Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
R.J. Stalker et al- Scramjets and Shock Tunnels: The Queensland Experience

R.J. Stalker et al- Scramjets and Shock Tunnels: The Queensland Experience

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27|Likes:
Published by WhiteLighte

More info:

Published by: WhiteLighte on Jan 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
Published in Progress in Aerospace Sciences
 41
(2005) 471-453
 
SCRAMJETS AND SHOCK TUNNELS – THE QUEENSLAND EXPERIENCE
R.J. Stalker
1
, A. Paull
2
, D.J Mee
3
, R.G. Morgan
4
and P.A. Jacobs
5
 Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072
ABSTRACT
This article reports on the use of a shock tunnel to study the operation of scramjet poweredconfigurations at sub-orbital velocities above 2 km/s. Thrust, as given by a net thrust equation, isused as a figure of merit throughout the study. After a short description of the shock tunnel usedand its operating characteristics, experiments on the combustion release of heat in a constant areaduct with hydrogen fuel are reviewed. The interaction between heat release in the combustionwake and the walls of the duct produced pressure distributions which followed a binary scaling law,and indicated that the theoretically expected heat release could be realized in practice, albeit withhigh pressure or long combustion ducts. This heat release, combined with attainable thrust nozzlecharacteristics and a modest level of configuration drag, indicated that positive thrust levels couldbe obtained well into the sub-orbital range of velocities. Development of a stress wave forcebalance for use in shock tunnels allowed the net thrust generated to be measured for integratedscramjet configurations and, although the combination of model size and shock tunnel operatingpressure prevented complete combustion of hydrogen, the cruise condition of zero net thrust wasachieved at 2.5 km/s with one configuration, while net thrust was produced with anotherconfiguration using an ignition promoter in hydrogen fuel. Nevertheless, the combination of boundary layer separation induced inlet choking and limited operating pressure levels preventedrealization of the thrust potential of the fuel. This problem may be alleviated by recent increases inthe shock tunnel operating pressures, and by promising research involving inlet injection of the fuel.Research on the drag component of the net thrust equation resulted from the development of a fastresponse skin friction gauge. It was found that existing theories of turbulent boundary skin frictionpredicted the skin friction when combustion of hydrogen occurred outside the boundary layer, butcombustion within the boundary layer dramatically reduced the skin friction. Finally, for the firsttime in the world, supersonic combustion was produced in a free flight experiment. Thisexperiment validated shock tunnel results at stagnation enthalpies near 3 MJ/kg.
KEYWORDS
Scramjets, Shock Tunnel, Free Flight Supersonic Combustion, Hypersonic Propulsion, TurbulentBoundary Layers, Shock Tunnel Instrumentation
1
Corresponding author. Em. Professor
2
Professorial Fellow
3
Associate Professor
4
Professor
5
Senior Lecturer
 
2
NOMENCLATURE
 A
= flow cross-sectional area (m
2
)
 A
= frontal area (m
2
)
 D
= drag coefficient =
( )
A D
2
2
ρ 
 
TN 
= thrust coefficient =
( )
A
 N 
2
2
ρ 
 
 j
= injected fuel thrust coefficient
 D
= drag (
 N 
)
e
n
= nozzle efficiency = thrust/(one-dim. nozzle thrust)
= thrust function
g
= gravitational acceleration (m/s
2
)
 I 
sp
= specific impulse (sec)
 M 
= Mach number
 M 
c
= Mach number after combustion heat release
n
=
 NN 
T
= combustion duct + thrust nozzle efficiency
 p
= pressure (
Pa
)
P
c
= pressure after combustion heat release (
Pa
)
Q
= heat released by fuel combustion in air (= 3.45 MJ/kg for stoichiometrichydrogen)
 N 
= net forward thrust (
 N 
)
 NN 
= net forward thrust when all of combustion heat release is converted tostream kinetic energy (
 N 
)
= thrust increment with one-dimensional nozzle (
 N 
)
= freestream velocity (m/s)
γ  
= ratio of specific heats
θ 
= flow direction
 D
θ 
= initial nozzle divergence angle
ν 
= Prandtl-Meyer function
 ρ 
= density (kg/m
3
)
 ρ 
= freestream density (kg/m
3
)
1. INTRODUCTION
Half a century ago it seemed that airbreathing hypersonic flight was a prospect for the not-too-distant future. At that time supersonic missiles which used ramjet propulsion were in operation,and it seemed almost inevitable that they would be succeeded by missiles which, by employingsupersonic combustion, would enter the hypersonic speed regime. By providing operationalexperience, these missiles would be the prelude to the emergence of piloted hypersonic vehicles,leading in turn to the emergence of an airbreathing orbital spaceplane.Although this scenario did not appear unduly optimistic at the time, and may even reflect thesequence in which developments will ultimately occur, the time scales of a few years implicitlyassumed for these developments have turned out to be hopelessly awry. For a number of reasons,some economic and some technical, progress towards airbreathing hypersonic flight has been slow.Supersonic combustion was demonstrated in the laboratory and incorporated in missile designsduring the 1960’s
(1)
. Although these designs were tested in wind tunnels and associatedcombustion test facilities, they were never flown. During the 1970’s and 1980’s the NASALangley Research Centre conducted an extended program of research related to airframe integratedscramjets for flight at Mach 7. This involved development of combustion hypersonic wind tunnelsand design of vehicle components
(2)
. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the NASP design studyexplored the feasibility of extending the knowledge base gained up to Mach 7 to near Earth-orbital
 
3Mach numbers of 25. It was found that new knowledge was required to produce a successfuldesign of vehicle which would operate up to these Mach numbers.Thus, until recently, the exploitation of supersonic combustion to reach hypersonic Mach numbershad been confined to design studies and wind tunnel experimentation. Supersonic combustion hadnot occurred in flight until July, 2002, with the University of Queensland “HyShot” flightexperiment, and it had not been used in an engine which propelled a flight vehicle until the NASA“Hyper-X” flight of March, 2004.A significant aspect to the Hyper-X flight is that the knowledge which had been built up through asustained program of wind tunnel experimentation and development led to an engine whichoperated successfully the first time it was tried in flight. This is encouraging, because a factorwhich had inhibited the development of airbreathing hypersonic flight was that extreme expense of flight testing, and the ability to ensure a high degree of success by wind tunnel testing makes theexpense of a flight development program more manageable. The same would apply to flights witha more basic (and less expensive) objective, such as the HyShot flight, where the probability of asuccessful flight experiment was enhanced by shock tunnel experiments.It is clear that the further development of airbreathing hypersonic flight will be bound up with theuse of wind tunnel type facilities. For experiments involving supersonic combustion facilitieswhich simultaneously produce flight values of temperature and velocity are required. Observingthat Earth orbital velocity stands as a notional limit for scramjet operation, a useful figure of meritfor a scramjet wind tunnel is the ratio of the airstream kinetic energy per unit mass to that of anairstream at orbital velocity. When this ratio exceeds 0.1, which occurs at an airstream velocity of approximately 2.5 km/sec, a wind tunnel may be regarded as “sub-orbital”. The combustion windtunnels which are being used to open up the Mach 7 to 8 flight regime are hypersonic but, by thisdefinition, are not sub-orbital.The airstream velocities that can be produced in these combustion hypersonic facilities are limitedby the further requirement for supersonic combustion that the combustion chamber density must behigh enough to ensure that combustion takes place within a reasonable length. Experience withcombustion of hydrogen in air suggests that, typically, a density of the order of 0.05 kg/m
3
would berequired for essentially complete mixing and combustion in a combustion chamber 0.5 m. long at aflow velocity of 2 km/sec and a precombustion temperature of 1000 K. If such a combustionchamber were part of a scramjet engine with an inlet area contraction of 5, the test section powerlevel per unit area of a wind tunnel to test this engine would be of the order of 100 MW/m
2
. Windtunnel power levels of this order are usually obtained by operating in the “blow down” mode, wherethe energy is stored over a period of time in a combination of high pressure receivers and storageheat exchangers, and released in a much shorter time period, usually of the order of seconds, oftenwith extra energy added by combustion
(3)
. This form of intermittent operation has been favouredfor scramjet wind tunnels for the Mach 7 to 8 regime, but is unsuitable for the sub-orbital regime.Scramjet wind tunnels for the sub-orbital regime are required to operate with airstream velocitiesexceeding 2.5 km/sec and, since test section power levels per unit area increase as the cube of theairstream velocity, it is clear that, even with intermittent operation, the power levels required foroperation in the sub-orbital regime are very large. Added to that, the temperatures involved insupplying air at those velocities exceed 3000 K, which makes operation in the blowdown mode verydifficult. Therefore it is unlikely that blowdown, intermittent, technology can be applied to sub-orbital scramjet wind tunnels except, perhaps, with the most generous access to resources.An alternative means of achieving high wind tunnel power levels, which be seen as an extremeextension of the blowdown technique, is to very rapidly add energy to the test gas immediatelybefore it is allowed to expand to produce the test section flow. With these “impulse” techniques

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->