CEAS Space J (2016) 8:101–116
DOI 10.1007/s12567-016-0112-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake
flow of a generic space launcher at M∞ = 3 and M∞ = 6
V. Statnikov1 · S. Stephan2 · K. Pausch1 · M. Meinke1 · R. Radespiel2 · W. Schröder1
Received: 15 July 2015 / Revised: 12 January 2016 / Accepted: 15 January 2016 / Published online: 11 February 2016
© CEAS 2016
Abstract  The turbulent wake of a generic space launcher
wind tunnel model with an underexpanded nozzle jet is
investigated experimentally and numerically to gain insight
into the variation of intricate wake flow phenomena of
space vehicles at higher stages of the flight trajectory with
increasing Mach number. The experiments are carried out
at M∞ = 3 and M∞ = 6 in the Ludwieg tube test facil-
ity at the Institute of Fluid Mechanics at the Technische
Universität Braunschweig, while the corresponding time-
resolved computations are performed by the Institute of
Aerodynamics at RWTH Aachen University using a zonal
RANS–LES approach. A strong alteration of the wake
topology with increasing Mach number due to the chang-
ing pressure ratio at the nozzle exit is found. At M∞ = 3
the moderate underexpansion rate of pe /p∞ ≈ 5 leads to a
formation of a recirculation region with an elongated trian-
gular cross-section reaching to the nozzle exit. At M∞ = 6
a substantially stronger afterexpansion of the jet plume
( pe /p∞ ≈ 100) causes the formation of a cavity region
with a quadrangular cross-section. The stronger deflection
towards the nozzle at M∞ = 3 results in lower mean and
rms wall pressure ratios than at M∞ = 6. However, due
to the higher freestream pressure value at the lower Mach
number the relation of absolute values is reciprocal, mak-
ing the lower supersonic regime more critical with respect
to dynamic structural loads. This observation is confirmed
* V. Statnikov
v.statnikov@aia.rwth‑aachen.de
1
Institute of Aerodynamics and Chair of Fluid Mechanics,
RWTH Aachen University, Wüllnerstrae 5a, 52062 Aachen,
Germany
2 position)
Institute of Fluid Mechanics, Technische Universität
Braunschweig, Hermann‑Blenk‑Str. 37, 38107 Brunswick,
Germany
 
by an overall good agreement between numerical and
experimental data at characteristic positions on the base
and nozzle wall. Furthermore, it was shown that undesired
effects of the strut support in the wake are present along
the whole circumference. For M∞ = 3 the strut influence
is found to be particularly intense. The spectral analysis of
wall pressure fluctuations reveals fundamental differences
in the dynamic behavior of the two investigated wake flow
regimes. At M∞ = 3, a dominant frequency range around
SrD ≈ 0.2 associated with the inner dynamics of the recir-
culation bubble is found at the base, while on the nozzle
a broad-band low-frequency content of substantially higher
amplitudes is detected, which is a footprint of the graduate
realignment of the turbulent shear layer along the nozzle
wall. The spectra at M∞ = 6 are characterized by several
high-frequency sharp peaks at SrD  0.8. A strong correla-
tion between the supported wind tunnel configuration and
the axisymmetric free-flight case is found for the peaks
at SrD ≈ 0.85 known to be caused by the radial flapping
motion of the shear layer along the cavity.
Keywords  Wake-nozzle flow interaction · Supersonic
and hypersonic wake · Space launcher base flow · Zonal
RANS–LES
Abbreviations
D Main body diameter
M Mach number
Re Reynolds number
Sr Strouhal number
x Streamwise distance (x = 0 in the base plane)
ϕ  Azimuthal position in deg (ϕ = 0◦ at the strut
δ Boundary layer thickness
 Grid resolution
13
102
Subscripts
∞ Freestream conditions
0 Total value
e Value at the nozzle exit
mean Time-averaged value
rms Root-mean-square value
Superscripts
′ Fluctuating part
+ Wall unit
1 Introduction
At supersonic speeds the wake of space launchers is domi-
nated by shock and expansion waves, drastically changing
the dynamic wake flow behavior compared to the subsonic
part of the flight trajectory. During the sub- and transonic
phases of the flight of a classical space launcher featuring an
abrupt junction between the main body and the nozzle, e.g.,
Ariane 5, Titan 4, H2, the shear layer shed from the main
body usually reattaches on the nozzle contour making the
wake similar to canonic backward-facing step problems. At
higher altitudes, however, classical nozzles operate at under-
expanded mode leading to a formation of an afterexpanding
wide jet plume that causes the shear layer to radially detach
from the nozzle, which in the literature is usually referred
to as a displacement effect [1]. As a result, a cavity region
with a quadrangular cross-section can form around the noz-
zle engine. The formation of the recirculation cavity region
leads to an increase of the base pressure level due to the
non-attaching shear layer. As a consequence, although the
base drag is reduced, the periodic and stochastic pressure
oscillations become stronger and might excite vibrations
of critical amplitude. Therefore, an accurate prediction of
the wake flow and resulting aerodynamic loads for selected
crucial launch stages is of fundamental importance for the
development of future efficient space launcher vehicles.
In this paper, we focus on the supersonic regime. Nev-
ertheless, before giving an overview of the state of art on
supersonic wake flows, it is worth mentioning the great
amount of work on the sub- and transonic wake flow phe-
nomena performed in the past, e.g., by Deprés et al. [2],
Meliga and Reijasse [3], Deck and Thorigny [4], Hanne-
mann et al. [5], Schrijer et al. [6, 7], Marié et al. [8], and
many others. Moreover, since during these first launch
phases the shed shear layer usually directly reattaches on
the outer nozzle wall, the influence of the jet plume on the
wake is reduced and the flow becomes similar to even bet-
ter studied canonical backward facing step problems, e.g.,
[9, 10].
First investigations of the supersonic wake flow dynam-
ics can be traced back to the second half of the last century
13
V. Statnikov et al.
and were performed among others in the framework of
Apollo lunar program (1963–1972). For instance, Brewer
and Craven [11] detected low energy resonance in the
base cavity of a configuration with a four-nozzle-array,
but couldn’t identify its source since only one microphone
was placed on the base plate and several other uncer-
tainties, e.g., wind tunnel noise could also be involved.
Recently, using modern high-resolution measurement
techniques Janssen and Dutton [12] experimentally inves-
tigated the temporal behavior of the supersonic base flow
at M∞ = 2.46 and detected dominant frequencies around
SrD = 0.1 of the wall pressure fluctuations attributed to
the inner motion of the large structures inside of the sepa-
ration region. Bannink et al. [13] and Scarano et al. [14]
investigated the interaction of the supersonic base flow at
M∞ = 2 and 3 with a moderately afterexpanding nozzle
jet ( pe /p∞ = 2.3 − 4) and also observed several dominant
lower frequencies which were traced back to the dynam-
ics of the separation bubble, while higher frequencies were
referred to shed turbulent structures. In the recent time,
within the framework of the research activities of the Ger-
man Transregional Collaborative Research Center TRR
40 focusing on the analysis and modeling of coupled liq-
uid rocket propulsion systems and their integration into
the space transportation system, Saile et al. [15] studied
the variation of wall pressure fluctuations at M∞ = 6 for
different aft-body extensions and jet flow conditions. The
experiments were conducted in the hypersonic H2K blow-
down wind tunnel of the German Aerospace Center (DLR)
in Cologne on a generic launcher configuration mounted
by a double-wedge profiled strut attached to the main
body. Several characteristic frequencies were detected and
attributed to vortex shedding and radial flapping motion. At
the University of Braunschweig using the same supported
generic geometry but in the hypersonic wind tunnel of the
Ludwieg tube type, Stephan et al. [16] performed experi-
mental investigations at supersonic (M∞ = 3) and hyper-
sonic (M∞ = 6) freestream speeds with an underexpanded
jet at variable temperatures and studied the effects of the
underexpanded jet on the wall pressure spectra.
Despite the great amount of experimental work dedi-
cated to the analysis of the wake flow physics at super-
sonic speeds in the past, many phenomena are still not well
understood. One major reason are undesirable interactions
with shock and expansion waves stemming from the model
supports. Experimental investigations of purely axisym-
metric models are difficult to realize in practice due to
the necessity to mount the model in the wind tunnel. For
instance, a strut positioned in the center of the plume has to
enclose cables and gas supplies for the nozzle, to not suf-
fer from vibrations, but also to not disturb the plume itself.
Other aspects are measurement and subsequent analysis
of the data, since the eventually obtained supersonic wake
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space…
is determined by a superposition of different periodic and
stochastic phenomena, low absolute values of static pres-
sure, short time scales, and wind tunnel noise. In addi-
tion, pressure signals are available at only few probe loca-
tions, which eventually makes the process of identification
of coherent flow structures responsible for the detected
dynamics a difficult task. Therefore, numerical investiga-
tions of supersonic wake flows play an important role as
they potentially do not require artificial model supports and
allow insight into many more different aspects.
Numerical investigations of the turbulent wakes range
from various Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
model based solutions [17, 18] via detached-eddy simula-
tions (DES) [19, 20] and large-eddy simulations (LES) [21]
to direct numerical simulations (DNS) [22, 23]. The base
flow and the base pressure, however, have not always been
predicted with sufficient accuracy. RANS models were
found to be suitable only for the prediction of the attached
flow and failed to provide accurate results concerning the
low pressure recirculation area behind the base. DNS is
at the present time restricted to small Reynolds numbers
and also a small integration domain. In contrast, hybrid
approaches like DES (Strelets [24], Deck and Thorigny [4],
Lüdeke et al. [25]) and zonal RANS–LES (Statnikov
et al. [26]) allow time-resolved computation of the dynamic
wake flow at practically relevant Reynolds numbers and
were found to be a good compromise between costs and
accuracy for time-resolved simulations of the dynamic
wake flow of space launchers. Most recently, Statnikov
et al. [27] combined a zonal RANS–LES method with a
reduced order approach of dynamic mode decomposition to
clarify and visualize the sources of the dominant peaks in
the wall pressure spectra of a generic free-flight configura-
tion of an Ariane 5-like launcher at M∞ = 6, which have
also been experimentally detected on the supported wind
tunnel models by Saile et al. [15] and Stephan et al. [16].
Despite recent developments in high-fidelity zonal tur-
bulence modeling techniques such as zonal RANS–LES
and DES and their successful applications for wake flow
analyses, combined experimental and numerical inves-
tigations of supported wind tunnel models as presented
in this work are still vitally important since they allow to
ensure the reliability of numerical methods and to quan-
tify the limitations of both numerics (e.g., short computa-
tional time, turbulence modeling, scale resolution, etc.) and
experiments (e.g., interactions with the model support, low
absolute values of static pressure, wind tunnel noise, etc.).
In this work, we present some of the recent results of
the ongoing experimental and numerical investigations on
the turbulent wake flow of an Ariane 5-like generic con-
figuration at M∞ = 3 and M∞ = 6 performed within the
framework of TRR 40. The main focus lies on the analysis
of the variation of the flow topology and the resulting wall
103
pressure oscillations on the rocket engine and the base plate
at the selected points of the supersonic flight trajectory.
The choice of the generic geometry with the same major
parameters as the main stage of Ariane 5 (dnzl /D = 0.4
and lnzl /D = 1.2) has been made in accordance with other
relevant recent and ongoing investigations of the wake
flow dynamics of the current main European launcher.
For instance, the same generic shape has been investi-
gated by Deprés et al. [2] experimentally and by Deck and
Thorigny [4] numerically at transonic speeds providing a
detailed analysis of the buffeting phenomenon caused by
the reattaching shear layer. In contrast, the wake dynamics
at higher altitudes, where the nozzle operates at underex-
panded mode leading to a formation of a cavity flow, still is
not fully understood for the reasons explained in the previ-
ous paragraphs. This fact makes the presented study of the
chosen generic configuration at two different points of the
supersonic flight trajectory particularly interesting. In this
work, on the numerical side a zonal RANS–LES approach
is applied allowing time-resolved computations of the intri-
cate wake flow field at high spatial and temporal resolution
at a fraction of the costs of a pure LES. The experiments
are performed in the Hypersonic Ludwieg tube Braunsch-
weig using high-speed measurement techniques such as
Kulite pressure measurements and Schlieren visualization.
2 Geometry and flow conditions
The outer geometry of the investigated space launcher con-
figuration is approximated by a generic model which con-
sists of a rounded conical top with an apex angle of 36◦
attached to a cylindrical main body part with a diameter
of D = 108 mm. A cylindrical full flowing nozzle exten-
sion with a length of 129.6 mm and a diameter of 43 mm
is attached to the base of the main body leading to the same
nozzle-main body ratios of dnozzle /Dmain body ≈ 0.4 and
lnozzle /Dmain body ≈ 1.2, as for the main stage of Ariane 5
launcher. Inside the nozzle extension, a truncated ideal
contour (TIC) nozzle with an apex angle of 4◦ and design
Mach number at the exit section of Me = 2.52 is used.
Due to the necessity to mount the model in the wind tun-
nel and to enclose cables for the electronics and gas supply
for the nozzle flow, a vertical double-wedge profiled strut
is orthogonally attached to the upper side of the main body.
The geometry parameters of the investigated configurations
are presented in Fig. 1.
As a baseline for the investigations two trajectory points
of an Ariane 5-like space launcher [28] are defined simu-
lating the flight conditions at an altitude of approximately
25 and 50 km, which corresponds to the freestream Mach
numbers of M∞ = 3 and M∞ = 6 as well as the unit Reyn-
olds numbers of 12 × 106 m −1 and 16 × 106 m −1. For
13
104 V. Statnikov et al.

30° 20° experiments and simulations is given in Table 1. Detailed

22
16.5 information on their derivation and comparison with the
R 10 259.4 TIC nozzle
full-scale flight case of an Ariane 5-like launcher is given in
Stephan et al. [16].

Ø 108

ø 43
36°

328.6
472.4 129.6 3 Experimental setup

Fig. 1  Geometry parameters of the investigated generic space
launcher configurations [(in (mm)]
convenience, in the following discussions the two investi-
gated cases will also be regarded as the M3-case and the
M6-case, respectively. An overview of the freestream and
jet flow parameters for the corresponding wind tunnel
The experimental investigations are carried out in the super-
sonic and hypersonic wind tunnel at the Institute of Fluid
Mechanics, Technische Universität Braunschweig. The
Hypersonic Ludwieg tube Braunschweig (HLB) is a cold
Ludwieg tube blow down wind tunnel with a fast acting
valve (see Fig. 2). The fast acting valve separates the high
pressure and the low pressure parts of the facility. The high

Table 1  Freestream and nozzle M Re (1/m) U (m/s) p0 (Pa) p (Pa) T0 (K) T (K)

conditions
M3-case (M∞ = 3)
   Freestream (∞) 3 12 × 106 607 1.52 × 105 4.13 × 103 285 102
6 5
   Nozzle exit ( pe /p∞ ≈ 5) 2.5 9 × 10 567 4 × 10 23.4 × 103 288 128
M6-case (M∞ = 6)
   Freestream (∞) 6 16 × 106 910 18 × 105 1.14 × 103 470 57
6 5
   Nozzle exit ( pe /p∞ ≈ 100) 2.5 24 × 10 900 20 × 10 109 × 103 470 204

(a)

(b)
∅

Fig. 2  Sketch of the hypersonic a and supersonic b configuration of the HLB

13
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space…
pressure sensor
heated storage tube
perforated plates
control valves
pressure and
temperature
sensors
launcher model
D
d
L
fast acting valve
settling chamber laval nozzle
first nozzle
Fig. 3  Sketch of the jet simulation faclity and pressure sensor positions
pressure part consists of a storage tube (17 m long thereof
3 m heated) that can be pressurized up to 30 bar. The low
pressure part consists of the wind tunnel nozzle, the circu-
lar test section (diameter 0.5 m), the diffuser and the dump
tank. It can be evacuated to a few mbar. For the HLB a
supersonic and a hypersonic configuration are available.
The hypersonic configuration with a M∞ = 6 Laval noz-
zle is shown in Fig. 2a. The supersonic tandem nozzle con-
figuration, consisting of a first nozzle, the settling chamber
and the second M∞ = 3 Laval nozzle is shown in Fig. 2b. A
system of three perforated plates and discs of steel wool are
integrated into the settling chamber to improve the uniform-
ity of the flow upstream of the second nozzle. The measur-
ing time is about 80 ms at almost constant flow conditions.
The range of the unit Reynolds number can be adjusted
using different storage tube pressures and temperatures. The
unit Reynolds number range of the hypersonic configuration
is Re = (3 − 20) × 106 m−1 and for the supersonic config-
uration Re = (1.2 − 17.6) × 106 m−1. More detailed infor-
mation on the design and operation of the HLB are given by
Estorf et al. [29] and Wu et al. [30, 31].
As will be shown in the paper, the pressure ratio between
the nozzle flow and the freestream is an important parame-
ter for the wake flow. In the experiment, the nozzle pressure
ratio is adjusted by a proper combination of the total pres-
sure values for the freestream and the inner nozzle flow.
Therefore, an additional jet simulation facility is necessary.
A sketch of the jet simulation facility is shown in Fig. 3.
The jet simulation facility is a Ludwieg tube that is run dur-
ing the operation of the HLB wind tunnel. It consists of
the 32 m long heated storage tube outside of the HLB test
section and the launcher model placed along the HLB test
section center line using a steel support. The storage tube
can be pressurized up to 140 bar and heated up to 900 K.
Into the launcher model a tandem nozzle, consisting of the
first nozzle, the settling chamber, and the second nozzle, is
105
characteristic cut planes
x/D={-0.1; 0.0; 0.77; 1.15}
φ
r
x
fairing sensor (x/D=0.77,
r/D= 0.2, ϕ=180°)
base sensor (x/D=0, r/D= 0.42, ϕ=180°)
base sensor (x/D=0, r/D= 0.42, ϕ=190°)
base sensor (x/D=0, r/D= 0.42, ϕ=240°)
integrated. A system of three perforated plates is integrated
in the settling chamber to improve uniformity of the flow
upstream of the second nozzle. The second nozzle is an
axisymmetric Truncated Ideal Nozzle (TIC) with a mean
exit Mach number, Me = 2.5. In order to trigger the transi-
tion of the boundary layer to a turbulent state a tripping is
placed 98 mm behind the nose. The jet simulation facility
is instrumented with several sensors shown in Fig. 3. For
storage tube measurements a Gefran (Type: TKDA-N-1-Z-
B16D-M-V, pressure range 0–160 bar) transducer is used.
The settling chamber is instrumented with three Kulites
(XCEL-152, pressure range 0–34.5 bar) pressure trans-
ducer along the circumference with a 120◦ distance begin-
ning from the top. Further three K-Type thermocouples
(TJC100-CASS-IM025E-65 Sensor from Omega) are used
for measuring the settling chamber total temperature. These
thermocouples are placed at the circumference with a 120◦
angular spacing beginning from the bottom. The settling
chamber total pressure pt,SC is calculated using one-dimen-
sional compressible flow theory for a fixed Mach number
in the settling chamber, MSC = 0.26. The total pressure at
the nozzle exit and downstream of the nozzle exit is meas-
ured with a pitot rake using small and low-cost transducers
from Honeywell (True Stability Silicon Pressure Sensors
Series Standard Accuracy, pressure range 0–10 bar). Note
that during the 100 ms measuring time of the jet simula-
tion facility the settling chamber pressure drops by about
15 % reported by Stephan et al. [16]. This pressure loss can
be described by the pressure drop in the pipe flow of the
storage tube. The pressure loss depends on the fluid density
and the square of the fluid velocity.
For the unsteady base pressure measurement 4 Kulite
sensors are flush mounted on the base and on the nozzle
surface as seen in Fig. 3 (right). At the base, 3 Kulite sen-
sors (Type : XCS-093, XQS-093, pressure range 0.35 bar
absolute) are placed at the circumference at 180◦, 190◦, and
13
106
240◦, measured with respect to the top location. The dis-
tance from the centerline is 45 mm. Another Kulite sensor
(Type: XCS-LE-062, pressure range 0.35 bar absolute) is
placed on the nozzle fairing at 180◦ and 83 mm downstream
of the base. More detailed information about jet simulation
and the design of the jet simulation facility are given by
Stephan et al. [16].
The pressure data was sampled with a sampling fre-
quency of 3 MHz using a Spectrum M2i.4652 transient
recorder. The fluctuations under 200 Hz and above 50 kHz
were removed by applying a filter. Note that during the
measurement no filter is used. The signals of the Wheat-
stone bridge (Kulite sensors) are directly recorded with the
Spectrum M2i.4652 transient recorder. The power spectral
density (PSD) is computed using Welch’s method. The
PSD are based on 40 ms time traces. The time traces of
10 tunnel runs are merged to obtain resolved spectra. The
data was segmented using Hamming windows of 120,000
points each with a 50 % overlap. The frequency resolution
between the bins in the obtained spectra is f = 25 Hz.
4 Computational approach
The time-resolved numerical computations of the flow
field around the generic rocket model are performed by the
Institute of Aerodynamics at the RWTH Aachen Univer-
sity using a zonal RANS–LES approach. The computation
domain around the rocket model is split into zones with
an attached flow, i.e., around the main body and inside the
the inner nozzle, where the turbulent flow field is predicted
by solving the Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
equations and a wake zone with an unsteady separated flow
computed by the large-eddy simulation (LES), Fig. 4.
4.1 Flow solver
The computations are done on a structured vertex-centered
multi-block grid using an in-house zonal RANS–LES finite
volume flow solver. The Navier–Stokes equations of three-
dimensional unsteady compressible flow are discretized
in conservative form by a mixed centered upwind AUSM
(advective upstream splitting method) scheme [32] at sec-
ond-order accuracy for the Euler terms and by a second-
order accurate centered approximation for the viscid terms
accounting for low numerical dissipation. The temporal
integration is performed by an explicit 5-stage Runge–
Kutta method with second-order accuracy as well. The
LES formulation is based on the monotone integrated LES
(MILES) approach [33] modelling the impact of the sub-
grid scales by numerical dissipation. A detailed descrip-
tion of the fundamental LES solver is given by Meinke
et al. [34] and its convincing solution quality for fully
13
V. Statnikov et al.
RANS LES
Ma: 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.8 RANS-LES transition
Fig. 4  Flow field decomposition into RANS and LES zones of the
the M3-case
r (wall-normal direction)
L x, 3 LES inflow planes with
synthetic velocity fluctuations
L r, 3 Virtual volume boxes with
randomly distributed eddy cores
1.2δ0 Lr 2
Lr 1
x (streamwise direction)
Lφ
L x, 1
L x, 2
φ (azimuthal direction)
Fig. 5  Sketch of three eddy core virtual volume boxes that encom-
pass an LES inflow boundary on which the resulting synthetic veloc-
ity fluctuations are projected (figure adapted from [39])
turbulent sub- and supersonic flows is discussed by Alk-
ishriwi et al. [35] and El-Askary et al. [36]. The RANS part
is based on the same overall discretization schemes and
the standard one-equation turbulence model of Spalart and
Almaras [37, 38] to close the time-averaged equations.
4.2 Synthetic turbulent generation method
The challenging transition from the RANS to the LES zone
is performed by a Reformulated Synthetic Turbulence Gen-
eration (RSTG) method developed by Roidl et al. [39, 40]
that allows a reconstruction of the time resolved turbulent
fluctuations from the time-averaged upstream RANS solu-
tion. The RSTG method is based on the synthetic eddy
method (SEM) of Jarrin et al. [41] and Pamiès et al. [42]
and describes turbulence as a superposition of coherent
structures. These structures are generated over the LES
inlet plane, marked as RANS–LES transition in Fig. 4, by
superimposing the influence of virtual eddy cores which
are defined in a virtual volume around the inlet plane given
by three virtual volume boxes Vvirt,p={1,2,3} as indicated
in Fig. 5. The upper boundary of the third virtual box is
at 1.2δ0 above the wall with δ0 being the maximum bound-
ary layer thickness over the span/circumference at the
LES inlet. Each virtual box has individual dimensions in
the streamwise and the wall-normal directions, i.e., Lx,p
and Lr,p, depending on the local characteristic turbulent
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space…
Fig. 6  RANS grid for the the
M6-case: a computational grid
for the zone along the main
body and strut support; b avoid-
ing grid singularity at the rota-
tional axis in the nose region.
Every 4th grid point is shown
(a)
Fig. 7  LES grid for the the
M6-case: a computational grid
for the wake zone; b nozzle exit
region; c main body shoulder
region. Every 4th grid point is
shown y
z x
(a)
length scale. The characteristic turbulent length scales that
describe the spatial properties of the synthetic structure
depend on the distance from the wall and are derived from
the turbulent viscosity µt of the upstream RANS solution
and scaled with the Reynolds number and the associated
convection velocity. As a result, the final velocity signal is
composed of an averaged velocity component ui , which is
provided from the upstream RANS solution, and the nor-
malized stochastic fluctuations ui′, which are subjected to
a Cholesky decomposition ai,j [42] to assign the values of
the Reynolds-stress tensor. The used RSTG method allows
the transitional length to be reduced to only two boundary-
layer thicknesses. For a detailed description of the applied
zonal RANS–LES method including the shape functions
and length scale distributions as well as its validation
against pure LES and DNS data for compressible flows
with separated boundary layers the reader is referred to
Roidl et al. [39, 40].
4.3 Computational grid
According to the applied zonal approach, the RANS
domains cover the main body geometry and the inner noz-
zle flow, while the LES region encompasses the wake.
To illustrate the applied grid topologies, the meshes for
the RANS and LES zones used for the M∞ = 6 case are
shown in Figs. 6 and 7. For clarity only every 4th grid point
is shown. The RANS grids for the main body ranges from
−8D to 0D in the streamwise and up to 4D in the radial
direction with D being the diameter of the cylindrical main
body part and the origin of ordinates (x, r) = 0 lying in
107
y
z x
(b)
b)
(b)
(c)
the center of the model base. The LES grids span between
x = −0.2D and x = 3.2D in the streamwise and up to 3.6D
in the radial direction in the above mentioned coordinate
system. In the spanwise direction, all the grids span over
360◦.
In the initial stage of the computations, LES grids with
twice coarser resolution in each direction as the final
computations were used. The same wake flow topolo-
gies including the shock positions and recirculation region
extensions (see Sect. 5) were obtained as for the final grid.
To enhance the capturing of smaller scales, final grids
satisfying typical mesh requirements for wall-bounded
LES [43], i.e., x + ∼ 50 − 130, z+ ∼ 15 − 30, and
ny ∼ 10 − 30 points in the wall-normal direction to resolve
the viscous wall region 0 < ly+ = ly uτ /ν ≈ 100, were
used. The characteristic grid resolution for the RANS and
LES zones within the transition region on the main body
at the strut-averted side is given in Table 2 in inner and
outer coordinates along with the total number of the grid
points for each zone. The number of the points resolving
the boundary layer in the wall-normal direction is denoted
by Nδ. The wall resolution in the turbulent boundary layer
at the shoulder is y+ = 1.4 in the M3-case and y+ = 0.7
in the M6-case. At the base wall in the separation regions,
there is no classical boundary layer. The wall-normal
resolution at the base wall is �nw /D = 4.5 × 10−3 in the
M3-case and �nw /D = 7.5 × 10−3 in the M6-case.
At the RANS–LES transition plane positioned shortly
upstream of the nozzle no synthetic turbulence needs to be
added, since the supersonic boundary layer in the nozzle is
significantly thinner compared to the main body shear layer
13
108
Table 2  Mesh resolution of x + �z+ (R�ϕ + )
RANS and LES zones in the
transition zone on the main Case 1 (M∞ = 3)
body on the strut-averted side in
   RANS 100 60
inner (in wall units l+ = uτ /ν)
and outer coordinates (based on    LES 30 30
the boundary layer thickness δ) Case 2 (M∞ = 6)
   RANS 60 60
   LES 30 20
and already becomes unstable shortly downstream of the
nozzle exit due to the interaction with large turbulent struc-
tures stemming from the main body shear layer. Such a fast
transition does not occur for the main body boundary layer.
The computational costs of the RSTG boundary condition
scale linearly with the number of eddy cores and conse-
quently, they are inversely proportional to the boundary
layer thickness, just the RANS solution of the inner nozzle
flow is imposed as the inflow boundary condition.
4.4 Data sampling and averaging procedure
Numerical time-resolved data are analyzed over a time
interval of 102.4 tref after a transient phase of about 30
tref on the final grid for each configuration, with tref being
the reference time unit needed by a particle moving with
the freestream velocity u∞ to cover one reference length
defined by the main body diameter D of the rocket model.
The data are sampled with 0.1 tref that corresponds to a
sampling frequency of SrD = 10. For the spectral analy-
sis, according to the Nyquist criterion frequencies in the
range of 0.01 < SrD < 5 can be captured. The PSD of the
obtained data sequence of 1024 samples per probe is com-
puted using Welch’s algorithm with Hamming windowing
with 50 % overlapping and bin-smoothing over 3 bins.
5 Results
The presented results are divided into three sections. First,
a brief description of the flow along the main body includ-
ing an estimate of the impact of the vertical strut needed for
the wind tunnel tests is given in Sect. 5.1. Additionally, the
wake flow topologies of the investigated configurations are
described and compared to each other by means of experi-
mental and numerical schlieren pictures illustrating the
positions of the expansion and shock waves. Afterwards,
in Sect.  5.2 the distribution of the time-averaged and rms
values of the wall pressure fluctuations along the base and
nozzle walls are compared to each other and discussed with
respect to the detected flow patterns. A detailed spectral
analysis of the detected dynamic behavior of the wake flow
is presented in Sect. 5.3.
13
V. Statnikov et al.
r + l+ ny Nδ Tot. grid points
0.7 1.5 × 10−4 42 77 65 × 106
1.4 1.5 × 10−4 31 68 42.5 × 106
0.7 2.5 × 10−4 26 37 29.6 × 106
0.7 2.5 × 10−4 27 41 46 × 106
5.1 General characterization of the flow field topology
To illustrate the flow field topologies around the investi-
gated generic rocket model, the instantaneous Mach num-
ber in the symmetry plane and the wall pressure coeffi-
cient distribution on the wall are presented in Fig. 8a for
M∞ = 3 and in Fig. 8b for M∞ = 6. In both Mach number
cases, first a detached bow shock around the model’s fair-
ing deflects the supersonic freestream parallel to the fair-
ing’s walls and leads to a strong increase of the wall pres-
sure coefficient. At the junction to the cylindrical part, the
flow is redirected parallel to the freestream by an expansion
fan causing the pressure to decrease again. Moving further
downstream to the model’s tail, the turbulent supersonic
boundary layers separate at the abrupt model’s shoulder,
forming a supersonic shear layer. As a result of the sepa-
ration, the shear layers undergo an expansion associated
with a radial deflection towards the nozzle wall, leading to
the formation of the low-pressure regions and the subsonic
recirculation zones.
On the upper side of the configuration, a second shock
and expansion wave system is formed around the double-
wedge profiled strut which subsequently interacts with the
shock and expansion waves emanating from the main body.
As a footprint of this interaction, the non-axisymmetric
distribution of the pressure coefficient, shown in color in
Fig. 8 on the launcher’s body, can be used to qualitatively
assess the impact of the vertical support on the flow field.
The azimuthal distribution of the mean and root-mean-
square wall pressure on the main body and the nozzle
extension obtained from LES is shown in Fig. 9a, b. In both
figures the distributions two investigated Mach number
cases are shown. Exploiting the symmetry of the model,
the left part of each figure corresponds to the M3-case and
the right part to the M6-case. The abscissa denotes the azi-
muthal position with ϕ = 0◦ being the strut position and
ϕ = 180◦ the strut-averted side. The different axial posi-
tions are denoted by colors with (x, r) = (−0.1, 0.5) as the
position on the main body at a sufficient distance from the
LES inflow plane, (x, r) = (−0.0, 0.35) the middle line of
the base plate, (x, r) = (0.77, 0.2) and (x, r) = (1.15, 0.2)
the slices on the nozzle wall. The axial and radial coor-
dinates are non-dimensionalized by the main body
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space… 109

Fig. 8  Instantaneous Mach
number (black and white) and
wall pressure coefficient (color) cp Ma
1.8 3
distribution along the investi- 0.6 2.5
gated generic space launcher 0.4 2
0.2 1.5
configuration at M∞ = 3 (a) 0.1 1
and M∞ = 6 (b) 0 0.5
-0.15 0

(a)

cp Ma
4.7 6
0.05 5
0.04 4
0.02 3
0.01 2
0 1
-0.01 0
-0.02

(b)

1.5 diameter  D, i.e., (x, r) = (x/D, r/D). First, it should be

LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(-0.1,0.5) M∞=6
1.25
LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(0.0,0.35) noticed that in both Mach number cases the left and right
LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(0.77,0.2)
LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(1.15,0.2) running strut-induced shock and expansion waves go
1
around the whole forebody and substantially influence
pmean/p∞

0.75 the flow field at every circumferential position. The non-

axisymmetric distributions result from the highly three-
0.5
LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(-0.1,0.5) dimensional interaction of the shock and expansion waves
LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(0.0,0.35)
0.25 LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(0.77,0.2) emanating from the main body and the model support.
M∞=3 LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(1.15,0.2)
Standing by itself, the main body induces the bow shock at
0
180 135 90 45 0 45 90 135 180 the model’s fairing and the expansion fans at the junction
φ [˚]
with the cylindrical part and the base shoulder. The strut
(a)
0.3
support leads to the formation of two oblique shock waves
M∞=3 M∞=6 and two expansion fans, i.e., the oblique shock at the lead-
0.25 LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(-0.1,0.5) LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(-0.1,0.5)
ing edge, two expansion fans at the beginning and the end
LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(0.0,0.35) LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(0.0,0.35)
0.2
LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(0.77,0.2)
LES M∞=3, (x,r)=(1.15,0.2)
LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(0.77,0.2)
LES M∞=6, (x,r)=(1.15,0.2)
of the parallel part of the double-wedge profile, and the
recompression shock at the trailing edge. The interaction
prms/p∞

0.15
of these three shocks and four expansion waves with each
0.1 other, the boundary layers, the nozzle structure, and the jet
0.05
plumes leads to a complex superposition of shock-shock,
shock-expansion wave, and shock-boundary-layer interac-
0
180 135 90 45 0 45 90 135 180 tions accompanied by additional wave reflections. Only
φ[˚] within the separation bubbles, i.e., the curves at x = 0
(b) for M∞ = 3 and x = {0; 0.77} for M∞ = 6, the pressure
levels equalize at a nearly constant level due to the sub-
Fig. 9  Azimuthal distribution of mean (a) and rms (b) wall pres- sonic speeds within the low-speed recirculation regions.
sure values on the after-body of the investigated supported generic
To assess the deviation of the pressure distribution of the
launcher configurations for M∞ = 3 (left half) and M∞ = 6 (right
half) for several axial positions computed by LES. Dashed lines indi- supported wind tunnel model from an axisymmetric case,
cates the values of an axisymmetric M∞ = 6 free-flight case by Stat- the results of Statnikov et al. [27] obtained on a free-flight
nikov et al. [27]. The axial and radial coordinates are non-dimension- configuration at M∞ = 6 with the same geometry and flow
alized by the main body diameter D, i.e., (x,r)=(x / D, r / D)
conditions but free of any model supports are additionally

13
110 V. Statnikov et al.

experiment φ=180°(mirrored)
x/D

A φ=180 (mirrored) B

x/D φ=180
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.05 0.25
0.05 0.3
0.0
0.1
0.05
0.05

0.05

p rms /p ∞
zonal RANS/LES φ=180°

(a) (a)
experiment φ=180°(mirrored) x/D

D C
φ=180 (mirrored)

x/D φ=180 0.0

0.1
0.05
0.7
0.0 0.05
0.7 0.05

0.075
0.075 0.1
0.0
0.05
0.05 0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.40.5
0.05
0.05 0.0
0.5
0.9
0.0 0.0
0.9 0.6
0.0
0.5
11 0.4
0.0
p rms /p ∞ 0.0
0.3
zonal RANS/LES φ=180°

(b) (b)

Fig. 10  Comparison of the experimentally and numerically obtained Fig. 11  Time-averaged numerical flow field topology for M∞ = 3
flow field topologies for M∞ = 3 (a) and M∞ = 6 (b) Schlieren pic- (a) and M∞ = 6 (b) streamlines (top) and root-mean-square distribu-
ture (top) and absolute density gradient of LES data (bottom) on the tion of pressure fluctuations (bottom) in the symmetry plane on the
strut-averted side strut-averted side

shown in the right parts of Fig. 9a, b by dashed lines. The
same colors as in the supported case are taken to denote
the corresponding axial positions. The comparison shows
that the overall influence of the vertical support, in particu-
lar within the separation regions, is smallest on the strut
averted side, which is why in the following our analysis
will focus on this region.
To validate the numerically computed wake topol-
ogy, the exponentially weighted density gradient [44]
obtained from the LES results is compared to the experi-
mental Schlieren pictures in Fig. 10a and b for M∞ = 3
and M∞ = 6. Note that both the experimental and the
numerical results are shown for the strut-averted side and
the experimental pictures are mirrored for an easier com-
parison. The identical positions of the shock and expansion
waves illustrate a good agreement between the experimen-
tal and numerical results with respect to the determined
wake flow topologies. Moreover, the strong density
fluctuations inside the turbulent shear layers visible in the
instantaneous LES snapshots indicate a strong turbulent
character of the investigated wake flows. Due to extremely
short time scales in the experiment and a volume-through
integration of the Schlieren measurement, an experimental
instantaneous Schlieren picture with a comparable resolu-
tion of the density fluctuations in the wake as in the LES
was not possible.
The obvious differences between the M3 and M6-wakes
are additionally illustrated by the time-averaged stream-
lines shown in the upper part of Fig. 11. The differences
are mostly caused by the resulting unequal expansion
ratios of the nozzle flow, i.e., pe /p∞ ≈ 5 for M∞ = 3
and pe /p∞ ≈ 100 for M∞ = 6. At supersonic speeds, the
underexpanded jet plume emanating from the nozzle under-
goes an afterexpansion and yields a displacement effect on
the base flow. As a result, the main body shear layers are
gradually reflected away from the nozzle wall.

13
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space… 111

The different expansion ratios between two Mach 1.5

number cases lead to a differently pronounced displace- LES M∞=3, φ=180°
1.25 LES M∞=3, φ=0°
ment effect of the jet on the base flow. In the M3-case, the
LES M∞=6, φ=180°
plume’s moderate afterexpansion leads to a comparatively 1 LES M∞=6, φ=0°
weaker displacement effect, which results in the forma-

p mea n/p ∞
LES M∞=6 axisymmetric
0.75
tion of a separation region with a triangular cross-section,
having one large-scale vortex A at the base and extending 0.5
along the whole nozzle to its exit section. In the region EXP1 M∞=3, φ=180°
0.25
close to the nozzle end, denoted as B in the upper part of EXP1 M∞=6, φ=180°
Fig. 11a, the shear layer gradually realigns along the noz- 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
zle wall by weak recompression waves. In the M6-case, the x/D
much stronger plume afterexpansion and the substantially (a)
weaker main body shear layer deflection towards the nozzle 0.3
LES M∞=3, φ=180°
result in the formation of a cavity region with a quadrangu- 0.25 LES M∞=3, φ=0°
lar cross section, containing two counterrotating large-scale LES M∞=6, φ=180°
0.2
vortices, i.e., the main vortex C and the smaller corner vor- LES M∞=6, φ=0°

p r ms /p ∞
tex D marked in Fig. 11b.
At this point it should be kept in mind that the wake
flow topology mainly depends on three major parameters,
i.e., the freestream Mach number, the nozzle-to-freestream
pressure ratio, and the nozzle-to-freestream velocity ratio.
In a real flight, these values strongly vary along the flight
trajectory due to the acceleration of the launcher and the
decrease of the ambient (static) pressure in the atmosphere
with the altitude. Unlike in the atmospheric flight, in the
experiments the freestream Mach number is defined by
the wind tunnel geometry and the nozzle pressure ratio
is adjusted by a proper combination of the total pressure
values for the freestream and the inner nozzle flow (see
Table  1). Moreover, the Reynolds number has to be suffi-
ciently high to ensure a fully developed turbulent boundary
layer. A realistically high freestream-to-jet velocity ratio
resulting from the high temperatures of the nozzle flow on
the order of ∼ 3000 K can be realized in the experiments
by using a different working gas for the nozzle flow that
has a lower molar mass and consequently, a higher specific
gas constant than the freestream medium. The influence of
the freestream-to-jet velocity ratio is the subject of ongo-
ing research activities and is not investigated in this paper.
For more details on the experiments’ design to model flight
conditions please refer to Stephan et al. [16].
5.2 Spatial wall pressure distribution
Due to the large separation regions, both wakes feature a
pronounced dynamic character which can be estimated by
the root-mean-square (rms) distribution of the pressure fluc-
tuations in the field shown in the lower parts of Fig. 11. The
maximum pressure fluctuations in the entire domain occur
along the inner and outer recompression shocks formed
around the jet plumes and are caused to a great extent
by the radial oscillation of the shocks in time. However,
since these regions are located farther downstream of the
LES M∞=6 axisymmetric
0.15
EXP1 M∞=3, φ=180°
EXP1 M∞=6, φ=180°
0.1
EXP2 M∞=6, φ=180°
0.05
00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
x/D
(b)
Fig. 12  Mean a and root-mean-square b wall pressure ratio distribu-
tion in the streamwise direction on the nozzle
nozzle, none of these pressure waves can travel upstream
and potentially influence the pressure perturbations on the
after-body. In contrast, the regions of higher pressure fluc-
tuations that go along the shedding shear layers are relevant
with respect to pressure perturbations on the after-body.
Here the pressure fluctuations rapidly increase when mov-
ing downstream of the model’s shoulder due to the shear
layer instability process causing the mixing layer and thus
turbulent structures to grow in size and intensity, similar to
the formation of Brown–Roshko-like structures [45, 46],
which can also be deduced from the evolution of the shear
layer structures and thickness visible in Fig. 10. Similarly,
the turbulent Mach number increases from initially about
0.2 in the M3-case and 0.6 in the M6-case at the model’s
shoulder up to 0.6 and 1.2 above the nozzle end section
within the shed shear layer for M∞ = 3 and M∞ = 6,
correspondingly.
The resulting mean and root-mean-square wall pressure
ratio ( pmean /p∞ and prms /p∞) distribution in the stream-
wise direction along the nozzle is shown in Fig. 12 for
two investigated Mach number cases. The solid blue lines
denote the distribution on the strut-averted side (ϕ = 180◦ )
in the M3-case, while the red ones correspond to the
M6-case. To illustrate the effect of the strut support on the
wall pressure ratio distribution at characteristic azimuthal
positions, the profiles along the strut-facing side (ϕ = 0◦ )

13
112
are also shown by equally colored dashed lines. In addi-
tion, to provide a comparison to an axisymmetric case
the M6-results by Statnikov et al. [27] are drawn by solid
green lines. Figure 12a illustrates the differences in the
mean pressure ratio between two Mach number cases. The
stronger expansion of the main body shear layer towards
the nozzle and the formation of a recirculation region with
a triangular cross-section in the M3-case lead to an ini-
tially lower mean pressure ratio at the base compared to
the M6-case. However, this relation changes further down-
stream. In the lower Mach number case, the gradual rea-
lignment of the supersonic main body shear layer along
the nozzle wall by weak compression waves (region B in
Fig. 11a) leads to a gradual increase of the mean pressure
ratio level from pmean /p∞ ≈ 0.35 up to pmean /p∞ > 1.
In the higher Mach number case, the cavity region with a
quadrangular cross-section is characterized by a flat evolu-
tion of the pmean-profile along the nozzle extension, with a
local minimum at x/D ≈ 0.8 where the large-scale vortex,
denoted by C in Fig. 11b, induces the strongest backflow.
As a result, closer to the nozzle exit, the M3-case features
a slightly higher mean pressure ratio. The same behavior
with a slight deviation in the nominal levels at the base and
a good agreement on the nozzle wall were measured in the
experiments of Stephan et al. [16] at the TU Braunschweig
(denoted as EXP1).
Regarding the levels of the wall pressure fluctuations
compared in Fig. 12b, after an initial constant level at
the base region the rms-profiles monotonically increase
while moving from the base to the nozzle exit for both
Mach number cases. It should be noted that although in
the M6-case the maximum ratio of prms /p∞ at the nozzle
exit is about 25 % higher than in the M3-case, due to dif-
ferent static pressure values, i.e., p∞ (M = 3) = 4130 and
p∞ (M = 6) = 1140 Pa, the relation changes when absolute
values are considered, making the lower supersonic case
more critical with respect to dynamic structural loads. The
differences between the strut-averted and strut-facing sides
for the M3-case are also significantly larger in both mean
and rms wall pressure ratios compared to the M6-case. This
fact results from the direct reattachment of the shear layer
on the nozzle contour at x/D ≈ 0.7 at ϕ = 0◦ leading to the
formation of a strong recompression shock, while on the
strut-averted side no direct reattachment takes place and the
shear layer is realigned by compression waves.
The comparison of the computed wall pressure fluctua-
tion levels to the experimental data in Fig. 12b illustrates
a satisfactory agreement between numerics and experi-
ments of the University of Braunschweig (EXP1) except
for the base region at M∞ = 6. To provide another per-
spective, experimental data of Saile et al. [15] obtained
on the same generic configuration, but in the hypersonic
wind tunnel H2K of DLR Cologne with relative pressure
13
V. Statnikov et al.
transducers are denoted as EXP2. The comparison shows
an overall good agreement between two experimen-
tal (EXP1 and EXP2) and two numerical (LES of a sup-
ported and an axisymmetric configuration) investigations,
except for the base signal in EXP1. At this point it should
be mentioned that the geometry and freestream conditions
at DLR Cologne were identical to the M6 experiments by
TU Braunschweig and the numerical investigations by the
Institute of Aerodynamics from RWTH Aachen University.
For the nozzle flow, the identical TIC-nozzle geometry was
used in all three investigations. However, as stated in [15],
due to structural limitations of the straightener inside the
settling chamber the total pressure in the nozzle flow could
only be raised up to 14 bar. Nevertheless, the high nozzle
flow expansion ratio of ≈ 70 (instead of ≈ 100) realized at
DLR Cologne still results in practically the same wake flow
including the pressure levels as in the presented work. As
shown in Fig. 12, particularly for the nozzle wall a good
agreement between the two experiments and the LES is
obtained. On the nozzle wall (at x/D ≈ 0.8) the numeri-
cal result for the M6-case is denoted by the solid red line
and lies directly between the experimental values from TU
Braunschweig (red diamond) and DLR Cologne (yellow
circle). In the M3-case only experimental data from TU
Braunschweig are available and also show a satisfactory
agreement with the numerical data. Possible reasons for the
large discrepancy at the base in the M6-case can be found
while analyzing the wall pressure spectra discussed in the
following section.
5.3 Analysis of the dynamic wake flow behavior
The power spectral density (PSD) of the normalized wall
pressure fluctuations p′ /p∞ are shown in Fig. 13. The data
are extracted on the base plate at {r/D; x/D = 0.42; 0.0}
and the nozzle wall at {r/D; x/D = 0.2; 0.77} on the strut-
averted side. For the M3-case shown in Fig. 13a, the base
pressure spectrum features a flat low-frequency charac-
teristic range around SrD ≈ 0.2 gradually decaying by
about one order of magnitude with increasing frequency
up to SrD ≈ 1, which is typically associated with the slow
motion of the large-scale vortices inside the recirculation
bubble. The pressure fluctuations on the nozzle possess
substantially higher rms-values, stronger levels of domi-
nant amplitudes, but also a broad-band low-frequency con-
tent compared to the base, which is a footprint of turbulent
shear layer structures coming into the immediate vicinity
of the nozzle wall during the realignment process in zone
B marked in Fig. 11a. The comparison between the experi-
mental and numerical spectra indicates a satisfactory agree-
ment of the spectral content for the low-frequency region of
SrD < 1 and only a slight deviation on the nozzle contour
for SrD > 1 between the experiment and the numerics.
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space… 113

-2
10 1.8
nozzle: r/D=0.2; x/D=0.77; ϕ=180°
Ma∞=3 EXP CFD

1.75 M=6, r/D=0.42, =180°

M=6, x/D=0.77, =180°
-3
10 M=3, r/D=0.42, =180°
1.7 M=3, x/D=0.77, =180°

pRMS/p
2
PSD [p’/p ∞]

1.65
10-4

1.6

-5
10 1.55
0.25
base: r/D=0.42; x/D=0.0; ϕ=180°
EXP CFD

-6 0.2
10 -1 0 1
10 10 10
SrD 0.15

pRMS/p
(a)
0.1
-1
10
nozzle: r/D=0.2; x/D=0.77; ϕ=180°

unfiltered
Ma∞=6 EXP CFD CFD (axisymmetric) 0.05
-2
10 0
0 40 80 120
fcut-off, kHz
PSD [p’/p ∞]2

-3
10
Fig. 14  Root-mean-square wall pressure ratio distribution for differ-
ent cut off frequencies
-4
10

plume hasn’t been fully understood, yet. Figure 13b shows

10-5
base: r/D=0.42; x/D=0.0; ϕ=180°
EXP CFD CFD (axisymmetric)
10 -1
-6
0 1
10 10
SrD
(b)
Fig. 13  Wall pressure spectra at the base and the nozzle wall for
M∞ = 3 (a) and M∞ = 6 (b)
The spectra at M∞ = 6 shown in Fig. 13b indicate a
different dynamic behavior than in the M3-case. First and
foremost, the experimental signals at the base and the
nozzle wall feature several high-frequency sharp peaks at
SrD  0.8. The observation that the formation of high-fre-
quency peaks at SrD  0.8 is only valid when the nozzle
is operating in a strongly underexpanded regime was also
made in the experimental investigations at M∞ = 6 car-
ried out by Saile et al. [15] on the same supported wind
tunnel model. As known from previous investigations by
Saile et al. [47] and Statnikov et al. [48], without the after-
expanding jet the supersonic shear layer reattaches on the
nozzle wall at about x/D = 0.7 and features a broadband
frequency content, similar to the current the M3-case.
The source of the multiply observed high-frequency
peaks in the presence of a strongly after-expanding jet
that the PSD spectrum obtained from the experimental
measurements in the M6-case features significantly higher
amplitudes above  SrD ≈ 1 than in the LES. Moreover, as
10 shown in the previous section in Fig. 12b the base pressure
fluctuations for EXP 1 in the M6-case feature a signifi-
cantly higher rms value compared to the numerical result
and the second experiment performed at DLR Cologne.
However, the correctness of the signal comparison in both
time and frequency space is ensured only when the signals
are similarly sampled, segmented, and possess a compa-
rable time length. While the time length in experiments is
usually not an issue, several other uncertainties such as the
influence of the model support, resonances within wind
tunnels and measuring circuits, hardly measurable low
absolute pressure values could become critical. To address
the sampling frequency aspect, the unfiltered experimen-
tally measured pressure signal is analyzed using different
cut-off frequencies between 9 and 120 kHz. To compare,
as summarized in Sect. 4.4 the numerical results are sam-
pled with SrD = 10 corresponding in accordance to the
Nyquist criterion to a cut-off frequency SrD,cut−off = 5, i.e.,
56 kHz in the M3 and 42 kHz in the M6-case, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 14, a strong sensitivity of the resulting
rms value to different cut-off frequencies, in particular in
the M6-case, is obvious. This fact is very likely caused by
technical difficulties in measuring very low pressure values

13
114
on the order of only several hundreds Pa as they exist at
M∞ = 6.
On the LES side, the main sources of uncertainties are
the resolution of relevant scales and the short physical sim-
ulation time compared to the wind tunnel runs leading to
spectral leakage effects. Unfortunately, these two aspects
counteract since they both increase the computational
costs. As mentioned in Sect. 4.3, the computational grids
for large-eddy simulations have to satisfy typical require-
ments recently summarized in [43] for wall-bounded flows.
The adequate scale resolution in the separated wake region,
however, can be additionally proved by mesh studies.
The time resolution aspect can be improved by the speed
enhancements of used flow solvers, e.g., massively parallel,
heterogeneous computations, dynamic load balancing, but
also by taking advantage of the model’s symmetries and
the additional use of model-reduced approaches with less
pronounced spectral leakage effects such as dynamic mode
decomposition (DMD).
Recently, to shed light onto the origin of the high-fre-
quency peaks detected at M∞ = 6, Statnikov et al. [27]
analyzed an axisymmetric free-flight configuration with
the same main body geometry and flow conditions as
in the current work. The statistical quality of the LES
results could be additionally improved by the exploi-
tation of the the axial symmetry of the model, i.e., for
each probe the velocity and pressure signals are ana-
lyzed at 8 positions equidistantly distributed over the
circumference ( �ϕ = 45◦). Unlike the temporal resolu-
tion for the supported models summarized in Sect. 4.4,
the free-flight spectra are computed based on the avail-
able data sequence of 16,384 samples per probe using
Welch’s algorithm with Hanning windowing over 8
non-overlapping segments, i.e., 2048 samples each, and
bin-smoothing over 8 bins. The obtained PSD distribu-
tions of wall pressure fluctuations on the free-flight con-
figuration are shown in Fig. 13b by solid black (base) and
orange (nozzle) lines. Similarly to the supported models,
the free-flight configuration features the most intensive
wall pressure fluctuations at SrD = 0.85 ± 0.075 near the
nozzle exit. By using a reduced-order method of spar-
sity DMD applied to the time-resolved velocity field it
was rigorously shown that the detected most dominant
peaks at SrD ≈ 0.85 were caused by the radial flapping
motion of the shear layer along the cavity region. In a
direct comparison with the supported wind tunnel model,
the numerical spectra of the free-flight configuration fea-
ture only the common peak at SrD ≈ 0.85 and no well
pronounced peaks at frequencies above SrD ≈ 1. There-
fore, the latter are likely to be caused by the model sup-
port non-uniformly influencing the shear layer dynamics
along the whole circumference.
13
V. Statnikov et al.
6 Conclusions
The performed comparative analysis of the turbulent wake
flow of a generic space launcher configuration with a ver-
tically attached model support at M∞ = 3 and M∞ = 6
revealed substantial differences between two investigated
supersonic flight regimes. The variation of the wake topol-
ogy with increasing Mach number is mainly caused by
the different resulting nozzle jet underexpansion rates and
consequently, unequal displacement effect of the widening
plume on the wake. At M∞ = 3, the moderate underexpan-
sion ratio of pe /p∞ ≈ 5 leads to a formation of a recircu-
lation region with an elongated triangular cross-section
reaching to the nozzle exit. At M∞ = 6, the substantially
stronger afterexpansion of the jet plume ( pe /p∞ ≈ 100)
causes the formation of a cavity region with a quadrangular
cross-section. The traces of the computed wake topology,
i.e., the positions of shock and expansion waves, are exper-
imentally detected by Schlieren measurements and show
a good agreement with the numerical results additionally
analyzed with respect to the density gradient.
The analysis of the computed field around the models
illustrates that undesired effects of the strut support are
present along the whole circumference. The axisymmetric
main body and the vertically attached double-wedge pro-
filed strut induce standing by themselves three shocks and
four expansion waves. The resulting complex superposition
of shock-shock, shock-expansion wave, and shock-bound-
ary-layer interactions accompanied by additional wave
reflections leads to a strongly non-axisymmetric flow field.
Due to higher shock angles at M∞ = 3 the strut influence
is found to be particularly intense at the lower supersonic
Mach number. Nevertheless, the overall influence of the
vertical support, in particular within the separation regions,
is smallest on the strut averted side, on which the experi-
mental studies also focus.
Regarding the wall pressure distribution in the wake
on the strut-averted side, the LES results show an overall
good agreement with experimental data measured at char-
acteristic positions on the base and the nozzle extension.
Comparing two Mach number cases, the stronger deflec-
tion towards the nozzle at M∞ = 3 results in lower mean
and rms wall pressure ratios than at M∞ = 6. However, due
to the higher freestream pressure value at the lower Mach
number the relation of absolute values is reciprocal, mak-
ing the lower supersonic regime more critical with respect
to dynamic structural loads.
The spectral analysis of wall pressure fluctuations on
the base and the nozzle wall reveals fundamental differ-
ences in the dynamic behavior of two investigated wake
flow regimes. At M∞ = 3 the base pressure spectra feature
a dominant frequency range around SrD ≈ 0.2 associated
Experimental and numerical investigations of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space…
with the inner dynamics of the recirculation bubble. On the
nozzle a broad-band low-frequency content of substantially
higher amplitudes compared to the base is detected, which
is a footprint of the graduate realignment of the turbulent
shear layer along the nozzle wall. The spectra at M∞ = 6
are characterized by several high-frequency sharp peaks at
SrD  0.8. A comparison with an axisymmetric free-flight
configuration shows a strong correlation for the domi-
nant frequency range at SrD ≈ 0.85 which was found to
be caused by the radial flapping motion of the shear layer
along the cavity. The remaining peaks above SrD ≈ 1 on the
supported wind tunnel model and not present on the free-
flight configuration are related to the shear layer dynamics
strongly and non-uniformly disturbed by the model support
on the whole circumference. However, the peaks above
SrD ≈ 1 possess significantly higher amplitudes in the
experiment than in the LES, which is likely to be induced
by undesired wind-tunnel and measurement circuit reso-
nances at very low pressure levels determining high Mach
number flows. This fact is supported by a strong sensitivity
of experimentally measured signals at M∞ = 6 to different
cut-off frequencies.
To conclude, it should be emphasized that taking into
account recent developments in high-fidelity zonal turbu-
lence modeling techniques such as zonal RANS–LES and
DES, numerical investigations of “free-flight” generic con-
figurations can already provide valuable insights into the
intricate aspects of the wake-nozzle flow interaction and
allow an extrapolation of the obtained findings to realis-
tic launchers. Nevertheless, combined experimental and
numerical investigations of sophisticated benchmark con-
figurations as presented in this work are still vitally impor-
tant since they allow to ensure the reliability of numerical
methods and to quantify the limitations of both numerics
(e.g., short computational time, turbulence modeling, shock
treatment) and experiments (e.g., interactions with the
model support, low absolute values of static pressure, and
wind tunnel noise).
Future research activities within the framework of the
SFB/TRR40 will focus on using helium as jet working
gas to increase the jet exhaust velocities up to 2100 m/s
by the significantly lower molar mass of helium. With this
approach realistic velocity ratios at the nozzle exit can be
investigated in wind tunnel tests. On the numerical side,
apart from the accompanying simulations of experimen-
tally investigated wind tunnel models, computations of
“free-flight” configurations as well as more analyses of
three-dimensional turbulent wakes using reduced-order
methods such as DMD will take place.
Acknowledgments  Financial support from the German Research
Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG) in the frame-
work of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center (SFB/
115
TRR40) is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. Computational
resources have been provided by the Stuttgart High-Performance
Computing Center (HLRS).
References
1. Hammond, W.: Design Methodologies for Space Transportation
Systems. AIAA education series (2001). doi:10.2514/4.861734
2. Deprés, D., Reijasse, P., Dussauge, J.-P.: Analysis of unsteadi-
ness in afterbody transonic flows. AIAA J. 42(12), 2541–2550
(2004)
3. Meliga, P., Reijasse, P.: Unsteady transonic flow behind an
axisymmetric afterbody equipped with two boosters. AIAA
Paper, p. 4564 (2007)
4. Deck, S., Thorigny, P.: Unsteadiness of an axisymmetric sepa-
rating-reattaching flow: numerical investigation. Phys. Fluids 19,
065103 (2007)
5. Hannemann, K., Lüdeke, H., Pallegoix, J.-F., Ollivier, A., Lam-
bare, H., Maseland, H., Geurts, E.G.M., Frey, M., Deck, S.,
Schrijer, F.F.J., Scarano, F., Schwane, R.: Launch vehicle base
buffeting- recent experimental and numerical investigations. In:
Proceedings 7th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics
for Space Vehicles, Brugge, Belgium, 9–12 May, vol. 692, p. 102
(2011)
6. Schrijer, F.F.J., Sciacchitano, A., Scarano, F., Hanneman, K., Pal-
legoix, J.F., Maseland, J.E.J., Schwane, R.: Experimental investi-
gation of base flow buffeting on the Ariane 5 launcher using high
speed PIV. In: Proceedings 7th European Symposium on Aero-
thermodynamics for Space Vehicles, Brugge, Belgium, 9–12
May, vol. 692, p. 103 (2011)
7. Schrijer, F.F.J., Sciacchitano, A., Scarano, F.: Spatio-temporal
and modal analysis of unsteady fluctuations in a high-subsonic
base flow. Phys. Fluids 26, 086101 (2014)
8. Marié, S., Druault, Ph, Lambaré, H., Schrijer, F.: Experimen-
tal analysis of the pressure-velocity correlations of external
unsteady flow over rocket launchers. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 30(1),
83–93 (2013)
9. Eaton, J.K., Johnston, J.P.: A review of research on subsonic tur-
bulent flow reattachment. AIAA J. 19(9), 1093–1099 (1981)
10. Le, H., Moin, P., Kim, J.: Direct numerical simulation of turbu-
lent flow over a backward-facing step. J. Fluid Mech. 330, 349–
374 (1997)
11. Brewer, E.B., Craven, C.E.: Experimental investigation of base
flow field at high altitude for a four-engine clustered nozzle con-
figuration. NASA Technical Report TN D-5164 (1969)
12. Janssen, J.R., Dutton, J.C.: Time-series analysis of supersonic
base-pressure fluctuations. AIAA J. 42, 605–613 (2004)
13. Bannink, W.J., Houtman, E.M., Bakker, P.G.: Base flow/under-
expanded exhaust plume interaction in a supersonic external
flow. AIAA Paper, pp. 98–1598 (1998)
14. Scarano, F., van Oudheusden, B.W., Bannink, W.J., Bsibsi, M.:
Experimental investigation of supersonic base flow plume inter-
action by means of particle image velocimetry. In: Proceedings
of the 5th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for
Space Vehicles (ESA SP-563). Published by ESA Publications
Division, pp. 601–607 (2005)
15. Saile, D., Gülhan, A.: Plume-induced effects on the near-wake
region of a generic space launcher geometry. In: 32nd AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Aviation and Aero-
nautics Forum and Exposition, number AIAA 2014–3137 (2014)
16. Stephan, S., Wu, J., Radespiel, R.: Propulsive jet influence on
generic launcher base flow. CEAS Space J 7(4), 453–473 (2015)
17. Benay, R., Servel, P.: Two-equation k-σ turbulence model: appli-
cation to a supersonic base flow. AIAA J. 39, 407–416 (2001)
13
116
18. Papp, J.L., Ghia, K.N.: Application of the RNG turbulence
model to the simulation of axisymmetric supersonic separated
base flows. AIAA Paper , pp. 2001–2027 (2001)
19. Forsythe, J.R., Hoffmann, K.A., Cummings, R.M., Squires,
K.D.: Detached-eddy simulation with compressibility correc-
tions applied to a supersonic axisymmetric base flow. J. Fluid
Eng. 124, 911–923 (2002)
20. Kawai, S., Fujii, K.: Computational study of a supersonic base
flow using LES/RANS hybrid methodology. AIAA Paper, pp.
2004–2068 (2004)
21. Fureby, C., Kupiainen, K.: Large-eddy simulation of supersonic
axisymmetric baseflow. In: Turbulent Shear Flow Phenomena,
TSFP3, Sendai, Japan, vol. 3, pp. 1157–1162 (2003)
22. Sandberg, R.D., Fasel, H.F.: High-accuracy DNS of supersonic
base flows and control of the near wake. In: Proceedings of the
Users Group Conference, pp. 96–104. IEEE Computer Society
(2004)
23. Sandberg, R.D., Fasel, H.F.: Numerical investigation of transi-
tional supersonic axisymmetric wakes. J. Fluid Mech. 563, 1–41
(2006)
24. Strelets, M.: Detached eddy simulation of massively separated
flows. AIAA Paper, pp. 2001–0879 (2001)
25. Lüdeke, J.D.M.H., Hannemann, K.: Launch vehicle base flow
analysis using improved delayed detached-eddy simulation.
AIAA J. 53(9), 2454–2471 (2015)
26. Statnikov, V., Meiß, J.-H., Meinke, M., Schröder, W.: Investiga-
tion of the turbulent wake flow of generic launcher configura-
tions via a zonal RANS/LES method. CEAS Space J. 5(1–2),
75–86 (2013)
27. Statnikov, V., Sayadi, T., Meinke, M., Schmid, P., Schröder, W.:
Analysis of pressure perturbation sources on a generic space
launcher after-body in supersonic flow using zonal RANS/LES
and dynamic mode decomposition. Phys. Fluids 27(016103),
1–22 (2015)
28. Sippel, M., Herbertz, A.: System requirements on investiga-
tion of base flow/plume interaction, vol. 98 of NNFM: RES-
PACE-Key Technologies for Reusable Space Systems. Springer
(2003–2007)
29. Estorf, M., Wolf, T., Radespiel, R.: Experimental and numerical
investigations on the operation of the hypersonic ludwieg tube
braunschweig. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Symposium
on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles (ESA SP-563). Pub-
lished by ESA Publications Division (2005)
30. Wu, J., Radespiel, R.: Tandem nozzle supersonic wind tunnel
design. Int. J. Eng. Syst. Model. Simul. Proc. 5(1), 8–18 (2013).
doi:10.1504/IJESMS.2013.052369
31. Wu, J., Zamre, P., Radespiel, R.: Flow quality experiment in a
tandem nozzle wind tunnel at Mach 3. Exp. Fluids 56(20), 1–18
(2015). doi:10.1007/s00348-014-1887-1
32. Liou, M.-S., Steffen, C.J.: A new flux splitting scheme. J. Com-
put. Phys. 107, 23–39 (1993)
13
V. Statnikov et al.
33. Boris, J., Grinstein, F., Oran, E., Kolbe, R.: New insights into
large eddy simulation. Fluid Dyn. Res. 10, 199–228 (1992)
34. Meinke, M., Schröder, W., Krause, E., Rister, Th: A comparison
of second- and sixth-order methods for large-eddy simulations.
Comput. Fluids 31, 695–718 (2002)
35. Alkishriwi, N., Meinke, M., Schröder, W.: A large-eddy simula-
tion method for low Mach number flows using preconditioning
and multigrid. Comput. Fluids 35(10), 1126–1136 (2006)
36. El-Askary, W., Schröder, W., Meinke, M.: LES of compressible
wall-bounded flows. AIAA Paper, pp. 2003–3554 (2003)
37. Spalart, P.R., Allmaras, S.R.: A one-equation turbulence model
for aerodynamic flows. AIAA Paper, pp. 92–0439 (1992)
38. Allmaras, S.R., Johnson, F.T., Spalart, P.R.: Modifications and
clarifications for the implementation of the spalart-allmaras tur-
bulence model. In: 7th International Conference on Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD7), ICCFD7-1902 (2012)
39. Roidl, B., Meinke, M., Schröder, W.: Reformulated synthetic tur-
bulence generation method for a zonal RANS-LES method and
its application to zero-pressure gradient boundary layers. Int. J.
Heat Fluid Flow 44, 28–40 (2013)
40. Roidl, B., Meinke, M., Schröder, W.: Boundary layers affected
by different pressure gradients investigated computationally by
a zonal RANS-LES method. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 45, 1–13
(2014)
41. Jarrin, N., Benhamadouche, N., Laurence, S., Prosser, D.: A syn-
thetic-eddy-method for generating inflow conditions for large-
eddy simulations. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 27, 585–593 (2006)
42. Pamiès, M., Weiss, P.-É., Garnier, E., Deck, S., Sagaut, P.: Gen-
eration of synthetic turbulent inflow data for large eddy simula-
tion of spatially evolving wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 21,
045103 (2009)
43. Choi, H., Moin, P.: Grid-point requirements for large eddy simu-
lation: Chapman’s estimates revisited. Center for Turbulence
Research Annual Research Briefs (2011)
44. Priebe, S., Wu, M., Martin, P.: Direct numerical simulation of a
reflected-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction read
more. AIAA J. 47(5), 1173–1185 (2009). doi:10.2514/1.38821
45. Brown, G.L., Roshko, A.: On density effects and large structure
in turbulent mixing layers. J. Fluid Mech. 64(6), 775–816 (1974)
46. Papamoschou, Dimitri, Roshko, Anatol: The compressible tur-
bulent shear layer: an experimental study the compressible tur-
bulent shear layer: an experimental study the compressible tur-
bulent shear layer: an experimental study. J. Fluid Mech. 197,
453–477 (1988)
47. Saile, D., Gülhan, A., Henckels, A.: Investigations on the near-
wake region of a generic space launcher geometry. AIAA, pp.
2011–2352 (2011)
48. Statnikov, V., Saile, D., Meiß, J.-H., Henckels, A., Meinke, M.,
Gülhan, A., Schröder, W.: Experimental and numerical investiga-
tion of the turbulent wake flow of a generic space launcher con-
figuration. Prog. Flight Phys. 7, 329–350 (2015)