Theses - Daytona Beach Dissertations and Theses

12-1995

Compressible Flow Analysis of Thrust Augmenting Ejectors

Mohamed Moujahid
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Daytona Beach

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/db-theses

Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons

Scholarly Commons Citation

Moujahid, Mohamed, "Compressible Flow Analysis of Thrust Augmenting Ejectors" (1995). Theses -
Daytona Beach. 251.
https://commons.erau.edu/db-theses/251

This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Daytona Beach at
ERAU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Theses - Daytona Beach collection by an
authorized administrator of ERAU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
COMPRESSIBLE FLOW ANALYSIS OF THRUST

AUGMENTING EJECTORS

by

Mohamed Moujahid

A Thesis Submitted to the

Office of Graduate Programs

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Daytona Beach, Florida

December 1995
 UMI Number: EP31940

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform EP31940
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 COMPRESSIBLE FLOW ANALYSIS OF THRUST
AUGMENTING EJECTORS

by

Mohamed Moujahid

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis committee
chairman, Dr. L.L. Narayanaswami, Department of Aerospace Engineering, and
has been approved by the members of his thesis committee.
It was submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies and was accepted in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Aerospace
Engineering.

THESIS COMMITTEE:

Dr. L.L. Narayanaswami

Chairman

Dr. Tej R. Gupta

Member

Dr. Luther R. Reisbig

Member

VT-G/QL
Dr. Allen I. Ormsbee Date
Department Chair, Aerospace Engineering

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my parents, Ahmed and Rachida

Moujahid, for their unconditional love and support throughout my life. They have kept

me focused and have given me the encouragements to pursue this research.

My very special appreciation and respect are conveyed to the chairman of my

thesis committee, Dr L.L. Narayanaswami for his able guidance, kind encouragements,

and knowledge of the topic. As a mentor, he has been an inspiration, giving me

invaluable help and advice.

Also, I would like to express my appreciation for the invaluable contributions

made by my thesis committee members, Dr. Tej R. Gupta and Dr. Luther R. Reisbig.

In addition, I would like to extend my thanks to the members of my family for

their support. These thanks also extend to my friends at Embry-Riddle, and in particular

to a very "special" person, Ms. Isabelle Wilbois.

iii
Abstract

Author: Mohamed Moujahid

Title: Compressible Flow Analysis of Thrust Augmenting Ejectors

Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Degree: Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

Year: 1995

The present work was initiated due to the need for a method to understand and

predict the thrust augmenting characteristics of jet ejectors. The mixing process in

ejectors can be analyzed using either the control volume approach, or detailed models

based on the Navier -Stokes Equations and the theory of turbulent jets. The control

volume approach uses integrated forms of the conservation equations of mass,

momentum and energy. It is chosen in the first part of the study since it affords the best

vehicle for the parametric studies required to understand the potential of ejectors for a

given application. Compressibility effects are taken into consideration. Losses, however,

are not accounted for in the analysis. A more detailed approach, based on the turbulent

mixing model derived by Abramovich, is presented in the second half of the study. The

iv
model used proved to be very accurate in describing the turbulent mixing flow process

taking place in the ejector chamber. The results from the two approaches are found to be

in good agreement, although some discrepancies could be found in the case of supersonic

ejectors.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introductory Remarks 1

1.2 Previous Research Done on Ejectors 4

1.3 Theories Developed 5

1.3.1 Thermodynamic Cycle Analysis 5

1.3.2 Control Volume Approach 6

1.3.3 Physical Phenomena Approach 7

vi
CHAPTER 2 COMPRESSIBLE FLOW ANALYSIS 9

2.1 Background 9

2.2 Formulation of the Mathematical Model 10

2.3 Assumptions Used in the Analysis 11

2.4 Analysis of the Primary Nozzle 13

2.5 Analysis of the Secondary Nozzle 14

2.6 Analysis of the Mixing Region 17

2.6.1 The Control Volume Approach 17

2.6.2 Method of Solution to the Control
Volume Approach 20
2.7 Analysis of the Diffuser Section 24
CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROL VOLUME
APPROACH 27
3.1 Ejector Cycle Analysis 28
3.2 Analysis of the Solutions in terms
of Entropy Production 29

3.3 Existence of the First and Second Solutions 30

3.4 Effects of Back Pressure on Both Solutions 40

CHAPTER 4 EJECTOR PERFORMANCE AND OPTIMIZATION 43

4.1 Ejector Performance 43

4.2 Ejector Optimization 46

4.3 Unchoked Flow Performance Under Both Solutions 49

4.3.1 Thrust Augmentation Levels Under the First
Solution 49

4.3.2 Thrust Augmentation Levels Under

the Second Solution 50

vn
4.4 Effects of Choking on Ejector Performance
Under Both Solutions 52

4.4.1 Thrust Augmentation Under the First Solution 52

4.4.2 Thrust Augmentation Under the Second Solution 52

4.5 Concluding Remarks 54

4.6 Summary of Approaches to Overall Device Performance 55

CHAPTER 5 THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH 57

5.1 Introduction 57

5.2 Objective of the Investigation 58

5.3 Physical Description of a Compressible Turbulent Jet
Discharging Into an Outer Stream 58

5.4 General Description of the Analytical Model 61

5.5 Assumptions Used in the Turbulent Model 62

5.6 Formulation of the Turbulent Model 62

5.7 Entrance Region 64

5.8 Main Region 65

5.9 Pressure Profile Analysis 69

5.10 Temperature Profile Analysis 72

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76

6.1 Concluding Remarks 76

6.2 Recommendations 78
REFERENCES 79
APPENDIX A 81
APPENDIX B 85

APPENDIX C 89

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Label Page

1.1 Schematic of a Single Stage Ejector 3

2.1 Ej ector Components 12

3.1 Comparison of Ej ector and Ej ector Ramj et Cycles 29

3.2.1 Mixed Flow Solutions for Unchoked Flow 35

3.2.2 Mixed Flow Solutions for Choked Flow 37

3.2.3 Description of the Choked Flow Region 39

3.3 Inlet Flow Pattern for Supersonic Ejectors with

Supersonic Primary and Subsonic Secondary Flows 42

4.2.1 Ejector Performance for Unchoked Flow 51

4.2.2 Ejector Performance for Choked Flow 53

5.3.1 Physical Descrition of a Turbulent Jet Spreading in
an Outer Stream 61

5.5.1 Physical Description of the Initial Region of a

Turbulent Jet 65

6.1 Decay of Centerline Velocity due to the Presence of a

Coflowing Stream and the Imposed Pressure Gradient 78

IX
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Label Page

3.1.2 Subsonic and Supersonic Solutions for the Mixed
Flow Mach Number in the case of Unchoked Flow 33

3.2.2 Subsonic and Supersonic Solutions for the Mixed

Flow Mach Number in the case of Choked Flow 36

4.2.1 Entropy Production and Thrust Augmentation Ratio

for Unchoked Flow 47

4.2.2 Entropy Production and Thrust Augmentation Ratio

for choked Flow 48
 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

This thesis is part of an ongoing research program directed toward understanding

and analyzing the concept of thrust augmentation resulting from the use of ejectors.

Ejectors have been used for many years in the exhaust systems of turbojet and rocket

engines, primarily for thrust augmentation on V/STOL(vertical/short take off and

landing) applications and for noise reduction. The latter was achieved by mixing the high

temperature exhaust flow with the ambient air to provide lower jet noise and plume

radiation. A thrust augmenting ejector is basically a mechanical device used to increase or

"augment" the thrust of a primary propulsive nozzle through fluid dynamic means. It can

be viewed as a fluid dynamic pump that uses the momentum of a fast jet (primary flow)

from a primary nozzle to entrain and pressurize a suction stream (secondary flow).
 2

A typical thrust augmenting ejector consists of a high pressure nozzle to accelerate the

primary flow and an inlet section to capture the secondary or entrained flow. It also

consists of an intermediate section (mixing duct) in which the primary and secondary

flows mix and exchange momentum, and a diffuser section to match the pressure of the

discharge with that of the surrounding atmosphere. Figure 1.1 highlights the main

components of an ejector. Ejectors operate by inducing large amounts of air from the

ambient fluid through the entrainment action of the primary nozzle shear layer. The key

mechanism for this operation is turbulent fluid mixing. The primary nozzle flow is

exhausted into a larger duct, usually called the ejector shroud, where it entrains and

interacts with the secondary flow. The induced motion in the ambient fluid results in a

local pressure less than ambient at the primary nozzle exit plane. It causes the primary jet

to exhaust at a higher velocity and kinetic energy than it would otherwise have had . The

two flows after entering the mixing duct start to interact with each other. This interaction

is primarily due to a viscous shear mechanism, "mixing", and results in an energy

transfer from the primary flow to the secondary flow. The mixed flow when exhausting to

the ambient back pressure, provides a greater total thrust due to the energy exchange

which has taken place than the primary propulsive nozzle alone. The ratio of this total

device thrust to the ideal thrust of a primary propulsive nozzle exhausting to the same

ambient back pressure is called the thrust augmentation ratio.

 DIFFUSER
MIXING DUCT SECTION

jmuitnitHiimi'lUM"1""")1"""11""""""1"""1
SECONDARY FLOW
- PRIMARY FLOW

ininimminiiiiriinniiiiiiinnriiniiimiiiiiiniui

STATION 2 STATION m DIFFUSER EXIT

(STATION 3)

Figure 1.1 Schematic of a single stage ejector4

u>
 4

1.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH DONE ON EJECTORS

Unlike ejector pumps which were satisfactorily used for a variety of applications in

the late 1800's, the first exploratory tests of ejector augmentors took place in 1927. These

tests were oriented toward showing the feasibility of jet propulsion for airplanes. It was

not until 1949 that the technical community was finally awakened to the full potential of

these devices by Theodore Von Karman through his classical Reisner Anniversary

Theoretical Treatment for incompressible, diffuserless ejectors \ The paper explained the

principle of the ejector, specifically the Coanda ejector. In the following years, numerous

theories have been proposed and several experiments tried. Noteworthy among these are

Berlin's experiments with multiple annular nozzle configurations, and Foa's invention of

the non steady rotary jet flow augmentor2. Both devices tried to improve the efficiency of

the interaction between the ejector primary and secondary flows, and obtained reasonable

success in achieving this goal. Still, it was not until 1972 when Quinn provided a "

briefing to industry " on the Air Force Aerospace Research Laboratory (ARL) work on

hypermixing nozzles 3 through the use of mixer lobes, that the technical community

started finally to show new interest in the possible application of ejectors to aircraft

propulsion systems. Numerous attempts were made to establish analytical methods

capable of predicting the effects of temperature , pressure and size on ejector

performance. These theories were proposed over the years in order to improve the current

understanding of ejector operation and performance , and overcome the lack of a precise

and reliable theory of turbulent entrainment. The latter made it extremely difficult to

improve the jet mixing process. The picture which emerged then was one of
 5

fragmentation within the technical community. There was a big gap between those who

believed that ejector augmentors had reached a stage of development which permitted a

viable flight system application, and those who believed that there was still a need for

continued research in the matter due to the discrepancies in the understanding of the

interacting physical phenomena. The next section will summarize the previous work

performed, and progress made in the analysis and experimentation of thrust augmenting

ejectors.

1.3 Theories developed

1.3.1 Thermodynamic Cycle Analysis

The ejector flow field consists of interacting regions of turbulent flow. Due to this

complex flow behavior, it was difficult to develop accurate methods capable of providing

a detailed analysis and description of the flow process inside the ejector. In an early

approach by Porter and Squyers, thermodynamic cycle analysis 4 was used. The approach

was based upon the assumption that the two flow streams, once in the ejector chamber,

mixed. Therefore, without regard to whether it could physically happen, the mixing

process was assumed to take place isentropically. The mixed flow resultant state was a

function of the initial states, the primary nozzle discharge pressure at the inlet section and

the entrainment ratio. This theory proved to be highly inaccurate due to the the inherently

non isentropic jet mixing process in the ejector. Other theories tried to provide an

understanding of the fundamental physics of ejector augmentors, and were approached on

two levels: (1) The so called "Control Volume Approach"4 which described the overall
 6

process and what occured in terms of bulk changes in energy, momentum and enthalpy,

and (2) The "Physical Phenomena Approach"4 which analyzed the individual physical

processes in terms of the fundamental mechanisms of energy and momentum transfer.

1.3.2 Control Volume Approach:

The Control Volume Approach was based on a quasi-one dimensional analysis

suggested by Von Karman in his classical Reissner Anniversary theoretical treatment for

incompressible, diffuserless ejector augmentors \ In this approach, the primary nozzle

and secondary inlet processes were assumed to be isentropic, as was the exit diffuser

process. The ejector geometry was specified by its inlet and diffuser area ratios.The

values of the flow parameters at different locations were determined by the simultaneous

solution of the mass, momentum and energy conservation equations. This analysis proved

to be very useful for identifying basic trends and parametric studies, and determined the

effects of different flow parameters on thrust augmentation. However, it should be noted

that this approach is limited by the two major assumptions made in the analysis: (1) The

flow was quasi-one dimensional, (2) the flow was incompressible and (3) the secondary

stream remained parallel to the jet axis even in the absence of a shroud. The quasi-one

dimensional assumption further limits the analysis to ejectors with inlet area ratios less

than about 25. This number was obtained experimentally by Bevilaqua5 and Quinn 3 as a

limiting value beyond which the parallel flow assumption was not expected to remain

valid).
 7

The author of the present document used the last mentioned approach, combined with

a one dimensional compressible flow analysis, in the first part of this thesis. The method

proved to be very useful in predicting the ejector performance and thrust augmentation

characteristics. However, it was unable to describe the interaction between the primary

and secondary streams in the mixing region of the ejector.

As these methods lacked a detailed description of the mixing process taking place in

the ejector chamber, new analytical methods capable of predicting the turbulent mixing

within the ejector had to be developed. The development of such methods was one of

the principal advances in ejector technology during the past fifteen years. These new

methods were called physical- phenomena approaches as they provided detailed analyses

of the turbulent mixing processes within the ejector.

1.3.3 Physical Phenomena Approach

Perhaps the best example of the physical phenomena approach is provided by the

finite difference model of Gilbert and Hill6'7 which used a mixing length model for the

turbulence to analyze two dimensional ejectors. In this model, the interaction /mixing

zone was characterized by three distinct regions: (1) secondary and primary fluid

potential flow "core" regions, (2) wall boundary layer and primary jet secondary shear

layer region, and (3) a downstream region of developing flow. The model used the two-

dimensional, steady, time averaged boundary layer forms of the continuity, momentum

and energy equations. In order to solve these equations, various assumptions and relations

were required . In particular, the Prandtl assumption for s, the eddy momentum
 8

diffusivity, was used. In addition, the mixing length in the jet shear region was assumed

to be a function of the shear layer width only. The mixing layer in the wall boundary

layer region was a function of the local boundary layer thickness 5, and two empirically

derived constants. By using these approximations, the governing equations of mass,

energy and momentum were reduced to a parabolic set, and solved by marching through

the ejector in the stream wise direction. The volume of flow pumped through the ejector

was also determined by iterating on the inlet velocity of the entrained stream until the

computed exit pressure matched the ambient pressure.

Another method developed by Dejoode and Patankar8 used a three dimensional

analysis to predict the entrainment of jets from multiple slots and nozzles. This analysis

relied on the extensive use of numerical computations of turbulent flows, and used a

streamwise marching procedure in order to determine the mean pressure gradient and

streamwise velocity component.

The physical -phenomena methods attempted to overcome the limitations inherent in

the control volume approach. These methods established flow models which described

the turbulent jet mixing, phenomenon of major significance to the device performance.

They, however , encountered the same limitations as did the previous methods, mainly

because the state-of-the-art of fluid dynamics in general is such that flow models for the

turbulent mixing of jets must rely on (usually limited) empirical bases.

 9

CHAPTER 2: COMPRESSIBLE FLOW ANALYSIS

The objective of the study in this chapter is to provide the thrust augmentation

levels that could be obtained by a well designed ejector. An analytical model is developed

in order to predict the performance and describe the flow process in a high entrainment

ratio, compressible flow ejector with a constant area mixing chamber.

2.1 Background

A review of existing ejector literature brought the following to light: There were

very few documents available on ejector flow theory and performance predictions. Some

of the analyses found used an incompressible approach. This was inadequate for the high

temperature and high pressure flows of the jet engine due to compressibility effects.
 10

Others relied on the extensive use of semi-empirical methods. Still others used

experimental data on the performance and application of ejectors for v/stol aircraft. Also,

a large portion of the previous analyses was oriented towards applying the ejector as a

pumping device, in order to increase the secondary flow's total pressure instead of its

application as a thrust augmenting device.

These factors led the author of this present investigation to develop a one dimensional

ejector flow theory coupled with a compressible flow analysis. For the present study, the

control volume approach is reformulated in a way that can be simplified while getting

detailed and reliable ejector performance characteristics. Whereas the flow parameters

representing the design requirements can be assumed to be fixed, one may wish to study

the effect of varying a set of variables of designer's choice. This is especially important in

optimization studies. The computer programs that have been developed as a result of the

present study are included in the appendices .

2.2 Formulation of the Mathematical Model

There are two principal applications of an ejector: (1) as a jet pump where the

energy of the primary fluid is used to increase the stagnation pressure of the secondary

fluid, (2) as a thrust augmentor where the momentum of the primary flow is increased by

mixing with the secondary flow, thus increasing propulsive efficiency. In the following

analysis, the thrust augmentation capability is of primary interest. In addition to the

ability to increase thrust of a primary fluid, ejectors have other inherent advantages which

make them highly desirable for thrust system applications. These are:(l) a simplicity of
 11

the basic design, (2) no moving parts, (3) ease of conformation to geometric constraints

and (4) the possibility of achieving these advantages with a minimum weight through the

use of mixer lobes and vortex generators.Their implementation, however, in an effective

system application has failed in the past mainly because of the lack of understanding of

the details of the flow phenomena in the ejector. Analyses conducted to date have

assumed constant area mixing owing to its simplicity. Constant pressure mixing may

also be analyzed in a straightforward manner4. However, no reliable methods are

available for analysis of a general mixing process 4.

The main purpose of the analysis presented here is to provide a complete description

of the important flow parameters at specific locations within the ejector, and to describe

the overall operation of the ejector as an entrainment and thrust augmentation device.

The analysis is intended mainly for air-to-air ejectors, but could be used with dissimilar

fluids. The parameters used in the analysis are described in the nomenclature.The

geometrical parameters are shown in Figure 2.1.

2.3 Assumptions used in the analysis

The following assumptions are made for the ideal flow in order to simplify the

analysis :

1. the flow is compressible and calorically perfect. The specific heat ratio is

constant (K= 1.4),

2. the flow is one dimensional and steady,

3. the flow is inviscid,

 Pi-lmary Flow
V T Section 1
po* Ap0

Section 3

Accommodation Region p-n- 1 Mixing llc|',ion »-!-«— Dlowiny Duct Diffuser

Figure 2.1 Detailed description of a single stage ejector6

K)
 13

4. wall shear forces creating skin friction losses are assumed to be negligible when

compared to the pressure forces, and the momentum of the primary and

secondary streams,

5. mixing is initiated in a constant area duct at the location where the primary flow

is fully expanded (primary flow pressure is equal to the local secondary flow

pressure),

6. no heat is transferred across the walls of the ejector,

7. complete mixing is achieved at the end of the mixing duct and

8. when the primary nozzle is operated at an off-design pressure ratio, the primary

jet is assumed to expand or contract isentropically until the primary and

secondary streams have equal static pressures. This adjustment process is

assumed to take place in the accomodation region of the inlet of the ejector

between sections 1 and 2, (see Figure 2.1), and is assumed to be completed before

the two streams start to mix.

2.4Analysis of the Primary Nozzle

The primary nozzle characteristics of major significance are the following:(l) The

peripheral surface interaction area, (2) the Mach number of the primary jet at the

beginning of the interaction region and (3) the angle of the primary jet relative to the

incoming secondary flow . The peripheral surface area of the primai'y jet can be increased

through the use of multiple primary nozzles. For example, the peripheral length (P)

which comes into contact with the secondary flow for a single circular primary jet of area
 14

A=TCD2/4 is 7iD. On the other hand, if the jet is divided into four smaller circular jets of

overall area A, the total peripheral contact length for the four jets is 27iD, twice that of the

single jet. Consequently, the primary and secondary streams will interact over a wider

boundary.The Mach number of the primary jet can be either subsonic or supersonic ,

depending on the primary flow stagnation conditions and the local primary nozzle exit

static pressure.

If the total pressure of the primary jet is greater than or equal to the value necessary to

choke the primary flow, the exit static Mach number is defined by the exit to throat area

ratio of the primary nozzle. This will determine the exit static pressure both for the

primary and secondary flow at the entrance to the interaction zone, which is the pressure

level at which the mixing process is started.

2.5. Analysis of the Secondary Inlet Section

It is the function of the inlet of the ejector to ingest fluid from the environment,

and to accelerate or decelerate this ingested mass flow to the required inlet flow

conditions at the entrance to the mixing region. During this process, the ingested fluid

will encounter a loss of momentum as a result of skin friction, blockage or wave losses.

These losses, however, will be neglected in this analysis for the purpose of simplicity.

They could be introduced through the use of experimentally evaluated empirical factors9.

The geometrical parameters and flow conditions in the ejector are defined as shown in

Figure 2.1. The primary stream enters the inlet section as a high velocity jet; its mach

number may be as high as 3.5 5. The large momentum of the primary jet along with the
 15

physical enclosure of the primary nozzle enables secondary flow to be induced by

lowering the primary nozzle static back pressure below ambient due to local (secondary)

velocity effects. In the inlet region, it is assumed that the primary and secondary jets do

not mix, but the primary jet expands or is compressed until its static pressure matches that

of the secondary stream. This process generally occurs through series of oblique

expansion and compression waves. At the point where the static pressures are equal,

denoted as section 2, the accomodation process is completed and the flows are parallel.

The losses caused by the shock waves are quite small 41 , and the accomodation process

is assumed to be isentropic.

In a perfect gas the stagnation pressures are related to the local mach number by the

following equation,

^ =(1+^M2)^ (2.1)

At the end of the inlet section (or accomodation region), the static pressure of the primary

and secondary streams are equal. Therefore, the following relation must be satisfied,

_K_ - JL_ y^-^j

Under the assumption of an adiabatic inlet, the stagnation temperature of the secondary

stream at station 2 is equal to the free stream stagnation temperature. Also, for an
 16

isentropic secondary stream , the stagnation pressure at station 2 is equal to the free

stream stagnation pressure and , therefore, if Ms is the desired Mach number at station 2,

then

Ps2 ( I+^A4V-
Px ~ ^ l + ^ 2
(2.3)

which expresses P s in terms of Ms.

Under the same assumptions, MP can be expressed in terms of Ms. Since P s is equal to

pP,

M
P = lh
(2.4)

These expressions relate the flow parameters at station 2 to the given properties of the

free stream or flight conditions and the primary jet. The geometry of the constant area

mixing duct requires that,

Ap2 + AS2 — Am \^"3)

where AP2 is the primary stream area at section 2, AS2 is the secondary stream area at

section 2 and Am is the mixed flow area at section m.

Even though the ejector inlet and exit area ratio are the same for every case, the inlet

and exit geometries are different. For example, if the velocity of the secondary stream
 17

increases as the stream enters the ejector, an accelerating inlet geometry is required. If the

secondary velocity decreases, a decelerating inlet is required. Therefore, the inlet flow

may require either a subsonic or supersonic nozzle or diffuser. Similarly, the exhaust

flow may require either a subsonic or supersonic nozzle or diffuser.

Since both primary and secondary streams are assumed to flow isentropically in the

inlet section from their stagnation conditions values of temperature and velocity can be

obtained for each stream at location (2) by the following equations,

(2.6)
(I+^-ML)

T
°> =(\+<f-Mi
d?hr,) (2-7)
2

VP2 = JJn*(Tp.-TPa) (2.8)

Vs2 = JgR(T<a-TSl) (2.9)

2.6. Analysis of the Mixing Region

2.6.1 The Control Volume Approach

The primary and secondary streams enter the mixing region with equal static

pressures and parallel velocities and start to interact. If the duct is of sufficient length and
 18

if viscous effects are neglected, the mixing process will continue until a uniform flow

with constant properties across the channel is obtained at section m (Figure 2.1).

The governing equations are the bulk conservation equations (mass, momentum and

energy) for the constant area mixing process, state equation for the mixed flow and the

isentropic flow relations for the inlet and diffuser flows. In the case of zero shear forces at

the walls, primary and secondary fluids with the same molecular weights, specific heat at

constant pressure and ratio of specific heats, the bulk equations are obtained as follows:

The mass conservation equation for the ejector mixing region becomes

ms + mp = mm
or (2.10)
P«*2^-*2 USi + Pp2^P2 ^ P i ~ PmAmUm

in which p, U and A are the density, velocity and cross-sectional area of the streams, and

the subscripts p, s and m refer to the primary, secondary and mixed flows. It is assumed

that the static pressure is constant at each cross-section of the ejector and the velocity

distributions are uniform. Similarly, the energy equation under the assumption of

adiabatic ejector surfaces and calorically perfect gases becomes

rnP Top + fns T0s = (mP + rns)Tom (2.11)

or

PPI UPIAPI(CPTP2 + " r ) + Ps2 USlAS2(CpTS2 + -y-) = pm UmAm(cpTm + ^f)

and the momentum equation reduces to

 19

PS2Am + pS2AS2 U]2 + pP2AP2 U2P2 = PmAm + pmAmU2m (2.12)

The equations of state for the three streams take the form

Pl = plRTl (2.13,2.14,2.15)

where the subscript i refers to primary (p), secondary (s) and mixed (m) flows.

The secondary stream is assumed to flow isentropically through the inlet and the mixed

flow is assumed to exhaust isentropically through a nozzle or diffuser. Therefore, the

energy conservation equation,

cpT0 = cpT+f (2.16)

and the second law of thermodynamics,

£ =(£)^ (2.17)

have the same form in both the inlet and exhaust flows. The pressure matching

conditions at the inlet of the mixing section,

PP2=Ps2 (2.18)

and exit of the ejector,

 20

P3 = Poo (2.19)

complete the set of twelve equations for the fourteen flow parameters. Since these

equations constitute an indeterminate system of twelve equations and fourteen unknowns,

it is necessary to specify two of the unknowns in order to obtain the solutions. The

approach used here is to specify the ejector inlet area ratio -p- , and the inlet static
AP2

pressure PS2 , at the entrance to the mixing region. The ejector geometry is defined by
A A

specifying values for the ejector inlet area ratio -p- and exit area ratio -j- . In order to
Ap2 An>

satisfy Equation (2.18), the design pressure ratio of the nozzle must match the pressure

ratio of the solution. Since the nozzle exit area is constant, the nozzle throat area is

changed to match the nozzle exit pressure to the ejector inlet pressure.

The inlet static pressure PS2 is assigned different values. Specification of the static

pressure at the entrance to the mixing section is equivalent to specifying the primary and

secondary mass flows, and by using equation (2.10) the total mass flow pumped through

the ejector. As a result, solutions to the conservation equations are obtained as a function

of the mixed flow Mach number at the end of mixing.

2.6.2 Method of Solution to the Control Volume Approach

Use of the equations of state (2.13, 2.14 and 2.15) and the continuity equation,

Eq (2.10),lead to the following

 21

P«=PP2 = pP,RTPi = %£ (2.20)

and

Pm = pmRT„, = —rr-A (2.21)

Expressing the velocities in terms of Mach numbers and temperatures,

U=MjKRT (2.22)

and expressing the temperatures in terms of the stagnation temperature and Mach

number, the Mach number at the end of mixing, Mm , can be expressed in terms of the

inlet conditions at station 2 by rearrangement of the continuity, energy and momentum

equations (2.10), (2.11) and (2.12). The resulting relationship10 is

A(KM2m)2 + B(KM2„) + 1 = 0 (2.23)

where,

B = 2-KJ2

and the quantity J is defined as

 22

V
J= ^ (2.24)

with p\ the mass flow rate ratio, expressed by the relation

P =up =r=^£J^
^ PMJTS= ^ -2
As
S2 Jp^T„J
PM ( £l+)^M^l | | (2-25)

If conditions at station 2 are specified, the Mach number ( Mm ) at the end of mixing can

be expressed as the solution of the quadratic equation (2.23), under the form n ,

\4 i -B±JB2-4A
M
m =4 2KA (2*26^

P T

Therefore, for any given set of flow properties, (MP2 , MSl or ^ , -^r- ) at the start of

mixing , there are two possible flows after completion of the mixing process. The

solutions to eq (2.26) will be referred to as Mm(.} when the negative sign in eq (2.26) is

used and Mm(+) when the positive sign in eq (2.26) is used. Analysis of the flow

properties indicates that the two solutions to equation (2.26) are related by the

expression11,
2 K-\)Ml(,)+2
Mm(-.) = i—z -— (2.27)
 23

which is the relationship between Mach numbers across a normal shock wave. As a

result, the two solutions represent flows which, at the end of mixing , may be either

subsonic or supersonic. Depending upon the initial properties of the primary and the

secondary streams at station 2, either or both solutions may represent physically

achievable flows. The two solutions, however, may also represent states not realistically

achievable from the given initial conditions, even though they are consistent with the

conservation laws represented by equations (2.10), (2.11), (2.12) and (2.13).

The occurrence of each state has to be analyzed according to the thermodynamic laws,

since both states satisfy the conservation laws. To determine the validity of each state the

solution is investigated with the aid of the second law of thermodynamics. Each flow

representing a state in which there is a net increase in entropy is considered as being

physically achievable. On the other hand, end states with decreased entropies are

discarded as impossible.

The solution representing a subsonic mixed flow (subscript (-)) always satisfies the

second law of thermodynamics, and it is referred to as the first solution. The solution

representing a supersonic mixed flow (subscript(+)) is referred to as the second solution ,

and satisfies the second law of thermodynamics only under certain inlet conditions, as

will be discussed in later sections of this document. Once the Mach number (Mm) at the

end of the mixing process is known, the pressure ratio is evaluated by using equations

(2.20) and (2.21)

 24

P,2 "*')'*
0+AV)Mm^Tv^ fe^B
+
2
K^.Mm P.28)

where -zp1 is given by

1Op

Pop i+p
(2.29)

The temperature at the end of mixing can also be calculated in terms of the temperature at

station 2, as follows,

and ^=- = —JEV-TC^-J (2-33)

2.7Analysis of the Diffuser Section

In dealing with flow through the diffuser, considerations must be given to: (1) The

satisfaction of external (ambient) boundary conditions, specifically, the exit static

pressure, (2) boundary layer growth and flow separation and (3) possibility of continued

primary/secondary interactions within the diffuser.

In the case of supersonic exhaust flow, the diffuser exit static pressure should be

equal to the ambient pressure for maximum thrust augmentation. For subsonic exhaust

flow, the static ambient pressure imposes this boundary condition. As a result, the static

pressure gradient which is present throughout the diffuser establishes a match between
 25

the static pressure at the entrance to the diffuser and the static pressure at the end of the

interacting zone. Consequently, the diffuser provides a strong effect on the mixing

process, the mass flow entrainment and the overall device performance.

The thrust augmentation, however, can be severely degraded if the diffuser is poorly

designed4. An inefficient diffuser increases the boundary layer growth in the presence of

the adverse pressure gradient and may lead to flow separation.

The continuation of primary/secondary interactions within the diffuser is not adressed

in this analysis. It is due to the assumption made in the control volume approach that the

mixing chamber length of the ejector is sufficient to ensure complete mixing of primary

and secondary flows, and provide a uniform mixed flow at the entrance to the diffuser.

Once the mixing process is completed at the end to the interaction region, and the

flow properties are determined, it is essential to return the mixed flow to ambient pressure

efficiently for maximum thrust augmentation. The required diffuser geometry, necessary

for efficient discharge, is determined by evaluating the required pressure ratio for return

to ambient pressure at the outlet. This can be done by the use of equations (2.30) and

(2.3) for the static pressure ratio, and as follows for the stagnation pressure ratio

£ = (i + ^ ) - ( £ ) (2.34)

Also, assuming isentropic discharge from station m to station 3, where the pressure is the

ambient pressure, the exit Mach number is

 M (2.35)
> = hh

The required area ratio for the diffuser is determined with the use of the continuity

equation
K+\
A, Mm I Pm \ 1K (2.36)
Am M3 ( KPr; )

Thus, the outlet geometric requirements for the return of the mixed flow to ambient
P
pressure are evaluated from the flow parameters (Mm and -f- ) at the conclusion of the

mixing process.
 27

Chapter 3. Analysis of the solutions to the

control volume approach

It has been established in the previous chapter that mixing of two streams of

compressible flows having arbitrary initial properties results in one of two possible states

upon conclusion of the process. These two final states are differentiated by the fact that

the Mach number of the fully mixed flows are related in the same way as are the Mach

numbers across a normal shock wave. One of these states corresponds to subsonic flow

and the other to supersonic flow. Detailed examination of the solutions is provided in this

chapter in terms of entropy production.

 28

3.1 Ejector Cycle Analysis

Study of the solutions to the quadratic equation (2.23) according to Belivaqua 12, reveals

that the ejector falls into two basic categories. These categories are dependent on

whether the thrust augmentation results from the transfer of kinetic energy or thermal

energy from the primary stream to the secondary stream. The different processes inherent

to ejector operation in the aerodynamic cycle show the difference between these

categories. Figure 3.1, which is a temperature-entropy diagram, shows the processes the

secondary stream goes through in an ideal ejector. The compression and expansion

processes in the ejector are assumed isentropic while the jet mixing process, which drives

the ejector, is inherently non isentropic due to the irreversible production of turbulence

and heat by viscosity.

At low speeds, secondary air at ambient pressure goes through an expansion

process as it accelerates from station A to station 1 into the ejector. From stations 1 to 2

the two streams start to mix. This mixing process increases the static pressure and

compresses the secondary stream. The entropy increases due to the turbulent mixing and

exchange of heat between the two stream as they interact. From stations 2 to 3, the

diffuser compresses the mixed flow isentropically back to ambient pressure. There is a

net production of thrust because the expansion from A to 1 creates more energy than the

compression from 2 to 3 requires. In this case, it is the kinetic energy delivered during

mixing that increases jet thrust so that the low speed ejector works like a ducted fan. At

high speeds, however, the secondary air is compressed as it flows into the ejector from A

to B. Mixing of the two streams results in an increase in temperature and pressure of the
 secondary stream as shown from B to C. There is an increase in entropy due to the

production of turbulence. The nozzle expands the mixedflowback to ambient pressure

from C to D. There is a net thrust production because the expansion from C to D creates

more energy than the compressionfromA to B absorbs. In this case, it is the transfer of

thermal energy during mixing that increases the jet thrust so that the ejector works like a

ramjet.

Entropy

Figure 3.1 Comparison of Ejector and Ejector Ramjet Cycles

3.2 Analysis of the solutions in terms of entropy production

Since both solutions to Equation (2.23) represent flows which satisfy the laws of

mass, energy and momentum in a constant area mixing channel, the possibility of
 30

physically achieving these end states must be examined in terms of their entropy

production based on the second law of thermodynamics. The entropy of each flow at the

inlet to the mixing region, denoted as station 2, with respect to an arbitrary reference

value is expressed as

S2-Sr = m'p(sp - sr) + m*s(Ss - Sr)

= mpR (Ob'te) •(«)'»(£)-o+wte (3.1)

K
where n = K-\

Similarly, at the outlet to the mixing chamber, denoted as station m, the flow entropy is

Sm ~Sr = mPR >M* -">£ (l+P) (3 2)

The total change in entropy in the mixing chamber is given by

AS = Sm-S2 =m*pR i)l„(^)+(£)ln(^).(l+P)In(^ (3.3)

Equation (3.3) determines the total entropy change of the flow from the initial to the final

states of the mixing process. The possibility of achieving these end states depends on

whether there is a positive entropy change or a negative entropy change.

 31

3.3 Existence of the first and second solution

Examination of the solutions to the mixed flow Mach number Mm reveals

that when the determinant to the quadratic equation (2.23) is positive the two solutions

represent flows at the end of the mixing process, which in one case is supersonic and in

the other case is subsonic. It is also evident that the quadratic equation (2.23) has no real

solution when its determinant is negative, and a single solution when the determinant

reaches a value of zero. It can also be shown that when the determinant is zero,

corresponding to B2=4A , Mm=l which can be considered as the choking limit of the

mixed flow n . Solution to the equation B2-4A=0 yields an expression for the quantity J

defined in equation (2.24) as

Jc=x-Jl{K+\) (=1.565 forK=1.4) (3.4)

where subscript c refers to the choking condition. As a result, the mixed flow will choke

(Mm =1) when B2=4A or J=JC in a constant area mixing duct. Using equation (2.24) and

the choking value of J(=JC), it can be shown that

(£),-*J(£),-' <3-5>

or
 32

where subscript c refers to the thermal choking phenomena and the quantity K is given by

W(£)2(£)(£)
K= (3.7)
^mmm
where a = ~r + 1 .
Ap

The two values of T0P/T0S represented by equation (3.6) can be shown to be inversely

proportional for a ^ 1

' TOP \ ( TQS

T J - \ T J (3-8)

where in this case, the (+) and (-) signs refer to the positive and negative signs in the

solutions to equation (3.6). Equation (3.8) illustrates that if M s , MP and a are held fixed

choking will occur at a given ratio of the larger to smaller stagnation enthalpies,

regardless of which of the two flows contains the larger stagnation enthalpy.

The next sections of this chapter illustrate the existence of both solutions for specified

inlet conditions and area ratios. The results are presented in Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 . In

table 3.2.1 a computer printout of both supersonic and subsonic branch solutions is

presented for a primary/secondary stagnation pressure ratio of 6, stagnation temperature

ratio of 3.35(corresponding to a primary stagnation temperature of 1000K) and a

secondary to primary inlet area ratio of 10. These stagnation ratios are representative of

the flow conditions possible with a modern jet engine. The first column of table 1

contains the secondary flow inlet static pressure at station 2, while the second column
 33

contains the secondary flow Mach number which is taken as the independant variable.The

value of the primary Mach number MP (column 3) is set by matching the static pressure

of the primary to the secondary flow at the inlet to the ejector and by using the isentropic

relations(Equations (2.2) and (2.3)).

Ps Ms MP MSUB MSUP
0.95 0.2717 1.8616 0.3782 3.5926
0.90 0.3909 1.8967 0.4789 2.9394
0.85 0.4875 1.9337 0.5618 2.0968
0.80 0.5737 1.9728 0.6364 1.7162
0.75 0.6545 2.0143 0.7064 1.4853
0.70 0.7324 2.0585 0.7732 1.3258
0.65 0.8092 2.1060 0.8369 1.2086
0.60 0.8864 2.1572 0.8935 1.1241
0.55 0.9651 2.2128 0.9249 1.0835
0.50 1.0465 2.2737 0.9049 1.1089
0.45 1.1320 2.3410 0.8604 1.1716
0.40 1.2232 2.4164 0.8133 1.2489
0.35 1.3225 2.5021 0.7680 1.3365
0.30 1.4328 2.6015 0.7252 1.4356
0.25 1.5588 2.7197 0.6843 1.5495
0.20 1.7085 2.8659 0.6445 1.6848
0.15 1.8967 3.0570 0.6048 1.8541
0.10 2.1572 3.3327 0.5634 2.09

Table3.1.2 Subsonic and Supersonic Solutions for the mixed flow for the
following inlet conditions (POp/Pos=6,TOp/Tos=3.35,As/Ap=10 )
 34

Columns 4 and 5 give the mixed flow Mach number Mm for both branches of the solution.

MSUB is the mixed flow Mach number for the subsonic branch, while MSUP represents the

supersonic branch solution.

Figure 3.2.1 represents the mixed flow Mach number Mm for the supersonic and

subsonic cases. From figure 3.2.1 , it can be seen that the mixed flow Mach number on

the subsonic branch is less than 0.8, while the supersonic mixed flow Mach number is

greater than 1.3. This occurs except in the region where the secondary flow Mach number

reaches 1 and where both supersonic and subsonic flows tend to a unique solution.

It is observed that choking of the mixed flow occurs at higher values of primary

stagnation temperature. It takes place in a region near Ms =1. It is believed to result from

the injection into the ejector shroud of heated primary gas 13 . As a consequence, the

mixed flow Mach number has no real solution for a range of secondary inlet Mach

number M s . That range is found to be near 1 (as shown in Figure 3.2.2). To better

illustrate the choking phenomenon table 3.2.2 represents another computer printout of

both solutions with the same inlet flow conditions, except that the stagnation temperature

ratio is taken to be 4 instead of 3.35.

I I i I I 1 I l _ : l I i I

0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 - T.8 2.2

MS (secondary flow Mach number)

Figurc3.2.1 Mixed Flow Solulions for Unchoked Flow.

 Ps Ms MP MSUB MSUP
0.95 0.2717 1.8616 0.3862 5.4501
0.90 0.3909 1.8967 0.4909 2.7621
0.85 0.4875 1.9337 0.5788 1.9918
0.80 0.5737 1.9728 0.6603 1.6278
0.75 0.6545 2.0143 0.7409 1.3972
0.70 0.7324 2.0585 0.8276 1.2241
0.65 0.8092 2.1060 0.9623 1.0397
0.60 0.8864 2.1572 IMAGINARY SOLUTIONS
0.55 0.9651 2.2128 IMAGINARY SOLUTIONS
0.50 1.0465 2.2737 IMAGINARY SOLUTIONS
0.45 1.1320 2.3410 IMAGINARY SOLUTIONS
0.40 1.2232 2.4164 0.8783 1.1453
0.35 1.3225 2.5021 0.8092 1.2562
0.30 1.4328 2.6015 0.7546 1.3658
0.25 1.5588 2.7197 0.7065 1.4850
0.20 1.7085 2.8659 0.6618 1.6224
0.15 1.8967 3.0570 0.6185 1.7911
0.10 2.1572 3.3327 0.5742 2.0186

Table3.2.2 Subsonic and Supersonic Solutions for the mixed flow for the
following inlet conditions ( P0P/P0S=6, T0P/T0S=4, AS/AP=10 )

Figure 3.2.2 is generated from the data taken from table 3.2.2 to illustrate the choking

phenomenon. Mm has only imaginary solutions and neither branch is shown in Figure

3.2.2. It is also found that the corresponding secondary inlet Mach number lies within a
,3
particular region, referred to by Hoge as the forbidden region (the region over which

the solutions do not exist).

 PR=6, TR=4

ASP=10

choking
tottf^
s0
s\*> ' o\c

0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2

MS (SECONDARY FLOW MACH NUMBER)
Figure 3.2.2 Mixed Flow Solutions for Choked Flow.-
 38

The choking phenomenon, as described in Figure 3.2.2 and Table 3.2.2, occurs for

that specific region of secondary flow Mach which is approximately betwen the values of

0.8864 and 1.1320. This choking eliminates a section of the curve as indicated on figure

3.2.2. It results from an increase in stagnation temperature ratio of 4. Figure 3.2.3 shows

the region of choked flow for a bypass ratio of 10, a pressure ratio of 6 and a temperature

ratio of 5.7. According to Hoge13, at the higher values of the inlet flows stagnation

temperature ratios and mass flow rate ratios the mixed flow becomes choked. He has also

indicated the boundaries of the region over which the solutions do not exist, and which he

refers to as the forbidden region. He concluded that the shape of the forbidden region is

independent of the pressure ratio, and depends only on the value of the bypass ratio and

the temperature ratio. He was able to develop an equation for the boundaries of the

forbidden region which takes the form,

where the parameter MR was defined as the ratio of velocity to the speed of sound at

Mach number of one. P was the bypass ratio and TR was the temperature ratio. The

parameter MR was chosen in place of the Mach number since a finite range covers all

Mach numbers from zero to infinity. Hoge l3 also developed the equation of the curve for

which the primary inlet pressure equaled the secondary from the isentropic relations,

which yielded

K-^-P^K^-^f) (3.10)
where PR was the primary to secondary stagnation pressure ratio.
 39

0.8
r
0.4 f-

0.0,
0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.4
M PRIMARY
13
Figure 3.2.3 Description of the choked flow region
3.4 Effect of back pressure on both solutions

Once the ejector design is selected, its operation will be determined by the

boundary conditions imposed on the ejector.Therefore, in addition to the primary and

secondary total pressures and total temperatures, the back pressure must also be known in

order to determine the ejector operating point. At any value of Ms the design is the same

for a point on the supersonic or subsonic branch. As a result, if the back pressure, or in

this case the effective back pressure due to the presence of the diffuser, is set at a value

equal to the mixed flow static pressure on the subsonic branch, then the ejector will

operate at that design point. Furthermore, P2P would be equal to P2S- This follows since

the exit flow is subsonic.

On the supersonic branch, the situation is quite different. If the back pressure at the

entrance to the diffuser section is sufficiently reduced, the ejector will make a transition

to the supersonic solution branch. Ejector operation becomes then independent of further

reductions in diffuser pressure. In this case, the ejector will operate at only one point on

the supersonic branch irrespective of the value of the back pressure. This operating point

can be determined by the methods described by Fabri and Siestrunck l4. In 1958, they

presented the results of an extensive study of air-to-air ejectors with high pressures ratios,

in which the primary air flow was supersonic. Although they were primarily concerned

with jet pumps, they presented a theory which was in good agreement with experimental

results for the predicted rates of induced mass flows. For the case of supersonic mixed
,4
flows and a supersonic primary flow, Fabri and Siestrunck stated that the inlet flow

pattern was similar to that shown on figure 3.3. This flow pattern represented the case
 41

where the primary flow inlet pressure exceeded the inlet pressure of the secondary flow.

Therefore, the primary flow had to undergo an additional expansion in the entrance

region to the mixing tube. The case where the two inlet pressures matched was a limiting

case, and therefore, could be determined from the analysis. Since the expansion took

place very quickly in the entrance region , the flows remained unmixed and the slip line

between the primary and secondary flow is shown as a double line eminating from the

primary nozzle. In the case where the primary inlet pressure is less than the secondary

inlet pressure there would be a shock in the primary fluid immediately at the entrance,

and would increase the pressure in the primary fluid. This would require the slip line at

the nozzle lip to turn inward. Therefore, the secondary flow would "see" a minimum area

at the inlet, and its Mach number would reach one for the supersonic mixed flow case,

due to the flow pressure in the mixing tube required for the supersonic branch. If this was

not the case, the secondary stream pressure would increase in the mixing tube. This

would have lead to a breakdown of the supersonic flow in the primary jet and a subsonic

mixed flow. It is essential to notice that these arguments will not hold if a throat is placed

in the secondary stream, ahead of the inlet, since the secondary flow could then be

supersonic when the pressures are matched at the inlet.

 BACK

Moo * 1.0
A
3

J
A
A

EXIT

Figure3.3 Inlet Flow Pattern Cor an Ejector Operating with a Supersonic Mixed Flow
and Having a Supersonic Primary Flow and a Subsonic Secondary Flow.14
4*.
 43

Chapter 4:Ejector performance And Optimization

The scope of the present chapter is to determine reasonable estimates of

thrust augmentation that could be achieved within an ejector over a range of secondary

inlet Mach numbers from low subsonic to supersonic.

4.1 Ejector Performance

To evaluate the influence of any parameter on ejector performance, it is

essential to first fix the ejector size in relation to the size of its reference jet.

In order to accomplish this, it is convenient to define a reference jet as a free jet whose

gas has the same stagnation properties and mass flow as those of the primary jet of the
 44

ejector. Since the inlet section represents a key element in ejector design, the ejector cross

section is related to the primary nozzle cross section. The discharge from the gas

generator (primary flow) has known characteristics including its mass flow mP, its

stagnation temperature and its stagnation pressure. The primary flow is fully expanded

into a pressure P2S different from its normal discharge pressure P a . Therefore, the

primary nozzle discharge area must avoid any alteration of the mass flow from the gas

generator. The ejector size is defined as the area ratio of the ejector mixing section to that

of its reference jet when expanded isentropically to ambient pressure.

The ejector is assumed to ingest fluid from a given free stream Mach number M0

without losses. The process is assumed to be one of isentropic expansion or compression

depending on the value of the free stream Mach number. After complete mixing, the

resulting uniform flow at station m is exhausted through a diffuser or nozzle. Selection of

the particular outlet geometry necessary to return the flow to ambient pressure depends

on whether the mixed flow is supersonic or subsonic. In the case of supersonic mixed

flow a convergent divergent nozzle is required, while a diverging passage is needed for

subsonic mixed flow. The primary fluid injected through the inner core of the ejector is

considered to be the energized stream (high temperature, high velocity gas), and the

secondary fluid at the outer region is considered to be the ingested stream. The net tlirust

of the ejector is compared to the net thrust of its reference jet in order to provide a

meaningful indication of the ability of the ejector to augment the thrust of its reference

jet. This thrust augmentation is described by the ratio of the momentum increment

between the free stream and station 3, to the momentum of the primary mass flow
 45

exhausted isentropically to ambient pressure. Therefore, for an air breathing propulsive

system,

_(•»<)»,-u, ",/n>^_ 41)

where M/>oo is the free stream Mach number, 7>oo is the free stream temperature and [/«*>
is the free stream velocity. If the primary jet of the ejector is non air breathing (rocket),

the expression for thrust augmentation must be modified by eliminating the so called

"ram" drag terms associated with the mass flow of the ejector's primary jet 15 .

Since the ingestion and injection into and the discharge from the ejector are assumed

to be isentropic, the following relations are obtained

Po3=Pom (4.2) and T03 = T0m (4.3)

P0=Po\ (4.4) and T0 = T0i (4.5)

where subscript o refers to stagnation conditions.

The thrust augmentation ratio O can be evaluated for any given values of M 0 , Ms,

P 0P /P 0S , T0P/T0S and a, knowing the conditions of the mixed flow at station m through

equations (2.28), (2.29), (2.30) and (2.31).

 46

4.2 Ejector Optimization

The concept of ejector design optimization, for both "positive" and "negative"

solutions to the equations governing the flow through an ideal ejector, provides a means

for achieving high ideal thrust augmentation for V/STOL applications.

Stationary Ejectors ( M«> = 0 )

The author of the present document will consider ejector performance for the

stationary case in which the ejector is at rest with respect to the undisturbed medium.

Under these conditions, the thrust augmentation ratio becomes,

0+pw3 JT7
*= „ rr (4-7)
Mp J 7V

For specified injected gas conditions and area ratios, there exists only one free parameter

for the determination of a unique solution to Equation (2.23). Using Ms, the secondary

flow Mach number at the start of mixing as that parameter, ejector thrust augmentation is

evaluated as a function of Ms to determine whether a maximum or limit exists .For

comparison purposes the values of the stagnation pressure for both inlet flows are

assumed to be the same as those used for in Figure 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. The results are

presented in table 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. The stagnation temperature ratios used are 3.35 for

table 4.2.1 and 4 for table 4.2.2. The inlet area ratio As /AP is held constant for both tables

and has a value of 10. The results obtained are presented in both tables as follows.
 MS A^SUB 1 .A.RSUB AS SUP 1 .A.RSUP
0.30 8.6904 1.0431 -3.4639 5.1937
0.40 10.0821 1.1898 6.2503 2.7126
0.50 11.3613 1.3180 9.7504 2.0641
0.60 12.5418 1.4280 11.8856 1.7675
0.70 13.6312 1.5203 13.4011 1.6479
0.80 14.6351 1.5956 14.5748 1.6304
0.90 15.5591 1.6543 15.5487 1.6605
1.00 16.4112 1.6961 16.4058 1.6993
1.10 17.2111 1.7132 17.1872 1.7281
1.20 17.9890 1.6903 17.9054 1.7444
1.30 18.7684 1.6111 18.5672 1.7488
1.40 19.5650 1.4554 19.1787 1.7416
1.50 20.3884 1.1847 19.7457 1.7229
1.60 21.2439 0.6630 20.2734 1.6923
1.70 22.1337 ***** 20.7667 *****
1.80 23.0581 ***** 21.2300 *****
1.90 24.0155 ***** 21.6674 *****

Table 4.2.1. Entropy Production and Thrust Augmentation Ratio for ( P 0P /P o s =6,

TOp/TOs=3.35,As/Ap=10)

It should be noticed that even though the secondary flow Mach number at the start of

mixing is defined as the independent variable, it can be controlled by adjusting the

effective back pressure at the entrance to the diffuser. The latter pressure is further

determined by the isentropic expansion taking place in the diffuser and the back pressure

at the outlet.
 MS A^SUB 1 .A.RSUB ASSyp 1 .A.Rsup
0.30 9.8081 1.0522 -0.8416 4.5521
0.40 11.4263 1.1963 7.9099 2.5602
0.50 12.9020 1.3199 11.4930 1.9568
0.60 14.2572 1.4235 13.7519 1.6783
0.70 15.5049 1.5072 15.3812 1.5739
0.80 16.6559 1.5708 16.6529 1.5725
0.90 THERMAL CHOKING THERMAL CHOKING
1.00 THERMAL CHOKING THERMAL CHOKING
1.10 THERMAL CHOKING THERMAL CHOKING
1.20 20.4074 1.6546 20.3937 1.6632
1.30 21.2601 1.5767 21.1615 1.6426
1.40 22.1320 1.4174 21.8735 1.6071
1.50 23.0328 1.1353 22.5370 1.5552
1.60 23.9680 0.5604 23.1582 1.4849
1.70 24.9401 ***** 23.7428 *****
1.80 25.9492 ***** 24.2956 *****
1.90 26.9940 ***** 24.8210 *****

Table 4.2.2. Entropy Production and Thrust Augmentation Ratio for ( P 0P /P o s = 6,

T O p/T o s =4,A s /A P =10)

It was shown earlier, through Equation (2.23), that there was a double solution to the

conservation laws for a control volume encompassing the ejector mixing chamber. One

solution corresponded to subsonic flow and the other to supersonic flow.The subsonic

solution was referred to as the first solution and the supersonic as the second solution.
 To illustrate the influence of inlet flow stagnation conditions on stationary ejector

performance, the variation of thrust augmentation is plotted versus the secondary flow

Mach number. This variation is generated for both first and second solutions at an

arbitrary chosen primary nozzle pressure ratio and for two different primary nozzle

stagnation temperatures.

4.3 Unchoked Ejector Flow Performance Under Both Solutions

4.3.1 Thrust Augmentation Levels Under the First Solution

Figure 4.2.1 uses the data taken from table 4.2.1. It illustrates typical ideal

thrust augmentation and flow characteristics, resulting from the injection of low

temperature gas into an ejector, as a function of the Mach number of the secondary flow

at the start of mixing. It is seen from the computer printout (see Appendix A) and from

figure 4.2.1, that under the first solution or subsonic branch , the flow at the end of

mixing exists only between the limits of 0 < M s < 1.6153 for this example. Values of Ms

greater than 1.615 can still contribute to the existence of the subsonic branch at the end of

mixing. However,they will be discarded in the analysis because Ms is limited at its upper

range by the physical restraint that the Mach number of the flow at the exit to the diffuser

M3 must be greater than 0.

Examination of the ejector flow under the the first solution in Figure 4.2.1 leads to the

following observations: The flow at the end of mixing under the first solution, (subsonic

branch), exists only when the secondary flow reaches values between the limits of 0 and

1.6153. Specifically, for values of Ms greater than 1.6153 the mixed flow experiences a
deficiency in kinetic energy and fails to overcome the adverse pressure gradient

encountered in the exhaust diffuser. The first solution produces a maximum of 1.7132 in

thrust augmentation at a value of Ms = 1.097, as illustrated in Figure 4.2.1. After reaching

that peak value the thrust augmentation level decreases continuously. It can also be

concluded from Figure 4.2.1 that: (1) The mixed flow Mach number at the end of the

mixing process remains subsonic, (2) the entropy change during the mixing process is

always positive, and therefore does not violate the second law of thermodynamics and(3)

operating the ejector under the first solution requires a convergent subsonic inlet. It also

requires a divergent subsonic diffuser at the outlet, as the mixed flow remains subsonic.

4.3.2 Thrust Augmentation Levels Under the Second Solution:

It is important to notice from figure 4.2.1 that ejectors operating under the

second solution can generate thrust augmentation levels much higher than the ones

generated under the first solution. This high performance occurs when the secondary flow

Mach number is subsonic. However, the thrust augmentation obtained by the use of the

second solution, with subsonic mixing, is limited to the region where the total entropy

change during mixing is greater than zero. This eliminates a portion of the curve

corresponding to a decrease in entropy during the mixing process as seen on figure 4.2.1.
 51

.00

in
CO
CO O
ii T"* 1
<Z II
.\- Q-
co
<
.
II
DC
Q.
1
o
£
c
o

•o
c
o
o
CD

CO

CD
O

nch
vson\c bra*
supe

JL J_

o O o o o oo
CD in CO cvi
|eA9"i uojie}ueiu6nv ismiy.
 52

4.4 Effects of Choking on Ejector Flow Performance Under Both Solutions

The injection of heated gas, as was mentioned in previous sections of this report,

brings into focus the phenomenon of thermal choking as illustrated in Figure 4.2.2.The

possibility of choking of the mixed flow occurs in a region where the secondary flow

Mach number is near one. Specifically, the range of values of Ms over which mixing

cannot proceed to its conclusion due to thermal choking is noticed to lie between the

values of 0.840 and 1.167. This range may change according to the inlet conditions, area

ratios and entrained mass flow rates.

4.4.1 Thrust Augmentation Under the First Solution

It is seen from Figure 4.2.2 that under the first solution the curve of thrust

augmentation is made of two sections. The first segment contains the lower choking point

and in which the secondary flow Mach number is between 0 and 0.8240. The other

segment contains the upper choking point and limits the value of Ms from 1.1677 to

1.6451. This last segment is restricted at its upper end by the requirement that the exit

Mach number at the diffuser M3 must be positive. It is concluded that thrust

augmentation levels are much higher with subsonic values of Ms than supersonic.

Moreover, the maximum thrust augmentation occurs at the lower choking point which

varies with injected gas characteristics and inlet area ratios.

4.4.2 Thrust Augmentation Under the Second Solution

 53

The second solution as seen in Figure 4.2.2 displays two segments for the given

inlet conditions. A lower segment that corresponds to secondary flow Mach numbers

values between 0.3128 and 0.840.This segment contains the lower choking point and the

limit point ( AS = 0 ). An upper segment over which the secondary flow Mach number is

supersonic and lies between the values of 1.1677 and 1.6153. This second segment

contains the second choking point and displays higher levels of thrust augmentation than

the previous segment. It is bounded by an upper limit that results from the restriction that

the diffuser Mach number M3 must be positive in order to return the flow to ambient

pressure. Thrust augmentation under the second solution usually displays a local

maximum performance point with a supersonic value of M2S which in this case occurs at

the upper choking point. It also diplays a limiting performance point at a subsonic value

of M2S limited by the second law of thermodynamics.

 PR=6, TR=4

ASP=10

choking

0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8

Ms (secondary flow Mach number)
Figure 4.2.2 Ejector Performance for Choked Flow
 55

4.5 Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, real solutions to the mixing process exist and thrust augmentation occurs

only for a limited range of secondary inlet flow Mach numbers as a result of physical

constraints. These constraints are :

• The mixing process can only contribute to an increase in the total entropy.

• Once the mixing process ends, the mixed flow must have sufficient kinetic

energy to overcome the adverse pressure gradient encountered in the diffuser.

• The flow cannot exist within the choked region.

As a result, ejector performance is limited to a range of values of secondary inlet

Mach numbers bounded on each end by one of the constraints mentioned above.

Enforcement of these contraints for a specific range of secondary Mach number shows

the existence of three distinct operating points that characterize optimal ejector

performance. These points are defined as follows:

• Optimal performance under the first solution which occurs at subsonic values of

M2S at the lower choking point.

• Optimal performance under the second solution where a local maximum point

occurs in the absence of choking at transonic or supersonic values of M2S. In the

case of choking, the second solution exhibits two regions. One region

containing the lower choking point and the other region the upper choking

point, which in this case corresponds to the local optimum performance point.

• Limiting performance under the second solution is established by the second law

of thermodynamics and always occurs at a subsonic value of M2S.

4.6 Summary of approaches to overall device performance

An understanding of the fundamental physics of ejectors can be approached on two

levels : (1) The control volume approach or overall process and what occurs in terms of

bulk changes in energy and enthalpy and (2) The physical phenomena approach which

contributes to the overall process in terms of the fundamental mechanisms of energy and

momentum transfer.

The control volume approach, which is used in the first chapters of this document,

treats the ejector essentially as a " black box " by satisfying the bulk conservation

equations between the device inlet and exit. It enables an understanding of "gross

effects", such as area ratios and inlet stagnation condition trends on thrust augmentation.

In doing so, the analysis overlooks the phenomena of major significance to the device

performance and suffers from a lack of specification to the turbulent mixing taking place

within the control volume considered.

The physical phenomena approach, which will be used in the next chapters of this

report, attempts to overcome the limitations inherent in the control volume approach. It

establishes flow models capable of predicting the turbulent mixing within the ejector.

However, in doing so, the analysis encounters two major problems. These are : (1) The

complexity of the flow interactions taking place in an ejector makes it difficult to include

all the significant phenomena in the turbulent mixing model and (2) the flow model used

in the analysis, due to the limitations of fluid dynamics, must rely on empirical data

taken from the theory of free jet turbulent mixing. Nevertheless, this method has proven
 57

to be successful in describing the requirements for efficient and complete mixing and in

understanding the basic mechanisms of the mixing process.

 58

Chapter 5:The Phenomenological Approach

This chapter describes the basic fluid mechanical processes involved in the

operation of ejectors, in order to obtain a better understanding of their operation, and for

the development of accurate analytical models. Specifically, it is concerned with the main

characteristics of a computational model for axisymmetric jet mixing in a constant area

mixing tube.

5.1 Introduction

The thrust augmentation of an ejector system is governed by the laws of fluid

mechanics associated with the entrainment of surrounding ambient air by the primary jet
 59

flow and the turbulent mixing of this entrained fluid with the primary jet. However, as

mentioned in previous sections of this report, past researches have provided insufficient

information related to the operation of ejectors4. According to these investigations the

ejector thrust augmentation results from the low pressure on the shroud entrance region

caused by entrainment of secondary fluid. Pressure recovery is achieved by turbulent

mixing between the primary jet and the secondary stream. Exhausting the already mixed

flow through a diffuser further enhances the thrust augmentation by reducing the entrance

pressure to the ejector shroud. The flow processes that relate entrainment, mixing and

diffusion result in a pressure distribution on the shroud and primary nozzle surfaces. The

integrated effect of the pressure forces over the surfaces provides a large contribution to

the increase in thrust of the system.

5.2 Objective of the investigation

The specific objective of this part of the investigation is to apply a turbulent flow

model to describe the mixing process and to predict the flow requirements for efficient

mixing . This model should be able to determine the role of entrained fluid, and its

mixing with the primary jet, on the shroud surface pressure distribution and on ejector

performance. It should also be able to predict the variation of the various profiles, ( static

pressure, velocity and temperature), along the length of the mixing chamber. Knowledge

of these profiles, and specifically the static pressure distribution, allows calculation of the

thrust augmentation.
 60

5.3 Physical Description of a Compressible Turbulent Jet Discharging into an outer

stream

The propagation of a turbulent jet in an external steam is characterized by the

thickness of the zone of turbulent mixing and by the profiles of velocity, temperature,

pressure and other parameters of the gas in the cross section of the flow.The part of the jet

in which there is a core of potential flow is called the initial region. One of the

fundamental properties of this region is that the static pressure is constant throughout the

flow,7. As a result, the velocity in the potential core of the jet remains constant. Beyofid

this region the velocity profile becomes "lower" and "wider" with increasing distance

from the begining of the jet. This region is termed as the main region and is characterized

by the increase with downstream distance of the transverse dimensions of the jet.

In treating the velocity profiles for both regions of the jet, the following parameters

are used as dimensionless coordinates characterizing the location of a point in the flow. In

the initial region of the jet, the dimensionless coordinate is computed from the outer edge

of the jet as follows,

Y-Y2 Y-Y2 ,,- n

r] = j^r = — (5.1)

and for the main region of the jet, the following dimensionless coordinate is expressed

by,
z=y-r (5.2)

where y, and y2 are ordinates of the internal and external boundaries of the turbulent

border layer in the initial region of the jet. r is the radius of the jet or the jet boundary
 61

corresponding to zero velocity , and y is the ordinate of a point which corresponds to an

arbitrary value of the dimensionless velocity (see Figure 5.3.1). Abramovich, Zhestkov

and Al l 7 showed that the experimental values of dimensionless velocity, given for

various conditions of jet discharge from the nozzle, were in good agreement with the

results computed according to the formula 17

AC/=^=JP(r1) = (l-n3/2)2 (5.3)

for the initial region of the jet and

Atf-^-^-fW-O- 3 0 ) 2 (5-4)

for the main region. These equations are referred to as " the law of the 3/2 " or the

"schlichting formulas". The temperature profiles in the cross sections of compressible jets

were also approximated by the following formulas 1?,

A r = ^ = (p(Tl)=l-Tl (5.5)

for the initial region, and

A r = ^ = M/(6)=l-s 3 / 2 (5.6)

for the main region.

 Tnzslzlozil
LiltSil rt j!cs ' relics-* MJ!S rc^Ica

Figure 5.3.1 Physical Description of a Turbulent Jet Spreading in

an Outer Stream *?

5.4 General description of the analytical model

In this section the analytical turbulent flow model described in the last section is

applied to predict the mechanisms of entrainment and turbulent mixing that takes place in

the ejector. The configuration investigated is an axisymmetric single nozzle jet ejector

with constant area mixing tubes. The turbulent flow model is based upon the classical

steady two phase jet model of Abramovich 17. The validity of the Abramovich model for

describing the turbulent mixing process was demonstrated by comparing the analytical

results with numerous experimental data, relating to ejector flow measurements, gathered

at the Air Force Flight Dynamics Research Laboratory6*7'16*18. The analysis is based upon
 63

the hypothesis that the mixing phenomenon in the ejector is fundamentally similar to the

mixing of a free turbulent jet with the surrounding medium, given the restriction that the

ejector inlet and mixing chamber areas are very large compared to the area of the primary

jet nozzle.

It has been observed that the turbulent mixing process in high speed compressible

shear layers is dominated by large scale coherent structures 19. It consists of an

engulfment process that captures large quantities of unmixed fluid and transports them

across the mixing layer. Many studies, using flow visualization and conditional sampling,

have lead to a better understanding of the structure and role of these large scale motions19.

However, few turbulence models have been developed that make use of the importance of

these structures. The present model assumes that the high speed mixing process continues

to be dominated by large scale coherent motions.

5.5 Assumptions used in the turbulent model

The following initial assumptions are made for the analysis :

1. The primary flow may be subsonic or supersonic.

2. The primary and secondary flows are the same perfect gas.

3. No heat is transferred across the walls of the ejector.

4. The ejector consists of an axisymmetric, cylindrical constant area mixing chamber

with a single primary nozzle located along the axis.

5. The secondary flow and the combined flows after mixing are assumed to remain

subsonic throughout the ejector.

 64

6. The static pressure is constant across any section perpendicular to the axis of the

mixing chamber.

5.6 Formulation of the turbulent flow model

Abramovich 17, through his experimental investigations of the theory of a free jet,

established an analogy between the velocity fields at the lateral cross sections of a

mixing chamber of an ejector and at the cross sections of a free jet discharging into the

surrounding medium. He found that the velocity profile at each cross section of the

mixing chamber, bounded by the cylindrical walls, corresponded to the central part of the

dimensionless velocity profile of a free jet at the same cross section. The existence of this

analogy enabled calculation of the various flow profiles in terms of the initial parameters

of the mixing streams at any arbitrary cross section in the mixing chamber. This was

made possible by setting up integral equations which expressed the fundamental laws of

conservation of mass, energy and momentum . These conservation laws defined the flow

variables at any arbitrary point of the mixing chamber in terms of the initial parameters of

the mixing streams. Using the momentum equation the pressure change between the

initial and final cross sections of the mixing chamber is determined by

{Pm ~ Pis)Am = p2pU\PAp + p2SU\sAs - pmU2mAm (5.7)

where A^ is the mixing chamber area, A2P is the primary nozzle discharge area and A2s is

the entrained flow inlet area. This equation illustrates the fact that, in contrast with a free
 65

jet in which the static pressure remains constant in the radial and longitudinal axis of the

jet, the static pressure in the mixing chamber of the ejector increases along its

longitudinal axis and reaches the value of back pressure at the exit to the diffuser. This

increase in static pressure is due to the presence of a coflowing induced stream and to the

imposed pressure gradient resulting from the turbulent mixing of the two streams.

The above equation can be reduced to the non dimensional form below

P
-^ = - * 4 ( 1 - an){\ - aQn) (5.8)
PipUlp (a+l)2V JK
' v
'

an
where a is Ap/As, & is p2p/p2s d n is (VPP • This equation determines the static

pressure of the flow after complete mixing which occurs at an appreciable distance

(theoretically infinite ) from the initial cross section. The non uniformity of the flow field

in the ejector mixing chamber makes the calculations of the flow parameters after

complete mixing inadequate. An accurate calculation of these flow parameters must take

into account the non uniformity of the flow field, the determination of the optimal length

of the mixing chamber and the knowledge of the theory of mixing of streams along the

length of the mixing chamber. Because of the similarity found between the turbulent

structure within the ejector and that found in free jets developing in a coflowing stream,

the turbulent flow within the ejector is divided into two distinct flow regions. These

regions are interdependent and play a critical role in ejector thrust augmentation.
5.7 Entrance Region

This region is defined as the part of the jet in which there is a core of potential

flow immersed in an outer stream which may be accelerating or decelerating , depending

on the shape of the duct and the rate of entrainment of mass into the jet. The entrance

region begins at the primary nozzle exit plane and continues downstream where the

potential core of the jet ends and mixing of the two streams starts. The static pressure in

the supersonic primary flow at the nozzle exit plane may be different from the static

pressure in the surrounding secondary flow. This forces the primary flow to expand or

contract isentropically until its static pressure matches that of the secondary flow.

Turbulent transport in this region is confined to the jet which does not interact with the

ejector walls.The length of the entrance region is determined as follows

y _ ^h_ _ _|_ \+m /r Q\

h
b0 -c(\-m)(0 416+0 134m) \jy)

where m = U2S/U2P, and the half thickness of the jet at the end of the entrance region is

!
—= (5 10)
b0 0 416+0 134m \J.LVJ

There are two mixing zones in the initial region of a jet situated along both sides of the

potential core of flow. These zones are symmetrical relative to the axis of the jet and

develop independently of one another ( see Figure 5.5.1 ).

 Figure 5.5.1 Physical description of the initial region of a turbulent jet

5.8 Main Region

It consists of the region of the flow downstream of the section where the jet

attaches to the walls of the mixing chamber. It is also the region in which no zone of

undisturbed ejected flow (secondary) exists and in which turbulent transport towards the

walls of the mixing chamber is the most significant phenomenon. Due to the presence of

non uniform flow properties the twoflowsinteract through turbulent mixing. A schematic

of a typical mixing section process is shown in Figure 5.5.2. Although the figure

illustrates the distribution of velocity in one plane the actual mixing process , regardless

of section geometry, is a three dimensional process. Depending upon the initial flow

parameters the mixing process is a function of the mixing length available. A zero mixing

length section may occur when all mixing takes place within the ejector diffuser. In

general, as the mixing length of an ejector is increased, for either subsonic or supersonic

primary nozzzle flows, the performance of the ejector will improve. However, when the

mixing process is nearly complete and the mixing length is further increased, the viscous

effects begin to accumulate and become dominant. Further increase in length will then

degrade the augmentation performance and lead toflowseparation. Various

 68

investigations 4 have determined the optimum mixing length to diameter ratio (L/D) for

non diffusing flow to be between 4 and 12. Multiple primary nozzle arrays will in general

require a smaller ratio, while single primary nozzles require more mixing length. The

optimum mixing length ratio is further influenced by the amount of entrained flow and

whether the primary is supersonic or subsonic 4J9.

The presence of the adverse longitudinal pressure gradient leads to a reduction of the

ejected (secondary) flow velocity in proportion to the distance from the initial cross

section of the flow, where the velocity equals U2S .This results from the assumption that

the ejected flow is a wakelike flow with respect to the jet issuing from the nozzle. Using

the analogy between the flow in the ejector mixing chamber and in a free jet, the concept

of nominal wake velocity of the ejected flow is introduced to the analysis. Neglecting

losses, the nominal wake velocity of the ejected flow at cross sections where the pressure

is P x is given by 17

U2X=U22S-2P-^ (5.11)

In the main region of the mixing chamber the longitudinal pressure gradient is small.

Therefore, the wake flow velocity is assumed to remain constant at all cross sections.

This transforms the previous equation to

U2H=U\s-2^ (5.12)
 69

where UH is the nominal velocity of wake flow in the main region of the mixing chamber

and P3 is the flow pressure at the final cross section after complete mixing. UH can be

derived as

. _ 2(l-a/fl(l-ai?e)
U2H = Uh a/? 2 0(a+l) 2
(5.13)

The concept of excess velocity AU is introduced in the analysis just as in the theory of a

free jet17
AU=U-UH (5.14)

where U is defined as the absolute rate of flow at the given point. Using the analogy

between the flow in a free jet and in the mixing chamber of the ejector, the rate of flow at

any point of an arbitrary cross section of the main region of the cylindrical chamber is

expressed as ,?

^a-jw-o-'v <5-i5>
where Um is the axial velocity at a given cross section and 8 is a dimensionless length

relative to the free jet, defined as y/r. The quantity y is the radius to some point and r is

the radius of the free jet at the same cross section . sK is another dimensionless length

relating the mixing chamber of the ejector to the free jet, and is defined as R/r. Following

Abramovich l7, the temperature profile is taken to be the square root of the velocity

profile
 A r = ^ = y(s)=l-83/2 (5.16)

Writing the equation of continuity between an arbitrary cross section of the main region

of the chamber and the terminal cross section 3, at which complete uniformity of the

flow field is assumed, leads to the following

p3U3A3 = f3 pUdA (5.17)

Assuming the density to be constant across the cross section and subtracting the quantity

UHA^ from both sides of the equation yields

(U3 - UH)A3 = \A3 (U- UH)dA (5.18)

or
7iR2AU3=2n\RAUYdY (5.19)

Using the dimensionless quantities A U /AUm and y/r transforms the above equation to

AU3 = 2AUm± fK (1 - 8 { 5 )\de (5.20)

 71
After integration, the Equation becomes

AU3=AUm\U2K-\A43e3K5+0Ae5K) (5.21)

Using the quantity A1(eK)=l-1.143s15k+0.4ek' yields

AUm = AU3/A^k) (5.22)

This equation determines, in terms of the quantity s k , the excess velocity on the axis of

an arbitrary cross section of the mixing chamber. The velocity at an arbitrary point of a

given cross section of the mixing chamber is determined from the equation for the

velocity field (5.15)

AU=AUm(\ -815) = AU3— 77^—r (5.23)

v
' 1-1 143e^5+0 4 4 V J

where r =y/R =s/eK. This last equation, along with equation (5.23), determines both the

velocity at the axis of an arbitrary cross section and the variation of velocity along the

radius at each cross section .

5.9 Pressure profile analysis

Unlike the free mixing of a turbulent jet discharging into a coflowing stream, the

turbulent mixing of streams taking place in a cylindrical ejector is accompanied by a

variation of pressure along the length of the chamber. This pressure gradient was
17
observed experimentally to be high at the entrance to the mixing chamber due to

suction, then to decrease gradually in the middle section and to increase towards the end
 72

of the mixing chamber. It is determined at an arbitrary cross section of the chamber by

using the momentum equation, ( neglecting the friction on the walls of the chamber),

A3U3+P3A3 = f3 UdA + PA3 (5.24)

or

(P3-P)A3 = f3 UdA-A3U3 (5.25)

Using the quantity UHA3=| UHdA in the above equation and assuming the density to be

constant along the cross section considered yields 17

-P 2 [R
*TT = %} UAUYAY- U3AU3 (5.26)

The first term on the right hand side of the equation is calculated as follows

f2 f UAUYdY= f2 f AU(AU+ UH)YdY

= 2 A ^ f Qj£) Y-f + 2UHAu4f r2 [R AU YdY

At/* R2

= AUIA2(SK) + UHAUmAx{zK) (5.27)

where

A2(SK) = 4 f" (1 - e' 5)4*& = 1 - 2.286s}:5 + 2As3K - 1.23e£5 + 0.25e£ (5.28)

Also, using the quantity

AU3=AUmA](zK) (5.29)
 73

yields

i f UAUYdY= AU\(A-^ + %f) (5.30)

and

AC/3£/3 - AJ7f + C///AC/3 = AU23{\ + ^ ) (5.31)

Sustituting these results in the momentum equation yields

^ = AUl(x(sK)-l) (5.32)
where
X(6A) = ^ (5.33)

1(8^ is approximated to be

x(s^) = 1 + 0.007SK + 0 . 9 5 4 (5.34)

It is observed from equation (5.32) that a decrease in x(sK) leads to an increase in pressure

in the mixing chanber.When x(8K) reaches the value of 1, the pressure tends to the value

of the final mixing chamber pressure P3 which is the largest pressure in the chamber

without taking friction into account. Equations (5.23) and (5.32) determine the velocity

and the pressure profiles at any point in the mixing chamber when the dimensionless

quantity 8K is known. Once these profiles are known, the theory of a free jet is used one

more time to determine the quantity 8K at the location considered. The appropriate

derivations will be shown in appendix (A) of this report.

5.1(h Temperature Profile Analysis

Considering the analogy established between the velocity fields of a free jet and the

mixing chamber of an ejector at the same cross section, the temperature is taken to be the

square root of the velocityfield17

AT is the difference between the temperature at a given point in the jet and in the

surrounding flow

AT=T-TH = T-T2 (5.36)

ATm is the difference between the temperature on the jet axis and the surrounding fluid

ATm = Tm-TH = Tm - T2 (5.37)

The equation of conservation of mass is used to determine the variation of temperature

ATm along the axis of the mixing chamber. This equation is developed between a given

cross section in the mixing chamber and the final cross section, and for streams of

different densities it is written as l7

2ffYdY+2UlllRf=U^ (5.38)
 75

Substituting the quantity AU by equation (13.16) yields the following

zds
&u> > « " ) (5.39)
II, J

After a long process of integration, the equation reduces to

4 a(/79+l)-w(q+l) P2-2
4 p 3 _ - ^ (5.40)
.-i,(EA) a9(#f+l)
V + V x + ( i r +
+»+!"( « ! " ) - &

where

* = ye*" =3 DL #7 =
V 8-1

and
N = Ln-£P- 2 2-2j3
JC +pJC+P
arctan^
y^

Equation (5.40) is highly non linear and determines in implicit form the quantity Tm/T2S.

It is inconvenient to use even though it establishes, in principle, the relation between the

temperature on the axis of the flow with the location of the cross section under

consideration.

In this thesis a subroutine from the IMSL MATH Library was chosen and was

used to solve for the roots of the equation for a given cross section and a specified value

of the quantity 8K. The subroutine did converge and returned seven roots to the equation

for specified inlet conditions and ejector mixing chamber length. Five of these roots were

discarded as being physically unrealistic, and the two remaining roots were both valid in

describing the temperature field at the given cross section of the flow.
CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Concluding Remarks

An analytical method is developed to predict the performance characteristics of

axisymmetric single nozzle compressible flow ejectors, with constant area mixing tubes.

The analysis is based upon the two phase jet turbulent model of Abramovich l7 .The

primary flow is assumed to be either subsonic or supersonic, while the secondary and

mixed flow are supposed to remain subsonic throughout the mixing process. In

considering the relations among surface pressure distributions, velocity profiles and the
 77

flow field inside the ejector, it is convenient to differentiate between two regions, the

entrance region and the main region. These two regions are interdependent and play a

critical role in ejector thrust augmentation. The entrance region describes the region

between the primary nozzle exit plane and the point where the jet reaches the wall.

Furthermore, the flow field analysis in this region is based upon the theory established for

the initial region of a turbulent jet spreading into an external stream of fluid, and in which

the potential core velocity of the jet remains constant.

The main or interaction region describes the region of the flow downstream of the

point where the jet reaches the wall. The velocity profile in this region is allowed to vary

similarly to the free jet profile 17. Integral techniques are then used in both regions to

determine the various flow profiles along the mixing tube 67,17.

The analytical predictions of static pressure variations, velocity profiles and

temperature profiles, for specified inlet primary and secondary flow conditions, agreed

well with the theory behind the ejector mixing process and are included in the appendix.

Some common features of the ejector flow fields investigated show a decay in centerline

velocity, as it is shown in figure 6.1, indicated by a reduced growth rate of the jet in

presence of the shroud. The presence of a coflowing induced flow and the imposed

pressure gradient are the principal reasons for the reduced jet growth rate l8. The pressure

within the ejector increases downstream. And although the expected effects of such an

adverse pressure gradient is to increase the jet growth rate, experimental studies 16,20 have

indicated that the presence of a coflowing stream dominates over the pressure gradient in

the evolution of the jet.

 1400.0

O
LjJ 1200.0
iz
§ 1000.0
o
-J
LJJ
>
LJJ
Zi 800.0 -
cc
LJJ

LU
O
600.0 -

400.0
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
L/D (LENGTH TO DIAMETER RATIO) oo

Figure 6.1 Decay in Centerline Velocity due to the Presence

of a Coflowing Stream
 The temperature profile is assumed to be similar to that of a free jet. Consequently, an

approximate form of the mass equation is used in the analysis to determine the variations

of temperature inside the ejector. However, a more accurate temperature profile coupled

to the mass equation could lead to a better temperature profile prediction.

The results of the investigation also suggest that the mixing chamber length must be

carefully selected to increase pressure recovery. The latter results from more complete

mixing in a longer mixing tube against the increased wall friction losses. No simple

length-to-diameter ratio relation is found to be applicable to mixing chamber design. The

optimum mixing tube length is found to be dependent on various parameters such as

primary flow conditions and entrainment ratios at the operating point. The results also

show that once the optimum mixing length is selected, no further increase in thrust

augmentation can be expected by increasing the length of the mixing section beyond the

optimal value.

6.2. Recommendations

An important area of future improvement in ejector studies is the search for a

relationship that incorporates the ideal chamber mixing length, the entrainment ratio, and

the inlet flow conditions. Once a specified level of entrainment has been achieved by the

primary nozzle and inlet section, the mixing length required to maintain the flow is set.
 80

REFERENCES

1. Von Karman, T., "Theoretical Remarks on Thrust Augmentation," in Contributions to

Applied Mechanics, Reissner Anniversary Volume, pub. by J.W. Edwards, Ann Arbor,

Mich., 1949,pp.461-468.

2. Foa, Joseph V., "Nonsteady-Flow Thrust Augmenting Ejectors", TR-UTA-782, June

1978.

3. Quinn, B. P., "Compact Ejector Thrust Augmentation," Journal of Aicraft, Vol. 10, Aug.

1973, pp. 481-486.

4. Porter, J. L. and Squyers, R. A., "A Summary/Overview of Ejector Augmentor Theory

and Performance," Vought ATC TR R91100-9CR-47, Vol. II, April 1981.

5. Belivaqua, P. M., "Evaluation of Hypermixing for Thrust Augmenting Ejectors," Journal

of Aircraft, Vol. 11, June 1974, pp. 348-354.

6. Hickman, K. E., Hill, P. G. and Gilbert, G. B.," Analysis and Testing of High Entrainment

Single-Nozzle Jet Pumps with Variable Area Mixing Tubes," NASA CR-2067, pp. 140
 81

7. Hickman, K. E., Hill, P. G. and Gilbert, G. B.," Analysis and Testing of Compressible

Flow Ejectors with Variable Area Mixing Tubes," A.S.M.E. Paper 72-FE-14, pp. 10,

Mach 1972.

8. DeJoode, A. D. and Patankar, S. V., "Prediction of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Mixing

in an Ejector," AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, February 1978, pp. 145-150.

9. Nagaraja, K. S., Hammond, D. L., Graetch, J. E., "One Dimensional Compressible

Ejector Flows," AIAA Paper 73-1184, Nov. 1973.

10. Alperin, M. and Wu J. J, "Thrust Augmenting Ejectors, Part I" AIAA Journal, Vol. 21,

Oct. 1983, pp. 461-468.

11. Alperin, M., Wu, J. J., "High Speed Ejectors" Flight Dynamics Research Corp., Air Force

Flight Dynamics Laboratory, AFFDL-TR-79-3048, May 1979.

12. Minardi, J. E., "Characteristics of High Performance Ejectors," AFWARL TR 81-3170.

13. Hoge, H. J.," On the Theory of Mixing of Fluids Streams," Quatermaster Research and

Engineering Center, Pioneering Research Division, Technical Report PR-2, February

1959.

14. Fabri, J. and Siestrunck, R., "Supersonic Air Ejectors," Advances in Applied Mechanics,

Vol. 5, Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY, 1958.

15. Minardi,J.E and Von Ohain,H.P, "Thrust Augmentation of High Performance Ejectors",

AFWAL-TR-3087, November 1983.

16. Bernal, L. P. and Sarohia, V., "Entrainment and Mixing in Thrust Augmenting Ejectors,"

AIAA Paper 83-0172, January 1983.

 82

17. Abramovitch, G. N.," The Theory of Turbulent Jets," M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.,

1963.

18. Bradbury, L. J. S. and Riley, J. (1967), "The Spread of a Turbulent Plane Jet Issuing into

a Parallel Moving Airstream," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 27, pp.381-394.

19. Brown, G. and Roshko, A., "On Density Effects and Large Structure in Turbulent Mixing

Layers," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 64, part 4, pp.775-816, January 1974.

20. Bernal, L. and Sarohia, V., "An Experimental Investigation of Two-Dimensional Thrust

Augmenting Ejectors: Final Report, Part I" NASA-CR-174111, August 1984.

21. Quinn, B. and Toms, H. L., "Mixing Duct Pressure Distributions and Exhaust Flow

Characteristics of a High Temperature and Pressure Cylindrical Ejectors," ARL 75-0227,

1975.

22. Fabri, J and Paulon,J., "Theory and Experiments on Supersonic Air to Air Ejectors",

NACA-TM-1410, 1958.
 83

APPENDIX (A)

Determination of the quantity eK

The determination of the quantity sK is essential for calculating the velocity,

pressure and temperature profiles at any point of the ejector mixing chamber. The

relations previously derived for a free jet, (see refs), will be used to relate sK to the cross

section or the length of the mixing chamber. The quantity r is defined as the radius of the

free jet corresponding to the same initial ejector flow parameters, at the given cross

section . sK is determined by first calculating the radius of the transition cross section of

the jetj^ , as well as £., the radius of the cross section at which the excess velocity on the

axis equals one half the initial excess velocity of the ejecting flow (primary) Au, .

r ( A , 1 )
" r2 A2+m(A]-A2)

and
r2 = rl = 4
(A J\
r K
c r2 A2+m(2A]-A2) ^^>

where
A i = 2 J1 (1 - 8 ! 5)2zdz = 0.258 (for a free jet)
 84

A2 = 2 J1 (1 - e 15 ) 4 ede = 0.134 (for a free jet)

and

m=
U2r

The next quantity that needs to be determined is the distance between the beginning of

the main region and the mean cross sectionxu by using the derived formulas for a free jet.

xc-xn = -(x
] c
- xn) = ±^flk
:
(A-3)
" ^ ~ "' — ln
a
2+a
where
_ 4m
\-m
and
c = 0.18to0.21 (from experimental data)

The distance from the primary nozzle up to the beginning of the main region is

approximated by the empirical expression derived for a turbulent free jet (see refs):

JCC = 1.5JC// = ± 1 . 5 /+w (A.4)

where
CH — 0.23fo0.25 (from empirical data)

The quantities obtained above are characteristics of a free jet and are independent of the

ejector's parameters.They are dependent only on the magnitude of m.The next step is to

evaluate x\ the dimensionless distance from the transition cross section of the jet. The
 85

quantity x* is determined for a given cross section at a distance x from the primary nozzle

by

x* = £ £ (A.5)

The quantity x/r, is related to the length of the mixing chamberJ_by

£ = 2/£ = 21J^ (A.6)

where

_L=l/d

1 is the length of the mixing chamber, and d is the mixing chamber diameter. In addition ,

the quantity (r*-r*n) which is defined as the radius of the free jet at the cross section

considered in the analysis, is expressed by

i--r;-a-±£l„E!£!Ul (A.7)

Finally, the radius r of the free jet at the given cross section is determined by

7; = (r'-r*n)(xc-xn) + rn (A.8)

Once the radius of the free jet is determined through the formulas derived in this section ,

the quantity sK can be evaluated. This in turn enables the calculation of the velocity,

pressure and temperature profiles, at a given cross section of the mixing chamber, as long
 86

as that cross section is far enough away from the nozzle and does not fall in the initial

region.Therefore, it should be kept in mind that the formulas derived for calculating the

various profiles in the ejector mixing chamber are valid only for the main region in which

a jet profile exists over the entire cross section of the chamber, and is described by
 87

APPENDIX (B)

The following program was developed for the compressible, one-dimensional,

modified control volume approach. It was used to provide thrust augmentation levels for

several inlet area ratios and primary and secondary inlet stagnation parameters.

* purpose : to solve the flow parameters at the end of nixing using the *
* control volume approach in a constant area ejector *
* *
* programmer : MOEAKSD MOUJAHID *
* variable key : ? static pressure *
* " T -temperature *
M KACH number *
* APT primary to total area ratio *
* R30 density *
* ??0 primary total pressure *
* ?A secondary total pressure *
* T?0 primary total temperature *
* TSO secondary stagnation temperature *
* AS? secondary to primary area ratio *
* C speed of sound *
* U speed of flow *
* KSU3 subsonic flow KACH number at the end of mixing *
» HSU? supersonic flow KACH number at the end,.of mixing »
* M3ID flow KACH number for primary nozzle *
* M3SUB flow KACH number at exit to the diffuser for subsonic *
r
solution *
* M3SU? flow KACH number at exit to the diffuser for *
f
supersonic solution -*
f
TAR thrust augmentation ratio *
subscriptP: primary flow conditions at ejector inlet *
subscripts: secondary flow conditions at ejector inlet *"
subscriptSUB: subsonic solution to the mixed flow* *
subscript SUP: supersonic solution to the mixed flow **
subscript3: flow conditions at exit to diffuser *
 PROGRAM EJECTOR

C declaration of variables

DOUBLE PRECISION PA, PS, PPO, TS, TSO, TP, TPO, MS, MP, APT,

& 7?S, TRP, TRS,PPP, R, X, CP, CS, US, UP, N, Nl,

& YSU3, WSU3, YSUP, WSUP, M3ID, M3SU3, M3SUP,

& DSSU3, DSSUP, ZSU3, ZSUP, ASP, PSU3, PSUP, N2,

& RHOS, RHOP, MFR, J, A, B, DET, MSU3, MSUP, N4,

& TSU50, TSU3, XSU3, TSUP, XSUP, TARSU3, TARSUP,

& T3ID* M3ID, T3SU3, M3SU3, T3SUP, M3SUP, N3

PARAMETER (K-1,4, R-287)

C enter stagnation conditions for primary and secondary flows

PRINT*,'ENTER VALUES O? PPO, PA, TPO, TSO, AS?'

READ*, PPO, PA, TPO, TSO, AS?

PRINT 120

120 FORMAT(' ?S MS M? MSU3 MSU? DSSU3 DSSU?

£ KFR TARSU3 TARSUP')

.C compute ideal flow miach number for primary nozzle

M3ID - ((??0**((X-1)/X)-1)*2/(X-1))**0.5

T3ID - T?0/(l+((X-l)*M3ID**2)/2)

C vary stagnation inlet pressure form 0.1 atm to 1 atm

DO 100 ^S - 0.2,0.99,0.02.

C calculate secondary flow mach number

MS - <((?A/?S)**((X-1)/X)-1)*2/(X-1))**0.5

C calculate primary flow mach number

M? - (((??0/?S)**((X-l)/X)-l)*2/(X-l))**0.5

C calculate primary and secondary flow conditions

TS - TS0/(1+((X-1)/2)*MS**2)

TP - T?0/(1+((X-1)/2)*M?**2)

APT- (1/K?**2) * ( (2/ (X+l) ) * (1+ ((K-1) /2) *MP**2)) ** ( (X+l) / (K-1))

CS - (X*R*TS)**0.5

CP - (K*R*T?)**0.5

US - MS*CS

UP - M?*CP
 RHOS - (PS/(R*TS))*101300

RHOP - (PS/(R*T?))*101300

determine mass flow rate ratio

MFR - AS?*(MS/M?)*((T?/TS)**0.5)

calculate pressure and temperature ratios

PRP - ^S/^0
PRS - PS/PA

TR? - TP/TPO

TRS - TS/TSO

N - X/(X-1)

Nl - ()c-l)/k

N2 - (X-l)/2

J- ((TR?* *0.5) * (((AS?+1) / (X*M?)) +M?) +MFR*MS* ((TS/TPO) **0.5))

& / ( (1+MFR* (TSO/TPO) ) * (1+MFR)) **0. 5

A - l-(J*-2)*(X-l)/2

3 - 2-X*(J**2)

DST - (3**2)-(4*A)

IF ( DET .LT. 0 ) TEEN

PRINT*, 'IMAGINARY SOLUTION

ELSE

compute s o l u t i o n s t o the flow at the end of mixing

MSU3 - ((-3-(DET**0.5))/(2*X*A))**0.5

MSU? - ((-3+(DET**0.5))/(2*X*A))**0.5

calculate flow conditions at end of mixing on the subsonic branch

TSU30 - (T?0+MFR*TS0)/(1+MFR)

XSU3 - (1+(N2*(M?**2)))/(1+(N2*(MSU3**2)))

2SU3 - (1+MFR) *M?*((TSUBO*XSUB/I?0)**0.5)/( (ASP+1) *MSUB)

TSU3 - TS*XSUB*TSUBO/TSO

PSU3 - ?S*2SUB

PSU30 - ((1+N2*(MSU3**2))**N)*PSUB

YSUB - TSUB/TP

KSU3 - TSUB/TS

Yl - YSUB
 90

Wl - WSUB
21 - ZSU3
DSSU3 - N*IOG(Y1)+N*MFR*LOG(W1)-(1+MFR) *LOG (21)
C calculate diffuser exit flow conditions for subsonic mixed flow
N3 - PSU30**N1

N4 - 2*((?SU30**N1)-1)
M3SU3 - (2*((?SU30**Nl)-l)/(k-l))**0.5
T3SU3 - TSU30/(l+((X-l)*M3SU3**2)/2)
C evaluate thrust aucmentation ratio for subsonic mixed flow
TARSU3 - (1+KFR)*M3SU3*(T3SU3**0.5)/(M3ID*(T3ID**0.5))
C calculate flow- conditions for supersonic mixed flow at end of mixing
XSU? - (1+N2*(M?**2))/(1+N2*(MSU?**2))
ZSU? « (1+MFR)*M?*((TSU30*XSU?/T?0)**0.5)/((ASP+1)*MSU?)
PSU? - ?S*ZSU?
?SU?0 « ((1+((X-1)*MSU?*'2)/2)**N)*?SUP
TSU? - TS*XSU?*(TSU30/TS0)
YSUP - TSUP/T?
KSU? - TSUP/TS
DSSU? - N*LOG (YSUP)+N*MFR*LOG (KSU?)-(1+MFR) *LOG(2SU?)
C calculate flow conditions for supersonic mixed flow at exit to
C the diffuser
M3SUP - (2*((PSU?0**(1/N))-1)/(X-1))**0.5
T3SU? - TSU30/(l+((X-l)*M3SU?**2)/2)
C evaluate the thrust augmentation ratio for the supersonic solution
TARSUP - (1+MFR)*M3SU?*(T3SU3**0.5)/(M3ID*(T3ID**0.5))

END IF

C output results corresponding to subsonic and supersonic solution

PRINT 150, BS, MS, MP, MSU3, MSUP, DSSUB, DSSU?, MFR, TARSU3,
& TARSUP
150 FORMAT(//,F5.3,2X,F6.4,2X,F6.4,2X,F7.4,2X,F6.4,lX,
& F8.4,1X,F8.4,1X,F7.4,2X,F6.4,2X,F6.4)

100 CONTINUE

END
 91

APPENDIX (C)

The following program was developed to calculate the velocity and pressure

profiles for the turbulent in the mixing chamber of the ejEctor. It used the equations

derived for the 2-D phase turbulent jet model of Abramovich.

PROGRAM TUR3L

This program calculates the velocity profiles and pressure *

profiles using the equations derived for the turbulent flow *
in the mixing chamber of the ejector based on the similarity *
found by A3Rr.M0VICH between the velocity profiles of a free *
jet and the velocity profile in the mixing chamber of the ejector *

C declaration of variables
DOU3LS PRECISION X,R, C, C3,?0?,?0S,TO?,TOS,AS?,
£ ARATIO ,KS,K?,?S,7S,T?,CS,C?,US,U?,R30S,RE0?
& , MFR, DENSRT, RATU3?, U3, DERTP3, UH, URATIO
& ,RN,Al,A2,KC,A, DELTX,XX,XRl, LS7R, XSTR
& ,DKS7K,RAD,Rl,EX,A1EX,UM,TEX, PDENRT
PARAMETER (X-1.4,R-287, C-0.18,CE-0.23,Al-0.258,A2«0.134)
C Input of stagnation conditions and area ratios
PRINT*,'ENTER VALUE OF PRIMARY N022LS RADIUS Rl'
READ*,R1
PRINT*,'ENTER VALUES OF P0?,P0S,TOP, TOS'
READ*,POP,POS,TOP, TOS
PRINT*,'ENTER AREA RATIO ASP-AS/AP '
READ*, ASP

C Inlet stagnation pressure is varied from 0.latin to 0.9atm

DO 100 PS-0.1,0.9,0.1
PRINT*, ' — —
PRINT*,' ?S" ',PS
PRINT*, '
 C Calculation of stagnation conditions for primary flow and
C secondary flow at inlet to the ejector
c *********************+*+***+**++*+++***+*•+***+*+***++*++.++*++*++*+

C Calculation of secondary flow mach number

MS-(((?0S/?S)**((X-l)/X)-1)*2/(X-l)) **0.5
PRINT*,'MS- ',MS
C Calculation of primary -flow mach number
MP-(((?0?/?S)** ((X-l)/X)-1)*2/(X-l)) **0.5
PRINT*,'MP- ',M?
C Calculation of secondary inlet static temperature
TS-TOS/(1+((X-l)/2)*MS**2)
PRINT*,'TS- ',TS

C Calculation of inlet static primay temperature

TP-TO?/(1+((X-l)/2)*M?**2)
PRINT*,'T?- ',T? '*
C Calculation of secondary and primary speed of sound
CS«(X'R*TS)"0.5
C?-(X*R*T?)"0.5
C Calculation of secondary and primary velocities
US=MS*CS
PRINT*,'US- ',US
U?-M?*C?
PRINT*,'UP- ',U?
C Calculation of secondary and primary densities
REOS-(?S/(R*TS))*101300
REOP-(?S/(R*T?))*101300
C Calculation of the mass flow ratio
MFR-AS?* (MS/M?) * ( (TP/TS) **0. 5)
PRINT*,'MFR- ',MFR
DENSRT-RHCP/REOS
.n ARATIO-1/AS?
RATU3P-ARATI0* (1+MFR*DENSRT) / (ARATIO+1)
PRINT*,'RATU3P- ',RATU3P
C U3 is the mixed flow velocity after complete mixing
U3-RATU3?*U?
PRINT*,'U3- ',U3
C density ratio between primary flow and completely mixed flow
C at station 3
DERTP3- (1+MFR*DENSRT) / (MFR+1)
c ****************************** **************** *********** ************

C This part of the program calculates EX

c ********************************************************************
C UH is the nominal velocity of wake flow
C
UH- (US**2* (1-2* (1-ARATI0*MFR) * (1-ARATI0*MFR*DENSRT) )
& /(ARATI0*MFR**2*DENSRT* (ARATIO+1) **2))**0.5
 URATIO-UH/U?

C The r a d i u s of t h e t r a n s i t i o n c r o s s s e c t i o n o f t h e jet
C
RN-(1/(A2+URATI0*(A1-A2)))**0.5

C The radius of the cross section at which excessv velocity

C is one half the initial excess velocity
C
RC-(4/(A2+URATIO*(2*Al-A2)))**0.5

C Distance between begining of main region and mean cross

C section
C
A-4*URATI0/ (1-URATIO)
DELTX- (RC-HN) / (2*C*LOG ( (2+2*A) / (2+A) ) )

C Distance from nozzle up to begining of main region

C
XN-A3S (1. 5* (1+URATIO) / (CE* (1-URATIO) * (0.1214+0.144
& *URATIO)**0.5))

C Dimensionless distance from transition cross sectionof jet

C
C LSTR-L/D, L«length of chamber, D« diameter of chamber

DO 200 LSTR-1,10,1
PRINT*,' *****•**************•*****/
PRINT*, ' LSTR- ',LSTR
PRINT*,' *••****.***.***.••********'
XR1-2*LSTR* (((ARATIO-^l) /ARATIO) **0.5)
XSTR* (XR1-XN) /DELTX
DRSTR-AES ((2*C/A) *LOG ( (2+A* (XSTR+1)) / (2+A) ) )
C Radius of free jet at cross section
C
RAD-(DRS7R*DELTX+RN)»R1
PRINT*,'RAD- ',RAD

EX-(R1/RAD)*(((ARATIO+1)/ARATIO)**0.5)
PRINT*,'EX- ',EX

A1EX-1-1.143*EX**1.5+0.4*EX**3

C UM is the center velocity at the cross section corresponding

C to the value of EX considered

UM- ( (U3-U3)/A1EX)+UH
PRINT*,'UM- ',UM

TEX-1+0.007*EX+0.95*EX**4

C PDENRT is the pressure to density ratio at..the cross_ section

C considered corresponding to the value of EX

PDENRT-(TEX-1)*(U3-UH)**2
PRINT*,'PDENRT- ', PDENRT

200 CONTINUE
c **************************************************************************

100 CONTINUE
END
 94

PROGRAM TEMP
REAL EX, N, M, 0, Y, I, A, B, AEX
INTEGER ITMAX, NROOT
REAL EPS, ERRABS, ERRREL, ETA, 2REAL, WRRRN
PARAMETER (NROOT-7)
INTEGER INFO (NROOT)
REAL F, X (NROOT), XGUESS (NROOT)
EXTERNAL F, 2REAL, WRRSN
C EXTERNAL F
PRINT*,' ENTER VALUES OF EX, N, M, 0, I '
READ*, EX, N, M, 0, I
AEX - 1-1.143*(EX**1.5)+0.4*(EX**3)
PRINT*, 'AEX- ', AEX
Y - EX**0.5
A =• 4*(I*(N*0+1)-M*(I+1))/(AEX*I*0*(N+1))
PRINT*, 'A- ', A
3 - 4*M*(I+1)/(I*0*(N+1))
PRINT*, '3- ', 3
C DECLARE VARIA3LES

C Set values of initial guess

C XGUZSS - (1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2)
C
DATA XGUESS/1.0,1.1,1.2,1.4,1.8,2.0,2.4/
C
EPS - 1.0E-5
ERRA3S - 1.0E-5
ERRREL - 1.0E-5
ETA - l.OE-2
ITMAX.- 100
C Find.the zeroes
CALL 2REAL (F, ERRABS, ERRREL, EPS, ETA, NROOT, ITMAX, XGUESS,
& X, INFO)
CALL WRRRN ('The zeroes are', 1, NROOT, X, 1, 0)

C WRITE (NOUT,200) (X(X), X-l,NROOT)

C200 FORMAT (' The solution to the system is ', X, ' - (',7F8.4, ' )')
 95

PRINT*, 'F(1.08)- ', F(1.08)

END

REAL FUNCTION F(X)

REAL X, 2

2 - LOG(((YrX)**2)/((Y**2)+X*Y+(X**2)))
& -2*(3**0.5)*ATAN(((2*Y)+X)/(X*(3**0.5)))

F - A*(((Y**7)/7)+(((X**3)-2)*(Y**4)/4)+(((X**3)-l)**2)
& *(Y+X*2/6))+3*(Y+X*2/6)-((Y**4)/(1-(X**3)))

RETURN

END