Anda di halaman 1dari 10




The flow passages whose cross sectional area decreases in the flow direction. However,
the highest velocity to which gases can be accelerate in a converging is limited to the sonic
velocity, which occurs at the exit plane. Acceleration a fluid to supersonic velocity can be
accomplished only by attaching a diverging flow section to the subsonic at the throat. The
resulting combined flow section is a converging-diverging nozzle, which is standard equipment
in supersonic aircraft and rocket impulsion.
When mach number is less than 1 (m<1), that is subsonic velocity, then when mach
number is equal to 1 (m=1), the flow is sonic velocity and happened at the throat. When mach
number greater 1 (m>1) , it is supersonic shown above:

Figure 1 : The effect of back pressure on the flow through a converging diverging.
Chock flow is fluid flow through a restricted area whose rate reaches a maximum when
the fluid velocity reaches the sonic velocity at some point along the flow path. The
Phenomenon of choking exists only in compressible flow and can occurs in several flow
situation. Choked flow can occur through a convergent flow area or nozzle attached to a huge
reservoir. Flow exits the reservoir through the nozzle if the back pressure is less than the
reservoir pressure. When the back pressure is decreased slightly below the reservoir pressure, a
signal from beyond the nozzle exit is transmitted at sonic speed to the reservoir. The reservoir
responds by sending fluid through the nozzle. Further, the maximum velocity of the fluid exists










When the back pressure is further decreased, fluid exits the reservoir more rapidly.

the velocity at the throat reachesthe sonic velocity. Then the fluid velocity at the

throat is sonic, and the velocity of the signal is also sonic. Therefore, further decreases in back
pressure are not sensed by the reservoir, and correspondingly will not induce any greater
flow to exit the reservoir. The nozzle is thussaid to be choked, and the mass flow of fluid
is a maximum.
From the experiment, the data are calculated and the graphs are plotted. The data in the
table shown when the absolute pressure(P1) is 101.3 kPa until 101.25 kPa, the mass flow
rate() are from 0 kg/s until 0.0627 kg/s, it is in subsonic. For pressure 101.23 kPa until
101.20 kPa, the mass flow rate is in between 1.0012kg/s until 1.3116kg/s, it is in sonic velocity
that flow at throat. And for pressure 101.18 kPa until last reading of pressure, the mass flow
rate is start from 1.5774 kg/s and increases until the last is in supersonic condition.
The graph in result shown that

versus (P0 P2), P2, (P0 P3) , P3 and (P0 P2) versus

(P0 P3). The graph are plotted based on the result of experiment.
For the first graph, versus (P0 P2), when the value of mass flow rate () increase,
the value of (P0 P2) are also increase. This graph show that the relationship between mass
flow rate() and (P0 P2) are directly proportional.
For the second graph is versus P2, when the value of mass flow rate increase, P2 also
increase. At the earlier, the mass flow rate are still no change, it is zero and after increase to the
several pressure, it were increase. P2 is a pressure that measure from the manometer which is
converted from mercury to Pascal.
For the next graph is vs. (P0 P3) . P0 is the atmospheric pressure which is 101.3
kPa.. The relationship of mass flow rate with the change of pressure at tube 3 and atmospheric
are directly proportional.
The Graph of versus P3 shown when mass flow rate are increase, the pressure at point
3 also increases. So the relationship between mass flow rate with P 3 is also directly
For the last graph is (P 0 P2) versus (P0 P3) is plotted using the data obtain from the
experiment. From the graph shown that (P0 P2) will increases until achieved maximum point
and start to decreases.
The values obtained from the experiment are different from theoretical value, which is
caused by some possible errors. Some possible errors are human error, instrument error, and
parallax error. Human error occurred as the students did not properly set up the apparatus,

which might be the apparatus were not tighten fully, such as press the pressure button not
carefully. It can affect the reading of the data. Next is instrument error is error caused by the
instrument itself. As the equipment worn through many times of usage, the data recorded might
not have been accurate therefore leading to the false result obtained from the experiment.
Lastly is parallax error, it will happened during reading the height of mercury. This problem
can be solved by ensuring that the eye must be perpendicular to the scale to get a better result.



Compressible flow test laboratory were conducted to collect all the data required to
calculate the value of P0 P1, P0 P2, P0 P3, r and . This value is then used to plot the graphs
which enable to describe the characteristic of the compressible flow test machine used.
From graph versus (P0 P2), as the value of mass flow rate () increase, the value of
(P0 P2) are also increase. This shows clearly the relationship between mass flow rate and (P 0
P2) which they are directly proportional.
For graph versus P2, the flow of graph were similar to the graph versus (P 0 P2),
where, as the value of mass flow rate increase P 2 increase. P2 is a pressure that measure from
the manometer which is converted from mercury to Pascal.
Graph vs. (P0 P3) is also plotted. P0 is the atmospheric pressure which is 101.3 kPa.
As can be seen from the graph of mass flow rate versus (P 0 P3) is not much different from the
graph before. The relationship of mass flow rate with the change of pressure at tube 3 and
atmospheric was still directly proportional.
Relationship of mass flow rate with P3 is also identified by constructing the Graph vs.
P3 graph. As the value of mass flow rate increase slightly, while P 3 is also increase accordingly.
This proves their relationship to be directly proportional.
Lastly, graph (P0 P2) versus (P0 P3) is plotted using the data gain in the experiment.
As a result, there is a point which is the maximum value of (P 0 P2). Where before reaching
that maximum point of (P0 P2), (P0 P3) increases as (P0 P2) increase. After that critical or
maximum point (P0 P2), the value of (P0 P2) started to decrease while (P0 P3) increase

Figure 1 : Converging Diverging Duct

The experiment is conducted by consequently increase the length by 5 mm. This length
effect the result. Especially the value of P2, where it increase fast compare to P3. This reflects
the value (P0 P2) and (P0 P3). It is increasing with a small different. Mass flow rate of this
Converging Diverging Duct is small. Where we can see theoretically, normally the value of
mass flow rate is not big.



Comparison of experimental results with the theoretical results.

The first part of this lab was to investigate the mass flow rates that were obtained from

different pressure ratios by using the Converging-Diverging nozzle. From calculations, using
some equations we resulted with a theoretical value of = 0.1186 kg/s.
On continuation of the experiment, and completion of result table using related
equations, the maximum mass flow rate achieved is 5.7871 kg/s. This is a very undesirable
result as it completely differs by 100 % of the maximum theoretical value. The possible error
for this outrange result is miscalculation. Next, the minimum pressure ratio (P 2/P0) for
experimental value is 0. That means, it same with the theoretical minimum pressure ratio which
is also 0. However, the maximum theoretical value for pressure ratio (P 2/P0) had been
calculated is 0.528 by using below equations:

While, for our maximum experimental value of pressure ratio (P 2/P0) is 0.1079. The
percentage of error is about 20.44%, so it considered a quite accurate result. Based on the
experimental data, the graphs of versus (P 0-P2), P2, (P0-P3), and P3 were plotted. All of the
graphs showed that the relationship between and (P0-P2), P2, (P0-P3), and P3 are directly
proportional. That means the higher either the values of (P 0-P2), P2, (P0-P3), and P3, the higher
the value of mass flow rate, . However, on plotting out (P0 P2) vs (P0 P3), we found that
the corresponding relationship between both parameters is unstable. At first, the graph show a
steeply increased and then decreased gradually.

The discrepancies that bring about these differing results will be further discussed.

The second objective of this lab was to demonstrate the phenomena of choking. In the











dependent on the pressure ratios applied to the system. By measuring the linear variation of
pressure at different lengths through the nozzle it can be determined from existing literature
about what type of flow is occurring. These flow patterns can be seen over in Figure 1. During
the laboratory, these values were recorded in results table and plotted in graphs.

Analysis of experimental error.

It was felt after the conclusion of the lab, that number of factors could have caused P/P0
discrepancies between the experimental and the theoretical results.
The biggest contributor to these, it was felt, was the positive displacement compressor. The
reason for this is the fluctuations that occur because of its method of operating in load and
unload cycles. Even with the pressure regulator and plenum being incorporated to the system to
smooth out the fluctuations there is still level of inherit error present. A very high level of
maintenance and calibration would be necessary to reduce these to a certain extent.
Next the fact that there was possible leaks in the back of the rig which can cause deviations
in the actual results obtained for which we could not correct. There possibly may have been
errors that went unnoticed in the lab with pressure gauges which could not count for a small
level of error.
It has to be mentioned that there could have been possible meniscus errors made by us
when reading the inclined manometer, although these are unnecessary mistakes they still need
to be mentioned.

Figure 1 : Different flow patterns for different pressure ratios.



The term of Compressible Flow can be interpreted as the flow of fluid in which
variation in fluid properties such as density is significant due to pressure deviations. The
mechanics of compressible flow had been extensively employed in wide range of engineering
applications and technological processes such as the converging-diverging nozzles employed in
rocket engine, the steam and gas turbines In order to examine the characteristics of pressure
flow of air through a convergent-divergent duct and to visualize on how the properties of air
being affected by Mach number, the rightful comprehending on the fundamental theories
behind the physics of compressible flow are significant. The aim of this practical was to
investigate compressible flow in a convergent-divergent nozzle.
Theoretical value were done to find the maximum mass flow rate through the duct
which is ( = 0.1186 kg/s) as shown in equation below, and this was compared against actual
maximum recorded values that managed to get ( = 5.7871kg/s.) . Some of the factors that cause
different flow patterns are due to the defects or environmental factors that may be occur
during the experiment. For the minimum value for P2/Po of theoretical is ( = 0.528 kg/s) which
is differ to the experimental one that are managed to get around (=0.0627 kg/s).

Figure 1:Theoritical equation of

From the figure 1 that was stated in result analysis of graph (kg/s) vs (P o-P2) (kPa), it
can be concluded that the value of is directly proportional towards (P o-P2). As the value of
is increase, the value of (Po-P2) also increase. Figure 2 of graph vs P 2, figure 3 of graph vs
(Po-P3), figure 4 of graph vs. P3 are also in the same pattern which is directly proportional

between each other. However, on figure 5 for graph of (P 0 P2) vs. (P0 P3), as the value of (P0
P3) increase, the value of (P0 P2) are slightly in flat manner after reach of maximum value
for about 101.30 kPa.
The error that occur also may be influenced by the random error especially during the
experiment was conducted. For example the parallax error made by the observer during the
measurement of the inclined manometer. The eye of the observer does not point directly to the
right view. To overcome this problem, placing the eye vertically above the marking on the scale
or in specific word known as meniscus to be read. There are also systematic error occur which
that affected the calibration of the manometer that does not pointed on the right scale. There are
also possibly may have been errors that went unnoticed in the lab with pressure gauges which
could account for a small level of error.