Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00.

© Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

'l'RB 'ONIVER.SI'l'Y OF QUEENSLAND I'Rli:B PIS'l'OH SHOCK 'l'UNNEL

'1'4 - INITIAL OPBRA'l'ION AND PIUI:LIMINARY CALIBRATION

by

R.J. Stalker and R.G. Morgan

Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Queensland

1. INTRODUC'l'IOH

The University of Queensland free piston shock tunnel T-4 is the latest in a
series of free piston shock tunnels, the first three of which were constructed
at the Australian National University, Canberra, in the 1960's. The complete
series is shown to scale in fig. 1, and is marked by an increase in size in
passing from one to the next.

The increase in size in passing from T3 to T4 was associated with proposed

studies in hypersonic combustion and propulsion. In order to produce. static
pressures in a hypersonic flow which are high enough to allow vigorous
combustion of hydrogen to take place in the relatively short lengths available
in a shock tunnel model, it is necessary to produce high nozzle stagnation
pressures. This means that these high pressures must be produced at the
downstream end of the shock tube, and sustained for long enough to establish
and maintain a test flow in the nozzle for an adequate period.

A disappointing feature of T3 was the loss in pressure which occurred in the

1
shock tube. ( ) Although the cause of this loss is not understood, it has been
found that it can be overcome by using a long compression tube for the free
piston compressor. Hence the piston travels approximately 26 m during. the
driver compression stroke in T4, compared with 6 m for the T3 piston.

T4 began operation in April, 1987 and, after a settling in period, came into
routine operation in September, 1987. At the time of writing, some 400 test
runs of the facility have been made, and main diaphragm operating burst
pressures have been raised to 28% of the design value. Experiments have shown
that this is sufficient to allow combustion of hydrogen at a Mach number of 5.
Although further increases in operating pressure levels are planned (in order
to produce more vigorous hydrogen combustion), it seems appropriate to use the
test data obtained so far for a preliminary review of the operating
characteristics of the facility.
------------,-------------------------~----~------------------------------------

2.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

2 • BXPERIMZN'.rAL ARRANGEMENT

As noted above, the free piston driver is 26 metres long, and it is 230 mm in
diameter. The piston mass is 92 kg. The shock tube is 10 m long, and 76 mm in
diameter, with shock timing stations 3, 2 and 1 located 2.. 00 m, 4. 00 m and
6. 00 m respectively from the downstream end of the tube. The shock speed
between station 2 and 3 was used for performance calculations, as it was
considered that the gas processed in that part of the tube would be the test
gas in the test section during the steady flow period.

A contoured nozzle was used, with a throat diameter of 25 mm and a geometrical

area ratio of 109. This produced a test section Mach number which varied from
4. 8 at a stagnation enthalpy of 35 MJ/kg to 6. 3 at 3. 7 MJ/kg. The change in
Mach number is due to the real gas effects in the nozzle expansion.

3. SHOCK TUBE PERFORMANCE

For shock tunnel purposes, the important aspects of the shock tube performance
are the stagnation enthalpy and the stagnation pressure of the test gas
supplied to the nozzle, as well as the time between shock reflection and
arrival of driver gas contamination at the entrance to the nozzle. The
latter, of course, determines the effective shock tunnel test time.

The results reported here apply to two driver test condition. The first
condition, developed primarily for scramjet testing where high stagnation
pressures are required, used a comparison ratio of 60. The second condition
was intended for studying real gas aerodynamic effects, and used a compression
ratio of 120. This permits test times long enough to establish steady flow at
high enthalpies (- 40 Mj/kg) by operating with a highly undertailored
shock. Test time is obtained at the expense of stagnation pressure, both
operating conditions used helium driver gas and a main diaphragm rupture
pressure of 57 Mpa. Nominal compression ratios were calculated assuming an
isentropic compression from the initial helium filling pressure to the rupture
pressure.

The nozzle stagnation pressure was obtained from two piezoelectric pressure
transducers (PCb piezotronics type 118A) which were located in the shock tube
wall, 65 mm upstream of the downstream end of the shock tube. The stagnation
enthalpy was calculated by using the measured shock speed and the shock tube
filling pressure to obtain the enthalpy and pressure immediately after shock
 3.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

reflection, and then assuming an isentropic expansion to the measured

stagnation pressure.

Test results are presented in fig. 2, with a scale for the measured shock
speed matched to the shock tube diaphragm pressure ratio at the left hand side
of the fiqure. Noting that Earth orbital velocity corresponds to a stagnation
enthalpy of 31 MJ/kg, it can be seen that stagnation enthalpies in excess of
this value have been achieved in the shock tube. This is in accord with
'
exper1ence ' T3 ( 2 ) .
1n

The nozzle stagnation pressure was measured 0. 5 milliseconds after shock

reflection and, after being normalized with respect to the main diaphragm
rupture pressure, has been plotted at the top of fig. 2. The tendency for this
pressure to increase with falling stagnation enthalpy is consistent with
expectations based on coupling shock tube theory with the observation that
tailored interface operation occurs at a shock speed of 6. 65 km/sec., corres-
ponding to a stagnation enthalpy of 48 MJ/kg.

The variation of the nozzle stagnation pressure with time is shown in fig.
3 (a) for typical test conditions. For fig. 3 (a) it can be seen that the
pressure falls by approximately 30 % over a period of one millisecond after
shock reflection. It is thought that this is due to the use of a piston with
a mass which was designed for operation at high pressures. At the pressures
of tests, the piston velocity was too low at diaphragm rupture to match the
flow of driver gas into the shock tube, causing the driver pressure to fall.
This can be rectified by lowering the speed of sound in the driver gas, as in
fig. 3 (a) (ii) . Here it can be seen that, when argon is used as driver gas,
rather than helium, the pressure remains approximately steady for a much
longer period.

Fig. 3(b) shows the limitations on test time arising from contamination of the
test gas by the driver gas. This can come from two causes. One is due to
drainage of the test gas through the nozzle throat, and the other is due to
"jetting" of the driver gas along the walls of the shock tube from the contact
surface. The "jetting" is due to the bifurcated shock pattern which forms when
(3)
the strong reflected shock interacts with the shock tube boundary layer .
It can be see that the shock boundary layer interaction is responsible for
limiting the tunnel test time. It will be noted that the test time has been
expressed as an approximate length of the slug of test gas passing through the
test section by multiplying the calculated test time by ..J2H . The test
s
 4.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

slug lengths which are displayed are based upon a conservative calculation and,
as will be seen below, there is evidence to suggest that test times may be
somewhat longer than those calculated. This fiqure also illustrates the
increased test times achieved at higher compression ratios.

4. TEST SECTION CALIBRATION

Preliminary nozzle calibration of T4 was performed using flat plat static

pressure and pitot rake surveys of the nozzle exit flow. Measurements from the
pressure probes were used to check the accuracy of predictions of the flow
conditions. Shock tube instrumentation consisted of shock speed and stagnation
pressure measurements. In the shock tube, equilibrium chemistry was assumed
with an isentropic expansion to the plateau pressure. The r.ozzle flow was
assumed to be in chemical equilibrium up to the throat, and non equilibrium
chemistry was computed in the expanding supersonic region. The thermodynamic
properties of the constituent gases were modelled by polynomial curve fits
above 3000 K, and by a harmonic oscillator model below 3000 K equilibrium
vibrational modes were assumed throughout.

The non equilibrium kinetics program incorporates the real geometry of the
contoured nozzle in computing chemical composition and area ratio. However,
the effects of boundary layer thickness and the chemical properties of the test
gas at the higher enthalpy introduce some uncertainty as to the exact state of
the flow at the nozzle exit. The geometrical area ratio of the nozzle does
not necessarily represent the state of expansion of the gas in the core flow.
To compensate for this the computations have followed the geometrical area
ratio against distance development, but are concluded when the calculated
pilot pressure agrees with experimental measurements. As pitot readings are
fairly insensitive to chemical composition, this also partially compensates
for uncertainties in the chemistry. The calculated static pressure levels,
normalised against stagnation pressure, are then compared with the
experimental values. Where good agreement is observed between theory and
experiment, them the test conditions are considered to be well known. Where
there is a discrepancy between prediction and experiment some uncertainty
exists as to the exact state of the exit flow, including chemical composition
and flow parameters.

The nozzle flow was assumed to be steady when the ratio of measured static
pressure at the nozzle exit to stagnation pressure in the shock tube was
constant.
 5.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

Pi tot survey data from T3 are shown in fig. 4. They show that the nozzle
expansion is not complete for some 8 inches downstream of the expected nozzle
station, yielding pitot pressures which are somewhat above the uniform flow
values in a region which is downstream of the theoretical test cone boundary.
This may be due to boundary layer effects in the nozzle flow, which were not
taken into account in designing the nozzle. Downstream of this region, the
pitot traverses indicate a uniform and parallel flow.

Static pressures were measured at a pressure orifice located 200 mm from the
leading edge of a flat plate mounted in the ·test section with its leading edge
at the nozzle exit. A static pressure record, normalized with respect to the
nozzle stagnation pressure, is shown at the top of fig. 5.

Static pressure measurement provides a good indication of the static

temperature at the test section, since the velocity is essentially fixed by the
stagnation enthalpy, and the density therefore is fixed by mass flow
considerations. The temperature in the test section is sensitive to real gas
effects in the nozzle expansion, and therefore it follows that the static
pressure measurement serves as a check on the validity of the numerical
calculations used to predict the test section conditions. In fig. 5, static
pressure measurements are seen to compare satisfactorily with prediction made
4
using a one-dimensional non-equilibrium calculation( )

For comparison, the static pressure predicted for a perfect gas expansion of
air to the same pitot pressure level also is shown in fig. 5, and is seen to be
well removed from the measured values. Expansion of helium to the same pitot
pressure levels would produce an even lower pressure. In this light, the decay
in static pressure after about 1 millisecond of steady pressure, which is
evident in the static pressure record in fig. 5, may be seen as the onset of
driver gas contamination. This would indicate that the steady test flow slug
lengths indicated in fig. 3 may be conservative by as much as a factor of two.
However, this should be regarded as a tentative conclusion, which is subject to
confirmation when more data is obtained.

It may be noted that some points are included on fig. 5 which were taken in the
intake duct of a scramjet model. The static pressure there was higher than the
measured flat plate static pressure but, assuming that the proportionality
between flat plate and intake static pressures would apply at all stagnation
enthalpies, the intake result were scaled to produce psuedo flat plate
 -----------------------------------------------------------,

6.

measurements at stagnation enthalpies where flat plate measurements were not

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

available

The consistency between measured and calculated static pressures indicates that
the numerical code may be used to calculate other test section flow properties.
Results of such calculations are presented in fig. 6. The Mach number decays
as stagnation enthalpy is increased because of real gas effects in the nozzle
expansion. Two curves are shown for the free stream enthalpy. This is because
a substantial part of the free stream enthalpy, h , is invested in the
00

sensible enthalpy associated with the temperature of the gas and, if desired,
this could be converted to freest ream kinetic energy by further expansion.
However, the rest of the freestream enthalpy which is denoted by hf' is
associated with "freezing" of the air as it passes through the nozzle
expansion, and cannot be recovered by further expansion. It can be seen that
this component rises to 20% of the stagnation enthalpy at high stagnation
enthalpies.

The high compression ratio tests covered a pressure/enthalphy combination

which had not been previously calibrated, and so pitot and static pressure
measurements were performed on T4.

The nozzle was tested over the nominal enthalpy range of 19 - 84 Mk/Kg,
although useable test conditions only apply from 19 41.7 Mk/Kg. The
compression tube was operated with a compression ratio of 120, and a rupture
pressure of 56.6 Mpa using helium driver gas.

At an enthalpy of 19.1 Mj/Kg good agreement is seen between predicted and

experimental static pressure levels, Fig. 8, and uniform pi tot measurements
are obtained across the exit, Fig. 7. As the enthalpy increases a departure
occurs from the predicted values. At an enthalpy of 27. 6 Mj /Kg the measured
static pressure levels are - 15% below the predicted levels. At an enthalpy
of 41.7 Mj/Kg the measured static pressure are 30% below predictions.
Ho,~ever, the normalised traces when plotted against time show a steady plateau
region, implying that a steady test condition exists free of driver gas
contamination, Fig. 9. At an enthalpy of 62.3 Mj /Kg static pressures were
also lower than predicted and the duration of the "steady" flow period was
reduced. A non-uniform pressure distribution was measured by the pitot rakes
across the nozzle exit. It is thought that helium contamination renders this
condition unuseable. An alternative explanation for the nozzle exit pressure
distribution is that the changing mach number and boundary layer thickness at
 7.

the higher enthalpy causes the wave cancelling contours of the nozzle to
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

function incorrectly.

At the higher enthaly of 84 Mj/Kg no plateau region of steady flow was evident,
and the pitot survey across the nozzle exit was highly uneven. Coincidentally
the static pressures measured were quite close to the predictions.

To summarise, useable test conditions exist up to an enthalpy at 41.7 Mj/Kg.

At enthalpies above above 30 Mj/Kg discrepancies between measured and predicted
pressure levels cast doubt on the accuracy of the nozzle expansion program at
t~e higher temperatures. The chemical composition and flow properties at the
higher enthalpy conditions are therefore in some doubt at present.

Possible causes for the discrepancy might be inaccurate modelling of the

chemical kinetics in the nozzle, incorrect thermal properties of the component
species of the gas, the effect of vibrational relaxation times as the gas
expands from the reservoir, and inadequate modelling of ionisation and
radiation.

Somewhere above 41.7 Mj/Kg stagnation enthalpy the duration of the steady flow
period becomes very short, suggesting helium contamination readers the test gas
unuseable at these enthalpies. In Fig. 9 the reduction of the steady test
period with enthalpy is shown.

5. CONCLUSION

These results and calculations are preliminary in nature, representing an

initial calibration of the tunnel at two operating conditions. Increases in
operating pressure levels and changes in driver gas volumetric compression
ratio are planned to generate new test conditions, as well as more extensive
calibration measurements. However, the results reported here indicate that
the shock tunnel is operating satisfactorily, at pressures and stagnation
enthalpies which have been found to be high enough to allow experimentation on
hypersonic combustion of hydrogen.
 8.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

6. REI'ZRZNCZS

1. Stalker, R.J. and Hornung, H.G. "Two Developments with Free Piston
Drivers". Proc. Seventh International Shock Tube Symposium.
University of Toronto Press 1970, PP 242-258.

2. Stalker, R.J. "Development of a Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel".

Aero. J. of Roy. Aero. Soc. (1972) pp 374-384.

3. Crane, K.C. and Stalker, R.J. "Driver Gas Contamination in a High

Enthalpy Reflected Shock Tunnel". AIAA Journ. V 16.
pp 277-278 (1978)

4. Lordi, J.A., Mates, R.E. AND Moselle, J.R. NASA. Rep. CR-472 (1966).

7 • ACXNOWLEGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Australian Research Grants Scheme under
.Programme Grant No.610, and by the NASA Langley Research Center under NASA
Grant NAGW No.674.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth Nationa

SHOCK
11M lNG
NOZZLE L SHOCK TUBE COMPRESSION TUBE
~~

PISTON ~IVER RESERVOIR

T1 T2 T:J T4 • "I

Jmetr•s
..
.
r"'"'~n tuiN 150• 5-1 JOO•H 100. JO 2100· 23
shock tuh 135• f· 2 200• 2·1 100• 7·. t000•7-& •
,.
;i '~
.fl:~~
--:-~;-c-J r2
:~~~
noul• bit d Ia.

pi a ton mass(t.gJ
5·1
O·l
11

1·2
30
90
30
92
J!:•:·!lm$1 T1
(dim•naions in em)

Fig 1 'r' s•ries fr•e piston shock tunnels

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

1·0
·6
-PePr ·4 ~=120
o- -o- - --- o - - .....

·2

·1
0 Hs (Mj/kg) 60
P. shock tube filling pressure "\
Po diaphroghm rupture pressur1
• Pr plateau pressure
~ compressaon ratio

--

10 20 30 40 50 .60
stagnation enthalpy. Hs (Mj/kg)
Fig 2 Shock tube performance
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

(a) stagnation p-tsSJre; Mpa

time records 50
~=60

( i) Helium driver
Hs:18· 6 Mj/kg
0
0 1 msec
Mpa
12 ...
(ii) Argon · ctiver
6

0 time

(b) driver gas contamination_ predictions

Helium driv•r. Po:57 Mpo ,,
1'/2~
6
~
/
/
/
'~ drainage,25mm throat, ~=60
~ .
/
/ ~
.........._.
4 ""'-..._
"'"

( m)
~

-------
2 ..

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
stagnation enthalpy, H s (Mj/kg)
~ 3 ·Test times.
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth Nation

2[a'
1
t-JC1<f•: :::;:::::::::·~:;-----
• •• •---- fl T
--o J !L C»'ial ___.!.~-centre line

boundary of
--
ftraver5! 1
IT
25mm
theof'@tico1---
ttst con•

25 0
from throat (em)
radial

----centre line
t
1 1:51inear scale
r- - --..-------.
0 1 2 0- -1-- -.2 6 ; i ~

0
T

1
~

2
Ff.itot/Pst ag x1o2

Fig 4 T3 T.st section pi tot traverse ( H5= 16· 8- Mj/ kg)

Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

:; points taken from intake of scramje.t model

scaled by . factor of o.sg to match
flo t PAate data at 18·6 Mj/kg.
---------
Flat pklte pressurt orific• approximo-t•ly
200 m m from leading edge
. ..-··

f'U~/Pstag : Q.Qt5
..•... .-
_ static pr@ssure record
Sx 4 Hs=18·6 Mj/ kg
10
fb» -----.-
-4
~tag
6x10
0
-··
0 1 2
msec

perfect gas 1( =1·4

2
non-tcJJilbium 1-0 nozzle exponsiCil
flat plat• measurements 0
scal•d intake measurements _ -- --- ,,,
...

o~--------.-~------~----------~-~--------
0 10 20 ~ 40
stagnation· enthalpy (Mj/ kg)

Fig 5 Thermochtmic al effects on test section

s.tatic _pres.i.U.J.e. ~ 60 .
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.
------------------------,

5·8

5·4

s-o

0 10 20 30 40
Hs (Mj/kg)

·4 heX)= freestream ~thalpy

t; = frozen freKtream enthalpy

/
.,...,.. __ _
·2 /
I

•·1

0 ----------~--------._ ________._______~
0 10 20 ~ 40
stagnation- enthalpy. Hs (Mjlkg)

Fig 6 Calculated test section fl 011 prop•rties.

c ompress.on ratio= 60 ·
 l.--- ...................
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

1.125 llorl11111 : 1 . . . . . , _ U S . .ITI811. 1.125 . . . _ . . . .Tl •.

aholde tl• = 3.511 uc ...1-=
lea 314, PI u,. air, Ill 83.BitJI1It• ..,..11,.. pl.t .t
pltoVat&tMtloa preaavea, 137 • r,. lOUie alt at Plphte.
I

camutioa level 1.114

11111f e~mratioa level 1.1131 ..
I;~
.<'

-------
-=,

lua 387, PI 5 .,. air, Ha 41.7 ftJ111s, ao..alise• pitatlrtar11tioa

prea&W'n. 137 • r,. DDule exit

I.IZS lloriloa = 1...1-tiZ PBSSUU US NSITI811. 1.125 -1101 : 1.4511-tiZ PUSS. US POSITIOI.
dsolate ti11e : 3. 3111 a:c U.Olate tae= 3. 751 •

IIIDZf

.,..----..
ulibatloa level 1.1145
,.....
--c=:::"'>
~
~

laa 319, PI 11 11,. air, lb Z7.6 ftJ111s, IDI'a.tllisd pitoVresei'YOir

lea 317, Z.S .,. air, aorulised plot .t pitotlreseMIIr ata,..tioa statad io1 freiiiPII
prenares, 137 • , , . aoule exit. lb r.z.31tJ111t

1. • L----,---.,----,---.--~-----.--....,..--,--~ 1. • !:;-::::;-r---.,----.--~--~-~--.--..---.
-111.1111 - ••.• -111.. - 181 . •

1.125 ... 111111 : U331-t1Z

Puss. US . .IT1811.
tme = 3.641 a:
ahsalate

11111zf cilibatioa level 1.1163

- ~~---.==~=c====-~

ha 311, PI:ZI llpi, Hs=1CJ.lftJiks,ao,...lise4 pltotlst.,..tioa

preaavea. tn. r,. lOUie exit.

Fig. 7· Normalized pitot trat:es vs transverse distance (T 4}

 ------------------------------~,
. I I

1.111 ... ,. . = 1.a?HM PIISIIIII Ul ,.,TI.. 1.•1 ._.1111: U331-llt PIISSUII Ul POIIYJOI. I
•••ollte tile : Z. 551 IIIC tHo lite tile : z.,. •
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

~tnt 1111111 tills ,.,

1.27~4

.......;::- / ..... ,
11111 lwei tllia ,., Z.BJe-4 ~
teal pre•lctM 1111111 Z.Sle-4
In• 281, tk,. air, IIFBl.lltJ/kt, .... uw atatlclpltot PNIIII'III

1. • L--..---.--..,......---,.......-~-.......--.,..----,.......---r~ 1. • L---..--.--..,......---,.---.--.......--T""""'-.---r---.
1.. I 511.. 1.. ll 511 . •

PUSIUU Ul POIITI811. 1.•1 liorim• : 4.1131-114 PIISSIIII U1 POSJTJOI. '

.... lite tl• : 2.571 nc
abo late tl11e = 2. 875 11:

aeal pre4ictd 1111111 4. 73r4 /

......... +-- C::t ?
......... ~

... 283, Pl=ll kpa, ill Z7.6 IIJ/kt, ..,... Jiw auticlausaatlol preuue

·~~··
1. • 1-..--.--r--.,..---.---.---.--.,---.--r~ I - l..----..---.--..,......---,.......---.--.......--T""""'-.---r----.
•·• " 511.• . •·• n 511.11"'

•.•• - · - : 4.7111-llt PIISSIIII US POSIT! 011.

Usollte tille : s.us ...
.,

•eaf~~e~t lwei 4.69e-4

IIIII leuel tills Nl 4.fl9e-4

k• 284, PI 21 kpa air, ill 19.111Jiq, 10,..llm st.ticlstapdiot

PNIIUI

1.188 ::-:----.---r--,---.----~-......-----.---r-~
"111111 " 'ill8.1181

Fig. 8 Normalized static pressure distribution vs axial distance (T4)

 .181 horizaa = 2.5331-184
Downloaded from search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.895732436063539. University of Queensland, on 07/14/2022 05:08 PM AEST; UTC+10:00. © Fourth National Space Engineering Symposium: Preprints of Papers , 1988.

Run 281, PB lkpa air HZ 83.8 MJikg .881 horizon= 4.888£-884

static/stagnation. Run 279, P8 5 kpa air,Hs 41.7 Mjlkg
static/stagnation pressures

Ll
averaged 58 Microsec/point
1.5 z.s 3.5 •sec 1.5 2.5 3.5 •sec

.181 horizon = 3.688£-884 .881 horizon= 4.733£-884

Run 288 P8 2.5 kpa air, Hs 662.3 Mj/kg ~Run 283, P8 18 kpa, Hs 27.6 Mjlkg
static/stagnation pressure i static/stagnation. Ch 2 plotted

nenzf 4.73e-4
nenzf J.SBe-4

averaged for
58 •icrosec/point
1.5 z.s J.S.sec 1.5

.881 horizon = 4.667£-884

Run 284, P8 28kpa air, Hs 19.1 Mjlkg
static/stagnation pressure

nenzf 4.69e-4

3.5 8.5 msec

Fig. 9 Normalized static pressure traces vs time ( T 1.)