Question 1 of 6: Convergent–divergent nozzle between two reservoirs
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. National Exams, May 2016 —
07-Mec-B6 Advanced Fluid Mechanics. Three hours, OPEN BOOK, any
approved Sharp or Casio calculator permitted. Six questions are printed; any five
of them constitute a complete paper, each carries an equal 20 marks, and the item weights
are shown in the left margin. No aid sheet is bound into this paper — the open-book rule is the candidate’s table source, so every compressible-flow ratio below is quoted in closed form rather than read off a chart. All six questions are solved here.
Reference texts. Solutions follow the conventions of the texts the
EGBC syllabus recommends for this subject:
F. M. White, Fluid Mechanics, 8th ed. — potential-flow building blocks
(§4.4, §8.2–8.3), laminar boundary layers and the momentum integral
(§7.2–7.4), dimensional analysis (§5.2–5.4), compressible duct
flow (§9.5–9.7).
F. M. White, Viscous Fluid Flow, 3rd ed. — exact solutions of the
Navier–Stokes equations in cylindrical coordinates (§3.2–3.4) and
integral boundary-layer methods (§4.5).
J. D. Anderson, Modern Compressible Flow, 3rd ed. — quasi-one-dimensional
nozzle flow, normal shocks and Fanno flow (Ch. 3, Ch. 5).
P. K. Kundu, I. M. Cohen & D. R. Dowling, Fluid Mechanics, 6th ed. —
complex potential, images and the Blasius/Lagally force theorems (Ch. 6); boundary
layers (Ch. 9).
B. R. Munson et al., Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 8th ed. —
Buckingham Pi method and the repeating-variable procedure (Ch. 7).
Question 1: Convergent–divergent nozzle between two reservoirs (20 marks)
Find. The pressure in reservoir (b); whether the nozzle contains a normal
shock; whether that shock sits in the exit plane or upstream of it; and the manometer
deflection the same nozzle would show if it ran at its supersonic design point.
[Figure not reproduced: Figure 1 (redrawn). The manometer legs are tapped at the throat and in reservoir (b). Mercury stands higher in the leg connected to (b), so (b) is the lower pressure of the two. The area ratio A E /A T = 4 fixes the whole back-pressure ladder. See the official exam paper.]
Approach. Assume the throat is choked, read the throat static
pressure straight off the sonic ratio (it depends on Pa alone), add the manometer
head to obtain Pb, then compare Pb against the three-rung
back-pressure ladder that the area ratio AE/AT = 4 sets; where it
lands answers parts (b) and (c) with no iteration at all.
Fix the throat pressure from the choking assumption. If the throat is
sonic the local static-to-stagnation ratio is a pure function of γ:
$$\frac{P_0}{P^{*}}=\left(\frac{\gamma+1}{2}\right)^{\gamma/(\gamma-1)}=1.2^{3.5}=1.8929$$
so the throat static pressure is
$$P_T=\frac{280}{1.8929}=147.9\ \text{kPa}.$$
Nothing downstream can change this number while the throat stays choked — that is what
makes the manometer reading directly usable.
Convert the manometer deflection into the reservoir (b) pressure. With
the air columns weightless compared with mercury, the head is
$$\Delta P=\rho_{Hg}\,g\,h=13\,550\times 9.81\times 0.19=25\,256\ \text{Pa}=25.26\ \text{kPa}.$$
Figure 1 shows mercury standing higher in the leg tapped to reservoir (b); a
manometer leg rises on the low-pressure side, so (b) is below the throat by that head:
$$\boxed{P_b=P_T-\rho_{Hg}gh=147.9-25.26=122.7\ \text{kPa}}$$
This is part (a).
Get both exit-Mach roots from the area ratio. For isentropic
quasi-one-dimensional flow,
$$\frac{A}{A^{*}}=\frac{1}{M}\left[\frac{2}{\gamma+1}\left(1+\frac{\gamma-1}{2}M^{2}\right)\right]^{(\gamma+1)/2(\gamma-1)}$$
and with AE/AT = 4 this has the two familiar roots
$$M_{E,\text{sub}}=0.1465,\qquad M_{E,\text{sup}}=2.940.$$
The subsonic root belongs to the venturi-like solution, the supersonic root to the design
expansion.
Build the three-rung back-pressure ladder. Each rung is one isentropic
evaluation. First choking, the highest back pressure that still makes the throat sonic:
$$P_{b,1}=\frac{P_0}{\left(1+0.2M_{E,\text{sub}}^{2}\right)^{3.5}}=\frac{280}{1.0152}=275.8\ \text{kPa}.$$
Ideal (design) expansion, the lowest back pressure with no wave inside the nozzle:
$$P_{b,3}=\frac{280}{\left(1+0.2\times 2.940^{2}\right)^{3.5}}=\frac{280}{33.57}=8.34\ \text{kPa}.$$
Shock standing exactly in the exit plane, obtained by putting the design exit state through
the normal-shock static ratio:
$$P_{b,2}=P_{b,3}\,\frac{2\gamma M_{E}^{2}-(\gamma-1)}{\gamma+1}=8.34\times 9.917=82.7\ \text{kPa}.$$
Read part (b) off the ladder. The measured value
Pb = 122.7 kPa satisfies
$$82.7\ \text{kPa}\;<\;P_b\;<\;275.8\ \text{kPa},$$
which is precisely the over-expanded band. The throat is choked (Pb is far below
the first-choking rung, so the choking assumption of Step 1 is retro-justified), and the
flow cannot reach the exit isentropically, so
$$\boxed{\text{yes} - \text{a normal shock stands inside the nozzle}}$$
Read part (c) off the same ladder. A shock exactly in the exit plane
would deliver 82.7 kPa. The measured 122.7 kPa is higher than that, meaning less
supersonic expansion has been allowed before the wave, so the shock must sit
$$\boxed{\text{farther upstream, inside the divergent section}}$$
Locating it is a single root-find. Let As be the area at the shock;
because the stagnation pressure drops across the wave, the sonic area grows,
A*2 = AT (P01/P02),
and the exit Mach number must be taken from
AE/A*2 — never from
AE/AT. Matching the resulting exit static pressure to
122.7 kPa gives
$$\frac{A_s}{A_T}=2.81\quad(A_s=25.3\ \text{cm}^{2}),\qquad M_{1}=2.570,$$
with shock strength P2/P1 = 7.54, stagnation-pressure
recovery P02/P01 = 0.472 and a subsonic exit at
ME = 0.327.
Part (d): the deflection at the design point. At ideal expansion the
back pressure equals the design exit pressure, Pb = 8.34 kPa, while the
throat pressure is unchanged at 147.9 kPa because the throat is still choked. The head the
manometer must now carry is therefore much larger:
$$h_{\text{design}}=\frac{P_T-P_{b,3}}{\rho_{Hg}g}=\frac{(147.9-8.34)\times 10^{3}}{13\,550\times 9.81}$$
$$\boxed{h_{\text{design}}=1.050\ \text{m}=105\ \text{cm of mercury}}$$
The deflection keeps the same sense — mercury still stands higher on the (b) side —
but grows by a factor of 5.5, which is the practical signature of a nozzle that has been
allowed to run to its design point instead of shocking down inside the divergence.
Supporting number: the mass flow. A choked throat passes
$$\dot m=\frac{A_TP_0}{\sqrt{T_0}}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{R}}\left(\frac{2}{\gamma+1}\right)^{(\gamma+1)/2(\gamma-1)}=0.527\ \text{kg/s},$$
and this value is the same for every case in the ladder, shock or no shock — a useful
reminder that back pressure controls where the wave sits, not how much air flows.
Part
Quantity
Result
(a)
Downstream reservoir pressure Pb
122.7 kPa (throat at 147.9 kPa)
(b)
Normal shock present?
Yes — Pb lies between 82.7 and 275.8 kPa
(c)
Shock position
Upstream of the exit, at As/AT = 2.81 (M1 = 2.57)
(c)
Exit Mach number behind the shock
0.327
(d)
Manometer reading at ideal expansion
105 cm of mercury (same sense)
—
Mass flow rate
0.527 kg/s
Check: the sense of the manometer is read from
Figure 1, where mercury stands higher in the leg tapped to reservoir (b). Had the deflection
been the other way, Pb would be 173.2 kPa — still inside the same
over-expanded band, so the answers to (b) and (c) are unchanged and only the numerical value
in (a) and the design deflection in (d) shift.