Assessment of predictive capabilities for

aerodynamic heating in hypersonic flow

Doyle Knight

OHT-2
Waleed Arshad
Project Title Explanation

Assessment Evaluating (Qualitative or Quantative)

Predictive capabilities Estimating correctly
Aerodynamic heating Measured in Watt per meter square
hypersonic flow Flow with Mach>5.0
Sequence of Presentation
• Historical Background
• Experimental Setup
• Methodologies of simulation
• Results Comparison
 Historical Background
Failure of X-15 pylon

HiFIRE DZ-ZF Hypersonic SPARTAN HEXAFLY HEXAFLY-INT

Glide

NATO TIMELINE Sequence of Tasks

Description of Experiments

Istanbul University University Von Karman Institute

CIRA DLR of for
Technical University of
Illinois Minnesota Fluid Dynamics
 Video X-15
Failures Due to Aerodynamic Heating
AGARD timeline
AGARD Methodology
• Identify validation cases for flow phenomenon.
• Benchmark results for specific cases.
• Identify inconsistency.
 AGRAD Background
Plug Nozzles Hypersonic CFD
Scramjet Propulsion

Boundary layer instability and transition

Laminar hypersonic flows
Viscous-inviscid interactions

2D compression corner
Expansion Compression Corner
2 D shock impingement
3 D single fin
3 D double fin
 Aerospace Research and Development
AGARD timeline
Mach Geometry Objective Methodology
1. Single fin
2. Double fin Focused on 2-D and 3-D shock wave RANS
(1992–1997) 2.9–9.9
3. Hollow cylinder laminar and turbulent boundary layer
flare

2-D interactions
3 nominally 2-D shock wave turbulent
(DNS) - (LES).
boundary layer interactions (compression
1. Single fin
corner, expansion-compression corner and
2. Double fin 3-D interactions
(1998–2003) 2.3 - 5 shock impingement) and two 3-D
were performed
interactions
using RANS models.

Focused on hypersonic nonequilibrium

1. Double cone
(2004–2008) 9-11 shock wave boundary layer interactions at LES
2. Cylinder
Mach 9–11 for two geometries
 Validation Cases
GEOMETRY VALIDATION PHENOMENON
Compression Corner Shock impingement on a wall and defining criteria for boundary
layer separation
Expansion Corner Response of shockwave and boundary layer to a favorable
pressure gradient .
Single fin Swept shock and boundary layer interaction
Double fin crossing shockwave boundary layer interaction
(In Scramjets and hypersonic inlets)
Double Cone Shock-Shock interaction (Plug flow inlet)
A. Expansion Corner
Expansion Corner: Qualitative Analysis
Flow field analysis can be summarized as follows:
1. The flow is accelerated through an expansion fan formed around the corner.
2. The boundary layer becomes thicker due to the decrease in density.
3. The boundary layer experiences a relaxation process after the expansion fan and exhibits
different turbulence features from the incoming equilibrium flow.
4. The primary experimental observation is the increase of the boundary layer thickness. that the
induced bulk dilatation serves to increase the boundary layer thickness.
5. The reduction of turbulence is another significant feature of this flow configuration. This flow
configuration experiences the suppression of turbulence due to the combined effects of the
favorable pressure gradient, the convex streamline curvature and the bulk dilatation. The
reduction in the turbulence may be strong enough to relaminarize the flow.
6. Shear stress decreased significantly due to a favorable pressure gradient and a bulk dilatation.
7. The experiments showed that under a favorable pressure gradient the ability of the turbulence
to transport momentum to the wall was markedly decreased, which was largely due to the
effect of the strong expansion on intermittency.
Expansion Corner: Quantative Analysis
B. Compression Corner
Compression Corner and Shock Impingement
C. Single Fin
Single Fin

Limiting Streamlines
This phenomena occur because of the 3 dimensionality effect i.e. flow coming from the
transverse direction.
Following is the criteria for limiting streamlines:

1. Existence of pressure gradients in transverse directions. Which causes cross flow to be

developed.
Velocity vectors in streamlines rotate and hence the boundary layer gets “skewed”.
2. Velocity vectors and skin friction vectors become in one direction on the surface of the body
3. Now the streamlines tend to a limiting position, which is also a trajectory of the skin friction
lines. For this reason they are called ‘‘limiting streamlines’’
4. Limiting streamlines originate at nodal points of attachment, and after circumscribing the
body surface disappear into nodal points of separation.
D.Double Fin
Double Fin: Qualitative Analysis
• Primary separation
• Vortex interaction
• Entrainment flow : Primary attachment
• Entrainment line: Secondary separation
• Centerline Vortex
Double Fin
 Simulation Techniques

DNS (Direct Numerical Simulation)

Big whirls have little whirls
That feed on their velocity,
And little whirls have lesser whorls
LES (Large Eddy simulation)
And so on to viscosity.
– Lewis F. Richardson, 1920

RANS (Reynolds Average Navier

Stokes Equation)
Insight from Validation
• LES is better suited for measuring heat transfer
• RANS is between suited for average surface pressure.
2011-2014
Experimental Setup
Experimental Setup
Ball Criteria
Simulations
• Unsteady NS equations
• RANS
• Monte Carlo
Continuity
Equation
Energy Equation

CHEMKIN
JANAF
Spectroscopic Data
Relaxation Rates
JANAF tables
 Park Rates

Vibration collision number

Number of collisions required
to establish vibrational equilibrium
Number of collisions to establish translational equilibrium
 Result Comparison
2-D RANS simulations at steady state :

The computed heat transfer is sensitive to the assumed location of transition

(presumed to occur due to the separated shear layer)

2D Laminar RANS
1. There are significant differences (especially in the separation region) among
the unsteady perfect gas and no equilibrium Navier-Stokes simulations for the
2.1 MJ/kg cases, despite the fact that no equilibrium effects are unimportant
for these cases and all simulations used the same initial condition.
2. There is accurate prediction (i.e., within the experimental uncertainty) of the
experimental peak heat transfer
Result Comparison (MCS)
Comparison of the 2-D and 3-D laminar Navier-Stokes and DSMC
simulations show:
1. There is a significant difference between the 2-D and 3-D (center
plane) heat transfer
2. There is no region of quasi-2-D flow in the vicinity of the center
plane.
 Future Prospects
• All computations on single time domain .
• Can we compute for a complete or part of flight trajectory?
References:
1. Settles G. An experimental study of compressible turbulent boundary-layer separation at high Reynolds number. PhD thesis,
Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences Department, Princeton University, 1975.
2. Assessment of CFD Modeling Capability for Hypersonic Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interactions
3. 30 November 2015,RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Final Technical Report ONR Grant N00014-14-1-0827
4. Assessment of CFD Modeling Capability for Hypersonic Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interactions
5. 30 November 201
6. Systematics of Vibrational Relaxation Roger C. Millikan and Donald R. White
7. Rotational and Vibrational Relaxation in Diatomic Gases J. G. Parker
8. Hydrodynamic Theory of Multicomponent Diffusion and Thermal Diffusion in Multitemperature Gas Mixtures John D.
Ramshaw
9. A Viscosity Equation for Gas MixturesC. R. Wilke
10. New High-Resolution Central Schemes for Nonlinear Conservation Laws and Convection–Diffusion Equations
11. Alexander Kurganov∗ and Eitan Tadmor† ∗Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109;
and†Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095 E-
mail:∗kurganov@math.lsa.umich.edu,†tadmor@math.ucla.edu
• They have identified six regimes for the 3-D single fin flowfield depending
on the strength of the shockwave. In Regime I, the boundary layer is
unseparated and no convergence of surface streamlines is observed. In
Regime II, the streamlines turn approximately parallel to the inviscid
shockbut do not form a line of coalescence. In Regime III, a primary
separation line (S1) forms corresponding to the coalescence of the surface
streamlines. An attachment line
• (R1) forms near the fin–plate junction. A line of secondary separation (S2)
appears located between the
• primary separation and attachment lines. In regimes IV– VI, the secondary
separation (S2) and attachment lines (R2) disappear and finally reappear.
•