-1 t El t.

van KARMAN INSTITUTE

FOR FLUID DYNAMICS
TECHNICAL NOTE 91
HYPERSONIC HEAT TRANSFER MEASUREMENTS
ON REENTRY VEHICLE SURFACES
AT HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER
B.E. RICHARDS
JUNE 1973
K!:.!}'VC-''/:;) 1 - O:::"FT
~ ! ~
- ~ O ~ - RHODE SAINT GENESE BELGIUM
~ V W
von KARMAN INSTITUTE FOR FLUID DYNAMICS
TECHNICAL NOTE 91
HYPERSON IC HEAT TRANSFER MEASUREMENTS
ON REEN TRY VEHICLE SURFACES
AT HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER
B.E. RICHARDS
JUNE 1973
Bibliotheek TU Delft
Fac. Lucht- en Ruimtevaart
111111 11111 1111 I 11111 I I 111111 11111
c 3087787
FOREWORD
The activities and results documented in this report
were supported under Project 7381, "Materials Applications
Useful in USAF Weapon Systems", Task 738102 "Space, Missile and
Propulsion System Materials and Component Evaluation" with
Mr. Gary L. Denman, Technical Manager for Thermal Protective
Systems, Systems Support Division, Air Force Materials Labora-
tory, acting as project engineer. The report covers work
conducted during the period June 1971 through July 1972.
The technical advice and guidance of Mr. Victor
DiCristina, Manager, Thermodynamics and Material Test Department,
AVCO Systems Division, AVCO Corporation, Wilmington, Massachusetts
in the areas of model design and instrumentation was particularly
valuable. The author would like to acknowledge the help of
Mr. Jos Slechten and Mr. Cyriel Appels for their contribution
to the data reduction of the data, Mr. Jean Huge and Mr. Fernand
Van de Broek who operate the Longshot facility, and other members
of the technical staff of the Institute. Miss D. Sandford
type d the manuscript.
- 1 -
ABSTRACT
Heat transfer rates, using calorimeter sensors, and
pressures, using variabIe reluctance diaphragm transducers,
have been measured on five model shapes in the VKI Longshot
facility at Mach numbers of 15 and 20 and over a unit Reynolds
number range of 2 x 10
6
to 7 x 10
6
per foot. Two basic shapes,
a hemisphere and a 50 - 8 half angle biconic configuration
with and without nose bluntness, were tested with different
surface roughnesses. Pressures were weIl predicted by the
theory of Belotse:rkovskii .fur spherical surfaces, and tangent
cone theory, using the tables of Jones for conical surfaces.
Laminar heat transfer rates, slightly underpredicted _by
Eckert Reference Enthalpy method on cones and reasonably weIl
predicted by Lees similarity theory on hemispheres, were gene-
rally achieved for the tests at M = 20 which used low Reynolds
numbers. Turbulent heat transfer rates, overpredicted by
Sommer and Short Reference Enthalpy method on a smooth wall
by 10 % and underpredicted by the same method for walls with
0.004 in roughness by 15 %, were measured on the 50 half
angle forebodies of the biconic models tested at M = 15 high
Reynolds number. Transition was completed by the first gauge
on the rough model and by the fourth gauge on the smooth model.
- ii -

ABSTRACT
LIST OF
LIST OF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..............................................
..............................................
ILLUSTRATIONS ................................ .
TABLES ....................................
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................
11. MODEL INSTRUMENTATION AND CALIBRATION .......... .
111. TEST FACILITY ..................................
IV. MEASUREMENT RESULTS ............................ .
1. Hemisphere models (D and E)
..................
2. Smooth sharp-nosed biconic model A .........
3. Rough biconic models (F and G)
...............
V. CONCLUSIONS ....................................
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
TABLES
............................................
iii
i
ii
iv
v
1
3
4
5
5
6
9
1 1
13
1 5
17
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
,. Details of models .................................... 24
2. Pressure distributions on smooth hemisphere, M=20 .... 25
3. Pressure distribution on rough hemisphere, M=20 ......
4. Pressure distribution on rough hemisphere, M=15 ......
5 Heat transfer distribution on smooth hemisphere, M=20
6. Heat transfer distribution on rough hemisphere, M=20 .
7. Heat transfer distribution on rough hemisphere, M=15 .
8. Pressure distribution on sharp smooth biconic model
25
26
27
27
28
M= 1 5 an d 20 .......... . 28
9. Heat transfer rate on smooth biconic model (Raw data)
10. Heat transfer rate on rough biconic models (Raw data)
1,. Heat transfer rate on smooth sharp biconic model
( Smoothed
data)
................................
12. Comparison of heat transfer data on smooth and rough
sharp biconic models (Smoothed data) .........
13. Heat transfer on rougt sharp biconic model at a=10
(Srnoothed da.ta) .. : ............................ .
14. Heat transfer rate on rough blunt biconic model
(Smoothed data) ............................... .
15. Pressure distribution on sharp rough biconic model,
M= 1 5 .......................................... .
16. Pressure distribution on blunt rough biconic model,
M= 1 5 .......................................... .
- J.V -
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
35
LIST OF TABLES
1. Heat transfer sensor calibration constants 17
2. Estimated test conditions at nose of model at time,
t=O msecs from peak ........................
18
3. Typical test section conditions ............... 19
4. Pressure measurements on hemisphere models D and E .
20
5. Pressure measurements on biconic models A, F and G
21
6. Heat transfer measurements on hemisphere models D
.
an dE ..................................
22
7. Heat transfer measurements on biconic models A,
23
F and G, time t=o msecs ...................
- v -
I. INTRODUCTION
In the design of thermal protection components for
re-entry vehicles, it is critical to have dependable heat transfer
coefficient correlations available over the range of conditions
encountered. Before tackling the problem of understanding the
processes in for instance a highly blown boundary layer with
ablative thermal protection, it is necessary to correlate basic
pressure and heat transfer results under non-blown hypersonic
flow conditions. However, there is a lack of dependable pressure
distribution and heat transfer measurements on entry vehicle
frontal sections under hypersonic freestream conditions with
which to test analyses. Data is required particularly within the
most citical regions of sub-orbital or orbital re-entry which
are defined by maximum surface heating. These regions occur
at aerodynamic conditions of high Reynolds number betwen Mach
numbers of 15 and 20.
Following a first test series, reported in Ref. 1,
more tests, in which were taken pressure and heat transfer rate
distributions and schlieren flow visualisation photographs on
several axisymmetric bodies, were conducted in the nitrogen test
flow of Longshot. The models included
1. Two metallic hemisphere bodies with nose radius R
N
= 3.5. in.,
one model having a smooth surface (designated model D), the other
(model E) having a uniform surface roughness (0.001 in. to
0.004 in.) created by a chem-etching process.
2. Two sharp nosed metallic 50 - 8 half angle biconic ~ o d e l s ~
one model (model A) having a smooth surface, and the other having
a uniform rurface roughness (0.004 in. to 0.005 in.) on the 50
co ne forebody created by flame-spraying with copper (model F).
The sharp tip of the rough biconic model could be replaced by a
rough spherical nose of 0.75 in. nose radius (model G) providing
five configurations whicp were tested in this test series.
The experimental data recorded in this study is
compared with current engineering theories, suggested in a review
of ablation phenomenology by (Ref. 2), to assess
point from laminar to turbulent flow. Laminar heat transfer rates
are compared with the reference enthalpy method of Eckert (Ref. 3)
and the local similarity solution of Lees (Ref. 4) using the
stagnation point correlation of Fay and Riddell(Ref. 5). The
heat transfer measurements are also compared against tw turbulent
theories, the Sommer and Short reference enthalpy method (Ref. 6)
and the semi-empirical method of Spalding and ehi (Ref. 7). All
these theories have proven useful in many compressible flow
applications and the interest here is to examine their validity
under more severe conditions. For instance the boundary layer
on a 50
0
half-angle cone tested in the M = 20 flow of Longshot
develops in a M = 1.5 flow-field with a stream temperature of the
order of 2,300
0
K and a wall temperature of 300
0
K. These
conditions are outside the range in which these empirical
theories were originally correlated or verified. The comparison
will also be used to assess the position of transition.
2
11. MODEL INSTRUMENTATION AND CALIBRATION
The five models supplied by AVCO Corporation were
fitted with heat flow gauges and pressure taps. Ten heat
transfer gauges were mounted axi&lly along and flush with the
model surface beginning at or ne ar the geometrie stagnation
point. Seven pressure taps were similarly spaeed along the
surface but at 180
0
around the model from the row of heat
transfer gauges. The models are illustrated schematically in
Fig. 1. Details of the heat and pressure sensors used, their
calibration and associated recording equipment is given in Ref. 1.
The heat sensors mounted in the rough models differed from those
mounted in the smooth models as described in Ref. 1 by the
calorimeter disc being 0.008 in. thick and roughened to
approximately the same extent as the model surface. The exposed
surface of the insulating holder was also roughened. Most of the
heat gauges were calibrated in the AEDC radiant heat flow
calibration facility before mounting. The gauges were calibrated
over a heat flux range from 20 to 80 B.T.U/ft
2
sec. The
calibration constants are presented in Table 1.
3
111. TEST FACILITY
The VKI Longshot test facility was used for this program.
Longshot differs from a conventional gun tunnel in that a heavy
piston is used to compress the nitrogen test gas to very high
pressures and temperatures (Ref. 8). The test gas is then trapped
in a reservoir at peak conditions by the closing of a system of
check valves. The flow conditions decay monotonically during 10
to 20 milliseconds running times as the nitrogen trapped in the
reservoir flows through the 6 half-angle conical nozzle into
the pre-evacuated open jet test chamber. The maximum supply
conditions used in these tests are approximately 4000 atmospheres
at 2000
0
K to 2,400
0
K. These provide unit Reynolds numbers of
7 x 10
6
and 3 x 10
6
per ft. at nominal Mach numbers of 15 and 20.
Tests at M = 20 with a lower Reynolds number of 2 x 10
6
per ft.
were also employed in this series. The two Mach numbers were
obtained at the 14 1n. diameter nozzle exit plane by using throat
inserts with different diameters.
4
IV. MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The testscarried out on the five models are summarised
in Table 2 listed in order of testing. Measured reservoir con-
ditions and Pitot pressures at peak conditions are given.
Also tabulated are the calculated conditions of Mach number,
Reynolds number, dynamic pressure and stagnation point heat
transfer on a 7 in. diameter basic test section
conditions vere used throughout. These were a high and a low
Reynolds number case at M = 20, and a low Reynolds number case
at M = 15. The peak condit i ons are revi ewd i -n 3
Pressure and heat transfer distribution
each of the five models are presented in 4-7 and in
figures following Fig. 2. The results are compared to appropriate
theories more fully explained in the section. Such
comparisons have been made to assess the quality of the measure-
ments and to illustrate the effects of conicity on them. Each
model configuration is examined in turn.
1. Hemisphere models (D and E)
Figs. 2-4 show the pressure distribution for all the
three test runs on the smooth and rough hemispheres. The results
were compared with the theory of Belotserkovskii (Ref. 9) includ-
ing a correct ion for flow conicity. Generally the experiment al
spread of the nondimensionalised data lay within a region of
3 % of the stagnation point pressure and in excellent agreement
with the conicity-corrected theory. This is in agreement with
the earlier results of Ref. 1. Some scatter in the data from
the rough model can be explained by the viscous-inviscid inter-
action of the roughness elements with the flow.
5
The heat transfer rate on the smooth hemisphere are
shown in Fig. 5 and on the rough hemisphere are shown in
Figs. 6 and 7 compared with the laminar similarity theory of
Lees (Ref. 4) corrected both for conicity and for a
Belotserkovskii (Ref. 9) instead of a Newtonian pressure dis-
tribution. Also shown in Fig. 5 are results of a test under
similar conditions carried out in a previous test (Run 288 of
Ref. 1) but with different gauges. Within approximately the first
30 fr om the stagnation point in all tests, the same trend was
evident as fuund in Ref. 1 in that the measured values were higher
than the theoretical values. This effect, as yet unexplained, is
contrary to tests on the blunt biconic model and in other reported
tests (Ref. 10). The Mach 20 flow case (Run 350) shows this effect
extended, inexplicably, further than its earlier counterpart
(Run 288) up to 50. For the Mach 15 high Reynolds number test on
the rough body considerable higher values than laminar theory
suggests (particularly in the region within 40 from the nose)
were measured which indicates that turbulent flow on the model
was achieved (Fig. 7).
2. Smooth sharp-nosed biconic model (A)
The wall pressure, nondimensionalised with respect
to the tangent cone theory, for the three tests (Runs 354 to
356) are presented in Fig. 8. Close agreement of the experiments
with tangent cone theory is obtained for the cross-flow case
(Run 355) as weIl as the zero angle of attack cases, confirming
and extending the findings of Ref. 1.
The heat transfer results of the three tests on model
A are shown in Fig. 9 plotted against distance from the tip. Also
shown are the laminar predictions using Eckert reference enthalpy
theory (Ref. 3) for all three tests and the Sommer and Short
(Ref. 6) and Spalding and Chi (Ref. 7) theories for turbulent
6
flow for the M = 15 test. The method of application of these
theories is described in Ref. 1 Appendix C. The M = 20 tests
(Runs 354 and 355) agree closely with the trends given by the
laminar theories, indicating (as in the previous tests at
similar conditions reported in Ref. 1) that the flow is indeed
laminar.
On examination of the experimental points obtained in
these two runs, one sees that the data scatter is similar from
run to run. If one assumes that the heat transfer rate variation
on a smooth body in a near uniform flow is without seatter then
comparison of the data with theory shows that a particular gauge
gives values which are consistently high, similar or low values
compared to theory in consecutive runs. The same result is found
on the rough biconic model, only the pattern of scatter along the
model is different (see Fig. 10). Although most of the gauges
were calibrated, this calibration was carried out before mounting
them in the model, and one might conceive that the calibrations
have changed slightly during mounting, or the gauges are very
sensitive to mounting. This latter remark may be reasonable
because of the extremely small dimensions of the boundary layer
on the modelsurfaces. To examine this finding, correction
factors obtained by fitting the data from a selected test (Run 355)
to a best fit curve with the same slope as the theory, were applied
to the data of the other tests and the results plotted in Figs. 11
and 12 (Figs. 12 and 13 for the rough sharp-nosed biconic model)
against local Reynolds number are seen to be somewhat smoother.
The correct ion factors applied to the data extended from
0.89 to 1.11 for the smooth model and 0.87 to 1.21 for the
rough model.
For both Runs 354 and 355 (M = 20 tests, plotted in
Fig. 1) the experiment al results are, on average, 10 per cent
above Eckert reference enthalpy theory. Run 354 is a repeat
7
test of Runs 209 and 210. The latter experiment al data reported
in Ref. 1 are found, however, to agree weIl with theory. One
reason for the difference in is that the earlier
runs used uncalibrated gauges and the calibration constant,
obtained fr om calibrations of spare gauges, used was 0.715
(BTU/ft
2
sec)/(mv/sec) whilst the average calibration constant
for the latter tests was 0.77 (BTU/ft
2
sec)/{mv/sec), a differen-
ce of 8 per cent. The specification of the gauges used in each
series was similar. It was considered that the latter calibration
constant was correct for both series of tests. Thus it is
considered that repeatability was obtained and that the laminar
Eckert theory underpredicts experiment by 8 to 10 per cent.
The assumption made to simplify the calculation of the
inviscid flow over the cross-flow surface (i.e. 90
0
from the
windward or "leeward" surfaces) of the 50
0
cone at 10
0
angle
of attack as in Run 355 was that it was the same as that on a
50
0
cone at zero angle of attack. The smoothed results of Fig. 11,
again show that the Eckert theory discrepancy as found in the
ealier test (Run 354), and thus one can conclude that the above
assumption can lead to a good assessment of the cross-flow heat
transfer ratel
At M = 15 and high Reynolds numbers, the test conditions
of Run 356, the heat transfer variation near the tip plotted in
Fig. 12 can be seen to be close to the laminar theory, but near
the end of the cone forebody close to turbulent theory of Sommer
and Short (Ref. 6) and several times higher than the laminar
prediction. This test shows that transition occurred in a region
between one and in. from the tip.
It is also observed that the measured turbulent heating
rate near the end of the cone is overpredicted by Sommer-Short
by 10 %. The measurements are also underpredicted by Spalding-
8
ehi by 30 %. It 1S pointed out here that the range of conditions
of Mach number, wall to recovery ratio, and Reynolds number
are out of the range of the correlations used in these empirical
theories.
3. Rough biconic models (F and G)
The wall pressure, nondimensionalised with respect to
the tangent cone theory, for the two tests (Runs 351 and 352) on
the pointed model F are presented in Fig. 15. General agreement
of experiment al data with tangent cone thoery is obtained,
although considerable data scatter is found which is again due
to the layer of roughness sprayed onto the model in some cases
distorting the geometry around the pressure ~ a p s . The non-
dimensionalised wall pressures on the blunt model G for the Run
353 are presented in Fig. 16 and again general agreement with
Belotserkovskii (Ref. 9) theory on the hemisphere part and
tangent cone theory on the conical part of the model is
obtained with similar scatter as on the sharp-nosed model.
The heat transfer results of the two tests on model F
and the tests on model Gare shown in Fig. 11 plotted against
distance fr om the tip. Also shown are the laminar and turbulent
predictions as used for the smooth sharp-nosed model, zero
angle of attack case. On comparison of theory and experiment, it
is strikingly obvious that the data is turbulent over the
whole 50
0
half-angle cone forebody. As noted in the last sub-
section a regular pattern of data scatter is seen. A similar
correction procedure is thus made (but this time the data of Runs
351-353 is smoothed to vary as the Sommer and Short theory
using Run 351) and illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13. It is seen
from Fig. 12 that the measured heat transfer rate of Run 351
on the rough model is 15 per cent higher than the Sommer-Short
prediction, and hence at least 25 per cent higher than the
9
smooth body result of Run 356 also shown on Fig. 12. Fig. 13,
illustrating the results of heat transfer rate on the "leeward"
side of the rough sharp-nosed biconic model at . 10 angle of
attack similarly show that the experiment is 30 per cent over
Sommer and Short theory. It is shown in the Appendix that the
simple strip theory used for this angle of attack case may be
in error.
The "smoothed" measurements from Fig. 10 of the heat
transfer rate on the rough blunt-nosed biconic model Gare
replotted in Fig. 14 against distance from the nose, non-
dimensionalised with nose radius R
N
. The results are compared
with the sharp-nosed cone Sommer and Short turbulent theory,
and Eckert and Lees laminar theory. It is seen that the laminar
theory undergoes transition, from its laminar state on the
spherical nose, very gradually between gauges 2 and 5 achieving
the heating ~ a t e as obtained on the sharp-nosed model at the
end of the forebody.
10
V. CONCLUSIONS
Tests have been cariied out on 3 biconic and 2
hemisphere models in a M = 15 and 20 flow in the VKI Longshot
tunnel at unit Reynolds numbers from 2 x 10
6
to 7 x 10
6
. The
data has been compared with simple engineering theories. The
following conclusions can be made from the comparisons.
1. Pressure data on the biconic forebodies and the
hemispheres agree very weIl with tangent-cone and Belotser-
kovskii theories where appropriate. More scatter was found on rough
models than on the smooth due to interactions of the roughness
elements with the pressure holes.
2. The stagnation point heating on the blunt cone
model agreed fairly weIl with the theory of Fay and Riddell,
but some inexplicable high heating rates are found in the 7 in.
hemisphere results. similar sized unexplained deviations fr om
Lees' laminar similarity heat transfer theory within 30 fr om
the stagnation point are found. At Mach 20 these data agree
weIl with this latter theory further from the stagnation point.
At a Mach 15, high Reynolds number ease higher heat transfer
rates than laminar theory over the whole surfaee, partieularly
within 40 fr om the stagnation point ~ u g g e s t the presence of a
turbulent boundary layer.
3. For M = ,20, and hence low Reynolds number, tests
laminar flow was maintained over the whole of the bieonic
forebodies. The heat transfer rates measured for the cases of
symmetrie flow and cross-flow on the forebody at 10 incidence
were underpredieted by laminar Eekert reference enthalpy theory
by about 10%.
1 1
4. At M = 15 and high Reynolds number, transition to
turbulent flow occurred between one to two in. from the tip for
the smooth-surfaced sharp-nosed biconic forebody model and
before half an inch from the tip on the equivalent rough surfaced
model. Sommer and Short reference enthalpy method overpredicted
the turbulent heating on the former case by 10 % and under-
predicted the latter by 15%. Hence 25% more turbulent heating was
caused by the presence of roughness which has a height from
0.004 ~ n . to 0.0005 in. The transition point on the blunt-
nosed rough-surfaced model was delayed over that found on the
sharp-nosed equivalent model, but its turbulent heating rate
was similar. The turbulent heating on the "l ees ide" of the sharp-
nosed rough-surfaced model at 10 incidence was underpredicted
by Sommer and Short theory by 30%. Some of this discrepancy
may be due to the deficiency of the application of the theory
in the lack of explanation of the boundary layer thinning due
to cross-flow.
1.2
REFERENCES
1. Richards, B. E., Culotta, S., Slechten, J.: "Heat transfer and
pressure distributions on re-entry nose shapes in the
VKI Longshot tunnel",
A.F.M.L. Report No 71200, June 1971
2. Minges , M. L.: "Ablation phenomenology", (A review) High
temperatures - High Pressures,
1969, vol. 1, pp. 607-649
3. Eckert, E.R.G.: "Survey on heat transfer at high speeds",
University of Minnesota, ARL 189, December 1961
4. Lees, L.: "Laminar heat transfer over blunt-nosed bodies at
hypersonic flight speeds", Jet Propulsion,
April 1956, pp. 259-269
5. Fay, J.A., Riddell, F.R.: "Theory of stap;nation point heat
transfer in dissociated air", Journalof Aerospace
Sciences,
vol. 25, 1958, pp. 73-85
6. Sommer, S.C., Short, B.J.: "Free flight rneasurements of
turbulent boundary layer skin friction in the presence
of severe aerodynamic heating at Mach numbers from
2.8 to 7.0",
NACA TN 3391, 1955
7. Spalding, D.B., Chi, S.\.J.: "The drag of a compressible
turbulent boundary layer on a smooth flat plate with
and without heat transfer", Journalof Fluid Machanics,
vol. 18, part 1, pp. 117-143, 1964
8. Richards, B.E., Enkenhus, K.R.: "Hypersonic testing in VKI
Longshot piston tunnel", AIAA Journal,
vol. 8, No 6, June 1970, pp. 1020-1025
1.3
9. Belotserkovskii, O.M. "The calculation of flow over
axisymmetric bodies with a decaying shock wave",
Translation from Academy of Sciences USSR, Compu-
tation Center Monograph, 1961,
AVCO-RAD-TM-62-64, 1962
10. Richards, B.E., Enkenhus, K.R. "Stagnation point heat
transfer and pressure distribution on a hemisphere
at M = 15",
VKI TR 39, 1970
11. Jones, D.J. "Tables of inviscid supersonic flow about
circular cones at incidence, y = 1.4",
AGARDograph 137, part II, November 1969
12. Jones, D.J. "Tables of inviscid supersonic flow about
circular cones at incidence, y = 1.4",
AGARDograph, part lIl, 1971
1 4
APPENDIX
Further notes on the prediction of heat transfer
rate on a sharp 50 half-angle cone
J. Slechten and B.E. Richards
Appendix C of Ref.1 describes a computer program to
estimate the laminar and turbulent flow over a 50 half-angle
cone 1n a hypersonic flow. The program calculates the inviscid
flow over the cone by curve fitting tabulated data from Jones
(Ref.11). At the time of Ref.1, the tables of Jones extended
only to cone half-angles up to 40 and th us it was necessary to
use extrapolations to the data. Since this work was reported,
Jones has published another report (Ref.12) which extends the
tables up to cone angles of 57 1/2 enabling interpolation to be
used. Extrapolation was still necessary for the case of the 50
half-angle cone at 10 angle of attack, since subsonic flow
would be produced on the "windward" side which case is beyond
the scope of the method used to generate the tables. Comparison ,
of the "extrapolated" calculations of the cone flow parameters
with "interpolated" calculations of the cone flow parameters with
"interpolated" calculations showed very little changes. In both
calculations, however, some anomalies, occur, indicating that
the simple approach used to predict heat transfer rates on cones
at angle of attack is in error. These anomalies are illustrated
in the following table concerning the Longshot flow of M = 20
with reservoir pressure of 60,000 psi and a temperature of
2,400
0
K.
15
a -10
0
0 +10
p (ps i) 3.1,6
5.24 6.61
e
T
e
(OK)
2,203
2.749
u (ft/sec)
e
4,138 4,495 2,838
M
1.279 1 .432 0.809
e
qlaminar ' (BTU/ft
2
sec)
94.7 1 1 7 0 104.8
qturbulent(BTU/ft
2
sec)
93. 1 129.2 101 .4
Re
( ft -1 )
2.23Xl0
s
3.69
x
10
5
2.09xl0
s
Some of the results shown in this table look intuitively
wrong. For example: T (too high), M (too low) at a = - 10
0
;
e . e
heat transfer rates too low at a =+ 10. The former anomalies
are probably associated with the cross-flow effects.
The 10'"
heat transfer rates at a = + 10 is probably associated with
the application of a transformation used in the program
not being adequate to cope with the th inning of the boundary
layer due to the cross-flow. The conclusion of this appended note
is that the simple approach used here for predicting heat
transfer rates on a 50 half-angle cone at 10 angle of attack
is not adequate. The solution of this problem will be
particularly complex because of the combination of three-
dimensional boundary layer in a mixed elliptic-hyperbolic flow.
GAUGE
TABLE 1
MODEL
No 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
HEAT TRANSFER SENSOR CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
(BTU/FT
2
SEC)/(MV/SEC)
-_ .. __ ._._- - _ .. _-.. '-_._------------_. _._---.
A D E F G
1 .86*
0.77*' 0.77*
1 .6* 1 .86*
1 .91
0.78 0.64 1 .6 1 .86* 1 .86*
0.735 0.83 1. 519 1 .857 1 .857
0.60 0.77 1 .796
1 .86*' 1 .86
0.80 0.88 2.044 1 .826 1 .826
x
0.77 (0.89) 0.74
1 .6*
1 .747 1 .747
0.73
x
(0.90) 0.77* 1 .871 1 .950 1 .950
0.81 0.77

1 .757 1 .836 1 .836
0.77* 1 .609 1 .778 1 .778
0.77- 0.77" 1 .924 2. 196 2.196
o . 9 1
~ - - , ..... _---,..-.. .. -.. _-.----------.--_ .. __.-. .. -._-----, .....
uncalibrated gauges, average value used, 0.77 for model A,
1.86 for models F and G, 1.6 for model E
x gauge broke in test 354, replaced with another gauge for
Runs 355 and 356 with calibration constant given in brackets
TABLE g : ESTIMATED TEST CONDITIONS AT NOSE OF MODELS AT TIME T = 0 FROM PEAK
RUN MODEL AVCO nrCIDENCE P T
o
Pitot M Re
X
10-
6
qD
q
RUN
0
No.
350 D 2
]
355
A 4 58,900 2400 8.2 19.7 3.03 630 69.0
357
E ( 1 )
3
-9 flow)
354 A 0 37,600 2250 5.0 19.5 2. 16 383 47.0
351 F 6 0
}
352 F 8 -10
353
G
7
0 55,000 2100 24.5 1 5.8 6.8 1893 82.3
356
A
0
358
E ( 1 )
5
0
Units Pand pitot (1b/in
2
); dynamic pressure, qD (1b/ft
2
); T (OK);
o 0
Re stagnation point heat transfer, Q, B.T. U/ft
2
sec.
TABLE 3
TYPICAL TEST SECTION CONDITIONS
T(MS)
PO (PS I )
TO (K)
PI TOT (PS, )
MACH NO
POP (PS I )
TO P (K)
RE/FT
p (PS I )
T(K)
ruw
V( FT /S EC)
Q!H Lt3/FT **2) Q(BTU)
TT2fl(K)
COW1ENSATION
CASE 1
O. O.CO
O.5.39000E OS
O. 2.40 00 0 E 0 4
O.7G:J9g9E
Ol
_ 19.965
O.6.99723E OS
3.09583E 04
O.2:l3812E 07
O.14302aE-OI
C.383497E 02 O.173874E-04
0.8.2716 SE 04
U. 4 815 E u3
0-6.71600 E 02
0.2.7035 SE 04
O.3GG777E 02
CASE 2 o 0.00
0.3.76000 E 05
0.2.2S000E 04
Ol

O.3:J7990E 05
0.2.7 74 53 E 04
O.203557E 07
o 9.3086 1 E - 0 2 O.3.53(j90E
02 O.118SS2E-04
C. 7 329171: 04
O.3.63j40E 03 C ,I.G 1570 E 02
O.2.44:J4:JE 04
0.349571E 02
CASE 3
0.000
0.5.50000 E CS
O. 2.1C 00 OE 04 0.245000E 02
15,360
0,7.% 3038E 05 O. 2.G J g 3 G E 04
0.6.39077 E 0 7
o,74710JE-01
0.5.26163E 02
C. 6. 39 G 0 6 E - 0 4
O.7G96ti!jE 04
('4
.lC2047E 03 O. 2,3 2 OE C4
0.4237tilE 02
Case 1 . Runs 350, 355, 357.
Pitot a.t 1t$ cm from nozzle exit
Case 2. Runs 354. Pitot at
19.5 cm from nozzle exit
Case 3. Runs 351 , 35;2, 353, 356, 358. Pitot at 18.3 cm
from nozzle exit
19
RUN No
INCIDENCE
TEST CASE
MODEL
PITOT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TABLE 4 PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS ON MODELS D & E (1b/in
2
)
HEMISPHERE MODELS
M = 20
High Re
D
7.97
7.86
7 1 1
3.71
3.60
2.41
1. 50
0.89
0.73
20
357
9
M = 20
High Re
E
7.88
8. 18
7.08
6.86
6.33
4.61
3.24
2.35
1 .80
M = 15
High Re
E
26.0
26.8
23.3
20. 1
14.5
1 1 .3
7.3
4.3
2.9
...
TABLE 5 PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS ON MODELS F. G AND A (1b/in
2
)
BICONIC MODELS
RUN No
351
352 353 354 355 356
INCIDENCE 0 10 0 0 10 0
TES'l' CASE M = 1 5 M = 1 5
M = 1 5 H = 20 M = 20 M = 15
High Re Hi gh Re High Re
Low Re High Re High Re
Cross flow
MODEL F F G A A A
PITOT 24.9 24.0 24.2 4 .71 7.66 24.5
11 .3* 10.4
15.6 3.48 5 .16 17.9
2 22.6 13.6 3 . 0 1 4.94 16 1
3 16.4 20.9 1 5.7 3.19 4.67 16.3
4 18.6 22.6 17.3 3 . 1 8 4.56
15.9
5
18.8 22.6 3.30 4.84 15.8
6 17.4 21.9 17.7 3 14 4.66 15.6
7
14.0 18.7 13.5 3.32 4.96 1 6. 1
8. 0.82 2.0 0.79 o. 195 0.30 0.97
crimped tube (low values)
TABLE 6 HEAT TRANSFER MEASUREMENTS ON HEMISPHERE
MODELS D & E TIME T = OMSEC (BTU/ft
2
sec)
RUN No 350 358
MODEL D E E
GAUGE 1 . 88.7* 88. 1 *"
209 ll-
2 87.6
6 6 . 4 ~ 164*'
3 99.0 59.5 186
4 63.8
50.0 168
5
68.7 47.5 172.5
6 50.7 22.5
Jt
93.6"
7
29.9*
13.9 60. 1
8
2 4 . 9 ~
1 1 . 7 5 1 . 1
9 1 1 . 5 * 8.05 35 . 1
10.
6. 1 .- 4.8 .
17.9
* uncalibrated gauge
22
"
IU
lAl
TABLE 7
RUN No
MODEL
GAUGE 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
HEAT TRANSFER MEASUREMENTS ON MODELS A. F AND G TIME T = OMSEC
(BTU/ft
2
sec)
351 352 353 354 355 356
F F G A A A
239-
423 324' 111. 5 71 .5* 120* 141.5"
248* 224' 189-- 65.3 97.7 150
286 232 222 52.7 76.5 182
216

183* 189* 50. 1 73.7
218 172 220 39.8 58.7 182
226
179
226 49.6 171
218 172 243 43. 1 52.0 169
13.8 7.7 13. 9 4.5 8.55 15.6
7.43 4.7
12.6 3.8 10. 3 3.15* 5.24* 7 . 5 ~
3.37 5:78 10.65
~ uncalibrated gauge
"\)
=-
Heat flux
gauges
Pressure
gauges
MOOELS A, F, G
7.00
EO. SP
go APART
EQ ~ S P
go APART
Fig. 1 OETAI LS OF MOOELS
Pressure
gauges
~ 7.00
MOOELS D, E
lOL
.

0.
6
4
2
.
RUN 350
CORRECTED
o / BELOTSERKOVSKII
THEORY

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 e
o
90
Fig.2 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON SMOOTH HEMISPHERE
M =20
8
N
Z
...... 6
m
-l
2
RUN 357
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Ba 90
eO
Fig.3 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON ROUGH HEMISPHERE
M= 20
?5
N
z
-
-
al
-l
w
a::::
:::>
U')
U")
w
ct:
Cl.
22
20
18
16
1l.
12
tO
8
6
4
2
RUN 358
-
o CORREC1ED
\, / BEL01SERKOVSKII
~ lHECRY
\
o
\
0 ~
o tO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
e
FIG. 4 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON ROUGH
HEMISPHERE M = 15
0
0
RUN
350
1.4
<> RUN 288
1.2
iJ
q
1.0
(qst )th
O ~
0.8
corrected lees
0
0.6
similarity theory
0.4
Experiment
o calibrated gauges
0.2
Cf un-calibrated gauges
o ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~
10 20 30 40 80 Er 90
Fig.5 HEAT TRANSFER DISTRIBUTION ON SMOOTH
HEMISPHERE, M= 20
1.4
1.2
q 1.0
(qst )th
0.8
cf
RUN 357
Experiment
o calibrated gauges
o. aun-calibrated gauges
o
o - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~
80 e
o
90
Fig.6 HEAT TRANSFER
HEMISPHERE,
DISTRIBUTION . ON ROUGH
M= 20
21
RUN 358
o
1.2
d
06 corrected Lees
. similarity theory
o
o
0.4 Experiment
o calibrated gauges
d un-calibrated gauges
o
o
o
Fig. 7 HEAT TRANSFER DISTRIBUTION ON
ROUGH HEMISPHERE, M=15
Pmeasa
Ptheor.
0.6
0.4
0.2
o RUN 354. M=20
o RUN 355, M = 20, cross-flow
o RU N 356, M = 15
O ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - ~ ~ - - - -
10 20 . 30 .40.
dlstance from tip, 5 In.
Fig.8 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON SHARP
SMOOTH BICONIC MODEL, M :15 and 20
?R
u
C
U)
N_
...
-
;::)
~
cri
1000
300
200
100
80
60
1.0
30
20
MODEL A
o RUN 351.
[] RUN 355
o RUN 356
....
..
..
--.........
M=20 Re Ift=2xl0

oL = O
M = 20
Re Ift=3x lOG d =10(cross-flow)
M = 15 Re/H=7xl0
6
C( =0
o
--:::-- -
... ---
....... ---
356
o 0 0
...... 0
...
"'s..
..
...
,
.....
...
...
......
,
...
..
.....
............ 0 ------- _____ 356
...... -----
...
...
......
...
...
...... ,..... 8
...
... .
...
...
..
...
.. ..... El
....
...
...
...
........ <2>
'... ....... f";1
.... ... ~
" ...... ~ ~ '" ~
... :::' "V' ... .... L:J &.:J
......... ' ~ f S S
......... <2>
....
......
Sommer- Short
_ __ Spalding-Chi
____ Eckert
1 0 - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - ~ ~
1-0 2-0 3-0 1.-0 5-0
Sin
Fig.9 HEAT TRANSFER
BICONIC MODEL
RATE ON SMOOTH SHARP
(RAW DATA)
1000
800
600
400
200
u
al
11) 100
""
t-
(Ij 60
40
M :15 Re/ft: 7xl01)
o
Sommer - 5 hor t
o
.......... , ......
- - . ~
...... -::------
.... -.
.......... ---
.... ------
...... , -----
.......... ...... Spalding- a;r- --
.... ,
...........
Eckert ' ......
......
...........
.....
......
....
.....
.........
.....
.....
.....
.....
o RUN 351 Model F C(: 0
El RUN 352 Model F Q( :-10
30 0 RUN 353 Model G ~ : 0
2 0 - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - ~
04 06 0.8 10 20 30 40 50
5 in.
Fig.l0 HEAT TRANSFER RATE ON ROUGH BICONIC
MODELS (RAW DATA)
u
~
11)
N
....
.......
-
::::>
400
300
200
100
80
60
40
30
20
MODEL A
El RUN 3S4 M= 20 Re/ft=2xl0
6
=00
Re I ft= 3 )( 10
6
c( = 10
Cross-flow test
o RUN 3SS M =20
" 0
....
....
"
....
....
...
....
-<IJ
............... 0
....
.............. 0
......
....
' ............ 0
' ..... ,...... <:)
......
........ 0
.. ........
...........
......
..
-- - - - Eckert I aminar theory
1 0 ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
104 2 3 4 S 6 8 105
local Reynolds number
Fig. l1 HEAT TRANSFER RATES ON SMOOTH SHARP
BICONIC MODEL (SMOOTHED DATA)
4 0 ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ ~
4xlO' 6 8 lOS 2 3 4 S
local Reynolds number
Fig.12 COMPARISON OF HEAT TRANSFER DATA ON
SMOOTH AND ROUGH SHARP BICONIC MODELS
(SMOOTHED DATA)
1000
800
o RUN 352 M = 15 Re Ift :: 7x 10
6
0( :-10-
600
Model F
400
300
f[J
u 0
~
IJ)
0
N
200
-'-
-
-=>
o 0
0
00
.c
~
m
0-
100
80
- Sommer- Short turbulent theory
60
~ O ~ __ ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ __ ________ __
2 3 4 6 8 10 2 3
local Reynolds number
Fig.13 HEAT TRANSFER ON ROUGH SHARP BICONIC
MODEL AT 0.=10
0
(SMOOTHED DATA)
33
MODEL G
12 0 RUN 352 M =15 Re/ft: 7 x 10'
06
o
04
02
0::
W
o
...J
::::>
~
(J')
,
,
,
,
,
,
'"
'"
'" ..
.....
...
...
....... Lees
- -- - Eckert
.........
.... -- ....... --
0.. -_ .... _ ..
- Sommer- Short
O ____ I - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - -
1.0 2 0 30 40 50
5/RN
Fig.1l. HEAT TRANSFER RATE ON ROUGH BLUNT
BICONIC MODEL (SMOOTED DATA)
'2
. 0 0
' .0 - ----O--"A--
o
--
Q
-
iL
--
C
Ptheor. 0.8
o RUN 351 M =15
Fig.15
o RUN 352 M= 15
04
02

'0 20 30 [.0
distance from tip I 5 in
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON SHARP
BICONIC MODEL
J
M=15
' 5
1-0

w
05 0
-J
:::>
o
J:
IJ)
o
-ru
theory
o
o
/
tangent co ne theory

' 0 20 3.0
51
RN 40
ROUGH
o
Fig.16 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON BLUNT
BICONIC MODEL
J
M=15
35
UnclassifieJi
-!;toc-urity CI lhcotlon
DOCUMENT CONTROL D T R &. D
c1 lflc.,I<oft ol t"'., boet, ol .b."."t .rtd Irtd "., _ot.,lon w>u., t># .",erH- wh .. " Ilu. 0"""" ,.,..", I. cI tlledJ
' OR'G'N"T'NG "CTIVITY (Corpor.' ulI".),
Fluid Dynamics
ze, REPORT 5ECURITV CLA5SIFICATION
von Karman Institute of
Unclassified
1640
Rhode-Saint-Gense
,Zb. GROVP
:Belgium
REPORT TlTLE
HYPERSONIC HEAT TRANSFER MEASUREMENTS ON RE-ENTRY VEHICLE SURFACES AT
HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER
OESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type ol report _d I"c:I_' ... , )
Scientific. Final.
AU THOR"I (Flr./ ... ",., ",Iddl. ,,,,,,.,. , , __ )
Bryan E. Richards
REPORT DATE 7 TOT4L NO. OF PAGE5
17b. NO. OF REFS
P ugust
1973
40
12
CONTRACT OR GRANT .. O ... ORIGINATOJII'S REPORT NUM.ERtS,
USAF contract F-61052-70-C-
b. PROJEC T HO .
0031
N.A.
7381-02
62102F
leb. NO(S, (A",. oth., " ... ;..,. ",.,_,. ba 'F.d
687381
thl.
AFML-TR-73-187

VKI-TN-91
10 STATEMENT
This document l.S approved for pUblic release and sale; its distribution
1.S unlimited
,
SVPPLE"ENTARV NOTES IZ ..... ONSO.UNG MILITARV ACTlYITV
Tech. Other Air Force Materials Laboratory(LAS)
Wright-Patterson AFB
Ohio 45433
ABSTRACT
Heat transfer rates, using calorimeter sensors, and pressures,
USl.ng variabIe reluctance diaphragm transducers, have been measured on
five model shapes in the VKI Longshot facility at Mach numbers of 1 5
and
20 and over a unit Reynolds number range of 2
x 10
6
to 7x 10
6
per foot.
Two basic shapes, a hemisphere and a 50
0
-8
half-angle biconic configu-
ration with and without nose bluntness, were tested with different sur-
face roughness. Pressures were weIl predicted by the theory of
Belotserkovskii for spherical surfaces, and tangent cone theory, USl.ng
the tables of Jones for conical surfaces. Laminar heat transfer rates,
slightly underpredicted by Eckert Reference Enthalpy method on cones and
reasonably well predicted by Lees similarity theory on hemispheres, were
generally achieved for the tests at M
=
20 whieh used low Reynolds
numbers. Turbulent heat transfer rates, overpredicted by Sommer and
Short Referenee Enthalpy method on a smooth wall by 10
%
and underpre-
di ct ed by the same emthod for walls with 0.004 l.n. roughness by 1 5 % ,
were measured on the 50
0
half-angle forebodies of the bieonic roodels
tested at M
= 1 5 high Reynolds number. Transition was eoropleted by the
first gauge on the rough model and by the fourth on the smooth model.
tD ,f
N
O
o
R: .. 1473
Security lassirication
Unclassified
Secunty Clasllllcatlon
I.
LINK A LINK e - LINK C
K EY WOROI
.. RpLE WT ROI..E WT ROL..E WT
I
I
HYPERSONIC
RE-ENTRY
ABLATION
NOSE SHAPES
HEAT TRANSFER
PRESSURE
LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER
TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER
BOUNDARY LAYER TRANSIT ION CRITERIA
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i I
,
!
I
I
I
1
,
,
1 I
I
Security Clasaification