AIAA 2011-5688

47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit

31 July - 03 August 2011, San Diego, California

Experimental comparison of Dual Bell and Expansion

Deflection Nozzles
Neil Taylor, Johan Steelantand Robert Bond

Abstract
Replacing conventional bell nozzles with altitude compensating forms represents an attractive proposition
for launch vehicle design, as both efficiency across the altitude range and altitude performance. through the
use of larger area ratios. may be increased. This paper compares the performance of two such compensating
nozzle types, the Expansion Deflection and Dual Bell, through a series of cold flow tests conducted at nozzle
pressure ratios encompassing the entirety of the compensating regime. Nozzle efficiencies are shown to vary
significantly across the pressure ratio range. Furthermore, relatively small changes in some design parameters
associated with the ED nozzle type are shown to have an effect on overall performance. Despite this, the
compensating behaviour of the type is shown to have similar potential to that of the Dual Bell. Combined
with its other advantages of shorter length and potentially more adaptable design principles, it appears to
show promise for application to future launchers.

Nomenclature
A
Cf
Cf0
Cf
M
NPR
P
R
Rt
T

subscripts
c
e
p
t
w
superscripts
+

Senior
Senior

cross sectional area

thrust coefficient
ideal thrust coefficient
vacuum thrust coefficient
Mach number
nozzle pressure ratio
pressure
radius of curvature
throat radius
thrust
ratio of specific heats
nozzle efficiency
density
wall angle
chamber
exit plane
pintle
throat
wall
post throat
pre thoat

Lecturer, Aerospace Department, Queens Building. University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K. AIAA member
Research Engineer, Aerothermodynamics and Propulsion Analysis Section, ESTEC, ESA, The Netherlands, AIAA

member
Corporate Programmes Director, Reaction Engines Limited, Culham, U.K.

1 of 13
Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Introduction
The cost of delivering a kilogram of payload to orbit currently runs to tens of thousands of dollars. This
being the case, any method by which an increase in the overall efficiency of the launch system is achieved,
without significant additional cost, is highly desirable. This results from the very low efficiency of current
launch systems, which typically deliver payloads of only a few percent of the launch mass. For this reason,
performance increments that would be considered almost negligible on other systems, are highly sought after
in this field. One area where it is widely known such an increase in efficiency is theoretically possible, but
has yet to be achieved, is the performance of the rocket nozzle.
The purpose of a rocket nozzle is to convert as much as possible of the energy released by the combustion
process into useable kinetic energy. It is this kinetic energy that provides the reaction force required to
generate thrust. Higher energy conversion is achieved by increasing the area ratio of the nozzle and hence
producing higher exhaust velocities, but these result in lower pressures in the exit plane. Any nozzle with a
fixed area ratio produces a fixed exit velocity and pressure, and works most efficiently at only one altitude,
where this exit pressure equals that of the surrounding atmosphere.
A large area ratio provides significant benefits at high altitude, but means that the exit pressure will be
lower than the surrounding atmosphere at lower altitudes. This over expansion produces performance losses,
but more significantly if severe enough results in separation of the flow from the nozzle walls. This separation
is generally unstable, and can give rise to large side loads.1, 2 For these reasons, separated nozzle flows have
historically been avoided during steady operation (they are inevitable during the start up and shut down of
the engine). However, as noted above this limits the maximum area ratio of any nozzle that operates in the
atmosphere, effectively limiting the maximum altitude that may be chosen as the design point.
Serial multiple stage vehicles utilise separate propulsion systems for each stage of the trajectory, and
hence this problem may be alleviated to some extent as each stage may be optimised to a separate design
point. However, many modern launch systems use parallel staging, requiring the engines of the primary
propulsion system to operate from sea level to vacuum conditions (e.g. the SSME, the Vulcain, and the
LE-7 engines). In order to minimise losses due to drag, the trajectory of such systems typically requires a
rapid initial altitude gain, and hence the majority of its useful work is done by the engine in the vacuum
of space. This favours the selection of a high altitude design point, but this design altitude is in practise
limited by the factors discussed above. Furthermore, performance losses over the entire flight envelope due
to over expansion can significantly reduce vehicle performance.
Moving from existing to future systems, it is widely accepted that Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) vehicles
offer the potential for the simplicity of aircraft type operation, and reduced development cost. These are
important components of truly Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV). Whilst development of SSTO RLVs has
been protracted, such vehicles are regarded as representing the best option in the medium to long term for
reducing the cost of access to space (by at least one order of magnitude, and perhaps more). Some argue that
short term implementation is both possible and desirable, with the correct design approach.3 The reduction
in cost of access to space such a system would provide should clear the way for a much more expansive
utilisation of space, and development of space infrastructure. Such vehicles inevitably require propulsion
systems that operate from launch to orbit, and are thus subject to the limitations discussed above.
A.

Altitude Compensating Nozzles

For these reasons, investigation of advanced altitude compensating nozzles, such as the Dual-Bell,412
Aerospike,1318 and ED (Expansion Deflection)1922 has increased in recent years. These nozzles potentially offer both the possibility of adapting the exit pressure of the nozzle during flight, minimising the losses
due to pressure imbalance between the nozzle exhaust and the atmosphere (Fig. 1), and secondly removing
the limitation on the maximum area ratio. It is relatively trivial to show that in many cases it is the latter
that is of greater benefit than the former, and that combined the benefit is significant, perhaps giving an
increase of 25% on payload mass,23 or even higher (72% was claimed for the Dual-Bell in the ESA FESTIP
(Future European Space Transportation Investigation Programme) study,6 although obviously such results
are affected by many factors, including initial designs, flight trajectories, etc.).
The purpose of the work discussed in this paper is to report the results of results of cold flow tests on
two nozzle types, the Expansion Deflection (ED) and Dual Bell. These tests comprise the first stage of
an ESA funded programme examining the potential of altitude compensating nozzles to enhance launcher

2 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 1. Nozzle types

performance generally, and the proposed Reaction Engines Limited Skylon SSTO RLV specifically. Before
discussing the results of the tests however, a brief overview of the nozzles considered is presented.
Nozzle Types
Plug nozzles were first seriously considered in the 1960s,13, 24 and are the most studied of all compensating
nozzles, when all variants are considered (such as plug,25, 26 truncated plug or aerospike,15, 27 linear28, 29 and
clustered designs30, 31 ). Although considered in the early design stages of the Space Shuttle programme, no
such engine has been flown on a large scale launcher (small nozzles have flown,32, 33 but results have been
mixed, and in any case the area ratios selected mean altitude compensation is minimal). Historically viewed
as the most promising altitude compensating nozzle concept, they have been found to suffer from large
integration drag penalties (as the flow is first brought outside the nozzle width before being turned back
towards the centreline), and severe manufacturing challenges due to the requirement for unusual combustion
chamber design and high heat transfer rates at the narrow throat gap. They are also known to suffer
significant performance penalties due to slipstream effects at transonic Mach numbers.34 For this reason,
they were not considered in the present study.
Dual Bell nozzles rely on a two stage compensation affected by flow separation from an inflection on
the contour. Serious consideration of these devices began more recently than the plug, with the earliest
experimental data appearing around 1994.4 Despite the inevitable losses due to the non-optimal contour
design, two stage compensation, and aspiration effects at low altitudes, the simplicity of implementation of
the design due to the use of a standard combustion chamber have made the Dual Bell a popular choice in
recent years (e.g. References 5,7,8,35,36). However, to date no such engine has flown, and research has been
concentrated on contour design for the best compromise between performance, and stability and rapidity of
the transition between modes (very large side loads are theoretically possible from the type if asymmetric
transition occurs).
Expansion Deflection (ED) nozzles have a history almost as long as the plug,19 but are often neglected due
to a perception that the compensation performance is poor due to the flow field structure.24, 37 However, the
ED nozzle in particular has a wide range of variants of quite different design principles and behaviours, and the

3 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

more recent work at the University of Bristol casts some doubt on the assumption of poor performance,38, 39
even if it does not yet conclusively prove effective compensation. The nozzle has advantages over the plug
due to its more conventional throat shape, and hence lessened heating and tolerance related design problems.
The complexity of the flows within both nozzle types, but specifically the ED nozzle, remain a serious challenge. All nozzles of this type produce flow fields involving interacting supersonic and subsonic
flows, often with re-circulating regions and in some cases shock/boundary layer interactions. Due to the
high temperatures, and differing composition of the exhaust and surrounding atmosphere and wake region,
multi-species and even reacting flows must be considered, along with the effects of heat transfer and other
considerations. If no simplifying assumptions are considered, analysis of such flows requires the most advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) schemes, and is therefore a time consuming process. As such,
an experimental approach using subscale nozzles and cold gas was chosen, although a parallel investigation
using numerical analysis is ongoing.

I.
A.

Nozzle Design

Design methods and Nomenclature

Within this paper, various types of nozzle design are referred to by abbreviations. These abbreviations and
the design process they refer to are explained in Table 1.
Table 1. Nozzle Design Methods and Nomenclature

B.

Abbreviation
TOC

Nozzle Type
Thrust Optimised Contour

TIC

Truncated Ideal Contour

ED

Expansion Deflection

DB

Dual Bell

Design Method
Designed using the Method of
Characteristics, and minimum length for
a given thrust ensured through the calculus a
of variations technique devised by Rao
Designed by truncating an ideal
contour (shock free, parallel flow at
exit characteristic) constructed from a
Method of Characteristics based algorithm.
Truncation is typically to about 30%
Designed using a similar method to
TOC nozzles, and thus producing a thrust
optimised contour, but with a radially
displaced and inclined starting
characteristic, produced from a
Computational Fluid Dynamics solution
of the throat region
Dual bell concept requires an inner bell,
of TIC or TOC design, operating always full
flowing. An outer bell, either of optimised
or to a specified pressure contour is attached
to the exit of this inner bell. At a certain
pressure ratio, the flow attaches to this outer
contour, increasing high altitude thrust

Design Point Specification

Before testing of the nozzle types could begin, a set of design criteria had to be established in order to ensure
a reasonable comparison between the nozzle types. The test facility is designed to produce pressure ratios

4 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

across the nozzle test piece of up to 100 to 1, although this is at the extreme limit of the system capability.
This being the case, the overall area ratio of the test nozzles was limited, to ensure that the complete altitude
compensating regime could be captured.
It is worth noting at this point that all nozzles, compensating or otherwise, have a physically determined
maximum effective area ratio. Once the core flow has filled this area ratio, all nozzles will behave in a
similar manner. The ED nozzle has a further limitation on its compensating range, as the compensation is
produced through the interaction of compression waves (shock or otherwise) with the nozzle walls. These
waves occur at a location within the nozzle that moves downstream as the overall pressure ratio of the nozzle
flow increases. Once the first interaction of these compression waves and the nozzle wall reaches the exit
plane of the nozzle, the wall pressures become effectively invariant, and compensation ceases (apart from
minor changes associated with the base region). Similarly, a Dual Bell effectively ceases to compensate once
the transition from inner flow to full flowing nozzle behaviour occurs. For increasing pressure ratios the wall
pressures remain invariant, and the nozzle behaves in a similar fashion to a conventional bell of the same
area ratio, although typically with a slightly worse performance due to a non-optimum contour design.
This being the case, all nozzles were designed with the same throat area (80 mm2 ), and for approximately
the same vacuum thrust coefficient, Cf , defined as
Cf =

T
P c At

The vacuum thrust is found by simply integrating the full flowing wall pressures, and adding any momentum
and pressure term produced across the throat, again under vacuum conditions. This approach insures that
nozzles of similar characteristics were compared, and allowed for larger or smaller area ratios to be produced
depending on the efficiency of each contour in producing one dimensional axial flow at the exit plane.
C.

ED nozzle design

A series of eight candidate contours were designed, all having the same throat area and vacuum thrust
coefficient, but with different values of throat angle and other throat parameters. The key variables are
shown in Fig. 2. Earlier results had suggested that the compensation was affected by a vortical region
developed in the downstream portion of the nozzle.40 In order to attempt to delay the formation of this
feature until the exit plane of the nozzle, a truncated TOC design was developed, resulting in an axially
compressed nozzle, with a larger wall exit angle (and hence divergence loss). An aim of the experimental
investigation reported herein was to determine whether the vortical feature would thus be induced to form
downstream of the compensatory region, and hence provide better compensation behaviour. If successful,
it was anticipated that this benefit would outweigh the performance losses inherent in the large divergence
loss required for the design.

Figure 2. ED throat parameters

5 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Of the eight contours investigated numerically, two were selected. These did not necessarily represent
the maximum performance options, but were the most widely different, providing a range of data. They are
defined in Table 2.
Table 2. ED nozzle Specifications

Nozzle Property
Throat angle, degrees

RP
, Gt

RW , Gt
+
RP
, Gt
+
RW , Gt
Pintle entry angle, degrees
Pintle radius, Gt
Pintle exit Mach number
Pintle separation Pressure Ratio
Design ME
Gt , mm
Nozzle length, mm
Exit radius, mm
Wall exit angle, degrees
Full area ratio
Effective area ratio
c
f

D.

ED-10-01
30
10
10
10
10
33
6.2
3.17
17.32
3.8
0.888
33.24
24.06
10.61
22.70
13.64
1.654

ED-10-02
60
10
5
3
5
29
6.5
3.26
19.27
5.3
0.847
20.11
27.76
22.53
30.22
20.14
1.658

Dual Bell Nozzle Design

The design of each of the bells within the Dual Bell nozzle can each take multiple forms; the first being
either TIC or TOC (or related TOP), and the second defined by the pressure gradient along it. TOC or
TIC outer contours produce better performance, but a favourable pressure gradient which slows the transit
time of the separated region in the outer bell producing the possibility of side loads. A negative pressure
gradient (linearly increasing, for example) reduces this transit time considerably, but at the cost of reduced
performance. The constant pressure contour (CPC) provides an intermediate solution, and is currently the
most common choice in the literature. The use of a TIC inner nozzle means that the possibility of shock
waves and cap shocks appearing within the nozzle is eliminated, and as the inner nozzle is generally much
smaller than the outer, it has a relatively small impact on overall nozzle length.
Table 3. Dual Bell nozzle DB-10-01 Design Parameters

Inner nozzle:
Exit pressure, Bar
Length (mm)
Area Ratio
Total Nozzle:
Exit Me
Length (mm)
Area Ratio
Nozzle switching pressure, Bar
Vacuum thrust coefficient

0.381
16.21
3.08
3.8
56.7
19.0
0.15
1.635

A single Dual Bell nozzle of a TIC-CPC construction was manufactured, as specified in Table 3. The
6 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 3. The EMEGG nozzle facility

design was selected by specifying that the inner nozzle would flow full at a nominal minimum overall pressure
ratio of 7. Application of a standard separation criteria41 then limited the maximum area ratio of this nozzle
to approximately 3.1. The specification of the outer contour via a constant pressure streamline, extended
until sufficient overall vacuum thrust is achieved, is then a relatively trivial task accomplished via the Method
of Characteristics. A contour Mach number of 3.8 was specified as this is the exit Mach number of the ED
nozzles specified above, and thus provided an intuitive estimate of a respectable value. However, it should
be acknowledged at this point that a full optimisation process was not performed.

II.
A.

Generation and manipulation of Experimental Data

Facility

The nozzles described above were tested on the University of Bristols EMEGG facility, Fig. 3, modified
specifically for this project to allow testing of altitude compensating nozzles. The modifications and capabilities of this facility are described in more detail in Reference 42, however for the purpose of this work,
it may described as a two chamber facility connected by a test cell. The high pressure upstream chamber
provides gas at up to 1000K and 12 Bar, and the downstream chamber may be evacuated to approximately
0.1 Bar, producing a pressure ratio of over 100 to 1. This allows testing of nozzles in quasi steady flows with
nozzle pressure ratios up to 100:1, although as noted above, the full range of the facility was not required
for these nozzles, as their performance was expected to become well quantified (i.e. altitude compensation
to have ceased) at pressure ratios below 50:1.
Connection between the high and low pressure reservoirs is provided by a computer controlled pneumatic
valve. As such, the system is an unsteady device, and hence during tests, the overall pressure ratio varies
in time. However, the relatively small test pieces in turn produce relatively small mass flows, and hence the
time period associated with this variation is significantly gretaer than that associated with the dynamics of
the supersonic flow within the nozzle. As such, the data may be considered to be quasi steady, although
some effect is potentially possible.
Data acquisition is computer controlled and based on LabViewTM software and National Instruments
cards. The wall pressures were recorded using a ScaniValve ZOC22TM multi-channel pressure measurement
system, at a frequency of 625Hz. per channel. Total and vacuum pressure are monitored through a number
of upstream chamber and working section pressure transducers, initially sampled at 5KHz., then re-sampled
in post processing at 625 Hz., to allow synchronisation with the wall pressure data.
Thrust coefficients for the nozzles may be estimated by integrating the pressure data. From this, an
7 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

100

95

90

Nozzle efficiency, %

85

80

75

70

65

60

Dual Bell
Dual Bell ideal
ED-10-01
ED-10-01 ideal
ED-10-02
ED-10-02 ideal

55

50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

NPR

Figure 4. Nozzle Efficiencies

estimate of nozzle efficiency may be produced by comparing the resulting thrust to that of an ideal one
dimensional nozzle at the same NPR. This method is subject to some potential error, as it is affected by
tap resolution and location; the tap locations do not begin until some distance downstream of the throat,
and hence pressures within the nozzles upstream of the throat, and parts of the wall, are assumed to be
at the values predicted from CFD analysis of the flow field. Furthermore, the base pressure of the pintle
is assumed atmospheric, something not verified experimentally in these tests (although in agreement with
direct measurements taken on closely related nozzles, albeit over smaller NPR range, in earlier work43 ).
Direct measurement of loads is of course preferable, and is currently being attempted using a strain tube
incorporated within the test cell. However, at the time of the tests, a calibrated system was not available.
Whilst the actual thrust produced by a nozzle is of some interest, in order to generalise the results
presented, the relative efficiency of the nozzle is required. For the results presented in this paper, the
definition used for the nozzle efficiency, , is
Cf
= 0
Cf
where
Cf =

T
,
P c At

T being the calculated thrust, Pc the total pressure in the system, and At the throat area. The ideal thrust
coefficient, Cf0 , may be derived from consideration of the system as a one-dimensional, adiabatic isentropic
flow, and is given by
+1 


 1
  1
 12
2 2
2
Pe
0
Cf =
1
1 +1
Pc
Performance estimates of the nozzle types may be derived from their vacuum thrusts, and
Cf = Cf

Pa A e
Pc A t

8 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(1)

0.45
Vacuum
NPR = 45
NPR = 30
NPR = 26
NPR = 20
NPR = 15

0.4

Wall Pressure, Pa/Pc

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

10

20

30
axial distance, mm

40

50

60

Figure 5. Wall pressures, Dual Bell

with all these values known from the design process. This simple equation does not, of course, account for
any altitude compensation; in the case of the Dual Bell below the transition pressure, the performance may
be estimated from the same equation, but using the vacuum thrust and area ratio of the inner bell. Finally,
the transition pressure ratio of the Dual Bell may be estimated from11
N P Rtrans



1
+ 1 2 1
=
Me
1+
Me
2

(2)

which for nozzle considered here with an exit Mach number of 3.8 is a pressure ratio of 31:1. The transition
is expected to demonstrate some hysteresis (i.e. it will occur at higher pressures with increasing NPR than
decreasing), and a 10 NPR range has been estimated

III.

Test Results

A series of tests were conducted in July 2011, on all nozzles, using cold air as the working fluid. Due to
the nature of the test process, all nozzles experienced decreasing NPR during the test run. The calculated
thrust efficiencies and ideal approximations for all nozzles are shown in Fig. 4, with solid and dashed lines
respectively. A number of trends are evident from this figure:
1. The compensating range of all the nozzles has been adequately captured by the test campaign; the
thrust curves of the ED nozzles have merged into the performance predicted by the simple application of
equation 1 above. The transition mode of the Dual Bell has been demonstrated, and nozzle performance
at NPR above transition is again as expected from simple theory
2. Within the compensating regime, all nozzles display more significant variations in thrust, leading to
larger fluctuations with varying NPR, visible the plots. This is as expected, and is due to fluctuations
in the structures associated with the compensating behaviour (either compression and shock wave
interaction with the wall (ED), or eddy shedding from the inner contour (Dual Bell)10 ).

9 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

0.5
Vacuum
NPR = 45
NPR = 30
NPR = 20
NPR = 15
NPR = 10

0.45

Wall Pressure, Pa/Pc

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
10

15

20
25
axial distance, mm

30

35

Figure 6. Wall pressures, ED10-01

0.45
Vacuum
NPR = 45
NPR = 30
NPR = 20
NPR = 15
NPR = 10

0.4

Wall Pressure, Pa/Pc

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2

10
12
14
axial distance mm

16

18

Figure 7. Wall pressures, ED10-02

10 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

20

22

3. The performance of the Dual Bell nozzle is superior to both ED nozzles in the low NPR compensating
regime, and approaches the ideal behaviour (losses appear to be about 5%, in broad agreement with
other workers11 ). Tha this is the case is presumably due to losses inherent in the ED compensation
mechanism, which has been shown to form vortices within the flow field near the exit plane of the
nozzle, reducing the effective compensation pressure in this region
4. Despite this, the large change in performance associated with the transition within the Dual Bell nozzle
does not occur in the ED nozzles, and for a significant proportion of the regime of interest, ED-10-01
out performs the Dual Bell, largely due to the inherently smaller area ratio required to produce the
necessary vacuum thrust.
The final point is open to some debate, as the size of the performance drop produced during Dual Bell
mode transition is a function of the outer contour Mach number, as seen from Eq. 2. The transition may
be delayed, and hence the drop reduced, by selecting a higher contour Mach number. However, this will
necessarily require a larger area ratio to produce a given vacuum thrust, and hence will induce additional
losses in the low NPR range. A compromise to some extent is required; and whilst it is certainly true that
the optimum may be superior to the nozzle tested here, it seems unlikely that the improvement available is
considerable. Furthermore, the results presente here are in good agreement with those presented on a similar
nozzle in 2009.9
Finally, however, it should be stressed that the results presented here remain provisional until direct
measurements of the thrust produced are obtained using the strain tube. This process should be complete
in the near future.

IV.

Wall Pressures

The wall pressures produced at selected NPR during the test runs for each nozzle are displayed in Figs. 5
to 7. These images clearly show the different mechanisms involved; with the two distinct modes of the Dual
Bell visible, contrasted with the gradual variation in wall pressure distribution produced with in the ED
nozzles. The peaks and troughs in nozzle efficiency for ED 10-01 and ED 10-02 correspond to the condition
of the last pressure tapping: if a maxima of pressure is in this region of the nozzle, the thrust is augmented,
if a minima, it is reduced.
A final issue of significance to the performance of the Dual Bell, as noted in the introduction, is the
potential for the creation of large side loads during transition. Selected wall pressures recorded in the
transition period are shown in Fig. 8. As may be seen, the process occurs over a period of around 0.4
seconds during which time the NPR varies from 26.7 to 23.7. The pressure taps alternate from 0 to 180
degree locations down the nozzle, and hence the highly irregular pattern seen at 3.67 seconds is due to an
asymmetric separation, likely to in turn produce a significant side load. Direct measurements of these forces,
in both the Dual Bell and ED nozzles, is due to commence shortly.

V.

Conclusions

Three nozzles have all been designed to meet broadly the same criteria - offer improved performance over
a conventional nozzle, with a minimum NPR of 7 and a vacuum thrust coefficient around 1.65. Two different
nozzle types have been examined, the Dual Bell and ED. The two offer broadly comparable performance,
with the Dual Bell superior at lower NPR, and one of the EDs at least apparently producing higher thrusts
at larger NPR. However, the results are preliminary, as thrust estimates are inferred not directly measured.
Furthermore, whilst room for improvement is clear in the optimisation of both nozzle types, the effort spent
on the Dual Bell is acknowledged to be of a lesser degree. The results also highlight potential problem areas
for both types in the magnitude of thrust variations at low NPR, and an asymmetric transition in the Dual
Bell.

VI.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the European Space Agency, who have funded the
work conducted.

11 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

0.2
Vacuum
2.886 sec
3.36
3.61
3.67
3.77

0.18

Wall Pressure, Pa/Pc

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

10

20

30
axial distance

40

50

60

Figure 8. Dual Bell wall pressures during transition

References
1 L.H.

Nave and G.A. Coffey. Sea level side loads in high-area ratio rocket nozzles. In 9th AIAA/SAE/ Propulsion
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, number AIAA 73-1284, November 1973.
2 J. Ostlund T. Damgaard M. Frey. Side-load phenomina in highly overexpanded rocket nozzles. Journal of Propulsion
and Power, 20(4):695704, July-August 2004.
3 R. Varvill and A. Bond. The skylon spaceplane: Progress to realisation. Journla of the British Interplanetary Society,
61:412418, 2008.
4 M. Horn and S. Fisher. Dual-bell altitude compensating nozzles. Technical Report N94-28057, NASA, 1994.
5 M. Frey and G. Hagemann. Critical assessement of dual-bell nozzles. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 15(1):137143,
Jan-Feb 1999.
6 G. Hagemann M. Terhadt D Haessler M. Frey. Experimental and analytical design verification of the dual-bell concept.
Journal of Propulsion and Power, 18(1):116122, Jan-Feb 2002.
7 F. Nasuti M. Onofri E. Martelli. Role of wall shape on the transition in axisymmetric dual-bell nozzles. Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 21(2):243250, Mar-Apr 2005.
8 E. Martelli F. Nasuti M. Onofri. Numerical parametric analysis of dual-bell nozzle flows. AIAA Journal, 45(3):640650,
March 2007.
9 T. Tomita M. Takahashi and M. Sasaki. Control of transition between two working modes of a dual-bell nozzle by gas
injection. In Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Denver, Co, number
AIAA 2009-4952, 2009.
10 K. Yonezawa D. Proshchanka H. Koga H. Tsukuda Y. Tsujimoto T. Kimura and K.Yokota. Investigation of effect of
ground downstream of overexpanded dual-bell nozzle during veritcal takeoff and landing. In 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN., number AIAA 2010-6814, 2010.
11 R.H. Stark and C. Nurberger-Genin.
Side loads in dual bell nozzles, part i: Phenomenology.
In 46th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN., number AIAA 2010-6729, 2010.
12 C. Nurnberger-Genin and R. Stark.
Side loads in dual bell nozzles, part ii: Design parameters.
In 46th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN., number AIAA 2010-6730, 2010.
13 T.J. Mueller and W.P. Sule. Annular truncated plug nozzle flowfield and base pressure characteristics. Journal of
Spacecraft, 10(11):689695, Nov 1973.
14 T. Tomita M. Takahashi T. Onodera and H. Tuamura. Visualisation of shock wave interaction on the surface of aerospike
nozzles. In Proceedings of the 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibt, Cleveland OH, number
AIAA 98-3523, July 1998.

12 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

15 H. Tsukada K. Fujimoto T. Nonomura K. Miyaji and K. Fujii. Numerical analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of
ssto configurations with an aerospike nozzle. In 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, number
AIAA 2005-1043, January 2005.
16 J.H. Ruf and P.K. McConnaughey. The plume physics behind aerospike nozzle altitude compensation and slipstream
effect, 1997.
17 S.B. Verma. Performance characteristics of an annular conical aerospike nozzle with freestream effect. Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 25(3):783791, May-Jun 2009.
18 T. Tomita N. Kumada and A. Ogawara. Conceptual system design study for a linear aerospike engine applied to a future
ssto vehicle. In 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN., number AIAA
2010-7060, 2010.
19 G.V.R. Rao. Analysis of a new concept rocket nozzle. Journal of Liquid Rockets and Propellants, 2:669682, 1960.
20 C. Schorr. Constant chamber pressure throttling of an expansion-deflection nozzle. Journal of Spacecraft, 7(7):843847,
Jul 1970.
21 N.V. Taylor and C.M. Hempsell. Optimising expansion deflection nozzles for vacuum thrust. The Aeronautical Journal,
108(1088):515522, 2004.
22 J. Macfarlane R. Osborne R. Varvill A. Bond N.V. Taylor, C.M. Hempsell and S. Feast. Experimental investigation of
the evacuation effect in expansion deflection nozzles. Acta Astronautica, 66:550562, 2009.
23 N.V. Taylor. An examination of altitude compensation through idealised nozzles and trajectories. The Journal of the
British Interplanetory Society, 62(2):6975, 2009.
24 R.A. Wasko. Performance of annular plug and expansion-deflection nozzles including external flow effects at transonic
mach numbers. Technical Report TN-D-4462, NASA, Apr 1968.
25 T. Rommel G. Hagemann C.A. Schely G. Krulle and D. Manski. Plug nozzle flowfield analysis. Journal of Propulsion
and Power, 13(5):629634, September 1997.
26 M. Onofri et al. Plug nozzles: Summary of flow features and engine performance. In 40th Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, number AIAA 2002-0584. AIAA, January 2002.
27 T. Ito and K. Fujii. Flow field analysis of the base region of axisymmetric aerospike nozzles. In 39th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, number AIAA 2001-1051. AIAA, January 2001.
28 J.H. Ruf and P.K. McConnaughey. A numerical analysis of a three dimensional aerospike, 1997.
29 T. Tomita M. Takahashi T. Onodera and H. Tamura. Thrust loss due to design of linear aerospike nozzles. In 36th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Huntsville, Alabama, number AIAA 2000-3290, July
2000.
30 F. Nasuti and M. Onofri. Theoretical analysis and engineering modelling of flowfields in clustered module plug nozzles.
Journal of Propulsion and Power, 15(4):544551, Jul-Aug 1999.
31 S. Tsutsumi S. Teramoto and T. Nagashima. Flow structure and performance analysis of clustered linear aerospike nozzle.
In 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Tuscon Arizona, number AIAA 2005-4307, July
2005.
32 T.T. Bui J.E. Murray C.E. Rogers S. Bartel A. Cesaroni and M. Dennett. Flight research of an aerospike nozzle using
high power solid rockets. In 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Tuscon Arizona, number
AIAA 2005-3797, July 2005.
33 S.C. Shark J.D. Dennis and J.K. Villarreal. Experimental performance analysis of a toroidal aerospike nozzle integrated
with a n2o/htpb hybrid rocket motor. In Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and
Exhibit, Nashville, TN., number AIAA 2010-6784, 2010.
34 F. Nasuti and M. Onofri. Analysis of in-flight behaviour of truncated plug nozzles. Journal of Propulsion and Power,
17(4):809817, Jul-Aug 2001.
35 F. Nasuti and M. Onofri. Flow analysis and methods of design for dual-bell nozzles. In 37th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake City, Utah, number AIAA 2001-3558, July 2001.
36 F. Nasuti M. Onofri E. Martelli. Numerical study of transition between the two operating modes of dual-bell nozzles.
In 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Indianapolis, Indiana, number AIAA 2002-3989,
July 2002.
37 G. Hagemann H. Immich T.V. Nguyen and G.E. Dumnov. Advanced rocket nozzles. Journal of Propulsion and Power,
14(5):620634, sept. 1998.
38 N. V. Taylor C. M. Hempsell J. MacFarlane R. Osborne R. Varvill A. Bond. Experimental investigation of the evacuation
effect in expansion deflection nozzles. In Proceedings of 59th IAF Conference, Glasgow., number IAC-08-C4.3.6, 2008.
39 N. V. Taylor C. M. Hempsell J. MacFarlane R. Osborne R. Varvill A. Bond. Results of the static test expansion deflection
rocket nozzle programme. submitted to the AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, undergoing review, 2009.
40 N.V. Taylor. Design and drawings of cold flow nozzles. Technical Report TN-4100, Univeristy of Bristol, July 2009.
Technical Report prepared for REL and ESA as part of the ACN programme.
41 R. Stark and B. Wagner. Experimental study of boundary layer separation in truncated ideal contour nozzles. Shock
Waves, 2008.
42 N. V. Taylor and A.A. Aghababaie. Enhancements to compensating nozzle test facilities at the university of bristol. In
Proceedings of the 7th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Spca Vehicles, 2011.
43 N.V. Taylor and Sato Tetsuya. Experimental measurements of an expansion deflection nozzle in open wake mode. The
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 60:377386, 2007.

13 of 13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics