4.3 Article

Assessment of Hypersonic Double-Cone Experiments for Validation of Thermochemistry Models

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 389-400

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.A35052

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-16-1-0291, FA9550-21-1-0075]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of thermochemical kinetics modeling on hypersonic flow over a double-cone geometry is investigated. The results show that the specific thermochemistry model used significantly affects surface properties, especially at high enthalpies. However, the current models fail to reproduce experimental results accurately.
The effect of thermochemical kinetics modeling on hypersonic flow over a double-cone geometry is investigated. The double-cone is simulated using three different approaches based on the Park model: nonequilibrium flow, equilibrium flow, and frozen flow for air at four different freestream conditions. The thermochemical model effects on the flowfield and surface properties are specific areas of interest. The resulting aerothermodynamic loads are compared to experiments performed in the CUBRC LENS-XX facility and indicate that thermochemistry modeling plays an important role in determining surface properties. The results indicate that the specific thermochemistry model used to describe hypersonic flow over a double-cone significantly affects surface properties for both CUBRC facilities, especially at high enthalpies. A comparison of Park and Modified Marrone-Treanor thermochemistry models is also made, and it is concluded that the models produce similar surface properties, due to the freestream density, and fail to reproduce experimental results. Consistent overprediction of the pressure drag and heating rate indicates there is some unknown fundamental difference between the experiments and the simulations, thus limiting the usefulness of these double-cone experiments for validation of thermochemistry models.

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

4.3
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