4.7 Article

Flow Characterization of the UTSA Hypersonic Ludwieg Tube

Journal

AEROSPACE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/aerospace10050463

Keywords

Ludwieg tube; wind tunnel; hypersonics; characterization; particle image velocimetry (PIV)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The hypersonic impulse facility is characterized using various methods to verify its properties. Experimental results are compared with numerical simulations to assess the design and operational conditions. The measurements and simulations show good agreement in key parameters, including velocity profiles and boundary layer thickness.
The characterization of a hypersonic impulse facility is performed using a variety of methods including Pitot probe scans, particle image velocimetry, and schlieren imaging to verify properties such as the velocity, Mach number, wall boundary layer thickness, and freestream turbulence intensity levels. The experimental results are compared to the numerical simulations of the facility performed with Ansys Fluent to compare the design and operational conditions. The presentation of results in this manuscript is prefaced by a description of the facility and its capabilities. The UTSA Ludwieg tube facility can produce a hypersonic freestream flow with a Mach number of 7.2 +/- 0.2 and unit Reynolds numbers of up to 200 x 10(6) m(-1). The Pitot probe profiles of the 203-mm-square test section indicate a 152 +/- 10 mm square freestream core with turbulence intensity values ranging from 1% to 2%. Schlieren imaging of the oblique shockwaves on a 15 degrees wedge model provided an alternate means of verifying the Mach number. Particle image velocimetry and previous molecular tagging velocimetry results showed a good agreement with the Pitot probe data and numerical simulations in the key parameters including freestream velocity, wall boundary layer velocity profiles, and wall boundary layer thickness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available