Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Chul Park∗
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea
DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
Thermochemical relaxation phenomena in the shock tunnel nozzle and behind a normal shock wave formed in its
test section are investigated theoretically in one dimension using a state-to-state description. Test gas is assumed to be
air containing hydrogen as an impurity. The state-to-state rate coefficients calculated by the forced harmonic
oscillator model of Adamovich, Macheret, Rich, and Treanor (“Vibrational Energy Transfer Rates Using a Forced
Harmonic Oscillator Model,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 12, No. 1, January–March 1998,
pages 57-65) are multiplied by correction factors to numerically reproduce the existing experimental data on
vibrational relaxation times and dissociation rates. The calculations show that freezing in the nozzle causes the
relaxation behind a normal shock wave to be generally different from that in free flight. In a shock tunnel with a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
nozzle length of 5 meters operating at a reflected-shock pressure of 1000 atmosphere, standard, free-flight conditions
are simulated fairly closely in its test section.
Nomenclature Introduction
A
ai
C
=
=
=
nozzle cross-sectional area
coefficients in Eq. (1)
average molecular speed, cm=s
I N recent years, considerable advancement was made in the
technique of testing in a shock tunnel. In a nitrogen stream where
high temperature chemical effects are weak, experimental results are
c = continuum (free) state found to agree closely with the computational fluid-dynamics
Ev = energy level of state v, cm1 , or erg calculations (see, e.g., [1,2]). However, in an air stream where
H = enthalpy, erg=g or MJ=kg chemical reactions are significant, agreement between the
I = radiation intensity, arbitrary units calculations and the experimental data are not as close [1,2]. It is
Kv; v0 = rate coefficient for v-to-v0 transition, cm3 =s not clear whether the observed discrepancy between the experiment
k = Boltzmann constant 1:3806 1016 erg=K and calculation is due to the real gas effect occurring in the flow
M = colliding species around the model or due to the well-known thermochemical freezing
m = mass of one atom or molecule, g occurring in the nozzle. That is, one is not sure at this time as to how
n = number density, cm3 good a shock tunnel is in simulating the nonequilibrium real gas
p = pressure, dyne=cm2 or atm effects around a vehicle.
T = translational–rotational temperature, K The nozzle freezing phenomena have hitherto been calculated
Tve = hypothetical vibrational temperature of a harmonic using a multitemperature model. But the multitemperature method
oscillator having the same vibrational energy as the brings several uncertainties. The first uncertainty is on the accuracy
given vibrational distribution of the multitemperature representation of chemical reaction rates.
Tv1 = vibrational temperature by ratio of v 1 to v 0 Second, the extent of the overpopulation of high vibrational states
state populations due to vibration–vibration coupling, observed for CO [3] and
u = flow velocity, cm=s predicted for N2 [4,5], and its influence on the flow around a model,
us = shock velocity in a shock tube, cm=s are not known. Third, uncertainty concerns the influence of the state-
v = vibrational quantum number, or initial state specific reactions in the Zeldovich processes [6,7].
vmax = maximum vibrational quantum number It is the purpose of the present work to answer the question as to
v0 = final state vibrational quantum number how good a shock tunnel is in simulating the nonequilibrium real gas
X = mol fraction of species X effects. Nonequilibrium real gas effects produce relaxation of several
x = distance from throat or shock wave, cm physical quantities in a flow behind a shock wave. Of these, the most
= cross section, cm2 important is the variation in density. Density variation causes
v = vibrational relaxation time, s variation in shock layer thickness, which in turn causes variation in
shock shape and, consequently, variation in pressure distribution. If
Subscripts 1) the density ratio across the shock wave, and 2) the relaxation
distance of density value behind a shock wave in a shock tunnel test
m = molecule are the same as those in flight, the shock tunnel test can be said to
p = peak in radiation correctly simulate the nonequilibrium real gas effects.
0 = settling chamber To determine these two characteristic quantities theoretically, a
* = nozzle throat computer code is developed here which calculates the flow
conditions using a state-to-state, i.e., master equation, method. State-
to-state transition rate coefficients are derived from the forced
Presented as Paper 0585 at the 44th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and harmonic oscillator (FHO) model of Adamovich et al. [8]. The
Exhibit, Reno, NV, 9–12 January 2006; received 24 January 2006; revision calculated FHO rate coefficients are multiplied by a correction factor
received 20 March 2006; accepted for publication 21 March 2006. Copyright to numerically reproduce the existing experimental data on
© 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All vibrational relaxation times and dissociation rates. Calculation is
rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, made for the nozzle and behind the normal shock formed in the test
on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright section. The calculated postshock flow properties are compared to
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
similar calculations for free-flight conditions to assess the fidelity of
∗
Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, 373-1 Guseong-dong, the shock tunnel test.
Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea; cpark216@kaist.ac.kr. The calculation is focused on two typical shock tunnel
Fellow AIAA. dimensions, one with a nozzle of 1 m length operating at a
689
690 PARK
reflected-shock pressure of 100 atm and the other with a 5 m nozzle Rotational temperature is assumed to be the same as the translational
operating at 1000 atm reflected-shock pressure. The latter represents temperature. The thermodynamic state variables calculated by this
the typical operation condition of existing large shock tunnels. If model are compared with those determined from the JANNAF
such a shock tunnel cannot simulate the real gas effects, the thermochemical data base [15] in Table 1. The errors produced by the
community must look for a different way of simulating a present model are small, and therefore are neglected.
hypervelocity flow, such as the radiatively heated wind tunnel [9]. To verify the accuracy of the present method, calculations have
The accuracy of the present model is verified first by comparing been made for the experiments run with N2 [4,11] and CO [3]. N2
the location of the calculated peak point of radiation of the N2 first flows were treated as an N2 –O2 mixture flow with an N-to-O
positive system with the experimental data obtained in a shock tube elemental mass ratio of 105 . For the CO flow, a separate code was
[10]. Comparison is made also for the vibrational temperature written in which energy levels are modeled in a similar manner.
measurement of Hurle et al. [4] and Sharma et al. [11] in a shock
tunnel.
The calculations using the computer code so developed, named State-to-State Transition Rate Coefficients
airtnl.f, generates information on many aspects of the flow, in As mentioned, the reference values of vibrational state-to-state
addition to the answer to the question posed. It predicts nearly the transition rate coefficients are determined through the use of the FHO
same thermodynamic states in the test section as a traditional two- model developed by Adamovich et al. [8]. Three types of reference
temperature model. However, behind the normal shock wave, the rate coefficients are calculated by the FHO model: vibration-to-
state-to-state calculation tends to predict an equilibration rate translation (V–T), vibration-to-vibration (V–V) within the same
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
different from the two-temperature method. Overpopulation of the species, and vibration-to-vibration energy transfers between
upper vibrational states in the nozzle due to vibration–vibration different species. The reference values of bound-free transition rates
coupling is made less prominent in air by the strong interaction are obtained by first continuing the Dunham expansion to levels
between N2 and O. The nozzle freezing phenomenon can, in general, beyond vmax (by 20 levels), carrying out the V–T transition
significantly affect the equilibration rate behind the normal shock calculations, and summing over the final states.
wave. Hydrogen atoms originating from water vapor can explain the The FHO method requires iterations of varying degrees [8].
observed acceleration of vibrational relaxation in a shock tunnel. Accuracy of the calculated values depends partly on the degree of
In the end, the calculations show that the density ratio across the iterations used. But, high degree of iterations needed for high
normal shock wave and the density relaxation distance, characterized accuracy was seen to produce divergence of the calculation. To
by the density variation midpoint, in a shock tunnel test are nearly the ensure convergence, a low level of iteration was used in the present
same as those in free flight if the nozzle length is 5 m and reflected- work.
shock pressure is 1000 atm. One can write a transition rate coefficient in general in the form
NO 304500=T3:2 Wray
vibrational relaxation time data to compare. Vibrational relaxation
H 1 no experimental data
CO CO 0:103T=45000:23 Millikan and White [16] times have been measured in a shock tube for N2 –H2 O mixtures
Ar 0:1954500=T0:14 Millikan and White [12,13]. Even though H2 O is sure to dissociate and produce H-atoms
eventually, H-atoms are not present in the early part of a postshock
flow. Therefore, the shock tube experiment cannot be considered to
be a test of the effect of H-atoms. Therefore, the FHO values are used
vmax v
Correction factor correction factor for v 0 directly for the V–T transitions.
vmax The for the bound-free K of N2 , O2 , and NO with collisions with
v H-atoms, for the vmax state, are calculated (by summing up the
(5)
vmax bound–bound transitions to the hypothetical levels above vmax ) to be
about 8 1015 cm2 for the N2 –H collisions, 6 1015 cm2 for the
The correction factor for v 0 is determined by comparing with the O2 –H collisions, and 4 1015 cm2 for the NO–H collisions. These
known vibrational relaxation time data as described next. values are of the order of the elastic cross sections, which are
considered reasonable. Therefore, these values are used also without
Correction Factors for Vibration-to-Translation Energy Transfer correction.
It is known that the V–T transition rate coefficients between the
neighboring states among the lowest few vibrational levels behave State-to-State Zeldovich Reaction Rates
almost as a harmonic oscillator. It is well known that, for the The state-specific reaction rate coefficients for the two Zeldovich
harmonic oscillator, the vibrational relaxation time is related to the reactions N2 O ! NO N and NO O ! O2 N have been
v 1 to v 0 transition rate coefficient K1; 0 by calculated by Bose and Candler [6,7]. These rate coefficients are used
in the present work.
v nM K1; 01 expE1 =kT (6)
The corrective multiplication factor for v 0 in Eq. (5) is chosen Calculation Procedures
so that the theoretical v value agrees with the measured value [16–
Master Equation
19]. The sources of the experimental data and the correction factors
for v 0, calculated by the forced harmonic oscillator model for the The system of ordinary differential equations of the type
V–T energy transfer, are summarized in Table 2. The vibrational dnv
relaxation times resulting from the transition rate values so corrected u v0 Kv0 ; vnv0 nM v0 Kv; v0 nv nM Kc; vnA nB nM
are compared with the experimental data in Figs. 1a–1c. Fairly good dx
agreement is seen. Kv; cnv nM (7)
0 -2
10 10
N2 collided by M O2 collided by M
Present model M = NO Present model
-1 -3
10 Millikan-White 10 Millikan-White
-2 -4
10 10
M = N2 M = NO
M = O2
-3 -5
10 10
M = O2
M=N
M = N2
-4 -6
10 10
M=N
-5 -7
10 10
-6 M=O -8
10 10 M=O
Ekstrom (1973)
fit to Kiefer (1967)
-7 -9
10 -1 10 -1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0x10 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0x10
-1/3 -1/3
T T
a) N2 b) O2
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
-2
10
NO collided by M
-3
10 Present model
Vibrational relaxation time τp, atm-sec
Millikan-White
except noted M = O2 M = N2
-4
10
M=O
-5
10
M=N
-6
10
-7
10
M = NO
-8
10
Wray (1962)
-9
10 -1
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0x10
-1/3
T
c) NO
Fig. 1 Comparison of v derived by the present procedure with the experimental data.
-2
10 8 Table 3 Correction factors to the bound-free transition rate
6
coefficients
4
N2(1->0)-NO(0->1)
2 Present model Species M Correction factor Source of experiment
V-V transfer probability
Taylor et al (1967)
-3 N2 N 434500=T3:0 4:3 N2 –N2 [23,25]
10 8
6
O 434500=T3:0 4:3 N2 –N2 [23,25]
4
N2 104500=T3:0 Baulch et al. [23]
O2 104500=T3:0 Baulch et al. (N2 –N2 )
2
NO 104500=T3:0 Baulch et al. (N2 –N2 )
-4
10
O2 N 12:54500=T3:0 Baulch et al. (O2 –O) [24]
8
6
O 12:54500=T3:0 Baulch et al.
4 N2 2:54500=T3:0 Baulch et al. (O2 –O2 )
O2 2:54500=T3:0 Baulch et al.
2
NO 2:54500=T3:0 Baulch et al. (O2 –O2 )
-5
10
NO N 234500=T2:05 log avg of N2 and O2
O 234500=T2:05 log avg of N2 and O2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 N2 5:04500=T3:2 log avg of N2 and O2
Temperature, K
O2 5:04500=T3:2 log avg of N2 and O2
Fig. 2 Comparison of vibrational energy coupling probability between NO 5:04500=T3:2 log avg of N2 and O2
N2 and NO, present model and experiment in [19].
PARK 693
-10
10 ai in Eq. (1), which is 4572 lines long, and unit 5 containing a short
Baulch et al (1976)
-12
list of run parameters. Typically, nozzle flow calculation is
10 completed within 1.5 h, and the two postshock flow calculations, one
-14
for the flow in test section and the other for free flight, require about
10 O2 + O2 -> O + O + O2 3 h.
Dissociation rate coef, cm /s
-16
3
10
-18 Results
10 Baulch et al (1973)
Validation of Method
-20 Postshock Equilibration Time
10
Accuracy of the present method was tested first by comparing the
peak-radiation point time constant p defined in Eq. (10) for an
-22
10
undisturbed freestream flow at 300 K, i.e., flight conditions, with the
-24
10 N2 + N2 -> N + N + N2
shock tube data [10]. The concentration of the H-atoms was varied;
-26
there were no significant differences in the results. The comparison is
10 given in Fig. 5. As seen here, the present method correctly reproduces
Present model
Experimental data the peak-radiation point. The two-temperature model reproduces the
-28
10 experimental data also, as expected.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
-30
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 Line-Reversal Measurement of Hurle et al. [4]
-1
10000/T, K In [4], vibrational temperature was measured in a shock tunnel
Fig. 3 Comparison of dissociation rate coefficient between present using the line-reversal method. In that experiment, presence of water
model and experimental data in [23]. vapor is suspected. Therefore, the concentration of the H-atoms was
varied arbitrarily until the calculation reproduced the measured
values. The nozzle area ratio distribution is that given by the
the v 0 state, which is termed here zero-slope vibrational measured static pressure values.
temperature and designated by Tv1 . The second is the hypothetical In Fig. 6, the result is shown. As seen here, the experimental data
Boltzmann vibrational temperature of a harmonic oscillator having can be reproduced when the H-atom concentration is assumed to be
the same vibrational energy as the vibrational distribution under 680 ppm, which corresponds to H2 O concentration of 340 ppm. This
consideration, which is termed energy-equivalent vibrational concentration of H2 O is plausible. In comparison, if H-concentration
temperature and designated by Tve . is zero, the calculated vibrational temperatures are significantly
In characterizing the equilibration distance behind a normal shock higher than the measured values.
wave, two characteristic quantities are defined. The first is the
midpoint of variation in density. This point is important because Raman Measurement of Sharma et al. [11]
density affects pressure distribution, as mentioned in the In [11], vibrational distribution of N2 was measured in a shock
Introduction. The second is the peak-radiation point. In N2 and air, tunnel using the spontaneous Raman spectroscopy. Precaution was
radiation in the wavelength region from about 500 to about 700 nm taken in that experiment to minimize water vapor and, therefore,
produced by the first positive (1) band system of the N2 molecule is hydrogen concentration was assumed to be zero in numerical
most prominent. In [10], the peak point in the intensity of this reconstruction of the case. The result of the calculation is compared
radiation and the point where this radiation asymptotes to the with the experimental data in Fig. 7. As seen here, the present model
equilibrium value have been measured. Of these two characteristic reproduces the measured data within the accuracy of the
points, the peak point is more clearly definable. The energy level of measurement.
the emitting state of the N2 1 radiation, B3 g , is 59307 cm1 . Its
excitation temperature can be taken to be Tv1 because of the well-
known strong coupling between the electronic mode and the
vibrational mode for N2 . Therefore, the intensity of the N2 1
system can be approximated by
This quantity was calculated in the present work for the purpose of
comparison with the experimental data.
Numerical Method
An implicit integration subroutine accurate to the third order along
the diagonal and second order over the off-diagonal elements was
used to integrate the resulting system of 127 ordinary differential
equations. The code was written in FORTRAN 77, and was run on an
IBM PC, using Windows XP, with a Pentium 4 CPU, using the
FORTRAN compiler, Visual FORTRAN. The source code is 3497 Fig. 4 Variation of N2 first positive radiation: comparison between
lines long and needs two input files: unit 7 containing the coefficients present calculation and typical experimental data [27].
694 PARK
10
-1 6000
Peak N2 1+ radiation point behind shock
Peak N2 1+ radiation time parameter pτ, atm-µs
Temperature, K
4000
-3
10
3000
-4
10
2000
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10
Distance from throat, cm
4 6 8 10
Fig. 7 Comparison of vibrational temperature for the experiment [11].
Shock velocity, km/s
Fig. 5 Characteristic time parameter for peak in radiation of N2 first
positive system. the second Zeldovich reaction NO O ! O2 N, in a process
which cools the vibrational temperature of NO. The vibrational
heating of NO predicted here should not be a surprise because similar
Nozzle Flows behaviors are exploited commonly to produce a gasdynamic laser.
Freezing Behavior In Fig. 9, the atom mass fractions (sum of N and O masses divided
The general behavior of the solutions is shown for the case of by the total mass) at the nozzle exit are shown for a nozzle of 20, 100,
p0 100 atm and H 10 MJ=kg in Figs. 8a and 8b. As seen from
Fig. 8a, there is little difference between the zero-slope vibrational 6
temperature Tv0 and the energy-equivalent temperature Tve . Freezing 5
Air, p0 = 100 atm,
behavior appears both in vibrational temperatures and in species mol 4 H = 10 MJ/kg A/A* = 1000
fractions. Tv1
At around x 30 cm (A=A
100), concentration of N-atoms 3 Tve
T
disappears (numerical values become slightly negative) and
Temperature, K
3
4000 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance from throat, cm
a)
3000 10
0
N2 O
-1
10
Temperature, K
2000 -2 O2
10
Species mol fraction
NO
10
-3 N
1000 -4
10
N2 nozzle flow, p0 = 50 atm, T0 = 4500 K
o
throat dia = 0.953 cm, 15 conical 10
-5
Air, p0 = 100 atm,
Calculated Tv1, (H)=680 ppm H = 10 MJ/kg, A/A* = 1000
0
Calculated Tv1, (H)=0 ppm 10
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100
-1000
Distance from throat, cm
5 10 15 20 25 30
b)
Nozzle area ratio Fig. 8 Typical behavior of the nozzle flow in air: p0 100 atm,
Fig. 6 Comparison of vibrational temperature for the experiment [6]. H 10 MJ=kg, A=A 1000.
PARK 695
2
100 atm, 500 cm
1523 1508
Air, N2 –N2 V–V rate 10 1510 1509
0.1 Air, without N2 –O interactions 2392 2450
N2 , present model 3063 3326
6 N2 , N2 –N2 V–V rate 10 2884 3310
5
4
3
0
10
-1
10
4000
10
-2
N2, H = 7.4 MJ/kg p0 = 100 atm, H = 10 MJ/kg
A/A* = 1000, air
Vibrational temperature, K
-3 10 x V-V rates
10
Mol fraction of N2 vibrational states
State-to-state
-4
10 2-temperature
-5 N2, H = 7.4 MJ/kg 3000
10
present model
-6
10
-7
10
-8
2000 Tv1(N2) Tv1(O2)
10
-9
10
-10
10
-11
10 1000
Air, H = 10 MJ/kg
-12
10 w/o N2-O collisions
10
-13 Air, H = 10 MJ/kg
present model Tv1(NO)
-14
10
Vibrational population of N2 at nozzle exit 0
-15
10 p0 = 100 atm, A/A* = 1000 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
10
0 2 4 6
4
8x10 Distance from throat, cm
-1
Vibrational energy level Ev, cm b)
Fig. 10 Population distribution at nozzle exit for air and N2 , Fig. 11 Comparison between present calculation with the one- and
T0 5675 K. two-temperature calculations.
696 PARK
0.30
type two-temperature calculation. The rate coefficients in the one- -5
1.4x10 Behind normal shock in test section, air
temperature and two-temperature calculations are the same as those p0 = 100 atm, H = 10 MJ/kg, A/A* = 1000
used implicitly in the state-to-state calculations. As these figures 1.2
density 0.25
atom mass fraction
show, the state-to-state calculation and the one/two-temperature
calculations yield nearly the same flow conditions in the nozzle exit.
3
The vibrational temperature in the two-temperature model seems to
Density, g/cm
be an approximate mean value of the three vibrational temperatures 0.8
in the state-to-state solution. 0.15
0.6
Free
Free flight
flight 0.10
Post-Shock Flows Shock tunnel (equivalent
(equivalent
0.4 test section conditions)
conditions)
Test Section Flow vs Free-Flight Flow
0.05
In Fig. 12a, the temperatures and the N2 1 radiation behind a 0.2
normal shock wave formed in the test section are shown for a typical
case. In Fig. 12b, a similar result is shown for a free-flight case in 0.0 0.00
which 0:5u2 and u2 are the same as those in Fig. 12a. As seen in 0.1 1 10 100 1000
these figures, the test section flow equilibrates faster than in free Distance from shock, cm
flight. This difference in the equilibration time is due mostly to the Fig. 13 Comparison of density and atom mass fraction behind a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
dissociation present in the shock tunnel test section stream. The normal shock wave.
existence of the high population of the upper vibrational states
accounts for approximately 5% of the difference.
In Fig. 13, the variations in atom mass fraction and density are 100
compared between the test section flow and the free-flight flow. That 7
p0 = 100 atm, A/A* = 1000, air
6
5
state-to-state, test section
10000 4
state-to-state, equiv free flight
3 2-temperature, test section
Density variation midpoint, cm
2-temperature, equiv free flight
2
1-temperature, test section
8000 1-temperature, equiv free flight
Radiation intensity, arbitrary scale
O2
10
7
6
Temperature, K
6000 5
NO 4
3
2
4000 Postshock flow in test section, air
p0 = 100 atm, H = 10 MJ/kg, A/A* = 1000
N2 Translational 1
Tv1 7
2000 Tve 6
Radiation intensity 5
4
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 Enthalpy, MJ/kg
0 1 2 3 4 5 Fig. 14 Comparison of density variation midpoint calculations behind
a normal shock wave.
Distance from shock wave, cm
a)
10000 2.0 100
8
6
NO 4
Radiation intensity, arbitrary scale
8000 O2
1.8
Density variation midpoint, cm
2
Equil ρ/Postshock ρ
10
Temperature, K
6000 8
1.6 6
NO p0 = 1000 atm, A/A* = 1000
4
nozzle length = 500 cm
ρ ratio, test section
4000 2
N2 1.4 ρ ratio, free flight
Free flight in air
2
ρu = 0.190 atm, H = 10 MJ/kg
ρ midpoint, test section
1
Translational ρ midpoint, free flight 8
2000 Tv1 6
Tve
1.2 4
Radiation intensity
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
1.0 0.1
Distance from shock wave, cm 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
b) Enthalpy H, MJ/kg
Fig. 12 Variation in temperature and N2 first positive radiation behind Fig. 15 Ratio of density at equilibrium to behind shock wave and
a normal shock wave. variation midpoint distance.
PARK 697
Table 5 Flow properties for p0 1000 atm, nozzle length 500 cm, A=A 1000
Enthalpy, MJ=kg 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Settling chamber temp T0 , K 4383 5343 6224 7072 7840 8497 9057 9545
Nozzle exit
Pressure, atm 5:266e 2 2:920e 2 2:161e 2 1:730e 2 1:367e 2 1:227e 2 1:116e 2 1:022e 2
Density, g=cm3 1:897e 5 1:386e 5 1:117e 5 9:342e 6 7:995e 6 7:045e 6 6:321e 6 5:710e 6
Velocity, m=s 3081 3740 4243 4683 5088 5449 5789 6110
T, K 974 736 674 643 590 599 604 609
Tv1 N2 , K 1340 1073 1068 1079 1050 1083 1102 1122
Tve N2 , K 1337 1070 1066 1077 1048 1080 1100 1120
Tv1 O2 , K 1011 792 735 707 664 671 675 680
Tve O2 , K 1007 789 732 705 661 668 673 678
Tv1 NO, K 993 753 692 663 613 623 630 636
Tve NO, K 989 750 690 660 611 621 628 634
Atom mass fraction 2:205e 3 5:684e 3 9:837e 3 1:443e 2 1:959e 2 2:493e 2 3:035e 2 3:576e 2
N mol fraction 1:16e 5 1:27e 8 2:08e 8 4:10e 8 8:06e 8 1:43e 7 2:30e 7 3:50e 7
O mol fraction 3:96e 3 1:02e 2 1:76e 2 2:57e 2 3:47e 2 4:39e 2 5:33e 2 6:24e 2
N2 mol fraction 0.764 0.766 0.764 0.762 0.758 0.755 0.752 0.748
O2 mol fraction 0.184 0.184 0.181 0.176 0.171 0.166 0.161 0.155
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719
NO mol fraction 4:79e 2 4:01e 2 3:74e 2 3:66e 2 3:56e 2 3:51e 2 3:40e 2 3:38e 2
Immediately behind normal shock wave in test section
Pressure, atm 1.352 1.470 1.531 1.562 1.588 1.606 1.634 1.657
Density, g=cm3 8:652e 5 6:930e 5 5:751e 5 4:879e 5 4:245e 5 3:751e 5 3:385e 5 3:576e 5
T, K 5482 7416 9273 11,050 12,923 14,720 16,510 18,289
Velocity, m=s 621 693 766 834 898 960 1019 1075
Far behind normal shock wave in test section
Pressure, atm 1.467 1.606 1.671 1.708 1.746 1.775 1.813 1.847
Density, g=cm3 1:330e 4 1:185e 4 9:938e 5 8:679e 5 7:958e 5 7:419e 5 7:031e 5 6:690e 5
T, K 3583 4133 4919 5585 6012 6321 6570 6783
Velocity, m=s 404 405 443 469 479 485 490 496
Atom mass fraction 9:115e 2 0.1697 0.2220 0.2597 0.3025 0.3488 0.3969 0.4462
Density variation midpoint, cm 24.13 3.698 1.067 0.4771 0.2941 0.2159 0.1830 0.1480
N2 1 peak point, cm 0.4449 0.2555 0.1477 0.1025 6:819e 2 5:908e 2 4:809e 2 3:803e 2
atom mass fraction is very different between the two cases is clearly and the free-flight flow, are shown for p0 1000 atm, nozzle length
seen here. There is a bulge, i.e., a negative peak in the second of 500 cm, with no atomic hydrogen. The figure indicates that the
derivative, in the middle of density variation for both cases. This is density variation midpoint of the flight case is closely reproduced in
due to the dissociation of O2 that occurs before the dissociation of N2 . the test section for this case. The density ratio is slightly different
In Fig. 14, the density variation midpoint values are compared between the test section flow and the free-flight flow. However, the
between the test section flows and free-flight flows for the state-to- difference is small enough to be tolerated. This means that, for this
state, one-temperature, and two-temperature calculations for large facility operating at high reflected-shock pressures, simulation
p0 100 atm. For the state-to-state case, the test section flow of the free-flight conditions is fairly close. Though not shown, the
equilibrates slower than the free-flight flow at enthalpies below case of 500 ppm of H-atom concentration shows nearly identical
9 MJ=kg and faster at higher enthalpies. Two-temperature results for this case.
calculations predict uniformly slower equilibration in the test The flow conditions are given in detail in Table 5 for this large
section than in free flight. One-temperature calculations predict the facility case for p0 1000 atm, for the enthalpy range from 6 to
same equilibration rates. Numerically, the state-to-state calculation 20 MJ=kg. The free-flight conditions corresponding to those in
predicts generally slower equilibration than the two- or one- Table 5 are presented in Table 6. As seen in Table 5, the difference
temperature methods. The one-temperature method predicts the between Tv1 and Tve is negligible at the nozzle exit for such a large
fastest equilibration. high pressure facility. The degree of simulation is generally good in
all aspects.
Large Shock Tunnels
In Fig. 15, the ratio of densities between the equilibrium region Discussion
(large x) and the point immediately behind the shock wave (x 0), The foregoing results show that a state-to-state description leads to
and the density variation midpoint distance for the test section flow a nozzle freezing phenomenon nearly the same as the two-
temperature calculation. However, the postshock equilibration [9] Mansfield, D. K., Miles, R. B., Howard, P. J., Luff, J. D., Girgis, I. G.,
process is predicted differently by the state-to-state method. There is Brown, G. L., Lipinski, R. J., Pena, G. E., Schneider, L. X., Grinstead,
a significant difference in the postshock equilibration process J., and Howard, R., “Results of the 1 MW Radiatively-Driven
Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Experiments,” AIAA Paper 2004-1134,
between the flow in the test section and the free-flight flow when p0 is
Jan. 2004.
100 atm. For p0 1000 atm and for a large nozzle, the difference is [10] Allen, R. A., Rose, P. H., and Camm, J. C., “Nonequilibrium and
small, signifying that the degree of simulation is good. Equilibrium Radiation at Super-Satellite Entry Velocities,” AVCO-
The accuracy of the present methodology is dictated mostly by that Everett Research Lab., Everett, MA, Rept. 156, Sept. 1962.
of the experimental data to which the state-to-state transition rate [11] Sharma, S. P., Ruffin, S. M., Gillespie, W. D., and Meyer, S. A.,
coefficients are adjusted. The only significant uncertainty the present “Vibrational Relaxation Measurements in an Expanding Flow Using
methodology introduced is that of the linear interpolation of the Spontaneous Raman Scattering,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat
correction factors [Eq. (5)]. If more is known about the state-to-state Transfer, Vol. 7, No. 4, Oct.–Dec. 1993, pp. 697–703.
transition rates, this uncertainty can be removed. [12] von Rosenberg, C. W., Bray, K. N. C., and Pratt, N. H., “The Effect of
Water Vapor on the Vibrational Relaxation of CO,” Proceedings of the
13th Symposium (International) on Combustion, Combustion Inst.,
Conclusions Pittsburg, PA, 1971, pp. 89–98.
[13] Center, R. E., and Newton, J. F., “Vibrational Relaxation of N2 by
The thermochemical nonequilibrium phenomena in air occurring
H2 O,” Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 68, No. 8, April 1978,
in a shock tunnel are calculated by the state-to-state method. The pp. 3327–3333.
result reproduces several features of the conventional two- [14] von Rosenberg, C. W., and Wray, K. L., “Vibrational Relaxation of CO
temperature calculations. But it predicts the equilibration process
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE on November 22, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.22719