Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

July 15-16, 2015, ISBN:9788193137314

THREE DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS ON AN OPTIMIZED

NOZZLE CONTOUR WITH FSI
Shiva P U.
Asst. Prof.
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University,
Manipal, Karnataka, INDIA.

K M SreeVaibhav R.
Student
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University,
Manipal, Karnataka, INDIA.

ABSTRACT

solution (loads) obtained from flow calculations by

ANSYS CFX (flow solver) is applied as boundary
conditions for the structural calculations by ANSYS
Mechanical (structural solver). This is done by
coupling the flow solver and structural solver in
workbench.

A study of fluid structure interaction inside a nozzle is

essential to design a nozzle with increased efficiency
and system reliability which is the objective of this
paper. First, modeling of the nozzle and, thereafter,
its discretization is done with Gambit tool. Then, 2D
flow simulation is accomplished in ANSYS Fluent and
the 3D analysis of flow and structure are done using
ANSYS Workbench. The gasdynamics Euler equations
are solved for the fluid and linear elastic solid with no
material damping assumed for the solid. The coupling
of the fluid and solid in Workbench is accomplished
by introducing a FSI interface between the nozzle
structure and fluid boundary. The conclusion of this
study is that, significant deformations in the nozzle
structure result when typical loads of pressure are
applied and suitable material should be adopted for
the nozzle to avoid flow deviation effects and side
loads but, for a better understanding of this, transient
analysis should be carried out in future.

III. FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTION

Fluid-structure interaction (FSI) is the interaction of
some deformable structure with an internal or
surrounding fluid flow. Fluid-structure interactions
are an essential consideration in the design of many
engineering systems. Such interactions cause the
geometry of the structure to change which in turn
causes the flow to change. Two main approaches exist
for numerical simulation of FSI problems:Monolithic
approach: the governing equations for the flow and
deformation of the structure are solved simultaneously
with one solver.Partitioned approach: the governing
equations for the flow and deformation of the
structure are solved separately using two separate
solvers i.e. one fluid solver and a structural solver. In
this case partitioned approach is followed by the
solver.

I. INTRODUCTION
A rocket engine nozzle is a subcomponent of the
rocket engine and situated at the rear of the engine
serving as an extension to the combustion chamber. It
is a device that has variable cross-section which
enables it to change the characteristics of a fluid as it
flows through it. As fluid passes through it, the flow
expands and accelerates at the cost of pressure.
However, its primary objective is to accelerate the
flow to achieve optimum thrust for the rocket to
propel forward.

IV. ANALYSIS
This section describes the methodology followed for
carrying out the study detailed in section 1.3. For the
remaining portion of the report, ANSYS Fluent will
be referred to as Fluent and ANSYS CFX as CFX for
the sake of simplicity. The following steps were
adopted in the process to carry the complete analysis
1)

II. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to study and examine
the interaction between flow of air (assumed to be
ideal gas) through a bell contoured nozzle and the
nozzle structure under atmospheric temperature and
pressure (a.t.p). This interaction is known as the Fluid
Structure Interaction (FSI). Temperature and
conduction across the wall of the nozzle is not the
goal of the present study and hence, thermal loads are
not taken into account.A unidirectional data transfer
method is applied in order to carry this analysis i.e.

2)
3)

Initially two dimensional optimized nozzle

contour was analyzed & grid Dependency was
checked.
Three
dimensional
flow
analysesis
accomplished.
Fluid-solid interaction in a three dimensional
nozzle is investigated.

2D Flow Analysis
The main reason to carry out 2D flow analysis is to
investigate for grid dependence study. The initial two

120

Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

July 15-16, 2015, ISBN:9788193137314
steps, which constitute the geometric modeling, along
with meshing, which is the third step, are done in
Gambit. The three nozzles, having different mesh
sizes, are exported to Fluent. In Fluent, flow
simulation for each nozzle is done and results for
variation of velocity, Mach number, total pressure and
static pressure along the nozzle are obtained.In fig. 1
is the nozzle contour that is taken for modeling in
Gambit. The geometric data for the nozzle is adopted
from ref. [1]. The Overall length: 1800 mm , Throat
diameter: 300 mm, Inlet diameter: 430 mm, Exit
diameter: 1400 mm, Area ratio: 21.78.

Table 2 Boundary conditions

Nozzle inlet
Total pressure

26 (MPa)

107 (m2/s2)

27,654 (m2/s3)

Total temperature

300 (K)

Fig. 2 Enlarged view of 3D mesh shows the

tetrahedral elements

Fig. 1 optimizednozzle contour [1]

3D Flow Simulation
The fluid flow analysis is carried out using ANSYS
Workbench in which the FSI tool is used to carry the
simulation. Initially, the Fluid Flow (CFX) template is
first selected with the fluid properties detailed in table
1. The geometry which is exported from Gambit is
imported in CFX. Next, the solid and the fluid
geometries are defined and the nozzle structure is
suppressed for the fluid to be evaluated. The fluid is
then meshed with 3,570,723 tetrahedral elements
having 621,117 nodes. A detailed view of the mesh is
shown in Fig. 2. This mesh excludes the suppressed
nozzle structure. The next step is setup, the boundary
conditions for the fluid are to be provided shown in
Fig. 3 where arrows directing the inlet inward outlet
as outward conditions of the nozzle. Similar boundary
conditions are provided as in the 2D calculation.
Table 2 gives the details of the boundary conditions.
Once the convergence criteria are reached, the flow
analysis is carried. The results of the 2D and 3D flow
simulations are discussed in the following sections.

Fig. 3Boundary entities of the nozzle

3D Static Structural Analysis
Thereafter, static structural analysis is performed. For
this the Static Structural (ANSYS Mechanical)
template from the toolbox is selected and the
geometry in CFX is exported to ANSYS Mechanical
after linking the geometries. In the geometry, the fluid
is suppressed for the structure to get evaluated.The
nozzle material is defined to be a homogeneous
material whose properties are given in Table 3.

Table 1 Fluid Properties

Fluid Property
Specific gas constant, R
Heat capacity ratio
Density,
Temperature, T
Pressure, P

Value
287.04 (J/kg.K)
1.40
1.225 (kg/m3)
300 (K)
101,325 (Pa)

The solid geometry is discretized with a structural

mesh having 86,714 elements and 464,368 nodes.
Detailed views of the mesh are shown in Fig. 4. This
mesh excludes the suppressed fluid.After meshing, a
fluid-structure interfacecolored in yellow in fig 5

121

Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

July 15-16, 2015, ISBN:9788193137314
which is introduced at the inner wall surface of the
nozzle to obtain the FSI on nozzle and, thereafter, the
pressure load, which is solved using CFX, is imported
on the nozzle structure shown in Fig. 6. This is done
by linking the solution in CFX to the setup in ANSYS
Mechanical. The nozzle is clamped (all displacements
null) at the junction with the combustion chamber and
the rest is left free. The structural analysis is carried
out.

This section illustrates the results obtained in the

study of fluid-structure interaction inside a rocket
engine nozzle in the following manner:
2D Fluid Flow Simulation Results
The first part of the work illustrates the results that
are obtained from fluid flow simulation performed
in ANSYS Fluent. It is observed that the
discrepancies between the results obtained from
evaluation of the fine mesh and that from the coarse
mesh are very minute and can be, therefore,
neglected. Hence, the results are only shown for the
fine mesh detailed in table table 4. Fig. 7 to Fig.
8show the variation of properties that were
evaluated for in the 2D analysis.

3D Fluid Flow Simulation Results

Fig. 4Solid geometry (nozzle) discretized with

structural grid

The present section explains about the results

obtained from fluid flow simulation in CFX with
the nozzle structure being suppressed. Table 5
details the three dimensional momentum (x, y and
z) and mass flow of air for boundary flows at three
positions inside the nozzle (i.e. the inlet, outlet and
wall).the forces acting over the nozzle are
presented in table 6.
Table 3 Material Properties of the Nozzle

Fig. 5Fluid solid interface at the nozzle inner wall

surface indicated in yellow

Solid Properties

Value

Youngs Modulus

2.071010 (N/m2)

Poissons Ratio

0.28

Density

8400 (kg/m3)

Thickness

0.015 (m)

Table 4Grid independency test data

Fig. 6Imported Pressure loads on Nozzle

V. COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS &
DISCUSSIONS RESULTS

122

Mesh
Level

Mesh Size

Dynamic
Pressure
at Outlet
(Pa)

Mach
Number at
Outlet

300150

587416

5.49798

400175

588445

5.49694

500200

589338

5.49572

Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

July 15-16, 2015, ISBN:9788193137314
Table 5Boundary properties of fluid
Loca
tion

Type

Inlet

Boun
dary

Outl
et

Boun
dary

Wall

Boun
dary

Mass
Flow
(kg/s)
3.0884
e+03
3.0999
e+03
0

Momentum
X

3.4083
e+06
2.9152
e+06
4.9807
e+05

2.6566
e-06
1.7952
e+03

1.8748
e-06
6.6994
e+02

1.1464
e+03

1.4493
e+00

Fig. 9 Velocity along stream lines in the Nozzle

1

Table 6Various forces acting on the nozzle.

X

Pressure Force

4.82E+05

-1.30E+03

-8.97E+01

Viscous Force

1.56E+04

1.53E+02

8.83E+01

Total Force

4.98E+05

-1.15E+03

-1.40E+00

Pressure Torque

2.49E-02

2.05E+02

-1.18E+03

Viscous Torque

-9.15E+00

-1.80E+01

3.00E+01

Total Torque

-9.12E+00

1.87E+02

-1.15E+03

0.6

P/Pstag

Type

0.8

0.4
0.2
0

-0.05

X/L

0.05

0.1

(a)

1.2

P/Pstag

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.05

0.05
X/L

0.1

0.15

(b)
Fig 7Contours of Mach Number

Fig. 10Calculated pressure variation of 2D flow (a)

on the centerline and (b) on the wall of the nozzle
FSI Results
The final section which provides the results obtained
for the FSI analysis of the rocket engine nozzle in
ANSYS Workbench. The fluid structure interaction
produces a large pressure, primarily acting at the
nozzle inlet as shown in Fig. 6.This large pressure
produces significant bending moments in the structure
which changes the outflow pattern and the pressure
downstream. This prevents optimized thrust

Fig. 8Mach number contour along central cross-section

of nozzle obtained from 3D flow analysis in CFX

123

Proceedings of International Conference on Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

July 15-16, 2015, ISBN:9788193137314
production through the nozzle and hence, is not
desired.Fig. 11to Fig. 14 illustrate these results of,
each shown on a cut section of the nozzle. Table 7
shows the maximum and minimum values for
equivalent (von-Mises) stress, middle principal stress,
minimum principal stress and maximum principal
stress. Table 8 shows the maximum and minimum
values for maximum shear stress, total deformation,
directional deformation and shear stress.

Fig. 13Total Deformation

of the nozzle

It is found from the FSI analysis that large deformations

in the nozzle structure was caused when the typical
conditions are provided in the nozzle. From the 2D flow
of the nozzle, the study indicates that the flow Mach
number reaches 2.11 Mach without any aeroelastic
effects. It is also concluded that the flow reaches to sonic
value at the throat section. From the 3D analysis, it is
concluded that the flow Mach number approximately
matches with the 2D flow.FSI analysis states that a total
deformation of 3.4251 mm has occurred in a nozzle
which is not suitable for the application of rocket engine.
From the FSI analysis, it is also concluded that the
material is not suitable for application of rocket engines.
Further study in this field would include transient
analysis of the nozzle with application of more advanced
fluid/ structure coupling codes, advanced algorithms
with the use of more accurate multiphysics programs.

Table 7

Type

Equivalen
t (vonMises)
Stress

Middle
Principa
l Stress

Minimu
m
Principal
Stress

Maximu
m
Principal
Stress

Minimu
m

1.8418
MPa

-186.84
MPa

-518.03
MPa

-158.69
MPa

Maximu
m

713.44
MPa

362.73
MPa

319.77
MPa

1013.3
MPa

Table 8
Object Name

Maximum
Shear
Stress

Total
Deformation

Directional
Deformation

Shear
Stress

Minimum

0.9215
MPa

0. mm

-2.5438
mm

173.37
MPa

Maximum

379.62
MPa

3.4251
mm

2.5438
mm

173.24
MPa

Fig. 14Maximum Principal

Stress in the nozzle

REFERENCES
[1] Luciano Garelli, Rodrigo R. Paz, and Mario A
Storti. Fluid structure interaction study of the
start-up of a rocket nozzle.
[2] Linda Larsson and SaowaneeSuphap.Fluidstructure interaction in a rocket nozzle.

VI. CONCLUSION

[3] GuobiaoCai, Jie Fang, Xu Xu, Minghao Liu.

Performance prediction and optimization for
liquid rocket nozzle.

The fluid-structure interaction study is carried out in a

rocket engine nozzle for which the optimized contour
data was chosen to analyze the flow. The FSI study in
ANSYS Workbench was accomplished by introducing
a fluid structure interface and importing the pressure
loads from the CFX flow calculations. The following
conclusions were drawn from the study:

[4] John D. Anderson. Modern Compressible Flow

[5] Sutton, George P. Rocket Propulsion Elements:
An Introduction to Engineering of Rockets.
[6] Versteeg, H.K. Malalasekera, W. An Introduction
to Computational Fluid Dynamics.
CONTRIBUTORS
Mr. Shiva Prasad U.is working as Asst. Prof. in the
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering, MIT, Manipal
University(MU-MIT), Manipal. He has One Journal &
Six International conference publications to his credit.

Fig. 11Equivalent (vonMises) stress on nozzle

cross-section

Mr. K M SreeVaibhav Reddy is a student of

Aeronautical Engineering. An Enthusiastic teen
learner stepped in to a temple of knowledge.

Fig. 12Minimum
principal stress on nozzle
cross-section

124