35

EFFECT OF COMPRESSIBILITY ON THE DISCHARGE

COEFFICIENT OF ORIFICES AND CONVERGENT NOZZLES
By S. L. Bragg*
It has been known for some time that when a gas flows through an orifice the coefficient of
discharge increases as the ratio of the downstream pressure to the upstream pressure is
reduced (Stanton (r)).t This increase continues even after the critical (sonic) pressure ratio is
passed, since, unless the discharge coefficient of the orifice is already unity, the mean
velocity in the plane of the orifice is still subsonic and can be influenced by the downstream
pressure.
In a paper to this Institution, Jobson (2) suggested a method by which the variation of
discharge coefficient with pressure ratio could be calculated. The method was based on the
assumption that the velocity pattern at the walls, upstream of the orifice, was independent
of flow rate: it yielded results that were in good agreement with experiments on sharp-edge
orifices. The assumption breaks down, however, and leads to demonstrably false results,
when the dischargecoefficient is greater thanabout 0.65 and the pressure ratio well away from
unity, since the upstream velocity pattern is then affected by compressibility.
In the present paper, a simple assumption about the flow pattern at the walls enables
allowance to be made for this additional compressibility effect. The resulting curves of
discharge coefficient against pressure ratio are then correct for a perfect nozzle, with a
discharge coefficient of unity, as well as for a Borda mouth-piece, and so might be expected
to be reasonable approximations in between these extremes.
Experimental results from a variety of sources have been compared with the theoretical
predictions. The agreement is good at pressure ratios up to the critical but very few results
at really low pressure ratios are available.
It should perhaps be emphasized that neither Jobson’s nor the present method of analysis
enables the discharge coefficient of a particular orifice to be calculated ab initio. Their
object is to predict how the discharge coefficient of a particular nozzle, known under one
set of flow conditions, will vary under others. It is therefore to be hoped that the curves
presented will prove particularly useful for design purposes, and for performance
correlations.

INTRODUCTION sure, or to the critical (sonic) pressure, if the downstream

WHEN A FLUID at relatively high pressure passes from a
reservoir, through an orifice, convergent nozzle, or other
restricting aperture, into an unbounded region of low
pressure, the flow pattern is normally such that the stream-
lines in the plane of the orifice are still converging; the
streamlines become parallel some way downstream, at the
so called vma contracta where the cross-sectional area of the
flow is less than that of the orifice itself. It is normally
assumed that the flow conditions are uniform across the
vena contrata and are those which correspond to the full
expansion of the fluid from upstream to downstream pres-
The MS. of this paper was received at the Institution on 9th
November 1959.
* Aero Engine Division, Rolls-Royce Ltd, Derby. Associate Member
of the Institution.
+ A numerical list of references is given in the Appendix.
J O U R N A L MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
pressure is below this. The discharge coefficient of the
orifice, defined as the ratio of the actual flow to the flow that
would pass through if fdexpansion had occurred and the
streamlines were parallel, in the plane of the orifice, is
therefore equal to the ratio of the v m cmtracta area to the
orifice area.
As the downstream pressure is reduced, the effect of
compressibility is to increase the area of the vena contracta,
and therefore the discharge coefficient. By making the
assumption that the velocity pattern upstream of the orifice
was independent of volume flow, Jobson (2) was able to
derive an expression for the variation of discharge coefficient
with pressure ratio. This expression agreed well with the
results of practical experiments on sharp edge orifices.
Unfortunately, the underlying assumption breaks down for
Vo12 No I I960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

 >
36 S. L. BRAGG

restrictions with discharge coefficients greater than about an orifice or convergent nozzle, of area A in one wall of the
0.65, since the upstream flow is then affected by com- reservoir. It is assumed that conditions are miform in the
pressibility. In fact, when the analysis is applied to an plane of the vena cmrracta and correspond there to full
orifice with a discharge coefficientof unity in incompressible expansion to ambient pressure. Fig. 1 shows the arrange-
flow, it predicts that the coefficient would decrease nearly
to 0.9 as the pressure ratio decreased from unity to the
critical value: this prediction is not, of course, borne out in
practice. “, ; I A
It will be shown in the present paper that, by making a
simple allowancefor compressibility in the upstream region,
variations of discharge coefficient with pressure ratio can be
predicted for a wide range of orifices and nozzles with
discharge Coefficients varying from 0.5 to 1.0. These predic-
RESERVOIR A T p,
! !
I
I
-
/

-
-
ATMOSPHERE

tions are shown to be supported by experimental evidence

fiom several sources.

Notation
A Area of orifice, fi2.
A, Cross-sectional area of the vena cmtracta, fi2.
A, Local cross-sectional area of approach duct, measured Fig. 1. Discharge from reservoir
perpendicular to the axis of the orifice, fi2. Showing notation. ,

C Discharge coefficient.
C, Discharge Coefficient of Borda mouth-piece. ment considered and the nomenclature adopted. By
Ci Discharge coefficient for incompressible flow. continuity m = A,p,u,.
cp Specific heat of gas at constant pressure expressed in The discharge coefficient of the orifice is defined as the
work units, ft.lbf/lb deg C. ratio of the actual mass flow to that which could be passed
F Force defect produced by pressure difference, lbf. with the available drop through the full area, A. Since it has
f Force defect coefficient. been assumed that the velocity at the vena cmtrocta is that
g Gravitational constant 3217 lb. ft/s2 Ibf. correspondingto full expansion, it follows that the discharge
k A constant. coefficient
M Molecular weight of gas. C = A,/A = m/Ap,u, (1) -
m Flow of fiuid, lb/s.
p Local static pressure, lbf/ftz. Now for frictionless flow of an incompressible fluid, the
po Stagnation pressure of fluid in reservoir, lb/ft2. velocity at any point is given by the equation
R Universal gas constant, 2782 fi. lbf/lb OK. puy2g =Po-p . . * (2)
t Pressure ratio, p/po.
T Local static temperature, OK. In particular, at the vena cmtracta,
To Reservoir stagnation temperature, OK.
Puv212g = PO-P~= Po-Pa
u Velocity of flow, fils.
y Ratio of specific heats of gas. Thus the discharge coefficient in incompressible flow,
po Fluid density, lb/fi2. Ci,is given by the relation
Smes.
ci = tjt/Apu, = h/A2/2gp(p0-pa) - (3)
a Flow conditions on expansion to atmospheric The pressure acting over most of the walls of the reservoir
pressure. is po. Near the outlet, however, the fluid is in motion and
i Incompressible flow conditions. the wall pressure at any point W is locally reduced to a
n Hypothetical conditions in flow at edge of orifice. value p,. If the element of surface over which this pressure
0 Stagnation conditions in reservoir. acts subtends an area 6Aw perpendicular to the axis of the
s Sonic flow conditions. orifice, the net force produced by this pressure difference is
v Flow conditions at vena cmtracta.
w Flow conditions at any point W on wall of approach
duct.
This term was called the ‘force defect’ by Jobson.
ANALYSIS: INCOMPRESSIBLE CASE I n the incompressible case, applying Bernoulli’s equation,
Consider a reservoir full of fluid at a uniform total pressure (2)
pWSuppose that under the influence of the pressure drop
to the ambient pressure pa there is a steady flow m through A
J O U R N A L MECHANICAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE V o l 2 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

 EFFECT OF COMPRESSIBILITY ON THE DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT OF ORIFICES AND CONVERGENT NOZZLES 37

If viscous effects are negligible, the local velocity, uw,
at any point on the wall of a given reservoir will be propor-
tional to the mass flow m. Jobson therefore defined a
dimensionless ‘force defect coefficient’, fi, given by the
equation
It is also convenient to evaluate the momentum function
at the vena contracta. Using the continuity relation, with the
other relations above, and equation (7)
AvPv+m%/g = A#,Po+AvPv%2/g

The coefficientfi is independent of flow rate for any given =A VPO

orifice, but may vary from one orifice to another.
The equation of motion of the flow out of a control
surface which includes all the fluid in the reservoir and in
the stream up to the vena contracta is
F+APo-(A--v)P, = AvPv+~%/g
Or, since p , = pa for subsonic flow
F+A(Po-PJ = muv/g
Substituting from equations (3) and (4), a unique relation
betweenfi and Ciis established, namely
-[2y2/y-(y+1)ra] . . (9)
Y-1
The discharge coe5aent is again defined as the ratio of
the actual flow to that possible through an area A at
conditions corresponding to f d expansion, so equation (1)
still holds, yielding, in conjunction with equation (8)
- (5)
The equation of motion, (9, is not altered in com-
pressible flow.
By analogy with equation (4) a force defect coefficient in
the compressible case may be defined by the equation

A Borda (re-entrant) mouth-piece is designed so that

F =fi = 0 and so Ci= 0-5. For a Venturi nozzle flowing where the reference density is that in the reservoir, po.
full, Ci= 1.0 and so fi = 0.5. Intermediate values of Ci Substituting from equations (5), (9), and (10) gives the
correspond to intermediate values of fi. relation

ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE,
S U B S O N I C CASE
For isentropic expansion of a perfect gas from stagnation
pressure po to any other local pressure p, the following
equations hold: simplifying
p/py = po/poY (adiabatic relation)
p/p = RT/M (gas law)
For the Borda mouth-piece for which f is assumed
and POP0 = RTo/M always to be zero
Also 4 2 g = c,,(To- T ) (conservation of energy in
adiabatic flow) where cp (fi. lbf/lb deg C) is the spedfic heat
of the gas at constant pressure, expressed in work units :t h i s
obeys the equation Solving equation (12)
(7- l ) ~ ,= yR/M.
Combining these equations and writing, for convenience,
r = p/po, the mass flux at any point in an isentropic flow is . . . (14)
given by the well-known relation
Note that the positive root is inadmissiblesince 2fra1/y <1
and C m o t exceed unity.
MODIFICATION O F JOBSON’S
Thus at the vena contracta, writing rv = pV/po METHOD
In deriving the force defect coefficient in the incompressible
case,&, dynamic similarity at all flows was assumed. That is, ’
the velocity at any point on the walls was assumed to be
proportional to the exit mass flow, so thatfi and the dis-
charge coefficient, Ci,were independent of flow (equations
since r v = P,/Po = PalPo = ra (4) and ( 6 ) ) .
JOURNAL MECHANICAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE V o l 2 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

38 S. L. BRAGG
.
In his analysis of the compressible case, Jobson assumed The constant k may be related to the force defect
that the flow upstream of the orifice could st ill be regarded coefficient by the following analysis.
as incompressible, since the velocities there were com- In the incompressible case,
paratively low. Thus all the local wall velocities would still
be proportional to the mass flow and the force defect Fj = s I ( p o - p w ) dA, by definition
coe5aent in compressible flow, f, would be equal to fi.
This value was accordingly substituted into equation
(14) to obtain values of the discharge coefficient C in = /I(puw2/2g)d ~ , fiom equation (2)
compressible flow, in terms of Ci and ru.
Jobson’s assumption breaks down, however, when the
discharge coefficient is high, since the flow upstream of the dA, from equation (15)
= /~(k2h2/2gpAW2)
o f i c e is then affected by compressibility. In such circum-
stances an increase in total flow does not increase all the
local velocities in the same proportion. The increase in
velocity and corresponding decrease in pressure will be
proportionately greatest at points where the velocity is = kzm212gpA
nearest the sonic value. But Fj = fi(h21Apg) from equation (4)
As a result, the assumption that f = fjfor high C values
leads to rather unreal results. For a smooth convergent Therefore
nozzle, for example, for which Cj = 1.0 and f i = 0.5 k2 = 2f. . . . -
(16)
substitution into equation (14) would give
In the compressible case, the flux p,u, is obtained from
equation (7)in terms of the local static pressure, p , = rwpo.
Thus from equation (15)

This is found to predict a decrease in C with r, which,

experience suggests, is most unlikely.
This limitation was, of course, fully realised by Jobson In particular, at the very edge of the outlet, where
who suggested in his original paper that his method would A , = A , denoting the corresponding pressure by p,,
not apply when Cj was greater than 0.7. (= r&,) we have, from equations ( 1 7 ) and (10)
It is therefore evident that if a method for calculating C
for high Ci values is to be evolved, some allowance for
compressibility upstream of the orifice must be made. This
can be done only by making a simple assumption about the = k2C2rv2/y(l-r>-*)/y) . . (19a)
veloaty pattern upstream of the orifice. The assumption
suggested is that at any cross-section of the approach to = k2Czf,2/v(l-rr,cV-1)/y) . . (19b)
the outlet the mass flux at the walls is proportional to the Now
average mass flux through the section, the constant of m
proportionality being the same in all sections and inde- F= (Po-P,) dA,
pendent of flow. A
Let suffix w refer to conditions at some point W on the Integrating by parts, remembering p , = r,po
walls, and suppose that A , is the cross-section (measured
r lm fl
perpendicular to the axis of the orifice) bounded by points
at which conditions are the same as those at W.
If the mass flux at the walls is assumed to be proportional In the limit, as A , + co, p,uw+ 0 and r, + 1: also
to the mean flux through the area A,,
(po-p,)A, +p,uw~A,/2g = k2&/2gAWp, +0. Thus the
p , ~ , = km/A, . . * (15) first part of the mtegral reduces to -(po-pn)A, or
-APO(l-rn>.
where k is the factor that is the same at all points in a For the second part, substituting from equation (17)
particular orifice configuration, and is uninfluenced by
operating conditions.
It must at once be admitted that there is no direct
theoretical justification for this assumption. However, it
holds for the two extreme cases of the Borda mouth-piece,
for which k = 0, and the slowly converging fictionless
nozzle, for which k = 1. Common sense would suggest that
in intermediate types of orifice the assumption would be a
reasonable first approximation.
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE V o l 2 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

 EFFECT OF COMPRESSIBILITY ON THE DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT OF ORIFICES AND CONVERGENT NOZZLES 39

Thus, substituting both parts back in equation (20) so

pv2y? = ygpoporJ(y+l)'y . . (22)
and
A v P v + k l g = AvPo~,+A,P,~,2/g
But F = fh2/Apog by definition, equation (11). Com-
bining and substituting from equation (18) = A,por,(l+y) . . . (23)
The discharge coefficient is defined by comparing the
actual flow with the possible choking flow through the area
A, so that from equations (1) and (22)
C = AJA = t;r/Ar,"'1)/2~2/(ygpopo) . (24)
Or, since K2 = 2fi (equation 16) Remembering that in this case p , # p,, the equation of
motion of the fluid within a control surface which includes
the reservoir and the flow up to the venu contracts s t i l l
holds.
Thus the allowance for compressibility introduces a That is,
correction to the force defect coefficient, of magnitude given F+ Ape- ( A--Av)p, = A,pv+ huv/g.
by equation (21). It can easily be checked that as rn+ 1
(the fully incompressible case), f +fi. Substituting fiom equations (ll), (23), and (24)
Unfortunately it is not possible to eliminate r, from fC?ypdlrs(y+l)ly+Apo(1-r~+CAporU=CAporr(l+y)
equations (19b) and (21) in order to obtain a direct equation
betweenflfi and r, and thus, by substitution into equation Or
(14), a direct equation for C in terms of ra and K , f j or Ci.
In order to calculate C for a given value of Ci and r, it is
necessary to proceed by trial and error in the following
steps:
(1) guess C and calculate rn from equation (19b);
Solving, and remembering that rs =
(5) yl(y-1)

(2) substitute this value of rn into equation (21) to

obtain the ratio f If,. and thus f;
(3) substitute this value off into equation (14) and so
obtain a second approximation to C. . . . (26)
The process usually converges rapidly but great accuracy This equation is identical with the previous subcritical
is necessary when the value of C is close to unity. If a equation (14) at the point r, = rs, so the solutions are
number of cases have to be calculated, time can be saved continuous.
by using equations (19b) and (21) to plot the relation Putting f = 0, for the Borda mouth-piece, in equation
between K2C212/y(1-r>-1)/y) and f /fi : both these (25)and also using equation (22) for rs,
quantities are unique functions of r,, a parameter which is
not otherwise required. C, = (l-rJ/(2rs1/y-rJ . . (27)

ANALYSIS: SUPERSONIC CASE

In obtaining numerical values of C for supercritical
expansions a trial-and-error process is again necessary.
When the pressure ratio p,/po is less than the critical value, (1) guess C and obtain r, from equation (19a) by
that is, the value just sufficient to produce sonic flow at the
throat, the equations are slightly altered. Once again, Putting
however, Jobson's method of analysis is followed, with the
modiiication that the force defect coefficient f, is again
rv ='s = (5) v/(v-1)

assumed to vary in accordance with equation (21) instead (2) substitute the value of r,, so obtained into equation
of remaining constant at the incompressiblevaluefi. (21) to obtain f/f,.,and so4 for a givenfi;
It is assumed that conditions at the vet14 cmtracta (3) substitute this value o f f into equation (26) to
(suffix v) are just sonic. obtain a new approximation to C.
That is
UV2 = YgP,/Pv RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS

PJPO = (5) Y/(Y-1)

= r*
Computations based on the above analysis have been
performed on the IBM 650 computer at Rolls-Royce Ltd,
Derby. Calculations were made for values of the incom-
PJPO = (5) l/(y-l)
= r,l/y
pressible discharge coefficient, Cj, between 0-5and unity in
steps of 0-05 and for pressure ratios, r,, of between 1.0 and
JOURNAL MECHANlCAL E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE Vol2 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

 Table 1 . Discharge coeficri?nt ( C ) against pressure ratio (pa/po)and dz$nent incompressibleflow coejkknts (CJ
2.
z (a) For y = 1.0

?: 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.55 050 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0-20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
-___~--______- ___---- _________---- ~

0.5 0.513 0527 0.543 0560 0,579 0.601 0.625 0.652 0.679 0.701 0.721 0.738 0.753 0.767 0.779 0.790 0.799 0.808 0.817 0.824
-___--_____-- - ----
0.55 0563 0.577 0.593 0.610 0.629 0.650 0.675 0.702 0.728 0-750 0.769 0.785 0.799 0-811 0.822 0.832 0.841 0.849 0.856 0.863
-___-___---~ ________-
0.6 0.613 0.626 0.641 0.658 0.677 0.698 0,722 0.749 0.774 0.795 0,813 0.827 0.840 0.851 0.861 0-869 0.877 0.884 0.890 0.895
-________---- ___-___--
0.65 0.662 0.675 0.689 0.705 0.723 0.744 0.767 0.793 0.817 0.836 0.852 0.865 0.877 0.886 0.894 0.901 0.908 0.913 0,918 0.922
-___------ ------___-
0.7 0.711 0.723 0.737 0.751 0.768 0.787 0.809 0.834 0.856 0.874 0.888 0.899 0.908 0.916 0.923 0.928 0.933 0938 0.942 0.945
-__-__--___-- ----
0.75 0.760 0.771 0.783 0.796 0.811
-__-__-~--
0.829 0.848 0.872 0.892 0.907 0.919 0.928 0.935
- ---
I I I I I I
0.942 0.947 0.951 0.955 0.958 0.961 0.963
Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

0.8 0.808 0.818 0.828 0.840 0.853 0.868 0.885 0.906 0.924 0.936 0.945 0.952 0.958 0.962 0.966 0.969 0.972 0.974 0.976 0.977
0.976
0.989
0.95 10.952 10.955 10.958 10.962 I 0.966 I 0.971 1 0.978 1 0.986 I 0.992 I 0.994 1 0.996 1 0.997 0.997 I 0.998 1 0.998 I 0.998 I 0.998 I 0.998 I 0.999 I 0.999
1.0 4 1.000

0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 055 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
---------
___ ---------- ~

0525 0.539 0.555 0572 0.591 0.613 0.638 0.664 0.687 0.707 0.725 0.741 0.755 0.767 0.778 0.789 0,798 0.807 0.814
------___ ------___-----
0.575 0589 0.604 0.621 0.641 0.663 0.687 0.714 0.736 0.756 0.773 0.788 0.800 0.812 0.822 0.831 0.840 0.847 0.854
I 0.888
----
0.6
--_

0.7
_.__

l l l l l I l l I I 1 I I I l l I I 1
_
0.611 0.624 0.638 0.653 0.670
0.65 0.661 0.673 0.686 0.700 0.717 0.735
0.710 0,721 0.733 0.747 0,762 0.779
0.689 0.710
0.755
0.798
0.735
0.779 0.804
0.821
0.761
~~---___-___-___-___-

0.845
0.782 0.801
0.825 0.842 0.856
0.864 0.879
0.816

0.891
0.830
0.868
0.901
0.842
0.878
0-910 0.917
0.852
0.887
0.861
0.894
0.923
0469
0.901
0.928
0.876
0.907
0.933
0.882
0.912
0.937
I 0.917
0.941
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .-
0.75 0.759 0.769 0.780 0.792 0.806 0.821 0.839 0.860 0.882 0.898 0.911 0.922 0.930 0.937 0.942 0.947 0.951 0.954 0.957 0.960
- ----- ----___ -___--___-___ -----
0.8 0.808 0.816 0.825 0.836 0,848 0.862 0.877 0.896 0.915 0.929 0.940 0.948 0.954 0959 0.963 0.966 0.969 0971 0.973 0.975
------- ~ --___--- - - -----
0.85 0.856 0.863 0.870 0.879 0.889 0900 0.913 0.929 0.945 0.956 0.964 0.969 0.973 0.977 0.979 0.981 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.987
-----------___---------
5 ------ -----___---
2
0.9 0.905 0.909 0.914~0.921 0.928 0.936 0.946 0.958 0.970 0.978 0.982 0.985 0.988 0.989
~
0.991 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.994
- ----
4-
0.95 0.953 0.955 0.958 0.961 0.965 0.969 0.975 0.982 0.990 0.993 0.995 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999
'r 1.0 4 1 *Ooo +
 EFFECT OF COMPRESSIBILITY ON THE DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT OF ORIFICES AND CONVERGENT NOZZLES 41
I .
8 8
0 0
-
m m
0
8 -
0
0 0
? ?
0 0
m m
? ?
0 0
0 0
9
0 8
ln m
8 8
-.
0
d (r,
0
0
m m
8 8
8 3
0 0
P
0 0
0
0
L"
0
-
z
m ln
L"
0 z
0 0
8 8
ln
z
m
-
z
0 0
4,
0 8
m
8
0
8
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE V o l 2 No I 1960
Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015
42 S. L. BRAGG
..
0.0, again in steps of 0.05.The Ci value, of course, corres- 0
ponds to C at ru = 1-0. 0
0
Five different values of the specific heat ratio, y, were
used, namely 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. The results are
z
In
shown in detail in Table 1, and a specimen set, for y = 1.4,
is plotted in Fig. 2.
2
0

In
?
0

0
2
-
In
2
0
8

PRESSURE RATIO, pJp,

Fig. 2. Variation of discharge cot@&nt with

pressure ratio
Compressible flow y = 1.40.
0
9
It may be noted that when y = 1 the equations must be 0
slightly modified. By writing r, = 1-E and expanding the -
expression binomially, it may be shown that In
z
0
9
0
Thus equation (19b) becomes
r n 2 h r,, = k2C2ra21n ru . . (28)
0
In
9
Equation (21) becomes
0
f 2 1-r,
-=-+-
f i r,, rn21n r,,
. . . (29)
P-
0

Equation (13) becomes

c,= --2(1-rJ
r a h ra
. . . (30)
Equation (14) becomes

c= [1- l+-2f(1-ra)]/2fru
In ru
. (31)

Similarly,in the supersonic case, by writing

y-1 vl(v-1)
(&)
Y/(Y-l)
In
Q'
rs = = (I--) Y + l 0

and expanding binomially, it may be shown that

(I,
=) =,e-+
1,
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vo12 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

 EFFECT OF COMPRESSIBILITY ON THE DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT OF ORIFICES AND CONVERGENY NOZZLES 43

Substituting into equation (19a) gives

inzIn rn = -3k2C2 e-1 . . (32)
In this case equation (29) may again be used but equation
(26) becomes
(2-ru ef)-d ( 2 -ru e+)z- 4f( I -r,)
C=
2f e-+
. . (33)
Equation (27) becomes

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL A N D
THEORETICAL R E S U L T S
To show that experimental curves of discharge coefliuent
against pressure ratio follow the lines predicted by the
preceding theory, data have been collected from a number of
sources and the results are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3a shows results presented by Grey and Wilsted (3) 0 0'2 04 0.6 08 I.o
PRESSURE RATIO, p,/p,

b Of piston engine.
Results for various values of port area to cylinder cross-section
ratio, I (Benson (4)).
+
0.0173; 0 0.0343; 0 0.0845; x 0.113.
Theoretical curves.

0 0.2 c-4 06 0.8

PRESSURE RATIO, pm/p, PRESSURE RATIO, pa /Po
a Of conical nozzles. (Grey and Wilsted (3).) c Of round, square, and elliptical orifices (Callaghan and
Outletlinlet diameter ratio 0.5; different cone half angles: Bowden (5)).
0 5'; 0 1 3'; -I- 30'; X N ' ; A 90'. o Round; x square; elliptical.
Theoretical curves. I-- Theoretical curves.
Fig 3. Variation of discharge coejjicient with pressure ratio

for conical nozzles with an outlet/inlet diameter ratio of
0-50,and cone half-angles of 5,13,30,40, and 90 degrees.
The full lines on the figure show the curves of the theoretical
family which appear to be the best fits to the experimental
points. Good agreement has also been obtained between
the theoretical curve shapes and the experimental points
for similar conical nozzles with outlet/inlet diameter ratios
of 0-67,0*80,and 0.91.
The results plotted in Fig. 3b are taken from Fig. 13 of
Benson (4) and refer to the steady flow through the exhaust
port of a two-stroke engine at Werent openings. Doubt is
cast on the validity of some of the results by the fact that the
apparent discharge coefficient exceeded unity at high
J O U R N A L M E C H A N I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE
pressure ratios, but there is general agreement with theory.
Benson himself used Reynolds number as a parameter with
which to correlate his results, but since this was not varied
independently of the other operating conditions its true
effect cannot be determined: it seems much more reasonable
to suppose that the basic incompressible discharge co-
e5uent was h e d by the system geometry (the port
opening in this case) and that the variation with pressure
ratio was substantially in accordance with the theory now
presented, with only a very slight modification due to
viscous effects.
Fig. 3c shows the results of experiments by CaUaghan
and Bowden (9, on circular, square, and elliptical orifices.
Vo12 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015

44 S. L. BRAGG

These results were all obtained at a Reynolds number and all appear to confirm the reasonableness of the theo-
20 OOO, although the experiments showed that there was retical curves. However, there appear to be few data at
little variation in discharge coefficient as Reynolds number really low pressure ratios (say < 0.2) and the author would
was increased beyond this. Once again, agreement with the be glad to receive confinnation of the curve shape in this
theoretical curve shape is good. region.
CONCLUSIONS
With practical confirmation available, it is suggested that
the curves given by the simple theory here presented provide
an adequate picture of the variation of discharge coefficient
with pressure ratio for a very wide range of orifice and
nozzle geometry. No attempt is here made to predict the
discharge coefficient of a given orifice ab initio, but if the
coefficient is known at any particular pressure ratio, or
under incompressible flow conditions, it can easily be found
for any others from the curves given. This facility is par-
ticularly useful where choked sharp-edge orifices, which are
often used for control purposes in pneumatic systems, are
subjected to varying downstream conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank his employers, Rolls-Royce
Ltd, for permission to publish t h i s paper. He also acknow-
ledges gratefully the help given him by Mr. B. T. Torson,
who devised the computer programme, and Mr. F. R.
Murray and Mr. J. Nock who provided some of the
0.4 I I I I I J experimental data.
0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 I.o
PRESSURE RATIO, &/p,
APPENDIX
Fig 4. Variation of dkchurge co&dent with
pressure ratio REFERENCES

+ Experimental exhaust nozzle for small jet engine. ( I ) STANTON,T. E. 1926 Proc. roy. SOC.A., vol. 111, p. 306,
o Two typical arrangements of dilution air holes in liner of ‘The Flow of Gases at High Speeds’.
jet engine combustion chamber. (2) JOBSON, D. A. 1955 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs, Lond.,vol. 169,
Theoretical curves. p. 767, ‘On the Flow of a Compressible Fluid Through
Orifices’.
Fig. 4 shows some previously unpublished results (3) GREY, R. E., jun. and WILSTED, H. D. 1949 nat. udw. C o r n .
Aero., Wash. (Lewis Laboratory), Rep. No. 933, ‘Perfor-
obtained fiom tests by Rolls-Royce Experimental Depart- mance of Conical Jet Nozzles in Terms of Flow and
ments. The two lower sets of points refer to two different Velocity Coefficients’.
configurationsof dilution air holes in a combustion chamber (4) BENSON, R. S. 1959 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs,Lond., vol. 173,
inner liner, the very low discharge coefficient being due to No. 19, ‘Experiments on Two-Stroke Engine Exhaust
the high velocity in the approach annulus. The upper points Ports under Steady and Unsteady Flow C0ndifion.s’.
(5) CALLAGHAN, E. E. and BOWDEN,D. T. 1949 Tech. Notes
were obtained with an experimental final nozzle for a small nat. adw. Comm; Aero., Wash., No. 1947, ‘Investigation
turbojet engine. of Flow Coefficient of Circular, Square and Elliptical
A number of other sets of practical results is available, Orifices at High Pressure Ratios’.

J O U R N A L M E C H A N I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G SCIENCE V o l 2 No I 1960

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on July 27, 2015