Flow Analysis in A Convergent-Divergent Nozzle Using CFD

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, pp.136-144, IASTER 2013

www.iaster.com, ISSN Online: 2347-5188 Print: 2347-8772
Flow Analysis in a Convergent-Divergent Nozzle Using CFD

1
Gutti Rajeswara Rao, 2U.S. Ramakanth, 3A. Lakshman

1
Assistant Professor, St. Marry Engineering College, India

Associate Professor, VITAM Engineering College, India
3
M.Tech CAD/CAM SMBS, VIT University, India
ABSTRACT
The effects of Mach number and Nozzle pressure ratios (NPR) on Mass flow rate, Maximum pressure,
and Maximum velocity and on Maximum force are studied using Fluent Analysis. The classical one
dimensional inviscid theory does not reveal the complex flow features in a convergent divergent
nozzle accurately. The code fluent has been used to compute flow using a coupled and axisymmetric
Convergent Divergent nozzle for different nozzle ratios and for different Mach numbers.
Keywords: Nozzle Pressure Ratio (NPR), Mach number, Convergent-Divergent Nozzle, CFD.
1. INTRODUCTION
In the present days there is a huge development in Aerospace Engineering for defense and civil
prospects. Extensive research is being carried out in these fields. This project tries to establish the
methods of developing the rocket nozzle of a solid propellant rocket. The test is virtualized at
different Mach numbers, where the flow conditions are derived.
The virtualization is one of the major developments in the field of research, which revolutionized
Aerospace engineering, along with all other branches. The computational techniques are used widely
for getting better results, close to experimental techniques.
The flow through a converging-diverging nozzle is one of the benchmark problems used for modeling
the compressible flow through computational fluid dynamics. Occurrence of shock in the flow field
displays one of the most prominent effects of compressibility over fluid flow. Accurate shock
predication is a challenge to the CFD fraternity. In order to resolve the high pressure gradients we
need to use some special numerical schemes along with fine grid. In some cases, local grid adaption
can be helpful. The one-dimensional inviscid isentropic flow in a convergent-divergent nozzle is a
classical text book problem ,which has different flow regimes depending upon the nozzle pressure
ratio(NPR).The inviscid theory predicts a simple shock structure consisting of a normal shock
followed by a smooth recovery to exit pressure in the divergence part of a chocked nozzle for the
nozzle pressure ratios corresponding to the over-expanded flow regimes. But ,in reality, multi
dimensionality and viscous effects like wall boundary layer and flow separation drastically alter the
flow in a CD nozzle. The over-expanded flow regime in CD nozzles of different shapes and sizes has
been a subject matter of numerous investigations because of their wide range of applications. One of
the more recent investigations in an experimental study of flow in rectangular over expanded
supersonic nozzles exploring the complexity nature of such flows. The prediction of such flows also
presents a great challenge to any CFD code.
2.
LITERATURE
CONVERGENT-DIVERGENT nozzle is designed for attaining speeds that are greater than speed of sound.
the design of this nozzle came from the area-velocity relation (dA/dV)=-(A/V)(1-M^2) M is the Mach
number ( which means ratio of local speed of flow to the local speed of sound) A is area and V is velocity.
136

Volume-1, Issue-2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com
ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
The following information can be derived from the area-velocity relation 1. For incompressible flow limit, i.e. for M tends to zero, AV = constant. This is the famous volume
conservation equation or continuity equation for incompressible flow.
2. For M < 1, a decrease in area results in increase of velocity and vice vera. Therefore, the velocity
increases in a convergent duct and decreases in a Divergent duct. This result for compressible subsonic
flows is the same as that for incompressible flow.
3. For M > 1, an increase in area results in increase of velocity and vice versa, i.e. the velocity increases
in a divergent duct and decreases in a convergent duct. This is directly opposite to the behavior of
subsonic flow in divergent and convergent ducts.
4. For M = 1, dA/A = 0, which implies that the location where the Mach number is unity, the area of
the passage is either minimum or maximum. We can easily show that the minimum in area is the only
physically realistic solution.
One important point is that to attain supersonic speeds we have to maintain favorable pressure ratios
across the nozzle. One example is : to attain just sonic speeds at the throat, pressure ratio to e
maintained is (Pthroat / P inlet)=0.528.
Table.1
Regime
Subsonic
Transonic
Sonic
Supersonic
Hypersonic
High-hypersonic
Mach
<1.0
0.8-1.2
1.0
1.0-5.0
5.0-10.0
>10.0
From table.1 at transonic speeds, the flow field around the object includes both sub- and supersonic parts.
The transonic period begins when first zones of M>1 flow appear around the object. In case of an airfoil
(such as an aircraft's wing), this typically happens above the wing. Supersonic flow can decelerate back to
subsonic only in a normal shock; this typically happens before the trailing edge. (Fig.a)
As the speed increases, the zone of M>1 flow increases towards both leading and trailing edges. As M=1 is
reached and passed, the normal shock reaches the trailing edge and becomes a weak oblique shock: the
flow decelerates over the shock, but remains supersonic. A normal shock is created ahead of the object,
and the only subsonic zone in the flow field is a small area around the object's leading edge. (Fig.b)
Figure (a)
Figure (b)
The governing continuity, momentum, and energy equations for this quasi one-dimensional, steady,
isentropic flow can be expressed, respectively as
Continuity:
(1)
137

ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
Momentum:
(2)
Energy:
(3)
where subscripts 1 and 2 denote different locations along the nozzle. In addition, we have the perfect
gas equation of state,
(4)
As well as the relation for a calorically perfect gs,
(5)
equations (1) and (5) can be solved analytically for the flow through the nozzle.
Figure (c)
2.1 Assumed Model

Steady, quasi-one-dimensional. There are gradual variations in the geometry, so that the flow near the
nozzle walls is not strictly along the x-direction. However, the flow angularity is very small. The
variation in properties can be calculated assuming that the properties are constant in each crosssection. The cross-section area, A, is a function of x alone. Thus, all properties are functions of x
alone.
A= A(x); u = u(x); T=T(x), p= p(x) etc.
Continuity:
,
(6)
the mass flow rate, is constant.
Momentum: (no friction; differential form of the Euler equation)

(8)
Hence,
Using (8) in (10),
. Isentropic process:
(10)
138
(11)

ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
Thus,
(12)
Also,
(13)
Case 1: M<1
dA, dp have the same sign. Thus, as A increases, p increases.
dA , du have opposite signs. Thus as A increases, u decreases.
Diverging duct in subsonic flow: pressure increases, speed decreases.
Converging duct in subsonic flow: pressure decreases, speed increases.
Case 2: M>1
dA, dp have opposite signs. Thus as A increases, p decreases.
dA, du have the same sign. Thus as A increases, u increases.
Diverging duct in supersonic flow: pressure decreases, speed increases.
Case 3: M = 1
dA/dx is 0. Thus we have either a maximum or minimum of area.
The maximum area case is not of much interest, since there is no way to reach Mach 1 at
this point, with flow from either direction.
So the case of interest is where the area becomes a minimum: a "throat".
From mass conservation,
where the * denotes conditions at Mach 1
So,
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
Substitute into A/A*:
139

ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
(21)
Thus, for a given isentropic flow, i.e., a flow with mass flow rate, stagnation temperature and
stagnation pressure all fixed, there are two solutions for a given value of A/A*: One solution is
subsonic, the other is supersonic.
2.2
Mass Flow Rate Through a Nozzle
For given stagnation conditions
are fixed.
(22)
For a given throat area, stagnation pressure and stagnation temperature, the maximum mass flow rate
is the value where the Mach number at the throat reaches 1.0. This is called the "choked mass flow
rate." To increase the mass flow rate, we have to increase the stagnation pressure, decrease the
stagnation temperature, or increase the throat area.
, or
(23)
(24)
For M=1, R=286.7 J/Kg K and = 1.4 for air,

(25)
Where
is in
in Kelvin and in
3. METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Modeling the Nozzle
We have developed the model in such a way that it is
assumed to be in the mid-section of the nozzle. We used
GAMBIT modeling package for developing the wire frame
which resembles the cross-section of the rocket nozzle.
Figure.1 Nozzle Dimensions
3.2 Meshing in GAMBIT

In GAMBIT the model is meshed using Quad/Triangular elements and proper care is taken while
meshing the regions near the walls of the nozzle so as to get more refinement in that particular
regions. As any computational process requires a mesh to carry computation this step is a primary and
most important to start the problem. The mesh created in GAMBIT is as shown below figure.2
140

ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
We can see that the meshing near the

boundary of the nozzle is more refined
when compared to other regions of
mesh. After the completion of the
meshing we need to specify the
boundary types like the inlet, outlet,
walls, and continuum type.
Figure.2 Fine Mesh Near Walls
3.5 Boundary Conditions Used

1. Mass flow inlet
2. Outlet
3. Walls
Specification of the boundary zones has to be done in GAMBIT only, there is no possibility to specify
the boundary zones in FLUENT. So Proper care has to be taken while defining the boundary zones in
GAMBIT. With all the zones defined properly the mesh is exported to the solver. The solver used in
this problem is FLUENT. The exported mesh file is read in fluent for solving the problem.
3.3
Solving
Fluent analysis is carried out for nozzle at different Mach numbers and at different Nozzle pressure
ratios.
The steady axisymmetric implicit formulation with coupled solver with K-e turbulence model is
chosen. The mass flow of the burning solid propellant was modeled using a user-defined function
4. RESULTS
4.1 NOZZLE Analysis for Determination of Pressure,Velocity,Mass flow Rate and Forces
Fluent analysis is carried out at different Mach numbers and the values are tabulated at Different
Mach Numbers
Table 2
Mach No.
1
1.2
2.0
2.2
3.0
3.2
4.0
4.2
5.0
Maximum
Pressure
(atm)
2.2426
2.24189
2.16971
2.92254
9.6542
12.99903
39.9912
52.05184
85.0891
Maximum
Velocity
(m/sec)
1864.675
1866.671
1870.457
1886.233
1883.28
1885.267
1898.31
1899.75
1891.65
141
Maximum
Forces
(N)
31748.542
32079.31
31807.389
44094.323
33875.766
34029.145
39506.234
34653.321
44749.05
Maximum
Flow rate
(kg/sec)
-3.5058
-3.5537
-4.649
-5.5084
-4.488281
-3.83
-3.82
-3.8249
-4.32

ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
4.2 At Different Nozzle Pressure Ratios

Table.3
NPR
PRESSURE
(atm)
MAXIMUM
PRESSURE
(atm)
MAXIMUM
VELOCITY
(m/sec)
MAXIMUM
FORCE
(N)
MAXIMUM
FLOW RATE
(kg/sec)
1.2
0.313836
2.23954
1862.358
29407.048
-3.311035
1.29
0.3373
2.239229
1849.845
28884.084
-3.180176
1.34
0.3504
2.23906
1833.296
28588.05
-3.4653
1.44
0.37660
2.23874
1832.658
28006.213
-3.30957
1.72
0.4498
2.39809
1783.231
26356.765
-3.4146
1.97
0.51521
2.24297
1759.817
24974.712
-3.26953
2.09
0.5465
2.241855
1753.713
24565.12
-3.2363
2.26
0.59105
2.30605
1746.947
24236.067
-3.4619
4.3 The following figures illustrate Contours of Pressure, Velocity Magnitude, Temperature,
Turbulence, Mass Flow rates at Mach no:1
Figure.3 Contour of Static Pressure
Figure.5 Contours of Static Temperature
Figure.7 Contour of Mach Number
Figure.4 Mass Flow Rate on Mass Flow Inlet
Figure.6 Static Temperature Plot at Wall-1-A,B
Figure.8 Wall Y-Star at Wall-1-A,B, Wall-3
142

ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
4.4 At Different NPRs
Figure.9 Contour of Static Pressure at NPR 1.2
Figure.10 Contour of Static Pressure At NPR 1.79
Figure.11 Static Temperature Plot at NPR 1.2
Figure.13 Contour of Static Temperatue at NPR 1.2
Figure.12 Static Temperature Plot at NPR 1.97
Figure.14 Contour of Velocity Magnitude At NPR1.97
Figure.15 Wall Y-Star at NPR 1.97
Figure.16 Total Pressure at NPR 1.97
143

5.
ISSN
(O) 2347-5188
(P) 2347-8772
CONCLUSIONS
Computer aided solutions are developed using Fluent Analysis. Solutions are evaluated at
different Mach numbers corresponding Mass flow rates, Maximum Velocity, Maximum
Pressure, Maximum force are determined. Mass Flow rates were found to decrease
monotonically with Mach numbers. Variation in static pressure increases with Mach number less
than 6 and was found to be identical from the inlet throat to the exit for Mach number values
higher than 6.With the corresponding increase of Mach number corresponding velocity also
increases. Maximum forces alternately increase and decrease with respect to Mach number.
Solutions are evaluated at different Nozzle pressure ratios(NPR) corresponding Mass flow rates,
Maximum Velocity, Maximum Pressure, Maximum force are determined. Mass Flow rates were
found to decrease monotonically with Nozzle pressure ratios(NPR).Variation in static pressure
increases with Nozzle pressure ratios(NPR).With the corresponding increase of Nozzle pressure
ratios(NPR) corresponding velocity decreases. Maximum forces and Maximum velocity
decrease with respect to Nozzle pressure ratios (NPR).
The mass flow of the burning solid propellant was modeled using a user-defined function. Both
turbulence and conjugate heat transfer were modeled in this problem. Finally its emphasized the
importance of checking other parameters (such as total mass balance) in addition to the residual
values.
REFERENCES
[1]
Adamson, T.C., Jr., and Nicholls., J.A., On the structure of jets from Highly underexpanded
Nozzles into Still Air, Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol.26, No.1, Jan 1959, pp. 16-24.
[2]
Lewis, C. H., Jr., and Carlson, D. J., Normal Shock Location in underexpanded Gas and Gas
Particle Jets, AIAA Journal, Vol 2, No.4, April 1964, pp. 776-777.
[3]
Romine, G. L., Nozzle Flow separation, AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No.9, Sep. 1998. Pp 16181625.
[4]
Anderson Jr, J. D., Computational Fluid Dynamics the basic with Applications, McGrawHill, revised edition 1995.
[5]
Dutton, J.C., Swirling Supersonic Nozzle Flow, Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol.3, July
1987, pp. 342-349.
[6]
Elements of Propulsion: Gas Turbines and Rockets ---- Jack D. Mattingly
[7]
Introduction to CFD---- H K VERSTEEG &W MALALASEKERA
[8]
Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion Principles, Practice and New Developments (2nd ed.,
Springer, 2005) ---- Turner M.
[9]
Rocket Propulsion Elements- 7th edition ---- GEORGE P. SUTTON; OSCAR BIBLARZ
[10] FLUID MECHANICS----A K MOHANTY
144

Flow Analysis in A Convergent-Divergent Nozzle Using CFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flow Analysis in A Convergent-Divergent Nozzle Using CFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering

Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, pp.136-144, IASTER 2013