See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315648256

Design and Fabrication of Miniature Supersonic Nozzle

Conference Paper · June 2011

CITATIONS READS
0 501

3 authors, including:

Asad Ahmed R
KCG College of Technology
19 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization of wing configuration for flapping MAV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asad Ahmed R on 26 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ASV11-15-02

DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF MINIATURE SUPERSONIC

NOZZLE
Sandhya T1, Shahbaaz Ahmed1, Asad Ahmed. R2
1. Student, Tagore Engineering College, Chennai 600048, Tamilnadu, India.
2. Assistant Professor, Tagore Engineering College, Chennai 600048, Tamilnadu, India.

Corresponding author: Asad Ahmed. R, asadahmed.r@gmail.com

1. ABSTRACT
An experimental study of a performance comparison of a contour and a conical nozzle
was done. Both the nozzles were compared for speed and the shock patterns were studied. The
nozzles were designed with minimum length of divergent portion by the method of characteristics
(MOC).The nozzle pressure ratio (NPR) was varied and the results were noted. The contour
nozzle proved to vary by 1.99% whereas the conical by 5.66% from the isentropic mach no. The
shock patterns showed that the conical nozzle was a better design which produced smooth flow
from the nozzle.

2. INTRODUCTION
The first practical use of a C-D nozzle was made in the late 19th century by a Swedish
engineer Carl G.P. De Laval. He designed a steam turbine which had a supersonic expansion
nozzle upstream of the turbine blades; this is the reason why such C-D nozzles are also called as
De Laval Nozzles.
Supersonic nozzles used in wind tunnels have a smooth, gradually expanded divergent
portion for delivering a high-quality, uniform flow, required in the test section. But in
applications like rockets and missiles, nozzles are comparatively shorter in order to minimize
weight. Also in applications where rapid expansions are the requirement, such as non-equilibrium
flow in gas dynamic lasers, the nozzle length should be as short as possible. In such cases the
expansion portion of the nozzle is shrunk to a point, and the expansion takes place through a
centered Prandtl-meyer wave emanating from a sharp-corner throat. Hence these nozzles are
called as “sharp-throat characteristics nozzle” or “short nozzles”.
The supersonic flows in motion carry certain fluid properties such as pressure, density,
temperature, etc. When these flow pass through large amplitude disturbances or discontinuities,
shock waves are produced, generally called as “shocks” which change the flow properties of the
fluid in motion. Depending upon the flow turning angles, the shocks can be classified into normal
and oblique shocks which can be further divided into weak or strong shocks depending upon the
intensity of shocks.
The compressible flows lend themselves particularly well to optical methods of
investigation. These optical methods depend on the variation of density or its derivatives in the
flow field. The commonly used optical methods for compressible flow analysis are interferometer,
the Schlieren and the shadowgraph.
ASV11-15-02

3. DESIGN OF SUPERSONIC NOZZLES

A convergent-divergent nozzle, designed for Mach number 2.0 is used as the experimental
model and to perform the present investigation. It is a 3-D miniature nozzle designed by the
Method of characteristics (MOC) ,designed to operate at a nozzle pressure ratio(NPR) of
0.1278.The nozzle used for this purpose has a minimum possible length with a sharp corner at the
throat.
3.1 Design of Convergent Portion:
Area ratio method was followed to design the convergent portion. The convergent portion of
the nozzle before the throat was kept straight for a length of 0.30 mm, in order to aid in expansion
at the corner of the throat. For simplicity, many times the curve used for the supersonic side of the
throat region is extended (or reflected) to the subsonic side. So it was decided to use isentropic
relations to form the curve for the subsonic side. Keeping the minimum length factor into mind,
the convergent portion had to be designed as short as possible, without affecting the acceleration
of the flow through it. Using the area ratio and Mach number relations i.e. isentropic tables, at an
interval of 0.7 mm the length is increased continuously upto 3.8 mm. The diameter of the curve at
this point was equal to 4.28 mm. A larger radius of curvature produces a flatter sonic line, hence a
larger inlet diameter was chosen. The area ratio of the convergent portion was taken as 5.82
which could quickly accelerate the flow to Mach 0.1 at the inlet of the nozzle from the settling
chamber. The area ratio on calculation gives a diameter of 7.24 mm at the inlet.

Table 1: Convergent Portion of X and Y values

X Y
values values(mm)
(mm)
0 3.61927
0.67 2.58223
1.34 2.13984
2.01 1.89151
2.68 1.73267
3.35 1.63507
4.02 1.56918
4.69 1.5284
5.36 1.50663
6.03 1.499995
3.2 Design of Contour Nozzle divergent Portion:
The method of characteristics provides a technique for properly designing the contour of
supersonic nozzle for shock-free, isentropic flow, taking into account the multidimensional flow
inside the duct and the minimum length factor of the nozzle. The length of this nozzle obtained
was the minimum length possible for shock-free, isentropic flow.

The region-to-region 2D inviscid MOC was employed for designing the contour of the
divergent portion. for a sharp-cornered nozzle. The boundary layer correction was also considered.

The contours for the divergent portion had been designed by three methods:

1. AEROSPIKE software version 2.6 was used to generate the required contour.
ASV11-15-02

2. A computer program was used with FORTRAN programming language for the
calculation of θ and ν values in every region. The program takes the input of a number n
and divides the θfan into (13/n+1) characteristics. Here n is taken as unity. The output of
the program gives the x, y locations, ν, θ, M and Area ratios.

3. The formula or area ratio method was done as the third method employed for designing
the contour of the nozzle. Since the minimum length nozzle was the main decisive factor,
the lengths of the divergent portion obtained by the three methods were compared and
the minimum out of it was chosen.

Length obtained by:

1. Aerospike software = 7.56mm
2. Computer program = 6.15 mm
3. Formula method = 6.15mm

The length calculated by the formula method gave the minimum length and was preferred
over the other two methods and the length for divergent portion was taken as 6.15 mm.
X Y
values(mm) values(mm)
0 1.5
0.66183 1.81022
0.6772 1.81731
0.76813 1.85596
0.87343 1.8969
0.99618 1.94019
1.14061 1.98594
1.31255 2.03427
1.52041 2.08532
1.77666 2.13918
2.10164 2.19604
2.53077 2.25606
3.13497 2.31939
4.09199 2.38623
6.15142 2.45812
Table 2: Divergent portion X and Y values

4
3
2
1 convergent
Series2
0
divergent
-1 0 5 10 15
Series4
-2
-3
-4

Fig 1: Design of Contour Nozzle

ASV11-15-02

3.3 Boundary Layer Correction:

In the above design, viscosity has been neglected. But in actual flow, the boundary layer
formation occurs inside the nozzle. The turbulent layer formed inside the nozzle will have a
displacing effect on the nozzle, and will reduce the diameter of the nozzle. A method for
including the effects of viscosity in the design of supersonic wind tunnel nozzles is followed. The
effect being presented in the form of a modification to the non-viscous or perfect fluid, nozzle
shapes. The modification essentially consists of providing additional expansion area to
compensate for the retarded flow near the wall, and is estimated from considerations of possible
boundary layer growth on the walls. This modification length is known as displacement thickness
(δ*) and is given by;
δ*=0.0479x/Re^(1/5) ;
for turbulent boundary layers.
So an allowance has to be made by adding a correction for boundary-layer growth to the designed
contour.
The displacement thickness (δ*) was found to be=.08mm
Therefore it was decided to give a flaring at the exit of the nozzle i.e. at a nozzle diameter of
4.90mm and hence the length of the divergent portion is extended by 1.50mm with an angle of 3
degrees. This brings the diameter of the nozzle to 5.06mm, which has become the exit of the
nozzle and the length has been extended to 7.6 mm.
3.4 Design of Conical Nozzle Divergent Portion
Another nozzle is designed for Mach 2.0, with the same converging portion but a
different conical divergent portion. The area ratio of the nozzle being a function of Mach number
is to be the same. The length of the divergent portion was also kept the same in order to compare
the performance of both the nozzles. The boundary layer correction was also the same for both
the nozzles.
The final 2D design of both the nozzles were done using AUTOCAD and their
development to 3D circular nozzles used for the fabrication, including the boundary layer
correction are shown below

Fig 2: Divergent Design of Conical Nozzle

ASV11-15-02

TABLE 3: NOZZLE CONFIGURATION

Area Expansion Ratio 1.688

Inlet Diameter 7.24 mm

Throat Diameter 3.00 mm

Exit Diameter 5.06 mm

Convergent section Length 5.97 mm

Divergent section Length 7.65 mm

Material Used Brass

Total Length 13.62 mm

4. FABRICATION OF NOZZLE
The 2D design of the nozzle is used to convert it into a 3D nozzle. It was fabricated on a
lathe machine by specially designed tools. On total, three tools were made, for the convergent
portion, the contoured divergent portion and the conical divergent portion. Brass had been used as
the fabricating material for the nozzle. A cylindrical solid made up of brass of diameter 40 mm
and length 20 mm was taken, the ends were faced and brought to the required dimensions. Now
the diameter and length of the nozzle were 30 mm and 13.62mm.

Then the piece was drilled through with a drill bit of 3mm diameter after which the tools
were used. The nozzle had to be drilled at the exit portion of the divergent section, to provide for
the pressure tapping. The hole had to be as small in diameter as possible, so a drill bit of .6 mm
diameter was to be used (minimum available that time). But the problem of drilling hole with
such a thin and small diameter drill bit was that it would break with extra pressure applied on it
and would remain inside the wall of the nozzle, without being removed easily. So it was planned
to drill a hole with a 1mm drill bit half way inside and then use the .6mm drill bit, to make hole
concentrically inside till it passed through the wall.
The nozzle is supposed to have a minute hole just at the exit of the nozzle, to provide a
means for measuring the static pressure through a pressure tapping. The hole was made on the
wall, at a distance of 1.5mm before the nozzle exit.

Fig 3 : Contour and Conical Nozzle Fabricated

ASV11-15-02

Fig 4: Close up view of Nozzles

5. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Air Supply System:

An air compressor with a maximum range of 21 atmospheres (300 psi) was used as the air
supplier.

Diffuser:
Basically, diffuser is a passage in which the flow will decelerate. Designing of the diffuser was
most difficult and important. Hence a conical shape was used to let proper flow into the settling
chamber for maintaining the stagnation pressure and also for the prevention of the losses.

Inner diameter of the inlet = 24 mm.

Inner diameter of the outlet = 102 mm.

Fig 5: Diffuser Fig 6: Settling Chamber

Wall thickness = 6mm.

Angle at which it is bored = 10 degrees.
Length of the diffuser = 228 mm

Settling Chamber:
The supersonic nozzle is fitted to the settling chamber. The settling chamber, to which a
pressure gauge is attached, is used to maintain the stagnation pressure to provide flow to the
nozzle. Settling chamber is made to with-stand a pressure about 10 atmospheres. It is made of
mild-steel. Towards the ends of the chamber were attached flange plates of 7 inches diameter.
ASV11-15-02

The dimensions of the settling chamber are:

The wall thickness = 6mm.
Inner inlet/outlet diameter = 102 mm.
Outer inlet/outlet diameter= 114mm.

Mercury Manometer: A U-tube mercury manometer was used for measuring the static
pressure at the exit of the nozzle which was used to calculate the exit Mach number. It has one
limb of the manometer connected to a sleeve, which was inserted into the nozzle hole using a
small pressure tapping. The other limb was left open to the atmosphere. The difference in height
of two fluid columns helps in measuring the static pressure.

Visualization Technique: The visualization technique used in the present project is the
shadowgraph technique to view the shocks clearly due to the pressure difference between the exit
pressure and the atmospheric pressure. In the present project, sun was used as the source of light
for the shadowgraph setup since it is very powerful, provides parallel light and economical.

6. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The shock patterns generated by both the nozzles were to be captured for different
settling chamber pressures and the mach numbers measured. At first, the contoured nozzle was
fitted into the settling chamber. The compressor pressure was at 10 atm. Static pressures at the
exit of the nozzle were measured by the U-tube mercury manometer using the difference in the
level of mercury in the two limbs of the manometer. Later, the procedure was repeated for the
conical nozzle. The mach numbers were found for both the nozzles and the shock patterns were
obtained through the shadowgraph setup. Mach numbers and shock patterns for various stagnant
pressures were obtained for both the nozzles. The results obtained were analyzed and compared.
7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:
The static pressures for both the nozzles, at different Nozzle pressure ratios (NPR) were measured
by the manometer. The static pressure obtained was used for calculating their respective mach
numbers. The calibration of mach no. plot at different NPR for both convergent and contour
nozzles is shown below.

Fig.7: Mach distribution against NPR for both the nozzles

The shock patterns at different NPR were captured for both the nozzles and are shown below.
ASV11-15-02

Fig. 8 Shock patterns at 2 NPR for conical and contour nozzle

Fig. 9: Shock patterns at 4 NPR for conical and contour nozzle

Fig.10: Shock pattern at 8 NPR for conical and contour nozzle

The Mach number results obtained by the experimental value were compared with the
calculated isentropic value. The deviation of Mach no. through the designed convergent nozzle
and contour nozzle at 8 NPR were 5.5% and 1.99% respectively.
The shadowgraph pictures were analyzed and it shows that at low NPR’s shock will be inside the
nozzle. There is certain NPR or which shock is right at the exit, which can be calculated for the
designed nozzles by using isentropic relation. It is seen that as the NPR increases the mach cone
becomes larger in size.
ASV11-15-02

The shadowgraph clearly shows the formation of diamond shock patterns and mach disks
at the exit. The shadowgraph snaps gives the clear indication of supersonic flow at the exit. The
whistling sound heard while running the nozzle makes it evident that the flow was supersonic.
The images obtained by the two nozzles were compared.
The shocks generated by the contour nozzle showed an elliptical pattern which reduced
with the axial distance from the exit of the nozzle. The shocks generated were steady but began to
fade after traversing a distance. Whereas the conical nozzle showed clear diamond patterns of
shocks with intersection of oblique shocks and the shocks formed were steadier and the diamond
patterns travelled a longer distance axially. The intersection area of the shocks formed by the
conical nozzles was dark and not visible properly. This may be due to the fact that the region
inside the elliptical patterns became subsonic, which may had decreased the density of that region
and absorbing less light and hence appeared dark.
The difference in shock patterns was due to different nozzle exit geometry. The contour
exit geometry was straight and was designed for generating uniform, smooth shock-free flow.
Hence the shock patterns did not show the intersection of oblique shocks. Only the reduction of
flow to subsonic speeds can be seen with the decrease in the elliptical patterns. To the contrary
the conical exit geometry was diverging and produced non uniform flow. Hence the shock
patterns were clearly seen with the intersection of oblique shocks and formation of diamond
patterns.
Another thing noted was the difference of noise produced by both the nozzles. The
conical nozzle was noisier than the contour nozzle. It was again due to the fact that the contour
nozzle was designed to produce shock free flow and hence generated lesser noise than the conical
nozzle which generated shocks.
Thus we can conclude with the following points that:
(1) The minimum design length required for the contour nozzle was found to be=6.15 mm
(2) The shocks were clearly visible above 8 NPR and began to fade at below 2 NPR.
(3) Mach disks were bigger and were clearly visible for higher NPR because of the strength of
shocks and spread over a large distance from the exit with increasing NPR.
(4) The thickness of shocks increased with increase in NPR.
(5) The shadowgraph images and the thump sound heard clearly demonstrates that the flow
through the nozzle was supersonic.
(6) The thump sound was heard loud at higher NPR and was noisier than at low NPR.
(7) The shocks formed by the conical nozzle were steadier than the contour nozzle.
(8) The designed contour nozzle proved to deviate 1.99%, whereas the conical nozzle by
5.56% from the correct (isentropic) mach value.
(9) The contour nozzle reached a higher mach no than the conical nozzle at all NPR’s.
(10) The exit flow geometry of the designed contour nozzle was found to deliver a uniform and
smooth, shock free flow, comparatively with lesser noise than the conical nozzle. Hence the
contour design proved to be a better design for the nozzle with a minimum length.
8. REFERENCES

[1] Edelman and Gilbert M, “The design, development and testing of two-dimensional sharp-
cornered supersonic nozzles”, Guided Missiles Program, M.I.T Meteor Report No. 22 (M.I.T.),
May 1, 1948.

[2] Shames H and Seashore F L, “Design data for graphical construction of two-dimensional
sharp edge throat supersonic nozzles”, NACA RM No. E8J12. TIB. December 1948
 ASV11-15-02

[3] A. E. Puckett, “Supersonic nozzle design”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 13, No. 4, pp.
A265-A270, December 1946.

[4] Vi H. Rapp, Jennifer Jacobsen, Mark Lawson, Andrew Parker and Kuan Chen, “Design,
Construction and Testing of a Desktop Supersonic Wind Tunnel”, American journal of
undergraduate research, Vol.4, No.2, 2005.

[5] A.E. Buggele and R.G. Seasholtz, “Improved optical techniques for studying sonic and
supersonic injection into Mach 3 flow”, Technical memorandum NASA TM-107533, September
1997.

[6] R.F. Clippinger, “Supersonic Axially Symmetric Nozzles”, Ballistic Research Laboratory,
Report 794. 1951. Proj. No. TB3-0118Y, 1951.

View publication stats