Experimental Methods of Shock Wave Research 2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-23745-9_13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Expansion Tubes in Australia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
52
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1) is a free pistondriven expansion tube that is configured with a freely sliding piston, a shock tube containing the test gas, an acceleration tube, and a nozzle exiting into a test section where the model is mounted. Its operation has been described in detail by Gildfind et al [8], and thus will only be briefly summarized here.…”
Section: Experimental Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1) is a free pistondriven expansion tube that is configured with a freely sliding piston, a shock tube containing the test gas, an acceleration tube, and a nozzle exiting into a test section where the model is mounted. Its operation has been described in detail by Gildfind et al [8], and thus will only be briefly summarized here.…”
Section: Experimental Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations have been used to numerically rebuild several expansion tube experiments [8]. Potter used two-dimensional (2-D) axisymmetric CFD coupled to the inhouse radiation code Photaura to compare shock-layer radiation, simulated around a cylindrical model in a Martian flow, to experiments [9].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This facility is capable of providing representative reentry flow environments for use with subscale test models, with a typical steady flow time ranging from 10 to 100 µs, depending on the condition [90,91]. This study used the same flow condition as Zander et al [25], with facility fill pressures, measured shock speeds, and cone-head pressure (see Gildfind [77]) as shown in Table 5.1.…”
Section: Facility and Test Conditionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Promising tests and discoveries about the small X1 tube's operation led to the construction of X2 and its larger sibling X3, measuring approximately 25 m and 65 m, respectively [46]. X2 was commissioned in 1995 [39], and has undergone several significant changes to reach its current format. It moved from a compound two-stage free piston driver [47] to a lightweight single free piston driver [48] [6], and the ability to change the driver conditions using different gases and orifice plates was added.…”
Section: Experiments In the X2 Free-piston Driven Expansion Tube 22mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The realisation of X2 as a unique, world-class facility has progressed through many stages, and this is well-documented by current and past members of the Centre for Hypersonics, which the readers are encouraged to view (including [39], [6], [40], [41]). From a theoretical concept by Resler and Bloxom [42], early performance predictions by Trimpi [43] and discouraging test results from facilities including the NASA Langley expansion tube (see [44], for example), Stalker combined his free-piston driver with the expansion tube idea to create X1 at The University of Queensland [45].…”
Section: Experiments In the X2 Free-piston Driven Expansion Tube 22mentioning
confidence: 99%