Abstract
Targeting a cone with the half-angle as 10-deg at M = 27 and H = 72 km, simulations were conducted comparatively to analyze the predictions by different equilibrium and non-equilibrium gas models. Following validation and grid studies, systematic comparisons on aerodynamic performance, flow structures, and characteristic distributions were performed. The key findings are: (1) While the overall flow structures are broadly similar, discrepancies exist in the features at the base locations, e.g., the diverse high-temperature distributions. Notably, the vibrational temperatures distribute differently under slip and non-slip boundary conditions near the wall; (2) The equilibrium gas model predicts higher drag coefficient, wall heat flux, and skin friction than those of non-equilibrium models. Predictions also vary among the non-equilibrium models themselves. Specifically, compared to the three-temperature model, the one- and two-temperature models predict larger drag coefficients with the relative difference exceeding 5%. Nevertheless, the results from the three-temperature model with and without slip conditions are largely consistent; (3) The disparities between equilibrium and non-equilibrium characteristics are primarily manifested in the shock layer and wake regions. Within these regions, the overall temperature for the equilibrium gas is lower than that for the non-equilibrium cases, while in the latter specific non-equilibrium features are distinctly exhibited, e.g., the translational-rotational temperature is generally higher than that from the one-temperature model, and the vibrational-electronic temperature shows the opposite trend. Notably, in the slip flow within the three-temperature model, the translational-rotational temperature is higher and, particularly, the vibrational temperature is even larger than counterparts of the non-slip flows near the wall and base center line.
Connections
Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.
Building this map preview
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Reviews 0
Write a review
No reviews yet.
Discussion 0
Add a comment
No comments yet.