SF APL-TR-71-97, Vol, | Sena Ne [LIQUID INJECTION INTO A SUPERSONIC STREAM , 2 Gelaume ! ve C.L. Yates — Welz. 72-¢-dLol TECHNICAL REPORT AFAPL-TR-71-97 Vol. | MARCH 1972 ue f / 4 i = USAF, pt Com AIR FORCE AERO PROPULSION LABORATORY AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OhioCantracke Approved for Public ReleaseABSTRACT Photographic data were obtained for the transverse injection of water and isopropyl alcohol from a flat-plate into airstreams having Mach numbers of 1. 62 and 2.72. Jet/freestream dynamic pressure ratio, jet Reynolds and Weber numbers, and freestream Reynolds number were varied by factors of 8, 10, 11, and 3, respectively, in the jet penetration tests, and by factors of 23, 4, 9, and 5 in the jet spreading tests. Improved empirical equations for jet penetration and width were developed and were sub- stantiated for two sets of test conditions by detailed flow- field mapping 50 jet diameters downstream using pitot- pressure, cone-static-pressure, and heated sampling probes, Since the injectant spatial distributions from the two tests were nearly similar on a nondimensionalized scale, it may be possible to use these data to predict dis- tributions for other conditions, Finally, an improved theoretical analysis not only predicts jet penetration more accurately than previous ones, but also predicts the trans- verse distribution of injectant mass. - iii -Cantracke Approved for Public ReleaseAppLieD PHYSICS L 3 FOREWORD ‘This work was funded by the United States Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, Aero Propulsion Laboratory under MIPR Number APO 71-001, by transfer of funds to Naval Ordnance Systems Command Contract N00017-72-C-4401 under which The Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Applied Physics Laboratory operates. This unclassified report covers the results of the work on liquid injection into a supersonic stream. This re- port summarizes work conducted from January 1970 through September 1971 with some reference to work conducted from September 1968 through December 1969, Technical management for the Air Force was under Mr, John L, Leingang, Technical Manager, Advanced Com- ponent Technology, Ramjet Technology Branch, ‘The writer gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Mr. J. M. Cameron and Mr, H. B. Land, who conducted the experiments and developed the two-phase sampling ap- paratus. Thanks are due to Drs, G, L. Dugger and F. S. Billig for technical direction and guidance in the prepara- tion of the manuscript. aeCantracke ved for Public ReleaseSection I Section II Section III Section IV Section V CONTENTS List of Illustrations . Nomenclature . : : Introduction : : Experimental Setup and Measure- ment Techniques : 7 A. Test Model, Injectants, and Test Conditions. : B. Photographic Techniques . C. Mass-Sampling System and Pressure Probes : Experimental Results from Photography : A, Summary of Photographic Jet Penetration Results . B. Photographic Studies of Jet Boundary Spreading : C. Laser Photographs of Liquid Injection. : ‘ In-Stream Flowfield Measure- ment. i A, Evaluation of Mass-Sampling System ‘i B. Determination of Liquid Jet Flowfield . : : ‘Theoretical Studies of Jet Penetration i : A, General Features of Flow Model : : : B. Review of Existing Analy- ses 7 : ‘ rit ix xiii 13 13 18 23 27 27 30 47 47 54Section VI Section VII CONTENTS (cont'd) C. Present Analysis . D. Comparigon of Present Analysis to Data. Summary and Conclusions References Appendit Experimental Pres- sure Data and Flowfield Data Reduction Technique ~ viii - 87 61 6 79 8310 11 12 13 14 15 ILLUSTRATIONS Schematic Mlustration of Liquid Injection into a Supersonic Stream : : 2 Jet Penetration Test Apparatus Heated Mass-Sampling Probe Schematic . : : : 10 Two-Phase Mass-Sampling Probe MW Photograph of Pressure Probes i aL Effect of Variation of Parameters on Jet Penetration : : : 14 Comparisons of Empirical Predic- tions to Present Data. : : 15 Comparisons of Empirical Predic- tions for Penetration at x = 150 to Present Data. : : : 15 Photographs of Jet Spreading from 0,027-inch Orifice : : 19 ‘Typical Jet Spreading Results . : 20 Comparison of Jet Spreading Data to Existing Data and Correlation : 22 Photographs of Liquid Injection Flow- field Using Pulsed Ruby Laser : 25 Schematic of Test Apparatus for Mass-Sampling Probe Evaluation 28 Mass Composition Data for Lateral Plane at x = 50 7 7 : 32 Typical Pitot-Pressure Distributions for Various Levels above Plate Sur- face. ‘i 7 : : 34 ae16 17 18 1g 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 ILLUSTRA TIONS (cont'd) ‘Typical Jet Centerline Pressure Distributions. 7 . : Pressure and Mach Number Contours at x = 50 : 7 . : Mags Flux Contours at x = 50 . : Distribution of Injectant Mass at x = 50 - : : 7 Similarity of Dimensionless Injectant Mass Distributions =. ‘ : Approximate Jet Boundaries Deduced from Pitot-Pressure Data i ‘ Schematic Representation of Liquid Injection into Supersonic Stream Drag Coefficient for Right Circular Cylinder : Jet Breakup as a Function of Breakup Parameter . . . Comparisons of Existing Theoretical Predictions to Present Data. . Effect of Drag Model on Predicted Jet Penetration : : . Comparison of Empirical and Theo- retical Jet Trajectories : : Comparison of Experimental and Theo- retical Accumulative Distributions for Injectant Mass : : Comparison of Empirical and Theo- retical Jet Trajectories Using Im- proved Jet Breakup Model. : 35 37 40 42 43 46 48 51 53 56 62 64 66 6930 at ILLUSTRA TIONS (cont'd) Comparison of Experimental and Theo- retical Accumulative Distribution for Injectant Mass Using Improved Jet Breakup Model 7 ‘ : Comparison of Experimental and Theo- retical Distributions for Injectant Mass ‘i i : ‘ Comparison of Improved Jet Breakup Model with Clark's Data : Pitot-Pressure Data. a ‘i Cone-Static-Pressure Data. : -xi- iat 72 73 84 87Cantracke Approved for Public Releaseqa NOMENCLATURE less jet cross-sectional area, A orifice discharge coefficient drag coefficient pressure coefficient, C, = (p-p..)/Ge: stagna- tion point pressure coefficient 0,5, effective orifice diameter, dy = Cy" °d; geometric orifice diameter normal force on jet element percentage of injectant mass located at y; per- centage of injectant mass located below y local mass of jet element Mach number Molecular weight local coordinate normal to jet centerline static pressure pressure sensed by emerging jet cone-static pressure pitot pressure dynamic pressure, 9 = pV"/2; dynamic pres- sure ratio, q# 4,/@,; and ratio a! jet centerline radius of curvature gas constant Reynolds number, R, = oveslu > xiii -> Y a ° p. o Subscripts ALR local coordinate tangential to jet centerline; distance along 8; and dimensionless distance, 82 5/4, temperature velocity local jet width; and dimensionless jet width, w wie, mass flow rate Weber number W, = eva, Jo downstream distance from orifice center and dimensionless distance, x x/d, mole fraction of species i vertical distance above flat-plate surface; and dimensionless distance, y ylay mass fraction of species i lateral distance from orifice (flat-plate center- line); and dimensionless distance z= Z/4, local angle of jet centerline from horizontal jet breakup parameter jet breakup variable; and jet breakup variable at initiation of disintegration specific heat ratio viscosity angular displacement from jet stagnation point density; and density ratio, p = 0/0. surface tension species air and refrigerant-11 (injectant), respectively ~ xiv -B,C jet boundary and centerline conditions, respec- tively initial jet conditions conditions after jet interaction shock plenum conditions freestream conditions eeeCantracke Approved for Public ReleaseSECTION I INTRODUCTION ‘The fuel distribution achieved by transverse liquid injection into a supersonic airstream (Fig. 1) is of interest for the design of supersonic combustion ramjet engines, In prior experiments photographic techniques have generally been used to measure transverse penetration of the jet bound- ary for both subsonic (Refs. 1-3) and supersonic (Refs. 4-10)) gas streams, and/or jet boundary lateral spreading (Refs. 2, 5, 7, and 9-11). Ingebo's (Ref. 12) use of a mass- sampling probe is a singular case in which in-stream mea- surements have been previously applied to liquid injection. These past studies produced several empirical formulas for predicting jet penetration (Refs. 1, 2, 7, 9, and 12) and jet spreading (Refs. 2, 7, 9, and 11), Theoretical studies, however, have had the limited goal of predicting jet boundary penetration only. Theoretical models gen- erally fall into two categories: those that assume the jet to be a solid body (Ref. 6) and those that include the ef- fects of jet disintegration and distortion (Refs. 3, 8, and 13), The more successful models depend heavily upon empiricism, The existing correlations and models often yield conflicting predictions of the absolute and relative impor- tance of fluid properties such as injectant viscosity and surface tension. In fact, the ranges of conditions tested in many experiments are insufficient to allow the evalua- tion of property effects. The objectives of the present program were to advance the understanding of the prob- lem of liquid injection by: (a) testing through wide ranges of syetem properties, (b) using more comprehensive ex- perimental techniques to identify and evaluate the pro- cesses and properties that control the disintegration of a liquid jet column, and (c) relating these processes to the resultant spatial distribution of the injectant.