LABORATORY REPORT

AE334 - PROPULSION SYSTEMS I

AEROSPACE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Labwork 2
Team 7

Authors:
Emrullah BÖREKÇİ (Id: 2449270)
Mehmet Gökberk ÖZLÜ(Id: 2449858)
Mertcan Efe YANTAZ (Id: 2523108)
Murat Şükrü BOZSEKİ (Id: 2337053)

Date: May 2, 2025

 Abstract
This study aims to examine how a converging nozzle behaves under changing back
pressure conditions. In order to define how the nozzle behaves under a range of
conditions, actual mass flow rate and beam deflection caused by thrust generation of
nozzle are measured for each backpressure setting. Then, by assuming the working
fluid as perfect ideal and applying the balance equations based on the data from
flowmeter, some performance parameters are calculated. Comparing these
parameters with actual performance measured, we find that there are frictional
losses and inaccuracies, as well as a phenomenon called “choking”, limiting the mass
flow, and thereby nozzle efficiency.

1 - Introduction
Nozzles are essential devices used in aerospace systems to convert internal
pressure into motion. In such systems, understanding how gases accelerate is vital to
performance. In this experiment, the aim is to understand air behaviors better when
it is forced through a narrowing channel while external pressure changes. Using
thermodynamic models of compressible flow, estimations were made about how flow
should behave under ideal provisions. Moreover, comparisons between calculated and
measured values provide us information to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of
theoretical assumptions. Observing this phenomenon in a controlled lab setting
allows us to make connections between theoretical and actual data and understand
that deviations may arise due to real-world limitations like surface friction or
imperfect instrumentation, highlighting the practical boundaries.
2 - Experimental Setup and Procedure
Figure 1 illustrates the experimental setup, which includes a converging nozzle
mounted on a cantilever beam inside a pressurized chamber. Both the chamber
pressure and the nozzle back pressure can be controlled manually. The test unit is
equipped with sensors that record upstream temperature, inlet and exit chamber
pressure, deflection of the cantilever beam caused by thrust generation of nozzle
and mass flow rate. The deflection can be related linearly with the thrust force
generated by the help of figure 2.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the test unit

 Figure 2: The relation between dial reading and thrust force generated. (specified by the manufacturer)

The experiment investigates how variations in back-pressure affect both the mass
flow rate and the thrust. Furthermore, it allows us to understand the effect of choked
flow on these parameters.

The procedure begins by closing the inlet valve and opening the chamber valve, then
the micrometer gauge is set to zero, in order to calibrate the setup to the neutral
deflection of the beam under no flow. Then, the inlet and outlet valves are adjusted
according to the desired inlet and back-pressure levels. For each desired pressure
setting, the deflection will be measured by the micrometer dial. Lastly, mass flow
rates at the desired pressure settings can be recorded from the flow meter mounted
to the outlet chamber.
3 - Theory
In this experiment, a converging nozzle has been investigated considering the effect
of various exit pressures, when inlet pressure kept as constant. It is known that if
total pressure at the inlet is the same as the total pressure at the exit there will be
no flow across the nozzle. To analyze how various pressure differences affect the
mass flow rate and thrust, the following equations have been used. Additionally, at
the throat if choking phenomenon is satisfied were checked. Nozzle was assumed to
be an ideal convergent nozzle, and perfect gas flow exists across the nozzle.

Mass flow rate equation is below, rearranging the terms with some parameters that
can be formulate by using isentropic relations, and ideal gas equation gives that:

𝜌 𝑢𝑐
𝑚̇ = 𝜌𝑢𝐴 = 𝜌! 𝑐 𝐴
𝜌! 𝑐 𝑐! !
( 1)

𝑚̇ 𝑃𝑉
= ρ𝑉 =
𝐴 𝑅𝑇
( 2)

#$ $
𝛾 − 1 " %#$ 𝛾 − 1 " #"
𝑚̇ = -1 + 𝑀 4 𝜌! 𝑀 -1 + 𝑀 4 𝑐! 𝐴
2 2
( 3)

Now, mass flow rate is written in addition to density 𝜌! and area A, in terms of
some important parameters such as Mach number M, speed of sound c, and specific
heat ratio 𝛾, taken as 𝛾 = 1.4 for air in this laboratory work.

𝑝!
𝜌! =
𝑅𝑇!
( 4)

𝑐! = 9𝛾𝑅𝑇!
( 5)

where R is ideal gas constant, taken as 287 𝐽/𝑘𝑔𝐾

Putting equations 4 and 5 into equation 3, gives the final mass flow rate equation:
(' ) $)
#
γ (γ − 1) " "(' # $)
ṁ = A p! E M J1 + M M
R T! 2

( 6)

Choking phenomena states that sufficiently high upstream pressure causes Mach
number to reach M=1 at the throat where the area is minimum across the nozzle.
While keeping total inlet pressure and total temperature constant, mass flow rate
cannot be exceeded then the value where Mach equals to 1 at the throat.
%)$
∗ ∗
𝛾 𝛾 + 1 #"(%#$)
𝑚̇ = 𝐴 𝑝! E ∗ - 4
𝑅𝑇! 2

( 7)

𝐴∗ donates the throat area, in this experiment, since we analyze a converging

nozzle, 𝐴∗ equals to exit area of the nozzle.

Then, thrust equation comes from the control volume analysis applied to the control
volume enclosing the converging nozzle. Then, the momentum conservation
equation gives us the force produced by the nozzle, which is a function of exit
velocity and the pressure of the working fluid:

𝑇 = 𝐹 = 𝑚̇[𝑈, ] + (𝑝, − 𝑝- )𝐴,

( 8)

Exit velocity can be found by this expression for a subsonic perfectly expanding flow
where the pressure term on the right hand side at equation [8] drops;
𝐹
𝑉, =
𝑚̇
( 9)
 ' '
𝑝! γ − 1 ∗" '#$ γ + 1 '#$
≥ -1 + 𝑀 4 = - 4 = 𝜋./010.23
𝑝∗ 2 2
( 10)

Since the nozzle considering as an ideal converging nozzle, total enthalpy at the
inlet and outlet equals each other. Inlet velocity 𝜈$ is negligible in this experiment.
𝑣$" 𝑣""
ℎ$ + = ℎ" +
2 2
( 11)

Nozzle efficiency can be formulated as;

𝜐""
specific kinetic energy increase across the 2
nozzle efficiency = =
isentropic enthalpy change ℎ$ − ℎ"4
( 12)

'#$
γ 𝑃$ 𝑃" '
ℎ$ − ℎ"4 = ⋅ i1 − - 4 j
γ − 1 ρ$ 𝑃$

( 13)
4 - Results and Discussion

𝑃" (Pa) 𝑚̇ Thrust 𝑚̇5678, :6,7/; NPR 𝑉" (m/s) 𝜂nozzle 𝑀"
(kg/s) (N) (kg/s) (𝑃$ /𝑃" ) Exit Mach
(Calculated)

601325 0.0028 0,2083 0,4800 1.0831 74,4048 0,4166 0,2168

551325 0.0038 0,5000 0,4800 1.1814 131,5789 0,6321 0,3834

501325 0.0044 0,7083 0,4800 1.2992 160,9848 0,6107 0,4691

451325 0.0048 0,9583 0,4800 1.4431 199,6528 0,6802 0,5817

401325 0.0051 1,1250 0,4800 1.6229 220,5882 0,6394 0,6427

351325 0.0051 1,3333 0,4800 1.8539 220,5882 0,5110 0,6427

Table 1: Measured values from the sensors (first 3 columns) and some of the calculated parameters.

In table 1, we see that actual mass flow increases with decreasing back pressure. At
401.325 kPa back pressure, it is observed that mass flow achieves a critical value,
where it cannot increase any further. We define this pressure as the choking
beginning back-pressure, where decreasing the back-pressure further will not cause
an increase in the mass flow.

It can be also seen that, even when the flow is choked, decreasing back pressure
results in an increase in thrust generated by the nozzle. This is due to the fact that
when the choking begins, the flow is supersonic at the exit cross section, and adding
more pressure difrential to the system causes the pressure term in the equation [8]
to contribute to the thrust generation.

Moreover, we see that the theoretical mass flow rate for the choked flow is the same
for all back-pressure adjustments, this is because equation [7] clearly shows that for
the choked flow condition, the mass flow rate is a function of upstream total
pressure, total temperature and cross sectional area. Thus, we infer that
backpressure does not have an effect on the theoretical choked mass flow rate and
the value stays the same for all pressure adjustments.

Furthermore, exit velocities can be seen to increase with decreasing back pressure
in the subsonic regime. This is nothing but expected, since in the subsonic regime,
the expansion to the ambient pressure is completed, and no choking means that exit
velocity is a function of mass flow, which itself is a function of total quantities.
When choking begins, mass flow rate gets limited, thus the exit velocity is limited
as a consequence. This is in line with our expectations if we assume exit density
does not change critically with exit pressure, which turns out to be higher than the
ambient pressure for the thrust to be increasing.

Lastly, we see that nozzle efficiency seems to increase with decreasing back
pressure, until to the point where choking begins, then, we see that nozzle efficiency
drops with decreasing back pressure. This is also in line with our expectations since
we only have a converging nozzle where when the choking begins and back pressure
is reduced further, the exit pressure starts to be higher than the back pressure,
causing expansion outside the nozzle, which cannot be utilized, hence, reducing
nozzle efficiency.

Figure 3: Mass flow rate [kg/s] vs P2/P1

in figure 3 we see that when the NPR is 1.62929, 𝑃" / 𝑃$ ratio is 0.6427, the choking
begins. While chocking may begin earlier, in this lab work, we will be considering
that choking begins at the fifth data point, where the back-pressure is 401.325 kPa
5 - Conclusions
In this experiment, we have observed for a converging nozzle, at higher back
pressures, that is, at lower pressure differences between nozzle inlet and exit, the
flow flows in the subsonic regime, where the expansion to the exit chamber is
completed and thrust is generated by the exit velocity of the working gas. The choking
phenomenon begins to appear between 451.325 kPa and 401.325 kPa back-pressure.
In this experiment, we assumed that 401.325 kPa is the threshold where the choking
begins. We also have seen that when the choked conditions appear, the mass flow
rate gets limited to 5.1 g/s as a consequence. We have seen that even when the mass
flow is choked, thrust can be increased by decreasing the back pressure, but this
comes at the cost of decreasing the nozzle efficiency.

We also have observed that actual measured mass flow for choked condition is slightly
higher than the theoretical limit of the choked flow. It is considered that this is due
to the inaccuracies present in the test setup, for instance, the calibration of the
sensors might be off, or, the nozzle exit diameter might have become slightly higher
than the data specified by the manufacturer. This may be due to erosive effects
accumulating over time.

Moreover, we observe that the critical pressure ratio for the choking with isentropic
assumptions is 1,89232, which is greater than the actual nozzle pressure ratio at the
time of choking. This is due to the viscous effects and other losses, which decreases
the total quantities coming up to the nozzle exit, thus, resulting in a lower critical
NPR compared to the isentropic case.

Lastly, we observe that when the choking appears, the exit Mach number must be
limited to 1 Mach, but the calculated exit Mach numbers are in disagreement. This
is due to the simple fact that, in order to satisfy the measured thrust, mach numbers
are calculated accordingly using the equation [8]. This means that the lower than
expected value of calculated exit velocity is directly linked to the losses in the thrust.