant and takes the value
A ^ / A d = 0.47 .

6. THE EJECTOR STARTING PRESSURES

The ejector starting pressures pj,/p4 and (pj,/p4)s were computed by the one-dimensional theory and by the
present method (outlined in Section 3) for two second throat contraction ratios: that given by Equation (12) and
the experimental limit of Figure 4. The starting secondary pressure ratio pJJ/p4 has been determined by the one-
dimensional theory.

In Figure 5, the starting pressures of the constant cross-section diffuser and the second throat diffusers are
plotted as a function of the diffuser inlet area ratio Aj/.A* and compared. It is evident from this figure that it is
not worthwhile to use a second throat diffuser at area ratios smaller than A d /A A = 8 . At area ratios above
Ad/A* = 20 the benefit (i.e. the reductions of the starting pressure) obtained by a second throat diffuser remains
approximately constant.

Figures 6 and 7 show the ejector starting pressures for various geometries in the ejector characteristics diagram
and Figure 8 represents a composite of these diagrams. They enable the choice of a tentative ejector geometry
(Ad/A*, A e /j\* and A ^ / A j ) which meets certain prescribed requirements (pj,/p4, PQ/P 4 , /-")• The exact calculation
of the ejector characteristics of the chosen geometry can then be carried out as indicated in Sections 3 and 4.
 25

7. DESIGN PROCEDURE

After fixing the ejector geometry (Ag/fi^, ^/.A*, A^/A^) which meets the presented requirements by the use
of Figure 8 and the calculation procedure of Sections 3 and 4, and after fixing the mass flow ratio /i , the size of
the throat section A* will be determined. The other geometric parameters are then given by the above area ratios.

Restrictions:
It is evident that the prediction method developed (Sections 3 and 4) is only valid for area ratios Aj/A e < 4 .
Larger area ratios yield a flow field which can no longer be treated with two-dimensional equations as suggested in
Section 3. However, in practical ejector design problems area ratios A,j/Ae > 4 are not required.

The distance between the ejector driving nozzle and the location of the second throat contraction part should
be designed to be adjustable. A too long or too short distance bteween them might produce hazards in ejector
operations by either breakdown of the flow field or shock wave interference.

8. COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS

Comparisons of the results of the present theory with experimental data are made in Figures 6, 7 and 9.
Figure 6 shows excellent agreement of the experimentally obtained starting pressure ratios with the predicted ones
at a contraction ratio of .A^/Ad = 0.68 . The experimental starting pressure ratios of the constant cross-section
diffuser system of Figure 6 are by about 5% higher than the values predicted by the one-dimensional theory.

The contraction of the second throat was realized by a step in this case. Figure 7 shows a comparison between
calculated and measured starting pressure ratios for an ejector system with a nozzle of 15° half-angle and a 12° ramp
as diffuser contraction. Here again excellent agreement between the predicted and the measured second throat
starting pressure ratios can be observed. The experimental starting pressure ratios of the constant cross-section
diffuser system are again 5% higher than the predictions of the one-dimensional theory.

The difference between the experimental starting pressure ratios and those obtained by the inviscid one-
dimensional theory can be attributed to the effect of friction, which has been ignored in the theory. The presence
of friction shifts the characteristics of the mixed flow regime and thus the starting pressure ratio to higher values
of PQ/P4 •

In the case of a second throat diffuser system the diffuser inlet Mach number is immediately reduced and
friction becomes less important. The experimental values, therefore, correspond with those predicted by the present
theory, which also ignores wall friction.

The starting pressures of the second throat systems are compared with the starting pressure of the constant area
diffuser system in Figure 9.

The lines indicate the theoretical predictions of the reduction in starting pressure ratio, i.e. the starting pressure
ratios of the second throat system divided by the starting pressure ratios of the constant cross-section ejector.

Both circles represent experimental values obtained in the present study (experimental starting pressure ratio of
the second throat system over theoretical starting pressure ratio of the constant cross-section ejector. The theoretical
starting pressure ratios of the constant cross-section ejector have been taken as a common reference here since the
experimental starting pressure ratios of the constant cross-section ejector were influenced by wall friction and are
5% too high).

The two AEDC data are the ratios of measured starting pressure ratios (squares) and the lines are again the ratio
of the two calculated values (second throat over constant cross-section). In both the experiments and the theoretical
calculation p4 is the total pressure at the diffuser exit (a subsonic diffuser was used in the experiments).

The geometric parameters are indicated at each data point. The very good agreement between the experiments
and the present theory confirms again that all important factors have been taken into account.
26

REFERENCES

1. Fabri, J., Supersonic Air Ejectors, Advances in Applied Mechanics. Vol.5, 1958.
Siebstrunck, R.

2. Uebelhack, H.T. One-Dimensional Inviscid Analysis of Supersonic Ejectors. Chapter 1 of this Agardograph.

3. Chow, W.L., Interaction between Primary and Secondary Streams of Supersonic Ejector Systems and
Addy, A.L. Their Performance Characteristics. AIAA Journal, Vol.2, No.4, 1964.

4. Panesci, J.H., An Analysis of Second Throat Diffuser Performance for Zero Secondary Flow Ejector
German, R.C. Systems. AEDC TR 63-249.

5. German, R.C., Improved Method for Determining Second Throat Diffuser Performance of Zero Second-
Panesci, J.H. ary Flow Ejector Systems. AEDC TR 65-124.

6. Zukoski, E.E. Turbulent Boundary Layer Separation in Front of a Forward Facing Step. AIAA Journal,
Vol.5, No. 10, 1967.

7. Uebelhack, H.T. Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Supersonic Separated Flows over
Front Steps. 4. Jahrestagung DGLR, Nr. 71-076, October 1971.

8. Uebelhack, H.T. Turbulent Flow Separation ahead of Forward Facing Steps in Supersonic Two-Dimensional
and Axisymmetric Flows. VKI, TN54, 1969.

9. Taylor Ejector Design for a Variety of Applications, von KarmSn Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
Rhode-Saint-Genese, Belgium, Short Course on Ejectors, March 17-21, 1969.

10. Uebelhack, H.T. Supersonic Air-Air Ejectors with Second Throat Diffuser. VKI TN 28, August 1965.

11. Oiknine, C , Etude des Ejecteurs Supersoniques. Congr£s de I'Association Francaise des Ingdnieurs et
et al. Techniciens de I'Aeionautique et de 1'Espace, November 1969.

P-xit

P„'~

STARTING
PRESSURE RATIOS

0
/Petit

Fig. 1 Ejector characteristics diagram. Influence of subsonic and supersonic diffuser parts
 27

1—r-r
ONE-DIM EXPANSION P/R.

• EXPERIMENTS CONTOURED
NOZZLES

AEDC -DATA, REF

CONICAL NOZZLES

-10

Fig. 2 Ejector base pressures

*'(**-*.) SpdA

fox* **A.U'**)A* (t* 4<£K

(**%,*£)*.

L. ..J
Fig.3 Control volume for diffuser analysis
28

1.0

A*0
Ad

.75.

ONE DIMENSIONAL
STARTING LIMIT

.50 STARTING POS/BLE

STARTING IMPOSSIBLE

.30-
to 20 30 40 Ad/A ^

Fig.4 Experimental starting limit

ONE-DIM. THEORY
A d / A e = 1.5
NORMAL SHOCK
RECOVERY

2ND THROAT
20 ONE-DIM. CONTRACTION
UMIT.A<*/A.~15

2ND THROAT
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTRACTION LIMIT
A d /A^ ~ 1.5

10

20 30 Ad/A*

Fig. 5 Starting pressure ratios

 29

EXPERIMENTS /u. = IS --ET- ' A d / A m M 2S

I Pjs M - -10 - p-
4 L - OS - v-
-_ o -
A e /Am, = 16
THEORY

.3
ANO SEC.
„/A THROAT
d . .68

A^lAd'rif

;o • fsv-u
Fig.6 Ejector starting characteristics

(f). EXPERIMENTS AA.'.20

A*.'.15
-£.-
-ET-
i
>t(//j4<>^75
A » / A * . 12.5
r

'M.-.10 -•-
/A.'.05 -V- A * * / A d * .67
< M." 0 o-
15* NOZZLE
THEORY

NO SEC. THROAT

A**/Ad*67

10 (Po'/P*),

Fig.7 Ejector starting characteristics

30

(Po) 1 1 i 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 i 1 ! 1 1
P4S
Ad/A. * 9 Ad/A * . 1 6 A d / A * =25 Ad/Arrr.36
Ae/A*.6.2S Ae/A * ' 9 A ' / A * *16 At/An -25
.4 - A»*/Ad = l A*./Ad • 1 A * * / A d =1 A**/Ad = 1 —
.68 .66 .63 .64
.47 .47 •7 47

.3 —
tj£^- \

-?
I0y
.15^ \ iS*-""" \ —
_Jg^—
.05^,
.; •05^- _J75
—\_^5__^
05
0 0 WJSO 0 \
0 1 1 — Li
10 75 20 25 (Po/P+ln

Fig.8 Composite of ejector starting characteristics

1
AEDC EXPERIMENTS, REF.
(P0lp4)**s
PRESENT EXPERIMENTS
fWs r
H£0RY

1.0

•sJOZZLE HALF ANGLE =• 15° A . / A m = I2.S

8 © AKKfAdm 67
O AmjAm • 16
A x x f A d ' .68
,8 A A e /Am = 25 18°
° n e l A * • »•«
• 6 S
AXKIAd= .5 A**/*d=
•

,i

0
to 20 30 40 SO AdJAA

Fig.9 Experimental and theoretical ejector starting pressure reduction

 31

THE ANALYSIS OF SUPERSONIC EJECTOR SYSTEMS

by

A.L.Addy

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
32

FOREWORD

These notes served as the basis for a series of lectures presented under NATO
sponsorship at the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Brussels, Belgium.
April 1968.

The important contributions of Professors H.H.Korst and W.L.Chow, University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to the understanding and analysis of supersonic
ejector systems are herewith acknowledged.
 33

CONTENTS

Page

NOTATION 35-37

INTRODUCTION 39

1. SUPERSONIC EJECTOR SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 39

1.1 Performance Characteristics 40
1.2 Flow Regimes 41
1.3 Recompression Within Ejector Systems 42
1.4 Methodology of Ejector System Performance Analysis 43

2. "ZERO" FLOW REGIME 43

2.1 Flow Model 43
2.2 Primary Flow Field 44
2.3 Mixing Component 44
2.4 Recompression Criteria 45

3. "SMALL" SECONDARY FLOW REGIME 47

3.1 Flow Model 47
3.2 Primary-Secondary Flow Fields 48
3.3 Mixing Component 48
3.4 Solution Criterion 49

4. "MODERATE TO HIGH" SECONDARY FLOW REGIME 49

4.1 Row Model 50
4.2 Inviscid Flow-Fields Analysis 50
4.3 Solution Criteria 52
4.4 "Downstream" Flow-Field Analysis 54
4.5 Two-Stream Mixing Correction 56

4.6 Shroud-Wall Boundary Layer 57

5. EJECTOR THRUST EVALUATION 57

6. EJECTOR FLOW MODEL IMPLEMENTATION 58

7. AREAS WARRANTING FURTHER INVESTIGATION 58

TABLE I 60

FIGURES 61-77

APPENDIX I - A Literature Review of Ejector Systems and Related Topics 78-84

APPENDIX II - Method of Characteristics Analysis for the Supersonic

Axisymmetric Primary Flow Field

1. BASIC EQUATIONS 85

2. FIELD POINTS 86

3. AXIS POINTS 87

4. BOUNDARY POINTS 88
4.1 Constant Pressure Boundary 88
4.2 Non-Constant Pressure Boundary 88

5. PRIMARY FLOW-FIELD ANALYSIS 89

5.1 Calculation Sequence 89
5.2 Wave Coalescence 89
34

Page

6 INITIAL PRIMARY NOZZLE CHARACTERISTIC 89

6.1 Sonic Nozzle 90
6.2 Uniform Supersonic Nozzle 90
6.3 Conical Supersonic Nozzle 90
6.4 A Compression at the Nozzle Exit 90
FIGURES FOR APPENDIX II 91-94

APPENDIX III - Constant-Pressure Turbulent Mixing Analysis

FIGURES FOR APPENDIX III 98-99

REFERENCES 100-101
 35

NOTATION

A
- * •

A vectorial area in ejector control volume analysis

A.B.C coefficients in equation defining the shroud wall contour

C U / U m a x = {1 + [ 2 / ( 7 - DM 2 ]}- 1 ' 2 , Crocco number

C
q generalized bleed coefficient. Reference 16

f() function of ()

i momentum flux, Reference 16

i.n iteration indices

M Mach number

M* { [ ( 7 + l)M 2 /2]/[l + ( 7 - 1)M 2 /2]) I / 2 , Mach star

P absolute pressure

q mass flow rate, Reference 16

R gas constant or radius

T absolute temperature

'gross gross thrust force

u,v,Vx velocity components

-»
V velocity vector

w mass flow rate

x
m mixing length

x,y intrinsic coordinate system

X, Y reference coordinate system

X, R cylindrical coordinate system

Barred Symbols

P. P a /Pop

Pb Pb/Po P

Pi. Pis/Pop

Pos P0s/P0p

Pw P w /P0p

X X/Rlp

w Ws^r'RsTosl^/Wp^p'RpTop]1

Greek Symbols

a sin _ 1 (l/M), Mach angle

7 C p /C v , ratio of specific heats

increment

5 turning angle
36

—6* two-stream mixing region displacement thickness

e arbitrarily small positive quantity

T) ay/x , homogeneous coordinate

7j m dimensionless displacement of the mixing region

6 streamline angle (positive, ccw)

A Tn/o a - stagnation temperature ratio

p density or radius of curvature

a mixing region similarity parameter

sp U / U a , velocity ratio

\p angle of reattachment. Reference 16

Subscripts

a conditions along the jet boundary

c choked condition in secondary stream

d discriminating streamline

e ejector exit section

i inviscid flow

j jet boundary streamline

/ limiting streamline or limiting initial secondary flow Mach number

m turbulent mixing

ma conditions for minimum secondary flow area

mtn conditions at the minimum secondary flow area

p primary stream

Op primary stream stagnation state

lp primary stream conditions at initial ejector section

s secondary stream

Os secondary stream stagnation state

Is secondary stream conditions at initial ejector section

shk shock location

x,y conditions upstream and downstream of a normal Shockwave

w conditions along the shroud wall

BO break-off point

IE ideally-expanded flow

OE over-expanded flow

i single-stream mixing

u two-stream mixing
 37

Functions

P * 7/(7-0
=- (7.M*) = l-<lZi>M*2
( 7 + 1)

(7 + 1) ( 7 - 1) -I/(7-D
p(7.M*) 1 - M*:

1/2 1/2 1/(7-0

F(7,M*) W *T
1
r
I PA = M"
( 7 + 1)
, - (^7 +l 1)V 2
= two-stream mixing region displacement thickness function. See Appendix III.

l,(rj) = mixing integral function. See Appendix III.

erf (T?) = 4 " T ^ ^

38
 34

THE ANALYSIS OF SUPERSONIC EJECTOR SYSTEMS

A.L.Addy

INTRODUCTION

In ejector systems, "pumping action" is achieved through the controlled interaction and mixing of a high-velocity
and high-energy stream with a lower-velocity and lower-energy stream within a duct; the simplicity of such systems
has resulted in their wide-spread usage. Unfortunately, this simplicity does not carry over to the design and analysis
of the flow phenomena within these systems. As a consequence of the problems involved, the design and perform-
ance evaluation of ejector systems has developed as a combination of scale-model studies, empiricism, and theoretical
analyses applicable only to simplified configurations. This approach, although useful for the design and performance
evaluation of certain configurations, has the disadvantage of failing to provide a more general insight into the signifi-
cance and influence of system parameters and operating conditions on overall ejector performance. As a result of
more sophisticated applications of ejector systems along with stringent performance requirements, the development
of more general analytical methods for predicting their detailed performance characteristics is essential. This objective,
clearly hampered by the complexity of the flow phenomena and the breadth of potential configurations, can be
accomplished only by a detailed study and modeling of the flow phenomena throughout the operating regimes of
an ejector system.

The objective herein is to present and discuss the ejector flow model and its implementation 1 - 4 * that was
developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for the performance analysis of "supersonic"ejector
systems. This flow model along with its current implementation represents a significant departure from one-
dimensional analyses 5 - 9 . In this model the flow phenomena within an ejector system are delineated on the bases
of the predominant flow mechanisms which occur within the various operating regimes. In this framework, it is
then possible to establish overall ejector performance characteristics and to represent these characteristics in the
unified form of "characteristic performance surfaces". These surfaces serve as a qualitative basis for understanding
the overall performance of an ejector system and as a quantitative basis for making judgments regarding the signifi-
cance and influence of system parameters and variations in the operating conditions.

In the sections that follow, a general topical organization has been selected which will present:

1. An overview of the operating characteristics of ejector systems.

2. Qualitative aspects of the ejector flow model in relation to the various flow regimes.
3. The quantitative implementation of the ejector flow model.
4. The performance evaluation of ejector systems.
5. A brief discussion of problem areas, their significance and possible future investigations.

The material presented in the following sections is based principally on investigations-)- conducted at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is supplemented, where appropriate, by brief discussions of the
related work of others. Since only selected references are cited, a more complete compilation of recent work and
other approaches in the analysis of ejector systems is included in Appendix I.

1. SUPERSONIC EJECTOR SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

To establish a basis for the detailed modeling and performance analysis of supersonic ejector systems, a
qualitative discussion of the performance and nature of such systems is given in this section. Emphasis has been
placed on defining the general functional relationships describing the performance of these systems and how their
form is dependent on the internal flow phenomena.

* The numbered References will be found on p.121 (i.e. after Appendix III of this paper).

t Partially supported by NASA Research Grants NSG-13-59 and NGRI4-00S-032. Computer studies in connection with these
investigations were conducted using the IBM 7094 and 360/75 Systems, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
40

A representative ejector configuration and the associated notation is shown in Figure 1. The primary stream is
assumed to be supplied from the stagnation state (Pop-Tn p ) through a sonic or supersonic nozzle, and the secondary
stream is from the stagnation state (POS-TQS)- The secondary and primary streams begin their mutual interaction at
their point of confluence at the primary nozzle exit. This interaction, as well as the mixing between the streams,
continues to the shroud exit where they are discharged to the ambient pressure level P a .

1.1 Performance Characteristics

The objective of any ejector analysis is to establish, for a given configuration and working media, the perform-
ance characteristics of the system. In general, the mass-flow characteristics of an ejector system can be represented
functionally by:

W = f(P0s.Pa). (LI)

where the "reduced mass flow ratio" (W) is chosen as the dependent variable so that the influence of the stagnation
temperature ratio is essentially removed from the functional relationship.

An alternate formulation oJ[ the pumping characteristics in terms of the initial secondary-stream Mach number
(M, s ), the static pressureratio (Pj s ) of the secondary stream at the point of confluence of the two streams, and the
ambient pressure ratio (P a ) is given in functional form by;

Mis = f ( P i s . P a ) - (1-2)

This selection of variables, although less obvious, is convenient for performing the numerical calculations involved in
the theoretical ejector analysis to be described.

In addition to establishing the functional form of the pumping characteristics, another variable of interest is the
shroud wall pressure distribution given by:

Pw = f ( W , P 0 s . P a , X ) . (1.3)

After establishing the above functional relationships, the thrust characteristics of a system can then be deter-
mined. In practice, this is accomplished by considering the contributions in the axial direction of the entering
momentum fluxes of the primary and secondary streams and the integrated shroud-wall pressure distribution.

/. 1.1 Three-Dimensional Performance Surfaces

The functional relations, (1.1) and (1.2), characterize^the "pumping" characteristics of an ejector system and
represent surfaces in the spaces described by the triples (W, PQ S , P a ) and (Mi s , Pj s , P a ).

The pumping characteristics of a typical ejector system in terms of the variables (W, P u s , P a ) are shown in
Figure 2. This surface clearly delineates the flow regimes wherein the mass-flow characteristics are independent or
dependent on the ambient-pressure level. These flow regimes merge together along the "break-off curve" and in
principle, this condition serves to uniquely define this curve.

To the left of the "break-off curve", the_mass-flow characteristics are independent of P a and the surface is
cylindrical with its generator parallel to the P a -axis . For this regime, the mass-flow characteristics can be
represented by:

W = f(Pos) (1-4)

when P a < (P a )go • To the right of the "break-off curve", the surface is three-dimensional in nature and extends
from the spatial "break-off curve" to the plane where W = 0 ; hence,

W = f(P 0 s ,P a ) (1.5)

when P a > (P a ) B o -

In principle, the "break-off curve" represents a simultaneous solution of the functional relationships (1.4) and
(1.5). However, the "break-off curve" also has a phenomenological interpretation based on the recompression of
the flow within the ejector shroud. Points on the "break-off curve" are determined by the condition that transition
from independence to dependence, and vice versa, on the ambient pressure ratio will occur at the maximum values
of P a to which the flow can recompress. Obviously, the locus of the recompression states defining the "break-off
curve" is strongly dependent on the degree of mixing between the streams and the ejector geometry, principally the
shroud length-to-diameter ratio.

An alternative representation of the pumping characteristics,^ terms of the variables (Mi,s, Pi s , P a ) is given in
Figure 3. For this surface, there are direct counterparts to the P a -independent and P a -dependent flow regimes
of the W-surface.
 41

1.1.2 Two-Dimensional Parametric Curves

The three-dimensional performance surfaces of Figures 2 and 3 have their principal value in presenting an
overview of the performance characteristics of typical ejector systems. In theoretical analyses or experimental
programs, it is generally more convenient to consider two-dimensional parametric representations of these operating
surfaces. These parametric curves usually represent nothing more than intersections of the performance surfaces
with various planes corresponding to constant values of the respective variables.

The more useful of the possible parametric representations of the mass-flow characteristics, from an experi-
mental standpoint, are obtained by intersecting the W-surface by planes of constant Pa , Figure 4(a), and planes
of constant P 0s , Figure 4(b). Another mteresting and useful parametric curve can be obtained by intersecting
the W-surface by a plane where P u s = Pa , Figure 4(c). The latter situation corresponds to inducting the
secondary fluid at ambient conditions and then discharging the ejector to the same ambient conditions.

More convenient, from the standpoint of the theoretical jinalysis, are intersections of the M]s-surface by
planes of constant P. s , Figure 5(a), and planes of constant Pa , Figure 5(b).

In actuality, the theoretical analysis establishes the ejector performance characteristics first in planes of
constant P[S by varying the value of M| s until the appropriate solution criteria are satisfied for the various flow
conditions that can exist in this plane. The next step in establishing the overall system performance is to select
another value of P ] s and repeat the calculations; this procedure is repeated until the overall ejector performance
surfaces are established.

1.2 Flow Regimes

The flow regimes occurring withinan ejector system can be categorized according to whether the mass-flow
characteristics are Pa-indcpendent or Pa-dependent. In addition, a further subdivision within these flow regimes
can be made on the basis of the predominant governing flow mechanisms. These subdivisions are not as clearly
defined as in the former case since the change in the predominant flow mechanisms is gradual and in essence
continuous. A brief discussion of the general flow phenomena and the basic flow regimes within ejector systems
follows.

When the mass-flow characteristics are independent of Pa , flow conditions are established within the ejector
system which effectively "seal-off the secondary flow from the ambient conditions. For "small" flow rates, this
is accomplished by an oblique shock system within the primary stream that is located at the shroud wall. As the
secondary flow rate is increased, an operating condition will be reached where the oblique shock system can no
longer be sustained at the shroud wall and as a consequence,_the primary stream "breaks" away from the wall.
For the mass-flow characteristics to remain independent of Pa , the secondary stream must_then accelerate until
it "chokes" inside the ejector shroud. After this condition occurs, increasing the value of Pi s or P u s results in
the progressive upstream movement of the "choking" point until the secondary stream "chokes" at the point of
confluence of the two streams, i.e., Mjs = 1 .

When W depends on both (Prjs'Pa)* '' l e secondary stream does not "choke" inside the ejector shroud. For
this condition, the secondary flow is initially accelerated and then decelerated and diffused as a result of the
boundary condition imposed by the ambient pressure at the ejector shroud exit.

The "choked" and "unchoked" regimes correspond respectively to the Pa-independent and Pa-dependent
regimes previously discussed. Thus, the "break-off curve" separates regimes of significantly different flow
phenomena within the ejector shroud.

1.2.1 "Zero" Secondary Flow

The typical variation of P us with PP , when W =_0 , is shown in Figure 6; this curve represents the inter-
section of the W-surface or MIs-surface with the plane W = 0 . This flow condition corresponds to the well-known
"internal base-pressure problem" which has been the subject of extensive and continuing investigations10"26.

For the portion of the curve where Prjs is a constant, the flow phenomena, Figure 7, within the ejector is
essentially governed by the entrainment of fluid due to mixing along the primary boundary and the recompression-
shock system resulting from the local interaction between the primary stream and the shroud wall. The recom-
pression system establishes the level of mechanical^nergy required for the entrained fluid topass through the
recompression zone. Thus, the requirement that W = 0 uniquely establishes the value of P 0 s and correspondingly
the flow field to the terminus of the recompression zone. Although variations in Pa do not influence P 0s until
the "break-off point is reached, such variations do influence the shroud-wall pressure distribution.

The Pa-independent portion of the flow regime is sustained until the value of Pa is sufficiently large so that
the recompression mechanism is modified. When this occurs, the primary stream "breaks away" from the wall and
the system then operates in the Pa-dependent mode. For this mode, the primary stream is recompressed to the
42

ambient pressure at the shroud exit, and the condition that W = 0 is maintained by a combined mechanism of
entrainment and backflow within the ejector.

1.2.2 "Small" Secondary Flows

For P a -independcnt operation, this regime effectively spans that part of the operating characteristics where
transition of the governing flow phenomena is from an entrainment-recompression-shock mechanism to essentially
an inviscid-interaction mechanism between two-streams that are distinct. This transition occurs when the recom-
pression-shock mechanism can no longer be sustained at the shroud wall. As would be expected, the extent of
this regime and point of transition are strongly dependent on the ejector geometry.

The flow phenomena within this regime are essentially the same as described for the zero-flow case with the
following exceptions. In this case, the secondary stream has a non-zero, though small, component of velocity in
the axial direction. This component of velocity has a modifying effect on: (i) the primary stream, (ii) the entrain-
ment at the primary-secondary boundary, and (iii) the recompression-shock mechanism at the shroud wall.

1.2.3 "Moderate to High" Secondary Flows

This regime is characterized by the primary and secondary streams remaining essentially distinct although
mixing locally along their mutual boundary. In contrast to the other flow regimes, the secondary stream is no
longer "sheltered" by the primary stream and as a consequence must interact with the primary stream so that the
operating conditions, e.g., (Pr- S iP a ). imposed on the ejector are satisfied. The interaction can satisfy the prescribed
operating conditions in either of two ways. In one case, Figure 8(a), the secondary stream is "choked" within the
shroud as a result of interacting with the primary stream thus establishing the mass-flow characteristics of the system.
Adjustment to the prescribed ambient pressure level is then made downstream of the "choking" point without effect-
ing the mass-flow characteristics. In the other case. Figure 8(b), the secondary-primary streams interact so that
"choking" does not occur within the shroud but rather the prescribed ambient-pressure conditions are satisfied by
the secondary stream at the shroud exit. The mass-flow characteristics are then determined as a consequence of
this interaction.

1.3 Recompression Within Ejector Systems

As an example of the recompression phenomena, consider two ejector systems with shrouds of significantly
different lengths that are operating at the same values of (W, P 0 s ) and discharging into a region where (P a ) is very
small.

For the long-shroud ejector, the mixing between the streams will be nearly complete and the flow at the exit
will be approximately uniform and at a supersonic Mach number. In contrast, the mixing between the streams in
the short-shroud ejector will necessarily be incomplete and the two streams will remain essentially distinct through-
out the ejector. Consequently, the flow at the exit plane will be highly non-uniform and both streams will discharge
supersonically.

If P a is increased, the flow will initially recompress external to the shroud; however, with further increases in
P a a recompression shock system will move inside the ejector shroud and be located such that the boundary condi-
tion imposed at the exit by the ambient pressure level will be satisfied. The recompression in the ejector with the
longer shroud is essentially accomplished by a normal shock in the mixed stream. In the short-shroud ejector, the
same recompression must be accomplished by a combined mechanism consisting of a normal shock in the secondary
flow and an oblique shock in the primary stream. Clearly, the latter mechanism is less effective in recompressing
the flow than the former.

With further increases in P a , the recompression shock system moves further upstream in the ejector shroud.
This movement in the short-shroud ejector system can only continue, without influencing the mass-flow character-
istics, until the recompression shock in the secondary stream is located at the secondary stream's "choking" point.
This situation essentially corresponds to a reversible subsonic recompression of the secondary stream to the ambient
pressure at the shroud exit; any increase in P a above this value, the "break-off point, will necessarily result in a
reduction of the mass-flow rate and the secondary stream becoming subsonic throughout the duct. The ejector
system then operates in the ambient-pressure dependent regime.

On the other hand, the long-shroud ejector system can recompress to higher values of P a as a result of the
more complete mixing between the two streams. Eventually,however, increasing P a will move the recompression
shock system upstream and out of the well-mixed flow and into the region where the two streams are essentially
distinct as was the case for the short-shroud ejector. A part of the recompression now takes place at this location
with final recompression to the ambient pressure level occurring in the remainder of the ejector shroud. Again the
"break-off point occurs at the value of P a corresponding to the recompression shock being located at the
"choking" point of the secondary stream. As for the short-shroud ejector, this value of P a defines the "break-off
point since an increase in the ambient-pressure ratio above this value would result in a readjustment of the system's
mass-flow characteristics.
 43

The qualitative aspects of this recompression phenomena* for these systems are depicted in Figures 9(a) and
9(b); the influence of the recompression on the location of the "break-off curve is shown in Figure 9(c). It should
be noted from these figures, that in the flow regime where the mass-flow_characteristics are unaffected by variations
in the ambient pressure ratio, that the shroud wall pressure distribution P w can have significant variations with P a .
In contrast, a unique shroud wall pressure distribution corresponds to each set of values of (W, P u s ,P a ) in the
P a -dependent flow regime.

In thrust augmentation applications, the ejector shroud-wall pressure distribution must be determined in addition
to the "pumping" characteristics. The strong linking between the shroud-wall pressure distribution and the recom-
pression mechanism necessitates that this mechanism bo included as an integral part of the performance analysis of
ejector systems. Due to the complexity of the flow phenomena, this is a difficult, if not impossible, task for ejectors
with long nonconstant-area shrouds. Fortunately, the analysis of short-shroud ejector systems, which are more
practical for this particular application, is tenable.

1.4 Methodology of Ejector System Performance Analysis

A single-model approach to the analysis of ejector systems is not possible because of the dependence of the
governing flow mechanisms on the system geometry and the operating conditions. Instead, their analysis must be
based on a multiple-component flow model which adequately identifies and describes the predominant flow
mechanisms within the various regimes. Although posing no conceptual problems, it is not known a priori when
these regimes occur, as well as when transition between regimes occurs; in fact, these factors must be included as
an integral part of the overall ejector analysis.

The flow regimes (Sections 1.2.1-3) are modeled according to their respective governing flow mechanisms.
In principle, these models are then applied, subject to the imposed boundary conditions and the applicable internal
flow solution criteria, to determine the detailed ejector performance. In practice, a direct method of analysis for
specified operating conditions is impractical for the following reasons:
(i) The flow regime corresponding to the imposed operating conditions is not known a priori and, hence,
must be determined.
(ii) The applicable solution criteria and means for satisfying the imposed boundary conditions must also be
determined.
As a result, the performance analysis is based on an indirect method which simply consists of evaluating a system's
performance in the various regimes, subject to the applicable solution criteria. This approach, in essence, establishes
the overall ejector performance surfaces for a given system. Specific operating conditions are then located on this
surface.

The ejector flow model, as specialized for each of the flow regimes, and it's implementation will now be
considered.

2. "ZERO" FLOW REGIME

For this regime, the flow mechanism consists of: the flow entrained along the primary stream boundary due
to the viscous mixing between the stream and an essentially quiescent fluid, the interaction of the "nearly" inviscid
supersonic primary stream with the shroud wall, and their interdependence. Korst, Chow, et a l . 1 0 " 1 5 , have studied
this problem in detail in the course of their basic investigation of separated flow problems. Carriere, Sirieix, Delery,
and H a r d y 1 6 - 2 3 have considered modifications to the basic analysis proposed by Korst, et al., in an attempt to
improve the agreement between theory and experiment for the axisymmetric case. Their work, as well as the work
of others 2 5 , 2 7 , has generally been concerned with modifying the way in which the recompression of the entrained
fluid is treated. This is a logical approach to take since the recompression mechanism is a predominant factor that
is not well understood. In general, however, these investigations have not resulted in significant changes in the flow
model originally proposed, but rather, have resulted in modifications to the "recompression criterion" and some
details in the method of analysis. A discussion of current approaches and analyses related to this problem is given
by Korst 15 .

2.1 Flow Model

The general flow situation and applicable notation is shown in Figure 10(a). The axisymmetric supersonic
primary stream is assumed to expand into a region at constant pressure P-,. This constant pressure region is
assumed to exist up to the point where the jet impinges on the shroud wall; at this point, an oblique shock wave
exists so that the boundary condition imposed by the local wall slope is satisfied. This flow field is defined as
the "corresponding inviscid jet", (Ref. 13).

* An analogy, which is more apparent for the short-shroud ejector, can be drawn between the behavior of an ejector system and a
converging-diverging nozzle operated under varying back-pressure conditions.
 44

The entrainment as a result of the mixing between the primary stream and the quiescent fluid along their
mutual boundary is assumed to take place at constant pressure. For the present analysis, the mixing component 1 3 ,
is assumed to be represented by the two-dimensional turbulent mixing of a uniform stream and a quiescent fluid.
On this basis, the mixing region is considered to be defined by the flow conditions along the jet boundary and
within an intrinsic coordinate system which is displaced relative to the jet boundary. The mixing region, thus
defined, is then localized relative to the "corresponding inviscid jet boundary" by superimposing the mixing region
on the jet boundary, in a two-dimensional sense, while satisfying the integral continuity and momentum relationships.

The linking between the "corresponding inviscid j e t " and the mixing region is accomplished by the recom-
pression mechanism and the conservation of mass and energy within the "wake" region. The "recompression
criterion" identifies streamlines within the mixing region which have sufficient mechanical energy to recompress
to the high-pressure region downstream of the jet-wall interaction.

The implementation of this flow model as it applies to the analysis of ejector systems will now be discussed.

2.2 Primary Flow Field

The primary flow field is analyzed by the Method of Characteristics for irrotational axisymmetric flow.
The primary nozzle flow conditions are assumed to be known along the_initial left-running characteristic emanating
from the nozzle corner ( X ] p , R i p ) , and the flow expands to a pressure, P-,, which is constant along the jet boundary.
These conditions are then sufficient to determine the resulting flow field.

Since the general interior primary flow-field analysis is applicable here, as well as for the other flow regimes,
the flow-field analysis will not be discussed in detail here but rather in Appendix II. The only specializing condition
for this flow regime is that the jet boundary is maintained at constant pressure.

2.3 Mixing Component

The "restricted" two-dimensional constant-pressure turbulent jet mixing theory of Korst, et al., is the basis
for the analysis of the mixing component. Since a general treatment of single-stream and two-stream mixing* can
be given, the general aspects of this analysis are given in Appendix III while the conditions specifically applicable to
this flow regime follow.

For this case, Figure 10(b), the dimensionless velocity profile, <p, within the mixing zone is given by

V " rr - id + erf(o.y/x)] , (2.1)

U
P
where (x,y) are the intrinsic coordinates and a, is the single-stream mixing parameter commonly evaluated by the
empirical correlation:

a, = 12 + 2.76M p . (2.2)

The mass flow per unit depth between any two streamlines, 1 and 2, within the mixing zone is

W12 = J ^ p U d y . (2.3)

One streamline with physical significance can immediately be identified within the mixing region. This is the
"jet-boundary streamline", j , that separates the flow originally in the jet from the flow entrained due to the mixing
— see Appendix III.

The entrained flow then is given by:

We =
• r [
• -oo
• -oo
j
pUdy . (2.4)

Thus, the mass flow rate between a streamline, d , and the j-streamline is given by

wdj = fVj pU d y - J " y d p U d y (2.5)

• — oo •— oo

Note that Wdj W\ 0 when y- ^ y d

* The former is applicable to the problem at hand while the latter is used in the "moderate to high" flow regime analysis.

1
 45

Similar relationships 13 can also be written for the energy transfer within the mixing zone for the non-isoenergetic
case, i.e., when T b # Trj p . However, this significantly complicates the analysis of the problem under consideration
and experience has shown 1 3 , 1 4 that over a relatively wide range of temperatures, T b =£ Trj p , the influence on the
theoretical "base-pressure ratio" is small. Consequently, only the isoenergetic case, Tj, = T Q P , will be considered
for this regime.

If the overall wake region defined by the "corresponding inviscid jet" and the shroud wall is now considered,
the conservation of mass within this region requires that the net flow of the entrained fluid out of this region must
be zero. If the d-streamline* has just sufficient mechanical energy to "escape" from the wake but yj ¥= y: , the
problem then becomes one of finding the value of P-, such that the d-streamline coincides with the j-streamline.

2.4 Recompression Criteria

The j-streamline can be identified solely on the basis of applying the conservation equations to the mixing
zone; however, the determination of the d-streamline can only be accomplished by linking the mixing phenomena
and the "corresponding inviscid jet". This is done by means of the recompression criterion.

2.4.1 Korst's Recompression Criterion

The recompression criterion of Korst, et al. 1 3 identifies the d-streamline as the streamline which possesses just
sufficient mechanical energy to recompresst from the wake pressure, P-, , to the high-pressure region downstream
of the shock, P ^ k . The recompression pressure rise for the d-streamline, based on this recompression criterion
is found from the oblique shock relations for the local conditions at the impingement point, Figure 10(c). The
turning angle is given by:
6 = -(flp - 0 W ) (2.6)

and the jet surface Mach number, Mp , is known for the assumed value of Pj, . Hence the d-streamline pressure
rise is found from:

EsM = ^0d = f(5,M D )** . (2.7)

P
Pb Pd

The d-streamline "Mach s t a r " t t is then given by:

MJ = (Jf4-\) U 2 [ 1 - (Pod/Pd)^-^ 7 "] ll2 • (2-8)

For the isoenergetic case, the d-streamline velocity ratio is:

* - % •

The solution value of Pj, is then found when

0 < l^-^jl < e. (2.10)

for e arbitrarily small.

In practice, the solution value of P b is found by assuming a value (P b )- and then computing the difference
_ If
(^d ^j)i •
(Vd-Vj)j t l 0 (2.11)

then the next value ( P b ) i + i is correspondingly assumed to be:

(P b )i+1 £ (Pb)i • (2'12>

Then convergence to the solution is both well behaved and rapid.

* Defined as the "discriminating streamline".

t This compression, though irreversible and diabatic, produces the same results as an isentropic compression from the static pressure,
P b , to what would be the stagnation pressure, P shk , of the d-streamline.

** Convenient graphical or functional forms for numerical calculations are found in Reference 28.

t t The variable M* = U/C* has been introduced and is used throughout the analysis because its finite range, 0 < M* < [(y + l)l(y - I))" 3
is convenient for the computer analysis.
46

It should be noted that the intermediate results obtained in the course of the zero-flow solution can be inter-
preted as solutions for "mass bleed at negligible velocities" into or out of the wake region 13 . For this case, the
mass flow is evaluated from (2.5) or expressed in more conventional form (from Appendix III):

2 R w X m (A/A*) (•yp.MJp) „ , . . , . , ... . , ,

W = -r {— l i •*?;) — I I ( I ? H ) • (2.13)
a, R l p R l p ( A / A * ) ( y p , M * ) 'J
Although the overall recompression pressure rise is reasonably well represented by the pressure rise correspond-
ing to the oblique shock at the impingement point, it was well known at the time that the "discriminating stream-
line" does not recompress to this level. Rather, it recompresses to an intermediate value between P b and P s ^ .
This situation is shown in Figure 10(d).

Nash 2 3 defined a recompression coefficient for the two-dimensional case in an effort to better correlate the
theoretical analysis with the experimental data; this correlation is not sufficiently universal and as a result has not
been well accepted.

Page, et al. 2 7 has proposed another recompression correlation based on the discriminating streamline velocity
ratio and an "effective" entrainment mixing length. This correlation is shown to be applicable over a wide range of
experimental conditions for plane two-dimensional supersonic flow. This approach yields results which are similar
to those obtained by investigators at ONERA*. Since much of the work at ONERA was directed toward the analysis
of axisymmetric ejector systems operating in the zero and "small" flow regimes, it will now be discussed in some
detail.

2.4.2 The Recompression Criterion of Carriere, Sirieix, et al.

An empirical relationship called "the critical angle of reattachment" that a stream must satisfy when reattaching
to a wall has been deduced from a series of experiments 1 6 " 1 9 . This relationship was established for a uniform
stream entraining a quiescent fluid at constant pressure and then subsequently reattaching to a wall to form a wake.
Figure 11(a). This relationship is shown graphically in Figure 12; it has the functional form

*o " >MMi) + * (2-14)

Carriere and Sirieix have shown 1 6 , 1 7 that the influence on the base pressure of: (1) the stream's initial boundary
layer momentum thickness (5 ) and (2) mass addition (q) to the wake with a finite momentum (i) can be expressed
in terms of a dimensionless generalized "bleed coefficient"**, C q . Where C q is defined 1 7 ' 2 0 as

q
(
., ' + 5** (2.15)
p,U,x p,U2x

The above factors are then considered as perturbations to the case where they are absent. The reattachment angle
for the perturbed case is given by

*(M„C <1 ) = *0(M,) + O W 3 C q ) M l C q , (2.16)

where 1 6 * 2 0
a, 1M2(1 - tf2) — 1 ] l / 2

2
(W 3Cq)Mi = - - J - e x p ^ ) ' '<(1 V ^ . (2.17)

and the "limiting streamline"tt. / . is found from

P"' P Oi P + °° P
-tfdT, = --Ca+
X 4
- ififl - sfi) drj . (2.18)
J-ooP. J-oc Pi
It should be noted, in passing, that (2.18) can be expressed in terms of the j-streamline as
* Office National d'Etudes et Recherches Aerospatiales, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux (Seine), France.

t In their notation, used throughout this section, \p0 is the reattachment angle at the wall for this case and M, is the Mach number
along the jet boundary. \jtQ is given graphically in Reference 21; a curve fit of these data which is more convenient for numerical
computations is given by:
i/r0 = [2.33 + 12.84M, - (85.46M2 - 381.2M, + 5 2 6 ) " T .

** This concept is similar in nature to the "equivalent bleed concept" (Ref.13).

t t Similar to the "discriminating streamline" in Korst's analysis.

 47

•Z- sfi dTJ = - - 1 CQ (2.19)

in which form the analogy to "bleed" is obvious.

The solution procedure to determine P b given: (1) the flow geometry, (2) the initial flow conditions, and
(3) C q =£ 0*, proceeds in the following fashion. If a value of P b is assumed, then M, can be calculated from
the isentropic relations, and the inviscid flow field can be constructed by the Method of Characteristics (Appendix II)
subject to the condition of constant pressure along the boundary. Corresponding to the value of M, along the
boundary, values of —a., n-,, sp,, r) m , and the mixing integrals (Appendix III) - can be determined. Using (2.19)
the dimensionless coordinate, )?/, locating the /-streamline in the intrinsic coordinate system can be found. Assuming
a displacement of the /-streamline normal to the local inviscid boundary, the location of the /-streamline, Figure 11(b),
in the inviscid flow field coordinates (X, R) is found from

Xp + (77m - 17/) sin 8. (2.20a)

R, = R (2.20b)
P + — (Vm ~ Vl) cos

The next step is to find where the /-streamline intersects the wall; corresponding to this location, the impingement
angle of the /-streamline relative to the wall is given by

h = -(*»-«•*) (2.21)

where 0 p is the inviscid boundary flow angle corresponding to the /-streamline impingement point and 0 W is the
corresponding local wall angle.

From the angular reattachment criterion, (2.16), the value of \b can be found. The question is - does i/-/ = i/-?
If nott, then another value of P b is assumed and the foregoing calculations repeated until

0 < M i ) n - (i//)nl < e . (2.22)

Typically if l(i/'/) n — (i//)nI ^ 0 , the next value (P b ) n + j is chosen correspondingly such that (P b ) n +i ^ (Pb'n •

3. SMALL" SECONDARY FLOW REGIME

The secondary flow, although small in this regime, has a significant modifying effect on the primary and
secondary streams within the ejector shroud. The circumstances are still such that an oblique shock wave forms in
the primary flow field near the shroud wall as a result of the interaction between the primary stream and the wall.
Consequently, the flow mechanism retains essentially the same characteristics as for the "zero" flow regime. The
analyses for the "zero" and "small" flow regimes differ only in the determination of the primary flow fields and
their respective solution criterion.

In contrast to the method of analysis to be discussed here, investigators at ONERA 2 0 " 2 2 have treated this flow
regime by the methods outlined in Section 2. Their method does not consider the interaction between the streams
but rather accounts for the effects of the finite mass and momentum addition of the secondary stream within the
framework of their recompression criterion (see Section 2.4.2). The performance characteristics predicted for this
regime by this method of analysis is shown 2 1 , 2 2 to be in excellent agreement with experiment.

3.1 Flow Model

At the point of confluence of the primary and secondary streams, Figure 13(a), the primary stream expands
to the prevailing secondary stream static pressure. After this point, the primary and secondary streams must
co-exist within the available flow area while satisfying the condition of continuity of pressure at their mutual
boundary. As the primary stream expands in the shroud, the interaction between the streams accelerates the
secondary flow resulting in a decrease in the static pressure along the streams' boundary. However, in this regime,
the primary stream's expansion is such that the compression waves within the primary flow field are insufficient
to turn the primary boundary before it reaches the proximity of the shroud wall; as a consequence, the primary
stream has a finite streamline angle relative to the wall. An oblique shock recompression system then occurs due
to the interaction between the primary stream and the shroud wall.
For the "zero" flow regime, Cq 6** since q, i = 0 . In the "small" flow regime, Cq is evaluated according to (2.15) for
q,i*0.

t These cases could be interpreted as non-zero flow solutions; however in a programmed numerical approach, it is more convenient
to follow the overall calculation sequence described.
48

In addition to the interaction between the primary and secondary streams, they are also mixing along their
mutual boundary and in effect, the primary stream entrains the secondary flow. In analogy to the "zero" flow
regime, the secondary flow entrained by the primary stream can only pass through the recompression shock if it
possesses sufficient mechanical energy to recomprcss from the local static pressure to the high-pressure region
downstream of the oblique shock.

The solution criterion for this regime is then based on satisfying the requirement of conservation of mass for
the secondary flow, i.e., the entering secondary flow must equal the entrained flow which "escapes".

3.2 Primary-Secondary Flow Fields

The mixing between the primary and secondary streams is assumed to have a negligible effect on their inter-
action between their point of confluence and the proximity of the wall. These flow fields, "the corresponding
inviscid flow fields", are then established on the basis of the inviscid interaction between the streams. The primary
flow field is analyzed by the Method of Characteristics for irrotational axisymmetric flow while the secondary stream
is assumed to be isentropic and one-dimensional in nature. The flow fields are linked by the condition that the two
streams must coexist within the available flow area while at the same time satisfying continuity of pressure at their
mutual boundary. This flow field analysis is the same as for the "moderate to high" flow regime where the two
streams remain distinct; a detailed discussion of this analysis, along with the pertinent relations, is given in
Appendix II and Section 4.2.

Specialized to this regime, however, is the calculation of the primary stream's boundary in the proximity of
the wall and the resulting recompression shock system. As the inviscid flow field calculations proceed downstream
and the primary boundary approaches the wall, the mixing region is then assumed to reduce significantly the effects
of the inviscid interaction between the streams and as a result, the primary boundary is assumed to smoothly
approach and interact with the wall in a region of approximately constant local static pressure.

The inviscid flow field calculations are made in the following way. For a given value of P j s and an assumed
value of M l s , the flow field calculations (Section 4.2) are made, starting with the initial flow conditions, by a
step-by-step procedure in the downstream direction until the primary boundary is in the proximity of the wall.
Due to the influence of the mixing region, further interaction between the streams is assumed not to occur. The
conditions for the oblique shock system, Figure 13(b), are then given by the local primary flow conditions at the
boundary. The recompression pressure rise can be found from

^ = f(6,M p )* , (3.1)
•P

where the local turning angle, 5 , is

6 = -(0p-0 w ) (3.2)

and M p and P p are respectively the local Mach number and static pressure at the primary boundary.

As for the "zero" flow regime, the recompression pressure rise impressed by the primary stream is used to
discriminate between the entrained flow having sufficient mechanical energy to pass through this region and that
which has not.

The secondary mass-flow ratio, for which the inviscid flow field calculations are made, is evaluated at the
pointt of confluence of the streams for the given value of P j s and the assumed value of M | s . The non-dimensional
secondary-to-primary mass flow ratio is given by

_ Pi s A i , F(7„Mi,,)
w. = -II _Li Ws' " ' ( (3.3)
p A
lp l p F(Tp.Mip)

where the conditions at the primary nozzle exit are known and F(7,M*) is the "weight flow function".
3.3 Mixing Component
The estimation of the flow entrained by the primary stream is based, in direct analogy to the "zero" flow
regime, on the simplifying assumption that the actual process can be represented approximately by the entrainment
of a quiescent fluid by an equivalent two-dimensional stream at constant pressure. In this case, the equivalent
stream is evaluated on the basis of the local primary flow conditions near the wall and the corresponding mixing
length, x m , up to this point. The two-dimensional constant pressure mixing analysis, Appendix III, is used to
determine the entrained flow (see Section 2.2.2) which has sufficient mechanical energy to penetrate the recom-
pression pressure rise. The flow "escaping" is given by
* Functional or graphical forms are given in Reference 28.
 49

Vj
wI = 2TTR f pU dy (3.4)

or, in non-dimensional form,

2 Rp x m (A/A*) (7p.M7 p ) R s T 0s
Wd ~p*"; T.—77* II.(T}j) - I.(l} d )l , (3.5)
J " A, D. D.
"l Rip Rip (A/A*) ( 7 p , M j ) R p T o p

where 1,(7?) denotes the mixing integral. Appendix III. The j-streamline separates the primary and the entrained
flows, and the d-streamline is determined from the recompression criterion

P p
shk . 0d , M*.
P d (3.6)
"PT " TT '
The discriminating streamline velocity ratio for the isoenergetic approximation is

M
* - d
(3.7)

and Md is found from (3.6) by

M* (Tp ~ 1)
1- (P 0 d/ p d) (3.8)
Tp-1

3.4 Solution Criterion

The secondary mass flow ratio corresponding to a given value of P . s , in this regime, is established by applying
the continuity equation to the secondary flow region. Thus for a solution, the continuity requirement becomes

W- = Wdj . (3.9)

The solution sequence proceeds in the following manner. For a given value of P . s , a value (M* s ) n is assumed;
the inviscid mass flow ratio, (Wj)n and the corresponding inviscid flow fields are then calculated. Corresponding to
the inviscid flow field analysis, the entrained mass flow ratio, (W d ;) n is then determined from the mixing analysis.
If (W d j) n ^ (Wj)n , the assumed value of M l s is varied according to (Mi s ) n + 1 ^ (M* s ) n . This calculation sequence
is continued until

0 < KWdj)„ - (W-)n| < e . (3.10)

When this criterion is satisfied, the solution values of (M- s ,P [ s ) and (W,Pi s ) are then known. The corresponding
stagnation pressure ratio is then given by

Pos = P l s y ( 7 P M * $ ) , (3.11)

where (P 0 /P)(7,M ) is the two-dimensional isentropic pressure ratio function.

4. "MODERATE TO HIGH" SECONDARY FLOW REGIME

In contrast to the other flow regimes where the mixing component constituted an integral part of the analysis,
the mixing between the streams in this regime is considered to be a secondary effect in the sense of boundary layer
concepts. As a result, the performance characteristics are essentially established by the mutual interaction between
the now distinct primary and secondary streams, the "corresponding inviscid flow fields". After the inviscid flow
fields have been established as a result of the mutual interaction between the streams, the effects of mixing are
approximately accounted for by locally superimposing the mixing region on the inviscid boundary between the
streams. The net effect of the mixing is usually reflected as an increase in the secondary stream's mass flow over
that given by the inviscid-interaction solution. This technique assumes, of course, that the mixing between the
streams does not significantly modify the inviscid flow fields.

This method of analysis*, which was proposed in References 1, 2 and 3, gives solutions for the ejector
performance characteristics which are in excellent agreement with experiment. As a result, this method has been
well accepted for analyzing the performance characteristics of ejector systems. In addition, the same basic approach

* A similar method of analysis was first proposed by Fabri et al. 7 ' 8 for analyzing ejectors with constant area shrouds. Their analysis
is based on a one-dimensional technique where the streams remain distinct; however, their model does not satisfy the condition of
continuity of pressure across the streams' boundary. In addition, the effects of mixing between the streams was neglected.
50

has been followed in a more generalized treatment recently given by Peters 2 9 ; his analysis includes chemistry effects,
the simultaneous build-up of the mixing region and the inviscid flow fields, and a more generalized solution criterion
for the "choked" flow regime.

4.1 Flow Model

The basic flow m o d e l 1 ' 2 , 3 consists of two parts, viz, the corresponding inviscid flow fields and the two-stream
mixing component. The primary and secondary streams. Figure 14(a), begin to interact at their point of confluence
because of the requirement that both streams must co-exist in the available flow area while at the same time satisfying
the requirement that the local static pressure must be equal at the streams' boundary. This interaction continues
downstream and the secondary flow field can have the following distinguishing characteristics for an arbitrarily
assumed pair of values (Mi s ,P I s ) within this flow regime. These characteristics are:

(i) The secondary stream remains "unchoked" while the secondary flow area goes through a minimum value,
(ii) The secondary stream "chokes" but at the "choking" point the secondary flow area is not a minimum,
(iii) The secondary stream "chokes" and the secondary flow area is simultaneously a minimum.

These situations all represent physically realizable operating conditions and the occurrence of any particular one
depends solely on the imposed boundary conditions. The "solution criteria" that distinguishes between these
potential flow conditions constitutes an important part of the flow model.

For the first case to occur, the boundary conditions imposed by the shroud wall geometry and ambient
pressure must be such that the secondary stream (or mixed stream in the long-shroud ejector) satisfies the boundary
condition imposed at the ejector exit by the ambient pressure level.

In the second case, the ejector shroud length must be such that the "choking" point and the shroud exit
coincide and in addition, the ambient pressure must be less than or equal to the secondary pressure at this point.
The secondary stream can then adjust to the ambient flow conditions by a supersonic expansion external to the
shroud.

The third case is of more general interest since it constitutes the basis for analyzing the majority of the
P a -independent flow regime and for locating the "break-ofF* point in this regime. For this case to occur, the
boundary conditions must be such that the secondary flow after "choking" in the shroud can be discharged to
the ambient pressure level.

After the appropriate inviscid flow field has been established for values of (Mi s ,P| s ,P a ), the influence of the
mixing between the two-streams is evaluated by locally superimposing the two-dimensional mixing region on the
inviscid boundary on a "quasi-constant pressure" basis. The influence of the mixing region is interpreted in the
boundary layer sense as having an equivalent displacement thickness which is evaluated at the "choked" and/or
minimum secondary flow area. The resulting change in the secondary flow is then evaluated at this point based
on the local flow conditions and the change in available flow area due to the mixing region's displacement thickness.
Inherent in this method is the tacit assumption that the increase in mass flow due to mixing will not significantly
alter the inviscid flow field.

4.2 Inviscid Flow-Fields Analysis

The primary stream's internal flow field is analyzed by the Method of Characteristics, Appendix II, for irrotational
axisymmetric flow. For this analysis, it is assumed that the primary flow field is known along the initial characteristic
emanating from the nozzle lip, at ( X i p , R j p ) , to the nozzle axis. The primary stream is then assumed to expand*,
through a centered expansion at this point, to match the initial secondary stream's static pressure.

The secondary flowt is assumed to be isentropic and one-dimensional in nature. At the point of confluence of
the streams, the secondary flow properties are uniform and specified by Mj s and P] s .

The general conditions that must be satisfied at the streams' boundary are:

(i) the local static pressure must be equal for both streams at their boundary, i.e.,

Pp = P s > (4-D

* Under certain circumstances, the primary stream must be recompressed by an oblique shock wave at this point. For this case, the
compression is approximately taken into account when the initial characteristic is determined (see Appendix II). Hence, the flow
field calculation technique is unaffected.

t The assumption of uniform one-dimensional flow yields results which are in agreement with experiments for many cases where this
assumption is only approximately satisfied. However, for ejector geometries with significant wall curvature and/or applications where
the initial secondary flow is highly non-uniform, a more generalized treatment of the secondary flow is not only desirable but necessary.
See, for example. Reference 29.
 51

(ii) the flows must co-exist within the available area.

These conditions provide the link between the Method of Characteristics analysis for the primary flow field and the
isentropic one-dimensional analysis for the secondary flow field.

For a given pair of values, (M] S , Pj s ), the inviscid secondary mass flow ratio at the initial section, Figure 14(a),
is given by:
p A F
— ls ls (7s. M ts)
s
W- = J i — * , (4.2)
P A
1 P l p F(7p,M l p )
where F(7, M*) is the "weight flow function".

If the primary nozzle is restricted to having either uniform parallel or conical outflow, the primary nozzle flow
area, A i p , is given by:
A l p = 27rR 2 p /(l -t-cosOip), (4.3)

where 0 l p = 0 for uniform and parallel outflow. At this area, the fully expanded primary nozzle Mach number
is specified by M j p ( o r M ] p ) .

The secondary flow area, for shrouds with a small but finite radius of curvature, is assumed to be equal to the
lateral surface area of the truncated cone whose generator is locally perpendicular to the shroud wall and extends
from the wall to the primary boundary, i.e., segment a-a in Figure 14(b). The secondary flow area is then given
by:
As = TrtR2, - R 2 )/cos 0 W . (4.4)

The initial secondary flow area, A l s , is determined using (4.4) and the condition that the normal to the shroud
wall, at the location (X W ,R W ), must pass through the point of confluence of the streams (Xjp.Rip).

The condition for co-existence between the flows within the prescribed shroud area can be formulated for a
general boundary point, Figure 14(c), by applying the continuity equation between_the initial secondary flow area,
A [ s , and the general location where As is to be found subject to (4.1); hence, W ]s = Ws and for isentropic
flow between these locations:

p(7s.M*) = ^L^(7l,Mt$). (4.5)

Thus, for a known value of Aj , the local value of M* can be found from (4.5). However, to find As the
secondary and primary flow fields must be linked. Consider two points (a) and (d). Figure 14(c), on the primary
boundary corresponding to the right-running characteristics (n) and (n + 1). Assuming for the time being that
the primary and secondary properties are known at Point (a) on the ( n ) t h R-R characteristic*, the conditions at
Point (d) on (n + l ) t h R-R characteristic can be found in the following way. If the calculations are made along
the (n + 1 )tl* R-R characteristic, then conditions at the interior point (c) are found from the characteristic
relationships and the previously found data at Points (a) and (b) - see Appendix II for "field point" calculations.
The data at (c) and the boundary conditions along (a-d) specified by (4.1 and 4.5) are then used in an iterative
procedure to determine point (d).

Assuming as a first approximation that the flow properties at (d) are simply the average values at (a) and (c),
the characteristic relations can be used to find, to a first approximation, the coordinates (X p , R p ) of the point (d).
The secondary flow area As aMhisjpoint is then found from (4.4). Corresponding to this flow area, M* is
found from (4.5). Now since P s = P p , M p at point (d) is found for isentropic flow from:

(p/p 0 H 7 s X)
^(7P,M*) = <4-6-
r
o (P/P0)(7s,Mts) P „
where (P/P 0 )( 7 ,M*) is the isentropic pressure ratio function. With these values of (X p ,R p ,Mp), the local flow
angle 0 p is then evaluated using the characteristic relations.

By a typical method of successive approximations based on always using the previous approximation,
(X p ,Rp,M p ,0 p )j , to evaluate the next (X p , R p ,M p ,0 p ) i + i , convergence to a stable set of values is rapid; the
iteration is terminated when:

0 < | ( 0 p ) i + 1 - (0 p )-| < e . (4-7)

* Right-running or Family 1 Characteristic.

52

While calculating the downstream flow fields for a pair of values (M>-s,PIs), a boundary point calculation could
occur where the secondary stream's area ratio, according to (4.5), would be less than one, i.e., (A/A )s < 1 . This
of course is not physically possible since (A/A*)s > 1 is required. In this case, an iteration must be made within
the flow fields to locate the point where

1 < (A/A*), < (1 + e ) . (4.8)

This calculation then determines the "choking" point corresponding to (Mi s ,P. s ); however, whether or not this
represents a valid inviscid solution depends upon the boundary conditions imposed on the ejector system.

Another important characteristic of the secondary flow field to be observed during the flow-fields calculation
is whether or not the secondary flow area ratio, (A/A*) s , has a minimum value and if so, where does it occur.
Physically, the secondary flow area goes through a minimum value because the strength of the compression waves
within the primary flow field is sufficient to nullify the effects of the secondary stream's expansion on the primary
stream's boundary. After the location where the minimum secondary flow area occurs, the secondary flow area
ratio begins to increase. Depending on the flow conditions at the minimum point and the ambient pressure level,
the secondary stream will start to diffuse or continue to expand, cf., the performance of a converging-diverging
nozzle after the throat.

To detect whether or not the secondary has a minimum value, the following procedure is carried-out concurrently
with the inviscid flow field calculations. For a minimum value of (A/A*)s ,

(4.9)
dx

at X , and

T* IA-' * ° (4.10)

for X ^ X m i n . Condition (4.10) can be expressed in terms of the local boundary and shroud wall properties as

Rn
tan (0W) _ t a n (4.11)
i *-*p
Rw + H K ~ R^)RwCos20w

where R^, = d 2 R w /dX 2 . For a shroud wall profile of the form:

Rw = AX2 + BX + C , (4.12)

Equation (4.11) becomes:

Rr-
tan (0 w ) m a - tan 0 r (4.13)
Rw + (R , - R2)A cos 2 0 w
2

As the inviscid flow fields are established step-by-step in the downstream direction, the value of (0 w ) m a is found
from (4.11) or (4.13) corresponding to the local values of (R p ,0 p ,R w ). For the secondary stream to have a minimum
area, the following condition between the local shroud wall angle, 0W , and (0 w ) m a must be satisfied.

I*w - (ew)mal £ 0 (4.14)

when X ^ X min • The minimum area criterion, (4.14), is checked at each downstream location as the flow fields
are established; when the difference [0W — (0 w ) ma l changes sign, an iteration is then made within the flow field to
determine the location where X = X m i n .

The solution criteria for the inviscid analysis will now be discussed for the possible modes of ejector operation
within this regime.

4.3 Solution Criteria

The solution criteria are based on the internal conditions that the secondary stream must satisfy while under-
going changes in its flow area, Mach number, and static pressure as a result of interacting with the primary stream.
These conditions are enumerated for the one-dimensional treatment of the secondary flow.
 53

4.3.1 "Unchoked" Operation

If the shroud is sufficiently long, the secondary stream, Figure 15(a), will accelerate and attain a minimum flow
area within the shroud. After the minimum flow area, the secondary flow must then diffuse to the ambient pressure
level at the shroud exit. These conditions are; (A/A*)s = minimum and'for

* < X min , Mfs < M" < 1 .

Then for
Xmin < X < Xe , M* < QAt)m,n < 1 .

such that at
X = Xe , (P s ) e = (P a ) .

If the mixing between the secondary and primary stream is small, the flow field for, X m - n < X < X e , can be
determined by the inviscid-interaction analysis described in the previous section. Since these calculations are normally
for given values of (M*s, P Is ), the flow field calculations are made to the shroud exit where the^value of (P s ) e is
then determined; for this to be a valid operating point (the indirect solution method), Pa = (P s ) e is required.

For short-shroud ejector systems operating in this regime, Figure 15(b), it is possible that a minimum area is
not attained within the shroud. If this is the case, the flow fields are established to the shroud exit where
(P a ) = (P s ) e must be satisfied.

When the shroud configuration is such that considerable mixing takes place between the streams for X > X m j n ,
completely mixed flow at the shroud exit can be assumed, and an overall one-dimensional analysis of the system
made if the shroud has a constant cross-sectional area. However, for nonconstant area shrouds, this problem is
difficult since the shroud-wall pressure distribution must be considered in such an analysis.

4.3.2 "Choked" Operation

For the secondary stream to be "choked" within the shroud, Figure 16(a), the secondary flow must simultane-
ously satisfy the condition that:

(A/A*)s = minimum and (Mf) min = 1 . (4.15)

These conditions then define the "choking" point as well as its location. For this mode of operation, Figure 16(b),
the ambient pressure level must be such that the secondary flowcan be recompressed or expanded, either internally
or externally, downstream of Xm-n to the prevailing value of Pa . The adjustment of the secondary flow to the
ambient pressure can be accomplished by:
1. Subsonic diffusion to the exit, i.e.,
(M*) < 1 for X min < X < Xe and (P s ) e = Pa . (4.16a)

2. Supersonic expansion to the exit with the final adjustment to the ambient conditions external to the
shroud.
(M*) > 1 for X mjn < X < Xe . (4.16b)

3. Supersonic-shock-subsonic flow within the ejector shroud to satisfy the ambient pressure conditions.
i*
(M*) > 1 for Xmin < X < X s h k , and
(Mf) < 1 for X shk < X < Xe and (P s ) e = Pa . (4.16c)

4. Internal flow conditions similar to (1), (2), or (3) coupled with significant mixing occurring between the
primary and secondary streams so that the secondary stream essentially loses its identity.

For flow conditions (1), (2), and (3), above, the streams are assumed to remain essentially distinct within the ejector
shroud and as a result, the flow fields can be analyzed as a continuation of the inviscid interaction between the
streams (Section 4.4). Due to the complexity of the flow within the ejector, the analysis for the last case, item 4,
must necessarily be based on typical one-dimensional methods and simplifying assumptions concerning the shroud-
wall geometry and the mixed-flow conditions at the shroud exit.

A significant problem in applying the "choked" flow criterion is the determination of the conditions,
(P<S,M*S), for which (A/A*)s is a minimum and M* is simultaneously equal to one. Since this point is a
saddle point in the mathematical sense, its determination can, at best, be only approximate as a result of the
necessary trade-off between computation time and an acceptable degree of accuracy in determining its location.
54

However, these approximations have a negligible effect on the determination of the inviscid mass flow characteristics
and a more significant, although acceptable, effect on the determination of the shroud wall pressure distribution.

The "choking" location within the shroud is determined for a given value of P i s by assuming an initial value
of M*s and then calculating the corresponding inviscid flow fields until a point is found where in general either:

1.* (A/A*) s = minimum and (Mf)min < ( 1 - e ) (4.17a)

or It M* " ( 1 - e ) and (A/A*) * minimum. (4.17b)

For the first case, the value of M*s would be increased above its initially assumed value, now (M* s ) m a .
Conversely in the second case, the value of M*s would be decreased below its initially assumed value, now (M] s ) c .
The value of M*s is then varied according to this procedure until M*s is "bracketed", i.e.,

(M*s)ma < Mil < (M*s)c- (4.18)

After the above condition is encountered, an interval halving technique, which always keeps M*s "bracketed", will
rapidly establish a stable value for the mass flow characteristics, i.e.,

KM|s)ma - (M* s ) c | < e, (4.19a)

KWj)ma - (W-)c| < e2 . (4.19b)

Corresponding to conditions (4.19), the inviscid mass flow characteristics are then essentially established;
however even in this limited range of variation in M* s , the value of (M*) m i n can still be somewhat less than one.
The assumption is then made that the inviscid flow fields corresponding to M*s = (M* s ) m a , after satisfying condi-
tion (4.19), are approximately equivalent to the flow fields for the true "choking" solution. The value of (M*) m i n
is then set equal to:

C<)min = (1 + «) (4-20)

and correspondingly, an improved estimate of the shroud pressure distribution for X, < X < X m - n is made. Since
for this assumption (A s ) m - n = ( A * ) , then the improved estimate of the flow conditions at any interior point (n)
is obtained from:

£hr,<Mttl = ( ^ y - (4-2D
After solving (4.21) for (M*) n , the improved estimate, the shroud wall pressure distribution is found from:

(-Vn = JT [T,.(M*)y J l7s,MtslPls . (4.22)

For 6] sufficiently small, (4.19), corrections represented by (4.21) and (4.22) are also small; however, a more
important aspect of this approximation is in establishing, although approximate, well-defined flow conditions at the
"choking" location for use in the later "downstream" flow-field calculations.

In summary, the inviscid flow-field calculations up to the "choking" location establishes:

(i) the inviscid reduced mass-flow ratio Ws ,

(ii) the inviscid flow fields up to this location, and
(iii) the conditions necessary for continuing the flow-field calculations downstream.

4.4 "Downstream" Flow-Field Analysis

The flow-field calculations downstream of the "choking" and/or minimum area location are restricted here to
those cases where the streams remain essentially distinct throughout the ejector. The basic calculation technique is
a continuation of the inviscid flow-fields analysis (Section 4.2); however in the "choked" case, the analysis must
now include the possible ways in which the secondary stream can satisfy the boundary condition imposed at the
ejector exit by the ambient pressure.

* This case corresponds to a possible "unchoked" solution.

t This would be a possible solution only if this location coincides with the ejector exit and (P s ) e > Pa .
 55

4.4.1 "Unchoked" Flow

For the unchoked case, the secondary flow area has a minimum value but (Mf) m i n < I . The inviscid-
interaction flow-field calculations are simply continued downstream from the minimum area location to the
ejector exit. At the exit^the secondary stream static pressure ratio, (P s ) e , must then be equal to the prevailing
ambient pressure ratio, P a , for this to be an inviscid solution. In the indirect method of solution, the initial
values of (M*s, P[S) establish the corresponding solution values of (Wj and P a ). These conditions are illustrated in
Figure 15(a).

The only complications generally encountered in these calculations arise from compression waves coalescing
within the primary flow field. This problem becomes more severe as the calculations proceed further downstream
due to the local compression of the secondary stream, as well as the increasing strength of the compression waves
in the primary flow field.

4.4.2 "Choked" Flow

Between the "choking" location and the exit, the secondary stream, depending on the ambient pressure level,
can be; (i) entirely subsonic, (ii) entirely supersonic, or (iii) supersonic-shock-subsonic. Each of these flow condi-
tions can be used to define, in analogy to the converging-diverging nozzle, various "limiting" operating conditions
for the ejector system.

When the secondary flow is entirely subsonic to the exit, Figure 16(b), then P a = (P s ) e is required. For the
values of (M*s, Pi s ), this flow condition thus defines the break-off point, i.e.,

(•VBO = (Pi). ^ 1 > Mf > (Ms*)e . (4.23)

If the secondary flow is entirely supersonic to the exit, Figure 16(b), the "ideally expanded" secondary flow
conditions, in analogy to the converging-diverging nozzle, occur when:

(P a )iE = (P s )e and (M?) e > 1. (4.24)

Similarly, the degree to which the secondary flow can be "over-expanded" is determined for a normal shock standing
in the secondary stream at the shroud exit. In the usual shock notation, the ambient pressure ratio for this condition
is:

OVOE - (Ps)e5*l7,.(Mf)el . (4.25a)

where P y / P x is the static pressure ratio function for a normal shock wave. Then for this operating condition, the
ambient pressure ratio must be in the range:

0 < P a < (P a ) O E . (4.25b)

For (Pa)oE < Pa "^ (Pa^BO • Figure 16(b), a shock system occurs inside the shroud and the secondary stream
then goes supersonic-shock-subsonic to the exit. For the indirect method of analysis, the shock wave is assumed to
occur in the secondary stream at various locations

^min < Xjhk •*• ^ e

within the shroud. Corresponding to each shock location, the values of (Mi *S ,P S ) are known; consequently, the flow
conditions in the secondary stream after the shock can be determined from the one-dimensional normal shock rela-
tions as:
(M*) y = [(M s *) x l-' (4.26a)

(P s )y = ( P s ) x ^ (7S,(MS*)X] (4.26b)
"x

(Af) y /(Af) x = ^[7S,(MS*)X] . (4.26c)

H)y

At the primary stream boundary, Figure 17(b), the values of the flow variables are determined from the condition
that (P p )y = (Pj)y • Then from the oblique shock relationships:

(M*) y = f[7p,(M*)x,(Ps)y/(Ps)x]t (4.26d)

* x and y are locations respectively before and after the shock.

t See footnote on next page.
56

and 6 - - [(0 p ) x - (0p) y l = f[7p,(M*)x,(Ps)y/(Ps)xl* . (4.26e)

Thus the flow variables [X p , R p , M p , 0 p ] y , are determined for the primary stream after the shock system.

The data determined from (4.26) are sufficient to continue the inviscid-interacting calculations to the ejector
exit where P a = (P s ) e is required.

The "downstream" flow field calculations for the various conditions described above follow, except as noted,
the typical inviscid-interaction technique of Section 4.2.

4.5 Two-Stream Mixing Correction

The effects of mixing along the boundary between the primary and secondary streams are approximately
evaluated by locally superimposing the mixing region on the inviscid flow fields at the minimum secondary flow
area. Although the mixing between the streams actually takes place along a non-constant pressure boundary, the
assumption is made that the actual velocity profile at the minimum secondary flow area. Figure 18(b), can be
approximated by the velocity profile which would result if two uniform streams at the local flow conditions,
Figure 18(a), were hypothetically mixed at constant pressure through a distance equal to the actual mixing length
along the non-constant pressure boundary. On this basis, the constant-pressure two-stream mixing analysis
(Appendix III) is used to estimate the influence on the secondary flow due to entrainment by the primary stream.

The effects of the entrainment of the secondary flow by the primary stream are interpreted, in the boundary
layer sense, as being equivalent to a displacement in the secondary stream's boundary. If (—6*) denotes a displace-
ment of the secondary boundary corresponding to an increase in the secondary flow area. Figure 18(c), the change
in secondary flow area at X = X m - n is approximately

AAS = - 2 i r ( R p ) m i n 6 * (4.27a)

or, introducing the mixing length and the similarity parameter,

^ =^ = , . ( 2 : / ) , ,4.™

An expression for (—a II 5*/x m ) based on the two-stream constant-pressure mixing model is derived in Appendix III,
and a graphical representation of this function is given in Figure AIII.3 for the isoenergetic case.

For this change in the secondary flow area, the corresponding change in the mass-flow ratio is

(R
AW = — -^2- P)min (I
Vrm" F[y
* ' (M *>minl / Z £ l l ^ \
On Rip RlP (Pip) F(7p,Mfp)

where [x m '(Rp)min'(Ps)min'(- v -*)mini 1 are determined from the inviscid flow-field analysis, and [o n ,{— a,.6*/x m )] are
evaluated from the mixing analysis for the local flow conditions at the minimum secondary flow area. The "corrected"
mass-flow ratio is then given by

W = (Wj + AW) . (4.29)

If the inviscid flow fields are assumed to be representative of the flow conditions in the presence of mixing, an
improved approximation to the secondary flow conditions based on the "corrected" mass flow conditions can be
made. In particular, the initial secondary flow Mach number (or M*s) corresponding to the "corrected" mass-flow
ratio is found from

F[ 7 s ,(Mt s )/l = ^£^F(7p,M|p)W. (4.30)

A
l s "ip

The value of M | S found from (4.30) has been designated as the "limiting value", (M*s)y , for the given static
pressure ratio P j s . For these conditions, the stagnation pressure ratio is

Pos = P l s y iTs.O-fs),] (4.31)

The "pumping" characteristics of the ejector including the effects of mixing are thengiven by [W, P 0 s ] from
Equations (4.29) and (4.31). Corresponding to these values, the ambient pressure ratio, P a , is determined from
the inviscid "downstream" flow-field analysis (Section 4.4).

t See Reference 28. For relatively weak compressions of the primary stream, the oblique shock can be approximated by a reversible
compression thus simplifying the calculations.
 57

The theoretical analysis using this approximate treatment of the mixing between the streams is shown 1 ' 2 , 3
to be in good agreement with experiments for the geometries investigated. Peters 29 obtained similar results by
considering the mixing component concurrently with the inviscid analysis.

4.6 Shroud-Wall Boundary Layer

The secondary stream's flow area is effectively reduced by the boundary layer which develops along the shroud
wall. The effects of the boundary layer on the ejector mass-flow characteristics can be estimated by superposition
of the boundary layer's displacement thickness on the inviscid flow fields as was done for the mixing region. To do
this the boundary layer development along the shroud wall is estimated*, to a first approximation, from the second-
ary stream's Mach number distribution determined by the inviscid analysis.

The overall effects of the boundary layer, however, would be expected to be small since:

(i) the secondary stream is accelerating,

(ii) the boundary-layer development lengths are normally small, and
(iii) the two-stream mixing region tends to locally cancel-out the displacement effect of the boundary layer.

5. EJECTOR THRUST EVALUATION

The analysis of the internal flow within an ejector establishes the pumping characteristics of the system as well
as the corresponding shroud wall pressure distribution. The results of this analysis are in general

W = f(P 0 s ,P a ) or Mls/ = f(P l s ,P a )

and
Pw = f(W,P0s,Pa,X).

From these data, the gross (static) thrust of the ejector system can be evaluated by applying the momentum equation
in the x-direction to the overall system (sec Figure I). The gross thrust is given by

Tgross = J (P-P„)dAx+J Vx(pV-dA), (5.1)

where P ^ has been introduced as a reference ambient pressure level. To evaluate (5.1), the integrals over the
non-uniform flow conditions at the ejector exit can be expressed in terms of the initial ejector flow conditions and
the integrated shroud wall pressure distribution. For a control volume coinciding with the initial section, the shroud
wall, and the ejector exit, the integrals over the ejector exit section can be expressed as:

f (P - P . J dA x + | v (pV • dA) = f (P - P„) dA x - f V x (pV • dA)

J
%• Ae X [Ss Ss

f (P - ?„) dAx - J Vx(pV • dA) + / (P - Poo) dA x . (5.2)

•A .
/Alp 'Alp

Combining Equations (5.1) and (5.2), the equation for the gross thrust becomes

f (P-P.JdAx - / Vx(pV-dA) (P - P^) dA x - f V x (pV • dA)

•gross Ss Ss SP SP

+ J (P-P<JdAx. (5.3)
Aw

For the assumed flow conditions at section (1) of the ejector, the expression for the gross thrust can be simplified
to:
r
IfilPii. = c o s 0 l w ^ - [1+7SM]S/] + P , p [ l + 7 p M ] p l - P 0 0 1 + COS 0[v + — f (P-P.JdAx.(5.4)
P
0pAlp A
lp •Ip A l p -Aw

The ejector analysis thus determines [M l s / , P l s , P w ] and consequently the gross thrust can be found from (5.4).

* A computer program suitable for the boundary layer analysis is contained in Reference 15.
58

For thrust-augmentation applications, Figure 19, the operating point of the ejector system is determined by
matching the intake and afterbody characteristics to those of the ejector system4. The intake and ejector mass
flow-pressure characteristics are matched at the ejector's entrance section while at the ejector exit section the
matching, if necessary, is between the afterbody and the secondary stream static pressures. The intake's mass
flow-pressure characteristics can be expressed as

Wimake = MM...?......) (5.5a)

intake = f2(M„, P^,...) , (5.5b)

where fW^fg^g, P- nta k e l are respectively the dimensionless mass flow and static pressure ratios at the intake's exit
section (ejector's entrance section, see Figure 19). Along the surface joining the intake and ejector, the matching
requires that
_
Wjntake " W (5.6a)
Pintake = ?ls • (5.6b)

In actuality, the intake-ejector matching represents in general the intersection of their performance surfaces when
both are expressed in the same coordinates. At the ejector exit, the static pressure of the secondary stream can be

(PS)e 5 Pab - (5P)

depending upon the flow regime and the conditions within the ejector. For the Pa-dependent regime, (P s ) e = P ab
is required and consequently, the ejector pumping characteristics are influenced by the condition^ at the terminus
of the afterbody. In the Pa-independent regime, condition (5.7) holds; however for this case, P a b only influences
the shroud-wall pressure-area integral in Equation (5.4). The coupling between the intake, ejector, and afterbody
subsystems is thus a significant factor to be considered in the net inflight thrust analysis of such systems.

For the "matched" ejector operating point, the gross thrust is then evaluated from (5.4). The net inflight
thrust performance of the system must then take into account the reduction in the thrust level due to the after-
body drag, the "additive" intake drag, and the intake momentum flux and pressure-area integral.

The "matching" technique is in principle straight-for ward; however difficulties are encountered in practice as
a result of the lack of information on intake performance characteristics and the influence of the intake on the
flow over the system's afterbody.

6. EJECTOR FLOW MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

The ejector flow models described in the foregoing sections have been incorporated into a single computer
program written in FORTRAN IV language. The salient features of this program are outlined in Table I.

Comparisons between the theoretical analyses and experiments have been presented in the literature 2 ' 3,4 for
several ejector configurations. However, for completeness, somejjf these comparisons have been included here.
Figure 20(a) (References 2 and 3) is a comparison between the Pa-independent pumping characteristics of an
ejector with a constant-area shroud and an ejector with a parabolic shroud with the same minimum flow area.
The slight wall curvature of the parabolic shroud is seen to significantly alter the systems pumping characteristics.
Experimental data for both systems is included in this figure. Figure 20(b) (Ref.2) is a comparison between the
experimental data and theoretical curve for the "limiting initial secondary Mach number, Mi s /" for an ejector
with a constant area shroud. The divergence between the theoretical and experimental data at the higher values
of Pis is attributed to the small wake formed at the base of the primary nozzle due to its finite thickness. The
third and last figure in these comparisons, Figure 20(c), is a comparison between the experimental and the inviscid
theoretical shroud-wall pressure distributions up to the "choking" point for various values of P[ s . The latter
figure tends to validate, at least for this configuration, the superposition of the mixing region on the inviscid flow
fields. Peters29 has made a comparison with a similar pressure distribution given in Reference 3 for the parabolic-
shroud ejector system; his analysis also tends to validate the approach taken here.

7. AREAS WARRANTING FURTHER INVESTIGATION

The ejector analysis presented in the foregoing sections appears to adequately describe and treat the flow
phenomena within ejector systems whose configurations are reasonably consistent with the various simplifying
assumptions. Even so, there still exist many questions of a basic nature which must be resolved, or at least
better understood before:
 59

(i) an improvement between theory and experiment can be achieved,

(ii) the limits of applicability of this analysis can be established, and
(iii) the analysis can be extended to more general configurations and flow conditions.

The principal problem areas are related to the development and recompression of the mixing region, the extent
to which the primary-secondary flow-field analyses can be uncoupled from the mixing analysis and the need for an
adequate configuration-oriented secondary flow-field analysis. More specifically, some of the problem areas are
listed below.

(i) Only limited information is currently available on the detailed development and associated transport
properties for turbulent mixing at constant pressure or in the presence of favorable or adverse pressure
gradients. Additional information from experimental and theoretical investigations is needed to define
more clearly the limits of applicability of uncoupling the flow-field and mixing analyses. This informa-
tion would also provide guidance in formulating a more general ejector analysis and could serve,
partially at least, as a basis for assessing the merits of certain proposed thrust-augmentation systems.
(ii) The interaction between the "nearly" inviscid flows and the mixing region in the vicinity of the wall and
the subsequent recompression of the mixing region is not well understood. An investigation of this
problem would be applicable to the "zero" and "small" flow regimes as well as to a class of base
pressure problems.
(iii) For configurations where the mixing and flow-field analyses can be uncoupled, a more generalized
treatment of the secondary flow field and the secondary-primary streams interaction is required:
(a) for non-uniform "boundary layer like" secondary flow, and
(b) when the primary stream and shroud wall curvatures are significant thus invalidating the assumption
of uniform one-dimensional flow.
(iv) When the secondary flow area and the flow area due to the mixing region's displacement thickness are
on the same order of magnitude, a concurrent mixing and flow-field analysis must be carried-out. In
addition, the various solution criteria must be reconsidered in relation to this analysis. The work of
Peters 29 is a significant step toward solving this problem.
(v) The influence of the mixing region and boundary layer on the "downstream" flow-field, the recompression
processes, possible flow separation at the shroud wall, and the resulting shroud-wall pressure distribution —
are important factors in thrust performance evaluations, which require additional study.

Many of these problem areas are basic and obviously go beyond the ejector analysis in their applicability. As
a result, many of the problems should be investigated in simplified component studies freed from the necessarily
complicating context of the ejector system analysis.

A recent study of factors which influence the design and analysis of ejector nozzles has been conducted and
reported in the literature 38 ; this study has particular importance because the findings have a direct relationship and
bearing on the ejector flow model discussed in the preceding sections.
60

TABLE I

Essential Characteristics of the Ejector Computer Program

(FORTRAN IV, IBM 7094, 360/75).

Input Data

1. Ejector Shroud Wall Geometry:

Specified by two equations of the form:

Rw = AX2 + BX + C

where 0 < X < Xe .

2. Primary Stream Properties and Variables:

7 p , Rp, T 0 p , X l p , R l p , M l p , 0 l p .

3. Secondary Stream Properties and Variables

7 S . Rs . T 0s •

4. Options:
(a) "unchoked" solutions and downstream flow field calculations.
(b) "choked" solutions.
(c) "choked" solutions and downstream flow field calculations.
(d) complete set of calculations, i.e., Pj, < Pi s < (P]s)max •
(e) specified point calculation only.

Solution Output Data

"Unchoked" Operation:

Ks/^ls'Pal' [ W * V P a l ' Pw(X)' 3nd T

gross/ A lp P 0 P
for P b < P l s < ( P l s ) m a x -

2. "Choked" Operation:

[M^.Pisl, (W,P 0s l for P b < P l s < ( P u ) m a x and, if the

option is selected, P W (X), T g r o s s /PopAi p for the range of
permissible P a .
 61

•OPI-OP rP

Rw -AXw + BXw + C
Fig. 1 Ejector configuration and notation

Break-off
Curve

Fig.2 Ejector mass flow characteristic surface, W = f(Prj s , Pa)

62

>i Break-off
Curve

Base pressure ratio

Fig.3 Ejector characteristic surface M>-s = f ( P l s , P a )

Pa = constant plane
(Pa-independent regime)

Pa= constant
(Pa-dependent regime)

Break-off
Curve

Fig.4(a) Intersection of the W-surface with planes of constant P a

 63

w
A
Planes Pos
= constant
Break-off
Curve

Fig.4(b) Intersection of the W-surface with planes of constant PQS

Break-off
Curve

Plane Pos= Pa

Fig.4(c) Intersection of the W-surface with a plane Pa = P 0 s

64

Planes of P = constant

Break-off
Curve

Fig.5(a) Intersection of the Mis-surface with planes of constant Pa

Break-off
Curve

Constant Pno
a is
Fig.5(b) Intersection of the M|s-surface with planes of constant P] s
 65

CO

10-o

to
IQT

/ W, M 1 S = 0

Bre ak-off
poii-it
"B n"
i
S R ase pre ssure
i i i i
0
a
Fig.6 Intersection of the Mls-(or W-)surface with the base plane

<L
Mixing
zone /Recompression
shock
Wake
region

Primary Recompression
boundary zone

Fig.7 Flow field for "zero" flow regime

66

M. , P
Is ' Is
Pos

Increasing P -
i» Decreasing PQ
Recompression

(Ps).= Pa

(a) Pressure distributions for "choked" secondary flow

P,(x)
Increasing M,
/ l s Decreasing P
Is
(PS'e=Pa
Expansion
- - Choked -
Recompression

(b) Pressure distributions for "unchoked" secondary flow

Fig.8 "Moderate to high" secondary flow regime

 67

1. (M 1 S ,P 1 S ) same for both systems

2. "Choked" operation for both systems

. Break-
" off

Pa range

Exit Exit
(a) Short-shroud ejector (b) Long-shroud ejector

Fig.9 Qualitative influence of ejector shroud length on recompression to Pa ("choked" regime)

1.0
(P. ) > (P. ) 9 "BO"
Is 1 Is 2

Decreasing
Shroud
Length

M
Is

Is 2

P Pn / P
nn
a a op

Fig.9(c) Influence of shroud length on the break-off (BO) point

68

CP
v
(L
Pi I /
Ip I / \ Recompression
Pop'1
Shock
^ ^ ^ P A1P!X
i \ /

Wake
Region

See Figs 10b 8 10c

Fig. 10(a) "Corresponding inviscid flow field" for the "zero" flow regime

Inviscid boundary

Recompression
Shock

ew \6i*)

*-w[i-*«q V77777777777yV7Zr
r^7777'
Fig. 10(b) Superposition of the mixing region on Fig. 10(c) Recompression shock system at
the inviscid primary boundary the reattachment point of the
"corresponding inviscid boundary"

^ ^ > ^ _

p?^W
Pw(x)

P
shk"
Korsf

A* Experiment

Pw (X)

a ^ l

Fig. 10(d) Actual recompression pressure rise in the vicinity of the reattachment point
 64

Secondary

Inviscid
boundary
%*..

Primary
rd^ 1
Fig. 11(a) Schematic of theoretical reattachment (ONERA, Reference 22)

* = i=H 1+er -™]

Inviscid
boundary

Fig. 11(b) Superposition of the mixing region and determination of the displacement of the /-streamline
70

Fig. 12 Empirical law of angular reattachment (ONERA, Reference 22)

Inviscid Two-Stream
Boundary

(a) Flow model for "small" flow regime

Two- Stream Inviscid Boundary

W;

(b) Recompression region for the entrained secondary flow

Fig. 13 Flow model for "small" flow regime

 71

POP = I * H ^ p
Xp (Xip.Rip)-^ I / A V
TOP ^ ^ s a ^ V ' x ' A7
p
is
Has wis •
n A1S
Tos £, ^-(X,,R,) *""

(a) Two-stream inviscid flow model

(XpiRp)
Inviscid Primary
Boundry

^ \ \ \ \ ^

(Xw,Rw)

(b) Secondary flow area determination

(n+l)tt>r(b)
nth ,'' \(c) (xp, Rp)
X m' .\ / :
s
Is

p = p

(Xw,Rw/

(c) Linking of secondary and primary flow fields

Fig. 14 Inviscid two-stream flow fields

72

Primary

Secondary \

( M < 1
s
*> Lmm
i n

( A / A ) = minimum
s
Increasing M. , W,
9
Is' I
<•?).= Pa

(Po^BO

Fig. 15(a) "Unchoked" secondary flow [(A/A*)s = minimum. (Mf) min < 1, (P s ) e = Pa]

MIP i
dAs
dX
# 0
J ^
U ^<0

PW(X)

Fig. 15(b) "Unchoked" secondary flow [(A/A*)s =£ minimum, (Mf)e < 1 ]

 73

\ \
\

lnviscid
- \S V^—- Boundary
s
— <o >0

min

(M;)=I

(a) "Choking" criterion

Is M* W = constants
Is
-r-(Pa'BO

— (M ) =1
-P.-.'" 5 .
PM) s min
"I—«?>0E

-+- -<Pc)ll
•-. ) . » Pa
—1 —
x
min

(b) Shroud-wall pressure distribution for "choked" operation

Fig. 16 "Choked" two-stream inviscid solution

74

Shock
// System
Primary y /

/ \ At Boundary
Boundary \ / (pp)\ /(Pp^ (Ps)x MPp)x
(P s )y =(Pp)y
(M*) x
Secondary

^^NW^WW^
dX

(a) Supersonic-shock-subsonic "downstream" flow

t X n , R Dp-"x,y
]

(Mg)x ( 9 pD )^x
(x) (y)

(b) Shock system configuration

Fig. 17 "Downstream" flow field calculations

 75

Inviscid
Boundary

Secondary

^^^\v^\K\<\^^^ I
X min dA s. _
dX = 0
where (M S>
*)m.n
'min < 1
( A / A * )Is
c = minimum

(a) Inviscid velocity profile at the "choking" point

Primary
Inviscid
Boundary

Two-St ream
Secondary Mixing Region

Xmin
(b) Viscid approximation at the "choking" point

fc*
0
Displaced Boundary
==-S=JL_ ===•=. Due to Mixing
-— .1*1 "* Inviscid Boundary
i—-J
i

^\V^\1k\\\\VsV?\
Xmin
(c) Approximate displacement of the streams' boundary at the minimum secondary flow area due to mixing

Fig. I 8 Approximate two-stream viscid correction

76

Freestream Intake
M
Afterbody

Ejector Control Volume

Fig. 19 Thrust augmentation system

0.6

Theory
0.5 Inviscid solutions
Viscous effects included

0.4
Parabolic shroud, Ref.3
0.3 - R w /Rip = - 1 . 7 4 - ^ ( X / R i p ) Exp, data Ref.
o 3
A 2
0.2

Constant area shroud, Ref. 2

0.1 Rw/Rlp=-1.74

0
18
Pos XIO'

Fig.20(a) Comparison of theory and experiment for the pumping characteristics of two ejector systems.
(After References 2 and 3)
 77

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 o
l.VJ

Experimental Ao
A H
0.8 — A 71 -

9r
£0.6 -

0.4 - -

0.2 -
Pis - Pip J
n ^ i — ^ \ i 1 i i \! i
8 10 12 14 16
X
Pis 10 2
Fig.20(b) Comparison of theory and experiment for the "limiting initial secondary Mach number" for a constant
shroud area ejector system. (M.p = 2, A w /A [ p = 3.06 (Ref.2))

P1S Table
Inviscid Theory Experimental
Line Value Symbol Value
0.06574 o 0.0658
0.090 A 0.092
0.110 a 0.111

1.0

0.5
_L _L
2 3 4
X/Rip

Fig.20(c) Comparison of theory and experiment for the pressure distribution up to the "choking" point.
(M lp = 2, A w /A l p = 3.06 (Ref.2))
78

APPENDIX I

A LITERATURE REVIEW OF
EJECTOR SYSTEMS AND RELATED TOPICS

Ejectors

Keenan, J.H., Newmann, E.P. and Lustwerk, F. "An Investigation of Ejector Design by Analysis and Experiment."
ASME Transactions, Vol.72, 1950.

Kochendorfer, F.D. and Rousso, M.D. "Performance Characteristics of Aircraft Cooling Ejectors having Short
Cylindrical Shrouds." NACA RM E51E01, May 1951.

Knoerschild, E.M. "The Design and the Performance Calculation of Ejectors and Aspirators." AF Technical
Report No.6673, Wright Air Development Center, 1951.

Ellis, C.W., Hollister, D.P. and Sargent A.F., Jr. "Preliminary Investigation of Cooling-Air Ejector Performance at
Pressure Ratio from 1 to 10." NACA RM E51H21, October 1951.

Greathouse, W.K. and Hollister, D.P. "Air-Flow and Thrust Characteristics of Several Cylindrical Cooling-Air
Ejectors with a Primary to Secondary Temperature Ratio of 1.0." RM F 52L24, NACA, 1953.

Fabri, J., Le Grives, F. and Siestrunck, R. "Etude Aerodynamique des Trompes Supersoniques." Jahrbuch der
Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fuer Luftfahrt, Braunschweig 11, pp.101-110, 1954.

Kochendorfer, F.D. "Effect of Properties of Primary Fluid on Performance of Cylindrical Shroud Ejectors."
NACA RM E53L24a, March 1954.

Kochendorfer, F.D. "Note on Performance of Aircraft Ejector Nozzles at High Secondary Flows." RM E54F17a,
NACA, 1954.

Greathouse, W.K. "Preliminary Investigation of Pumping and Thrust Characteristics of Full-Size Cooling-Air
Ejectors at Several Exhaust-Gas Temperatures." NACA RM E54A18, 1954.

Hearth, D.P. and Valerino, A.S. "Thrust and Pumping Characteristics of a Series of Ejector-Type Exhaust Nozzles
at Subsonic and Supersonic Flight Speeds." NACA RM E54H19, November 1954.

Huntley, S.C. and Yanowitz, H. "Pumping and Thrust Characteristics of Several Divergent Cooling-Air Ejectors
and Comparison of Performance with Conical and Cylindrical Ejectors." NACA RM E53J13, January 1954.

Useller, J.W., Huntley, S.C. and Fenn, D.B. "Combined Compressor Coolant Injection and Afterburning for
Turbojet Thrust Augmentation." N63-12531 NACA, 16th September 1954.

Greathouse, W.K. "Performance Characteristics of Several Full-Scale Double-Shroud Ejector Configurations over a
Range of Primary Gas Temperatures." RM E54F07, NACA, 1954.

Allen, J.L. "Pumping Characteristics for Several Simulated Variable-Geometry Ejectors with Hot and Cold Primary
Flow." RM E54G15, NACA, 1954.

Ciopluch, C.C. and Fenn, D.B. "Experimental Data for Four Full-Scale Conical Cooling-Air Ejectors." RM E54F02,
NACA, 1954.

Kochendorfer, F.D. "Effect of Properties of Primary Fluid on Performance of Cylindrical Shroud Ejectors."
RM E53L24a, NACA, 1954.

Rolls, L. Stewart and Havill, C. Dewey. "An Evaluation of Two Cooling-Air Ejectors in Flight at Transonic Speeds."
RM A54A05, NACA 1954.

Stett, L.E. and Valerino, A.S. "Effect of Freestream Mach Number on Gross-Force and Pumping Characteristics of
Several Ejectors." NACA RM E54K23a, March 1955.

Fabri, J. and Siestrunck, R. "Etude des divers regimes d'ecoulement dans 1'elargissement brusque d'une veine
supersonique." Rev. Gen. Sci. Appl. Brussels 114, pp.229-237, 1955.

Vogel, R. "Practical Application of Air Ejectors." X65-17214, NASA, 1956.

 79

Vogel, R. "Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Air Ejectors." X65-17215, NASA, 1956.

Cheers, F. "Development of an Air Injector." Report No. MT.31, National Research Council of Canada, 1956.

Falanga, R.A. and Leiss, A. "Free-Flight Investigation at Transonic Speeds of Drag Coefficients of a Boattail Body
of Revolution with a Simulated Turbojet Exhaust Issuing at the Base from Conical Short-Length Ejectors."
RM L56H23, NACA, 1956.

Carriere, P. "Interaction de 1'ecoulement externe et de I'ecoulement interne a la sortie d'un reacteur, aux vitesses
transsoniques, et supersoniques." Compt. Rend. J. Intern. Sci. Aeronaut, May 1957.

Fabri, J. and Paulon J. "Theory and Experiments on Supersonic Air-To-Air Ejectors." NACA TM 1410, September
1958.

Fabri, J. and Siestrunck, R. "Supersonic Air Ejectors." Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol.V, Academic Press,
1958.

Crocco, L. "One-Dimensional Treatment of Steady Gas Dynamics." Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics, edited by
H.W.Emmons (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1958), Vol.III, pp.272-293.

Rethorst, Scott and Royce, Winston. "The Annular Jet and Thrust Augmentation." N63-86009 Vehicle Research
Corp., Pasadena, California, 1st December 1958.

Mitchell, J.W. "Design Parameters for Subsonic Air-Air Ejectors." Report No.40, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford University, 1959.

Howell, R.R. "Experimental Operating Performance of a Single-State Annular Air Ejector." TN D-23, NASA, 1959.

Lewis, W.G.E. and Drabble J.S. "Ejector Experiments." Report No. R 151, National Gas Turbine Establishment,
Armed Services Technical Information Agency, 1960.

Gertsma, L.W. and Yeager, R.A. "Preliminary Investigation of Off-Design Performance of Divergent-Ejector-Type
Rocket Nozzles." N66-33346, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center,
Cleveland, Ohio, March 1960.

Chisolm, R.G.A. "Design and Calibration of an Air Ejector to Operate Against Various Back Pressures." N65-83059,
Toronto University Institute of Aerophysics, September 1960.

Corson, B.W. Jr, and Mercer, C.E. "Static Thrust of an Annual Nozzle with a Concave Central Base." NASA
Technical Note D-418, N62-70992 NASA, Langley Research Center, Langley Station, Va., September 1960.

German, R.C. and Bauer, R.C. "Effects of Diffuser Length on the Performance of Ejectors without Induced Flow."
AEDC-TN-61-89, August 1961.

Bauer, R.C. and German, R.C. "The Effect of Sound Throat Geometry on the Performance of Ejectors without
Induced Flow. AEDC-TN-61-133, November 1961.

Johnson, J.K., Jr., Snumpert, P.K. and Sutton J.F. "Steady Flow Ejector Research Program." Final Report
N62-16458, Lockheed-Georgia Co., Marietta, September 1961.

Bonnington, S.T. "The Design of Ejectors Driven by and Entraining Compressible Fluids." The British Hydro-
mechanics Research Association. N65-80898, 1962.

Chow, W.L. and Korst, H.H. "Influence on Base Pressures by Heat and Mass Additions." ARS J. 32, pp. 1094-1095,
1962.

Eastman, R.H. "Effects of a Particle-Laden Driving Stream on Ejector Efficiency." Report 52, Joseph Kaye Co., Inc.,
1963.

Francis, W.E. "A Generalized Procedure for Optimum Design of Injectors, Ejectors and Jet Pumps." 66 11912,
Midlands Research Station, The Gas Council, 1963.

Traksel, J. "Simplified Ejector and Jet Thrust Augmentor Theory"' Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 1963.

Hale, J.W. "Auxiliary Ejector Effects on Rocket-Driven Diffuser Performance during Thrust Variation." N63-22022,
Arnold Engr. Development Center, 1963.
80

DeHaan, R.E. "Supersonic Ejectors with Mixing at Constant Cross-Section." Section A, Vol.14, 1963.

Hale, J.W. "Comparison of Diffuser-Ejector Performance with Five Different Driving Fluids." Arnold Engr. Develop-
ment Center, 1963.

Addy, A.L. "On the Steady State and Transient Operating Characteristics of Long Cylindrical Shroud Supersonic
Ejectors (With Emphasis on the Viscous Interaction Between the Primary and Secondary Streams)." Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, June 1963.

Sirieix, M. "Contribution a 1'etude des ejecteurs supersoniques." T.P. 32, Association Technique Maritime et
Aeronautique, May 1963.

Scott, W.J. "Experimental Thrust Augmentation of a Variable Geometry, Two-Dimensional Coanda Wall Jet
Ejector." Aeronautical Report LR-394, National Research Council of Canada, 1964.

Chia-An-Wan. "A Study of Jet Ejector Phenomena." AD 613485, Aerophysics Department, Mississippi State
University, 1964.

Fitch, R.E. "Analysis of the Inviscid Interaction Between an Underexpanded Rocket Exhaust and a Confined
Secondary Stream." D2-36211-1 Boeing, 1964.

Dyke, M.C. and Seddon, J. "Ejectors and Mixing of Streams." X66-15575 Royal Aircraft Establishment,
Farnborough, England. Paris, Agard, 1964.

Harper, D.J. "The Thrust Augmentation of Rocket Motors at High Altitudes." A65-16437, Ministry of Aviation,
Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Hants, England. Royal Aeronautical Society Journal, Vol.68,
December 1964.

Elliott, G.A. "An Experimental Study of Static Thrust Augmentation Using a Rocket-Ejector System." N64-84287,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, School of Engineering (M.S. Thesis), 15th January 1964.

Chow, W.L. and Addy, A.L. "Interaction between Primary and Secondary Streams of Supersonic Ejector Systems
and their Performance Characteristics." AIAA Journal 2, 1964.

Geiger, F.W. "A One-Dimensional Thrust Augmentation Calculation." X65-18078, Brown Engineering Co., Inc.,
Huntsville, Alabama, Research Laboratories, June 1964.

Bauer, R.C. "Theoretical Base Pressure Analysis of Axisymmetric Ejectors without Induced Flow." N64-15521 ARO,
Inc., Arnold Air Force Station, Tenn., January 1964.

Polak, P. "Notes on Jet Thrust Augmentation." A64-15527, Sheffield University, Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Sheffield, England. The Engineer, Vol.217, 28th February, 1964.

Strand, G.E. "A Study of a Supersonic Ejector Mixing Chamber." GAM 65B/ME/65-8, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, 1965, (M.S. Thesis).

Middleton, D. "The Noise of Ejectors." N66-15539, Ministry of Aviation, London, 1965.

Uebelhack, H. "Supersonic Air-Air Ejectors with Second Throat Diffuser." von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
1965.

Chow, W.L. and Yeh, P.S. "Characteristics of Supersonic Ejector Systems with Non-Constant Area Shroud." AIAA
Journal 3, pp.526-527, 1965.

Hardy, J.M. and Delery, J. "Possibilities actuelles d'etude theorique d'une tuyere supersonique a double flux."
Office Nationale d'Etudes et de Recherches Aeronautiques, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux (Seine), France, Technical
Paper 287, 1965.

Delery, J. "Recollement d'un Jet Supersonique de Revolution sur une Paroi Cylindrique Coaxiale." La Recherche
Aerospatiale No. 104, 1965.

Scott, J.E., Jr. "Mixing and Combustion of a Supersonic Fuel Jet and a Subsonic, Coaxial Gas Stream." N65-34264,
Virginia University, Charlottesville. Presented at the AIAA 2nd Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 26th-29th July
1965.

Nelson, J.R. "Investigation of the Mixing Region Between the Primary and Secondary Streams of a Two-Dimensional
Supersonic Air-Air Ejector System." M.S. Thesis, N66-12816, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio. School of Engr., 92 P Refs., June 1965.
 81

Hoge, H.J. and Segars, R.A. "Choked Flow: A Generalization of the Concept and Some Experimental Data."
AIAA Journal, Vol.13, No. 12, 1965.

Korst, H.H., Addy, A.L. and Chow, W.L. "Installed Performance of Air-Augmented Nozzles Based on Analytical
Determination of Internal Ejector Characteristics." Journal of Aircraft, Vol.3, No.6, 1966.

Robinson, W.C. and Nelson, J.R. "Comments on 'Choked Flow: A Generalization of the Concept and Some
Experimental Data'." AIAA Journal, Vol.4, No.7, 1966.

Hoge, H.J. and Segars, R.A. "An Equation for the Entrainment of Ejectors." AIAA Journal, Vol.4, No.9, 1966.

Nelson, J.R. "Investigation of the Mixing Region Between the Primary and Secondary Streams of a Two-Dimensional
Supersonic Air-Air Ejector System." GAM 65B/ME/65-6, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1966,
(M.S. Thesis).

Yarborough, P.P. "Investigation of the Performance of an Ejector-Afterburner for Thrust Augmentation of a Small
Rocket Engine." GAM/ME/66A-10, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1966, (M.S. Thesis).

Fabri, J., Le Grives, E. and Michard, J. "Sur le Melange A Section Constante de Deux Flux A Enthalpies Differentes."
France, 1966.

Krenkel, A.R. and Kipowsky, H.H. "Design Analysis of Central and Annular-Jet Ejectors." Project No.7065,
Aerospace Research Laboratories, 1966.

Heiser, W.H. "Thrust Augmentation." A66-27008, MIT, Department of Mech. Engr., Cambridge, Mass. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Gas Turbine Conference and Products Show, Zurich, Switzerland,
I3th-17th March, 1966.

Huang, K.P. and Kisielowski, E. "An Investigation of the Thrust Augmentation Characteristics of Jet Ejectors."
AD 651-946, Dynasciences Corporation, 1967.

Adamas, D.M. "Performance Analysis of Hypersonic Air-Augmented Supersonic Combustion Propulsion Vehicles."
AIAA Paper No.67-226, 1967.

Harris, G.L. "The Self-Preserving Turbulent Jet Ejector." AIAA Paper No.67-127, 1967.

Bernstein, A., Heiser, W.H. and Hevenor, C. "Compound-Compressible Nozzle Flow." Trans, of ASME, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, September 1967.

Huang, K.P. and Kisielowski, E. "An Investigation of the Thrust Augmentation Characteristics of Jet Ejectors —
Final Report." Dynasciences Corporation, Blue Bell, Pa., April 1967.

Peters, C.E. "Turbulent Mixing and Burning of Coaxial Streams inside a Duct of Arbitrary Shape." Doctoral Thesis
presented to the University of Brussels, January 1968.

Ahren, B. "Analysis of Ejectors used as Supersonic Propelling Nozzles for Jet Engines." Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm,
1968.

Hardy, J.M. and La Combe, H. "Supersonic Bypass Nozzles - Computing Methods." Revue Francaise de Mechanique,
pp.49-59, 1968.

Hanbury, W.T. "The Performance of an Air-to-Air Ejector According to a Quasi- One-Dimensional Theory."
ARC-29341, Aeronautical Research Council, Great Britain, 1968.

Quinn, B. "The Characteristics of a Small Variable Geometry Ejector - Final Report." Aerospace Research
Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, ARL-70-0071, 1970.

Anderson, B.H. "Factors which Influence the Analysis and Design of Ejector Nozzles." AIAA Paper No.72-46,
1972.

Turbulent Mixing and the Base Pressure Problem

Korst, H.H. "Compressible Two-Dimensional Jet Mixing at Constant Pressure." ME-TN-392-1, Office of Scientific
Research TN-54-82, University of Illinois, reproduced as Office of Technical Services Collection, Publ. 132044,
Department of Commerce, April 1954.
82

Page, R.H. and Korst, H.H. "Non-Isoenergetic Turbulent Compressible Jet Mixing with Consideration of its Influences
on the Base Pressure Problem." Proc. Midwestern Conference., Fluid Mech. 11, pp.45-68, 1955.

Korst, H.H., Page, R.H. and Childs, M.E. "A Theory for Base Pressures in Transonic and Supersonic Flow." University
of Illinois, ME-TN-392-2, Office of Scientific Research TN-55-99, Contract AF 18 (600)-392, March 1955.

Korst, H.H. "A Theory for Base Pressures in Transonic and Supersonic Flow." Journal of Applied Mechanics 23,
pp.593-600, 1956.

Chrisman, C.C. "Evaluation of the Free Jet Spreading Rate Parameter for Axisymmetric Flow of Air at Mach Number
Three. AD 283 075, M.S. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1956.

Wu, C.Y. "The Influence of Finite Bleed Velocities on the Effectiveness of Base Bleed in the Two-Dimensional Super-
sonic Base Pressure Problem." Ph.D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, 1957.

Bailey, H.E. and Kuethe, A.M. "Supersonic Mixing of Jets and Turbulent Boundary Layers. 57-402, Wright Air
Development Center, 1957.

Yakovlevskiy, O.V. "Thickness of the Turbulent Mixing Zone on the Boundary of Two Streams of Gases of Different
Velocity and Density." N66-25920, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Foreign Technical Division 8P Ref., Translated into English from Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, OTD. Nauk-Energ. 1
Transp. Moscow, No. 10, 1958.

Korst, H.H., Chow, W.L. and Zumwalt, G.W. "Research on Transonic and Supersonic Flow of a Real Fluid at Abrupt
Increases in Cross Section (With Special Consideration of Base Drag Problems)." Final Report, ME-TR-392-5,
University of Illinois, Office of Scientific Research TR-60-74, Contract AF 18(600)-392, 1959.

Chow, W.L. "On the Base Pressure Resulting from the Interaction of a Supersonic External Stream with a Sonic or
Subsonic Jet." J. Aerospace Sci. 26, pp.176-180, 1959.

Carriere, P. and Siriex, M. "Facteurs d'influencc du recollement d'un ecoulement supersonique." Intern. Congr.
Appl. Mech. (September 1960); also Tech. Memo. 20, Office Nationale d'Etudes et de Recherches Aeronautiques,
France, 1961.

Nash, J.F. "A Review of Research on Two-Dimensional Base Flow." R & M 3323, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
London, 1963.

Nash, J.F. "An Analysis of Two-Dimensional Turbulent Base Flow, Including the Effect of the Approaching Boundary
Layer." R & M 3344, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1963.

Carriere, P. "Current Research on the Problem of Base Pressure (Recherches Recentes Sur le Probleme de la Pression
de Culot)." N64-11886 France. Office Nationale d'Etudes et de Recherches Aeronautiques, Chatillon-sous-
Bagneux, 23P Refs, Presented at the Conference on Fluid Mechanics, Paris, 18th February 1963.

Carriere, P. and Sirieix, M. "Resultats recents dans 1'etude des problemes de melange et de recollement." Congres
dc Mecanique Appliquee, Munich, 1964.

Hill, J.A.F. and Nicholson, J.E. "Compressibility Effects on Fluid Entrainment by Turbulent Mixing Layers."
N65-11044, Mithras, Inc., Cambridge, Mass. Washington, NASA, November 1964.

Roshko, A. and Thomke, G.J. "Flow Separation and Reattachment Behind a Downstream-Facing Step." SM-43056-1,
Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 1964.

Gogish, L.V. and Stepanov, G. lu. "On the Analysis of the Base Pressure in Two-Dimensional Supersonic Flows."
N67-189-1, Stepanov, NASA, 1965.

Korst, H.H. and Chow, W.L. "Compressible Non-Isoenergetic Turbulent (Pr = 1) Jet Mixing Between Two
Compressible Streams at Constant Pressure." ME-TN-393-2, Engineering Experimental Sta., University of
Illinois, Report for Research Grant NASA NsG-13-59, 1965.

Carriere, P. "Rccherches recentes effectuees a 1'ONERA sur les problemes de recollement." Presented at the VII
Symposium of Fluid Mechanics, 1965. Also ONERA TP No.275, 1965.

Page, R.H. Kessler, T.J. and Hills, W.G., Jr. "Reattachment of Two-Dimensional Supersonic Turbulent Flows."
ASME, 1967.
 83

Sirieix, M., Mirande, J. and Delery, J. "Experiences fondamentales sur le recollement turbulent d'un jet supersonique."
ONERA, 1966.

Gailly, A. and Jacques, R. "Supersonic Turbulent Mixing and its Application to Problems of Reattachment Melange
Supersonique Turbulent et Application aux Problems de Recollement." N66-39216 Ecole Royale Militaire,
Brussels, Belgium. AGARD Separated Flows, Part 1, pp.271-301, References in French, Engish Summary
(see N66-32906 19-12/CFST1), May 1966.

Eggers, J.M. "Velocity Profiles and Eddy Viscosity Distributions Downstream of a Mach 2.22 Nozzle Exhausting to
Quiescent Air." N66-37033, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, Langley
Station, V. Washington, 93P Refs, NASA, September 1966.

Sirieix, M. and Solignac, J.L, "Contribution to the Experimental Study of the Turbulent Mixed Layer Isobar of a
Supersonic Flow (Contribution a I'Etude Experimentale de la Couche de Melange Turbulent Isobare d'un
Ecoulement Supersonique)." N67-11979, France. Office Nationale d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales,
Chatillon-sous-Bagneux, 30P Refs. In French presented at the Meeting of AGARD Specialists on Detached
Flows, Rhode St.Genese, France, 10th-13th May 1966.

Maise, G. and McDonald, H. "Mixing Length and Kinematic Eddy Viscosity in a Compressible Boundary Layer."
AIAA Paper No.67-199, 1967.

Schetz, J.A. and Jannone, J. "Planar Free Turbulent Mixing with an Axial Pressure Gradient." 67-FE-9, ASME,
1967.

Korst, H.H. "Turbulent Separated Flows." von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Course Note 66b, Rhode
St.Genese, Belgium, April 1967.

Peters, C.E. "Turbulent Mixing and Burning of Coaxial Streams Inside a Duct of Arbitrary Shape - Final Report."
AEDC-TR-68-270, ARO, Inc., Arnold Air Force Station, 1968.

Method of Characteristics

Cronvich, L.L. "Numerical-Graphical Methods of Characteristics for Plane Potential Shock-Free Flow Problems."
629-105, Journal of the Aero Sciences, 1947.

Isenberg, J.S. "The Method of Characteristics in Compressible Flow, Part 1A." A9-M-II/1, Brown University, 1947.

Isenberg, J.S. "The Method of Characteristics in Compressible Flow, Part IB." F-TR-1173C-ND, Brown University,
1947.

Cronvich, L.L. "A Numerical-Graphical Method of Characteristics for Axially Symmetric Isentropic Flow." 629-105,
Journal of the Aero Sciences, 1948.

Bower, J.M., Jr. "Determination of the Envelopes and the Lines of Constant Mach Number for an Axially Symmetric
Free Jet." ZJ-7-054, Convair-Astronautics, 1958.

Eastman, D.W. "Two-Dimensional or Axially Symmetric Real Gas Flows by the Method of Characteristics, Part 1:
Formulation of the Equations." D2-10597, Boeing, 1961.

Eastman, D.W. and Radtke, L.P. "Two-Dimensional or Axially Symmetric Real Gas Flows by the Method of
Characteristics, Part HI: A Summary of Results from the IBM 7090 Program for Calculating the Flow Field of
a Supersonic Jet." D2-10599, Boeing, 1962.

Kackova, O.N. and Cuskin, P.I. Translated by H.N.Browne, "A Scheme for the Numerical Method of Characteristics."
A64-19445, 1963.

Moger, W.C. and Ramsay, D.B. "Supersonic Axisymmetric Nozzle Design by Mass Flow Techniques Utilizing a
Digital Computer." AD 601589, ARO, 1964.

Andrews, E.H., Jr., Vick, A.R. and Craidon, C.B. "Theoretical Boundaries and Internal Characteristics of Exhaust
Plumes from Three Different Supersonic Nozzles." TN D-2650, NASA, 1965.

Dushin, V.K. "Application of the Method of Characteristics to Compute Supersonic External Gas Flows in the
Presence of Non-Equilibrium Processes." N 67-19170, Lockheed, 1966.
84

Naumova, I.N. "Method of Characteristics for Equilibrium Flows of an Imperfect Gas." AD 636 590, US Department
of Commerce, 1966.

Callis, L.B. "An Analysis of Supersonic Flow Phenomena in Conical Nozzles by a Method of Characteristics."
TN D-3550, NASA, 1966.

Volkonskaya, T.G. "Calculation of Supersonic Axisymmetric Jets." A collection of papers of the Computational
Center of the Moscow State University. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, N66 26631, 1966.

Ratliff, A.W. "Comparisons of Experimental Supersonic Flow Fields with Results Obtained by Using a Method of
Characteristics Solution." LMSC/0082-9, Lockheed, 1966.

Butler, H.W. "Description of a Digital Computer Program for Nozzle and Plume Analysis by the Method of Character-
istics." TM 54/20-108, Lockheed, 1966.

Prozan, R.J. "Development of a Method of Characteristics Solution for Supersonic Flow of an Ideal, Frozen, or
Equilibrium Reacting Gas Mixture." HREC/0082-8, Lockheed, 1966.
 85

APPENDIX II

METHOD OF CHARACTERISTICS ANALYSIS FOR

THE SUPERSONIC AXISYMMETRIC PRIMARY FLOW FIELD

1. BASIC EQUATIONS

For steady irrotational axisymmetric flow 30 *, the differential equation for the complete velocity potential in
terms of the cylindrical coordinates (X,R) is

V cvax2 2 5
c axaR +
\1 c 2 7aR 2 +
R::°' (1)

where
7 —1
C2 = C 2 - •!—— (u 2 + v 2 ) ; V2 = ( u 2 + v 2 ) (2)

and
a<j> a*
II = . y — (3)
ax' 3R

The condition that the derivatives of:

a* 3*
— and —
ax aR

may be discontinuous along curves on the solution surface to (1) and hence, the values of 32<I>/aX2 , 32<I>/3R2 ,
and a 2 4>/aX3R are indeterminant along such curves - the characteristic curves — yields:

(i) The physical characteristics:

/dR\
= ,a (
(dxju, " °'+a)- (4)

(ii) The hodograph characteristics:

cot a sin 6 sin a (dR). ,.

n
m** — ^ u ^ ( g T t t / R^ = o. (5)
The Family I (Right-Running) and Family II (Left-Running) characteristics and the applicable notation are shown in
Figure All. 1.

Introducing the velocity of sound at sonic conditions,

27 R
C* = l„ (6)
7 +

and
M* = V/C* , (7)

into Equation (5) yields

(dM*), .I 1 sin 6 sin a
(dfl). .I ± A '•" + (dR)u, = 0 . (8)
IM
••" (M* tan a) R sin (0 + a)
The problem of solving Equation (1) subject to the imposed boundary conditions then becomes equivalent to
solving the set of simultaneous ordinary differential equations (4) and (8) under the same conditions. Various
"unit processes" encountered in the numerical solution of (4) and (8) will now be discussed.

* See Appendix I for additional references.

86

2. FIELD POINTS

Consider two points (1) and (2), Figure AII.2(a), on the Family 1 and II characteristics, respectively, where the
flow properties are known; then for the unknown point (3) at the intersection of these characteristics, the location
and flow variables can be determined using the characteristic relationships, Equations (4) and (8), in finite-difference
form.

To a first approximation, the coordinates of point (3) are

[(R 2 - R,) + X, tan (0 - a ) , 3 - X 2 tan (0 + a ) 2 3 l

X3 = (9)
[tan (0 - a ) I 3 - tan (0 + a ) 2 3 l

and
R3 = R, + (X 3 - X,) tan (0 - 0(),3 , (10)

where (0 + (— D'al-3 is defined as the average value of the quantity between the points (i = 1,2) and (3).
Correspondingly, the flow variables at (3) arc given by:

[ P , 3 0 , + P 2 3 0 2 + ( M * - M * ) + Q, 3 (R 3 - R , ) - Q 2 3 ( R 3 - R 2 ) |
03 = (H)
I P | 3 + P 23 1

and

M* = [ M * - P , 3 ( 0 3 - f l . J + Q.jCRj - R , ) l , (12)

where Qj3 and Pj3 (i = 1 or 2) are coefficients based on the average values between the points (i) and (3).

These coefficients are defined as:

P i 3 = (M* tan o0 j 3 (13)

and
sin 0 sin a
Qi3 = Pi3 (14)
R sin (0 -I- (-!)*«] 13

The values of [X,R,M*,0) 3 are determined initially by assuming that the flow variables at point (3) are simply
the average of those at points (1) and (2); hence

0, - i(fl, +02)

M* = i(M* + M*) .

Then, using Equations (9)-(12) in sequential order, an approximation to the values [ X , R , M * , 0 ] 3 ' ' , can be deter-
mined. These values are then used to determine the average quantities and subsequently the next approximation
[ X , R , M * , 0 ] 3 2 ^ . If this procedure of successive approximations is repeated, values for the variables at point (3) for
two successive approximations, (n — 1) and (n), will be obtained, i.e.,

[X,R.M*,01 £"•--• and [X,R,M*,013n) .

If the problem areas discussed below are not encountered, the values calculated by this procedure stabilize rapidly
and the iteraction is terminated when

[•}')-*-«]/#C>|<.I (15)

or
(16)

Typically, for values of e , , e 2 = 10" 4 , the iteration stabilizes for 5 < 11 < 10 .

Difficulties encountered in the course of this iterative procedure have definite physical significance that can be
traced to:

(i) Either of the characteristics being oriented such that the quantity:

[0 + ( - l ) ' a l - 3 - 0 (17a)
 87

or, in other words, a characteristic is horizontal in the flow field for which

Q-3-00 (17b)

(ii) Compressions developed in the flow field due to wave coalescence such that

M*<n> < 1. (18)

In the first case, the quantity

Qi3(R3-Ri) (19a)

must be reconsidered when

[«+(-lW i 3 -0, (19b)

The incremental length, A / , along either characteristic is given by

(R 3 - R:)
l
A/ ~ —* i (19c)
sin[0 + ( - l ) * a ] , 3
and as
[fl-M-iy-wliS-i-D, A / - (X3 - X-) .

Hence, the quantity in the characteristics equations (11) and (12) must then be replaced by the limiting value, i.e..

sin a sin a
Qi3(R3-R-)^P-3 (X3-X-), (19d)
13

when
[0 + ( - l ) - a ] i 3 - 0 . (19e)

The second problem area usually results from "foldback" of the characteristics network as a result of the
coalescence of the same family waves. To treat this problem, provisions must be made in the overall flow field
calculation sequence so that the shock formed in the flow field as a result of this coalescence can be treated and
thus, "foldback" of the characteristics network avoided.

3. AXIS POINTS

If any one of the points (1, 2 or 3) is located on the axis of symmetry, then

Rj, 0j = 0 , j = 1 , 2 , or 3, (20)

and the calculation procedure of Section 2 is modified accordingly for the axis point calculations. No particular
problems are encountered when these conditions are imposed on the field-point calculation sequence since the
term, [R~'l, only appears in the characteristic equations as an average value in the coefficients Q- 3 .

The two axis point calculations encountered in the primary flow-field analysis are shown in Figure All.2(b).

For the one case, the unknown point (3) is on the axis and consequently

R3 , 0 3 = 0 . (21a)

Then the remaining values [X,M*] 3 are found from:

X3 - X2- -^ (21b)
3 2
tan (0 + a ) 2 3

M* = M * - P 2 3 f l 2 - Q „ P 2 . (21c)

To start the calculation sequence, assume that

M* = M* .
88

Then a first approximation, [ X , M * ] 3 , can be found from (21b) and (21c). Using the successive approximation
technique, the calculations are continued until:

\i'[(M*)^ - (M*J n ~ l) ]M*^ < e . (22)

Thus the conditions at (3) are determined as; [X,0,M*,01y 1 - 1 .

In the other case, the known point (2) is on the axis where

R2 , 0 2 - 0.

The calculation sequence for determining the values at point (3) are the same as outlined for the field point analysis,
Section 2.

4. BOUNDARY POINTS

For the ejector analysis, only two types of boundary-point calculations occur, viz, the constant-pressure condi-
tion for the "zero" flow regime and the non-constant pressure condition in the inviscid-interaction analysis.

4.1 Constant Pressure Boundary

Along the boundary. Figure All.2(c), the condition of constant pressure for isentropic flow is:

M3 = M2 = M*. = constant , (23a)

where M* is found from

P *
— l7,M*l = P b = constant. (23b)
1
o
A first approximation to the spatial location of the unknown point (3) is found from the streamline condition, (2)
to (3), where

(R 3 - R 2 ) = (X 3 - Xj) tan 0 2 3 (23c)

and along the [-characteristic, (1) to (3), where

(R3-R,) = (X 3 - X , ) tan ( 0 - a ) , 3 . (23d)

Then X 3 is found from:

[R, - R2 -I- X2 tan 0 2 3 - X, tan (0 - a ) , 3 ]
X3 = — • TTT-^ . Ar, ... . — • (23e)
(tan 0 2 3 - tan (0 - « ) 1 3 ]

The local flow direction is then given by:

0i = 6 i _ [(M*-M,)-Q.3(R3-R.)] (23f)

P'3

Using Equations (23), the estimates for [ X , R , 0 ] 3 can be improved by successive approximations until

|[ e (n)_ 0 (n-l)]( 0 (n)| < £

Thus, the variables at point (3) are established as [ X , R , 0 ] ^ n ) and [M* = M*] .

4.2 Non-Constant Pressure Boundary

The pressure along the primary boundary varies in this case due to the inviscid interaction between the primary
and secondary streams (see Section 4.2, "Inviscid Flow-Fields Analysis"). The variation in pressure, and consequently
M?, along the primary boundary is specified by the inviscid interaction in terms of the initial and local secondary
flow variables as:

£ (7s. Mf)
M Pis • (24)
ir(7 P ' p) =
1
p
0 ]7 (Ts- M *s)
. o
 89

The coordinates of point (3) are determined, as in the previous section, by Equations (23e) and (23c). The
values of (X,R] 3 are then used to determine the secondary flow area and M* . Using these values, M* = M*
is found from Equation (24), and then Equation (230 is used to determine 0 3 .

These calculations are initialized by assuming that:

03 = »,

M* = M* .

These values are used to determine the first estimate of [X,R,M*,0] 3 '- and [M*](''. By successive approxims
tions, the values at point (3) are determined when:

"(M*)(3n) - ( M * ) , " " 1 ) ] ! ^ " < e.

5 PRIMARY FLOW-FIELD ANALYSIS

The unit processes described above must be organized into a sequential program which can be used to calculate
the flow field subject to the imposed boundary conditions. This organization is principally one of "bookkeeping"
and is normally not difficult. The basic sequence can take any of several different forms; the preference here has
been to calculate along Family I characteristics toward the boundary.

5.1 Calculation Sequence

The boundary conditions imposed on the flow-field calculations, Figure AII.3, are:
(i) the flow variables are specified along the initial primary nozzle characteristic, and
(ii) the conditions along the boundary are specified by the flow regime in which the ejector is operating.
These data along with the conditions along the axis are sufficient to determine the primary flow field.

At the nozzle corner, (X| p , Ri p ), a centered expansion (or compression), can occur as a result of the need for
the primary stream to expand (or compress) at the nozzle exit to satisfy the imposed boundary conditions. The
general flow-field calculation sequence, Figure AII.3, proceeds from the initial nozzle characteristic, along Family I
characteristics, to the boundary.

5.2 Wave Coalescence

The Family II characteristics from the boundary tend to steepen as the calculations proceed in the downstream
direction. These characteristics eventually coalesce and form a shock wave within the flow field. This condition is
detected by the crossing of waves of the same family thus giving rise to the "foldback" of the characteristics network.
Although flow-field calculations where "foldback" occurs still yield results which are in reasonable agreement with
experiment31 the flow-field calculations must invariably be terminated as a result of errors directly attributable to
the unrealistic characteristic network that develops.

An exact treatment of this problem is given in Reference 32, and an approximate treatment is given in Reference
33. However, since the calculated boundary is relatively insensitive to the method used to treat the coalescence
problem, a simplified approach will be described here which is in excellent agreement with References 32 and 33.

Referring to Figure All.3(b), wave coalescence has occurred within the flow field. Allowing a single "foldback"
at this point, the conditions on the "upstream" and "downstream" sides of the coalescence point are determined by
linear interpolation between the points (2) and (3) and the points (2)' and (3)' respectively. The "foldback" points
(3) and (3)' are then dropped and the flow-field calculations are continued using the flow variables determined at the
wave-coalescent point, Figure All.3(c).

In actuality, the oblique shock wave formed in the flow field due to the wave coalescence propagates down-
stream where it becomes curved as a result of the continuous interaction between the shock and the waves in the
flow field. As a consequence, the flow is rotational downstream of the internal shock wave. In the approximation
described above, the flow is assumed to remain irrotational. This assumption yields, in most cases, results which
are acceptable and consistent with the overall analysis.

6. INITIAL PRIMARY NOZZLE CHARACTERISTIC

The primary nozzle geometries are restricted to those configurations which produce sonic, uniform, or conical
supersonic flow. The objective is to determine the flow variables along the initial nozzle characteristic for each
configuration.
90

6.1 Sonic Nozzle

The sonic nozzle can be treated approximately as a nozzle which produces uniform flow at the nozzle exit that
is slightly supersonic, i.e., M ] p = 1.01 . Brown and C h o w 3 4 ' 3 5 have recently developed a transonic flow analysis
for establishing the initial Family I characteristic for typical sonic nozzles.

6.2 Uniform Supersonic Nozzle

For uniform supersonic flow at the nozzle exit, Figure AII.4, the initial I-characteristic is straight and the flow
variables are known as [ M | p , G j p = 0) along this characteristic.

The case where an initial compression must exist at the nozzle exit to satisfy the imposed boundary condition
will be considered, in an approximate way, in Section 6.4.

6.3 Conical Supersonic Nozzle

The flow in an ideal conical nozzle, Figure All.5(a), can be specified as being at a uniform Mach number
(or M | p ) along the zone of the spherical sector that coincides with the nozzle. The initial I-characteristic can be
determined exactly 3 6 or numerically from the flow conditions specified on the non-characteristic spherical surface.

The numerical approach while yielding values for the initial 1-characteristic that are in excellent agreement with
the exact theoretical results of Reference 36 has the advantage of being easily extended to treat approximately the
problem of an initial compression at the nozzle exit (for both the uniform and conical nozzles).

The flow conditions are specified along the non-characteristic curve, Figure AII.5(b), as being at a uniform
value of M. p and that the velocity vector is always perpendicular to this curve. Any point on this curve is
defined by l X , R , M | p , 0 ] N C where O > 0 > 0 l p and

X = X l p + Rcone[cos 0 - c o s 0.p]

R = R sin 6
cone •

where Rcone = R l p /sin 0 l p .

The non-characteristic curve is then subdivided and a characteristics network, shown in Figure AII.5(b), can
be used to numerically determine the flow variables and corresponding locations on the initial conical nozzle
characteristic.

This general calculation sequence is important since the calculations are made from a non-characteristic curve
to the corresponding characteristic curve.

6.4 A Compression at the Nozzle Exit

If the boundary conditions are such that the nozzle cannot discharge at its supersonic design Mach number,
a compression wave is generated in the primary flow field. If this compression is assumed to be relatively weak,
the oblique shock can be treated approximately as a reversible compression. For either the uniform or conical
nozzle, the flow variables on the non-characteristic curve and the imposed boundary conditions are used to
establish a single reversible compression wave at the nozzle exit location ( X i p , R ] p ) which satisfies the boundary
conditions. With these data, the remainder of the initial I-characteristic can be established using the calculation
sequence from the non-characteristic curve to the corresponding characteristic curve (see Figure AH.6).
 -»l

I Family II

Y-i^ss. Family I

a = sin" 1 ( i )

K
Fig.AII.l Physical characteristic curves

R
i

9+
-• x
Fig.AII.2(a) General field point

(R,0) = O

Fig.AII.2(b) Axis points

92

Pb = Constant

Fig.AlI.2(c) Constant-pressure boundary point

Initial II char.
Axis points

Nozzle

Centered
expansion
at ( X i p , R l p )
Field point Boundary
Boundary
point
Fig.AII.3(a) Primary flow-field analysis
 93

Downstream
^-

U2 II
Fig.AII.3(b) Some family wave coalescence. [(3) is calculated first; (3)' is calculated next]

12

Fig.AI1.3(c) Modification of the calculation sequence for treating wave coalescence

X
A
Nonchar. Curve (0 =0, M * * M J 5 )
9\
R

V /
v
a = s,n (
M lp wP}
/ - < \
Initial II Characteristic

L (Xip.Rip)
Fig.AII.4 Uniform supersonic flow nozzle
94

Nonchar. Curve
(axis)
1

Initial II Characteristic
a sin 1(
'p= " sfc )
(Xlp.-^lp)

Fig.AII.S(a) Conical supersonic flow nozzle

Nonchar. Curve
(axis)

I n i t i a l I I Characteristic

(xip>Rip)

Fig.AII.S(b) Characteristics network for numerical calculation of the initial Il-characteristic for a conical nozzle

Axis

-Char. (Compression)

Char. (Design)

<Xi ' R
. ' P
h ft M
Ip Ip b § IP

P > P
b Ip

Fig.AI 1.6 Approximate analysis for a weak compression at the nozzle exit. (Uniform or conical supersonic
flow nozzles)
 05

APPENDIX III

CONSTANT-PRESSURE TURBULENT MIXING ANALYSIS

The flow model for mixing at constant pressure of two uniform streams is shown in Figure AIII. I. The mixing
between the streams is assumed to take place over a length X and results in a fully-developed velocity profile at
this section which has the form

^ = ±!fb+i^!fberf(^) (1)

where \p = U/Ua and sp^ = U b /U a . This velocity profile is assumed to hold within an "intrinsic" coordinate
system (x,y) which is displaced relative to the reference system (X,Y) by an amount y m . The two coordinate
systems are then related by
x x X (2a)

y = Y + y m (X) , (2b)
where y m (X = 0) = 0 .

Applying the continuity and momentum equations to the control volume indicated in Figure AIII. 1, the results

Continuity Equation
p b U b Y R b + P a U a Y Ra + J X p b V b dX = f (Y««+y"*) p u dy (3)
J J
° (YRb+ym)

Momentum Equation
-p b U b Y R b + P.U2YR. + J X p b V b U b d x = J ( Y R a + y m ) p U 2 dy (4)
0 J Y
( Rb+ym)

Introducing the reference conditions [p a ,U a ] into Equations (3) and (4), the continuity and momentum equations
become:

(5)

and

®*»^[m'*-izz(&*-
(YRa + Vm)
(6)

YRa and Y Rb are respectively large positive and negative values such that:

| U a - U ( Y R a ) | < ea
(7a)
|T 0a - T 0 (Y Ra )l < el

and
|Ub - U(Y Rb )| < e b
(7b)
IT0b - T 0 (Y Rb )l < e b ,.

where ea , ea , e b , and e b are arbitrarily small positive quantities.

Combining Equations (5) and (6) and imposing the conditions (7), the expression for the displacement of the
intrinsic coordinate system is found as

1
ym = Y
Ra _ sp dy (8)
(1 - * b ) Y x Y v
, Rb ' Rb '

After introducing into Equation (8) the mixing region similarity parameter a n (plotted in Figure AIII.2), the mixing
length x , and the homogeneous coordinate T? = aMy/x , the result is
96

1 p-^Ra p'-Ra
iRa p
Vm ~ -?Ra <P2 dr? - -Pb — <p dt? (9)
(1 ~ * b )
••Rb

For fluids of unity turbulent Prandtl number, Crocco's energy integral relationship is applicable and the
stagnation temperature distribution can be uniquely related to the velocity field throughout the mixing region.
Accordingly, the stagnation temperature profile is given by

T
0 = Job • l - t f i + r° ~"^b (10)
A =
T T
0a 0a 1 - V b 1 ~<Pb

The density ratio, for constant pressure mixing, can be expressed as

• ji • $ m
P
(1 la)
Pa

From the energy equation, the temperature ratios are expressed in terms of the Crocco number, C a , and the
velocity ratio as
T T
— = A - CW , -M- = 1 - Ca (llb.c)
T0 'Oa
The expression for the density ratio then becomes

P d-c a )
(lid)
pa (A-CjV-)'

The integrals in the continuity and momentum equations can then be expressed as:

\P a \ (--Cj|) a
(12a)

and
(1 - C | )
sp2 &r\ (12b)
(\-C\sp1)
To shorten the notation, the following integral functions have been defined

(i -ci)sphnRh p" d-cl^dT?

!,(•?)
a
KTob/Toa) - CJ*61 I
J^ R b (A-Ca^)
(12c)

s ( i - c . ) ^ ? p" (1-Ca.ydt,
(12d)
[ ( T 0 b / T 0 a ) - Ca ^DIJ L (A-Ca^)
* "*7Rb

In this notation, the dimensionless coordinate shift, Equation (9) becomes

1
Vm = -?Ra [I 2 (T} R a )-l,(TJ R a )] . (13)
(1 - * b )

The jet boundary streamline (j-streamline) is defined as the streamline which separates the two flows. Applying
the continuity equation, the condition for the j-streamline is

PaUaYRa - J(YRa+ym)pUdy. (14)

y,

Expanding this expression and introducing the dimensionless variables, the integral equation to be solved for the
j-streamline is
>-.Ra p
p''Ra
(15)
— sp drj = [j? Ra - tj m ]
 07

The fluid entrained as a result of the mixing can be expressed as

We = fyj pU dy - p b U b ( - Y R b ) (16a)
-.Rb + Vn.

PaUax
-..
P . Pb a Pfa
We = sp dl? - — spyyVm + — ^ R b (16b)
J
-.Rb Pa Pa Pa

In terms of the integral notation of (12a), Equation (16b) becomes

Pauax
W. M-7j) - 1 m 7 * b (16c)
Pa

A mixing region displacement thickness, Figure AIII. 1, can be defined, in analogy to boundary layer theory, as

_
P' 'a•U" aa x
-Pb-V = w •i(-?j) - Vm ^ <ft, (16d)
Pa

Substituting (1 Ic) into (16d) and rearranging yield the mixing region displacement thickness function:

[(Tob/T0a)-CaVb]
•==£)• •1(-7j)--?ii (16e)

This function is plotted in Figure AIII.3 for isoenergetic mixing, i.e., T u b / T o a = 1 .

The mass flow between the d- and j-streamlines in the mixing region is given by

Wdj = J V j pUdy (17a)

or

Wdj = PaUa — [ 1 , ( ^ - 1 , ^ ) 1 • (17b)

The mass flow per unit area, p a U a , can be expressed by

"7 ( 2 \(T+1)/(T-1) 1/2

POaToa' 1 ' 2
R \ 7 + 1/ (17c)
Pa U a
r* (T.MJ)

The foregoing results, although derived for two-stream constant pressure mixing, can be applied to the single
stream case by simply letting sp^ = 0 . The single stream similarity parameter must be used and is given by the
empirical correlation
a, = 12 + 2.76M a , (18)

Further details of this analysis, as well as graphical and tabular data for the mixing integrals are given in
Reference 36.
08

Fig.AIII. 1 Model for two-stream turbulent mixing at constant pressure

5.0

4.0

3.0

b tt |b~

2.0
I Single stream mixing
II Two stream mixing
1.0
"ktWo.^-^^-'iWa)
where Cia = Cia W>b,Cna)
0
0 10 .20 .30 .40 50 .60 .70

^b Ua
Fig.AlII.2 Similarity parameter for two-stream mixing region
 99

tX5|x

Fig.AHI.3 Displacement thickness due to two-stream mixing region

100

REFERENCES

1. Addy, A.L. On the Steady State and Transient Operating Characteristics of Long Cylindrical Shroud
Supersonic Ejectors (With Emphasis on the Viscous Interaction Between the Primary
and Secondary Streams). Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Illinois, June 1963.

2. Chow, W.L., Interaction Between Primary and Secondary Streams of Supersonic Ejector Systems
Addy, A.L. and Their Performance Characteristics. AIAA Journal 2, 1964.

3. Chow, W.L., Characteristics of Supersonic Ejector Systems with Non-Constant Area Shroud.
Yeh, P.S. AIAA Journal 3, 1965, pp.526-527.

4. Korst, H.H., Installed Performance of Air-Augmented Nozzles Based on Analytical Determination

et al. of Internal Ejector Characteristics. Journal of Aircraft, Vol.3, No.6, 1966.

5. Keenan, J.H., An Investigation of Ejector Design by Analysis and Experiment. ASME Transactions,
et al. Vol.72, 1950.

6. Kochendorfer, F.D., Performance Characteristics of Aircraft Cooling Ejectors Having Short Cylindrical
Rousso, M.D. Shrouds. NACA RM E51E01, May 1951.

7. Fabri, J., Etude des divers regimes d'ecoulement dans I'elargissement brusque d'une veine
Siestrunck, R. supersonique. Rev. Gen. Sci. Appl. Brussels 114, 1955, pp.229-237.

8. Fabri, J., Theory and Experiments on Supersonic Air-To-Air Ejectors. NACA TM 1410,
Paulon, J. September 1958.

9. Crocco, L. One-Dimensional Treatment of Steady Gas Dynamics. Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics,

edited by H.W.Emmons (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1958), Vol.Ill,
pp.272-293.

10. Korst, H.H., A Theory for Base Pressures in Transonic and Supersonic Flow. University of Illinois,
et al. ME-TN-392-2, Office of Scientific Research TN-55-99, Contract AF 18 (600K392,
March 1955.

11. Korst, H.H. A Theory for Base Pressures in Transonic and Supersonic Flow. J. Appl. Mech., Vol.23,
1956, pp.593-600.

12. Chow, W.L. On the Base Pressure Resulting from the Interaction of a Supersonic External Stream
with a Sonic or Subsonic Jet. J. Aerospace Sci., Vol.26, 1959, pp. 176-180.

13. Korst, H.H., Research on Transonic and Supersonic Flow of a Real Fluid at Abrupt Increases in
et al. Cross Section (With Special Consideration of Base Drag Problems). Final Report,
ME-TR-392-5, University of Illinois, Office of Scientific Research TR-60-74, Contract
AF 18(600)-392, 1959.

14. Chow, W.L., Influence on Base Pressures by Heat and Mass Additions. ARS Journal 32, 1962,
Korst, H.H. pp. 1094-109 5.

1 5. Korst, H.H. Turbulent Separated Flows, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Court Note 66b,
Rhode-Saint-Genese, Belgium, April 1967.

16. Carriere, P., Facteurs d'influence du recollement d'un ecoulement supersonique. Intern. Congr. Appl.
Sirieix, M. Mech. (September 1960); also Tech. Memo. 20, Office Nationale d'Etudes et de
Recherches Aeronautiques, France, 1961.

17. Carriere, P. Current Research on the Problem of Base Pressure (Recherches Recentes Sur le Probleme
de la Pression de Culot). N64-11886 France. Office Nationale d'Etudes et de Recherches
Aeronautiques, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux. 23P Refs presented at the Conference on Fluid
Mechanics, Paris, 18th February 1963.

18. Carriere, P., Resultats Recents dans I'Etude des Problemes de Melange et de Recollement. Congres
Sirieix, M. de Mecanique Appliquee, Munich, 1964.
 101

19. Carriere, P. Recherches Recentes Effectuees a TONERA sur les Problemes de Recollement.
Presented at the VII Symposium of Fluid Mechanics 1965, also ONERA TP No.275,
1965.

20. Sirieix, M. Contribution a I'elude des ejecteurs supersoniques. TP32, Association Technique
Maritime et Aeronautique, May 1963.

21. Delery, J. Recollement d'un Jet Supersonic de Revolution sur une Paroi Cylindrique Coaxiale.
La Recherche Aerospatiale No. 104, 1965.

22. Hardy, J.M., Possibilities actuelles de-etude theorique d'une tuyere supersonique a double flux.
Delery, J. Office Nationale d'Etudes et de Recherches Aeronautiques, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux
(Seine), France, TP 287, 1965.

23. Sirieix, M., Experiences Fondamentales sur le Recollement Turbulent d'un Jet Supersonique.
et al. ONERA, 1966.

24. Nash, J.F. A Review of Research on Two-Dimensional Base Flow. R & M 3323, Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, London, 1963.

25. Nash, J.F. An Analysis of Two-Dimensional Turbulent Base Flow, Including the Effect of the
Approaching Boundary Layer. R & M 3344, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London,
1963.

26. Bauer, R.C. Theoretical Base Pressure Analysis of Axisymmetric Ejectors Without Induced Flow.
N64-15521 ARO, Inc., Arnold Air Force Station, Tenn., January 1964.

27. Page, R.H., Reattachment of Two-Dimensional Supersonic Turbulent Flows. ASME, 1967.
et al.

28. Ames Research Staff Equations, Tables and Charts for Compressible Flow. NACA, Report 1135, 1953.

29. Peters, C.E. Turbulent Mixing and Burning of Coaxial Streams Inside a Duct of Arbitrary Shape.
Doctoral Thesis presented to the University of Brussels, January 1968.

30. Shapiro, A.H. The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow. Ronald Press,
New York, 1953, Vol.1, pp.73-87; Vol.11, pp.676-682.

31. Love, E.S., Experimental and Theoretical Studies of Axisymmetric Free Jets. NASA Technical
et al. Report R-6, 1969.

32. Volkonskaya, T.B. Calculation of Supersonic Axisymmetric Jets. A Collection of papers of the Computa-
tional Center of the Moscow State University Israel Program for Scientific Translations,
Jerusalem, N66 26631, 1966.

33. Andrews, E.H. Jr Theoretical Boundaries and Internal Characteristics of Exhaust Plumes from Three
et al. Different Supersonic Nozzles. TN D-2650, NASA, 1965.

34. Brown, E.F. Compressible Flow Through Convergent Conical Nozzles With Emphasis on the Tran-
sonic Region. Ph.D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, June 1968.

35. Brown, E.F., Supercritical Flow Through Convergent Conical Nozzles. Flow Measurements Symposium-
Chow, W.L. ASME, AIP, ISA. Pittsburgh, Pa., May 1971.

36. Callis, L.B. An Analysis of Supersonic Flow Phenomena in Conical Nozzles by a Method of
Characteristics. TN D-3550, NASA, 1966.

37. Korst, H.H., Compressible Non-Isoenergetic Turbulent (Pr t = I) Jet Mixing Between Two Compressible
Chow, W.L. Streams at Constant Pressure. ME-Tn-393-2, Engineering Experiment Station, University
of Illinois, Report for Research Grant NASA NsG-13-59, 1965.

38. Anderson, B.H. Factors Which Influence the Analysis and Design of Ejector Nozzles. AIAA Paper No.
72-46, 1972.
102
 103

EJECTOR DESIGN FOR A

VARIETY OF APPLICATIONS*

by

Delbert Taylor

ARO Inc. Engine Test Facility

Tullahoma, Tennessee, USA

The research reported in this paper was sponsored by Arnold Engineering Development Center, Air Force Systems
Command, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, under Contract F40600-69-C-0001 with ARO Inc. Further
reproduction is authorized to satisfy the needs of the US Government.
104
 105

CONTENTS

Page

NOTATION 106

1. INTRODUCTION 109

2. SIMPLE EJECTOR DESIGN METHODS 109

2.1 Constant-Pressure Mixing Theory 110
2.2 Constant-Area Mixing Theory 113
3. EJECTORS USING PROPULSION SYSTEM NOZZLES FOR MOTIVE ENERGY 114
3.1 Ejector-Diffuser Experiments 114
3.2 Influence of Ejector-Diffuser Inlet Geometry 116
3.3 Effects of Ejector-Diffuser Mixing Length 117
3.4 Effects of Second Throats on Ejector-Diffusers 119
3.5 Influence of Second-Throat Diffusers on Minimum Cell Pressure 121
3.6 Reynolds Number Effect on Ejector Performance 122
3.7 Influence of Pertinent Parameters in Ejector-Diffuser Performance 122
3.8 Effects of Different Driving Fluids on Ejector-Diffuser Performance 122

REFERENCES 128

TABLES 130-131

FIGURES 132-163
106

NOTATION

A area

Cf coefficient of friction

Cp specific heat at constant pressure

D duct diameter

F impulse function

gg gravitational constant

H height

I impingement

K,, K', ratio of experimental starting or operating pressure ratio to normal shock total pressure ratio

K j , Kj ratio of experimental starting or operating pressure ratio to normal shock static to total
pressure ratio

I. duct length

M Mach number

nil mass flow rate

P pressure

R specific gas constant

Re// Reynolds number per unit length

T temperature

V velocity

X axial position

7 ratio of specific heats

IJ efficiency

0 half-angle

V dynamic viscosity

p fluid density

Subscripts

0 , 1, 2 etc. station locations

b free-jet boundary

c test cell, condensation

d duct

e exit, entrained

ex exhaust
 107

1 impingement section

n nozzle

ne nozzle exit

ns normal shock

r radial, rejected

s subsonic, supersaturation

st second throat

t total

w wall

wf wall friction

x upstream of normal shock

y downstream of normal shock

Superscripts

primary

secondary

nozzle throat
108
 109

EJECTOR DESIGN FOR A

VARIETY OF APPLICATIONS

Delbert Taylor

1. INTRODUCTION

Ejectors, exhausters, jet pumps, or ejector-diffusers as they are called, have been used in a very wide variety of
applications during the past 40 to 50 years. The chemical industries have used them for many years for such opera-
tions as exhausting fumes; exhausting air from condensers; vacuum evaporation, distillation, and crystallization;
refrigeration; filtration; drying; air conditioning; and pumping large volumes of vapor and gas at low pressures 1 .
Ejector-diffusers may be used for fixed-geometry, constant-pressure applications or for variable-geometry, variable
pressure applications.

For fixed-geometry, constant-pressure applications, the ejector is usually designed to operate at fixed values of
primary or driving gas flow rate, stagnation pressure, and stagnation temperature. Therefore, it has no moving parts,
is simple in design, operates with cheap, readily available fluids, and is reliable in service. Such an ejector may be
used as an aerothermopressor by employing a small flow rate of gas at a high density level to entrain and pump a
larger flow rate of a similar gas from a low density level at the ejector inlet to a higher level at its exit. This applica-
tion is useful in situations where an installed compressor has an excessive compression ratio but insufficient flow rate
for a specific requirement.

The variable-area, variable pressure ejector can be used in aircraft propulsion installations to augment the net
thrust or enhance the aircraft lift-drag characteristics. A shroud is placed downstream of the propulsive nozzle
which serves as the ejector driving nozzle. The exhaust gas from the nozzle entrains and accelerates either the air
used to cool the propulsion system accessories or the boundary layer from the aircraft lifting surfaces, both of
which result in decreased drag values 2 , 3 .

Since the advent of the turbojet engine, aircraft propulsion systems have been developed and/or qualified in
ground test facilities under conditions simulating atmospheric flight (Reference 4 and Figure 1). Ejectors are used
to pump the propulsion system exhaust products from the test cells and thus provide the simulated altitude pressure
or to augment the altitude performance capability of the exhauster plant. In both cases, the first-stage ejector was
comprised of the propulsive nozzle and a mixing duct. The pressure ratio of the ejector is a function of the kinetic
energy in the exhaust jet and the amount of secondary (cell cooling air) flow. This application is representative of
that employed in the developmental testing of rockets.

The ejector principle is also used in ground effect machines and in V/STOL aircraft 5 . In these applications,
large mass ratios at small pressure ratios are employed to produce the desired force.

Methods and techniques have been developed to improve the performance of ground test facilities in order to
test propulsion systems for atmospheric and space applications. The use of the ejector principle as a pumping
device, as a diffuser, and as a combination of both the ejector and diffuser has resulted. Much experimental data
have been acquired from the study programs associated with these developments. Various applications of ejector
design are discussed in the sections to follow.

2. SIMPLE EJECTOR DESIGN METHODS

Because the very complex nature of the flow in an ejector renders a purely theoretical design approach unfeasible,
semi-empirical methods have been developed for designing ejectors for various applications. Flugel6 in 1939 published a
theoretical design method which forms the basis for ejector design.

To design an ejector, it is necessary to make the following assumptions:

(i) The mixing of the two streams is complete, and the Mach number at the exit plane of the constant-area
mixing channel is equal to or less than one.
(ii) The flow at stations 2, 3, 4 and 5 is one-dimensional and steady (see schematics in Sections 2.1 and 2.2).
(iii) No heat is transferred at the duct wall.
110

2.1 Constant-Pressure Mixing Theory

A schematic of a constant-pressure mixing ejector is shown below:

Primary Flow

Flugel's design method6 makes use of the equation of state and the conservation of mass, enerigy, and momentum
at constant static pressure between stations 2 and 3. Between stations 3 and 4 (constant-area flow channel), the
conservation equations are again used, and the flow is assumed to decelerate from supersonic to subsonic velocity
through a channel shock system. The flow decelerates subsonically from station 4 to station 5.

The constant-pressure mixing theory7 for gases having different state conditions is presented in the following:

Primary plus Secondary Mass Flow Rate

rh' + rh"
= 1+ m
—• (1)
m

Constant Static Pressure Mixing

P2 - P2 - Ps • (2)

Conservation of Momentum
(ihV)J + (AV); = (rfiV), . (3)

Dividing Equation (3) by nV gives

, m „ / rh \
v + V = 1+ I4l
^7 ^/)v'-
m \ m /
Equation (4) may be written in terms of Mach number (M):

M
' V H XT), + £ ^ j( 7RTt Tt\ = 0 + $ M W H %)m ' (5>
The state condition of the mixture is then calculated at station 3 by using the Conservation of Energy equation:

m „ „ / m \
CpTt' + ^C;Tt" = ^ l + ^ j c p j T t 3

and the values for R3 , y 3 , and T t j :

R' + (m7m')R"
R3 = 1 + (m"/m')

7 + (m /m )7
Tj
1 + (lii'VnV)

CpTt' + (m7m')C;Tt"
C p3 (l + rh'Vm')

By assuming a value for Mj , and knowing Tt'2, T* , R'2 , R'2', y'2 , y'2', C p , Cp , p' tj , p"2 = p 0 , m', m", then

P;/Po = mi.-ft
Pi' = P 0 ( P > o ) = P.
 Ill

Pj/pJ is calculated

and M2 = f ( p - > ; , 7 2 ) .

Now Equation (5) can be solved for M3 .

The ratio (A3/A'*) can be calculated by using the Continuity Equations as follows:

,),• = (pAV)* = ^2_AMV^RT) •

At the nozzle throat (A*), where M' = 1.0 = M'* ,

7gc
m' = p'*A'*M'* , \ ( , V (6)

and rh, = (pAM J ^-—) . (7)

3
\ V R T t ( T / T ty 3
Now, dividing Equation (7) by Equation (6) gives

p3A3M3 |R'*T t '*(T/T t )'*7 3

l * a l * . . . * (8)
m' p'*A'*M'*^ R 3 T tj (T/T t ) 3 7'

Since m3 = 1 + m"/nV, M'* = 1.0 , and p 3 = pi'

p2' = ppi , where

p == ({A' i /A" k ),y , ,p[ i ).

therefore
Ai_ m (1 + m"/m')p ti -f ( p ' * / ^ R 3 T t3 (T/T t ) 3 7'*
(9)
A'* " Pi, x pj/pl, x M3 ^R'*T t '*(T/T t )'*-r 3

The pressure rise from station 2 to 3 may be calculated by using the impulse function; thus,

F 3 = p 3 A 3 (l + 7 3 M 2 ). (10)

Then by conservation of momentum, the impulse function at station 4 may be determined by

F« = F 3 - F w f j _ 4 . (11)

However,
F w f j _4 = 7rDLCfwq3 = 7 r D L C f w p 3 | M 2 . (12)

Now, by substituting Equation (10) and Equation (12) into Equation (11), F 4 can be obtained.

The Mach number at station 4 may be calculated by graphical means as follows. From the continuity equation
and impulse function,

m = pAV = pAM
RT t (T/T t )

F = pA(l + 7M2)

7-1 .
and T,/T = 1 + ± — M2 ,

m becomes m = f. / j M ^ f e - / ' + i(7 ~ DM2 • (13)

\1 + ym*) y RTt
112

Rearranging Equation (13) gives

M
m /RT, N/TV- + i(7~ DM2
(14)
8c 1 + M2

A graphical presentation of this equation with 7 as a parameter is presented in Figure 2 (Ref.8). All of the
parameters at the left of the equality are known; therefore, the graph is entered at the value rh/Fv'RT t /g c ,
and the corresponding subsonic or supersonic Mach number is read from the graph at the desired value of the
ratio of specific heats (7).

Equation (14) can be solved explicitly by rearranging in a quadratic form. First, rearrange such that

m RT, My/\ + ^(7 - 1)M2

7gc 1 + 7M2

Now let

G =

so that
M 2 (l + i ( 7 - 1)M2
(1 + 7M 2 ) 2

A rearrangement gives
7-I-2C
— j + M 2 (l - 2 7 O - G = 0 . (15)

Now let
K = 1 - 27G

and make substitution in Equation (15) to get the quadratic equation

7(K - 1)M 4 + 2KM2 - 2G = 0 .

Therefore, the solution for M is

K ± v^K - 2 G \ "
M (16)
1 - 7K 7 "

The static pressure at station 4 may be determined by use of the impulse function

P4 = (17)
A 4 (l + 7 4 M 2 )

since
A 3 (A 3 is known)

74 = 7 3 (assume no change)

F4 = Equation (11)

M4 is obtained from Equation (14).

The pressure ratio available across the subsonic diffuser depends on the value of M4 and the diffuser efficiency
(17). The nonuniformity of the flow at station 4 and the thick boundary layer tend to cause separation at the inlet
to the subsonic diffuser which results in poor compression efficiency. For this reason, the recommended values of
17 and A s /A 4 are 60 percent and 4, respectively. Then,

Ps
P4
1 +
°-'GH (18)

where

f(M 4 ,7 4 ) -
P4
 113

The overall pressure ratio of the ejector (p 5 /p 0 ) may be calculated by the following equation:

Ei = h x h x h (19)
Po Pa P3 Po

where p 3 / p 0 is a function of the flow rate of the secondary gas, the stagnation pressure of the primary gas in the
nozzle plenum, the primary nozzle expansion ratio, and the geometry of the installation at station 2.

2.2 Constant-j\rea Mixing Theory

Constant-area mixing theory for ejectors is presented in the following :

Primary Flow

UO
The analysis makes use of the equation of state and the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum between
stations 3 and 4. A channel shock system decelerates the flow, as in the constant-pressure mixing case, to subsonic
velocity at station 4. The flow decelerates subsonically from station 4 to station 5. The equations are obtained in
the following way.

By the conservation of momentum, the impulse function at station 4 becomes

F4 = F 3 + F3' - F w f j _ 4 , (20)

since
2
F'3 = [pA(l + 7M )]3

F3' = [pA(l + 7 M 2 ) ] 3 '

and Fwf 3 . 4 " *DLCf w P 3 h M2

The Mach number and static pressure at station 4 may be determined as for the constant-pressure mixing case;
thus
m RT t
f(M,7) 4 (21)
FVT
Solve graphically for M4 , and then substitute M4 into the impulse equation to determine p 4 :

P4 = (22)
A 4 (l + 7 M 2 ) 4

The static pressure rise through the subsonic diffuser is calculated as for the constant-pressure mixing case.
Thus,

Ps = P4 1 + 0.6
(H (23)

where

^- = f(M, 7 ) 4
P
114

The overall pressure ratio of the ejector may be calculated by

* = £*x^x^, (24)
Po ?4 P3 Po

where, again, p 3 /p 0 is a function of the selected design parameters: rh"/m', p}/p0 . and A3/A* .

3. EJECTORS USING PROPULSION SYSTEM NOZZLES

FOR MOTIVE ENERGY

The development of ejectors to serve the dual purpose of evacuating the test cells and performing as supersonic
diffusers in propulsion system test installations has been in progress during the last ten years by many organizations.
Although the programs have been similar in general, each has been designed to study in detail the configuration
required to produce the specific requirements of the organization conducting the studies. Therefore, much experi-
mental information resulting from studies of the influence of various parameters on ejector performance with and
without secondary flow is available. Also, a rigorous analytical model for the calculation of the base (test cell or
vacuum vessel) pressure behind a two-dimensional model developed by Korst9 was modified by Bauer10 to solve
the axisymmetric base pressure problem. These methods are very complicated and require the use of a high-speed
computer operated by personnel familiar with the analysis in order to produce design parameters. Therefore, the
empirical design methods developed from experimental results are used for practical applications. These experi-
mental data and a discussion of their use in ejector-diffuser design for propulsion system test application are
presented in the following sections.

3.1 Ejector-Diffuser Experiments

An investigation" was conducted to determine the effects of nozzle area ratio and nozzle throat-to-diffuser
area ratio on performance of ejectors without induced flow. Five nozzles having constant exit diameters and
different throat diameters were tested in three diffusers having different diameters. All nozzles were conical with
a 36-degree total exit angle, and all diffusers had length-to-diameter ratios of 3.0. Test cell pressure, ejector
nozzle driving pressure, exhaust pressure, and diffuser static pressure profiles were measured. Data from all con-
figurations were analyzed to determine the effects of ejector geometry on performance.

In defining the characteristics of ejectors without induced flow, certain terms and flow phenomena should
first be discussed. Three terms of primary interest are (see Figure 3):
(i) The driving pressure ratio of the ejector (nozzle driving pressure/ejector exhaust pressure, p t /p e x )
(ii) The nozzle pressure ratio (nozzle driving pressure/test cell pressure, p t /p c )
(iii) The ejector rise ratio (ejector exhaust pressure/test cell pressure, P ex /P c )-
A thorough understanding of these three ratios and their significance is mandatory for all ejector work.

Generalized performance characteristics of ejectors without induced flow are presented in two different ways
to better illustrate ejector flow processes. In Figure 4(a), the reciprocal of the driving pressure ratio is plotted
versus the reciprocal of the nozzle pressure ratio; in Figure 4(b), the driving pressure ratio is plotted versus the
ejector rise ratio. Since the factors p t and p e x in the abscissa of both curves are the same, it is possible to
produce these characteristic curves by varying either factor of the abscissa ratio. In the subsequent discussion,
ejector exhaust pressure is the variable with nozzle driving pressure held constant for all conditions. Points A
(Fig.4) correspond to some maximum value of ejector exhaust pressure and, consequently, give minimum driving
pressure ratio. At this condition, the ejector is said to be ''unstarted". In the unstarted condition, the supersonic
stream from the nozzle is not attached to the diffuser walls but forms a supersonic core in the diffuser for some
distance downstream of the nozzle. The supersonic core does some small amount of pumping by entrainment,
causing the ejector rise ratio to be only slightly greater than unity.

As the driving pressure ratio is increased (decreasing p e x at a constant p t ), operating conditions are depicted
by moving along the curve toward points B. In this region, test cell pressure decreases faster than ejector exhaust
pressure, resulting in an increased, but still relatively low, ejector rise ratio. The supersonic core becomes larger
in diameter and longer but does not fill the supersonic diffuser. A discontinuity begins, as shown at points B,
resulting from attachment of the supersonic core to the downstream end of the supersonic diffuser. With the
supersonic stream filling the diffuser, pressure waves can no longer be transmitted upstream against the now solid
cross section of supersonic flow. The resulting isolation of test cell pressure from ejector exhaust pressure causes
the discontinuity in performance (points B to C). The magnitude and position of the discontinuity vary for
different ejector configurations but have always been found to repeat for the same configuration.

In most cases, the magnitude of these discontinuities may be decreased by increasing the length-to-diameter
ratio of the supersonic diffuser. Many ejector configurations produce discontinuities which extend to conditions
shown by points D (Fig.4), having no continuous operation between points C and D.
 115

The highly sloped portion of the curve between points C and D shows that test cell pressure decreases quite
rapidly for small decreases in ejector exhaust pressure. In terms of the performance ratios, a slight increase in
driving pressure ratio results in large increases in both nozzle pressure ratio and ejector rise ratio. This region of
high sensitivity and occasional instability is probably caused by the rapid increase in the length of diffuser wall
washed by the supersonic stream as the flow attachment point moves toward the nozzle. At point D, the driving
pressure ratio is adequate for full expansion of the supersonic stream to the diffuser walls; the stream attachment
point is close to the nozzle and stable. This condition is defined as "peak" or "start", and the ejector is said to
be "started" as opposed to the previously defined unstarted condition. This peak condition gives the maximum
pressure rise ratio attainable for the configuration. At any point beyond peak (driving pressure ratio greater than
that required for start), the test cell pressure will remain constant regardless of a further decrease in ejector exhaust
pressure (Pt/p ex "* °°)- ' n this started region (points D to E, Figure 4), test cell pressure is a function of nozzle
driving pressure only. In terms of pressure ratio, the nozzle pressure ratio is insensitive to diffuser exit pressure
for all started conditions (see points D to E, Figure 4(a)).

In full-scale ejector usage, it is often impractical to optimize all performance parameters. It is, therefore,
necessary to select a configuration suited to the particular application for which it is to be used. As an example,
two different types of ejectors are used at the Rocket Test Facility (RTF), Arnold Engineering Development
Center (AEDC), in connection with high altitude rocket testing. One of these is the auxiliary ejector used for
pumpdown of the test cell before rocket firing. This ejector is driven by steam which may be throttled to the
desired nozzle driving pressure; however, the ejector must exhaust to a given pressure, determined by the capability
of the rotating exhaust machinery. Since the desired result is minimum test cell pressure, the auxiliary ejector
must produce maximum ejector rise ratio to attain minimum test cell pressure. The second application is the
rocket itself driving the ejector during firing. This differs from the auxiliary ejector in that the nozzle driving
pressure, which in this case is the rocket chamber pressure, cannot be optimized from the standpoint of the
ejector. It is, therefore, necessary to have the diffuser so sized with respect to the rocket motor as to give
maximum nozzle pressure ratio (p,/p c ) for the ejector.

3.1.1 Effects of Ejector Geometry

Peak nozzle pressure ratio variation caused by changing Aj/A* is shown in Figure 5. The curves are lines of
constant A ne /A* . Figure 5 again shows that, for a constant A n e /A*, the nozzle pressure ratio increases with
increased Aj/A* . The close grouping of the lines of constant A ne /A* again demonstrates that A ne /A* is
secondary in importance to Aj/A* as a controlling parameter. The spread between air and steam data was
partially caused by the difference in the specific heat ratios of the two gases; however, the total spread between
air and steam data is considerably larger than the spread between the theoretical lines of constant specific heat
ratio (dashed lines, Figure 5). This additional spread is probably caused by the use of a two-phase stream
(wet steam) as the driving gas.

At large values of Aj/A* , the air data deviated from the trend established at small values. For any small
value of A(j/A*, nozzle pressure ratio (p,/p c ) was increased by increasing A ne /A* of the nozzle; however, at
large values of Aj/A* , this trend was reversed. Data from a full-scale rocket test (Fig.6) with high values of
A(j/A* show the same pattern as shown by the model data at low values of Aj/A* . The rocket data show no
performance decay for large values of Aj/A*, and the nozzle pressure ratio (p t /p c ) increases with increased
A ne /A* (10, 18 and 25) for a constant A,j/A* = 310 . Model data in the high Aj/A* region (Fig.6) is probably
invalid because of Reynolds number effects, the effects of condensation shocks, or possibly air liquefaction at
these low static temperatures. Since all supersonic nozzles used in this investigation had the same exit diameter,
the nozzles which gave the largest values of A,j/A* were also those having the largest nozzle expansion ratios
(Ane/A*).

The peak driving pressure ratios for the 15 ejector configurations are plotted versus Aj/A in Figure 7.
Data from all configurations form a single straight line for air and a single straight line for steam. These lines of
constant specific heat ratio are slightly convergent toward decreasing values of Aj/A , as would be expected
from theory. Peak driving pressure ratio for a given ejector geometry and a given specific heat ratio is a function
of A,j/A* only. A comparison of Figure 7 data with corresponding theoretical one-dimensional total pressure
loss ratio across a normal shock is shown in Figure 8. Theoretical total pressure loss ratio was determined from
the corresponding A^/A* and the proper specific heat ratio (air or steam) for each point. Reciprocal values of
the peak driving pressure ratios are used for easier correlation with theoretical values. When plotted in this
manner, the air and steam curves are now parallel and very nearly coincide. The slight separation of the curves is
probably caused by an error in the value of the specific heat ratio used for the wet steam. Both curves lie very
close and parallel to the theoretical values shown by the dashed line, which indicates that one-dimensional theory
may be used to design these systems for practical application.

3.1.2 Full-Scale Correlation

A number of full-scale exhaust gas ejectors have been used in the RTF in tests of full-scale rocket engines,
and transient recordings of rocket combustor pressure and test cell pressure have been obtained. Peak nozzle
pressure ratios (p t /p c ) determined from these data are presented in Figure 6 as a function of the ratio of super-
sonic diffuser flow area to the rocket nozzle throat area and the rocket nozzle expansion ratio.
116

Performance of the full-scale ejectors during tests of solid-propellant rockets equipped with single exhaust nozzles
compares favorably with performance of the model ejectors. The scatter of the full-scale ejector data is attributed to
variation in test cell inleakage (different test cells and numbers of service leads through test cell walls), variation in
rocket operating time, differences in the ratio of the specific heat of the exhaust gases, differences in the contours
of the rocket exhaust nozzle, and the presence of solid particles in the products of combustion of the solid fuels.

3.2 Influence of Ejector-Diffuser Inlet Geometry

An experimental investigation12 was conducted to determine the effect of truncated conical inlets on the
performance of cylindrical ejectors without induced flow. Five conical supersonic nozzles having exit diameters of
4.16 in, exit half-angles of 18 deg, and various throat diameters were tested in 6-, 8-, and lO-in.-diameter straight
cylindrical supersonic diffusers equipped with diverging conical inlets having half-angles of 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 deg.
These cylindrical diffusers had length-to-diameter ratios of 3 and discharged into conical subsonic diffusers. Nozzle
total pressure, test cell pressure, and subsonic diffuser exit pressure were measured. The truncated conical inlets
in the cylindrical diffusers (Fig.9) produced as much as 600-percent improvement in diffuser performance.

Figure 10 shows the performance of a typical cylindrical ejector with and without a conical inlet. Without the
conical inlet, the ejector rise ratio (p e x /p c ) increased as the driving pressure ratio (p ex /Pt) decreased until the
ejector started, that is, until the diffuser cross section was filled with supersonic flow. Thereafter, the pressure ratio
(Pc/Pt) across the driving nozzle remained constant, and the ejector rise ratio decreased as the exhaust pressure was
decreased.

When the conical inlet was placed in the duct at such an axial position that the free-jet boundary interacted
with the inclined surface, the minimum value of the pressure ratio (p c /Pt) across the nozzle decreased. The driving
pressure ratio (p e x /p t ) required for ejectors equipped with conical inlets did not change appreciably from that
required for ejectors without such inlets (Fig. 11); therefore, the ejector rise ratio increased in proportion to the
decrease in the pressure ratio across the driving nozzle.

3.2.1 Effect of Conical Inlet on Diffuser Performance

The results of testing conical inlets having various divergence angles in cylindrical diffusers to determine the
influence of the divergence angle on the diffuser performance are summarized in Figure 12. Optimum performance
improvement lp c /p c (opt)- where p c is cell pressure without conical inlet and p c ( o p t) ' s t n e lowest value of cell
pressure with conical inlet at optimum axial position) is plotted versus the half-angle of the conical inlet (0COne)
with the nozzle area ratio (A ne /A*) as a parameter. The lines connecting the data points obtained for each
configuration serve only to simplify the reading of the graph. Since the exit areas of all nozzles were equal (exit
diameter of 4.16 in), the Mach number of the free-jet boundary between the nozzle exit and the duct increased
as the nozzle area ratio increased:

Mj, = f l —^g- x j = f( —j 1 (one-dimensional, isentropic theory).

The half-angle of the conical inlet required for optimum diffuser performance decreased as the nozzle area ratio
increased.

The decrease in performance improvement noted in the case of the large area ratio nozzles may have resulted
in part from the very low Reynolds numbers of the flow in these nozzles. Also the poor performance of the
expansion ratio 5.00 nozzle in the 6 in duct may have been caused by leakage of the high pressure air which
bypassed the nozzle seal from the nozzle plenum chamber into the evacuated region (test cell), since such inleakage
of air thickens the viscous mixing layer along the free-jet boundary and results in performance decay.

3.2.2 Effect of Axial Location on Conical Inlet

The effect of conical inlet angle and axial position on diffuser performance is indicated in Figure 13, in which
the pressure ratio across the nozzle is plotted versus the axial position (X) of the conical inlet in relation to the
nozzle exit plane. (The steam configurations are not included in these plots; however, the data are presented in
Table I.) The minimum values of p c /pt with conical inlets retracted varied slightly; this variation is attributed to
variations of inleakage around the positioning rods (see Figure 9). It is apparent that the axial position of the
conical section became more critical as the angle of the conical inlet was increased toward its optimum value, that
is, toward the angle which produced the greatest improvement in diffuser performance.

The effect of the radial height (Hr) of the conical inlet on diffuser performance and conical inlet position
was investigated using a 10.8 area ratio nozzle in the 6 in duct with a 24 deg half-angle conical inlet. Figure 14
shows the pressure ratio across the nozzle versus the axial position of the conical inlet. Diffuser performance
decreased as the radial height was decreased; however, the axial position of the inlet required for optimum
performance did not change appreciably.
 117

The effect of a three-step conical inlet tested with the expansion ratio 5.0 nozzle in the 10 in duct is presented
in Figure 15, which also shows a sketch of the inlet. The pressure ratio across the driving nozzle is plotted versus
the axial position of the inlet. In this case, the minimum value of the pressure ratio across the nozzle was 2.0 x I0~ 4
at X = 2.81 in; the performance for the 36 deg conical inlet (Fig. 15) is also presented for comparison. The
optimum position of the three-step inlet was slightly more critical than that of the 36 deg inlet. The performance
of this diffuser configuration was 600 percent better than the performance of the diffuser without a conical inlet.

The optimum values of p c / p t obtained for each nozzle-duct configuration and for each nozzle-duct-best-cone
configuration are presented versus A^/A in Figure 16 for comparison. The nozzles having area ratios of 3.56,
5.0 and 10.8 in ducts without conical inlets produced p c / p t values which correspond to one-dimensional values
based on Aj/A . Those nozzles in ducts equipped with conical inlets produced p c / p t values which were as
much as one-eighth of isentropic values.

3.3 Effects of Ejector-Diffuser Mixing Length

An investigation 13 of ejectors without induced flow was made to determine the effects of varying diffuser
lengths on ejector performance. Four 18 deg half-angle conical nozzles having constant exit diameters and different
throat diameters and two contoured nozzles having zero-degree half-angles at the exit were used as the ejector
driving nozzles. Unheated air was used for all tests. The diffuser length-to-diameter ratios were varied between
0.7 and 21.5, and three cylindrical ducts of different diameters were used both with and without a subsonic diffuser.
An empirical method was developed to estimate the starting and operating pressure ratios of such ejector configura-
tions using simply determined one-dimensional normal shock relationships. Typical ejector configurations are shown
in Figure 17.

The fundamental ejector starting phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 18. In region (1) of the performance
curve, both the nozzle and the ejector were unstarted. As the ratio P e x /Pt w a s decreased, the nozzle became
started (minimum nozzle exit pressure) at point A in region (2). However, the ejector did not start (minimum
cell pressure) until point B in region (3) was reached. Point B occurred at the maximum starting pressure ratio.
When the ratio pex/Pt_ was increased after the ejector started, the reverse of the described phenomenon occurred,
and the ejector became unstarted when the operating pressure ratio was exceeded.

To demonstrate the effect of diffuser length on the starting and operating pressure ratios, some typical data
are shown in Figure 19. For a diffuser L/D of 8.1, the starting and operating pressure ratios, points A and B ,
respectively, were essentially identical. For diffuser L/D's near 1.0, a significant difference existed between the
starting pressure ratio, point A , and the operating pressure ratio, point B , which resulted in significant hysteresis.

3.3.1 Effect of Subsonic Diffuser

Ejector starting characteristics were determined both with and without a subsonic diffuser. Figure 20 shows
the static pressure distribution in a long cylindrical diffuser (L/D = 9) at p e x /Pt values slightly less than the
operating pressure ratio, This wall static pressure distribution in the cylindrical diffuser remained the same, whether
a subsonic diffuser was or was not used. The subsonic diffuser gave a slight increase in pressure recovery which
resulted in an increased ejector starting pressure ratio although the major portion of the pressure rise occurred in
the cylindrical diffuser section.

The experimental starting and operating pressure ratio was improved approximately 12 to 18 percent for
long diffusers (L/D > 8) when a subsonic diffuser was used (Figures 21 and 22). As diffuser length was decreased
(L/D < 8), the subsonic diffuser was found to improve the starting pressure ratio from 10 to 68 percent (Fig.22).

The improvement in starting pressure ratio produced by the subsonic diffuser can be very closely predicted
for long diffusers by comparing the one-dimensional relationships for static-to-total and total-to-total pressure ratios
across a normal shock. For a given cylindrical duct-to-nozzle throat area ratio (Aj/A ), a one-dimensional isentropic
Mach number was determined. Then the corresponding normal shock static-to-total pressure ratio which occurred
when no subsonic diffuser was used (Fig.21(b)) was compared with the total pressure ratio across a normal shock
which occurred when a subsonic diffuser was used (Fig.21(a)). This theoretical comparison predicted an approximate
12 to 15 percent improvement in the starting pressure ratio when a subsonic diffuser was used.

3.3.2 Effect of Supersonic Diffuser Length

The starting pressure ratio reached a maximum at a diffuser L/D = 3 for ejectors equipped with a subsonic
diffuser and a conical nozzle (Figures 22(a) through (c)). It is also significant that the starting pressure ratio
equaled the operating pressure ratio above an L/D = 3 for conical nozzles. For the contoured nozzles, the
starting pressure ratio reached a maximum at an approximate L/D = 8 (Fig.22). It was noted that a small
difference existed between the starting and operating pressure ratios at L/D > 8 for the contoured nozzles.

As the length of the cylindrical supersonic diffuser section was decreased below the optimum values of L/D ,
the starting pressure ratios also decreased (Fig.22); however, the rate of decrease was less for configurations having
contoured nozzles than for those having conical nozzles. No significant change in the operating pressure ratio was
118

noted for diffuser lengths as low as L/D = 1.6 for ejectors equipped with conical nozzles and a subsonic diffuser
(Figures 22(a) through (c)). The ejectors equipped with the contoured nozzles, however, had a decreasing operating
pressure ratio below approximately L/D = 8 (Fig.22(d)). Figure 22 also shows that the difference between the
starting and operating pressure ratios (the ejector hysteresis) increased as the L/D was decreased.

When no subsonic diffuser was used, the optimum L/D for conical nozzles increased to approximately 5. For
contoured nozzles, no major change was indicated in the optimum L/D when no subsonic diffuser was used;
however, insufficient data were obtained to evaluate this adequately. There was no variation in the starting pressure
ratio for diffuser lengths above these optimum values except for a slight decrease in p e x /Pt resulting from the
frictional effects of very long diffusers.

As the length of the cylindrical supersonic diffuser section was decreased below the optimum values of L/D
when no subsonic diffuser was used, the starting hysteresis was noticeably increased for the conical nozzles as
compared with that obtained using a subsonic diffuser (Figures 22(a) through (c)).

3.3.3 Estimating Ejector Starting and Operating Performance

Although the compression shock system in a long duct is a series of lambda shocks resulting from an interaction
between the boundary shock and the boundary layer on the duct walls, Shapiro 1 4 states that one-dimensional
normal shock relationship used with the duct inlet Mach number will predict the pressure rise across the shock
system within approximately 6 percent. This good agreement is explained by the fact that the wall shearing forces
in the region of separation caused by shock-boundary layer interaction are extremely small. Although Shapiro's
results were obtained for uniform duct inlet flow, the experimental results for ejectors in which the flow was
not expected to be uniform still showed good agreement with one-dimensional normal shock relationships.

As shown in Figure 21, the experimental results for diffuser L/D > 8 were approximately 88 percent of the
theoretical normal shock values (p t / p t ) n s for conical and contoured nozzles when a subsonic diffuser was used.
When no subsonic diffuser was used, the experimental results were approximately 90 percent of the theoretical
normal shock values (p 2 /p t ) n s for conical nozzles and 80 percent of those for contoured nozzles.

A more accurate prediction of the starting and operating pressure ratios can be obtained by correcting the
theoretical normal shock value by a parameter which is a function of nozzle geometry and the diffuser length-to-
diameter ratio. This correction parameter is expressed as a ratio of the experimental starting or operating pressure
ratios to the theoretical normal shock value.

For ejectors having subsonic diffusers which essentially diffuse the air to a zero velocity condition, the total
pressure recovery across a normal shock for the one-dimensional isentropic Mach number corresponding to the
area ratio of the cylindrical diffuser in the region of jet impingement to the nozzle throat area (Aj/A*) was used.
Thus,
K
i = (Pex/Pt)exper/(Pt 2 /Pt,)ns •

For ejectors having no subsonic diffuser, it was assumed that the ejector system diffused to the exhaust conditions
by the static to total pressure ratio across a normal shock for the isentropic Mach number corresponding to
A d / A * . Thus,
K
2 " (Pex/Pt)exper/(P2/Pt,)ns •

The correction constant was calculated for each test configuration and was plotted versus the diffuser length-
to-diameter ratio (Fig.23). For diffuser lengths above optimum, there was a small change in the correction constants
with increasing diffuser length, which varied primarily as a function of nozzle geometry and whether or not a
subsonic diffuser was used. Below the optimum L/D , the correction factor also varied considerably as a function
of whether or not a subsonic diffuser was used. The decrease in K2 for diffusers having L/D > 10 (Fig.23)
reflected the pressure loss resulting from the frictional effects discussed in Reference 14.

For configurations having diffuser lengths greater than optimum and either contoured or conical nozzles, the
values of the correction constants varied less than ±5 percent at any given length for all configurations tested.
For diffuser lengths less than optimum, this variation increased to ±10 percent (Fig.23). By using the values of K
from Figure 23, the starting pressure ratios from Reference 15 can be estimated within ±10 percent for L/D's
greater than 4 (Fig.24). Although the described method predicts the starting pressure ratio for ejector configura-
tions using nozzle shapes similar to those tested, its use for ejectors having nozzles with other shapes may require
modifications to the presented methods.

As diffuser length approaches the jet impingement distance, the diffuser length parameter (L/D — X/D)
would provide a better correlation parameter than L/D . This would appear to be a more realistic approach because
it more nearly reflects the effective length of duct as far as the pressure recovery phenomena in the diffuser are
concerned. Figure 25 indicates an improvement in correlation of as much as 15 percent for some configurations
equipped with short diffusers when this parameter was used. However, as the diffuser L/D approaches X/D, the
 119

values of K', and K2 are expected to become unreliable because the minimum cell pressure ratio may change
and thus shift the region of jet impingement. The following jet impingement distances were used in determining
the length parameter for the experimental data plotted in Figure 25:

D - 6.09 in D = 10.19 in
A/A*
X X/D X X/D

3.63 2.05 0.336 4.7 0.462

5.07 2.14 0.351 5.0 0.492
10.85 2.3 0.378 6.46 0.633
25.00 3.85 0.632 8.8 0.863
23.68 3.13 0.513 - -

These impingement distances were calculated using Latvala's method of calculating the jet boundary shape l6
for a total pressure of 45 lb/in2 and the experimental minimum cell pressure ratio (p c /p t ) which can be calculated
using Reference 1 7.

3.3.4 Total Pressure Effect

The ejector starting and operating characteristics remained unchanged by a variation in nozzle plenum total
pressure in the case of an L/D = 9 , as shown in Figure 26. However, as diffuser length was decreased to values
at which the jet impingement distance became an important parameter, the ejector starting and operating pressure
ratios varied with total pressure level, as shown in Figure 26(b). This variation is in order since jet impingement
distance is a function of minimum cell pressure ratio, which is also a function of nozzle total pressure. Figure 27
shows a typical variation in the minimum cell pressure ratio (p c /p t ) with total pressure. Jet impingement studies
show that as the cell pressure ratio increases, the jet impingement distance increases. This gives the decrease in
the length parameter term (L/D — X/D) in Figure 25 and a corresponding decrease in the value of K , which
results in a decrease in the starting or operating pressure ratio for short diffuser lengths. Thus, the influence of
total pressure level in the case of very short diffusers (L/D < 3) indicates that the accuracy with which the
starting and operating pressure ratios can be predicted will depend on the accuracy of the calculation of the jet
impingement distance. Reference 17 presents a good method of estimating the cell pressure for a given configura-
tion, which can be used in determining the impingement distance.

3.3.5 Effect on Ejector Minimum Cell Pressure Ratio

The effect of diffuser length on ejector minimum cell pressure ratio (p c /p t ) is shown in Figure 22. The cell
pressure ratio varied only slightly as a result of diffuser length or the method of subsonic diffusion. The experi-
mental results show that the minimum cell pressure ratio was not affected appreciably at diffuser lengths as low
as L/D = 0.7 . It is believed that the cell pressure ratio would not be affected at diffuser lengths shorter than
this, provided the diffuser length was maintained greater than the impingement distance.

3.4 Effects of Second Throats on Ejector-Diffusers

An investigation18 of ejectors without induced flow was made to determine the effects of second-throat
geometry and position on the starting and operating pressure ratios. Twenty-seven ejector configurations were
tested using three 18 deg half-angle conical nozzles and one contoured nozzle in combination with six second-
throat configurations. Unheated air was used for all tests. The starting and operating pressure ratios were
improved by the presence of a second throat. Second-throat contraction ratio and length of minimum area had
the greatest influence on the starting and operating pressure ratios. The limiting second-throat contraction ratio
determined in this investigation agrees with published NASA results, although the ejector geometries were
considerably different.

The data presented in Reference 15 were obtained from ejector systems having the cylindrical duct diameter
nearly equal to the nozzle exit diameter. In this investigation the ejector systems (Fig.28) studied were made up
of an axisymmetric nozzle located concentric with a cylindrical duct having a diameter significantly greater than
the nozzle exit diameter.

3.4.1 Effect of Second-Throat Location

A typical variation of minimum cell pressure ratio and starting pressure ratio with second-throat location is
shown in Figure 29. The range of second-throat locations which do not influence the minimum cell pressure ratio
is bounded at the upstream end l(X/D d ) min l by the increase in minimum cell pressure ratio and at the downstream
end l(X/D d ) max ] by the inability to start the ejector system.
120

The initial increase in minimum cell pressure ratio as the second throat was moved upstream of ( X / D d ) m i n is
caused by the free jet impinging on the contracting portion of the second throat. This increases the static pressure
rise through the impingement zone and results in an increase in the minimum cell pressure ratio 1 9 . The result is
consistent with the decrease in minimum cell pressure ratio produced by a conical inlet which causes the static
pressure rise through the impingement zone to decrease 12 .

The value of ( ( X / D d ) m a x of each second-throat configuration was experimentally determined, based on ability
to start the ejector system. Figure 29 presents the duct length l ( X / D d ) m a x — ( X / D d ) m i n ] within which a second
throat may be located without influencing the minimum cell pressure ratio. This duct length decreases sharply as
the second-throat contraction ratio is decreased from 0.65 to 0.4.

The optimum location of a second throat must lie within the range of duct length l ( X / D d ) m a x — (X/Dj-Jj^jpl
since the second throat must not influence the minimum cell pressure ratio. It is also necessary to locate the
second throat at a position at which the starting pressure ratio ( p e x / P t ) I s a maximum. Figure 29 shows the
starting pressure ratio to be nearly constant for all second-throat locations within the duct length range
[ ( X / D d ) m a x — (X/D(j) m j n |, with the maximum starting pressure occurring at or slightly downstream of the
( X / D d ) m i n location. However, for some configurations, a second optimum location existed further downstream.

3.4.2 Effect of Nozzle Total Pressure Level

In Reference 17, the effect of nozzle total pressure on the starting and operating pressure ratios of ejectors
without second throats is shown to be negligible although the minimum cell pressure ratio varies considerably.
This is also true for ejectors using second throats, as shown in Figure 29, if the second throat is located where it
does not affect the minimum cell pressure ratio. Since the free-jet impingement point is a function of the minimum
cell pressure ratio, the optimum second-throat location is, therefore, a function of the nozzle total pressure level.

3.4.3 Effect of 0 s t on Starting and Operating Pressure Ratios

Figure 30 shows the starting and operating pressure ratios obtained from ejectors equipped with second throats
having inlet angles of 6, 12 and 18 deg and unequal minimum area lengths of less than one throat diameter. Based
on the data presented in Reference 15, the inequality of the minimum area lengths is not a factor in this comparisoa
The starting and operating pressure ratios were essentially independent of the second-throat inlet angle for inlet
angles within the range of 6 to 18 deg. However, a small second-throat inlet angle is necessary to prevent boundary-
layer separation, which has a strong influence on the optimum location of the second throat.

3.4.4 Effect of Second-Throat Contraction Ratio on Ejector Performance

The variation of ejector performance with second-throat contraction ratio ( A s t / A d ) is best assessed by compar-
ing the performance of the same ejector system without a second throat. Figure 31 shows the variation in the
relative starting pressure ratio and the relative minimum cell pressure ratio with second-throat contraction ratio.
All second-throat configurations improved (increased) the ejector starting and operating pressure ratios, and the
improvement increased as the contraction ratio was decreased. A further increase of approximately 30 to 40 percent
in the starting and operating pressure ratios can be accomplished by increasing the length of the minimum area of
the second throat, as shown by the closed symbols in Figure 31(a).

Only one second-throat ejector system was tested using a contoured nozzle. The improvement in the starting
and operating pressure ratios shown in Figure 31(a) for this ejector system indicates that a second throat will
produce a greater improvement in the starting and operating pressure ratios of an ejector system having a contoured
nozzle than of one having an 18 deg conical nozzle.

The criteria for determining the limiting second-throat contraction ratio for an ejector system can be defined
as the minimum contraction ratio which causes no increase in minimum cell pressure ratio when the second throat
is at the optimum location. The variation of the relative minimum cell pressure ratio with the second-throat contrac-
tion ratio shown in Figure 31(b) can be used to estimate the limiting contraction. In Reference 15, a limiting
second-throat contraction ratio curve is presented for ejector systems having cylindrical duct diameters slightly
larger than the nozzle exit diameter and long minimum area second-throat configurations. The data from the
present investigation obtained using ejector systems having a cylindrical duct diameter much greater than the nozzle
exit diameter agree very well with the limiting curve from Reference 15, as shown in Figure 32. However, the
limiting curve from Reference 15 is not necessarily valid for second-throat configurations having very short minimum
area lengths, as shown by comparing ejector configurations (contraction ratio 0.5) in Figure 32. Included in
Figure 32 is the limiting second-throat contraction ratio determined by the well-known normal shock method.
This limiting contraction ratio curve is shown to be very conservative for ejector systems.
 121

3.4.5 Theoretical Analysis

A method of estimating the operating pressure ratio of second-throat ejector systems is presented in Reference 20.
The assumptions used in this method were:
(i) The ratio of specific heats of the driving fluid is constant.
(ii) All losses occur in the second throat.
(iii) The Mach number at the entrance to the second throat is defined by the ratio of duct-to-nozzle throat
area and isentropic one-dimensional flow.
(iv) Sonic Mach number exists at the minimum area of the second throat.
The operating pressure ratio is then the total pressure loss obtained by applying the continuity relationship for
adiabatic one-dimensional flow between the nozzle throat and the minimum area of the second throat. The equation is

A
Pt ex /Pt " */Ast •

A comparison of the calculated operating pressure ratio obtained by this method with the experimental results is
presented in Figure 33. The maximum error of this method as the second-throat contraction ratio approaches the
limiting value is about 30 percent except for second-throat configurations having a long .minimum area section, in
which case the error is much smaller.

A most unusual result of the investigation is the decrease in minimum cell pressure ratio caused by the presence
of a second throat. The magnitude of this decrease is shown in Figure 31(b) to be a function of nozzle exit flow
conditions, second-throat contraction ratio, and the length of the second throat.

3.5 Influence of Second-Throat Diffusers on Minimum Cell Pressure

An analysis of the influences of second-throat diffusers on minimum cell pressures is presented by Panesci and
German in Reference 21.

According to Crocco in Reference 22, it is possible for the "dead water" region (or cell region) not to be
isolated from downstream effects. Schlieren pictures in Reference 22 show clearly that shocks in the region of
free-jet impingement do not reach the wall. Crocco points out that this is because of the presence of subsonic
flows in the boundary layer along the diffuser wall and in the zone where the jet mixes with the gases recirculating
in the cell region. Crocco further states that these subsonic regions are thin, and if their longitudinal extent is
sufficient, a disturbance downstream would influence the pressure in the cell region. A disturbance by a second
throat could cause either an increase or a decrease in cell pressure if the mixing zone is initially laminar; however,
if the mixing zone is initially turbulent, only an increase in cell pressure would be anticipated.

The increase in cell pressure can be explained when the mixing zone is initially laminar by considering a relation
of the mass flows entrained and rejected in the cell region with the pressure differential (pj — p c ) discussed in
References 19 and 23. When the point of transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the subsonic region is
downstream of impingement as shown in the following illustration, an initial increase in p- — p c results in a
temporary increase in the mass flow rejected into the cell region. This causes an increase in cell pressure to
establish equilibrium.

Transition
Point
'///Sc ////.

Stagnating Stagnating Streamline

Inner Edge and Dividin
*•" of Mixing Dividing Streamline
Streamline
Zone
Transition Downstream of Initial Effect of Transition
Impingement (Steady State) Upstream of Impingement m >
me - m r

Mass
Flow
Transit!
(m) Downstream Transition Upstream of "I"
of "I"

Pi - Pc
122

An increase in cell pressure will also occur when the peak static pressure (ps) at the jet impingement point is
increased because of an increase in the gas turning angle as a result of a downstream disturbance.

When the point of transition from laminar to turbulent flow moves upstream of free-jet impingement, turbulence
moves upstream into the lower velocity portion of the mixing layer. If it is assumed that the mixing zone is laminar,
this increases the velocity between the dividing streamline and the outer edge of the mixing zone such that the
dividing streamline must move downstream of the stagnating streamline to satisfy continuity relations (see Reference 19).
Initially, this causes only a slight increase in the mass flow entrained since the length of the mixing layer along the
dividing streamline is not decreased appreciably. However, the rejected mass flow would be decreased because of the
turbulence which energizes the fluid particles in the low velocity portion of the mixing layer and enables more of
them to overcome the pressure rise through the impingement zone. Thus, the amount of gas reversed is reduced for
a given p- — p c , when the transition point moves upstream of jet impingement, and cell pressure must decrease to
establish equilibrium, with a resulting decrease in the entrained mass flow. Although the manner in which transition
is influenced by a second throat is not understood, the effect of transition on cell pressure provides an explanation
of the decrease in cell pressure noted in Reference 18 for the low Reynolds number data.

3.6 Reynolds Number Effect on Ejector Performance

The variation17 of minimum cell pressure ratio with nozzle plenum total pressure is of primary interest and is
graphically presented in Figure 34. From these data, the following ejector characteristics may be noted:
(i) The rate of change of minimum cell pressure ratio with nozzle plenum total pressure level became very
small as the nozzle plenum total pressure level was increased.
(ii) For each conical nozzle having a half-cone angle of 18 deg, one nozzle plenum total pressure existed at
which the minimum cell pressure ratio was less than the minimum cell pressure ratio corresponding to
any other nozzle plenum total pressure level. For ejector configurations equipped with contoured nozzles
having 0 deg exit half-angles, experimental data were not obtained at nozzle plenum total pressure levels
required to prove or disprove this phenomenon.

The significant parameter involving nozzle total pressure level was found to be the unit Reynolds number at
the nozzle exit times the nozzle throat diameter (Fig.35). For values of this parameter of less than one million,
significant variations in the minimum cell pressure ratio occurred.

3.7 Influence of Pertinent Parameters in Ejector-Diffuser Performance

Data from various diffuser model studies were analyzed24 to determine the influence of pertinent parameters
on ejector-diffuser performance with and without ejected mass from the test cell. The parameters varied were
conical nozzle area ratio, mass ejected from the test cell, number of nozzles, and the ratio of diffuser-to-nozzle exit
area. The influence of these parameters on the contraction ratio and the starting and operating pressure ratios were
investigated.

The p c /p t increased with decreasing nozzle area ratio (for a given diffuser-to-nozzle throat area ratio). Mass
ejection from the test cell resulted in a small variation in p c /pt with variations in Ad/A . The limiting second-
throat contraction ratio (A st /A d ) increased with increasing A d /A n e for the nozzle configurations tested. When
A(-/Ane was equal to or greater than 6, the spacing of the second throat from the nozzle exit became very critical.
The start and breakdown pressure ratio can be affected by only a small change in the spacing of the second throat
from the nozzle exit. The position of the second throat for such configurations with a large value of A d /A n e
(greater than 6) determines the amount of improvement in start and breakdown pressure ratio.

The effect of nozzle area ratio is shown in Figure 36. The effect of boundary removal or parallel pumping and
the number of nozzles on performance is indicated in Figures 37 and 38. The influence of unsymmetrical nozzles
is presented in Figure 39.

3.8 Effects of Different Driving Fluids on Ejector-Diffuser Performance

An investigation25 was conducted to determine if there is a difference in ejector-diffuser performance when
using different driving fluids having the same average ratio of specific heats, and if the performance of the ejector-
diffuser for one particular driving gas can be used to accurately predict the ejector-diffuser performance for another
driving gas, both with the same and with different average ratios of specific heats.

Some fluids have invariant ratios of specific heats with temperature over a wide temperature range, whereas
other fluids have a very large variation in the ratio of specific heats with temperature. For most real gases, this
variation of the ratio of specific heats with temperature is well defined.

The five different gases used as the ejector-diffuser driving fluids were air, nitrogen (N 2 ), hydrogen (H2), argon
(A), and helium (He). Two ejector-diffuser configurations consisting of different nozzles and different diameter
diffusers were used in this investigation. Correlation between the data obtained and one-dimensional isentropic
 123

relationship as given in Reference 26 for diffuser-to-nozzle throat area ratio, cell-tc-nozzle total pressure ratio, and
ratio of specific heats, is shown.

The primary purpose of this experimental investigation was to determine if, by knowing the ratio of specific
heats of a particular driving gas, the performance of an ejector-diffuser could be predicted from the one-dimensional
isentropic relationship as given in Reference 26. Only two ejector-diffuser configurations were used in the test.
The important parameters of the configurations are:

Ratios
Diffuser
Configuration
Diameter D, in. en
L/D AneM* A d /A*

1 4.026 5.71 18.00 73.06 18°

1.373 7.97 10.76 20.40 7.58°

3.8.1 Properties of the Selected Driving Fluids

The average thermodynamic properties (R, 7, C p , and /i) at 1 atm pressure and ambient temperature for the
five driving fluids used were taken from References 27, 28 and 29 and are presented in Table II. It was desirable
to have a constant property gas (a gas with properties not variant with temperature and pressure, especially the ratio
of specific heats). Taken from References 28 and 29 and presented in Figure 40 are the effects of pressure and
temperature on the ratio of specific heats (7) for the driving gases: air, argon, helium, hydrogen and nitrogen.
Air, nitrogen and argon at 0.1 atm pressure and helium at 1 atm pressure have ratios of specific heats which are
practically independent of temperature even down to very low temperatures (between 100 and 200°R), but 7
does vary with temperature for air and nitrogen at temperatures above 600°R.

For hydrogen gas at temperatures below 600°R, the variation of 7 with temperature is quite large: from 1.40
at 600°R to 1.66 at 120°R for 1 atm pressure. Only a slight change in the temperature-ratio of specific heats
relationship was noticeable in the low-temperature range when the pressure was reduced to zero. As much as 40 atm
pressure alters the relationship of temperature and 7 for hydrogen or the other gases but little (see References 28
and 29). The hydrogen curve in Figure 40 indicates that, for stagnation temperatures around 600°R, hydrogen
does not behave as a constant property fluid when expanded through a convergent-divergent nozzle. The ratio of
specific heats for hydrogen is a strong function of temperature.

The static temperature of a constant property fluid drops as the area increases downstream of the nozzle throat
in the divergent portion of a nozzle according to the isentropic relationships given in Reference 14, which are

4(T+I)/(7-l)
1
AA
' * " 5 (^TK ^-)
and
7-1
T t /T - 1+ M2

and are tabulated in Reference 26. When 7 is dependent on the local static temperature as in hydrogen gas
expansion for stagnation temperature around 600°R, the above equations are still valid, but 7 becomes a variable.

Presented in Figure 41 are the T/T t versus A/A* isentropic expansions for gases with constant and variable
ratios of specific heats (for thermal equilibrium flow). The 7 = 1.40 curve represents air and nitrogen, and the
7 = 1.67 curve represents helium and argon. Actually there is a small difference in 7 for helium and argon as
presented in Figure 40. The dashed curve which starts approximately at the 7 = 1 . 4 0 isentrope increases with
decreasing temperature ratio (T/T t ) for an increasing area ratio (A/A*) to the 7 = 1.67 isentrope and represents
the isentropic thermal equilibrium expansion of hydrogen for a stagnation temperature of 500°R. The dashed
vertical lines represent the nozzle area ratio ( A n e / A * = 10.76) and duct-to-nozzle throat area ratio (A d /A* = 20.40).

3.8.2 Start and Breakdown Pressure Ratio

Presented in Figure 42 for the two ejector-diffuser configurations are the start and breakdown pressure ratios
for the different driving gases in relation to their respective theoretical one-dimensional, normal shock total pressure
ratios ( p t y / P t x where x is upstream of normal shock and y is downstream). For the small configuration (configura-
tion 2) all five gasses - air, argon, helium, hydrogen and nitrogen - were used as driving fluids. Air and nitrogen,
which have almost the same ratio of specific heats (Fig.40) differed in p e x / p t at breakdown by approximately
10 percent. Only three (air, nitrogen and argon) of the five gases were used for driving fluids in configuration 1.
The breakdown pressure ratio (p e x /Pt) for argon was 73.58 percent of Pt y /Pt x fo r 7 = 1.67 .
124

The remaining driving gases used in configuration 2 (argon, helium and hydrogen) gave p e x / p t ratios in percent
of normal shock total pressure ratio as 94.25 percent for argon, 83.43 percent for helium, and 97.26 percent for
hydrogen. The ratio for hydrogen was computed at the nozzle exit, based on a y = 1.67 as shown in Figure 4 1 .
Actually the static temperature rises as the stream shocks down and approaches the diffuser exit. This rise in static
temperature causes a decrease in y toward 1.40 for hydrogen. The normal shock total pressure ratio for y — 1.40
is higher than for 7 = 1.67; therefore, for 7 = 1.40 the p e x / p t in percent of normal shock Pty/Pt x is
88.54 percent. This value is inline with nitrogen (90.22 percent) and is believed to be the more reliable value.
The variation in the breakdown pressure ratios is considered to be the result of 7 variation with pressure and
temperature and data scatter. An insufficient number of breakdown points were obtained for determining a mean
value of Kp e x /Pt)act/(Pty/Ptx)l f o r each driving gas.

3.8.3 Cell Pressure Ratio Variation with Nozzle Plenum Total Pressure
Presented in Figure 43 for the different driving gases is the performance variation in the cell pressure ratio
(P c /Pt) * ° r various nozzle driving total pressures. Air and nitrogen were used for locating the optimum driving
pressure from which driving pressures for argon, helium and hydrogen were determined. The driving pressures
for the various driving fluids were related such that the nozzle throat Reynolds number per unit length for the
different gases would be equal.

To have dynamic similarity in test results with different fluids, Reynolds number continuity must be achieved.
Reynolds number is defined as follows:

Pv'
Re = , (25)
rl

where
p = fluid density, lbm/ft 3

V = fluid velocity, ft/sec

u = dynamic viscosity, Ibm/ft-sec

/ = characteristic length, ft.

Since, from the definition of Mach number

V - MvAygcRT , (26)

and from the equation of state of a perfect gas

P - i . (27)

then Equation (25) becomes

Re _ ( p / R T ) M y ^ R T
— — . (zo)
/ M
By arrangement, Equation (28) becomes

Re _ p[Mv/(7gc/R)y/(Tt/T)]v/(l/Tt)
/ M

But f(m) = M J ^ £ (1 + i ( 7 - 1)M 2 ] 1 / 2 (30)

and 5- = 1 + y - ^ - M2 , (31)
T 2

which gives for Equation (30)

f(ifa) = M j ^ . It. (32)

 125

Substituting Equation (32) in Equation (29) gives

Re pf(rn)
(33)

Rearrangement of Equation (33) gives

Re Kp/pt)f(m)]pt
(34)
^VTT
The mass flow equation is
ih [(p/p,)f(m)] p t
= (35)
X* 7T7 •
When Equation (35) is substituted in Equation (34), the result is

Re m 1. (36)
/ A * y-7
For a particular fluid flowing through a choked nozzle, the nozzle throat Reynolds number per unit length becomes,
from Equation (34),
Re
— " Kpt , (37)

where K = M*0«™*-1 , ft/lbf. (38)

where, for a particular gas, K is a constant as long as the total temperature remains constant and the nozzle remains
choked. Then based on equal nozzle throat Reynolds number per unit length for the gases used in this investigation,
the following equation is satisfied, and the stagnation pressure required to give similarity may be calculated as follows:

(Kp t ) a i r = ( K P t ) N i = (Kp t ) A = (Kpt) H a = ( K p t ) H e . (39)

The nozzle throat static temperature was chosen for the basis of determining the Reynolds number per unit length
continuity for the various gases.

Based on the optimum driving pressure of approximately 300 lb/in 2 , as presented in Figure 43 for air and
nitrogen, the desired driving pressures for argon, helium and hydrogen from the above equation are 300 lb/in 2 for
argon, 859 lb/in 2 for helium, and 568 lb/in 2 for hydrogen based on a nozzle stagnation temperature of 470°R for
each gas. It is not known if these driving pressures are optimum for helium and hydrogen because in Figure 43 the
cell pressure ratio was still decreasing at the 866 lb/in 2 pressure level. No pressure higher than 866 lb/in 2 was
investigated for helium. Only one pressure level was investigated for hydrogen (651 lb/in 2 ).

Since air and nitrogen have almost the same ratio of specific heats and are almost invariant with temperature
below 600°R (see Figure 40), the same minimum values of p c /Pt were expected for a given ejector-diffuser. For
the same reasons, argon and helium should give the same minimum value of p c /Pt •

Presented in Figure 44 are the minimum values of p c /Pt obtained for the various driving gases in the two
ejector-diffuser configurations in relation to their respective isentropic ratios. A difference in (p c /Pt)act/(Pc/Pt)isen
for the two configurations was expected because they differed in (i) nozzle half-angle, (ii) nozzle area ratio, and
(iii) duct-to-nozzle throat area ratio. Also for a given gas, any variation in 7 was expected to produce a variation
in p c / p t .

3.8.4 Expansion Beyond the Saturation Limit

For a fluid in a thermal equilibrium, a definite pressure-temperature relationship exists between phases, such as
gas, liquid and solid. The relationship of pressure and temperature between the gaseous and liquid or solid phases
is known as the saturation curve or phase boundary (the condition at which different phases of a fluid will exist in
thermal equilibrium). Figures 45 and 46 present the phase boundaries (saturation curves) taken from References 28,
29 and 30 for the various fluids used in this investigation. The triple point is shown on the phase boundary curves
(Figures 45 and 46) for the fluids except air and helium. (A state of a fluid at which the liquid, gaseous and solid
phases can exist in thermal equilibrium is referred to as the triple point.) The superheated state (single gaseous
phase) of a fluid exists on the right of the phase boundary curve, whereas a two-phase state (gaseous-liquid or
gaseous-solid) exists on the left. This phase boundary curve can be thought of as a thermal equilibrium saturated
expansion. The theoretical expansion of a fluid through a convergent-divergent nozzle gives a different curve known
126

as an isentropic thermal equilibrium expansion, constant entropy process. This isentropic expansion curve is presented
in Figures 45 and 46 for the two nozzles used in this investigation. The isentropic expansions presented in Figure 45
were for a fluid having an invariant ratio of specific heats (7 = 1.40) and a fluid having variable ratio of specific heats
(7 = 1.40 to 1.67) with temperature; the stagnation conditions were p t = 300 lb/in2 and T t = 490°R .

The end of the A n e /A* = 10.76 nozzle shown on the 7 = 1.40 isentropic expansion curve was on the right
(gaseous phase) of the nitrogen phase boundary curve, whereas the A ne /A* = 18.00 nozzle extended to the left
(gaseous-solid phase). As seen in Figure 40, 7 for both air and nitrogen is essentially constant with temperature.
If thermal equilibrium could be maintained throughout the isentropic expansion of air or nitrogen from the stagna-
tion pressure of 300 lb/in2 and temperature of 490°R through the A ne /A* = 18.00 nozzle, an increasing two-phase
gaseous-solid fluid would extend from the point where the isentropic expansion curve crosses the phase boundary
curve as shown in Figure 45. If the 7 for hydrogen were constant, then, for the stagnation condition given above
and in Figure 45, the fluid would remain in the single gaseous phase (superheated gas) throughout either nozzle.
For a stagnation temperature no greater than 490°R, Figure 40 shows that 7 for hydrogen is not constant in an
isentropic expansion down to a temperature of approximately 95°R; 7 ratio increases from approximately 1.40 to
1.67. The 7 for helium and argon is essentially constant with temperature.

A constant 7 = 1.67 isentropic expansion from stagnation conditions of 228 lb/in2 and 452°R is presented in
Figure 46 with the helium, hydrogen and argon phase boundary curves. This isentropic expansion for both nozzles
(A ne /A = 10.76 and 18.00) extends far into the thermal equilibrium, two-phase, gaseous-solid region for argon fluid.
Helium is in the single gaseous phase throughout the expansion.

If hydrogen is considered a constant 7 = 1.67 fluid and isentropically expanded from the p t = 228 lb/in2
and Tt = 452°R stagnation condition, again the fluid expansion never reaches the hydrogen phase boundary curve.
The hydrogen would remain in the single gaseous phase throughout the nozzle (A ne /A* = 18.00) as shown in
Figure 46. If the stagnation pressure was increased from the p t = 228 while the stagnation temperature remained
constant at T t = 452°R , the isentropic expansion curve would move upward. If p t were increased to a sufficiently
high value with T t held constant, the hydrogen isentropic expansion curve would approach and eventually cross the
hydrogen phase boundary curve.

If the stagnation temperature is increased from the Tt = 452°R value while p t remains constant at 228 lb/in2,
the isentropic expansion curves shift to the right delaying the onset of condensation for argon and allowing hydrogen
and helium to be in a higher superheated state when leaving the nozzle (Fig.46). A higher hydrogen stagnation
temperature (Fig.40) decreases the average 7 , or the 7 at the end of the nozzle, toward 1.40. This decrease in 7
would allow the isentropic expansion curve to move still farther to the right of the hydrogen phase boundary curve
as shown in Figure 45.

Air, nitrogen and argon undergo a phase change during the selected isentropic expansions from the stagnation
conditions used. The fluid-phase-change position in the nozzle can be shifted downstream by either lowering p t
or increasing T t from the values used. Helium has such a low saturation temperature (Figures 45 and 46) that the
isentropic expansions from the above stagnation conditions result in a single-phase fluid throughout the expansion.

The slope of a variable 7 (7 = 1.40 to 1.67) isentropic expansion curve from a specific stagnation condition
is different from a constant 7 isentropic expansion as shown in Figures 45 and 46. Such an isentropic expansion
curve results for hydrogen at the stagnation conditions investigated.

3.8.5 Delayed Condensation in a Rapid Expansion

Flow with condensation has long been a subject of primary interest. J.L.French of RTF has made a study of
literature concerning flow with condensation. When an isentropic expansion of a fluid through a nozzle results in
the fluid properties leaving a single-phase (superheated gas) and entering a two-phase (gaseous-liquid or gaseous-solid)
thermal equilibrium region, a strange phenomenon occurs. This phenomenon is known as "condensation" (phase
change) as reported in References 14, 31, 32, 33 and others for condensable fluids such as steam. It has been
observed 14 ' 33 that, in a rapid expansion of steam through a convergent-divergent nozzle, condensation is delayed
to some point below the thermal equilibrium saturation line. This delay in condensation results in a metastable
state known as a supersaturated state 32 . The supersaturation limit for steam is referred to as the Wilson Line and
lies approximately 60 Btu/lmb below the line of saturation; air saturated with water vapor will expand
isentropically to a volume 25 percent greater before condensation occurs33. Shown below are a sketch of a nozzle,
the pressure distribution through the nozzle with condensation, and a temperature versus entropy diagram. An
isentropic expansion from the superheated state through the thermal equilibrium saturation limit to a metastable
state is depicted.

As shown in the nozzle sketch, condensation does not occur when the fluid properties reach the saturation
condition in the isentropic expansion but continues to expand apparently isentropically until the supersaturation
limit is reached. At the supersaturation limit, a discontinuity in pressure similar to that of a normal shock occurs.
This discontinuity is known as a condensation shock. The fluid from the condensation shock through the remain-
ing portion of the nozzle is two phase.
 127

Isentropic
Expansion Supersaturation Region
Region h—
Pi
Or
•Ps
u
3
ei
U
CD
/
Da
E
/ ' ' ' \
a) / **' X
H

•(Condensation Entropy
I Region

X Distance
Typical characteristic for steam

Gases such as the ones used in this investigation have supersaturation limits similar to the Wilson Line for
steam. Such supersaturation limits for air, nitrogen and helium are presented in References 34 through 45.
References 36, 38 and 41 show that the supersaturation of nitrogen can be decreased by the addition of impurities
such as C0 2 , water vapor, argon and oxygen. A fraction of a percent of C0 2 or water vapor will eliminate
completely all supersaturation. Unlike steam, the onset of condensation in air35'37,40,42,43,44 a n d njtrogen34,36,37,42,4s
does not produce condensation shocks. A gradual rather than an instantaneous pressure increase due to condensation
was evident. Reference 35 indicates that a maximum of 55°F of supersaturation may be obtained for air.

The static pressure rise after the onset of condensation is due to the heat released by the condensing fluid37.
This static pressure can be predicted by the saturation expansion theory presented in Reference 39. The theory is
based on the assumption that the expansion through the nozzle follows the isentrope in the pressure-temperature
plane until the fluid saturation curve is intersected. Further expansion then follows along the fluid saturation curve.
Since there is a static pressure rise after the onset of condensation, it is desirable to have the condensation limit
delayed, such as when the fluid expands to a high degree of supersaturation. A limiting static pressure range (about
0.077 lb/in2) above which air supersaturation will not occur is reported in Reference 35.

The Mach number is lower and static pressure is higher at the exit of a nozzle for a condensing fluid (two phase)
than for a noncondensing fluid (single phase). Since an ejector-diffuser duct is larger than the nozzle exit, there is
an additional expansion from the nozzle exit to the diffuser duct. Even if a single-phase fluid leaves the nozzle,
fluid condensation could start in the free-jet upstream of the impingement on the duct which would result in a larger
value of p c /p t than that desired.

The thermal equilibrium saturation curves for hydrogen and helium were not crossed by the isentropic expansion
curve for the stagnation conditions investigated. Since hydrogen and helium pumped essentially the same value of
p c /p t (Fig.44) in the same configuration and remained in the gaseous phase throughout the expansion, 7 is, for
practical purposes, the only gas state condition on which free-jet diffuser performance depends.

The isentropic expansion curve for argon crossed the thermal equilibrium curve and extended far into the two-
phase fluid region (Fig.46). This two-phase fluid expansion resulted in a high degree of condensation even when a
highly supersaturated state had been reached. The high degree of condensation resulted in a lower Mach number
and higher static pressure at the nozzle exit than would have existed in the absence of condensation. Therefore,
the minimum values of p c /p t increased as a result of liquefaction. This result is shown in Figure 44.
128

REFERENCES

1. Kroll, A.E. The Design of Jet Pumps. Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol.1, No.2, 1947.

2. Payne, P.R. Steady State Thrust Augmentors and Jet Pumps. Peter R.Payne Inc., Rockvale,
Maryland, March 1966.

3. Morrison, R. Jet Ejectors and Augmentation. NACA Advanced Report, 1942.

4. Goethert, B.H., High Altitude Testing of Propulsion Systems. (Zeitschrift fur Flugwissenschaften 8,
Taylor, D. Jahrgang, July 1960, Heft 7), Tullahoma, Tennessee, USA.

5. Harris, G.L. Steady-State Ejector Thrust Augmentation. VKI-LR-7 Short Course on Ejectors,
22nd-26th April, 1968.

6. Flugel, G. The Design of Jet Pumps. NACA TM 982, (Berechnung von Strahlapparaten)
VDI-Forschungsheft 395, March-April 1939, pp. 1-21.

7. Lewis, G.W.E., Ejector Experiments. National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock, Hants
Drabble, J.S. (Great Britain), Report No. R.151, 1954.

8. Daily, C.L., Computation Curves for Compressible Flow Problems. J.Wiley and Sons, New York.
Wood, F.C.

9. Korst, H.H., Compressible Non-Isoenergetic Two-Dimensional Turbulent (p r = 1) Jet Mixing at

Chow, W.L. Constant Pressure. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, ME-TN-
392-4 (AD211328), January 1959.

10. Bauer, R.C. Theoretical Base Pressure Analysis of Axisymmetric Ejectors without Induced Flow.
AEDC-TDR-64-3 (AD428533), January 1964.

11. Barton, D.L., An Investigation of Ejectors without Induced Flow, Phase I. AEDC-TN-59-145
Taylor, D. (AD229860), December 1959.

12. Taylor, D., An Investigation of Cylindrical Ejectors Equipped with Truncated Conical Inlets,
et al. Phase ll. AEDC-TN-60-224 (AD252634), March 1961.

13. German, R.C., Effects of Diffuser Length on the Performance of Ejectors without Induced Flow.
Bauer, R.C. AEDC-TN-61-89 (AD262888), August 1961.

14. Shapiro, A.H. The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow, Vol. 1. The Ronald
Press Company, New York, 1958.

15. Jones, W.L., Experimental Study of Zero-Flow Ejectors Using Gaseous Nitrogen. NASA-TN-D-203,
et al. March 1960.

16. Latvala, E.K. Spreading of Rocket Exhaust Jets at High Altitudes. AEDC-TR-59-11 (AD215866),
June 1959.

17. Bauer, R.C., Some Reynolds Number Effects on the Performance of Ejectors without Induced Flow.
German, R.C. AEDC-TN-61-87 (AD262734), August 1961.

18. Bauer, R.C., TTie Effect of Second Throat Geometry on the Performance of Ejectors without Induced
German, R.C. Flow. AEDC-TN-61-133 (AD267263), November 1961.

19. Korst, H.H., Research on Transonic and Supersonic Flow of a Real Fluid at Abrupt Increases in
et al. Cross Section (with Special Considerations of Base Drag Problems). Final Report.
University of Illinois, ME-TR-392-5, December 1959.

20. Ramm, H. Phenomena in Supersonic Diffusers. TR No.F-TR-2175-ND GS-AAF-Wright Field

No.43, November 1947.

21. Panesci, J.H., An Analysis of Second-Throat Diffuser Performance for Zero-Secondary-Flow Ejector
German, R.C. Systems. AEDC-TDR-63-249 (AD426336), December 1963.
 129

22. Emmons, H.W. Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics, High Speed Aerodynamics and Jet Propulsion.
Vol.111, Princeton University Press, 1958. Section B, "One-Dimensional Treatment
of Steady Gas Dynamics", by L.Crocco, p.291.

23. Chapman, D.R., Investigation of Separated Flows in Supersonic and Subsonic Streams with Emphasis
et al. on the Effect of Transition. NACA Report 1356, 1958.

24. Hale, J.W. Influence of Pertinent Parameters on Ejector-Diffuser Performance with and without
Ejected Mass. AEDC-TDR-64-134 (AD602770), July 1964.

25. Hale, J.W. Comparison of Diffuser-Ejector Performance with Five Different Driving Fluids.
AEDC-TDR-63-207 (AD420813), October 1963.

26. Wang, C.J., Gas Flow Tables. GM-TR-154, March 1957.

et al.

27. Salisbury, J.K. Kent's Mechanical Engineers' Handbook, Power Volume. John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
New York.

28. Hilsenrath, J., Tables of Thermal Properties of Gases. NBS Circular 564, US Department of Commerce,
et al. 1955.

29. Arthur D.Little Inc. Hydrogen Handbook. AFFTC-TR-60-19, April 1960.

30. Jorgensen, L.H., Charts for Equilibrium Flow Properties of Air in Hypervelocity Nozzle. NASA TN
Baum, G.M. D-l333, September 1962.

31. Obert, E.F. Thermodynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York.

32. Kiefer, P.J., Principles of Engineering Thermodynamics. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York
et al. (Second Edition).

33. Kennan, J.H. Thermodynamics. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.

34. Goglia, G.L., Experimental Determination of Limit of Supersaturation of Nitrogen Vapor Expanding
Van Wylen, G.J. in a Nozzle. Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.83, SeriesC, No.l, February 1961, pp.27-32.

35. Daum, F.L. Air Condensation in a Hypersonic Wind Tunnel. AIAA Journal, Vol.1, No.5, May 1963,
pp. 1043-1046.

36. Arthur, P.D., Experimental Saturation of Gases in Hypersonic Wind Tunnels. Memorandum No. 10,
Nagamatsu, H.T. California Institute of Technology, Contract No.DA-04-495-Ord-19, 15th July, 1952.

37. Willmarth, W.W., The Condensation of Nitrogen in a Hypersonic Nozzle. Journal of Applied Physics,
Nagamatsu, H.T. Vol.23, No.10, October 1952, pp.1089-1095.

38. Arthur, P.D., Effects of Impurities on the Supersaturation of Nitrogen in a Hypersonic Nozzle.
Nagamatsu, H.T. Memorandum No.7, California Institute of Technology, Contract No.DA-04-495-Ord-19,
1st March, 1952.

39. Nagamatsu, H.T., Condensation of Nitrogen in a Hypersonic Nozzle. Memorandum No.6, California
Willmarth, W.W. Institute of Technology, Contract No.DA-04-495-Ord-19, 15th January, 1952.

40. Charyk, J.V., Condensation of the Components of Air in Supersonic Wind Tunnels. Princeton
Lees, L. University, Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory, Report No. 127, March 1948.

41. Arthur, P.D., Effects of Impurities in the Supersaturation of Nitrogen in a Hypersonic Nozzle.
Nagamatsu, H.T. Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute, 1952, pp. 125-137.

42. Grey, J., The Effects of Air Condensation of Properties of Flow and Their Measurement in
Nagamatsu, H.T. Hypersonic Wind Tunnels. Memorandum No.8, California Institute of Technology,
Contract No.DA-04-495-Ord-19, 15th June, 1952.

43. Stever, H.G., Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Condensation of Air in Hypersonic
Rathbun, K.C. Wind Tunnels. NACA TN 2559, November 1951.

44. Becker. J.V. Results of Recent Hypersonic and Unsteady Flow Research at the Langley Aeronautical
Laboratory. Journal of Applied Physics, Vol.21, No.7, July 1950, pp.619-628.

45. Faro, T., The Supersaturation of Nitrogen in a Hypersonic Wind Tunnel. Journal of Applied
et al. Physics, Vol.23, No.l, January 1952, pp.40-43.
130

TABLE I

Summary of Configurations and Experimental Results

D D
ne d

Pc
tifotrJT ,.
NOTE: Nozzle Exit Diameter = 4.16, d n = 18 deg

Air Steam
Duel Cone
Ad
Diameter Angle, Cone Total Cone Total
A* D A in
i-*(l> " i -
A* "conc>
deg
Prisitinn Pressure (h) Pc Position Pf€SSUf€ (h) Pc
X,in. P „ lb/in2 \Pt7opt (Pc)opt X.in. Pt, lb/in2 \Pt/opt (Pc)opt

3.56 6 7,6 12 1.4375 38.5 .00402 2.560 _

6 18 1.250 38.6 .00296 3.4797 — — - —
6 24 1.1875 39.2 .00252 4.087 — — _ —
8 13.18 18 2.3750 36.8 .001790 3.0335 — — — —
8 24 2.250 36.8 .00137 3.964 — — — -
8 30 2.1875 36.4 .00165 3.290 — — — -
10 20.75 24 3.000 40.0 .000680 4.0735 2.125 22.0 .00229 2.7074
10 30 2.375 40.5 .000529 5.226 2.000 23.0 .002234 2.7623
10 36 2.875 40.0 .000485 5.653 2.500 23.0 .002883 2.2664
5.0 6 10.68 12 1.625 34.0 .003953 1.481 1.375 28.0 .00708 1.6667
6 18 1.500 34.0 .00355 1.648 1.375 28.0 .00663 1.7798
6 24 1.500 34.4 .00332 1.762 1.250 28.0 .00524 2.3282
8 18.49 18 2.5625 40.5 .00110 2.790 — — - -
8 24 2.3125 43.3 .00103 2.981 - — - -
8 30 2.1875 40.9 .00113 2.7168 - - - -
10 29.15 24 3.125 36.7 .000474 3.404 2.750 32.0 .00160 2.450
10 30 2.625 43.0 .000370 4.324 2.125 31.5 .001478 2.6049
10 36 3.000 42.0 .000318 5.000 2.625 33.0 .00238 1.7282
10.8 6 23.0 12 1.75 43.8 .000994 1.828 - - - -
6 18 1.6875 43.4 .000758 2.382 1.125 114.7 .00129 2.7907
6 24 1.625 43.3 .000646 2.785 - - - -
8 39.82 18 3.25 42.8 .000607 1.770 - - - -
8 24 2.8125 44.5 .000630 1.714 - - - -
8 30 2.750 42.4 .000981 1.102 - - - -
10 62.80 24 4.125 45.0 .000172 3.294 2.875 68.0 .000570 2.5649
10 30 4.000 45.0 .000560 1.000 2.5000 69.0 .000941 1.6876
10 36 3.000 67.0 .001043 1.4717
18.0 6 38.60 12 2.000 43.7 .000531 2.283 - - - -
6 18 2.0625 42.6 .000545 2.200 - - - -
6 24 1.750 45.2 .000360 3.361 - - - -
8 66.40 18 3.5625 45.6 .000382 1.7368 — - - -
8 24 3.4375 44.5 .000674 .9851 - - - -
8 30 2.5625 44.9 .000797 .8250 — - - -
10 104.6 36 3.5000 45.1 .000184 1.9440 2.625 202 .000240 2.8042
25.0 6 53.30 12 2.500 45.8 .0005078 1.922 - - - -
6 18 2.4375 44.9 .000474 2.085 — - - -
6 24 2.0625 44.0 .000813 1.2098 — - - -
8 92.40 18 3.8750 44.9 .000237 2.208 - - - -
8 24 3.500 44.4 .000588 .8983 - - - -
10 145.70 24 5.125 44.9 .0001507 1.80 2.500 124.6 .000203 2.4975
10.8 6 23.0 24 1.625" 43.4 .000648 2.870 - - - -
6 24 1.625** 43.3 .000850 2.153 - - - -
6 24 1.560** 43.5 .001160 1.578 - - - -
6 24 1.500** 43.4 .001338 1.360 — — —

24 deg cone with different radial height.

 TABLE II

Gas Constants

Average Specific Mach Function

Specific Dynamic Viscosity
Average Ratio of Heat at Constant Based on Average
Driving Gas Constant at 70°F
Specific Heats Pressure above 0°F 7 above 0°F
Gas above 0°F,
R-
ft - Ibf
s- 7
Btu
P ' Ibm - °R
Ibm
ft —sec
[tA
Ibm - °R \Pt /M=1

Air 53.321 1.401 0.242 12.222 x Ifr* 0.5319

Argon (A) 38.679 1.667 0.124 15.184 x i r * 0.6624

Helium (He) 386.057 1.66 1.240 13.017 x 10"* 0.2094

Nitrogen (N 2 ) 55.147 1.40 0.246 11.820 x ifr* 0.5224

Hydrogen (H 2 ) 766.369 1.41 3.395 5.945 x 10"* 0.1406

0.1486 for
7 = 1.66

\(7 + l)/(7-D
=
(IHM=I 1T(T4T)'
132

Or 14.7

20. 000

40,000

< 60 000
01

80, 000

100, 000

100 200 300

Test Cell Airflow, lb/sec

(a) Basic plant

°r 14.7

20, 000 -

10 000

I
60 000 -

on
SA1

80, 000 -

100,000
Exhauster with
Ejector 1:10

100 200 300 400

Test Cell Airflow, lb/sec

(b) Plant plus exhaust gas diffusers

Fig. 1 Typical engine and facility exhaust performance map

 133

0.2 0.5 1.0

Mach Number, IVI

Fig. 2 Mach number in a constant area channel

134

Subsonic Diffuser-
Supersonic Diffuser/
Simulated Rocket Nozzle,;

^High Pressure Air and

Steam Supply Line

Fig.3 Typical ejector configuration

0.100
H
0.060 - R Jj
0
i
t , i
i
Pc/Pt !
0.020 - (a) p c /p t versus p ex /Pt
c

n
0.010
b : _j
—
0.006 1
0.01 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.2
Pex/Pt

18.0
—— D
16.0
14.0
12.0 -^
PeA a

|
10.0
C (b) Pex/Pc versus
Pt/Pex
8.0
i
6.0
E -•
4.0

2.0
0
t
4
- —

8 12 16 20
i
1
24 28
Pt'Pex

Fig.4 Characteristic ejector performance curves

 135

60 100 200

Fig.5 p c /p t versus A,j/A

A
rt /A*
ne'M Propellant Type
o 5.5 Solid
8.0 Liquid
a 10.0 Solid
* 11.0 (4 Nozzle Cluster) Solid
o 18.0 Solid
o 20.0 Liquid
A 25.0 Solid
— Model Data with Steam
Model Data with Air
Isentropic One-Dimensional Compressible
Flow Theory, y - 1.2

10 20 60 100 200 600 1000

A d /A'

Fig.6 Comparison of full-scale and model ejector performance

136

Duct Size, in.

A
M
n e/A*
m
8 10
200.0 3.56 o -o •»
5.0 a -a +a
100.0 10.8 o -o +o
: 18.0 a -» «
60.0 25.0 A w. +A
Open Symbols, Air
Liosea bymoois , o i c a n i
Pt'Pex
20.0

10.0

6.0
4.0
10 20 60 100 200
Ad/A*

Fig.7 pt/Pex versus A d /A*

1.000 . _ Duct Size, in

— J"
A /A
ne * 6 8 10 ,

/
/ \ ^ A

'
0.600 £\.
3.56 ° -° « /
D /
5.00 -° *• I
10.8 o -o -* J/
0.200
18.0 ••• -*> « 1
4
A
25.0 -^ * k

0.100 &€

— Open Symbols, Air

0.060 Closed Symbols, Steam
r !
Pex'Pt
0.020

0.010
0.006

0.002

0.001 _
0.0010.002 0.0060.010.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0

versus
Fig.8 Pex/Pt isentropic one-dimensional normal shock total pressure loss ratio
 137

Subsonic D i f l u s e r -

Super sonic Oilluser

Simulated Rockel Nozzle-

, WT
m^V/
^B Conical Inlet
To Exhaust
Machines

Positioning Rod

-High Pressure A i r or
Steam Supply l i n e -Elleclive Dill user L e n g t h -

Fig.9 Typical ejector configuration

100 x 10 *•*
l u
* i i I I I I 1 1 1 7
A d /A*-23.0 /
y
: Ane/A"-10.8
fift
-7- -
Dd • 6 in. - Z -9
40 9
cone"24d«-
Z L
/
Open Symbols, without Conical
Closed Symbols, with Conical Inlet /
20
/
/
10
1.0
TffT Pex'Pc '
_,£.
y
6
y *'
/
4 y
Pc'Pt /
/
/
/
2
/ t 0 — —t.
J£ -
/
/ 7
/
\
1.0 /
/
z
4- ;
0.6
—y / /
-/
1 I
0.4 /
/ /

PeA" 30_ ^f 90 —
/
0.2 /
./

n 1
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 2 4 6 10 x -2

Pex'Pt

Fig. 10 Performance of typical diffuser configuration with and without conical inlet
138

200 x 10"*-
"1.
100 v
HL
\
\
6U II V J

Duct S ze, i n .
r*s-\
40 -*>•
A
ne/A* 6 8 10 >jk
3.56 o a cf
Pex'Pt _ 5.0 o cf cr \
20
10.8 o c o ',
18.0 £> a a
25.0 c. a a
10 — Open Symbol, Smallest Conica i
— Inlet Angle
• >l
6 ~ Half Closed Symbol, Intermed ate
_ Conical Inlet Angle
_ Closed Symbol, Largest Conic al
4
Inlet Angle
•-ex'i-i rui ouiniyuidiiuns vmnuui
Conical Inlets (Ref. 11)
7 i
i i i i i 1 1_ i
10 20 40 60 100 200
A d /A-

Fig. 11 Comparison of ejector starting pressure ratio with Aj/A* for configurations tested with and without
conical inlets (cones located at optimum axial location)

7.5
^_,
O-
o
c-f 7.0
c
o
6.5
o
Q-

£ .2
x 6.0
a>
<
E
e 3
5.5
n e
"S.
c oa) 5.0
oA-* x:
,, .
o_) - o 4.5
mm *-r
c
3
a> 8
4.0

3.5
a>
o
A-* C 1 3.0
a> s—
r—
O
O CO
-: 2.5
s=—
3
SA,
OLC iAi
CJJ
1_ 2.0
a.
cu
c_)
^ J
1.5
•yi
!i)
1—
B
o 1.0
12 18 24 18 24 30 24 30 36
Cone Half-Angle, 8 c o n e . deg

Fig. 12 Summary of optimum improvement in diffuser performance resulting from use of conical inlets
 w*-
-£ 3L.
20 x in'*-* -
9 de
cone- 9

i
w
0 18
0 24
• 30
20 x 10 10 Dd - 8 in.
9 de
cone- 9 Ane/A'-3.56
o 12 A d /A' • 13.18
• 18
• 24 6
Dd • 6 in. :• e—-r-o — 3

1 1
Pc'Pt >-—o-=:
Ad/A* - 7 . 6
A /A* •3.56 4

k ^
r
2

1
0 0.5 1.0 0.5 l.o 1.5
Distance from Nozzle Exit to Cone Exit, X/D Distance from Nozzle Exit to Cone Exit, X/D n e
ne
(a) "cone = !2. 18 and 24 deg <b) ••'cone = 18
> 24 and 30 deg

Fig. 13 Effect of axial position of conical inlets on minimum test cell pressure
 ' ^ " o

m . ^ .

X iu

40

1
=a-f ^C-T= » -•*—
1 i* = = = = • m / 7 /

20

Pc'Pt J 9
1 \f
- 10 i n .
10 A /A* -3.56
H
nem
- 20 75
"d
A^/A*
e de
cc,ne- 9
o 24
9 30
• 36
0.5 1.0 1.5 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Distance from Nozzle Exit to Cone Exit, X/D Distance from Nozzle Exit to Cone Exit, X/D n R
ne

(c> "cone = 24
> 30 and 36 deg Fig. 14 Effect of radial height of conical inlet on axial position and
minimum test cell pressure
Fig. 13 Concluded
 100 x 10

400 x 10'4

Pc'Pt

0.5 1.0 40.0 100.0 200.0

Distance from Nozzle Exit to Cone Exit, X/D n e •VA'

Fig. 15 Results obtained using a three-step conical inlet in the 10 in duct Fig. 16 Summary of minimum values of P c /p t for configurations tested without
with the A n e /A*= 5.0 nozzle conical inlets and with best conical inlets
142

n Pt D'-i Pne D-i

J j - Ah^
c,"JI 7CT 4 deg

(a) With subsonic diffuser

Pex

n Pt D'-, Pne D-l

IJ irT D£ 30 i n .

Pc

(b) Without subsonic diffuser

Fig. 17 Typical ejector configurations

•^cT

ID 1—
1— Q-
13
ISS
Pne'Pf
Ul
CO "o
1—

=J
t=
_cu (3) Nozzle and Ejector
D- Started
cu

(2) Nozzle Started

Elector Unstarted

Exhaust Pressure ^ex

Nozzle Plenum Total Pressure ' pt

Fig. 18 Typical ejector starting phenomena for constant nozzle plenum total pressure
 143

A - Start ngp ex'Pt

B - Operating Pex/Pt

/ /

• J

1
Pc'Pt ' 1

CL
X
to 8::
X
B
0
Or
c
'l/l O)
8

1, A
to

[,i
ba
u
c
AB
L/D~ 1.0 L/D - 8.1

PeA
Fig. 19 Typical effect of L/D on ejector starting characteristics of contoured nozzles at constant nozzle plenum
total pressure

0.0400
p
•* ex
0.0200 Pt
r
i
A n e /A' - 25, 8 n • 18 deg, A d '/A*-53.7
Jet mpingemeiit /
) J
0.0100 PPV
**-• r t
r
CA
-H
tU L -1 "—-|
0.0060
Pw'Pt o With Subsonic Diffuser
0.0040

0.0020
Pt- ^t^J Pex

* U - L - ^
Pc
• Without Subsonic Diffuser
PtZ
0.0010 - K J

0.0006
c) i I 12 15 23 24 28
L/D

Fig.20 Comparison of duct wall static pressure ratio distribution just prior to ejector unstart with and without
subsonic diffuser, L/D = 9, p t = 45 lb/in2
144

0.400
6 n , deg

O 18
0.200 ^ D 0

0.100 fheoretical Normal c ,hock

\ s .
X" Pex'Pt*" V V n s
0.060 Q3y 1
0.040 Unstarted
Reg on
K- 0 . 8 8 ^
Pex'Pt \5"
MS
0.020 LN

0.010 Start oH \ i \
Rpninn
s\
0.006
0.004

0.002
6 10 20 40 60 100 200 400 600
6
Ad'A

(a) With subsonic diffuser

6 10 20 40 60 100 200 400 600

Ad/A<

(b) Without subsonic diffuser

Fig.21 Ejector pressure ratio required for starting; L/D > 8

 l.UU
With Without
Subsonic Subsonic 0.08
0.60 Diffuser Diffuser Parametei •s
0.06 V
o • ; ^i %
PcPt A ^

0.40 D • Pne'Pt
A • V-Vopei 0.04
T / With Without
MVslar t
0 20 • Subsonic Subsonic
A- •^ « • > Diffuser Diffuser Parameter
^-"V ~fy a *
0.02 o • Pc'Pt
s • • Pne'Pt
0.10
p/pt V P/Pt A V-Voper
0.01 • (
Pex'Pt'start
0.06
• D
0.006 °1 * -

0.04
fl_ n rf 0.004

0.02
•
0.002 0- 0 0 0

0.01 r»v — g — i> o

2 4 6 8 10 0.001 0 2 4 ( 3 10
Diffuser Length-to-Diameter Ratio, L/D Diffuser Length-to-Diameter Ratio, L/D

(a) A ne /A* = 3.63 , Ad/A* = 7.7 , 0 n = 18 deg (b) A ne /A* = 10.8 , Ad/A* - 23.3 , 0 n = 18 deg

Fig.22 Effect of diffuser length on ejector performance characteristics (p t = 45 lb/in2)

 0.0400

0.0200

0.04

0.0100

0.02
sv+
-r 0.0060
/
/ 0.0040
0.01
With Without
Subsonic Subsonic P/Pt
0.006 Diffuser Diffuser Parameter With Without
0.0020 Subsonic Subsonic
P/Pt o Pc'Pt Diffuser Diffuser Parameter
0.004 D •W-H o • Pc'Pt
A • foex'-Voper 0.0010 o •
Pne'Pt
V (
Pex/Pt,start A A
0.002 'PexHper
0.0006 V • 'Pex'-Vstart

0.0004
0.001

0.0006
0.0002 L
21 22
0 2 4 6 8 -V 20
9 ' 21
Diffuser Length-to-Diameter Ratio, L/D Diffuser Length-to-Diameter Ratio, L/D

(c) A ne /A* = 25.0, A d /A* = 53.7, 0 n = 18 deg (d) A ne /A* = 23.68, A d /A* - 44.7 , 0 n = 0 deg

Fig.22 Continued Fig.22 Concluded

 147

1.00

ac

0.80
SAS

cu

JAC

0.60

O
0.40 -
8 de
Operate Start n- 9
s AIU o 0
D 18
a o.2o K
o l- ( Pex / Pt ) exper / ( Pt ? / (lV
2 lns
"5
o 0
4 8 12 16
Diffuser Length-to-Diameter Ratio, L/D

(a) With subsonic diffuser

3.
V I L
r
*y. .00
o"
.JL.
•
f o
= 0.80 A

/s • v—
O-
/ il
r
/
I / i1
0.60
fm
• <
I' ft
I j
/ /
1 e
Operate Start n- de*-
3 0.40
•B k
1
A '
o • 0
s
V-

t
D • 18
JZ
F—
0.20 K
o
B
2"VPl,exper/,p2/pl1,ns
o
Vs jr
i—
O
C_) u 4 8 12 16 20 24
Diffuser Length-to-Diameter Ratio, 17D

(b) Without subsonic diffuser

Fig.23 Variation of starting and operating pressure ratio correction factor with diffuser length-to-diameter ratio, L/D
148
50

40

1T3 30

3
SJl

20
cn
C Nozzle Configuration
ro
A~r NASA Data I o 15-deg Conical Without Subsonic Diffuser
US
10 •(Ref. 15) ) • 15-deg Conical With Subsonic Diffuser
Values with Subsonic Diffuser Based on K 1- Fig. 23a
Values without Subsonic Diffuser Based on K2, Fig. 23b

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Ejector Overall Length Parameter, (L/D + LJD)

Fig.24 Comparison of estimated starting pressure ratio and NASA data1

fT 1.

ra
0£.
a>
i—
3 0.80 -
SSS
tys
cu
V-
Q.
SA£.

SZ
CO
0.60

l=
ra 0.40
o

s
3 0.20
o

o
o

Diffuser Length Parameter, L/D - X/D

(a) With subsonic diffuser

Fig.25 Variation of starting and operating pressure ratio correction

factor with diffuser length parameter, L/D — X/D
 r
149

D
"1 HXK
• * .*— —

.00
J
ro
a. "CD G
-> w
0}
5 0.80 1 o h—
•
CO <
1— •/ If- /
CL
-*. /
XI 0.60
11
cn
/
1
•1 1
I f
« 0. 40 / i
1
u r / /

g e de
/ Operate Start n- 9
o 0. 20 - o • o
c T -
o / • • 18
/
• •V • ( Pex / Pt , exper /(p 2 / Pt 1 , ns "
o
o
0 L 8 12 16 20
Diffuser Length Parameter, L/D -X/D

(b) Without subsonic diffuser

Fig.25 Concluded

0.40

0.20 A n e /A«-3.63-

0.10

A n e / A « - 10.8
-D
Pex/Pt ° - %
0.04
Ane/A*-25.0
-o-
0.02

0.01
10 20 30 40 50
sia
Pt- P

(a) L/D = 9.0

Fig.26 Starting and operating pressure ratio variation with total pressure
150

0.40

(b) L/D = 1.6

Fig. 26 Concluded

U.LKtU

A n e /A e - 3.63
Ad/A*-7.7
0.020
6 n • 18 deg

Pc'Pt
0.010

0.006

n. no4
10 20 30 40
Pt. Psia

Fig.27 Typical cell pressure ratio variation with nozzle plenum total pressure
 151

Ejector Driving Nozzle

Pex^
' { * To Exhaust
Machines

High Pressure Air

Supply Line

Packing Gland

Fig.28 Typical ejector configuration

A d /A' 22.8
A /A*
H
n e m • 10.85
08
c ^
e
st • 18 deg •
"^ X
ro cu
•6.02 in.
°d
g. . o. 07 ^ = 40 ps
(X/DHU^V"
0.2 ^ d max
• a nj
C Q£ n 06 l ^ /~Pt~ w JSI 1
™ <u U.
CJ. »-
C 3 ^J_t
^ Q) U. 05 i, {)
i/5 o. i* </*Vmin_ j \
1 "(X ' u d 'ma X 1
rvi

(a) Variation of starting and operating pressure ratio

* 0.006 I

<; • 1
\B 0.005 XI J d'max
•1 V
—1
on
ITJ

, a
r tp^ ~ 20 psi
• • - - j
l

3
iy>
0.004
f1k- 1 •

sS>
—1
CO
1
-(X/l^ -min 1 (X/D d 'max
1
Q- 0.003
r P t ~ ' Opsi I
CL)

o-c P4 ^ 0 — ^- - xi
n (X/
o 0-.
F=
I — »**•*
(S-rc
0.002
i.
un,i •
•3

E i d ' mir i
c 0.001 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Second-Throat Location, X/Dd

(b) Variation of minimum cell pressure ratio

Fig.29 Effect of second-throat location and nozzle plenum total pressure level on ejector performance
 2.2
. i> A /A* Ad'A* 9 n . deg
rt
nem
2.0 — — - - 0 3.627 7.66 18
• i n si/is is
-.. .
0.40 A ?s nm S3 ?n IR
Dd - 6.02 in. € 1.8
CD
Q, __,. o 23.684 45.79 0
A d /A n e -2.08 ,_ DH -6.02 in.
tn 1.6
A s t /A d -0.654 Flagged Symbols, 9st -18 deg
Second Throat at Optimum
2r
c
3 1.4 Liu*>cu oymuuii, VULM,* - o.u
X
o>
Location
0.20
o O A ne /A- - 3.627 o 1.2

1.0
ly,
cS (a) Variation of relative starting pressure ratio
i_
Ca- 0.10 with second-throat contraction ratio
en
c
1 e/A°- 10.848
1-6

s. 0.06 n ^ n i_>

^1.4
o 1/1
•o
c
ro
$1.1
£ 0.04 —I—

1.0 La

A A n g/A*- 25.000 A 0.8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.02 Second-Throat Contraction Ratio, A st /A d

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Second-Throat Inlet Angle, 9 st , deg (b) Variation of relative minimum cell pressure
ratio with second-throat contraction ratio

Fig.30 Effect of second-throat inlet angle on ejector starting and Fig.31 Comparison of ejector performance with a second throat at
operating pressure ratio optimum location with performance without a second throat
 153

Ane/A» Ad/A* 0 n , deg

o 3.627 7.66 18
• 10.848 23.30 18
A 25.000 53.70 18
o 23.684 45.79 0
1.4
•o Dd -6.02 in.
Flagged Symbols, (L/D) st -8.0
<T 1.2
No Second Throat- ClOSe^ •sv/mtink Inrroacorl n In.
^ \ 't •

LU TH
t/1 ^ L _
k SVN. k. ^
•
,, r' f t r .
"1 0.8 rt

2 \\ ^ 1 L l f l l i i i n y v^un l a c n u n r\auu

5 0.6
V
*N
o
c 1
L hv
uy Nfii"mal
i "shrvk Method

/ ^V1
S
| 0.4
"O
7M.imiting Contractor 1
§ 0.2 F.atio from Ref. 15
to
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
One-Dimensional Duct Mach Number, i\.d, Based on A d /A'

Fig.32 Comparison of experimental results with limiting second-throat contraction ratio curve

1.4

1.2 ^nf
<1

73 1.0 y
LJ

#CL 0.8
X
/ . n J lV A H //> * •W jeq
x 0.6 r) 3.627 7.66 18
a> ci 10.848 23.30 18
— t.• 25.000 53.70 18
0.4 <> 23.684 45.79 0
Flagged Symbols, ( L/D)st - 8.0
r*i .. A no i n
L IN.
'd
0.2 1 1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Contraction Ratio, A st /A d

Fig.33 Comparison of calculated operating pressure ratio with experimental results

 0.006

0.00002
0.00006

0.00004 0.00001
20 40 60 100 200 400 600 1000 400 600 1000
Nozzle Plenum Total Pressure, pj, psi Nozzle Plenum Total Pressure, pj, psi

(a) Dd = 6.09 in (b) D d = 10.19 in

Fig.34 Variation of minimum cell pressure ratio (p c /p t ) with nozzle plenum total pressure level (p t )
 155

0.04 1 I I 1
A„ 0 /A* AJA » e„, deq
o 3.627 7.66 18
0.02 c> 5.Ui-U 10.81 18
<- 10.848 23.30 18
> 25.000 53.70 18
0.01 »C- '

0.006

0.004
ro
CrC

0.002

OJ
CJ
E 0.001
3 ,
E
rr
0.0006 ^ ^, "l

0.0004 .
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 10 xlO 6

Reynolds Number, Re
(O
(a) D d = 6.09 in

0.01

0.006
^ ^ " " • ^ a

^ ,
0.004
-«o^
ar ^
K .,o?
3_
^ *
^
VL ,/A* A , / , ,"• fi rifln
•B 0.002 U • - R ' ""

y ut
> n(
dr- s ° 3. 627 21.45 18
<-- 5. 070 30.27 18
0.001 o 10 848 65.25 18 -
I <*> 25. 300 150.36 18
ew
.o in OV-,9
TOC
TO
lO. JJ
fi in
1
V 1U. r
O
0.0006
E

\E
W
'ci
0.0004

0.0002

0.0001
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 10 xlO 6
Reynolds Number, Re ( - ^ - \

(b) Dd = 10.19 in

Fig.35 Comparison of empirical results with experimental data

156

typ, 24.00 —

4.026
L_

-Ik
i r i 1—i—i—rr i—i—r

t }' A /A- A
d/Ane
H
psia in. nem
O 312 2.375 18.00
A 348 0.918 5.00
Pc'Pt

0.001 -

-rfr-A- -B-
6 -

I I I J.
0.001 6 0.01
Pex'Pt

(a) 7 = 1-40, A d /A* = 73.07

K- 31.438
J—-«
fca
'LJ
8.092

^r- T
T 1—i—i 1—i—i—i i i i 1 i i r

/ Pex'Pc" 175
/ / 200
" 250

0.0001
°o Pt' z.
A
psia in. ne / A * VAne -
359 2.375 18.00 16.40
342 0.918 5.00 59.04
— — a — — _ _ »
4
0.001 0.01
Pex'Pt

(b) 7 = 1-40, A d /A* = 295.22

Fig.36 Ejector-diffuser performance for different average nozzle area ratios

 t 25.50

4.680
L_

2.375
—

-I
i_

r 0.01 T 1 r i 1—i—i—r i i
T rn—i—m
Open Symbols, No Ejected Mass
Driving Flagged Symbols, with Ejected Mass (One Jet Pump)
A
Fluid psia d/A Closed Symbols, with Ejected Mass (Two Jet Pumps)
o Steam (y = 1.30) 192 98.74
0 Air (y - 1 . 4 0 ) 307 98.74
Open Symbols, No Ejected Mass
Flagged Symbols, with Ejected Mass A /A*
ft
(One Jet Pump) ex't-c ne'ft
Closed Symbols, with Ejected Mass 4.12 (Four Nozzles)
(Two Jet Pumps)
Pc'Pt
Pc'Pt
0.001
0.001

—c*-_. A n e /A° = 5.00

(Single Nozzle)
Isentropic Curve
(y-1.40) 12.01 —
A n e /A 18.00 \ \ (Two Nozzles)
\
4- •4- (Single Nozzle)

0.0001 j . J I 0.0001 I I I I L-L -L_LJ_ I \l I I L

0.001 6 0.01 10 100
Pex'Pt A„/A*

Fig. 37 Ejector-diffuser performance for different driving fluids Fig.38 Effect of parallel pumping (boundary removal) on diffuser performance
158

25.50 —
L_
4.680

3.56—1 [— T

0.01 1 1 1 I I 1 t T I M l —i—r i r i l l "

-
8 Pt> Test
psia Ane'A* VAne Configuration
6
" o 305 3.147 11.15 Scarf
Pc'Pl1
A 309 3.914 8.97 Symmetrical
4 Pex'Pc • -
15
-c / 18
- B 's
2 - J L ^ / 25 -
/ ° 7 7• /
/
l I i i I i I . . . ' '/ / I I I I
0.001 '
-'C<—.<mJ
0.001 0.01

Pex'Pt

(a) 7 = 1.40, A d /A* = 35.09

— 24.00
L
H=a 6.141

0.56 — T
i—i—i r 1 — i — I I I I

*
psia A /A-
"ne /w
•VAne Configuration
o 309 3.147 19.20 Scarf
A 302 3.914 15.44 Symmetrical

Pc'Pl

0.001

6
0.001

(b) 7 = 1.40, A d /A* = 60.43

Fig.39 Comparison of ejector-diffuser performance for scarf and symmetrical nozzles

 159

1100
Alr-
^ —Hydrogen
1000 _Ni
-
I /
\
\

<wo

soo

700
1 i
1

.600 l| 1
i

.500
|
1
L
I
400 1Lc=Argo
*
Helium Ultf n)
1f
—
I
(1 aim) -

300
Nitrogen
(0.1 atml—v N 1 aim) V.
^Air 1
II t 1
1 \
Nitrogen
\
n INv_Air \ : ^
•irgon
(0.1 atm) •"ydrogen—»*5> ss.
100 0.1 atm)
Oatml
h l^^J
|
1.3 1 i 1.5 1.6 1,7 I 8
Ratio ol Specific Heat 1

Fig.40 Variation of y with temperature and pressure

1.0

0.6 -V
x v\>-
\ \ "*-^"^ / • A d / A « • 20.40
V \s
0.4 ~^\
^
\ **. ^
S - y • 1.3)
I 0.2 •Msent ropic **"s
Expan sion (or "-"--1.40
e Hydrc gen at
a
T , - 5 00°R
0.10

— A ne /A« - 1 0 . 7 6 \
V 0.06
^1.67

S O.Oi1
CO

0.02

0.01
6 10 20 40 60 100
Area Ratio, A/A*

Fig.41 Static-to-total temperature ratio variation with area ratio for isentropic expansion for different constant 7's
and variable 7
 s

0.010

Driving Gas Exit Pressure

0.006
o Hir Kir-txnaust
0.10 0 Argon RTF-Exhaust
0.004 A Helium RTF-Exhaust
A Helium Atmospheric
o Hydrogen Atmospheric
a Nitrogen RTF-Exhaust
C Nitrogen Atmospheric
0.002

%
I 0.0010
(/»
\y>
1 gj^ f

OJ
s-
i
a. « 0.0006 • & • -
CZ

CO
0.0004 - —
A /A* • 18

Z 0.02 1 • 18 deg
1

0.0002 i
1

I
0.0001
JO 60
1
100 200 W0 600 1000
20 4) 60 80 100
Ratio of Duct-to-NoziMe Throat Area, A ri A Nozzle Plenum Total Pressure, p^ psia

Fig.42 Diffuser-ejector average pressure ratio required for starting Fig.43 Variation of minimum cell pressure ratio, pc/Pt, with nozzle
plenum total pressure, p t , for configuration 2
 161

0.020
Ad/A-

0.471 73.06
0.304 20.40
Gas Exit Pressure

RTF-Exhaust
RTF-Exhaust
RTF-Exhaust
Atmospheric
Atmospheric
u RTF-Exhaust
d Atmospheric

cr:

OJ
XLi

0.0004
20 30 40 60 80 100
Duct-to-Nozzle Throat Area Ratio, A^/A

Fig.44 Diffuser cell-to-driving pressure ratio compared with one-dimensional isentropic pressure ratio
 u 1 / ! 1
8.0 1 - - /

6.0
i/ j 1 - - - ' / \ A
1/
i / 1
• /
4.0 / *

i
i
1 ^A.
'•'
m - '
mW

Ise ntropic Expansion—

i/ / -—
^ ^

2.0 5/ = Vm nui-l T. = *)f|OR

•x • " - •• CCA^X I /
A r =1.40 A ^ l *

i
*'' End of A /A* '18.00 Nozzle- / / V ^ E n d of A../A* • 10.76 \ozzie
c
ne r>^ ' 1 "
!
1.0
4 # '
' ^--Isentropic Expansiiin
0.8 fl
i.-g
psia, T( • t190°R
y Variedfrom 1.40 to 1.67 /
/
/
.
i
loo A • 10.76 Nozzle /
0.6
V * / / /

0.4
1 / '
/

/
Nitrogen S atu ration Curve for — J
a Plane Si rface (Ref. 28)
/^—Hydrogen Saturation Curve i

/ for a Plane Surface (Ref. 28)

0.2 1 ^ ^ A - A i r Saturation Curve
1 (Ref. 301

1
• I
0.1 f
0.08
1
0.06 l
i
i
i
0.04
i
i
i
0.02
i
t

I
0.01
I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 IW 140 150
Temperature, T, °R

Fig.45 Constant and variable 7 isentropic expansion in relation to air, nitrogen and hydrogen saturation curve
 163

100 125
Temperature, T, °R

Fig.46 Constant and variable 7 isentropic expansion in relation to argon, hydrogen and helium saturation curve
164
 165

ANALYSIS OF DUCTED MIXING AND BURNING

OF COAXIAL STREAMS*

by

C.E.Peters

ARO Inc. Engine Test Facility

Tullahoma, Tennessee, USA

The research reported in this paper was sponsored by the Arnold Engineering Development Center, Mr Force Systems
Command, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, under Contract F40600-69-C-0001 with ARO Inc. Further
reproduction is authorized to meet the needs of the US Government.
166
 167

CONTENTS

Page

NOTATION 168

1. INTRODUCTION 171

2. DEVELOPMENT OF I D CORE THEORY 172

2.1 Principal Assumptions 172
2.2 Basic Integral Equations 172
2.3 Mixing Zone Profiles 173
2.4 Turbulent Eddy Viscosity 174
2.5 Duct Wall Equations 174
2.6 Transformation of Integral Equations 174
2.7 Correlation of 1-D Core Theory with Low Speed Mixing Experiments 175

3. DEVELOPMENT OF 2-D CORE THEORY 175

3.1 Basic Integral Equations 175
3.2 Mixing Zone Profiles 176
3.3 Transformation of Integral Equations 176
3.4 Method of Characteristics Solution 176
3.5 Correlation of 2-D Core Theory with j\ir-Air Ejector Experiments 176

3.6 Correlation of 2-D Core Theory with Rocket-j\ir Experiments 177

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 177

REFERENCES 178

FIGURES 179-187
168

NOTATION

b mixing zone width

|B| determinant in equation for db/dx

Cfc mass fraction of element k

C mass fraction of elements from central stream

C, , C 2 , . . . . constants in duct wall equation

D diameter

|D| coefficient determinant for system of equations

F , , F 2 , .... coefficients in system of differential equations

Fj mixing duct thrust

Fn vacuum thrust of primary nozzle

G,, G2 ,.... coefficients in system of differential equations

H0 total, or stagnation, enthalpy, including chemical heats of formation

H , , H 2 ,.... coefficients in system of differential equations

k constant in eddy viscosity equation

k0 incompressible eddy viscosity constant

L length of mixing duct

M Mach number

O/F rocket oxidizer-fuel mass ratio

p static pressure

pj, back pressure

p0 total, or stagnation, pressure

|P| determinant in equation for dp w /dx

Q species conservation parameter

r radial coordinate

rn radius of primary nozzle exit

|R| determinant in equation for dr-/dx

u axial velocity component

umax maximum velocity in mixing layer

umin minimum velocity in mixing layer

v transverse or radial velocity component

V magnitude of total velocity vector

wa initial mass flow of secondary stream

 169

Wj initial mass flow of primary stream

X axial coordinate

*e length parameter in duct wall equation

Ax integration step size

e turbulent eddy viscosity

e flow angle

p density

T turbulent shear stress

Subscripts

mixing duct inlet

inviscid secondary flow

centerline

inner mixing zone boundary

inviscid primary flow

half radius control surface in mixing zone

primary nozzle exit

duct wall
170
 171

ANALYSIS OF DUCTED MIXING AND BURNING

OF COAXIAL STREAMS

C.E.Peters

1. INTRODUCTION

Ducted turbulent mixing of coaxial streams occurs in many devices of practical interest. Typical examples are
the jet pump (or air-air ejector) and composite propulsion systems such as the air augmented rocket 1 ' 2 . For
propulsive applications one must consider the possibility that exothermic chemical reactions will occur in the
mixing layer.

An extensive theoretical and experimental investigation of ducted mixing has been accomplished at the AEDC 3,4,S .
The basic objective of this research has been to develop an adequate engineering theory to describe the ducted mixing
process, including chemical reactions. Emphasis has been placed on relatively long mixing systems in which the
mixing layer may extend over most or all of the duct cross section at the exit plane. The duct pressure distribution
will be strongly influenced by the thick mixing layers, and will be very different from the inviscid pressure distribu-
tion. In other words, this may be considered a "strong viscous interaction" problem.

Consider the mixing system shown schematically in Figure 1, in which the primary and secondary fluids are
specified. The specific objective here is to predict the secondary mass flow, wa , and the duct wall pressure
distribution if the following parameters are described:
(i) Geometry.
(ii) Primary (central) stream initial conditions.
(iii) Secondary stream stagnation pressure pga and stagnation temperature, T u a •
(iv) Back pressure p-, .

Three distinct flow regimes are shown in the mixing flow field of Figure 1. In the first regime, turbulent
mixing occurs between the secondary flow and the core of inviscid primary flow. In the second regime, the inviscid
core has been dissipated, but a region of inviscid secondary flow exists near the duct wall. The third regime occurs
after the mixing layer has spread to the wall, and the flow is entirely turbulent.

Several modes of operation are possible for a ducted mixing system when the primary stream is initially
supersonic and the secondary stream is initially subsonic. These modes are distinguished by the factor which limits
the secondary mass flow rate, wa . The "upstream choking" mode (Fig.2(a)) occurs when wa is limited by
choking of the secondary flow near the entrance of the duct. The primary stream has expanded, causing the
secondary flow area at the choke point to be less than the initial flow area. Fabri et al. 6 ' 7 called this mode the
"supersonic regime".

The "downstream choking" mode (Fig.2(b)) occurs when wa is limited by choking of the flow at the duct
exit. This mode will probably not occur in a cylindrical or divergent mixing duct unless the primary and secondary
fluids have greatly different densities, or unless chemical reactions occur in the mixing process. The downstream
choking mode is important for certain propulsive applications.

The "back pressure dependent" mode of operation (Fig.2(c)) occurs when the back pressure pj, is sufficiently
high to unchoke the duct flow. The secondary flow is subsonic throughout the duct, and the duct exit pressure
exactly matches the back pressure. Fabri called this mode the "mixed regime", and it is commonly encountered
in jet pump applications.

If the mixing duct is cylindrical, sufficiently long and operating in the back pressure dependent mode, the
flow may be analyzed by application of one-dimensional theoretical concepts. The flow is assumed to be completely
mixed at the exit plane, and overall conservation equations for momentum, mass flow and energy are solved for
the flow between the entrance and exit sections. The one-dimensional theory gives no information about the duct
length required to achieve complete mixing, and is not applicable to ducts of variable cross section because the
unknown axial wall pressure forces cannot be predicted. The detailed mixing duct flow must be analyzed in order
to compute the unknown wall pressure integral in variable area configurations.
172

For cylindrical mixing ducts operated in the upstream choking mode, Fabri et al. derived a "quasi-one-dimensional"
theoretical model 6 ' 7 . In this theory, it is assumed that the primary upstream undergoes an isentropic expansion and
the subsonic secondary stream undergoes an isentropic contraction. The combined momentum equation is written
between the entrance and the secondary stream choking section, thus eliminating the need to assume that the average
primary and secondary pressures are equal at the choking section. The specification of Ma = 1 at the choking
section then allows the system of equations to be solved for the mass flow ratio, wa/w: .

The quasi-one-dimensional theory gives good results for many practical applications, but cannot be used for
variable area mixing ducts. The detailed flow processes must be analyzed in order to predict the axial pressure force
on the duct wall. The quasi-one-dimensional theory can be criticized because the viscous effects are neglected,
although Chow and Addy8 have shown that viscous effects are small for a ducted mixing system operating in the
upstream choking mode and having a relatively large secondary flow. Viscous effects, however, are quite important
at zero and low secondary flow rates.

Chow and Addy8 made a significant improvement on the quasi-one-dimensional analysis for a constant area
mixing system operating in the upstream choking mode. The primary stream is computed with the method of
characteristics and the inviscid secondary flow is computed simultaneously by use of the one-dimensional
assumption. The inviscid solution is then corrected for viscous effects along the jet boundary separating the
primary and secondary fluids. The Chow and Addy theory is applicable to variable area mixing ducts, and is
useful for thrust augmentation devices.

For zero and low secondary flows. Chow and Addy used a Korst-type base pressure analysis, including effects
of base bleed. Chow and Addy show excellent correlation of their theory with experimental results for a constant
area supersonic air-air ejector. Chow and Yeh9 show similar excellent agreement between the theory and experi-
ments for variable area air ejector configurations.

The Chow and Addy theory is valid for flows with relatively weak viscous interaction. Their technique of
superimposing constant pressure two-dimensional mixing profiles on the jet boundary limits the technique to flows
with thin mixing layers. Another limitation of the superposition technique in general is that the mixing profiles
are computed with the assumption of negligible transverse pressure gradients, but then are superimposed onto a
flow which has strong radial pressure gradients.

As discussed earlier, the main interest in the AEDC investigation of ducted mixing has been on mixing
systems with thick mixing layers. For this reason, it was necessary to develop an analytical model in which the
mixing layer is computed simultaneously with the inviscid portions of the primary and secondary flows. Two
analytical models will be described. In the first, the inviscid portions of the primary and secondary flows are
assumed to be one-dimensional (1-D Core Theory). In the second model, the inviscid portion of the primary
flow is computed with the method of characteristics (2-D Core Theory). In both models, the viscous layer is
treated by use of the well-known von Karman integral method.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF 1-D CORE THEORY

2.1 Principal Assumptions

1. The flow is axisymmetric.

2. All gases obey the perfect gas law.
3. The usual boundary layer assumptions are applicable to the mixing layer.
4. Inviscid portions of primary and secondary flow are one-dimensional and isentropic.
5. The mixing layer is fully turbulent and boundary layers at initiation of mixing are negligible.
6. Viscous effects at duct wall are negligible.
7. The mixing zone velocity profiles are assumed to have similar shapes (cosine function).
8. The turbulent Prandtl and Lewis numbers are unity.
9. For mixing with simultaneous chemical reactions, the reactions are assumed to be in equilibrium.
10. In the third regime (Fig. 1) the free mixing concepts of shear and profile shape similarity are assumed to be
applicable.

2.2 Basic Integral Equations

The flow model is shown schematically in Figure 3. Three basic integral equations are used in the analysis;
(i) a continuity equation for the entire flow, (ii) a momentum equation for the entire flow, and (iii) a momentum
equation for the portion of the flow between the duct centerline and a control surface located half-way across the
mixing layer.
 173

Continuity Equation

— 1 purdr = 0 . (1)
dx Jo

Overall Momentum Equation

d ,r w dp w TL
— f pu 2 r dr = - - ^ — . (2)
K
dx J 0 dx 2 '

Half-Radius Momentum Equation

J prm A ftm do r2
s
5J. •**-'- U. <-*---'--| ?-
Equation (3) contains a term, r m , representing the turbulent shear stress at the half-radius control surface.

2.3 Mixing Zone Profiles

Relation between velocity, composition and enthalpy — The axisymmetric boundary layer equations for
momentum, energy and conservation of elemental species, with unity turbulent Prandtl and Lewis numbers, are 1 0 :

Momentum Equation
3u 3u 3 / 3u\ 3p
pur — + pvr — = — per — 1 - r — . (4)
dx 3r 3r \ 3r/ dx

Energy Equation
3H 0 3H n 3 / 3H0\

Conservation of Elemental Species

3C k 3C k 3 / 3Ck\
ur + PVT = r (6)
" ? 5T 37r 3rj"
For isobaric flow, the dp/dx term in Equation (4) is zero, and the following linear relation is obtained between
u , H 0 and C k :
u
~ua =
H
0 ~ H 0a =
c
k ~ Cka (?)
Uj - u a H0j - H 0 a Cjcj - C k a

Because the transport coefficients for all species are the same, the composition at any point in the mixing zone may
be characterized as a simple two-component mixture. Thus

H H
0 ~ 0a
C , (7a)
_ u H
"j a 0j - H
0a

where C is the mass fraction of elements from the central stream.

Although derived for isobaric flow, Equation (7a) is also assumed to be valid for flows with axial pressure
gradients. Note, however, that the inviscid reference velocities, u a and ui , are pressure dependent. The assump-
tion that Equation (7a) is valid for flows with axial pressure gradients is made conditionally. If Equation (7a) is
valid, then the computed total flux of elements from the central stream should be the same at all axial stations.
In other words, the solution of the integrated momentum equation is also a satisfactory solution for the integrated
species and energy equations.

A species conservation parameter, Q , is defined:

Q = ^frwpUCrdr. (8)
Wj -D

If Q remains unity, the use of Equation (7a) is justified for flows with axial pressure gradients. It has been found
that Q does remain approximately unity for typical air augmented rocket systems 5 .
174

Mixing zone velocity profiles — The mixing zone velocity profiles are represented by a cosine function:

" ~ "min _ -
u
max umin *
1 + cos it
P?) (9)

In the first and second regimes (Fig.3), u m i n = ua ; in the third regime u m i n = u w . In the first regime, u m a x = Uj ;
in the second and third regimes, u m a x = uc .

At the half-radius control surface

u + u
m " .("max min) • (10)

Equilibrium mixing zone chemistry — For rocket-air mixing, the mixing zone compositions and temperatures
are determined by an approximate equilibrium chemistry computation. It is assumed that the static temperature
distribution and the composition distribution in the mixing zone can be computed from the concepts of equilibrium
chemistry with representative values of p w , u; and u a . The corresponding total temperature distribution is
then assumed to be invariant throughout the flow field. This treatment of the mixing zone chemistry is similar
to the "flame sheet" chemical model used by Libby, except that the mixing zone temperature and composition
profiles are corrected to the equilibrium profiles at the reference condition.

2.4 Turbulent Eddy Viscosity

The term r m in Equation (3) is determined by

3u
7
m ' ' Pm em T~ (11)

where e m is the empirical eddy viscosity. The semi-empirical model for the eddy viscosity which is used in this
work is the incompressible Prandtl model

e = kb(u m a x - u m i n ) , (12)

with the empirical constant k corrected for the effect of variable density. The correction used is a modification
of the correction suggested by Donaldson and Gray11. Donaldson and Gray found that the influence of variable
density could be generalized if k is taken to be a function of the local Mach number, Mm , at the half-radius
control surface. The constant k is related to the incompressible constant, k 0 , by the empirical equation

k
— = 0.66 + 0.34 exp (-3.42 M2,) . (13)
ko
The present theory has been correlated with low speed air-air mixing experiments, and it was found that k0 = 0.007
in the first regime, and k0 = 0.011 in the second and third regimes. These values have been used for all of the
computations presented in Reference 5.

It should be noted that the Prandtl eddy viscosity model (Equation (12)) is known to be deficient when
u m - n /u m a x exceeds about 0.3. Also, Equation (13) has not been checked against a sufficient number of experi-
ments to be considered completely reliable. Nevertheless, the present eddy viscosity model gives good results for
the experimental rocket-air mixing configurations of References 3 and 4. In those experiments, u m j n /u m a x did
not exceed 0.1.

2.5 Duct Wall Equations

The duct wall is assumed to be represented by the following pair of equations, where the constants C,-C 7
and xe are specified:
rw = C, + C2x + C3x2 + C4x3 + C4x4 , x < xe ,

2.6 Transformation of Integral Equations

Sufficient information has been developed in the preceding sections so that the terms in Equations (1) to (3)
can be related to three flow field variables. In the first regime (Fig.3), these variables are selected to be p w , r-
and b . In the second rejdme, the selected variables are p w , uc and b . In the third reigime the selected variables
are p w , u c and u w .
 175

First regime transformation - With t h e t e c h n i q u e described in Reference 5, E q u a t i o n s ( 1 ) t o ( 3 ) can be trans-

formed into the following system of equations:

Continuity Equation

dPw ^ dn _ db
(14)
1
dx * + F , dx
- i + F, —
dx = F,

Total Momentum Equation

^ dPw . A-. dr- .-, db „

(15)
G, -pL + Gj - i + G3 G4
2 3
dx dx dx '
Half-Radius M o m e n t u m E q u a t i o n

dp„, dr; db
H,1 - P + H 2J - i + H3J — = H, . (16)
dx dx dx

Equations ( 1 4 ) - ( 16) can be solved for the derivatives d p w / d x , dr-/dx and d b / d x by use of C r a m e r ' s rule,
as long as the d e t e r m i n a n t of t h e coefficients is n o t zero:

dpw IPI drj |R| db |B|

(17)
dx D| ' dx |D| ' dx |D|"

where the d e t e r m i n a n t s are

F, F2 F3 F4 Fj F3
|D| = G
l G
2 G
3 , IPI = G4 Gj G3 etc.
H, Hj HJ H4 Hj H3

Equations (17) are numerically integrated by use of the well-known Runge-Kutta method.

Second and third regime transformations - The transformation in the second and third regimes is similar to
the first regime except that the derivatives in question are ( d p w / d x , d u c / d x , db/dx) and (dp w /dx, d u c / d x , d u w / d x ) ,
respectively.

2.7 Correlation of 1-D C o r e T h e o r y with L o w Speed Mixing E x p e r i m e n t s

Most of the correlations between theory and e x p e r i m e n t have been m a d e with t h e 2-D Core T h e o r y (Section 3 ) .
T h e 1-D Core T h e o r y has been correlated with a variety of low speed air-air mixing e x p e r i m e n t s in o r d e r t o establish
the values for the incompressible eddy viscosity c o n s t a n t s , and t o establish t h e validity of t h e t h e o r y for c o n s t a n t
density flows. T h e agreement between t h e o r y a n d e x p e r i m e n t is generally satisfactory, a n d t h e correlations will n o t
be shown here.

3. D E V E L O P M E N T O F 2-D C O R E T H E O R Y

The ducted mixing theory for t h e first regime has been e x t e n d e d t o include c o m p u t a t i o n of t h e inviscid p o r t i o n
of t h e primary flow w i t h t h e irrotational m e t h o d of characteristics. T h e mixing z o n e and secondary flow are t r e a t e d
in essentially the same way as in Section 2, t h e major difference being in t h e m e t h o d of c o m p u t i n g the inviscid core
flow. T h e basic integral e q u a t i o n s are derived w i t h the inner mixing zone radius, r- , as t h e lower limit (Fig.4).
(It will be recalled t h a t t h e corresponding lower limit is zero for t h e 1-D Core T h e o r y integral equations.) A m e t h o d
of characteristics solution of t h e inviscid core flow t h e n provides t h e b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s ( a t r-) for t h e solution of
the integral equations.

It should be n o t e d that t h e 2-D Core T h e o r y is identical t o the 1-D Core T h e o r y in t h e second and third regimes.

3.1 Basic Integral E q u a t i o n s

By integrating the continuity equation and the boundary layer momentum equation, one obtains the following
integral equations.

Continuity Equation

d .r w dr-
(18)
— J pur dr = p-v-r- - p^-r- — .
176

Total Momentum Equation

=c** •-«•-'* fi-^M-

Half-Radius Momentum Equation
d_ Prrrm
; 5 d frm / dr- \ dp w / r m — r.2\ ,.„
2
dx J^ pu r dr - u m — J pur dr = (u m - u-) I^Utf — - ftT,ql + r m r m - — ^ — — - J . (20)

3.2 Mixing Zone Profiles

The velocity and density profiles in the mixing zone are computed with the same equations as were used in
Section 2. In the velocity profile equation (Equation (9)), however,
V
"max = "i = i cos e i .

where Vs is the total velocity vector at r; and 0- is the flow angle at r- (V- is an isentropic function of p w ).

The velocity at the control surface, u m , is

u
m = i("i + ua> •

3.3 Transformation of Integral Equations

The method of transforming the integral equations is the same as in Section 2. One obtains Equations (14)-(16),
but the coefficients F . G , and H are of course different from the 1-D Core Theory coefficients.

3.4 Method of Characteristics Solution

Many terms appearing in the coefficients F, G and H depend on the flow conditions at the inner mixing zone
boundary. In order to solve the system of equations, one must be able to evaluate the following parameters at r-:
0-, 3u/3x, 3u/3r, 3p/3x and 3p/3r. To provide these parameters, the inviscid core flow is developed (with the
irrotational method of characteristics) simultaneously with the numerical solution of the equations for the mixing
layer and inviscid secondary flow.

The flow near the inner mixing zone boundary at some downstream location, x , is shown in Figure 5. At x ,
the upstream solution has defined the values of p w and r; . The derivatives dp w /dx and dr-/dx at x are also
specified. Since the flow is completely defined at x , a new Family I characteristic can be generated from the
boundary point D. (The "interior" solution is thus extended outward by one Family I characteristic at each
computation interval, Ax).

With the conditions at x completely known, the Runge-Kutta method prescribes a series of intermediate points
at which dp w /dx, drj/dx and db/dx are to be computed. These specified points (x,p w ,rj,b) do not necessarily
correspond to points on the actual solution, but the solution depends on a weighted combination of the intermediate
results. Such a Runge-Kutta point is shown as point E in Figure 5. With the position of E specified, along with
the pressure, the only unknown at E is the angle, 0, . The angle, 0- , which is required for the succeeding Runge-
Kutta points, is determined by the following procedure. A Family II characteristic EF is constructed which
intersects the last Family I characteristic, along which the flow is completely defined from the interior solution.
By an iterative solution of the compatibility equations for a Family II characteristic, the location of F and the
value of 0j at E are determined.

After the system of equations is solved for p w and r- at x + Ax (point G, Figure 5), the above procedure
is repeated to define the physically correct value of 6i at x + Ax .

The above procedure is the key technique by which the solutions for the core flow and mixing layer are coupled.

3.5 Correlation of 2-D Core Theory with Air-Air Ejector Experiments

The 2-D Core Theory has been correlated with the air-air ejector experiments of Chow and Addy8 and Chow
and Yeh9. All of the experimental cases considered here were operated in the upstream choking mode, i.e., with
relatively low back pressure. The experimental configurations are shown in Figure 6.

Constant area air-air ejectors — Chow and Addy presented a series of experiments for the configuration of
Figure 6(a). The experimental mass flow ratios, along with the results of the 2-D Core Theory, are shown in
Figure 7. The agreement between theory and experiment is very satisfactory for the entire range of p ua /P0j
over which the theory is applicable. The theoretical results of Chow and Addy are not shown in Figure 6; they
are nearly identical to the 2-D Core Theory results.
 177

The experimental and theoretical duct pressure distributions for the constant area air-air ejector are shown in
Figure 8.

Variable area air-air ejectors — Chow and Yeh9 presented a series of experiments for an air-air ejector in which
the wall shape was parabolic (Figures 6(b) and 6(c)). The mass flow ratio for the configuration of Figure 6(b) is
shown in Figure 9. As was the case for the cylindrical duct, the 2-D Core Theory accurately predicts the experi-
mental results over the entire range of applicability.

The initial secondary Mach number, M a | , is plotted against the pressure ratio Pwi/poa in Figure 10 for the
configurations of Figures 6(b) and 6(c). Because of the downstream displacement of the minimum duct area, Fabri's
saturated supersonic regime is not encountered with the displaced parabolic duct.

3.6 Correlation of 2-D Core Theory with Rocket-Air Experiments

The main objective of this work has been to predict the performance of ducted mixing systems in which
chemical reactions occur. Peters et al.3 and Cunningham and Peters4 have presented experimental results for the
mixing system shown in Figure 1.1. The hydrogen-oxygen rocket was operated fuel-rich (O/F = 3.2) at a combus-
tion chamber pressure of approximately 20 atm. The rocket nozzle area ratio was approximately 5. The secondary
flow consisted of room temperature air.

In any propulsion system application, an important parameter is the mixing duct thrust, F,j , defined by

F 2w p
d = J w r wf ^ j dx ,

where L is the length of the mixing duct.

Mixing system operated in upstream choking mode — The mixing configuration of Figure 11(a) was operated
in the upstream choking mode3. A typical experimental wall pressure distribution is shown in Figure 12, along
with the theoretical results for no mixing and for mixing with equilibrium chemistry. The theory shows that the
inviscid pressure distribution is significantly altered by mixing and combustion, especially in the downstream portion
of the duct. The theoretical pressure distribution (with equilibrium chemistry) predicts the experiment pressure
distribution reasonably well. The differences between theory and experiment are attributed to shock waves in the
supersonic portion of the flow; these shock waves are neglected in the theory.

The mass flow ratio, wa/w: , is plotted against Pna/P0j -n Figure 13. The theory predicts a mass flow ratio
which is 4-5% higher than the experimental ratio.

The duct thrust ratio, F,j/Fn , is shown in Figure 14 (F n is the vacuum thrust of the rocket). The theory
predicts a thrust ratio which agrees with experiment to within 10% over the range of Poa/POj considered.

Mixing system operated in the downstream choking mode — The mixing system of Figure 11(b) was operated
in the downstream choking mode4. A typical experimental wall pressure distribution is shown in Figure 15, along
with the theoretical result for equilibrium mixing zone chemistry. The theoretical wall pressures are higher than the
experimental pressures, but the shape of the experimental pressure distribution is correctly predicted. As was the
case with the upstream choking mode, the differences between theory and experiment are attributed to shock waves
in the flow.

The mass flow ratio, wa/wj , is shown in Figure 16. The theoretical mass flow ratios are 10 to 15% higher
than the experimental values.

The duct thrust ratio, F d /F n , is shown in Figure 17. The theoretical thrust ratio is approximately 6% larger
than experiment at the lower values of Poa/POj • a n d approximately 16% too large at the higher values of p ua /P0j •

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The analytical model which has been presented for ducted mixing of coaxial streams includes the effects of
(i) a non-uniform supersonic core flow and (ii) equilibrium chemical reactions in the mixing layer. Even though the
current detailed knowledge about turbulent flows with chemical reactions is meager, the use of integral methods
permits reasonably accurate computations of the flow in complex mixing systems.

The main emphasis of this work has been placed on mixing systems which are strongly influenced by the
mixing process. Of course, the theoretical model is also applicable to flows which are weakly influenced by mixing,
such as supersonic air-air ejectors operating in the upstream choking mode. The present theory accurately predicts
the experimental performance of such air-air ejectors, but the theory offers no quantitative improvement over the
superposition technique of Chow and Addy.
178

The weakest aspects of the present theory are (i) the model for the turbulent eddy viscosity, and (ii) the
assumption that the inviscid core flow is irrotational (without shock waves).

Although the theoretical model has several deficiencies, the results are qualitatively correct. In addition, the
theoretical results are sufficiently accurate so that the theory may be considered useful for engineering analysis of
ducted mixing systems.

REFERENCES

1. Perini, L., Preliminary Study of Air Augmentation of Rocket Thrust. Journal of Spacecraft and
et al. Rockets, Vol.1, No.6, November-December 1964, pp.626-634.

2. Staff Report Composite Engines. Space/Aeronautics, Vol.48, No.3, August 1967, pp.83-90.

3. Peters, C.E. Mixing and Burning of Bounded Coaxial Streams. AEDC-TR-65-4, March 1965,
et al. Arnold Engineering Development Center.

4. Cunningham, T.H.M. Further Experiments on Mixing and Burning of Bounded Coaxial Streams. AEDC-TR-
Peters, C.E. 68-136, October 1968, Arnold Engineering Development Center.

5. Peters, C.E. Turbulent Mixing and Burning of Coaxial Streams Inside a Duct of Arbitrary Shape.
AEDC-TR-68-270, January 1969, Arnold Engineering Development Center.
(see also)
Peters, C.E., Theoretical and Experimental Studies of Ducted Mixing and Burning of Coaxial Streams.
et al. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.6, No.12, December 1969, pp.1435-1441.

6. Fabri, J., Theorie et Experimentation des Ejecteurs Supersoniques Air-Air. ONERA Note Technique
Paulon, J. No.36, 1956. (English translation - TM1410, September 1958, NACA.)

7. Fabri, J., Supersonic Air Ejectors. In "Advances in Applied Mechanics", edited by H.L.Dryden
Siestrunck, R. and T. von Karman, Academic Press, New York, 1958, pp. 1-34.

8. Chow, W.L., Interaction Between Primary and Secondary Streams of Supersonic Ejector Systems and
Addy, A.L. Their Performance Characteristics. AIAA Journal, Vol.2, No.4, April 1964, pp.686-695.

9. Chow, W.L., Characteristics of Supersonic Ejector Systems with Non-Constant Area Shroud. AIAA
Yeh, P.S. Journal, Vol.3, No.3, March 1965, pp.525-527.

10. Libby, P.A. Theoretical Analysis of Turbulent Mixing of Reactive Gases with Application to
Supersonic Combustion of Hydrogen. ARS Journal, Vol.32, No.3, March 1962,
pp.388-396.

11. Donaldson, C.duP., Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Compressible Free Mixing of Two
Gray, K.E. Dissimilar Gases. AIAA Journal, Vol.4, No.l I, November 1966, pp.2017-2025.
 179

Inviscid Secondary
I— Secondary Stream Flow
Stagnation Conditions
_ IT.
p
oa' oa

Fig. 1 Schematic of ducted mixing system

Section Where Secondary

Stream Chokes

1.0 r-

Duct ^
Exit

0.5 -
oa

Wall Pressure
Distribution

(a) Upstream choking mode

Fig.2 Operational modes of a ducted mixing system
180

© Flow Chokes at or
Near the Duct Exit

l.Oi-

0.5 Wall Pressure

Distribution
oa

Duct Exit

(b) Downstream choking mode

Duct Exit Pressure

© Matches Back
Pressure
A

i.Ot-

Wall Pressure
Pw Distribution
0.5
oa

Duct Exit

(c) Back pressure dependent mode

Fig. 2 Concluded
 181

Fig.3 Nomenclature for integral analysis (1-D Core Theory)

I n v i s c i d Secondary Flow
Pa-Ua

— Mixing
f Zone

Fig.4 Nomenclature for 2-D Core Theory

* (x + Ax)

Fig.5 Solution at a general boundary point

182

0 J
/— Cylindrical Duct
75
* V r n - 1.7:

\f/ff^^
oj
7_E L
(a) Cylindrical duct of Chow and Addy 8

©
P a r a b o l i c Duct
r w / r n - 1.75 + 0 . 0 2 ( x / r n ) '

(b) Parabolic duct of Chow and Yeh 9

xxzzz*M ,
r D i s p l a c e d P a r a b o l i c Duct
- 2.0 r w / r n - 1.75 + 0 . 0 2 ( x / r n - 2 ) '

(c) Displaced parabolic duct of Chow and Yeh 9

Fig.6 Air-air ejector configurations

0.6
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /£
0.5 —
— O Experiment (Ref. 8) /o —
2-D Core Theory
/o
-* 0.4 — —
/o
o
•H
0.3 _
— —

b. y©
in 0.2 — —
i
AX

0.1 —
_ —

1 o ?° i i i 1 1...
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Total Pressure Ratio, P oa /P 0 ^

Fig.7 Mass flow ratio for a cylindrical air-air ejector

 183

2-D Core Theory

P w l / P r<M
Experiment j Q ^
) A 0.092
{ a o.m
1.0

0.4 -

X
0 1 2 3 4 5
A x i a l D i s t a n c e ,' x / r _n

Fig.8 Wall pressure distributions in a cylindrical air-air ejector

0.6

0.5
O Experiment (Ref. 9)
Parabolic Mixing Duct
• 2-D Core Theory
\ 0.4
H
*

a 0.3
•
8
Ha
n 0.2

0.1

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Total Pressure Ratio, p_„/p„4
Oo OJ

Fig. 9 Mass flow ratio for a variable area air-air ejector

184

O Parabolic Duct
Experiment (Fig. 6b)
(Ref. 9) A Displaced Parabolic
(. Duct (Fig. 6c)
•2-D Core Theory
1.0

tj 0.8 -

u 0.6 -
I
x>
c 0.4
0
u
CJ
-n
•n 0.2 -

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Pressure Ratio, p , / p .
' wl *oj

Fig. 10 Initial secondary Mach number in a variable area air-air ejector

r n /r wl • 0.38, r„i - 3 in. (a 7.5 cm.)

Conical Rocket Nozzle (15° Half Angle)

H2-O2
Rocket -7

•^•n-. ?
(a) Conical mixing duct 3

5.17 r w l
T -2r wl-

rw/rwl = 1 + 0.052 x / r wl rw/rwl - 1.269

(b) Conical mixing duct with cylindrical extension 4

Fig. 11 Rocket-air mixing configurations

 185

1.0 1 1 1 1

O Experiment (Ref. 3)
i 2-D Core Theory, Eq. Chemistry
0.8
-—— 2-D Core Theory, No Mixing
rt
a
5
a*
0.6 Back Pressure

*A
O
£
~k
0.4
s
HI

m
in
Or

£ 0.2

p /p . - 0.033 jixit Plane 1

*oa *oj
I I I

2.0 4.0 6.0

Axial Distance, x/r -

Fig. 12 Wall pressure distribution for ducted rocket-air mixing (upstream choking mode)

6.0
1 T"
5.5 ——
X oo °

5.0 — AS

ra
X
4.5 —
o
%
-A

•
•
r OD
I 4.0 ——
O Experiment (Ref. 3)
—••••• 2-D Core Theory
Eq. Chemistry

3.5

1A 1 JL
0.025 0.030 0.035
Total Pressure Ratio, P o a / p o i

Fig. 13 Mass flow ratio for ducted rocket-air mixing (upstream choking mode)
186

0.24

O Experiment (Ref. 3)
0.22 — 2-D Core Theory O
Eq. Chemistry
CD
-o
- 0.20

rt

(A

I °*18

0.16

0.025 0.030 0.035

Total Pressure Ratio, p„ /p .
oa o j

Fig. 14 Mixing duct thrust for ducted rocket-air mixing (upstream choking mode)

1.0

0.8

mf

Jj ° * 6
rt
M O Experiment (Ref. 4)
First Second
2-D Core Theory Regime Regime
Eq. Chemistry
0.4
Back Pressure

rt 0.2
Duct Exit-
p /p , - 0.030
F
oa r oj

Axlal Distance, x/r

wl

Fig. 15 Wall pressure distribution for ducted rocket-air mixing (downstream choking mode)
 187

0 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.036

Total Pressure Ratio, P o a / p o i

Fig. 16 Mass flow ratio for ducted rocket-air mixing (downstream choking mode)

0.40

•a
IN
0.30

i O Experiment (Ref. 4)
i — 2 - D Core Theory
Eq. Chemistry

0.20

0 «-^
0 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.036
Total Pressure Ratio, p /p
' oa oj

Fig. 17 Mixing duct thrust for ducted rocket-air mixing (downstream choking mode)
AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163 AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5
for Aerospace Research and Development for Aerospace Research and Development
SUPERSONIC EJECTORS SUPERSONIC EJECTORS
Edited by J.J.Ginoux Edited by J.J.Ginoux
Published November 1972 Published November 1972
194 pages 194 pages

Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.
Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.

P.T.O. P.T.O.

AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163 AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5
for Aerospace Research and Development for Aerospace Research and Development
SUPERSONIC EJECTORS - SUPERSONIC EJECTORS
Edited by J.J.Ginoux Edited by J.J.Ginoux
Published November 1972 Published November 1972
194 pages 194 pages

Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.
Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.

P.T.O. P.T.O.
They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant
Professor at VKI, now with Dornier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany. Professor at VKI, now with Domier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany.

The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the
significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high
performance ejectors. performance ejectors.

AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph
in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of
copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent
requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied. requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied.

They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant
Professor at VKI, now with Dornier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany. Professor at VKI, now with Domier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany.

The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the
significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high
performance ejectors. performance ejectors.

AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph
in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of
copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent
requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied. requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied.
AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163 AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5
for Aerospace Research and Development for Aerospace Research and Development
SUPERSONIC EJECTORS SUPERSONIC EJECTORS
Edited by J.J.Ginoux Edited by J.J.Ginoux
Published November 1972 Published November 1972
194 pages 194 pages

Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.
Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.

P.T.O. P.T.O.

AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163 AGARDograph No. 163 AGARD-AG-163

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group 629.7.047.2:533.6.011.5
for Aerospace Research and Development for Aerospace Research and Development
SUPERSONIC EJECTORS • SUPERSONIC EJECTORS
Edited by J.J.Ginoux Edited by J.J.Ginoux
Published November 1972 Published November 1972
194 pages 194 pages

Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.
Two Short Courses were organized on "Ejectors" at
the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics in April
1968 and March 1969, respectively, in which 72
scientists and engineers from seven NATO nations
participated.

P.T.O. P.T.O.
They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant
Professor at VKI, now with Dornier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany. Professor at VKI, now with Domier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany.

The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the
significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high
performance ejectors. performance ejectors.

AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph
in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of
copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent
requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied. requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied.

They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant They were partly supported by AGARD and directed by Dr H.Uebelhack, Assistant
Professor at VKI, now with Dornier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany. Professor at VKI, now with Domier System in Friedrichshafen, Germany.

The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the The objective of these Short Courses was to present a state-of-the-art review of the
significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high significant progress which has been made in the past few years in the design of high
performance ejectors. performance ejectors.

AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph AGARD has felt it appropriate to publish the Short Courses as an AGARDograph
in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of in an updated version, with emphasis on supersonic ejectors. A small number of
copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent copies were originally printed at the time of these courses, but numerous subsequent
requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied. requests for these notes were received and the demand could not be satisfied.
 NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTRES FOR UNCLASSIFIED AGARD PUBLICATIONS
Unclassified AGARD publications are distributed to NATO Member Nations
through the unclassified National Distribution Centres listed below

BELGIUM ITALY
Coordinateur AGARD - V.S.L. Aeronautica Militare
I lat-Major Forces Aeriennes Ufficio del Delegate Nazionale all'AGARD
Caserne Prince Baudouin 3. Piazzale Adenauer
Place Dailly, Bruxelles 3 Roma/EUR
CANADA LUXEMBOURG
Director of Scientific Information Services Obtainable through BELGIUM
Defence Research Board
NETHERLANDS
Department of National Defence - 'A' Building
Ottawa, Ontario Netherlands Delegation to AGARD
National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR
DENMARK P.O. Box 126
Danish Defence Research Board Delft
Osterbrogades Kaserne
Copenhagen 0 NORWAY
Norwegian Defense Research Establishment
FRANCE Main Library.
O.N.E.R.A. (Direction) P.O. Box 25
29, Avenue de la Division Leclerc N-2007 Kjeller
92, Chatillon-sous-Bagneux
PORTUGAL
GERMANY Direccao do Service de Material
Zentralstelle fur Luftfahrtdokumentation da Forca Aerea
und Information Rua de Escola Politecnica 42
Maria-Theresia Str. 21 Lisboa
8 Munchen 27 Attn of AGARD National Delegate
GREECE TURKEY
Hellenic Armed Forces Command Turkish General Staff (ARGE)
D Branch, Athens Ankara
ICELAND UNITED KINGDOM
Director of Aviation Defence Research Information Centre
c/o Flugrad Station Square House
Reykjavik St. Mary Cray
Orpington, Kent BRS 3RE

UNITED STATES
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Langley Field, Virginia 23365
Attn: Report Distribution and Storage Unit

If copies of the original publication are not available at these centres, the following may be purchased from:

Microfiche or Photocopy Microfiche Microfiche

National Technical KSRO/HLDO Space Technology Reports
Information Service (NTIS) Documentation Service Centre (DTI)
5285 Port Royal Road European Space Station Square House
Springfield Research Organization St. Mary Cray
Virginia 22151, USA 114, Avenue Charles de Gaulle Orpington, Kent BRS 3RE
92200, Neuilly sur Seine, France England

The request for microfiche or photocopy of an AGARD document should include the AGARD serial number,
title, author or editor, and publication date. Requests to NTIS should include the NASA accession report number.

Full bibliographical references and abstracts of the newly issued AGARD publications are given in the following
bi-monthly abstract journals with indexes:

Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports (STAR) United States Government Research and Development
published by NASA, Report Index (USGDRI), published by the
Scientific and Technical Information Facility, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical
P.O. Box 33, College Park, Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151, USA
Maryland 20740, USA

*
Printed by Technical Editing and Reproduction Ltd
Harford House. 7-9 Charlotte St. London. WIP IHD