JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER

Vol. 32, No. 1, January–February 2016

Experimental–Numerical Parametric Investigation of a Rocket

Nozzle Secondary Injection Thrust Vectoring

Vladeta Zmijanovic,∗ Luc Leger,† and Eric Depussay†

Institute ICARE, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 45071 Orléans, France
and
Mohamed Sellam‡ and Amer Chpoun§
Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne, 91025 Evry, France
DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721
Secondary transverse injection into the divergent section of an axisymmetric convergent–divergent propulsive
nozzle is investigated for the fluidic thrust vectoring effects. Coupled experimental and numerical cold-flow
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

investigation on the number of cases and aspects was conducted in the framework of a French microsatellite launcher
program. Five experimental test nozzles were designed, built, and equipped with diagnostic tools. All experimental
test models were supported by full three-dimensional numerical simulations and further investigated using the
additional nozzle models, cases, and analysis parameters. Pertinent side force and pitch vector angle of 5–9 deg were
achieved within the 5–8% range of the secondary to primary mass-flow-rate ratio. Investigation aspects, categorized
as the nozzle vectoring system geometrical characteristics, primary and secondary flow conditions, and gas intrinsic
properties were found to dominantly affect the thrust vectoring capabilities. Some further improvements are
suggested and achieved in the optimization of selected parameters.

Nomenclature I. Introduction
A
CAF
CAI
=
=
=
cross-section area
global force-amplification coefficient
global specific impulse amplification coefficient
I NVESTIGATION on the thrust vectoring effects of a transverse
sonic injection into a divergent section of a supersonic rocket
nozzle was conducted in the framework of the small satellite space
CAV = vector amplification coefficient launcher program “Perseus” [1] of the Centre National d’Etudes
Cd = discharge coefficient Spatiales (CNES) French space agency. This study investigates the
Cpmax = pressure coefficient corresponding to maximum angle possibilities and prospective implementation of a secondary injection
Fa = axial thrust force thrust vector control (SITVC) system as a part of the PERSEUS
Fj = secondary injection reactive force macroproject aimed at new and immature technologies for a micro-
Fw = force from main jet and second injection interaction satellite space launcher. A possible suppression of complexity and
exerted on the nozzle wall weight by elimination of heavy and robust mechanical actuators and a
Fx;y;z = force Cartesian components further increase in dynamic responsiveness highlight the fluidic
F0 = nonvectored nozzle thrust force thrust vectoring method as a desirable alternative, which is especially
fm = secondary to primary mass-flow-rate ratio attractive for a small and compact launcher propulsive system.
h = injectant plume Mach disk height Following the number of investigations that were based on the
Isp = specific impulse empirical, experimental, and analytical approaches to the problem in
M = Mach number the 1960s and 1970s, as well as numerical studies on supersonic
Mg = molecular weight of the gas species crossflows in 1990s and early 2000s, the current study pays further
m_j = secondary injection mass flow rate attention to the possible operational regimes and implementation
m_0 = primary mass flow rate aspects of the SITVC system.
pa = ambient pressure Among several modes of fluidic thrust vectoring, such as counter
pj = secondary injection pressure [2] and coflow methods [3] or skewing of a sonic line [4], SITVC was
pp = plateau pressure selected as a straightforward method, with its advantage in simplicity
P0 = main flow total pressure of implementation and installation.
q = dynamic pressure In general, secondary injection in a supersonic nozzle acts as an
y = dimensionless wall distance obstacle and source of momentum change to the oncoming super-
γ = heat capacity ratio sonic flow. As a response to the blockage in supersonic expanding
δ = vector pitch angle
flow, a strong bow shock is formed inside the main flow, imposing an
θ = central angle
adverse pressure gradient (APG) upstream of the injection, as in [5,6].
ϕ = injection angle
This causes an asymmetric upstream separation of the portion of the
main flow from the nozzle wall that generates an imbalance in the
Received 5 January 2015; revision received 30 April 2015; accepted for
pressure net force. The main nozzle supersonic flow then deflects
publication 14 June 2015; published online 22 October 2015. Copyright © through the leading shock, and this shock–flow interaction results in
2015 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All generation of a side force component, which is imposed on the
rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, separated flow section of the nozzle wall. The second component of
on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright the side force can be identified as a natural reactive force of secondary
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include transverse injection, as denoted in Fig. 1. Zukoski and Spaid [7] and
the code 1533-3876/15 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC. Spaid and Zukoski [8] found that secondary slot injection at the flat
*Research Associate, CNRS-Institute PPRIME, CEAT-Univ. Poitiers, 43
plate, illustrated in Fig. 2, acts on the oncoming supersonic flow in a
Route de l’aerodrome, 86036 Poitiers, France; vladeta.zmijanovic@
polytechnique.edu. Member AIAA. similar manner as the solid blunt body. Their blunt-body model
†
Assistant Professor, CNRS-ICARE, 1C Av. de la recherche Scientifique. proved to be satisfactorily accurate for the moderate secondary to
‡ primary mass-flow-rate ratios, as reported in [9–11], and was
Assistant Professor, IUT Univ. d'Evry, Cours Monseigneur Romero.
§
Full Professor, IUT Univ. d'Evry, Cours Monseigneur Romero. comparable with the empirical models given in [12–14] and others.
196
 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 197

Fig. 1 Scheme of the CD nozzle shock vector control.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

The fundamental three-dimensional (3-D) case, that is represented effects of the lateral sides of the wall and the possible main shock
by a circular sonic injection into the supersonic crossflow on a flat reflection further affect the complex interaction crossflow field. In the
plate features the flow effects in all three spatial directions, as case of secondary injection inside the nozzle, it is of substantial
depicted in Fig. 3. The upstream separation distance according to interest to determine the separation zone in the nozzle, the pressure
[5,15] is defined by the nature of upstream flow (laminar-turbulent) distribution, and the eventual effects of the shock interaction and
and by the magnitude of the adverse pressure gradient [16,17]. At the shock–wall reflection.
detachment incipient point, a weaker separation shock emerges due To quickly assess the basic effects and prepare experimental
to an adverse pressure and, further downstream, it interacts through investigation, an analytical model was adopted. This model was
the compression fan and merges into a strong bow shock. Inside the based on the modified Zukoski–Spaid blunt-body approximation [7],
separation region, a recirculation zone is formed involving two with the addition of several nozzle flow separation criteria, as
counter-rotating vortices named, respectively, the primary upstream previously described in [25,26]. Starting from the momentum
vortex (PUV) and the secondary upstream vortex (SUV). In the 3-D balance relation on the control volume in Fig. 4, the model solves
case [6,18], a horseshoe-shaped vortex is formed that wraps around equations for penetration height and upstream separation distance.
the injectant plume, with the 3-D bow shock region surrounding this Pursuant to the two-dimensional (2-D) scheme in Fig. 4, in the 3-D
interaction zone. The injectant is underexpanded, and it enters the domain, secondary injection is represented as a quarter-sphere
main flow with a Prandtl–Meyer expansion fan that is formed at the defined by the radius h, which is followed by the half-open aft
injection orifice. The barrel shock surrounds its recompression with cylinder. The balance relation implies that the net pressure force, or
the Mach disk at the end of the first recompression sequence. High drag, acting on the control volume boundary surface is equal to the
pressure imposed on the secondary plume windward side and low momentum of a fluid leaving the domain. According to [26], with a
pressure on its leeward side cause the inward folding of the secondary no-mass exchange assumption, it can be written as
jet with accompanying interior shock reflections. After this first
sequence, trailing kidney-shaped vortices interact with the horseshoe Z Z Z
vortex, generating an effective mixing layer, as pointed in [19].
Downstream of the injection port, wake vortex shedding takes place, −px dA  −px dA  ρUUx dA (1)
AB CD
which involves a primary downstream vortex (PDV), eventual
secondary vortex and flow reattachment with accompanying
recompression shock.
Compared to the fundamental cases of slot and circular sonic The net force acting on the control volume in the x direction may be
injections at the flat plate, the secondary injection inside a rocket decomposed on the pressure forces acting on the upwind section of
nozzle is distinguished by the strong wall-bounded supersonic the interface and the momentum force at the exit of the control
crossflow character, as was also reported in [20–24]. The internal volume:

X Z Z π∕2 π
Fx  ρu2 ds  p cos θ dA − pi h2 (2)
0 2

Fig. 2 Schematic of 2-D transverse slot injection model and wall-

pressure distribution (reprinted from [7] with permission from the Fig. 3 Schematic of 3-D transverse circular injection on the flat plate
AIAA). (reprinted from [18] with permission from the AIAA).
 198 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.

Fig. 5 Scheme of separation line alongside nozzle wall.

Fig. 4 Scheme of control volume zone.   P P 

Fy fY  mu
_ y
δ  arctan  tan−1 P P (8)
Fx fX  mu
_ x
Solved for the radius h, this integration yields
Factors that influence the performances and losses of vectored and
 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

X p0 − pi 1 nonvectored nozzles [12,21,30,31] were of particular interest in

Fx  πh  q0 Cpmax (3) the parametric analysis of the SITVC nozzle. To correctly evaluate
2 4 the contributions of secondary injection to the nozzle performance,
coefficients that represent vectoring CAV , force CAF , and global
where Cpmax represents the pressure coefficient corresponding to the specific impulse CAI amplification are considered together with
maximum angle θ of π∕2, between the incident pressure force the corresponding pitch vector angle, in a manner similar to the
direction and the normal to the wall. This relation is complemented procedure previously proposed in [32]:
with the one-dimensional (1-D) isentropic momentum relation of a
sonically injected secondary flow: arctanFy ∕Fx 
CAV  (9)
Z _ j ∕m
m _ 0  · 100 deg
ρv2 ds  m
_ jVj (4)

q
After isentropic transformations, this equation yields Isp F2x  F2y ∕m _0 m
_j
CAI   (10)
1∕γ−1 I sp0 F0 ∕m
_0
2
_ j V j  2Cd Aj γ j P0j
m
γj − 1
   γ −1∕γ 1∕2
1 pj j j q
· 2 1− (5)
γj − 1 P0j F2x  F2y
CAF  (11)
F0
where Cd and Aj represent the discharge coefficient and area of the
circular injector surface, respectively. Substitution of the
corresponding terms in Eq. (4) leads to an expression that evaluates II. Experimental Setup and Test Models
the penetration height: Cold-flow experiments in this study were conducted in the super/
s1 hypersonic wind-tunnel facility of the Centre National de la
Cd γ j P0j 2∕γ j − 11∕γ−1 · 1∕γ 2j − 11 − pj ∕P0j γj −1∕γj 2 Recherche Scientifique, Institut de Combustion Aérothermique
hj  Dj Réactivité et Environnement using the five main and three secondary
p0 − pi   q0 Cpmax ∕2
injection chamber–nozzle configurations.
(6) Wind-tunnel EDITH, previously SH2 [14], of the Aerothermic
Laboratory, was newly equipped, configured, and set by the authors
The penetration height equation is coupled with the selected of this study. Dry and oil-free air stored under 300 bar in a 320 liter
separation criteria in order to delineate the nozzle flow separation reservoir was pressure regulated before the settling chamber and then
region. Empirical free-shock-separation (FSS) criteria, such as the expanded through the rocket nozzle into the vacuum test section of
one of Schilling [27], are considered for evaluation of separation
pressure:
 k
psep P 2
 k1 0 (7)
P0 pa

where k1  0.541 and k2  −0.136 denote the Shilling empirical

coefficients for convergent–divergent (CD) nozzle cold flow. As
reported in [25], the preceding relations were paired with the FSS
criterion of Green [28], whereas the separation line along the nozzle
wall, illustrated in Fig. 5, was evaluated according to the procedure of
detached shock waves forming around the spherical and cylindrical
nosed bodies, as in [29].
To quantify the observed effects a certain metrics is proposed. The
vectoring or pitching angle δ is defined as the arctangent of the ratio
between the pressure forces and momentum fluxes in the y direction
and the ones in the x direction: Fig. 6 Scheme of the wind-tunnel EDITH operation cycle.
 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 199

Table 1 EDITH setup aerodynamic conditions Table 2 Experimental test nozzle design parameters
Stagnation conditions Ambient and freestream conditions Nozzle Rth , mm Ae ∕Ath Me NPR Di ln ; mm xj ∕ln Atj , mm2
P0  300 kPa pa  8 kPa Conical C-i0.7 9.72 4.234 3. 37 100 0.7 32.17
T 0  260∕243 K T a  290 K Conical C-i0.9 9.72 4.234 3 37 100 0.9 28.274
ρ0  4.26 kg∕m3 ρa  0.098 kg∕m3 TIC-i0.88 10 4.87 3.03 37.5 68 0.88 26.42
NPRD  37 Ue  574.73 m∕s
Ath ∕Ae  0.236 ρe  0.3142 kg∕m3 TIC, truncated ideal contour.
m_ 0  236 g∕s Me  3
Re ∕m  2.7729 · 107 ∕m
cumulated uncertainty of 0.5% was considered for Kulite XCQ-
0.62 pressure probes and presented via error bars in all experimental
the wind tunnel, as illustrated in Fig. 6. General characteristics of this pressure figures in the Results Discussion section (Sec. IV). This
experimental setup are given in Table 1. error estimation combined nonlinearity, hysteresis, and repeatability
Several qualitative and quantitative diagnostic techniques were of the pressure probes, similar to [34]. Error estimation of the force
applied to the experimental test models in this study. Flowfield balance system considered calibration of each force transducer, as
visualization mainly relied on the Toepler’s Z schlieren that was well the cumulative calibration and cumulative error estimation of a
capturing density gradient flow effects at the nozzle exit section, as mounted system under static and dynamic series of small loads, as
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

described in [25]. Quantitative measurements of forces, pressures, reported in [33]. The standard deviation and estimated uncertainty for
and temperatures were performed using the designed force balance, the vertical axis, where side force was measured, was up to 2% of
Kulite XCQ-062 parietal pressure sensors, a Scanivalve ZOC-22B the measured force; whereas in the x direction, uncertainty was
estimated up to 0.5%. In the result graphs and tables, the 8 kHz
pressure scanner, and thermocouples at each section of the flow.
sampled force data were averaged on 2000-sample chunks and
The constructed force balance consisted of HBM S2M S-shaped
presented with the corresponding uncertainty estimations.
strain-gauge force transducers and three moving frames connected
After preliminary tests with a conical-shaped supersonic nozzle,
via frictionless slide bearings to the three-axes moving test model
reported in [25], the main investigation was concentrated on a
and attached to the test-section construction support. Two force
truncated ideal contour (TIC) nozzle intended for the CNES
transducers of 200 N range were mounted on the vertical y axis to microsatellite launcher. TIC nozzle models were adapted for Mach 3
capture the vectoring side force: one transducer on the x axis with a designed large and uniform subsonic to supersonic throat
measuring the thrust force, and small 20 N range transducers in curvature radius (Rc  2rth ). The axisymmetric ideal nozzle contour
the lateral z direction to monitor eventual asymmetric loads. The was calculated using the method of characteristics by the procedure
transducer signal was amplified to the 0–10 V range via an HBM given in [35]. As this calculation produced an inviscid result, the
RM4220 before fast acquisition by National Instruments SCXI- resulting profile was corrected for the low wall-evolving boundary-
1140 cards. layer thickness. The basic design parameters of test nozzles are given
All components were calibrated using a series of small weights and in Table 2. Several injection positions and one inclination angle were
then recalibrated with a fully mounted test model. The obtained result experimentally investigated on a conical contour with a constant
data were accompanied with the standard deviation and total error slope ratio; whereas secondary injection types, modes, and (finally)
margin. flow regimes were tested on TIC nozzle test models. Secondary flow
Parietal pressures were measured via fast pressure probes and was supplied from the secondary settling chamber into the secondary
pressure taps that were distributed along the nozzle meridians, as injection convergent nozzle and smoothly injected at the divergent
illustrated in Fig. 7. Eleven Kulite XCQ-062 probes were placed on section of the main nozzle through the sonic throat of 28 mm2 . Two
the injection meridian at the symmetry plane and at characteristic injection convergent nozzle types were used: axisymmetric with a
lateral positions in order to delineate the separation region and to circular profile, and slot injection with a rounded rectangular profile.
monitor its propagation. The other 32 pressure taps of 1 mm diameter The aforementioned throat size of the injection nozzle provided
were sorted along the meridians defined at 13, 20, 30, 36, 45, 60, 75, a mass-flow-rate ratio of 8%, fm  mj ∕m0  0.08 under the
and 90 deg, as well as on the side opposite the injection. Kulite secondary-to-primary pressure ratio (SPR) condition equal to one.
pressure signals were acquired with a 8 kHz sampling rate, whereas a The same test nozzles were designed, meshed, and used in the
Scanivalve ZOC-22B pressure scanner operated at 0.5 kHz per numerical simulations of this investigation. After confronting and
channel. coupling experimental and numerical data, additional numerical tests
All employed diagnostic tools were calibrated and the error were conducted for higher-Mach-number nozzles and different
analyzed before reporting; calibration and error estimation were contours, such as Rao’s thrust-optimized [36] and adverse-pressure-
reported in more detail in appendix B of [33]. The maximal gradient [37] nozzle types.

Fig. 7 Experimental test bench.

 200 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 8 y of 3-D grid for three mesh quality sequences.

III. Numerical Test Environment performance reported in [41]. The fine-grid (A) quality sequence
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach has been consid- that consisted of 7.7 million elements was selected among the three
ered in this investigation as a coupled method with the experiments in other mesh quality sequences, and it is presented in the results of
order to provide a reliable comparison and give a more detailed insight this study.
analysis of the experimentally observed phenomena. Mass-averaged The numerical grid was based on mapped hexagonal elements
Navier–Stokes equations were solved using the finite volume CFD using a rounded hexagonal-core O grid in the reference cross sections
solver CPS_C (Code pour la Propulsion Spatiale Cryo) [38]. and with sweeping in between, as illustrated in Fig. 9. The mesh was
CNES and Bertin Technologies’s CPS_C is a three-dimensional clustered at the primary and secondary throat regions and toward the
CFD code designated for compressible multispecies reacting flows injection zone, whereas it was stretched in the exterior zone toward
with fully accounted viscous effects on an unstructured 3-D the outlets.
computational grid. Favre-averaged Navier–Stokes equations are The computational domain consisted of a convergent nozzle zone,
solved using the explicit schemes of a modified second-order Runge– a throat, and a divergent nozzle zone. In the divergent section, special
Kutta, which can be of an order up to four in time and three in space. attention was paid to the injection nozzle region, whereas the exterior
Transport models use a multichemical species mixing law of a domain served as a smooth introduction to the outlet boundaries.
convection/diffusion fluxes type based on Fick’s law. The fluxes in This exterior domain, as depicted in Fig. 9b, was constructed as a
this numerical work were computed at the cell interfaces with cylindrical section of 14 nozzle exit diameters in the radial direction,
Harten–Lax–van Leer contact scheme by Toro [38,39]. 20 in the axial downstream direction, and 7 in the upstream direction,
A standard two-equation turbulence Jones–Launder k-ε model preventing any numerical outlet convective outflow effect on the
was implemented and coupled to the CPS solver. As depicted in nozzle exit region.
Fig. 8, the y value in the nozzle computation domain was below The species physical properties were modeled according to a
one for the reported fine grid; therefore, no wall function was applied thermally perfect gas assumption. Specific heat capacities were
in this case. In the domains with a coarser grid, as in the external defined as a seventh-order polynomial temperature function derived
region close to the far-field and outlet boundaries, the wall function from the Chemkin-II thermodynamic data. Accordingly, the laminar
was switched on for y values of 11 and above. The adiabatic wall viscosity and conductivity were analytically formulated as fourth-
function was coupled to the turbulence model via the modified degree temperature-dependent polynomial functions.
logarithmic law of van Driest. Compared to [40], the implemented In evaluation of the flow effects at the nozzle wall, the com-
k-ε turbulence model in CPS code was adequate and performed well pressible form of the pressure coefficient and skin friction was
with the selected test models of the current study, following the good considered:

Fig. 9 Computational domain and boundaries.

 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 201
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 10 xy view of TIC nozzle with xj ∕ln  0.88 injection at NPR  37.5, SPR  1, and δ  6.8 deg.

 
2 p τ and bow shock leave the nozzle without interacting with the nozzle
cP  − 1 jCf  w (12) wall. In this shock-reflection-free case, the upstream detached
γ · M2∞ p∞ P0
boundary layer is accompanied by the weaker separation shock that,
where τw denotes the wall-shear stress obtained from the velocity in downstream, closer to the injection, transforms via compression
the first mesh cell close to wall and from the geometric transformation waves into the strong bow shock that is formed in front of the
of that cell’s coordinates. Alternatively, in the presented profiles, the injection plume. The top view in Fig. 11 depicts the lateral
pressures were nondimensionalized by the magnitude of total propagation of the separation and the formation of horseshoe-shaped
pressure. vortex region that wraps around the secondary injection port and its
plume. We can consider that there is no mixing occurring between the
injectant and the main flow inside the nozzle for the given case and
IV. Results Discussion that a strong shock interface is formed between them.
The evaluated Mach number plots from the numerical solution in
The experimental and numerical results data of the investigated Fig. 12 point out this separation sequence evolution. Analogous to
aspects are analyzed and presented in an integrated manner. The [43], we can delineate several distinctive regions in the nozzle flow at
results discussion is mainly concentrated on the crossflow properties, the exit cross section in Fig. 12b. These regions are denoted here as
the primary and secondary gas flow effects, and the geometrical the low-pressure region behind the injection port (region A); the
parameters of the SITVC nozzle [42]. secondary plume Mach disk (region B); the interface region encircled
by the Mach disk, bow shock, and horseshoe vortex (region C); the
A. Secondary Injection Nozzle Interaction Crossflow Field undisturbed main flow (regions F and D); and the undisturbed main
By consulting the schlieren pictures in Figs. 10 and 11 of the nozzle boundary layer (region E).
truncated ideal contour nozzle model, some basic features of the In general, two major vector components of the global side force
secondary injection crossflow field can be observed. Namely, in are identified: the wall side force, which is a result of the crossflow
this case, a secondary injection is introduced to the main flow at the interaction; and a reactive force of the secondary transverse injection.
divergent nozzle section closer to the exit. Therefore, the separation The crossflow interaction force component is governed by an adverse

Fig. 11 xz view of TIC nozzle with xj ∕ln  0.88 injection at NPR  37.5, SPR  1, and δ  6.8 deg.
 202 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 12 SITVC xj ∕ln  0.88 nozzle Mach number plot with pressure level lines.

Fig. 13 Combined shock polar diagrams for incident oblique shock wave at M1  2.6 in the polar plane.

pressure gradient and controlled via either changing the primary or φD  0 axis at point 3, illustrating a nonrealistic regular reflection
secondary flow properties or controlling the geometrical parameters. case that never happens for an axisymmetric nozzle. With an increase
The second force component is influenced by the nature of the of deflection angle, C1 corresponds to the stronger shock solutions;
secondary injection, which is primarily affected by the total pressure thus, H2 does not intersect the 0 axis. Hence, the reflection point
and temperature ratio of the injected gas and its physical properties. In cannot exist on the wall any longer. To satisfy the slip boundary
Fig. 13a, the shock polar (H1 heart curve) represents incident planar condition, we can define a triple point T, which exists between points
shock wave C1 in an approximated M  2.6 uniform 1-D flowfield. 3 and 4 in Fig. 13b, along with the Mach disk (C3).
For the initially evaluated negative deflection −ΔφD  11.5 deg, it Analyzing the evaluated wall-pressure profiles in the symmetry
is possible to represent state 2 with reflected C2 shock and plane, we can define several characteristic regions, as depicted in
corresponding heart curve H2. In this idealized case, H2 intersects the Fig. 14. After the incipient separation point, there is a steep pressure

Fig. 14 Wall-pressure profiles in symmetry plane of TIC nozzle with injection at xj ∕ln  0.88.
 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 203

Table 3 Experimental statistical average data for range of the SPR, and thus the modified mass flow ratio, affects the secondary
second injection pressures in TIC nozzle at xj ∕ln  0.88 injection reactive force and penetration height. Shortening of the
SPR  Pj0 ∕P0 _ j ∕m
m _0 Fy , N Fx , N δ, deg detachment distance and decrease of the whole separation zone are
detected for SPR  0.833 when comparing the experimental and
SPR  0.5 0.038 7.49 2% 135 0.5% 3.18 4% numerical pressure data for two SPR modes in Figs. 15 and 16. Both
SPR  0.667 0.051 10.08 2% 134.9 0.5% 4.58 4%
SPR  0.833 0.063 12.37 2% 136.06 0.5% 5.20 4%
the Kulite sensors and the Scanivalve pressure scanner identified a
SPR  1.00 0.076 16.17 2% 136.1 0.5% 6.78 4% pressure rise in the separated flow zone and its downstream evolution.
SPR  1.167 0.089 18.9 2% 137.7 0.5% 7.82 4% In shown figures, Kulite micro-transducers pressure results are
presented with error bars, while the Scanivalve pressure results are
represented with triangle symbols. The pressure drop behind the
injection (depicted at profiles from meridians 1, 2, and 3) appears to
Table 4 Numerical averaged data for range of second injection rates be unaffected by the change of SPR, which is not the case for the wall-
in TIC nozzle xj ∕ln  0.88a pressure profiles after meridian 4. By lowering the SPR value, we can
P observe a decrease in the plateau pressure levels. As the whole
Fjy , Fwy , Fy , Fx , separation zone is strongly affected by the adverse pressure gradient,
_ j ∕m
m _0 and N and N and N and N CAV CAF CAI
a smaller SPR, and therefore a drop in the APG and horseshoe vortex
0.008 0.672 1.202 1.898 134.29 1.012 1.002 0.994 evolution, will shorten the upstream separation distance. As assumed
0.025 2.936 3.150 6.086 134.68 1.015 1.005 0.981
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

and evaluated from the adopted analytical model, the experimental

0.038 4.569 4.001 8.570 135.03 0.955 1.009 0.972
0.051 6.158 5.031 11.189 135.61 0.925 1.014 0.965 and numerical results verify that the upstream separation and plateau
0.063 7.755 6.033 13.788 135.90 0.921 1.018 0.958 levels in the symmetry plane accordingly change with every SPR
0.076 9.341 7.134 16.475 136.21 0.904 1.024 0.952 step, which can be observed in Fig. 17. Variation of the injection rate
0.089 10.976 8.170 19.146 136.47 0.897 1.027 0.943 directly governs the secondary injection thrust force rate. However,
0.102 12.577 9.173 21.75 136.75 0.885 1.032 0.936 the relation between the injection rate and the interaction wall side
0.127 15.792 11.12 26.908 137.32 0.872 1.043 0.925 force component is not completely linear. Namely, as seen in the
tabulated force data in Tables 3 and 4, the contribution level of the
a
NPR  37.5; F0  134.05N 0.5%; I 0sp  57.9 s; m
_ 0  236.2 g∕s.
secondary injection reactive force-momentum Fjy component and
the interaction force Fwy component exerted on the main nozzle wall
varies with the change of the secondary injection rate. For a very
growth in region 1 that ends with the plateau pressure that is governed small injection rate, the contribution of the interaction force
by the primary upstream vortex in region 2. After the plateau zone, component is higher than the one coming from the secondary
and a smaller descent between the primary and secondary upstream injection momentum itself. The low momentum and secondary mass
vortices, the pressure rapidly increases to the pressure peak value in flow rate, which figure in the divider of performance coefficients,
region 3, which is dominated by the secondary upstream vortex. After result in higher performance rates reaching the unit value. In Fig. 18,
reaching the maximum peak, it steeply decays with a staircase- we can observe the evolution of performance amplification factors
shaped secondary peak caused by the interferences at the edge of the that vary with the injection regime from the very low injection case to
secondary injection port. Downstream of the injection port, after a the high secondary to primary injection rates. At a low injection rate,
slight pressure rise due to the injection port trailing edge, there is a at which the main flow pressure influence on the injection port is
widely distributed low-pressure zone in region 4. A weak but large strong, CAV is steady around the unit until the injection rate ratio
pressure hump is closing the zone of region 5, ending the sequence reaches 3% of the main mass flow. With the increase of injection rate,
with the trailing edge of the primary downstream vortex and the CAV drops until a mass-flow-rate ratio of 5% and the amplification
boundary-layer reattachment. plateau value is observed between 5 and 6.5% of the injection rate
ratio. With further increase in injection, CAV decays. This complies
B. Gas Flow Properties well with [23] and in [44] on 2-D nozzle slot injection, where a higher
1. Secondary Flow Conditions injection-performance ratio is noticed for the injection rate ratios
The secondary flow chamber pressure was set to be in the range of between two and four.
primary flow conditions with the intention to simulate the system Observation of the evaluated results suggests that a small to
without additional gas supply and pressurization. With the defined moderate injection rate is fuel-consumption favorable, whereas for
secondary injection geometry, the SPR  1 condition yielded a the higher injection rates, a certain sacrifice of the regular perfor-
secondary–to-primary mass-flow-rate ratio of 8%. Further altering of mance is needed in order to obtain higher vectoring angles.

Fig. 15 Wall-pressure at meridional positions around the nozzle axis for SPR  1 (lines — CFD, symbols — experiment).
 204 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 16 Wall-pressure at meridional positions around the nozzle axis for SPR  0.833 (lines — CFD, symbols — experiment).

Fig. 17 Wall-pressure at injection side of symmetry plane for different SPRs (lines — CFD, symbols — experiment).

2. Primary Flow Conditions at the nozzle exit section. This λ shock–wall interaction is further
Moreover, the primary nozzle pressure ratio mainly affects the altered by the nature of the established shock and crossflow field
downstream portion of the crossflow interaction field. Increase of interface.
ambient conditions over the adaptation values leads to the shortening In Fig. 19, several characteristic overexpansion modes are
of a normal flow recompression sequence. Sequentially, the further identified, consulting the numerically and experimentally obtained
increase of ambient pressure results in the occurrence of a Mach disk schlieren snapshots. As experimental schlieren captures only the jet

Fig. 18 Vectoring and specific impulse amplification factor vs mass-flow-rate ratio.

 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 205

exterior part at the nozzle exit; the interaction zone is shown in more pitch vector angles. However, at 40% of NPRD , an overexpansion
detail, depicted on the numerical plots. Reduction of the nozzle leads to the prominence of a Mach disk reflection phenomenon
pressure ratio (NPR) to 50% of NPRD leads to the initial separation at close to the nozzle lip. Further upstream, movement of the Mach disk
the nozzle exit. an increase of ambient pressure above the adaptation inside the nozzle largely influences the SITVC system through the
level initially may favorably affect the fluidic vectoring system separation at the opposite nozzle side, whereas the injection side is
performances. Namely, inflow from the exterior and an increase of filled with the injection plume. The SITVC becomes completely
pressure at the nozzle lip confront the low-pressure region behind the inoperable with the Mach disk appearance at the injection cross
injection and its suction effect. Acting as a relief mechanism for section. However, in some configurations, inflow from all injection
the injection plume, this is found to allow higher penetration while positions may help in dealing with the effect of separated nozzle
the thrust force decreases with overexpansion and leads to the higher flow [45]. Coupled experimental and numerical data for different
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 19 Numerical and experimental schlieren photographs for SPR  1 and series of overexpansion NPRs.
 206 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 20 Wall-pressure profiles for constant SPR  1 and series of overexpansion NPRs of TIC-i nozzle (lines — CFD, symbols — experiment).

Fig. 21 Performance parameters and deflection angle plotted versus NPR for TIC-i: xj ∕ln  0.882 nozzle and SPR  1.

overexpansion cases can be observed in Fig. 20. Only wall-pressure The results tabulated in Tables 5 and 6 show that the efficiency of a
profiles aft of the injection port are affected by the main NPR change. fluidic thrust vector control system largely increases with the low
Some moderate increases of pressure in the low-pressure suction secondary to primary γMg ratios. This can be justified by considering
zone aft of the injection port relieve the action on the secondary jet, the higher sonic velocity characteristic of a penetrating gas into the
which allows a slight increase in vectoring amplification. In an main flow, whereas no important mixing is assumed in the first part of
analysis of tested cases, an optimal nondimensional CAV value is interaction [13,32]. Observing the performance graphs in Figs. 22
reached around NPR ∼ 15, which corresponds to a maximal vector and 23, it can be observed that this dependency is especially
pitch angle δ, as shown in Fig. 21. A further NPR decrease largely significant regarding the consumption efficiency of the rocket engine
deteriorates the vectoring performance and leads to performance SITVC operation. In the reported cold-flow experiments, a secondary
decay.

3. Intrinsic Gas Properties Table 5 Multispecies injection experimental statistical average data
In addition to a flow conditions analysis, the intrinsic gas pro- Second
perties of involved species are found to be crucial for the charac- species fm γj Mg Fy , NFx , N δ, deg
terization of a fluidic vector system performance. Experiments with Constant SPR  1
the several secondary injectant gas species were accompanied by the Air 0.076 1.4 28.96 16.17 2% 136.1 0.5% 6.78 4%
numerical simulations, which together emphasized the important Helium 0.030 1.667 4.0026 16.95 2% 136.1 0.5% 7.1 4%
effect of thermodynamic properties on this wall-bounded crossflow Carbon 0.092 1.297 44.01 16.20 2% 136.2 0.5% 6.78 4%
system. Evaluated result data of the current investigation highlighted dioxide
the important influence of secondary to primary ratios of molecular Argon 0.096 1.663 39.948 16.05 2% 136.3 0.5% 6.72 4%
weights and specific heats on the flow deflection. In addition, Constant fm  0.076
Carbon 0.833 1.297 44.01 13.76 2% 136.1 0.5% 5.77 4%
molecular viscosity and diffusivity were found to have only a minor dioxide
effect on the separation of the viscous boundary layer and shock Argon 0.803 1.663 39.948 12.95 2% 136.3 0.5% 5.43 4%
interaction interface.
 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 207

Table 6 Multispecies injection numerical averaged force and with constant contour slope. Two experimental models with injec-
performance data: constant f m  0.076 tions placed at 90 and 70% of the main nozzle length were
Case SPR Fjy , N Fwy , N δ, deg CAV CAF CAI considered, as reported in [25]. The experimental analysis was
complemented by the numerical simulations of different injection
Air 1 9.473 7.134 6.89 0.904 1.024 0.952
Helium 2.534 24.279 14.972 16.20 2.124 1.049 0.975 positions using the same conical nozzle model. Two experimental
Carbon dioxide 0.833 7.713 6.254 5.87 0.904 1.019 0.947 cases differed by the appearance of the shock reflection inside the
Argon 0.803 7.636 5.426 5.49 0.719 1.017 0.945 nozzle and the upstream and downstream sizes of the separated
region. In the first case of injection at xj ∕ln  0.7, in Fig. 24a, the
bow shock propagated through the nozzle and reflected from the
opposite wall side, affecting the complete flow in the cross section. In
injection of helium into dry air was largely superior to those injec-
the vicinity of the reflection zone, opposite the injection port, the
tions of more inert gases as argon or carbon dioxide. The observed
boundary layer separated, forming a recirculation bubble that, in the
secondary to primary gas species intrinsic properties relation comply
given case, closed at the nozzle lip. The shock reflection inside the
well with the remarks of an efficiency increase in use of high-
SITVC nozzle, as shown in Fig. 25, had a strong effect on the flow
enthalpy reactive injectant gases in [32] and others.
deflection and vectoring rate. Displacement of the injection point
closer to the nozzle lip, as in the case of injection at xj ∕ln  0.9 in
C. Geometric Aspects of SITVC Fig. 24b, prevented the occurrence of the shock reflection inside the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Geometric parameters that mainly influence SITVC system nozzle, allowing the injectant plume and horseshoe vortex to exit
performances were investigated in regard to the optimization of the nozzle domain unaffected, whereas the interaction took place in
primary and secondary nozzle aspects. The position of the secondary the exterior domain.
injection along the divergent section of the main nozzle and its Transverse injection at the positions closer to the nozzle lip also
inclination toward the main axis were found to represent the sub- reduces the low-pressure zone aft of the injection port, allowing
stantial factors in a SITVC system design. In addition, limited ame- deeper penetration and separation farther upstream. This also can be
lioration of SITVC was possible by applying optimization to the observed in the skin-friction profiles presented in Fig. 26, showing
contour design of primary and secondary nozzle. the separation distance augmentation with each consecutive
displacement of the injection point toward the nozzle exit.
1. Secondary Injection Axial Position Analysis of the acquired force data, which are also given in Table 7,
The position of secondary injection at the divergent section of a and performance graphs in Fig. 27 indicates that the injection posi-
rocket propulsive nozzle was investigated on a conical nozzle model tions closer to the nozzle exit provide a cleaner crossflow interaction

Fig. 22 Vectoring amplification versus γMg product ratio of injectant in the main flow.

Fig. 23 Specific impulse amplification versus γMg product ratio of injectant in the main flow.
 208 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.

Fig. 24 Numerical schlieren images of SITVC conical nozzle with two injection positions.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

increases due to a gradual rise of the high-pressure zone upstream of

the injection port and a decline of the downstream low-pressure zone.
In regard to our intended use of a second-stage launcher, the optimal
position of xj ∕ln  0.9 is selected and used in further analyses.

2. Secondary Injection Angular Position

Further optimization of the SITVC nozzle geometric character-
istics considers the injection attitude vector. As reported in [46], the
SITVC performance rate gradually deteriorates with the secondary
injection inclined downstream in reference to the main axis, whereas
the upstream inclination considerably augments the produced side
force. Some researchers, as in [45], even proposed usage of a
gimbaled secondary injection for a larger operation envelope.
In the current investigation, a 20 deg upstream inclined injection was
experimentally tested using the conical nozzle model and compared to
the results of numerical simulations. Subsequently, angular inclination
of a secondary injection was investigated numerically on the range of
upstream inclined angles with a 10 deg step.
As observed in Fig. 28, the main action of the upstream inclined
injection is an additional blockage to the oncoming supersonic flow.
Fig. 25 xj ∕ln  0.7 case 3-D flowfield with iso-Mach contours.
This additional push by the windward side of the secondary plume
yields a steeper slope gradient in the bow shock, and thus in the flow
inside the nozzle with an increased jet deflection rate. Two distinctive deflection evolution, and it effectively aspirates the trapped flow in
zones of secondary injection placements can be identified as SITVC the separation zone through the enlarged interface. Consequently, the
with and SITVC without bow-shock reflection inside the nozzle interaction wall side force component increases, which leads to a
domain. As can be seen in the given data, cases where shock–wall higher side force magnitude.
reflection occurs strongly deteriorate vector deflection. For the given Contrary to the favorable deflection rate, the steeper bow shock
test nozzle model, a limiting case is found for the injection point at and oppositely directed axial component of the secondary injection
xj ∕ln  0.75, where the bow shock impinges on the outer nozzle lip. reaction force a decrease of the main nozzle efficiency in terms of
From this injection position towards the nozzle exit, deflection linearly thrust force.

Fig. 26 Skin-friction profiles in symmetry plane for different injection positions.

 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 209

Table 7 Force and performance metrics data at different The force data evaluated from the investigated cases (Table 8)
injection positions of conical nozzle test casea indicate that the interaction side force component is directly related to
Inclination case Fjy , N Fwy , N δ, deg CAV CAF CAI the amount of inclination. Accordingly, with an upstream angular
attitude increase, the contribution of the side force component from
xj ∕ln  0.7 -8.04 9.91 0.82 0.1 1.037 0.958
xj ∕ln  0.75 0.013 9.914 4.6 0.554 0.97 0.896 the crossflow interaction surpasses the contribution of the secondary
xj ∕ln  0.8 6.308 9.92 7.15 0.861 1.03 0.951 injection reactive force normal component. Additionally, evaluated
xj ∕ln  0.9 8.67 9.94 8.27 0.976 1.017 0.939 test cases indicate that angles larger than ϕ > 40 deg gradually
xj ∕ln  0.95 8 9.94 8.01 0.963 1.018 0.94 produce a very complex and deviated flowfield with detrimental
effects on the axial force, side loads, and nozzle stability. Optimizing
a
NPR  37; SPR  1; fm  0.083; F0  126.41 N; I 0sp  57.77 s. between these parameters, an optimal upstream inclination is found
in selected test cases around 27 deg.

As illustrated in Fig. 29, upstream separation increases with the 3. Secondary Injection Nozzle Geometry
each consecutive step, which is also evident in the extracted wall- The geometry design of a secondary injection may additionally
pressure profiles. The increase of the upstream inclination value also affect the crossflow field generation and the separation mode in main
modifies the injection port area, which is found in the intersection of flow. With the imposed conditions of the same secondary mass flow
the sonic throat and the divergent nozzle wall. The injection port area rate and chamber pressure, a rectangular slot-type injection nozzle
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

enlargement leads to a nonuniform pressure distribution, as observed was designed. The longer edge of the rectangle is defined as a circular
in Fig. 30 at the injection port, which is prone to backpressure effects. arc over the central angle, where the center is defined at the selected
Even though a breakdown angular value was not reached in terms position of the main nozzle axis. The shorter edge is then found from
of produced side force, we can observe, for the ϕ  60 deg case, a the condition of an identical throat area, as illustrated in Fig. 31.
depicted pressure plot in Fig. 30b that shows high pressure in the Following the research reported in [24,44], which dealt with the
upstream zone strongly affects a preexpanded secondary flow at the multiple-slot central angle sizes, the central angle value of θ 
windward portion of the secondary injection port section. This leads 30 deg is selected as an optimal value considering the pressure rise in
to a potentially unsteady motion of the separated flow as observed in the separation zone:
probing of the velocity and force.
   
θ θ
a  2πRCj ; aj  2RCj sin ; bj  Aj ∕aj (13)
360 2

To avoid the stress concentration and vortex generator at the sharp

corners, a slot port is shaped as a rounded rectangle over the central
arc of θ  30 deg. The fully equipped experimental model was
tested under the same conditions and compared to the circular
secondary injection. In Fig. 32, a comparative view of numerical and
experimental extracted schlieren photographs is given from side and
top views. Comparing the schlieren snapshots of circular injection
case in Fig. 11 and of slot type in Fig. 32, we can observe the increase
of the upstream separated flow region in the lateral direction. Awider
injection zone also affects the adverse pressure gradient and earlier
upstream separation. This is also evident in wall-pressure profiles in
Fig. 27 Evolution of vectoring and force-amplification factors at
Fig. 33, where growth in the plateau pressure level, and consequently
different injection positions. in the farther upstream detachment point, can be noticed. The rise of
the plateau pressure zone is directly related to the growth of the PUV

Fig. 28 Schlieren photographs of SITVC conical nozzle with 20 deg inclined circular injection at SPR  1 and NPR  37.5 conditions, yielding
δ  9 deg.
 210 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 29 Wall pressures of inclined circular injections at SPR  1 and NPR  37.5 conditions.

Fig. 30 Top-view wall-pressure contours at SPR  1 and NPR  37.5 conditions.

and the corresponding horseshoe vortex. In Fig. 34, meridional crossflow. Accordingly, the PUV- and SUV-dominated plateaus and
pressure profiles depict the lateral evolution of increased wall- peak pressure regions are observed in the first three reference
pressure levels in the case of slot injection. In the given case, even the meridians. Formation of the horseshoe vortex zone is normally
meridians of above 90 deg are affected by secondary injection detected in the vicinity of the slot’s shorter side. The very good
agreement of numerical and experimental pressure data is achieved in
terms of the evaluation of the detachment point, the pressure rise, and
the pressure peak. There is some overestimation of the plateau
Table 8 Force and performance metrics data of angular
injection at xj ∕ln  0.9 conical nozzlea pressure value in k-ε-obtained profiles, which is expected and
previously observed as in [40]; but, in general, the used Reynolds-
Inclination case Fjy , N Fwy , N δ, deg CAV CAF CAI averaged Navier–Stokes model performance was highly satisfactory.
ϕ  0 deg 9.94 8.67 8.27 0.976 1.017 0.939 In the given case evaluated, the penetration height difference between
ϕ  20 deg 10.03 10.28 9.13 1.088 1.011 0.933 the circular and slot injections was found to be around 6%. However,
ϕ  30 deg 10.02 10.98 9.59 1.143 0.997 0.92 slot injection augmentation of laterally affected crossflow increased
ϕ  40 deg 10.05 11.42 9.97 1.188 0.98 0.904 the side force component coming from crossflow interaction, which
finally yielded up to an 8.5% increase in the global vector side force,
a
NPR  37; SPR  1; fm  0.083; F0  126.41 N; I 0sp  57.77 s.
as presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Numerically evaluated forces resultsa

Performance data
P P
Case _ j , g/s Fjy , N
m Fwy , N Fy , N Fx , N δ, deg Dinj , mm hj ; mm xsepj ; mm CAV CAF CAI
Circular 19.63 10.21 7.71 17.92 136.23 7.493 dj  6 5.512 15.664 0.914 1.025 0.946
Slot 19.83 10.23 9.43 19.66 136.64 8.187 bj  2.5 5.205 17.595 0.986 1.029 0.951

NPR  37.5; SPR  1; fm  0.082; F0  134.05 N; I 0sp  57.88 s.

a
 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 211
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

Fig. 31 Slot injection scheme at SPR  1 and NPR  37.5 conditions.

Fig. 32 Z schlieren for slot injection case at SPR  1 and NPR  37.5 conditions, yielding δ  8.18 deg.

Fig. 33 Circular and slot injection case profiles at SPR  1 and NPR  37.5 conditions.
 212 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL.

Fig. 34 Wall-pressure at meridional positions for SPR  1, NPR  37.5 (lines — CFD, symbols — experiment).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

The effects of the slot injection were comparable to the parallel Acknowledgments
multiport injection distributed along the 30 deg central arc region. The authors would like to acknowledge the full technical and
This radial kind of multiport injection positioning, as reported in financial support of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
[33,44], yielded a better performance rate than the meridional French space agency: particularly, the great cooperation with
positioning, and its generated side force was found in the range of a Sandrine Palerm and Jean Oswald of CNES/Direction des Lanceurs.
singular circular injection. Some further viable optimizations of Also, we greatly appreciate the technical assistance of Viviana Lago
geometry aspects were suggested, such as the Rao adverse-pressure- and Nicolas Gouilon during all of the conducted experiments.
gradient optimized nozzle contour [33,37].

References
V. Conclusions [1] Hingre, H., Bec, R., Palerm, S., and Oswald, J., “European University
and Scientific Space Research Program PERSEUS,” EUCASS 4th
The presented study aimed to address the problematic and possible European Conference for AeroSpace Sciences, Russian Foundation for
application approaches of secondary injection fluidic thrust vector- Basic Research, S-8.8, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2011.
ing. The number of identified aspects was parametrically analyzed [2] Flamm, J. D., “Experimental Study of a Nozzle Using Fluidic
and presented qualitatively, as well quantitatively. The integrated Counterflow for Thrust Vectoring,” 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
experimental and numerical approach proved well suited for the Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 1998-3255, 1998.
posed problem. Very good agreement between the experimental doi:10.2514/6.1998-3255
results and computational fluid dynamics with the k-ε model was [3] Sung, H.-G., and Heo, J.-Y., “Fluidic Thrust Vector Control of
Supersonic Jet Using Coflow Injection,” Journal of Propulsion and
reached in terms of the estimation of the separation zone and the Power, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2012, pp. 858–861.
plateau pressure rise. doi:10.2514/1.B34266
The main features of the complex wall-bounded interaction [4] Deere, K. A., “Summary of Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Research at NASA
crossflow field were analyzed. In addition to adverse-pressure- Langley Research Center,” 21st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Confer-
gradient shock generation and interaction with a secondary plume, ence, AIAA Paper 2003-3800, 2003.
cold-flow intrinsic gas properties were considered. In Mach 3 doi:10.2514/6.2003-3800
compressible flow, it was detected that the pressure condition, and [5] Mahesh, K., “The Interaction of Jets with Crossflow,” Annual Review of
thus the sonic velocity of the gas, mainly influenced the penetration Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 45, Jan. 2013, pp. 379–407.
rate, implicit separation, and effective main flow deflection. There- doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101115
[6] Viti, V., Neel, R., and Schetz, J. A., “Detailed Flow Physics of the
fore, species with a lower γ molar mass ratio proved as more efficient Supersonic Jet Interaction Flow Field,” Physics of Fluids, Vol. 21, No. 4,
compared to inert gases. 2009, Paper 046101.
A number of geometric parameters was tested for the given rocket doi:10.1063/1.3112736
nozzle model. Injection position and injection inclination toward the [7] Zukoski, E. E., and Spaid, F. W., “Secondary Injection of Gases into a
main nozzle axis proved to dominantly affect the secondary injection Supersonic Flow,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 10, 1964, pp. 1689–1696.
thrust vector control (SITVC) performances. Considering the shock doi:10.2514/3.2653
reflection and interaction inside the nozzle, as well as the imbalance [8] Spaid, F. W., and Zukoski, E. E., “Study of the Interaction of Gaseous
of the high-pressure upstream zone and low pressure downstream of Jets from Transverse Slots with Supersonic External Flows,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1968, pp. 205–212.
injection, the positions closer to the nozzle exit proved a better
doi:10.2514/3.4479
selection for the SITVC implementation. Upstream inclination [9] Guhse, R. D., and Doyle Thompson, H., “Some Aspects of Gaseous
ameliorated the amount of side force coming from crossflow Secondary Injection with Application to Thrust Vector Control,”
interaction. However, at high injection inclination angles, the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1972, pp. 291–292.
negative effects of backpressure action on the injection port and doi:10.2514/3.61674
instable shear flow close to the wall globally deteriorated nozzle [10] Guhse, R. D., “On Secondary Gas Injections into Supersonic Nozzles,”
operation. Optimization of secondary nozzle geometry proved to AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1966, pp. 147–149.
have a moderate effect on the performances. Slot injection on the doi:10.2514/3.28405
30 deg central arc affected a larger amount of the main flow laterally, [11] Schetz, J. A., Billig, F. S., and Favin, S., “Analysis of Slot Injection in
which increased the interaction side force component. Hypersonic Flow,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 7, No. 1,
1991, pp. 115–122.
With directions obtained from the presented cold-flow investiga- doi:10.2514/3.23301
tion, a hot-gas analysis of the combustion chamber products in the [12] Karamcheti, K., and Tao-Sze Hsia, H., “Integral Approach to an
SITVC nozzle is currently under investigation. Additionally, the Approximate Analysis of Thrust Vector Control by Secondary
effects of flow instability modes at the SITVC nozzle exit will be Injection,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 1, No. 11, 1963, pp. 2538–2544.
considered in the ongoing investigation. doi:10.2514/3.2106
 ZMIJANOVIC ET AL. 213

[13] Walker, R. E., and Shandor, M., “Influence of Injectant Properties for [30] Grunnet, J. L., “Factors Affecting the Magnitude of Jet Interaction
Fluid Injection Thrust Vector Control,” AIAA Solid Propellant Rocket Forces,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 8, No. 12, 1971,
Conference, AIAA Paper 1964-0112, 1964. pp. 1234–1235
doi:10.2514/6.1964-112 doi:10.2514/3.30370
[14] Allegre, J., and Charwat, A. F., “Interaction of a Supersonic Stream and a [31] Azevedo, D., “Measured Thrust Losses Associated with Secondary Air
Transverse Supersonic Jet,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 11, 1964, Injection Through Nozzle Walls,” Journal of Propulsion and Power,
pp. 1965–1972. Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993, pp. 43–50.
doi:10.2514/3.2712 doi:10.2514/3.11483
[15] Zukoski, E. E., “Turbulent Boundary-Layer Separation in Front of a [32] Riebe, J., “Investigation of Gaseous Secondary Injection Thrust Vector
Forward-Facing Step,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 10, 1967, pp. 1746– Control Considering Primary Nozzle Overexpansion, Frequency
1753. Response, and Injection Angle,” NASA CR-66533, 1968.
doi:10.2514/3.4299 [33] Zmijanovic, V., “Secondary Injection Fluidic Thrust Vectoring of an
[16] Verma, S. B., and Gupta, V., “Supersonic Separation with Obstructions,” Axisymmetric Supersonic Nozzle,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Doctoral School
AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1996, pp. 849–851. of Science and Technology, Orleans Univ., Orleans, France, 2013.
doi:10.2514/3.13151 [34] Damljanovic, D., Isakovic, J., and Rasuo, B., “T-38 Wind-Tunnel Data
[17] Cuppoletti, D. R., and Gutmark, E., “Fluidic Injection on a Supersonic Quality Assurance Based on Testing of a Standard Model,” Journal of
Jet at Various Mach Numbers,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2014, Aircraft, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2013, pp. 1141–1149.
pp. 293–306. doi:10.2514/1.C032081
doi:10.2514/1.J010000 [35] Zucrow, M. J., and Hoffman, J. D., Gas Dynamics, Vols. 1–2, Wiley,
[18] Santiago, J. G., and Dutton, J., “Crossflow Vortices of a Jet Injected into New York, 1977.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN on January 2, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B35721

a Supersonic Crossflow,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1997, pp. 915– [36] Rao, G. V. R., “Approximation of Optimum Thrust Nozzle Contour,”
917. ARS Journal, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1960, p. 561.
doi:10.2514/2.7468 [37] Rao, G. V. R., “Thrust Vector Control System Utilizing an Adverse
[19] Haven, B. A., and Kurosaka, M., “Kidney and Anti-Kidney Vortices in Pressure Gradient in the Nozzle,” NASA SN/60 NASw-249, 1961.
Crossflow Jets,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 352, Dec. 1997, [38] Durand, P., Vieille, B., Lambaré, H., Vuillermoz, P., Bouré, G.,
pp. 27–64. Steinfeld, P., Godfroy, F., and Guéry, J. F., “CPS” “AThree Dimensional
doi:10.1017/S0022112097007271 CFD Code Devoted to Space Propulsive Flows,” 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/
[20] Newton, J. F., Jr., and Spaid, F. W., “Interaction of Secondary Injectants ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2000-
and Rocket Exhaust for Thrust Vector Control,” ARS Journal, Vol. 32, 3864, 2000.
No. 8, 1962, pp. 1203–1211. doi:10.2514/6.2000-3864
doi:10.2514/8.6245 [39] Toro, E. F., Spruce, M., and Speares, W., “Restoration of the Contact
[21] Ko, H., and Yoon, W.-S., “Performance Analysis of Secondary Gas Surface in the HLL-Riemann Solver,” Shock Waves, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1994,
Injection into a Conical Rocket Nozzle,” Journal of Propulsion and pp. 25–34.
Power, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002, pp. 585–591. doi:10.1007/BF01414629
doi:10.2514/2.5972 [40] Chenault, C. F., and Beran, P. S., “K-e and Reynolds Stress Turbulence
[22] Zeierman, I., and Manheimer-Timnat, Y., “Full Control of Solid Model Comparisons for Two-Dimensional Injection Flows,” AIAA
Propellant Rockets by Secondary Injection,” Journal of Spacecraft and Journal, Vol. 36, No. 8, 1998, pp. 1401–1412.
Rockets, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1973, pp. 161–162 doi:10.2514/2.561
doi:10.2514/3.61863 [41] Boccaletto, L., and Cahuzac, F., “Solving the Flow Separation Issue: A
[23] Nielson, J. H., Gilchrist, A., and Lee, C. K., “Side Thrust Control by New Nozzle Concept,” 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Secondary Gas Injection into Rocket Nozzles,” Journal of Mechanical Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2008-5234, 2008.
Engineering Science, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1968, pp. 239–251. doi:10.2514/6.2008-5234
doi:10.1243/JMES_JOUR_1968_010_036_02 [42] Zmijanovic, V., Leger, L., Lago, V., Sellam, M., and Chpoun, A.,
[24] Wing, D. J., and Giuliano, V. J., “Fluidic Thrust Vectoring of an “Experimental and Numerical Study of Thrust-Vectoring Effects by
Axisymmetric Exhaust Nozzle at Static Conditions,” ASME Fluids Transverse Gas Injection into a Propulsive Axisymmetric C-D Nozzle,”
Engineering Division Summer Meeting, American Soc. of Mechanical 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,
Engineers Paper FEDSM97-3228, Fairfield, NJ, 1997. AIAA Paper 2012-3874, 2012.
[25] Zmijanovic, V., Lago, V., Sellam, M., and Chpoun, A., “Thrust Shock doi:10.2514/6.2012-3874
Vector Control of an Axisymmetric Conical Supersonic Nozzle via [43] Erinc, E., and Kontis, K., “Numerical and Experimental Investigation
Secondary Transverse Gas Injection,” Shock Waves, Vol. 24, No. 1, of Transverse Injection Flows,” Shock Waves, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2010,
2014, pp. 97–111. pp. 103–118.
doi:10.1007/s00193-013-0479-y doi:10.1007/s00193-010-0247-1
[26] Sellam, M., Zmijanovic, V., Lago, V., and Chpoun, A., “Fluidic Thrust [44] Waithe, K., and Deere, K. A., “An Experimental and Computational
Vectoring of an Axisymmetrical Nozzle: An Analytical Model,” Investigation of Multiple Injection Ports in a Convergent–divergent
International Journal of Aerodynamics, Vol. 2, Nos. 2–4, 2012, Nozzle for Fluidic Thrust Vectoring,” 21st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
pp. 193–209. Conference, AIAA Paper 2003-3802, 2003.
doi:10.1504/IJAD.2012.049112 doi:10.2514/6.2003-3802
[27] Schilling, T. W., “Flow Separation in Rocket Nozzles,” M.S. Thesis, [45] Zeamer, R., “Thrust Vector Control by Liquid Injection for Solid
Univ. of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1962. Propellant Rockets,” 11th AIAA/SAE Propulsion Conference, AIAA
[28] Green, L., Jr., “Flow Separation in Rocket Nozzles,” Journal of the Paper 1975-1225, 1975.
American Rocket Society, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1953, pp. 34–35. doi:10.2514/6.1975-1225
doi:10.2514/8.4536 [46] Nielson, J. H., Gilchrist, A., and Lee, C. K., “Control Forces in Rocket
[29] Billig, F. S., “Shock-Wave Shapes Around Spherical-And Cylindrical- Nozzles Produced by a Secondary Gas Stream Inclined at Various
Nosed Bodies,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 4, No. 6, 1967, Angles to the Nozzle Axis,” Journal of Mechanical Engineering
pp. 822–823. Science, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1969, pp. 175–180.
doi:10.2514/3.28969 doi:10.1243/JMES_JOUR_1969_011_022_02