Figure 30: Pressure Distribution at Mach 1.

5 MFR 105 AoA -4

Figure 31: Pressure Distribution at Mach 1.5 MFR 90 AoA 0 (Left) and AoA 4 (Right)

Figure 32: Pressure Distribution at Mach 1.5 MFR 90 AoA 8 (Left) and AoA 12 (Right)

46
 Figure 33: Pressure Distribution at Mach 1.5 MFR 90 AoA -4

Pressure contours on aircraft and flow downstream of exhaust nozzle is clearly

visible in the figures above. In supersonic flow, the plume section is not clearly visible due
to excessive pressures in surroundings due to presence of shock waves. Although, the
nozzle is still under expanded but the pressure gradients due to shock structure
dominates the flow. Formation of strong shock waves are dominant in pressure contours
on aircraft nose, fuselage and wing area. From the pressure distribution contours, it is
observed that nozzle flow has no significant effect on aircraft major surfaces such as
fuselage, wing upper and lower surfaces, and nose section. However, there is a
prominent effect of exhaust nozzle flow on horizontal stabilizers, vertical tail and rear
fuselage area of the aircraft.
7.4 NPR, EPR and ETR
The analysis section is divided into different sub sections. Exhaust parameters are
calculated, analyzed and presented at subsonic and supersonic Mach No. with varying
flow conditions. NPR, EPR and ETR at Mach 0.6. 0.8 and 1.5 at different AOAs is shown
in table below:
M# AOA NPR EPR ETR
0.6 0 6.70 3.25 6.46
0.6 4 6.71 3.26 6.46
0.6 8 6.70 3.28 6.47
0.6 12 6.71 3.26 6.46
0.6 -4 6.71 3.25 6.47

Table 6: Results at Mach No 0.6

47
 M# AOA NPR EPR ETR
0.8 0 6.77 3.46 6.15
0.8 4 6.77 3.45 6.15
0.8 8 6.78 3.46 6.17
0.8 12 6.77 3.50 6.15
0.8 -4 6.77 3.48 6.15

Table 7: Results at Mach No 0.8

M# AOA NPR EPR ETR

1.5 0 6.80 2.15 4.80
1.5 4 6.80 2.16 4.80
1.5 8 6.81 2.15 4.79
1.5 12 6.80 2.13 4.78
1.5 -4 6.80 2.18 4.78

Table 8: Results at Mach No 1.5

7.4.1 Analysis on NPR

From the results presented in tables above, it can be observed that the nozzle
pressure ratio is not much affected by flow conditions at a particular Mach No. This is due
to the fact that nozzle operations with respect of mass flow rate is not affected at different
AoAs. Also the maximum temperatures and pressure after the combustion chamber and
burner sections are limited by material maximum allowable temperatures. From the
results, it is evident that the exhaust nozzle is under-expanded at subsonic conditions at
all different AOAs. This fact can be observed by the flow inside the jet flow, the flow is
expanded rapidly and causes the pressure to fall below ambient pressure, hence
compression waves are formed to increase the pressure according to ambient pressure.
Compression waves are formed at the interaction of expansion waves with jet boundary.
Merging of compression waves results into barrel shock. Axi symmetry oblique shock is
moving downstream of the nozzle axis due to external pressure.
At subsonic speeds, nozzle pressure ratio does not change much as the total
pressure at the exit vary linearly with speed. Hence the ratio of total pressure at exit to
static pressure remains constant. However, at supersonic speed there is a slight increase

48
in NPR. This is due to the fact that total pressure is governed by exit velocity which is
more dominant in supersonic regime than in subsonic speeds. Hence the nozzle pressure
ratio at supersonic speed is higher than subsonic speeds. A significant change in
appearance of external flow field was observed near the nozzle area in supersonic case
as compared to subsonic case on same NPR. There was a less dominant formation of
shock and expansion waves near the exit as compared to subsonic Mach Numbers. This
aspect resulted in the increase of NPR, as the increase in freestream velocity had
equivalent effect on NPR. It is also observed that the NPR does not change with varying
AOA. This is due to the fact that the inlet duct is able to deliver the design mass flow rate
at all AOA effectively. This in turn keep the engine operations normal at all AOA. Hence,
NPR is not effected by the change in AOA.
Generally, all the cases had a similar flow pattern at exhaust where the flow was
accelerated supersonically through the nozzle exit which were followed by a combination
of shocks and expansion waves. When the nozzle was operated below the design NPR,
the expansion and shock waves resulted in flow separation and unsteadiness in the flow
near nozzle exit. This pattern also affected the pressure distribution over the top surface
of nozzle.

7.4.2 Analysis on EPR

From the results presented in tables above, it can be observed that the engine
pressure ratio (EPR) is slightly affected by flow conditions at a particular Mach No. This
is due to the fact that engine operations with respect of mass flow rate is affected at
different AoAs as the compressor inlet mass flow rate affects the overall engine
operations. From the results, it is evident that the exhaust nozzle is under-expanded at
all speeds (subsonic and supersonic) at all different AOAs.
At subsonic speeds, engine pressure ratio slightly increase from Mach No 0.6 to
0.8.The variation is linear at different AOAs. This is due to the fact that the total pressure
at the nozzle exit is dominated by exit velocity and the ratio of exit total pressure at nozzle
exit to compressor inlet total pressure is mainly controlled by exit conditions. Hence, at
Mach 0.8, exit velocity is greater than M 0.6 which increases the EPR.

49
 A significant change in EPR was observed in supersonic case as compared to
subsonic case on same NPR. There was a less dominant formation of shock and
expansion waves near the exit as compared to subsonic Mach Numbers. It is observed
that there is a slight decrease in EPR at supersonic speeds as compared to subsonic
speeds. Due to formation of shock waves near aircraft nose, fuselage, wing and intake
area, there is significant pressure gradient at these surfaces. Similarly, the total pressure
at compressor inlet is also higher as compared to total pressure at compressor inlet
subsonic. Whereas, the component of numerator (Total Pressure at nozzle exit) also
increases but to a smaller extent as compared to denominator (Total Pressure at
compressor inlet).

7.4.2 Analysis on ETR

From the results presented in tables above, it can be observed that the engine
temperature ratio (ETR) is slightly affected by flow conditions at a particular Mach No.
This is due to the fact that engine operations with respect of mass flow rate is affected at
different AoAs as the compressor inlet mass flow rate affects the overall engine
operations. From the results, it is evident that the exhaust nozzle is under-expanded at
all speeds (subsonic and supersonic) at all different AOAs.
At subsonic speeds, engine temperature ratio almost remains constant from M 0.6 to
M 0.8. The variation is also linear at different AOAs. This is due to the fact that the
temperature limit is dependent upon material limitations as well. Therefore, temperature
at combustion chamber, turbine and afterburner section is dependent upon material
temperature limit. This aspect limits the ETR to a certain value and hence it remains
almost constant at subsonic speeds.
At supersonic speed, it is observed that there is a slight decrease in EPR as
compared to subsonic speeds. Due to formation of shock waves near aircraft nose,
fuselage, wing and intake area, there is significant temperature gradient at these
surfaces. Similarly, the total temperature at compressor inlet is also higher as compared
to total temperature at compressor inlet subsonic. Whereas, the component of numerator
(Total temperature at nozzle exit) is restricted due to material temperature limitations and
hence, the ratio decreases.

50
7.5 Comparison of CFD Results with Analytical Results

This section presents the comparison between the results obtained from CFD
analysis and the calculated results of analytical solution for RD-93 engine. The analytical
model of aircraft engine was made specific for RD-93 by thrust matching technique using
engine performance parameters. Details of this analytical model is already presented in
previous chapter. Analytical calculations are performed for Mach No 0.6, 0.8 and 1.5 at
different flight conditions. The comparative results are presented below:-

M# NPR NPR EPR EPR ETR ETR

(CFD) (Analytical) (CFD) (Analytical) (CFD) (Analytical)

0.6 6.70 5.10 3.25 2.97 6.46 6.01

0.8 6.77 5.21 3.46 2.72 6.15 5.6
1.5 6.80 5.55 2.16 1.80 4.80 4.2

Table 9: Comparative Analysis

NPR
8
7
6
5
NPR

4
CFD
3
Analytical
2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach No

Figure 34: Nozzle Pressure Ratio vs Mach No

51
 EPR
4
3.5
3
2.5
EPR

2
1.5
CFD
1
Analytical
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach No

Figure 35: Engine Pressure Ratio vs Mach No

ETR
7
6
5
4
ETR

3 CFD
2 Analytical

1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach No

Figure 36: Engine Temperature Ratio vs Mach No

At Mach 0.6, 0.8 and 1.5 and design mass flow rate, the nozzle pressure ratio from
CFD result was slightly different from analytical results. A percentage difference of 23%
was observed between the results at Mach 0.6 and 0.8, whereas the difference between
the results reduced to 18% at Mach 1.5. The variations between the results are due to
the fact that the analytical calculations were based on perfectly expanded nozzle,
whereas from the CFD analysis it is evident that the nozzle is under expanded at these
flight conditions. The magnitude of under expansion cannot be estimated during analytical
52
results which causes slight deviation from actual results. Hence, CFD analysis proved to
be quite effective and realistic as it approximates the under expansion in actual scenario
at these flight conditions.
The variation in calculated values of engine pressure ratio (EPR) is less than that of
NPR. A percentage difference of 8%, 21% and 16% was observed at Mach 0.6, 0.8 an
1.5 respectively. A reduction in difference between the two results was due to the fact
that compressor total pressure can be estimated accurately at compressor inlet at design
mass flow rate. Hence the impact of nozzle exit conditions for the calculation of engine
pressure ratio is less than that for nozzle pressure ratio.
The variation in calculated values of engine temperature ratio (ETR) is also less than
that of NPR. A percentage difference of 6.9%, 8.9% and 12.5% was observed at Mach
0.6, 0.8 and 1.5 respectively. A reduction in difference between the two results was due
to the fact that temperatures at combustion chamber, turbine and afterburner duct are
restricted by material limitations. Hence the analytical results are in good agreement with
CFD results.
7.6 Exit Velocity and Thrust Calculations
Velocity and thrust calculations from CFD results along with comparison with
analytical results are presented in this section. The Mach No contours at different
conditions are shown in figures below. The expansion waves and compression waves
forming downstream of jet are clearly visible along with shear layers, jet boundary, and
turbulence region. A substantial rise occurs in Mach No at jet exit due to converging and
diverging effect of exhaust nozzle.

Figure 37: Mach No Contour M 0.6 MFR 44 (Left) and MFR 30 (Right)

53
 Figure 38: Mach No Contour M 0.8 MFR 50 (Left) and MFR 20 (Right)

Figure 39: Mach No Contour M 1.5 MFR 105 (Left) and MFR 90 (Right)

M# Exit Velocity Exit Velocity Exit Mach Exit Mach

(CFD) (m/s) (Analytical) (m/s) (CFD) (Analytical)
0.6 (Design MFR) 1296.1 1136.9 1.903 1.53
0.6 (Off-Design MFR) 1296.23 1136.9 1.903 1.53
0.8 (Design MFR) 1299.48 1168.7 1.908 1.58
0.8 (Off-Design MFR) 1299.83 1168.7 1.908 1.58
1.5 (Design MFR) 1300.43 1276.1 1.910 1.80
1.5 (Off-Design MFR) 1300.38 1276.1 1.910 1.80

Table 10: Comparison of Exit Velocity and Mach No

Comparison between calculated values of exit velocity and Mach number with
analytical calculations are presented in table above. From the CFD results, it can be
observed that the exit velocity almost remains constant at all Mach No. This is due to the
fact that the nozzle is under expanded at all flow conditions and pressure at nozzle exit

54
remains higher than ambient pressure. However, exit velocity from analytical calculations
increases when Mach No is increased as these calculations are carried out for perfectly
expanded nozzle. Similarly, exit Mach No also varies slightly for CFD results, whereas it
increases with Mach No in analytical calculations. The reason for this trend is already
stated above. At all conditions, mass flow rate does not affect the exit velocity and Mach
No as it directly affects the overall thrust of the engine but not the exit conditions. The
variations between the CFD and analytical results are shown below:

Exit Velocity
1350

1300

1250
Velocity

CFD
1200
Analytical

1150

1100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach No

Figure 40: Exit Velocity vs Mach No

M # and Design Thrust at Idle Power(N) Thrust at Full AB (N)

Mass Flow Rate
0.6 24487 43476
0.8 25248 47662
1.5 32276 86495

Table 11: Thrust at Idle Power and Full AB (Design MFR)

55
 M # and Off-Design Thrust at Idle Power(N) Thrust at Full AB (N)
Mass Flow Rate
0.6 16698 29642
0.8 17097 31065
1.5 27663 74138

Table 12: Thrust at Idle Power and Full AB (Off Design MFR)

Thrust calculations from CFD results and analytical results shows the direct effect
of mass flow rate through the engine on overall thrust of engine. The results are
calculated for both idle power and full after burner setting. A large deviation in generated
thrust can be observed due to after burner operation at different flight conditions. The
variation of thrust with change in Mach No is quite similar for both design and off-design
mass flow rates. However, the change in thrust between the two mass flow rates is almost
1.5 times at subsonic speeds and 1.2 times at supersonic speed. In actual scenario, it is
not possible for aircraft to reach Mach No 1.5 at sea level with and without AB. However,
the calculations are just carried out for comparative analysis. The variations in thrust
between idle power and AB setting at different mass flow rates are shown in figure below:-

Thrust
100000
90000
80000 Idle (Design MFR)

70000 AB (Design MFR)

60000 Idle (Off-Design MFR)

Thrust

AB (Off-Design MFR)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach No

Figure 41: Thrust vs Mach No

56