arXiv:1508.05119v1 [physics.

flu-dyn] 20 Aug 2015

Jet pumps for thermoacoustic applications: design

guidelines based on a numerical parameter study
Jet pump design guidelines

Joris P. Oosterhuisa) , Simon Bühler, and Theo H. van der Meer

Department of Thermal Engineering, University of Twente,
Enschede, The Netherlands

Douglas Wilcox
Chart Inc., Troy, New York

October 9, 2018

a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

 Abstract

The oscillatory flow through tapered cylindrical tube sections (jet pumps) is characterized
by a numerical parameter study. The shape of a jet pump results in asymmetric hydrody-
namic end effects which cause a time-averaged pressure drop to occur under oscillatory flow
conditions. Hence, jet pumps are used as streaming suppressors in closed-loop thermoacous-
tic devices. A two-dimensional axisymmetric computational fluid dynamics model is used
to calculate the performance of a large number of conical jet pump geometries in terms of
time-averaged pressure drop and acoustic power dissipation. The investigated geometrical
parameters include the jet pump length, taper angle, waist diameter and waist curvature. In
correspondence with previous work, four flow regimes are observed which characterize the jet
pump performance and dimensionless parameters are introduced to scale the performance
of the various jet pump geometries. The simulation results are compared to an existing
quasi–steady theory and it is shown that this theory is only applicable in a small operation
region. Based on the scaling parameters, an optimum operation region is defined and design
guidelines are proposed which can be directly used for future jet pump design.

PACS numbers: 43.35.Ud, 43.25.Nm, 43.20.Mv, 47.32.Ff

 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 3

LJP

Rc
R0 Rb α
Rs

FIG. 1: Jet pump with parameters that define the geometry (not to scale). Bottom dashed
line indicates center line, top solid line indicates outer tube wall. Reproduced from 13 .

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the most promising configurations for thermoacoustic devices is the traveling wave
configuration which generally consists of a closed-loop tube. 1,2 This design however, has one
disadvantage: the possibility of a time-averaged mass flow, or Gedeon streaming, to occur
due to the looped geometry 3 . This streaming leads to unwanted convective heat transport
and reduces the efficiency of closed-loop thermoacoustic devices.
A commonly used solution is the application of a jet pump. 4,5,6,7 This is a tapered
tube section which, due to the asymmetry in the hydrodynamic end effects, establishes a
time-averaged pressure drop. By balancing the time-averaged pressure drop across the jet
pump with that which exists across the regenerator of a thermoacoustic device, the Gedeon
streaming can be canceled. 4 Fig. 1 shows a schematic of a typical conical jet pump geometry
with its corresponding dimensions. The two openings both have a different radius: Rb for
the big opening (left side) and Rs for the small opening. Together with the jet pump length,
LJP , the jet pump taper angle α is defined. Furthermore, at the small opening a curvature
Rc is applied to increase the time-averaged pressure drop compared to a sharp contraction.
To estimate the performance of a jet pump, a quasi–steady model has been proposed by
Backhaus and Swift. 4 This model is based on minor losses in steady flow and assumes that
the oscillatory flow can be approximated as two steady flows. 8 Given the pressure drop
generated by a pipe transition in steady flow, 9
1
∆pml = Kρu2 , (1)
2
and assuming a pure sinusoidal velocity in the jet pump, the time-averaged pressure drop
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 4

across the jet pump can be estimated as

"  2 #
1 As
∆p2,JP = ρ0 |u1,JP |2 (Kexp,s − Kcon,s ) + (Kcon,b − Kexp,b ) , (2)
8 Ab

where |u1,JP | is the velocity amplitude at the small exit of the jet pump. The subscripts “s”
and “b” indicate the small and big opening of the jet pump, respectively. Kexp is the minor
loss coefficient for abrupt expansion and Kcon is the minor loss coefficient for contraction,
both are well documented for steady flows. 9
With the jet pump being an additional flow resistance, acoustic power will be dissipated
due to viscous dissipation and vortex formation. Using the same quasi–steady approach,
Backhaus and Swift derived an equation to estimate the amount of acoustic power dissipation
associated with the jet pump as 4
"  2 #
ρ0 |u1,JP |3 As As
∆ĖJP = (Kexp,s + Kcon,s ) + (Kcon,b + Kexp,b ) . (3)
3π Ab

An optimal jet pump should establish the required amount of time-averaged pressure
drop to cancel any Gedeon streaming with minimal acoustic power dissipation. This requires
maximizing the difference in minor losses due to contraction and expansion while at the same
time minimizing the sum of the minor loss coefficients.
Previous studies have shown however, that the accuracy of this quasi–steady approx-
imation is limited and that there are other factors influencing the performance of a jet
pump. 10,11,12,13,14 Petculescu and Wilen experimentally studied the influence of taper angle
and curvature on minor loss coefficients. 10 Good agreement was obtained between steady flow
and oscillatory experiments for taper angles up to 10°. However, the minor loss coefficients
determined were found to be strongly dependent on the taper angle used. A qualitative
comparison between their findings and the current results will be provided in Section III. B.
Smith and Swift investigated a single diameter transition, corresponding to one end of a
jet pump. 11 The measured pressure drop and acoustic power dissipation was found to be
dependent on the dimensionless stroke length, the dimensionless curvature and the acoustic
Reynolds number. Recently, Tang et al. investigated the performance of jet pumps numer-
ically, 14 but assumed a priori the quasi–steady approximation to be valid by modeling the
flow as two separate steady flows. The negative effect of flow separation on the jet pump
performance was identified which is in line with the current work.
Although some jet pump measurements are available in literature, a systematic param-
eter study that directly relates variations in wave amplitude and geometry to a jet pump’s
performance has, to the authors knowledge, not yet been addressed. A first step towards
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 5

the investigation of a jet pump’s performance in oscillatory flows has been made in previous
work by scaling the jet pump geometry using two different Keulegan–Carpenter numbers
and correlating this to the jet pump performance. 13 Four different flow regimes were distin-
guished as a function of the wave amplitude. Fig. 2 shows the observed vorticity fields in the
vicinity of a jet pump at t = tmax when uJP (t) > 0. In order of increasing wave amplitude
these flow regimes can be described as follows. At low wave amplitudes, an oscillatory vor-
tex pair exists on both sides of the jet pump but no vortex shedding is observed (Fig. 2a).
When the amplitude is increased, one-sided vortex propagation at the location of the small
jet pump opening starts (Fig. 2b). In this flow regime, vortex rings are shed from the jet
pump waist to the right while on the big side of the jet pump an oscillatory vortex pair is
still visible. Vortex shedding from the big side of the jet pump begins to occur at increased
wave amplitudes (Fig. 2c). Here vortex rings are shed from both jet pump openings directed
outwards, but no interaction between the two sides is visible. Ultimately, a further increase
in wave amplitude leads to interaction between the two jet pump openings (Fig. 2d). Vor-
tices being shed from the small jet pump opening now propagate in alternating directions
and flow separation inside the jet pump occurs.
Albeit the described flow regimes were distinguished using the proposed scaling, the
data set was too limited to determine whether the observed flow separation (Fig. 2d) was
geometrically initiated by an increase in the taper angle or by a decrease in the jet pump
length. In this paper, a parameter study is performed using a computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) model to further identify the relation between the four different flow regimes and
the jet pump geometry. The influence of various geometric parameters including the jet
pump taper angle, length, curvature and waist diameter on the jet pump performance is
investigated. Based on the presented results, the existing scaling parameters are further
extended. Furthermore, a comparison with the quasi–steady model is provided to determine
under what conditions the approximation is applicable. Based on this parameter study,
design guidelines for future jet pump design are proposed.
After a description of the used CFD model in Section II, the various investigated jet
pump geometries are introduced in Section II. D. The resulting flow regimes will be dis-
tinguished in Section III. A and subsequently linked to the jet pump performance in Sec-
tion III. B. Finally, the influence of the jet pump curvature is investigated in Section III. C
before drawing final conclusions on the design guidelines in Section IV.

II. MODELING

A two-dimensional axisymmetric CFD model is developed using the commercial software

package ANSYS CFX version 14.5, 15 identical to the model used in previous work. 13 In the
following, the numerical model with the corresponding boundary conditions will be repeated
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 6

200
∇×u
0
−200

(a) Oscillatory vortex pair on both sides and no jetting is observed.

500
∇×u
0
−500

(b) Propagating vortex to right side and oscillating vortex pair on left side
of the jet pump.

1000
∇×u
0
−1000

(c) Propagating vortex on both sides of the jet pump.

2000
∇×u
0
−2000

(d) Vortices propagate fully through jet pump and flow separation inside
the jet pump occurs.

FIG. 2: Four different flow regimes distinguished based on the instantaneous vorticity fields
∇ × u [1/s] at t = tmax around the jet pump for the α = 7° geometry (color online).
Reproduced from 13 .
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 7

briefly and the methods to derive the jet pump performance will be explained.
The different jet pump geometries are confined in an outer tube with radius R0 =
30 mm. The length of the outer tube on either side of the jet pump is L0 = 500 mm when
f = 100 Hz. This length is scaled relative to the wavelength to avoid the jet pump being
placed at a velocity node for simulations performed at other frequencies. In all cases, air at
a mean pressure of p0 = 1 atm and a mean temperature of T0 = 300 K is used as the working
fluid.

A. Numerical model
The unsteady, fully compressible Navier-Stokes equations are discretized using a high reso-
lution advection scheme in space and a second order backward Euler scheme in time. 16 The
system of equations is closed using the ideal gas law as the equation of state and the energy
transport is calculated using the total energy equation, including viscous work terms. Based
on the critical Reynolds number defined in Section III, all presented results fall within the
laminar regime so no additional turbulence modeling is applied. The time-step ∆t is chosen
such that each wave period is discretized using 1000 time-steps. A total of ten wave periods
are simulated to achieve a steady periodic solution and the last five wave periods are used
for further analysis.
The acoustic wave is generated on the left boundary of the domain using a sinusoidal
velocity boundary condition with a specified frequency and velocity amplitude. To control
the wave propagation over the right boundary of the computational domain, a dedicated
time-domain impedance boundary condition is developed and implemented in ANSYS CFX.
The approach is based on the work of Polifke et al. and allows the application of a com-
plex reflection coefficient at the boundary. 17,18 A detailed validation and explanation of the
implementation can be found in the work of Van der Poel, which was carried out as part
of the current research. 19 In all cases described here, a reflection coefficient of |R| = 0 is
specified to simulate a traveling wave on the right side of the jet pump. The combination of
the velocity boundary condition and the time-domain impedance boundary condition results
in a time-averaged volume flow that is on average less than 0.5 % of the acoustic volume flow
rate.
On the radial boundary of the outer tube (at r = R0 ), a slip adiabatic wall boundary
condition is imposed as the pipe losses in this part of the domain are currently not of interest.
To correctly simulate the minor losses in the jet pump, a no-slip adiabatic wall boundary
condition is used at the walls of the jet pump.
The choice for a two-dimensional axisymmetric model to simulate flow separation might
need some additional explanation as in planar diffusers the flow separation can be asymmet-
ric. 20,21 A clear distinction should be made between flow separation in planar and conical
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 8

diffusers. The steady flow separation in conical diffusers has been investigated previously
and no visible asymmetry of the flow was reported under laminar conditions. 22 Furthermore,
the oscillatory nature of the flow prevents the flow from developing asymmetric instabili-
ties, even in planar diffuser geometries. 23,24 These observations motivate the applicability
of a two-dimensional axisymmetric model for the current situation of pure oscillatory flow
through a conical geometry.

B. Computational mesh
The used spatial discretization is validated in previous work and will be only briefly described
here. 13 The computational mesh consists of an unstructured part within 50 mm from the jet
pump and a structured mesh in the rest of the domain. In both parts quadrilateral elements
are used. In the jet pump region, a maximum element size of 1 mm is used which is refined
up to 0.5 mm near the jet pump waist. Moreover, to be able to accurately resolve the flow
separation, a refinement in the viscous boundary layer is applied such that a minimum of
10 elements are located within one viscous penetration depth distance δν from the jet pump
wall. For each simulated wave frequency,
p the mesh distribution is adjusted according to the
viscous penetration depth, δν = 2µ/ωρ. In the quadrilateral part of the mesh, a fixed
radial mesh resolution of 1 mm is used whereas the mesh size in the axial direction grows
from 1 mm at a distance of 50 mm from the jet pump up to 10 mm at the extremities of the
domain.
In additional to the mesh validation performed in previous work, 13 the accuracy of
the employed computational mesh has been investigated specifically for the prediction of
flow separation. The jet pump geometry with a taper angle of α = 15° (No. 4 in Table II)
has been used at a frequency of 100 Hz and at a wave amplitude where flow separation is
expected (ξ1 /Ds · α = 0.85, Eq. 7). The mesh size in the jet pump region is in two steps
refined from 1 mm to 0.5 mm and 0.25 mm. At the same time, the mesh size in the jet pump
waist region is refined from 0.5 mm to 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm. Additionally, the effect of a mesh
refinement in the viscous boundary layer is investigated by increasing the number of elements
from 10 to 20. The difference in the dimensionless pressure drop (Eq. 10) and dimensionless
acoustic power dissipation (Eq. 11) between the investigated meshes is less than 0.04 and
0.05, respectively. Furthermore, both the time and location where the flow first separates
do not vary more than ∆t/T = 8 · 10−3 and ∆x = 0.4 mm between the different mesh
resolutions.
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 9

C. Data analysis
In order to determine the jet pump performance from the transient CFD solution, some ad-
ditional analysis steps are performed. The first order amplitudes of all physical quantities are
calculated by a discrete Fourier transformation for the specified wave frequency using the so-
lution from the last five simulated wave periods. To obtain the time-averaged quantities, the
CFD solution is averaged over the last five wave periods in order to eliminate the first order
contribution. The streaming velocity is calculated using a density-weighted time-average:
u2 = hρui/hρi. The velocity amplitude in the jet pump waist, |u1,JP |, is calculated using an
area-weighted average over the cross-section. Subsequently, the local acoustic displacement
amplitude in the jet pump waist ξ1 can be calculated under the assumption of a sinusoidal
jet pump velocity:
|u1,JP |
ξ1 = . (4)
2πf
To scale the displacement amplitude to the jet pump geometry, a Keulegan–Carpenter num-
ber is defined based on the jet pump waist diameter:
ξ1
KCD = , (5)
Ds
where Ds = 2Rs is the jet pump waist diameter. This KCD is also referred to as a “dimen-
sionless stroke length” or “dimensionless displacement amplitude” and can be rewritten
p to
ReD /S 2 where ReD is an acoustic Reynolds number based on diameter and S = ωD2 /ν
the Stokes number 11,24,25 .

D. Jet pump geometries

The described computational model is used to investigate a large variety of conical jet pump
geometries and wave amplitudes. By varying either the jet pump length, the size of one of
the two openings or the local curvature at the jet pump waist, 19 different geometries are
considered. The different investigated geometries are all variations based on one reference
geometry (denoted by “ref ” in all tables). The reference geometry is a jet pump with a 7°
taper angle, all other reference dimensions are denoted in Table I.
Varying the jet pump taper angle while keeping the waist diameter constant can be
achieved by either changing the jet pump length LJP or changing the radius of the big
opening Rb . Because the jet pump length is not taken into account in the quasi–steady
approximation (Eq. 2), the predicted jet pump performance is independent of the jet pump
length. In a similar way, the radius of the big opening is only a weak parameter in the
quasi–steady approximation as long as Rb  Rs . Both approaches are considered here
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 10

TABLE I: Dimensions of the reference jet pump geometry.

R0 30 mm
Rb 15 mm
Rs 7 mm
Rc 5 mm
LJP 70.5 mm
α 7°

TABLE II: Dimensions of jet pump geometries with varied taper angles α by either changing
the jet pump length or the big radius. Constant radius of the jet pump waist Rs = 7.0 mm
and constant curvature of the small opening Rc = 5.0 mm.

No. symbol α LJP Rb

1 • 3° 157.8 mm 15.0 mm
2  5° 96.7 mm 15.0 mm
ref × 7° 70.5 mm 15.0 mm
3 H 10° 50.8 mm 15.0 mm
4  15° 35.5 mm 15.0 mm
5 I 20° 27.9 mm 15.0 mm
6 • 3° 70.5 mm 10.4 mm
7  5° 70.5 mm 12.7 mm
8 H 10° 70.5 mm 18.5 mm
9  15° 70.5 mm 24.4 mm

to see what actually influences the jet pump performance: the distance between the two
openings (LJP ) or the taper angle of the jet pump inner surface (α). Table II shows the
dimensions of the investigated geometries where the taper angle is changed with respect to
the reference case by either varying the jet pump length (cases 1-5) or by varying the big
radius (cases 6-9). The jet pump waist radius and curvature are kept constant at Rs = 7 mm
and Rc = 5 mm, respectively. This results in a dimensionless curvature of χ = Rc /Ds = 0.36
which is considered a “smooth” contraction. 9 Correspondingly, the contraction minor loss
coefficient at the jet pump waist (Kcon,s in Eq. 2) is expected to be negligible which will
enhance the overall time-averaged pressure drop.
In a different set of simulations, both the taper angle and the jet pump length are fixed
while the jet pump waist diameter is changed (cases 10-13). Furthermore, the jet pump
curvature is adjusted to maintain the same dimensionless curvature. The dimensions of this
set of geometries are shown in Table III.
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 11

TABLE III: Dimensions of jet pump geometries with varied waist radius Rs . Constant taper
angle α = 7° and jet pump length LJP = 70.5 mm.

No. Rs Rb Rc
10 3.0 mm 11.4 mm 2.1 mm
11 5.0 mm 13.2 mm 3.6 mm
ref 7.0 mm 15.0 mm 5.0 mm
12 9.0 mm 16.8 mm 6.4 mm
13 11.0 mm 18.6 mm 7.9 mm

In the following, the observed flow regimes and jet pump performance will be discussed
for the cases where either the jet pump length or the size of one of the two openings is varied.
In Section III. C, the effect of the jet pump waist curvature will be investigated.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For each geometry, various wave amplitudes and consequently, various displacement ampli-
tudes are simulated. The wave amplitude is varied by specifying different values of the ve-
locity amplitude at the left boundary condition. It is important to ensure that the simulated
wave amplitudes fall within the laminar regime as URANS turbulence models, especially
in combination with wall functions, are known to lose their validity for relaminarizing and
separating flows which is an important part of the current data set. 20,26,27 Other approaches
to model turbulence such as large eddy simulation (LES) or direct numerical simulation
(DNS) are currently not feasible for a parameter study of the size presented here. In order
to determine what wave amplitudes fall within the laminar regime, the critical Reynolds
number derived by Ohmi and Iguchi for oscillatory pipe flow is used, 28,29
  71
D
Rec = 305 , (6)
δν

where the Reynolds number is defined based on the viscous penetration depth: Re =
|u1 |δν ρ0 /µ0 . Normally, the velocity amplitude is directly proportional to the frequency for a
given displacement amplitude, but the velocity amplitude where a transition to turbulence
occurs (Re = Rec ) scales with f 4/7 . From previous work, it was concluded that the jet pump
performance scales with the acoustic displacement amplitude instead of the jet pump velocity
amplitude. 13 Consequently, by lowering the driving frequency all displacement amplitudes
of interest are investigated. The majority of the presented simulations are carried out with
f = 100 Hz while some additional simulations are using frequencies of 10 Hz, 20 Hz, 30 Hz,
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 12

50 Hz and 200 Hz. All data presented in this paper represents a total of 197 simulations
having a total single core computational time of 391 days on an Intel Core i7 CPU.
From the simulated jet pump performance, a scaling parameter is introduced which
best aligns the jet pump performance for the various investigated geometries and correctly
incorporates the effect of the jet pump taper angle:
ξ1
· α. (7)
Ds
This scaling parameter is essentially the Keulegan–Carpenter number (Eq. 5) multiplied by
the taper angle (in radians).

A. Flow regimes
Because the jet pump performance is found to be a strong function of the flow regime, the
observed flow regimes will first be discussed. By studying the transient vorticity field and
streaming velocity field of all simulations, a differentiation is made between the four flow
regimes that have been illustrated in Fig. 2. The flow regimes that have been observed using
various wave amplitudes and jet pump geometries are all presented in the (ξ1 /Ds · α, KCD )
space in Fig. 3a. As such, the horizontal axis includes the taper angle while the vertical
axis represents the Keulegan–Carpenter number without the contribution of the taper angle.
The different symbols represent the different flow regimes: circles for oscillatory vortex pairs,
squares for right-sided vortex propagation, triangles for two-sided vortex propagation and
diamonds for flow separation and alternating vortex shedding. The open circles indicate the
position where the maximum dimensionless pressure drop was achieved with a specific jet
pump geometry.
Two flow regimes are easily distinguished in Fig. 3a. For small values of the Keulegan–
Carpenter number, KCD < 0.5, no vortex shedding is observed. This is indicated by the
horizontal dashed line in Fig. 3a. In this regime, no asymmetry in minor losses occurs and
consequently the time-averaged pressure drop is zero. The transition from this flow regime
to the situation where vortex shedding is first observed is independent of the taper angle
and occurs when KCD > 0.5. Above this value the flow field becomes asymmetric resulting
in a positive time-averaged pressure drop. This is in line with the work of Holman et al.
on synthetic jets where a formation criterion for vortex shedding is derived of the form
KCD = ReD /S 2 > C where C is a constant depending on the geometry of the orifice. 25
In Fig. 3a the flow separation regime (diamonds) can be distinguished from the other
three flow regimes and occurs when ξ1 /Ds · α > 0.7 (dashed vertical line). Because this
transition is clearly determined by the scaling parameter as introduced in Eq. 7, the taper
angle plays an important role in the initiation of the flow separation regime. This flow regime
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 13

is dominated by vortices being shed from the jet pump waist in alternating directions. This
results in the flow field again becoming more and more symmetric. Despite the interesting
flow phenomena occurring in this flow regime, 13 it is of little practical interest when designing
jet pumps as the achieved jet pump effectiveness is low. Consequently, the area of interest
for jet pump applications is bounded to KCD > 0.5 and ξ1 /Ds · α < 0.7.
Inside this area, two flow regimes occur which cannot solely be separated based on KCD
or ξ1 /Ds · α. Whether vortex shedding from the big jet pump opening occurs, is found to be
dependent on the the local displacement amplitude at the position of the big opening ξ1,b .
A Keulegan–Carpenter number at the big jet pump opening is estimated using

ξ1 A
Ab
s
Rs2
KCD,b = = ξ1 . (8)
Db 2Rb3

Note that ξ1 is still the local displacement amplitude at the jet pump waist. Fig. 3b shows
the flow regimes where either one-sided or two-sided vortex propagation occurs with KCD,b
instead of KCD on the vertical axis. Only the range 0 < ξ1 /Ds ·α < 0.7 is shown, omitting the
flow separation regime. The two-sided vortex propagation is first observed when KCD,b >
0.15. This is at a different value than where vortex propagation at the jet pump waist
was first recognized (KCD > 0.5), which is an effect of the local dimensionless curvature
χ. The observed transition at KCD,b = 0.15 very nicely corresponds to the value found
experimentally for a sharp-edged axisymmetric orifice. 25 The effect of the jet pump curvature
will be further investigated in Section III. C.

B. Jet pump performance

Ideally, a jet pump should impose the desired time-averaged pressure drop while having
minimum acoustic power dissipation. Thus, the jet pump performance can be determined
using two quantities: the time-averaged pressure drop ∆p2 and the acoustic power dissipation
∆Ė2 , both a function of the jet pump waist velocity amplitude |u1,JP |. The time-averaged
pressure drop over the jet pump is calculated from the simulation results by a subtraction
of the mean pressure fields on either side of the jet pump. In this way the influence of the
vortex propagation distance on the time-averaged pressure drop is eliminated. 13
The acoustic power is calculated using first order quantities as 30
1
Ė2 (x) = <[p̃1 (x)U1 (x)], (9)
2
with p̃1 (x) the complex conjugate of the pressure amplitude area-averaged over the local
cross section and U1 (x) the complex volume flow rate. The dissipation of acoustic power
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 14

1
8
0.8

6
0.6
KCD,b
KCD

4
0.4

2 0.2

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ξ1/Ds⋅α ξ1/Ds⋅α

(a) All four flow regimes. Dashed lines determine the(b) Flow regimes with one-sided () and two-sided
bounds of the different flow regimes. (I) vortex propagation. The other two flow regimes
are not shown. The local Keulegan–Carpenter number
at the big jet pump opening, KCD,b , is on the vertical
axis. The flow regimes are separated by horizontal
dashed line at KCD,b = 0.15.

FIG. 3: Observed flow regimes using jet pump geometries with varied taper angle and waist
diameter plotted in two variable spaces. The different flow regimes are distinguished using
different symbols: • for oscillatory vortices,  for right-side vortex propagation only, I
for two-sided vortex propagation and  for flow separation. The dashed lines represent the
determined bounds of the flow regimes and the open circles indicate the points where the
maximum ∆p∗2 was found for a specific jet pump geometry (color online).
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 15

across the jet pump, ∆Ė2 , is determined in a similar manner as the time-averaged pressure
drop.
To better understand the relation between these two quantities, a scaling is applied
according to the work of Smith and Swift: 11
8∆p2
∆p∗2 = , (10)
ρ0 |u1,JP |2
3π∆Ė2
∆Ė2∗ = . (11)
ρ0 πRs2 |u1,JP |3

Note that under the quasi–steady approximation, ∆p∗2 would represent the difference in minor
loss coefficients between the two flow directions while ∆Ė2∗ would represent the summation
of the minor loss coefficients (i.e. the last terms in Eq. 2 and 3, respectively). Using these
two dimensionless quantities, a jet pump effectiveness can be defined: 11
∆p∗2
η= . (12)
∆Ė2∗

Optimal jet pump performance is achieved when η is maximized. These three performance
characteristics are calculated for each simulation case. In the following, they will be shown
as a function of the scaling parameters introduced previously to study the effect of geometry
changes on the jet pump performance.

1. Time-averaged pressure drop

Fig. 4a shows the dimensionless pressure drop ∆p∗2 as a function ξ1 /Ds · α. The symbols
represent different taper angles, obtained by either changing the jet pump length or the big
radius, each depicted in Table II. The results with a varied waist diameter are all plotted
using crosses (×), representing their taper angle of α = 7°. The maximum dimensionless
pressure drop for all cases is achieved between 0.2 < ξ1 /Ds ·α < 0.5 which fits well within the
determined range of the flow regimes where vortex shedding, but no flow separation, occurs.
This emphasizes the direct relation between the flow field asymmetry and the time-averaged
pressure drop.
A decay in ∆p∗2 is observed for higher values of ξ1 /Ds · α. The range where flow
separation was observed coincides with this decay in dimensionless pressure drop. The decay
follows the same trend for all jet pump geometries and is properly scaled using the adjusted
Keulegan–Carpenter number, which shows the dependency of the flow separation occurrence
on the taper angle. Moreover, a corresponding decay in ∆p∗2 as a function of ξ1 /Ds · α is
observed in preliminary experimental results that have been obtained at Re < Rec using the
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 16

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
∆p*2

∆p*2
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
ξ1/Ds⋅α KCD

(a) Dimensionless pressure drop as a function of ξ1 /Ds ·(b) Dimensionless pressure drop as a function of KCD ,
α only the range KCD < 3 is shown.

FIG. 4: Dimensionless pressure drop using jet pump geometries with varied taper angle
(Table II) or waist diameter (Table III). The symbols represent different taper angles as
listed in Table II. The thin dashed lines indicate the upper and lower values of ∆p∗2 from the
quasi–steady approximation (Eq. 2) for the various geometries (color online).

15° jet pump geometry in an oscillatory flow facility. 31,32 By performing hot-wire anemometry
near the big jet pump opening the existence of an outward directed vortex street was revealed
when ξ1 /Ds · α > 0.7, confirming the observations from the current simulations. A detailed
discussion of the experimental results is deferred to a future publication.
In the published data of Petculescu and Wilen however, the decay in dimensionless
pressure drop is less severe. 10 Their values of ∆p∗2 typically stabilize between 0.20 and 0.50
at high values of ξ1 /Ds · α, depending on the taper angle used, and do not decrease to zero.
Two possible explanations will be discussed: their small waist diameter compared to the
viscous penetration depth and a transition to turbulence. In the geometries of Petculescu
and Wilen, Ds /δν ≈ 8.3 while for the current geometries Ds /δν ranges from 27 to 98. When
the waist diameter is on the order of the viscous penetration depth, the occurrence of flow
separation, and consequently the dimensionless pressure drop at ξ1 /Ds ·α > 0.7, is most likely
affected due to viscous effects dominating the flow and preventing the flow from separating.
Alternatively, turbulence can affect the decay in ∆p∗2 when the turbulent boundary layer
prevents the flow from separating. 33 A detailed investigation of the effect of turbulence on
the oscillatory flow in jet pumps is subject to further research.
The adjusted Keulegan–Carpenter number, ξ1 /Ds · α, provides consistent scaling of the
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 17

dimensionless pressure drop in the decaying part of the curve shown in Fig. 4a. However, a
large spread from the reference geometry is observed for low values of the adjusted Keulegan–
Carpenter number (ξ1 /Ds · α < 0.2). Fig. 4b shows the dimensionless pressure drop as a
function of KCD which better scales the increase of ∆p∗2 towards its maximum. This shows
that the initial increase of ∆p∗2 towards its maximum is not dependent on the taper angle
at all. A clear similarity in this graph is the range KCD < 0.5 where the pressure drop is
negligible, corresponding to the flow regime with oscillatory vortices shown in Fig. 3a. At
larger values of KCD , the effect of the taper angle becomes apparent and the results of the
different geometries deviate from each other.

2. Acoustic power dissipation

By studying the dimensionless acoustic power dissipation, it is observed that the jet pump
taper angle has less effect on this performance quantity compared to the pressure drop.
Instead, the dimensionless acoustic power dissipation (∆Ė2∗ ) shows good similarity between
the different jet pump geometries when scaled using KCD . Fig. 5 shows the dimensionless
acoustic power dissipation as a function of the Keulegan–Carpenter number based on the jet
pump waist diameter, KCD . The symbols correspond to those in Fig. 4. A common minimum
occurs around KCD ≈ 1 while at higher amplitudes (KCD > 3) ∆Ė2∗ only slightly increases.
Although the taper angle has no effect on the location of the minimum dimensionless acoustic
power dissipation, the slight increase of ∆Ė2∗ at higher amplitudes is easily observed for higher
taper angles (15°,  and 20°, I).

3. Comparison to quasi–steady model

The obtained simulation results can all be compared to the quasi–steady model proposed
by Backhaus and Swift. 4 In this model, the values of ∆p∗2 and ∆Ė2∗ are assumed to be
amplitude independent and the only significant variation in the quasi–steady model occurs
by changing the waist diameter. In Fig. 4–5 the upper and lower bounds of these quasi–
steady approximated values are indicated by the thin dashed lines. It becomes clear that the
quasi–steady approximation is a good approach to estimate the time-averaged pressure drop
of a jet pump when operating in the optimum ranges of ξ1 /Ds · α and KCD . Outside of these
ranges however, the actual performance will deviate significantly from the predicted values.
The simulated acoustic power dissipation is especially in good agreement for the lower taper
angles and KCD > 2. For high taper angles (15°,  and 20°, I) however, a deviation from
the quasi–steady model is observed at KCD > 2. On average the quasi–steady values show
considerable correspondence to the measured dimensionless acoustic power dissipation.
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 18

3.5

2.5
∆E*2
2

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
KCD

FIG. 5: Dimensionless acoustic power dissipation using jet pump geometries with varied
taper angle (Table II) or waist diameter (Table III). Symbols in accordance with Fig. 4
(color online). The thin dashed lines indicate upper and lower values of the predicted acoustic
power dissipation according to the quasi–steady approximation (Eq. 3).

4. Jet pump effectiveness

The two jet pump performance characteristics, dimensionless pressure drop and acoustic
power dissipation, can be combined into one effectiveness parameter η as defined in Eq. 12.
Fig. 6 shows the jet pump effectiveness for all geometries with varied taper angle or waist
diameter. The highest jet pump effectiveness is again obtained between 0.2 < ξ1 /Ds ·α < 0.5.
Note that this does not strictly coincide with the minimum in the acoustic power dissipation
(at KCD ≈ 1). However, as long as KCD > 0.5, the variations in dimensionless pressure
drop have a larger influence on the jet pump effectiveness than the relative small changes in
the dimensionless acoustic power dissipation.

Summarizing the results so far, it can be concluded that for laminar oscillatory air
flows the optimum jet pump performance is achieved between 0.2 < ξ1 /Ds · α < 0.5 under
the condition that KCD > 0.5. The combination of these two criteria imposes a limit on
the maximum taper angle which maximizes the dimensionless pressure drop. Substitution
of the two criteria, yields α < 23° in order to prevent overlapping of the range of optimum
jet pump performance with the range where no pressure drop is measured. The optimum
jet pump performance criterion does well coincide with the region where either right-sided
or two-sided vortex shedding is observed (indicated with  and I in Fig. 3a). It is only in
this optimum region that the measured dimensionless pressure drop will approach values as
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 19

1.2

0.8

0.6
η

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
ξ1/Ds⋅α

FIG. 6: Jet pump effectiveness for geometries with varied taper angle (Table II) or waist
diameter (Table III). Symbols in accordance with Fig. 4 (color online).

predicted by the quasi–steady model.

C. Influence of waist curvature

In the previous discussion where the influence of the jet pump taper angle and waist diameter
were investigated, the radius of curvature at the jet pump waist was kept constant. In steady
flow theory, the minor loss coefficient for contraction is dependent on the dimensionless
radius of curvature, 9 χ = Rc /Ds . In order to maximize the time-averaged pressure drop
while minimizing the acoustic power dissipation, it is desirable to minimize the contraction
minor loss coefficient (following Eq. 2–3) and as such, apply a smooth curvature at the jet
pump waist. For a “smooth” contraction (χ > 0.15) the theoretical minor loss coefficient is
Kcon = 0.04 which increases up to Kcon = 0.50 for a sharp contraction. 9 For all the jet pump
geometries shown so far, a curvature of χ = 0.36 was applied. In the current section, the jet
pump curvature will be varied to study both its effect on the jet pump performance as well
as on the occurring flow phenomena.
Six different dimensionless curvatures have been investigated, ranging from χ = 0 to
0.65. Aside from the radius of curvature Rc , the jet pump geometry is equal to the reference
geometry found in Table I. An overview of the studied geometries with variable curvature is
shown in Table IV.
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 20

1.2 χ=0 1.2 χ=0

χ=0.08 χ=0.08
1 χ=0.19 1 χ=0.19
χ=0.36 χ=0.36
0.8 χ=0.48 0.8 χ=0.48
χ=0.65 χ=0.65
2

∆p*2
∆p*

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 0 5 10 15 20 25
KCD KCD/[0.15(1+χ)4]

(a) (b)

1.2 χ=0.08
χ=0.19
1 χ=0.36
χ=0.48
0.8 χ=0.65
∆p*2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 5 10 15
KCD⋅(1+0.15/χ)

(c)

FIG. 7: Dimensionless pressure drop using jet pump geometries with varied waist curvature
as a function of three different scaling parameters: a) KCD , b) KCD /0.15(1 + χ)4 and c)
KCD · (1 + 0.15/χ). The different symbols correspond to dimensionless curvatures ranging
from χ = 0 to 0.65. The dashed black lines indicate the upper and lower values from the
quasi–steady approximation for the various values of χ (color online).
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 21

TABLE IV: Dimensions of jet pump geometries with varied radius of curvature Rc . Constant
taper angle α = 7°. Horizontal line separates cases at χ = 0.15.

No. Rc χ
14 0.0 mm 0
“sharp”
15 1.0 mm 0.08
16 2.5 mm 0.19
ref 5.0 mm 0.36
“smooth”
17 7.0 mm 0.48
18 10.0 mm 0.65

1. Jet pump performance

When comparing the measured dimensionless pressure drop using these jet pump samples,
it is found that an additional contribution to the Keulegan–Carpenter number is required to
properly scale the results from different curvatures. Fig. 7a shows the dimensionless pressure
drop as a function of KCD for the geometries with varied curvature. The investigated
curvatures are indicated by different symbols depicted in the corresponding legend. The
crosses (×) represent the reference geometry where χ = 0.36. The shape of the dimensionless
pressure drop curve is found to be inversely proportional to the dimensionless curvature,
especially for low values of χ. For large curvatures, the effect on the dimensionless pressure
drop becomes less apparent. Holman et al. studied the effect of edge curvature on the onset
of a synthetic jet. 25 A formation criterion of the form KCD > C · (1 + χ)p was derived
based on the vorticity flux through the jet. The applicability of this criterion to jet pumps
with variable curvature is investigated in the following. It is observed that especially the
initial increase in ∆p∗2 , corresponding to the onset of vortex shedding, can be properly scaled
using KCD /C(1 + χ)p with p = 4. Given that the onset of vortex shedding for a jet pump
geometry with χ = 0.36 is found at KCD = 0.5, the additional scaling parameter C = 0.15
can be estimated. Fig. 7b shows the dimensionless pressure drop as a function of the adjusted
scaling parameter. While the initial increase in ∆p∗2 for the various curvatures all collapse
to a single curve, the decay in ∆p∗2 due to the occurrence of flow separation cannot properly
be accounted for by any scaling of the form KCD /C(1 + χ)p .
To overcome this, an alternative scaling strategy for χ is proposed of the form KCD ·
(1 + a/χ). Using a least–squares approach, the fitting parameter a = 0.15 is determined.
Note that 0.15/χ represents the fraction of the dimensionless curvature with respect to a
“smooth” contraction. Fig. 7c shows again the dimensionless pressure drop data, but now
plotted against KCD · (1 + 0.15/χ). The case with no curvature (χ = 0) does not appear in
this figure as it will lead to infinite values on the horizontal axis. Both the maxima of the
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 22

dimensionless pressure drop as well as the decay at higher amplitudes are well aligned using
this alternative scaling approach.
What is remarkable is that the maximum measured dimensionless pressure drop de-
creases with increasing curvature, which is in contrast with the steady flow theory where
the minor loss coefficient for contraction is expected to fall until χ > 0.15. The maximum
achieved dimensionless pressure drop ranges from ∆p∗2 = 1.20 for a sharp contraction (χ = 0)
to ∆p∗2 = 0.69 for χ = 0.65 in an almost linear manner. Furthermore, the effect of curvature
on the dimensionless pressure drop is not only reversed, but the variation is larger than what
is predicted by the quasi–steady model (dashed lines). An explanation of this behavior is
the effect of curvature on the expansion phase, which is typically neglected in a quasi–steady
approximation of the jet pump performance. Not only will the minor loss coefficient for
contraction at the jet pump waist decrease, but so does the minor loss coefficient for expan-
sion. This was first experimentally determined by Smith under steady flow conditions. 34 A
decrease in the expansion minor loss coefficient at the jet pump waist will lead to a decrease
in the dimensionless pressure drop according to Eq. 2.
Additionally, this is reflected in the measured dimensionless acoustic power dissipation,
which is shown in Fig. 8a. The minimum achieved dimensionless acoustic power dissipation
decreases more than six times between χ = 0 (not shown) and χ = 0.65. A similar effect
has been reported when rounding the orifice of an synthetic jet. 35 Combining the effect
the curvature has on both the pressure drop and acoustic power dissipation using the jet
pump effectiveness, shows that a higher dimensionless curvature leads to a better jet pump
performance. This is depicted in Fig. 8b where the jet pump effectiveness for five investigated
curvatures is shown.

2. Flow regimes
Similar to what was presented in Section III. A, the observed jet pump behavior can be ex-
plained by studying the flow field and distinguishing between the four different flow regimes.
Fig. 9 shows the distribution of the flow regimes in the (χ, KCD ) space. The four flow
regimes are represented by different symbols in accordance to the symbols used in Fig. 3. A
clear influence of the dimensionless curvature is visible on the value of KCD where vortex
shedding is first observed (transition from • to ) as well as on the value where flow sepa-
ration is initiated (transition from I to ). The boundary between one-sided and two-sided
vortex shedding (transition from  to I) is not determined by the jet pump waist curvature
at all. As the local curvature at the big opening is not changed, no dependency on χ is to
be expected.
By substituting the original defined flow regime bounds from Section III. A in the ad-
justed scaling parameter KCD · (1 + 0.15/χ), the bounds between the flow regimes (indicated
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 23

4
χ=0.08 χ=0.08
3.5 χ=0.19 1 χ=0.19
χ=0.36 χ=0.36
3
χ=0.48 χ=0.48
0.8
2.5 χ=0.65 χ=0.65
∆E*2

2 0.6
η

1.5 0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0
0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
KCD⋅(1+0.15/χ) KCD⋅(1+0.15/χ)

(a) (b)

FIG. 8: Dimensionless acoustic power dissipation (a) and jet pump effectiveness (b) using
jet pump geometries with varied waist curvature and scaled using KCD · (1 + 0.15/χ). The
different symbols correspond to dimensionless curvatures ranging from χ = 0.08 to 0.65. The
dashed black lines indicate the upper and lower values from the quasi–steady approximation
for the various values of χ (color online).
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 24

by symbols as used in Fig. 3 and Fig. 9) can be represented in the (χ, KCD ) space:
 −1
0.15
• → : KCD = 0.7 1 + χ , (13)

R3
 → I: KCD = 0.15 b3 , (14)
Rs
 −1
1 0.15
I → : KCD = 1+ , (15)
α χ
where the first expression corresponds to KCD = 0.5, the second expression corresponds
to KCD,b = 0.15 and the last expression corresponds to ξ1 /Ds · α = 0.7 for the cases
where χ = 0.36. The bounds are shown in Fig. 9 by the dashed lines. The bottom curve
represents the initiation of vortex shedding (Eq. 13) and the upper curve the transition to
flow separation (Eq. 15), both a function of χ. The horizontal dashed line in Fig. 9 indicates
the boundary between one-sided and two-sided vortex shedding.
Based on the data available the determined bounds do separate the flow regimes de-
picted in Fig. 9 well, although the defined onset of vortex shedding (• → ) is subject to
discussion. Given the fact that the initial increase in ∆p∗2 caused by the onset of vortex
shedding was well described by adopting a scaling of the form proposed by Holman et al., 25
a flow regime bound based on the latter could be more appropriate:
• → : KCD = 0.15 (1 + χ)4 . (16)
This is represented in Fig. 9 by a gray solid line and does indeed separate the two flow
regimes. It should be noted that the data available is not sufficient to determine whether
Eq. 13 or Eq. 16 is more appropriate.
Nevertheless, Eq. 16 predicts vortex shedding for χ = 0 at KCD > 0.15 which is
also the formation criterion observed experimentally for a sharp edged synthetic jet. 25 This
exactly describes the difference in the transitional Keulegan–Carpenter number, observed
in Section III. A, between vortex shedding from the jet pump waist (KCD,s > 0.5) and
vortex shedding from the big jet pump opening (KCD,b > 0.15). A lower dimensionless
curvature leads to a lower value of KCD where vortex shedding is initiated. Consequently,
vortex shedding at the sharp edged big opening will take place at a lower value of the local
Keulegan–Carpenter number than the vortex shedding from the jet pump waist.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

A CFD based parameter study is performed to investigate the influence of various geometric
parameters on the performance of jet pumps for thermoacoustic applications. A total of 19
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 25

5
KCD
4

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
χ

FIG. 9: Distribution of the different flow regimes in the (χ, KCD ) space for jet pump
geometries with varied curvature (Table IV) and a 7° taper angle. Symbols are in accordance
with Fig. 3 with the open circles showing the position where ∆p∗2 is maximum for each
investigated curvature. The dashed lines represent the bounds of the different flow regimes
determined according to Eq. 13–15 and the gray solid line represents the onset of vortex
shedding according to Eq. 16 (color online).

different jet pump geometries are used and for each geometry a number of wave amplitudes
are simulated, resulting in a total of 197 simulations. In correspondence with previous
work, four flow regimes are distinguished and separated in a fixed variable space. 13 This
space spans the jet pump taper angle α, the dimensionless curvature χ and the Keulegan–
Carpenter number KCD . At a certain value of KCD , single-sided vortex propagation from
the jet pump waist is initiated and the flow field becomes asymmetric between the left and
right side of the jet pump. This onset is found at KCD = 0.5 for a dimensionless curvature
of χ = 0.36. Two different expressions are proposed to account for the effect of χ, but more
data is required to decisively choose one of the two. At some point, flow separation inside the
jet pump can be distinguished and vortices are shed from the jet pump waist in alternating
directions leading to a flow field that is more symmetric. This transition is found to be
strongly dependent on the jet pump taper angle and occurs when KCD > α1 (1 + 0.15/χ)−1 .
The amount of asymmetry in the flow field has a direct consequence on the mea-
sured time-averaged pressure drop. When no vortex shedding occurs, no dimensionless time-
averaged pressure drop is observed. Furthermore, as soon as the flow separation is observed,
the dimensionless pressure drop has already decayed significantly compared to the maximum
value. For all the performed simulations, the maximum jet pump effectiveness is observed
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 26

when either single-sided or two-sided vortex propagation occurs. Consequently, the practical
operation area of jet pumps with Ds /δν  1 and Re < Rec is bound between the onset of
vortex shedding from the jet pump waist and the occurrence of flow separation. This can be
used as a guideline for future jet pump design.
The design considerations presented in this paper, are supposed to provide better insight
into the validity of the quasi–steady approximation that is widely used for the design of jet
pumps for thermoacoustic applications. The quasi–steady approximation is in most cases
an ideal representation of the jet pump performance and is valid only in a small operation
area. Outside this region, the actual jet pump performance is expected to be significantly
lower and a correction using the presented results is advised.
Although the current parameter study represents a wide range of jet pump geometries,
it is restricted to jet pumps with a single, linear tapered hole. As such, this work can serve
as a basis for further jet pump geometry optimization in terms of effectiveness, compactness
and robustness. Extensions to multiple holes or different shaped jet pump walls might affect
the jet pump performance and the occurrence of flow separation. Furthermore, the influence
of turbulence on the flow separation requires further attention. If the flow separation regime
could be shifted to higher Keulegan–Carpenter numbers without a decrease in effectiveness,
the operation area of a jet pump can be extended, greatly enhancing its robustness.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to gratefully thank Bosch Thermotechnology and Agentschap NL
for the financial support as part of the EOS-KTO research program under project number
KTOT03009.

REFERENCES

1. P. H. Ceperley, “A pistonless Stirling engine - the traveling wave heat engine.” J.

Acoust. Soc. Am., 66, 1508–1513 (1979).

2. S. Backhaus and G. Swift, “A thermoacoustic Stirling heat engine.” Nature, 399,

335–338 (1999).

3. D. Gedeon, “DC gas flows in Stirling and pulse-tube cryocoolers” in Cryocoolers 9 ,

385–392, (Springer US, 1997).

4. S. Backhaus and G. Swift, “A thermoacoustic-Stirling heat engine: detailed study.”

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 107, 3148–66 (2000).

5. G. Swift, D. Gardner and S. Backhaus, “Acoustic recovery of lost power in pulse

tube refrigerators.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 105, 711–724 (1999).
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 27

6. T. Biwa, Y. Tashiro, M. Ishigaki, Y. Ueda and T. Yazaki, “Measurements of acoustic

streaming in a looped-tube thermoacoustic engine with a jet pump.” J. App. Phys.,
101, 064914 (2007).
7. S. Boluriaan and P. J. Morris, “Acoustic streaming: from Rayleigh to today.” Int. J.
Aeroacoust., 2, 255–292 (2003).
8. M. Iguchi, M. Ohmi and K. Meagawa, “Analysis of free oscillating flow in a
U-shaped tube.” B. JSME, 25, 1398–1405 (1982).
9. I. Idel’chik, “Resistance to flow through orifices with sudden change in velocity and
flow area.” In A. Ginevskiy and A. Kolesnikov, editors, Handbook of Hydraulic
Resistance, chapter 4, 223–275, (Begell House, New York, 2007), 4th edition.
10. A. Petculescu and L. A. Wilen, “Oscillatory flow in jet pumps: Nonlinear effects and
minor losses.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 113, 1282–1292 (2003).
11. B. L. Smith and G. W. Swift, “Power dissipation and time-averaged pressure in
oscillating flow through a sudden area change.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 113, 2455–2463
(2003).
12. J. P. Oosterhuis, S. Bühler, D. Wilcox and T. H. Van der Meer, “Computational fluid
dynamics analysis of the oscillatory flow in a jet pump: the influence of taper angle.”
9th PAMIR International Conference, 391–395, (CNRS – IPUL, Riga, Latvia, 2014).
13. J. P. Oosterhuis, S. Bühler, D. Wilcox and T. H. Van der Meer, “A numerical
investigation on the vortex formation and flow separation of the oscillatory flow in jet
pumps.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 137, 1722–1731 (2015).
14. K. Tang, Y. Feng, S.H. Jin, T. Jin, and M. Li, “Performance comparison of jet
pumps with rectangular and circular tapered channels for a loop-structured
traveling-wave thermoacoustic engine.” Appl. Energ., 148, 305–313 (2015).
15. ANSYS, “ANSYS CFX, Release 14.5.” (ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania,
2011).
16. ANSYS, “Governing equations” in ANSYS CFX-Solver Theory Guide, 18–26,
(ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, 2012).
17. A. Huber, P. Romann and W. Polifke, “Filter-based time-domain impedance
boundary conditions for CFD applications.” ASME Turbo Expo 2008: Power for
Land, Sea and Air , 1–11, (ASME, Berlin, Germany, 2008).
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 28

18. R. Kaess, A. Huber and W. Polifke, “A Time-Domain Impedance Boundary

Condition for Compressible Turbulent Flow.” 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics
Conference (29th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), 1–15, (AIAA, Vancouver,
Canada, 2008).

19. B. Van der Poel, Time-domain impedance boundary conditions in computational fluid
dynamics for use in thermoacoustic modeling. MSc. thesis, University of Twente
(2013). URL: http://purl.utwente.nl/essays/67782

20. E. M. Cherry, C. J. Elkins and J .K. Eaton, “Geometric sensitivity of three

dimensional separated flows.” Int. J. Heat Fluid Fl., 29, 803–811 (2008).

21. Y. Y. Tsui and C. K. Wang, “Calculation of laminar separated flow in symmetric

two-dimensional diffusers.” J. Fluids Eng., 117, 612–616 (1995).

22. E. M. Sparrow, J. P. Abraham and W. J. Minkowycz, “Flow separation in a

diverging conical duct: Effect of Reynolds number and divergence angle.” Int. J.
Heat Mass Tran., 52, 3079–3083 (2009).

23. M. Nabavi, “Three-dimensional asymmetric flow through a planar diffuser: Effects of

divergence angle, Reynolds number and aspect ratio.” Int. Comm. Heat Mass, 37,
17–20 (2010).

24. C. V. King and B. L. Smith, “Oscillating flow in a 2-D diffuser.” Exp. Fluids, 51,
1577–1590 (2011).

25. R. Holman, Y. Uttarkar, R. Mittal, B. L. Smith and L. Cattafesta, “Formation

criterion for synthetic jets.” AIAA J., 43, 2110–2116 (2005).

26. S. R. Fugal, B. L. Smith and R. E. Spall, “Displacement amplitude scaling of a

two-dimensional synthetic jet.” Phys. Fluids, 17, 045103 (2005).

27. V. Michelassi, W. Rodi and J. Zhu, “Testing a low-Reynolds number k-epsilon

turbulence model based on direct simulation data.” AIAA J., 31, 1720–1723 (1993).

28. M. Ohmi and M. Iguchi, “Critical Reynolds number in an oscillating pipe flow.” B.
JSME, 25, 365–371 (1982).

29. D. S. Antao and B. Farouk, “High amplitude nonlinear acoustic wave driven flow
fields in cylindrical and conical resonators.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 134, 917–932
(2013).
 Oosterhuis, Bühler, Wilcox and Van der Meer, JASA, p. 29

30. G. W. Swift, “Acoustic power” in Thermoacoustics: A Unifying Perspective for

Some Engines and Refrigerators, 105–116, (ASA, Melville, New York, 2002).

31. M. C. Vidya, Oscillatory flow in jet pumps: setup design and experiments. MSc.
thesis, University of Twente (2014). URL: http://purl.utwente.nl/essays/66992

32. P. C. H Aben, High-amplitude thermoacoustic flow interacting with solid boundaries.

PhD. thesis, University of Eindhoven (2010). DOI: 10.6100/IR692950

33. H. Schlichting, “The separation of a boundary layer” in Boundary-Layer Theory,

121–123, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968), 6th edition.

34. B. L. Smith, “Pressure recovery in a radiused sudden expansion.” Exp. Fluids, 36,
901–907 (2004).

35. D. J. Nani and B. L. Smith, “Effect of orifice inner lip radius on synthetic jet
efficiency.” Phys. Fluids, 24, 115110 (2012).