Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:08:23.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development of the impulse and thrust for laminar starting jets with finite discharged volume

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

Lei Gao*
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sichuan University, Chengdu610065, PR China
Xin Wang
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sichuan University, Chengdu610065, PR China
Simon C. M. Yu
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Division of Aeronautical and Aviation Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China
Minking K. Chyu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA15261, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: lei.gao@scu.edu.cn

Abstract

In order to elucidate the physical connection between the propulsive performance and the unsteadiness of jet flow, the transient development of the impulse and thrust of laminar starting jets with finite fluid discharged is investigated numerically for cases with different velocity programmes and jet stroke ratios. The simulation quantitatively demonstrates that the impulse and thrust generated are highly sensitive to the jet kinematics and its near-wake dynamics. The momentum flux contribution to the jet impulse is found to be significant and is associated closely with the jet kinematics. On the other hand, although the over pressure effect at the jet initiation stage has been identified previously as the main reason for the enhanced propulsive performance of the starting jet, the current results indicate that its contribution is in fact weakened by the negative local pressure, induced by the formation of the leading vortex ring as well as jet development during the deceleration stage. Contrary to the effects of the leading vortex ring, the stopping vortex formed near the nozzle exit plane during the jet deceleration stage is found to contribute positively to the pressure impulse production, albeit it is relatively small. By augmenting the over pressure effect and mitigating the negative-pressure effect, the cases with the fast acceleration and slow deceleration velocity programme is capable of producing the maximum pressure impulse, leading to additional impulse production over what would be expected from the jet momentum flux alone.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1.Schematics of computational domain and boundary conditions for the starting jet flow simulation.

Figure 1

Table 1.Summary of simulation parameters for the starting jet with different velocity programmes and stroke ratios.

Figure 2

Figure 2.Jet velocity programmes for the cases with ${L_m}/D = 2$. ‘FAD’ indicates the fast acceleration and deceleration velocity programme; ‘VAD’ indicates the variable acceleration and deceleration velocity programme; and ‘FAD’ indicates the fast acceleration and slow deceleration velocity programme.

Figure 3

Figure 3.Temporal variation of the normalized hydrodynamic impulse against the formation time for the three velocity programme cases at (a) ${L_m}/D = 1.5$, (b) ${L_m}/D = 2$, (c) ${L_m}/D = 4$ and (d) ${L_m}/D = 6$.

Figure 4

Figure 4.The evolution of various impulse quantities for the cases with FAD velocity programme at (a) ${L_m}/D = 2$ and (b) ${L_m}/D = 6$. The blue dash-dotted reference lines indicate the growth rate of ${I_u}$ from the slug model.

Figure 5

Figure 5.Evolution of thrust and impulse due to pressure contribution as functions of the formation number: (a) ${f_p}$ for the cases with ${L_m}/D = 2$, (b) ${I_p}$ for the cases with ${L_m}/D = 2$, (c) ${f_p}$ for the cases with ${L_m}/D = 6$, and (d) ${I_p}$ for the cases with ${L_m}/D = 6$.

Figure 6

Figure 6.The variation of (a) the pressure impulse per pulse and (b) the percentage of pressure impulse in the jet impulse as functions of jet stroke ratio ${L_m}/D$ for the three velocity programmes. The red dashed line indicates the line of zero total pressure impulse.

Figure 7

Figure 7.Vorticity contours for cases (a) with FAD velocity programme and ${L_m}/D = 2$, (b) with FASD velocity programme and ${L_m}/D = 2$, (c) with FAD velocity programme and ${L_m}/D = 6$, and (d) with FASD velocity programme and ${L_m}/D = 6$. The blue solid lines indicate the positive-vorticity contours and red dashed lines indicate the negative-vorticity contours. The thick black lines indicate the nozzle wall.

Figure 8

Figure 8.The evolution of the pressure field for cases with the fast acceleration (i.e. the FAD and FASD velocity programmes). The blue solid lines indicate the positive-pressure contours and red dashed lines indicate the negative-pressure contours. The thick black lines indicate the nozzle wall.

Figure 9

Figure 9.The evolution of (a) the pressure field, (b) the streamline patterns and (c) velocity vector plots for case 14 with the FAD velocity programmes and ${L_m}/D = 6$. The thick black lines indicate the nozzle wall. In the pressure contour figures, the blue solid lines indicate the positive-pressure contours and red dashed lines indicate the negative-pressure contours.

Figure 10

Figure 10.The distribution of pressure coefficient at the nozzle exit plane for the starting jets with the FAD velocity programme and the stroke ratio ranging from 1.5 to 5 at (a) the beginning and (b) the end of the jet deceleration stage. Pressure coefficient is defined as ${C_p} = 2p/\rho U_m^2$.