Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:29:37.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of numerical and experimental drag measurement in hypervelocity flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. L. Smith ,
I. A. Johnston  and
K. J. Austin
A. L. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
I. A. Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
K. J. Austin
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In planning interplanetary missions which involve an aerobraking manoeuvre, it is necessary to make accurate predictions of the aerodynamic drag acting on a vehicle during its descent. Of interest to the authors is the Nasa initiative for exploration of Mars and its atmosphere. The Mars Pathfinder is a probe that is expected to enter the Martian atmosphere at a relative velocity of approximately 7.6 kms-1;. The forebody of this vehicle is based on a 70° blunted cone and is typical of aerobraking designs.

In this note, a comparison is made between experimental and numerical techniques for predicting drag in hypervelocity flow. Three different models were examined in this study: a 30° sharp cone; an Apollo heat shield; and a Viking heat shield. A relatively simple analytical result for the drag on a cone provides a convenient reference for both the experimental and numerical results. The two heat shields are typical of those used for interplanetary exploration, such as the Mars Pathfinder. Our aim is to give an example of how computational fluid dynamics can be used in conjunction with experiments to obtain information about the hypervelocity flow about re-entry vehicles.

Type
Technical Note
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 100 , Issue 999 , November 1996 , pp. 385 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1996 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Chen, Y.K., Henline, W.D. and Tauber, M.E. Mars Pathfinder trajectory base heating and ablation calculation, J Spacecr Rock, 1995, 32, (2), pp 225–230.Google Scholar
2. Park, C. Nonequilibrium Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
3. Miller, C.G. Shock shapes on blunt bodies in hypersonic-hyperve-locity helium, air and CO2 flows, and calibration results in Langely 6-inch expansion tube, NASA TN D-7800, 1975.Google Scholar
4. Smith, A.L. and Mee, D.J. Drag measurements in a hypervelocity expansion tube, lnt J Shock Waves, 1996 (accepted).Google Scholar
5. Tuttle, S.L., Mee, D.J. and Simmons, J.M. Drag measurement at Mach 5 using a stress wave force balance, Exp in Fluids, 1995, 19, pp 336–341.Google Scholar
6. Neely, A.J. and Morgan, R.G. The Superorbital Expansion Tube concept, experiment, and analysis, Aeronaut J, March 1994, 98, (973), pp 97–105.Google Scholar
7. Johnston, I.A. and Jacobs, P.A. SF2D: A Shock Fitting and Capturing Solver for Two Dimensional Compressible Flows, Dept of MechanicalEngineering, University of Queensland, Technical Report No 6/96, 1996.Google Scholar
8. Quirk, J.J. A contribution to the great Riemann solver debate, lnt J Numer Methods in Fluids, 1994, 18, (6), pp 555–574.Google Scholar
9. Johnston, I.A. and Jacobs, P.A. Hypersonic blunt body flows in reacting carbon dioxide, Twelfth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, 1995, 2, pp 807–810.Google Scholar
10. Liou, M.-S. and Steffen, C.J. A New flux splitting scheme, J Comp Phys, 1993, 107, pp 23–39.Google Scholar
11. Johnston, I.A., A Thermodynamic Model of the Martian Atmosphere for Computational Fluid Dynamics Analyses, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Honours Thesis, 1994.Google Scholar
12. Austin, K.J. and Jacobs, P.A. A Newtonian Solver for Hypersonic Flows, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Technical Report, No 5/96, 1996.Google Scholar
13. Maughmer, M., Ozoroski, L., Straussfogel, D. and Long, L. Validation of engineering methods for predicting hypersonic vehicle control forces and moments, J Guid Contr Dynam, 1993, 16, (4).Google Scholar
14. Anderson, J.D. Hypersonic and High Temperature Gas Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1989.Google Scholar
15. Taylor, G.I. and Maccoll, J.W. The Air Pressure on a Cone Moving at High Speed, Proc Royal Society (London) Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 139, (A8383), 1932, pp 278–311.Google Scholar
16. Macrossan, M.N. Hypervelocity flow of dissociating nitrogen downstream of a blunt nose, J Fluid Mech, 1990, 217, 1990, pp 167–202.Google Scholar
17. Stalker, R.J. Approximations for non-equilibrium hypervelocity aerodynamics, Annual Review Fluid Mechanics, 1989, 21, pp 37–60.Google Scholar