Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T23:32:22.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shock Position in Overexpanded Nozzles.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

M. Arens
M. Arens*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

References 1 and 2 discuss the shock position in over-expanded nozzles, and in particular the transition from nozzle flow characterised by a normal shock in the nozzle to nozzle flow characterised by oblique shocks and separation from the wall. As is well known, the shock position and pressure distribution for unseparated overexpanded flow can be adequately explained using one-dimensional fluid mechanics. Ref. 2, while suggesting a criterion for transition to separated flow, maintains that the separation point is not predictable. The criterion suggested by ref. 2 is that whenever the pressure ratio p2/p0, associated with expansion to the nozzle exit plane followed by normal shock compression at the exit Mach number exceeds the nozzle pressure ratio pb/p0, separated flow will occur. Based on this criterion and the double valuedness of the p2/p0 locus, it is argued that at a nozzle pressure ratio of 0·624, a continuous increase of nozzle exit to throat area ratio will provide for transition from unseparated normal shock flow to separated flow and back to unseparated normal shock flow.

Information

Type
Technical Report
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 67 , Issue 628 , April 1963, pp. 268 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1963

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Holder, D. W.On the Effect of Shock-Induced Turbulent Separation on the Shock-Wave Position in a Nozzle. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society. Vol. 65. Sept. 1961.Google Scholar
2.Glass, I. I. and Korbacher, G. K. Some Comments “On the Effect of Shock-Induced Turbulent Separation on the Shock-Wave Position in a Nozzle.” Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society. Vol. 66, July 1962.Google Scholar
3.Chapman, Dean R., Kuehn, Donald M. and Larson, Howard K. Investigation of Separated Flows in Supersonic and Subsonic Streams with Emphasis on the Effect of Transition. NASA Report 1356, 1958.Google Scholar
4.Sterrett, James R. and Emery, James C. Extension of Boundary-Layer-Separation Criteria to a Mach Number of 6·5 by Utilizing Flat Plates with Forward-Facing Steps. NASA TN D-618, 1960.Google Scholar
5.Summerfield, Martin, Foster, Chalres R. and Swan, Walter. Flow Separation in Overexpanded Supersonic Exhaust Nozzles. Jet Propulsion. Vol. 24, p. 319, 1954.Google Scholar
6.Frazer, R. P., Eisenklam, P. and Wilkie, D.Investigation of Supersonic Flow Separation in Nozzles. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. Vol. 1, p. 267, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Farley, John M. and Cambell, C. E. Performance of Several Method of Characteristic Exhaust Nozzles. NASA TN D-293, 1960.Google Scholar
8.Campbell, C. E. and Farley, J. M. Performance of Several Conical Convergent-Divergent Rocket Type Exhaust Nozzles. NASA TN D-467, 1960.Google Scholar
9.Ahlberg, J. H., Hamilton, S., Migdal, D. and Nilson, E. N.Truncated Perfect Nozzle in Optimum Nozzle Design., A.R.S. Journal. Vol. 31, p. 614, 1961.Google Scholar
10.Arens, M. and Spiegler, E.Separated Flow in Over-expanded Nozzles at Low Pressure Ratios. The Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel. Vol. 11C, p. 45, 1962.Google Scholar
11.Ashwood, P. F.A Review of Exhaust Systems for Gas-Turbine Aero-Engines. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Vol. 171, p. 129, 1957.Google Scholar