Investigation of a Circular 1et in Co

Eric Aglubat, Michael Bryan and Edmer Caballeros

M MA AE E 4 44 40 0
( (A Ae er ro od dy yn na am mi ic cs s L La ab bo or ra at to or ry y) )
Investigation of a Circular 1et in Co-Flow
December 16, 2011

Dr. Hamid Rahai










Presented by:

Eric Aglubat, Michael Bryan and Edmer Caballeros Eric Aglubat, Michael Bryan and Edmer Caballeros
Abstract:
The issue oI a circular jet in co-Ilow is one that has developed signiIicant importance. The
results oI experiments concerning jets in co-Ilow can be used to help improve the eIIiciency and
perIormance oI aerodynamic vehicles. The goal in this experiment was to determine what eIIect,
iI any, a circular jet would have on pressure recovery, and whether this eIIect would be
beneIicial or detrimental in nature.
This experiment took place at CaliIornia State University, Long Beach, in the Fluid
Dynamics laboratory wind-tunnel. A hollow cylindrical tube was attached to an air compressor.
In the center oI this cylindrical tube, a small hole with a diameter oI 1.58 mm was punched to
allow the compressed air to escape; this Iormed the circular jet to be examined. This experiment
Iocused on a circular jet, and was composed oI Iour total tests with a wind tunnel Iree stream
velocity oI approximately 21.15 m/s. A baseline run with no jet, and runs with jet velocity less
than, greater than and equal to the Iree stream velocity oI the wind tunnel, respectively. Upon
conclusion, it was discovered that the coeIIicient oI drag (Cd) Ior a point .25 inches behind the
jet exit was Iound to be .03 Ior the jet less than Iree stream velocity, .61 Ior the jet greater than
the Iree stream velocity and.23 Ior the jet equal to the Iree stream velocity. This eIIectively
shows the eIIects a jet can have on the pressure gradient behind an object.


1. Background and Theory
1.1 Investigation of wake and boundary layer of cylinder in uniform flow
The wake oI a cylinder with arbitrary cross section orthogonal to a uniIorm Ilow is characterized
by a momentum deIect associated with the drag oI the cylinder. This drag consists oI a total drag
that includes both viscous and Iorm (pressure) drag. In the Iar downstream oI the weak, the
streamlines are nearly uniIorm and one can assume a uniIorm pressure everywhere. It is at this
location that the momentum thickness is constant, and the drag coeIIicient (Cd) oI the cylinder
can be Iound with the Iollowing:
Eq. 1: C
d

Fd
12pU^2

20
d

With Fd, p, U and d being the drag Iorce, Iluid density, Iree stream mean velocity and the
diameter oI the cylinder, respectively, with 0 being the wake momentum thickness. In close
proximity to the cylinder, there is not uniIorm pressure, with an existing axial pressure gradient.
This causes a reduction in the momentum thickness. ThereIore, it is important to identiIy where
the axial pressure gradient is zero, so that the momentum thickness can accurately be used to
calculate the drag coeIIicient.

2. Experimental Procedure
2.1 Construction of Circular 1et
To construct a suitable circular jet Ior this experiment, a thin cylindrical tube with a is
anchored in the Iree stream oI the wind-tunnel. A small, circular hole with a diameter oI 1.59
mm (.0625 in) is punched in the middle oI the tube at the approximate middle oI the wind-tunnel.
The compressed air Ilows through the tube and exits at this hole, Iorming the jet. The speed oI
the jet is controlled via a regulator.
2.2 Gathering Baseline Data
To be able to analyze and compare the data collected, a baseline run has to be perIormed.
To perIorm the baseline run, the jet is turned oII, and the Iree stream velocity oI the wind-tunnel
is set to 21.15 m/s. A pitot tube is used to measure the pressure diIIerential, and is placed on the
centerline oI the circular tube, directly in Iront oI the jet at a distance oI 4D. The pitot tube is
adjusted until the upper boundary layer is Iound, i.e. the pressure diIIerential becomes constant.
It is then lowered at .10 inch increments, and the data recorded, until the lower boundary layer is
discovered. This process is completed Ior 8D,12D,16D,20D,24D and 28 D respectively.
2.3 Gathering 1et Data
Similar to gathering the baseline data, gathering jet data involves using a pitot tube to measure
pressure diIIerential. The pitot tube is placed on the centerline oI the circular tube, directly in
Iront oI the jet at a distance oI 4D. The pitot tube is adjusted until the upper boundary layer is
Iound, i.e., the pressure diIIerential becomes constant. It is then lowered at .10 inch increments,
and the data recorded, until the lower boundary layer is discovered. This is repeated Ior
increments oI D ranging Irom 8 to 28 respectively, until the eIIects oI the jet can no longer be
seen in the pressure diIIerential.
This process is perIormed Ior a jet with the Iree stream velocity greater than, lesser than and
equal to the jet velocity.

Figure 1. Wind-Tunnel Setup rendered via SolidWorks as viewed Irom the Iront. The cylindrical
bar represents the jet apparatus






3. Experimental Data
Experimental Data is attached in the appendix due to the large volume oI data obtained
4. Calculations

4.1 C
d
Data
The resulting C
d
Ior each condition, respectively, obtained Irom Eq 1:
Table 1
Distance Baseline Jet~U

JetU

JetU

4D 0.17 .61 .23 .03
8D 0.71 0.83 1.02 1.21
12D 1.46 1.30 2.37 1.84
16D 2.08 1.75 2.70 1.95
20D 2.36 1.92 2.46 2.71
24D 2.26 2.33 2.28 2.96
28D 2.52 1.24 3.17 3.31
Figure 2. Graph oI C
d
vs. D


0
0.3
1
1.3
2
2.3
3
3.3
0 10 20 30
Cd
# of D|ameters from Iet Nozz|e
Cd vs. D
8asellne 8un-
CondlLlon 1
!eL>ulnf-CondlLlon 2
!eL=ulnf-CondlLlon 3
!eL<ulnf-CondlLlon 4
4.2 Pressure DiIIerential vs. Distance D
Note: UnIortunately, it was not possible to group the results per distance D on a single graph due
to complexities with the graphing program. Unless stated otherwise, data displayed is in the
Iormat oI Pressure DiIIerential vs. Distance at each respective distance D

Figure(s) 3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4. at distance 4D
3.1 Baseline


3.2. 1etU

-1.300
-1.000
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 6.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
-1.000
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)

3.3 1et<U

3.4 1et>U

Figure(s) 4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4 at 8D
-1.000
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
-1.000
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
4.1 Baseline

4.2 1etU









-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 6.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
-1.000
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
4.3 1et<U



4.4 1et>U


Figure(s)5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4 at 12D
5.1 Baseline

5.2 1etU

-1.000
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)

5.3 1et<U

5.4 1et>U

Figure(s)6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4 at 16D
-0.300
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
6.1 Baseline

6.2 1etU



6.3 1et<U



6.4 1et>U

0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)


Figure(s)7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4 at 20D
7.1 Baseline

7.2 1etU




0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
7.3 1et<U

7.4 1et>U

Figure(s)8.1,8.2,8.3,8.4 at 24D
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
8.1 Baseline


8.2 1etU


8.3 1et<U

8.4 1et>U

0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)

Figure(s)9.1,9.2,9.3,9.4 at 28D
9.1 Baseline

9.2 1etU



9.3 1et<U

0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.300
1.000
1.300
0.00 3.00 10.00 13.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 3.00 10.00 13.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)

9.4 1et>U

5. Discussion of Results
As stated in the abstract, the objective oI this experiment was to determine the eIIects that
a jet would have on a co Ilow, or likewise, the eIIects a co Ilow would have on a jet. To quantiIy
the results, the drag coeIIicient was evaluated. ReIerring to Figure 2, at 4D, the condition that
had the lowest Cd was when the jet velocity was less than the Iree stream velocity (Cond. 4),
while the highest value was obtained when the jet velocity was higher than the Iree stream
velocity (Cond. 2), with values oI .03 and .61 respectively. It seems that there was an error in
measurement or calculation, as a Cd oI .03 is incredibly low, and inconsistent with the other
values. II one were to invalidate that result and look at the others, it can be seen that Cond. 1 had
the lowest Cd with a value oI .17. This was expected, due to the Iact that in the early stages oI a
jet, the jet has not yet adopted a normal gaussian distribution, but rather, its velocity proIile
adopts that oI a "top-hat," which can be seen in Iigure 3.4 The coeIIicient oI drag is dependant
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
(n2C)
A (P2C)
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
(n2C)
A (P2C)
on the momentum thickness, and since the nature oI the early stages oI a jet tends to increase the
momentum thickness, it is only logical that the Cd would be larger as well.
Again reIerring to Table 1 and Figure 2, one investigates where the jet begins to reduce
the drag coeIIicient. It is seen that at 16D, Cond. 1 has a Cd oI 2.08, while Cond. 2 and Cond.4
both have a lower Cd with 1.75 and 1.95 respectively, which is considerably less. It seems that
this is the optimum point Ior the jet to help with pressure recovery. What is oI interest here is the
that the condition where the Jet velocity was equal to Iree stream velocity (cond. 3) has the
highest Cd with a value oI 2.7; considerably higher than the others. This is likely due to the Iact
that the similar pressures oI both Ilows never allow one to develop Iully, and they Iorm a sort oI
additive condition that increases the pressure, and as a result, increases the momentum thickness
as well as the Cd.
It is at this time that sources oI error are discussed. OI a particularly important note is the
manner oI which the Cd was Iound i.e. momentum thickness. In order Ior the momentum
thickness method to be accurate, it is important that uniIorm pressure exist in the region at which
you are computing in. This uniIorm pressure most likely does not exist in the immediate vicinity
oI the wake, and this no doubt had an eIIect on the results. However, in the Iar downstream oI
the wake (I.e. D~12) one can assume nearly uniIorm pressure, and use momentum thickness with
conIidence.
Another source oI error could have came Irom the jet itselI. The air regulator was not in
the best oI shape, and might not have supplied a constant pressure per run. This would also skew
the results. Additionally, iI the pitot tube were not properly lined up, the results would be
drastically diIIerent, as was discovered during the trial run.


Conclusion
To determine the eIIects oI a circular jet in co Ilow, a jet Iabricated out oI a cylindrical
tube was inserted into the wind tunnel at CSULB. The Iluid was supplied by compressed air,
and the jet nozzle consisted oI a 1.58 mm hole that allowed the Iluid to escape, Iorming a jet.
Measurements oI the pressure gradient (in-H2O) were taken at distances oI 4D-28D, and along
with previous experiments about the wake oI a cylinder, provided the data Ior analysis.
It was concluded that a jet does indeed have an eIIect on pressure in the event oI co Ilow.
According to the results, in the earlier stages oI its development, a jet is more likely going to
increase the Cd rather than decrease it; in Iact, this behavior exists along a majority oI the jet's
development. However, there exists an optimum location where 66 oI the jet conditions
experienced a lower Cd. This indicates that it is not the power oI a jet, but rather the location,
that is more important to pressure recovery and reducing the drag coeIIicient. In application, this
would mean that a smaller, less powerIul jet can be used to provide adequate pressure recovery
so long that it is positioned in the right location.
There were certain steps that could have been taken to improve the results. In order to
get quality inIormation, an automated pitot tube apparatus would aid greatly with accurately
Iinding the boundary layers oI the jet. Additionally, a digital regulator would provide a more
accurate and controllable jet Ilow that would allow investigation oI even more properties.