You are on page 1of 8

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF MECHANICAL THRUST

VECTORING
1

K. Nehru. 2T. kumarasan

Assistant Professor of Aeronautical department, SNS College of Technology Coimbatore


nehru1991@gmail.com
2

Assistant Professor of Aeronautical department, JJ College of Engineering and


TechnologyTrichykumarasan62@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Whenever an appreciable maneuvering is needed, the ultimate choice is thrust vectoring control system,
because they provide excellent survivability and improved performance in the case of military aircrafts.
Since, from the time of its inception many researchers worked on to reduce the number of actuators and in
improving the thrust vectoring angle. Even though there are different ways to achieve greater jet deflection,
Mechanical type achieved the better credits. This project deal with a mechanical type 2D vectoring nozzle and
its performance analysis. Numerical simulation of mechanical thrust vector was carried out in C-D and
SERN nozzle and the results are compared. The result proved that C-D nozzle gives better performance at
lower deflection angles, at higher angle of deflection the results proved SERN nozzles are more suitable over
C-D nozzle.
Key words: C-D and SERN Nozzle GAMBIT, FLUENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Nozzle is used to convert pressure energy into kinetic energy in order to produce thrust. For design purpose, the
nozzle can be assembly of three separate sections operating converging, throat, and diverging section Thrust vector
control is effective only while the propulsion system is operating an exhaust jet. Since, there are several types of
thrust vectoring nozzles; there are different ways to achieve the deflection of the gas jet: the most efficient one is by
mechanical deflecting the divergent section only (C-d), hence minimizing the effect on the engine upstream of the
throat (sonic) section. Thrust vectoring, also thrust vector control (TVC) is the ability of a rocket and aircraft. Thrust
vectoring greatly improves maneuverability, even at high angle of attack. Where conventional aerodynamic control
surfaces lose all effectiveness. nozzle designs which has recently has been proposed primarily for hypersonic
applications is the single expansion ramp nozzle, from the reference paper used to supersonic application of single
expansion ramp nozzle how to varying thrust parameter to be analyzed. This paper intended to provide a summary
of single expansion ramp nozzle thrust vectoring concept, studies indicate that single expansion ramp nozzles with
one fixed design point, like most fixed geometry nozzles, significant performance penalties at off-design conditions
because of changing expansion ratio, the result of an internal and external expansion process, a fixed design point
single expansion ramp nozzle still cannot perform well at far off-design condition. The internal expansion process
occurs between the nozzle throat and the trailing edge of the cowl, whereas the external expansion process occurs
the expansion ramp. The main objective and focus of the single expansion ramp nozzle is variation of the different
ramp angle and fixed cowl length angle.

II. MODELING OF NOZZLES


There are two types of nozzle c-d and single expansion ramp nozzle designed with various cases (0, 10, 20,
30), that is convergent, divergent and convergent-divergent nozzle. Convergent- divergent nozzle can therefore
accelerate fluids that have chocked in convergent section to supersonic speeds. The single expansion ramp nozzle is
a type of convergent divergent nozzle and this nozzle is an axi symmetric nozzle. There are various calculations
have been done for two types of nozzles with different cases of thrust vectoring parameter.
A. computational study
Computational studies are carried out by using gambit fluent 5/6 software. Different computation strategies
such as the mesh and convergence criteria were employed to obtain better convergence results.
B. Meshing
To import the coordinates and to draw the single expansion ramp nozzle in gambit and the meshing the
nozzle is done, with control is set to boundary and inlet, outlet, ramp angle, cowl, top wall, bottom wall named
selection are defined and the meshing updated. The mesh file obtained from the gambit was exported to fluent.
III. BOUNDARY CONDITION
A. Materials and material properties
1. Material selected is gas. The properties are selected as follows:
TABLE 1
Properties of nozzle
Thermal conductivity

0.0706 w/ m.k

Thermal conductivity Modular weight

23.05 kg/ k.mol

B. Inlet and outlet condition


TABLE 2
Inlet and outlet condition
pressure inlet
Turbulence kinetic energy
Turbulence dissipation rate
pressure outlet

2000960pa
0.8
0.8
13 e5
TABLE 3
Boundary Condition

EDGE POSITION
Left
Right
Top
Bottom
C. Initialization

NAME
Inlet
Outlet
Wall
Wall

TYPE
Pressure Inlet
Pressure Outlet
Wall
Wall

Solution initialization is done. Compute from inlet and defining convergence criteria(let the solution will be
conversed at 10e-6), defining number of iteration( let iteration number is 10000) etc. is to be done
RESULTS OF NOZZLE
The analysis of the two types of nozzles with different cases are done using the fluent software. The first CD nozzle is analyzed with the 0, 10, 20 and 30 cases and the SERN nozzle is analyzed with the 0, 10, 20 and 30
cases. Appropriate boundary conditions are applied to these two nozzles. The results are compared for various
deflection and analysis the flow separation occurred behind the divergent portion of the nozzle. Hence the nozzle
exit is examined for each flow conditions. Here by considering, Velocity, and drop pressure at the exit is plotted and
compared as shown in fig.
A. C-D NOZZLE

Fig.1. Contours of velocity (=0)

Fig.2. Contours of velocity (=10)

Fig.3. Contours of velocity (=20)

Fig.4. Contours of velocity (=30)


B. SERN

Fig.5. Contours velocity (=0)

Fig.6. Contours of velocity (=10)

Fig.7. Contours of velocity (=20)

Fig.8. Contours of velocity (=30)

C. COMPARSION OF VELOCITY (VS) VECTORING ANGLE

Fig.9. Velocity (vs) vectoring angle


D. COMPARSION OF PRESSURE DROP (VS) VECTORING ANGLE

Fig.10. Pressure drop (vs) vectoring angle


TABLE4
Comparison of Results

C-D NOZZLE

=0

= 10

= 20

= 30

Exit Pressure (Pe)


(pa)

1.59e5

1.50e5

1.50e5

1.50e5

Exit Velocity (Ve)


(m/s)

621

657

665

670

Mach Number (Me)

2.07

2.21

2.30

2.32

SERN

=0

= 10

=2 0

= 30

Exit Pressure (Pe)


(pa)

3.59e5

2.51e5

1.20e5

1.00e5

Exit Velocity (Ve)


(m/s)

585

591

688

694

Mach Number (Me)

1.93

2.14

2.37

2.45

CONCLUSION
CFD analysis has been done on C-D and SERN nozzles at different angles. It has been found that C-D and
SERN nozzles contribute to increase velocity and Mach number and drop the pressure in exit of the nozzles. For CD nozzle maximum normal deflect angle at 0 and 10 degree the Mach number, velocity increases because of the
deflection in divergent portion of the nozzle, so thrust vectoring also increased. The SERN nozzle deflected further
angles such as 20 and 30 degree the increased in velocity and Mach no and drop pressure in the exit of the nozzle.
Further deflection of SERN nozzles above 30 degree thrust vectoring will be increased. Compared to the four
different angles from 0 to 30 of C-D nozzle gives an increased velocity from 621m/s to 670m/s and Mach no
increased from 2.07 to 2.32 respectively and also SERN nozzle deflected from 0 to 30 the velocity increased from
585m/s to 694m/s and Mach no increased from 1.93 to 2.45 and also variation of thrust vectoring to be increased.
The results proved that C-D Nozzle gives better performance at lower deflection angles, at higher angle of deflection
the results proved SERN nozzles are more suitable over C-D nozzle.
REFERENCES

1.

Deere, K. A., Berrie, B. L., Flamm, J. D., and Johnson, S. K., Computational Study of Fluidic Thrust
Vectoring Using Separation Control in a Nozzle, AIAA Paper-2003.

2.

Flamm, J. D., Deere, K. A., Mason, M. L., Berrier, B. L., and Johnson, S. K., Experimental Study of an
Axisymmetric Dual Throat Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Nozzle for Supersonic Aircraft Application, AIAA
Paper, 2007.

3.

Murty, M. S. R., Rao, M., Chakraborty, D., Numerical Solution of Nozzle Flow Field with Jet Vane Thrust
Vector Control, Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering, 2009, pp. 416- 424.

4.

Alvi, F. S., Strykowski, P. J., Krothapalli, A. and Forliti, D. J., 2000, Vectoring Thrust in Multiaxes Using
Confined Shear Layers, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 122(1), 3-13.

5.

Bui, T. T., Murray, J. E., Rogers, C. E., Bartel, S., Cesaroni, A., and Denneett, M., Flight Research of an
Aerospike Nozzle Using High Power Solid Rockets, AIAA Paper 2005-3797, July 2005.

6.

P. J. Yagle, D.N. Miller, K.B. Ginnand, J.W. Hamstra Demonstration of Fluidic Throat Skewing for Thrust
Vectoring in Structurally Fixed Nozzles, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, July 2001,
Volume 123, Issue 3,502.

7.

Thomas Link, and Wolfgang W. Koschel, Computation of a Non


Equilibrium Expansion Flow in a Single
Expansion Ramp Nozzle, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol17, No.6, Nov-Dec 2001.
8.

S.K.Damira, A. G. Marathe, K. Sudhakar and A.Issacs, Parametric Optimization of Single Expansion Ramp
Nozzle, 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 9-12 July 2006,
Sacramento, California. AIAA 2006-5188.

9.A. G. Marathe and V. Thiagarajan , Effect of Geometric Parameters on the Performance of SERN, 41st
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 10-13 July 2005, Tucson, Arizona .AIAA
2005-4429.