Presented at AIAA Aviation 2014, Atlanta, GA

20 June 2014

Measurements of Real Gas Effects on Regions of Laminar

Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction in Hypervelocity

Flows

Matthew MacLean

Michael S. Holden

Aaron Dufrene

CUBRC, Inc.

Buffalo, New York 14225

ABSTRACT

Detailed surface heat flux and pressure measurements have been made in laminar separated regions of

shock wave/boundary layer interaction in high-enthalpy flows over double cone and hollow cylinder/flare

configurations to provide data sets with well-defined boundary conditions for comparison with Navier-

Stokes computations including the effects of nonequilibrium air chemistry. In these experimental studies,

which were conducted in the LENS XX expansion tunnel, measurements were made in air for a range of

Reynolds number conditions at velocities from 3 to 6.5 km/s to provide measurements with which to

evaluate the models of real gas chemistry employed in Navier-Stokes codes. The experimental dataset and

comparisons with blind submissions using a number of popular hypersonic Navier-Stokes CFD codes were

presented at the AIAA Aviation 2014 Fluid Dynamics meeting in Atlanta, GA on June 20, 2014.

Introduction and Review of Earlier Studies Laminar Shock Interactions in

Hypersonic Flows in LENS I and XX Hypervelocity Tunnels with Emphasis on Real

Gas Effects

The major objective of the current experimental program is to study real gas effects on the scale and

distribution of heat flux and pressure in laminar regions of shock wave/boundary layer interaction with

well-defined boundary conditions to evaluate the models of gas chemistry and thermodynamic interactions

employed in the Navier-Stokes and DSMC codes. Previous components of these studies were conducted in

high-enthalpy flows in the LENS I reflected shock tunnel to provide measurements for a range of total

enthalpies from 3 MJ/kg to 15 MJ/kg in air, nitrogen and oxygen using two models – the 25O/55

O double

cone and the 30O hollow cylinder, shown in Fig. 1. In both geometries, shock-induced pressure rise caused

by a corner-compression produces separation and interaction between shocks and the laminar boundary

layer approaching the corner.

At total enthalpies significantly above 5 MJ/kg, the reflected shock tunnel produces freestream flows

that are not in thermal and/or chemical equilibrium. When this is so, the source of any discrepancies

between CFD and measurements in the interaction region is not easily interpreted, so a new series of

experiments has been performed in the LENS-XX expansion tunnel facility for total enthalpies from 5

MJ/kg to 22 MJ/kg (3 to 6.5 km/s). Because the LENS-XX expansion tunnel facility generates high

velocity test gas by direct addition of kinetic energy, the freestream gas state has little or no thermodynamic

and chemical excitation when compared to the shock tunnels at similar conditions. In this way, it is

possible to study the influence of the freesream gas state on the resulting comparisons between

measurement and CFD.

2

Figure 1. Hollow Cylinder/Flare Configurations Employed in Experiments in LENS I and LENS XX

Earlier Studies of Real Gas Effects on Flows over Double Cone Model

Earlier experimental research of real gas effects conducted in the LENS I shock tunnel at 5MJ/kg and

10 MJ/kg, were initially focused on examining the laminar flow over a double cone configuration where the

shock structure and distributions of surface heat flux and pressure can be strongly influenced by local flow

chemistry. Comparisons between Navier-Stokes computation with state-of-the-art chemistry models and a

series of measurements made in LENS I over a double cone configuration, where the total enthalpy of the

flow, and hence, the chemical nonequilibrium in the interaction region was progressively increased, are

shown in Figure 2. While the measurements made at a freestream enthalpy of 5MJ/kg were in relatively

good agreement with prediction, those at 10 MJ/kg were not. The major differences in the predictions of

scale of the interaction and the measurements in the reattachment region in the higher enthalpy flows are

believed to be related to inaccuracies in modeling air chemistry both in the freestream and in the shock

layer.

Figure 2. Measurements of the Heat Flux in the Interaction Region in Air over the Cone/Flare Model

in LENS I showing the Error in Prediction with Increasing Enthalpy of the Freestream

By comparing predictions and experiments in pure air and nitrogen (shown in Figure 3), it can be seen

that that while the predictions for air begin to degrade at 9 MJ/kg, those for a pure nitrogen test gas remain

in good agreement with experiment at this enthalpy. This led us to suspect that the modeling of oxygen

nonequilibrium flow chemistry in the codes were responsible for this discrepancy, and the next set of

experiments in LENS I studies were conducted with pure oxygen as the test gas. Figure 4 shows

comparisons between measurements in pure oxygen and computations again with state-of-the-art chemistry

models for oxygen. It is clear that at the higher enthalpies for oxygen test gas, the codes again significantly

under-predict the scale of the separated interaction region in a way that is behaviorally similar to the air

cases.

(a) double cone

(b) hollow cylinder flare

Run 39 Run 43 Run 65

3

Figure 3. Measurements showing Good Agreement with Prediction for Nitrogen Flows but Poor

Predictions for Air Flows over the Double Cone Model at Enthalpies of 10 MJ/kg

Additional measurements were made with air as the test gas to examine the chemical composition in

the freestream in the higher enthalpy flows in the LENS-I facility using tunable laser diode absorption

spectroscopy (TDLAS) to interrogate a ro-vibrational transition of the fundamental band of nitric oxide

(which is produced naturally in the shock tunnels at high temperatures). The measurements made in these

studies suggested that, while the measurements of freestream velocity were in excellent agreement with

predictions, the measured level of chemical nonequilibrium in the freestream, specifically nitric oxide

concentration, were not. This presented the question as to whether the nonequilibrium in the freestream

could significantly influence the flow structure over the double cone.

Figure 4. Comparisons between Pressure and Heat Flux Measurements and Prediction for Double

Cone in Low- and High-enthalpy Oxygen Flow

Measurements of Real Gas Effects on Shock Interactions over Double Cone and

Hollow Cylinder/Flare Configurations in LENS XX for “Blind” Code Validation

Exercise

Introduction

The experimental program in which we have obtained pressure and heat flux measurements on the

double cone and hollow cylinder/flare configurations were conducted principally in LENS XX expansion

100% Oxygen

100% Oxygen

4

tunnel using dry air as a test gas (assumed to consist of 76.5% N2 and 23.5% O2 by mass) at total enthalpies

from 5 MJ/kg to 22 MJ/kg to evaluate real gas effects on the characteristics of the interaction regions. Six

runs are available for the double cone model and five runs for the hollow cylinder flare.

Experimental Facilities

The LENS-XX expansion tunnel facility, together with LENS I, LENS II, and the 48-inch reflected

shock tunnels, were employed in earlier studies with the two configurations to obtain high Mach number

low Reynolds number conditions and hypervelocity conditions as illustrated by the velocity/altitude chart in

Figure 5. The LENS XX tunnel (Figure 6) has tubes with internal diameter of 24 inches with a nozzle

expanding into a 96-inch test section and an end-to-end length of more than 250 ft. The size and test times

available with this expansion tunnel far exceed those of other existing tunnels offering significant

advantages in the ability to obtain measurements in fully established laminar separated interaction regions.

Also, LENS XX expansion tunnel can replicate reentry velocities with a clean, thermochemically quiescent

high-enthalpy freestream gas that has been shown to be of major importance in our earlier work.

Figure 5. Capability Map of CUBRC Facilities to Duplicate Freestream Conditions in Air

Figure 6. LENS XX Large-Scale Expansion Tunnel at CUBRC

Models and Instrumentation

Two new models were constructed and instrumented for the test program conducted principally in

LENS XX. These models incorporated new high-frequency pressure instrumentation required to accurately

follow the flow establishment of the separated interaction region at the junction between the forebody and

the flare on the models in the approximately 1 ms run time of LENS XX. Photographs and schematic

diagrams of the new hollow cylinder/flare configuration and the double cone configuration as well as the

5

instrumentation layout are shown in Figure 7. The dimensions of the hollow cylinder/flare model and the

double cone model are shown in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. The geometry of both models is identical to

that utilized in all the previous studies with these shapes, though the instrumentation packages are new,

Figure 7. CAD Models of Double Cone and Hollow Cylinder/Flare Configurations Employed in

Experiments in LENS XX

Figure 8. New Hollow Cylinder/Flare Model for LENS XX Studies (dimensioned in inches)

Figure 9. New Double Cone Model for LENS XX Studies (dimensioned in inches [mm])

6

Test Conditions for the Studies in High-Enthalpy Air Flows

During the preparation for this program, we performed calibration studies in LENS XX involving rake

surveys and measurements on hemispherical and cylindrical nose shapes in air under conditions similar to

those used for the hollow cylinder flare and double cone models. Based on these surveys, run conditions

were selected to give well-defined separated regions on the models and variations in the separated region

lengths as functions of Reynolds number and total enthalpy (velocity). The test points at which studies

have been conducted are shown in Figure 5 on a velocity/altitude map. The tabulated freestream conditions

for all the runs are given in Tables 1 and 2. These test conditions were generated using the CHEETAh code

[9], where it may be assumed that the gas is in thermal equilibrium in the freestream, e.g. all thermal modes

are in equilibrium with temperature (TR = TV = TE = T) and the test gas is in chemical equilibrium (cN2 =

0.765 and cO2 = 0.235). Because of the short runtime of the facility, wall surface temperature is assumed

constant at 300 K.

Table 1. Freestream Conditions for Double Cone Test Cases

Run #

Total

Enthalpy

(MJ/kg)

Mach

Number

Pitot

Pressure

(kPa)

Unit

Reynolds

Number

/106 (1/m)

Velocity

(km/s)

Density

(g/m3)

Temperature

(K)

1 5.44 12.2 5.1 0.14 3.246 0.499 175

2 9.65 10.90 17.5 0.19 4.303 0.984 389

3 18.70 13.23 18.0 0.11 6.028 0.510 521

4 21.77 12.82 39.5 0.20 6.497 0.964 652

5 18.51 13.14 36.8 0.23 5.996 1.057 523

6 15.23 11.46 59.0 0.39 5.466 2.045 573

Table 2. Freestream Conditions for Hollow Cylinder Flare Test Cases

Run #

Total

Enthalpy

(MJ/kg)

Mach

Number

Pitot

Pressure

(kPa)

Unit

Reynolds

Number

/106 (1/m)

Velocity

(km/s)

Density

(g/m3)

Temperature

(K)

1 5.07 11.3 5.9 0.15 3.123 0.634 189

2 10.43 12.6 9.7 0.12 4.497 0.499 318

3 11.25 11.9 36.5 0.37 4.660 1.750 383

4 15.54 11.5 64.0 0.42 5.470 2.216 569

5 21.85 13.2 39.0 0.20 6.515 0.947 618

7

Presentation of Measurements made on Double Cone and Hollow Cylinder/Flare Models in

High-Enthalpy Air Flows using LENS-XX

The surface data sets from experimental studies conducted in the LENS-XX are summarized by run

number in Figures 10 and 11. In all cases, the plotted data is nondimensionalized with dimensionless heat

transfer coefficient on the left axis of each plot and dimensionless pressure coefficient on the right axis of

each plot. The dimensionless heat transfer coefficient is the product of heat flux divided by freestrem

dynamic pressure and velocity (e.g.

) and the square root of unit freestream Reynolds number. This

dimensionless group has been shown to produce good collapse of laminar, attached data for many high-

speed flows; in this case, it brings the attached flow in front of the interaction region to a similar scale for

each run on a particular configuration and allows the interaction region patterns to be more easily compared

run to run. For the double cone, all six runs we selected show some separation. For the hollow cylinder

flare, run 2 is un-separated while runs 1 and 5 show just marginal separation right in the region adjacent to

the corner. Runs 3 and 4 show significantly larger separation lengths, demonstrating that the hollow

cylinder flare flowfield is more sensitive to the freestream condition at these enthalpies and Reynolds

numbers than the double cone.

In general, consistency is observed between the surface pressure and surface heat flux – separation

and peak reattachment levels occur at about the same location within each run. For similar run conditions,

the double cone model tends to produce smaller separated regions than the hollow cylinder flare. For

example, compare double cone run 06 (Fig. 10(f)) where the separation zone size is about 2-cm and hollow

cylinder run 04 (Fig. 11(d)) the separation zone size is about 4-cm. However, the varying velocities and

Reynolds numbers clearly have significant impact on each shape. The effect of Reynolds number can be

seen in Figure 12 by comparing runs 3 and 5 for the double cone and runs 2 and 3 for the hollow cylinder

flare. In both cases, an increase in Reynolds number results in an increase in length of separated region.

Figure 13 shows the effect of velocity between runs 1 and 3 for the double cone while holding

density/Reynolds number approximately constant. In this case, and increase in velocity reduces the length

of separated region.

To address concerns with the establishment of flow over the models and the stabilization of the

interaction zone in the short duration facility environment, the point of boundary layer separation measured

forward of the corner was selected as a criterion for monitoring the state of the flow as a function of time.

To demonstrate the establishment process, a run was selected each from the double cone and hollow

cylinder flare series that had a large separated region and a high enthalpy. Time history plots of the

separation point (as measured by the sudden drop in heat flux at the front of the model) are presented in

Figure 14 as a function of arrival time of the initial gas at the model station. In an expansion tunnel, the

high velocity test gas is achieved by unsteady acceleration using a shock-heated accelerator, which arrives

at the model station before the test gas does. The “test time” of the expansion tunnel starts at the interface

between the accelerator and test gases and ends when the unsteady expansion waves arrive at the model

station as evidenced by an increase in test gas pressure and decrease in test gas velocity. This results in a

net increase in Reynolds number (which, in this case, begins to increase the separated region size of the

models).

For both runs, the graphic is partitioned into times with colored regions. The accelerator gas for all

runs in this test program was also air, but at a significantly higher temperature and lower density state than

the test gas. Still, it is high enthalpy gas, and the surface heat flux sensors respond to it as shown with the

yellow region lasting approximately 200 – 300 s. The arrival of the contact interface indicates the start of

the time when the test gas at the specified freestream condition exists at the model station, but the separated

regions of the models take some time to adjust to the new gas state (gray region). The interval over which

data was averaged is noted in white with a range arrow indicating its extent. This is the interval over which

the separated region has stopped significant motion spatially along the model surface. Finally, a cyan

region indicates the time period after the steady test time when pressure (and Reynolds number) rises, at

which time the separated region grows in extent in response.

8

(a) Run 01

(b) Run 02

(c) Run 03

(d) Run 04

(e) Run 05

(f) Run 06

Figure 10. Normalized Surface Data Distributions for Double Cone Test Cases

9

(a) Run 01

(b) Run 02

(c) Run 03

(d) Run 04

(e) Run 05

Figure 11. Normalized Surface Data Distributions for Hollow Cylinder Flare Test Cases

10

(a) Double Cone

(b) Hollow Cylinder Flare

Figure 12. Effect of Reynolds Number on Double Cone and Hollow Cylinder Flare Interaction

Regions

Figure 13. Effect of Enthalpy on Double Cone Interaction Region

It is interesting to note the differences in the response of the unsteady flowfield in the facility for the

two different models. In the case of the double cone, the separated region length achieved at the end of the

accelerator gas is approximately the same as that measured during the steady-state interval. Thus, the

correction by the flow during the establishment process is small and lasts only approximately 200 m. The

separated region length of the hollow cylinder flare during the steady-state interval is much larger, so the

state of the separated region at the end of the accelerator gas time is significantly different (about 2.5 cm

versus 4.0 cm). Therefore, in this case, the establishment time is significantly longer (approximately 550

m) and the transient behavior is such that, during that time, the separated region length actually over-

corrects, becoming too large, and subsequently contracts to the observed steady-state value.

11

It is also interesting to note that the double cone model appears far less sensitive to the rise in

Reynolds number that occurs after the steady-state time period as the separated region length remains

approximately constant for another 400 mm. The hollow cylinder flare separated region length begins to

grow almost immediately. This sensitivity is consistent with the trend observed in Reynolds number in the

steady-state sense observed over different runs as noted by Figure 12.

(a) Double Cone Run 5

(b) Hollow Cylinder Flare Run 4

Figure 14. Time Establishment of Separation Region for Representative Double Cone and Hollow

Cylinder Flare Test Conditions

Summary and Conclusions

Experimental studies have been conducted in the LENS XX expansion tunnel to provide information

of flowfield and surface characteristics with which to evaluate and improve models of gas chemistry

employed in Navier-Stokes and DSMC codes. Detailed surface heat flux and pressure measurements have

been made in laminar separated regions of shock wave/boundary layer interaction in high-enthalpy flows

over double cone and hollow cylinder/flare configurations to provide data sets with well-defined boundary

conditions for comparison with CFD codes employing state-of-the-art gas chemistry models including the

effects of nonequilibrium air chemistry. Measurements made in air over a range of velocities from 3 to 6.5

km/s for both shapes have been presented along with model geometry and test condition information.

Tabulated data is presented in the attached appendix.

12

REFERENCES

1. Candler, Graham V., “Hypersonic Nozzle Analysis Using an Excluded Volume Equation of

State,” AIAA 2005-5202, 38th AIAA Thermophysics Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 6-9

June 2005.

2. Holden, M., Harvey, J., Wadhams, T., and MacLean, M., “A Review of Experimental Studies with

the Double Cone Configuration in the LENS Hypervelocity Tunnels and Comparisons with

Navier-Stokes and DSMC Computations,” AIAA 2010-1281, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences

Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-7, 2010.

3. MacLean, M., Dufrene, A., Wadhams, T. and Holden, M., “Numerical and Experimental

Characterization of High Enthalpy Flow in an Expansion Tunnel Facility,” AIAA 2010-1562, 48th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-7, 2010.

4. Parker, R., Holden, M. and Wakeman, T., “Shock Front Radiation Studies at CUBRC,” AIAA

2010-1370, 48th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-7, 2010.

5. Dufrene, A., MacLean, M., and Holden, M., “Development of Microwave Plasma Diagnostics for

Expansion Tunnel Characterization,” AIAA 2012-369, presented at 50th

AIAA Aerospace

Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Nashville, TN, January 6-9 2012.

6. MacLean, Matthew, Marineau, Eric, Parker, Ronald, Dufrene, Aaron, Holden, Michael and

DesJardin, Paul, “Effect of Surface Catalysis on Measured Heat Flux in an Expansion Tunnel

Facility,” AIAA 2012-651, presented at 50th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,

Nashville, TN, January 2012.

7. Dufrene, Aaron, MacLean, Matthew, Parker, Ronald, and Holden, Michael, “Experimental

Characterization of the LENS Expansion Tunnel Facility including Blunt Body Surface Heating,”

AIAA Paper No. 2011-626, 49th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-10,

2011.

8. Parker, Ronald, Dufrene, Aaron, Holden, Michael, and Wakeman, Thomas, “Shock-Front

Emission Measurements at 10 km/s”, AIAA Paper No. 2011-715, 49th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences

Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-10, 2011.

9. MacLean, M., Dufrene, A., Wadhams, T. and Holden, M., “Numerical and Experimental

Characterization of High Enthalpy Flow in an Expansion Tunnel Facility,” AIAA 2010-1562, 48th

AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-7, 2010.

10. Dufrene, A., MacLean, M., Parker, R.A., Wadhams, T.P, Mundy, E., and Holden, M.S.,

“Characterization of the New LENS Expansion Tunnel Facility”, AIAA 2010-1564, 48th AIAA

Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, January 4-7, 2010

13

APPENDIX. Tabulated Surface Data

Double Cone Surface Pressure [kPa] x [cm] Run 01 Run 02 Run 03 Run 04 Run 05 Run 06

4.04 1.048

8.685 7.486 11.843 4.72

7.620 7.185 11.750

5.41 1.055 3.691 3.299 7.439 6.815 11.442 6.10 1.075 3.248 4.107 8.200 7.133 11.320 6.76 2.160 3.793 3.648 7.263 6.590 16.626 7.49 2.250 7.608 2.964 10.455 10.240 22.526 8.15 2.342 7.915 7.341 16.035 14.641 22.757 8.86 2.350 8.021 8.612 16.455 15.033 24.329 9.42

9.760 12.108 24.620 25.522 28.790

9.63 2.347 13.303 17.240 56.050 47.063 39.607 10.06 2.582 26.491 26.055 64.312 60.007 95.866 10.26 3.185 32.483 21.590 34.083 39.615 87.053 10.49 3.804 25.593 11.288 24.157

74.397

10.69 4.345 13.831 9.441 21.805 23.670 48.616 10.92 6.696 8.478 10.665 23.409 22.238 32.509 11.15 5.922 8.444 11.685 26.317 23.784 38.067 11.35 5.108 10.030 12.511 29.954 26.410 39.301 11.58 4.558 12.232 12.819 30.714 28.483 40.876 11.81 3.917 12.066 13.048 28.669 26.423 37.128 12.01 3.663 13.300 13.280 27.966 26.072 41.341 12.67 2.863 12.745 12.956 26.567 25.735 36.789 13.34 3.432 12.974

13.97 3.273 12.296 12.467 27.446 25.822 39.353 14.63 2.910 11.814 12.561 27.647 25.614 37.491

14

Double Cone Surface Heat Flux [W/cm^2] x [cm] Run 01 Run 02 Run 03 Run 04 Run 05 Run 06

2.16 51.196 168.316 362.124 2.41 46.853 153.317 331.493 588.848 495.148 536.693

2.62 44.532 146.063 316.521 571.460 474.099 509.865 3.38 40.816 132.972 291.029 522.022 431.662 467.249 3.61 38.490 124.679 277.602 495.376 414.818 451.203 3.84 38.581 125.056 279.253 498.383 414.578 449.290 4.09 38.813 121.015 285.561 494.048 405.408 450.482 4.32 36.475 117.078 265.325 474.252 389.197 420.115 4.52 37.589 112.613 276.380 486.878 388.669 424.938 4.78 36.080

5.00 33.720 109.967 249.985 434.110 362.781 395.612 5.23 32.823 107.309 242.506 428.111 354.230 383.984 5.46 32.283 105.908 239.663 425.491 348.368 372.821 5.69 30.835 100.390 228.293 408.980 332.291 361.877 6.27 30.761 99.172 228.929 409.136 330.011 349.275 6.50 29.572 92.755 221.229 389.591 323.821 198.706 6.73 28.495 52.875 215.330 380.559 316.191 73.674 6.93 12.236 39.964

392.644 322.431 58.479

7.19 8.684 26.920 209.569 369.947 153.096 61.213 7.42

337.128 67.388 65.413

7.65 3.830 26.215 188.419 108.156 68.547 63.685 7.87 2.954 27.648 153.304 80.504 65.664 71.119 8.10 2.618 28.141 109.376 78.173 66.454 73.393 8.33 2.787 31.849 39.844 95.136 70.839 82.252 8.56 1.789 32.329 31.146 97.536 75.548 92.757 8.79 1.791 31.735 30.887 105.039 79.796 113.098 9.37 4.779 23.309 126.050 138.185 59.233

9.50 11.135 59.128 306.838 579.059 9.73 17.883 124.027 538.118

10.01 20.549 140.942 10.24 30.870 235.485 420.959 774.636 702.540

10.46 57.914 378.001 290.293 619.133 667.766 1020.196 10.74 91.302 175.659 238.570 515.839 474.119 787.030 10.97 60.383 104.427 223.161 492.811 440.960 512.788 11.18 45.483 131.669 257.479 626.459 421.565 427.633 11.48 39.657 129.977 274.194 636.379 462.976 374.670 11.68

131.079 243.123 536.608 465.281 392.091

11.91 34.596 136.206 242.823 508.281

374.881 12.22 40.964 171.526 303.035 657.330 522.198 491.163 12.42 43.676 166.381 296.296 619.271 522.240 505.883 12.65 45.436 169.611 292.369 590.788 545.472 560.019 12.93 39.804 158.540 270.208 523.199 490.982 471.820 13.16 37.365 148.636 262.302 531.024 470.009 490.403 13.36 35.722 147.366 251.759 479.420

415.928

13.67 35.291 141.354 249.865 500.597 383.308 467.671 13.87 34.847 140.776 253.868 469.907

14.10 35.098 137.460

505.115 14.40 35.814 135.449

520.552 414.183 437.754

14.61 32.844 121.128

540.741 432.000 434.076 14.83 32.685 125.976

559.288

15

Hollow Cylinder Flare Surface Pressure [kPa] x [cm] Run 01 Run 02 Run 03 Run 04 Run 05

4.437

0.191 0.504 0.927 0.612 5.667 0.144

6.485 0.086 0.139 0.395 1.856 7.303 0.146 0.169 1.290 3.338 8.120 0.111 0.171 1.715 3.727 0.714

8.938 0.115 0.129 1.475 3.398 0.718 9.756 0.285 0.276 1.664 3.396 1.175

11.443 0.637 1.268 3.887 5.658 3.679 12.431 1.360 2.467 11.589 25.656 10.175 13.084 2.071 3.446 13.114 33.818 13.294 13.421 2.162 3.648 15.156 30.104 13.264 14.072 2.270 3.842 14.959 23.314 11.834 14.412 2.297 3.925 14.209 21.240 11.529 15.060 2.213 3.902 12.367 18.632 10.539 15.403 2.074 3.641 11.592 18.619 10.225 16.050 1.782 3.168 10.487 18.271 9.658 16.777 1.716 2.711 9.983 17.193 10.300 18.151 1.711 2.592 9.663 18.150 9.060 19.538 1.724 2.628 9.361 17.611 8.741

16

Hollow Cylinder Flare Surface Heat Flux [W/cm^2] x [cm] Run 01 Run 02 Run 03 Run 04 Run 05

1.783 10.70 30.32 68.08 104.50 114.47 2.489 9.55 27.36 60.49 94.73 102.48 2.756 9.25 26.23 58.30 89.33 98.21 3.810 7.19 20.93 46.25 70.33 77.91 4.801 6.54 18.37 41.16 63.82 69.20 5.649 5.88 17.43 39.57 58.93 65.15 5.941 5.85 17.40 35.86 56.23 64.58 6.401 5.17 14.38 30.85 40.04

6.680 5.74 16.52 30.69 17.08 57.73 6.927 5.07 14.92 26.22 13.39 55.82 7.181 4.58 13.52 20.58 12.39 51.31 7.442 4.74 13.75 13.46 11.93 51.93 7.681 4.97 14.54 10.96 12.40 55.93 7.932 4.53 13.07 10.37 11.23 50.66 8.212 4.81 13.35 9.79 11.88 53.94 8.446 4.97 14.04 9.24 12.50 51.83 8.712 4.66 13.34 10.22 12.93 45.24 8.969 4.22 12.96 10.20 13.09 39.58 9.210 4.19 13.65 11.26 13.22 39.42 9.474 3.38 12.80 10.54 10.28 33.18 9.769 2.48 14.13 12.25 14.22 24.28 9.982 2.30 15.19 16.21 22.08 21.56

10.654 5.74 27.77 31.97 43.88 62.49 10.980 8.25 36.15 48.78 63.30 90.59 11.640 14.59 55.91 80.40 128.82 196.58 11.972 20.53

12.304 25.23 85.86 171.67 323.97 376.44 12.970 36.84 110.61 271.51 649.03 520.80 13.303 40.20 114.45 292.06 639.94 564.26 13.628 42.34 118.13 303.96 599.64 617.53 13.958 41.93 117.45 291.11 558.50 584.97 14.290 39.17 111.54 267.25 481.30 517.09 15.177 34.65 102.32 231.22 397.14 443.46 15.500 33.53

218.68 376.63 428.64

15.830 30.37 94.98 209.24 342.13 381.09 16.162 28.21 87.73 193.90 321.11 350.61 16.494 26.46 80.87 180.09 302.39 327.55 16.822 25.63 76.98 174.40 292.18 314.50 17.152 24.47 73.02 168.72 286.68 304.35 17.484 23.78 70.68 164.27 277.26 295.07 17.808 22.75 67.10 157.35 264.11 281.60 18.151 22.57 66.25 156.33 265.49 281.80 18.481 21.85 63.81 151.40 263.98 282.80 18.852 21.77 63.74 153.51 262.95 275.71 19.180 21.93 63.39 153.04 261.58 275.64 19.510 22.77

152.23 260.41 286.69

19.831 21.89 62.60 153.07 260.97 275.64 20.170 22.12 61.86 149.59 257.55 272.81 20.504 22.50 60.86 148.18 255.99 271.20 20.839 22.83 62.01 147.16 253.22 269.98 21.160

61.93 143.85 247.86 278.20

21.479 22.15

140.94 239.01 256.15