THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL 1

Page 1 of 19. 
c Royal Aeronautical Society 2019.
doi:10.1017/aer.2019.42

Stagnation pressure effect on

the supersonic minimum length
nozzle design
T. Zebbiche
z_toufik270169@yahoo.fr
Institute of Aeronautics and Space Studies
University of Blida 1
Blida, Algeria

ABSTRACT
The aim of this work is to develop a calculation model based on the method of characteristics
making it possible to study the effect of the stagnation pressure of the combustion chamber on
the 2D and axisymmetric minimum length nozzle design giving a uniform and parallel flow
at the exit section. The model is based on the use of the real gas approach. The co-volume
and the intermolecular interaction effect are taken into account by the use of the Berthelot
state equation. The effect of molecular vibration is considered in our model to evaluate the
behaviour of gas at a high temperature. In this case, the stagnation pressure and the stagnation
temperature are important parameters in our model. The resolution of the algebraic equations
is done by the finite difference corrector predictor algorithm. The validation of the results is
controlled by the convergence of the critical section ratios calculated numerically as obtained
by the theory. The mass and the thrust are evaluated to improve the efficiency of the nozzle.
The comparison is made with the high temperature and perfect gas models. The application
is made for air.

Keywords: Minimum length nozzle; Stagnation temperature; Stagnation pressure; Method

of characteristics; Real gas; Berthelot state equation; High temperature model; Perfect gas
model; Real gas model; Thermodynamic ratios; Trust; Mass; Predictor corrector algorithm

NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
a Constant of intermolecular forces
b Constant of molecular size
f 1, f 2 Nonlinear equations
x Abscissa of the nozzle section

Received 21 December 2018; revised 2 March 2019; accepted 23 April 2019.

2 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

y Radius of the nozzle section

A Section area
CF Thrust coefficient
CMass Non-dimensional nozzle mass
CP Specific heat to constant pressure
CT Specific heat at constant temperature
C− Function for first compatibility equation
C+ Function for second compatibility equation
D− Function for first characteristics equation
D+ Function for second characteristics equation
E(T) First function for energy equation
E(ρ) Second function for energy equation
G Value for MOC model
L Length of the nozzle
M Mach number
N Number of points on the wall
P Pressure
R Gas constant
SV Sound velocity
T Temperature
V Flow velocity
 Step on the uniform Mach line
θ Step for ξ from the expansion centre
α molecular vibration energy constant
γ Specific heats ratio
δ δ = 0 for 2D and δ = 1 for axisymmetric
ε Tolerance of calculation (desired precision)
η Right-running characteristic
θ Flow angle deviation
μ Mach angle
ν Prandtl Meyer function
ν (T) First part for Prandtl Meyer function
ν (ρ) Second part for Prandtl Meyer function
ξ− Left-running characteristic
ρ Density

Abbreviation
ABE Transition zone
BES Uniform triangular zone
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
HT High Temperature model
MLN Minimum Length Nozzle
MOC Method of Characteristics
NPR Nozzle Pressure Ratio
OA Sonic line
OAB Kernel zone
PG Perfect Gas model
PM Prandtl Meyer function
RG Real Gas model
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 3

Subscripts
j Point
A Throat of the nozzle
E Exit section
K For numerical iteration process
0 Stagnation condition (combustion chamber)
1 Point 1
2 Point 2
3 Point 3
13 Average value between points 1 and 3
23 Average value between points 2 and 3
* Critical condition

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In aeronautics and aerospace engineering construction, the supersonic nozzle, in particular
the Minimum Length Nozzle (MLN), is of interest for propelling aerospace machines and
defence propulsion technology. The design of the supersonic nozzles is an important phase
before moving to construction and realisation. The axisymmetric geometry is preferred in
aerospace construction, as well as 2D geometry for wind tunnel test construction. The noz-
zle giving a uniform and parallel flow to the exit section is very interesting for propulsion
with maximum thrust and other considerations for wind tunnels (1–3) . The design necessarily
depends on the conditions of the combustion chamber. The latter makes a chemical reaction
of the gases selected under T 0 and P0 conditions giving chemical compositions of the gases
with specific heat ratio at the end of combustion (1–3) . The physical behaviour of gas in the
diverging supersonic part essentially depends on these two stagnation parameters and other
data like specific heat at constant pressure and the specific heat ratio γ . Then, the shape of
the nozzle depends again on the two parameters. Thus, the design calculation of the nozzle
is usually made based on a non-viscous flow. When the nozzle enters the flow, the fluid is
actually viscous and will give birth to a boundary layer.
The second problem of the birth of the side loads is generally related to the vibration of
the nozzle in the presence of the real flow in the nozzle and the increase of the static pressure
when the nozzle enters the regime of the non-adaptation and increase of the nozzle pressure
ratio (NPR) of the nozzle.
During the flow, one cannot change the shape of the nozzle to leave the nozzle always in
adaptation regime to avoid the side loads. Also, one cannot force the fluid to be non-viscous to
avoid the boundary layer and, therefore, the separation of the flow from the wall of the nozzle.
For this reason, the return to regime of the non-adaptation and the side loads are phenomena
always to be observed in the supersonic nozzle (4–7) .
When the nozzle is adapted, the expansion of the flow is complete and gives the desired
exit Mach number in the calculation. When the nozzle enters into flow in reality and when the
nozzle enters the non-adaptation regime given the increase or the variation of the NPR number
of the nozzle, the expansion will not be complete and there will inevitably be a remarkable
reduction in the exit Mach number, resulting in an increase in pressure. In this case, the flow
finds a reduced space in the nozzle to make its expansion, and due to the flow separation that
will decrease the Mach number distribution, it will consequently have an increase in pressure
(which is a bad thing at the nozzle and flow). This pressure increase in nozzle locations and
the instability of the flow will generate a nozzle vibration justified by the generation of side
4 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

loads having a magnitude that varies with the rate of increase of NPR and the instability of
the nozzle. It can be said that these phenomena do not exist when the nozzle is adapted.
Since the shape of the nozzle is unchangeable during the flow and since there is an increase
in the NPR of the nozzle, the behaviour of the flow to be forced causes these phenomena
in a fixed space limited by the wall of the nozzle, meaning that the shape of the nozzle is
also responsible for these phenomena. Then, it is estimated that the shape of the nozzle,
which cannot be changed during flow in all phases of flight, and the actual non-viscous fluid
behaviour cause the birth of these two phenomena.
In these cases, the separation of the flow from the wall and the birth of the side load are
observed inside the nozzle. The size of the side load depends on NPR and on the size of the
nozzle, which in some cases can cause an exposure of the nozzle. To avoid this problem, it
is necessary to respect the real behaviour of the gas inside the nozzle during the flow. Then,
the assumptions made for the design calculation are very interesting and will be discussed
positively or negatively after a wind tunnel test.
In Refs 1–3, the authors have studied the design of the supersonic nozzle based on the calor-
ically and thermally perfect gas (PG). These studies are done without considering the effect
of T 0 and P0 of the combustion chamber. Wind tunnel tests show that the results obtained by
the PG model are accepted when ME <2.00 and T 0 <240 K (if air is used) and no information
on the effect of the P0 value. This is a very limited area and does not reflect the current need
for aerospace construction.
In Refs 8–10, the authors improved the search by taking into account the effect of T 0 under
the threshold of the molecules’ dissociation, without taking into account the value of P0 , and
consequently, they have somewhat widened the real scope of the application. These studies
are applied if ME <5.00 and T 0 <3,550K (if air is used) but no indication of the value of P0 . To
allow the design to be made according to the hypotheses of these references, the authors have
developed a new approach to the thermodynamic parameters (11) as well as for the Prandtl
Meyer (PM) function (12,13) .
In Ref. 14, the authors studied the effect of the propulsion gas on the shape of MLN at high
temperature (HT) assumption without taking into account the value of P0 . The field of appli-
cation remains always rather limited according to the reality of the current need. In the same
context of the research, a new application of the gas effect on the PM is presented in Ref. 15.
The aim of this work is to develop a computational model and numerical program to design
the supersonic nozzles giving a uniform and parallel flow to the exit section by a new model
of generalised Method of Characteristics (MOC) considering the values of P0 and T 0 of the
combustion chamber. The application will be made for 2D and axisymmetric MLN, given
its practical interest in the aerospace construction and need to bring the maximum possible
towards the actual behaviour of the flow when P0 will be high. To develop this model of MOC,
the vision is made on the consideration of the principle of real gas (RG), given the size of the
molecules and the heat imperfection of gas effect with P0 effect. The Berthelot state equation
is used in this case, and the application is made for air. The comparison is made with the PG
and HT models given their practical importance in the international community. To reduce
the size of flow separation and the side loads intensity for our needs, it is recommended in
a few ways to size the nozzle with an exit Mach number enough and slightly higher than
that desired for the real flow to increase a little the size of the nozzle. For side loads, it is
recommended to use our present study by determining the contours of the supersonic nozzle
as a function of the stagnation pressure P0 of the combustion chamber, since the stagnation
pressure P0 and the ambient pressure Pa are those that are responsible for NPR number of the
nozzle (NPR = P0 /Pa).
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 5

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Flow field inside the supersonic 2D and axisymmetric MLN giving a uniform and parallel flow at
the exit section. (a) 2D geometry. (b) Axisymmetric geometry.

2.0 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

Figure 1 shows the 2D and axisymmetric MLN with the different flow regions to have a uni-
form and parallel flow at the exit section. The Kernel OAB area, the transition ABE area and
the uniform triangular BES area are noted. The Kernel region is a non-simple area, where the
characteristics are curved for both geometries. The transition region is a non-simple zone for
the axisymmetric case and of a simple type for the 2D case. In the latter, the rising characteris-
tics are straight lines. In the uniform BES area, the two characteristics lines are straight lines.
It should be noted that in international regulations the two lines of upward and downward
characteristics are presented in the non-simple zone, only the straight lines in the simple zone
are shown and in the uniform zone nothing is presented. This is the case for both Figures 1(a)
and 1(b).
The compatibilities and characteristics equations valid on ξ and η of Figure 2 in differential
form (16) can be written by:

d(ν + θ ) = C − dx
. . . (1)
dy = D− dx

d(ν − θ ) = C + dx
. . . (2)
dy = D+ dx

In thermodynamics, all state parameters can be defined by two state variables (17–21) , chosen
by T and ρ in our study.
From the differential form (18–20,22) , the Bernoulli equation can be written by:

E(ρ) dρ = E(T) dT . . . (3)

CP (T, ρ) 1 CT (T, ρ)
E(T) = , E(ρ) = − 2 . . . (4)
SV (T, ρ)
2 ρ SV (T, ρ)
6 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

In differential form, the PM is given by Refs 23 and 24

dν = −ν (T) dT − ν (ρ) dρ . . . (5)

with

M 2 (T, ρ) − 1
ν (T)
= CP (T, ρ) . . . (6)
V 2 (T, ρ)

M 2 (T, ρ) − 1
ν (ρ)
= CT (T, ρ) . . . (7)
V 2 (T, ρ)

and
sin θ sin μ sin θ sin μ
C− = δ , C+ = δ . . . (8)
y cos(θ − μ) y sin(θ + μ)

D− = tan(θ − μ) , D+ = tan(θ + μ) . . . (9)

V (T, ρ)
M= . . . (10)
SV (T, ρ)
 
1
μ(T, ρ) = arcsin . . . (11)
M(T, ρ)

The expressions of V (T, ρ), SV (T, ρ), CT (T, ρ) and CP (T, ρ) are presented in Refs 21 and
25. The pressure can be calculated by the following Berthelot state equation (18–21,24,25) :

ρRT ρ2
P(T, ρ) = −a . . . (12)
(1 − bρ) T

For PG and HT models, all the physical parameters can be determined according to one
variable, which can be the chosen Mach number for the PG model and the temperature for
the HT model for numerical reason. But for our presented RG model, all the thermodynamic
parameters depend on two state variables, which are T and ρ.
For air, we have γPG = 1.402, R = 287.1029 J/(kg K), a = 117.2666 Pa m6 , b = 1.07334 m3
and α = 3, 056.0K (18–22,25) .
As the flow is 1D at the throat and exit sections, Equation (13) remains valid for the
validation of the numerically obtained results (21,25) .
 δ+1
AE yE
(Exact) = =
A∗ y∗
⎛  ⎞
 T∗ 2

M (T, ρ) − 1 
Exp ⎝ CP (T, ρ) dT ⎠ ×
TE V 2 (T, ρ) 
ρ=ρE
⎛  ⎞
 ρ∗ 2

M (T, ρ) − 1 
Exp ⎝ CT (T, ρ) dρ ⎠ . . . (13)
ρE V 2 (T, ρ) 
T=TE
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 7

Figure 2. Downward and upward Mach lines.

3.0 CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR INTERNAL

POINTS
The problem is to calculate (T, ρ, θ , x, y) at point 3 of Figure 2 by solving Equations (1–3).
The parameters in each point are related to the upstream points 1 and 2. The values of M 3 and
P3 are determined by the relations (10) and (12). The ratios T/T 0 , ρ/ρ 0 and P/P0 can then be
determined.
After integration of Equations (1–3), five nonlinear algebraic equations are obtained. Their
resolution is done by the predictor corrector algorithm of the finite difference method(22) .
Then, the thermo-physical properties at point 3 can be determined by the following equations:

G2 − G1
x3 = . . . (14)
D−
13

y3 = G1 + D−
13 x3 . . . (15)

(ρ) −(ρ) +
Z1 + Z2 − ρ3 (ν13 + ν23 ) + (C13 x3 + C23 y3 )
T3 = (T) (T)
. . . (16)
ν13 + ν23
(ρ) − (T)
θ3 = Z1 − ν13 ρ3 + C13 x3 − ν13 T3 . . . (17)

(T)
E13
ρ3 = ρ1 + (ρ)
(T3 − T1 ) . . . (18)
E13

where

G1 = y1 − D−
13 x1 . . . (19)

G2 = y2 − D−
23 x2 . . . (20)

(T) −(ρ)
Z1 = θ1 + ν13 T1 + ν13 ρ1 − C13 x1 . . . (21)

(T) − (ρ)
Z2 = −θ2 + ν23 T2 + ν23 ρ2 − C23 y2 . . . (22)

−
, E13 , E13 and D−
(T) (ρ) (T) (ρ)
The values of ν13 , ν13 , C13 13 can be determined respectively by the
(T) (ρ)
relations (6), (7), (8) and (4) by replacing T = T13 and ρ = ρ13 , and the values of ν23 , ν23 ,
8 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

+
, E23 , E23 and D+
(ρ) (T)
C23 23 are determined by replacing T = T23 and ρ = ρ23 . The values of x13 ,
y13 , T 13 , θ 13 , ρ 13 and x23 , y23 , T 23 , θ 23 et ρ 23 are taken as average values by:

T13 = (T1 + T30 )/2 , T23 = (T2 + T30 )/2 . . . (23)

θ13 = (θ1 + θ30 )/2 , θ23 = (θ2 + θ30 )/2 . . . (24)

x13 = (x1 + x03 )/2 , x23 = (x2 + x03 )/2 . . . (25)

y13 = (y1 + y03 )/2 , y23 = (y2 + y03 )/2 . . . (26)

ρ13 = (ρ1 + ρ30 )/2 , ρ23 = (ρ2 + ρ30 )/2 . . . (27)

The predicted values at (K = 0) of x3 , y3 , T 3 , θ 3 et ρ 3 are chosen by x03 = (x1 + x2 )/2,

y03 = (y1 + y2 )/2, T30 = (T1 + T2 )/2, θ30 = (θ1 + θ2 )/2et ρ30 = (ρ1 + ρ2 )/2.
The corrector algorithm will be repeated until satisfying the following condition:
      
x K+1 − x K  , y K+1 − y K  , T K+1 − T K  ,
Max  K+1
3 3
  3 3
 3 3
<ε . . . (28)
θ − θ K  , ρ K+1 − ρ K 
3 3 3 3

For our RG model, the Euler corrector algorithm contains five algebraic Equations (14–
18) to determine x3 , y3 , T 3 , θ 3 and ρ 3 . The values of M 3 and P3 are determined analytically.
Whereas for the HT model (9) , the Euler corrector algorithm contains four equations to deter-
mine x3 , y3 , T 3 and θ 3 . In this case, M 3 , ρ 3 and P3 are determined analytically, and for the PG
model (3) , the Euler corrector algorithm always contains four equations to determine, in this
case, x3 , y3 , M 3 and θ 3 . Where T 3 , ρ 3 and P3 are determined analytically.
If point 3 of Figure 2 is on the axis of symmetry, in this case, we have y3 = 0.0 and
θ 3 = 0.0. A single descending characteristic line joining points 1 and 3 is used to determine
the remaining properties at point 3. Relationships (16) and (14) are no longer valid and will
be replaced by the following equations. Equation (18) is still valid.

− (ρ)
C13 (x3 − x1 ) + θ1 − ν13 (ρ3 − ρ1 )
T3 = T1 + (T)
. . . (29)
ν13
y1
x3 = x1 − . . . (30)
D−
13

The third type of point is the point of discontinuity at the expansion centre A of Figure 1. At
this point, there is a sudden increase of all the thermo-physical parameters. This discontinuity
gives infinity of Mach line, which will be from point A and reflected on the axis of symmetry.
In each deviation, the PM takes the following value:

νj = θj = (j − 1)θ . . . (31)

The problem consists in determining Tj , ρ j , Mj and Pj corresponding to this deviation num-

ber j. Since the function ν depends on two variables, T and ρ, we must solve the following
two nonlinear algebraic equations simultaneously to obtain T j and ρ j . So:
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 9

 T∗ 
f1 (T, ρ) = ν (T) (T, ρ)ρ=ρ dT+
j
Tj
 ρ∗ 
ν (ρ) (T, ρ)T=T dρ − νj = 0 . . . (32)
j
ρj
 T∗ 
f2 (T, ρ) = E(T) (T, ρ)ρ=ρ dT−
j
Tj
 ρ∗ 
E(ρ) (T, ρ)T=T dρ = 0 . . . (33)
j
ρj

The integrals in Equations (32) and (33) are evaluated by the Gauss Legendre formulae of
order 20(26) to make fast computation with high precision.
The numerical techniques used to solve a system of nonlinear equations(26) are based on the
Jacobean computation, which is formulated from the derivative of f 1 and f 2 . The numerical
tests using these methods demonstrate that the determinant of this Jacobean computation
(denominator of our computation of f 1 and f 2 ) takes a null value during the computation,
whatever the chosen of the initial vector, which immediately interrupts the calculation. For this
reason and to find a solution to our problem, we have developed a fast and robust technique.
It converges towards the desired solution without failure.
The flow properties must be calculated in all the points according to the mesh of Figure 1.
Then, the critical section ratio corresponding to the chosen discretisation will be given by:
 δ+1
AE yN
(computed) = . . . (34)
A∗ y∗

Once the convergence is reached, the design parameters L, CMass , CF and all the thermody-
namics parameters converge towards the desired physical solution.
For the PG model (1–3) , the design data are ME and γ of gas. For the HT model (8–10,14) ,
the design data are ME , T 0 and CP (T) of gas. While for our RG model, the design data are
extended to ME , T 0 , P0 and CP (T, ρ) of gas. Then we can consider that the PG (3) and HT (8–10)
models are special cases of our presented RG model. In other words, our RG model of MOC
is a generalization of the PG and HT models. The model PG can be obtained from our model
RG when we take a = b = α = 0, and the HT model can be determined from the RG model
when a = b = 0. For the PG and HT models, the Berthelot state equation of real gas becomes
the state equation of perfect gas (P = ρRT).

4.0 MASS OF THE NOZZLE

For N points found on the wall, the mass in non-dimensional form for 2D and axisymmetric
geometry can be obtained respectively by:


N−1  2  2
xj+1 xj yj+1 yj
CMass = 2 − + − . . . (35)
j=1
y∗ y∗ y∗ y∗


N−1  2  2  
xj+1 xj yj+1 yj yj yj+1
CMass = − + − + . . . (36)
j=1
y∗ y∗ y∗ y∗ y∗ y∗
10 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

Figure 3. Mesh in axisymmetric MLN.

5.0 THRUST OF THE NOZZLE

The axial pressure force exerted on the nozzle’s wall by 2D and axisymmetric geometry,
respectively, is given in non-dimensional form by:

j=N−1   
 Pj yj+1 yj
CF = 2 − . . . (37)
j=1
P0 y∗ y∗


N−1    2  2 
Pj yj+1 yj
CF = − . . . (38)
j=1
P0 y∗ y∗

6.0 ERROR CAUSED BY THE NUMERICAL PROCESS

To have a convergence, the critical section ratios given by (13) and (34) are compared using
the expression (35):
 
 (AE /A∗)Computed 

ε(AE /A∗) (%) = 1 − × 100 . . . (39)
(AE /A∗)Exact 

If ε is less than the desired precision, we can consider that there is a convergence of the results

7.0 RESULTS AND COMMENTS

The presentation of the results is done for the two 2D and axisymmetric geometries according
to the use of the nozzle. For aerospace construction, one is interested in the axisymmetric,
and for wind tunnel construction, the 2D.
The presented design results are the nozzle shape and the numerical design parameters L/y∗,
CMass , CF and yE /y∗. All five parameters depend essentially on ME , T 0 , P0 and the chosen gas
(CP (T, ρ), a, b and α) as well as the type of 2D or axisymmetric geometry. Except the CF ,
which does not depend on the geometry. That is to say, it is the same between the 2D and
axisymmetric geometries.
The comments concerning the variation of the five parameters with ME , T 0 and P0 is the
same between the 2D and axisymmetric cases. Except the numerical values, which change
with the data.
Figures 3 and 7 show a typical example of a characteristic mesh respectively in the axisym-
metric and 2D nozzle generated by our developed program. The three regions of Figure 1 are
well presented. It should be noted that the numerical results on the design parameters depend
on the mesh used in the calculation. The latter depends on three parameters, which are the
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 11

Figure 4. P0 effect on the RG axisymmetric MLN design.

Figure 5. ME effect on the RG axisymmetric MLN design

Figure 6. T 0 effect on the RG axisymmetric MLN design.

incrementation of the deflection angle of the flow between two successive Mach lines in the
Kernel region. The incrementation of the characteristics in the transition zone for the axisym-
metric case, as well as the number of additional characteristics after the sonic line OA. Our
results are controlled by the convergence of the critical section ratios given by (34) concern-
ing the chosen mesh, to the exact value given by relation (13). In the applications, we have
chosen a precision better than ε = 10−4 .
Figures 4 and 8 show the effect of P0 on the contour of the axisymmetric and 2D MLN,
giving ME = 3.00 at the exit when T0 = 2, 000 Kelvin. Five values of P0 were taken and are
1.0 bar, 5.00 bar, 10.0 bar, 50.0 bar and 100.0 bar. In these figures, the contour profiles for
the same data for the PG (3,16) and HT (9,10) models were added for comparison purposes. The
corresponding numerical design results are presented in respectively in Tables 1 and 2. The
influence of P0 on the nozzle contour and on all the design parameters is clearly visible. In
this case, the size of the nozzle given by our model RG is quite large compared to the size
of the nozzles given by the PG and HT models, whatever the value of P0 . This result is very
advantageous making it possible to say that in order to have a complete expansion inside
the nozzle according to the real gas flow behaviour, a large space of the nozzle is required
compared to that given by the PG and HT models. These two models reduce the shape of the
nozzle relative to the actual need for the gas flow behaviour. The value of P0 of the combustion
chamber in reality must take a precise value. For this reason, its influence is remarkable in all
the design parameters.
12 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

Table 1
Design values for the nozzles of Figure 4

N P 0 (bar) L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 1 9.675 39.096 0.353 2.382
2 5 9.527 38.212 0.351 2.362
3 10 9.494 38.184 0.350 2.360
4 50 9.423 38.127 0.342 2.359
5 100 9.254 36.460 0.339 2.315
6 HT (9) 9.043 34.457 0.336 2.232
7 PG (3) 8.345 29.498 0.296 2.052

Table 2
Design values for the nozzles of Figure 8

N P 0 (bar) L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 1 22.307 45.398 0.353 5.673
2 5 22.190 45.166 0.351 5.579
3 10 22.102 44.986 0.350 5.571
4 50 21.387 43.533 0.342 5.569
5 100 21.085 42.911 0.339 5.359
6 HT (10) 19.671 20.306 0.336 4.981
7 PG (16) 16.818 17.291 0.296 4.211

It is estimated that the problem of the existence of side loads during the out-of-adaptation
regime will be considerably reduced and will be justified by the wind tunnel tests.
If, for example, the MOC HT model is used to determine the flow parameters in the nozzle
sized by the RG model, we will find an increase in ME compared to that desired in the design
by the RG model, and in particular, a difference in all the parameters between those found in
the calculation and the design results. In addition, the configuration shown in Figure 1 will
not be respected; in other words, the absence of the uniform zone in particular. It is the same
remark if we use the PG model instead of RG model. In this case, the difference between the
parameters given by the PG and RG models is quite high, given the difference in the space of
the flow found between the suitable nozzles given by the two models. Thus, more is bigger,
plus the expansion will be great and an increase of ME is remarkable.
Now, if one uses the present MOC RG model to calculate the flow in the nozzle sized on
the basis of the HT or PG model, the gas will find a reduced space, which will influence
considerably the behaviour of gases, and an oblique shockwaves will be appear in the nozzle
despite the fact that the nozzle is adapted in the direction of HT or PG. We will notice that the
adaptation of the nozzle, actually of the nozzle, will be for an NPR large enough compared
to that found by the HT and PG models, and it will give us an increase in the zone of the
side loads paining with considerable amplitude. So, as a solution, it is necessary to respect
properly the behaviour of gas during the flow by taking into account good hypotheses bringing
the maximum possible towards the reality.
In the international community, the design results given by our RG model cannot currently
be verified by existing CFD codes, as they are developed on the basis of the consideration of
the state equation of perfect gas (P = ρRT) and not on the consideration of the hypotheses of a
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 13

Table 3
RG design values for the nozzles of Figure 5

N ME L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 2.00 3.781 9.448 0.221 1.360
2 3.00 9.423 38.127 0.342 2.359
3 4.00 20.633 136.797 0.472 4.021
4 5.00 37.806 382.549 0.493 6.203

Table 4
RG design values for the nozzles of Figure 9

N ME L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 2.00 5.353 10.801 0.221 1.849
2 3.00 21.387 43.533 0.342 5.569
3 4.00 78.793 160.290 0.472 16.168
4 5.00 226.477 459.378 0.493 38.793

Figure 7. Mesh in 2D MLN.

Figure 8. P0 effect on the RG 2D MLN design.

real gas. The only way to validate the design results of our RG models through the verification
with wind tunnel experiment.
Figures 5 and 9 show the effect of ME respectively on the shape of the axisymmetric and
2D MLN, determined by our model RG when T0 = 2, 000 K and P0 = 50 bar. The example
taken is for ME = 2.00, 3.00, 4.00 and 5.00. The design results in the RG framework are shown
respectively in Tables 3 and 4. For comparison purposes, only the numerical design results of
the same nozzles in the HT model (9,10) , respectively present in Tables 5 and 6, and the design
results for PG model (3,16) , as shown in Tables 7 and 8, were presented. It should be noted that
the shape of the nozzles given by the PG and HT models are different from those presented
in Figures 7 and 8. It is clearly noticed again is the effect of ME on the MLN shape. What
disrupts the ME is also an important parameter for our RG model.
14 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

Table 5
HT design values(9) for the nozzles of Figure 5

N ME L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 2.00 3.665 8.997 0.176 1.330
2 3.00 9.043 34.457 0.336 2.232
3 4.00 19.020 116.875 0.444 3.723
4 5.00 35.415 334.579 0.476 5.793

Table 6
HT design values(10) for the nozzles of Figure 9

N ME L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 2.00 5.054 10.184 0.176 1.768
2 3.00 19.671 20.306 0.336 4.981
3 4.00 67.754 137.728 0.444 13.861
4 5.00 196.270 397.946 0.476 33.565

Table 7
PG design values(3) for the nozzles of Figure 5

N ME L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 2.00 3.571 8.600 0.154 1.298
2 3.00 8.345 29.498 0.296 2.052
3 4.00 16.800 91.019 0.380 3.262
4 5.00 30.685 249.614 0.418 4.973

Table 8
PG design values(16) for the nozzles of Figure 9

N ME L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 2.00 4.826 9.716 0.154 1.685
2 3.00 16.818 17.291 0.296 4.211
3 4.00 52.704 106.976 0.380 10.640
4 5.00 146.204 296.186 0.418 24.731

Note in Figures 5 and 9 and Tables 3-8, that according to the variation of ME , the design
results given by the RG model are all superior to the design results given by the HT model,
and both models are superior to the results of PG model. Then, the PG and HT models make a
default design of the nozzle that will influence the flow quality and the physical interpretation
of actual flow behaviour.
Figures 6 and 10 show the effect of T 0 respectively on the shape of the axisymmetric and
2D MLN, determined by our RG model when P0 = 50 bar and ME = 3.00. The example taken
is for T0 = 500K, 1,000K, 2,000K and 3,000K. The numerical design results in the context of
real gas are presented respectively in Tables 9 and 10. For comparison purpose, we added only
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 15

Table 9
RG design values for the nozzles of Figure 6

N T 0 (K) L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 500 8.739 32.172 0.301 2.146
2 1000 8.964 33.251 0.308 2.244
3 2000 9.423 38.127 0.338 2.359
4 3000 9.963 41.296 0.385 2.450

Table 10
RG design values for the nozzles of Figure 10

N T 0 (K) L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 500 18.679 37.934 0.301 4.605
2 1000 19.947 40.556 0.329 5.133
3 2000 21.387 43.533 0.342 5.569
4 3000 23.282 47.406 0.385 6.001

Figure 9. ME effect on the RG 2D MLN design.

Figure 10. T 0 effect on the RG 2D MLN design.

the numerical design results of the same nozzles in the framework of the HT model (9,10) , as
presented the Tables 11 and 12, and the design results in the framework of the PG model (3,16) ,
as presented the Tables 13 and 14. It should be noted that the nozzle shape given by the PG
and HT models are different from those presented in Figures 6 and 10. It is clearly noticed
again the effect of T 0 on the MLN shape. What disrupts that T 0 is also an important parameter
in our RG model.
It is noted in Figures 6 and 10 and Tables 9–14, that according to the variation of T 0 ,
the design results given by the RG model are all superior to the design results given by the
HT model, and both models are superior to the results of PG model. Then, the PG and HT
models make a default design of the nozzle that will influence the flow quality and the physical
interpretation of actual flow behaviour.
16 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

Table 11
HT design values(9) for the nozzles of Figure 6

N T 0 (K) L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 500 8.364 29.635 0.298 2.058
2 1000 8.572 31.113 0.315 2.114
3 2000 9.043 34.457 0.326 2.232
4 3000 9.230 35.847 0.361 2.281

Table 12
HT design values(10) for the nozzles of Figure 10

N T 0 (K) L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 500 16.910 34.298 0.298 4.237
2 1000 17.756 36.040 0.315 4.471
3 2000 19.671 20.306 0.326 4.981
4 3000 20.491 41.664 0.361 5.207

Table 13
PG design values(3) for the nozzles of Figure 6

N γ L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 1.402 8.345 29.498 0.296 2.052

Table 14
PG design values(16) for the nozzles of Figure 10

N γ L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1 1.402 16.818 17.291 0.296 4.211

For the PG model, the design results do not depend on T 0 and P0 . For this reason, we find
only a value of each parameter according to the value of γ , which is taken to γ = 1.402 as
presented in Tables 13 and 14.
For each parameter of our five design parameters, the RG results are found to be different
from the HT and PG results due to the fact that the P0 is taken into account in our RG
model.
Figure 11 shows the influence of 2D and axisymmetric geometries on the MLN shape in
the context of our RG model when P0 = 50 bar and ME = 3.00 and T0 = 2000 K as well as a
comparison between the HT and PG models, followed by the design parameters as shown in
Table 15 for the RG model, Table 16 for the HT model and Table 17 for the PG model. It is
clearly remarkable the influence of P0 on the RG model and the difference between the five
design parameters between the three models. It should be noted that the CF is the same for
2D and axisymmetric geometry and only varies with ME , T 0 and P0 . But the other parameters
vary in addition to the 2D and axisymmetric geometry.
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 17

Table 15
RG design values for the nozzles of Figure 11

N L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1RG 21.387 43.533 0.342 5.569
2RG 9.423 38.127 0.342 2.359

Table 16
HT design values for the nozzles of Figure 11

N L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

1HT (10) 19.671 20.306 0.336 4.981
2HT (9) 9.043 34.457 0.336 2.232

Table 17
PG design values for the nozzles of Figure 11

N L/y∗ C Mass CF yE /y∗

PG (16)
1 16.818 17.291 0.296 4.211
2PG (3) 8.345 29.498 0.296 2.052

Figure 11. Axisymmetric and 2D MLN comparison.

Considering Fig. 11 and the results presented in Tables 15-17, we can say that it is rec-
ommended to use axisymmetric geometry for aerospace construction and 2D geometry for
wind tunnel construction. For aerospace construction, the criteria to be followed is to choose
a nozzle of propulsion with the smallest CMass and, in parallel, the greatest possible CF and
ME . While for blowers, it is desired to have a ratio of critical sections (AE /A∗) as large as
possible. In parallel, it is recommended to have the smallest temperature distribution (TE /T 0 )
at the exit of the nozzle to tune the prototype of the aerospace machine without detaching
the measurement instruments, demonstrating the influence of the geometry of the nozzle for
use in aerospace or wind tunnel construction. In some cases, it is quite advisable to calculate
the fineness for the aerospace and wind tunnel construction, respectively, by the following
two relations f = (CF × ME )/CMass and f = (AE /A∗)/(TE /T0 ). So, a good nozzle for both
constructions is one that has the greatest fineness possible.
18 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL

8.0 CONCLUSION
This work enabled us to develop a new model of MOC based on the stagnation pressure effect
on the design of 2D and axisymmetric MLN. This study is presented for the use of the RG
phenomenon. The Berthelot state equation is used for application. The following conclusions
are obtained:
1 The stagnation pressure P0 is an important parameter for our RG model. It increases the
size of the nozzle compared to those given by the HT and PG models.
2 The numerical results are controlled by the convergence of AE /A∗ calculated numerically
by (34) towards Equation (13).
3 The computer execution time for the RG model is quite large compared to that given by the
PG and HT models.
4 For the given ME , T 0 , y∗, an infinity of contours can be found by varying P0 .
5 For the PG and HT models, all the physical parameters can be obtained as a function of one
state variable M or T, respectively. For our RG model, all the physical parameters depend
on two state variables T and ρ.
6 The PG and HT models become a particular case of our RG model. They can be obtained
by taking (a = b = α = 0) and (a = b = 0, α = 0), respectively.
7 The Berthelot state equation is taken for our presented RG model of MOC.
As prospects, determine the stagnation pressure P0 effect on the 2D and axisymmetric plug
and expansion deflexion nozzles and the dual bell nozzle by using the presented MOC RG
model to improve the design parameters compared to that given by the HT and PG models.
Develop a CFD calculation code based on the consideration of our RG model in order to
verify the design calculations given by MOC.

REFERENCES
1. PETERSON, C.R. and HILL, P.G. Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion,
Addition-Wesley Publishing Company, 1965, New York, US.
2. SUTTON, G.P. and BIBLARZ, O. Rocket Propulsion Elements, 8th ed., John Wiley and
Sons, US, 2010.
3. EMANUEL, G. and ARGROW, B.M. Comparison of minimum length nozzles, J Fluid
Engineering, Transaction of ASME, 1998, 110, pp 283–288.
4. OSTLUND, J., DAMGAAD, T. and FREY, M. Side-load phenomena in highly over-
expanded rocket nozzle, J Propulsion and Power, 2004, 20, (4), pp 695–704.
5. PAPAMOSCHOU, D. and ZILL, A. Fundamental investigation of supersonic nozzle flow
separation, AIAA J, 2004, 42, (08), pp 1101–1111.
6. RALF, H. and CHLOE, G. Experimental study on rocket nozzle side load reduction,
J Propulsion and Power, 2011, 28, (02), pp 307–311.
7. RALF, H. and CHLOE G. Optimization of a rocket nozzle side load reduction device,
J Propulsion and Power, 2016, 32, (06), pp 1395–1402.
8. ABADA, O., ZEBBICHE, T. and ABDALLAH EL-HIRTSI A. Three-dimensional super-
sonic minimum length nozzle design at high temperature for arbitrary exit cross section,
Arabian J Science and Engineering, 2014, 39, (11), pp 8233–8245.
9. ZEBBICHE, T. Stagnation temperature effect on the supersonic axisymmetric minimum
length nozzle design with application for air, Advances in Space Research, 2011, 48,
pp 1656–1675.
ZEBBICHE SUPERSONIC MINIMUM LENGTH NOZZLE DESIGN 19

10. ZEBBICHE, T. and YOUBI, Z. Supersonic two-dimensional minimum length nozzle

design at high temperature. application for air, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2007, 20, (01),
pp 29–39.
11. ZEBBICHE, T. and YOUBI, Z. Effect of stagnation temperature on the supersonic flow
parameters with application for air in nozzles, Aeronaut J, 2007, 111, (1115), pp 31–40.
12. ZEBBICHE, T. Stagnation temperature effect on the Prandtl-Meyer function, AIAA J,
2007, 45, (04), pp 952–954.
13. ZEBBICHE, T. and BOUN-JAD, M. Numerical quadrature for the Prandtl-Meyer function
at high temperature with application for air, Thermophysics and Aeromechanics, 2012,
19, (03), pp 381–384.
14. BOUN-JAD, M., ZEBBICHE, T. and ALLALI, A. Gas effect at high temperature on the
supersonic nozzle conception, Int J Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 2017, 18, (01),
pp 82–90.
15. BOUN-JAD, M., ZEBBICHE, T. and ALLALI, A. High temperature gas effect on the
Prandtl-Meyer function with application for supersonic nozzle design, Mechanics and
Industry, 2017, 18, (02), Article N◦ 219, Number of pages 9.
16. ANDERSON, J. JR., Modern Compressible Flow: With Historical Perspective, McGraw-
Hill , 1982, New York, US.
17. THOMPSON, A.P. Compressible Fluid Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, US, 1995.
18. VAN WYLEN, G.J. Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, John Wiley and Sons,
US, 1973.
19. ANNAMALAI, K., ISHWAR, K.P. and MILIND, A.J. Advanced Thermodynamics
Engineering, 2nd ed., CRC press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2011, US.
20. SALHI, M. and ZEBBICHE, T. Gaseous imperfections effect on the supersonic
flow parameters for air in nozzles, 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, October 5–7, 2015, San Francisco, US.
21. SALHI, M., ZEBBICHE, T. and MEHALEM, A. Stagnation pressure effect on Prandtl
Meyer function for air, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2016, 231, (02), pp 326–337.
22. RALTSON, A. and RABINOWITZ, A. A First Course in Numerical Analysis, McGraw-
Hill, US, 1985.
23. SALHI, M., ZEBBICHE, T. and ROUDANE, M. Gaseous imperfections effects on the
Prandtl Meyer Function with application for air, The International Conference on
Engineering & Technology ICET’2017, August 21–23, 2017, Antalya, Turkey.
24. SALHI, M., ZEBBICHE, T. and MEHALEM, A. Stagnation pressure effect on the super-
sonic flow parameters with application for air in nozzles, Aeronaut J, 2016, 120, (1224),
pp 313–354.
25. NAG, P.K. Engineering Thermodynamics, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2008, New Delhi,
India.