NOZZLE FLOW SEPARATION STUDY

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Aerospace Engineering by

LALA SURYA PRAKASH SC08B019

JANMEJAY JAISWAL SC08B072

Department of Aerospace Engineering INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM April 2012

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this project report entitled NOZZLE FLOW SEPARATION STUDY submitted to Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram,is a bonafide record of work done by LALA SURYA PRAKASH and JANMEJAY JAISWAL under my supervisionfrom 9 JANUARY to 27 APRIL 2012.
th th

Dr. AravindVaidyanathan Assistant Professor Aerospace Department IIST

Mr. Biju Kumar K.S. Eng./Sci-SF Cryogenic Engines Division LPSC

Dr.V.Narayanan Group Head Cryogenic Engines Group LPSC Valiamala

Place: LPSC Valiamala Date: 02/05/2012

ii

Declaration by Authors

This is to declare that this report has been written by us. No part of the report is plagiarized from other sources. All information included from other sources have been duly acknowledged. We aver that if any part of the report is found to be plagiarized, we shall take full responsibility for it.

LALA SURYA PRAKASH SC08B019

JANMEJAY JAISWAL SC08B072

Place : Trivandrum Date : 02/05/2012

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project report could have been prepared, if not for the help and encouragement from the various people. We take immense pleasure in thanking Prof. Kurien Issac and Dr. G. Rajesh who have helped us getting our project topic in LPSC. We would like to thank Dr. Aravind Vaidyanathan who has kindly agreed to be our internal guide for our project and helped a lot in experimental part of project. We are very grateful to Mr. Biju Kumar K.S. of Cryogenic Engines Division (LPSC), who has helped us a lot in our numerical study of nozzle flow separation. We would also like to extend our thanking to Mr. Thomas Vargheese and Mr. Kurup for their help in fabrication of nozzle flow setup. We are grateful to Mr. Vinil Kumar for his help in modeling of nozzle flow setup. We would also like to thank helpful people at Manufacturing Lab, IIST for their support.

iv

ABSTRACT
Nozzle flow separation remains a fundamental problem in rocket nozzle design. Flow separation leads to performance loss and sometimes generates large side forces which can damage the nozzle. The current work is an attempt towards understanding the physics behind the flow separation and exploring a means of avoiding it. CFD analysis has been carried to simulate the effect of throat radius and wall flow injection on flow separation. A modular experimental setup was designed to validate the numerical simulations. Throat radius study indicated the independent nature of flow separation and shock wave-boundary layer interaction. Wall injection had a significant effect on separation location. It was also found that the separation always remained ahead of injection location and becomes symmetric when point of injection is moved downstream. However this was not found to be valid when flow injection point was moved to close to the nozzle exit.

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................. ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ ix Nomenclature ..............................................................................................................................x 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 2. Literature Survey.....................................................................................................................3 3. Objective of the Study .............................................................................................................5 4. CFD Analysis ..........................................................................................................................6 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................6 4.2 Governing Equations .........................................................................................................6 4.3 Turbulence Modeling .........................................................................................................7 4.4 Grid Generation ............................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Grid Independence ........................................................................................................... 10 4.6 Boundary Conditions ....................................................................................................... 10 5. Validation of CFD code for Flow Separation ......................................................................... 12 6. Experiment and Simulation ................................................................................................... 16 6.1 Set up .............................................................................................................................. 16 6.2 Fabrication....................................................................................................................... 18 6.3 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................ 20 6.3.1 Schlieren photography ............................................................................................... 20 6.3.2 Pressure Transducer .................................................................................................. 21 6.4 CFD Simulation ............................................................................................................... 21 7. Computation Studies for Flow Separation.............................................................................. 25 7.1 Effect of Throat Radius on Nozzle Flow Separation ......................................................... 25 7.2 Secondary Jet Flow Injection ........................................................................................... 29 8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 34 vi

9. Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 35 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 36 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 50

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Schematic of principal phenomena in supersonic nozzle flow separation [5] ................2 Figure2: FSS and RSS [2] ...........................................................................................................2 Figure 3 Normalized Wall Static Pressure vs Axial Position ...................................................... 10 Figure 4: Computational domain for validation ......................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Wall Static Pressure with default constant .................................................................. 13 Figure 6: Wall Static Pressure with modified constant ............................................................... 14 Figure 7: Computed Mach field: Validation .............................................................................. 15 Figure 8: Designed Nozzle Flow Separation Setup for PIV........................................................ 17 Figure 9: Nozzle Flow Separation Setup for Pressure Measurement ......................................... 17 Figure 10: Assembly Drawing ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 11 Fabricated Nozzle Flow Setup ................................................................................... 19 Figure 12: Nozzle connected to Settling Chamber ..................................................................... 19 Figure 13: Schlieren 'z' configuration [McGraw Hill Encyclopedia] .......................................... 20 Figure 14: Mesh of 2D model.................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15: Mesh detail of CD nozzle ......................................................................................... 22 Figure 16: Detail of computed Static pressure field (Pa): Experimental design .......................... 23 Figure 17: Detail of computed Mach field: Experimental design ............................................... 23 Figure 18: Plot of Normalized Static Wall Pressure ................................................................... 24 Figure 19: Plot of TKE (m2/s2) at 76mm from throat ................................................................. 26 Figure 20: Plot of TKE (m2/s2) at 81mm from throat ................................................................. 26 Figure 21: Plot of TKE (m2/s2) at 87mm from throat ................................................................. 27 Figure 22: Plot of Normalized Static Wall Pressure for different throat radius .......................... 27 Figure 23 Mach Contour (radius=102mm) ................................................................................ 29 Figure 24 Comparison of Shock Location ................................................................................. 30 Figure 25: Injection at 16mm from throat .................................................................................. 31 Figure 26: Injection at 38mm from throat ................................................................................. 31 Figure 27: Injection at 67mm from throat .................................................................................. 32 Figure 28: Injection at 86mm from throat .................................................................................. 32 Figure 29 : Plot of Normalized Wall Static Pressure for both upper and lower wall ................... 33

viii

List of Abbreviations
APLD CFD FSCD FSS NPR PIV RANS RSS SST TKE Advanced Propulsion and Laser Diagnostic Lab Computational Fluid Dynamics Flow Separation Control Device Free Shock Separation Nozzle Pressure Ratio (P0/P) Particle Image Velocimetry Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equation Restricted Shock Separation Shear Stress Transport Turbulent Kinetic Energy

List of Tables
Table 1: Boundary Conditions for validation of code ................................................................. 13 Table 2: Available conditions in the lab ..................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Nozzle configuration ................................................................................................... 16 Table 4: Boundary conditions for simulation of Experimental setup .......................................... 22

ix

Nomenclature
A A* Cp F g ht I K k M m p p0 p
qg

Cross-sectional area Throat area Specific heat at constant pressure Body forces Acceleration due to gravity Throat height Unit tensor Thermal conductivity Turbulent Kinetic Energy Mach number Mass flow rate Static pressure Stagnation pressure Time average pressure Heat generation per unit volume Gas constant Temperature Time Velocity components Time average velocity components Fluctuating velocity components Y plus Density Shear stress Dynamic Viscosity Thermal expansion coefficient Dissipation Dissipation per unit TKE Specific heat ratio Effective diffusivity

R T t u,v,w u,v,w

u ,v , w
y

1. Introduction Flow separation in nozzles is a basic and yet a very challenging fluid-dynamic problem. A lot of studies have been conducted to understand this phenomenon and still its behavior cannot be comprehended completely[1]. This may be primarily attributed to complex interaction of shock wave and boundary layer interaction in the flow field. Flow separation in a nozzle is a process by which the viscous flow adjusts to an adverse pressure gradient caused due to higher back pressure at the exit. In rocket design community, shock-induced separation is considered undesirable as the asymmetry in flow separation and fluctuating pressure can generate large unbalanced lateral forces (side loads) which can in turn damage the nozzle[2]. To eliminate flow separation, one may continuously adjust the nozzle contour like extendable nozzle, during the flight to accommodate changes in ambient and chamber pressure. The significant weight penalty and mechanical complexity which such systems attract make them unsuitable for practical application. The other option is to avoid flow separation and can be achieved by Flow Separation Control Devices (FSCD). However for implementing such devices, flow physics governing flow separation has to be thoroughly understood[3]. Flow separation redefines the effective geometry to lower the expansion ratio. Flow separation takes place due to coupled effect of negative pressure gradient and viscous effects. From purely gas-dynamics point of view, this problem involves basic structure of shock interactions with separation shock, which consists of incident shock, Mach reflections, reflected shock, triple point and slip lines as shown in fig.1. Near the wall, the lambda-foot like structure that consists of incident and reflected oblique waves merge into a Mach stem at a point. This point is called the Triple Point of shock system. The adverse pressure gradient due to shock separates the boundary layer at the point where the incident oblique shock originates, forming separation regions downstream. The oblique shock structures are of weak type that results in low supersonic flow downstream. The Mach stem is a strong normal shock resulting in subsonic flow downstream. Shape and size of Mach discs depend on upstream conditions. Mach disc can be curved depending on sign of radial pressure gradient. This shock structure or shock cell can repeat until it is totally disrupted by viscous effects[4]

The subsonic flow downstream of the normal portion of the shock reaccelerates back to supersonic. It is due to emergence of wavy slipstreams from the triple points that form a convergent-divergent fluidic channel. The trailing shocks reflect off of the separation shear layers emerging as expansion fans that are then transmitted across the test section to the opposite shear layers where they are reflected again as compression waves. These reflections continue downstream, resulting in a series of alternating regions of expansion and compression through the separation jet.

Figure 1: Schematic of principal phenomena in supersonic nozzle flow separation [5] There are two types of flow separation phenomena - Free Shock Separation (FSS) and Restricted Shock Separation (RSS) as shown in fig.2. In FSS flow remains separated after the separation point but in RSS flow reattaches to the wall after some distance forming a closed recirculation bubble. The transition from FSS to RSS occurs at well-defined pressure ratios.

Figure2: FSS and RSS [2] 2

2. Literature Survey

Several experimental and computational studies have been performed on nozzle flow separation. Flow pattern is asymmetric in case of flow separation for area ratio of 1.4 and NPR greater than 1.4[6]. For Ae/At > 1.2 and NPR > 1.4, the separation shock has a well-defined lambda shape. For large values of Ae/At(>1.4) and NPR(>1.3), one lambda foot is always larger than the other, i.e., separation occurs asymmetrically. The asymmetry does not flip during a given test run, but can change side from run to run. The flow asymmetry which occurs in both planar and axisymmetric nozzle geometries is still an open question, and is clarified neither by experiment nor by CFD[1]. The asymmetry is computationally validated by Xiao et.al.[7]. Computations are conducted for a series of exit-to-throat area ratios (Ae/At) from 1.0 to 1.8 and a range of nozzle pressure ratios (NPR) from 1.2 to 1.8. The results are compared with available experimental data in a nozzle of the same geometry. Various turbulence models predictions are compared with the experimental result. SST k- model is predicting the most accurate of all models[7,8]. According to Menter[9], turbulence models with default constant values do not give correct results always. Small changes in modeling constants can lead to significant improvement (or deterioration) of model predictions. In that case one has to modify the default constant values to get correct result[10]. Dembowski and Georgiadis[11] conducted a numerical study for supersonic axisymmetric jet flow using the two-equation shear stress transport (SST) and k- models, with and without compressibility correction. Their results indicated that these models do not predict supersonic nozzle flows accurately without the compressibility correction. After applying compressibility correction, solution improves significantly. The graph of centerline Mach number and centerline stagnation temperature are plotted to show the improvement in results in [11]. Hunter [12] has done a detailed experimental, theoretical and computational study of separated nozzle flows. He proposed that shock/boundary-layer interaction and separation are mutually dependent results in contrast to a typical view that SBLI is the cause of separation. The experimental results indicate that separation had two regimes; for NPR<1.8, the separation was 3D and steady and confined to bubble. For NPR >2.0, separation was steady and fully attached and it became more 2D as NPR increased.

Boccaleto and Dussuage [13] have found a solution to prevent separation. They positioned a small aerospike device around the nozzle lip. The aerospike flow acts like a high momentum fluidic barrier which prevents the external air to get inside the nozzle and therefore prevent separation. This new concept can allow wide throttling range at low altitude without incurring flow separation phenomena and associated side loads. In spite of many studies on this subject, no nozzle flow separation controls devices exist which are implemented in practical uses [13]. Majority of present launch systems use conventional bellshaped nozzles due to lack of models which can accurately predict the flow separation fully. There is a need to understand the flow physics to avoid flow separation in rocket nozzles.

3. Objective of the Study The objective of the current work is to study the effect of nozzle geometry and downstream secondary jet injection in rectangular nozzle. The throat radius will be varied to analyze the resulting flow field. It is planned to do experiments to get wall static pressure distribution and total pressure along centerline and separated region. Experimental studies provide pressure distribution and shock structure but to get more details out of the flow field, computational studies are necessary[7]. CFD simulation of wall flow injection will be done to analyze its effect on flow separation. Flow visualization technique like Schlieren will be carried out to observe the separated flow and shock structure. In chapter 4, generalized approach for computation of nozzle flow is specified. Chapter 5 deals with the validation of CFD code. Experimental setup and CFD simulation for experimental setup for flow separation is described in chapter 6. Effect of throat radius and secondary jet flow injection on flow separation is analyzed in chapter 7.

4. CFD Analysis 4.1 Introduction CFD analysis is performed using commercially available software ANSYS 13, FLUENT. 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations are solved. Additional transport equations are solved to incorporate the effect of turbulence. For compressible flows energy equations incorporates the coupling between velocity and static temperature. Velocity field is obtained from the momentum equation. In density based approach density field is obtained from continuity equation and pressure field from equation of state. 4.2 Governing Equations The equation for conservation of mass, momentum and energy, can be written as follows:

t
v t . vv

0
(4.1)

g F
(4.2)

Where p is the static pressure,

is the density,

is the stress tensor and

g and F are

gravitational and external body forces respectively. The stress tensor is defined as
T

2 3

.v I
(4.3)

Where

is the viscosity and I is a unit tensor.

cp

DT Dt

qg

. K T

Dp Dt

: v
(4.4)

where

D Dt t

v.

(4.5)

There are basically pressure based and density based solvers. Pressure based solver is applicable for low speed incompressible flows whereas density based solver is used for compressible flows. In Pressure based solver, density variations are not linked to the pressure. The mass conservation is a constraint on the velocity field. This equation (combined with the momentum) can be used to derive an equation for the pressure. In density based solver, mass conservation is a transport equation for density. With an additional energy equation, pressure can be specified from a thermodynamic relation (ideal gas law). In both cases control volume based technique is used. Density based solver is selected for the current study as the flow is compressible. All the computations are done with steady method since the transient nature of shock get damped out due to numerical damping[7]. Second order upwind schemes are used for spatial discretization for better accuracy. Other discretization schemes like QUICK and third order MUSCL schemes are also available but it gives better result for rotating and swirling flows[14]. Convergence criteria for continuity, energy, x-velocity, y-velocity, k and are of the order of 10-6. 4.3 Turbulence Modeling Turbulence denotes a motion in which an irregular fluctuation is superimposed on the main stream. Turbulent flow instantaneously satisfies the Navier-Stokes equations. However it is virtually impossible to predict the flow in detail because of very small length and time scales. In computing the turbulent motion it is useful to decompose the motion into a mean motion and a fluctuating motion and then time averaging of the equations are done to get a new set of equations called Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation. In the new set of equations, number of unknowns (quadratic fluctuation terms, Reynolds Stresses) is more than equations. So to solve the problem, additional equations are required.

Continuity equation

u x
Momentum Equation
u x u y u z

v y

w z

0
(4.6)

p x

u2 x

uv y

uw z

(4.7)

v x

v y

v z

p y

uv x

v2 y

vw z

(4.8)

w w w v w x y z

p z

uw x

vw y

w2 z

(4.9)

Thermal Energy Equation

cp u 2

T x u x
2

T y 2

w v y
2

T z 2 w z
2

T x2 u y

T y2 v x

T z2 u z

cp w x

uT x
2

vT y v z w y

wT z
2

(4.10)

Where

u x

v y

w z

u y

v x

u z

w x

v z

w y

(4.11)

The wall boundary layer is assumed to be turbulent since flow. Available models to incorporate turbulence include k-, Spalart-Allmaras, k-,etc. SST k- is selected for all the simulations. It is selected because it is valid throughout the boundary layers and it accurately predicts the results in case of adverse pressure gradient and separated flows[9]. Also from literature survey, it is 8

found that SST k- predictions are closer to experimental results as compared to other turbulence models [5,7]. SST k- has a number of advantages over other turbulence models. The SST model employs a k- formulation in the inner region of wall boundary layers and switches to a transformed k- formulation in the outer region of boundary layers and in the free shear layer. To achieve this k- is transformed into k- formulation. The two equations are added with the help of blending functions to generate new model. The transport equations for the new model are:
k xj

xi

kui

xj

Gk Yk

Sk

(4.12)

xi

ui

xj

xj

(4.13)

Where , Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients,
G

represents the generation of ,

and

represent effective diffusivity of k and

respectively, Yk and Y represent the dissipation of k and due to turbulence. D represents the cross-diffusion term. S k and S are user defined source terms. Blending function is modeled in such a way that its value is one near wall and zero away from wall. The k- model is the model of choice in the boundary layer because of its simplicity and numerical stability as compared to other models. In the wake region of the boundary layer, the k model is more favorable. The reason for this switch is that k- model has a very strong sensitivity to the free stream values specified for outside the boundary layer [9]. SST k- is valid throughout the boundary layer, provided near wall mesh resolution is sufficient. So near wall modeling is applied as given in [15,16]. Non dimensional wall y is a suitable criteria for determining the appropriate mesh configuration and turbulence model[16].Physically it represent the ratio between turbulent and laminar influences. To resolve viscous sub layer, wall y+ is chosen in the range of 1 to 5.

4.4 Grid Generation Structured grid is generated using the ANSYS Meshing utility in workbench. Initial grid of about 35000 cells is created. Based on the y+ value, distance of the first cell from the wall is calculated and keeping gradient of cells smooth, mesh is adapted near wall to capture near wall physics(Fig.4,15) using y-plus adaption in FLUENT. The grid is clustered in the divergent portion to capture the flow separation phenomena. Structured grid is selected because of its several advantages over unstructured grid. Structured grid offers better accuracy, more user control, and less memory usages. 4.5 Grid Independence Simulations are done for three grid resolution i.e for 4000 nodes, 35000 nodes and 50000 nodes. The wall static pressure for different cases are plotted in fig. 3.It is found that solution becomes independent of grid after 35000 nodes.

Figure 3 Normalized Wall Static Pressure vs Axial Position 4.6 Boundary Conditions Pressure inlet boundary condition is used at inlet. It is suitable for both compressible and incompressible flows and is used where velocity is unknown. Supersonic initial gauge pressure is specified to compute initial values in conjunction with specified stagnation pressure according to isentropic relations for compressible flows. In contrast, velocity inlet is not suitable for 10

compressible flows and leads to non-physical result because it allows the pressure to float[14]. Pressure outlet boundary conditions are implemented at all outlets. No slip condition is imposed at the walls.

11

5. Validation of CFD code for Flow Separation To validate FLUENT, simulation of the experiment performed by D. Papamoschou et. al.[17] is done. The experiment was performed for nozzle area ratio ranging from 1 to 1.5 and NPR ranging from 1.2 to 1.8. To measure wall static pressure, 24 equally spaced pressure ports were mounted on each wall. Centerline pressure was also measured using pitot tube. Numerical investigation of the same experiment has been done by Xaio et. al.[7].

To validate CFD code, geometry is selected as a 2D planar convergent-divergent nozzle with area ratio of 1.5 and NPR of 1.6. The nozzle contour is extracted from [7]. Computational domain used for the study is shown in fig.4.Grid is generated as explained in sec.2.4. Also, boundary condition of domain is given in table 2.7.1.

Figure 4: Computational domain for validation 12

Table 1: Boundary Conditions for validation of code Boundary Inlet Wall Outlet Type Pressure Stationary Pressure Conditions 1.6 bar No slip 1 bar

Stagnation temperature is kept at 300K. Wall pressure distribution is obtained from CFD and its comparison with the experimental result [17] is shown in fig 5. It is observed that flow separation occurred at a distance of x/Ht ~2.1 in CFD against x/Ht~2.3 in experiment.

Figure 5: Wall Static Pressure with default constant

Initially the simulation is done with default values of constants in SST k- model and the result is as shown in fig. 5. It is observed that separation point is not matching, hence the default value

13

of constant a1 in turbulence model is changed from 0.31 to 0.32[10] and the new result is shown in fig. 6.

Figure 6: Wall Static Pressure with modified constant

The computational result is compared with Papamoschou et. al. paper[17]. The static pressure along the wall is plotted for comparison. The result is very close to the experimental data. To compute root mean square error between the numerical and experimental result, Python program is made (Appendix 4) and error is found to be 3%. Some deviations are there which may be due to inability to regenerate the exact contour used in the experiment. Mach number contour is plotted which show the lambda shock structures (fig.7). The separation is asymmetric which is in accordance with experimental result. The structure of the shock is inverted in comparison with Schlieren results[17].

14

Figure 7: Computed Mach field: Validation Thus the CFD code is validated for flow separation. To verify it further an experiment is planned using 2D nozzle. Design and analysis details are given in next section.

15

6. Experiment and Simulation 6.1 Set up

Experimental setup is made to study nozzle flow separation which utilizes facilities available in APLD lab, IIST. Table 2: Available conditions in the lab Mach Number Mass Flow Rate Compressor Discharge Rate 1.5-2.0 <0.4 kg/s 1.56 m3/min @10bar

Based on the above conditions, exit Mach number (perfect expansion case) of 1.8,mass flow rate of 0.3 kg/s ,chamber pressure of 2.0 bar and chamber temperature 300K are selected for the present study. From this throat area (A*) is calculated using isentropic mass flow rate equation
1 1

p0 A RT0

M 1

1 2

M2

Table 3: Nozzle configuration Area Ratio Throat Area Exit Area NPR 1.4375 642 mm2 920 mm2 1.6

Based on the above calculation, nozzle flow setup is designed in commercially available CAD software.(fig 8)

16

Figure 8: Designed Nozzle Flow Separation Setup for PIV Design Features (1) Side optical windows for Schlieren. (2) Pressure measurement ports in divergent section. (3) Optical access on top and bottom for PIV. (4) Modular design for variable geometry. Experimental setup is designed for implementing flow visualization techniques like Schlieren and PIV. But due to instrumentation non availability, setup is designed and fabricated for Schlieren and wall pressure measurement as shown in fig 9,10.

Figure 9: Nozzle Flow Separation Setup for Pressure Measurement 17

Figure 10: Assembly Drawing

6.2 Fabrication Nozzle flow set up consists of following parts whose CAD drawings are shown in Appendix 1 and 2. (1) Nozzle (2) Nozzle Connector (3) Side plate (4) Optical access (Side glass) (5) Flange All the above parts are fabricated in manufacturing lab in IIST. Entire setup is made of Aluminium except flange which is of Mild Steel. Nozzle contour and flange are fabricated in CNC. CNC codes are given in Appendix 3. Fabricated nozzle setup is shown in fig.11.

18

Figure 11 Fabricated Nozzle Flow Setup Nozzle apparatus consists of two nozzle connector on which planar nozzle is mounted. Using this design, flow field of planar nozzles with different geometry and area ratio can be studied. Based on the above calculation, nozzle dimension are 20mm width, 32mm height at throat and 46mm height at exit. To visualize flow separation using Schlieren technique, nozzle side walls are incorporated with glass windows. Glass windows are arrested using side plates. The entire apparatus is connected to the settling chamber using flange as shown in fig 12.

Figure 12: Nozzle connected to Settling Chamber 19

6.3 Instrumentation 6.3.1 Schlieren photography Schlieren photography is a way of visualizing density variations in a gas and is useful in wind tunnel studies and investigations into heat flow. It employs a shadowgraph principle. A collimated (i.e. parallel) beam of light passes through the test space and is brought to a focus at a knife edge; it then diverges on to a screen or a camera system. Any gas density gradient with a component perpendicular to the knife edge will deviate the light from the region, so that it either clears the edge, giving a bright area on the screen, or is intercepted by it, giving a dark area. The resolution can be improved by a further knife edge at the first focus of the system. There are many techniques for optically enhancing the appearance of the Schlieren in an image of the field of interest. In this case, a point or slit source of light is collimated by a mirror and passed through a field of interest, after which a second mirror focuses the light, reimaging the point or slit where it is intercepted by an adjustable knife edge (commonly a razor blade). The illustration (fig 13) shows the z configuration which minimizes the coma aberration in the focus. Mirrors are most often used because of the absence of chromatic aberration.

Figure 13: Schlieren 'z' configuration [McGraw Hill Encyclopedia] In this experiment, Schlieren system consists of two concave mirror of 6 inches diameter and 60 inches focal length of Edmund Schlieren Systems, mercury light source and PCO PIXELFLY camera. Each mirror is protected by aluminized front surface over coated with Silicon Monoxide and mounted on metal stands. 20

6.3.2 Pressure Transducer To make time resolved measurement, high frequency pressure transducer are required. Kulite XCQ 152 peizo-resistive pressure transducer are flush mounted on upper and lower walls in divergent section of nozzle. Natural frequency of transducer is 240kHz. To measure wall static pressure, 8 pressure transducers are connected to each upper and lower walls of nozzle from throat up to exit. These transducers are equally spaced along axial direction and connected along mid width of nozzle wall. The diameter of each pressure transducer is 3.8mm. 6.4 CFD Simulation To study the flow field inside the nozzle in the experiment, CFD analyses is carried out using ANSYS, FLUENT. Based on the validation of computational scheme adopted from experiment specified in previous section, similar schemes are used to simulate nozzle flow. Nozzle area ratio is 1.44 and NPR is kept at 1.6. Also throat radius of nozzle is 100mm. Computational domain is shown in fig 14. To capture shockwave boundary layer interaction, mesh is adapted near wall with y+ values between 1 to 5. In the nozzle section, mesh is fine and it gradually becomes coarser outside the nozzle (fig.15).

Figure 14: Mesh of 2D model 21

Figure 15: Mesh detail of CD nozzle Boundary condition used is given in table 6.1.

Table 4: Boundary conditions for simulation of Experimental setup Boundary Inlet Wall Outlet Type Pressure Stationary Pressure Conditions 1.6 bar No slip 1 bar

22

Figure 16: Detail of computed Static pressure field (Pa): Experimental design

Figure 17: Detail of computed Mach field: Experimental design 23

To solve the flow field, the method described in Sec.2.7 is used. Contour plots of pressure and Mach number is given in fig. 16 and 17 respectively. Flow separation is observed at x/Ht~2.4. Shock form inside the nozzle is asymmetric lambda shock. Normalized wall static pressure distribution is shown in fig.18.This result is consistent with the observation made by Papamoshchou[17] that flow becomes asymmetric for NPR greater than 1.4. At throat region (x/Ht ~1.2), static pressure slightly increases due to compression waves (fig.18). When flow reattaches in lower wall, static pressure becomes more compare to upper wall. To validate these results, it is proposed to compare the wall static pressure value with those obtained from measurements. Nozzle flow setup is manufactured but facility for nozzle flow in lab is not yet fully commissioned.

Figure 18: Plot of Normalized Static Wall Pressure

24

7. Computation Studies for Flow Separation

7.1 Effect of Throat Radius on Nozzle Flow Separation Nozzle flow separation depends on area ratio, wall angle, nozzle pressure ratio etc. The effect of area ratio and nozzle pressure ratio was investigated by Papamoschou et.al.[6] . In the present study, the effect of throat radius on flow separation is studied. Different nozzle contours with throat radius ranging from 88mm to 104mm are simulated using FLUENT, ANSYS. The grid is generated and boundary conditions are given as described in the Sec.2.4 and Sec.2.6 respectively. All the cases are of similar nature since in all cases lambda shock forms and asymmetric flow separation is observed. The only difference is in the location of large separation side. Some of cases have large separation on upper wall while others have on lower wall. So three cases are selected to be investigated; two cases for which the large separation is on the lower wall (radius 90mm and 104mm) and third case where it is on the upper wall. (radius 92mm). The shock/boundary layer interaction effects turbulence level in boundary layer [18]. TKE is selected to quantify the turbulence level and hence SBLI near wall. Turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) is the mean kinetic energy per unit mass associated with eddies in turbulent flow. The turbulence kinetic energy is characterized by measured root-mean-square (RMS) velocity fluctuations. Physically it represents turbulence level.

1 2 u v2 w2 2

When throat radius is increased the flow smoothly changes its direction from converging to diverging section. This causes decrease in turbulence level. So to observe the effect of throat radius on separation, TKE is plotted for different radius near the wall. The Total Kinetic Energy (TKE) vs. position from centerline is plotted using MATLAB in the boundary layer region on the large separation side at a distance of 76mm(behind shock), 81mm (middle of shock)and 87mm(after shock) from throat for different cases (fig.19-21). The distances from throat are selected in such a way that the shock wave boundary layer interactions can be captured fully. 25

Figure 19: Plot of TKE (m2/s2) at 76mm from throat

Figure 20: Plot of TKE (m2/s2) at 81mm from throat

26

Figure 21: Plot of TKE (m2/s2) at 87mm from throat

Fig. 21 indicates the variation in shockwave boundary layer interaction in three different cases. The TKE is decreasing with increase in radius of curvature. The same trend is observed for all the three plots.

Figure 22: Plot of Normalized Static Wall Pressure for different throat radius

27

The normalized wall static pressure for different throat radius is plotted in fig. 22. The above graphs show that separation location is a very weak function of shock wave boundary layer interaction and throat radius. This reinforces the hypothesis given by C.A. Hunter. According to Hunter[12], separation is not a result of strong shock/boundary-layer interaction but instead it came about through the natural tendency of an overexpanded nozzle flow to separate to adjust to the exit pressure. Mach contour for different throat radius are given in Appendix 6.

28

7.2 Secondary Jet Flow Injection There are different techniques to avoid flow separation in nozzles like dual bell nozzles and deployable nozzle. But due to increase in weight and mechanical complexity, such systems are unsuitable for practical application. Another approach to control flow separation is to inject air in direction of flow to compensate for momentum loss after separation. To analyze the effect of flow injection on separation, simulations are done with injection point ranging from 16mm to 86 mm from throat with throat radius 102mm. From the velocity contour (fig . 23) (simulation without injection), it is found that velocity loss due to shockwave is around 450m/s. Hence flow injection is selected as same.

Figure 23 Mach Contour (radius=102mm) In the following figures, Mach contour for different position of velocity inlet are shown. Pressure contour for all the cases are given in Appendix 5. From these figures, observations are obtained. 1. Boundary layer separation is a natural tendency of an over expanded nozzle to adjust the exit pressure. From simulation, it is observed that shock location or separation nature is not changing when injection is done earlier than the shock location (fig 24,25). When injection is done after shock, separation and shock shifts downstream (fig 24,26,27). Injection avoids this ambient flow recirculation and the separation location moves 29

downstream. This pattern is broken when the injection is done very near to exit (fig. 24,28).

Figure 24 Comparison of Shock Location

2. The Mach number contours (fig 25-28) clearly show that the location of lambda shock system is governed by the separation point. The oblique shock wave originates at the separation point to divert the flow parallel to separated flows. The region between the mid flow and the separated layer forms a convergent channel like structure. The portion of flow diverted by oblique shocks is supersonic and gets decelerated when it passes through the convergent channel. This results in increase in pressure. To match this pressure. The mid flow has to pass through normal shock. 3. As the injection point is moved downstream at 67 mm from throat, the separation becomes much less (fig 27). This leads to much shorter oblique shock structure formation. 4. Flow separation become symmetric when injection point is moved downstream. This can be confirmed by plotting the wall static pressures for upper and lower wall which are overlapping as shown in fig 29. This results in reduction in side loads. 30

Figure 25: Injection at 16mm from throat

Figure 26: Injection at 38mm from throat

31

Figure 27: Injection at 67mm from throat

Figure 28: Injection at 86mm from throat

32

Figure 29 : Plot of Normalized Wall Static Pressure for both upper and lower wall Once flow separation occur, recirculation bubble is formed which is continuously fed by the ambient air and flow separation is sustained [13]. When secondary jet is injected along direction of flow in separated area, kinetic energy of particle in boundary layer region increases. This opposes incoming ambient air and leads to smaller recirculation bubble. However when jet is injected near exit of nozzle, injection flow is unable to stop ambient air flow to move inside and recirculation bubble increases in size.

33

8. Conclusion CFD code is validated from the experiment performed by Papamoschouet. al.. The same method is applied for the study of effect of throat radius and wall injection on flow separation. Different nozzle contours with throat radius ranging from 88mm to 104mm are simulated using FLUENT, ANSYS. It is found that change in throat radius does not have any significant effect on shock location and shock structure. It is also found that shock/boundary-layer interaction and flow separation is an independent phenomenon. Shock/boundary-layer interaction is quantified by turbulence kinetic energy. From simulation, it is observed that shock location or separation nature is not changing when injection is done earlier than the shock location. When injection is done after shock, separation and shock shifts forward Flow separation become symmetric when injection point is moved downstream. This is confirmed by plotting the wall static pressures for upper and lower wall . This results in reduction in side loads. The Mach number contours show that lambda shock system location is governed by the separation point. A 2D nozzle is designed and realized for the flow separation experiment.

34

9. Recommendation To get detailed flow field, PIV can be done to get velocity vectors. Experimental setup can be modified to capture the effect of side walls by adding pressure port adjacent to centerline pressure port. If 3D effects are observed during experiment, CFD simulation of same cabe done to get detailed information of flow field. Also wall flow injection experiment can be done to validate numerical simulation done in the present study. In this study, analysis of planar convergent nozzle is performed. However, computation and experiment can be performed for axisymmetric nozzle. Scale analysis of axisymmetric nozzle can be done, so that results obtained can be extended to actual nozzles.

35

APPENDIX
1. Detailed design of fabricated Nozzle flow setup
a. Nozzle

36

b. Nozzle Connector

37

c. Side plate

38

d. Optical access (Side glass)

39

e. Flange

40

2. Detailed design of Nozzle flow setup for PIV

a. Nozzle

41

b. Nozzle Connector

42

c. Laser window

43

d. Quartz glass holder

e. Side plate Same design as Appendix Sec.1.c f. Optical access-Same design as Appendix Sec.1.d g. Flange-Same design as Appendix Sec.1.e

44

3. CNC code to generate nozzle contour

N10 G75 Z0 N20 G75 X0 Y0 N30 G71 G95 N40 G54 G00 X-20 Y-20 Z5 N50 M03 S1500 N60 CYCLE72(SUB:SUB_E, 1.0, -18.0, -27.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.1,11,42,1,2, , 1, 2.0) N70 G00 Z5 N80 G00 X-20 Y-20 N90 M05 N100 M30 ****CONTOUR**** N110 SUB: N120 G01 X-20Y-20 N130 G01 Y18 N140 G01 X10.67 N150 G03 X68.64 Y0 CR=100 N160 G01 X171 Y7.696 N170 G01 X181 N180 Y-20 N190 X-20 N200 G17 SUB_E: ******CONTOUR ENDS******

45

4. Error calculation
A python program is made to calculate the RMS error between the experimental data and computational result.
#!/usr/bin/python from math import sqrt fid=open("t2.txt"); #t2 is the file containing computational result lines=fid.readlines() #List initialization x1=[];y1=[];p_num=[] #experimental data x3=[-1.06498,-0.805054,-0.534296,0.263538,0.00180505,0.267148,0.532491,0.803249,1.06859,1.32852,1.59928 ,1.87004,2.14621,2.40072,2.55776,2.94224,3.19675,3.46751,3.73827,4.003 61,4.26895,4.53971,4.79964,5.0704] y3=[.739731,.678451,.610101,.555107,.52211,.487542,.455331,.423906,.39 4837,.371268,.350056,.328844,.31156,.300561,.396409,.467116,.503255,.5 33109,.550393,.56532,.580247,.591246,.60303,.6156] for line in lines: var1=(float(line.split("\t")[0])+0.0045)/0.023 var2=(float(line.split("\t")[1]))/(1.6*10**5) x1.append(round(var1,5)) y1.append(round(var2,5)) for j in x3: ll=j-0.0005 rl=j+0.0005 cmp=1 for i in x1: if (i>=ll) & (i<=rl): if abs(j-i)<cmp: cmp=j-i ins=i ind=x1.index(ins) p_num.append(y1[ind]) #Root Mean Square Error Calculation error=0 for i in range(24): error=error+(y3[i]-p_num[i])**2 error=sqrt(error/len(y3)) print("ERROR=",error*100,"%")

46

5. Pressure contours of flow for Wall flow injection

Xt=16mm

Xt=29mm

Xt=38mm

Xt=48mm

47

Xt=67mm

Xt=77mm

Xt=86mm
Red- 1.5 bar Blue- 0.382 bar

48

6. Effect of throat radius

Rt=90mm

Rt=95mm

Rt=102mm

Rt=104mm

49

REFERENCES
1. Hadjadj, A., Onofri, M. Nozzle Flow Separation,Shock Waves(2009). 2. Onofri, M., Nasuti, F.: The physical origin of side loads in rocket nozzles,AIAA Paper 99-2587 (1999). 3. Ostlund Jan, Flow Process in Rocket Nozzles with focus on Flow Separation and SideLoads, Licentiate Thesis, Stockholm 2010. 4. Onofri, M., Nasuti, F.,Shock structure in separated nozzle flows,Shock Wave(2009). 5. Papamoschou, D. and Johnson, A. Shock Motion and Flow Instabilities in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation, AIAA 2008-3846, 38th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit,Washington, June, 2008. 6. Papamoschou, D., Zill A.: Fundamental investigation of supersonic nozzle flow separation,AIAA 2004-1111, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Nevada, 2004. 7. Xiao, Q., Tsai,H.M.,Papamoschou,D.: Numerical Study of Jet Plume Instability from an Overexpanded Nozzle,AIAA 2007-1319,45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Nevada, 2007. 8. Xiao,Q., Tsai,H.M.,Papamoschou, D.,Johnson,A. : Experimental and Numerical Study of Jet Mixing from a Shock-Containing Nozzle,Journal of Propulsion and Power,Vol. 25, No. 3, MayJune 2009. 9. Menter,F.R., Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,AIAA Journal Vol.32,No.8, 1994.

50

10. Allamaprabhu,C.Y., Raghunandan,B.N. : Improved Prediction of Flow Separation in Thrust Optimized Parabolic Nozzles with FLUENT,AIAA 2011-5689. 11. Dembowski,M.A., and Georgiadis N.J., An evaluation of parameters influencing jet mixing using the WIND Navier-Stokes codes, NASA/TM-2002-211727 12. Hunter,C.A., Experimental, Theoretical, and Computational Investigation of Separated Nozzle Flows,34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE,Joint Propulsion Conference&Exhibit, July13-15,1998,Cleveland,OH. 13. Bocaletto,Luca;Dussuage,Jean-Paul; High-Performance Rocket Nozzle Concept,Journal of Propulsion and Power,Vol 26, No.5, September-October 2010, p.969-979.

14. ANSYS Theory guide, Version 13. 15. Gerasimov, Aleksey, Modeling Turbulent Flows with FLUENT,ANSYS. 16. Salim, S,M., Cheah,S.C., Wall y+ Strategy for Dealing with Wall-bounded Turbulent Flows,IMECS,Hong Kong, 2009. 17. Papamoschou, D. and Johnson, A. Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation,AIAA 2006-3360, 36th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, California, 2006.

18. Kim,H.D., Setoguchi,T., Shock Induced Boundary Layer Separation, 8th International Symposium on Experimental and Computational Aerothermodynamics of Internal Flows, Lyon, France, July-2007.

19. Schlichting, Herman; Boundary Layer Theory,Springer, 2011.

20. John,James;Keith,Theo;Gas Dynamics, Pearson 2010,Vol-3,pp.92-103. 51