Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Mixing and Entrainment Characteristics in Circular Short Ejectors

[+] Author and Article Information
Ju Hyun Im

Agency for Defense Development,
4th R&D Institute
Yuseong, P.O. Box 35,
Daejeon 305-600, South Korea
e-mail: juhyunim@add.re.kr

Seung Jin Song

Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
Seoul National University,
Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu,
Seoul 151-744, South Korea
e-mail: sjsong@snu.ac.kr

The separation bubble has been verified via flow-visualization.

The temperature profiles at the mixing duct exit have not been measured in this research because both primary and secondary flow temperatures were the same. However, the temperature scaling approximations can be found in Munk and Prim [23].

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 18, 2014; final manuscript received December 13, 2014; published online February 2, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kwang-Yong Kim.

J. Fluids Eng 137(5), 051103 (May 01, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1140; doi: 10.1115/1.4029412 History: Received March 18, 2014; Revised December 13, 2014; Online February 02, 2015

Analytical and experimental investigations have been conducted to characterize the performance of “short” ejectors. In short ejectors, the core of primary (motive) flow still exists at the mixing duct exit, and nonuniform mixed flow is discharged from the mixing duct. Due to incomplete mixing, short ejector pumping performance is degraded and cannot be predicted by the existing “long” ejector models. The new analytical short ejector model presented in this paper is based on the control volume analysis and jet expansion model. The secondary (entrained) flow velocity and the corresponding shear layer (between the primary and the secondary flows) growth rate variations along the mixing duct are taken into account. In addition, measurements have been made in ejectors with length ratios (LRs) of two and three for an area ratio (AR) of 1.95; and a LR of two for an AR of 3.08. Velocity profiles at the mixing duct inlet and exit, and static pressure distribution along the mixing duct have been measured with pitot probes and pressure taps. All of the tests have been carried out at a Reynolds number of 420,000. Comparison shows that the new ejector model can accurately predict flow characteristics and performance of short ejectors. For all of the test cases, the velocity profiles at the mixing duct inlet and exit are well predicted. Also, both predictions and measurements show pumping enhancement with increasing mixing duct length. The pumping enhancement is due to the increase in the static pressure difference between the mixing duct inlet and atmosphere as the mixing duct is lengthened. Furthermore, both measured and predicted static pressure distributions along the mixing duct show a kink. According to the analysis, the kink occurs when the outer shear layer reaches the mixing duct wall, and the secondary flow velocity decreases along the mixing duct upstream of the kink and increases downstream of the kink. Thus, the new ejector model can accurately predict not only the integral performance but also different mixing regimes in short ejectors.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Elbel, S., and Hrnjak, P., 2008, “Ejector Refrigeration: An Overview of Historical and Present Developments With Emphasis on Air Conditioning Applications,” 12th International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, Paper No. 884.
Eames, I. W., and Aphornratana, S., 1995, “A Theoretical and Experimental Study of a Small-Scale Steam Jet Refrigerator,” Int. J. Refrig., 18(6), pp. 378–386. [CrossRef]
Jegal, S., and Song, S. J., 2008, “Humidity Effect on the Hydrogen Re-Circulation Ejector Performance,” KSME 2008 Fall Annual Meeting, pp. 2589–2593.
Bernardi, D., Bozzolo, M., Marsano, F., Tarnowski, O., and Agnew, G., 2005, “Ejectors Design in the Rolls-Royce 1 MW Hybrid System,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68085. [CrossRef]
Koutmos, P., and Mcguirk, J. J., 1989, “Turbofan Forced Mixer/Nozzle Temperature and Flow Field Modeling,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 32(6), pp. 1141–1153. [CrossRef]
Folkman, C. C., 1992, “An Advanced Method for Predicting the Performance of Helicopter Propulsion System Ejectors,” J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 40(3), pp. 73–79. [CrossRef]
Thompson, J., Birk, A. M., and Cunningham, M., 1999, “Design of an Infrared Signature Suppressor for the Bell 205 (UH-1H) Helicopter Part I: Aerothermal Design,” 7th CASI Aerodynamics Symposium.
Thompson, J., Gubbels, A. W., Barry, B., and Birk, A. M., 1999, “Design of an Infrared Signature Suppressor for the Bell 205 (UH-1H) Helicopter Part II: Engine and Flight Testing,” 11th CASI Propulsion Symposium.
Keenan, J. H., and Neumann, E. P., 1942, “A Simple Air Ejector,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 9(2), pp. A75–A81.
Keenan, J. H., Neumann, E. P., and Lustwerk, F., 1950, “An Investigation of Ejector Design by Analysis and Experiment,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 17, pp. 299–309.
Kastner, K. J., and Spooner, J. R., 1950, “An Investigation of the Performance and Design of the Air Ejector Employing Low-Pressure Air as the Driving Fluid,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 162(1), pp. 149–166. [CrossRef]
Sokolov, M., and Hershgal, D., 1990, “Enhanced Ejector Refrigeration Cycles Powered by Low Grade Heat. Part 2: Design Procedures,” Int. J. Refrig., 13(6), pp. 357–363. [CrossRef]
Huang, B. J., Chang, J. M., Wang, C. P., and Petrenko, V. A., 1999, “A 1-D Analysis of Ejector Performance,” Int. J. Refrig., 22(5), pp. 354–364. [CrossRef]
Kim, S., and Kwon, S., 2006, “Experimental Determination of Geometric Parameters for an Annular Injection Type Supersonic Ejector,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128(6), pp.1164–1171. [CrossRef]
Liao, C., and Best, F., 2010, “Comprehensive Gas Ejector Model,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer, 24(3), pp. 516–523. [CrossRef]
Presz, W. M., and Greitzer, E. M., 1988, “A Useful Similarity Principle for Jet Engine Exhaust System Performance,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-88-3001 [CrossRef].
Quinn, B., 1976, “Ejector Performance at High Temperature and Pressures,” J. Aircr., 13(12), pp. 948–954. [CrossRef]
Toulmay, F., 1988, “Internal Aerodynamics of Infrared Suppressor for Helicopter Engines,” J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 33(4), pp. 4–14. [CrossRef]
Millsaps, K. T., and Markowicz, J. C., 2003, “An Improved Preliminary Design Method for Ejectors,” ASME Paper No. GT2003-38141. [CrossRef]
Abramovich, G. N., 1963, The Theory of Turbulent Jets, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wygnanski, I., and Fiedler, H., 1969, “Some Measurements in the Self-Preserving Jet,” J. Fluid Mech., 38(3), pp. 577–612. [CrossRef]
Coleman, H. W., and Steele, W. G., 1989, Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, Wiley, New York.
Munk, M., and Prim, R., C., 1947, “On the Multiplicity of Steady Gas Flows Having the Same Streamline Pattern,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 33(5), pp. 137–141. [CrossRef]
McBean, S. F., and Birk, A. M., 2007, “Optimizing the Performance of Air–Air Ejectors With Triangular Tabbed Driving Nozzles,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-27413. [CrossRef]
Cherry, N. J., Hillier, R., and Latour, M. E. M. P., 1984, “Unsteady Measurements in a Separated and Reattaching Flow,” J. Fluid Mech., 144, pp. 13–46. [CrossRef]
Ruderich, R., and Fernholz, H. H., 1986, “An Experimental Investigation of a Turbulent Shear Flow With Separation, Reverser Flow, and Reattachment,” J. Fluid Mech., 163, pp. 283–322. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of discrete calculation method for predicting shear layer in ejector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Control volume of short ejector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Classification of ejectors based on mixing duct length and flow regime: (a) short ejector, (b) medium ejector, and (c) long ejector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Control volume applied to long ejector model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometry of ejector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Measurement grid (AR = 1.95): (a) mixing duct inlet and (b) mixing duct exit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Calculation process in short ejector model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic of ejector test section and measurement locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Test section and experimental equipment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of predicted and measured velocity profiles at the mixing duct inlet of SNU short ejectors at Re = 420,000: (a) AR = 1.95, LR = 2, (b) AR = 1.95, LR = 3, and (c) AR = 3.08, LR = 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of predicted and measured velocity profiles at the mixing duct exit of SNU short ejectors at Re = 420,000: (a) AR = 1.95, LR = 2, (b) AR = 1.95, LR = 3, and (c) AR = 3.08, LR = 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Schematic of static pressure rise with mixing progress in the mixing duct

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Experimental and analytical static pressure distribution along the mixing ducts at Re = 420,000 (AR = 1.95)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Regimes of secondary velocity variation relative to the kink: (a) upstream of kink and (b) downstream of kink

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Velocity profiles inside mixing duct at x/L = 0, 0.33, 0.67, and 1 for SNU short ejectors at Re = 420,000: (a) AR = 1.95, LR = 2, (b) AR = 1.95, LR = 3, and (c) AR = 3.08, LR = 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of measured pumping from SNU, Toulmay [18], McBean and Birk [24], and predictions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Analytical and experimental pumping performance of SNU short ejectors at Re = 420,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Schematic of static pressure rise patterns in ejector



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In