Shock Waves

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 877–897 | Cite as

Scramjet test flow reconstruction for a large-scale expansion tube, Part 1: quasi-one-dimensional modelling

  • D. E. Gildfind
  • P. A. Jacobs
  • R. G. Morgan
  • W. Y. K. Chan
  • R. J. Gollan
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Large-scale free-piston driven expansion tubes have uniquely high total pressure capabilities which make them an important resource for development of access-to-space scramjet engine technology. However, many aspects of their operation are complex, and their test flows are fundamentally unsteady and difficult to measure. While computational fluid dynamics methods provide an important tool for quantifying these flows, these calculations become very expensive with increasing facility size and therefore have to be carefully constructed to ensure sufficient accuracy is achieved within feasible computational times. This study examines modelling strategies for a Mach 10 scramjet test condition developed for The University of Queensland’s X3 facility. The present paper outlines the challenges associated with test flow reconstruction, describes the experimental set-up for the X3 experiments, and then details the development of an experimentally tuned quasi-one-dimensional CFD model of the full facility. The 1-D model, which accurately captures longitudinal wave processes, is used to calculate the transient flow history in the shock tube. This becomes the inflow to a higher-fidelity 2-D axisymmetric simulation of the downstream facility, detailed in the Part 2 companion paper, leading to a validated, fully defined nozzle exit test flow.

Keywords

Expansion tube Scramjet Free-piston driver Computation fluid dynamics Quasi-one-dimensional 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Frans De Beurs, Neil Duncan, and the EAIT Faculty Workshop, for technical assistance with X3; The Australian Research Council for support and funding; The Queensland Smart State Research Facilities Fund 2005 for support and funding; The Australian Space Research Program and UQ for their funding in support of the “Scramjet-based Access-to-Space Systems” (SCRAMSPACE) project; The UQ High Performance Computing (HPC) Support Group for supercomputing support; this work was supported by computational resources provided by the Australian Government through Raijin and Magnus under the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme.

References

  1. 1.
    Morgan, R.: Development of X3, a superorbital expansion tube. In: AIAA 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 10–13 January, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2000-558 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-558
  2. 2.
    Ponce, J.S.: Scramjet testing at high total pressure. PhD Thesis. School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia (2016).  https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2016.71
  3. 3.
    Toniato, P., Gildfind, D., Jacobs, P., Morgan, R.: Current progress of the development of a Mach 12 scramjet operating condition in the X3 expansion tube. In: The 20th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, 5–8 December, Perth, Australia (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gildfind, D., Sancho, J., Morgan, R.: High Mach number scramjet test flows in the X3 expansion tube. In: Bonazza, R., Ranjan, D. (eds.) 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves 1, vol. 1, pp. 373–378. Springer, Dordrecht (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16835-7_58
  5. 5.
    Gildfind, D., Morgan, R., McGilvray, M., Jacobs, P.: Production of high Mach number scramjet flow conditions in an expansion tube. AIAA J. 52(1), 162–177 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J052383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gildfind, D., Morgan, R., Jacobs, P.: Expansion tubes in Australia. In: Igra, O., Seiler F. (eds.) Experimental Methods of Shock Wave Research, vol. 4, Chap. 1, pp. 399–431. Springer, Basel (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23745-9_13
  7. 7.
    Gildind, D., James, C., Toniato, P., Morgan, R.: Performance considerations for expansion tube operation with a shock-heated secondary driver. J. Fluid Mech. 777, 364–407 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2015.349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paull, A., Stalker, R.: Test flow disturbances in an expansion tube. J. Fluid Mech. 245, 493–521 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112092000569
  9. 9.
    Morgan, R.: Free-piston driven expansion tubes. In: Ben-Dor, G., Igra, O., Elperin, T. (eds.) Handbook of Shock Waves, vol. 1, Chap. 4.3, pp. 603–602. Elsevier, San Diego (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012086430-0/50014-2
  10. 10.
    Miller, C.: Operational experience in the Langley expansion tube with various test gases, NASA Technical Memorandum 78637. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton (1977)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morgan, R., Stalker, R.: Double diaphragm driven free piston expansion tube. In: 18th International Symposium on Shock Waves, 21–26 July, Sendai, Japan (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobs, P.: Numerical simulation of transient hypervelocity flow in an expansion tube. Comput. Fluids 23(1), 77–101 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7930(94)90028-0
  13. 13.
    Neely, A., Morgan, R.: The superorbital expansion tube concept, experiment and analysis. Aeronaut. J. 98, 97–105 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000050107
  14. 14.
    Chan, W., Smart, M., Jacobs, P.: Experimental validation of the T4 Mach 7.0 nozzle. Technical Report 2014/14. School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hannemann, K., Karl, S., Schramm, J., Steelant, J.: Methodology of a combined ground based testing and numerical modelling analysis of supersonic combustion flow paths. Shock Waves 20, 353–366 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-010-0269-8
  16. 16.
    Gildfind, D., Morgan, R., Sancho, J.: Design and commissioning of a new lightweight piston for the X3 expansion tube. In: Bonazza, R., Ranjan, D. (eds.) 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves 1, vol. 1, pp. 367–372. Springer, Dordrecht (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16835-7_57
  17. 17.
    Gildfind, D.: Development of high total pressure scramjet flow conditions using the X2 expansion tube. PhD Thesis. School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, S., McBride, B.: Computer program for complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications, NASA RP-1311. NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinckney, S.: A short static-pressure probe design for supersonic flow, NASA TN D-7978. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton (1975)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gildfind, D.E., Jacobs, P.A., Morgan, R.G., Chan, W.Y.K., Gollan, R.J.: Scramjet test flow reconstruction for a large-scale expansion tube, Part 2: hybrid CFD analysis. Shock Waves.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-017-0786-9
  21. 21.
    PCB Piezotronics Inc.: Product specification for PCB(R) 112A22 ICP(R) pressure sensor. https://www.pcb.com/products.aspx?m=112A22. Downloaded 21 Jan 2017
  22. 22.
    Kulite Semiconductor Products, Inc.: Product specification for Kulite(R) XTEL-190 (M) series pressure sensor. www.kulite.com/docs/products/XTEL-190.pdf. Downloaded 21 Jan 2017
  23. 23.
    Gollan, R., Jacobs, P.: About the formulation, verification and validation of the hypersonic flow solver Eilmer. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 73, 19–57 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.3790
  24. 24.
    Jacobs, P.: Quasi-one-dimensional modeling of a free-piston shock tunnel. AIAA J. 32(1), 137–145 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.2514/3.11961
  25. 25.
    Mirels, H.: Test time in low-pressure shock tubes. Phys. Fluids 6(9), 1201–1214 (1963).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1706887 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mirels, H.: Shock tube test time limitation due to turbulent-wall boundary layer. AIAA J. 2(1), 84–93 (1963).  https://doi.org/10.2514/3.2218
  27. 27.
    Wendt, M., Macrossan, M., Jacobs, P., Mee, D.: Pilot study for a rarefied hypervelocity test facility. In: 13th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, 13–18 December, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wheatley, V., Chiu, H., Jacobs, P., Macrossan, M., Mee, D., Morgan, R.: Rarefied, superorbital flows in an expansion tube. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 14(4), 512–537 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1108/09615530410532277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobs, P., Silvester, T., Morgan, R., Scott, M., Gollan, R., McIntyre, T.: Superorbital expansion tube operation: estimates of flow conditions via numerical simulation. In: 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 10–13 January, Reno, Nevada, AIAA Paper 2005-0694 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-694
  30. 30.
    Morgan, R., McIntyre, T., Jacobs, P., Buttsworth, D., Macrossan, M., Gollan, R., Capra, B., Brandis, A., Potter, D., Eichmann, T., Jacobs, C., McGilvray, M., van Diem, D., Scott, M.: Impulse facility simulation of hypervelocity radiating flows. In: Wilson, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Radiation of High Temperature Gases in Atmospheric Entry. ESA Publications, Noordwijk (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Potter, D., Gollan, R., Eichmann, T., McIntyre, T., Morgan, R., Jacobs, P.: Simulation of CO\(_2\)-N\(_2\) expansion tunnel flows for the study of radiating shock layers. In: 6th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 7–10 January, Reno, Nevada, AIAA Paper 2008-1280 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-1280
  32. 32.
    Gildfind, D., Morgan, R., McGilvray, M., Jacobs, P., Stalker, R., Eichmann, T.: Free-piston driver optimisation for simulation of high Mach number scramjet flow conditions. Shock Waves 21(6), 559–572 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-011-0336-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The compressible-flow CFD project. The University of Queensland, St Lucia. http://cfcfd.mechmining.uq.edu.au
  34. 34.
    Jacobs, P.: An approximate Riemann solver for hypervelocity flows. AIAA J. 30(10), 2558–2561 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.2514/3.11264 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacobs, P.: Shock tube modelling with L1d. Research Report No. 13/98. School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parekh, V., Gildfind, D., Lewis, S., James, C.: X3 expansion tube driver gas spectroscopy and temperature measurements. In: AIAA Australian-Asia Regional Student Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mundt, C., Boyce, R., Jacobs, P., Hannemann, K.: Validation study of numerical simulations by comparison to measurements in piston-driven shock-tunnels. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 11, 100–109 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2006.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McGilvray, M., Austin, J., Sharma, M., Jacobs, P., Morgan, R.: Diagnostic modelling of an expansion tube operating condition. Shock Waves 19, 59–66 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-009-0187-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gildfind, D., James, C., Morgan, R.: Free-piston driver performance characterisation using experimental shock speeds through helium. Shock Waves 25(2), 169–176 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-015-0553-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sebacher, D.I., Guy, R.W.: Vibrational relaxation in expanding N\(_2\) and air, NASA TM X-71988. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton (1974)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. E. Gildfind
    • 1
  • P. A. Jacobs
    • 1
  • R. G. Morgan
    • 1
  • W. Y. K. Chan
    • 1
  • R. J. Gollan
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations