1048 G. D. WALDMAN AND W. G.

REINECKE AIAA JOURNAL

2 8
Reinecke, W. G. and Waldman, G. D., "Particle Trajec- Lees, L., "Laminar Heat Transfer over Blunt-Nosed Bodies
tories, Heating, and Breakup in Hypersonic Shock Layers," at Hypersonic Flight Speeds," Jet Propulsion, Vol. 26, April
AIAA Paper 69-712, San Francisco, 1969. 1956, p.259.
3
Probstein, R. F. and Fassio, F., "Dusty Hypersonic Flows," 9
Rose, P. H. and Stark, W. J., "Stagnation Point Heat Trans-
AIAA Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 1970, pp. 772-779. fer Measurements in Dissociated Air," Journal of the Aerospace
4
Nicholson, J., "Drop Breakup by Airstream Impact," Sciences, Vol. 25, Feb. 1958, p. 86.
Rain Erosion and Associated Phenomena, Rept. N68-19401-427, 10
Reinecke, W. G. and McKay, W. L., "Experiments on Water
1967, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, England, Drop Breakup Behind Mach 3 to 12 Shocks," AVATD-0172-69-
pp. 342-369. RR, June 1969, Avco Corp., Wilmington, Mass.
5
Ranger, A. and Nicholls, J., "Aerodynamic Shattering of 11
Liquid Drops," AIAA Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, Feb. 1969, pp. 285- Reinecke, W. G. and Waldman, G. D., "An Investigation of
290.6 Water Drop Disintegration in the Region Behind Strong Shock
Inouye, M., "Shock Standoff Distance For Equilibrium Flow Waves," 3rd International Conference on Rain Erosion and
Around Hemispheres Obtained From Numerical Calculations," Related Phenomena, Hampshire, England, Aug. 1970.
12
AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1965, p. 172. Shanks, D., "Non-linear Transformations of Divergent and
7
Seiff, A., "Recent Information on Hypersonic Flow Fields," Slowly Convergent Sequences," Journal of Mathematics and
Gasdynamics in Space Exploration, SP-24, NASA, 1962. Physics, Vol. 34,1955, pp. 1-42.

JUNE 1971 AIAA JOURNAL VOL. 9, NO. 6

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

A Unified Analysis of Gaseous Jet Penetration

F. S. BlLLIG,* R. C. ORTH,t AND M. LASKYj
The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab., Silver Spring, Md.

The strengths and weaknesses of various physical and mathematical concepts that have
been employed in the development of theories concerning transverse gaseous jet penetration
into a supersonic stream are discussed in relation to the latest experimental results reported
in the literature. A new unified model that provides excellent agreement with measured flow
field properties is presented. The development of this model rests on the similarity that
exists between a jet discharging into a quiescent medium and a jet discharging into crossflow.
By the suitable definition of an "effective back pressure," a correlation is obtained between
the normal distance to the center of the Mach disk and the ratio of injection pressure to ef-
fective back pressure. Other correlations are used to obtain the size and shape of the initial
portion of the jet, which permit the calculation of a) the complete trajectory of the injectant
and b) a one-dimensional approximation of the mass-averaged properties at any point along
the trajectory downstream of the Mach disk.

Nomenclature r =s jet radius

Rc = local radius of curvature for jet trajectory
A = area s = distance along jet trajectory
AP - projected area T — temperature
CP — pressure coefficient = (p — pa}/qa u — velocity
CP* = stagnation pressure coefficient defined by Eq. (6b) W = Mach disk diameter (Fig. 8)
D = jet diameter x — axial distance measured from center of injection port
Dj* = diameter of jet orifice at sonic point y = normal distance from point of injection
FN = normal force on jet element (Fig. 8) 2/i = normal distance to center of Mach disk (Fig. 4)
Fx = defined as fAxpdA y — maximum ordinate of Mach disk (Fig. 8)
h = enthalpy [Eq. (4)] z. — lateral distance measured from center of injection port
h = radius of quarter sphere-half cylinder injection model a = local angle of freestream flow (Fig. 1)
hf = diameter of spherical nosed cylinder injection model a = defined in Eq. (27) (Fig. 8)
h = ordinate of jet center of mass d = local angle of jet centerline (Fig. 1)
K = constant denned in Eq. (42) 8 — local angle of jet surface in plane of symmetry
m — mass T = function defined by Eq. (12b)
M = Mach number 7 — ratio of specific heats
p = pressure
Peb — effective back pressure = %pt'a Superscript
ptr - pitot pressure (—) = averaged one-dimensional property at a particular
PJ* = pressure at sonic point in jet orifice station
q = dynamic pressure = puz/2
Subscripts
Presented as Paper 70-93 at the AIAA 8th Aerospace Sciences a = undisturbed freestream conditions at upstream edge of
Meeting, New York, January 19-21, 1970; submitted August control volume (Fig. 1)
11, 1970; revision received December 14, 1970. This work b = freestream conditions at downstream edge of control
was supported by NASA Office of Aeronautical Research, Ad- volume (Fig. 1)
vanced Research and Technology under Contract N00017- c = jet stream conditions at downstream edge of control
62-C-0604 with the Department of the Navy. volume (Fig. 1)
* Supervisor Hypersonic Ramjets Project. Associate Fellow j = jet conditions at point of injection (Fig. 1)
AIAA. j\ = jet diameter for ptj/pta = 1"'(Fig. 11)
t Engineer, Hypersonic Ramjets Project. Ax = axial direction of surface integration on jet-freestream
} Associate Mathematician, Hypersonic Ramjets Project. boundary (Fig. 1)
 JUNE 1071 A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF GASEOUS JET PENETRATION 1049

CB = normal direction of surface integration on control bound- CONTROL BOUNDARY

ary (Fig. 1)
N = normal direction of surface integration on jet-freestream
boundary (Fig. 1)
WP = normal direction of surface integration on freestream-
wall boundary (Fig. 1)
WS — normal direction of surface integration on jet-wall
boundary (Fig. 1)
t = total conditions
oo = ambient conditions in a quiescent medium
1 = conditions ahead of the Mach disk (Fig. 8)
2 = conditions aft of the Mach disk (Fig. 8)
3 = conditions at point where jet pressure drops to pa (Fig. 8)

Introduction

D URING the past several years considerable attention

has been given to the problem of the interaction caused
by the transverse injection of a gas into a supersonic stream.
Fig. 1 Generalized model configuration for gaseous sec-
ondary injection into a supersonic freestream.

The earlier work was concerned with alteration of the sur-

face pressure field to produce desired aerodynamic forces, judicious choice of these particular points in the flowfield
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

e.g., thrust vector control in rocket nozzles. More recently, that enables the success of the subsequent unified analysis.
fuel injection into a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) Letting subscripts a and b refer to primary flow conditions
has been of principal interest. Whereas in the former case, across areas Aa and Ab in Fig. 1, and subscripts j and c refer
very general approximations of the flowfield yield adequate to jet conditions across areas A3- and AC) the simplified forms
estimates for the side force,l~5 a much more rigorous descrip- of the equations are:
tion of the interaction zone must be given to obtain a realistic
definition of the mass distribution in the scramjet combustor. Mass conservation
In Ref. 6 a solid body drag model was introduced and was paUaAa (la)
used to calculate the trajectory of either a matched pressure
or overexpanded jet and the portion of the trajectory down- db)
stream of the Mach disk in an underexpanded jet. Recent Axial momentum conservation
tests7"11 of underexpanded jets with both sonic and supersonic
injection have provided the data that permits the extension paAa — SAxpdA — pbAb coso: =
of the previous method to define the complete trajectory of (2a)
the underexpanded jet. The intent of this paper is to
formulate the problem in rather general terms, discuss the j cos5y + fAapdA — pcAc cos5 =
limitations of some of the earlier work and present a new
unified model of the interaction zone which overcomes the c cos5 — j cos5y (2b)
deficiencies of its predecessors. Normal momentum conservation
The general character of the flowfield of an underexpanded
sonic or supersonic jet discharging into a supersonic primary fNpdA + fWPpdA - pbAb sina =
flow is depicted in Fig. 1. The principal feature in the (3a)
secondary jet is the barrel shock structure which terminates
in a Mach disk and is followed by a less clearly defined ex- PjAj sin5y — fNpdA + fwspdA — pcAc sin5 =
pansion zone. This resembles the structure of an under-
expanded jet discharging into a quiescent medium except pcUc*Ac sin5 — pjUj2Aj sindj (3b)
that the whole secondary flow is partially bent over by the Energy conservation
main flow. The structure in the primary flow is essentially
that caused by a blunt-body interaction. To render this (4a)
complex problem tractable, certain assumptions must be (4b)
made, viz,, shear, heat addition, heat transfer, and mixing
are neglected in this region. The assumption that no mixing The sets of equations for the primary flow and the jet are
occurs may appear to be overly restrictive, but the subse- coupled in that the / pdA terms on the common boundaries of
quent analysis will show that the exchange of normal momen- the stream appear in both sets of the momentum equations.
tum occurs in the near region of the injector, and both primary Whether or not the two sets of equations must be solved
and secondary flow are nearly coaxial before substantial simultaneously depends on the boundary conditions that are
mixing occurs. Thus, the solution of the over-all problem assumed. To clarify this point we will examine some of the
of the fuel-air distribution in a scramjet combustor may con- approaches taken by previous authors to solve this problem.
sist of a solution for the interaction zone to provide the Zukoski and Spaid2"5 introduced the model shown in Fig. 2a,
necessary input for a second analysis of a problem of mixing wherein the effective shape of the injectant is represented as
of parallel (but not uniform) streams. a quarter sphere of radius h followed by an axisymmetric
half body. Solutions were obtained at a downstream station
Analysis of the Interaction Problem in the flow where, in addition to the assumptions made
above, it was assumed that the secondary jet had expanded
To solve the interaction problem, the integral forms of the to PC = Pb = pa. Referring to Fig. 1 and Eqs. (1-4), this
two sets of the conservation equations are written, one for model corresponds to a = 8 = 0 ° , 6y = 90° and Ac = .irh*/2.
the primary stream and one for the secondary. Each set of Zukoski and Spaid then made two additional assumptions:
equations includes the scalar energy and continuity equations 1) the pressure on the quarter sphere due to the primary
and the vector momentum equation. If stations in the flow flow can be calculated by use of modified Newtonian flow,
field are chosen wherein the flow properties can be considered and 2) the injectant expands isentropically to the ambient
to be represented by some suitable average value, then con- pressure. However, these two constraints on the problem
siderable simplicity is introduced in the solution. It is the are contradictory and the solution obtained by arbitrarily
 1050 BILLIG, ORTH, AND LASKY AIAA JOURNAL

viz;
Newtonian drag model :
Ft = Acpa(M 0 4)/4 (7a)
TOP VIEW
I sentr opic flow model :

Ma !" \
l'
With these expressions the relationships for (Ac/Aj)112 are,
respectively,
Newtonian Drag Model
(V X

A \ 1/2 / .*). iyr A 1/2 / /y. \ 1/4

SIDE VIEW SIDE VIEW _£ l _ I 2. — _- 1 ( l V
(a) QUARTER SPHERE-HALF CYLINDER (b) SPHERICAL NOSED CYLINDER Ay/ \ Pa Ma) \7aCp* J

Fig. 2 Models of the effective shape of the injectant caus-

ing blunt body interaction in the freestream. (8a)

and Isentropic Flow Model

combining intermediate equations from the two cases, i.e.,
cr-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

/2«fc\ = /M1'2 = _L[PS yj. A 2

V Dt ) \Aj) Malpa ya CP*] 2

2 "(-w+DAT,— D l 2 + (7,- -
2
Jt T'T/P'A(71
(5a) iJ Lw
With 7,, = yj ~ 1.4, this becomes (8b)
For 7,- = 1.4, and My = 1, Eq. (8b) yields

<»> ( I) -"""fe) [(£) -1"1~

A \ 1/2 /#, \ 3 / 7 r/fl,.\ 2 / 7
] »"
1/4

is mathematically and physically inconsistent. Here D3 is

the effective port diameter and thus includes the effect of a In the subsequent discussion the "effective back pressure"
discharge coefficient not equal to one which appeared in the model introduced in Ref. 6 will be expanded to describe in
original work. Moreover this and many of the following detail the structure of the secondary jet and the interaction
expressions are expressed in terms of (Ac/Aj)112 to show that with the primary stream. At this point in the discussion,
the solutions need not be restricted to the particular model however, only the general character of the model needs to be
shown in Fig. 2a. For example, Eqs. (5a and 5b) would be considered to establish a correspondence with the above
of the same form for the spherical forebody and cylindrical simpler models. In this model it is assumed that along the
afterbody with diameter h' shown in Fig. 2b, except (Ac/ centerline of the jet the flow expands isentropically from the
•4y)1/2 = (h'/Di). The pressure coefficient, Cp* corresponds orifice to a Mach disk (See Fig. 1) and is then recompressed
to the stagnation pressure behind a normal shock in the by a normal shock to a static pressure peb = %pt'a, where
primary flow, i.e., pt'a is the Pitot pressure in the primary flow.§ Along other
streamlines in the secondary flow in this region the expansion
and recompression to peb is not easily defined; thus, em-
X pirically derived expressions for a) the Mach disk location and
b) the cross-sectional area distribution are used to obtain the
(6a) average properties of the flow just downstream of the Mach
faMa* - 7« + I/ "~ *] disk. These expressions, which will be substantiated in the
subsequent discussion are, respectively,
and for ya = 1.4
2 /2
W2 (9)
(_,n_ * = l/8.933M
————— 0 V 1
l — ————— (6b)
(I;)12 = ^ = l + L451n(£) [1 ~
Note that in the derivation of Eq. (5a), as well as in the sub- (10)
sequent analysis, the assumption of calorically perfect gases Substituting (9) into (10) and using the continuity expression
with constant specific heats is made so the simpler relation- permits the definition of the average Mach number at station
ships would be obtained. Fortuitously, the results from 2, viz.,
Eq. (5a) adequately describe certain limited experimental
observations, which probably explains why a number of
subsequent publications have adopted this relationship with- (11)
out rederivation. On the other hand, taken individually,
both the Newtonian drag model and the isentropic flow model where
have some merit and have served as a basis for subsequent = 1+
refinements by others. For example, in Ref. 12 Newtonian
drag over the spherical nosed cylinder (Fig. 2b) was used (12a)
but the boundary condition Mc = 1 instead of pc = pa was
made. In the subsequent discussion it will be shown that § In Refs. 7 and 9, peb was set equal to 80% of the static
this is in marked disagreement with experimental measure- pressure behind a normal shock in the primary flow. Substanti-
ments. ating arguments can be made for either assumption for peb, but
The solution for either case is obtained from Eqs. (Ib, 2b, for the most conditions of interest the difference is trivial; e.g.,
and 4b), using the appropriate expressions for Fx = fAxpdA, for 7a = 1.4 and 1.75 < M0 < 8.6, the difference is less than 8%.
 JUNE 1971 A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF GASEOUS JET PENETRATION 1051

(7, - (12b)
(13a)

and
(V7.Jf.V2ir.WU -•>
Downstream of the Mach disk the flow is assumed to be uni-
dimensional and expands isentropically to pc = pa. The
over-all area ratio is then given by
/AeV/ 2 _ /Ac\/2 /AaV" /rcVTJ- x
U/ ~ w UJ "w
(15)
where
0.5 1.0 5.0
INJECTION-FREESTREAM PRESSURE RATIO (P t j/P t a )
Solutions for matched-pressure jets (i.e., PJ = £u) and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

overexpanded jets (PJ < peb) were discussed in detail in Refs. Fig. 3 Comparison of injectant area ratio for various jet
6 and 1 1 and therefore will not be included herein. However, penetration models.
it now appears that the assumption of an elliptical cross-
sectional area for the jet which is appropriate for very low
Ma should be changed to circular for Ma > 1. Moreover, Figure 3 compares the results for (Ac/Aj)112 vs Ptj/pta from
low values of PJ relative to peb are generally not encountered Eqs. (5, 8, 15, 18 and 20) for the case Ma = 2.7, M,- = 1.0,
in typical cross stream injection systems. ya = yy- = 1.4. The items of particular significance are:
Before comparing expressions (5, 8, and 15), it is appropri- 1) the hybrid model of Zukoski and Spaid predicts greater
ate to determine the minimum and maximum values of penetration than either of its two genera; 2) the isentropic
(Ac/Aj)112 consistent with the above constraints. The mini- expansion model violates the condition of maximum Fx at
mum value of (Ac/Aj)112 corresponds to the maximum pos- Ptj/pta > 0.75, thus for higher pressure ratios this model
sible value of Fx which would occur if the freestream Pitot would require Ac to be greater than the projected area; 3)
pressure pt'a acted on the complete projected area, Ax, the range of possible values for (Ac/Aj)112 varies by a factor
which would be equal to Ac if Ac is in contact with the plate, of 3, and 4) the dependence of (Ac/Aj)112 on ptj/pta for ph-/
i.e., Pta> 0.8 is reasonably well represented for all of the models
by (Ac/Aj)112 = (ptj/pta)m where m — 0.5 for all cases except
*- x • I pa/**. — _ 2) (17) the Maximum Loss (m = 0.51) and the Isentropic Flow
(m = 0.33).
In Table 1 some of the other properties of the flow at sta-
tion c are given for the particular case of pt3-/pta = 5. Note
that the total pressure recovery in the secondary jet varies
from <1% for the maximum loss case to ^15% for the
(18) maximum Fx case. The corresponding average pressures
on the projected frontal area for the possible solutions vary
112
The maximum value of (Ac/Aj) corresponds to a situation from 1.22 to 9.86 pa. Except for the Newtonian drag model
wherein the total pressure loss in the secondary jet is also (and presumably for a rederived version of the Zukoski and
maximum. For inviscid adiabatic flow in the jet and pc = Spaid model) the shape of both the forebody and the section
Pb = pa, the maximum loss would occur if all of the jet ex- at c have no effect on the other properties at c. The New-
panded isentropically to a pressure < pa and then recom- tonian-flow results are only applicable for either a quarter-
pressed to pa through a single normal shock; i.e., the normal sphere or hemisphere forebody; blunter forebody shapes
shock would be located at station c. To obtain this solution would have larger Fx and would give results closer to the
the Mach number M i ahead of the shock is first obtained from maximum drag cases; more streamlined shapes would yield
larger Ac/Aj.
MS = [(7, + l)(p./P«y) IY»Aw-i>+ T, _ i]/(2T,) (19) With Fx defined and pi = pc = pa, it is now also possible
and is then substituted into the isentropic flow relationship to find all of the properties in the primary stream at b for a
defined a (e.g., a = 0) by solving Eqs. (la, 2a, and 4a).
1
> (20) Thus it is apparent that the same set of equations (la, 2a,
4a, Ib, 2b, and 4b) could have been solved for another specified
boundary condition different than pb = pc = pa. A particu-
Table 1 Downstream properties of flow for various lar case of interest is the enclosed duct, the control boundary
models; Ma = 2.7; Mj = I.Q9 py/pta = 5.0; ya = jj = 1.4 follows the walls of the duct thus Ab + Ac is known. Wu
and Aoyama13 considered this problem, but instead of using
Model
Maximum loss
(Ac/Ajy-
12.97
:

0.39
Mc
p
Pa
fAxpdA
paAc

1.22
?.
0.01
any of the above models they assumed that Fx could be de-
rived from the pressure variation along the axis of an under-
expanded jet. This model must be a poor one, because the
Zukoski & Spaid 6.41 1.39 3.72 0.03 pressure field acting on the jet boundary is dependent on the
Newtonian drag 5.43 1.78 5.43 0.05 conditions behind a strong shock in the external flow, and the
Effective back internal structure of the jet adjusts correspondingly to match
pressure 4.51 2.31 8.46 0.11 this pressure. This can easily be shown in the case of the
Maximum A xfpdA 4.22 2.52 9.86 0.15 underexpanded jet discharging into a quiescent medium,
Isentropic flow 2.99 3.80 21.25° 1.00 wherein the pressure on the jet surface is the external pressure
1
Greater than pt,a. and the centerline pressure decreases monotonically from the
 1052 BILLIG, ORTH, AND LASKY AIAA JOURNAL
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

INTERACTION
SHOCK

MACH DISK

Peb = P« MACH DISK

Fig. 4 Shock structure for underexpanded gaseous injection into still air and into a supersonic crossflow.

orifice pressure to a level considerably below the ambient To avoid having to apply such arbitrary constraints to this
pressure prior to passing through a normal shock. problem it is necessary to consider in more detail the fine
At this point there is a temptation to relate (Ac/A,)172 to structure of the secondary jet. In Refs. 7, 8, and 11 the
some measurable physical dimension of the flowfield. For similarity of the structure of an underexpanded jet dis-
example, if the semicircular section with radius h of Refs. 2-5 charging into a quiescent medium and that with crossflow
is used, and if it is assumed that the semicircle rests on the was pointed out. Figure 4 compares schlieren photographs
surface, then the "dimensionless effective jet height" and the and the corresponding schematic illustrations for a) sonic
dimensionless center of mass are given by h/Dj* = 0.7071 discharge into still air, and b) sonic discharge into a Mach
(Ac/Ay)1/2, and h/Dj* = 0.300 (Ac/A,-)1/2, respectively. 2.72 airstream. Although, there is some distortion with
The choice of the semicircular cross section was arbitrary, crossflow, the same general barrel-shock structure, terminat-
and experimental measurements (Ref. 4, Fig. 6, and Ref. 11, ing in a Mach disk, is present. Grist et al.,15 presented data
Fig. 14) indicate that a circular cross section, not necessarily for sonic injection into a quiescent medium for six different
in contact with the surface, is probably more representative. gases with 1.18 < 7,- < 1.67 and 536 < Ttj < 7560°R.
Disregarding this qualification, and assuming contact with Values of y\/D* from these data have been plotted vs pj*/pm
the surface, the "effective jet height" would be h/Dj* = in Fig. 5a, where pm is the external pressure. Similar data
(Ac/Ay)172, and the center of mass would be h/Dj* = 0.5 from Adamson and Nicholls,16 Love and Grigsby,17 and new
(Ac/Ay)1/2. It could be argued, therefore, that favorable data we have obtained for supersonic injection into a quiescent
correlations with data based on a semicircular section and a medium, 1.5 < Mj < 3.0 are plotted vs MjJlzpj*/pm in Fig.
model yielding a relatively high (A c /Ay) 1/2 may in fact be less 5b. Also shown as a solid line on both figures is the relation-
justifiable on physical grounds than a similar correlation ship yi/Dj* = Mjll4(pj*/pCz)11*, which adequately represents
based on a circular section and model having a lower (Ac/ the data for both sonic and supersonic injection. More
Ay)1/2. It is apparent therefore, that by suitable redefinition complex expressions for yi/Dj* are given by Love and
of the downstream shape a significant change in h/Dj* or Grigsby17 for their data, but their expressions do not yield as
h/Dj* can be obtained and agreement of data could be close agreement with the composite of data shown in Figs.
benefically affected. This was done in Ref. 14 for the isen- 5a and 5b. By adopting a suitable definition of an effective
tropic flow model with the assumption that the downstream back pressure, i.e., peb — f 2V«, it is possible to extend this
shape is the projection of a cone with its small end resting correlation to the crossflow case. Data from several
on the surface and with its large end capped with a hemi- sources4'7'9-18 together with data recently obtained by the
sphere. Errors in the derivation of Fx are, however, present writers are shown in Fig. 6. Again the correlation y\/D* =
in Ref. 14. My1/4 (pj*/peb)11* appears to be justified for 1.0 < Mj < 2.2
 JUNE 1971 A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF GASEOUS JET PENETRATION 1053

and 1.9 < Ma < 4.5. Missing from Fig. 6 are the extensive 105,

data from Ref. 10, which includes effects of stagnation tem-

perature and molecular weight, because these data are based
on the "top" of the barrel shock rather than the center of
the Mach disk. Once the more complete description of the
jet structure is explained, a comparison with the latter data
104
will be made.
To obtain the downstream displacement of the Mach disk,
xi, data from the experiments referred to in Fig. 6 were ex-
amined. Attempts to correlate these data with several of
the important physical parameters were made and the best
collapsing of the data was obtained in the plot of x\/y\ as a
103
function of Ma/Mj. This correlation is shown in Fig. 7
with the empirical relationship

suitably chosen so as to approximate the data and permit

xi/yi -> 0 as Ma -> 0 as must be the case for discharge into a
quiescent medium. EXPERIMENTAL DATA-REF 15
To define the trajectory of the centerline and the angular
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

• NITROGEN, TO = 298°K
orientation of the flow at the Mach disk, the trajectory shape • ARGON 298°K

is assumed to be parabolic in this region, i.e., * HELIUM 298°K

O C02 298° K
y/Df = (22) * FREON 22 298°K
~NITROGEN,TO = 2,ioo°K —
so that 0 NITROGEN 4,200°K
A HELIUM 1.400°K
d = arctan[i(y/Z)y*)/(fl:/D,*)] (23) # HELIUM-ARGON 1,400°K

and from Eq. (21)

= d% = arctan[0. (24) 10°
10° 103
Yl/Dj*
Downstream of the Mach disk the trajectory of the jet is
only weakly dependent on the internal structure of the jet Fig. 5a Correlation of Mach disk height with pressure
and the concept of the turning of an effective solid body ratio for sonic injection into a quiescent medium.
introduced in Ref. 6 can conveniently be used to calculate
its shape. The momentum equation normal to the jet center-
line is solved (Fig. 8). In differential form this equation can
be expressed as: 1UU
•y
80 - EXPERIMENT 41, DATA */m
(25)
Uj Jit /•
60 _____ • 1.5
/ l
A 2.0
where Cp is the averaged pressure coefficient acting on the • 2.5
(REF. 16 AND 17)
projected area of the upstream facing surface of the jet. On «3.0 A
40
the downstream surface the pressure is assumed to be equal T 1.6 T HIS WORK f

to pat thus Cp = 0 on this area. The local pressure coefficient

is taken as
SOLIDSYMBO LS-REF. 16
OPEN SYMBOL.S-REF. 17 A /
SUVi (26)
o
where 6 = d + d is the local inclination of the surface and

a = arctan (27)
d(8/Dj

y
£-10

The average value of the pressure coefficient is taken to be

2 °
the same as the Newtonian about a cylinder, i.e., CP = /
2Cp/3. The pressure acts on a projected area 6

/
=<«•+!) dd (28) 4

and ds = dx/cosd = dy/s'md. These relationships can be

substituted into Eq. (25) to yield in dimensionless form /
2
(29)
sin'S
n
Equation (29) is solved by different methods for the region
of flow between the Mach disk and point 3 where the flow 1
/_
2 4 6 8 10
has reexpanded to p = pa, and downstream of point 3. In the
MACH DISK HEIGHT, Yi/Dj*
region between the Mach disk and station 3 it is assumed
that the flow expands isentropically from a suitably defined Fig. 5h Correlation of Mach disk height with injection
set of conditions at station 2. Even though it is possible parameters for supersonic injection into a quiescent
to define the streamwise variation in Mach number along medium.
 1054 BILLIG, ORTH, AND LASKY AIAA JOURNAL

JET BOUNDARY
/ BARREL SHOCK
80 JETCENTERLINE

_ EXPERIMENT AL DATA
/
60
MJ Ma REF.
• 1.0 2.7 -PHIS WORK
40 _ • 1.0 2.1 _ 7
A 1.0 1.9 18 /*
O
• 1.0 4.5 4 A
/ {!O
0
1.6 2.7 THIS WORK J O

a 1.6 2.1 9 D
/
20 , ' 1 0 O 1 g
0 2.2 2.1 9
/

? 10 Fig. 8 Model for jet centerline trajectory calculation.

^ 8

r
6
'L mfcoo
with solutions obtained by the method of characteristics by
Love and Grigsby17 are shown in Fig. 9. The boundaries for
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

various M3- tend to collapse to a single curve for each pj/pm

4 i when the coordinates are normalized to ry, and Eq. (30) is in
reasonable agreement considering the wide range of PJ*(% <
Pj*/P~ <_388) that is covered. With A 2 defined by Eq.
/ (10) and M% by Eq. (11), all other average properties at 2 can
be found; e.g.,
2

fij/wy = (Tj/T^Mz/Mj (31)

In region 2-3 increments in p/pa between peb/pa and 1 are
/ selected and the isentropic flow equations are used to find
the corresponding values of If, u/Uj and D/D3, i.e.,
1
2 4 6
M-W/-W
MACH DISK HEIGHT, y i /Dj*
r2- y, - 1) (32)
Fig. 6 Correlation of Mach disk height with injection
parameters for transverse injection into supersonic flow. (33)

the axis up to the Mach disk and in turn the Mach number (34)
just downstream of the normal shock19 this Mach number is
not at all representative of an average condition for station To integrate Eq. (29) it is necessary to relate D to s so the
2. Gradients in flow properties normal to the axis are large jet shape correlation used upstream of the Mach disk is again
and in fact only a portion of the flow passes through the nor- assumed to be valid, if the initial conditions are taken to be
mal shock. Instead the average properties are defined as the average conditions at 2 and the axial coordinate is taken
those corresponding to a one dimensional flow with p2 =
peb and A2 = Ai defined by Eq. (10). Area was chosen be-
cause both experimental data and theoretical methods for
obtaining the jet boundary of a jet discharging into a quies-
cent medium are available. The same variation is assumed
to be valid with external flow present. A comparison of the
more general expression
A \ 1/2
( r
- = 1 + 1.45 In (Jy [1 - exp(-0.322 y/'D,)}
/T).\

(30)

SYMBOL Ma MJ REF.
• 2.72 1.0 THIS WORK, 8
• 2.10 1.0 7
A 2.01 1.0 18
0
2.10 1.6 9
0 2.72 1.6 THIS WORK
A 2.10 1.8 9
D 2.10 2.2 9
1.5 •
Xl/yi =1.25 [1-ex 3(-M a /Mj)]
• I—
@
1.0
1
8
CHARACTERISTICS SOLUTION
0.5 LOVE AND GRIGSBY (REF. 17)-

0 ^
0 1 2 :

Fig. 7 Correlation of the coordinates of the center of the Fig. 9 Comparison of calculated jet boundaries for in-
Mach disk with Mach number ratio. jection into a quiescent medium.
 JUNE 1971 A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF GASEOUS JET PENETRATION 1055

as s — s2, i.e.,

g- = ^ {I + 1.451n(p.6/p«)[l - exp(-0.322
L>y Dy
[s- S2]/J52)]} (35)
The integration is performed by first differentiating Eqs.
(32), (34) and (35) analytically and combining with Eq.
(29), i.e., taking
d(s/Dj) d(s/Dj) d(D/Dj) d(M)
(36a)
d(p/p.) d(t>/D,) d(M) d(p/pa)
thus defining
= d(8) = d(8) d(»/Dj)
(36b)
d(p/pa) d(8/Dj) d($/p.)
to give

(37)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

and

Equation (37) was integrated numerically with a third-order

Runge-Kutta method, and the values of 5 so calculated were
fed into a concurrent Simpson's Rule integration of Eqs.
Fig. 10 Comparison of jet trajectories showing the ef-
(38 and 39). fects of variation in injectant Mach number and injectant/
In the region downstream of 3 the flow properties within freestream pressure ratio, Ma —• 2.7.
the jet remain constant while the stream continues to turn
toward 6 = 0. In this region, d = d^u = w 3 and 5 = 5, thus
Eq. (29) can be integrated in closed form to yield has very little effect .on the absolute penetration of the
secondary jet. Similar conclusions were reached in Ref. 11.
rs ^In ——=-7- — -i-1 ^-
= K - 3 (cos5
/ 5 — cos5*)\ fAf\\
(40) The typical constraint encountered in combustor design
2 3
Ltan53/2 J is that of constant mass flux ratio, i.e., pjUj/paua = constant
and with varying M0. This effect is examined in Fig. 12 wherein
MJ = 1, 7y = 7« = 1.4 and ptj/pta was varied from 27.58
= (sin§
at M'a = 1.5 to 10 at Ma = 2.7 and 1.30 at Ma = 5 to hold
\W " Sin§a) ~ sf§ + ^1 (41)
the mass flux ratio constant. Centerline trajectories are
where only weakly dependent on Ma with somewhat better penetra-
tion at lower Ma values.
, /fi.\ /0y\ /7A /P/\ /^
K - -^ w w w w VF (42) Comparisonis with Experimental Results
Figure 13 shows the calculated centerline trajectory and
Although this calculation could be continued to 5 = 0, some Mach disk location for sonic hydrogen injection into a Mach
reasonable limitation should be set, e.g., x/Dj < 10, because 2.7 airstream with ptj/pta. — 1«6. The calculated edge of the
the effects of essentially coaxial turbulent mixing would be- one-dimensional jet is obtained by adding and subtracting a
come appreciable and should therefore be included in the distance %D/Dj normal to the local jet center. These results
analysis. The jet trajectory is now completely defined, thus are compared with the experimentally observed Mach disk,
parametric studies and comparisons with experimental re- the maximum and median H2 (half of the hydrogen lies inside
sults can now be made. First let us examine the solutions a circle through these points) concentration at x/Dj* = 5 and
for the cases previously covered by the simpler analysis and 10, and the center of mass flux and line of zero H2 concentra-
summarized in Fig. 3 and Table 1 for Ma = 2.7. tion at the same locations. The experimental apparatus used
Trajectories for these cases are shown in Fig. 10 for pt3-/pta in these tests is described in detail in Ref. 11. The edge of
= 1, 2, 5, and 10. The centerline trajectories turn over the one-dimensional jet should be representative of the extent
within a few diameters downstream of the injector and are of the median H2 concentration profile. The data points
approaching the horizontal at x/D3* = 10. Figure lOb were obtained from detailed pitot pressure, cone-static
shows similar sets of trajectories for Mj = 2. For the same pressure, and gas-sampling measurements, which were used
Ptj/pta, increasing Mj steepens the trajectory and results in to deduce the local pressure, temperature, velocity, and H2
slightly increased penetration. Note that the Pi3-/Pta = concentration. Contours of constant H2 concentration,
1, 2; MJ = 2 cases are slightly underexpanded but are in- mass flux per unit area, Mach number etc. were made and
cluded for completeness. In Fig. 11 the M3- = 1 results are integrations performed to locate the circle containing one
replotted on a scale normalized such that cases for ptj/pta > half of the hydrogen mass and mass averaged values of Mach
1, would have mass flow equal to the case of ptj/pta — 1? number, total pressure etc.
i.e., D* ~ (Pij/Pta)~112. This comparison shows that Figure 14 compares, concentration contours measured at
varying injection pressure but holding mass flow constant = 5, (left side) with the one-dimensional jet bounda-
 1056 BILLIG, ORTH, AND LASKY AIAA JOURNAL

j, * = INJECTOR THROAT DIAMETER FOR P t j /Pt a - = 1

Fig. 11 Comparison of jet

trajectories for sonic jets
of equal mass flow in a Mach
2.7 freestream.

ries predicted from this analysis and that of Refs. 2-5 (right result in an increased frontal area and thus reduce the required
side). The outer edge (predicted median H2 concentration) average pressure acting on the projected area. For example,
from the Zukoski and Spaid model extends (atz/Dy* = 0) only the value of p/pa in Table 1 for the "effective-back-pressure"
to the predicted center of the jet for the present model, which, model would decrease from 8.46 to 5.40 assuming 8C » 0
in turn, corresponds to the point of maximum H2 concentra- at x/Dj*. = 10. At x/Dj* = 5 and z/D* = 0, the outer
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

tion. Moreover, the experimental contours confirm that 1) a edge of the median H2 concentration contour is at y/Dj* =
circular section rather than a semicircular section is more re- 4.2, whereas the XH* = 0.5 contour crosses the z/Dj* = 0 axis
presentative of the jet shape and 2) the jet centerline lies sig- at y/Dj* — 4.7 and the theoretical contour is at y/'D* —
3.9. The mass averaged one-dimensional Mach number at
x/Dj* = 5 computed from the theoretical analysis is 2.336
compared to the mass averaged experimental value of 2.2
and the value corresponding to the Zukoski and Spaid model
is 1.47.
Experimental concentration profiles from Ref. 4 for a
case of argon injection into a Mach 2.56 airstream at x/Dj =
11.1 are compared with the predicted one-dimensional pro-
files in Fig. 15. The features of this comparison are similar
to those noted for Fig. 14. Equally good comparisons of the
present theory with other data given in Refs. 4, 8, and 11 have
been made.
In order to compare this theoretical procedure with the
other type of information given in the literature, viz., the top
of the barrel shock in the initial expansion, it is necessary to
define another physical characteristic of the barrel-shock
x/Dj*
structure. The ordinate of the top of the barrel shock (Figs.
4 and 8) is nearly the same as that of the farthest outboard
Fig. 12 Comparison of jet trajectories showing the ef- point on the Mach disk. Thus, adding cos82W/2 to the
fects of variation in Ma with constant mass flux ratio. ordinate of the center of the Mach disk gives an approxima-
tion of this point. To express W in terms of the injection
nificantly above the point which would put the jet boundary and primary stream parameters, the experimental results of
(i.e., the lower edge,for mediam H2 concentration in contact Ref. 19 with jets discharging into a quiescent medium are
with the surface. If this effect were to be properly accounted used. The expression
for in the simpler models originally discussed, it would be neces-
sary to place the centroid at station c on the jet centerline. = 3.6[1 - (43)
For all cases except the maximum pressure loss case, this would
adequately approximates the data for 1 < Mj < 3 and 0 <
i, EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Ps/P* < 54 as shown in Fig. 16. With crossflow the same
Y MAXIMUM H2 CONCENTRATION
expression is assumed valid when peb is substituted for pm.
A CENTER OF H2 MASS FLUX The maximum ordinate of the Mach disk, y can be obtained
• LINE OF MEDIAN H2 CONCENTRATION
• LINE OF ZERO H2 CONCENTRATION

Fig. 13 Comparison of unified jet penetration model Fig. 14 Comparison of calculated jet cross-sectional areas
with experimental measurements from H?-air penetration and measured jet concentration contours (mole fraction)
tests with Ma = 2.7; Mj = 1.0; ptj/pta = 1.6; 83- = 90°. for H2-air injection.
 JUNE 1971 A UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF GASEOUS JET PENETRATION 1057

PRESENT MODEL

\ ZUKOSKI AND
\SPAID MODEL
\
\
\
,1_______
10
Fig. 17 Comparison of calculated values of the maximum
ordinate of the Mach disk and values measured by Chrans
Fig. 15 Comparison of calculated jet cross- sectional and Collins (Ref. 10).
areas, and measured jet concentration contours (mole
fraction) for argon-air injection (Ref. 3). ably greater computational effort, which considering the
approximate nature of the analysis, would not have been
warranted. A PL/I (IBM 360) computer program was
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

from Eqs. (9, 21, 24, and 43), i.e., developed for complete numerical computation of the trajec-
tories, but considerable information regarding the general
character of the jet can be readily obtained from Eqs. (9 and
21) for the coordinates of the Mach disk, Eq. (24) for the
1.8[1 - l.W D angular orientation of the flow at the Mach disk, Eq. (44)
(44)
for the ordinate of the top of the Mach disk and Eq. (15)
for the diameter of the jet after expansion to pa. The com-
Figure 17 is a replot of the data which appeared as Fig. 4 in plete computer program is available from the authors for
Ref. 10. These tests were made with sonic injection of ni- those who wish to experiment with the model.
trogen into a Mach 2.8 airstream. Added to the figure are
the theoretical curves given by Eq. (44) and the value of References
h/Dj* from the Zukoski and Spaid Model. Equally good 1
Walker, R. E., Stone, A. R., and Shandor, M., "Secondary
correlations of Eq. (44) with data from helium and argon Gas Injection in a Conical Rocket Nozzle," AIAA Journal, Vol.
injection into air presented in Ref. 10 were obtained. Al- 1, No. 2, Feb. 1963, pp. 334-338.
2
though physically there is no justification for relating the Zukoski, E. E. and Spaid, F. W., "Injection of Gases into a
diameter of the half cylinder or full cylindrical body to this Supersonic Flow," NASA contract 7-100, Oct. 1963, Guggenheim
particular point on the barrel shock structure, it is of interest Jet Propulsion Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasa-
to note that the value of h from the original work of Zukoski dena, Calif.
3
and Spaid is also in general agreement with the data. More- Zukoski, E. E. and Spaid, F. W., "Secondary Injection of
Gases into a Supersonic Flow," Solid Propellant Rocket Confer-
over, if in the development of this theory on]y the Newtonian ence, Palo Alto, Calif., 1964.
Drag Assumption had been made the agreement would even 4
Zukoski, E. E. and Spaid, F. W., "Secondary Injection of
be better. Gases into a Supersonic Flow," AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 10,
Oct. 1964, pp. 1689-1696.
5
Concluding Remarks Spaid, F. W., Zukoski, E. E., and Rosen, R., "A Study of
Secondary Injection of Gases into a Supersonic Flow," NASA
In conclusion it should be re-emphasized that the validity TR 32-834, Aug. 1966, California Institute of Technology, Pasa-
of this model rests on premise that a similarity exists between dena, Calif.
6
the structure of an underexpanded jet discharging into a Schetz, J. A. and Billig, F. S., "Penetration of Gaseous Jets
Injected into a Supersonic Stream," Journal of Spacecraft and
crossflow and that of a jet discharging into a quiescent Rockets, Vol. 3, No. 11, Nov. 1966, pp. 1658-1665.
medium. The critical parameter needed for this analogy is 7
Schetz, J. A., Hawkins, P. F., and Lehman, H., "Structure
an "effective back pressure." Empirical relationships which of Highly Underexpanded Transverse Jets in a Supersonic
describe the general characteristics of the structure of the jet Stream," AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1967, pp. 882-884.
8
in the quiescent medium were obtained and were used for the Orth, R. C. and Funk, J. A., "An Experimental and Com-
case with crossflow. Uncorrelated experimental and theo- parative Study of Jet Penetration in Supersonic Flow," Journal
retical values could have been used but only with consider- of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 4, No. 9, Sept. 1967, pp. 1236-
1242.
9
Schetz, J. A., Weinraub, R. A., and Mahaffey, Jr., R. E.,
"Supersonic Transverse Injection into a Supersonic Stream,"
AIAA Journal, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1968, pp. 933-934.
10
Chrans, L. J. and Collins, D. G., "Effect of Stagnation
Temperature and Molecular Weight Variation of Gaseous Injec-
tion into a Supersonic Stream," AIAA Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2,
Feb. 1970, pp. 287-293.
11
Orth, R. C., Schetz, J. A., and Billig, F. S., "The Interac-
tion and Penetration of Gaseous Jets in Supersonic Flow,"
CR-1386, July 1969, NASA.
12
Cassel, L. A., Davis, J. G., and Engh, D. P., "Lateral Jet
Control Effectiveness Prediction for Axisymmetric Missile Con-
figurations—Final Report," Rept. RD-TR-68-5, June 1968,
U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.
13
Wu, J. M. and Aoyama, K., "Analysis of Transverse
Secondary Injection Penetration into Confined Supersonic
Flow," AIAA Paper 69-2, New York, 1969.
14
Fig. 16 Correlation of Mach disk width based on experi- Wilson, W. G. and Cbmparin, R. A., "An Analysis of the
mental measurements of Love and Grigsby (Ref. 17). Flow Disturbance and Side Forces Due to Gaseous Secondary
 1058 BILLIG, ORTH, AND LASKY AIAA JOURNAL

Injection into a Rocket Nozzle," AIAA Paper 69-443, Colorado into Still Air and into Supersonic Streams," RM L54L31, 1955'
Springs, Colo., 1969. NACA.
15 18
Crist, S., Sherman, P. M., and Glass, D. R., "Study of the Morkovin, M. V., Pierce, C. A., and Craven, C. E., "Inter-
Highly Under-expanded Sonic Jet," AIAA Journalj Vol. 4, No. action of a Side Jet with a Supersonic Main Stream," Bulletin
1, Jan. 1966, pp. 68-71. 35, 1952, Univ. of Michigan, Engineering Research Institute,
16
Adamson, Jr., T. G. and Nicholls, J. A., "On the Structure Ann Arbor, Mich.
19
of Jets from Highly Underexpanded Nozzles into Still Air," Owen, P. L. and Thornhill, C. K, "The Flow in an Axially-
Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1959, pp. 16-24. Symmetric Supersonic Jet from a Nearly Sonic Orifice into a
17
Love, E. S. and Grigsby, C: E., "Some Studies of Axisym- Vacuum," R and M 2616, 1952, British Aeronautical Research
metric Free Jets Exhausting from Sonic and Supersonic Nozzles Council.

JUNE 1971 AIAA JOURNAL VOL. 9, NO. 6

Acoustic Characteristics of a High-Subsonic Jet

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA on February 2, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.49916

L. MAESTRELLO* AND E. McDAmf

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.

The acoustic source regions of a subsonic cold jet were traced as far as the periphery of the
jet by means of the pressure field on a plane rigid surface located in the vicinity of the jet.
The centers of these regions were determined to be from 4 to 18 diani downstream of the exit.
Additional measurements were made of flow variables within the jet. From these measure-
ments, the downstream kinetic energy dissipation rate was calculated. Finally, the acoustic
radiation characteristics of• several simple nozzle configurations were measured. Results
indicate that, although considerable alternating of directivity and spectral content of the
noise result from varying nozzle geometry, only limited reductions in total sound power
resulted.

Introduction Distribution of Sound Sources in a Jet

Lighthill formulated the aerodynamic noise problem using
T HE general format for nearly all recent work in aero-
12
dynamic noise was established by Lighthill ' when he
related the sound pressure generated by turbulence to a
an acoustic analogy. In this model, the fluid turbulence
giving rise to sound generation and scattering are replaced
system of equivalent quadrupole sources in a medium at by an equivalent distribution of acoustic quadrupole sources
rest. An alternate approach, mathematically equivalent to in a medium at rest. Mathematically, the model appears
LighthilFs but using simple sources, was developed by Rib- as the following nonhomogeneous wave equation
ner.3 Initial application of the Lighthill theory was made d2p/d*2 - a02Vp2 = &Ti3./c)XiC)x3
by Proudman,4 who determined the sound pressure generated
by isotropic turbulence. Lilley5 first used the classification where Tti = pvtVj — m + (p — ao2p)&/> «o2 is the local speed
"self noise" and "shear noise" of jets to separate the high- of sound, p is the density, Vi is a component of velocity, m is
frequency noise due to turbulence-turbulence interaction from the viscous stress, and p is the thermodynamic pressure.
the low-frequency noise due to turbulence-shear interaction. In the absence of surfaces, this wave equation can be re-
The effects of convection were discussed by Ffowcs Williams6 placed by the following integral equation for points x in the
as well as by Jones.7 Application of the theory to the radi- far field
ation of sound in the presence of surfaces was done by Curie,8
Powell,9 Lyamshev,10 and Ffowcs Williams.11 Acoustic XjXj f - I* - y[/flo
Ap(x,0 ——~A\ h» V
aspects of combustion instability were reported by Kandra-
tiev and Rimski-Korsakov.12 The distribution of acoustic where Ap(x,2) = p(x,£) — p0, and p0 is the density of the
sources in the jet was determined by Ribner13 and Powell14 acoustic medium at rest.
using similarity considerations and LighthilPs U8 law. Rib- The autocorrelation of the far-field density fluctuation
ner15 recently showed that for a low-speed jet, only nine of can be written as
the possible 36 distinct quadrupole correlations yield distinct
nonvanishing contributions to the sound power. XjXjXlXm
The present paper introduces an experimental technique IGTrVlxl 6
to locate the acoustic source regions of a jet. In addition,
acoustic measurements were made of changes in directivity, where
spectral content, and total sound power due to changes in
nozzle geometry. o) = 2tf(y,T')Ti*(y',T' + TO)
Presented as Paper 70-234 at the AIAA 8th Aerospace r' = t - |x - y|/oo, TO = r - (|x - y'| - |x - y|)/a0
Sciences Meeting, New York, January 19-21, 1970; submitted Efforts to determine the acoustic source locations in a jet
February 9, 1970; revision received November 23, 1970. The
authors wish to express thanks to J. E. Ffowcs Williams for his
have centered around the determination of the tensor Rijim™
helpful discussions and T. Clark for his technical assistance. An alternate approach has been used in the present in-
* Aero-Space Technologist, Acoustic Branch. Member AIAA. vestigation. Instead of actually measuring Rmm within the
f Aero-Space Technologist, Acoustic Branch. jet, measurements of the sound field near the jet have been