4.4 Article

On subsonic near-wake flows of a space launcher configuration with various base geometries

期刊

EXPERIMENTS IN FLUIDS
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00348-021-03149-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - DFG) [Sonderforschungsbereich Transregio 40]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the impact of buffet/buffeting as a load-imposing mechanism on the base structures of space launcher, focusing on the varying excitation effects at different Mach numbers and the role of Reynolds stress distribution. Experiments conducted in a Vertical Test Section revealed a distinct excitation in the recirculation region, leading to the investigation of the mean shear layer reattachment at the tip of the nozzle.
Buffet/buffeting as load imposing mechanism on the base structures of space launcher has been of strong interest ever since it was found as partially responsible for the failed flight 157 of Ariane 5. Several studies suggested that the base region is most excited at Mach 0.8. A preceding study of the current series on base flow effects revealed a differing excitation in comparison to the other subsonic Mach number cases. It featured an especially pronounced excitation in the recirculation region. Thus, the current work attempts to answer the question why this case appears to be distinct. This is done by decreasing the relative nozzle length and focusing on the Reynolds stress distribution. The research question is approached by experiments in the `Vertical Test Section Cologne' (VMK) on a base model with supersonic, over-expanded exhaust jet exposed to an ambient flow at Mach 0.8 and a Reynolds number of 1.4. 10(6). Data are acquired by means of particle image velocimetry (PIV) and high-speed schlieren imaging. The results reveal that a most unfavorable configuration appears to exist, which is if the mean shear layer reattachment takes place just on the tip of the nozzle. [GRAPHICS] .

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据