You are on page 1of 25

EAS 3923 AEROSPACE LABORATORY III

(PROPULSION)

SEMESTER II 2016/2017

CONVERGENT AND CONVERGENT-


DIVERGENT NOZZLE PERFORMANCE
DATE OF EXPERIMENT: 27/04/2017

NAME : MUHAMMAD AKMAL AIMAN BIN ALIAS

MATRIC NUM. : 181051

LECTURER : PROF. MADYA IR. DR. ABD. RAHIM BIN ABU TALIB

DEMONSTRATOR : MR. HELMEY RAMDHANEY MOHD SAIAH


1. OBJECTIVES

1) To study the convergent and convergent-divergent nozzle behaviors and their pressure
distribution over a variety of overall pressure ratios.
2) To observe the choking, over-expansion, and under-expansion phenomena of the
compressible flow through nozzles.
3) To identify the corresponding mass flow rate, , pressure, P, velocity, V, and area, A,
relative to the effect of back pressure, Pb, variations.

2. INTRODUCTION

Briefly, a technical perspective has been reviewed on the datasheet extracted from an
anonymous webpage for an equipment named as F810 Nozzle Pressure Distribution Unit, that
is engineered and manufactured by P. A. Hilton Ltd, which was generally discussed before
performing this experiment of Convergent and Convergent-Divergent Nozzle Performance,
as to fulfil the prerequisites syllabus in EAS3923 Aerospace Laboratory 3. Thus, Fig. 1 below
is showing the overall machine of F810.

Fig. 1: F810 Machine of P. A. Hilton Ltd.

This machine is solely for the study of inlet and outlet pressure ratio effects on the mass flow
and pressure distribution in nozzles. There are two identical 100mm diameter of 0 to
1100N/m2 of compressible air flow pressure, that is to indicate the air inlet and outlet
pressures. Operating from a normal laboratory compressed air supply, this unit is supplied
with one convergent and two convergent-divergent nozzles of identical throat diameter. These
nozzles can easily be interchanged and are designed to operate at different theoretical
expansion ratios or area ratios, which can be defined as nozzle exit area divided by the throat
area, or even divided by its entry area. Each nozzle is equipped with axial pressure tapings
that can be connected to eight 60mm diameter panel mounted pressure gauges; but, in this
Experiment 1, the convergent-divergent Nozzle B is applied with five pressure tapings, whilst
using a convergent (conical) Nozzle C with six pressure tapings as shown in Fig. 2. The unit
is fully instrumented to measure pressures, mass flow, and temperatures over a wide range of
pressure ratios; as in this case, the Nozzle B design pressure ratio of 0.25. Fig. 3 below is
illustrating a schematic diagram of the nozzle pressure distribution unit for F810.

Fig. 2: The Nozzles Used with Their Pressure Gauges Tapping Points

Fig. 3: The F810 Nozzle Pressure Distribution Unit Schematic Diagram


In this hands-on experiment, Nozzle B and Nozzle C are used as for the convergent-divergent
and convergent types of mechanism, respectively. The convergent nozzle of Nozzle C having
the cross section of nozzle tapers to a smaller section allow for changes which occur due
changes in velocity as the flow expands, it has lower expansion ratio and hence, lower outlet
velocities. In Fig. 5, the effect of back pressure, Pb, variations for Nozzle C can be depicted
as below. Plus, the airflow in the convergent nozzle is assumed only adiabatic. On the other
hand, for a convergent-divergent Nozzle B, which may converge to throat and diverges
afterwards. It has higher expansion ratio as addition of divergent portion produces an
isentropic assumption airflow of higher velocities. Moreover, the velocity and static pressure
along the longitudinal axis of Nozzle B are plotted in Fig. 4 below. This nozzle is also
designed with a condition of having the exit pressure equal to the ambient pressure as
illustrated in Fig. 6.

Fig. 4: Velocity and Static Pressure Distribution in ConvergentDivergent Nozzle


Fig. 5: The Pressure Variations for Flow Through A Convergent Nozzle C

Fig. 6: The Pressure Variations for Flow Through A Convergent-Divergent Nozzle B


Theoretically Fig. 7 below depicting the general behavior of convergent-divergent nozzle,
when the exit pressure exceeds the ambient pressure, Pe > Pa, for an under-expansion case
with greater Mach number than the its design value, the expansion waves exist on the too
small nozzle lip exit area. Whilst, in the opposite case, when the ambient pressure exceeds the
exit pressure, Pe < Pa, for an over-expansion, the Mach number is somewhat much lower than
its design value, which producing an oblique shock waves that are generated at the excessive
exit plane area. By definition, the dimensionless quantity of Mach number is the ratio of the
airflow velocity passed the boundary to the local speed of sound, whereas, if M > 1, the flow
is supersonic, if M < 1, the flow is subsonic, whilst when M = 1, the flow is sonic. In this
experimentation, the ambient pressure is assumed as the back pressure, Pa = Pb.

Fig. 7: The Experiential Study of Over-Expansion and Under-Expansion Phenomena

Moreover, the basic variation of area with velocity explained the nature of the flow in subsonic
and supersonic nozzles and diffusers, which are summarized in Fig. 8. From Fig. 8(a), as to
accelerate a compressible fluid flowing subsonically, a converging nozzle must be used, but
once M = 1 is achieved, further acceleration can occur only in a diverging nozzle. Thus, the
nozzle would be attaining general parameters as V increases; h, P, and decrease. Whilst,
from Fig. 8(b), the converging diffuser is required to decelerate a compressible fluid flowing
supersonically, but once M = 1 is achieved, further deceleration can occur only in a diverging
diffuser. Hence, the diffusers will be producing counter values of parameters as V decreases;
h, P, and increase in subsonic speeds, whilst the velocity is increased in the diffusers as the
supersonic speed is attained.

Fig. 8: Effects of Area Change in Subsonic and Supersonic Flows.

In addition, the rotameter is an industrial flowmeter used to measure the flowrate of liquids
and gases. The rotameter consists of a tube and float. The float response to flowrate changes
is linear, and a 10-to-1 flow range or turndown is standard. For this experiment, the
rotameters principle of operation is based on mass flow rate, . The greater the flow, the
higher the float is raised, which producing the higher . The height of the float is directly
proportional to the flowrate. With gases as in this case, buoyancy is negligible, and the float
responds to the velocity head alone. Fig. 9 showing a typical gravity dependent rotameter
which vertically oriented and mounted in the F810 machine.

Fig. 9: The Rotameter for the Mass Flow Rate of the Airflow
3. APPARATUS & EQUIPMENT

1) Hilton F810 Nozzle Pressure Distribution Unit.

Fig. 10: The Machine for the Nozzle Performance Investigations

4. PROCEDURES

1. The pressure gauges were observed. Since some of the readings were not set to zero,
therefore, a calibration was made. The correction values were set, these values were added
in the experimental data. The values were tabulated appropriately in a table.
2. The Inlet Pressure Control Valve was closed and the Outlet Pressure Control Valve was
opened to release any air left inside. The Outlet Pressure Control Valve was closed.
3. The Nozzle unit (A, B, or C) were secured to the Nozzle Pressure Distribution Unit
(tightened by hand only).
4. The pressure connectors were secured to the Nozzle unit (tightened by hand only) (8
connectors for Nozzle A, 5 connectors for Nozzle B and 6 connectors for Nozzle C). Hence,
Nozzle B and C were chosen.
5. The compressed air supply cable was connected to the Nozzle Pressure Distribution Unit.
6. The Inlet Pressure Control Valve was slowly released to a desired pressure.
7. The Outlet Pressure Control Valve was slowly released to a desired mass flow rate.
8. The pressure gauge readings were observed and noted.
9. The mass flow rate was continue increased until the throat is at choked condition (the mass
flow rate could not be increased any further, the critical pressure at throat was achieved).
The pressure distribution was noted at this point (experiment for Nozzle stopped at this
stage).
10. The Outlet Pressure Control Valve was continue released until the exit plane pressure
ceases to decrease.
11. The Outlet Pressure Control Valve was continue released, notice that the exit plane
pressure will start to increase. The experiment was stopped when the exit plane pressure
ceases to increase.
12. The experiment was repeated for several inlet pressure settings.
13. The control valves were opened to release all air in the end of the experiment.
5. RESULTS

All the resulting data recorded are tabulated appropriately in Table 1 until Table 8. Before this
experimentation took place, the calibration was performed to make the equivalent values of
back pressure (ambient pressure) and the inlet pressure, Pb = Pi, as to observe the errors
corresponding from each pressure gauges of each nozzle applied and also to indicate the zero
0 mass flow rate. As a result, the overall data recorded is tabulated and graphically
represented in Graph 1 until Graph 8 as below.

Mass Flow Rate Variation due to Pressure Ration for


Nozzle B
3.5

2.5
Mass Flow Rate, (g/s)

2
M = 1, P* 2.8

1.5

1
1.3
0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Overall Pressure Ration, Pb/Pi
Pi = 400kPa Pi = 200kPa

Graph 1: Graph of Mass Flow Rate Versus Overall Pressure Ration for Nozzle B

The representation of the dotted line in Graph 1 above dictating where the throat of the
converging-diverging section of the Nozzle B. As the overall pressure ration of the back
pressure, Pb, to the fixed, static inlet pressure, Pi, keep decreasing further, the maximum mass
flow rate, , is attained for the given stagnation condition, which means there is no changes
in the altitude and inlet pressure and temperature. Experimentally, this maximum , indicates
the Mach number unity is attained at M = 1, and as the sonic velocity is attained at the throat,
the flow of the nozzle is now choked. Whilst, further decreases in the Pb, can just resulted in
a constant as shown in Graph 1 above.
Table 1: The Data Recorded for Convergent-Divergent Nozzle B at Pi = 400kPa
Mass Tapping Point Pressure (kPa)
Inlet Outlet Flow Inlet Back
Temp., Temp., Rate, Pressure, Pressure,
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
T (C) T (C) Pi (kPa) Pb (kPa)
(g/s)
25.5 26 0 400 410 400 430 440 420
25 25 2.6 300 360 210 270 300 300
25 25 2.8 400 200 360 160 130 190 200
25 25 2.8 100 360 160 70 30 80
24.5 24.5 2.8 0 360 150 70 30 -10

Table 2: The Pressure Ratios Corresponding at Each Tapping Point for


Convergent-Divergent Nozzle B

Inlet Pressure, Pi = 400kPa Pressure Ratio, (kPa)

Overall
Back Pressure 1 2 3 4 5

Pressure, Ration,
Pb (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)

400 1 1.025 1 1.075 1.1 1.05
300 0.75 0.9 0.525 0.675 0.75 0.75
200 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.325 0.475 0.5
100 0.25 0.9 0.4 0.175 0.075 0.2
0 0 0.9 0.375 0.175 0.075 -0.025

Table 1 and Table 2 above showing the series of recorded data during the experimentations.
These resulting recorded data for the converging-diverging section of Nozzle B which having
five local tapping pressure points to be experimented as the inlet pressure is stagnated at Pi =
400kPa, whilst decrementing the back pressure, Pb, at a constant rate of 100kPa. The
highlighted box in Table 1 is showing the maximum = 2.8, whereas the choke flow
occurred, the M = 1, and the critical pressure, P*, corresponded to the pressure at the throat
incurred. Whilst, the two highlighted boxes in Table 2 showing the crucial data for overexpand

flow ( 5 = 0.2) and underexpand flow ( 5 = -0.025) conditions after passing through a

normal shock wave at the exhaust region outside the nozzle as depicted in Graph 2 above.
Pressure Profile for Nozzle B (Pi = 400kPa)
1.2

1
Pressure Ratio, Px/Pi 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.2
Five Tapping Pressure Gauges

Pb = 400kPa Pb = 300kPa Pb = 200kPa Pb = 100kPa Pb = 0kPa

Graph 2: Graph of Pressure Ratios Versus Five Tapping Pressure Point Gauges
(Pi = 400kPa)

The resulting data recorded in Table 3 and Table 4 is for the stagnated inlet pressure of Pi =
200kPa, at a constant rate of decrement of Pb = 50kPa over the whole process. As previous,
the highlighted box in Table 3 is corresponded to the critical pressure, P*, at the nozzles
throat, sonic flow (M = 1), and flow choking at maximum of = 1.3 conditions, whilst Table

4 is showing the data of Graph 3s expansion waves ( 5 = 0.25; -0.1) as Pb decreases,

which also occurred when design condition is fail to be achieved. The ideal, properly
expanded wave of desired condition is occurred when Pe = Pb, whereas Pe is the exit pressure.

Table 3: The Data Recorded for Convergent-Divergent Nozzle B at Pi = 200kPa


Mass Tapping Point Pressure (kPa)
Inlet Outlet Flow Inlet Back
Temp., Temp., Rate, Pressure, Pressure,
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
T (C) T (C) Pi (kPa) Pb (kPa)
(g/s)
24 24 0 200 210 190 210 220 210
24.5 24 1.1 150 190 120 150 170 160
24.5 24.5 1.1 200 100 190 60 80 110 100
24.5 24 1.3 50 180 60 10 30 50
24.5 24 1.3 0 180 50 10 -30 -20
Table 4: The Pressure Ratios Corresponding at Each Tapping Point for
Convergent-Divergent Nozzle B

Inlet Pressure, Pi = 200kPa Pressure Ratio, (kPa)

Overall
Back Pressure 1 2 3 4 5

Pressure, Ration,
Pb (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)

200 1 1.05 0.95 1.05 1.1 1.05
150 0.75 0.95 0.6 0.75 0.85 0.85
100 0.5 0.95 0.3 0.4 0.55 0.5
50 0.25 0.9 0.3 0.05 0.15 0.25
0 0 0.9 0.25 0.05 -0.15 -0.1

Pressure Profile for Nozzle B (Pi = 200kPa)


1.2

0.8
Pressure Ratio, Px/Pi

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.2

-0.4
Five Tapping Pressure Gage

Pb = 200kPa Pb = 150kPa Pb = 100kPa Pb = 50kPa Pb = 0kPa

Graph 3: Graph of Pressure Ratios Versus Five Tapping Pressure Point Gauges
(Pi = 200kPa)

Next, in the conical converging section of the Nozzle C, as the back pressure, Pb, is decreases
at certain decrements of kilo N/m2 under the stagnation conditions at the inlet, the mass flow
rate, , will rises up until a certain maximum amount of g/s at the Rotameter, and stays
constant even if the Pb keep further decreasing. The dotted lines in Graph 4 below are
representing the point where the maximum is achieved experimentally. These points are
where the sonic Mach number unity (M = 1) is also achieved independently, whereas the flow
is choked. The is stayed constant beyond that point even though if the Pb is keep decreasing
more and more as shown in Graph 4 below.

Mass Flow Rate Variation due to Pressure Ration for


Nozzle C
3

2.5
M = 1, P* 2.8
Mass Flow Rate, (g/s)

1.5

1 1.3

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Overall Pressure Ration, Pb/Pi
Pi = 400kPa Pi = 200kPa

Graph 4: Graph of Mass Flow Rate Versus Overall Pressure Ration for Nozzle C

As the experiential progresses, the data to observe the behavior performance of converging
nozzle section. At a constant decrement of Pb, at 100kPa, the static inlet pressure, Pi is fixed
at 400kPa in first case. Hence, the nozzle is equipped with six local tapping pressure gauges
as to observe the Pb at each region of nozzle length. In Table 5, the experimental choking
condition is where speed of sound is obtained in the flow (highlighted) as the sonic throat (M
= 1), critical pressure, P*, and maximum = 2.8 is arrived but stayed constant beyond that.

Table 5: The Data Recorded for Convergent Nozzle C at Pi = 400kPa


Mass Tapping Point Pressure (kPa)
Inlet Outlet Flow Inlet Back
Temp., Temp., Rate, Pressure, Pressure,
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
T (C) T (C) Pi (kPa) Pb (kPa)
(g/s)
24.5 0 400 410 390 410 420 400 410
24.5 2.1 300 390 360 370 350 310 320
24.5 24 2.8 400 200 380 340 330 270 190 190
24 2.8 100 370 330 330 270 180 170
24 2.8 0 370 340 330 270 180 170
Table 6: The Pressure Ratios Corresponding at Each Tapping Point for Convergent Nozzle C

Inlet Pressure, Pi = 400kPa Pressure Ratio, (kPa)

Overall
Back Pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pressure, Ration,
Pb (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)

400 1 1.025 0.975 1.025 1.05 1 1.025
300 0.75 0.975 0.9 0.925 0.875 0.775 0.8
200 0.5 0.95 0.85 0.825 0.675 0.475 0.475
100 0.25 0.925 0.825 0.825 0.675 0.45 0.425
0 0 0.925 0.85 0.825 0.675 0.45 0.425

In addition to this experiential recorded data evaluation in Table 5 and Table 6, as this
experimentation went further for a converging conical section of nozzle like Nozzle C only,
the supersonic speed or velocity cannot be achieved beyond the Mach disk (choked flow) at
the nozzles throat, instead the sonic velocity (M = 1) is incurred by the nozzle at the very end
its exit lips. So, there are no shock wave nor expansion wave occurred during this hands-on
process, which producing a nozzle steady-state flow of graphical representation in Graph 5
below. Even if the converging section of nozzle is further extended by reducing its flow area
as in favor of producing supersonic flow velocity, the sonic velocity will eventually be
transferred to the exit of the converging extension, rather than the original nozzle exit, which
making the mass flow rate, , to be decreased because of the reduced exit area.
Pressure Profile for Nozzle C (Pi = 400kPa)
1.2

1
Pressure Ratio, Px/Pi
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Six Tapping Pressure Gage

Pb = 400kPa Pb = 300kPa Pb = 200kPa Pb = 100kPa Pb = 0kPa

Graph 5: Graph of Pressure Ratios Versus Six Tapping Pressure Point Gauges (Pi = 400kPa)

Furthermore, upon completing this observation, evaluation, and analyzation of the nozzle
behavior performance, the last condition of the converging Nozzle C is when the static inlet
pressure is fixed throughout the nozzle at Pi = 200kPa. The highlighted box in Table 7 is
reflecting to the highest possible value of , at which the choked flow occurred, and
beginning to achieve the sonic speed of sound, practically at the exit of the nozzle. From Table
8, the pressure ratios of every tapping point pressure gauge have plotted the graph as in Graph
6 below. As observed, both of the plotted graphs in Graph 5 and Graph 6 tend to remain
constant as it can be understood that the converging section of the Nozzle C will limit its
speed to only M = 1, which explained why there is no expansion line plotted in these graphs
as depicted for Graph 2 and Graph 3 of previous Nozzle B.
Table 7: The Data Recorded for Convergent Nozzle C at Pi = 200kPa
Mass Tapping Point Pressure (kPa)
Inlet Outlet Flow Inlet Back
Temp., Temp., Rate, Pressure, Pressure,
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
T (C) T (C) Pi (kPa) Pb (kPa)
(g/s)
0 200 220 210 230 230 210 220
0.8 150 210 190 200 180 160 160
24.5 24 1.2 200 100 200 170 180 150 110 120
1.3 50 190 170 170 130 80 70
1.3 0 190 170 170 130 70 70

Table 8: The Pressure Ratios Corresponding at Each Tapping Point for Convergent Nozzle C

Inlet Pressure, Pi = 200kPa Pressure Ratio, (kPa)

Overall
Back Pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pressure, Ration,
Pb (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
(kPa)

200 1 1.1 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.05 1.1
150 0.75 1.05 0.95 1 0.9 0.8 0.8
100 0.5 1 0.85 0.9 0.75 0.55 0.6
50 0.25 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.4 0.35
0 0 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.35 0.35

Consequently, the plotted graphical representations of Graph 2 and 3, with Graph 5 and 6 is
thoroughly discussed in the following discussion section, which also reflects to the
performance of the nozzles operations due to its nature behavior and the effect of back
pressure variations.
Pressure Profile for Nozzle C (Pi = 200kPa)
1.4

1.2

Pressure Ratio, Px/Pi 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Six Tapping Pressure Gage

Pb = 200kPa Pb = 150kPa Pb = 100kPa Pb = 50kPa Pb = 0kPa

Graph 6: Graph of Pressure Ratios Versus Six Tapping Pressure Point Gauges (Pi = 200kPa)

6. DISCUSSIONS AND QUESTIONS

In this laboratory report, the results of this experiment of Convergent and Convergent-
Divergent Nozzle Performance are presented by thorough discussing on all the flows
behavior performances for maximum optimization ranging from the tabulated data
visualizations in the Table 1 until 8, with the corresponding graphical representations of Graph
1 until 6. From the primary convergent-divergent Nozzle B graphs plotted analyses, the effect
of back pressure, Pb, variations to the stagnation conditions of its inlet pressure, Pi or P0, and
temperature, Ti or T0, can be observed as in Fig. 11 below, whereby, this simplicity of one-
dimensional flow model analysis has derived a flow behavior at which each pressure ratio can
be represented in the denotation of case (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). In cases (a) and (b), the
mass flow rate, , increases as Pb is reduced in consecutive steps of certain decrement of
100kPa and 50kPa in two levels of fixed inlet pressure, Pi = 400kPa; 200kPa, respectively
from P0 to P(a), P(b), and P(c). Thus, the flow accelerates in the converging section with lowest
pressure and then decelerates subsonically with greatest pressure in the diverging section of
Nozzle B. Eventually, when Pb = P(c), the pressure at the throat reaches the critical pressure,
P*, corresponding to a Mach number of unity (M = 1) there. At this condition, the flow is
choked, and cannot increases with further decrease in Pb, where the greatest velocity and
lowest pressure occurred. Then, as the Pb is reduced below P(c), the flow in the converging
section or the upstream is unchanged. Practically, at this point of P(c), the normal shock wave
would appear in the diverging section which technically increases the pressure abruptly and
irreversibly to match the Pb imposed at the exit of the nozzle, and also decreases the flow
speed abruptly from supersonic to subsonic flow. The normal shock wave appeared in the
pressure distribution for Nozzle B for which indicated the starting condition of over-expanded
flow detaching from the nozzles wall; however, as the Pb is reduced more to be lesser than
case (c) in the downstream, the pressure then, increases inside the nozzle which forms an
oblique compression shock wave, that is somewhat referred to as overexpansion for case (d).
Then, there is a virtual dotted line of a unique Pb in case (e) for which no shock waves occur
within or outside of the nozzle, whereas the flow is properly expanded as to be indicated for
the desired design condition of any nozzle flow behavior performances optimization, when
Pe = Pb, where Pe is the exit pressure; but, not acquired in this experiment due to certain
erroneous. After that, an underexpansion situation had appeared at the downstream when the
flow expands more outside the nozzle through an oblique expansion shock wave for which in
case (f).

Practically, these experiential results did reflect accordingly to the theoretical concepts,
because the overexpansion and underexpansion conditions will just only appear at the
downstream region of the nozzle. To be details based on theory concepts, overexpansion is
happening when the pressure decreases continuously as the flow expands isentropically
through the nozzle and then increases to match the Pb outside the nozzle, whilst, in
underexpansion, the flow expands isentropically through the nozzle and then expands outside
the nozzle to the Pb. Regarding the , once M = 1 is achieved at the throat, the is fixed at
its critical, maximum value for the given stagnation conditions, so the is the same for Pb
corresponding to cases (c) through (f).
M=1
(a)

(b)

(c)
Choke Overexpansion

P* (d)
(e)
(f)

Underexpansion

(a)

(b)

(c)
Overexpansion
Choke
(d)
P* (e)
(f)

Throat Underexpansion

Fig. 11: Effect of Back Pressure Variation on the Operation of ConvergentDivergent Nozzle B

On the other hand, as from the resulting graphs plotted in the Convergent Nozzle C, the one-
dimensional flow model analysis on the flow performance behavior under the stagnation
condition of the converging section alone has dictated in several crucial cases in the nozzle
length itself as (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) in Fig. 12. Particularly, in case (a), when = 0, it is
proven that Pb = Pe = P0, whereas the P0 is the initial or often referred as Pi. Then, as the Pb,
is decreased more as in cases (b) and (c), the will started to increases and the flow speed
throughout the nozzle length is subsonic, whereby the pressure at the nozzle exit equals the
Pb. This resulted in greater and new pressure variations within the nozzle. Now, as the area
of the nozzle is decreasing with decrements of Pb at 100kPa and 50kPa for two amounts of
static Pi = 400kPa; 200kPa, respectively, the velocity of the flow at the downstream will be
increases until eventually a Mach number unity (M = 1) is attained at the nozzle exit plane.
The corresponding pressure there is denoted by P*, whereas since the velocity at the exit
equals the velocity or speed of sound, reductions in Pb below P* have no effect on flow
conditions in the nozzle. Neither the pressure variation within the nozzle nor the is affected.
Thus, under this critical situation in case (d) and (e), the nozzle is said to be choked at the
sonic throat by the Mach disk, making a maximum possible , with decreasing area and
pressure within the nozzle. These constant lines of graphs plotted are also depicted the
limitation of M < 1 at the throat of the converging nozzle section based on the theoretical
concept on the downstream section.

The possibility of certain errors may have occurred during this experimentation, thus, to
overcome those errors, one must take some precaution steps; such as, setting up the
complicated equipments and apparatus correctly, that involves from installing the nozzles in
the machine, calibrating the flow conditions appropriately, and using much smaller decrement
of Pb variations. The smaller decrement could produce a nice, detailed kind of graphical
representations which point to each behavior in the flow performances. Moreover, all the
resulting recorded data are obtained by the observers very own eyes, which somehow may
not be perpendicularly to the needle reading of each local pressure gauge, as in parallax error.
M=1
(a)

(b)

(c)
Choke (d)
(e)
P*

(a)

(b)

(c)

Choke (d)
(e)
P*

Throat

Fig. 12: Effect of Back Pressure Variation on the Operation of Convergent Nozzle C
7. CONCLUSION

Therefore, in this experiment of Propulsion Convergent and Convergent-Divergent Nozzle


Performance which is conducted in the Propulsion Laboratory, all of the objectives are
achieved successfully, which is by studying the convergent and convergent-divergent nozzle
behaviors and their pressure distribution over a variety of overall pressure ratios. Now that it
is concluded that the pressure profile for Convergent-Divergent Nozzle B is somehow plotting
an erroneous form of graphical representation in this practical experiment rather than in the
theoretical concepts of the converging-diverging section of nozzle. Whilst, the pressure
profile for Convergent Nozzle C did plotted the converging section of nozzle graphs that
match with the theory representation. Furthermore, many phenomenon which included in this
experiential condition have been observed from the graphs plotted; for instance, the flow
choking, over-expansion, and underexpansion phenomena of the compressible flow through
both nozzles. Technically, the choked flow is when the Mach disk appeared at some region
inside the nozzle length; but, not necessarily at the minimum area, A, of the nozzle and
achieved its sonic speed of M = 1. This corresponding speed also has declared the critical
pressure, P*, occurred in the nozzle, though. Fig. 13 below is showing the real-time situations
whereas the overexpansion and underexpansion phenomena had occurred. As been discussed
previously, the design condition of Pe = Pb, whereas the Pb is also referred to as ambient
pressure, Pa, for which represented experimentally in the graphs plotted of Fig. 11 above in
case (e) is crucially desirable for most rocket model applying the nozzle medium for thrust
acceleration optimum efficiencies. When overexpansion occurred, the compressible flow at
the exhaust of the nozzle is pinched inwards as the Pa surrounding it is greater than the Pe,
making the useless implementation of the spaces between the flow and the nozzles wall to
additionally generate the thrust force. On the other hand, the hot flow is somehow overly
expanding outside the nozzles wall in underexpansion, which then producing the flow to be
expand outwards the exit area of the nozzle (exhaust region) as the Pa surrounding it is smaller
than the Pe, making the thrust force to be lost in space and not efficiently used for the optimum
usage inside the nozzles wall itself.
Fig. 13: The Rocket Compressible Flow Phenomena; for, (a) Overexpansion (b)
Underexpansion

The third objectives have been also identified rigorously from the resulting graphs
corresponding to the mass flow rate, , pressure, P, velocity, V, and area, A, relative to the
effect of back pressure, Pb, variations. As for the flow rate, the will linearly rises up into a
highest possible point where it stays constant when it reached the sonic speed of Mach number
equal to one and P* throughout the Pb variations, because of the conservation of mass theory,
whereas the amount of mass remains constantneither created nor destroyed. Theoretically,
the quantity of has the dimensions of mass/time and is called the mass flow rate or
. This quantity is an important parameter in determining the thrust produced by a propulsion
system as the conservation of mass makes easier to determine the velocity at any region of a
flow in a nozzle when the density, , is constant at low speed (subsonic) and changing
independently at near to beyond speed of sound (transonic to sonic to supersonic) due to
compressibility effects of the compressible flow. Therefore, the objectives are achieved
successfully, despite the erroneous.
8. REFERENCES

1. Compressible Fluid Flow. F810 Nozzle Pressure Distribution Unit. Retrieved 30 April
2017, from http://www.alfarez.com/frames/hilton/compressible-fluid.html
2. Omega. Rotameters Introduction to Pressure Measurement with Rotameters. Retrieved
30 April 2017, from http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/rotameters.html
3. Mass Flow Rate. (2015). Grc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 30 April 2017, from
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/mflow.html
4. El-Sayed, A. F. (2008). Aircraft propulsion and gas turbine engines. New York City: CRC
Press.
5. Abdul Ahad Noohani (n.d.). Nozzle. Class lecture for Thermodynamics-II, MIT
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and
Technology (MUET), Jamshoro, Pakistan.
6. Dvila, A. L. P. (2016, February 13). Compressible Flow in Nozzles. Class lecture for WI-
15-ME4111-35 Thermal Engineering Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering Department,
Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico (PUPR), San Juan, Puerto Rico.
7. Moran, M. J., Shapiro, H. N., Boettner, D. D., & Bailey, M. B. (2014). Fundamentals of
engineering thermodynamics. New York City: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.