Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:28:13.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance considerations for expansion tube operation with a shock-heated secondary driver

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

David E. Gildfind ,
Chris M. James ,
Pierpaolo Toniato  and
Richard G. Morgan
David E. Gildfind*
Affiliation:
The Centre for Hypersonics, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
Chris M. James
Affiliation:
The Centre for Hypersonics, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
Pierpaolo Toniato
Affiliation:
The Centre for Hypersonics, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
Richard G. Morgan
Affiliation:
The Centre for Hypersonics, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A shock-heated secondary driver is a modification typically applied to an expansion tube which involves placing a volume of helium between the primary diaphragm and the test gas. This modification is normally used to either increase the driven shock strength through the test gas for high-enthalpy conditions, or to prevent transmission of primary driver flow disturbances to the test gas for low-enthalpy conditions. In comparison to the basic expansion tube, a secondary driver provides an additional configuration parameter, adds mechanical and operational complexity, and its effect on downstream flow processes is not trivial. This paper reports on a study examining operation of a shock-heated secondary driver across the entire operating envelope of a free-piston-driven expansion tube, using air as the test gas. For high-enthalpy conditions it is confirmed that the secondary driver can provide a performance increase, and it is further shown how this device can be used to fine tune the flow condition even when the free-piston driver configuration is held constant. For low-enthalpy flow conditions, wave processes through the driven tube are too closely coupled, and the secondary driver no longer significantly influences the magnitude of the final test gas flow properties. It is found that these secondary driver operating characteristics depend principally on the initial density ratio between the secondary driver helium gas and the downstream test gas.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Gas dynamics Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 777 , 25 August 2015 , pp. 364 - 407
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2015 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

Anderson, J. D. Jr. 1990 Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective. McGraw-Hill, International Edition.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. D. Jr. 2006 Hypersonic and High-Temperature Gas Dynamics, 2nd edn. AIAA Education Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, G., Kumar, A. & Erdos, J.1990 Progress in hypersonic combustion technology with computation and experiment. In Proceedings of the Second International Aerospace Planes Conference, Orlando, FL, October 29–31.Google Scholar
Bakos, R. J. & Erdos, J. I.1995 Options for enhancement of the performance of shock-expansion tubes and tunnels. In Proceedings of the 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 9–12.Google Scholar
Bakos, R. J., Morgan, R. G. & Tamagno, J.1992 Effects of oxygen dissociation on hypervelocity combustion experiments. In Proceedings of the AIAA 17th Aerospace Ground Testing Conference, Nashville, TN, July 6–8.Google Scholar
Billig, F. 1993 Research on supersonic combustion. J. Propul. Power 9 (4), 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capra, B. R. & Morgan, R. G. 2012 Radiative and total heat transfer measurements to a Titan explorer model. J. Spacecr. Rockets 49 (1), 12–23.Google Scholar
Chinitz, W., Erdos, J., Rizkalla, O., Anderson, G. & Bushnell, D. 1994 Facility opportunities and associated stream chemistry considerations for hypersonic air-breathing propulsion. J. Propul. Power 10 (1), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coesa(1976) U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United States Air Force, Tech. Rep. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Curran, E. 2001 Scramjet engines: the first forty years. J. Propul. Power 17 (6), 1138–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R. E. 1959 Shock-tube performance at low initial pressure. Phys. Fluids 2 (2), 207–216.Google Scholar
Eichmann, T. N.2012 Radiation measurements in a simulated Mars atmosphere. PhD thesis, School of Mathematics & Physics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Gildfind, D. E.2012 Development of high total pressure scramjet flow conditions using the X2 expansion tube. PhD thesis, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Gildfind, D. E., James, C. M. & Morgan, R. G. 2015 Free-piston driver performance characterisation using experimental shock speeds through helium. Shock Waves 25 (2), 169–176.Google Scholar
Gildfind, D. E., Morgan, R. G., McGilvray, M. & Jacobs, P. A. 2014 Production of high-Mach-number scramjet flow conditions in an expansion tube. AIAA J. 52 (1), 162–177.Google Scholar
Gildfind, D. E., Morgan, R. G., McGilvray, M., Jacobs, P. A., Stalker, R. J. & Eichmann, T. N. 2011 Free-piston driver optimisation for simulation of high Mach number scramjet flow conditions. Shock Waves 21 (6), 559–572.Google Scholar
Gildfind, D. E., Sancho, J. & Morgan, R. G.2013 High Mach number scramjet test flows in the X3 expansion tube. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Memorial Union, July 14–19.Google Scholar
Gordon, S. & McBride, B. J.1994 Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications. NASA Tech. Rep. RP-1311, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
Henshall, B.1956 The use of multiple diaphragms in shock tubes. ARC Tech. Rep. C.P. No. 291.Google Scholar
Hicks, J.1993 Flight testing of airbreathing hypersonic vehicles. NASA Tech. Rep. TM-4524, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. & Martin, J. 2000 Rudiments and methodology for design and analysis of hypersonic air-breathing vehicles. In Scramjet Propulsion, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 189, chap. 15, pp. 939–978. AIAA.Google Scholar
Jacobs, P. A. 1994 Numerical simulation of transient hypervelocity flow in an expansion tube. Comput. Fluids 23 (1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Jacobs, P. A. 1994 Quasi-one-dimensional modeling of a free-piston shock tunnel. AIAA J. 32 (1), 137–145.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. M.2011 Radiation in low density hypervelocity flows. PhD thesis, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
James, C. J., Gildfind, D. E., Morgan, R. G. & McIntyre, T. J.2014 The limits of simulating Gas Giant entry at true gas composition and true flight velocities in an expansion tube. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 8–11 December.Google Scholar
Jones, J. J.1965 Some performance characteristics of the LRC 3 3/4-inch pilot expansion tube using an unheated hydrogen driver. In Proceedings of the Fourth Hypervelocity Techniques Symposium, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, 15–16 November pp. 7–26.Google Scholar
Kliche, D., Mundt, C. & Hirschel, E. H. 2011 The hypersonic Mach number independence principle in the case of viscous flow. Shock Waves 21, 307–314.Google Scholar
Lucasiewicz, J. 1973 Experimental Methods of Hypersonics. Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
McGilvray, M., Morgan, R. G. & Jacobs, P. A. 2010 Scramjet experiments in an expansion tunnel: evaluated using a quasi-steady analysis technique. AIAA J. 48 (8), 1635–1646.Google Scholar
McIntyre, T. J., Lourel, I., Eichmann, T. N., Morgan, R. G., Jacobs, P. A. & Bishop, A. I.2001 An experimental expansion tube study of the flow over a toroidal ballute. Tech. Rep. Mechanical Engineering Research Report no. 2001/06, Centre for Hypersonics, The University of Queensland, November 15.Google Scholar
Miller, C. G.1977 Operational experience in the Langley expansion tube with various test gases. NASA Tech. Rep. TM 78637, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, December.Google Scholar
Miller, C. G. & Jones, J. J. 1983 Development and performance of the NASA Langley Research Center expansion tube/tunnel, a hypersonic-hypervelocity real-gas facility. In Proceedings of the AIAA 14th International Symposium on Shock Waves, Sydney, Australia, Aug. (ed. Archer, R. D. & Milton, B. E.), pp. 363–373.Google Scholar
Mirels, H. 1963a Shock tube test time limitation due to turbulent-wall boundary layer. AIAA J. 2 (1), 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirels, H. 1963b Test time in low-pressure shock tubes. Phys. Fluids 6 (9), 1201–1214.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. G.1997 Superorbital expansion tubes. In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Shock Waves, Great Keppel Island, Australia, July 20–25.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. G. 2001a Free-piston driven expansion tubes. In Handbook of Shock Waves (ed. Ben-Dor, G., Igra, O. & Elperin, T.), vol. 1, chap. 4.3, pp. 603–622. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R. G. 2001b Free-piston reflected shock tunnels. In Handbook of Shock Waves (ed. Ben-Dor, G., Igra, O. & Elperin, T.), vol. 1, chap. 4.2, pp. 587–601. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R. & Stalker, R.1991 Double diaphragm driven free piston expansion tube. In 18th International Symposium on Shock Waves, July 21–26, Sendai, Japan.Google Scholar
NASA 2010 Evaluation of the NASA Arc Jet capabilities to support mission requirements. NASA Tech. Rep. SP-577. Office of the Chief Engineer, 20110007355.Google Scholar
Neely, A. J. & Morgan, R. G. 1994 The superorbital expansion tube concept, experiment and analysis. Aeronaut. J. 98, 97–105.Google Scholar
Norfleet, G. D., Lacey, J. J. & Whitfield, J. D.1965 Results of an experimental investigation of the performance characteristics of an expansion tube. In Proceedings of the Fourth Hypervelocity Techniques Symposium, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, 15–16 November, pp. 49–110.Google Scholar
Olds, J. & Budianto, I.1998 Constant dynamic pressure trajectory simulation with POST. In Proceedings of the 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 12–15, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 1998-0302.Google Scholar
Paull, A. & Stalker, R. 1992 Test flow disturbances in an expansion tube. J. Fluid Mech. 245, 493–521.Google Scholar
Paull, A., Stalker, R. J. & Stringer, I.1988 Experiments on an expansion tube with a free piston driver. In Proceedings of the AIAA 15th Aerodynamic Testing Conference, San Diego, CA, 18–20 May, AIAA paper 88-2018. AIAA; doi:10.2514/6.1988-2018.Google Scholar
Pinckney, S. Z.1975 A short static-pressue probe design for supersonic flow. In NASA Tech. Rep. TN D-7978, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.Google Scholar
Porat, H., Zander, F., Morgan, R. G. & McIntyre, T. J.2013 Emission spectroscopy of a Mach disk at Titan atmospheric entry conditions. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Memorial Union, July 14–19.Google Scholar
Sheikh, U. A., Jacobs, C., Laux, C. O., Morgan, R. G. & McIntyre, T. J.2013 Measurements of radiating flow fields in the vacuum ultraviolet. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Memorial Union, July 14–19.Google Scholar
Spurk, J. H.1965 Design, operation, and preliminary results of the BLR expansion tube. In Proceedings of the Fourth Hypervelocity Techniques Symposium, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, 15–16 Nov., pp. 111–144.Google Scholar
Stalker, R. J. 1990 Recent developments with free piston drivers. In Current Topics in Shock Waves: 17th International Symposium on Shock Waves & Shock Tubes, Bethlehem, PA (ed. Kim, Y. W.), pp. 96–105. NASA.Google Scholar
Stalker, R. & Plumb, D. 1968 Diaphragm-type shock tube for high shock speeds. Nature 218 (5143), 789–790.Google Scholar
Stalker, R. J. & Pulsonetti, M.2004 Experiments on scaling of supersonic combustion. Tech. Rep. Research Report No. 2004/13, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Stewart, B. S., Jacobs, P. A. & Morgan, R. G.2001 The starting process of an expansion tube nozzle. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Shock Waves, The University of Texas at Arlington, USA, July 23–27.Google Scholar
Trimpi, R. L.1962 A preliminary theoretical study of the expansion tube, a new device for producing high-enthalpy short-duration hypersonic gas flows. NASA Tech. Rep. R-133.Google Scholar