0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Nondimensional Parameter for Characterization of Wall Shear Stress From Underexpanded Axisymmetric Impinging Jets

[+] Author and Article Information
Patrick Fillingham

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98105

Harikrishnan Murali

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98105

Igor V. Novosselov

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98105
e-mail: ivn@uw.edu

1The authors contributed equally to this work.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received September 16, 2016; final manuscript received April 20, 2017; published online August 2, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Samuel Paolucci.

J. Fluids Eng 139(11), 111102 (Aug 02, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-16-1611; doi: 10.1115/1.4037035 History: Received September 16, 2016; Revised April 20, 2017

Wall shear stress is characterized for underexpanded axisymmetric impinging jets for the application of aerodynamic particle resuspension from a surface. Analysis of the flow field resulting from normally impinging axisymmetric jets is conducted using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A normally impinging jet is modeled with a constant area nozzle while varying the height to diameter ratio (H/D) and the inlet pressures. Schlieren photography is used to visualize the density gradient of the flow field for validation of the CFD. A dimensionless jet parameter (DJP) is developed to describe flow regimes and characterize shear stress. The DJP is defined as being proportional to the jet pressure ratio divided by the H/D ratio squared. Maximum wall shear stress is examined as a function of DJP with three distinct regimes: (i) subsonic impingement (DJP < 1), (ii) transitional (1 < DJP < 2), and (iii) supersonic impingement (DJP > 2). It is observed that wall shear stress is limited to a finite value due to jet energy dissipation in shock structures, which become a dominant dissipation mechanism in the supersonic impingement regime. Additionally, the formation of shock structures in the wall flow was observed for DJP > 2, resulting in difficulties with dimensionless analysis. In subsonic impingement and transitional regimes, equations as a function of the DJP are obtained for the maximum wall shear stress magnitude, maximum shear stress location, and shear stress decay. Using these relationships, wall shear stress can be predicted at all locations along the impingement surface.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Henderson, B. , and Powell, A. , 1993, “ Experiments Concerning Tones Produced By An Axisymmetric Choked Jet Impinging On Flat Plates,” J. Sound Vib., 168(2), pp. 307–326. [CrossRef]
Krothapalli, A. , Rajkuperan, E. , Alvi, F. , and Lourenco, L. , 1999, “ Flow Field and Noise Characteristics of a Supersonic Impinging Jet,” J. Fluid Mech., 392, pp. 155–181. [CrossRef]
Tam, C. K. W. , and Ahuja, K. K. , 1990, “ Theoretical Model of Discrete Tone Generation by Impinging Jets,” J. Fluid Mech., 214, pp. 67–87. [CrossRef]
Donaldson, C. D. , and Snedeker, R. S. , 1971, “ A Study of Free Jet Impingement—Part 1: Mean Properties of Free and Impinging Jets,” J. Fluid Mech., 45(2), pp. 281–319. [CrossRef]
Kalghatgi, G. T. , and Hunt, B. L. , 1976, “ Occurrence of Stagnation Bubbles in Supersonic Jet Impingement Flows,” Aeronaut. Q., 27(3), pp. 169–185. [CrossRef]
Alvi, F. S. , Ladd, J. A. , and Bower, W. W. , 2002, “ Experimental and Computational Investigation of Supersonic Impinging Jets,” AIAA J., 40(4), pp. 599–609. [CrossRef]
Chin, C. , Li, M. , Harkin, C. , Rochwerger, T. , Chan, L. , Ooi, A. , Risborg, A. , and Soria, J. , 2013, “ Investigation of the Flow Structures in Supersonic Free and Impinging Jet Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 135(3), p. 031202. [CrossRef]
Samareh, B. , Stier, O. , Lüthen, V. , and Dolatabadi, A. , 2009, “ Assessment of CFD Modelling Via Flow Visualization in Cold Spray Process,” J. Therm. Spray Technol., 18(5–6), pp. 934–943. [CrossRef]
Young, R. M. , Hargather, M. J. , and Settles, G. S. , 2013, “ Shear Stress and Particle Removal Measurements of a Round Turbulent Air Jet Impinging Normally Upon a Planar Wall,” J. Aerosol Sci., 62, pp. 15–25. [CrossRef]
Tu, C. V. , and Wood, D. H. , 1996, “ Wall Pressure and Shear Stress Measurements Beneath an Impinging Jet,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 13(4), pp. 364–373. [CrossRef]
Smedley, G. T. , Phares, D. J. , and Flagan, R. C. , 1999, “ Entrainment of Fine Particles From Surfaces by Gas Jets Impinging at Normal Incidence,” Exp. Fluids, 26(4), pp. 324–334. [CrossRef]
Phares, D. J. , Smedley, G. T. , and Flagan, R. C. , 2000, “ The Wall Shear Stress Produced by the Normal Impingement of a Jet on a Flat Surface,” J. Fluid Mech., 418, pp. 351–375. [CrossRef]
Keedy, R. , Dengler, E. , Ariessohn, P. , Novosselov, I. , and Aliseda, A. , 2012, “ Removal Rate of Explosive Particles From a Surface by Impingement of a Gas Jet,” Aerosol Sci. Technol., 46(2), pp. 148–155. [CrossRef]
Birch, A. D. , Hughes, D. J. , and Swaffield, F. , 1987, “ Velocity Decay of Pressure Jets,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 52(1–3), pp. 161–171. [CrossRef]
ANSYS, 2012, “ 14.5 Theory Guide,” ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Miettinen, A. , and Siikonen, T. , 2015, “ Application of Pressure-and Density-Based Methods for Different Flow Speeds,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 79(5), pp. 243–267. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Catalano, P. , and Marcello, A. , 2003, “ An Evaluation of RANS Turbulence Modelling for Aerodynamic Applications,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 7(7), pp. 493–509. [CrossRef]
Settles, G. S. , 2001, Schlieren and Shadowgraph Techniques: Experimental Fluid Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of a normal impinging jet. The flow consists of the free jet region, stagnation zone, and wall jet region. The boundary layer develops as jet impinges on the surface and creates the flow parallel to the surface.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational domain (not to scale). Note that only half the domain is modeled due to the presence of symmetry. The inlet is supplied with gauge pressure, plate follows the model of a no slip wall, and outlet represents the open atmosphere (0 psig).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of experimental impinging jet setup. Supply pressure was regulated through the supply pressure gauge and measured precisely using an electronic pressure transducer. The flow was regulated using an alternating current solenoid. The flow field was then captured using Schlieren imaging.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of the z-type Schlieren setup used to visualize the flow field of the underexpanded impinging jet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of underexpanded impinging jet. Key characteristics are outlined. The presence of supersonic flow extending to the impingement point results in a normal plate shock, which dissipates energy resulting in less efficient removal. If the pressure in the recirculation zone is high enough a shockwave in the wall jet region may form.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Density contours of CFD model and Schlieren images at a height to diameter ratio of 5. The number of shock cells decreases with increasing pressure, but they get stronger. The oblique shock cells and the plate shocks produced by CFD are in agreement with the Schlieren images.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Experimental verification of H/D as a similarity parameter. Normally impinging jets of similar H/D, supplied with the same inlet pressure, produce the same flow pattern.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Experimental verification of H/D as a similarity parameter. Normally impinging jets of similar H/D, supplied with the same inlet pressure of 40 psi, produce the same shear stress profiles but different maximum values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Wall shear stress distribution for H/D of 10, 20, and 30 at gauge pressures of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 psig. The plots show the change in maximum wall shear stress magnitude and location.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Maximum wall shear stress versus DJP with lines separating the subsonic, transitional, and supersonic wall regions. For DJP greater than 1, the maximum shear stress asymptotically approached the maximum value limit.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Plot of the variation of peak wall shear stress with the dimensionless jet parameter with data using the equations developed by Phares et al. [12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Plot showing the effect of the dimensionless jet parameter on the peak wall shear location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of dimensionless jet parameter on exponential jet decay factor

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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