Investigation of Quasi-One-Dimensional Convergent

Divergent Nozzle Flow

Course MECH 5304

Mustafa Mogri

Student # 100833845

Abstract
Steady, Isentropic Nozzle flow in a converging diverging nozzle was investigated. The
distribution of density ratio, temperature ratio and M were quantified both analytically
and numerically. The results were compared and the error evaluated between the two
methods. The numerical solution was done using the explicit MacCormack's predictor-
corrector technique and coded in MATLAB.

Introduction
Convergent-Divergent (CD) nozzle flow was investigated by using a 1D model and
assuming the flow to be steady, quasi-one-dimensional and isentropic through the
nozzle. The assumption that the cross sectional area A varies only with x allows us to
define the flow as quasi-one-dimensional flow.

The flow enters the nozzle at reservoir conditions ρ/ρ0, T/T0 (inlet boundary condition)
and expands isentropically to from subsonic conditions to sonic at the throat. The flow
expands further to achieve supersonic conditions at the nozzle exit Me, pe, Te. The
schematic of the nozzle is given below.

Methods
The investigation was carried out both analytically and numerically. The errors were
calculated after tabulating the data obtained from both solutions. The two solutions are
discussed below.

1. Analytical Solution

The analytical solution was based on the governing equations for quasi-one-
dimensional, steady and isentropic flow. The governing equations were solved to obtain
results for ρ/ρ0, T/T0 in terms of Mach number M. The Mach number itself was
calculated using the relationship given below.
 
  1 2  − 1  −

∗ = 
 
  +1 2

Where  = 1 + 2.2( − 1.5)2 . Note: x in the equation is actually dimensionless (x/L).

This allows us to implicitly calculate M in terms of x and hence other quantities in terms
of x.

The ρ/ρ0, T/T0 are given in terms of M by the following relations.


   − 1  −−    − 1  −

 =
1 +   ,
 =
1 +  
 2  2

The above relations were calculated using an MS excel spreadsheet and tabulated for a
range of x from 0 to 3. The tabulated values were used to evaluate the error with the
values obtained in the numerical solution. The values were also plotted along with the
numerical solution for comparison. The results are given after discussing the numerical
solution.

2. Numerical Solution

The numerical solution is based on governing equations derived from integral form of
the continuity, momentum and energy equations. Quasi-one-dimensional flow requires
special attention due to the assumption that the variation of properties is only in x. This
is physically not true since the area changes and the flow is truly two dimensional. The
governing equations derived based on this concept and non-dimensionalized by using
appropriate characteristic quantities for each variable.

The finite difference expressions are derived from the governing equations. To
implement the solution the nozzle is divided into discrete grid points along the x-axis.
The number of grid points is denoted by N and starting point is denoted by  . This is an
important number as it controls the accuracy of the numerical solution.

The predictor step, predicted values, corrector step, average time derivative and
corrected values equations were modelled in MATLAB. All variables are dimensionless.

  
 =  = ,  =  = ,  =  =
  

The solution is initialized at t=0 by the following conditions.

 = 1 − 0.3146,  = 1 − 0.2314,  = 0.1 + 1.09! ."

The inlet boundary conditions are given by

  = 1,  = 1,  = 2 − #

The outlet boundary conditions are given by

$ = 2$% − $% , $ = 2$% − $% , $ = 2$% − $%

The grid resolution is the range of  i.e. 1<  < 31 or N=31.

The time step is given by ∆'!)( = *

∆+
,- ./-

.
The speed of sound is given by 0 = √ and therefore  =
√2

With the conditions listed above, the finite difference equations were coded in MATLAB.
The values of ρ/ρ0, T/T0 are tabulated (in the next section) along with the values
evaluated from the analytical solution and the numerical error calculated between the
two.

Results and Discussions

The error is minimal and the numerical solution can effectively be used to model the
flow. The high degree of accuracy is due to the high number of time steps (1400) in
calculating the solution. Depending on the degree of accuracy needed, the time steps
can be adjusted.

There is an error associated with the inlet boundary condition. We assume M=0 at inlet,
however there is a mach number associated due to the finite area at the inlet.

Also, the error is a function of grid size. For the present case, a grid size N of 31 was
considered. By increasing the grid size, the solution will be more accurate. However, it
is noted that the results obtained by doubling the grid size N=61 marginally affects the
results and therefore the solution may be considered grid independent [1].

The Courant number is an indication of the stability of the solution. The hyperbolic
equation solved in the present case has a stability limit of 1. Simulations carried out with
increasing values of Courant number reveal that the choice of 0.5 is appropriate for the
current study [1].

The tabulated values are plotted as a function of x along the CD nozzle. The plots are
given below. Since the error is minimal, the plots are essentially an overlap on each
other. The plots are a graphical indication of the accuracy of the numerical situation in
this present case. The results are after 1400 time steps and they have converged well
to the analytical solution.
 Err Err Err
x M (A) M (N) ρ/ρo (A) ρ/ρo (N) T/To (A) T/To (N)
% % %
0 0.0980 0.0991 1.16 0.9952 1.0000 0.48 0.9981 1.0000 0.19
0.1 0.1100 0.1122 1.99 0.9940 0.9975 0.36 0.9976 0.9990 0.14
0.2 0.1240 0.1252 0.98 0.9924 0.9970 0.47 0.9969 0.9988 0.19
0.3 0.1400 0.1428 2.02 0.9903 0.9941 0.39 0.9961 0.9976 0.15
0.4 0.1600 0.1625 1.56 0.9873 0.9916 0.43 0.9949 0.9966 0.17
0.5 0.1850 0.1871 1.11 0.9831 0.9872 0.42 0.9932 0.9949 0.17
0.6 0.2140 0.2162 1.04 0.9775 0.9817 0.43 0.9909 0.9926 0.17
0.7 0.2490 0.2521 1.25 0.9697 0.9736 0.41 0.9878 0.9894 0.16
0.8 0.2930 0.2958 0.96 0.9583 0.9625 0.43 0.9831 0.9848 0.17
0.9 0.3470 0.3496 0.75 0.9422 0.9465 0.46 0.9765 0.9783 0.18
1 0.4130 0.4155 0.61 0.9196 0.9240 0.48 0.9670 0.9689 0.20
1.1 0.4940 0.4962 0.44 0.8877 0.8924 0.53 0.9535 0.9556 0.22
1.2 0.5920 0.5938 0.31 0.8442 0.8491 0.57 0.9345 0.9368 0.25
1.3 0.7090 0.7103 0.18 0.7870 0.7920 0.63 0.9086 0.9112 0.28
1.4 0.8450 0.8459 0.11 0.7163 0.7209 0.64 0.8750 0.8778 0.31
1.5 1.0000 0.9994 0.06 0.6339 0.6386 0.73 0.8333 0.8364 0.37
1.6 1.1690 1.1674 0.14 0.5466 0.5509 0.79 0.7854 0.7886 0.41
1.7 1.3480 1.3451 0.21 0.4607 0.4649 0.91 0.7334 0.7368 0.45
1.8 1.5310 1.5276 0.22 0.3825 0.3863 0.99 0.6808 0.6840 0.46
1.9 1.7150 1.7103 0.27 0.3146 0.3183 1.19 0.6296 0.6328 0.50
2 1.8960 1.8901 0.31 0.2581 0.2618 1.42 0.5817 0.5849 0.54
2.1 2.0710 2.0646 0.31 0.2126 0.2159 1.56 0.5383 0.5412 0.55
2.2 2.2400 2.2330 0.31 0.1760 0.1790 1.73 0.4991 0.5020 0.57
2.3 2.4020 2.3942 0.32 0.1469 0.1496 1.88 0.4643 0.4670 0.59
2.4 2.5570 2.5490 0.31 0.1236 0.1261 1.99 0.4333 0.4359 0.59
2.5 2.7060 2.6963 0.36 0.1049 0.1072 2.21 0.4058 0.4084 0.64
2.6 2.8480 2.8386 0.33 0.0898 0.0918 2.27 0.3814 0.3838 0.63
2.7 2.9830 2.9724 0.35 0.0776 0.0795 2.37 0.3598 0.3621 0.65
2.8 3.1140 3.1053 0.28 0.0675 0.0690 2.26 0.3402 0.3423 0.60
2.9 3.2390 3.2249 0.44 0.0592 0.0609 2.97 0.3228 0.3253 0.77
3 3.3590 3.3532 0.17 0.0523 0.0529 1.16 0.3071 0.3083 0.39
The physical flow is driven by the back pressure i.e. the back pressure ratio p0/pe.

The Mach number is increasing as is expected since the flow is expanding, so the
decrease in pressure translates into increase in velocity (Bernoulli's equation) and
hence Mach number. The flow is sonic at the throat (x=1.5) and then becomes
supersonic as expansion continues in the divergent section. The marginal difference in
the two solutions is perhaps due to the indirect calculation of Mach number in the
numerical solution.
 Mach Number Results
4
3
M

2 Mach Number
1 Analytical
0 Mach Number
0 1 2 3 Numerical

The temperature change can be related to the Mach number and the stagnation
.3
temperature given by  =  + 4 . Therefore, as can be seen the change in Mach
5

number is less upstream of the throat and the corresponding change in temperature is
less. The significant change in Mach number downstream of the throat reflects in a
significant change in static temperature. Also as can be seen by the stagnation
temperature relation, the velocity increase requires a decrease in static temperature for
a constant stagnation (or reservoir) temperature.

Temperature Ratio Results

1.5
1
T/T0

Temperature Ratio
0.5 Analytical
0 Temperature Ratio
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Numerical

The density ratio change is also directly related to the change in Mach number as given
by the analytical solution. It decreases with increase in Mach number.

Density Ratio Results

1.5
1
ρ/ρ0

Density Ratio
0.5 Analytical
0
Density Ratio
0 1 2 3 Numerical
x
Conclusion
The investigation of a steady, isentropic quasi-one-dimensional flow revealed that the
Mach number increases to supersonic at the outlet from subsonic conditions at the inlet.
The density ratio, temperature ratio calculated are in agreement with their relation to
Mach number. Also, the numerical solution are in close agreement with the analytical
solution. The error is marginal due to the use of 1400 time steps. The solution is grid
independent.

References
[1] Computational Fluid Dynamics 'The basics with applications', John D. Anderson Jr.
(1995).
Appendix
The source code for the numerical solution is listed below.

%Numerical Solution of quasi-one-dimensional isentropic flow through a

%converging-diverging nozzle, using the explicit Mac Cormack finite
%difference method.

function Num_Sol_Nozzle

%Nozzle geometry
dx=0.1;
x=0:dx:3;
A=(1+2.2*(x.^2-3*x+2.25))';
cfl=0.5; %Courant number
gama=1.4; %Specific heat ratio
N=length(x);%Number of grid points
tt=1400; %Number of time steps

%Initial values
rho=(1-0.3146*x)';
T=(1-0.2314*x)';
for i=1:N
V(i)=((0.1+x(i)*1.09)*(T(i)^0.5));
deltat(i)=(cfl*(dx/((T(i)^0.5+V(i)))))';
end
dt=min(deltat); %Time step difference

%%Mac Cormack method%%

for j=1:tt

%Prediction step%

for k=2:N-1

rho_der(k)=(1/dx)*(-rho(k)*(V(k+1)-V(k))-rho(k)*V(k)*(log(A(k+1))...
-log(A(k)))-V(k)*(rho(k+1)-rho(k)));

V_der(k)=(1/dx)*(-V(k)*(V(k+1)-V(k))-(1/gama)*((T(k+1)-T(k))+...
(T(k)/rho(k))*(rho(k+1)-rho(k))));

T_der(k)=(1/dx)*(-V(k)*(T(k+1)-T(k))-(gama-1)*T(k)*((V(k+1)-V(k))...
+(V(k)*(log(A(k+1))-log(A(k))))));

rho_bar(k)=rho(k)+rho_der(k)*dt;
V_bar(k)=V(k)+V_der(k)*dt;
T_bar(k)=T(k)+T_der(k)*dt;

end

%Intermediate boundary conditions

V_bar(1)=2*V_bar(2)-V_bar(3);
rho_bar(1)=rho(1);
T_bar(1)=T(1);

%Correction step%

for m=2:N-1

rho_der_bar(m)=(1/dx)*(-rho_bar(m)*(V_bar(m)-V_bar(m-1))-
rho_bar(m)*V_bar(m)...
*(log(A(m))-log(A(m-1)))-V_bar(m)*(rho_bar(m)-rho_bar(m-1)));

V_der_bar(m)=(1/dx)*(-V_bar(m)*(V_bar(m)-V_bar(m-1))-(1/gama)*...
((T_bar(m)-T_bar(m-1))+(T_bar(m)/rho_bar(m))*(rho_bar(m)-rho_bar(m-
1))));

T_der_bar(m)=(1/dx)*(-V_bar(m)*(T_bar(m)-T_bar(m-1))-(gama-
1)*T_bar(m)*((V_bar(m)-V_bar(m-1))...
+(V_bar(m)*(log(A(m))-log(A(m-1))))));

rho(m)=rho(m)+dt*0.5*(rho_der(m)+rho_der_bar(m));
V(m)=V(m)+dt*0.5*(V_der(m)+V_der_bar(m));
T(m)=T(m)+dt*0.5*(T_der(m)+T_der_bar(m));

end

%Boundary conditions%
V(1)=2*V(2)-V(3);
V(31)=2*V(N-1)-V(N-2);
rho(31)=2*rho(N-1)-rho(N-2);
T(31)=2*T(N-1)-T(N-2);

Q(:,1)=rho;
Q(:,2)=V;
Q(:,3)=T;

j
Q

end

xlswrite('rho.xls',Q(:,1));
xlswrite('Vel.xls',Q(:,2));
xlswrite('Temp.xls',Q(:,3));
end