Heat and Mass Transfer 39 (2003) 709–719

DOI 10.1007/s00231-002-0315-x

Raman Measurements of Cryogenic Injection at Supercritical Pressure

W. Mayer, J. Telaar, R. Branam, G. Schneider, J. Hussong

709
Abstract Understanding the complex environment of PrT Turbulent Prandlt number
rocket chambers involves a good knowledge of injection q Quantum efficiency of detector
phenomena and gives the designer the ability to employ r Radial location
time and cost saving modeling tools to design a higher r1/2 Radial location of half maximum value of a
performance engine. This project looked at injection parameter
processes in the supercritical regime using cryogenic
T Temperature
nitrogen. Experimental data taken by 2-D Raman
imaging allowed the comparison of density and diver- u Axial velocity
gence angels with computational models. These param- x Axial location
eters provide much information about the jet a Jet divergence angle
development and mixing with the surrounding gas. The dx¢ Vorticity growth rate
process used to derive divergence angles from Raman e Turbulent energy rate of dissipation, optical
images proves difficult to compare directly with other efficiency
techniques. l Viscosity
ls Friction velocity
m Kinematic viscosity
List of symbols
C, Cl Constants mT Turbulent eddy viscosity
cp Coefficient of specific heat constant pressure q Density, number density
d Injector diameter (2.2 mm) x Solid angle of detection
k Turbulent kinetic energy, thermal s Shear stress
conductivity dr/dX Differential scattering cross section
kT Eddy conductivity
keff Effective kinetic turbulent energy, effective
heat conductivity Sub- and Super-scripts
h, H Enthalpy ax Axial direction
I Image intensity, turbulence intensity c Centerline value at specified axial location
IRaman Detected intensity i, j, k, x, y Cartesian directions
and z
ILaser Laser intensity
o Centerline value at the injector
l Length
rad Radial direction
T Turbulent parameter
¥ Chamber property away from the jet
Received: 18 October 2001 *, + Dimensionless values
Published online: 24 July 2002

Springer-Verlag 2002
1
W. Mayer (&), J. Telaar, R. Branam, G. Schneider Introduction
Lampoldshausen, D-74239 Hardthausen, Germany
E-mail: wolfgang.mayer@dlr.de There is much interest in high pressure combustion for
the production of high power energy conversion and
J. Hussong
D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
thrust. This is found in diesel engines, gas turbines, and,
in particular, rocket engines. These high pressures often
R. Branam exceed the critical pressures of the injected fuel and/or
Guest scientist from the U.S.A.
oxidizer. Understanding the complex environment of the
This work is supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and combustion chamber in order to get the most power out
Research (BMBF) under contract number 50TT9627 (Project
TEKAN). The project was accomplished in the frame of the SPP,
of it requires a good understanding of the injection
‘Atomization and Spray Processes’ under the guidance of DFG phenomena. This understanding allows the designer to
(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). employ time and cost saving modeling tools to better
 design a higher performing engine. Much work has
already been accomplished in this area as can be seen in
references [1, 2, 3, 4 and 5], but a strong understanding
of the injection process and the development of reliable
modeling tools still requires much work. This work takes
a step in this direction by looking at cryogenic injection
at pressures above the critical pressure and modeling of
this flow [6].

2 Fig. 1. Jet mixing flow field

710 Problem
This investigation looks at the behavior and properties
of a cryogenic, axisymmetric jet in a supercritical envi-
ronment. The experiment injects liquid nitrogen above
critical pressure (3.4 MPa) through a single injector into
a chamber filled with ambient temperature gaseous ni-
trogen. The experimental conditions look at the effects
of pressure, temperature and injection speed of the liq-
uid nitrogen into the chamber. The following Table 1
provides the targeted testing conditions, measured
pressures and temperatures (T1 at injector entrance,
Tainj and Tbinj at the injector exit), as well as the average
calculated injection velocity for each of the twelve cases
investigated. The temperature at the injector exit could
not be measured during the testing but was accom-
plished during a separate testing campaign to calibrate
the testing procedure. The temperatures were measured
using two different approaches, corresponding to Tainj
and Tbinj to be discussed further. The mass flow is
measured using a Coriolis mass flow measuring device.
The jet velocity has been computed using measured
mass flow, chamber pressure, and injection temperature
(TBinj) data. At each of the test conditions, Raman im-
ages were taken encompassing the area from the injector
to 60 mm (approximately 30 injector diameters) from
the injector. The pictures were used to determine density
distributions and jet spreading angle. These measured
values were compared to computational models for each
of the cases.
2.1
Cryogenic jet
A jet flow has three distinct zones: potential core, devel-
opment or transition region, and a similarity region as
seen in Figure 1. The potential core contains some portion
consisting of only injected fluid and reduces in thickness
as the jet mixes with entrained fluid from the surrounding
environment.
After the potential core region, the jet is in a transi-
tional state which is considered the region of turbulent
mixing for a jet. In this region, the energy dissipation and
the jet behavior tends to be of the highest interest for
mixing purposes. Researchers have indicated the most
significant influences on jet development include the ve-
locity ratio between initial jet velocity and the surrounding
environment (uo/u¥) as well as the density ratio (qo/q¥).
These parameters show how the momentum dissipates
from the jet into the flow field. For cryogenic jets, thermal
differences also have a significant effect. The density for
liquid nitrogen at these testing conditions is highly
dependent on temperature.
At some distance from the injection plane, the jet be-
comes self similar. This means a function of only one
variable can express the flow field profiles as no longer
varying in the axial direction. Schetz [7] stated this to
occur at approximately x/d ‡ 40, while others have indi-
cated for similar jets, velocity profiles exhibit self similar
behavior as close as x/d ‡ 20 [8]. Other parameters such as
turbulence intensities (u’, v’, w’) may not show this
behavior until well after x/d ‡ 200.
2.2
Incompressible jet
At pressures above the critical pressure and near critical
temperatures, changes in the temperature can correspond
to extreme density gradients. For this reason, real gas ef-
fects must be taken into account when determining flow

Table 1. Target and measured injection conditions: chamber pressure and jet data at injection tube outlet

Case Target Target Target Chamber Average jet Tainj(K) Tbinj(K)

Pressure (MPa) Velocity (m/s) Temperature (K) Pressure (MPa) velocity (m/s)

1 4 2 120 3.96 1.8 130.0 122.2

2 4 2 130 3.95 2.7 140.0 131.9
3 4 5 120 3.97 4.9 126.9 122.9
4 4 5 130 3.98 5.4 137.0 133.3
5 5 2 120 4.90 2.0 131.0 122.6
6 5 2 130 4.90 1.9 140.0 131.5
7 5 5 120 5.01 4.5 126.2 122.5
8 5 5 130 5.00 4.9 135.7 131.7
9 6 2 120 5.85 2.0 135.0 122.8
10 6 2 130 5.88 1.9 140.5 131.9
11 6 5 120 5.98 4.9 128.7 123.3
12 6 5 130 5.96 4.9 135.4 132.3
Fig. 2. Density and cp for Nitrogen
properties. Since pressure is relatively constant, this den-
sity gradient is only dependent on temperature, therefore
considered incompressible or weakly compressible ac-
cording to the classical definition of compressibility. By
using a real gas relationship for density, viscosity and
coefficient of specific heat at constant pressure, the com-
putational model captures the effects of being weakly
compressible when employing an incompressible solution
technique. This relationship also defines a very strong
relationship between temperature and density. Under
these temperature and pressure conditions, the coefficient
of specific heat (cp) goes through a maximum value as can
be seen in Figure 2. As the flow goes through this tem-
perature range, the density drops off dramatically as the
flow expands and absorbs heat.
2.3
Turbulent Prandtl number considerations
Schetz [7] showed the value of the Prandtl number actually
varies with radial location but on average is 0.7 for similar
axisymmetric submerged jets. The evidence from Pabst
[9], Sakipov and Temirbeav [10] calculated values ranging
from 0.4 to 1.7 for various fluids and locations. Most
computational fluids codes use values of 0.89 or 0.9 as the
default value [11, 12]. Values less than one correspond to
thermal energy dissipating in the flow quicker than mo-
mentum energy due to turbulent mixing. According to
White [13], the value should be greater than 0.7 and sug-
gests 0.9 or 1.0. Although this parameter varies over the
radial profile of the flow, it is common to choose a con-
stant value for the entire flow field for computational
models. A comparison between the results for Case 3
employing Prandtl number values of 1.0 [13] and 0.7 [7]
provided evidence for this testing condition to use 1.0.
mT
Pr ¼ ð1Þ
T kT =qCp
PrT = 1.0 proved to be more consistent with our experi-
mental density data and was used for all other cases. It also
allows the computational results to show thermal influ-
ences due to the changes in the coefficient of thermal heat
transfer under these temperature and pressure conditions
without inducing unrealistic influences caused by turbu-
lence effects in the models.
3 millimeter into the injector. These measured temperatures
Experimental setup
Figure 3 shows the pressurized chamber with the injector
used in the experiments presented in this paper along with
711
Fig. 3. Test chamber and injection tube outlet
the boundary conditions assumed for the model. The di-
ameter of the injector is 2.2 mm and the length to diameter
ratio is greater than 40. The chamber can be pressurized
up to 6 MPa and is equipped with an electric heater to
keep the wall temperature constant. Optical access to the
chamber is provided by four windows. Cold nitrogen is
injected into a warm nitrogen environment under different
ambient and injection conditions. The temperature of the
injected fluid condition can be as low as 90 K with injec-
tion velocities from 1 to 20 m/s.
The temperature of the injected fluid is measured at
Position 1 during testing (T1, Figure 3). Since the test
setup includes no temperature regulation system, the in-
jection temperature is established by running the experi-
ment starting at ambient temperature until the
temperature at Position 1 (T1) reaches the targeted tem-
perature (120 or 130 K). The Raman images are then re-
corded. Since the time required to take the images is small
compared to the time the injector needs to cool down, the
project assumes quasi steady state conditions. Neverthe-
less, there is a certain heat transfer from the injector to the
fluid during the measurement resulting in a temperature
difference between Position 1 and the injector exit (Fig-
ure 3) depending on the injection and ambient conditions.
To determine the exact injection temperature at the in-
jector exit into the chamber, a separate temperature
measurement campaign was performed.
A first approach (Tainj) used a thermocouple as shown
on the left in Figure 4 placing the thermocouple one mil-
limeter from the injector exit. The jet is heavily disturbed
by the thermocouple and it is possible the injected nitro-
gen does not completely wet the thermocouple. Therefore,
the measured temperature is expected to be higher than
actual injection conditions. A second series of temperature
measurements used the setup shown on the right in
Figure 4 (Tbinj), inserting the thermocouple about one
represent the temperature on the jet axis. Since heat
transfers from the injector wall to the fluid, a temperature
gradient is expected having a maximum temperature at the
712

Fig. 4. Thermocouples at injector exit: Tainj (left) and Tbinj (right) Fig. 6. Raman equipment setup

reduction of the peak power avoids optical damage of

injector wall and a minimum on the axis. This suggests the the quartz optics and reduces optical breakdown, while the
measured temperature is lower than the average fluid generated Raman signal remains constant as long as the
temperature. The results of the measurements are shown total pulse energy remains unchanged. Both pulses are
in Table 1 as Tainj and Tbinj. The differences in tempera- aligned parallel and focused by a cylindrical quartz lens
ture add some uncertainty to the expected results espe- (f = 300 mm) into the test chamber (Figure 6).
cially with respect to temperature values but would be To ensure the laser light sheet passes the cryogenic
expected to bound the actual conditions. nitrogen jet directly through the center, it is necessary to
In order to show the testing environment, typical jets in precisely align the laser. Therefore, the laser beams are
the Shadowgraph images of Figure 5 are included. For the directed by a mirror mounted on a translating stage close
colder cases, the flow is very dense making it difficult for to the entrance window. This arrangement allows easy
light to pass through. At 130 K the jet is above the critical positioning of the light sheet. To form a light sheet with
temperature for these pressure conditions and therefore sharp edges, an aperture clips the sides of the laser sheet.
much less dense. The lower density gradients provide a The dimensions of the laser light sheet are 22 mm · 600
flow field easier to measure with optical techniques such as lm with a total sheet energy of 150 mJ.
Shadowgraphy and Raman imaging. Although the upper edge of the sheet is sharply clipped,
it is not possible to place the light sheet closer than 2.65
3.1 mm to the injector. In spite of the very low diffracted laser
Experimental approach for Raman measurements power above the sheet, strong scattered light from the
An abbreviated description of the experimental set-up is metallic injector inhibits a closer positioning of the sheet
given here. The set-up is described in more detail in the to the nozzle tip. Two intensified CCD cameras detect the
previous campaigns and can be found in [4]. A XeF Ex- signal perpendicular to the light sheet. Equipped with
cimer laser (351 nm) with two independent laser tubes identical UV achromates (Halle, f = 100 mm, f/2), the
operates in a double oscillator configuration. The two laser cameras are able to yield a spatial resolution per pixel of
tubes fire with a short delay to reduce the peak intensity of approximately 71 lm horizontally by 50 lm vertically. The
the laser and to increase the total pulse length to 40 ns. The total image area of the cameras is 37 mm wide and 26 mm
high.
For the correction of the Raman images, it is necessary
to separate the Raman signal from any background.
Therefore, a polarizing beam splitter separates the de-
tected light into two channels (Figure 6). The cameras
record the reflected beam (polarized perpendicular beam
component) and the transmitted beam (parallel polarized
light component) separately. The depolarization ratio of
nitrogen is only 0.022, therefore, the resonant Raman
signal results with a very high s-polarization. Camera 2
detects this signal. Both Camera 1 and Camera 2 detect the
depolarized part of the Raman signal with other non-
polarized background in equal proportions. To obtain the
pure resonant Raman signal, the image of Camera 1 has to
be subtracted pixel by pixel from the image of Camera 2,
Fig. 5. Shadowgraphs; 4 MPa, 5 m/s at 120 K (case 3, top) and after proper normalization of their respective relative
130 K (case 4, bottom) sensitivities.
 Both cameras are equipped with interference filters with
bandwidth (FWHM) of 4 nm. They are only transparent
for the resonant wavelength of nitrogen (382 nm) and
suppress all other wavelengths by as high as 5 orders of
magnitude intensity reduction. These filters have a peak
transmission of only 28%. For this reason, an attempt to
use dielectric filters was investigated. They have a peak
transmission of more than 70% and a sufficient suppres-
sion of the excitation wavelength (T < 5E-4). The big
disadvantage is they are transparent for wavelengths above
approximately 450 nm (VIS-IR) which can be produced
from several different mechanisms. First under sub-critical
experimental conditions around the jet, there are sharp
density gradients from the gaseous (bulk gas) to the liquid
(jet) phase resulting in large gradients of the refractive
index. Additionally, there are further effects of focussing
within the cryogenic jet (like a rod lens) leading to optical
breakdown. From these areas, the emitted light contains
very bright, broadband radiation exceeding the signal
strength of the Raman signal. Thus, isolation of the Raman
signal is not possible. The laser power is reduced so no
breakdown occurs. But even if no optical breakdown oc-
curs, sub-critical conditions emit broadband stray light.
The dielectric filters could not be applied in our experi-
ments because the intensity of the stray light emitted
above 450 nm is too high. Even in the part of the image
area where no laser sheet is present, signal intensities as
high as the laser light sheet exist (Figure 7). Combinations
of further filters to increase the blocking ratio between 450
nm and 800 nm did not lead to sufficient suppression of
the broadband, non-resonant stray light on the camera.
Currently, the origin of this background is still unclear.
Therefore, the experiment uses standard interference fil-
ters with low peak transmission but sufficient rejection of
the background.
The Raman signal is proportional to the number den-
sity and to the cross section. With constant cross section,
the signal intensity is a linear function of the number
density. The cameras are easily calibrated when the image
areas show a wide region of bulk gas. Temperature and
pressure of the bulk gas are known. Thus, the number
density in the jet can easily be extracted from the signal
ratio of jet to bulk gas by multiplying by the number
density of the surrounding gas [14]. This technique could
not be applied on liquid jets for two main reasons. First,
the Raman cross section of liquid nitrogen is different than
gaseous nitrogen [14, 15]. Under partially supercritical
conditions, there is no way to distinguish in a camera
Fig. 7. Laser sheet position in flow field
image where the transition lies between liquid and gas and
where to apply the cross section of liquid or gaseous ni-
trogen. Second, the laser power has to be reduced to avoid
optical breakdown and, therefore, produces a very low
bulk signal. For these reasons, we restrict our measure-
ments to supercritical conditions.
In experiments close to critical conditions, it is not
possible to avoid optical breakdown completely. In some
instances, optical breakdown in small, restricted areas
occurs. These small regions, where the light obviously
saturated the camera, are taken into account during eval-
713
uation by masking these pixels. The number of images
recorded for a given experimental condition is small (56
images for each series, limited by the computer storage
capacity). Therefore, this procedure is applied only when
the number of images discarded due to camera saturation
does not exceed 10.
To determine the density from the intensity, a cali-
bration of the images is necessary. The temperature and
the pressure in the ambient gas are measured. Therefore
the ambient gas density is known. Since the density is a
linear function of the intensity, the density in the entire
image can be calculated by
I
q¼ q1 ð2Þ
I1
Large density gradients occur only in the radial direction.
Therefore, the density profiles can be smoothed by aver-
aging in the axial direction without introducing significant
errors. After averaging, each pixel contains the averaged
value of 5 pixels in upstream and 5 in downstream di-
rections. This procedure reduces the noise significantly
without affecting the density profiles. Averaging in the
radial direction would smear the density gradients and
cause large errors.
3.2
Sources of experimental error
Other parameters influence the accuracy of the measure-
ments as well. One uncertainty is due to optical effects
occurring principally in regions of high refraction index
gradients. These refraction index gradients cause distur-
bances of the light sheet. A round jet focuses the light sheet.
This causes higher light intensities in the probe volume
which cause plasma formations. The result is the peak seen
in the density profiles at 120 K at x/d = 1.2 in Figure 9.
Since these density peaks are not physical, there is more
confidence in the data from the side the light sheet enters.
Cessou et al. [16] also recently reported the strong
density gradients and therefore the strong refraction index
gradients seen in supercritical jet flows also produces a
loss of the laser energy by redirecting the signal. When the
highly dense jets with corrugated surfaces are illuminated
with a laser, the index gradients redirect the irradiance
along the jet axis according to the light refraction and total
reflection, illuminating parts of the jet not directly in the
path of the laser light sheet. Cessou et. al. [16] continues to
show this phenomena is present even under sub-critical
conditions. Jets with corrugated surfaces (sub- or
supercritical) cause a redirection of the light energy
passing through the stream.
 As observed in this experiment, measured maximum
density is often lower than the density corresponding to
the measured temperature and pressure. In Case 3 for
example, the maximum measured density from the Raman
images is approximately 400 kg/m3. The expected density
is 465 kg/m3 at 4 MPa and 126.7 K. This is a variation of
14%. The measured density corresponds to a temperature
of 128.5 K at 4 MPa which is a temperature variance of
only 1.4% emphasizing the importance of accurately
known temperature values. Accurately measuring the
temperature contributes some variability to the results but
714
the beam distortion provides a stronger justification for
the lower than expected Raman signal intensity. Further
downstream where density gradients are not as high, op-
tical effects diminish and results agree fairly well with
model calculations.
Another source of error is the assumption of density as
a linear function of the measured intensity. The equation
reads:
dr
IRaman ¼ ILaser q XeqL ð3Þ
dX
The image processing takes into account the laser intensity
and the efficiency of the detector but adds some variability
to our measured density values. A critical point is the
scattering cross section. It may change under trans- and
supercritical conditions similar to the differences between
gases and liquids.
Furthermore, we found a systematic error at the top
and bottom of each image. The measured maximum
density at both edges exhibits a significant increase. The
origin of this error is still not well understood. As a con-
sequence, the data reduction clipped these values and
evaluated only the mean part of the images to compare
with numerical results.
There are also some statistical uncertainties since the
experiment averaged only 56 images at each injection
condition. This statistical noise is visible in the density
profiles as well as in the maximum density plot along with
any introduced uncertainties from the background scaling
when subtracting the background signal from the Raman
signal.
4
Modeling
The model for this multi-physical problem bases itself on a
straight forward computational approach. The flow field
calculations employ the Favre Averaged Navier-Stokes
(FANS) equations for incompressible flow [17]. Since the
test conditions are in the supercritical regime for nitrogen,
real gas nitrogen properties are necessary and employ the
Lee and Kessler [18] and Chung [19] model built into the
CFD-ACE software. Without high velocity and the use of
real gas properties, it is possible to use the incompressible
solution scheme and still account for changing density.
The model focuses on a steady state solution to determine
average property distributions for this injection experi-
ment. The orientation of the injector also allows the as-
sumption of negligible body forces.
The FANS equations introduces the Reynolds stresses
to account for turbulence in the flow. While several
methods exist to estimate these values, the k-e model
seems to be the most appropriate. The model calculations
use this high Reynolds approximation in the flow and
semi-empirical calculation techniques to determine flow
parameters in the boundary layer where the viscous forces
are much greater than shear forces [20]. The temperature
calculation for the heat transfer is treated in a similar
manner and has an equal importance due to the sensitivity
of the density to temperature. The program discretized the
governing equations using a third order accurate scheme
to capture the large density gradients and damped with
first order upwind discretization to maintain stable
mathematical computations in the CFD-ACE software
package.
The software package takes into account the contribu-
tion of heat and mass transfer from the turbulence by use
of a turbulent Prandtl and Schmidt number. The heat
transfer module solves the total enthalpy form of the
energy equation as shown.

!  @ðusij Þ
r
q V ho ¼ r
ðkrTÞ þ ð4Þ
@xi
The calculation of an effective conductivity (keff) value
takes into account the turbulence effect. The following
equation shows how the program uses a turbulent Pra-
ndtl number to accomplish this. By using the turbulent
Schmidt number, the program handles the mass diffu-
sion in a similar way to calculate an effective diffusion
coefficient, although mass mixing due to diffusion for
this problem has less influence than mixing by aerody-
namic forces.
mT qcp
keff ¼ k þ ð5Þ
PrT
4.1
Grid
The computational grid used for this problem is a struc-
tured, 2-D, axisymmetric grid with just over 100,000 cells.
The refinement in the injector region is critical. To show
the solution is independent of this grid, the same condi-
tions were calculated for Case 3 using several courser
grids. The solution using a grid with 85,000 cells agrees
very well to the solution for the primary grid (100,000
cells). The axial density profile exemplifies this agreement
(Figure 8). Therefore, the results are considered the same
and the solution is independent of both grids. The finer
Fig. 8. Density; 4 MPa, 5 m/s, 120 K
grid was used for all the test conditions to ensure grid maximum density values and the second (*) uses local
independence at the other testing conditions. centerline density values.
q  q1
qþ ¼ ð7Þ
4.2 qo  q1
Boundary and initial conditions
The inlet and boundary conditions for this model are very  q  q1
important and extremely sensitive to temperature varia- q ¼ qc  q1 ð8Þ
tions. Measured mass flow, temperature and pressure de-
termine the inlet conditions. From the measured values,
inlet velocity, turbulent kinetic energy (k) and rate of
dissipation (e) are calculated and input to the model. The 5.1 715
turbulence parameters are as follows: Density profiles
The measured density profiles exhibit unrealistic density
3=4 3=2
3 C l k peaks just off the jet axis, Figure 9. These peaks are only
k ¼ ðIuÞ2 ; e ¼ ; Cl ¼ 0:09 ð6Þ found when the density of the injected nitrogen is very
2 0:014l
high, i.e. at low injection temperature and close to the
The outer wall of the chamber has a heater and is injector exit. This indicates optical effects like reflection
therefore isothermal. The actual test chamber also shows and refraction of the light sheet being responsible for these
evidence of heat transfer to the nitrogen in the injector measurement errors. For this reason, only the values from
tube. To account for this transient condition in the model, the side the laser enters the chamber (left in Figure 9)
the injector exit temperature (both Tainj and Tbinj) deter- to the centerline are taken for comparison to numerical
mined by experiment is used as the injector inlet tem- results.
perature and the injector tube as well as the faceplate are Figure 10 shows a non-dimensional plot of the densities
calculated as adiabatic walls (Figure 3). from Figure 9. The profiles at x/d = 1.2 for the lower
The model procedures calculate the outlet boundary temperatures are quite similar and show a profile more
condition based on total mass flow. The chamber is long like a top hat. The profile for the higher temperature Case 4
enough to consider the exit to be completely independent shows a clear density maximum at the jet axis and falls off
of the jet flow. The first attempt to resolve the exit con- quickly in the radial direction. At the positions further
ditions was to use an extrapolation technique. Extrapo- downstream, x/d = 5 and x/d = 25, the dimensionless
lated calculations for the outlet do not take into account profiles of Cases 4 and 11 are quite similar. This indicates
the mass flow being entrained in the jet from the chamber an increased heat transfer into the jet at the larger ambient
and therefore give erroneous velocity. By establishing exit density in Case 11. The lack of the top hat profile for Case
velocity as a fixed value, the calculations could account for 4 results from the heat transfer from the injector into the
this problem and smoothly resolve the jet flow realistically. injected fluid. The only temperature regulation comes
The initial conditions for the calculations are simply set to from the constant temperature in the liquid nitrogen
the outlet boundary conditions, low velocity at ambient storage tank. The temperature difference between fluid
temperature and chamber pressure, Figure 3. and injector as well as the heat transferred are expected

4.3
Convergence
The models go through between 20,000 to 30,000 iterations
for the various test cases in order to ensure convergence of
the solution. Several are similar to previously run test
conditions and use these final solutions as the initial
conditions therefore requiring fewer iterations to con-
verge. A mass flow balance provides final proof of con-
vergence. The total mass flow variance in the calculations
is less than five orders of magnitude smaller than the
calculated inlet mass flow. The calculated mass flows all Fig. 9. Measured density, Cases 3, 4, and 11
vary by less than 0.12% to the measured mass flows.

5
Results
The primary purpose of these results is to compare the
measured Raman results with computational models in
order to better characterize cryogenic jet flows. From the
Raman images, density values and jet divergence angles
are determined. Using the following expressions to non-
dimensionalize density allows the results to be compared
using a common scale. The first expression (+) uses Fig. 10. Measured density, Cases 3, 4, and 11
 to be larger at higher injection temperatures for the
procedures used. This causes stronger temperature and
density gradients in the injector.
The numerical calculations assume a constant temper-
ature of the injected fluid in the injector. Therefore, the
influence of the temperature profile in the injector is not
considered. This contributes to discrepancies between
experimental data and numerical results. This problem is
being taken into account in future calculations.
When looking at the progression of the calculated
density profiles from x/d = 1.2 to x/d = 25, the graphs
716
show the development of the flow as it moves toward a self
similar solution. Figure 11 from Case 3 exhibits this trend
seen at these testing conditions. The profiles closer to the
injector show a flat region (q* = 1.0) near the centerline
(r/r1/2 = 0) which eventually no longer exists at x/d ‡ 10.
This corresponds to the potential core. Even though some
of the testing cases show little potential core in the
measured data, the models calculated core lengths for each
testing condition. This results from the quality of the
Raman images and differences caused by the heat
transferred to the flow in the injector tube.
The transition from a liquid-like jet behavior through
the transition region to a fully gas-like jet behavior can be
easily seen in the profile above r/r1/2 = 1.0. Following the
progression of the jet using the density profiles from x/d =
1.2 to x/d = 10, the slope progressively increases (becomes
less negative). For the profile at x/d = 15, the slope has
again dramatically decreased and the profiles after this
axial location continue to decrease slightly and converge.
The profiles for x/d = 20 and 25 very nearly share the same
line. The experimental data has a considerable amount of
variability (no error bars are shown for clarity) but follows
the trend of the computational models.
Figure 12 shows another way to easily see the trend for
the jet to move through the transition region and to the
self similar region quickly. This figure presents the density
profiles (q ) as a function of r/x, Case 11.
Fig. 11. Density; 4 MPa, 5 m/s, 120 K
Fig. 12. Density; 6 MPa, 5 m/s, 120 K
The effect of using axial position to normalize the
profile radial position shifts the profiles very near the in-
jector to the right and dramatically portrays the expected
potential core (x/d = 1.2). As the profiles are plotted at
intervals away from the injector, the density properties
show similar behavior as seen in Figure 11. The slope for
the entire profile increases until x/d = 10 and then begins
to decrease again. This is opposite to the behavior in
Figure 11 due to the method of presenting the data but
corresponds to the same phenomena. The jet has a high
density core to an axial position near x/d = 10, it then goes
through a turbulent transition and then begins to develop
into a self similar jet flow. Figure 12 also shows the profiles
at x/d = 20 and 25 do not collapse to the same line,
therefore the relationship suggests the flow has not yet
reached self similarity. The experimental data corresponds
with this trend again.
In looking at the agreement of the density determined
from the Raman images and the calculated model,
Figure 13 shows a representative sample with statistical
variations of a measured profile at x/d = 20 for Case 1
agreeing well with the calculated results.
5.2
Centerline density
The centerline density calculations prove to be useful in
looking at several aspects of the jet. Primarily, this axial
property relationship shows how the jet dissipates with
distance from the injector. Observations of the axial den-
sity profile provide insight into the behavior of the jet as it
moves through the various stages of a jet development. In
Figure 14 Case 4, the computational results present a
correlation with the experimental data. This image shows
the centerline density beginning to decrease near the in-
jector for test cases at 130 K and 5 m/s suggesting a very
short or no potential core at all, although the models
calculated a distinct potential core length. This phenom-
enon could be due to the peak in specific heat. For flows at
Fig. 13. Density; 4 MPa, 2 m/s, 120 K
Fig. 14. Density; 4 MPa, 5 m/s, 130 K
temperatures above the peak cp temperature (Figure 14),
the density falls off quickly with small temperature
increases. More dense flows with temperatures below this
peak cp temperature require more heat energy transferred
before the density values fall off, resulting in longer
potential core lengths.
From Figure 14, the expected characteristics of the
potential core are more obvious with the calculated density
ratio at approximately one until x/d = 7.6. At this point,
the density falls off fairly quickly but does not reach am-
bient values until much further downstream (x/d > 100).
These profiles provide insight into the development of the
jet through the various regions when viewed on a loga-
rithmic scale as seen from Figure 15; the potential core,
transition region and fully developed region.
Figure 15 shows the behavior of a jet (Case 3) with a
very dense core, the transition to a turbulent mixing zone
and then into a fully developed region. The steep slope at
x/d  10 to x/d  30 shows the rapid transfer of both
momentum and thermal energy. After x/d  30 in the jet
flow, the density gradient is much lower and the dissipa-
tion is also much reduced suggesting a region of highly
developed flow. At a point past x/d = 150, the density falls
off quickly toward the chamber value suggesting the jet
completely dissipates. The model calculations show this
location in the chamber to be the far edged of a recircu-
lation zone established to transfer mass back toward the
injector. Figures 14 and 15 results use the Tainj injection
temperatures to compare with experimental values. When
looking at the comparison and agreement between the
different models using Tainj and Tbinj versus the Raman
results, it proves to be a better comparison when using
absolute density values.
Figure 16 is the behavior for the jet for Case 3. The
expected result would be for the Raman results to be
bounded by the two model curves since one method (Tainj)
is expected to be above actual measured temperature
and the other (Tbinj) is expected to be slightly below.
Fig. 15. Density; 4 MPa, 5 m/s, 120 K
Fig. 16. Density, 4 MPa, 5 m/s, 120 K
The results in the very dense core region near the injector
fall below both curves suggesting other influences in the
problem. Further downstream, the results then correspond
to the warmer injection temperature.
When considering a test case at a warmer injection
temperature and a corresponding lower density, Case 8
shows a representative case of the results, Figure 17. Once
again, the Raman density values fall below both model
results and the profile has the same characteristic seen in
Figure 14 suggesting little or no potential core for the
warmer testing conditions. Further downstream from the
717
injector, the density values again agree well with the model
employing the warmer injection temperature. These results
indicate first of all, the heat transfer in the injection tube is
significant, particularly in the warmer cases, affecting the
length of the potential core and dissipation of the jet. Also,
the differences between the Raman density results and the
models suggest the Raman images are affected by other
optical effects resulting in lower than expected intensity,
and therefore density values. These effects include signal
losses due to reflection and refraction of the Raman signal
within the highly dense jet and assumption of a constant
differential scattering cross section of nitrogen but are not
well understood and at this time can not be quantified.
Figures 18 and 19 present the axial profile densities
resulting from the Raman images for other testing
Fig. 17. Density, 5 MPa, 5 m/s, 130 K
Fig. 18. Density; Cases 5, 6, and 7
Fig. 19. Density; Cases 9 and 10
 conditions. Figure 18 includes the remaining test cases at 5 Close to the injector exit, the centerline density is quite
MPa and Figure 19 at 6 MPa. The colder testing conditions high and the jet is quite compact. Added to this, the
show higher density values at the injector exit and have a temperature difference across the shear layer is small
similar profile as the other testing conditions for this type compared with the difference across the entire jet. The
of jet flow. dense core of the jet therefore demands the position of
the FWHM is closer to the core instead of in the shear
5.3 layer. Therefore, the angle from the FWHM method is
Jet divergence angle, a very small close to the injector determined from x/d  0
The jet divergence angle seems to be one of the most to 10.
highly considered parameters for jet flows. It lends itself to In the Raman images for x/d10 to 20 and 20 to 30, the
be easily measured and compared with other results. jet warms up and dissipates. In this jet region the cen-
718
Chehroudi et. al. [1] provided a comparison of many dif- terline density is of the same order of magnitude as the
ferent empirical models with available test data under density in the shear layer. Therefore, FWHM locations falls
various conditions. Of particular interest to this experi- within the shear layer. Comparison with the computational
ment were the models put forth by Dimotakis [21] and results shows a fairly good agreement for these locations,
Papamoschou and Roshko [22]. Dimotakis investigated Figure 20. For the coldest cases, the angles based on
the entrainment of mass flow into the growing shear layer FWHM are very small or even negative near the injector.
of a free jet. He proposed a vorticity growth rate equation The warmer cases do not show this initial decrease in
seen below depending on velocity and density ratio be- the radial location of the FWHM but similarly have a
tween the fluid flows. For these conditions, the velocity relatively constant value. The conclusion then is the
ratio is zero, simplifying the following equation consid- growth rate of the shear layer does not correspond to the
erably. angle measured from the FWHM procedure when the
8 9 centerline density is significantly higher than the density
>
 > in the shear layer, for these testing conditions in the near
>
< u
1  u1o >
=
0 injector region.
dx ¼ 0:17 
1=2
 > 
>
> > Overall, the values for the warmer cases (T = 130 K) are
: 1 þ qq1 u1
u
; significantly better predicted by model calculations than
o o

 for the colder cases (T = 120 K).

8
1=2  9 Figure 21 shows how the models, Raman images and
>
>   1  qq1 >
>
< q1 1=2 o
= Shadowgraph (added for comparison) images compare
 1þ h i ð9Þ with the relationships put forth by Dimotakis [21] and
>
> qo 1þu1 =uo Þ >
1 þ 2:9 ðð1u >
: 1 =uo Þ ; Papamoschou and Roshko [22]. The model calculations
seem to agree fairly well with the Dimotakis relationship in
Papamoschou and Roshko proposed a visual thickness this density ratio region. The variability of the averaged
equation for incompressible, variable-density mixing Raman data is fairly apparent in this figure. These values
layers while studying the turbulence and compressibility tend to be considerably higher than computational values
effects in plane shear layers. This relationship uses a or the empirical relationships.
convective velocity definition to relate the difference in the
flows. The experimentally determined constant (0.17)
allows results to be compared with axisymmetric jet flows.
Again, since the velocity ratio for this effort is zero, the
relationship simplifies considerably.

1=2 
  1 þ qq1
u1 o
d0vis ¼ 0:17 1  

1=2  ð10Þ
uo
1 þ uu1o qq1
o

The edge of the shear layer is difficult to determine from Fig. 20. Density FWHM; 4 MPa, 5 m/s, 120 K
density values calculated from the Raman images due to
the variability in the density values. Therefore the pro-
cedure employed determines the location of half the
difference between the maximum and minimum values in
the profiles (Full Width Half Maximum, FWHM). In or-
der to compare the results with visual techniques, the
procedure is to multiply the value by two as suggested by
Chehroudi et al. [1]. From the computational models, the
divergence angle is determined from both a FWHM
method and a 99% roll-off point for jet properties (i.e.
density). Figure 21 compares the results along with those
determined from Raman (x2) and Shadowgraph images. Fig. 21. Jet Divergence Angle
6 Supercritical Jets. AIAA paper number 2000–3392, 36th AIAA/
Conclusions
Understanding the complex phenomena of a supercritical
injection flow field still requires a considerable amount of
research, but this work provides some insights into several
aspects of a high pressure injector. This work accom-
plishes this by examining a single injector using liquid
nitrogen above the critical pressure. The various testing
conditions consider pressures from 4 to 6 MPa at two
target velocities (2 and 5 m/s) and two target injection
temperatures (120 K and 130 K). The experimental data
compares fairly well with numerical results from these
testing conditions. Agreement of the numerical results
with density obtained from Raman images quantitatively
provides some validation.
Under these testing conditions, the density profiles
show a distinct trend toward a self similar jet flow as early
as x/d = 25. The centerline density profiles in the axial
direction provide considerable insight into the jet devel-
opment from potential core through to the dissipation of
the jet. When injecting fluid below the critical temperature
as well as above the critical pressure, as the jet warms up, it
will reach the temperature at which cp reaches a maximum
value. The heat transfer from the surrounding gas to the
colder jet at this temperature has a dramatically higher
transfer rate at this location in the jet and requires higher
levels of energy for a small temperature change. These
small temperature changes therefore result in much higher
corresponding density changes.
The various methods for determining the spreading
angle prove useful for comparison, but values from the
numerical models determined from a 99% roll-off agree
best with the Dimotakis model. From the spreading rate
analysis, a further conclusion reached is the growth rate of
the shear layer and the radial distance injected fluid moves
away from the jet has no significant influence on the angle
measured from the FWHM procedure when the centerline
density is significantly higher than the density in the shear
layer and the ambient gas. This result is apparent from the
FWHM method of determining the spreading angle from
the Raman images and the computer models. The resulting
angles do not correspond with the visual procedures
especially near the injector.
Another results suggests the Raman procedure require
further investigation. The absolute values of density do not
correspond with expected values especially in high density
regions. This is caused by Raman signal distortion and
assumptions made in the Raman procedures to determine
density but is not well understood. Further work in this
area is necessary to produce more reliable results for using
Raman measurements to determine density under condi-
tions with large density gradients.
References
1. Chehroudi B.; Cohn, R.; Talley, D.; and Badakhshan A. (2000)
Raman Scattering Measurements in the Initial Region of Sub- and
ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
pp. 3–10
2. Mayer, W. and Tamura, H. (1996) Propellant Injection in a Liquid
Oxygen/Gaseous Hydrogen Rocket Engine. Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 12, No.6, pp 1137–1147
3. Ivancic, B.; Mayer, W.; Krülle, G.; Brüggemann, D. (1999) Exper-
imental and Numerical Investigation of Time and Length Scales in
LOX/GH2-Rocket Combustors. AIAA paper number 99-2211, 35th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
pp. 5–10
4. Mayer, W.; Schik, A.; Schäffler, M.; Tamura, H. (2000) Injection
and Mixing Processes in High-Pressure Liquid Oxygen/Gaseous
Hydrogen Rocket Combustors. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 719
Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 823–828
5. Mayer, W. (2000) TEKAN – Research on Cryogenic Rocket Eng-
ines at DLR Lampoldshausen. AIAA paper 2000–3219, 36th AIAA/
ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
6. Mayer, W.; Schik, A.; Vieille, B.; Chaveau, C.; Goekalp, I.; Talley,
D.; Woodward, R., (1998) Atomization and Breakup of Cryogenic
Propellants under High-Pressure Subcritical and Supercritical C-
onditions. Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.
835–842
7. Schetz J. A. (1980) Injection and Mixing in Turbulent Flow. Pro-
gress in Aeronautics and Astronautics. Vol 68, AIAA.
pp. 19–84
8. Schlichting, H. (1979) Boundary-Layer Theory. New York: McG-
raw Hill. pp. 729–755
9. Pabst, O. (1944) Die Ausbreitung heißer Gasstrahlen in bewegter
Luft, I Teil-Versuche in Kerngebiet. Deutsche Luftfahrtforschung
10. Sakipov, Y.B. and Temirbaev, D.J. (1965) On the Ratio of the
Coefficients of Turbulent Exchange of Mass and Heat in a Free
Turbulent Jet. Tepli i Massoperenos. Vol. 2. pp. 407–413
11. Wilcox, D.C. (1994) Turbulence Modeling for CFD. La Canada:
DCW Industries. pps.181–2
12. CFD Research Corporation (1998) CFD-GUI5TM User manuals.
Huntsville. pg. 3–13
13. White, F.M. (1991) Viscous Fluid Flow. New York: McGraw Hill,
2nd Edition. pg. 482
14. Decker, M. and Schik, A. Meier, U.E. Stricker, W. (1998) Quant-
itative Raman Imaging Investigations of Mixing Phenomena in
High-pressure Cryogenic Jets. Appl. Optics. Vol. 37, No. 24. p-
p. 5620–5627
15. Eckhardt, G. and Wagner, W. G. (1966) On the Calculation of
Absolute Raman Scattering Cross Sections from Raman Scattering
Coefficients. J. Mol. Spectrosc. Vol. 19. pp. 407–411
16. Cessou, A, Wequin, O., and Stepowski, D. (2001) Alteration of the
Irradiance Field When Performing Laser Diagnostics in a Corru-
gated Liquid or Supercritical Jet. ILASS-Europe 2001. Zurich, pp.
561–567
17. Cebec, T. and Smith A.M.O. (1974) Analysis of Turbulent Boun-
dary Layers. New York: Academic Press
18. Lee, B.I. and Kesler, M.G. (1975) A Generalized Thermodynamic
Correlation Based on Three-Parameter Corresponding States. A-
IChE J., Vol. 21, p. 510
19. Chung. (1988) ‘‘Generalized Multiparameter Correlation for No-
npolar and Polar Fluid Transport Properties,’’ Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res., Vol. 27, p. 671
20. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B. (1974) Computational Methods.
Applied Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3
21. Dimotakis, P.E. (1986) Two-dimensional Shear-layer Entrainment.
AIAA Journal. Vol. 24, No. 11. pp. 1791–1796
22. Papamoschou, D. and Roshko, A. (1988) The Compressible Tur-
bulent Shear Layer: an Experimental Study. J. Fluid Mech., Vol.
197. pp. 453–477