Gas Dynamics Report

Exhaust-Nozzle Validation
Go Peter Christian
5600062921
Aerospace Engineering Department, Chulalongkorn University

Introduction
Multiengine, highly maneuverable jet aircraft must operate efficiently over a wide
range of power settings and Mach numbers. Such aircraft require a propulsion
exhaust-nozzle system with a variable geometry for high performance at different
throttle settings. Developments of the exhaust system by experimental study are
very costly. Since, implementing numerical simulation provides cost reduction, in
this project we will validate the numerical results of exhaustnozzle simulation
with measurements from literature [Mason et al.].

Experimental Investigation
Above is a sketch of the air-powered nacelle model including nonaxisymmetric
nozzle. The total pressure probes were used to measure the jet total pressure at the
inlet of the nozzle. And, the jet total temperature was measured by a
thermocouple, which was also located at the inlet of the nozzle. Internal static
pressure orifices were located on both the upper and lower flaps and on the side
walls of nozzle. Many measurement parameters are interested such as nozzle
thrust and mass flow rate. However, we are interested only the static pressure
along the upper flaps (upper wall) to validate with results from numerical
simulations.

Problem Description

The geometry and boundary conditions of a planar, compressible channel flow

problem is shown. The channel features a contoured (smoothly rounded) throat
and a small angle in the diverging section the total pressure, p0 and total
temperature, T0 at the inlet is known. The static pressure at the outlet also
provided. The working fluid is air and the ideal gas law is applicable.
Model and Operating Condition
We did the model and mesh in GAMBIT 2.4.6 in 2D and simulate it with
FLUENT 6.3.26. First, we drew the exhaust-nozzle with given geometry and then
do the edge and face mesh. We did structured mapped quadrilateral mesh, give us
7524 mesh nodes.
We define 4 boundary conditions here, they are:
1. Wall
2. Pressure Inlet
3. Pressure Outlet
4. Symmetry
5. Fluid (treated as an air)
Physical Models
There are 6 physical and numerical models that we will do in this project, and we
will compare the result with the experimental measurement. The physical and
numerical models are:
1. Pressure Based Inviscid Model
2. Density Based Inviscid Model
3. Pressure Based Sparat-Almaras Model
4. Density Based Sparat-Almaras Model
5. Pressure Based k- Model
6. Density Based k- Model

Result and Discussion

The following screen shots and graphs illustrate the complexity of the flow inside
the exhaust-nozzle. From these graph we can see that Inviscid approach are
slightly below the experimental measurement and k- turbulent approach are
slightly above the experimental measurement. Sparat-Almaras turbulent approach
gave the closest result to the experimental measurement. Density and Pressure
based model doesnt give any significant difference.
Pressure Based Inviscid Model

Contours of p/p0
0.9
0.8
0.7

p/p0

0.6
0.5
0.4

Mason

0.3

Inviscid-Pressure Based

0.2
0.1
0
-0.5

0.5
x/l

Density Based Inviscid Model

Contours of p/p0
0.9
0.8
0.7

p/p0

0.6
0.5
0.4

Mason

0.3

Inviscid-Density Based

0.2
0.1
0
-0.5

0.5
x/l

Pressure Based Sparat-Almaras Model

Contours of p/p0
0.9
0.8
0.7

p/p0

0.6
0.5

Mason

0.4
0.3

Spalart-Almaras-Pressure
Based

0.2
0.1
0
-0.5

0.5
x/l

Density Based Sparat-Almaras Model

Contours of p/p0
0.9
0.8
0.7

p/p0

0.6
0.5

Mason

0.4
0.3

Spalart-Almaras-Density
Based

0.2
0.1
0
-0.5

0.5
x/l

Pressure Based k- Model

Contours of p/p0
0.9
0.8
0.7

p/p0

0.6
0.5
0.4

Mason

0.3

K-Epsilon-Pressure Based

0.2
0.1
0
-0.5

0.5
x/l

Density Based k- Model

Contours of p/p0
0.9
0.8
0.7

p/p0

0.6
0.5
0.4

Mason

0.3

K-Epsilon-Density Based

0.2
0.1
0
-0.5

0.5

x/l

Conclusion
Numerical simulation could give us whole picture about flow behavior and help
us to reduce costs rather than doing experimental study. But it cant give us a
precise result. As we can see at the results comparison above none of the methods
gave the accurate value, but for this case Sparat-Almaras turbulent approach gave
the closest result rather than the other method. The results above also shows us
that in this case pressure and density based model doesnt give any significant
difference.