Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T01:10:01.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigation of aerodynamic coefficients at Mach 6 over conical, hemispherical and flat-face spiked body

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

R. Kalimuthu
Affiliation:
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum, India
R. C. Mehta*
Affiliation:
Noorul Islam University, Kumaracoil, India
E. Rathakrishnan
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A forward spike attached to a blunt body significantly alters its flow field characteristics and influences aerodynamic characteristics at hypersonic flow due to formation of separated flow and re-circulation region around the spiked body. An experimental investigation was performed to measure aerodynamic forces for spikes blunt bodies with a conical, hemispherical and flat-face spike at Mach 6 and at an angle-of-attack range from 0° to 8° and length-to-diameter L/D ratio of spike varies from 0.5 to 2.0, where L is the length of the spike and D is diameter of blunt body. The shape of the leading edge of the spiked blunt body reveals different types of flow field features in the formation of a shock wave, shear layer, flow separation, re-circulation region and re-attachment shock. They are analysed with the help of schlieren pictures. The shock distance ahead of the hemisphere and the flat-face spike is compared with the analytical solution and is showing satisfactory agreement with the schlieren pictures. The influence of geometrical parameters of the spike, the shape of the spike tip and angle-of-attack on the aerodynamic coefficients are investigated by measuring aerodynamic forces in a hypersonic wind tunnel. It is found that a maximum reduction of drag of about 77% was found for hemisphere spike of L/D = 2.0 at zero angle-of-attack. Consideration for compensation of increased pitching moment is required to stabilise the aerodynamic forces.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic sketch of the flow field over spike. (a) Conical spike, (b) flat-face spike, (c) hemispherical spike.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Dimension of spiked-blunt body and conical, flat-face and hemisphere spike. (a) Conical spike with blunt body, (b) conical spike, (c) flat-face spike, (d) hemisphere spike.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Strain balance with aerodynamic forces measurements. All dimensions in mm. (a) Strain gauge balance, (b) Strain gauge balance, (c) Sign convention used for forces measurements.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Schlieren pictures of conical, flat-face and hemisphere-cap spike at Mach 6. Conical spike (α = 0°), Flat-face spike (α = 0°), Hemisphere-cap spike (α = 0°), Conical spike (α = 8°), Flat-face spike (α = 8°), Hemisphere-cap spike (α = 8°); L/D = 0.5, L/D = 1.0, L/D = 1.5, L/D = 2.0.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of the flow-field over spike. (a) Conical spike, (b) hemispherical cap spike, (c) hemisphere disc spike, (d) flat-face spike, (e) flat-face disc spike.

Figure 5

Figure 6. CD vs angle-of-attack for conical aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 6

Figure 7. CL vs angle-of-attack for conical aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 7

Figure 8. CPM vs angle-of-attack for conical aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Xcp/L vs angle-of-attack for conical aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 9

Figure 10. CD vs angle-of-attack for hemisphere aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 10

Figure 11. CL vs angle-of-attack for hemisphere aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 11

Figure 12. CPM vs angle-of-attack for hemisphere aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 12

Figure 13. Xcp/L vs angle-of-attack for hemisphere aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 13

Figure 14. CD vs angle-of-attack for flat-face aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 14

Figure 15. CL vs angle-of-attack for flat-face aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 15

Figure 16. CPM vs angle-of-attack for flat-face aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 16

Figure 17. Xcp /L vs angle-of-attack for flat-face aerospike of different L/D at Mach 6.

Figure 17

Figure 18. CD vs angle-of-attack for different configurations of L/D = 0.5.

Figure 18

Figure 19. CD vs angle-of-attack for different configurations of L/D = 1.0.

Figure 19

Figure 20. CD vs angle-of-attack for different configurations of L/D = 1.5.

Figure 20

Figure 21. CD vs angle-of-attack for different configurations of L/D = 2.0.