Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:45:48.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical investigation of separation pattern and separation pattern transition in overexpanded single expansion ramp nozzle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

Y. Yu ,
J. Xu ,
J. Mo  and
M. Wang
Y. Yu
Affiliation:
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace Power System, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China
J. Xu*
Affiliation:
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace Power System, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China
J. Mo
Affiliation:
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace Power System, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China
M. Wang
Affiliation:
Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Aerospace Power System, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flow separation results in many problems to single expansion ramp nozzle (SERN) and hypersonic vehicle. However, little research has been conducted on the separation patterns and their effects on SERN’s performance. In the present paper, the numerical simulation is adopted to get the intuitive results and help to analyse the separation phenomena in SERN thoroughly. The main separation pattern is the restricted shock separation (RSS) in SERN, and the free shock separation (FSS) only appears in a small range of the nozzle pressure ratio (NPR), which is much different from the axisymmetric rocket nozzle. Further CFD results show that the separation pattern transition makes great effects on the performance of SERN, especially the lift. Moreover, the performance of SERN has an extreme in the separation pattern transition because of the main jet impinging on the expansion ramp. The transitions occur in both the startup and shutdown processes but the critical nozzle pressure ratios of the separation pattern transitions are different, which leads to a hysteresis loop of SERN performance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1202 , April 2014 , pp. 399 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Herrman, H. and Rick, H. Propulsion aspects of hypersonic turbo-ramjet engines with special emphasis on nozzle/aftbody integration, 1991, ASME Paper 91-GT-395.Google Scholar
2. Albertson, C.W., Emami, S and Trexler, C.A. Mach 4 test results of a dual-flow path, turbine based combined cycle inlet, 2006, AIAA paper 2006-8138.Google Scholar
3. Haid, D. and Gamble, E. Nozzle aftbody drag reduction using fluidics, 2004 AIAA paper 2004-3921.Google Scholar
4. Xu, J.L. Sha, J. Shi, Z.Y and Zhang, K.Y. PIV experimental study and numerical simulation of the over-expanded SERN exit jet, 2008, AIAA paper 2008-99.Google Scholar
5. Gamble, E. and Haid, D. Improving off-design nozzle performance using fluidic injection, 2004, AIAA paper 2004-1206.Google Scholar
6. Ge, J.H, Xu, J.L. Wang, M.T. and Mo, J.W. prediction of flow separation in asymmetric ramp nozzle, Acta Aeronautic a et Astronautics Sinica, 2012, 33, (8), pp 1394–1399.Google Scholar
7. Frey, M and Hagemann, G. Flow separation and side-loads in rocket nozzles, 1999, AIAA paper 99-2815.Google Scholar
8. Nave, L.H. and Coffey, G.A. Sea level side loads in high-area-ratio rocket engines, 1973, AIAA paper 73-1284.Google Scholar
9. Schmucker, R. Flow processes in overexpanded nozzles of chemical rocket engines, 1973, Report TB-7,-10,-14, Technical University Munich.Google Scholar
10. Frey, M. and Hagemann, G. Status of flow separation prediction in rocket nozzles, 1998, AIAA paper 98-3619.Google Scholar
11. Frey, M and Hagemann, G. Restricted shock separation in rocket nozzles, J Propulsion and Power, 2000, 16, (3), pp 478–484.Google Scholar
12. Frey, M., Hagemann, G. and Koschel, W. Appearance of restricted shock separation in rocket nozzles, J Propulsion and Power, 2002, 18, (3), pp 577–584.Google Scholar
13. Ostlund, J., Damgaard, T. and Frey, M. Side-Load phenomena in highly overexpanded rocket nozzles, J Propulsion and Power, 2004, 20, (4), pp 695–704.Google Scholar
14. Watanabe, Y, Sakazume, N and Tsuboi, M. LE-7A engine nozzle problems during the transient operations, 2002, AIAA paper 2002-3841.Google Scholar
15. Watanabe, Y, Sakazume, N., Yonezawa, K. and Tsuiimoto, Y LE-7A engine nozzle flow separation phenomenon and the possibility of RSS suppression by the step inside the nozzle, 2004, AIAA paper 2004-4014.Google Scholar
16. Nasuti, F., Onofri, M. and Martelli, E. Numerical analysis of flow separation structures in rocket nozzles, 2007, AIAA paper 2007-5473.Google Scholar
17. Kwan, W. and Stark, R. Flow separation phenomena in subscale rocket nozzles, 2002, AIAA paper 2002-4229.Google Scholar
18. Wang, T.S. Transient two-dimensional analysis of side load in liquid rocket engine nozzles, 2004, AIAA paper 2004-3680.Google Scholar
19. Wang, T.S., Lin, J., Ruf, J. and Gumos, M. Transient three-dimensional side load analysis of out-of-round film cooled nozzles, 2010, NASA report M10-0136.Google Scholar
20. Reiiasse, Ph., Morzenski, L., Blacodon, D. and Birkemeyer, J. Flow separation experimental analysis in overexpended subscale rocket-nozzles, 2001, AIAA paper 2001-3556.Google Scholar
21. Verma, S.B. and Haidn, O. Study of restricted shock separation phenomena in a thrust optimized parabolic nozzle, J Propulsion and Power, 2009, 25, (5), pp 1046–1057.Google Scholar
22. Brown, A.M., Rue, J.H. and McDaniels, D.M. Recovering aerodynamic side loads on rocket nozzles using quasi-static strain-gage measurements, 2009, NASA report M09-0447.Google Scholar
23. Ruf, J.H., McDaniels, D.M. and Brown, A.M. Nozzle side load testing and analysis at Marshall Space Flight Center, 2009, AIAA paper 2009-4856.Google Scholar
24. Ruf, J.H., McDaniels, D.M. and Brown, A.M. Details of side load test data and analysis for a truncated ideal contour nozzle and a parabolic contour nozzle, 2010, AIAA paper 2010-6813.Google Scholar
25. Baars, W.J. and Tinney, C.E. Wall pressure unsteadiness and side loads in overexpanded rocket nozzles, AIAA J, 2012, 50, (3), pp 61–73.Google Scholar