See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234095921

Bubble Augmented Waterjet Propulsion: Numerical and Experimental Studies

Conference Paper · September 2010

CITATIONS READS
12 677

3 authors:

Xiongjun Wu Jin-Keun Choi

Dynaflow, Inc. Dynaflow, Inc.
60 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   1,319 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Georges L Chahine
Dynaflow, Inc.
653 PUBLICATIONS   6,335 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cavitation Erosion Study View project

NASA Free Vortex Phase Separator View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jin-Keun Choi on 27 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Bubble Augmented Waterjet Propulsion: Numerical and
Experimental Studies
Xiongjun Wu, Jin-Keun Choi, Chao-Tsung Hsiao, Georges L. Chahine
(DYNAFLOW, INC., U.S.A.)
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we present our efforts to test
experimentally and numerically the concept of bubble
augmented jet propulsion. The numerical model is
based on a two-way coupling between an Eulerian
description of the flow field and a Lagrangian tracking
of bubbles using the Surface Averaged Pressure (SAP)
model. The numerical results compares favorably with
nozzle experiments. A half 3-D nozzle for bubble
augmented propulsion was designed and optimized
using the developed numerical code, which in the end
yielded a design that produces net thrust increase with
increased bubble injection rate. The numerical code
can be a robust tool for the general two-phase flow
nozzle design as demonstrated in the present numerical
and experimental studies.
INTRODUCTION
Bubble injection into a waterjet to augment
thrust has received a revived interest after studies of
Albagli and Gany (2003) and Mor and Gany (2004)
showed interesting results indicating that bubble
injection can significantly improve the net thrust and
overall propulsion efficiency of a water jet. Several
prior studies (Mottard and Shoemaker, 1961, Muir and
Eichhorn, 1963, Witte, 1969, Pierson, 1965, Schell et
al., 1965) explored similar ideas, and some of these
studies adopted the naming Water Ramjet to such a
system by analogy to ramjet aerodynamic propulsion
systems.
Analytical, numerical and experimental
evidences to the augmentation of the jet thrust due to
bubble growth in the jet stream, even though
preliminary, make the idea of bubble augmented thrust
attractive. Unlike traditional propulsion devices which
are typically limited to less than 50 knots, this
propulsion concept promises thrust augmentation even
at very high vehicle speeds (Mor and Gany, 2004)).
Various prototypes have been developed and
tested, e.g., Hydroduct by Mottard and Shoemaker
1
28th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Pasadena, California, 12-17 September 2010
(1961), MARJET by Schell et al. (1965), Underwater
Ramjet by Mor and Gany (2004). Figure 1 shows how
the concept works: fluid enters a diffuser and is first
compressed (ram effect), then it mixes with high
pressure gas injected via mixing ports, which
constitutes the energy source for the ramjet, and then
the multiphase mixture is accelerated by passing
through a converging nozzle. Such prototypes have
shown a net thrust due to the injection of the bubbles.
However, the performance may be strongly related to
the efficiency and proper operation of the bubble
injector and the overall propulsion efficiency was
typically less than that anticipated from the
mathematical models used. This may be a result of a
poor mixing efficiency at the injection, possible flow
chocking or of weaknesses in the modeling (Varshay,
1994, 1996).
Previous empirical and numerical studies of
bubbly flow through a nozzle (Tangren et al., 1949,
Muir and Eichhorn, 1963, Ishii et al., 1993, Kameda
and Matsumoto, 1995, Wang and Brennen, 1998,
Preston et al., 2000) have modeled mixture passing
through a nozzle. With these models, it is found that
expansion of a compressed gas bubble-liquid mixture is
an efficient way to generate the momentum necessary
for additional thrust (Albagli and Gany, 2003, Mor and
Gany, 2004)). However approximations and
simplifications in these models dictates a numerical
tool which can provide a more detailed analysis of the
two-phase flow, and which correctly includes the
dynamic behavior of bubbles to simulate water ramjet
propulsion (Chahine et al., 2008).
At DYNAFLOW, our approach is to consider
the bubbly mixture flow inside the nozzle from the
following two perspectives:
• Microscopic level: Individual bubbles are tracked
in a Lagrangian fashion, and their dynamics are
followed by solving the surface averaged pressure
Rayleigh-Plesset equation. The bubble responds to
its surrounding medium described by its mixture
density, pressure, velocity, etc.
• Macroscopic level: Bubbles are considered
collectively and define a void fraction space
distribution. The mixture medium has a time and
space dependant local density which is related to
the local void fraction. The mixture density is
provided by the microscale tracking of the bubbles
and the determination of their local volume
fraction.
The two levels are fully coupled: the bubble
dynamics are in response to the variations of the
mixture flow field characteristics, and the flow field
depends directly on a function of the bubble density
variations. This is achieved through two-way coupling
between the unsteady Navier Stokes solver 3DYNAFS-
VIS© and the bubble dynamics code 3DYNAFS-DSM©.
A quasi-steady version of the code was also developed,
and was extensively used to conduct parametric studies
useful for fast estimation of the overall performance of
selected geometric design.
field has a variable density because the void fraction
varies in space and in time. This makes the overall
flow field problem similar to a compressible flow
problem.
LAGRANGIAN BUBBLE TRACKING
Lagrangian bubble tracking is accomplished
by 3DYNAFS-DSM© (or a corresponding FLUENT User
Defined Function called Discrete Bubble Model
(DBM)). It is a multi-bubble dynamics code for
tracking and describing the dynamics of bubble nuclei
released in a flow field. The user can select a bubble
dynamics model; either the incompressible Rayleigh-
Plesset equation (Plesset, 1948) or the compressible
Keller-Herring equation (Gilmore, 1952, Knapp et al.,
1970, Vorkurka, 1986). In the first option, the bubble
dynamics is solved by using a modified Rayleigh-
Plesset equation improved with a Surface-Averaged
Pressure (SAP) scheme:

⎛ 3k
⎞
 + 3 R 2 = 1 ⎜ p + p ⎛ R0 ⎞ − P − 2γ − 4 μm R ⎟
RR
⎜ ⎜ ⎟
ρm ⎝ R ⎟⎠
v g 0 enc
2 ⎝R⎠ R
| uenc − ub |2
+ ,
4
(5)

where R is the bubble radius at time t, R0 is the initial

or reference bubble radius, γ is the surface tension
Figure 1. Concept sketch of bubble augmented jet
propulsion. parameter, µm is the medium viscosity, ρm is the
density, pv is the liquid vapor pressure, pg0 is the initial
gas pressure inside the bubble, k is the polytropic
GOVERNING EQUATIONS compression law constant, uenc is the liquid convection
velocity vector and ub is the bubble travel velocity
The mixture medium satisfies the following vector, and Penc is the ambient pressure “seen” by the
general continuity and momentum equations: bubble during its travel. With the Surface Averaged
Pressure (SAP) model, Penc and uenc are the average of
∂ρ m the pressure over the surface of the bubble. If the
+ ∇ ⋅ ( ρ mu m ) = 0 , (1) second option is adopted, the effect of liquid
∂t
compressibility is accounted for by using the following
Keller-Herring equation.
Du m ⎧ 2 ⎫
ρm = −∇pm + ∇ ⎨2 μ mδ ij − μ m ( ∇ ⋅ u m ) ⎬ , (2)
Dt ⎩ 3 ⎭ ⎛ R ⎞  3 ⎛ R ⎞  2 1 ⎛ R R d⎞
⎜ 1 − ⎟ RR + ⎜ 1 − ⎟R = ⎜1 + +
⎝ cm ⎠ 2 ⎝ 3cm ⎠ ρ m ⎝ cm cm dt ⎟⎠
where, the subscript m represents the mixture medium,
and δ ij is the Kronecker delta. The mixture density and ⎛ ⎛R ⎞
3k
2γ 4 μm R ⎞
⎜⎜ pv + pg 0 ⎜ 0 ⎟ − Penc − − ⎟
the mixture viscosity for a void volume fraction α can ⎝ ⎝ R⎠ R R ⎟⎠
be expressed as | u − ub |2
+ enc ,
4
ρ m = (1 − α ) ρ A + αρ g , (3)
(6)

μ m = (1 − α ) μ A + αμ g , (4) where cm is the speed of sound in the mixture medium.

where, the subscript A represents the liquid and the
subscript g represents the gaseous bubbles. The flow

2
 The bubble trajectory is obtained from the pressure, this quasi-steady approximation can be
bubble motion equation derived by Johnson and Hsieh written by removing all dynamics components from the
(1966): Rayleigh-Plesset equation.

du b ρ 3R ρ ∂u 3-D UNSTEADY FULLY COUPLED MODELING

= FD ( u − u b ) + m ( u − ub ) + m ub
dt ρ b 2R ρb ∂x
(7) The 3D coupling between the mixture flow
1 ρ m ⎛ du du b ⎞ ( ρ b − ρ m ) field and the bubble dynamics and tracking is realized
+ ⎜ − ⎟+ g
2 ρ b ⎝ dt dt ⎠ ρb by coupling the 3DYNAFS_VIS© and 3DYNAFS_DSM©.
Kv1/ 2 ρ m d ij The unsteady two-way interaction can be described as
+ ( u − ub ) . follows:
ρ R (d lk d kl )1/ 4
b
• The bubbles in the flow field are influenced by the
The first term in Equation (7) accounts for the drag local densities, velocities, pressures, and pressure
force effect on the bubble trajectory. The drag gradients of the mixture medium. The dynamics
coefficient FD is determined by the empirical equation of individual bubbles and Lagrangian tracking of
of Haberman and Morton (1953). The second and third them are based on these local flow variables as
term in Equation (7) account for the effect of change in described in Equations (5) to (7).
added mass on the bubble trajectory. The fourth term • The mixture flow field is influenced by the
accounts for the effect of pressure gradient, and the presence of the bubbles. The local void fraction,
fifth term accounts for the effect of gravity. The last and accordingly the local mixture density, is
term in Equation (7) is the Saffman (1965) lift force modified by the migration and size change of the
due to shear as generalized by Li & Ahmadi (1992). bubbles, i.e., the bubble population and size. The
The coefficient K is 2.594, ν is the kinematic viscosity, flow field is adjusted according to the modified
and dij is the deformation tensor. mixture density distribution in such a way that the
continuity and momentum are conserved through
1-D MODELING Equations (1) and (2).

To study conditions, where the flow can be The two-way interaction described above is
considered 1-D with average quantities in a cross very strong as the void fraction can change
section, the governing equations for unsteady 1-D flow significantly (from near zero in the water inlet to as
through a nozzle of varying cross-section can be high as 70% at the nozzle exit) in Bubble Augmented
written as jet Propulsion (BAP) applications. Void fractions
based on -cell concept were introduced in the 3-D
∂ρ m 1 ∂ρ mum A space to compute the void fraction (Chahine et al.,
+ = 0,
∂t A ∂ x (8) 2008).
∂ρ mum 1 ∂ρ mum Aum ∂ p
+ + = 0, THRUST DEFINITIONS
∂t A ∂x ∂x
There are two definitions for thrust
where ρ m , um , p are the mixture density, velocity
calculations based on the application type. For ramjet
and pressure, and A is the cross-sectional area of the type propulsion, the thrust of the nozzle can be
nozzle. computed by integrating the pressure and the
A one dimensional code, 1-D BAP, was momentum flux over the surface of a control volume
developed for this study (Chahine et al., 2008). The that contains both the inlet and outlet of the nozzle.
liquid was assumed to be incompressible so that all
compressibility effects of the mixture arose from the T = ∫∫ ( p + ρ mum2 ) dA , (9)
disperse gas phase only. The void fraction, α , is A

determined by the volume occupied by the bubbles per

unit mixture volume, additionally, it is assumed that where um is the axial component of the mixture
other than at the injection locations, no bubbles are
velocity.
created or destroyed. For steady conditions, the time
For waterjet type applications, what counts is
dependant term can be ignored. In addition, if
the exit water jet momentum flux, the thrust of the
spherical, the local bubble dynamics in the nozzle is
nozzle can be computed by integrating only the
governed by either the Rayleigh-Plesset equation or by
momentum flux over the exit surface of the nozzle.
assuming that bubbles readily equilibrate with the local

3
 T = ∫∫ ρ mum2 dA ,
Ao
where Ao is the exit surface area of the nozzle.
With the 1-D assumption, the thrust for the
ramjet is defined as follows:
TR = ( po Ao − pi Ai ) + ( ρ m ,o Ao um ,o − ρ m ,i Ai um ,i
2 2
),
where the subscripts i and o represent the inlet and the
outlet of the ramjet respectively. The component of the
thrust described in the first parenthesis in (11) is the
contribution from the pressure variation between the
inlet and the outlet. The second parenthesis represents
the thrust due to the momentum change between the
inlet and the outlet.
The thrust for a waterjet of the nozzle with the
1-D assumption can be simply written as:
TW = ρ m ,o Ao um ,o 2 . (12)
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
The test setup used in this study is shown in
Figure 2. The tests were conducted in DYNAFLOW’s
72 ft wind-wave tank. The flow was driven by two
15 HP pumps (Goulds Model 3656), each of which is
capable of producing a maximum flow rate of 550 gpm
at a pressure drop of 25 psi. The two pumps can work
in parallel to boost the flow rate and a bypass line is
used to adjust the flow rate. The nozzle test section is
placed below the free surface. The wind wave tank is
used as a very large water reservoir, so that the
possible accumulation of air bubbles generated from
the testing is minimized. A flow adaptor is used to
convert the flow from a circular cross section to a
matching cross section with the shape of the test
section geometry. A flow straightening section is
inserted between the flow adaptor and the nozzle inlet.
Reluctance type pressure transducer arrays are
arranged in the nozzle walls to measure the pressures at
different locations along the test section. Pressure
signals are sent to the data acquisition system for data
logging.
Various methods were used for velocity
measurement based on experimental conditions:
• A planar PIV system was used to characterize
the flow field without air injection or in the region
before air injection.
• An optical bubble tracking method was used
for velocity measurement for flows with low void
fraction when individual bubbles could be tracked to
characterize the flow field.
(10) • For flows with high void fraction which pose
difficulties for optical method, Pitot tubes and Kiel
probes were used for velocity measurement. Void
fraction effects are accounted for using the following
formula proposed by Bosio and Malnes (1968):
1 2 ΔP
VL = . (13)
(11) (1 − α 2 / 2) ρL
Figure 2: Sketch of the test setup for the Bubble Augmented
Jet Propulsion experiment.
The void fraction was measured or estimated
using several methods:
• The nominal void fraction was obtained by
dividing the air flow rate by the liquid flow rate.
• A photographic method was used to measure
the void fraction with image analysis. This was
applicable only to low void fraction medium where the
bubbles did not overlap too much.
• The attenuation of laser light through the
bubbly medium due to light scattering on the bubble
surfaces.
• An acoustic method that utilizes DYNAFLOW’s
ABS ACOUSTIC BUBBLE SPECTROMETER® was used to
measure bubble size distribution and integrate it to
obtain the void fraction (Prabhukumar et al., 1996,
Duraiswami et al., 1998, Chahine et al., 2001, 2008,
Chahine, 2008b).
• Conductivity probes were used to measure
conductivity and convert this to void fraction
information. This method can be applied to a wide
range of void fraction, but appears more accurate for
the higher void fraction.
2-D EXPERIMENT
The test section for two dimensional
experiments consisted of two acrylic side-walls and
two inserts that were sandwiched between the two side-
walls. The inserts were machined to form the desired
4
desired profile of the test section. This approach 14
enables one to test different test section profiles by 1D_BAP 100gpm
1D_BAP 200gpm
replacing the inserts. Figure 3 shows the dimensions of 12
1D_BAP 300gpm
the two dimensional nozzle with an expansion exit, EXP 100gpm

Velocity (m/s)
10
which was reported previously (Chahine et al., 2008). EXP 200gpm
EXP 300gpm
8

2
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3: Dimensions of a 2-D nozzle with an expansion
Nominal Void Fraction (%)
exit.

Figure 6: Predicted and measured section averaged velocities

Figure 4 shows a picture of the nozzle in the
at the exit vs. nominal injection void fraction.
experimental setup. The intention of the addition of the
exit expansion was to make the bubbles grow more at
Increased velocity at the outlet with bubble
the throat and to enhance the bubble effects. Using the
injection is a key factor for thrust augmentation. Figure
pressure ports on the side wall, the pressure was
6 compares the measured velocity at the exit with the
measured at four locations along the length of the
1D model predictions for various flow conditions:
nozzle and at a location upstream of the nozzle. These
different void fractions and different flow rates. The
pressure measurements were compared with the 1D
measured velocities were averaged outlet velocities
model and the 3DYNAFS_VIS© predictions. Figure 5
obtained by a Pitot tube at several locations in the
shows the comparison of the pressure along the nozzle
outlet plane. The nominal void fraction was defined
at 200 gpm inlet flow. The 1D model slightly over-
based on the flow rate of the upstream water inflow
predicted the pressure drop at the throat (x=105 cm)
and the air flow rate at the injector. The overall
because the model does not consider the friction loss.
agreement between the prediction and measurement is
However, the model captures the overall pressure
satisfactory. This comparison indicates that the
behavior well and is useful for design calculations. The
variation of the outlet velocity with respect to the
3DYNAFS_VIS© prediction agrees quite well with the
change of bubble injection amount is well captured by
measurements. A similar good agreement is observed
the 1D model.
at other flow rate conditions.
80.00

60.00

40.00
Pressure Contribution
20.00 Velocity Contribution
Total Thrust
Thrust (N)

0.00
Figure 4: Photographs of the experimental setup of the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-20.00
nozzle with an expansion exit. The flow is from right to left.
-40.00

130 -60.00

-80.00
120
Pressure (kPa)

-100.00
110 Nominal Void Fra ction (%)

100
1D_BAP 0.0% Figure 7: Variation of the total thrust and contributions from
90 3DynaFS_VIS 0.0% the pressure component and the velocity component with
80 EXPERIMENTS void fraction.
70
Figure 7 shows the variation of the thrust with
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
void fraction for the 200 gpm water flow. With this
X (cm) nozzle geometry, the baseline thrust (Ramjet thrust) is
Figure 5: Measured and predicted of pressures along the already negative at zero void faction due to the small
centerline of the nozzle (200 gpm, no bubble injection). exit area. However, there is a net thrust gain as the void

5
void fraction increases. There was about 10 N thrust
increase at 10% void fraction.

HALF 3-D GEOMETRY DESIGN

In our continued tests, the two dimensional set

up was extended to what we dubbed half 3-dimensional
set up, which is half of the full three dimensional
axisymmetric nozzle with a vertical cut through a
center plane. This set up represents the flow of the full
three dimensional nozzle more closely and enables
good flow visualization through the flat transparent
center-plane. The initial design of the half 3-D nozzle
maintained the same geometry of the 2-D nozzle with Figure 9: Cross section area changes along the nozzles for
an expansion exit as shown in Figure 3 in the cut- different parametrically examined throat areas.
through plane. Figure 8 shows the CAD drawings of
the half 3-D nozzle with the expansion exit.

1D-BAP was used to evaluate the effects of

the throat on the performance of the half 3-D nozzle
with an expansion exit. Figure 9 shows, for a
parametric study, variations of the cross section outline
along the nozzles for different throat geometries.
Notice that the only varying parameter in these profiles
is the diameter of the throat.

Figure 10: The change of thrust normalized with inlet

momentum flux with nominal void fraction at injection. The
different colors correspond to the colors of the examined
profiles shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8: CAD rendered drawing of the built half 3-D nozzle

with an expansion without the side plate (top); CAD drawing
of the complete nozzle with a flow adaptor and a flow
straightener sections (bottom)

Figure 11: Dimensions of the half 3-D nozzle selected for

Figure 10 shows the predicted normalized
thrusts for different nominal void fractions at injection
for the different geometry profiles. The color of the
thrust curve corresponds to the color of the nozzle
geometry in Figure 9. The thrust is normalized by the
inlet momentum flux defined as
(14)
T = T / ρ l AinVin2
testing.
As indicated in Figure 10, the expansion exit
actually causes a thrust decrease with bubble injection;
this prompted the modification of the base nozzle
design to a nozzle without the expansion exit section.
Figure 11 shows the dimensions of the half 3-D nozzle,
which has the same dimensions as those of the 2-D
nozzle shown in Figure 4 without the expansion exit.

6
AIR INJECTION OF HALF 3-D NOZZLE inner air injection consists of a flat injector and a half
circular injector with total three air injection faces, one
In order to achieve bubble injection as on the flat injector and two on both sides of the circular
uniformly as possible, an air injector covering the outer injector.
half circular boundary of the nozzle was used. Figure
12 shows a CAD drawing of the outer air injector. A
half circular air chamber was covered by a flexible
porous plate that was curved to match the nozzle
profile and was used as the nozzle boundary wall.
Compressed air was forced through the porous plate to
inject bubbles in the nozzle. As shown on the right
picture in Figure 12, the air chamber was partitioned
into six separate small chambers and each chamber had
its own air supply line such that more uniform air
injection could be achieved by adjusting the pressured
applied to each chamber.
The flexible porous plate was 1/8 inch thick Figure 13: Experiment setup for characterizing the bubbles
and has pore sizes of 7 μm. To characterize the bubble generated from the porous plate.
sizes generated from the flexible porous plate, an
experiment as illustrated in Figure 13, was used to
measure the bubble size distribution. A 1 inch square
porous plate was glued at one end of square Plexiglas
tube and compressed air was applied to the other end of
the tube and forced through the porous plate to
generate bubbles.
Figure 14: Variation of bubble generation with different air
injection rate, from left to right 1 L/min, 2 L/min and 3
Air chamber L/min.

Porous
membrane

Chamber partitions

Figure 12: CAD drawing of the air injector positioned in the

outer boundary of the nozzle. On the left is the injector
assembly and on the right is an exploded view of the air
chamber and porous membrane.

Figure 14 shows bubbles generated at
different air flow rate, both the number of bubbles and
the bubble sizes increase with increased air flow rate.
The mean bubble radius was 860 µm, 1100 µm, and
1300 µm for air flow rates at 1 L/min, 2 L/min, and 3
L/min respectively. This was however in absence of
shear or liquid flow.
Figure 15 shows a picture of bubbles
generated from the outer air injector. Most of the
bubbles were concentrated on the outer boundary, and
the bubble concentration was significantly lower in the
central region. In order to achieve more uniform
distribution, an inner air injection scheme, as show in
Figure 16, was also designed to fit in the nozzle. The
Figure 15: Air injection from the outer air injector in the ½
3D BAP nozzle.
To study how the flow field in the nozzle was
affected by the inner injector, we conducted a fast CFD
simulation. Figure 17 shows the simulation domain of
the nozzle with the inner injector. A symmetry plane
was used to speed up the computation. Figure 19 and
Figure 20 shows comparisons of the pressure and
velocity distributions with and without the inner air
injector, the inlet velocity was 4.67 m/s (300 gpm). As
shown in the figures, the effects of the inner injector on
the flow field are not significant from both the
pressures and the velocities. The differences of thrust

7
in this case with and without the inner air injector were
0.3 and 1.9 N for waterjet and ramjet thrusts
respectively.
compared to using just a single air injector. Figure 22
shows a picture of the half 3-D nozzle set up in the
tank. As shown in the figure, multiple air hoses are
connected each air chamber of the air injectors to
control the air supply independently.

Figure 16: A sketch of the inner air injector.

Figure 19: Comparison of the pressure distributions along

the nozzle with and without the inner injector.

Figure 17: The simulation domain of the nozzle used to

study the effects of the inner injector on the flow field of the
nozzle.
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 20: Comparison of the velocity distributions along the

nozzle with and without the inner injector.

Figure 18: Close up of the inner injector grid.

To achieve better control over the injected

bubbles distribution, the inner air injector also has
independent air chambers such that air supply to each
air chamber can be adjusted to achieve overall uniform
bubble injection. Figure 21 shows a picture of air
injection testing of the inner injector alone set in
standstill water. Combined with the outer air injector, a
more uniform bubble injection can be achieved Figure 21: Air injection from the inner air injector.

8
 THRUST MEASUREMENTS ON HALF 3-D
NOZZLE

To estimate the nozzle thrust using (11), the

pressure and velocity at the inlet and the outlet of the
nozzle were measured. PIV was used to measure the
Pitot tube inlet velocity and a Pitot tube traversing vertically
Flow through the outlet section of the nozzle was used for
outlet velocity measurement. The Pitot tube setup can
also be seen in Figure 22.
Figure 22: A snap shot of the half 3-D nozzle set up in the
tank.
Figure 23 and Figure 24 show the measured
velocity profiles with and without bubble injection (the
void fraction varied from 0% to 27% for the inlet
60 velocity of 2.4 m/s and from 0% to 16% for the inlet
velocity of 3.57 m/s). As shown in the figures, the inlet
velocity profiles are little affected by the air injection
40
downstream and are symmetric in the cross section
from the top to the bottom. However, we see from the
20 V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.0
V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.11
outlet velocity profiles that, as expected, the velocities
V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.27
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.0
increase with increased rates of bubble injection, and
z (mm)

0 V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.057 the velocities become skewed to a higher velocity at

V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.16
the top when there is bubble injection. This imbalance
is more prominent with higher void fraction of bubble
-20
injection. This is caused by the fact that bubbles rise to
the top due to buoyancy as they move downstream in
-40 the nozzle. This creates an asymmetric void fraction
distribution at the exit. The larger the void fraction, the
-60 more significant is the difference. Figure 25 shows an
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Velocity (m/s) example view of bubble distribution along the nozzle
in an experiment. The nominal inlet velocity was 3.57
Figure 23: Measured inlet velocity profiles at different m/s with the nominal void fraction of air injection of
bubble injection rates. Inlet velocities are 2.4 m/s and 3.57 16%. The void fraction at the top is seen higher as the
m/s, corresponding to water flow rates of 154 gpm and 230 flow moves towards the exit. This effect will be less
gpm respectively.
prominent at higher liquid flow.

30

20 Flow

10
V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.0
V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.11
Z (mm)

V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.27

0 V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.0
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.057
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.16

-10

-20 Figure 25: View of the contraction section of the ½ 3D BAP

nozzle. Higher void fraction at the top section as bubbles
keep rise under gravity. Nominal inlet velocity is 3.57 m/s
-30
6 8 10 12 14
Velocity (m/s)
16 18 20 and nominal void fraction at injection is 16%.

Figure 24: Measured outlet velocity profiles at different Figure 26 and Figure 27 show comparisons of
bubble injection rates. Nominal inlet velocities are 2.4 m/s the inlet and outlet velocity profiles between
and 3.57 m/s, corresponding to water flow rates of 154 gpm experiments and 3-D simulations with 3DYNAFS_VIS©.
and 230 gpm respectively.

9
As we can see the BAP inlet velocity profiles in the
numerical simulations match with the measurements,
differences are probably due to the fact that the actual
inlet velocity profile at the upstream section after the
flow straightener is not a uniform velocity profile as
assumed in simulation. For the exit velocity profiles,
however, the simulations under predicted the velocity
for the 3.57 m/s case. We are looking further into the
reason for this discrepancy.
skewed distribution similar to the outlet velocity
profile, i.e. the pressure in the top section is higher than
the pressure at the lower section and the difference is
more prominent with increase bubble injection and
velocity. This phenomenon is also attributed to the
asymmetric void fraction distribution in the vertical
direction that causes the skewed outlet velocity profile.
6

V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.0

4 V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.11
V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.27
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.0
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.057
2 V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.16

z (cm)
0

-2

-4

-6
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
P (PSI)

Figure 28: Measured pressure distributions at the inlet for

different air injection rates with nominal inlet velocities of
2.4 m/s and 3.57 m/s.

Figure 26: Comparison of inlet velocity profile BAP 4

between experiments and simulations. The dots are from the
experiments and solid lines are from the 3DYNAFS_VIS© V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.0
V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.11
simulations. V= 2.4 m/s, α = 0.27
2 V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.0
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.057
V= 3.57 m/s, α = 0.16
z (cm)

-2

-4
0 1 2 3 4
P (PSI)

Figure 29: Measured pressure distribution at the outlet for

different air injection rates with nominal inlet velocities of
2.4 m/s and 3.57 m/s.

Figure 27: Comparison of exit velocity profiles between
experiments and simulations. The dots are from experiments
and solid lines are from 3DYNAFS_VIS© simulations.
Figure 28 and Figure 29 show measured pressure
distributions at the nozzle inlet and outlet for different
air injection rates. Both the inlet and outlet pressures
increase with increased void fraction, and the pressure
increase is more prominent at higher nominal inlet
velocity. The outlet pressure distributions exhibit a
With the velocity profiles and pressure
distributions available at both inlet and exit, the ramjet
thrust as defined in Equation (11) is computed from the
experiment data and is compared with 1-D BAP
simulation, as shown in Figure 30. As shown in the
figure, the net thrust increases for both nominal
velocities are negative, i.e. the thrust becomes more
negative with air injection; this effect increases with
increased air injection, and with higher inlet velocities.
The comparison between the measurement and 1-D

10
BAP simulation indicates that the simulation predicts Figure 32 compares the waterjet thrust as
larger thrust decrease compared to measurement. defined in Equation (12) between the measurement and
However, the simulation predicts the same trend with 1D-BAP simulation, since only outlet momentum flux
air injection increase. is considered, the thrust increases with increased
If we define a normalized thrust bubble injection. Both experimental measurements and
augmentation, ξ , as following: numerical simulations show similar trend. The
simulations again overpredicted the thrust increase than
the measurements. The discrepancies between the
TR ,α − TR
ξ= , (15) numerical and experimental results that we did not
TR observe in earlier studies are under further
in which TR ,α and TR are ramjet thrusts with and investigations.

without bubble injection. As shown in Figure 31, ξ 150

Exp. Vi = 2.4 m/s
increases with increased void fraction, i.e. the Exp. Vi = 3.57 m/s
1D-BAP Vi = 2.4 m/s
increased void fraction augments what TR is. 1D-BAP Vi = 3.57 m/s

100

TW, α - TW , N
50
Exp. Vi = 2.4 m/s
Exp. Vi = 3.57 m/s 50
1D-BAP Vi = 2.4 m/s
1D-BAP Vi = 3.57 m/s

0
0
TR, α - TR, N

-50
-50
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
α

-100 Figure 32: Comparison between measurement and 1-D BAP

simulation for the waterjet thrust increase with void fraction
at nominal velocity of 2.4 m/s and 3.57 m/s.

-150
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
α
HALF 3-D NOZZLE GEOMETRY
Figure 30: Comparison between measurement and 1-D BAP OPTIMIZATION
simulation for the net ram jet thrust increase with void
fraction at nominal velocity of 2.4 m/s and 3.57 m/s. Thrust measurement from both experiments
and numerical simulations show that the half 3-D
0.4
Exp. Vi = 2.4 m/s
nozzle geometry used in the previous section could not
Exp. Vi = 3.57 m/s
1D-BAP Vi = 2.4 m/s
achieve the desired thrust augmentation effects. To
0.3
1D-BAP Vi = 3.57 m/s study the effects of nozzle geometry on the thrust
augmentation, a series of numerical studies were
conducted to provide guideline for nozzle geometry
0.2 optimization.
Figure 33 show the variation of the
normalized thrust augmentation, ξ m , with the
ξ

0.1
normalized nozzle outlet area, C for inlet velocity 2.4
m/s. C is defined as the ratio of the exit area to the inlet
0 area. ξ m is defined as net thrust increase with bubble
injection normalized by the inlet momentum flux as
following:
-0.1
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 TR ,α − TR
α
Figure 31: Comparison between measurements and 1-D BAP
ξm = . (16)
Tm−inlet
simulations for the normalized net ram jet thrust increase
with void fraction at nominal velocity of 2.4 m/s and 3.57
m/s.

11
Where Tm −inlet is inlet momentum flux. As indicated in
the figure, both 0-D BAP (a simplified analytic
approach (Sing et al, 2010)) and 1-D BAP results show
that in order to obtain a positive thrust augmentation
gain, i.e. ξ m > 0 , the exit area has to be large enough
such that C is greater than about 0.6. Figure 33 also
shows that there is an optimal C value for different
bubble injection void fractions, and the optimal C value
is around 1.0. Notice that the base half 3-D nozzle
described before has a C value of 0.27 that is well
below the minimum C value for positive net thrust
increase. This is consistent with the measurements.
0.08
Numerical (1-D BAP) : Dashed Lines
0.06 Analytical (0-D BAP) : Solid Lines
0.04
ξm
determined only by the exit area and is not controlled
in a major way by nozzle length and cross section
variation in between. Therefore the easiest
modification to our experimental base nozzle was to
cut short the exit contraction section such that C
become close to the optimal value for thrust
augmentation. Figure 34 shows the corresponding
variation of ξ as defined in Equation (15) with C. ξ
indicates that there is a region with 0.75 < C < 1.0,
where the bubble injection is detrimental.
Figure 35 and Figure 36 shows 1-D BAP
simulations of the net thrust increase if the nozzle
contraction section was shortened differently for
nominal flows of 2.4 m/s and 3.57 m/s. The resulting
α0 = 0.01 total BAP length is measured from the nozzle inlet. As
α0 = 0.05
α0 = 0.1 shown in the figures, the best nozzle length for
α0 = 0.01 maximum net thrust increase falls between nozzle
α0 = 0.05
α0 = 0.1 length of 0.9 m and 1.02 m, which correspond to C
values of 1.46 and 0.78. Therefore, for the optimized
nozzle, the converging section of the nozzle was cut
down to 0.3153 m which gives a C value of 1.0 and a

nozzle length of 0.9775 m. Figure 37 shows the

0.02 dimension of the modified nozzle with a shortened
converging section.

0 3
V inlet = 2.4 m/s
P exit = 101325 Pa

-0.02 2
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Cotraction Ratio, C: Aexit/Ainlet

Figure 33: Variation of the normalized thrust augmentation 1

(Equation (16)) with normalized nozzle exit area at 2.4 m/s.
T R, α - T R, N

0.1 α0 = 0.01
1-D BAP α0 = 0.05 α = 0.05
α0 = 0.1 α = 0.10
α0 = 0.01
-1
α = 0.15
0-D BAP α0 = 0.05 α = 0.20
α0 = 0.1
0.05
-2

-3
0
ξ

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

BAP Length, m

Figure 35: Variation of net thrust increase with nominal void

-0.05
fraction for different lengths of the half 3-D nozzle, and a
V inlet = 2.4 m/s
P exit = 101325 Pa
nominal inlet velocity of 2.4 m/s.

-0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
C
Figure 34. Variation of the normalized thrust augmentation
(Equation (15)) with normalized nozzle exit area at 2.4 m/s.

Additionally, Figure 33 indicates that for a

given nozzle inlet area, the net thrust increase is

12
 10

5
TR, α - TR, N

α = 0.05
α = 0.10
α = 0.15
-5 α = 0.20

Figure 39: Axial velocity contour from 3 D computations at

-10 anominal inlet velocity of 3.11 m/s without air injection.
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
BAP Length, m
400
Figure 36: Variation of net thrust increase with nominal void
fraction for different lengths of the half 3-D nozzle and a
nominal inlet velocity of 3.57 m/s.

Number of bubbles in injector

300

200

100

Figure 37: Dimensions of the modified half 3-D nozzle cut

short from the base nozzle for optimal thrust augmentation.
0
0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006

THRUST PREDICTION OF THE OPTIMIZED Bubble radius, m

HALF 3-D NOZZLE Figure 40: Bubble size distribution for the bubble injection
used in the 3D two-way coupling simulation.
Based on the newly selected half 3-D nozzle
geometry, both 1-D and 3-D two-way coupling
numerical simulations were conducted to evaluate the
performance.

Figure 41: Exit velocity profile from 3DYNAFS_VIS©

Figure 38: Pressure contour from 3 D computations at a predictions for different void fractions of bubble injection at
nominal inlet velocity of 3.11 m/s without air injection. a nominal inlet velocity of 3.11 m/s.

13
 Figure 38 and Figure 39 show the pressures
and flow velocities along the axial direction at a
nominal inlet flow velocity of 3.11 m/s (200 gpm)
without air injection. The pressure contours indicate
that the pressure varies significantly along the axial
direction but is quite uniform vertically. The velocity
contours show that there are re-circulating zones near
the air injection area.
Figure 42: 3DYNAFS_VIS© results showing average pressure
distributions along the nozzle for different nominal void
fractions at a nominal inlet velocity of 3.11 m/s.
Figure 43: 3DYNAFS_VIS© results showing average velocity
variations along the nozzle for different nominal void
fractions at a nominal inlet velocity of 3.11 m/s.
In order to estimate the nozzle performance,
3DYNAFS© 3D two–way coupled simulations were
conducted for different bubble injection rates at
nominal inlet flow velocity of 3.11 m/s. Figure 40
shows the bubble size distribution of the bubbles
injected at a base line void fraction of 4.43%. Bubble
distributions for higher void fractions have similar
distribution shape but the number of bubbles is
multiplied by the ratio to the base line void fraction, the
bubbles are injected into the flow through the inner and
outer injectors.
14
Figure 41 shows the exit velocity profile for
different void fractions. As the curves show, the
profiles have similar shapes but the velocity
magnitudes increase significantly with increased
bubble injection. The average pressure and velocity
distribution along the nozzle are shown in Figure 42
and Figure 43, as expected, higher bubble injection
rates cause a pressure increase at the inlet, and
significantly increase in the exit velocity.
1.2
©
3DynaFS-VIS
1 1D BAP
0D BAP
Normalized thrust gain, ξm
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80
Nominal injection void fraction, αn
Figure 44: Comparison of the normalized thrust
augmentation computed from the 1 D and 3 D models for
different nominal void fractions at a nominal inlet velocity of
3.11 m/s.
Figure 45: Snap shots of the modified half 3-D nozzle with
direct force measurement at low and high bubble injection
rate, flow rate at 200 GPM.
Figure 44 shows the predictions of the
normalized net thrust increase, ξ m , with the void
fraction from the 0D and 1D-BAP as well as the 3D
simulations. All simulations show positive net thrust
for the optimized half 3-D nozzle. 0D and 1D results
match closely. The predictions from the 1D and 3D
codes match pretty well at low void fractions and start
to deviate at void fractions higher than 20%,
3DYNAFS_VIS© predicts higher thrust increase than
what 1D BAP predicts, the difference is due to the fact
that 1D BAP does not fully consider bubble dynamics
as 3DYNAFS_VIS© does. These effects become
stronger as the void fraction increases. Experiments are
presently setup and will be conducted in the near future
to compare with the simulations.
Figure 45 shows two snap shots of the set up
of the optimized nozzle with low and high void
fraction of bubble injection, the study of the modified
half 3-D nozzle with direct force measurement is still
on-going.
CONCLUSIONS
We summarized in this paper our efforts to
study both experimentally and numerically the
interaction between purposely injected bubbles and the
flow in a waterjet nozzle. Numerical modeling was
based on two-way coupling between a model of the
mixture flow field and Lagrangian tracking of the
injected bubbles. The experimental studies were
performed on a laboratory large scale nozzle to validate
and compare with the numerical results.
A 2-D nozzle with expansion exit was first
studied. The numerical and experimental results agreed
well, and a net thrust increase could be measured. To
better study the physics of a real BAP while
maintaining good accessibilities for experimental
measurements, half 3D nozzles were built and studied.
Numerical studies were first used to design a base
nozzle and then compared with experiment results.
Numerical predictions showed the same trend of thrust
changes as measured for the baseline nozzle.
A one-dimensional numerical tool was used to
systematically study the performance of different
nozzle geometries, and an optimal nozzle geometry to
produce the best net thrust increase was selected.
Comprehensive numerical studies based on the
optimized nozzle with different models show net thrust
increase which grows with increasing void fraction. An
improved experimental set up with the optimized
nozzle and with direct force measurement is under
way.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Office of
Naval Research under the contract N00014-09-C-0676,
monitored by Dr. Ki-Han Kim. We gratefully
acknowledge this support.
15
REFERENCES
Albagli, D. and Gany, A., “High Speed Bubbly Nozzle
Flow with Heat, Mass, and Momentum Interactions”,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.
46, pp. 1993-2003, 2003.
Bosio, J. and Malnes, D. "Water Velocity
Measurements in Air-Water Mixture," Euromech
Colloquiurn No. 7, Grenoble, France, 1968.
Chahine, G.L., “Cloud Cavitation Theory”, Proc. 14th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, National Academy Press, 1983.
Chahine, G.L., “Dynamics of the Interaction of Non-
Spherical Cavities”, in Mathematical Approaches in
Hydrodynamics, ed. Miloh, T., SIAM, Philadelphia,
1991.
Chahine, G.L., “Nuclei Effects on Cavitation Inception
and Noise”, Keynote Presentation, Proc. 25th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St. John’s,
Canada, Aug., 2004.
Chahine, G.L., “Numerical Simulation of Bubble Flow
Interactions”, Proc. 2nd International Cavitation Forum,
Invited Lecture, pp.72-87, 2008a.
Chahine, G.L., “Development of an acoustics-based
instrument for bubble measurement in liquids”, Paris
ASA meeting, Acoustics 08, 2008b.
Chahine, G.L. and Kalumuck, K., “BEM Software for
Free Surface Flow Simulation Including Fluid
Structure Interaction Effects”, International Journal of
Computer Applications for Technology, Vol. 3/4/5,
1998.
Chahine, G.L., Kalumuck, K.M., Cheng, J.-Y., and
Frederick, G.S., “Validation of Bubble Distribution
Measurements of the ABS Acoustic Bubble
Spectrometer® with High Speed Video Photography,”
Proc. Fourth International Symposium on Cavitation
CAV2001, Pasadena, CA, 2001.
Chahine, G.L., Perdue, T.O., and Tucker, C.B.,
“Interaction between an Underwater Explosion Bubble
and a Solid Submerged Structure”, DYNAFLOW, INC.,
Technical Report 89001-1, 1988.
Chahine, G.L., Hsiao, C.-T., Choi, J.-K., Wu, X.,
“Bubble Augmented Waterjet Propulsion: Two-Phase
Model Development and Experimental Validation”,
27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul,
Korea, October, 2008.

Choi, J.-K and Chahine, G.L., “Non-Spherical Bubble
Behavior in Vortex Flow Fields”, Computational
Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 4-6, pp. 281-290, 2003.
Choi, J.-K. and Chahine, G.L., “Noise due to Extreme
Bubble Deformation near Inception of Tip Vortex
Cavitation”, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp.
2411-2418, 2004.
Choi, J.-K. and Chahine, G.L, “Modeling of Bubble
Generated Noise in Tip Vortex Cavitation Inception”,
ACTA Acustica United with Acustica, The Journal of
the European Acoustics Association, Vol. 93, pp. 555-
565, 2007.
Duraiswami, R., Prabhukumar, S., and Chahine, G.L.,
“Bubble counting using an inverse acoustic scattering
method”, J. of Acoustic Society of America, Vol. 104,
pp. 2699-2717, 1998.
Gilmore, F. R., California Institute of Technology, Div.
Rep. 26-4, Pasadena, CA, 1952.
Gumerov, N. and Chahine, G.L., “An Inverse Method
for the Acoustic Detection, Localization, and
Determination of the Shape Evolution of a Bubble”,
IOP Publishing Ltd. on Inverse Problems, Vol. 16, pp.
1741-1760, 2000.
Haberman, W.L. and Morton, R.K., “An Experimental
Investigation of the Drag and Shape of Air Bubbles
Rising in Various Liquids”, Report 802, DTMB, 1953.
Hsiao, C.-T. and Chahine, G.L., “Numerical
Simulation of Bubble Dynamics in a Vortex Flow
Using Navier-Strokes Computation”, Proc. Fourth
International Symposium on Cavitation CAV2001,
Pasadena, CA, 2001.
Hsiao, C.-T. and Chahine, G.L., “Prediction of Vortex
Cavitation Inception Using Coupled Spherical and
Non-Spherical Models and Navier-Stokes
Computations”, Proc. 24th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, 2002.
Hsiao, C.-T. and Chahine, G.L., “Prediction of Vortex
Cavitation Inception Using Coupled Spherical and
Non-Spherical Models and UnRANS Computations”,
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 8, No.
3, pp. 99-108, 2004a.
Hsiao, C.-T. and Chahine, G.L., “Numerical Study of
Cavitation Inception due to Vortex/Vortex Interaction
in a Ducted Propulsor”, Proc. 25th Symposium on
16
Naval Hydrodynamics, St. John’s, Canada, Aug.,
2004b.
Hsiao, C.-T. and Chahine, G.L., “Scaling of Tip Vortex
Cavitation Inception Noise with a Bubble Dynamics
Model Accounting for Nuclei Size Distribution”,
Journal of Fluid Engineering, Vol. 127, pp. 55-65,
2005.
Hsiao, C.-T., Chahine, G.L., and Liu, H.L., “Scaling
Effects on Prediction of Cavitation Inception in a Line
Vortex Flow”, Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 125,
pp. 53-60, 2003.
Ishii, R., Umeda, Y., Murata, S., and Shishido, N.,
“Bubbly Flows through a Converging-Diverging
Nozzle”, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 5, pp. 1630-1643,
1993.
Johnson, V.E. and Hsieh, T., “The Influence of the
Trajectories of Gas Nuclei on Cavitation Inception”,
Proc. Sixth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, pp.
163-179, 1966.
Kalumuck, K.M., Duraiswami, R., and Chahine, G.L.,
“Bubble dynamics fluid-structure interaction
simulation by coupling fluid BEM and structural FEM
codes”, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 9, pp.
861-883, 1995.
Kameda, M. and Matsumoto, Y., “Structure of Shock
Waves in a Liquid Containing Gas Bubbles”, Proc.
IUTAM Symposium on Waves in Liquid/Gas and
Liquid/Vapor Two Phase Systems, pp. 117-126, 1995.
Knapp, R.T., Daily, J.W., Hammit, F.G., Cavitation,
ed. Hill, M., New York, 1970.
Li, A. and Ahmadi, G., “Dispersion and Deposition of
Spherical Particles from Point Sources in a Turbulent
Channel Flow”, Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol.
16, pp. 209-226, 1992.
Mor, M. and Gany, A. “Analysis of Two-Phase
Homogeneous Bubbly Flows Including Friction and
Mass Addition”, J. of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 126, pp.
102-109, 2004.
Mottard E.J. and Shoemaker, C.J. “Preliminary
Investigation of an Underwater Ramjet Powered by
Compressed Air”, NASA Technical Note D-991, 1961.
Muir, T.F. and Eichhorn, R., “Compressible Flow of an
Air-Water Mixture through a Vertical Two-
Dimensional Converging-Diverging Nozzle”, Proc.
Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute, Stanford
Univ. Press, pp. 183-204, 1963.

Noordzij, L. and van Wijngaarden, L., “Relaxation
Effects Caused by Relative Motion on Shock Waves in
Gas-Bubble/Liquid Mixtures”, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 66, pp. 15-143, 1974.
Ovadia, Y. and Strauss, J., “The Nautical Ramjet – an
Alternative Approach”, SciTech 2005 project report,
Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Israel,
<http://noar.technion.ac.il/scitech2005/mechanical3.pd
f>, 2005.
Pierson, J.D., “An Application of Hydropneumatic
Propulsion to Hydrofoil craft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
2, pp. 250-254, 1965.
Plesset, M.S., “Dynamics of Cavitation Bubbles”,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 16, pp. 228-231,
1948.
Prabhukumar, S., Duraiswami, R., and Chahine, G.L.,
“Acoustic measurement of bubble size distributions:
theory and experiments”, Proc. ASME Cavitation and
Multiphase Flow Forum, Vol. 1, pp. 509-514, 1996.
Preston, A., Colonius, T., and Brennen, C.E., “A
Numerical Investigation of Unsteady Bubbly
Cavitating Nozzle Flows”, Proc. of the ASME Fluid
Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Boston, 2000.
Rebow, M., Choi, J., Choi, J.-K., Chahine, G.L., and
Ceccio, S.L., “Experimental Validation of BEM Code
Analysis of Bubble Splitting in a Tip Vortex Flow”,
Proc. 11th International Symposium on Flow
Visualization, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2004.
Saffman, P. G., “The Lift on a Small Sphere in a Slow
Shear Flow”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 22, pp.
385-400, 1965.
Singh, S., Choi, J.-K., Chahine, G.L., “Optimum
Configuration of an Expanding-Contracting-Nozzle for
Thrust Enhancement by Bubble Injection”,
Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, 2010.
Schell Jr., et al., “The Hydro-Pneumatic Ram-Jet”, US
Patent 3,171,379, 1965.
17
View publication stats
Tangren, R.F., Dodge, C.H., and Seifert, H.S.,
“Compressibility Effects in Two-Phase Flow”, Journal
of Applied Physics, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 637-645, 1949.
Valenci, S., “Parametric Sea Trials of Marine Ramjet
Engine Performance”, M.Sc. Thesis, Technion Institute
of Technology, 2006.
van Wijngaarden, L., “Linear and Non-linear
Dispersion of Pressure Pulses in Liquid Bubble
Mixtures”, Proc. 6th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, ONR, 1966.
van Wijngaarden, L., “On the Equations of Motion for
Mixtures of Liquid and Gas Bubbles”, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 33, pp. 465-474, 1968.
van Wijngaarden, L., “One-Dimensional Flow of
Liquids Containing Small Gas Bubbles”, Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 4, pp. 369-396, 1972.
Varshay, H. and Gany A., “Underwater two phase
ramjet engine”, US Patent 5,598,700, 1994.
Varshay, H. and Gany A., “Underwater two phase
ramjet engine”, US Patent 5,692,371, 1996.
Vokurka, K., “Comparison of Rayleigh’s, Herring’s,
and Gilmore’s Models of Gas Bubbles”, Acustica, Vol.
59, No. 3, pp. 214-219, 1986.
Wang, Y.-C. and Brennen, C.E., “One-Dimensional
Bubbly Cavitating Flows through a Converging-
Diverging Nozzle”, Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol.
120, pp. 166-170, 1998.
Witte, J.H., “Predicted Performance of Large Water
Ramjets”, AIAA 2nd Advanced Marine Vehicles and
Propulsion Meeting, AIAA Paper No. 69-406, 1969.
Young S., Hsiao, C.-T., and Chahine, G. L., “Effect of
Model Size and Free Stream Nuclei on Tip Vortex
Cavitation Inception Scaling”, Proc. Fourth
International Symposium on Cavitation CAV2001,
Pasadena, CA, June 20-23, 2001.