COMPRESSIBLE FLOW IN A CONVERGENTDIVERGENT NOZZLE

Lab Report

Name: Nev !!e La"!e## Le$t%rer: M&'& O( Ro%r)e Demo*#trator: A +a* Bree* St%+e*t No: ,-./0.12 Date: /3443,5

till the design pressure ratio is achieved (0. Illustration 1: Cross section of De Laval Nozzle . 0s the ratio is further decreased the flow becomes supersonic in the diverging nozzle. Theoretical calculations were done to find the maximum mass flow rate ( ṁ= 0. I*tro+%$t o* 'onverging-(iverging or ) (e *aval) +ozzles have been widel& used over the last few decades in man& engineering contexts. Their operation relies on the ratio between the inlet stagnation pressure /0 and outlet bac! pressure /b.118 !g"s# and this was compared against actual recorded values ( ṁ= 0.ue shoc! waves begin to occur inside and outside of the nozzle respectivel&. densit& and temperature ma!e the underl&ing investigation of their performance more complicated than first expected.Ab#tra$t This aim of this practical was to investigate compressible flow in a convergent-divergent nozzle. The /urpose of this report is to gain an understanding of the nature of this flow b& investigating the pressure ratios effects on the mass flow rate of air through the s&stem and the differing pressure distributions that occur at var&ing lengths into the nozzle.34 for air# with supersonic flow occurring at the nozzle exit.uent change of properties such as pressure. -hilst their operation is of a simple appearance. This is referred to as )'ho!ed flow). 0s this ratio is brought down from unit&. the mass flow rate increases till a maximum value is achieved where the 1ach number in the throat (see 2igure 1# becomes sonic.110$ !g"s. be that subsonic and supersonic and the subse. the combination of flows reached. %ome of the factors that causes different flow patterns that influence the results of the investigation are also explored. ( 1ach no = 1#. from civil and mechanical to aerospace uses. 0fter this the flow becomes more complicated and normal and obli. The different pressure distributions that occur at var&ing lengths in the nozzle were also recorded and anal&sed. The& are designed to accelerate fluids to supersonic speeds at the nozzle exit. +earl& all roc!ets ma!e use of this fact to create an effective propulsion s&stem to reach high velocities.# .

.00 ! /a. Throttling valve5 'ontrols nozzle bac! pressure /0 Thermometer5 1easures temp within /lenum. • • • • • • Illustration 2: Apparatus cross section E6per me*ta! Met7o+o!o89: Part 4: Determ *at o* o: ma## :!o" rate a# a :%*$t o* o: t7e app! e+ pre##%re rat o 1.00 ! /a. 8nlet valve5 'ontrols regulation of air flow into /lenum. the pressure drop across the orifice plate was 0 ! /a and the measured mass flow rate was zero. /lenum5 7olds air at stagnation pressure and temp.ualled . to counter these effects and their distorting of readings. The throttle valve downstream of the nozzle was closed 4.. it is necessar& to include an ad6ustable pressure reducing pressure valve. The use of this results in fluctuations due to its c&clic load"unload c&cle. • The air input shown is fed with a high capacit& positive displacement air compressor. /ressure probe5 1easures pressure along var&ing lengths in the nozzle 9rifice plate and manometer5 :sed to measure the mass flow rate of air. -ith the throttle valve closed the bac! pressure read . The inlet valve to the plenum was ad6usted so that the stagnation pressure /0 e. The atmospheric pressure was recorded using a mercur& barometer located near the apparatus $.E6per me*ta! Pro$e+%re Apparat%#5 2igure $ below shows the main components used during the lab. .

The plenum pressure was maintained at . above were 8. The maximum theoretical mass flow rate was then calculated using isentropic duct theor&. The nozzle static pressure at the axial locations extending from upstream of the nozzle to downstream of the nozzle exit were measured and entered into Table $.00 ! /a.00 /a with the throttle valve closed. The inlet valve to the plenum was ad6usted so that the stagnation pressure /0 e. $.uals . ?. A. the throttle valve was opened until the bac! pressure was 430 ! /a. The mass flow rate was plotted as a function of the pressure ratio p b " / o in @raph 1. ?. Part /: Determ *at o* o: a6 a! pre##%re + #tr b%t o* " t7 * *o.00 ! /a. The throttle valve downstream of the nozzle was closed. 3. .3. 4. The bac! pressure was reduced b& 30 ! /a and the measurements made in step repeated. above were . =ach pressure ratio was plotted against the axial distribution in the static pressure in @raph $. 8. The mass flow rate was then calculated using => . The pressure drop <p across the orifice plate.. . . The bac! pressure was reduced b& 30 ! /a and the measurements made in step repeated and recorded in Table $.!e over a ra*8e o: app! e+ pre##%re rat o& 1. The throttle valve was opened slowl& until the bac! pressure was 430 ! /a.. The bac! pressure read . the static temperature Tc downstream of the orifice plate were recorded in table 1. -ith plenum pressure maintained at . The design pressure ratio was determined.00 ! /a.

0nd setting the 1ach number to 1 to achieve desired pressure ratio at the nozzle exit &ields5 =.uation 4 where T (D# and T 0 (D# are the static and total temperatures respectivel& and B is the @as 'onstant for air (B = $8?.&441.uation 3 %ubstituting previousl& recorded values above give us our theoretical maximum mass flow rate of5 ṁ= . $ and . 4 results in5 =.)83# .. The static to stagnation temperature ratio ma& be determined using5 =.Re#%!t#: Re$or+e+ e6per me*ta! re#%!t#: T7eoret $a! Ma6 m%m Ma## :!o" rate :or #e*trop $ :!o" $a!$%!at o*#: Batio of local static to stagnation pressure5 =.uation $ T7e t7eoret $a! ma## :!o" rate t7ro%87 a +%$t ma9 be +eterm *e+ :rom t7e :o!!o" *8 e<%at o*: =.1 E"!g D#. 8n this case air is the onl& fluid being examined so this is set at C = 1. Then substitution =..uation 1 where C is the ratio of specific heats.uation . into =.

110$ 0.10 $ 0.Ca!$%!ate+ ma## :!o" rate# :or + ::er *8 pre##%re rat o#: =.0 140 Tc $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 /o plenum abs 30$000 30$000 30$000 30$000 30$000 30$000 30$000 30$000 30$000 pb abs 30$000 .0000 ṁ 0 0. $30 0.0 140 140 140 1.$300 0. the orifice area 0o = 0.0$000 43$000 40$000 $3$000 $0$000 13$000 10$000 / b"/0 1 0.88 0.00000 T0 /lenum $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 $A0 /b .00?8? m$ (orifice diameter 30.10 $ 0.4?30 0.00000 .00000 . /0 plemum .?300 0.00000 .3000 0.10 $ 0.00000 .10 $ Illustration !: Measure"ent of "ass flow rate within conver#in#$%iver#in# nozzle Graph 1: Mass Flow Rate v ressure Ratio .00000 430000 400000 $30000 $00000 130000 100000 30000 0 (elta p 0 ?3 140 1.03 mm#.00000 .00000 .00000 .00000 .110$ 0.1$30 0.uation where the discharge coefficient 'd = 0.10 $ 0.08 0. $.3$000 .

4?3 130 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4A0 $A0 180 140 110 A0 80 ?0 0 30 .00 .3 $00 ..00 4A0 $A0 180 140 110 A0 80 ?0 0 30 40 $0 0 0 0 0 &a'le 1: A(ial ressure %isti'ution within conver#in#$%iver#in# nozzle Measurement Location Vs Pressure Ratio 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1 0.!e over a ra*8e o: app! e+ pre##%re rat o#: 0pplied /ressure Batio 1easurement *ocation 1 4 3 ? A 11 14 13 1? 1A $1 $4 $3 $? $A 41 44 43 4? 4A 1 .00 4A0 4.00 .00 .25 0.0 430 430 430 430 430 430 0.0 130 130 0.00 .5 0.0 $.75 0.00 .00 .00 .00 .0 30 30 30 30 0 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 1 0 180 $00 $00 $00 $00 0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 $30 $30 $30 $30 0.00 .00 4A0 $A0 180 140 110 A0 80 ?0 0 1.375 0.00 .00 .00 .0 .$3 100 .00 .00 .00 4A0 $A0 180 140 110 A0 80 ?0 0 30 30 30 1$0 1.875 0.00 .?3 400 .00 .00 .1$3 30 . $3 $30 .0 100 100 100 100 0.0 4$3 4$3 4$3 4$3 440 440 440 4.0 430 430 430 430 430 430 0.00 4A0 4.A6 a! pre##%re + #tr b%t o* " t7 * *o.00 .00 4A0 $A0 180 140 110 A0 80 ?0 0 30 .8?3 430 .00 0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4A0 $A0 180 140 110 A0 180 $00 $$0 $40 $.00 .00 .0 4$3 4$3 4$3 4$3 440 440 440 4.125 0 Applied Pressure Ratio (esign condition pressure ratio Measurement Location Graph 2: A(ial ressure Distri'ution .625 0.00 .0 .

step size of 30 ! /a that was used in the lab. These flow patterns can be seen over in figure 4. 8f this was reduced to a value of perhaps $0-$3!/a the design condition would have resulted. 0 value of 0. a*+ . :sing a best fit line. the isentropic expansion of the fluid to supersonic flow is dependent on the pressure ratios applied to the s&stem. these values were recorded in table $ and plotted in graph $./1& T7e + #$repa*$ e# t7at br *8 abo%t t7e#e + ::er *8 re#%!t# " !! be :%rt7er + #$%##e+& ◦ The second ob6ective of this lab was to measure the 0xial pressure distribution within the nozzle over a range of applied pressure ratios. would be the best fit line and so that is the design pressure ratio. 8n the (e *aval nozzle.-/ )83# which is slightl& different to our actual maximum. 8t should be found that the maximum mass flow rate should occur at the design pressure ratio of .&. (uring the laborator&. 7owever.&4/. that a number of factors could have caused . This can be attributed to the pressure drop.1$3. on plotting out mass flow rate versus the e. D #$%## o*: • Compar #o* o: e6pe$te+ re#%!t# " t7 t7o#e obta *e+& ◦ The first part of this lab was to investigate the mass flow rates that were obtained from different pressure ratios b& using the 'onverging-(iverging nozzle. • A*a!9# # o: e6per me*ta! error& ◦ 8t was felt after the conclusion of the lab.&441.0 $3 was felt b& the group would suffice.uivalent pressure ratio and using the value of .&.& F& inspection a value of . F& measuring the linear variation of pressure at different lengths through the nozzle it can be determined from existing literature what t&pe of flow is occurring. ( supersonic flow at the nozzle exit which contains no shoc! waves and is not choc!ed at the throat# the plotted line must decrease smoothl& to a value above the unexpanded flow condition.&4. and completion of table 1 using =. ( thic! red line on graph $ # it is seen that the pressure ratio lies between 0 and 0.0s can be seen on graph $ above the design pressure ratio lies between the ratios .&44.)83#& 9n continuation of the experiment. to calculate our actual mass flow rates it can be seen in table 1.-/.&. . 9n examining the resulting graph $ it is seen that we achieve no value consistent with the design condition. To achieve a flow pattern which can be attributed to the design condition./ )83#& This is a ver& desirable result as it it onl& differs b& ?G of the 1ax theoretical value. 2rom our initial calculations using e.uations 1-3 we resulted with a theoretical value of ṁ= . the 1ax mass flow rate achieved is . $ it is found that the corresponding mass flow rate is ./1 obtained in =.

The biggest contributor to these. 8t has to be mentioned that there could have been possible meniscus errors made b& students when reading the inverted manometer (although these are unnecessar& mista!es the& still need to be mentioned# Illustration ): Different flow patters for %ifferent pressure ratios . The reason for this is the fluctuations that occur because of its method of operating in load and unload c&cles. was the positive displacement compressor. 0 ver& high level of maintenance and calibration would be necessar& to reduce these to a certain extent. it was felt. +ext the lab demonstrator noted us to the fact that there was possible lea!s in the bac! of the rig which can cause deviations in the actual results obtained for which we could not correct There possibl& ma& have been errors that went unnoticed in the lab with pressure gauges which could account for a small level of error.◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ discrepancies between the anal&tical and the theoretical results. =ven with the pressure regulator and plenum being incorporated to the s&stem to smooth out the fluctuations there is still level of inherit error present.

08 'ambridge :niversit& /ress 'op&right N 1A A 'ambridge :niversit& /ress . for the hugel& stressful environments that occur in such applications var&ing from aerospace to civil engineering uses is made ver& apparent. 1alach& E 9L Bour!e Lecture notes M**N)++2+: Mechanics of Flui%s II 2++. B b! o8rap795 http5""en. The second part of the lab. 0. 0vailable from -orld -ide -eb5 J http5""www. Re:ere*$e#: =ngineering applets -illiam E. :sing the methods set out above. the challenges involved with designing such nozzles.edu"fluids"'(nozzle"cdinfo.it is felt that the theoretical values hold ver& closel& to the anal&tical ones and so could be used safel& for non critical approximations if desired.5053AA.Co*$!%# o*: 2ollowing this laborator& it is evident that the anal&sis of a simple device li!e the converging diverging (e *aval nozzle is more involved than was originall& anticipated. 2or the results obtained for the maximum mass flow rates.wi!ipedia.html K (r.engapplets.vt. (evenport H0ccessed 8th +ov $00AI.org"wi!i"'ho!edMflow Eournal of 2luid 1echanics (1A A#. measuring the pressure distribution along the axis of the nozzle as a function of the pressure ratio gave a good indication of the flow patterns that occur in the nozzle and how the& can be used to achieve desired flows if necessar&.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful