Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paerosci

A review of impinging jets during rocket launching T

Chongwen Jiang , Tianyixing Han, Zhenxun Gao, Chun-Hian Lee
∗

National Laboratory for Computational Fluid Dynamics, School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, 100191, Beijing, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: During rocket launching, the engine exhaust impinges on the launch structures, such as the launch platform and
Impinging jet the jet deflector, leading to a complex flowfield and generating strong noise. The engine exhaust impingement
Rocket launch induces large aerothermodynamic and acoustic loads on the launch structures and the rocket, the overload of
Flow structure which is a potential risk to the rocket launch. Thus, it is important to predict and reduce the loads. Although the
Noise
jet impingement during rocket launching has been studied extensively, the jet impingement during rocket
Launch pad
Multiphase flow
launching is a complex phenomenon, where multiple mechanisms are coupled. In most researches, several
mechanisms are studied separately or in a partially-coupled way. Still, there are a lot of issues on the jet im-
pingement remaining to be solved, especially when quantitative relations are taken into account.
In this article, several issues involved are reviewed, to present an overview on progresses and perspectives of
the jet impingement research for rocket launching. It starts with a summary of the results accessed for normal
and inclined jets impinging on flat plates, then the interactive mechanisms between impinging jets and the
launch platform or the deflector system, together with relevant factors that affect the flowfield and noise.
Additionally, discussions on the interaction of impinging jets with multiphase flows are also presented.

1. Introduction
Flows induced by impinging jets are commonly encountered in
many aerospace applications, such as in the launch site during a rocket
launching [1–3], V/STOL (Vertical and/or Short Take-Off Landing)
aircraft hovering near the ground [4,5], and the extraterrestrial landing
and launching of spacecraft [6,7]. Characteristics of impinging jets are
different from coflow jet [8–10] and lateral jet [11–15]. During rocket
launching, the engine exhaust is usually a supersonic over-expanded jet
[1–3,16].
Large rockets are usually launched from launch pads, which include
several structures [1,20], such as the service structure, the launch
platform and the deflector system (deflector, deflector duct/trench,
duct/trench cover), as shown in Fig. 1. The service structure is near the
rocket, providing supplies (e.g. propellants, electrical power, commu-
nication parts) before launching. The launch platform lies beneath the
rocket with cut-outs at some specific positions. The engine exhaust
passes through the cut-outs, impinges onto the deflector and deflects
away from the rocket. During the launching, exhaust of the rocket en-
gine possibly impinges on the launch platform, the deflector system or
the ground [21–23]. Characteristics of the impinging jets are different
from the free jets. The impinging jet may induce standoff shocks (or
plate shocks) and wall jets. Under certain conditions, the impinging jet
flow could become separated and generate a recirculation region [24].
Flow structures of the impinging jet, especially the near-wall flow field,
may influence strongly the aerodynamic loads and the thermal loads
[26] on impinged objects. Meanwhile, disturbances in the shear layer
would induce oscillations of the near-wall flow structures, and thus
influences the acoustic loads [27]. In addition, multiphase flow induced
by water injection [1,20] or solid propellant combustion [28,29] might
appear in the engine exhaust impingement.
As shown in Fig. 2, during the rocket launching, the flowfield of
engine exhaust impingement behaves differently at varying lift-off
heights, which is defined as the distance between the nozzle exit and
the launch platform. Thus, the flowfield over the rocket changes dy-
namically during its lift-off stage. In the ignition stage as shown in
Fig. 2a, the engine is ignited and works stably, producing engine ex-
haust. The engine exhaust flows through the exhaust vent on the launch
platform and reaches the deflector duct, producing certain flow struc-
tures near the deflector exit. When the rocket starts to ascend (c.f.
Fig. 2b and c), the engine exhaust impinges onto the launch platform
and produces complex flow structures nearby. During this stage, the
engine exhaust mainly interacts with the launch platform or the de-
flector system. As the rocket ascends further (Fig. 2d), the interaction
between the engine exhaust and launch structures becomes weaker. The
engine exhaust tends to be a free jet. The field measurements [23]

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cwjiang@buaa.edu.cn (C. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2019.05.007
Received 28 December 2018; Received in revised form 23 May 2019; Accepted 25 May 2019
Available online 31 May 2019
0376-0421/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

Fig. 1. Launch pads. (a) Vostochny Cosmodrome Site 1S, Amur Oblast, Russia. Reproduced from Ref. [17], licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license. (b) Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) Launch Pad 0A, Virginia, USA. Reproduced from Ref. [18], licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution 2.0 Generic license. (c) Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, Mahia, New Zealand. Reproduced by permission from Rocket Lab [19]. (d) Scheme of a typical
launch pad. Reproduced by permission from SAGE Publications [20].

indicated that, during the intermediate stage as shown in Fig. 2b and c,
the launch platform and the deflector system are main noise sources at
different lift-off heights. The sources would produce strong acoustic
loads on the launch structures and the rocket, especially the payload
and electronic systems. Thus, the interaction with the launch platform
and the interaction of the engine exhaust with the launch platform and
deflector system are two of the key issues related to the engine exhaust
impingement during the rocket launching. Meanwhile, the jet im-
pinging on launch structures produces large thermal loads and possible
ablation on the structures [30]. Hence, it is vital for the launch pad
design, to fully access the information on the interactive flowfield of
engine exhaust impingement and predict aerothermodynamic and
acoustic loads accurately.
As indicated in the NASA Report SP-8072 [31], the acoustic loads
generated by the propulsion system are usually predicted by empirical
analyses and sub-scale model experiments, where the information of
the noise sources attained from experiments is used to allocate
equivalent sources along the engine exhaust and then reconstruct the
acoustic field. The source allocation methods have been developed and
applied to the prediction of the acoustic characteristics of free and
impinging jets [32,33] as well as the acoustic loads during rocket
launching [34–41]. However, the source allocation methods require
sufficient noise measurements to produce a robust prediction on the
spectra at the points far from the measured points.
There involves in the jet impingement problem of rocket launching
the multi-physicochemical mechanisms coupled with flow-structural
interactions. The launch platform has shelter or reflection effects on
acoustic waves generated from different sources [42,43], but itself may
become simultaneously a noise source when engine exhaust impinges
on it [21–23]. Similarly, jet deflectors may cause side effects when the
engine exhaust impinges on them. For single-sided deflectors (i.e., de-
flectors which deflect engine exhaust towards a single direction), de-
pending on the state of the expansion jet and the impingement distance,
there may cause various types of interactive flow structures [25,44,45],
which would then generate various types of acoustic waves in the
flowfield [46]. A water injection system is utilized in some launch pad
to reduce thermal and acoustic loads induced by the exhaust im-
pingement. During the rocket launching, water jets may interact with

2
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 2. Different phases of a rocket launch. The engine is ignited at t = 0 . Reproduced by permission from NASA/Jayanta Panda [23].
engine exhaust, possibly resulting in break-up, atomization and phase
change [47]. As to solid rocket engine, discrete particles are generated
in the combustor, break up in the nozzle and interact with the engine
exhaust. The discrete particles would exchange momentum and energy
with the engine exhaust, gathering with phase changes during the
whole process [28,48]. Chemical reactions in the combustor generate
high temperature exhaust, and may induce afterburning when the re-
action products are mixed with surrounding fluid [49]. The above
stated phenomena could happen simultaneously and couple with each
other. While the afterburning of the engine exhaust imposes physico-
chemical effects on the discrete particles [28], the afterburning itself is
influenced by the water injection [30,50]. All the phenomena have a
combined impact on flow characteristics of the engine exhaust as well
as the aerothermodynamic and acoustic loads of the launch pad struc-
tures.
Field measurements of rocket launching [23] provide the informa-
tion on the interaction of the impinging flow with actual structures of
the launch pad under real conditions, including all the physicochemical
mechanisms. However, it is difficult and expensive to measure the
impinging flowfield of the engine exhaust in details. As a result, field
measurements are difficult to repeat and few works have ever been
published. Model experiments with reduced scales are usually em-
ployed to study the phenomena [1–3,21,22,41,42,51]. The reduced
scale models would include typical structures involved in the actual
rocket launch pad. Influences of the launch platform and the deflector
can be studied at certain controlled conditions. It is difficult, however,
to preserve the similarity between the scale model experiment and the
actual launching. Numerical studies, on the other hand, are capable of
investigating the complex interaction of flow impingement onto launch
pad structures to some extent [43], but their feasibility is constrained
by computational resources and algorithmic efficiency [52]. In addi-
tion, the uncertainties imposed by the modelling of physicochemical
processes may further affect the reliability of the numerical approaches.
The engine exhaust impingement related to the rocket launching
3
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
constitutes two basic forms, namely, the normal and inclined jets im-
pinging on plates resembling the launch platform and the deflector.
Simplified models of these two configurations of impingements have
been extensively studied, including multispecies and multiphase flow
characteristics [53–55], chemical reactions [30], and the movement of
discrete particles [56–59], etc. However, there are more fundamental
issues related to the practical problems remained to be further in-
vestigated.
In this article, several issues involved are reviewed, and the ad-
vances on the studies of interactive flowfields and noise of impinging
jets are discussed. It starts with a summary of the results accessed for
the two simplified models, i.e. normal and inclined jets impinging on
flat plates in Sec. 2. The interactive mechanisms between impinging jets
and the launch platform or the deflector system are then presented in
Sec. 3, together with relevant factors that affect the flowfield and noise.
In Sec. 4, discussions are directed toward the interaction of impinging
jets with multiphase flows, where special emphases are paid to the
noise suppression of water injections and the effects of discrete particles
on flow characteristics. Finally, in Sec. 5, an overview on progresses
and perspectives of the jet impingement research for rocket launching is
presented.
2. Impinging jet interaction with a plate
As designated to be simplified models for the two configurations of
engine exhaust impingements, the normal and inclined jets impinging
on plates have been extensively studied [24,44,60]. Studies conducted
on the former models over the past 60 years can serve as important
references for understanding the latter configurations, including the
classification of different types of the impinging jet noise, their re-
spective mechanisms of the noise production and propagation [46,61],
as well as the relation between the impinging noise and the typical flow
structures of impinging jets [24,46,61]. Some typical flow structures of
impinging jets will be reviewed in this section, together with the nature
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

Fig. 3. Mean shadowgraphs of under-expanded supersonic impinging jets at varying im-pingement distances. Mj = 1:5 and NPR = 5:0. NPR stands for nozzle
pressure ratio, stagnation pressure at the nozzle inlet/ambient static pressure. Reproduced from Ref. [63] with permission of Cambridge University Press.

of their respective noise production and propagation.

2.1. Flow structure of impinging jets

2.1.1. Flow structure of normal impinging jets

The nearfield flow structures of a jet depend primarily on the op-
erational conditions of the nozzle, which are characterized mainly by
the Mach number of the jet at the nozzle exit (Mj) and the ratio of the
static pressure at the nozzle exit to the ambient static pressure (PR), for
either free jets [62] or impinging jets [24,44]. For impinging jets, the
whole flowfield would also be affected by the impingement distance
(h), i.e., the distance from the nozzle exit to the intersection point of the
jet axis and the impinged surface. In practice, its nondimensional form
is preferred, which is usually normalized by the nozzle exit diameter
Fig. 4. Scheme of a normal impinging jet.
(d). However, under fixed nozzle operational conditions, the first shock
cell is insensitive to the varying impingement distance [26,63,64], as
shown in Fig. 3. It turns out that flowfields of the normal impinging jet
are similar to those in the free jet in a certain region near the nozzle
exit, which is called the free jet region [60]. The region downstream of
the free jet region and close to the plate is called the impingement re-
gion [24,60,65], while the region where the wall jet emerges is called
the wall jet region [24,60,65], (c.f. Fig. 4).
Flow structures in the free jet region resembles a similar feature as
in the free jet under the same nozzle operational conditions, as illu-
strated in Fig. 5. For an under-expanded jet, the flow expands at first
until its pressure balances with the ambient pressure. Then, the flow
becomes over-expanded and induces compression waves, which con-
verge to form the intercepting shocks [62]. For an over-expanded jet, in
other words, the pressure at the nozzle exit is lower than ambient
pressure, oblique shocks would be generated by the compression from Fig. 5. Scheme of a moderately under-expanded free jet.
the surrounding fluid [66]. For an ideally expanded jet, the oblique
shocks become weaker and are not as distinguishable as in the over-
the reflected shocks may resemble an X shape (or a conical shape) if the
expanded case [67,68]. The velocity difference across the pressure-
reflection is regular [24], or a Mach disk if the reflection is a singular
balanced boundary creates a shear layer (or mixing layer), which tends
[62]. Slipstreams would appear at the triple points, where the incident
to grow downstream. At the same time, the incident oblique shocks
shocks, the reflected shocks and the Mach disk intersect. When the jet is
reflect at certain points in the vincinity along the jet axis. Structures of

4
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 6. Positions of shock structures at varing impingement distances. Mj = 1.0 ,
NPR = 3.0 . Reproduced with permission of ASME, from Ref. [71]; permission
conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
not extremely under-expanded, quasi-periodic shock cells could appear
repeatedly [62]. The shear layers would merge at the jet axis as the jet
develops downstream, causing nearfield shock structures disappear and
thence the potential core of the jet ends. When the impinged plate is
near the potential core, there would be further interaction between the
impinging jet and the plate [69,70].
In the impingement region, a detached shock or a recirculation re-
gion may form under certain jet Mach number, pressure ratio and im-
pingement distance. If the shock cell approaching the plate resembles
an X shape, the flow downstream of the oblique shocks is supersonic
and a detached shock called a standoff shock usually appears to meet
the pressure balance [24]. As illustrated in Fig. 6, by varying the im-
pingement distance and taking the pressure ratio and jet Mach number
fixed, the distance between the standoff shock and the plate, as well as
the locations of the shock cells upstream of the standoff shock, is almost
constant [71]. If the shock cell close to the plate contains a Mach disk,
the total pressure loss downstream of the normal shock is higher than
the reflected shocks. This leads to the stagnation pressure at the inter-
section point of the jet axis with the plate to be lower than the ones in
the surrounding, which causes a recirculation region with a wedge or
conical shape to form in front of the plate, as shown in Fig. 4. The flow
outside the recirculation region is compressed and thus induces the
attached oblique shock called the annular shock. When the flow is re-
accelerated to be supersonic in the wall jet region, a trains of shock cells
similar to the quasi-periodic structures in a free jet may form along the
wall jet [72].
2.1.2. Structure of inclined impinging jets
The flow structures of inclined impinging jets resemble those of
normal impinging jets under a small inclined angle, while the flow
downstream of the impingement region would be more complex as the
inclined angle increase [73–75] (c.f. Fig. 7). Except for the inclined
angle, the pressure ratio and impingement distance could also affect the
flow structures significantly [44,76].
The combined influences of the pressure ratio, impingement dis-
tance and inclined angle on impinging flowfields of inclined jets have
been evaluated by Fujii et al. [76] and Nakai et al. [44], using schlieren
graphs and pressure-sensitive paint/temperature-sensitive paint (PSP/
TSP) graphs. The inclined impinging jet could be classified into three
types according to the shape of plate shocks, where type II covers an
variant type II′, as illustrated in Fig. 8. In type I, the plate shock re-
sembles the Mach disk in the free jet and only one slipstream is ob-
servable downstream of the lower tail shock. As the impingement dis-
tance decrease or the pressure ratio increase, h/ h s decreases and the
flowfield behaves as type II (h s is the axial distance from the nozzle exit
5
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
to where the first shock cell of the free jet under the same nozzle op-
erational conditions attains the maximum diameter). In type II, the
reflection of the upper intercepting shock by the plate would generate a
reflected shock called the upper plate shock, which interacts with the
lower intercepting shock and generate a normal shock called the lower
plate shock. Two slipstreams would originate from the triple points.
Below the lower slipstream, quasi-periodic shock cells could be ob-
served. Under a higher pressure ratio, a smaller inclined angle or a
smaller impingement distance than type II, a variant of type II, denoted
by type II′, could appear. The flow structures of type II’ are almost the
same to type II, while a stagnation bubble would emerge near the upper
tail shock. With an even smaller h/ h s , the flowfield appears as type III,
where the lower plate shock shrinks and the slipstreams merge into one.
The connection between several flow structures and the pressure dis-
tribution on the plate has been established. Four sources of the pressure
peak could exist, including the stagnation of the main jet, the stagnation
below the upper tail shock, the reattachment of the detached flow (if
the stagnation bubble exists) and the reflection of the intermediate tail
shocks downstream of the impingement region. By combining the
classification of the flow structures [44] and the pressure peeks, the
inclined impinging jets could be further classified into six types [45].
2.2. Noise production of impinging jets
The flowfield of the impinging jet could be divided into the free jet
region, the impingement region and the wall jet region. The flow
structures of the impinging jet in the free jet region show similarity to
those of the free jet [60], as well as the acoustic characteristics. In
addition to the noise originated from the free jet region, there is also
noise reflected by the plate and noise induced by the interactions
among the free jet region, the impingement region and the wall jet
region.
2.2.1. Noise of free jets
Historically, noise of free jets has long been studied [61,77–80].
According to the review by Tam [61], except for the perfectly expanded
jet, noise of a supersonic free jet comprises three basic components: the
turbulent mixing noise, the broadband shock-associated noise and the
screech tone.
The turbulent mixing noise is generated by the downstream con-
vection of the large turbulent structures [81–83]. The dominant pro-
pagation direction is 45 –60 measured from the downstream direction
of the jet axis, and the dominant Strouhal number (St) is 0.1–0.25. The
turbulent mixing noise is mainly affected by the jet Mach number and
the jet temperature. When the jet Mach number increases, the sound
pressure level (SPL) of the turbulent mixing noise above the back-
ground noise increases. As the jet temperature increases, the dominant
band extends towards lower frequency in the spectrum, and thus the
overall sound pressure level (OASPL) increases.
The broadband shock-associated noise is induced by the interaction
between the turbulent structures and the shock structures [82–87]. The
dominant frequency is higher than that of the turbulent mixing noise.
When the observation angle increases, both the dominant frequency
and the bandwidth decreases. As the jet temperature increases, the
dominant frequency increases.
The screech tone is generated through a feedback mechanism
[88,89]. As illustrated in Fig. 9, instability waves are originated from
the lip of the nozzle exit and gradually grow downstream. Thence, the
instability waves interact with the shock structures, producing the
feedback waves that run upstream and stimulate the instability waves.
The screech tone appears as a spike in the spectrum, with the dominant
frequency between the turbulent mixing noise and the broadband
shock-associated noise. The first harmonic component of the screech
tone propagates in the direction of 90 to jet axis, while the dominant
components propagate in a direction larger than 90 . The screech tones
usually occur along with strong oscillations, including toroidal mode
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

Fig. 7. Schlieren graphs of inclined impinging jets with different inclined angles. NPR = 3.5, h/ d = 1.5. Reprinted from Ref. [74], Copyright (2014), with permission
from Elsevier.

oscillations and helical/flapping mode oscillations. The dominant os-

cillation mode varies with the jet Mach number [90]. When the jet
Mach number is low (below 1.25 for the case in Ref. [90]), the domi-
nant oscillation mode is usually a toroidal mode, where the flowfield
and the acoustic field is symmetrical. As the jet Mach number increases,
the dominant oscillation mode could switch to a helical/flapping mode,
where the jet oscillates across a flapping plane and the flapping plane
itself is in a processional motion around the jet axis. It should be noted
that, the SPL peak of the screech tone goes down with increasing jet
temperature. As a result, the screech tone might be not observable in
some field measurements [23] or some scale model experiments
[1,3,21,22] of rocket launching.

2.2.2. Noise of normal impinging jets Fig. 9. Scheme of screech tone feedback loop.
As the flow oscillations accompanying with the screech tone in the
free jet [61], several oscillation modes could be observed in moderately
oscillation modes are observable: axisymmetric modes and helical
and highly under-expanded impinging jets [24,91,92]. Since the flow
modes. For an impinging jet with an axisymmetric mode, the flow is
structures of an impinging jet in the free jet region resemble those of a
usually symmetrical and the oscillation is in an axial or radial direction.
free jet [60], unstable flow in an impinging jet could show similarity to
For an impinging jet with a helical mode, the flow is usually asym-
a free jet under certain conditions. Apart from the noise generated by
metric and the oscillation is rotational. Under varying pressure ratios,
the oscillations in each region, i.e. the free jet region, impingement
impingement distances and inclined angles, variant oscillation modes
region and wall jet region, additional noise could be induced by in-
could be observed in the schlieren graphs [93], including helical modes,
teraction among the regions.
semi-helical modes, axially pulsing modes, axially flapping modes and
Experimental studies [93–95] showed that two main kinds of

Fig. 8. Classification of inclined impinging jets. θ is the angle between the jet axis and the plate surface, the complement angle of inclined angle. h is the impingement
distance. h s is the axial distance between the nozzle exit and the location where the first shock cell of the corresponding free jet under the same nozzle operational
conditions attains the maximum diameter. x is the axial distance between the nozzle exit and the point where the upper jet boundary intersects with the plate.
Reproduced with permission of ASME, from Ref. [76]; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

6
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

axially collapsing modes, some of which are corresponding to those in

the free jet. In a helical mode, the location of the plate shock is almost
fixed, while the shock plane is inclined with a certain angle to the plate
and rotates around the jet axis. The semi-helical mode is a transitional
mode from axisymmetric modes to helical modes. In an axially pulsing
mode, the axial location and the diameter of the Mach disk oscillate
periodically. In an axially flapping mode, the plate shock axially flaps
upstream and downstream, just as a jellyfish. Besides, the normal shock
immediately upstream of the plate shock moves downstream and dis-
appears, before a new normal shock appears at the previous position
and continues the movement. The continual appearance and dis-
appearance of the normal shock are also observable in a free jet, where
the phenomenon is called the shock splitting [96]. In an axially col-
lapsing mode, apart from the normal shock moving downstream, a
normal shock moving upstream appears near the plate and collides with
the normal shock moving downstream at the end.
The oscillation of the flow structures observed in the impinging jet Fig. 11. Power spectrum density (PSD) of a free jet and impinging jets at
varying impingement distances. Reproduced with permission of AMERICAN
would simultaneously induce the oscillation of the pressure distribution
INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, INC, from Ref. [100];
on the plate. Through the measurements with phase-conditioned
permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
schlieren and PSP, it is observed that the large-scale turbulent struc-
tures in the shear layer contribute to the oscillation of wall pressure
[94,95], as shown in Fig. 10. For an impinging jet dominated by an numerically. Still, it is difficult to predict the nozzle operational con-
axisymmetric mode, the wall pressure contour appears as concentric ditions where a specific mode would appear.
circles. while the pressure distribution resembles a yin-yang symbol The flow of the impinging jet in the free jet region show similarity to
when the flow is dominated by a helical mode. Both results are con- the free jet, for both stable flow [63] and unstable flow [24]. Similar
sistent with the linear stability analyses. flow induces similar noise, which is observable in a noise spectrum. As
As to numerical investigations on the stability of impinging jets, a shown in Fig. 11, when the impingement distance is large enough
global stability analysis [97] of a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) solution (h/ d = 10 in this case), the noise spectrum of the impinging jet closely
to the linearized Navier-Stokes (N–S) equations, showed that both ax- resemble that of the free jet. When the impingement distance decreases,
isymmetric (m = 0 ) modes and azimuthal modes (m = 1) are stable and the power spectrum density (PSD) peak of the screech tone decreases
only convective instabilities are present for m < 2, where m is the mode and finally the screech tone disappears. At the same time, another PSD
order. A Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD [98]) analysis [99] of an spike (the impinging tone) appears and the PSD peak value increases, so
LES solution to the linearized N–S equations revealed that there could does the dominant frequency of the impinging tone. It is confirmed by
be a threshold value for the disturbance wavelength. Disturbances of the experiment [101] that when the jet temperature increases, the
dimensionless wavelengths less than 1/8 are dampened immediately broadband noise is enhanced and the impinging tone is weakened for
while other disturbances grow in the streamwise direction. Also, in the the impinging jet, which is similar to the influence of the jet tempera-
shear layer exists a convective instability, that the wave packet splits as ture on the broadband noise and the screech tone for the free jet.
it moves downstream. The oscillation modes of impinging jets could be In addition to the noise similar to that in the free jet, there are
clearly observed and well analysed both experimentally and impinging tones induced by the feedback loop between the free jet

Fig. 10. Results of an axisymmetric mode

and a helical mode. The first row is for the
axisymmetric mode. The second row is for
the helical mode. The first column is for
phase-conditioned schlieren graphs. The
second column is for PSP graphs of the plate.
The third column is for contours of pressure
on the plate deducted from linear stability
analyses. Reproduced by permission from
Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH: Springer Nature Experiments in
Fluids [94], Copyright (2015).

7
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

Fig. 12. Schlieren graphs of four phases in a feedback loop. Reproduced by permission from Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH: Springer Nature
Journal of Visualization [102], Copyright (2012).

region and the impingement region in the impinging jet. According to observable. As indicated in the review by Henderson [24], the im-
Powell [27], small disturbances originated from the lip of the nozzle pinging tones are generated by the oscillations near the wall. When a
exit grow as they progress downstream in the shear layer, producing Mach disk forms in the shock cell immediately upstream of the standoff
large-scale vortex structures convecting downstream. The impingement shock, the impinging tone is observable. However, when the nearest
of the large-scale structures on the plate produces pressure disturbance shock cell resembles an X shape, a stable standoff shock forms near the
waves running upstream, which stimulate the disturbances and close wall and the impinging tone disappears, which is defined as a zone of
the feedback loop, as shown in Fig. 12. silence in the impingement distance-NPR graph, as shown in Fig. 13.
Along with the theory presented by Powell [27], a prediction model Sinibaldi et al. [65] indicated that when the pressure ratio is below the
(equation (1)) of the impinging tone frequency is developed, where N is
the number of the vortices generated in one feedback period, hc is the
distance that the vortex convection covers, uc is the convection velocity
of the vortices, hs is the distance that the acoustic wave propagation
covers, Us is the average propagation velocity of the acoustic waves and
p is the phase lag between the acoustic feedback and the vortex gen-
eration.
N+p hc dh h
= + s
f 0 uc Us (1)

Weightman et al. [103] have discovered a periodic transient

shocklet structure in the wall jet region, which is a possible source of
the impinging tone. The life time of the structure explains the phase lag
term in Powell's model (equation (1)). Based on the findings, the pre-
diction model is revised to equation (2) and verified by the experiment.
N hc dh h Fig. 13. Zones of silence. is the first cell length, the distance from the nozzle
= + s + t exit to the end of the first shock cell in the corresponding free jet under the
f 0 uc Us (2)
same nozzle exit conditions. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [24]. Copy-
However, under certain conditions, impinging tones might not be right 2002, Acoustic Society of America.

8
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

zone of silence, the shear layer interacting with the plate would induce
the feedback towards the nozzle exit and thus generate the impinging
tone. When the pressure ratio is above the zone of silence, the im-
pinging tone is generated by the feedback between the standoff shock
and the plate. However, in the zone of silence, the standoff shock dis-
turbs the interaction between the shear layer and the plate, while the
standoff shock itself is not strong enough to produce a noticeable shock-
plate interaction. Henderson et al. [104] have observed oscillations of
the standoff shock, the recirculation region and the wall jet region.
Nevertheless, no explicit connection between the recirculation region
and the impinging tone is discovered. The impinging tone could be
detected for an impinging jet either with or without a stable re-
circulation region.

2.2.3. Noise of inclined impinging jets

When the inclined angle is small, only nuances of the flow structures
and acoustic characteristics between normal and inclined impinging
jets might be observed. As the inclined angle increses, the character-
istics of the noise spectra could show remarkable difference. Worden
et al. [105] have measured the nearfield and farfield spectra at 90 to
the jet axis, for normal and 40 -inclined impinging jets under varying
impingement distances and jet temperatures. For both kinds of im-
pinging jets, when the impingement distance increases, the nearfield
OASPL increases until it reaches the peak value at a certain impinge-
ment distance, while the farfield OASPL decreases monotonically with
increasing impingement distance. It might be attributed to the reflec-
tion of acoustic waves, which affects the nearfield measurement. The
SPL of the full band (1 kHz–30 kHz) measured either at nearfield or
farfield increases along with the increasing jet temperature. For the
normal impinging jet, under a fixed impingement distance, the im-
pinging tone appears in a certain range of jet temperature but dis-
appears when the jet temperature increases further, as shown in
Fig. 14a. For the inclined impinging jet, on the contrary, no impinging
tone is observed under the same conditions, unless the jet temperature
is high enough, as shown in Fig. 14b.
For the inclined impinging jet, the mechanisms of the noise gen-
eration and propagation have been widely studied either experimen-
tally [107–110] or numerically [46,106,111–117]. As a result, several
noise sources and influential factors have been revealed. Among the
numerical investigations, Nonomura et al. [111,112] studied the
acoustic field of the inclined impinging jet. Three types (I, II, III) of
acoustic waves could be observed under varying impingement distances
and jet temperatures, which is consistent with the computation by Fig. 14. Nearfield noise spectra of impinging jets at varying jet temperatures.
Brehm et al. [106], as shown in Fig. 15a. Type I is Mach waves induced Mj = 1.5, NPR = 3.7 , h/ d = 6. Reproduced by permission from Theodore J.
by the shear layer of the main jet. Type II is acoustic waves originated Worden [105].
from the impingement region. Type III is acoustic waves induced by the
shear layer in the wall jet region. For type II, when the impingement coefficients (see Fig. 15b), as well as acoustic waves radiating in an-
distance increases, both the SPL and the dominant frequency decrease, other direction. For the octave band centered at St = 0.16, only the SPL
while the propagation direction remains almost unchanged. When the of type III acoustic waves is relatively large, which is consistent with the
jet temperature increases, the shear layer of the main jet becomes PSD peak near St = 0.2 observed 75 to the jet axis. For St = 0.33, the
thicker, the length of potential core decreases, the SPL of the full-band, type II acoustic waves are also noticeable in the SPL map. For even
especially the low frequency components, increases and the propaga- larger Strouhal numbers (St = 0.66, 1.31), the SPLs of type II and type
tion angle to the jet axis decreases. III are reduced, which is consistent with the PSD peak near St = 0.5
To further analysis the three types of acoustic waves, Nonomura and observed 120 to the jet axis. Through the causality method, which has
Fujii [113,114] and Tsutsumi et al. [115] have adopted the short time been applied to the identification of noise sources in turbulent free jets
Fourier transform (STFT) to extract sampling sequences at character- [119–121], Brehm.
istic frequencies for the numerical results of an inclined impinging jet, et al. [106] also confirmed that type II acoustic waves are originated
which are then analysed by the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD from the impingement region and type III the wall jet region.
[118]). Two kinds of acoustic waves could be observed in the initial Two sources contributing to type II acoustic waves are discovered
three orders of POD modes. The main noise source (type III) is down- [46,116]. The first one is the interaction between the main jet shear
stream of the impingement region and the corresponding acoustic layer and the plate shock. The second one is the interaction between the
waves propagate in a small angle to the plate surface. The secondary main jet shear layer and the separation shock induced by the stagnation
noise source (type II) is located where the shear layer and the plate bubble. These two sources are easier to distinguish at a relatively small
intersect, and radiates the acoustic waves nearly along the plate inclined angle, while the acoustic waves generated by the two sources
normal. In the POD analyses conducted by Brehm et al. [106], the three are not distinguishable at farfield. It is found that at a smaller inclined
types of acoustic waves are observable in the phase plot of Fourier angle, the plate shock is stronger [117], the OASPL is higher and the

9
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 15. (a) Isocontour of Q-criterion, Qd/ uref = 1.2 × 105 and contour of normalized gauge-pressure. (b) Phase of complex Fourier coefficients, St = 0.66 . Reproduced
with permission of Cambridge University Press, from Ref. [106].
dominant frequency is lower, however, the mechanism how the in-
clined angle influences the noise spectrum is still unclear.
The acoustic waves identified in the numerical investigations above
are also confirmed by experiments. Akamine et al. [107,108] observed
the acoustic waves propagating in two different directions, corre-
sponding to type II and type III, as shown in Fig. 16a. However, no
connection between the intensity of the plate shock and the OASPL of
type II is observed. Akamine et al. [109] attained three types of acoustic
waves using phase average schlieren, where the types of acoustic waves
detected are different at different impingement distances. Further study
by Akamine et al. [110,122] shows that one of the three types of
acoustic waves observed is reflected waves of type I, as shown in
Fig. 16b. The variation of the impingement distance leads to the change
of area covered by the reflected waves, and thus the change of noise
spectra measured at certain fixed points.
In summary, three types of acoustic waves could be observed in the
inclined impinging jet, as illustrated in Fig. 17. The first type is Mach
waves originated from the shear layer of the main jet (I) and the cor-
responding reflected waves (I′). The second type is acoustic waves in-
duced by the interaction between the shear layer and shocks, including
the interaction with the plate shock (II) and the interaction with the
separation shock (II’). The third type is Mach waves generated by the
shear layer of the wall jet (III).
3. Impinging jet interaction with launch structures
Rocket launching is a dynamic process, including engine ignition
and rocket lift-off. The dynamic effects during the engine ignition are
mainly induced by the development of the engine exhaust from the
ignition to the steady operation of the engine. While during the rocket
lift-off, the lift-off velocity is much lower than the jet velocity, the
dynamic effects are mainly induced by the change of lift-off height.
During different phases of rocket launching, the impinging effects of
the engine exhaust are dominated by its interaction with either the
launch platform or the deflector system [21–23]. Immediately after the
engine ignition, the engine exhaust develops and impinges on the
launch platform dynamically. The launch platform is the dominant
noise source. After the engine operates steadily, the exhaust passes
through the launch platform cut-out and gets released from the exit of
the deflector duct. The duct exit becomes the dominant noise source.
During the lift-off, the exhaust grows and impinges on the launch
10
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
platform, which becomes the dominant noise source again. As the
rocket ascends further, the exhaust tends to be a free jet and the exhaust
itself is the dominant noise source. The results of scale model experi-
ments [1,3,41] of rockets at different lift-off heights led to consistent
conclusions.
In addition, it is indicated in the 1/40 scale model experiment of
Ariane 6 [41] that different noise sources are dominant in different
frequency bands during rocket launching. For a moderate lift-off height
(15d ), noticeable noise is observed at the engine exhaust, the launch
platform, the exit of the deflector duct as well as the intersection be-
tween the deflector duct and the ground (the duct is partially under-
ground). In the octave band centered at 0.5 kHz (St = 0.01875), the
engine exhaust, the launch platform and the duct exit are dominant
noise sources. As the frequency increases, the SPL of the noise observed
from the duct exit and the engine exhaust goes down and almost dis-
appears in the octave band centered between 4 kHz and 16 kHz
(0.15 < St < 0.6 ). Simultaneously, the duct intersection becomes a sec-
ondary noise source, while the launch platform remains the dominant
noise source. By analyzing the deconvolued density spectral level of
different noise sources, it is found that the dominant noise source is the
duct exit at h = 0 . As the lift-off height increases to 10d , the duct exit is
the dominant source of noise with frequancy below 4 kHz (St < 0.15)
while the launch platform is the dominant source of noise with fre-
quancy above 4 kHz (St > 0.15). At h = 20d , the launch platform is the
dominant source of noise in full-band observed (250Hz < f < 16kHz
0.009375 < St < 0.6 ) and the duct intersection becomes a secondary
noise source for f > 2kHz (St > 0.075). When the lift-off height reaches
30d , the launch platform is the dominant source of noise with frequancy
below 1 kHz (St < 0.0375) while the duct intersection is the dominant
source of noise with frequancy above 1 kHz (St > 0.0375).
3.1. Interaction with the launch platform
The launch platform is generally set beneath the rocket, with several
cut-outs on the launch platform, where the engine exhaust passes. The
noise induced by the impingement of the engine exhaust on the de-
flector would be partially sheltered by the launch platform. However,
the noise originated above the launch platform would be partially re-
flected and become additional acoustic loads on the nose fairing. When
the launch platform is directly impinged by the engine exhaust, the
launch platform itself would also become a noise source [21–23,41].
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 16. Schlieren graph and conditional sampling of an inclined impinging jet.
Figure (a) is reproduced by permission from Masahito Akamine [108]. Copy-
right 2015. Figure (b) is reproduced by permission from Masahito Akamine,
Koji Okamoto, Kent L. Gee, Tracianne B. Neilsen, Susumu Teramoto, Takeo
Okunuki, and Seiji Tsutsumi [122]. Copyright 2018.
Fig. 17. Three types of acoustic waves.
During different phases of rocket launching, the dominant effect of
the launch platform varies. When the lift-off height is small, the exhaust
completely passes through the launch platform cut-out. The noise is
mainly induced by the impingement of the exhaust on the deflector.
The size of the cut-out influences the shelter effect of the launch
11
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
platform and a critical lift-off height where the exhaust starts to im-
pinge on the launch platform. As the lift-off height reaches the critical
value, the impingement on the launch platform becomes a noise source.
The acoustic characteristics of the exhaust impinging on the launch
platform are similar to that of the jet normally impinging on a plate,
which is almost irrelevant to the size of the cut-out [42].
In the numerical investigation [123], Reynold number (Re) is ad-
justed to control the state of the normal impinging jet on plates with or
without a cut-out. When the jet completely passes through the cut-out,
the nearfield OASPL of the noise radiated from the plate with a cut-out
is 30 dB lower than that without a cut-out. When the jet partially im-
pinges on the plate, the maximum overall sound reduction level (SRL) is
about 10 dB, but the overall SRL values probed at most points are lower
than 5 dB, which indicates that the noise reduction effects of the cut-out
would be limited once the plate gets impinged.
The effects of the cut-out size have been studied through scale
model experiments [42]. Under a lift-off height smaller than about 10d ,
the mixing layer of the rocket exhaust passes through the launch plat-
form exactly with a cut-out of 1.58d . The OASPL of the acoustic loads on
the nose fairing received from the launch platform is lower than either
the launch platform without a cut-out or with a larger cut-out (2.46d ).
The above results indicate that the cut-out helps to avoid the noise
originated from the jet impingement on the launch platform, but a large
cut-out would weaken the shelter effect on the noise induced by the jet
impingement on the deflector. As the lift-off height grows to 10d , the
dominant frequency of the peak of 1/3 octave spectral level is shifted
from St = 0.5–0.9 to St = 0.1–0.4. The radiation peak line for the oc-
tave centered at St = 0.52 (8 kHz) is 125 to the jet axis and that for the
octave centered at St = 0.13 (2 kHz) is 170 to the jet axis, which shows
that the low frequancy components tend to propagate along the rocket.
When the lift-off height reaches 13.9d , the effects of the cut-out on the
OASPL measured at the nose fairing become negligible, which is con-
sistent with the results of the scale experiment by Malbqui et al. [41].
Thus, normal impinging jets on a plate could serve as reasonable re-
ferences for the exhaust impingement on the launch platform during
this phase. As the lift-off height increases further, both the energy ra-
diated from the mixing layer and reflected by the launch platform in-
creases, and thus the OASPL continues to increase. After the lift-off
height surpasses the length of jet potential core, the mixing layer is
almost completely developed and the OASPL starts to decrease for that
the decrease of energy reflected by the launch platform exceeds the
increase of energy radiated from mixing layer.
The acoustic fields under different lift-off heights could be observed
in the computation by Tsutsumi et al. [43], which is shown in Fig. 18.
The noise is probed near the nozzle exit with 90 to the jet axis. At a lift-
off height of 6d , the exhaust is relatively stable and almost passes
through the cut-outs completely, leading to a low SPL peaked at
St = 0.1. When the lift-off height reaches 11d , the exhaust becomes
unstable and impinges on the launch platform, resulting in a higher
OASPL, while the peak SPL remains near St = 0.1. As the lift-off height
increases to 16d , the mixing layer develops, the Mach waves radiating
downstream and the corresponding reflected waves are observed. The
probed OASPL continues to increase and the peak SPL shifted to
St = 0.04. When the lift-off height is finally 21d , more Mach waves
radiating downstream are observed, whereas the reflected waves are
greatly weakened. The OASPL decreases and the peak SPL is near
St = 0.03.
Based on the understanding of the noise generation of the launch
platform, two kinds of passive methods to reduce the noise are under
research. One is to apply sound absorption treatment to the surface of
the launch platform. The SPL of the full band could be reduced by
setting a porous plate between the nozzle exit and the impinged plate
[124,125]. Also, the surface roughness of the impinged plate is posi-
tively correlated to the reduction of the turbulent noise [126]. The
other kind of method is to perforate the launch platform in addition to
the main cut-outs. In the scale model experiments [3], for the
C. Jiang, et al.
configuration without a launch platform, the OASPL measured on the
rocket and 13d above the nozzle exit is at least 4 dB lower than that with
a launch platform. For the perforated launch platform, the OASPL
measured is in between and the most sound reduction is observed in
low and medium frequency bands. As the lift-off increases, the noise
reduction becomes more significant. The surface treatment mainly in-
creases the dissipation of the acoustic disturbances while the perfora-
tion is to increase the acoustic transmittance. Based on the study by
Gaeta et al. [127] and an unpublished report by Georgia Tech on sound
absorption material, Ahuja et al. [128] combined the two methods
above and proposed a design where the launch platform and the ground
are covered by the sound absorption material while the cut-outs on the
launch platform are replaced by the perforation. The report by Georgia
Tech indicated that the sound absorption material greatly reduces the
medium and high frequency components of the noise. The study by
Gaeta et al. [127] shows that the perforation could increase the noise in
the high frequency band while reduce greatly the noise in thermal low
and medium frequency bands and eliminate the screech tone.
3.2. Interaction with the deflector
The deflector system is designed to deflect the engine exhaust, re-
ducing and eliminating backflow, and thus reduce the acoustic loads on
the rocket. There are several kinds of deflectors, including closed de-
flectors with a closed duct/trench and open deflectors without one.
According to the main deflection direction, deflectors could be divided
into single-sided and multiple-sided deflectors. Different deflectors
show different acoustic efficiency (sound power/exhaust's mechanical
power) [31]. A bucket-shaped deflector (with a deflector duct) shows
high acoustic efficiency above 0.15, while a cone-shaped one shows a
low efficiency about 0.05 [31]. A 45 inclined plate shows an inter-
mediate efficiency of 0.10. For large rockets, closed deflectors are
usually adopted, while for smaller rockets, a planar or curved surface is
often the choice [16].
12
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
Fig. 18. Acoustic field of H-IIA at different lift-off
height. The black line at the bottom indicates where
the launch platform is located. The launch platform
cut-outs and the deflectors below are not visible in
the figure. Reproduced with permission of AMERI-
CAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRON-
AUTICS, INC, from Ref. [43]; permission conveyed
through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
3.2.1. Single-sided deflector
Single-sided deflectors direct the engine exhaust to one side. These
deflectors have been applied to rocket launching, mobile missile
launchers [129] and conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) carrier-
based aircrafts [130–132]. The simplest deflector is an inclined plate,
which has been studied in many fundamental researches. For CTOL
carrier-based aircrafts, inclined plates are usually utilized as jet blast
deflectors. For mobile missile launchers, planar or curved plates are
utilized. However, for rocket launching, apart from a carefully designed
curved deflector surface, the deflector is usually extended by a deflector
trench. For a closed deflector, the trench would be partially covered by
a plate, or be replaced by a duct.
Design of an open deflector focuses on the optimization of the de-
flector shape, including the surface near the impingement region and
the transition from the deflector to the trench and other structures.
Tsutsumi et al. [133] numerically investigated the M − V rocket ex-
haust impinging on a bucket-shaped deflector. Acoustic waves propa-
gating in two directions are observed, which indicates two dominant
noise sources. One is located in the impingement region, where the
unsteady motion of the tail shock and the separation bubble generates
the noise, propagating towards the rocket and inducing most of the
acoustic loads. The other is located at the edge of the deflector, where
the flow leaves the deflector in a flapping motion. The corresponding
acoustic waves are relatively stronger while the propagation is away
from the rocket. When the deflector shape is revised to a flat plane,
though the separation bubble is still there, the acoustic waves propa-
gate away from the rocket, and thus the acoustic loads are reduced.
Tatsukawa et al. [134–136] utilized numerical simulation to opti-
mize deflectors. As shown in Fig. 19, by keeping the impingement
distance constant, three type of deflectors are designed after several
iterations: 1) the basic deflector, a 45 inclined plate as the baseline, 2)
the balanced deflector, where there is a bump upstream of the im-
pingement region to obtain considerable noise reduction with minimum
change of the shape, 3) the optimum deflector, where there is a bump
upstream of the impingement region and a sink downstream of the
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 19. Acoustic fields of impinging jets on deflectors with different shapes. Reproduced by permission from Tomoaki Tatsukawa [134], Copyright 2016.
impingement region to minimize the acoustic loads. All the three types
of acoustic waves introduced in Sec. 2.2 could be observed for the basic
deflector. However, the balanced deflector weakens the type II acoustic
waves by about 10 dB and the optimum deflector almost eliminates the
type II acoustic waves. Considering the flow structures, there are plate
shocks and separation bubbles for all the three deflectors, while the size
of the separation bubble is the smallest for the optimum deflector, and
the largest for the basic deflector. Through the optimization, the local
inclined angle in the impingement region is increased, resulting in a
smaller separation bubble, which weakens the separation shock and the
interaction with the shear layer, and thus reduces the noise. On the
contrary, when the inclined angle is small, strong recirculation and
separation shocks could appear [137]. However, by comparison be-
tween two deflectors resembling the basic one and the balanced one
respectively [46], the spectra observed about 120 to the jet axis and 20d
to the impingement point are almost the same for the two deflectors,
and no reduction is observed for the SPL peak (St 0.4 ) and the sec-
ondary SPL peak (St 5) in the spectra observed near the nose fairing.
Still, the balanced deflector reduces the SPL by about 15 dB for
1 < St < 4 and St > 5. For practical optimization of deflector system, the
object to reduce the SPL in a desired frequancy band might lead to a
better optimization than to reduce the OASPL received at nose fairing.
The optimization of deflectors is also bounded by the terrain in
practical applications. Hence, the transition from the deflector to the
trench or the terrain should be carefully designed. Tsutsumi et al. [138]
numerically investigated the M − V rocket exhaust impinging on an
open deflector. Under fixed inclined angle and impingement distance,
an ideal plate deflects the acoustic waves away from the rocket, while
the deflector with a step transition induces additional acoustic waves
originated near the transition, and the deflector with an arc transition
almost eliminates the additional acoustic waves.
Tsutsumi et al. [139] numerically compared the flowfields and
acoustic fields of the rocket exhaust impinging on two different de-
flectors. One is a 45 inclined plate, the other is a 45 inclined plate with
an arc transition, which is designed to eliminate the tail shocks. All the
three types of acoustic waves are observable for both deflectors, but the
tail-shock-free deflector avoids additional shock structures induced by
the deflection of the wall jet and thus the corresponding noise.
Though open deflectors are simple and easy to implement, large
rockets usually require closed deflectors to obtain sufficient noise re-
duction [16]. In a comparison of the sound reduction effects between
open deflectors and closed deflectors [140,141], the OASPL is measured
at several points evenly distributed on a horizontal circle of radius 80d .
Compared with the free jet noise in an azimuth range of 0–90 (0 for the
designed deflection direction), for an open deflector, the OASPL mea-
sured in the range of 70 –90 is lower, while the range is extended to
45 –90 for a closed deflector, with the SRLs larger than the open de-
flector. Thus, the directivity of the closed deflector is better than the
open deflector. Also, a scale model experiment of the Ariane 5 [51]
rocket indicated that the extend of closed deflectors could reduce the
noise effectively.
In addition to noise reduction effects, closed deflectors help to
13
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
weaken the ignition overpressure. The unsteady simulation of the H-IIB
launch by Tsutsumi et al. [142] revealed the development of the
flowfield after engine ignition. In the beginning, the leading shock is
generated by the ignition overpressure. Then the leading shock pro-
pagates outwards and gets reflected by the deflector. The shelter effect
of the launch platform and the deflector cover plate weakens the
leading shock and reduces the aerodynamic loads on the rocket. Still,
there are noticeable pressure disturbances. The starting vortices form
behind the leading shock and attach downstream of the impingement
region. Then the vortices gradually grow in size and fill the deflector
trench, finally induce secondary vortices at the trench exit. The simu-
lation of H-IIA launch by Tsutsumi et al. [43] shows that when the lift-
off height is 16d, almost all the flow in the deflector trench is subsonic.
The acoustic waves propagate along the trench, and get reflected and
diffracted near the trench exit. The acoustic field outside the trench is
similar to the superposition of spherical waves.
However, the structures of closed deflectors suffer more from the
thermal loads induced by the engine exhaust. The different configura-
tions of the deflector cover plate and the deflector trench are analysed
through the simulation of a KSLV-II launch [143]. The results show that
the deflector cover plate hinders the heat exchange between the engine
exhaust and the surrounding fluid. Thus, the average temperature in
deflector trench is relatively higher. Compared with a straight deflector
trench, a trench converging near the trench exit induces additional
compression and increases exhaust temperature near the trench exit.
Besides the trench/duct downstream of the deflector, there is a
configuration where a duct is set upstream of the deflector. Tsutsumi
et al. [145] have studied this configuration by computation. The con-
figuration is similar to the Launch Pad 0B at NASA's Wallops Flight
Facility, as shown in Fig. 20. A duct upstream of the deflector connects
a small launch platform and a deflector. Arc transition is adopted and
no duct is extended downstream of the deflector. As the impingement
distance increases, the OASPL increases at first and decreases after
reaching the peak value. The trend is similar to the conclusions in Sec.
3.1.
Three different deflectors with a duct upstream are compared
through scale model experiments [146]. The first one is a basic de-
flector similar to that in Fig. 20 by replacing the trench with a duct. The
second one is the basic deflector with a duct extended downstream of
the exit. The third one is based on the second deflector and the duct exit
shape is revised to a flat rectangular. At a lift-off height of 8d , both the
measurements near the nozzle exit and the nose fairing led to a con-
sistent conclusion that the full band SPL for the second deflector with a
extended duct is lower than that for the basic deflector, while the
OASPL for the third deflector with a flat duct exit is higher than that for
the basic deflector. The peak OASPL is about 160 to the jet axis for the
first two deflectors, while for the deflector with a flat duct exit the
dominant direction of propagation is reduced to 150 . The shape of the
duct exit has noticeable influence on the directivity and the SPL re-
ceived by the nose fairing.
The Uchinoura space center adopted a deflector resembling the
second deflector, the basic deflector with a duct extended downstream
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 20. MARS launch pad 0B. Reproduced from Ref. [144]. Courtesy NASA/
JPL-Caltech.
of the exit. The flight data of the Epsilon-1 launch are collected by the
microphones inside the nose fairing and on the service structure near
the nose fairing [147]. The OASPL measured inside the nose fairing
reaches the peak value 132.2 dB for a lift-off height between 6d –7d . The
wavelet power spectra of the noise inside the nose fairing show that the
dominant frequancy is about 250 Hz (St 0.167 ) before the lift-off
height reaches 12d , while the dominant frequancy is shifted below
125 Hz (St 0.083) when h > 12d . As to the acoustic loads on the
Fig. 21. Shadowgraphs of impinging jets on a wedge at different pressure ratios. Designed Mj = 2.2 , h/ d = 1. (a) Detached shock. PR = 0.8. (b) Attached shock.
PR = 1.0 . (c) Double triple-point structures. PR = 1.4 . (d) Four-shock confluence structures. PR = 1.5. Reproduced with permission of Cambridge University Press,
from Ref. [150].
14
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
service structure, the wavelet power spectra also show a dominant
frequancy of about 250 Hz when h < 12d . As the lift-off height increases
further, the service structure is affected directly by the engine exhaust
and the wavelet power spectra show a broadband noise (30 Hz–4 kHz,
0.02 < St < 2.67 ).
To summarize, the design of the deflector surface, the deflector
duct/trench, as well as the transition in between, is strongly associated
with the local flow structures and the sound generation and propaga-
tion. The single-sided deflector is a simple configuration, but the con-
figuration covers all the design issues above, which are also concerned
with the studies on the multiple-sided deflector.
3.2.2. Multiple-sided deflector
Multiple-sided deflectors scatter the engine exhaust to multiple di-
rections. In practical applications, wedge-shaped deflectors are more
usual than cone-shaped deflectors. The wedge-shaped deflector could
function as a single-sided deflector when only one side of the wedge is
impinged by the engine exhaust. In this situation, the flow structures
may resemble the inclined impinging jet on a plate or a single-sided
deflector. However, if the jet impinges near the tip, complex flowfields
could appear at the tip and show different characteristics, which is only
investigated by a few fundamental studies [148–154] and numerical
simulations [155,156].
The experiments of impinging jets on wedges and cones [148,149]
have shown that, when the wedge or cone tip is near the location of the
Mach disk in the free jet under the same nozzle operational conditions,
the Mach disk in the impinging jet would be pushed upstream, which is
similar to the trend in the normal impinging jet. Lamont and Hunt
[150] have studied impinging jet on wedges under varying jet Mach
numbers, pressure ratios, impingement distances and wedge angles. As
the pressure ratio increases, the shock structures near the wedge tip
would successively transit from a detached shock to an attached shock,
then double triple-point structures and finally four-shock confluence
structures, as shown in Fig. 21. The critical transition pressure is pre-
dicable through shock polars. However, a detached shock could appear
while the cone shock theory predicts an attached shock [151].
As to the aerothermodynamic and acoustic effects of impinging jets
on wedges or cones, the experiments by Hunt [152] have shown that
the aerodynamic load on the deflector is nearly independent of the
impingement distance and the pressure ratio, but relevant to the wedge
angle. Vinze et al. [153] have studied the thermal effects of impinging
C. Jiang, et al.
Fig. 22. Typical configurations of a water injection system. Reproduced by
permission from SAGR Publications [20].
jets on wedges under different pressure ratios, impingement distances
and wedge angles. The results show that when the impingement dis-
tance is lower than 6d , the recovery factor at the stagnation point is
almost independent of the wedge angle, and varies in a range of
0.85–0.95 under varying nozzle pressure ratio between 2.36 and 5.08.
Also, the wedges show higher heat transfer rate than the flat plates.
Patel and Mathew [154] have compared the flowfields and the noise of
two-dimensional jets impinging on wedges under varying impingement
distances and wedge angles. At an impingement distance about 1d , the
impinging jet is steady. As the impingement distance reaches about 4d ,
large oscillations are observed in the flowfield and the OASPL is about
7 dB higher. Under the same impingement distance, the wedge with a
larger wedge angle induces a detached shock and the OASPL is 3 dB
higher than that with an attached shock.
For studies of engine exhaust impinging on the deflector system, the
rocket exhaust impinging on three configurations of deflector, a flat
plate, a wedge deflector or a cone deflector set in a trench has been
simulated [156]. Both simulations of rockets with two and six nozzles
show that the thermal loads on the cone deflector are lower than those
on the flat plate and the wedge deflector. Besides, the cone deflector is
more suitable for the rocket with six nozzles than that with two nozzles.
4. Impinging jet interaction involving multiphase flow
Commonly, there are two kinds of interaction with impinging jets
involving multiphase flows during rocket launching. In general, a water
injection system is included in a launch pad for large vehicles to cool
down the launch system and reduce the noise. The water jet could be
atomized by the engine exhaust [47], producing a large number of
discrete droplets. Through vaporization, the water jet and the droplets
absorb heat and cool down the exhaust and the launch structures. Si-
multaneously, the exhaust is decelerated by the momentum exchange
with the liquid phase. The cooling and deceleration of the exhaust could
reduce the noise of impinging jet [1,20]. For a solid rocket engine, the
15
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
products of the solid propellant combustion include a large number of
discrete solid (or molten) particles, which are extra heat sources for the
exhaust [28]. The liquid and solid particles could exert a significant
influence on the exhaust. Thus, it is necessary to consider the influence
of the particles when trying to investigate the engine exhaust im-
pingement during rocket launching.
Numerical methods for the multiphase flow and the discrete phase
flow have been summarized in many reviews [157–163]. Numerical
methods for the discrete phase flow could be categorized into Eulerian
methods or Lagrangian methods. The Eulerian methods treat discrete
particles as a continuous phase and then adopt numerical methods for
the multiphase flow, while the Lagrangian methods directly track the
particles. In general, the volume fraction of solid particles in the ex-
haust of a typical rocket engine is relatively low [28]. Thus, the La-
grangian methods are applicable, while the Eulerian methods are
usually considered less suitable for the simulation of particles in the
engine exhaust. Troyes et al. [29] adopted an Eulerian method and a
Lagrangian method respectively to simulate a solid rocket exhaust
containing solid particles of two sizes. Noticeable inconsistency is found
between the results of these two methods, especially for the solid par-
ticles of a relatively large size.
The water injected is usually in a continuous phase, while the water
jet could interact with the impinging jet break up, and become ato-
mized. Thus, modelling of the liquid atomization [164] is required to
simulate the impinging jet interaction with aqueous jets. In addition, it
is indicated that the atomization of the water jet is related to the tur-
bulent disturbances. The experiment by Ragaller et al. [54] has been
simulated through an unsteady RANS (URANS) method, and a hybrid
URANS-LES method respectively, in conjunction with a VOF (volume of
fluid) method [47]. The results indicate that the URANS method could
hardly simulate the atomization of the water jet, whereas the hybrid
method is capable of capturing the phenomenon. However, high-fide-
lity turbulence simulation and particle tracking require costly compu-
tations, which makes it necessary to balance the computational re-
sources for capturing the turbulent structures and tracking the particles.
By choosing limited particles to simulate with proper strategies [165]
and reducing the number of particles tracked, it is possible to save the
computational cost.
4.1. Interaction with aqueous jets
During the operation of the water injection system, the liquid phase
exists in forms of either the continuous aqueous jet or the discrete liquid
particle. As to the momentum exchange with the liquid phase, the ex-
change between the aqueous jet and the engine exhaust could decele-
rate the exhaust and change the velocity profile [20,51,166–170], while
the exchange with the liquid particles could reduce the turbulent in-
tensity of the exhaust [171–174]. In addition, the vaporization of the
liquid phase contributes to considerable heat absorption. Both the
momentum and heat exchange result in noise reduction.
As illustrated in Fig. 22, there are several configurations of the
water injection system. The water injection system could be set near the
nozzle exit, around the cut-out on the launch platform, near the de-
flector top, on the deflector surface or near the deflector trench exit.
Water injections at different locations have varying effects. The scale
model experiments of Ares I [21,22,41] showed that the water injec-
tions located near the launch platform cut-out, the deflector top and the
deflector trench could effectively reduce the noise induced by the de-
flector, while the water injections located on the launch platform top
could reduce noise originated from the impingement region and limit
the extent of the noise.
4.1.1. Aqueous jet for heat reduction
The heat reduction effect of the water injection mainly contributes
to the heat protection of the impinged structures, including the launch
platform and the deflector system. The effect is determined by the
C. Jiang, et al.
configuration, and the characteristic parameters of the injection as well
as the engine exhaust. The conditions of the engine exhaust are usually
given by the desired launch vehicles. Before the study of the injection
conditions, the configuration should be determined firstly. In a nu-
merical investigation of the water injection [175], the engine exhaust
impinges on one side of a wedge deflector, and water is injected on the
top of the deflector in a horizontal direction towards the exhaust. The
results showed that most water is vaporized before reaching the de-
flector surface and part of the water jet moves away from the exhaust,
resulting in a limited heat reduction effect on the deflector surface. A
numerical and experimental investigation [30] showed that certain
configurations of water injection system near the nozzle exit could in-
hibit the afterburning of the engine exhaust, thus effectively reducing
the thermal loads and the size of the ablation region. The injection
conditions of a water injection system located on the deflector surface
has been studied experimentally [55]. The maximum wall temperature
with no water injection is 3522 K while that with the water injection is
2777 K. By taking the total injection flow rate fixed, as the number of
injection holes increases and the size of injection holes decreases,
smaller water particles are produced and the maximum wall tempera-
ture drops to 1311 K. Under a constant injection flow rate, smaller in-
jection holes are preferred for the heat reduction.
4.1.2. Aqueous jet for noise reduction
The noise reduction by the aqueous jet comes from the heat re-
duction and the deceleration of the exhaust, which reduce the energy of
both the main jet and the turbulent structures. Just as the heat reduc-
tion is affected by the aqueous jet, the configuration of the injection
system also has remarkable influence on the noise reduction effects. The
scale model experiments of Ariane 5 rocket [51] showed that, under a
constant flow rate, the injection near the entrance of the deflector
system could suppress the noise originated from the deflector better
than other configurations. Ignatius et al. [1,20] have conducted a scale
model experiment, where the exhaust of a rocket with two nozzles
impinges on the either side of a close wedge deflector respectively. The
results indicate that the injections near the nozzle exit are preferred to
reduce the acoustic loads. As the lift-off height increases, the noise re-
duction by the injections near the launch platform and the deflector
decreases, while the injection set at the corresponding height could
provide noticeable noise reduction.
The water pressure, flow rate and size of injection holes are coupled
parameters to characterize the injection conditions. Ignatius et al.
[1,20] have studied these parameters by controlling the hole size and
the water pressure independently. With a fixed size of the injection
holes, the flow rate is determined by the water pressure and the highest
SRL could be obtained at an optimum water pressure. The spectrum
analyses showed that, when the water pressure is higher than the op-
timum value, the noise in the high frequency band is reduced more, but
additional noise is observed in the medium frequency band, which
might be induced by the impact of the water jet and become more
noticeable as the water pressure increases. Under a fixed water pres-
sure, the size of injection holes is changed to control the flow rate. The
trend of the SRL varying with the flow rate resembles an S curve, where
the SRL surges in a certain range of mass flow rate while the SRL grows
slowly outside the range. The trend is not the same for all the injection
system configurations. For the injections at the launch platform bottom,
the trend of the SRL behaves as an S curve when the lift-off height is 0,
while the SRL quickly reaches the limited value of 2 dB at a lift-off
height of 8d. However, for the injections near deflector duct cover
plate, the SRL remains about 1 dB at all the lift-off heights tested. The
influence of the impingement distance on the injection configurations is
also observable in the scale model experiment by Malbqui et al. [41].
The results show that the injection at the duct entrance is effective
before the lift-off height reaches 5d , while the SRL of the injection on
the launch platform is noticeable for 5d < h < 30d .
The noise reduction by the water injection is different for the
16
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
impinging jet of different jet temperatures. Ignatius et al. [1,20] have
found that the noise reduction effects for the hot jet are better than the
cold jet at different lift-off heights tested. When the rocket is near the
launch platform, the injections reduces the noise of the full band, where
the main reduction is in the medium frequency band for the cold jet
while additional reduction is observed in the high frequency band for
the hot jet. However, the results of the experiments by Ragaller et al.
[54] lead to a different conclusion, that the impinging noise in the high
frequency band is enhanced by the water injections at higher jet tem-
perature. When the impingement distance is 8 times of the nozzle throat
diameter, the impinging tone appears and the injection reduces the SPL
peak of the impinging tone. For a temperature ratio (stagnation tem-
perature at the nozzle inlet/ambient temperature) of 1.0 or 2.04, the
noise in the high frequency band is reduced as well. On the contrary, for
a temperature ratio of 2.81, noise of the high frequency band is en-
hanced. When the impingement distance is 10 times of the nozzle throat
diameter, the results are similar for a temperature ratio of 1.0 or 2.04,
while for a temperature ratio of 2.81 or 3.54, no impinging tone is
observed and the noise of the full band is enhanced, especially the noise
in the high frequency band.
4.2. Interaction with discrete particles
The discrete solid (or molten) particles in the engine exhaust come
from the combustion of the solid rocket propellants. As indicated in the
review [28], the alumina is molten under typical conditions in the
combustion chamber, but in the exhaust, the alumina temperature is
near the melting point and could be solidified downstream. The gas
phase and the discrete phase in the exhaust are usually not in equili-
brium. The nonequilibrium is more significant for the exhaust exiting
from a short nozzle, where the alumina temperature and phase are
more sensitive to the particle size and location. Rodionov et al. [48]
simulated a rocket exhaust, where the afterburning of the exhaust and
the phase change of the alumina particles are considered, including two
variants of alumina crystalline structures, meta stable gamma and
stable alpha. The results showed that the phase change of alumina
crystalline structures has negligible effect on the aerodynamic char-
acteristics, but the phase change influences the optical properties and
thus the radiation characteristics.
The distribution of the sizes of the alumina droplets in the chamber
is bimodal, with small micron-sized smoke droplets originating from
combustion of the aluminum vapor and large droplets from the het-
erogeneous combustion of the original aluminum globules of 20–200
µm [28]. When crossing the nozzle throat, due to the Rayleigh-Taylor
instability, the large alumina droplets break up for the shear force on
the order of 106g (g is the gravitational acceleration) [176,177]. Thus,
the particles collected from the exhaust are generally micron-sized and
seldom larger than about 10–15 µm . Considering the break-up of the
particles, prediction models of the particle diameter distribution based
on the critical Weber number are proposed. There are also distribution
models based on statistics [178], including unimodal models such as
log-normal, Rosin-Rammler and power law-exponential laws, mean-
while, there are experiments showing multimodal distributions
[179,180].
The particle size and the particle loading (mass flux ratio, mass flux
of the particles/mass flux of the gas) are two primary parameters re-
levant to the flow involving discrete particles. Dash et al. [181] re-
viewed the studies on the two-phase flow concerning rocket exhaust
and summarized three critical parameters, the nondimensional relaxa-
tion length, the nondimensional relaxation time and the mass fraction
ratio, as shown in Table 1. The first two parameters are related to the
particle size. For smaller particles, the relaxation length is smaller and
the relaxation time is shorter, and thus the exchange of momentum and
energy between the two phases is more sufficient and it is easier to
attain the flow equilibrium. However, at the nozzle exit, there could be
considerable nonequilibrium between the particles and the gas phase
C. Jiang, et al. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547

Two phase interaction parameters. Reproduced with permission of AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, INC, from Ref. [181]; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

can be treated independently in uncoupled

responsive to the surrounding fluctuations

negligible influence on gas phase; phases

Turbulent frozen limit. Particles are not

Mean flow frozen limit. Particles have

approached in any region of a rocket

and do not experience any turbulent

Not applicable. This limit is never

diffusion.

exhaust.
fashion.
1

than gas phase as characterized by their properties, the

Fully coupled solution. A two-way interactive coupling

Mean flow nonequilibrium. Particles cannot track gas

Turbulent nonequilibrium. Particles respond partially

with some degree of lag. They will diffuse differently

local mean flow properties and the local turbulence

and the two phases have different properties;
nonequilibrium approach utilized.

between the phases is required.

Fig. 23. Distribution of gas temperature and particle temperature on the axis
for a particle-laden jet. Reproduced with permission of AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, INC, from Ref. [181]; permission
conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
properties.

[182]. The third parameter is the mass fraction ratio, which is similar to
particle loading. The interaction induced by the particles are more
1

significant with a higher particle loading.

The interaction between the particles and the mean flow is affected
Mean flow equilibrium limit. Particles follow

respond fully to the surrounding fluctuations

by the characteristic length scales of the particles and the mean flow.
the motion of the gas phase and have the

neglected; one-way coupling utilized for

same properties; equilibrated two-phase

loading; influence on gas phase can be

Dash et al. [181] have simulated the rocket exhaust laden with alumina
One-way coupling. Negligible particle
Turbulent equilibrium limit. Particles

particles of varying sizes, under fixed nozzle operational conditions and

and diffuse like gas phase species.

a fixed particle loading. As shown in Fig. 23, the mean flow frozen limit
is attained when the particle size approaches infinity, while the mean
flow equilibrium limit is attained, when the particle size approaches 0.
The influence of the particle size on the mean flow is bounded by the
approach utilized.

two limits. For smaller particles, the exchange of momentum and en-
particle solution

ergy between the two phases is more sufficient, the change of gas ve-
locity and temperature on the jet axis is slower, and the difference
between the temperature distributions of the two phases is smaller.
1

Also, the Mach disk moves downstream and the angle between slip-
streams downstream of the Mach disk expands.
flow and characterizes the magnitude of mean flow lag

Characterizes the response of partiles to the gas phase

Characterizes the influence the particles have on the

Indicates the ability of particles to “track” the mean

As to the transient interaction between the particles and the tur-

(i.e., differences between particle and gas phase

turbulent fluctuations and hence their ability to

bulent structures, the characteristic time scales of the particles and the
turbulence are relevant. Sinha et al. [183] have adopted a LES method
in conjunction with a Lagrangian method to simulate the dispersion of
gas phase mean flow and turbulence.

the alumina particles of three sizes in a supersonic free jet. Similar to

the behavior of particles in a subsonic free jet [184], when the St is far
less than 1, the particles and the gas phase attain kinetic equilibrium;
velocities and temperatures).

when the St is far larger than 1, particles are almost irrelevant to the
turbulent motion of gas phase; when the St is around 1, particles are
associated with the turbulent structures, but the particles could leave
the structures later.
Significance

The first two parameters, relaxation length/time, describe the re-

diffuse.

sponses of the particles to the gas phase, while the particle loading
describes the influences of the particles on the gas phase. When the
particle loading is larger than 5%, the nearfield infra-red signature of a
t * = tp/T particle relaxation
l* = lp/L particle relaxation

rocket exhaust could be strongly dependent on the particles [185].

time/turbulent time

When the particle loading smaller than 0.3%, though large particles
particle mass
length/mean flow

fraction/gas mass

show great nonequilibrium, the influence on the gas temperature on the

jet axis is negligible [186]. When the alumina mass fraction at the
length scale

nozzle inlet is above 30%, the maximum gas temperature increase on

fraction
Parameter

scale

the jet axis could reach 3000K [187]. The statistics of the particle-laden
p/
Table 1

free jet experiments [182,188,189] and computations [190,191] all

* =

indicate that the Mach disk moves upstream when the particle loading

17
C. Jiang, et al.
increases. In addition, smaller particles are easier to disperse and have
greater influence on shock structures under a fixed particle loading
[182].
The similarity of the flow in the free jet region between particle-free
impinging jets and free jets also works for particle-laden impinging jets
and free jets. In another word, at a given particle size and particle
loading, the behavior of the particles in the free jet region of impinging
jets is relatively consistent with that in free jets. The Direct Numerical
Simulation (DNS) of a particle-laden impinging jet [59,192] showed
that small particles follow the turbulent motion as that in a free jet.
When the St of the particles is near 1, the impact velocity of particles in
an under-expanded jet is higher than that in an over-expanded jet
[193]. Considering the influence of the near-wall flow structures on
particles, significant deceleration of the particles is observed when the
particles cross the standoff shock, and the deceleration is more no-
ticeable for smaller particles [194]. Also, the recirculation region has
significant influence on the movement of particles and thus the particle
impact on impinged objects [58].
The discrete particles exchange momentum and energy with the
surrounding flows. The influence of the jet on the particles has been
extensive studied, as indicated in the review of computations and ex-
periments on cold spray [195], which emphases on the characteristics
of particles in impinging jets. However, the influence of the particles on
the jet are less studied, although it has been indicated that, under
certain conditions, this influence should not be neglected. Under
varying pressure ratios, impingement distances and particle sizes, the
particles could restrain the acceleration of the gas and weaken the
shock intensity, then the Mach disk and the standoff shock would move
upstream, and the impingement region would expand [57]. In addition,
the particles of high temperature could exert a significant influence on
the wall temperature distribution [56].
5. Conclusions and futrue work
Several issues involved in impinging jets during rocket launching
are reviewed in this paper. Extensive results for two simplified models,
i.e. normal and inclined jets impinging on flat plates, are firstly re-
viewed. The interactive mechanisms between impinging jets and the
launch platform or the deflector system are subsequently discussed,
together with relevant factors that affect the flowfield and noise.
Attentions are then paid to the interaction of impinging jets with
multiphase flows, with special emphases on the issues of noise sup-
pression by water injections and flow characteristics affected by dis-
crete particles in the jet exhaust.
The interaction of an impinging jet with a plate has been extensively
studied. It appears that the interactive flow structures are qualitatively
understood and their connection with three main types of impinging
noise are identified. Regardless the nearfield and farfield spectra are
readily measured at all relevant directions, which enables the re-
construction of the acoustic field as well as the identification of the
noise sources and the propagation of the acoustic waves, the directivity
and the spectra contributed by an individual source receives less at-
tention. Moreover, the relationships between the impinging noise and
particular flow structures, such as the recirculation region, remains
unclear. The qualitative trends concerning the impact on flow struc-
tures and acoustic characteristics by the relevant factors, such as the jet
Mach number, pressure ratio, and impingement distance, remain to be
straightened. Still, the thermal influences of the impinging jet are re-
latively less studied. It is also difficult to predict whether and which
unstable oscillation mode would appear, so is the prediction of transi-
tion between different modes.
Extensive analyses on the relevant factors are proposed for the
purpose of fundamental studies in the future, to understand the aero-
thermodynamics of the impinging jet, in particular, the high-tempera-
ture effects on the launch site. It is likely to facilitate the understanding
of the acoustic characteristics induced by different sources better with
18
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
existing measurement data, so that some critical nondimensional
parameters might be extracted to correlate the sub-scale experiment
and the full-scale launch.
For the impinging jet interacting with launch structures, noise
sources under varying lift-off heights have been identified. The launch
platform and the deflector system are confirmed to be the two main
noise sources during the rocket launching. It is readily acknowledged
that the launch platform would generate noise by the impingement of
the engine exhaust, in combination with the exertion of shelter effects
on the noise originated below as well as the reflection effects on the jet
noise. However, the launch platform is usually studied as a part of a
launch complex, for which the evaluation of the specific effects is dif-
ficult to attain. The impact of the impinging jet on single-sided de-
flectors, ranging from a curved plate to the deflector extended by a
trench/duct, has been widely studied. It is found that the acoustic
sources for the engine exhaust impinging on single-sided deflectors are
similar to the ones induced by an inclined impinging jet on a plate. For
open deflectors, the shape of the deflector is of vital importance. The
findings of the parametric studies on the inclined impinging jet could be
partially extended to the design of the deflector surface. However, for
closed deflectors, the shape of the duct exit could be an influential
factor.
In the future work concerning the impinging jet interacting with
launch structures, it is recommended to study each relevant structure
separately at first to acquire the individual effects before considering
the combined effects of the complete system. The jet normally im-
pinging on a plate with cut-outs might be a reasonable model for si-
mulating the engine exhaust impinging on the launch platform. In ad-
dition, multiple-sided deflectors are supposed to have lower acoustic
efficiency than single-sided deflectors. The problem remains less stu-
died presently. Still, multiple-sided deflectors could be applied to the
rocket producing multiple streams of engine exhaust during launching,
which ia a situation that needs to be further investigated.
The multiphase flows involved in the impingement of engine ex-
haust during the rocket launching include aqueous jets from water in-
jection system and discrete particles produced by combustion of solid
propellants. The water injection system is mostly studied in sub-scale
model experiments, where the reduction of heat and noise under dif-
ferent operational conditions of the aqueous jets is qualitatively ana-
lysed. Optimum heat reduction is usually attained when the water is
injected near the structures, while optimum noise reduction requires
water injection near the noise sources, which vary with the lift-off
heights. The behavior of discrete particles in a jet has been widely
studied and the interaction between particles and surrounding flow is
still qualitatively recognized. At the present stage, the influences of
particles on the surrounding flow receives less emphasised. Only a few
studies are found concerning the particle-laden impinging jets for
rocket launching.
Numerical investigations related to the water injection system
during rocket launching are also encouraged, to provide more details
for quantitative analyses and the optimum design of the water injection
system. For particle-laden impinging jets, the influence of particles on
the flow structures should be emphasised. In addition, it is re-
commended to have a test for the influences of discrete particles on the
acoustic characteristics of the impinging jet.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 11372028, 11721202), the Aerospace
Science & Technology Joint Foundation of China Aerospace Science &
Technology Corporation (No. 6141B06220405), and a key project of
the Science & Technology on Reliability & Environmental Engineering
Laboratory (No. 614200403020517).
C. Jiang, et al.
References
[1] J.K. Ignatius, S. Sathiyavageeswaran, S.R. Chakravarthy, Hot-flow simulation of
aeroacoustics and suppression by water injection during rocket liftoff, AIAA J. 53
(1) (2015) 235–245.
[2] N. Karthikeyan, L. Venkatakrishnan, Flow field and acoustic investigations of the
launch vehicle environment during lift-off, 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dallas, Texas,
2015.
[3] N. Karthikeyan, L. Venkatakrishnan, Acoustic characterization of jet interaction
with launch structures during lift-off, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 54 (2) (2017) 356–367.
[4] L.M. Myers, N. Rudenko, D.K. McLaughlin, Investigation on the flow-field of two
parallel round jets impinging normal to a flat surface, 54th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016.
[5] M. Harmon, V.N. Bhargav, P. Sellappan, F.S. Alvi, R. Kumar, Experimental study of
impinging jet flow field involving Converging and CD nozzle pair, AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kissimmee,
Florida, 2018.
[6] M. Zhang, G. Cai, Z. Tang, B. He, W. Zhang, Y. Shu, Experimental and numerical
research on the diversion effect of a conic flame deflector for a lunar module
ascent stage, J. Aerosp. Eng. 29 (5) (2016) 04016021.
[7] A. Kagenov, A. Glazunov, K. Kostyushin, I. Eremin, V. Shuvarikov, Numerical
investigation of the effect of the configuration of ExoMars landing platform pro-
pulsion system on the interaction of supersonic jets with the surface of Mars, AIP
Conference Proceedings 1893, vol. 1, 2017030084.
[8] T.B. Nickels, A.E. Perry, An experimental and theoretical study of the turbulent
coflowing jet, J. Fluid Mech. 309 (1996) 157–182.
[9] A. Poubeau, R. Paoli, A. Dauptain, F. Duchaine, G. Wang, Large-Eddy simulations
of a single-species solid rocket booster jet, AIAA J. 53 (6) (2014) 1477–1491.
[10] Z. Gao, C. Jiang, C.-H. Lee, Representative interactive flamelet model and fla-
melet/progress variable model for supersonic combustion flows, Proc. Combust.
Inst. 36 (2) (2017) 2937–2946.
[11] A. Butt, C. Popp, H. Pitts, D. Sharp, NASA ares I launch vehicle roll and reaction
control systems design status, 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Denver, Colorado, 2009.
[12] A. Butt, C. Popp, K. Holt, H. Pitts, NASA ares I launch vehicle first stage roll control
system cold flow development test program overview, 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/
ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Nashville, Tennessee, 2010.
[13] K. Mahesh, The interaction of jets with crossflow, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45 (1)
(2013) 379–407.
[14] E. Hassan, J. Boles, H. Aono, D. Davis, W. Shyy, Supersonic jet and crossflow
interaction: computational modeling, Prog. Aero. Sci. 57 (2013) 1–24.
[15] Z. Wang, C. Jiang, Z. Gao, C. Lee, Prediction for the separation length of two-
dimensional sonic injection with high-speed crossflow, AIAA J. (2017) 1–16.
[16] P. Moraes, A. Morgenstern, Evaluation of the effectiveness of VLS launcher flame
deflector, Comput. Fluid 30 (5) (2001) 523–532.
[17] Soyuz-2. RIANovosti, 1a launch vehicle carrying three Russian spacecraft mikhail
lomonosov, aist-2d, and samsat-218 at the launch pad at Vostochny space launch
Centre, RIA novosti, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51811/photos/
44005, (2016).
[18] B. Ingalls, Antares Rocket Preperation, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, (2013)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/8654648539/.
[19] RocketLab, Electron ’its a test’ at rocket Lab LC-1, Rocket Lab (2016), http://www.
rocketlabusa.com/gallery/.
[20] J.K. Ignatius, S. Sankaran, R.A. Kumar, T.N.V. Satyanarayana, S.R. Chakravarthy,
Suppression of jet noise by staged water injection during launch vehicle lift-off,
Int. J. Aeroacoustics 7 (3–4) (2008) 223–241.
[21] R. Garcia, Assessment of microphone phased array for measuring launch vehicle
lift-off acoustics, Tech. Rep. (2012) NASA/TM-2012-217563, NASA Langley
Research Center.
[22] J. Panda, R. Mosher, Microphone phased array to identify liftoff noise sources in
model-scale tests, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 50 (5) (2013) 1002–1012.
[23] J. Panda, R.N. Mosher, B.J. Porter, Noise source identification during rocket en-
gine test firings and a rocket launch, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 51 (6) (2014) 1761–1772.
[24] B. Henderson, The connection between sound production and jet structure of the
supersonic impinging jet, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111 (2) (2002) 735–747.
[25] Mcilroy2007 K. McIlroy, K. Fujii, Computational analysis of supersonic under-
expanded jets impinging on an inclined flat plate, 37th AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Miami, Florida, 2007.
[26] R. Vinze, S. Chandel, M.D. Limaye, S.V. Prabhu, Heat transfer distribution and
shadowgraph study for impinging underexpanded jets, Appl. Therm. Eng. 115
(2017) 41–52.
[27] A. Powell, The sound-producing oscillations of round underexpanded jets im-
pinging on normal plates, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83 (2) (1988) 515–533.
[28] R. Reed, V. Calia, Review of aluminum oxide rocket exhaust particles, 28th
Thermophysics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Orlando, Florida, 1993.
[29] J. Troyes, I. Dubois, V. Borie, A. Boischot, Multi-phase reactive numerical simu-
lations of a model solid rocket exhaust jet, 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Sacramento, California, 2006.
[30] J. Yi, M. Yanli, W. Weichen, S. Liwu, Inhibition effect of water injection on
19
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
afterburning of rocket motor exhaust plume, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 23 (6) (2010)
653–659.
[31] K.M. Eldred, Acoustic loads generated by the propulsion system, Tech. Rep. (1971)
SP-8072, NASA-SP-8072.
[32] J. Varnier, W. Raguenet, D. Gely, Noise radiated from free and impinging hot
supersonic jets, 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Toulouse, France, 1998.
[33] J. Varnier, W. Raguenet, Experimental characterization of the sound power ra-
diated by impinging supersonic jets, AIAA J. 40 (5) (2002) 825–831.
[34] S. Alestra, I. Terrasse, B. Troclet, Inverse method for identification of acoustic
sources at launch vehicle liftoff, AIAA J. 41 (10) (2003) 1980–1987.
[35] D. Casalino, M. Barbarino, M. Genito, V. Ferrara, Hybrid empirical/computational
aeroacoustics methodology for rocket noise modeling, AIAA J. 47 (6) (2009)
1445–1460.
[36] D. Casalino, S. Santini, M. Genito, V. Ferrara, Rocket noise sources localization
through a CAA-based beam-forming technique, 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference (32nd AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Portland, Oregon, 2011.
[37] D. Casalino, S. Santini, M. Genito, V. Ferrara, Rocket noise sources localization
through a tailored beam-forming technique, AIAA J. 50 (10) (2012) 2146–2158.
[38] M.M.M. Morshed, Investigation of External Acoustic Loadings on a Launch Vehicle
Fairing during Lift-Off, Ph.D. thesis University of Adelaide, 2008.
[39] M.M.M. Morshed, C.H. Hansen, A.C. Zander, Prediction of acoustic loads on a
launch vehicle fairing during liftoff, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 50 (1) (2013) 159–168.
[40] M.M.M. Morshed, C.H. Hansen, A.C. Zander, Prediction of acoustic loads on a
launch vehicle: nonunique source allocation method, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 52 (5)
(2015) 1478–1485.
[41] P. Malbqui, R. Davy, C. Bresson, Experimental characterization of the acoustics of
the future Ariane 6 launch pad, 7th European Conference for Aeronautics and
Space Sciences (EUCASS), Milan, Italy, 2017.
[42] G. Dumnov, D. Mel'Nikov, V. Komarov, Acoustic loads on rockets during launch,
36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Huntsville, Alabama, 2000.
[43] S. Tsutsumi, R. Takaki, E. Shima, K. Fujii, M. Arita, Generation and propagation of
pressure waves from H-IIA launch vehicle at lift-off, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reno,
Nevada, 2008.
[44] Y. Nakai, N. Fujimatsu, K. Fujii, Experimental study of underexpanded supersonic
jet impingement on an inclined flat plate, AIAA J. 44 (11) (2006) 2691–2699.
[45] Y. Goto, K. McIlroy, T. Nonomura, K. Fujii, Detailed analysis of flat plate pressure
peaks created by supersonic jet impingements, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Orlando, Florida, 2009.
[46] Y. Nagata, T. Nonomura, K. Fujii, M. Yamamoto, Analysis of acoustic-fields gen-
erated by supersonic jet impinging on an inclined flat plate and a curved plate,
APCOM and ISCM, Singapore, 2013.
[47] S. Salehian, K. Kourbatski, V.V. Golubev, R.R. Mankbadi, Numerical aspects of
rocket lift-off noise with launch-pad aqueous injection, AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kissimmee, Florida,
2018.
[48] A. Rodionov, Y. Plastinin, J. Drakes, M. Simmons, I.R. Hiers, Modeling of multi-
phase alumina-loaded jet flow fields, 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Cleveland, OH, 1998.
[49] F.T. Buckley, R.B. Myers, Studies of solid rocket exhaust afterburning with a finite
difference equilibrium chemistry plume model, JANNAF 6th Plume Technology
Meeting, 1971.
[50] J.W. Calhoon, Evaluation of afterburning cessation mechanisms in fuel rich rocket
exhaust plumes, 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and
Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1998.
[51] D. Gely, G. Elias, C. Bresson, H. Foulon, S. Radulovic, P. Roux, Reduction of su-
personic jet noise - application to the Ariane 5 launch vehicle, 6th AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Lahaina, Hawaii, 2000.
[52] S. Hu, C. Jiang, Z. Gao, C.-H. Lee, Disturbance region update method for steady
compressible flows, Comput. Phys. Commun. 229 (2018) 68–86.
[53] J. Sachdev, V. Ahuja, A. Hosangadi, D. Allgood, Analysis of flame deflector spray
nozzles in rocket engine test stands, 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nashville, Tennessee, 2010.
[54] P. Ragaller, A. Annaswamy, J. Gustavsson, F. Alvi, Impinging jet noise suppression
using water microjets, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New
Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Orlando, Florida, 2011.
[55] S. Anant, T.J. Tharakan, R.P. Thomas, CFD analysis of water cooled flame de-
flector in rocket engine test facility, Proceedings of the 5th International and 41st
National Conference on FMFP 2014, Springer India, New Delhi, 2017, pp.
517–528.
[56] N. Tsuboi, A.K. Hayashi, T. Fujiwara, K. Arashi, M. Kodama, Numerical simulation
of a supersonic jet impingement on a ground, SAE Trans. 100 (1) (1991)
2168–2180.
[57] G. Wang, W. Xu, Y. Gao, A study on erosive effect of two phase impinging jets on
vertical plate, J. Ballist. 21 (02) (2009) 10–14.
[58] N.A. Buchmann, C. Cierpka, C.J. Khler, J. Soria, Ultra-high-speed 3D astigmatic
particle tracking velocimetry: application to particle-laden supersonic impinging
jets, Exp. Fluid 55 (11) (2014) 1842.
C. Jiang, et al.
[59] K. Akhtar, S.A. Ragab, Numerical simulations of a particle-laden rectangular su-
personic jet impinging on a solid wall, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Harbor, Maryland,
2014.
[60] C.D. Donaldson, R.S. Snedeker, A study of free jet impingement. Part 1. Mean
properties of free and impinging jets, J. Fluid Mech. 45 (2) (1971) 281–319.
[61] C.K.W. Tam, Supersonic jet noise, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 27 (1) (1995) 17–43.
[62] E. Franquet, V. Perrier, S. Gibout, P. Bruel, Free underexpanded jets in a quiescent
medium: a review, Prog. Aero. Sci. 77 (2015) 25–53.
[63] A. Krothapalli, E. Rajkuperan, F. Alvi, L. Lourenco, Flow field and noise char-
acteristics of a supersonic impinging jet, J. Fluid Mech. 392 (1999) 155–181.
[64] R. Vinze, M.D. Limeye, S.V. Prabhu, Influence of the elliptical and circular orifices
on the local heat transfer distribution of a flat plate impinged by under-expanded
jets, Heat Mass Transf. 53 (4) (2017) 1439–1455.
[65] G. Sinibaldi, L. Marino, G.P. Romano, Sound source mechanisms in under-ex-
panded impinging jets, Exp. Fluid 56 (5) (2015) 105.
[66] M.V. Silnikov, M.V. Chernyshov, Incident shock strength evolution in over-
expanded jet flow out of rocket nozzle, Acta Astronaut. 135 (2017) 172–180.
[67] R. Gojon, C. Bogey, O. Marsden, Investigation of tone generation in ideally ex-
panded supersonic planar impinging jets using large-eddy simulation, J. Fluid
Mech. 808 (2016) 90–115.
[68] R. Gojon, C. Bogey, Flow features near plate impinged by ideally expanded and
underexpanded round jets, AIAA J. 56 (2) (2017) 445–457.
[69] A. Dauptain, B. Cuenot, L.Y.M. Gicquel, Large eddy simulation of stable supersonic
jet impinging on flat plate, AIAA J. 48 (10) (2010) 2325–2338.
[70] A. Dauptain, L.Y.M. Gicquel, S. Moreau, Large eddy simulation of supersonic
impinging jets, AIAA J. 50 (7) (2012) 1560–1574.
[71] J. Iwamoto, Impingement of under-expanded jets on a flat plate, J. Fluids Eng. 112
(2) (1990) 179–184.
[72] J.C. Carling, B.L. Hunt, The near wall jet of a normally impinging, uniform, ax-
isymmetric, supersonic jet, J. Fluid Mech. 66 (1) (1974) 159–176.
[73] C. Chin, M. Li, C. Harkin, T. Rochwerger, L. Chan, A. Ooi, A. Risborg, J. Soria,
Investigation of the flow structures in supersonic free and impinging jet flows, J.
Fluids Eng. 135 (3) (2013) 031202–031202–12.
[74] L. Chan, C. Chin, J. Soria, A. Ooi, Large eddy simulation and Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes calculations of supersonic impinging jets at varying nozzle-to-wall
distances and impinging angles, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 47 (2014) 31–41.
[75] S.G. Kundasev, N.P. Kiselev, V.I. Zapryagaev, Experimental investigation of the
flow structure of the supersonic jet impinging on an inclined flat obstacle, AIP
Conference Proceedings 1770 (1) (2016) 030031.
[76] K. Fujii, A. Oyama, N. Tsuboi, M. Tsukada, H. Ouchi, M. Ito, K. Hayashi, Flow field
analysis of under-expanded supersonic jets impinging on an inclined flat plate:
analysis with PSP/schlieren images and CFD simulations, 2005 ASME Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Meeting and Exhibitio, Houston, Texas, 2005, pp.
213–221.
[77] J. Seiner, Advances in high speed jet aeroacoustics, AIAA/NASA 9th Aeroacoustics
Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hampton,
Virginia, 1984.
[78] G. Raman, Advances in understanding supersonic jet screech, 36th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Reno, Nevada, 1998.
[79] G. Raman, ADVANCES IN UNDERSTANDING SUPERSONIC JET SCREECH:
REVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE, Prog. Aero. Sci. 34 (1) (1998) 45–106.
[80] G. Raman, SUPERSONIC JET SCREECH: HALF-CENTURY FROM POWELL TO THE
PRESENT, J. Sound Vib. 225 (3) (1999) 543–571.
[81] J.C. Yu, D.S. Dosanjh, Noise field of a supersonic mach 1.5 cold model jet, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 51 (5A) (1972) 1400–1410.
[82] T.D. Norum, J.M. Seiner, Measurements of mean static pressure and far field
acoustics of shock containing supersonic jets, Tech. Rep. (1982) NASA-TM-84521.
[83] H.K. Tanna, An experimental study of jet noise part I: turbulent mixing noise, J.
Sound Vib. 50 (3) (1977) 405–428.
[84] J. Seiner, T. Norum, Experiments of shock associated noise of supersonic jets, 12th
Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Hampton, Virginia, 1979.
[85] J. Seiner, T. Norum, Aerodynamic aspects of shock containing jet plumes, 6th
Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Hampton, Virginia, 1980.
[86] J.M. Seiner, J.C. Yu, Acoustic near-field properties associated with broadband
shock noise, AIAA J. 22 (9) (1984) 1207–1215.
[87] T.D. Norum, J.M. Seiner, Broadband shock noise from supersonic jets, AIAA J. 20
(1) (1982) 68–73.
[88] A. Powell, On the mechanism of choked jet noise, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 66 (12)
(1953) 1039.
[89] A. Powell, The noise of choked jets, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 (3) (1953) 385–389.
[90] J. Seiner, J. Manning, M. Ponton, Model and full scale study of twin supersonic
plume resonance, 25th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reno, Nevada, 1987.
[91] B. Henderson, A. Powell, Experiments concerning tones produced by an axisym-
metric choked jet impinging on flat plates, J. Sound Vib. 168 (2) (1993) 307–326.
[92] B. Henderson, An experimental investigation into the sound producing char-
acteristics of supersonic impinging jets, 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Maastricht, Netherlands,
2001.
[93] A. Risborg, J. Soria, High-speed optical measurements of an underexpanded su-
personic jet impinging on an inclined plate, 28th International Congress on High-
Speed Imaging and Photonics, 2009 71261F–71261F–11.
20
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
[94] T.B. Davis, A. Edstrand, L.N. Cattafesta, F.S. Alvi, D. Yorita, K. Asai, Investigation
of the instabilities of supersonic impinging jets using unsteady pressure sensitive
paint, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, National Harbor, Maryland, 2014.
[95] T. Davis, A. Edstrand, F. Alvi, L. Cattafesta, D. Yorita, K. Asai, Investigation of
impinging jet resonant modes using unsteady pressure-sensitive paint measure-
ments, Exp. Fluid 56 (5) (2015) 101.
[96] J. Panda, Shock oscillation in underexpanded screeching jets, J. Fluid Mech. 363
(1998) 173–198.
[97] P.C. Stegeman, J.M. Perez, J. Soria, V. Theofilis, Inception and evolution of co-
herent structures in under-expanded supersonic jets, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 708 (1)
(2016) 012015.
[98] P.J. Schmid, Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data, J.
Fluid Mech. 656 (2010) 5–28.
[99] K. Shahram, P. C, Linearised dynamics and non-modal instability analysis of an
impinging under-expanded supersonic jet, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1001 (1) (2018)
012019.
[100] G. Sinibaldi, G. Lacagnina, L. Marino, G.P. Romano, Analysis of the characteristic
acoustic tones of an impinging jet, 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
[101] J. Gustavsson, P. Ragaller, R. Kumar, F. Alvi, Temperature effect on acoustics of
supersonic impinging jet, 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[102] D.M. Mitchell, D.R. Honnery, J. Soria, The visualization of the acoustic feedback
loop in impinging underexpanded supersonic jet flows using ultra-high frame rate
schlieren, J. Vis. 15 (4) (2012) 333–341.
[103] J. L. Weightman, O. Amili, D. Honnery, J. Soria, D. Edgington-Mitchell, An ex-
planation for the phase lag in supersonic jet impingement, J. Fluid Mech. 815.
[104] B. Henderson, J. Bridges, M. Wernet, An experimental study of the oscillatory flow
structure of tone-producing supersonic impinging jets, J. Fluid Mech. 542 (2005)
115–137.
[105] T. Worden, J. Gustavsson, C. Shih, F.S. Alvi, Acoustic measurements of high-
temperature supersonic impinging jets in multiple configurations, 19th AIAA/
CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Berlin, Germany, 2013.
[106] C. Brehm, J.A. Housman, C.C. Kiris, Noise generation mechanisms for a supersonic
jet impinging on an inclined plate, J. Fluid Mech. 797 (2016) 802–850.
[107] M. Akamine, Y. Nakanishi, K. Okamoto, S. Teramoto, T. Okunuki, S. Tsutsumi,
Experimental study on acoustic phenomena of supersonic jet impinging on in-
clined flat plate, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Harbor, Maryland, 2014.
[108] M. Akamine, Y. Nakanishi, K. Okamoto, S. Teramoto, T. Okunuki, S. Tsutsumi,
Acoustic phenomena from correctly expanded supersonic jet impinging on in-
clined plate, AIAA J. 53 (7) (2015) 2061–2067.
[109] M. Akamine, K. Okamoto, S. Teramoto, T. Okunuki, S. Tsutsumi, Conditional
sampling analysis of acoustic phenomena from a supersonic jet impinging on an
inclined flat plate, Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 59 (5) (2016) 287–294.
[110] M. Akamine, K. Okamoto, K.L. Gee, T.B. Neilsen, S. Teramoto, T. Okunuki,
S. Tsutsumi, Effect of nozzle-plate distance on acoustic phenomena from super-
sonic impinging jet, 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Lyon, France, 2016.
[111] T. Nonomura, Y. Goto, K. Fujii, Acoustic waves from a supersonic jet impinging on
an inclined flat plate, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New
Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Orlando, Florida, 2010.
[112] T. Nonomura, Y. Goto, K. Fujii, Aeroacoustic waves generated from a supersonic
jet impinging on an inclined flat plate, Int. J. Aeroacoustics 10 (4) (2011)
401–425.
[113] T. Nonomura, K. Fujii, POD of aeroacoustic fields of a jet impinging on an inclined
plate, 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[114] T. Nonomura, K. Fujii, Computational study of effects of near-wall turbulent
structure on aeroacoustic waves from a supersonic jet impinging on a inclined
plate, 17th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (32nd AIAA Aeroacoustics
Conference), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Portland,
Oregon, 2011.
[115] S. Tsutsumi, T. Nonomura, K. Fujii, Y. Nakanishi, K. Okamoto, S. Teramoto,
Analysis of acoustic wave from supersonic jets impinging to an inclined flat plate,
Seventh International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD7), Big
Island, Hawaii, 2012.
[116] H. Honda, T. Nonomura, K. Fujii, M. Yamamoto, Effects of plate Angles on acoustic
waves from a supersonic jet impinging on an inclined flat plate, 41st AIAA Fluid
Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011.
[117] T. Nonomura, H. Honda, Y. Nagata, M. Yamamoto, S. Morizawa, S. Obayashi,
K. Fujii, Plate-angle effects on acoustic waves from supersonic jets impinging on
inclined plates, AIAA J. 54 (3) (2016) 816–827.
[118] G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, J.L. Lumley, The proper orthogonal decomposition in the
analysis of turbulent flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 25 (1) (1993) 539–575.
[119] J. Panda, R.G. Seasholtz, Experimental investigation of density fluctuations in
high-speed jets and correlation with generated noise, J. Fluid Mech. 450 (2002)
97–130.
[120] J. Panda, Identification of noise sources in high speed jets via correlation mea-
surements - a review, 11th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (26th AIAA
Aeroacoustics Conference), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Monterey, California, 2005.
C. Jiang, et al.
[121] C. Bogey, C. Bailly, An analysis of the correlations between the turbulent flow and
the sound pressure fields of subsonic jets, J. Fluid Mech. 583 (2007) 71–97.
[122] M. Akamine, K. Okamoto, K.L. Gee, T.B. Neilsen, S. Teramoto, T. Okunuki,
S. Tsutsumi, Effect of NozzlePlate distance on acoustic phenomena from super-
sonic impinging jet, AIAA J. 56 (5) (2018) 1943–1952.
[123] S. Kawai, S. Tsutsumi, R. Takaki, K. Fujii, Computational aeroacoustic analysis of
overexpanded supersonic jet impingement on a flat plate with/without hole, 5th
Joint ASME/JSME Fluids Engineering Conference, San Diego, California USA,
2007, pp. 1163–1167.
[124] A. Wiley, I. Choutapalli, R. Kumar, F. Alvi, Noise and flowfield characteristics of a
supersonic jet impinging on a porous surface, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Orlando, Florida, 2010.
[125] A. Wiley, R. Kumar, Supersonic impinging jet noise reduction using a hybrid
control technique, J. Sound Vib. 348 (2015) 88–104.
[126] A. Dhamanekar, K. Srinivasan, Effect of impingement surface roughness on the
noise from impinging jets, Phys. Fluids 26 (3) (2014) 036101.
[127] R. Gaeta, K. Ahuja, B. Murdock, R. Combier, Noise reduction from a distributed
exhaust nozzle with forward velocity effects, 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustic
Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Manchester,
England, 2004.
[128] K.K. Ahuja, D.A. Alvord, J. Mattingly, J. Mittelman, W. Schuttler, D. Dickey,
Thoughts on use of university-scale rocket models to study launch acoustics, 20th
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Atlanta, Georgia, 2014.
[129] S. Basu, S. Saha, D. Chakraborty, Numerical simulation of missile jet deflector, J.
Spacecr. Rocket. 54 (4) (2017) 930–935.
[130] T.J. Worden, C. Shih, F.S. Alvi, Supersonic jet impingement on a model-scale jet
blast deflector, AIAA J. 55 (8) (2017) 2522–2536.
[131] R.W. Powers, D.K. McLaughlin, P.J. Morris, Noise reduction in supersonic jets
exhausting over a simulated aircraft carrier deck, J. Aircr. 55 (1) (2017) 310–324.
[132] S. Ma, J. Tan, X. Li, J. Hao, The Effect Analysis of an Engine Jet on an Aircraft Blast
Deflector, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control .
[133] S. Tsutsumi, K. Fukuda, R. Takaki, E. Shima, K. Fujii, K. Ui, Numerical study on
acoustic radiation for designing launch-pad of advanced solid rocket, 44th AIAA/
ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford, Connecticut, 2008.
[134] T. Tatsukawa, T. Nonomura, A. Oyama, K. Fujii, Multi-objective aeroacoustic
design exploration of launch-pad flame deflector using large-eddy simulation, J.
Spacecr. Rocket. 53 (4) (2016) 751–758.
[135] T. Tatsukawa, Y. Nagata, T. Nonomura, A. Oyama, K. Fujii, M. Yamamoto,
Multiobjective design exploration of an aeroacoustic design problem for rocket
launch site with evolutionary computation and large eddy simulations, 10th AIAA
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Harbor, Maryland, 2014.
[136] T. Tatsukawa, T. Nonomura, A. Oyama, K. Fujii, Nozzle-to-Ground distance effect
on nondominated solutions of multiobjective aeroacoustic flame deflector design
problem, 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dallas, Texas, 2015.
[137] D. Allgood, V. Ahuja, Computational plume modeling of conceptual ARES vehicle
stage tests, 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2007.
[138] S. Tsutsumi, S. Kato, K. Fukuda, R. Takaki, K. Ui, Effect of deflector shape on
acoustic field of launch vehicle at lift-off, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Orlando, Florida, 2009.
[139] S. Tsutsumi, R. Takaki, Y. Nakanishi, K. Okamoto, S. Teramoto, Acoustic gen-
eration mechanism of a supersonic jet impinging on deflectors, 52nd Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National
Harbor, Maryland, 2014.
[140] M. Kandula, B. Vu, Scale model experiments on sound propagation from a mach
2.5 cold nitrogen jet flowing through a rigid-walled duct with a J-deflector, Tech.
Rep. (2003) NASA/TM-2003-211186.
[141] M. Kandula, Sound radiation from a supersonic jet passing through a partially
open exhaust duct, J. Vib. Acoust. 133 (6) (2011) 064503–064503–5.
[142] S. Tsutsumi, R. Takaki, T. Hara, H. Ueda, H. Nagata, Numerical analysis of ignition
overpressure effect on H-IIB launch vehicle, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 51 (3) (2014)
893–899.
[143] H. Oh, J. Lee, H. Um, H. Huh, Numerical study for flame deflector design of a
space launch vehicle, Adv. Space Res. 59 (7) (2017) 1833–1847.
[144] NASA, ATK ALV X-1 Launch Vehicle Pathfinder, (2006) https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/
code840/multimedia/ATK.jpg.
[145] S. Tsutsumi, T. Ishii, K. Ui, S. Tokudome, K. Wada, Study on acoustic prediction
and reduction of Epsilon launch vehicle at liftoff, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 52 (2) (2015)
350–361.
[146] T. Ishii, S. Tsutsumi, K. Ui, S. Tokudome, Y. Ishii, K. Wada, S. Nakamura, Acoustic
measurement of 1:42 scale booster and launch pad, Proceedings of Meetings on
Acoustics 18 (1) (2012) 040009.
[147] S. Tsutsumi, T. Ishii, K. Ui, S. Tokudome, K. Wada, Assessing prediction and re-
duction technique of lift-off acoustics using Epsilon flight data, 53rd AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Kissimmee, Florida, 2015.
[148] J.K. Prasad, R.C. Mehta, A.K. Sreekanth, Experimental study of overexpanded
supersonic jet impingement on a double wedge deflector, Aeronaut. J. 97 (966)
(1968) 209–214 1993.
[149] J.K. Prasad, C. Mehta, A.K. Sreekanth, Impingement of supersonic jets on an
21
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
axisymmetric deflector, AIAA J. 32 (7) (1994) 1535–1538.
[150] P.J. Lamont, B.L. Hunt, The impingement of underexpanded axisymmetric jets on
wedges, J. Fluid Mech. 76 (2) (1976) 307–336.
[151] I.K. Jennions, B.L. Hunt, The axisymmetric impingement of supersonic air jets on
cones, Aeronaut. Q. 31 (1) (1980) 26–41.
[152] B.L. Hunt, Loads and pressures due to underexpanded jets impinging on wedges,
Aeronaut. Q. 34 (2) (1983) 76–98.
[153] R. Vinze, A. Chollackal, M.D. Limaye, S.V. Prabhu, Heat transfer characteristics of
the jet deflector impinged by underexpanded jets, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 78 (2016)
167–181.
[154] S.K. Patel, J. Mathew, Acoustic fields of a supersonic jet deflected by wedges
mounted on a flat plate, 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Lyon, France, 2016.
[155] J. Housman, M. Barad, C. Kiris, Space-time accuracy assessment of CFD simula-
tions for the launch environment, 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011.
[156] H. Cai, W. Nie, K. Guo, S. Zhou, Influence of deflector on impact properties of
multi-nozzle LOX/kerosene engine exhaust plume, 8th International Conference
on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, ICMAE), 2017, pp. 296–300.
[157] D.A. Drew, Mathematical modeling of two-phase flow, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 15
(1) (1983) 261–291.
[158] J.S. Shirolkar, C.F.M. Coimbra, M. Queiroz McQuay, Fundamental aspects of
modeling turbulent particle dispersion in dilute flows, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
22 (4) (1996) 363–399.
[159] G. Gouesbet, A. Berlemont, Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches for predicting the
behaviour of discrete particles in turbulent flows, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 25
(2) (1999) 133–159.
[160] E. Loth, Numerical approaches for motion of dispersed particles, droplets and
bubbles, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 26 (3) (2000) 161–223.
[161] F. Mashayek, R.V.R. Pandya, Analytical description of particle/droplet-laden tur-
bulent flows, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 29 (4) (2003) 329–378.
[162] A. Guha, Transport and deposition of particles in turbulent and laminar flow,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40 (1) (2008) 311–341.
[163] S. Balachandar, J.K. Eaton, Turbulent dispersed multiphase flow, Annu. Rev. Fluid
Mech. 42 (1) (2009) 111–133.
[164] X. Jiang, G.A. Siamas, K. Jagus, T.G. Karayiannis, Physical modelling and ad-
vanced simulations of gasliquid two-phase jet flows in atomization and sprays,
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 36 (2) (2010) 131–167.
[165] C. Jiang, C. Xu, Z. Gao, C. Lee, Finite panel method for the simulation of wind-
driven rain, Build. Environ. 105 (2016) 358–368.
[166] A. Bourgine, J. Dordain, Review of acoustic studies carried out at ONERA in the
field of space vehicles, J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. (JBIS), 34, p.72 .
[167] E. Zoppellari, D. Juve, E. Zoppellari, D. Juve, Reduction of jet noise by water
injection, 3rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Atlanta, Georgia, 1997.
[168] E. Zoppellari, D. Juve, Reduction of hot supersonic jet noise by water injection, 4th
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Toulouse, France, 1998.
[169] M. Kandula, M. Lonergan, Effective jet properties for the estimation of turbulent
mixing noise reduction by water injection, 13th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference (28th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Rome, Italy, 2007.
[170] M. Kandula, Prediction of turbulent jet mixing noise reduction by water injection,
AIAA J. 46 (11) (2008) 2714–2722.
[171] D. Washington, A. Krothapalli, The role of water injection on the mixing noise
supersonic jet, 4th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Toulouse, France, 1998.
[172] A. Krothapalli, L. Venkatakrishnan, L. Lourenco, B. Greska, R. Elavarasan,
Turbulence and noise suppression of a high-speed jet by water injection, J. Fluid
Mech. 491 (2003) 131–159.
[173] T. Norum, Reductions in multi-component jet noise by water injection, 10th
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Manchester, Great Britain, 2004.
[174] B. Henderson, Fifty years of fluidic injection for jet noise reduction, Int. J.
Aeroacoustics 9 (1–2) (2010) 91–122.
[175] B.T. Vu, N. Bachchan, O. Peroomian, V. Akdag, Multiphase modeling of water
injection on flame deflector, 21st AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics
Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, San Diego,
California, 2013.
[176] B.W. Bartlett, L.J. Delaney, Effect of liquid surface tension on maximum particles
size in two-phase nozzle flow, Pyrodynamics 4 (1966) 337–341.
[177] P.T. Girata, W.K. McGregor, Particle sampling of solid rocket motor exhausts in
high-altitude test cells, 21st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reno, Nevada, 1984, pp. 293–311.
[178] R.W. Hermsen, Aluminum oxide particle size for solid rocket motor performance
prediction, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 18 (6) (1981) 483–490.
[179] W.D. Brennan, D.L. Hovland, D.W. Netzer, Measured particulate behavior in a
subscale solid propellant rocket motor, J. Propuls. Power 8 (5) (1992) 954–960.
[180] H.O. Kim, D. Laredo, D.W. Netzer, Measurement of submicrometer Al2O3 particles
in plumes, Appl. Opt. 32 (33) (1993) 6834–6840.
[181] S.M. Dash, D.E. Wolf, R.A. Beddini, H.S. Pergament, Analysis of two-phase flow
processes in rocket exhaust plumes, J. Spacecr. Rocket. 22 (3) (1985) 367–380.
[182] M. Sommerfeld, The structure of particle-laden, underexpanded free jets, Shock
Waves 3 (4) (1994) 299–311.
[183] N. Sinha, D. Kenzakowski, W. Calhoon, Particulate dispersion in rocket exhaust
plumes, 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,
C. Jiang, et al.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2002.
[184] J. Uthuppan, S.K. Aggarwal, F. Grinstein, K. Kailasanath, Particle dispersion in a
transitional axisymmetric jet - a numerical simulation, AIAA J. 32 (10) (1994)
2004–2014.
[185] D. Laredo, D.W. Netzer, The dominant effect of alumina on nearfield plume ra-
diation, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 50 (5) (1993) 511–530.
[186] R. Varun, T. Sundararajan, R. Usha, K. Srinivasan, Interaction between particle-
laden underexpanded twin supersonic jets, Proc. IME G J. Aero. Eng. 224 (9)
(2010) 1005–1025.
[187] Z. Li, H. Xiang, Numerical simulation of the reactive two-phase solid rocket motor
exhaust plume, 2Nd International Conference on Computer Science and
Electronics Engineering(ICCSEE2013), Hangzhou, China, 2013, pp. 1508–1511.
[188] D.J. Carlson, C.H. Lewis, Normal shock location in underexpanded gas and gas-
particle jets, AIAA J. 2 (4) (1964) 776–777.
[189] J.S. Draper, P.O. Jarvinen, Underexpanded gas-particle jets, AIAA J. 5 (4) (1967)
824–825.
22
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019) 100547
[190] A.D. Rychkov, Flow of a mixture of gas and solid particles in supersonic under-
expanded jets, Fluid Dyn. 9 (2) (1974) 224–227.
[191] O. Ejtehadi, A. Rahimi, A. Karchani, R.S. Myong, Complex wave patterns in dilute
gasparticle flows based on a novel discontinuous Galerkin scheme, Int. J. Multiph.
Flow 104 (2018) 125–151.
[192] K. Akhtar, A Numerical Study of Supersonic Rectangular Jet Impingement and
Applications to Cold Spray Technology, Ph.D. thesis Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, 2014.
[193] S. Li, B. Muddle, M. Jahedi, J. Soria, A numerical investigation of the cold spray
process using underexpanded and overexpanded jets, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 21
(1) (2012) 108–120.
[194] B. Jodoin, Cold spray nozzle mach number limitation, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 11
(4) (2002) 496–507.
[195] S. Yin, M. Meyer, W. Li, H. Liao, R. Lupoi, Gas flow, particle acceleration, and heat
transfer in cold spray: a review, J. Therm. Spray Technol. 25 (5) (2016) 874–896.