Professional Documents
Culture Documents
08
Design Criterion of the Dual-Bell Nozzle Contour
Hirotaka Otsu, Masafumi Miyazawa, and Yasunori Nagata
Shizuoka University, Johoku 3-5-1, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 432-8561, JAPAN
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08
E-mail; thootu@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp
Abstract
In this study, we performed a CFD analysis to determine the optimum dual-bell nozzle contour. Especially, we investigated the effect of the deflection angle at the wall inflection on the separation point transition. Based on our present
analysis, we found that the deflection angle at the wall inflection should be larger than the angle determined by a simple
Prandtl-Meyer expansion. Also, the time to accomplish the separation point transition from the wall inflection to the
extension nozzle exit is estimated to be less than 10 ms when our design criterion of the dual-bell nozzle contour is
applied to the booster engine of H-2A launch vehicle. This time interval is considered to be essentially instant from the
practical point of view of the safe nozzle operation.
1 Introduction
The dual-bell nozzle is an advanced rocket engine nozzle
concept with an altitude-adapted capability.1 This nozzle
concept is promising for application to existing and nearterm launch vehicles with a simple modification to the current bell-type nozzle configuration. As shown in Fig. 1, the
dual-bell nozzle has a base nozzle and an extension nozzle
connected at the wall inflection where a forced, steady and
symmetrical separation takes place at low altitudes. The
wall inflection point, therefore, acts as an effective nozzle
exit with a small nozzle area ratio at low altitudes. At high
altitudes, nozzle flow is attached to the wall through the
extension nozzle exit, thereby providing the use of the full
area ratio. When applied to booster engines to be ignited
on the ground, this nozzle is expected to provide a significant overall propulsion and flight performance gains over
the conventional bell-type nozzle. This is due to its capability to adapt the nozzle exhaust flow to ambient pressure
at low and high altitudes during the ascent flight.
In our previous studies,2, 3 we analytically evaluated the
propulsion and flight performance gains of the dual-bell
nozzles with taking account of weight penalties of dualbell nozzles.2 In that analysis, theoretical-optimum performance gains are obtained by utilizing the flow separation
model in the nozzle proposed by Romine.4 In this model,
the flow separation inside the nozzle is controlled by the
nozzle flow adjustment to ambient pressure, not by the wall
boundary layer. Using this model, we calculated the separation pressure and location through a triple-point shock
1.5
LE-7A (Equilibrium)
LE-7A (Frozen)
RD-180 (Frozen)
12
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08
14
10
Wall Inflection
1.0
ip
B
0.5
Extension
Nozzle
Base Nozzle
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
altitude where the separation criterion is cleared, the separation point must jump to the extension nozzle exit within
a sufficiently short period of time to avoid unfavorable side
loads and/or vibration hazards. Also, the separation conditions have to be uniquely determined for the safe operation
of this nozzle.
To resolve the above issues on the dual-bell nozzle,
we analyzed the dual-bell nozzle flow with a NavierStokes CFD code applied to laminar axis-symmetric nozzle
flows.3 Especially, we focused on the effect of the deflection angle at the inflection point on the dual-bell nozzle
flow. According to our CFD analysis, it was found that
the deflection angle should be larger than the angle evaluated using a simple Prandtl-Meyer expansion theory and
the time to complete the separation point transition was estimated to be less than 0.1 [s]. Additionally, the theoretical
separation criteria to be applied to the dual-bell nozzle were
also assessed.
In the present study, we tried to narrow down the overexpansion level at the wall inflection through our CFD
analysis. Additionally, the effect of the nozzle length on
the separation point transition was also investigated.
The base nozzle length and the total length of dualbell nozzle are assumed to be 80% of a conical nozzle
with a half-angle of 15 [deg.].
The parabola for the base nozzle is determined using
the coordinates of nozzle throat and inflection point
along with the deflection angle B at the base nozzle
exit.
The parabola for the extension nozzle is determined
using the coordinates of inflection point and extension
nozzle exit along with the deflection angle ip at the
inflection point.
The deflection angle at the inflection point, ip , is determined using the Prandtl-Meyer function.
ip = B + (E B )
(1)
,where Prandtl-Meyer angles, E and B , are calculated using one-dimensional isentropic flow relation as shown below.
+1
1
1
=
tan
(M 2 1)
1
+1
tan1 M 2 1
The magnitude of the inflection angle is expressed in terms
of over-expansion factor, , defined as the multiple factor with respect to the constant extension nozzle designated
wall pressure case in which the inflection angle equals the
difference of Prandtl-Meyer angles between the base and
extension nozzle exits. This factor corresponds to the degree of over-expansion at the inflection point. In the present
analysis, this factor, , is selected to be 0.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2,
1.25, 1.5, and 2.0 to determine the effect of ip on the
behavior of the shock-induced flow separation. Figure 3
shows the dual bell nozzle contour with the over-expantion
factor of 1.0.
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
30
20
10
25
50
75
100
13.0
1.24
12,258
3,600
Adiabatic Wall
Non-slip Condition
Non-slip Condition
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08
symmetric flow. The exhaust gas inside the nozzle is assumed to be perfect gas.
M=1
Throat
Symmetric Condition
Inflection Point
Nozzle Exit
55
Mach Number
Pa = 50 [kPa]
50
Triple Point
45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
Pa = 25 [kPa]
25
20
Pa = 19 [kPa]
15
10
Pa < 15 [kPa]
-1
5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Pa = 19 [kPa]
Inflection Point
Nozzle Exit
55
-2
Pa = 50 [kPa]
50
45
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
Pa = 25 [kPa]
25
20
Pa = 20 [kPa]
15
10
Pa < 15 [kPa]
5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Nozzle Exit
55
Pa = 50 [kPa]
50
45
Wall Pressure [kPa]
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
25
Pa = 23.31 [kPa]
20
Pa = 23.30 [kPa]
15
10
5
1.5
Pa < 15 [kPa]
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Nozzle Exit
55
Pa = 50 [kPa]
50
45
Wall Pressure [kPa]
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
25
Pa = 22.61 [kPa]
20
Pa = 22.60 [kPa]
15
10
5
1.5
Pa < 15 [kPa]
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
55
Table 2: Effect of the over-expansion factor on the transition time for LD = 80%
Inflection Point
Nozzle Exit
Pa = 50 [kPa]
50
45
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
0.80
30
19
9.1869
12.170
6767
1.00
25
20
10.389
11.912
3360
1.20
23.31
23.30
10.865
10.866
3.111
1.50
22.61
22.60
11.114
11.115
3.114
pa1 [kPa]
pa2 [kPa]
H1 [km]
H2 [km]
ttr. [ms]
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
Pa = 25 [kPa]
25
20
Pa = 20 [kPa]
15
Pa = 15 [kPa]
10
Pa = 10 [kPa]
5
0
1.6
55
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
11.5
3.0
=1.2
=1.0
10.0
Nozzle Exit
Pa = 50 [kPa]
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
10.5
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
25
Pa = 20 [kPa]
20
Pa = 17 [kPa]
15
Pa = 12 [kPa]
10
9.5
2.8
45
=1.5
11.0
Inflection Point
50
0
1.6
48
49
50
51
52
53
Flight Time from Liftoff [s]
54
Pa < 5 [kPa]
1.8
2.0
55
2.2
2.6
55
Inflection Point
2.8
3.0
Nozzle Exit
Pa = 50 [kPa]
50
Fig. 9: Effect of the over-expansion factor on the transition time for LD = 80%
2.4
45
Pa = 40 [kPa]
40
Wall Pressure [kPa]
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08
1.8
12.5
12.0
Pa < 5 [kPa]
35
Pa = 30 [kPa]
30
25
Pa = 20 [kPa]
20
15
Pa = 13.14 [kPa]
10
Pa = 13.13 [kPa]
5
0
1.6
Pa < 10 [kPa]
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
10
L = 80%
Conclusions
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08
L = 70%
D
10
10
10
10
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Over-expansion factor,
2.0
References
[1] Hagemann, G., Immich, H., Nguyen, T. V., and Dumnov, G. E., Advanced Rocket Nozzles, Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1998, pp. 620
633.
[2] Miyazawa, M., Takeuchi, S., and Takahashi, M.,
Flight Performance of Dual-Bell Nozzles, AIAA
Paper 2002-0686, Jan., 2002.
[3] Miyazawa, M., and Otsu, H., An Analytical Study
on Design and Performance of Dual-Bell Nozzles,
AIAA Paper 2004-0380, Jan., 2004.
[4] Romine, G. L., Nozzle Flow Seperation, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 36, No. 9, Sep. 1998, pp. 16181625.
[5] Wada, Y. and Liou, M.-S. A Flux Splitting Scheme
with High-Resolution and Robustness for Discontinuities, AIAA Paper 94-0083, January, 1994.