Instability and Transition on the HIFiRE-5 in a Mach 6 Quiet Tunnel

Juliano, Thomas J.

doi:10.2514/6.2010-5004

Cited by 55 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there was no change in the stationary crossflow wavelength over seven different oil applications [18]. There was also no significant change in the general vortex pattern, despite different paint applications [18,27,36]. This is suggestive that the stationary crossflow vortices are not due to the oil and/or paint.…”

Section: Noisy Flowmentioning

confidence: 42%

“…This explanation may account for the lack of measured traveling crossflow waves, but it does not propose a primary transition mechanism. In previous studies [18,36], stationary crossflow vortices were seen in noisy flow using oil flow visualization, but they were never detected in the temperature sensitive paint images, even though boundary-layer transition was also observed on the model. However, in quiet flow, both the oil flow and temperature-sensitive paint (TSP) were able to detect stationary crossflow vortices and transition.…”

Section: Noisy Flowmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…It is time prohibitive to allow the model to return to prerun temperature before each subsequent run. The increase in model surface temperature from the beginning of run 36 to the end of run 42 is estimated to be on the order of 10-15 K, as measured in [36]. This represents a change in T w ∕T aw of about 0.04.…”

Section: Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The edges of the paint were sanded with fine-grit sand paper to smoothly transition the model surface from the bare aluminum finish to the paint layer. A more complete description of the model can be found in [31]. The pressure sensors were mounted flush with the paint.…”

Section: Experimental Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Traveling Crossflow Instability for the HIFiRE-5 Elliptic Cone

Borg

Kimmel

Stanfield

2015

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 38.1%-scale model of the Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation Program's Flight Five 2:1 elliptic cone flight vehicle was used to investigate the traveling crossflow instability in a Mach 6 quiet wind tunnel. Traveling crossflow waves were detected with pressure sensors mounted flush with the model surface. The crossflow instability phase speed and wave angle were calculated from the cross spectra of the three pressure sensors. Both quantities showed good agreement with linear stability theory. Duplicate runs at the same initial conditions showed excellent repeatability in traveling crossflow wave properties. Traveling crossflow waves in quiet flow showed very low levels of nonlinear interactions. No traveling crossflow waves were observed for any Reynolds number for elevated freestream noise levels, but transition occurred for a much lower Reynolds number than in quiet flow. Due to the lack of nonlinear growth in quiet flow and the absence of traveling crossflow waves in noisy flow, it appeared that the traveling crossflow instability was not the primary transition mechanism on the model for quiet or noisy flow in this wind tunnel. Nomenclature c r = phase speed, m∕s E = expected value operator f = frequency, kHz I = imaginary part of complex number p 0 = fluctuating component of pressure, Pa R = real part of complex number Re = freestream unit Reynolds number, 1∕m S = cross spectrum s = Fourier transform of signal s T = temperature or record length, K or s x = Streamwise coordinate, mm y = spanwise coordinate, mm γ 2 = coherence η = circumferential coordinate ξ = axial coordinate σ = standard deviation τ = time delay, μs ϕ = phase of cross spectrum, deg Ψ = wave angle, angle between phase velocity and axial direction, deg Subscripts aw = evaluated at adiabatic wall conditions stat = static conditions w = evaluated at wall conditions Superscripts = complex conjugate 0 = rotated coordinate system

show abstract

Section: Noisy Flowmentioning

confidence: 42%

Section: Noisy Flowmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Traveling Crossflow Instability for the HIFiRE-5 Elliptic Cone

Borg

Kimmel

Stanfield

2015

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The holes were located in a region of the model that had previously shown strong stationary crossflow vortices. 71,85,88 Although there were five holes, there were only four available pressure sensors for most of the quiet experiments, so some repositioning of the sensors was necessary to gather data from all five sensor hole locations. This allowed the development and evolution of the traveling crossflow waves to be studied in great detail.…”

Section: Figure 79 Hifire-5 Wind Tunnel Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

HIFiRE-1 and HIFiRE-5 Test Results

Kimmel¹,

Adamczak²,

Borg³

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information AFRL/RQHF SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER(S) AFRL-RQ-WP-TR-2014-0038 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution unlimited SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESPA Case Number: 88ABW-2014-3421; Clearance Date: 17 Jul 2014. ABSTRACTThe primary experiment for HIFiRE-1 was to measure boundary-layer transition in hypersonic flight on a 7 degree halfangle, axisymmetric cone with a 2.5 mm radius bluntness. A secondary experiment measured mean and fluctuating pressure, and heat transfer on a cylinder-33-degreee-flare geometry. The ascent provided smooth-body, low angle-ofattack, boundary-layer transition at Mach numbers greater than 5. The end of turbulent-to-laminar transition occurred at Reynolds numbers between 10.3 to 12.2 million. Second-mode N-factors of approximately 14 correlated transition. A diamond-shaped trip retained turbulent flow until reaching a roughness Reynolds number Rekk = 2200. During re-entry, transition was measured around the circumference of the cone at Reynolds numbers ranging from 3 million on the leeside to 5 million on the windward side. In the shock-boundary layer interaction, maximum sound pressure levels of 173 dB were recorded upstream of the flare, and 185 dB on the flare itself. The principal goal of HIFiRE-5 was to measure hypersonic boundary layer transition on an elliptic cone. The second stage booster failed to ignite, so the experiment reached a maximum Mach number of only 3. Nevertheless, supersonic pressure and temperature data were obtained under laminar and turbulent flow, and flight systems were validated. Traveling and stationary crossflow instabilities were clearly measured for HIFiRE-5 in ground test in a quiet flow tunnel. The frequency, phase speed, and wave angle were all in good agreement with computations.

show abstract

A correction for Reynolds‐averaged‐Navier–Stokes turbulence model under the effect of shock waves in hypersonic flows

Tian

Gao

Lee

2022

Numerical Methods in Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on the unphysical increase of turbulent quantities for RANS simulation induced by shock waves in hypersonic flows are carried out. Numerical experiments on the hypersonic flow over a blunt body reveal that the phenomenon of unphysical increase of turbulent quantities across the detached shock wave is induced by the strain-rate-based production terms of the k-𝜔 and k-𝜔 SST turbulence models, which leads to the over-prediction of aerothermal prediction.While this phenomenon does not occur for Spalart-Allmaras (S-A) turbulence model because of its vorticity-based production term. In order to eliminate this unphysical phenomenon, and to maintain the accuracy of the original models for boundary layer and separation flows, a new correction method for the k-𝜔 and k-𝜔 SST models is proposed: by comparing the orders of magnitude between the strain-rate-based and vorticity-based production terms, the vorticity-based production term is used near the shock waves, while the original strain-rate-based production term is still used in other regions. Finally, the correction method is applied to turbulence and transition flows over blunt bodies, and the numerical results show that the correction method effectively eliminates the unphysical increase of turbulent quantities across shock waves and improves the accuracy of aerothermal and transition onset location prediction.

show abstract

Instability and Transition on the HIFiRE-5 in a Mach 6 Quiet Tunnel

Cited by 55 publications

References 52 publications

Traveling Crossflow Instability for the HIFiRE-5 Elliptic Cone

Traveling Crossflow Instability for the HIFiRE-5 Elliptic Cone

HIFiRE-1 and HIFiRE-5 Test Results

A correction for Reynolds‐averaged‐Navier–Stokes turbulence model under the effect of shock waves in hypersonic flows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About