Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:03:57.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of shock speed variation on radiation and thermochemistry experiments in shock tubes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2022

Peter L. Collen Open the ORCID record for Peter L. Collen [Opens in a new window] ,
Matthew Satchell Open the ORCID record for Matthew Satchell [Opens in a new window] ,
Luca Di Mare Open the ORCID record for Luca Di Mare [Opens in a new window]  and
Matthew McGilvray Open the ORCID record for Matthew McGilvray [Opens in a new window]
Peter L. Collen*
Affiliation:
Oxford Thermofluids Institute, Southwell Building, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, UK
Matthew Satchell
Affiliation:
Oxford Thermofluids Institute, Southwell Building, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, UK
Luca Di Mare
Affiliation:
Oxford Thermofluids Institute, Southwell Building, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, UK
Matthew McGilvray
Affiliation:
Oxford Thermofluids Institute, Southwell Building, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shock tubes are a crucial source of experimental data for the aerothermodynamic modelling of atmospheric entry vehicles. Notably, many chemical-kinetic and radiative models are validated directly against optical measurements from these facilities. Typically, the incident shock speed at the location of the experimental measurement is taken to be representative of the test slug; however, the shock velocity can vary substantially upstream of this location. These variations have been long posited as a source of disagreement with computational predictions, although a definitive link has proved elusive. This work describes a series of experiments which aim to isolate and confirm the importance of the shock deceleration effect. This is achieved by generating different shock trajectories and comparing the post-shock trends in atomic oxygen emission and electron density. These trends are shown to be directly linked to the upstream shock speed variations using a recently developed numerical tool (LASTA). The close agreement of the comparisons confirms the importance of shock speed variation for shock tube experiments; these findings have direct and potentially critical relevance for all such studies, both past and present.

JFM classification

MHD and Electrohydrodynamics: Plasmas Compressible Flows: Shock waves Compressible Flows: Hypersonic Flow
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 948 , 10 October 2022 , A51
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bakos, R. & Erdos, J. 1995 Options for enhancement of the performance of shock-expansion tubes and tunnels. In 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. AIAA Paper 1995-799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakos, R.J. & Morgan, R.G. 1994 Chemical recombination in an expansion tube. AIAA J. 32 (6), 1316–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensassi, K. & Brandis, A.M. 2019 Time accurate simulation of nonequilibrium flow inside the NASA Ames electric arc shock tube. In AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, ARC-E-DAA-TN64558.Google Scholar
Brandis, A.M. & Cruden, B.A. 2017 a Benchmark shock tube experiments of radiative heating relevant to Earth re-entry. In 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. AIAA Paper 2017-1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, A.M. & Cruden, B.A. 2017 b Titan atmospheric entry radiative heating. In 47th AIAA Thermophysics Conference. AIAA Paper 2017-4534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, A.M. & Cruden, B.A. 2019 NEQAIR v15.0 release notes: nonequilibrium and equilibrium radiative transport and spectra program. NASA Tech. Rep. ARC-E-DAA-TN19420.Google Scholar
Brandis, A., Cruden, B., Prabhu, D., Bose, D., McGilvray, M. & Morgan, R. 2010 a Analysis of air radiation measurements obtained in the EAST and X2 shocktube facilities. In 10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference. AIAA Paper 2010-4510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, A.M. & Johnston, C.O. 2014 Characterization of stagnation-point heat flux for Earth entry. In 45th AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference. AIAA Paper 2014-2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, A.M., Johnston, C.O., Cruden, B.A. & Prabhu, D.K. 2017 Equilibrium radiative heating from 9.5 to 15.5 km/s for earth atmospheric entry. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 31 (1), 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, A., Johnston, C., Panesi, M., Cruden, B., Prabhu, D. & Bose, D. 2013 Investigation of nonequilibrium radiation for Mars entry. In 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. AIAA Paper 2013-1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandis, A.M., Morgan, R.G., McIntyre, T.J. & Jacobs, P.A. 2010 b Nonequilibrium radiation intensity measurements in simulated Titan atmospheres. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 24 (2), 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandel, D., Nompelis, I., Candler, G.V & Brandis, A.M 2019 CFD predictions of high enthalpy shocks in nitrogen. In AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum. AIAA Paper 2019-3078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collen, P.L. 2021 Development of a high-enthalpy ground test facility for shock-layer radiation. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Collen, P., et al. 2021 Development and commissioning of the T6 stalker tunnel. Exp. Fluids 62 (11), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruden, B.A. 2012 Electron density measurement in reentry shocks for lunar return. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 26 (2), 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruden, B.A. 2014 Absolute radiation measurements in Earth and Mars entry conditions. Tech. Rep. STO-AVT-218-VKI. NATO.Google Scholar
Cruden, B.A. & Bogdanoff, D.W. 2017 Shock radiation tests for Saturn and Uranus entry probes. J. Spacecr. Rockets 54 (6), 1246–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruden, B.A. & Brandis, A.M. 2014 Updates to the NEQAIR radiation solver. In Radiation in High Temperature Gases Conference. European Space Agency.Google Scholar
Cruden, B.A. & Brandis, A.M. 2020 Measurement of radiative nonequilibrium for air shocks between 7 and 9 km/s. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 34 (1), 154–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruden, B., Martinez, R., Grinstead, J. & Olejniczak, J. 2009 Simultaneous vacuum-ultraviolet through near-IR absolute radiation measurement with spatiotemporal resolution in an electric arc shock tube. In 41st AIAA Thermophysics Conference. AIAA Paper 2009-4340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruden, B.A., Prabhu, D. & Martinez, R. 2012 Absolute radiation measurement in Venus and Mars entry conditions. J. Spacecr. Rockets 49 (6), 1069–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danehy, P.M., Bathel, B.F., Johansen, C.T., Winter, M., O'Byrne, S. & Cutler, A.D. 2013 Molecular-based optical diagnostics for hypersonic nonequilibrium flows. In Hypersonic Nonequilibrium Flows: Fundamentals and Recent Advances, pp. 343–470. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdos, J., Calleja, J. & Tamagno, J. 1994 Increase in the hypervelocity test envelope of the HYPULSE shock-expansion tube. In 25th Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference. AIAA Paper 1994-2524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigosos, M.A. & Cardeñoso, V. 1996 New plasma diagnosis tables of hydrogen Stark broadening including ion dynamics. J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. 29 (20), 4795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildfind, D.E. 2012 Development of high total pressure scramjet flow conditions using the X2 expansion tube. PhD thesis, University of Queensland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildfind, D.E, James, C.M, Toniato, P. & Morgan, R.G 2015 Performance considerations for expansion tube operation with a shock-heated secondary driver. J. Fluid Mech. 777, 364–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnoffo, P.A. 1989 Conservation Equations and Physical Models for Hypersonic Air Flows in Thermal and Chemical Nonequilibrium, vol. 2867. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
Gnoffo, P.A 1999 Planetary-entry gas dynamics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 31 (1), 459–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S. & McBride, B.J. 1994 Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications: I. Analysis. NASA Reference Report NASA RP-1311. NASA Lewis Research Center.Google Scholar
James, C.M., Gildfind, D.E., Lewis, S.W., Morgan, R.G. & Zander, F 2018 Implementation of a state-to-state analytical framework for the calculation of expansion tube flow properties. Shock Waves 28 (2), 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotov, D.V., Yee, H.C., Panesi, M., Prabhu, D.K. & Wray, A.A. 2014 Computational challenges for simulations related to the NASA electric arc shock tube (EAST) experiments. J. Comput. Phys. 269, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y., Reader, J. & NIST ASD Team 2021 NIST atomic spectra database (ver. 5.9). https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/Html/verhist.shtml.Google Scholar
Lemal, A., Jacobs, C.M., Perrin, M.-Y., Laux, C.O., Tran, P. & Raynaud, E. 2016 Prediction of nonequilibrium air plasma radiation behind a shock wave. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 30 (1), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, G.C. 1973 Test gas properties behind a decelerating shock wave in a shock tube. Phys. Fluids 16 (5), 624–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirels, H. 1963 Test time in low-pressure shock tubes. Phys. Fluids 6 (9), 1201–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirels, H. 1964 Shock tube test time limitation due to turbulent-wall boundary layer. AIAA J. 2 (1), 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, C. 1985 Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) program: user's manual. NASA Tech. Rep. TM 86707.Google Scholar
Park, C. 1989 Assessment of two-temperature kinetic model for ionizing air. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 3 (3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, C. 1993 Review of chemical-kinetic problems of future NASA missions. I-Earth entries. J. Thermophys. Heat transfer 7 (3), 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paull, A. & Stalker, R.J. 1992 Acoustic waves in shock tunnels and expansion tubes. In Shock Waves, pp. 697–704. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, D.F. 2011 Modelling of radiating shock layers for atmospheric entry at Earth and Mars. PhD thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Roberts, G.T., Morgan, R.G. & Stalker, R.J. 1995 Influence of secondary diaphragm on flow quality in expansion tubes. In Shock Waves@ Marseille I, pp. 203–208. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchell, M. 2021 Numerical simulation and modeling of shock tube experiments. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Satchell, M., Collen, P., McGilvray, M. & Di Mare, L. 2021 Numerical simulation of shock tubes using shock tracking in an overset formulation. AIAA J. 59 (2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchell, M., Glenn, A., Collen, P., Penty-Geraets, R., McGilvray, M. & Di Mare, L. 2022 a Analytical method of evaluating nonuniformities in shock tube flows: application. AIAA J. 60 (2), 669–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchell, M., McGilvray, M. & Di Mare, L. 2022 b Analytical method of evaluating nonuniformities in shock tube flows: theory and development. AIAA J. 60 (2), 654–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma Priyadarshini, M., Munafo, A., Brandis, A.M., Cruden, B.A. & Panesi, M. 2018 One-dimensional modeling methodology for shock tubes: application to the EAST facility. In 2018 Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference. AIAA Paper 2018-4181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C.E. 1966 The starting process in a hypersonic nozzle. J. Fluid Mech. 24 (4), 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalker, R.J. 1967 A study of the free-piston shock tunnel. AIAA J. 5 (12), 2160–2165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D.R 1958 Influence of diaphragm opening time on shock-tube flows. J. Fluid Mech. 4 (6), 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar