Sonic boom minimization including both front and rear shocks

George, A. R.; Seebass, R.

doi:10.2514/3.6478

Cited by 89 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clearly, the design of a viable supersonic civil transport must involve the reduction of the aircraft's sonic-boom signature to an acceptable level. Dating back four decades and more, members of the research community (e.g., [2][3][4][5][6]) suggested that certain types of vehicle shaping could alter the waveform of an aircraft's ground signature, resulting in a significantly reduced overpressure, relative to that of the familiar N-wave.…”

Section: A Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Near-Field Sonic Boom Simulation Tools

Casper

Cliff

Thomas

et al. 2008

26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent study for the Supersonics Project, within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been conducted to assess current in-house capabilities for the prediction of near-field sonic boom. Such capabilities are required to simulate the highly nonlinear flow near an aircraft, wherein a sonic-boom signature is generated. There are many available computational fluid dynamics codes that could be used to provide the near-field flow for a sonic boom calculation. However, such codes have typically been developed for applications involving aerodynamic configuration, for which an efficiently generated computational mesh is usually not optimum for a sonic boom prediction. Preliminary guidelines are suggested to characterize a state-of-the-art sonic boom prediction methodology. The available simulation tools that are best suited to incorporate into that methodology are identified; preliminary test cases are presented in support of the selection. During this phase of process definition and tool selection, parallel research was conducted in an attempt to establish criteria that link the properties of a computational mesh to the accuracy of a sonic boom prediction. Such properties include sufficient grid density near shocks and within the zone of influence, which are achieved by adaptation and mesh refinement strategies. Prediction accuracy is validated by comparison with wind tunnel data. Nomenclature

show abstract

Section: A Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Near-Field Sonic Boom Simulation Tools

Casper

Cliff

Thomas

et al. 2008

26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sonic boom minimization began with Busemann [2] who told us how to eliminate the wave drag and sonic boom due to the aircraft's volume in 1955. Later, Seebass and coworkers [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] contributed in Sonic Boom mitigation which included midfield effects. In 1975, Darden [10] modified the Seebass-George method to consider standard atmosphere.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A CFD Based Sonic Boom Prediction Method and Investigation on the Parameters Affecting the Sonic Boom Signature

Lengyan

Zhou

2015

Procedia Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on bodies of revolution, several flight and shape parameters are considered for investigating their effects on the sonic boom signature including overpressure and impulse. Here, the parameters include flight altitude, Mach number, cone half-angle, bluntness and fineness ratio. Mach numbers are varied from 1.41 to 4.63 due to publicized wind tunnel experimental data for reference. Near-field domain at the flight altitude is modeled by the conservative Euler equations, and the far-field region computations are carried out using the Thomas ray tracing method. According to the parametric analysis, it is found that sonic boom can be reduced by increasing flight altitude, decreasing cone half-angle, increasing fineness ratio or decreasing Mach number. However, with the increase of bluntness parameter, the overpressure on the ground decreases first and then rises, and the sonic boom impulse shows the similar trend as the overpressure when the Mach number is between 2.96 and 4.63, but for Mach number of 1.41 to 2.01, the impulse increases near linearly with the increasing of the bluntness parameter.

show abstract

“…George and Seebass introduced the minimum cross-sectional area distribution [13] to minimize the overpressure of both front and rear shocks. Howe [14] indicated that placing the engine above the wing helps reduce the tail boom; depending on the location of the engine, the wing shields the pressure wave originating from the engine, or the accelerated flow over the wing sharpens the shock-wave angle, which delays the N-wave formation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%