2022
DOI: 10.2514/1.a35052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of Hypersonic Double-Cone Experiments for Validation of Thermochemistry Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further prediction attempts completed [5][6][7][8] still show difficulties in predicting the flow separation lengths with attempts of uncertainty analysis [9] also completed to try and reach a conclusion. There are further datasets that were added to the mix such as the work conducted at Caltech T5 by Knisley and Austin [10], and the experiments at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) tunnel no.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further prediction attempts completed [5][6][7][8] still show difficulties in predicting the flow separation lengths with attempts of uncertainty analysis [9] also completed to try and reach a conclusion. There are further datasets that were added to the mix such as the work conducted at Caltech T5 by Knisley and Austin [10], and the experiments at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) tunnel no.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various models and rates exist, but, due to the lack of appropriate experimental data, it is still rather unclear which of these existing models and rates are accurate, if any. 61 Even the high-fidelity state-to-state (StS) models, in which each molecular vibrational state is considered a pseudo-species, have significant uncertainties due to the uncertainties in the state-specific rates used, which can differ by orders of magnitude between different sources. 62 Thus, accurate modeling of thermochemical nonequilibrium remains an open problem and is very much an active area of research.…”
Section: Uncertainty From the Nonequilibrium Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This prompted uncertainty quantification analyses to verify that the stated experimental conditions were consistent with the measurements (Ray et al 2020). Also, the numerical predictions for many runs appeared to be rather insensitive to the thermochemical models and the small variations were not enough to account for the differences with experiments (Kianvashrad & Knight 2019;Holloway, Chaudhry & Boyd 2022). Finally, the experimental run time (around 1 ms) was brought into question as insufficient to establish a steady-state flow over the double cone (Tumuklu et al 2018a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%