RPA: Tool for Rocket Propulsion Analysis

Assessment of Delivered Performance

of Thrust Chamber

Alexander Ponomarenko
[email protected]
http://www.propulsion-analysis.com
March 2013 (v.1)

Abstract
Rocket Propulsion Analysis (RPA) is a multi-platform analysis tool intended for use in
conceptual and preliminary design (design phases 0/A/B1).
This report describes a numerical models and computation techniques implemented in RPA to
estimate the delivered performance of thrust chambers.
Contents
Nomenclature..........................................................................................................................3
Introduction.............................................................................................................................4
Numerical Model.....................................................................................................................4
Delivered Performance.......................................................................................................4
Correction Factors..............................................................................................................6
Finite Rate Kinetics in the Combustion Chamber..........................................................6
Boundary Layer (Friction) Loss......................................................................................7
Divergence Loss...........................................................................................................10
Multi-Phase Flow Loss.................................................................................................12
Built-In Assessment..........................................................................................................13
Finite Rate Kinetics in the Nozzle................................................................................13
Finite-Area Combustion Chamber................................................................................13
Interzonal Losses.........................................................................................................15
Nozzle Flow Separation...............................................................................................16
Thrust Throttling ..........................................................................................................17
Application in RPA and RPA SDK.........................................................................................19
References............................................................................................................................20

2
Nomenclature
A cross-sectional area, m2

A
̄ relative cross-sectional area, A
̄ = A / At

F
̄ specific cross-sectional area, F
̄ =A / ṁ , (s·m2)/kg

c* characteristic velocity, m/s

Is specific impulse, m/s

Cf thrust coefficient

p pressure, Pa

T temperature, K

w velocity, m/s

M Mach number

λ characteristic Mach number

 density, kg/m3

ṁ mass flow rate, kg/s

Re Reynolds number

δ** boundary layer momentum thickness

η dynamic viscosity, kg/(m·s)
ξ performance loss coefficient
ζ performance correction factor, ζ=1−ξ

Further symbols will be introduced and explained in the text.

3
Introduction
A number of computer codes can calculate ideal theoretical performance parameters of thrust
chamber, usually providing overestimated specific impulse. In turn, this leads to
overestimating of the overall performance, when ideal theoretical performance is used as
input data for evaluating the expected parameters of the system. To compensate this issue,
the correction factors have to be applied to the ideal performance parameters.

This report provides detailed information about semiempirical correction factors and
computation techniques used in RPA to estimate the delivered performance of thrust chamber
from calculated theoretical performance values with accuracy sufficient for conceptual and
preliminary design studies, as well as for rapid evaluation of different variants of the systems.

Numerical Model

Delivered Performance
Thrust chambers performance calculated from thermodynamic analysis (see reference [1]) is
an ideal theoretical performance and obtained under following assumptions: adiabatic,
isenthalpic combustion with infinitely fast chemical reactions; adiabatic, isentropic (frictionless
and no dissipative losses) quasi-one-dimensional nozzle flow; ideal gas law; no dissipative
losses.
The performance parameters obtained from such analysis are:
– ideal specific impulse in vacuum I vac
s

– ideal specific impulse at optimum expansion I opt

s

– ideal specific impulse at sea level I SL

s

– ideal thrust coefficient in vacuum C vac

f

– ideal thrust coefficient at optimum expansion C opt

f

– ideal thrust coefficient at sea level C SL

f

– ideal characteristic velocity c *

In the real thrust chambers the flow is axisymmetric two-dimensional (or even tree-
dimensional), with a viscous boundary layer next to the nozzle walls, where the gas velocities
are much lower than the the core-stream velocities, finite-rate chemical kinetics, and other
factors which reduce the real delivered performance.
The deviations from ideal performance can be broken down into two classes:
– those that can be characterized by correction factors to be applied to calculated ideal
performance parameters listed above
– and those that can be applied through modification of calculation of ideal performance
parameters leading to deviations to be incorporated into performance parameters
directly (“built-in assessment”)

4
Corrections factors can be grouped into two categories:
– combustion chamber correction factor ζ c to correct the performance parameters due
to real processes in the combustion chamber
– nozzle correction factor ζ n to correct the performance parameters due to real
processes in the nozzle
Corrections factors are given by:
ζc = ζr (1)
ζ n = ζf ζ d ζ z (2)
where
ζ r – correction factor that represents performance loss due to finite rate kinetics in the
combustion chamber
ζ f – correction factor that represents performance loss due to friction in boundary layer
ζ d – correction factor that represents performance loss due to divergence, or two-
dimensional flow in the nozzle
ζ z – correction factor that represents performance loss due to multi-phase flow in the
nozzle
Using introduced correction factors, the assessment of delivered performance parameters
can be performed as follows:
(I vac vac
s )d = ζ c ζn I s (3)
opt vac
̄ e pe = (I vac
(I s )d = ζ c ζn I s − F ̄
s )d− F e p e (4)
(I SL vac
̄ SL vac
̄ SL
s )d = ζc ζ n I s − F e pa = ( I s )d − F e p a (5)
(c *)d = ζ c c* (6)
vac
(I )
(C ) = s* d = ζ n C vac
vac
f d f (7)
( c )d
opt
(I s )d
(C opt
f )d = *
= ζ n C opt
f (8)
(c )d
SL
(I )
(C ) = s* d = ζn C SL
SL
f d f (9)
(c )d
̄ e= A e / ṁ=1/(w ρ)e is a nozzle exit specific area.
where F
Built-in assessment include the following performance losses:
– loss due to stagnation pressure drop in finite-area combustion chamber
– loss due to finite rate kinetics in the nozzle
– interzonal losses due to deviation of parameters in the core-stream and boundary layer
with injected coolant (BLC)
– loss due to nozzle flow separation

5
 – loss due to trust throttling.

Correction Factors

Finite Rate Kinetics in the Combustion Chamber

The correction factor that represents performance loss due to finite rate kinetics in the
combustion chamber with accuracy sufficient for conceptual and preliminary design studies is
calculated as:
' ''
ζ r = (1−ξ r )(1−ξr ) (10)
The therm ξ'r can be estimated using empirical function [8]:
a
h0 p SL b r
ξ'r =
( )( ) ( )
rt pc
log 10 e
rt
(11)

where
pSL – ambient pressure at sea level
pc – chamber pressure
r t – nozzle throat radius
r e – nozzle exit radius
Parameters h0 , a and b for several propellant composition are given in following table [8]:
Propellant Oxidizer excess coefficient h0 , m a b
O2+H2 0.8 1.3·10-3 0.4 1
O2+kerosine 0.8 6.7·10-4 0.35 0.8
AT+UDMH 0.9 5.3·10-6 0.25 0.5

6
For quick estimation the performance loss ξ'r can also be obtained from the following
diagram:

Figure 1: Performance loss

coefficient ξ'r (taken from [3])

Here α is an oxidizer excess coefficient, curves 1, 2 and 3 represent losses for propellants
O2+H2, F2+H2 and AT+UDMH correspondingly.
The therm ξ'r represents the increase in loss for low-pressure combustion chambers and is
given by:

''
ξ = max 0,
r [2.1−ln( p c /(2⋅10 6))
100 ] (12)

where pc is a combustion chamber pressure [Pa].

Boundary Layer (Friction) Loss

The correction factor due to wall friction in boundary layer can be calculated using following
relation [3,7]:
2̄δ**
e
ζf = 1 −
1 (13)
1 +
k M 2e
where
** **
̄
δe =δ /r e – relative momentum thickness
r e – nozzle exit radius
M e – Mach number at nozzle exit obtained for quasi two-dimensional nozzle flow
k – specific heats ratio
This expression is applicable both for laminar and turbulent boundary layers.

7
 7
In rocket engine nozzles the boundary layer is usually laminar at Re w <1⋅10 and turbulent at 0

Re w >3⋅10 7 . Here Reynolds number is given by:

0

w e ρ0c Ln
Re w =0 ηw
w e – gas exhaust velocity in vacuum
ρ0c – gas stagnation density at nozzle inlet
Ln – nozzle length
ηw – dynamic viscosity at T w
Smaller engines (with thrust below 45000 N) tend to have laminar boundary layers, whereas
the large engines are almost always turbulent [6].
For turbulent boundary layer the momentum thickness δ** is given by [3]:
0.1 k+1
2 k−1 2
( ) ( 1+ M we ) 2(k−1) 0.8

[( ]
0.8 ̄
S
k−1 0.015 2 ̄S 0.2 1.25
̄r M
1+1.25 ν
δ**
= 0.2
Rew 0
( ) 0.5
T̄ w Mw
ν+1 2
̄r e
∫
0
1+
k−1 2 k−1
Mw
1.36k −0.36

)
d ̄S (14)
2
where
Tw
T̄ w = , for adiabatic nozzles T̄ w =0.9
T0
18 ̄ 2
ν = T −
7 w 7
T w – nozzle wall temperature
T 0 – gas stagnation temperature
M w – Mach number next to the nozzle wall
M we – Mach number at nozzle exit next to the nozzle wall

̄S = S – relative lateral length of nozzle

rt
r t – nozzle throat radius
This equation can be used both for convergent and divergent nozzle sections.
For laminar boundary layer the momentum thickness δ** can be calculated using equations
18.23 – 18.25 in [4].

8
For nozzle with know distribution of viscosity stress along the contour (this is usually the case
if thermal analysis of the chamber is performed), the correction factor due for friction in
boundary layer can be calculated using following relation [2,10]:
xe

2 π∫ τ R cos θ dx
0 (15)
ζf = 1 −
C f A t p 0c

where
ζ f – performance correction factor for the friction loss
τ – viscosity stress (see section “Gas-Side Heat Transfer” in reference [2])
C f – ideal thrust coefficient
A t – nozzle throat area
p0c – stagnation pressure at nozzle inlet
x , R , θ – size and shape parameters of the thrust chamber as defined in Figure 1 in
reference [2].
For quick estimation the performance loss can be estimated using the following diagram:

Figure 2: Performance loss coefficient due to friction in

boundary layer (taken from [5])

9
Divergence Loss
For conical nozzle the correction factor is given by following equation [9]:
1+cos θe
ζd = (16)
2
where
θe – half-angle of the conical nozzle.
For bell nozzles with known pressure field distribution at nozzle exit the correction factor for
divergence loss can be calculated using the equation [3]:
1
2
ζd = 1 −
( ) [z (λ )−1] − ̄
k+1
k−1
P e

(17)
1

( k+12 ) z (λ ) k−1
e

where
z (λ e ) = 0.5( λ e +1/ λe )
λ e – characteristic Mach number at nozzle exit obtained for quasi two-dimensional nozzle
flow
re
̄
p
P =
̄ ∫p ̄r d ̄
r
1 0c

r̄ = r /r t – nozzle exit relative radius

k – specific heats ratio

For bell nozzles with known gas velocity field distribution at nozzle exit the correction factor
for divergence loss can be calculated as follows [5]:
(C vac
f )2D
ζd = (18)
(C vac
f )1D

where
vac
(C f )1D – thrust coefficient calculated for quasi-one-dimensional nozzle flow
(C vac
f )2D – thrust coefficient calculated for axisymmetric two-dimensional nozzle flow given
as:
Ae 1
[ k (2cos 2 β−1)+1
]
1
k −1 2
(C ) vac
f 2D = 2 ∫ 1−
At 0 k +1 (
λ ) k−1
1+λ2
k +1
̄r d ̄
r (19)

where
λ – characteristic Mach number at nozzle exit (see Figure 3).

10
 Figure 3: Velocity field distribution at
nozzle exit (taken from [5])

Alternatively, the correction factor for bell nozzle can be estimated using the following
empirical equation [4]:
̄r e

e
( )
n 1−
− 1
r̄0
ζd = 1 − B (20)
n
e − 1
where
B = 1.52(exp [−30(k−1)]+0.1)
n = 1.45 ̄r 0.25 r0
0 −0.005 ̄

̄r e −1
̄r 0 = 1+ ̄
L
̄r e =r e /r t – nozzle exit relative radius
̄L – relative nozzle length
p0c (RT )e
k = ln( p0c / p e )/ln
( p e (RT )0c ) – average isentropic expansion coefficient

This equation is applicable for nozzles with ̄L=(0.4 ... 1.0) and k =(1.1 ...1.25) .

11
For quick estimation the correction factor can also be obtained from the following diagram:

Figure 4: Thrust efficiency vs bell nozzle length (taken from [9])

Multi-Phase Flow Loss

Correction factor is calculated from following relations derived from relations given in
reference [9]:
ζ z = 0.2 ζ zw + 0.8 ζ zT (21)

ζ zw = 1−
Z Cs
w 2
e
[ (
T c −T e 1+ln
Tc
Te )] (22)

Z
ζ zT = 1− (23)
2
where
Z – mass fraction of condensed phase at nozzle exit
C s – specific heat capacity of condensed phase
w e – gas velocity at nozzle exit
T e – gas temperature at nozzle exit

12
 T c – gas temperature at combustion chamber

Built-In Assessment

Finite Rate Kinetics in the Nozzle

For analysis of chemical equilibrium during nozzle expansion the following models can be
used [16]:
1. Frozen equilibrium with no change in gas composition. This approach usually gives low
performance.
2. Shifting equilibrium or instantaneous change in composition. This approach usually
overrates the performance slightly.
3. Suddenly frozen flow, which is a combination of the first two models: shifting
equilibrium is applied for analysis of chemical equilibrium from combustion chamber
injector face to some station of the nozzle (“frozen station”) where the analysis method
is replaced with frozen equilibrium model that is applied from the mentioned nozzle
station to the nozzle exit. Nozzle station is defined either by pressure ratio or area
ratio.
The values of I s and C f obtained from suddenly frozen flow analysis usually are between
those of frozen and instantaneously shifting equilibria. Therefore the model of suddenly frozen
flow can be used to estimate the chamber performance with accuracy sufficient for conceptual
and preliminary design.
The following empirical values of area ratio A fr / A t can be used to define the “frozen station”
downstream of the nozzle throat for different propellants:
LOX+Kerosene LOX+LH2 N2O4+UDMH
LOX+Alcohol
A fr / A t 1.3 3 6

Finite-Area Combustion Chamber

When the combustion chamber has a cross section that is larger than about four times the
throat area ( A ̄ c = A c / A t>4 ), the gas velocity in the chamber can usually be neglected. To
the contrary, in combustion chambers with relatively small cross section, the expansion of the
gases is accompanied by significant acceleration and pressure drop. The acceleration
process in the chamber is assumed to be adiabatic, but not isentropic, and the pressure drop
leads to the lower pressure at nozzle inlet pc . This causes a small loss in specific impulse.
The method of calculation of stagnation pressure drop at the nozzle inlet is given in reference
[1] and reproduced below.

13
Because both nozzle inlet pressure pc and nozzle throat pressure p t are unknown, two-
level iterative procedure is conducted with initial estimates
(0) 1
pc =
π(λ c ) 1+
[k inj M 2c
(βT p)inj ] (24)

where  c is a characteristic Mach number at nozzle inlet obtained for subsonic flow from
equation [9]
1 1
1 k+1 k −1 2
̄A c
= ( )
2
k−1
(
λc 1− λ
k +1 c ) k−1
(25)

with assumption k =k inj ; M c is a Mach number that corresponds to the calculated

characteristic Mach number;

 T =−
  ln V
 ln p 
T (26)
p
and
k
 c = 1− 
k −1 2

k 1 c  k−1
(27)

also with assumption k =k inj ;

c0= inj (28)
For the assigned chamber contraction area ratio A
̄ c = A c / A t , the iteration proceeds as
follows:
1. Assuming that velocity at injector face can be neglected, the velocity at the nozzle inlet is
obtained from the momentum equation for steady one-dimensional flow:

w = i 
c

p inj − pci
ic 
(29)

2. If acceleration process in the chamber is adiabatic, the total enthalpy per unit mass is
constant. Recalling that velocity at injector face can be neglected, the specific enthalpy at
nozzle inlet can be expressed as
 i wci 2
h =hinj −
c
(30)
2
3. Solution of the problem (p,H)c=const for the nozzle inlet section provides the entropy at
nozzle inlet S ic  .
4. Known conditions at nozzle inlet and assumption about an isentropic expansion in the
nozzle allow to obtain the throat conditions (including throat pressure p it  and density
i 
t ), utilizing the procedure similar to that for the infinite-area combustion chamber
(equations 47 to 50 in [1]).
5. From the continuity equation for steady quasi-one-dimensional flow, find the velocity at the

14
 nozzle inlet for the specified chamber contraction ratio:
(i)
ρw
w
c
( )
̆ c = ρt t
1
Āc
(31)

6. From the momentum equation, find the pressure at injector face that corresponds to the
calculated pressure and velocity at the nozzle inlet:
 2c
p inj = p ic ic  w (32)
7. Repeat steps 1 to 6 until the relative deviation of pressure at injector face is within required
convergence tolerance:
∣pinj −̆pinj∣
<ε (33)
pinj
The improved nozzle inlet pressure for the next iteration (i+1) is calculated as
pinj
p i1
c = pci (34)
pinj

The stagnation pressure at nozzle inlet section can be computed from

kc

[
p 0c= p c 1k c −1
w 2c c
2 k c pc ] k c −1
(35)

Interzonal Losses
Relatively cold layer next to the chamber walls can be used for thermal protection of the
chamber. Such layer is usually generated by injection of the fuel (or oxidizer) in excess
through the peripheral injector elements or special holes/slots in the wall.
The influence of shear flow with interzonal variations of mixture ratio on the chamber
performance is estimated under following assumptions:
– the large-scale distribution of mixture ratio and the gas properties in the shear flow are
conserved along the nozzle
– pressure is constant in any point of chamber cross-section at any location
– in any point of nozzle throat section the Mach number M=1.

Figure 5: Shear flow in the nozzle

The following equations for ideal chamber performance can be derived using mentioned
assumptions [6,9]:

15
 I s = (1−m
̄ w )( I s )core + m
̄ w ( I s )w (36)
* * *
c = (1−m
̄ w )c core + m
̄ w cw (37)
Is
Cf = (38)
c*
where
(I s)core , c *core – ideal specific impulse and ideal characteristic velocity correspondingly,
both calculated for design mixture ratio in the core flow
(I s) w , c *w – ideal specific impulse and ideal characteristic velocity correspondingly, both
calculated for mixture ratio with excess of the fuel in the wall layer
m
̄ w =ṁw / ṁ – relative mass flow rate through the wall layer
ṁ – total mass flow through the chamber
The first equation can be used for calculation of ideal specific impulse at any ambient
conditions (vacuum, optimal expansion and sea level), if corresponding values for (I s)core
and (I s) w are used.

Nozzle Flow Separation

The theoretical prediction of free shock separation has been extensively studied in the past.
In strongly overexpanding nozzles, the flow separates from the wall at a certain pressure ratio
of wall pressure to ambient pressure pi / p a . Thy typical structure of the flowfield near the
separation point i for the free shock separation is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Phenomenological sketch of free shock separation (taken from [12])

16
Experimental data have been used to develop a number of empirical and semi-empirical
criteria (many of them presented in compact form in reference [14]) in order to give the nozzle
designer a prediction tool for the separation point ( x i on Figure 6), although knowing that in
reality there is no exact point of separation.
In RPA, the following empirical separation criterion proposed by Schmucker [13] is used:
pi
= (1.88 M i−1)−0.64 (39)
pa
where
pi – wall pressure at the separation point i
pa – ambient pressure
M i – Mach number from the beginning of the separation zone
Simplistic approach to calculate chamber performance with flow separation can be described
as follows:
Criterion of flow separation in the nozzle is given by:
pe
( pa )crit = (40)
(1.88 M e −1)−0.64
Flow separation in the nozzle may only occur if pa>( pa )crit .
The nozzle station i where flow separation occurs is defined by pressure pi :
pi = pa (1.88 M i−1)−0.64 (41)
The chamber performance equations are derived from relations taken from [15]:
̄ i− F
I s = (I s )i+Δ p( F ̄ e) (42)
where
vac
̄ i p a – performance of the nozzle truncated to station i at given ambient
(I s)i = (I s )i− F
pressure pa
Δ p = η( p a− pi )
η=0.1 ...0.5 – coefficient of pressure recovery downstream of station i
1
F
̄ i,e= – specific area at stations i or e correspondingly
(w ρ)i,e

Thrust Throttling
Since chamber thrust is directly proportional to the mass flow rate, chambers are throttled by
controlling the propellant mass flow rate ṁ . The reduced mass flow will cause an almost
linear decrease in chamber pressure and thus almost linear decrease of thrust. The specific
impulse would would also decrease slightly. Thus, there is a small performance penalty for
throttling the thrust [16].
When the combustion chamber has a cross section that is larger than about 10 times the
throat area ( A
̄ c = A c / A t>10 ), the non-linearity of decrease in pressure due to reduced mass

17
flow can be neglected. In this case the performance penalty is caused by lower temperature
in combustion chamber. The chamber performance is calculated directly for combustion
chamber pressure pc =r ( p c )n . Here subscript n designates parameters for the nominal
thrust, and r is a throttle value defined as r= ṁn / ṁ ( r=1 for nominal thrust).
For nozzle with fixed geometry, the lower combustion chamber pressure leads to the lower
nozzle exit pressure, which in turn may cause the nozzle flow separation due to lower value of
( pa )crit . In this case the performance is assessed as described in chapter Nozzle Flow
Separation.
In combustion chambers with relatively small cross section, non-linear relation between mass
flow rate and chamber pressure will cause larger decrease in chamber pressure for the same
change of mass flow rate.
The method of calculation of combustion chamber pressure for specified throttle value r is
given below.
For known combustion chamber contraction area ratio A ̄ c = A c / A t and combustion chamber
n
mass flux at nominal thrust ( m
̄ c )n= ṁ n / A c =1/ ̄Fc =(w ρ) c , the iteration for given throttle value
r proceeds as follows:

1. Initial estimation of pressure at injector face:

(0) (0 )
pinj = r ( pinj )n (43)
where ( p(0inj))n is the pressure at injector face at nominal thrust, obtained as described in
chapter Finite-Area Combustion Chamber.
2. Using procedure for the finite-area combustion chamber described in chapter Finite-Area
Combustion Chamber, obtain conditions at the nozzle inlet for the given chamber
contraction ratio A
̄ c and current value of pressure at injector face p iinj (i is an iteration
counter).
3. Calculate combustion chamber mass flux as:
(i) (i)
m
̄ c =(w ρ)c (44)
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the relative deviation of mass flux is within required
convergence tolerance:

∣ ∣
(i)
m
̄c
1− <ε (45)
rm̄ nc
For each next iteration (i+1) calculate an improved chamber pressure as:
(i)

p (i+1)
inj = p (i)
inj
( 2−
m
̄c
rm̄ nc ) (46)

Using obtained final value of pressure at injector face p injfinal  , calculate conditions at nozzle
inlet, nozzle throat and nozzle exit sections, as well as theoretical chamber performance.

18
Application in RPA and RPA SDK
Described methods for estimation of performance losses are used in RPA in following
modules:
1. Thermodynamic analysis and thrust chamber performance prediction
• performance loss due finite rate kinetics in combustion chamber is estimated using
relations 10, 12 and digitized data obtained from Figure 1
• divergence loss is estimated using relation 16 and digitized data obtained from
Figure 4
• multi-phase flow loss is estimated using relations 21, 22 and 23
• performance loss due finite rate kinetics in the nozzle is estimated using model of
suddenly frozen flow as described in corresponding chapter
• performance loss due to finite-area combustion area is estimated as described in
corresponding chapter
• performance change due to nozzle flow separation is estimated as described in
corresponding chapter
• performance change due to thrust throttling is estimated as described in
corresponding chapter
2. Thrust chamber sizing and design of nozzle contour
• when designing the truncated ideal contour (TIC) using axisymmetric two-
dimensional method of characteristic, divergence loss is estimated using relations
18 and 19, and boundary layer (friction) loss is estimated using relations 13 and 14
3. Thrust chamber thermal analysis
• when performing thermal analysis using Ievlev's approach, boundary layer (friction)
loss is estimated using relation 15
In addition to that, RPA Software Development Kit (SDK) provides API functions for estimation
of interzonal losses due to deviation of parameters in the core-stream and boundary layer
with injected coolant (BLC) as described in chapter Interzonal Losses.

19
References
1. Ponomarenko A. RPA: Tool for Liquid Propellant Rocket Engine Analysis. 2010.

2. Ponomarenko A. RPA: Tool for Rocket Propulsion Analysis. Thermal Analysis of Thrust
Chambers. 2012

3. Alemasov V.E., Dregalin A.F., Tishin A.P. Theory of Rocket Engines. Moscow,
Mashinostroenie, 1980. (in Russian)

4. Glushko V.P., Alemasov V.E., et al. Thermodynamic and Thermophysical Properties of

Combustion Products. Volume 1 – Moscow, USSR Academy of Science, 1971. (in
Russian)

5. Vasiliev A.P., Kudryavtsev V.M. et al. Basics of theory and analysis of liquid-propellant
rocket engines, vol.2. 4th Edition. Moscow, Vyschaja Schkola, 1993. (in Russian)

6. Douglas E. Coats. Assessment of Thrust Chamber Performance. Liquid Rocket Thrust

Chambers - Aspects of Modeling, Analysis, and Design - Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics, Volume 200.

7. Katorgin B.I., Kiselev A.S., Sternin L.E., Chvanov V.K. Applied gas dynamics. Moscow,
Vusovskaja kniga, 2009. (in Russian)

8. Kozlov A.A., Novikov V.N., Solovjev E.V. Feed Systems and Control of Liquid-Propulsion
Systems. Moscow, Mashinostroenie, 1988. (in Russian)

9. Dorofeev A.A. Fundamentals of thermal rocket engines. Theory, calculation and design.
Moscow, Bauman MSTU, 2010. (in Russian)

10. Lebedinsky E.V., Kalmykov G.P., et al. Working processes in liquid-propellant rocket
engine and their simulation. Moscow, Mashinostroenie, 2008. (in Russian)

11. Huzel, D.K., Hwang, D.H., Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid Rocket Engines,
ISBN 1-56347-013-6, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1992.

12. Jan Östlund. Flow processes in rocket engine nozzles with focus on flow separation and
side-loads. Stockholm, 2002.

13. Schmucker, R. Flow Processes in Overexpanded Chemical Rocket Nozzles. Part 1: Flow
Separation. NASA, Washington, 1984.

14. Ralf H. Stark. Flow Separation in Rocket Nozzles, a Simple Criteria. DLR, Germany, 2005.
AIAA2005-3940.

15. Dobrovolsky M.B. Liquid-propellant rocket engines. Moscow, Bauman MSTU, 2005. (in
Russian)

16. Sutton, G.P. and Biblarz, O. Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7 th Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
2001.

20