You are on page 1of 30

SC-4370(RR)

AERODYNAMICS
TID-4500 (15th Ed.)
AEC RESEARCH AND

research DEVELOPMENT

report
A METHOD OF CALCULATING BOUNDARY-LAYER
THICKNESS IN AXISYMMETRIC NOZZLES WITH
LAMINAR HYPERSONIC FLOW

Arlo F. Johnson, 5143

October 1959

Sandia C orf oration


CONTRACTOR FOR U. TOMIC ENERGY COMiiISSION
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work.
Neither the United States, nor the Commission, nor any person acting on behalf
of the Commission:

A. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with re-


spect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained
in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or

B. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages re-
sulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed
in this report.

As used in the above, "person acting on behalf of the Commission" includes


any employee or contractor of the Commission, or employee of such contractor,
to the extent that such employee or contractor of the Commission, or employee of
such contractor prepares, disseminates, or provides access to, any information
pursuant to his employment or contract with the Commission, or his employment
with such contractor.

Printed in USA. Price $0. 75. Available from the Office


of Technical Services, Department of Commerce,
Washington 25, D. C.
SC -4370(RR)
AERODYNAMICS
TID-4500 (15th Ed.)
AEC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

A METHOD OF CALCULATING BOUNDARY-LAYER


THICKNESS IN AXISYMMETRIC NOZZLES
WITH LAMINAR HYPERSONIC FLOW

Arlo F. Johnson, 5143

October 1959

ABSTRACT

The excellent agreement between measured boundary layer thickness and


thickness calculated by Sivells and Payne recommends their method for calculating
turbulent boundary layer growth in axisymmetric hypersonic nozzles. It was
thought worthwhile to adapt their approach to the laminar boundary layer. This
analysis, along with a limited amount of corroborating data, is presented herein.

1-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT 1

LIST OF SYMBOLS 4

Introduction 7

Theory 7

General 7
Summary of the Calculation Method 15
Corroboration of Theory 16

Conclusions 18

APPENDIX

Calculation of Displacement Thickness at Exit of University of


California Mach 6 Nozzle 19

LIST OF REFERENCES 24

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Variation of Skin-Friction Coefficient with Reynolds Number


(Evaluated at Reference Temperature) 11

2. Variation of Form Parameter with Mach Number 13

3. Viscosity-Temperature Variation 17

3
LIST OF SYMBOLS

2i
c local skin friction coefficient, 2
sus

c' local skin friction coefficient based on reference density, 2


P'lu

2
cf local skin friction coefficient in incompressible flow,
W2
Pou
1X
mean skin friction coefficient, -f cfdx
cF
0

o -l
c specific heat at constant pressure, ft lb(slug F)
p

H boundary layer form factor,

H 1
H transformed form factor, - 2+l
Htranfre 1 + M2
2 s
*

8i
H. form factor in incompressible flow,

k thermal conductivity, (f2 )(ft

Ms Mach number along "seam" joining isentropic core and boundary layer

ps local pressure at seam, lbs/ft 2

sc
Pr Prandtl number,

R gas constant (1716 for air), ft lb(slug 0F)~

3' temperature recovery factor (may ordinarily be taken as V/Pr for laminar
boundary layer)
pu x
Rx Reynolds number, Ps s

p'usx
R' Reynolds number based on reference temperature,
x
,

4
LIST OF SYMBOLS (cont)

p u x
R . Reynolds number for incompressible flow, s
xi o

r radius of isentropic core, ft


5

s distance along curved boundary of isentropic core, ft

T local temperature in boundary layer, R

T local temperature at seam, R


5

T nozzle wall temperature, R


w

T adiabatic wall temperature of nozzle, R


aw

T total temperature in isentropic core, R

T' reference temperature, R

u local velocity in boundary layer, ft/sec

u local velocity at seam, ft/sec


Si

u friction velocity, , ft/sec

x coordinate measured along nozzle axis, ft

y coordinate normal to nozzle wall, ft

y ratio of specific heats (usually taken as 1. 4 for air)

5 boundary layer thickness, ft

5
LIST OF SYMBOLS (cont)

$ displacement thickness, 1 - ps s)dy, ft

8. displacement thickness in incompressible flow, 1 - ukdy, ft


0
du 2
A Pohlhausen parameter, dy ps
S

9 momentum thickness, ps s(1 - uidy, ft

9tr transformed momentum thickness, 9 Y+1 , ft

(1 + -2 1M2)2(7-1)
s/

9. momentum thickness in incompressible flow,

1- dy, ft
0

ps viscosity at seam temperature, slugs(ft sec)- 1

0 viscosity at stagnation temperature, slugs(ft sec)~1

p' viscosity at reference temperature, slugs(ft sec) 1

p local density in boundary layer, slugs/ft 3

ps local density in isentropic core, slugs/ft 3


53

p total or stagnation density in isentropic core, slugs/ft 3

p' local density at reference temperature, slugs/ft 3

t skin friction at nozzle wall, lb/ft2


w

W slope of isentropic core surface, measured from axial direction

corresponds to

12 7
=\712x 10 7

12 = 12 x 10~

6
A METHOD OF CALCULATING BOUNDARY-LAYER
THICKNESS IN AXISYMME TRICK NOZZLES
WITH LAMINAR HYPERSONIC FLOW

Introduction

The successful design of nozzles for supersonic and hypersonic tunnels requires an ac-

curate knowledge of the boundary-layer displacement thickness. Sivells and Payne1 have

assembled an apparently successful semiempirical method for calculating this thickness for

turbulent layers. Present-day design in hypersonic tunnels usually results in a turbulent

boundary layer in the nozzles; however, it is anticipated that future nozzle designs for low-

density, high-temperature tunnels will require prediction of laminar boundary-layer growth.

In addition, the optimization of rocket nozzle contours (multistage systems at very high al-

titudes) requires the prediction of laminar boundary-layer growth.

Hence, it was deemed worthwhile to adapt the Sivells-Payne method to laminar flow. The

adaptation is comparatively simple but, unfortunately, there are few data available against

which to correlate the theory. Boundary-layer thicknesses calculated by the method developed

herein agree well with results obtained by Maslach and Sherman. 2

Theory

General

Begin with the integrated momentum equation for axisymmetric flow


2
2+ H- M dM dr c
d9O+ 4 s 1 s+1 s f(1)
d~s +9 y-1M2 M ds +r- -ds- 2
L1 + 2M
s s

7
For calculation purposes, after using the transformations
y+l

A= 9 tr 1 + 2 M2 2(y-1) (2)

H +1 = (Htr + 1)(1 + M 2) (3)

and the geometrical relation

ds = sec o dx (4)

Equation 1 simplifies to

-(7+l)
2 1
dO 9 dM 9t dr c - (y-

)
dx + dxs 2 +HtrI+ s = sec l1 + 2 Ms. (5)
2
+H
Now multiplying by rsMs tr, the left-hand side becomes a perfect differential if Htr is con-

sidered constant over the interval of integration:

-('y+l)
( 2+H x 2+H c 2(y-1)
Atrr Ms+tr) =JrM tr sec 4(- 1 + 7 M21M dx. (6)

If c (x), Ms(x), rs(x), and H r(x) are known, as well as an initial 9 (for most purposes it may

be assumed zero at the nozzle throat), the above equation can be solved to give 9tr(x)

At the beginning of a nozzle design, either the Foelsch3 method or the method of charac-

teristics will be employed to determine r (x), the radius of the isentropic core. Thence, the
dr
slope -x = arctan w is obtained. From these calculations will also come values of Ms' Ps

and T on this "seam" between the isentropic core and the boundary layer. The problems of
5
determining acceptable relationships cf(x) and Htr(x) remain.

To obtain cf(x), we begin with the simplest situation, incompressible flow over an in-

sulated flat plate. Dimensional analysis shows that in this case cf = f(R ) only. This function

is determined by experiment or theory. For laminar flow, Blasius' theory gives


0. 664
c = 0.664 (7)

where
c = tw2 (8)
fi 1 2(
2 ou

8
and

P u x
R.= s(
xl

Experimental data show very good agreement with this equation (see, for example, Liepmann

and Dhawan, 4 page 873, Figure 7).

For compressible flow, c will be a function of R, Ms, and heat transfer (as well as

shape of the surface, reflected through pressure gradient). The effect of these variables is

the replacement of the constant-temperature profile through the boundary layer by a variable

one and the altering of the shape of the velocity profile. If we may assume that the velocity

and temperature profiles are related to each other through a simple relationship (we shall

presently introduce the Crocco quadratic formula as this relationship), we need consider only

the effects of the added variables, compressibility, heat transfer, and pressure gradient in

altering a constant-temperature profile to a variable one. Now the assumption is made that

same c f(RX) relationship holds for compressible and incompressible flow, provided that we

base the compressible values of c and R on the right reference temperature, selected out of

each local velocity profile. This assumption leads to the equation for compressible laminar

flow.

0. 664 (10)

where

cf 1 2 '(11)
sp'u

p' u x
R'= ,s , (12)

and p' and ' are evaluated at reference temperature T'.

Choice of the "right" reference temperature has been made by Eckert, 5 who suggests the

equation

T' = 0.5T + 0.22T + 0.28T . (13)


w aw s

9
Although this is empirical, it has been determined in such a way that friction factor cf JW,
calculated from boundary-layer solutions based on actual values of c , Pr, ', and T', agrees

with cf for a constant property value field. Conventionally, we define

iw
Cf = 1 2 (14)
2 "sus

and
p u x
R = s (15)
x 'As

so that

c =cf= cf (16)
T5 f
and
T5
R' -s-us R . (17)
x T' ' x
T
A test value of c is modified to cf = T c and a test value R is modified to R' =Z R

and, thus, are supposed to fit the relationship


= 0. 664 (18)
f R

for any wall temperature and Mach number.

The data of Coles, 6 presented on the reference temperature basis (Equations 13, 16, and

17), are compared with Equation 18 in Figure 1. The data indicate that, albeit for limited condi-

tions, the assumption that the same cf(R ) relationship holds for compressible and incom-

pressible flow (provided that the compressible values of cf and R are based on reference

temperature) is valid. It will be noted that no accounting of pressure-gradient influence has

been made directly. Perhaps the reference temperature reflects some pressure influence, but

faith is mostly placed in the assumption that practical nozzle design will involve pressure
dp
gradients -x small enough to exert no important influence on our results.

To obtain H(x), we will again make an approach via the incompressible value H.. H and

H. are defined as follows:

58 (1 -Ldy

H = (=
- (-)
u
0 s u

10
I0- T j -._---
I
____-__
iTF~ ~ ITT1TTIflI~~Th

iH H

4 I-
r -
1 TWVLY7---
- 1
-
_}
- I I~I Ij

-
I | | I i i

-1
__ _ TqN_1 1i
-_ I
11.1.. ' PP I = If

'
.Iii -n KR
i
L
-P tl
I
II
I
1- I
Iii
I} i 'I 7ip
r IT71.
gil A-
IT I
I I( ' l r SIT 1if'I N.
41'- _ -
-
__ r l
__-
1 -n

- - - - =-- S- T -
}T ---
-- -
-- - -

-
ni

-
- - - - -
I- ITI- I --- I i I I pil lip.1

1 IiI LI ,1
10-4 - _- - - -

III I -III
--

I_ 'IfI
7 I I'1- - 6
_ _ _

2-
zIr::jLj',
6
T771177'I
I
iI II
E _ - T;T -t T_

I fz
_
_

4__ I I. .___ 7 W'7Ii

12 3 4 5 67 69 10 _ 2 3 41 5 6 78 910 2 3 4 5 6 7 891 0
O* 10,

Figure 1. Variation of Skin-Friction Coefficient with Reynolds Number


(Evaluated at Reference Temperature)

11
J -ps s d
H = = dy(20)
p~u (1 _ u-dy

To relate H to H., it will be necessary to have a relationship between-- or and-u


Ps s us
This appears as the Crocco quadratic formula (see Pai, p. 193), valid for Pr = 1,
ap 5
= 0, and x = constant, with heat transfer permitted at the wall:
2
c T + = au + b.
- (21)
p 2

In different form,

T(y) = A + B-u + C(-u). (22)


us (5)5
us

Let us put in the boundary conditions

u=O',T=T
w
u = us' T = Tw
u=u .VT= T
,

and utilize the relationship for adiabatic flow,


2
c T + - = constant.
p 2

(Actually the equation requires also that Pr = 1, a restriction we attempt to ignore.)

Equation 22 then assumes the form (23)

2
T=Tw ~ (w-Taw)-(Taw-Ts( ). (24)

With this relationship T(u), it can be shown (Sivells and Payne , pp. 25, 26) that

T T
H + 1 = H w a (25)
s s
Meager experimental corroboration of Equation 25 is given in Figure 2.

Recalling the definition given earlier,

H +1= (Htr + ( , (26)

we see that
T T
Htr =H +-Tw-1. (27)
0 0

12
70-

T =T
w aw

60- - Equation 25
60 8
Laufer and McClellan T
w
=T aw
A Higgins and Pappas9, Tw=Taw
9
50-p Higgins and Pappas, Tw/Ts=2.82

40
a)
a)

cU

30-
0

ww
T/T=1. 5
20 - w Ts
Tw/ Ts=O. 5

10- T /T=2. 82
ww
-

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Mach number (M)

Figure 2. Variation of Form Parameter with Mach Number

13
The problem of finding Htr(x) is thus converted into that of finding H.(x).

Now we come up with a big assumption about the velocity profile, that

u -u
s = F(y/8). (28)
us

It follows directly from the definition of form parameter H. that


1

Hi= 1C = 2.605 (29)


C2
1

where

C=f F(y/8) d(y/8) (30)


01

C2 = f1 F2 (y/8) d(y/8). (31)


0

We should admit at this point that H. will not be constant in any substantial pressure gradient.

For instance, the Pohlhausen solution shows an H. variation from 2.25 to 3. 50, corresponding

to A = -12 and +12, respectively. He calculates H. = 2. 554 at dp = 0 (see Pai, p. 179).

Compare this with the turbulent case where it is assumed that

u -u
s = F(y/8) (32)
ut
whence

H. = 1 - 1(33)
1 C2u c
1 _- 2 1 - K f
l s

and

K =7.

Returning to laminar boundary layer, we may now convert the equation


T T
H = H.,-,w+ aw - 1, (34)
tr iT T
0 0
using

T
O = 1 + 0.22 (35)
T s
s

14
and

Taw = 1+0.29WM 2 =1+0.2/Pr M 2 (36)


T s s
s

to get

Htr 1 22. 605 -0. 2 M (1 -r) , (37)


1t+ 0.2M s

which amounts to the Htr(x) relationship sought.

Summary of the Calculation Method


9
Use the following equation to get tr as a function of x:

Ms = rsMs+tr
H9trrs
sec wi (1+0.2M2)dx

.
r and M are determined either by the Foelsch method or the method of characteristics.
5 5
Subscript "s" denotes conditions at the seam, which is at the outer edge of the boundary layer,

and of the isentropic core.

Calculate sec w = f(x) from sec o = 41 + tan2U

where
dr Ar
tan = .s
-

Htr - +0 2 2. 605T - 0. 2 M( - Fr]


2Ms+0. s

where
T
w is known or estimated
Ts(x) is taken from the calculations for the isentropic core

Pr is evaluated at reference temperature T'.


T
Calculate cf -sc'

where
T' = 0.5 [T + T 1 + 0. 0881JP-MS

15
0.664

where
T p
Rx T' us'

p and u come from core calculations.

' is read from a curve of s(T) opposite T' (Figure 3).

If we assume that 9 is zero at the throat,

2+H 2
+H
trr = 9 r M tr
\tr sMs / tr s s

The integral in the first equation is evaluated by graphical integration, giving tr(x). Thence,

calculate
3
0 = 9
(1 + 0.2 M2

and

H = (Htr + 11+0.2M2)-1.

Thence,

S= HO.

Corroboration of Theory

Maslach and Sherman2 have developed a method of calculating the laminar boundary-

layer growth in an axisymmetric nozzle, obtaining a finite-difference solution of the Karman

momentum integral form of the boundary-layer equations. They calculated a displacement

thickness (8&) at the exit of an M = 6 nozzle (low-density wind tunnel) of 0. 0638 foot. When the

much simpler method-developed herein-is used, the calculated displacement thickness for the

same nozzle (see the appendix) is 0. 06420 foot. Maslach and Sherman do not present sufficient

information to determine the boundary-layer displacement thickness from their experimental

data. However, comparison of the measured total boundary-layer thickness (1. 14 inches) with

Maslach and Sherman's predicted value (1. 08 inches) for the M = 6 nozzle indicates experimen-

tal corroboration of their method.

16
7-
dft
For T > 199 0 R 3/2
T +C
r r L
\T/ Ir T+C
1
r = 3. 59\7 slugs (ft sec)
6- T = 492 0 R
r
C = 192 R

For T < 199 R

5- y= 8. 118\-10 t
N
O
r-1
10
See Coles , p. 16
U,

U 4-

U
0
3-
)

U,

2-

1-

il-u

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200


Temperature ( R)

Figure 3. Viscosity-Temperature Variation

17
Conclusions

A method has been developed for calculating the growth of the laminar boundary layer in

axisymmetric nozzles at hypersonic Mach numbers. Additional experimental data (taken over

a wider range of Mach numbers, wall-to-free-stream-temperature ratios and streamwise

surface-pressure gradients) are needed to corroborate the assumptions made in the derivation

of Equations 18 and 25. The validity of using Eckert's reference temperature (Equation 13) at

large total temperatures (in the range of 20000 to 400 0 R) with cold walls should be experimen-

tally verified. This method does not directly account for pressure gradient since a velocity

profile was chosen to give a constant value of the incompressible form factor H.; the Pohlhausen

solution shows variation of H. with pressure gradient. Hence, this method assumes that the

effect of the favorable pressure gradients, associated with hypersonic nozzle design, on the

boundary-layer growth is negligible.

18
APPENDIX

Calculation of Displacement Thickness at Exit of


University of California Mach 6 Nozzle

19
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) 19) (20)
2(

+A+ Arl Ar/x 1+Ar 2 sec + 0.4. Tsuu 2 s2/Ts M M 2.605 T/T 0.0298M 16) - (17) 1+ 0.2M Htr

0.00 1.0000 113.2062 6.6306 432.3 0.4669 0.2180 0.5043 1.189 1.090 3.225 0.035 3.190 1.: 238 2.577

0.03 1.3300 0.03 0. 3300 0.1621 1.0263 1.0131 35. 5218 4. 1706 271.9 0.7481 0. 5597 2. 058\-3 4.853 2.203 5. 127 0. 145 4.982 1. 971 2. 528

0.06 1. 9950 0.03 0.6650 0.3267 1. 1067 1.0520 14. 2328 2. 8928 188.6 0.8586 0.7372 3. 909\-3 9.217 3.036 7. 391 0.275 7. 116 2. 843 2. 503

0.11 3.0400 0.05 1.0450 0.3081 1.0949 1.0464 6. 7953 2. 1522 140. 3 0.9165 0,8400 5. 987 14.12 3.7 58 9. 936 0. 421 9.515 3.1 824 2.488
\- 3
0.16 3.9050 0.05 0.8650 0.2550 1.0650 1.0320 4.4131 1.8109 118. 1 0.9420 0.8874 7.514 17.72 4.210 11.80 0. 528 11.27 4. 544 2.480

0.23 4.8450 0.07 0. 9400 0. 1979 1.0392 1.0194 2.9235 1. 5359 100. 1 0.9621 0.9256 9. 247 3 21.80 4.669 13. 93 0.65 13.28 5.;360 2.478

0.30 5. 5325 0.07 0.6875 0. 1448 1.0210 1.0104 2.2360 1. 3797 89. 96 0.9733 0. 9473 10. 53\-3 24.83 4.983 15. 50 0.74 14.76 5.1 966 2.474

0.39 6. 1700 0.09 0.6375 0. 1044 1.0109 1.0054 1.7803 1.2595 82. 12 0.9818 0. 9639 11. 74- 27.68 5.261 16. 98 0. 82 16. 16 6.; 536 2.472

0.48 6. 6100 0.09 0.4400 0.0721 1.0052 1.0026 1.4527 1. 1611 75.70 0.9887 0.9775 12. 91 30.47 5.520 18.41 0. 91 17.50 7.' 094 2.467
\- 3
0.59 6.9450 0.11 0.3350 0.0449 1.0020 1.0010 1.2347 1.0880 70.94 0.9939 0.9878 13.92 32.82 5.729 19. 65 0. 98 18.67 7.1 564 2.468
\- 3
0.70 7. 1400 0. 11 0. 1950 0.0261 1.0007 1.0003 1.1292 1. 0498 68.45 0.9965 0.9930 14. 51 34.21 5.849 20. 37 1. 02 19.35 7.! 842 2.467

0.83 7.2450 0. 13 0. 1050 0.0119 1.0001 1.0001 1.0328 1.0130 66. 05 0.9991 0. 9982 15. 11 35.63 5.969 21. 11 1. 06 20.05 8.1 126 2.467

1.00 7.2880 0.17 0.0430 0.0037 1.0000 1.0000 1.0018 1. 0007 65.25 1.0000 1. 0000 15.333_ 36.15 6.012 21. 36 1.08 20.28 8.: 230 2.464

Reference Report: Reference 2

(1) x+ from Table II, pp. 75-7; x = x/L; L = 1 457 feet; x = distance along seam of flow.

(2) r from Table II, pp. 75-7; r5 = rs/rit ; rit = 0. 02148 foot; rs= radius of isentropic core to seam.

Ar r. Ar
(5) tan w -T L4 =+0. 01474 Ar+/Ax

(7) sec = 1 + tan2

(8) +Poe Poe 1 2. 592 x 144 - 2.112-6 slugs


(8) psfrom Table II; ps = /se' pse =( M2 5
RTo 0 M2
s e / se s1+ e + 0. 2 M22. Oe+M.2+2. 1716 x 535 x (1+0.2 x 62)
sse

+ -1 o _ 535
(10) Ts = Tse (ps) Ts e 1+0 2 1 + 0. 2 x 36 = 65.2
1+.2Mse
1
= 2380 ft sec-
(11) u+ from Table II; u+ = us/use; use

2 (+)2 2(u2
2
M
(14) (4 Ms yRT = __
Ts xs (2380)21= 2358
1.4 x1716 Ts

(16) T = wall temperature; assume same as stagnation temperature = 535 R

(17) 0. 0298 M2 0. 2 M 2 (1 - Pr) where Pr is taken as 0. 724

2
(20) Htr = 1 2. 605 ,,w - 0. 0298 Msj
s

20
- .. T I I I
(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40)
(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

2+Htr + 2+Htr 2M3 (36) x (37)


1 075M2 T(1 + . 075M 2 )I T WA+ (22) T/T usx R' Cf cf log Ms M rMs cf sec w (1+., 2Ms)
Ps/,.' s (Htr +2)log Ms s (38 I
+

u'
_ if - _ I I I I I I r iI
1. 089 470. 8 1005. 502. 9 3. 667 6. 533 0. 8596 0 0 0 00 00 0.03743 0. 17135 1.484 1.484 1. 898
302. 0 403. 5 63. 52 1. 045\2 6. 272\3 0. 34301 1. 55315 35.74 47. 53 6. 354\3 7. 657 0. 03944 6. 172\-
1. 364 370. 9 905. 453. 0 3. 37\ 2. 226 0.6002
853. 427. 0 3. 21\ 0. 9364 0.4417 693. 5 286. 8 53. 55 1. 240\-2 5. 477\-3 0. 48230 2. 17180 148. 5 296.; 3 5.762\-3 22.98 0.07428 11. 62
1.691 318. 9
2. 059 288. 9 823. 412. 0 3. 12 0. 4599 0. 3405 1357 212. 5 46. 10 1. 440\ 2 4.903\-3 0. 57496 2. 58042 380. 6 1157 5. 129\-3 55.91 0. 1061 16. 60-

2. 329 275. 1 810. 405. 1 3. 07 0. 3036 0. 2915 2028 179. 5 42. 37 1. 567\-2 4. 568\-3 0. 62428 2.79677 626. 3 2446 4. 714\ 3 93. 83 0. 1229 19. 23-

2. 635 263.8 798. 399.4 3. 03- 0. 2038 0. 2506 2979 152. 1 39. 00 1. 703\2 4.268\-3 0. 66922 2. 99677 992.6 4809 4. 349\- 3 154.0 0. 1358 21. 25-

2. 862 257. 5 792. 396. 8 3.027 0. 1564 0. 2267 3930 139. 4 37. 34 1. 778\-2 4. 031-3 0.69749 3. 12057 1320 7303 4. 071\-3 212.3 0. 1400 21. 91-

3.076 252.6 787. 393.8 3. 01\ 0. 1249 0.2085 5154 134. 2 36.1 63 1. 813\-2 3. 780\-3 0.72107 3. 22463 1677 10350 3. 7 99\-3 279.2 0. 1408 22. 04

3.285 248.7 783. 391. 9 3. 00\ 0. 1023 0. 1932 6388 126. 2 35. 52 1. 869\-2 3. 6 11 3 0. 74194 3. 31425 2062 13630 3. 622\-3 357 . 0 0. 1383 21. 64-

3.462 245.6 780. 390. 3 2. 99\7 0. 08722 0. 1818 7893 125. 2 35. 38 1. 877\-2 3. 412\-3 0.75808 3. 38710 2438 16930 3.415\3 432. 7 0. 1336 20. 9j

3. 566 244.1 779. 389.6 2. 98 0. 08003 0. 1757 9390 132. 0 36. 33 1. 8282 3. 212\3 0.76708 3. 42655 2670 19060 3.2 12\-3 482. 3 0. 1269 19. 86-

3.672 242. 5 777. 388.8 2. 97\ 0. 07343 0. 1699 11160 139. 3 37. 32 1. 77 9- 2 3.023\3 0.77590 3. 46595 2924 21180 3. 023\-3 536.6 0. 1193 18. 67\-

3.711 242.1 777. 388.6 2.97\ 0. 07125 0. 1679 13460 161. 0 40. 12 1. 655\-2 2. 77 9\- 3 0.779021 3. 47755 3003 21890 2.779\-3 557. 4 0. 1091 17. 07-
__________I ____________I I_____ I ______ I______j_______I_____I _____ _______ _______I______II___________ I______ ______I_ ________ __I_____

(21) 0. 075 M 2 0. 088 /Pr M with Pr taken as 0. 724

2 0
(24) T' = 0. 5 Ts1
+Tw + . 075 M ) where Tw is taken as 535 R

(25) p' is read from p(T) curve at T' value (Figure 3, this report)
+ + 67.86 ++ \4 ++
(28) usx = u ue x+L = 2380 x672 usx =1.346 usx

P, psuSx T p
p'usx
(29) R' = ,us__
s

(31) c = 0. 664/

T
(32) cf T' Cf

(35) logM tr = Hr + 2]log Ms


[ 2+H+

x =fxrsMs2+H sc +C Axr rx L r Ax
055J + tr f +0.s2 s5it 0. 02148 x1. 457++++

0 0

21
Now
1 = L M2+Htr [ M2+Htr

(exitsthroat

We assume

0
tr = 0 at the throat, so that

+
11 Idx =4 4\-6
Pt -0. 001901
. 2+H " (7. 2880 x 0. 02148)(3003)
exit r M tr
is s xt

where the integral is evaluated graphically from a plot of I versus x+ (Figure Al).

Thence,

9exit =-[(1 + 0. 2 M2) Otriexit = (8. 23)3 x 4. 045\-6 = 2. 251\-3

and

Hexit = (Htr+ 1l 1 + 0. 2 M = 3. 464 x 8. 230 = 28. 52.

Finally,

5 exit = HO = 28. 52 x 2. 251\3 = 0. 06420 foot.

Referring to Figure 4, reference report, read

sexit xtrit
- r. =2. 97 x 0. 02148 = 0. 0638 foot.
i
This value is not experimental, but is calculated by a finite-differences solution of the Karman

momentum integral form of the boundary-layer equations. Thus, the above excellent agree-

ment serves at this point merely to support our simpler method of boundary-layer calculations.

*
The reference report does not give sufficient experimental data for determining $ . However,

it gives experimental corroboration of their method of calculating boundary-layer thickness, $:

Scalc 1. 08 inches (Figure 4, reference report)

ex, 5.275-3 = 1. 14 inches (Figure 10, reference report).


exp't _t 2

22
20-

16-

I x 10 4

12-

8
-

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


x

Figure Al. Plot for Graphical Evaluation of Integral

23
LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Sivells, James C.; Payne, Robert G., A Method of Calculating Turbulent-Boundary-Layer


Growth at Hypersonic Mach Numbers, AEDC-TR-59-3, March 1959.

2. Maslach, G. J.; Sherman, F. S., Design and Testing of an Axisymmetric Hypersonic


Nozzle for a Low-Density Wind Tunnel, Institute of Engineering Research, TR-HE-150-134,
Berkeley, California, February 15, 1956.

3. Foelsch, Kuno, "The Analytical Design of an Axially Symmetric Laval Nozzle for a Paral-
lel and Uniform Jet, " Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, March 1949, pp. 161-166.

4. Liepmann, H. W.; Dhawan, S., "Direct Measurements of Local Skin Friction in Low-
Speed and High-Speed Flow, " Proceedings of the First U. S. National Congress of Applied
Mechanics, 1951, pp. 869-874.

5. Eckert, Ernst R. G., Survey on Heat Transfer at High Speeds, WADC Technical Report
54-70, April 1954.

6. Coles, Donald, Measurements in the Boundary Layer on a Smooth Flat Plate in Supersonic
Flow. III. Measurements in a Flat-Plate Boundary Layer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
JPL Report No. 20-71, June 1, 1953.

7. Pai, Shih-I, Viscous Flow Theory. I - Laminar Flow, Van Nostrand, New York, 1956,
pp. 179 and 193.

8. Laufer, J.; McClellan, R., "Measurements of Heat Transfer from Fine Wires in Super-
sonic Flow, " Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1 (Part 3), September 1956, pp. 276-287.

9. Higgins, Robert W.; Pappas, Constantine C. , An Experimental Investigation of the Effect


of Surface Heating on Boundary-Layer Transition on a Flat Plate in Supersonic Flow,
NACA TN 2351, 1951.

10. Coles, Donald, Measurements in the Boundary Layer on a Smooth Flat Plate in Supersonic
Flow. I. The Problem of the Turbulent Boundary Layer, JPL Report No. 20-69, June 1,
1953.

24
DISTRIBUTION

1 Librarian, DMA, Attn: Development Branch


2 K. F. Hertford, ALOO
3 C. C. Campbell, SAO-AEC
4 E. Teller, LRL
5-7 Mrs. Lucille McAndrew, LASL
Attn: N. E. Bradbury
H. M. Agnew
D. P. MacDougall
8-28 AFSWC
29 NASA, Ames Laboratory
30 NASA, Lewis Laboratory
31 NASA, Langley Laboratory
32 University of Utah, Attn: Professor Ralph D. Baker
33 Redstone Arsenal, Attn: E. B. May
34 Aerodynamic Test Laboratory, Point Mugu, California,
Attn: J. H. Carrington
35 Boeing Airplane Co., Seattle, Washington, Attn: J. H. Russell
36 Ballistics Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Attn: Dr. T. Smith
37 Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Attn: K. D. Bird
38 Convair, San Diego, California, Attn: W. T. MacCarthy
39 Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Attn: R. C. McWherter
40 Southern California Cooperative Wind Tunnel, Attn: P. F. Keller
41 Douglas Aircraft Co., El Segundo, California, Attn: R. W. Bratt
42 David Taylor Model Basin, Attn: Dr. S. De Los Santos
43 Grumman Aircraft, Attn: William Gander
44 Gas Dynamics Facility, ARO, Incorporated, Attn: J. C. Sivells
45 Gas Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Attn: Dr. Seymour M. Bogdonoff
46 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Attn: William Howard
47 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Robert E. Rohtert
48 North American Aviation, Inc., Los Angeles, California, Attn: W. Danielss, Jr.
49 National Aeronautical Establishment, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,
Attn: K. Orlick-R~uckemann
50 Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Attn: Fred DeMerritte
51 Naval Supersonic Laboratory, Attn: D. H. Ross
52 Ohio State University, Attn: Dr. J. D. Lee
53 Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Attn: Dr. M. Visich, Jr.
54 Republic Aviation Corp., Attn: A. Cravero
55 Rosemount Aeronautical Laboratories, University of Minnesota, Attn: S. T . Vick
56 United Aircraft Corp., Attn: I. Twomey
57 University of Michigan, Attn: Dr. H. P. Liepman
58 Wright Aeronautical Development Center, Attn: P. P. Antonatos
59 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, California, Attn: Paul Theriault
60 Marquardt Aircraft Co., Van Nuys, California, Attn: William Braithwaite

25
DISTRIBUTION (cont)

61-64 Dr. Arlo F. Johnson, University of Utah


65 Dr. Irmgard-Fligge-Lotz, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Stanford University
66-390 TISE
391-465 OTS
466-475 ASTIA, Arlington Hall Station, Arlington 12, Virginia
476 G. A. Fowler, 5000
477 C. F. Quate, 5100
478 T. B. Cook, 5110
479 W. W. Bledsoe, 5120
480 M. L. Merritt, 5130
481 A. Y. Pope, 5140
482 H. R. Vaughn, 5141
483 R. C. Maydew, 5142
484 D. E. Randall, 5142
485 K. F. Crowder, 5143
486 W. H. Curry, 5144
487 R. S. Claassen, 5150
488 R. E. Dewhurst, 8233
489 R. K. Smeltzer, Central Record File, 3421-3
490 W. F. Carstens, 3423
491-500 W. K. Cox, 3466-1

26