Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:48:48.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Theory of heat transfer to a shock-tube end-wall from an ionized monatomic gas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

James A. Fay
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Nelson H. Kemp
Affiliation:
Avco-Everett Research Laboratory, Everett, Massachusetts

Extract

This paper deals with the calculation of the convective heat transfer rate to the end-wall of a shock tube from a monatomic gas heated by a reflected shock. We consider a range of shock strengths for which the equilibrium thermodynamic state is one of appreciable ionization. The resulting boundary-layer problem involves the thermal conductivity and ambipolar diffusion coefficient for a partially ionized monatomic gas. The formulation here is restricted to the case of a catalytic wall and equal temperatures for all species. We ignore the effect of the plasma sheath at the wall. Consideration is given to three limiting cases for which similarity-type solutions of the boundary-layer equations may be found: (1) complete thermodynamic equilibrium behind the reflected shock and within the boundary layer; (2) equilibrium behind the reflected shock, but no gas-phase recombination in the boundary layer; (3) no ionization in either region. Numerical calculations are carried out for argon using estimated values of thermal conductivity and ambipolar diffusion, and compared with shock-tube experiments of Camac & Feinberg (1965). For no ionization, calculations were made with thermal conductivity varying as the ¾ power of the temperature, which fits the estimates of Amdur & Mason (1958) up to 15,000°K. Excellent agreement with experiment is obtained confirming an extrapolation of this power law up to 75,000°K. For ionized cases, based on estimates of Fay (1964), the theory predicts heating rates 20–40% lower than measured values. Some possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Amdur, I. & Mason, E. A. 1958 Phys. Fluids, 1, 370.Google Scholar
Camac, M. & Feinberg, R. M. 1965 J. Fluid Mech. 21, 673.Google Scholar
Camac, M. & Kemp, N. H. 1963 Amer. Inst. Aero. Astro. Paper no. 63–460.Google Scholar
Camac, M. & Teare, J. D. 1964 Avco-Everett Res. Lab. Res. Rep. no. 183.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. & Cowling, T. G. 1960 The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. K. & Tellep, D. M. 1961 ARS J. 31, 652.Google Scholar
Fay, J. A. 1964 The High Temperature Aspects of Hypersonic Flow, p. 583 (ed. Nelson, W. C.). London: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, J. A. & Kemp, N. H. 1963 Avco-Everett Res. Lab. Res. Rep. no. 166.Google Scholar
Hansen, C. F., Early, R. A., Alzofon, F. E. & Wittenborn, F. C. 1959 Nat. Aero. Space Admin. Tech. Rep. no. R-27. See also ARS J. 30, 942 (1960).Google Scholar
Hornbeck, J. 1951 Phys. Rev. 84, 615.Google Scholar
Jepson, B. M. 1961 Dept. Mech. Eng. Magnetogasdynamics Lab., M.I.T., Cambridge, Rep. no. 61–7.Google Scholar
Kemp, N. H. 1964 Dept. Mech. Eng. Fluid Mech. Lab., M.I.T., Cambridge, Pub. no. 64–6.Google Scholar
Lauver, M. R. 1964 Phys. Fluids, 7, 611.Google Scholar
National Bureau of Standards 1955 Government Printing Office, Wash., Circular no. 564.Google Scholar
Peng, T. C. & Ahtye, W. F. 1961 Nat. Aero. Space Admin. Tech. Note no. D-687.Google Scholar
Smiley, E. F. 1957 Ph.D. Thesis, Catholic University of America.Google Scholar
Spitzer, L. 1956 Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Thomson, T. A. 1960 Australian Defence Scientific Services Aero. Res. Lab. Aero. Note no. 186.Google Scholar