2011
DOI: 10.2514/1.j050511
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Density Field Measurements of a Supersonic Impinging Jet with Microjet Control

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The SPL of the CFD results falls between the two experimental measurements for the dominant peak, L3, but is overall higher as expected. The CFD results show L3 to be the dominant tone in agreement with one of the experiments (Venkatakrishnan et al, 2011) but not the other (Krothapalli et al, 1999) which shows L1 to be the dominant tone with L3 very close in level. As pointed out in both experimental observations, the jet exhibited more unsteadiness in its oscillation at this separation distance.…”
Section: Comparisons To Experimental Datasupporting
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The SPL of the CFD results falls between the two experimental measurements for the dominant peak, L3, but is overall higher as expected. The CFD results show L3 to be the dominant tone in agreement with one of the experiments (Venkatakrishnan et al, 2011) but not the other (Krothapalli et al, 1999) which shows L1 to be the dominant tone with L3 very close in level. As pointed out in both experimental observations, the jet exhibited more unsteadiness in its oscillation at this separation distance.…”
Section: Comparisons To Experimental Datasupporting
confidence: 71%
“…This unsteadiness is believed to be attributed to the competition between the L1 and L3 tones. In the Venkatakrishnan et al (2011) results, a strong harmonic of the L3 tone is shown, whereas the CFD and Krothapalli et al's (1999) results show a much weaker harmonic. As mentioned above, an important observation made from Figure 4 is the difference shown between the two experimental results.…”
Section: Comparisons To Experimental Datamentioning
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similar to the schlieren method, BOS is capable of measuring two in-plane, first-order gradients parallel to the background target and the image sensor, which are integrated along the line of sight [2,3,14,17]. Additional procedures can be followed to measure the gradients in the normal direction of the plane [3,12,14,17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar to the schlieren method, BOS is capable of measuring two in-plane, first-order gradients parallel to the background target and the image sensor, which are integrated along the line of sight [2,3,14,17]. Additional procedures can be followed to measure the gradients in the normal direction of the plane [3,12,14,17]. Besides providing quantitative measurements, the other advantages of BOS can be summarized as: the straightforward computation, no restriction on the measurement object size, reduced number of optical elements and simpler adjustment compared to traditional schlieren technique [2,4,9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%