RANS Simulation of Over- and Under-expanded Beveled Nozzle Jets Using OpenFOAM

  • B. Zang
  • Vevek U S 
  • T. H. NewEmail author
Conference paper


The present study numerically investigates supersonic jet flows issued at M = 1.45 from a beveled nozzle with 60° inclination. Utilizing rhoCentralFoam solver in OpenFOAM, unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations were performed with two nozzle pressure ratios (NPRs) of 2.8 and 4, corresponding to over- and under-expanded exit conditions, respectively. The Mach distributions reveal a more organized near-field shock formation for the over-expanded jet with smaller and periodic shock cells, as compared to those of the under-expanded one. Moreover, the jet flows are deflected in opposite directions for the two different NPRs, indicating a strong dependence of jet vectoring on NPR in addition to the bevel angle. Last but not least, reasonably good agreements can be observed for both qualitative and quantitative comparisons between simulation and experimental results, supporting the notion that the compressible rhoCentralFoam solver in OpenFOAM is suitable to model such supersonic jet flows.



The authors would like to acknowledge Lim H.D. and Wei X. for the schlieren flow images, as well as the support for this study by a Singapore Ministry of Education AcRF Tier-2 grant (grant number: MOE2014-T2-1-002) and Singapore National Supercomputing Center (NSCC).


  1. 1.
    E.J. Rice, G. Raman, in NASA Tech Report N94-19484 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Xie, P.G. Tucker, S. Eastwood, Int. J. Heat Fluid Fl. 30, 1067–1079 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Viswanathan, M. Shur, P.R. Spalart, M. Strelets, AIAA J. 46(3), 601–626 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.M. Aikens, G.A. Blaisdell, A.S. Lyrintzis, in 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2015-0509 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Lehnasch, P. Bruel, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 56, 2179–2205 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Arunajatesan, in 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2012-1199 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Chaplin, in 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA 2013-2911 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Omais, S. Redonnet, B. Caruelle, E. Manoha, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(5):3818 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.R. Souza, O. de Almeida, C. R. Ilário da Silva, in 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2017-0233 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Garrison, A.S. Lyrintzis, G. Blaisdell, in 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 2006-2599 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Wu, T.H. New, Aero. Sci. Tech. 63, 278–293 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Kurganov, E. Tadmor, J. Comput. Phys. 160(1), 241–282 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L.F. Gutiérrez Marcantonia, J.P. Tamagno, S.A. Elaskar, in Mecánica Computacional, vol. XXXI, ed. Cardona et al. (2012), pp. 2939–2959Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Shen, C.K.W. Tam, AIAA J. 36(10), 1801–1807 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.K.W. Tam, J.A. Jackson, J. Fluid Mech. 153, 123–149 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations