See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24301904

A supersonic tunnel for laser and flow-seeding

techniques

Article July 1994

Source: NTRS

CITATIONS READS

2 48

2 authors:

Robert J. Bruckner Jan Lepicovsky

NASA The Czech Academy of Sciences
31 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 377 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert J. Bruckner on 18 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A SUPERSONIC TUNNEL FOR LASER AND FLOW-
SEEDING TECHNIQUES

Robert J. Bruckner
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

and

Jan Lepicovsky
NYMA, Inc.
Engineering Services Division
Brook Park, Ohio 44142

Abstract n boundary layer power profile parameter

A supersonic wind tunnel with flow conditions of P pressure, psia (kPa)

3 lbm/s (1.5 kg/s) at a free-stream Mach number of 2.5 was
designed and tested to provide an arena for future develop- PR precision component of uncertainty
ment work on laser measurement and flow-seeding tech-
niques. The hybrid supersonic nozzle design that was used
S tunnel blockage parameter
incorporated the rapid expansion method of propulsive
nozzles while it maintained the uniform, disturbance-free
U measurement uncertainty
flow required in supersonic wind tunnels. A viscous analy-
sis was performed on the tunnel to determine the boundary
W width of the fiowpath, in. (mm)
layer growth characteristics along the flowpath. Appropriate
corrections were then made to the contour of the nozzle.
x subsonic contraction abscissa, in. (mm)
Axial pressure distributions were measured and Mach num-
ber distributions were calculated based on three independent
Y convergent/divergent nozzle ordinate, in. (mm)
data reduction methods. A complete uncertainty analysis
was performed on the precision error of each method. Com-
AY correction factor for boundary layer mass flow defect,
plex shock-wave patterns were generated in the flow field by
in. (mm)
wedges mounted near the roof and floor of the tunnel. The
most stable shock structure was determined experimentally
by the use of a focusing schlieren system and a novel, laser- y subsonic contraction ordinate, in. (mm)
based dynamic shock position sensor. Three potential meas-
urement regions for future laser and flow-seeding studies )' ratio of specific heats of an ideal gas
were created in the shock structure: (1) deceleration through
an oblique shock wave of 50 , (2) strong deceleration through _5 boundary layer thickness, in. (mm)
a normal shock wave, and (3) acceleration through a super-
sonic expansion fan containing 25 of flow turning. _i* boundary layer displacement thickness, in. (mm)

Nomenclature Subscripts:

A cross-sectional area, in. 2 (mm 2) a total-static Mach number calculation method

B bias component of uncertainty b Pitot-total Mach number calculation method

g boundary layer form parameter (_*/5) c Pitot-static Mach number calculation method

l length of subsonic contractions, in. (mm) e exit conditions

M Mach number i subsonic inlet condition

 plex flow conditions. Complex shock wave patterns were
p Pitot conditions generated by wedges mounted near the roof and floor of the
tunnel. These wedges were traversed into the Mach-2.5 flow
s static conditions
by a pair of linear actuators.

t total conditions Conventional aerodynamic instrumentation was incor-

porated in the tunnel to completely specify the high-speed
Superscript: complex flow field independent of laser and flow-seeding
measurement techniques. The tunnel was instrumented to
* throat/sonic conditions measure inlet total temperature and pressure, exit diffuser
static pressure, and nozzle wall static pressure distribution.
A three-element total pressure rake was used to perform
axial Pitot pressure surveys of the core flow. Mach numbers
A supersonic wind tunnel was designed and constructed
were calculated using three different data reduction equa-
at the NASA Lewis Research Center for fundamental laser
tions; physical assumptions and measurement uncertainties
velocimetry (LV) and flow-seeding techniques in complex
were analyzed for each equation.
high-speed flows. Additional experience with these tech-
niques applied to complex flow regimes was necessary to Two flow visualization methods were utilized to iden-
interpret the data obtained from flow-seeding techniques.
tify and quantify the shock structure stability. A focusing
The consequences of particle lag, dynamic velocity response, schlieren system was designed and constructed to provide
and condensation effects of flow-seeding techniques need to
flow visualization of the baseline nozzle flow and shock
be better understood and quantified to be properly applied to
wave patterns. A novel laser-based dynamic position sensor
complex supersonic flows. Information relating to these ef- was used to accurately map the shock structure and to deter-
fects can only be attained through experimentation on the
mine the spatial amplitude of the shock unsteadiness.
measurement system. Therefore, a known flow condition
must be used to compare the laser and flow-seeding tech-
Aerodynamic Design
nique responses to the actual flow field conditions. Previous
experiments of this nature only examined LV measurements
Subsonic Contractions
through oblique shock waves or unsteady bow shocks. 1"2 To limit the maximum test section flow rate to 3 lbm/s
Both types of experiments have limitations, making it diffi-
(1.5 kg/s), the sonic throat area for this tunnel was set at
cult to extract quantitative information relating the response
1.4 in. x (36 ram2). Since the facility designed for this test
of the given technique to actual flow conditions. For the section contained a plenum with an exit opening of 6 in. 2
oblique shock, the limitation was the change in flow direc-
(152 mm2), two subsonic contraction sections were needed to
tion as well as the magnitude of velocity; for the bow
achieve this design condition. The first contraction section
shocks, the limitation was the unsteadiness of the normal
transformed the square bellmouth exit to a rectangular 36- by
shock front and the presence of a body in the desired mea-
152-ram flow. The second contraction section transformed
surement region. the rectangular flow to the desired square sonic flow. A
diagram of the supersonic tunnel has been included in Fig. 1.
The objectives of the work described herein were to
The design of these contractions was based on the inviscid,
design a supersonic wind tunnel with a maximum-length compressible subsonic nozzle theory of Vitoshinsk i.3 The
constant-Mach-number region and to develop a spatially and
nondimensional contour equation and a figure describing
temporally stable shock wave pattern. The first of these the nomenclature are presented in Eq. (1) and Fig. 2,
objectives was constrained by the overall facility test section
respectively.
length; therefore, a hybrid nozzle design approach was
applied using the rapid expansion method of propulsive
nozzles and maintained the uniform, disturbance-free flow Ye
(1)
y_
required in supersonic wind tunnels. The use of this ap-
proach resulted in the length of the constant Mach number
2
region being maximized at 21 in. (533 mm), which was greater
than 65 percent of the length available for the entire test 1--1--
section. Additionally, the viscous effect of boundary layer
growth along the supersonic towpath was calculated, and
appropriate corrections were made to the coordinates of the
contoured nozzle walls.

Supersonic Region
The second objective was achieved by utilizing the sta-
For computational convenience, the supersonic region
bility of attached, oblique shock waves generated by super- of the nozzle was divided into three sections: expansion,
sonic wedge flow and shock wave interaction to create corn-
 flow-straightening,
andconstant-Mach-number.
Theexpan- Figure 3 demonstrates the physical parameters used in
sionandflow-straightening
sections
weredesignedaccord- Eq. (2). Figure 4 compares the convergent/divergent (C/D)
ingtothetwo-dimensional
method ofcharacteristics.
4,5 supersonic nozzle contour based on viscous and inviscid
calculations.
Thebasicprincipleof supersonic
windtunneldesign is
twofold.Primarily,
theeffective
arearatiomustbeachieved Shock-Wave-Generating Hardware
suchthattheflowreaches thedesired
Machnumber.Sec- To fulfill the final aerodynamic requirement of this su-
ond,thewall contours mustallowall wavedisturbancespersonic LV calibration tunnel, a method was designed to
whichoriginatefromtheexpansion sectiontobegeometri- establish a normal shock wave in the constant-Mach-number
callyeliminated
intheflow-straightening
section,
yieldinga section. Two methods that were considered were (1) in-
purelyone-dimensionalflowattheexit. Theassumptionscreased diffuser pressure once supersonic flow is established
usedinthecalculations
ofthepreliminarynozzlecontourin and (2) a mechanical system taking advantage of supersonic
thesesections
were wedge flow principles. Because of the inherent instabilities
of precise pressure regulation and its associated effects on
(1) Inviscid,
irrotational
flow the shock structure, the first method was ruled out. The
(2) Idealgasbehavior method used to generate the complex shock waves utilized
(3) One-dimensional sonicflowatthethroat the stability of attached oblique waves and shock wave inter-
(4) Zero-thicknessexpansion waves action to achieve the desired result. The leading edges of
these wedges were elevated above the wall boundary layer of
A computercodewaswrittento expedite thisdesign the tunnel and the width was reduced to avoid any detrimen-
phaseandtoprovidemoreaccuracy in thecalculations.
A tal interaction effects on the shock-wave boundary layer.
moredetailed
description
of thisprogram is contained
in Linear actuators and variable wedge angle inserts were used
Ref.6.
to experimentally determine the optimum shock-generating
hardware configuration. Photographs of the shock-generat-
Boundary_ Layer Corrections ing hardware are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Viscous boundary layer corrections to the contoured
nozzle block coordinates were performed to compensate for Experimental Setup
the mass flow deficit of the displacement thickness. After
the inviscid nozzle contour design was complete, a boundary Facility Interfaces
layer analysis was performed on the supersonic region. The The supersonic tunnel was designed for a continuous-
boundary layer thickness at the throat was assumed to be flow aeronautics facility. 12 The facility was equipped with a
zero because of the favorable pressure gradient up to plenum which has an internal volume of 35.3 ft 3 (1 m 3) and
the sonic line. 7 The remainder of the viscous analysis an exit bellmouth, which provided uniform two-dimensional
followed the method and theory outlined by Tucker. 8,9 flow through a 6-in. 2 (152-ram 2) opening. The contraction
This method was chosen primarily for two reasons: (1) ratio for this bellmouth is 28:1. Maximum inlet flow rates,
its use to model the flow in a gas dynamically and geo- total pressure, and temperature limits for this facility are
metrically similar supersonic wind tunnel; (2) the ease of 10 lbm/s (4.6 kg/s), 55 psia (379 kPa), and 810 R (450 K),
the calculations required to obtain the desired results. I0 A respectively. The minimum sustainable backpressure for
complete derivation of this method and definition of the this facility is 1.5 psia (10 kPa). The size of the diffuser
various quantities are documented in the literature. 9 These
exhaust flange is limited to 6 in. 2 (152 mm 2) and the overall
quantities were tabulated by Tucker as functions of both available test section length is limited to 32 in. (813 ram).
Mach number and boundary layer profile parameter {f(M,n) };
polynomial curve fits were generated to simplify the design Instrumentation Setup
computations. 8 The C/D nozzle and the walls of the constant-Mach-
number section were instrumented with 0.020-in.-(0.51-mm)
Once the boundary layer growth along the supersonic diameter static pressure orifices along the vertical centerline
region was calculated, the displacement thickness was calcu- of the tunnel. These orifices were installed normal to the
lated using form parameter g = _*/&9 Throughout these flow surface to within 0.10 . The axial locations of the
calculations, a one-seventh power profile was assumed to be orifices were accurate within 0.005 in. (0.13 mm) and are
the turbulent boundary layer shape based on Sibulkin's meas- tabulated in Table 1. Total pressure and temperature probes
urements, il Ultimately, the displacement thickness growth were located in the plenum chamber upstream from the test
on all four tunnel walls was converted to an equivalent section. Static pressure was measured in the 6-in. 2
adjustment of only the two symmetrical nozzle blocks by (152-mm 2) diffuser section located downstream from the
test section. Pitot pressure surveys were conducted using the
three-element total pressure rake shown in Fig. 7. These
(2) surveys spanned the final 4 in. (100 ram) of the test section
upstream from the exit plane. Temperatures were measured
byChromel-Alumel thermocouples
connected
toacommer- (4)
cialtemperaturemeasurementsystem.
13Staticandtotal
e,
pressureswereconnected
toahigh-accuracy
electronic
dif-
ferentialpressure
scanning
systemcoupled
witha digital
barometer.14

l (5)
Focusing Schlieren System
A focusing schlieren system was designed and con- (;-l
(' b2+2j
1'/'-' [2TMb-(T-1)]
l/T
structed for this experiment according to the description of
Weinstein 15 and is a modem adaptation of the original de-
sign proposed by Burton. 16 The system obtained qualitative
flow visualization of the nozzle flow and shock wave pat-
r 2 -rf/T-1 ]1/_'-I
terns formed in the test section. The major advantage of the (6)
focusing schlieren system over the conventional system is
its ability to visualize density gradients in one plane while
keeping disturbances outside of the region of interest out of
focus. The sensitivity of the system was equal in both the An uncertainty analysis was performed on each method
horizontal and vertical directions. to verify the accuracy of the Mach number distribution of
this supersonic tunnel. The analysis followed the procedures
Shock Position Sensor outlined by the Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research
A novel laser-based shock position sensor was used to and Development (AGARD). 19 The total measurement
accurately map the complex shock structure of the flow error was assumed to be a root-mean-square combination of
field. 17 This technique used the beam diffraction phenom- bias and precision components (Eq. (7)).
enon observed when a laser beam intersects a shock front at
a grazing angle.
U = 4PR 2 + B 2 (7)

Bias components were those effects which result in

Axial Mach number distributions were calculated along systematic errors such as zero shifts in transducers, leakage
the entire length of the C/D nozzle and constant-Mach- of the pressure measurement tubing, oversized or
number section. The subsonic parameters were calculated nonorthogonal static orifices, and probe misalignm.ents..Pre-
using the isentropic, compressible-gas-dynamic formul as)8 cision components result in random errors stemlmng prima-
Using the coordinates of the subsonic contractions and an rily from instrumentation and transducer inaccuracy.
assumed sonic area of 1.4 in. 2 (36 mm 2) the free-stream
Mach number was determined by For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the
bias error component was negligible because proper instru-
mentation designs were used for the static pressure taps and
total pressure probes as well as on-line, in situ calibrations of
A [ 2 1_t+I/2(_'-l) " " n-_/+I/2(7-I)
the pressure transducers. 2'21 Precision limits for the inde-
pendent pressure measurements were determined through
documented accuracies of the pressure transducers and in-
(3) strumentation designs. 13'14 An estimate of the precision
error component was then made by calculating the partial
derivative of the Mach number with respect to the indepen-
Supersonic parameters were also calculated with Eq. (3)
dent parameters according to
using the contour points generated by the inviscid design
program as input. Additionally, axial Mach number distri-
butions were calculated along the nozzle wall and tunnel 2
centerline based on two-dimensional theory. Results of these
J aM p (8)
distributions are included with the experimental results of
Figs. 8(a) and (b).

Data Reduction and Uncertainty Analysis

Uncertainty error components for the various Mach num-
Three methods were used to calculate Mach number
ber calculation methods were calculated based on Eqs. (9) to
distributions based on measurements of plenum, static, and
(10). A summary of the measurement uncertainties has been
Pitot pressures, Pt, Ps, and Pp, respectively. The following
included in Table 1.
equations were used:
 l+ 2105
/ (9)
constant Mach number
flow through the tunnel.
region while maintaining
However, Fig. 8 indicated
flow decelerated slightly through the Mach-2.5 region. This
uniform
that the

deceleration is a result of several factors, including errors in

the calculation of displacement thickness, errors in the cor-
rection of the C/D nozzle contour coordinates, and three-
dimensional effects of the boundary layers on the side wails
and corners. Without detailed knowledge of the flow field in
the freestream and boundary layers, any attempt to correct
this deceleration would be unscientific. Also seen in the
baseline aerodynamics of the tunnel is a lower free-stream
Mach number, based on the total-static method, for higher
total pressures and Reynold's numbers. Two possible rea-
sons for this lower free-stream Mach number are leakage of
(10) air between the total pressure measurement point and the test
section or a thicker boundary layer at higher pressures as a
result of the elevated Reynold's number.

Experimental Baseline Aerodynamics

Trends in the Mach number distributions based on the
Experiments were performed on the C/D nozzle only
Pitot-total and Pitot-static methods appear to be random. No
(without shock-generating hardware installed) to obtain the
conclusions can be drawn from these data. The existence of
baseline performance of the tunnel. The test conditions are
summarized in Table 2. a bias error on the Pitot pressure measurement is also pos-
sible because the rake was not calibrated prior to testing.
However, the bias would be expected to be much smaller
Mach number distributions that were calculated based
than the precision error because of its size and proper flow
on all three methods are presented in Figs. 8 to 10. These
alignment. An implied assumption of both the total-static
figures were generated based on isentropic flow conditions
throughout the tunnel. Both one- and two-dimensional theo- and Pitot-total methods was that the total pressure measured
in the plenum remained constant throughout the tunnel, based
ries have been included in Fig. 8 for comparison.
on the relative magnitude of the viscous effects calculated in

Complex Shock Structure the boundary layer analysis. However, the consistency of
the Mach number distribution based on the Pitot-static
Complex shock-wave patterns were created by the spe-
method, which did not rely on this assumption, verifies the
cially designed hardware and actuator systems described in
validity of that assumption.
the Shock-Wave-Generating Hardware Section and shown
in Figs. 5 and 6. The optimum configuration was determined
experimentally (Fig. 11). This shock structure was estab- The goal of successfully developing a complex shock
structure in the tunnel was also achieved. Schlieren flow
lished by two wedges; the forward wedge had an angle of
25.3 relative to the flow and the aft wedge had an angle of visualization and dynamic shock position studies indicated
12.3 . The wedges were separated by 1.66 in. (42.2 mm) in that the experimentally determined shock structure was very
height and were axially offset by 1.25 in. (31.8 mm). Schlieren stable in steady-state operation and in tunnel startup. This
stability has eliminated the need for actuators in the tunnel to
photographs of the flow field around the wedges are in-
position the wedges after supersonic flow has been estab-
cluded in Fig. 12. Also shown in these photographs is the
lished. Critical development experience for the shock-
sensitivity of the shock structure when the forward wedge is
moved _+0.200 in. (+_.5nun) from the nominal, most stable generating hardware resulted in reducing the width of the
wedges to eliminate the shock-wave-boundary layer interac-
position. The resulting shock structure provided three poten-
tion along the sidewalls and on the roof and floor of the
tial measurement regions for the laser and flow-seeding
tunnel. The reduction of the overall thickness of the wedges
studies: (1) deceleration through an oblique shock wave,
(2) strong deceleration through a normal shock wave, and to avoid tunnel unstart problems caused by blockage and
second throat effects also resulted. Figure 13, which includes
(3) acceleration though an expansion fan. The stability of
data from the present experiment and from Ref. 7, proved
the shock waves was determined by a dynamic shock posi-
to be very useful in the determination of the maximum
tion instrument. The preliminary results of these studies
indicated a maximum spatial amplitude of the normal shock allowable tunnel blockage.
wave unsteadiness of_+0.016 in. (!-0.4 mm).
Summary
Discussion
The hybrid supersonic nozzle design was highly
The proposed supersonic tunnel design method has successful in obtaining a maximum constant Mach number
proven to be an effective procedure for maximizing the region with excellent flow quality. The viscous flow analysis
wassufficient toobtainthedesired results.Improvements to 8. Tucker, M., "Approximate Turbulent Boundary-Layer
Development In Plane Compressible Flow Along Ther-
thisalgorithm wouldrequire detailed knowledge ofthethree-
dimensional velocityprofileswhichwasbeyond thescope of mally Insulated Surfaces With Application to Super-
sonic-Tunnel Contour Correction," NACA TN 2045,
thiswork. Thecomplexshockstructure generatedin this
1950.
tunnelwasvery robustandstableunderall operating
conditions including tunnelstartup.Theneedforthewedge 9. Tucker, M., "Approximate Calculation of Turbulent
Boundary-Layer Development in Compressible Flow,"
system actuationwaseliminated by thereduction in the
NACA TN 2337, 1951.
wedgefrontalarea.Thespatialstabilityof theindividual
shockwaveswas_+0.016 in. (_+0.4mm). Threepotential 10. Brinich, P.F., "Boundary-Layer Measurements in 3.84-

measurement regionswerecreated in thecomplexshock by 10- Inch Supersonic Channel," NACA TN 2203,

1950.
wavepattern.Thesemeasurement regionsincluded a de-
celerationthroughanormalshock, anobliqueshock, andan 11. Sibulkin, M., "Boundary-Layer Measurements at Super-
sonic Nozzle Throats," Journal of the Aeronautical
accelerationthrough anexpansion fan.Extensive experimental
Sciences, pp. 249-252, 264, Ap. 1957.
investigations arenowpossible in theoptimum laserand
flow-seeding techniques thatarerequired to makenon- 12. Bruckner, R.J., Buggele, A.E., and Lepicovsky, J.,
"Engine Component Instrumentation Development
intrusive
velocity measurements incomplex supersonic
flows.
Facility at NASA Lewis Research Center," AIAA
References Paper 92-3995, July 1992.
13. Omega Technologies Co., The Temperature Handbook,
1989.
1. Resinger, D., Heiser, W., Olejak, D., and Wagner, S.,
"Investigation of a Plate-Ramp-Configuration by Means 14. Hyscan 2000 pressure measurement system manual,
Scanivalve Inc., 1990.
of Laser Doppler Anemometry at Different Mach Num-
15. Weinstein, L.M., "An Improved Large Field Focussing
bers," A/AA Paper 92-3956, July 1992.
2. Michel, F., D'Hummeres, C., and Papirnyk O., "Aerosol Schlieren System," AIAA Paper 91--0567, 1991.
16. Burton, R.A., "A Modified Schlieren Apparatus for Large
Behavior in Supersonic Flows," l Ja_er Anemometry_
Advances and ApplicationswP art 3, ASME, 1991. Areas of Field," J. Opt. Sc. Am. Vol. 39, Nov. 1949,
3. Vitoshinski, C., "Uber Strahlerweiterung und pp. 907-908.
Strahlablenknng," In: Th. yon Karman und T. Levi- 17. Panda, J., "Partial Spreading of a Laser Beam into a
_ivila (Heraugeber): Vortrage aus dem Gebeit der Light Sheet by Shock Waves and its use as a Shock
Detection Technique," NASA CR-195329, 1994.
Hydro- und Aerodynamik, (Innsbruck 1922),
18. "Equations, Tables, and Charts for Compressible Flow,"
pp. 248-251, Julius Springer, Berlin 1924.
4. Anderson Jr., J.D., Modern Compres$il_le F10w with NACA Report 1135, 1953.
Historical Perspective, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 19. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Develop-
1982. ment, "Assessment of Wind Tunnel Measurement
5. Kuethe, A.M., and Chow, C-Y., Foundations of Aero- Uncertainty," AGARD-AR-304, 1987.
20. Shaw, R., "The Influence of Hole Dimension on Static
_lynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1986.
Pressure Measurements," Journal of Fluid Mechanic,
6. Bruckner, R.J., "Design and Aerodynamic Performance
of a Supersonic Laser Velocimetry Calibration Tun- Vol. 7, pp. 550-564, 1960.
nel," Master's Thesis, Cleveland State University, 21. Leipmann, H.W., and Roshko, A., Elements of Gas-
Cleveland, OH., 1993. dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1957.

7. Pope, A., and Goin, K.L., High-Speed Wind Tunnel

_, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1965.
 TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF INSTRUMENTATION LOCATION AND MEASUREMENTS
UNCERTAINTIES
[Total pressure, Pt = 25.5 psia (175.9 kPa).]

Press I Axial I Pressm Press12

orifi locatiol range, error numb r, uncertainty,
Ill.
+psia psia Ma Ua
Mac [ Measurement
(nun) (+_kPa; (kPa:

Method a

Ps I 15 10.0095
0.94' 0.00127
(103.5 I (0.065_

Ps2 1.25 15 0.0115_ 1.83{ 0.00193

(31.75) (103.5 (0.0793

Ps3 2.75 15 0.0117: 2.02( 0.00248

(69.85) (103.51 (0.0808

Ps4 4.25 15 0.0118_ 2.208 0.00328

(107.95) (103.5) (0.08191

Ps5 5.75 15 0.01199 2.364 0.00417

(146.05) (103.5) (0.0827_

Ps6 6.75 15 0.01203 2.438 0.00469

(171.45) (103.5) (0.0830)

Ps7 7.28 15 0.01205 2.486 0.00506

(184.95) (103.5) (0.0831)

Ps8 9.25 15 0.01204 2.468 0.00492

(234.95) (103.5) (0.0831)

Ps9 10.25 0.03844 2.454 0.01515

(260.35) (34.5) (0.2652)

Pslo 11.25 5 0.03845 2.460 0.01531

_285.75) (34.5) (0.2652)

Psi l 12.25 5 0.03844 2.456 0.01521

1311.15) (34.5) '_0.2652)

Psi2 14.25 5 &03843 2.428 0.01455

361.95) (34.5) '0.2651 )

Psi3 17.25 5 ).03842 2.419 0.01433

438.15) 1 (34.5) 0.2650)

Psi4 20.25 5 ).03843 2.426 0.01450

514.35) [ (34.5) 0.2651)

Psi5 5 _.03842 2.413 0.01420

(34.5) 3.2650) 1
i

_'s16 25.25 I 5 1.038411 L394 0.01378

i41.35) [ _34.5) ).2650) [

Pressure

orifice
] A aal

1.
I loc tion,
(r m)
sPMath
ge,

ss.
:ia,JMeIMath
IMe
u n u nt
Pa) I (la)
I
error,
psia,
[
number,

Method
Mb
I
b,c
uncertainty,
Ub
number,
Mc
uncertainty,
Uc

_5) I (2.3)
I

0 10.31 ......2.4 0.0013 0.0063

0 I 0.33 I ........ "........
121.3..25.2
[(541- 641) I _5) [ (2.1) ,
 TABLE 2---CONDITIONS FOR THE BASELINE
PERFORMANCE TESTS

[ Reynold's number, lift (l/m) .............. 2.4-8.9x106 (0.72-2.7 lxl06)

Total pressure psia (kPa) ... 10.8 14.6, 25.9, 40.4 (74.5, 100.7, 178.7,278.7)
' R K ' 519 (288)
/ Total temperature, ( ) .................................

k J

Minimum pressure, psia (kPa) ...............................

AY
-,_::a_ W

Top view

Plenum be,mouth

Side view
Yinviscid

I i 1
32-in. test section

Flow _ ._
r=u_. V//A _ ,_ CL

Figure 3.--Two-dimensional contour correction based on three-

Figure 1 .--Supersonic tunnel including shock-generating dimensional boundary layer growth.
hardware.

100 4 Contour
Inviscid
E 80 - Viscous
E ._ 3 -
. z.

60 -
2_
0 40 -- Q

Yi
o _1
Z 20
Ye
Y I I I I I I

l____x j!
0
I
4

100
I
8

i
200
12

Axial length,

i
300
16

in.

I
400
20

I
500
24

I
600
I_ L Axial length, mm
I-
Figure 4.--Comparison of convergent/diverged supersonic
Figure 2..--Subsonic contraction nomenclature. nozzle countour based on viscous and inviscid analysis.
 C-93-1 504

Figure &---Shock-generating hardware mounted on linear actuator.

C-93-1 506

Figure &--Shock-generating hardware showing all available wedge angles.

 C-93-1507

Figure 7.--Three-element total pressure Pitot rake.

I0
 h

_ Total pressure,
2.7
psia

_ _ 14.6 (100.7)
:_ 2.6
Calculated Mach L. _--O-_ 25.8 (178)
number distributions JO
"---P'---- 40.4 (278.7)
E 2.5
One dimensional
........ Two dimensional

Total pressure Reynolds number, Re,

Pt, psia (kPa) ft.lxl06 (m_l x106)
2.3
14.6 (100.7) 3.24 (0.99)
I I I I I
17 25.9 (178.7) 5.71 (1.74)
21 22 23 24 25 26
O 40.4 [278.7) 8.90 (2.71)
10.8 (74.5) 2.40 (0.73) Axial length, in.

2.5 I I I I I I
i---i---i-4--i- 540 560 580 600 620 640
2 ,A Axial length, mm

.Q Figure 9._perimental Mach number distribution based on Pitot-

E1.5 total method.
-I
p-
t-
u 1

0.5

I I (a)
0 8 16 24
Axial length, in.

I I I I
0 200 400 600
Axial length, mm
m

-- Total pressure,
ps_ (kPa)

_=2.6 7,.0 2.6 -- ------0----- 14.6 (100.7)

2.7 _ 2.7
-- -D-- -- 25.8 (178)

- ---:_"--" 40.4 (278.7)

................
"_ 2.4 _ 2.4

2.3 I I I I Co) 2.3

I I I I I
8 12 16 20 24
21 22 23 24 25 26
Axial length, in.
Axial length, in.
I I I I I I I I I I I
200 300 400 500 600
540 560 580 600 620 640
Axial length, mm
Axial length, mm
Figure 8.--Experimental Mach number distributions for various
Figure 10.--Experimental Mach number distribution based on Pitot-
Reynold's numbers based on total-static method. (a) Entire test static method.
section. 0o) Mach number section.

]1
 Mach 2.5 nozzle --_ --..-...

1,_6 I

L Wedge frontal area

0.33 by 0.70
(8.38 by 17.8)

Figure 11 .--Optimum shock-genending hardware. (a) 1 ?-3.

(b) 25.3 . Dimensions are in inches (ram).

Figure l?---Schlieren photograph of shock structure. (a)

Nominal position. (b) +0.200 in. (+5 mrn). (c) -0.200 in.
(-5 ram).

12
 m
0.7

0.6
_0.5

0.4
Theoretical*-'"
._0.3
0 e _ Actual
"_ 0.2 [] Unstart case
A Start case
_: o.1
I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10

Mach number, M

Figure 13.--Maximum allowable blockage of supersonic tunnel

versus Mach number. Blockage parameter S defined as mean
model diameter divided by square root of inviscid tunnel cross-
sectional area.

13
 Form,approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo.0;'04-0188
" " v ra e 1 hour r response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searctling existing data sources,
=ubli reporting burden for this collection of =nformation _ est_m.ated to .a e!L,g __ __ _nP_of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspS., of this
thering and mamtaznEn
. g
the data
.
needed " and.....completing
n_
ano h-rden
thi
rewewmg to zne ;u,,u_.u_ Headquarters
W sh=noton .
Services, .
O,restorate for In!ormatlon .
Ope_r=abon.s and Repo_,_ , 121t15nJenerson
_llectio_ of intormation, ,nclud!ng suggest_._nsr_or reouuln_cl..ijt; e Offi_;e of _anagemant and Budget, Paperwork Reduction PrOlest (0704-0188), wasn,ngton ......
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Ar,ngton, v_ _..u,:...*ov=, -

I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave b/ank') 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Technical Memorandum
June 1994
I 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
t. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Supersonic Tunnel for Laser and Flow-Seeding Techniques

WU-505-62-10
6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert J. Bruckner and Jan Lepicovsky

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

E-8852
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASATM-106588

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 AIAA-94-1825

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Pcparod for tic 12th Applied Aerodynamics Conference sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, June 20--24, 1994. Robert J. Brackner, NASA Lewis Research Center; and Jan Lcpicovs]oj, NYMA, Inc., F_,nginccring Services Division,

2001 Aerospace Parkway, Brook Park, Ohio 44142 (work funded by NASA Contract NAS3-27186). Responsible person, Robert J. Bruckner,

organization code 2840, (216) 433--6499.

i211. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT '12b. DISifii_UTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Category 34

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

A supersonic tunnel with flow conditions of 3 lbm/s (1.5 kg/s) at a free-stream Mach number of 2.5 was designed and
tested to provide an arena for future development work on laser measurement and flow-seeding techniques. The hybrid
supersonic nozzle design that was used incorporated the rapid expansion method of propulsive nozzles while it main-
tained the uniform, disturbance-free flow required in wind tunnels. A viscous analysis was performed on the tunnel to
determine the boundary layer growth characteristics along the flowpath. Appropriate corrections were then made to the
contour of the nozzle. Axial pressure distributions were measured and Mach number distributions were calculated based
on three independent data reduction methods. A complete uncertainty analysis was performed on the precision error of
each method. Complex shock-wave patterns were generated in the flow field by wedges mounted near the roof and floor
of the tunnel. The most stable shock structure was determined experimentally by the use of a focusing schlieren system
and a novel, laser-based dynamic shock position sensor. Three potential measurement regions for future laser and flow-
seeding studies were created in the shock structure: (1) deceleration through an oblique shock wave of 50 , (2) strong
deceleration through a normal shock wave, and (3) acceleration through a supersonic expansion fan containing 25 of
flow turning.

115. Ntt--U-RER OF p/_Pd=R

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15

16. PRICE CODE
Supersonic wind tunnel; Measurement uncertainty; Schlieren flow visualization A03
20. MMITATION OF AB_/HACT
19. SECUFIiTT" CLA-_RCA TION
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
OF THIS PAGE
OF REPORT
Unclassified
Unclassified Unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. " ==o_

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102

View publication stats