64 J. SPACECRAFT VOL. 18, NO.

AIAA 79-1078R

Approximate Convective-Heating Equations

for Hypersonic Flows
E.V. Zoby,* J.N. Moss,t and K. Suttont
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.

Laminar and turbulent heating-rate equations appropriate for engineering predictions of the convective-
heating rates about blunt re-entry spacecraft at hypersonic conditions are developed. The approximate methods
are applicable to both nonreacting and reacting gas mixtures for either constant- or variable-entropy edge
conditions. A procedure which accounts for variable-entropy effects and is not based on mass balancing is
presented. Results of the approximate heating methods are in good agreement with available experimental
results as well as boundary-layer and viscous-shock-layer solutions.
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

Nomenclature = radiative-heating rate

C1,c2,c3,c4,c5 = defined by Eqs. (9-13) = conditions determined by reference
Cf = skin-friction coefficient enthalpy
H = enthalpy s = stagnation-point condition
Hc = form factor T = turbulent
h = heat-transfer coefficient = wall condition
K = defined by Eq. (2)
M = Mach number Introduction
m — exponent in friction law PROBLEM in the design of most re-entry spacecraft is
m
N
= mass loss rate
= reciprocal exponent in velocity profile
A the prediction of the convective heating-rate
distributions. Frequently approximate methods, which have
power law been substantiated by experimental data and/or "bench-
p = pressure mark" calculations, are employed in parametric or design
Pr = Prandtl number calculations. However, current interest in outer-planet entry
q = heat-transfer rate and advanced-transportation systems for Earth entry has
RN = nose radius resulted in additional problems for convective-heating
Re = momentum thickness Reynolds number analyses. Such problems as arbitrary reactive gas com-
R^j =freestream Reynolds number based on positions, complex three-dimensional and/or variable-
base diameter entropy flows, and large surface areas with the possibility of
r = radius of body of revolution turbulent flow over most of the region are now encountered.
5 = body wetted length Thus, the spacecraft designer needs rapid, but reliable,
St = Stanton number methods for assessing the effects of such problems on the
T = temperature convective-heating rates.
u = velocity Although many analyticalM4 and detailed boundary-layer
Y = distance normal to wall methods15'18 are available for convective-heating predictions,
6 = boundary-layer thickness n&ny of these methods are restricted to a particular gas
6* = displacement thickness composition, stagnation-point solutions, or a per feet-gas
pt = viscosity analysis. Viscous-shock-layer (VSL) solutions,19'20 provide a
p = density direct means of computing heat fluxes as well as interactions
0 = momentum thickness between inviscid and viscous flow regions due to heat trans-
Bc = half-cone angle fer, entropy-layer swallowing, and mass injection. However,
these methods require large computer run times and storage
Subscripts and Superscripts and are not generally applicable to parametric studies or
detailed design calculations.
aw = adiabaticwall The purpose of this paper is to investigate existing con-
c = convective-heating rate vective-heating techniques and propose laminar and turbulent
e = edge conditions heating methods applicable to engineering calculations of
oo = freestream conditions nonreacting or reacting flows about blunt re-entry spacecraft.
=laminar A procedure which accounts for the variable-entropy effects
on convective-heating distributions and is not dependent on
mass balancing is presented. Results of the approximate
methods are compared to experimental results and to
boundary-layer and VSL solutions.
Presented as Paper 79-1078 at the AIAA 14th Thermophysics
Conference, Orlando, Fla., June 4-6, 1979; submitted Dec. 3, 1979; Analysis
revision received June 3, 1980. This paper is declared a work of the An approximate convective-heating method has been
U.S. Government and therefore is in the public domain.
*Aero-Space Technologist, Aerothermodynamics Branch, Space
developed for engineering calculations of laminar and tur-
Systems Division. bulent heating rates about blunt re-entry spacecraft. The
tAero-Space Technologist, Aerothermodynamics Branch, Space approximate method is applicable to nonreacting or reacting
Systems Division. Member AIAA. gas mixtures for either constant- or variable-entropy edge
 JAN.-FEB. 1981 CONVECTIVE-HEATING EQUATIONS FOR HYPERSONIC FLOWS 65

conditions. This section briefly reviews several approximate Eckert's reference enthalpy relation,24 and is given by
laminar and turbulent heating-rate methods and discusses the
factors considered in selecting or developing the present
methods. Also, this section presents the equations used to qw>L = 0.22(Re>e) -> (p*/P
calculate the heating rates along with the equations for
locating the boundary-layer edge for laminar and turbulent X(Haw-Hw)(Prw)-°-6 (3)
flows influenced by variable entropy.
Existing Heat-Transfer Methods where 0 is computed by
For both the stagnation-point heating and laminar heating-
rate distribution, results based on several analyses M are in
good agreement, but the analyses are restricted to air. For gas (4)
compositions other than air, approximate methods are also
available.5'6 The analysis of Sutton and Graves,5 while Equation (4) provides a technique to include the effect of
limited to the stagnation point of a blunt body, provides a geometry and variable-edge conditions about a blunt body on
versatile technique of calculating the stagnation-point heat the laminar momentum -thickness calculation. The equation
transfer in a wide range of base gases and in mixtures of these reduces to the standard Blasius form for flat -plate assump-
gases. The analysis of Marvin and Deiwert6 provides a tions.
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

method calculating the laminar-heating distribution, but for The turbulent heat transfer is also computed by using a
only a limited number of gas mixtures. skin-friction coefficient based on Re. Published results8'13
Approximate turbulent heat-transfer expressions7'14 are using this form for the skin-friction relation assume a l/7th
primarily based on equating the skin friction to the Stanton velocity profile and use values of Hc varying from - 1.0 to
number through Reynolds analogy. In Refs. 8-13, the skin- 9/7. It is noted25 that the l/7th profile is not applicable over
friction relation as a function of the momentum thickness an extensive Reynolds number range. Libby and Cresci8
Reynolds number (Re) is determined by assuming a velocity illustrate the insensitivity of the turbulent heat transfer to the
profile [u/ue = (Y/5)1/N] to compute the required constants form factor for values of approximately 1.0 or less. In Ref.
and exponents. For these references, a l/7th power-law 1 1 , the authors present several reasons for using Hc = - 1 in
velocity profile is assumed, and differences in the skin-friction hypersonic turbulent boundary-layer calculations. Also, since
equations are due to either the form of the compressible this value of Hc was used by Lees26 in developing a hyper-
transformations or the value of the form factor (Hc = d*/0). sonic laminar method, a value of Hc = - 1.0 is used in this
In Ref. 14, the Spalding-Chi21 skin-friction relation is used. analysis. Although the turbulent -heating analyses8'13 adopt a
The Spalding-Chi method has been shown22 to yield good constant value of N equal to 7, experimental results27 show TV
comparison with experimental ground-test data for heat to be a function of Re with values of TV as low as 4 for Re
transfer and skin friction over a wide range of test conditions. equal to approximately 1000. A compressible turbulent
However, the method has been shown not to produce the best analysis28 has demonstrated the effect of a variable N on the
comparison with flight data. 7 skin friction. In order to incorporate this effect in the present
analysis, the skin friction is assumed as
Present Heat-Transfer Methods
For the stagnation-point heat-transfer calculations, the
method of Cohen2 is used for air calculations, and the (5)
method of Sutton and Graves5 is used for planetary gas
mixtures. The equation of Cohen2 is given as
which, after substituting in the momentum equation and
integrating, yields an expression for the turbulent momentum
growth as
9^=0.767 (Prw) ~°-6(H,-Hw
0 = (c2 j V"X (pe uer) (6)
(1)

5
where m,cI,c2,c3, and c4 are functions of TV.25'28 This integral
and the equation of Sutton and Graves is given as expression for the turbulent momentum thickness is similar in
nature to Eq. (4) for the laminar momentum thickness. A
curve fit of axisymmetric nozzle-wall data27 produces
qw.=K(ps/RN)»(Hs-Hw) (2)

N= 12.67 - 6.51og (RBe) + 1.2K\ogR e>e ) 2 (7)

where K can be determined by a simple but accurate
technique5 over a wide range of gas mixtures. Note that the
latter method5 is also applicable to air calculations and is in The N values presented27 for axisymmetric nozzle-wall tests at
good agreement with existing stagnation-point heat-transfer Re less than approximately 104 are generally lower than
methods.1-4 The Cohen2 method is also selected for this corresponding N values based on sharp-cone or flat-plate
investigation due to its wide recognition. conditions. Thus, for Re values less than 104, the present
For the calculation of the laminar heat-transfer skin-friction results would not be in good agreement with
distribution, a method similar to that presented in Refs. 2-4 standard flat -plate incompressible methods.
and 6 is not available for application to a wide range of gas Relations for the coefficients and exponents in Eqs. (5) and
mixtures. Thus, the laminar distributions are computed herein (6) are given as
by relating heat transfer to a skin-friction relation based on
Re through a modified Reynolds analogy form. This ap-
proach is useful since a momentum or boundary-layer = 2/(N+l) (8)
thickness will be required for approximating the variable-
entropy effects on the heat-transfer calculations. The laminar (N+2)]m (9)
heat transfer is computed using the incompressible Blasius23
relation, with compressibility effects accounted for by (10)
 66 ZOBY, MOSS, AND SUTTON J. SPACECRAFT

c3 = l + m (11) perimental results are good. However, for regions of strong

vorticity interaction, e.g., turbulent flow over outer-planet
(12) probes which are relatively short blunt bodies with large half-
angle afterbodies, calculated results of turbulent integral and
c 5 = 2.2433 + 0.93N (13) detailed boundary-layer analyses employing mass-balancing
techniques are shown to overpredict corresponding VSL heat-
With Eq. (5) and a modified Reynolds analogy form, the transfer results by 30-40%.37 Anderson and Wilcox37 at-
resulting turbulent heat -transfer equation is tribute the too-rapid "swallowing" of the high-entropy flow
to the fact that detailed boundary layer codes do not usually
account for the nonvanishing value of (du/dy)e in the
4w,r = c/ (R6ie) peue boundary conditions. This term tends to suppress the
boundary-layer growth. The discrepancies are greater in
turbulent-heating comparisons where the boundary-layer and
(14) displacement thicknesses determine the scale of turbulence. A
boundary-layer analysis38 which accounts for the (du/dy)e
The exponents used for the Prandtl number in Eqs. (3) and term reports good comparisons (within 10%) with VSL
(14) are based on results presented by Kays.29 Also, the results. For the approximate integral methods, the inclusion
Prandtl number is evaluated herein as the frozen Prandtl of such a term is not feasible. In addition, the typically
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

number evaluated at the wall temperature. assumed l/7th power-law velocity profile may not always be
appropriate for the particular local flow conditions.
Application to Three-Dimensional Flow For blunt bodies at incidence, the required mass-balancing
Based on the axisymmetric analog,30'31 simplifying technique presents at best a complex procedure.39 Currently,
assumptions can be applied to the complex three-dimensional there are existing solution procedures for sharp cones at
boundary-layer theory which allows equations such as incidence39 and for the windward ray of blunt axisymmetric
presented herein to be modified for three-dimensional bodies.40
heating -rate calculations. As a result of these assumptions, Considering the inherent difficulties involved with applying
the distance along a streamline is substituted for the distance S mass balancing to three-dimensional flow and the apparent
along the body surface, and the metric coefficient for the discrepancies resulting from approximate or classical
surface coordinate normal to the streamline is used rather boundary-layer methods for axisymmetric flows, a somewhat
than the cross-sectional radius r. The calculated results of different approach for approximating variable entropy is used
procedures31'32 using the axisymmetric analog have been in this study.
shown to be in good agreement with measured three- An inviscid solution is assumed to be known. Then, by
dimensional heating data. means of an iterative process, the momentum-thickness Eqs.
(4) and (6) and corresponding approximate ratios of boun-
Local Conditions dary-layer thickness to momentum thickness are used to
Heat-transfer calculations, based on integral or detailed determine the local flow conditions. Thus, this analysis ac-
boundary-layer techniques, require inviscid properties ex- counts for variable-entropy effects by locally moving out in
ternal to the boundary layer. Usually, the external flow is the inviscid flowfield at a distance equal to the boundary-layer
assumed to be at a constant -entropy condition corresponding thickness. The inviscid properties at this location are used as
to either the oblique-shock or stagnation-streamline entropy. the boundary-layer edge properties. This concept was recently
In general, however, the assumption of a constant-entropy suggested by Popinski18 for three-dimensional flows. Thus,
value does not provide an adequate description of the external this method of determining variable-entropy edge conditions
flow properties over the entire length of a blunt body in high- coupled with the axisymmetric analog appears to offer a
speed flow. This situation is caused by the highly curved simpler method for three-dimensional heat-transfer
shocks produced by blunt bodies. These shocks generate calculations. In this investigation, the boundary-layer
entropy gradients in the inviscid flow, resulting in inviscid thickness to momentum-thickness ratios41'42 used are
velocity gradients normal to the body surface. 33 Streamlines
of varying entropy value, which pass through different points (d/0)L=5.55 (15)
on the shock, are gradually embedded in the boundary layer
as the layer grows along the surface. Thus, this process,
referred to as streamline swallowing, results in variable- and
entropy conditions at the boundary-layer edge.
There are at least two techniques which account for the
effect of variable-entropy flows on the surface heat transfer
and skin friction. One method is the VSL solution19'20 which
provides a direct means of accounting for the entropy- (16)
gradient effects since the VSL equations are valid throughout
the shock layer. However, these methods do require large
computer run times and storage. Another method which is The results of Eq. (16) when coupled with Eqs. (6) and (14)
employed in approximate integral or detailed boundary-layer will be demonstrated herein to provide good agreement with
codes is mass balancing. The iterative mass-balancing turbulent VSL solutions in regions of strong vorticity in-
procedure equates the mass flow in the boundary layer at the teractions.
body point of interest to a streamtube of equal mass in the
freestream.33 Hence, for mass-balancing procedures, the Results and Discussion
shock shape and pressure distribution about the blunt body In this section, results obtained with the present ap-
are required. The results of such calculations have been proximate laminar and turbulent heating-rate equations are
demonstrated for blunt bodies at 0-deg incidence.13"15'33'36 compared with available experimental results as well as with
Note that these results are obtained primarily at high laminar boundary-layer and VSL solutions. Initially, the results of the
Reynolds number flow conditions and for turbulent flows at approximate methods are compared with perfect and reacting
stations far downstream on long slender blunt cones, i.e., at gas boundary-layer solutions and existing blunt-body ex-
such conditions where vorticity interaction is weak. At these perimental heat-transfer data. Secondly, the results of the
conditions, the comparisons of the computational and ex- approximate methods are compared with perfect and reacting
 JAN.-FEB. 1981 CONVECTIVE-HEATING EQUATIONS FOR HYPERSONIC FLOWS 67

= 19.5

h x 10?
MW 2.0 -
m2K

0 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10
/R
N
a)

Moo =10
R M = 0.3048m
2.0

1.5
. MW
-
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10
S/R N 2.5
Fig. 1 Comparisons of convective heating-rate distributions at o DATA REF 47
PRESENT
constant-entropy conditions: a) 5-deg sphere cone, b) 40-deg sphere 2.0
cone.
14.5°
h xlO?
MW 1.5
H
w/ H s= 0.67
0.0635 m

1.0

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0 S/R

2.0 r
Moo = 4.0
———— REF 49 9C = 25°
\ ———— PRESENT H W /H S ..43-. 65
\^ • ° DATA REF 48
STxl01.5 RN = 0.113. m
°^^^
~ •————— _ ——————o

1.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
d)
Fig. 4 Comparison of experimental and calculated turbulent
o 4 6 8 10 heating-rate distributions: a) hemisphere, b) hemisphere-cylinder,
b) S/R
N c) 14!/2-deg sphere cone, d) 25-deg sphere cone.
boundary-layer momentum-thickness
distributions at constant-entropy conditions: a) 5-deg sphere cone,
b) 40-deg sphere cone.
Constant-Entropy Conditions
Perfect-gas boundary-layer solutions17 of laminar and
turbulent heating rates about a blunt 5-deg cone at M^ =19.5,
Moo = 8.0
0C = 25° 7=1.4, and Hw /Hs = 0.033 and about a blunt 40-deg cone at
i.o R N = 0.0127m A^ = 10.0, 7 = 1.4, and HW/HS= 0.1 are presented in Figs, la
H W /H S =0.42 and Ib, respectively. For both conditions, the approximate
heat-transfer results predicted by the laminar [Eq. (3)] and
Roo,d = 0 . 3 7 x 1 0 " ) the turbulent [Eq. (14)] methods are in good agreement with
XL = 1.65xl06lREF44 the corresponding boundary-layer solution with differences of
less than 10% noted. Although not shown on the figure, good
agreement with existing approximate laminar methods4'43 are
obtained for both conditions. However, results based on
existing turbulent methods8"12 are as much as 20% lower than
the boundary-layer results for the blunt 5-deg cone and within
-I- 40 and - 20% of the boundary-layer results for the blunt
40- deg cone. For the two cases, the corresponding growth of
Fig. 3 Comparison of experimental and calculated laminar heating- the laminar and turbulent boundary-layer momentum
rate distributions. thickness predicted by Eqs. (4) and (6) is shown in Figs. 2.
Good comparisons are obtained with the boundary-layer
gas VSL solutions. All comparisons are for 0-deg angle-of- solutions.17
attack conditions. These comparisons should validate the Experimental laminar and turbulent heat-transfer data are
present approximate methods for engineering applications to presented in Figs. 3 and 4. The laminar data44 are compared
either nonreacting or reacting flows at both constant- and with results of Eq. (3), the heating distribution of Cohen,2
variable-entropy edge conditions. For the constant-entropy and a VSL solution.20 Note that no significant entropy-
conditions, the local flow conditions are determined by ex- gradient effects on the heat transfer are observed based on the
panding the flow from the normal-shock stagnation-point comparison of the constant-entropy and VSL results. The
condition to the local pressure. turbulent data45"48 are compared with the results of Eq. (14)
 68 ZOBY, MOSS, AND SUTTON J. SPACECRAFT

— — LAMINAR | MOO = 19.6 LAMINAR

REF 17
———— TURBULENT < Moo = 23.5 Y = 1.4 CONSTANT
7.0 PRESENT
O LAMINAR ( DDI:CI:MT = 40° ENTROPY
PRESENT R., = 0.3048m *C
f 2^1 TURBULENT! p = 0.3048m
R
N • PRESENT ) VARIABLE
6.0 :
\
Hw/ Hs = 0.033 — - - - REF 19 J ENTROPY
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 P_ = 6.65 x 10 '
•
a) N 5.0 jJi\
f .• TURBULENT CONSTANT
PRESENT

4.0
« V_^
- 1 a
ENTROPY

MW T ' Moo =10.3

— R N = 0.3048m
MW
- i ° a
PRESENT ) VARIABLE
REF 19 I ENTROPY
3.0 - \
r 0-7 » O-i _ ^ T = 218K k
7 8 9 10 p = 7.18 x 1 \
2.0
b)
1.0 "*•-",•

Fig. 7 Comparison of convective heating-rate distributions.

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

_6 63 x 10
-3 kq
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 °e~ - 3- ————— LAMINAR j
C) S/R
N —————TURBULENT ( K t h 1V
o LAMINAR
Fig. 5 Comparison of convective-heating data distributions at o
PRESENT
TURBULENT!
constant-entropy conditions for equilibrium air: a) 5-deg sphere cone,
b) 40-deg sphere cone, c) 40-deg sphere cone. 1.19m (LARGE PROBE)

0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

a) S/RN
2.0

LAMINAR
1.5 — 0— REF 17 \ CONSTANT MW
PRESENT! ENTROPY
MW REF 19 ) VARIABLE
PRESENT I ENTROPY
1.0
0 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.00 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
S/R S/R
b) N C) N
REF 17 ) CONSTANT Fig. 8 Comparison of convective heating-rate distributions for
PRESENT! ENTROPY
Venusian atmosphere: a) £/„= 11.38 km/s, b) £7^=10.82 km/s,
—— - — REF 19 I VARIABLE
• PRESENT f ENTROPY
c)t/ 00 =7.54km/s.

0 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 variable-entropy heating results shown in Fig. 6, an iterative

S/R
N solution is employed using an inviscid flowfield calculation,50
Fig. 6 Comparison of convective heating-rate distributions. Eqs. (3), (4), and (15) for the laminar predictions, and Eqs.
(6), (14), and (16) for the turbulent results. The approximate
variable-entropy heat-transfer predictions are in good
and, when presented in the cited references, the method of agreement with VSL19 results (less than 15% disagreement).
Van Driest.49 The comparison of the laminar and turbulent These comparisons are in contrast to the results presented for
data with the present approximate results is good (ap- the same conditions in Ref. 37 where discrepancies of 40%
proximately 10%). were noted between VSL solutions and boundary-layer
Calculated results for equilibrium air are shown for several methods using mass balancing. Similar comparisons are also
conditions in Fig. 5. Discrepancies of less than 15% are noted obtained for the results presented in Fig. 7 for a 40-deg blunt
in the comparison of the boundary-layer solutions17 and the cone at M* = 19.6, 7 = 1.4, and HW/HS =0.033 and at these
approximate laminar and turbulent results. same conditions for a 15-deg hyperboloid (results not
presented).
Variable-Entropy Conditions Typical VSL convective-heating distributions about the
The effect of variable entropy on the heat transfer is Venusian entry large probe (0 C =45 deg, RN = \.\9 m) at
illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7. Boundary-layer17 and VSL19 several trajectory points are presented in Fig. 8. The inviscid
solutions of the laminar and turbulent heating distributions flowfield technique of Falanga and Olstad51 is coupled with
about a 40-deg cone at M^ = 10.0, 7= 1.4, and HW/HS =0.1 the approximate variable-entropy heat-transfer calculations.
are presented in Fig. 6. For these conditions, results of the The VSL and approximate laminar heating-rate results are in
laminar VSL calculations show only a slight increase (less good agreement (within 10%). Generally, good agreement is
than \0%) over the boundary-layer results up to 20-nose radii. also obtained for the turbulent heating-rate comparisons with
However, over this same length, a 65% increase is noted in the a maximum discrepancy of approximately 18%.
turbulent VSL results compared to the boundary-layer values. Comparisons for the nominal Jovian entry conditions are
The results of the present approximate laminar and turbulent presented in Figs. 9 and 10 with similar agreement. The results
heat-transfer calculations for both constant- and variable- presented in Fig. 9 are for an adiabatic flowfield, whereas the
entropy conditions are also shown in Fig. 6. The impact of results of Fig. 10 are computed for a radiating flowfield. The
entropy swallowing on the heat transfer is approximately inviscid flowfield calculation, which is coupled with the
accounted for herein by defining the boundary-layer edge approximate method, is based on the procedure of Zoby et
properties as the inviscid values located at a distance from the al.52 Note that for the calculation of the outer eddy viscosity
surface equal to the boundary-layer thickness. For the in the turbulent VSL solutions,53 the location of the boun-
 JAN.-FEB. 1981 CONVECTIVE-HEATING EQUATIONS FOR HYPERSONIC FLOWS 69

———— LAMINAR [ ---- LAMINAR ) PF , 1Q

———— TURBULENn --— TURBULENT)
o LAMINAR 150 r O LAMINAR )
150 r PRESENT
TURBULENT D TURBULENT)
^a a v

D D
100 100
VM
. = 0

m=0 — —— -o- ———o

0.89 H 2 - 0.11 He
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
a) S/R
N 2.0 2.4 2.8
a)
150
150

100
p a
100

——— __o
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 .89 H - .11 He

b) 1 1
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
150
b)

100 150r
. Mw

MW
m = 0
O \
.89H 9 -.11 He
bx
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
C) ---o—— -o
Fig. 9 Comparison of convective heating-rate distributions for
Jovian atmosphere: a) ^=42.88 km/s, b) £7^= 39.28 km/s, I_____|_____\_____[_ _I
1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
c) 6/00= 34.67 km/s.
S/R
O N
Fig. 10 Comparison of convective heating-rate distributions with
dary-layer thickness is assumed to be determined at a value of radiating flowfield for Jovian conditions: a) £/«>= 42.88 km/s,
H/HS =0.995 in nonradiative calculations and at an index of b) f/oo =39.28 km/s, c) Ux =34.67 km/s.
dissipation equal to 0.95 for radiating flowfields. An
evaluation of these limits indicated a poor match of the
boundary-layer thickness for nonradiative calculations. A The equations are applicable to nonreacting or reacting gas
value of the dissipation index equal to 0.98 gave a much better flows at conditions of constant or variable entropy. The
comparison with the boundary-layer thickness predicted by variable-entropy effect on the heat transfer was approximated
tt\eH/Hs =0.995 limit. Thus, the VSL turbulent heating rates by defining the boundary-layer edge properties as the inviscid
presented in Fig. 10 use a dissipation index of 0.98. values located a distance from the surface equal to the
Note that while good agreement is obtained with the present boundary-layer thickness.
laminar variable-entropy method and VSL solutions, com- Details of the stagnation point and the local laminar and
parisons at conditions of low Reynolds number flow or far turbulent heat-transfer equations are given. Also, equations
downstream on a blunt body may better substantiate the for computing the laminar and turbulent momentum
validity of Eq. (15). However, the previous comparisons have thicknesses and for computing the corresponding ratios of
demonstrated that the present heating-rate methods provide boundary-layer thickness to momentum thickness are
reliable estimations of blunt-body heat-transfer rates over a presented.
wide range of gas compositions and in regions of strong The results of the approximate methods are in good
vorticity interactions (for turbulent flow). agreement with available experimental heat-transfer data as
For parametric or design calculations, the spacecraft well as boundary-layer and viscous-shock-layer solutions. The
designer is concerned with the computer time required as well method provides a rapid, but reliable, technique for the
as with the reliability of the heating method. For the variable- prediction of convective-heating rates in parametric or design
entropy comparisons presented herein, the engineering studies.
heating-rate methods have been coupled with rapid, but
reliable, inviscid flowfield methods.50'52 As a point of in- References
terest, the present turbulent variable-entropy calculations !
Fay, J.A. and Riddell, F.R., "Theory of Stagnation-Point Heat
[(Eqs. (6), (14), and (16) coupled with inviscid-flow Transfer in Dissociated Air," Journal of Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 25,
calculations50 ] presented in Fig. 6 required approximately 22 No. 2, Feb. 1958, pp. 73-85, 121.
2
s on the CDC 6600 computer, while the VSL solution required Cohen, N.B., "Boundary-Layer Similar Solutions and
240 s. The boundary-layer mass-balancing procedure, which Correlation Equations for Laminar Heat-Transfer Distribution in
includes the (du/dy)e term 38 (not presented), required ap- Equilibrium Air at Velocities Up to 41,100 Feet Per Second," NASA
proximately 150s. TRR-118, 1961.
3
Kemp, N.H., Rose, P.H., and Detra, R.W., "Laminar Heat
Conclusions Transfer Around Blunt Bodies in Dissociated Air," Journal of
Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 7, July 1959, pp. 421-430.
Approximate laminar and turbulent heat-transfer equations 4
Zoby, E.V., "Approximate Relations for Laminar Heat Transfer
are developed for the engineering prediction of convective- and Shear Stress Functions in Equilibrium Dissociated Air," NASA
heating rates about blunt-entry spacecraft in hypersonic flow. TND-4484, April 1968.
 70 ZOBY, MOSS, AND SUTTON J. SPACECRAFT

5 31
Sutton, K. and Graves, R.A., Jr., "A General Stagnation Point DeJarnette, F.R. and Hamilton, H.H., "Inviscid Surface
Convective Heating Equation for Arbitrary Gas Mixtures," NASA Streamlines and Heat Transfer on Shuttle-Type Configurations,"
TRR-376,Nov. 1971. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 10, No. 6, May 1973, pp.
6
Marvin, J.G. and Deiwert, G.S., "Convective Heat Transfer in 314-321.
32
Planetary Gases," NASA TR R-224, July 1965. Hamilton, H.H. II, "Calculation of Heating Rates on Three-
7
Zoby, E.V. and Graves, R.A., Jr., "Comparison of Results from Dimensional Configurations," Degree of Engineering Thesis, George
Three Prediction Methods With Turbulent-Heating Data from Wind Washington University, Dec. 1979.
33
Tunnel and Free-Flight Tests," NASA TM X-2390, Sept. 1971. Ferri, A., "Some Heat-Transfer Problems in Hypersonic Flow,"
8
Libby, P.A. and Cresci, R.J., "Evaluation of Several Hypersonic Aeronautics and Astronautics, Pergamon Press, New York, 1960, pp.
Turbulent Heat Transfer Analyses by Comparison With Experimental 344-377.
34
Data," WADC TN 57-72, July 1957. Witze, P.O. and Hartley, D.C., "Assessment of the Proper
9
Phillips, R.L., "A Summary of Several Techniques Used in the Boundary Conditions at the Outer Edge of the Turbulent Boundary
Analysis of High Enthalpy Level, High Cooling Ratio Turbulent Layer on Spherically Blunted Conical Bodies," Sandia Labs., SCL-
Boundary Layers on Blunt Bodies of Revolution," Ramo Wooldridge RR-69-67, Sept. 1969.
35
Corp., GM-TM-194, Sept. 1957. Mayne, A.W., Jr. and Adams, J.C., Jr., "Streamline
10
Vaglio-Laurin, R., "Turbulent Heat Transfer on Blunt Nosed Swallowing By Laminar Boundary Layers in Hypersonic Flow,"
Bodies in Two-Dimensional and General Three-Dimensional AEDC-TR-71-32, March 1971.
36
Hypersonic Flow," Journal of Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 1, Mayne, A.W., Jr., and Dyer, D.F., "Comparisons of Theory
Jan. 1960, pp. 27-36. and Experiment for Turbulent Boundary Layers on Simple Shapes at
11
Cresci, R.J., MacKenzie, D.A., and Libby, P.A., "An In- Hypersonic Conditions," Proceedings of the 1970 Heat Transfer and
vestigation of Laminar, Transitional, and Turbulent Heat Transfer on Fluid Mechanics Institute, Stanford University Press, June 1970, pp.
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 12, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.57788

Blunt-Nosed Bodies in Hypersonic Flow," Journal of Aerospace 168-188.

37
Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 6, June 1960, pp. 401-414. Anderson, E.C. and Wilcox, D.C., "Vorticity Interaction Effects
12
Hartley, D.L. and Witze, P.O., "Turbulent Heating From a on Blunt Bodies," NASA CR-2778, Jan. 1977.
38
Compressible Boundary Layer With Pressure Gradient," Sandia Anderson, E.C. and Wilcox, D.C., "Transitional Boundary-
Labs., SCL RR-69-70, Oct. 1969. Layer Solutions Using a Mixing-Length and a Two-Equation Tur-
13
Edquist, C.T., "A Technique for Predicting Shock Induced bulence Model," NASA CR-2986, April 1978.
39
Vorticity Effects During Venus Entry," Martin Marietta Corp., R-70- Mayne, A.W., Jr., "Analysis of Laminar Boundary Layers on
48671-006, Aug. 1970. Right Circular Cones at Angle of Attack Including Streamline-
14
Johnson, C.B. and Boney, L.R., "A Simple Integral Method for Swallowing Effects," AEDC-TR-72-134, Oct. 1972.
the Calculation of Real-Gas Turbulent Boundary Layers With ^Mayne, A.W., Jr., "Calculation of the Boundary-Layer Flow in
Variable Edge Entropy," NASA TN D-6217, June 1971. the Windward Symmetry Plane of a Spherically Blunted Axisym-
15
Stainback, P.C. (with Appendix by P.C. Stainback and K.C. metric Body at Angle of Attack, Including Streamline-Swallowing
Wicker), "Effect of Unit Reynolds Number, Nose Bluntness, Angle Effects," AEDC-TR-73-166, Oct. 1973.
41
of Attack, and Roughness on Transition on a 5° Half-Angle Cone at Cohen, C.B. and Reshotko, E., "The Compressible Laminar
Mach8,"NASATND-4961, 1969. Boundary Layer With Heat Transfer and Arbitrary Pressure
16
Harris, J.E., "Numerical Solutions of the Equations for Gradient," NACA Report 1294, 1956.
42
Compressible Laminar, Transitional, and Turbulent Boundary Layers Walker, G.K. and Schumann, B.A., "The Growth of Turbulent
and Comparisons With Experimental Data," NASA TR R-368, Aug. Boundary Layers," General Electric Co., TIS No. R615D123, July
1971. 1961.
17 43
Anderson, E.C. and Lewis, C.H., "Laminar or Turbulent Vaglio-Laurin, R., "Laminar Heat Transfer on Three-
Boundary-Layer Flows of Perfect Gases or Reacting Gas Mixtures in Dimensional Blunt Bodies in Hypersonic Flow," ARS Journal, Vol.
Chemical Equilibrium," NASA CR-1893, Oct. 1971. 29, No. 2, Feb. 1959, pp. 123-129.
18
Popinski, Z., "Compressible Laminar Boundary Layers on ^Bushnell, D.M., Jones, R.A., and Huffman, J.K., "Heat-
Sharp Cones at Incidence With Entropy Swallowing," AIAA Journal, Transfer and Pressure Distributions on Spherically Blunted 25° Half-
Vol. 13, No. 9, Sept. 1975, pp. 1135-1136. Angle Cone at Mach 8 and Angles of Attack Up to 90°," NASA TN
19
Moss, J.N., "Stagnation and Downstream Viscous Shock Layer D-4792, Oct. 1968.
45
Solutions With Radiation and Coupled Ablation Injection," AIAA Cooper, M. and Mayo, E.E., "Measurements of Local Heat
Paper 74-73, Jan. 1974. Transfer and Pressure on Six 2-Inch-Diameter Blunt Bodies at a Mach
Kumar, A. and Graves, R.A., Jr., "Numerical Solution of the Number of 4.95 and at Reynolds Numbers Per Foot Up tp 81 x 106,"
Viscous Hypersonic Flow Past Blunted Cones at Angle of Attack," NASA Memo, 1-3-59L, March 1959.
46
AIAA Paper 77-172, Jan. 1977. Hall, J.R. and Speegle, K.C., "Preliminary Results From a Free-
21
Spalding, D.B. and Chi, S.W., "The Drag of a Compressible Flight Investigation of Boundary-Layer Transition and Heat Transfer
Turbulent Boundary Layer on a Smooth Flat Plate With and Without on a Highly Polished 8-Inch-Diameter Hemisphere-Cylinder at Mach
Heat Transfer," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 18, Pt. 1, Jan. Number of 4.95 and at Reynolds Numbers Per Foot Up to 81 x 106,"
1964, pp. 117-143. Up to 17.7 x 106," NACA RML57D18C, May 1957.
22 47
Gary, A.M., Jr. and Bertram, M.H., "Engineering Predictions Carter, H.S. and Bressette, W.E., "Heat Transfer and Pressure
of Turbulent Skin Friction and Heat Transfer in High Speed Flow," Distribution on Six Blunt Noses at a Mach Number of 2," NACA
NASA TND-7507, 1974. RML57C18, April 1957.
23 48
Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, Chavin, L.T. and Speegle, K.C., "Boundary-Layer Transition
New York, 1960. and Heat-Transfer Measurements From Flight Tests of Blunt and
24
Eckert, E.R.G., "Survey on Heat Transfer at High Speeds," Sharp 50° Cones at Mach Numbers From 1.7 to 4.7," NACA
U.S. Air Force, ARL 189, Dec. 1961. RML57D04, April 1957.
25 49
White, P.M., Viscous Fluid Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York, Van Driest, E.R., "Turbulent Boundary Layers in Compressible
1974. Fluids," Journal of Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 3, March 1956,
26
Lees, L., "Laminar Heat Transfer Over Blunt Bodies at pp. 145-160,216.
50
Hypersonic Flight Speeds," Jet Propulsion, Vol. 26, No. 4, April Zoby, E.V. and Graves, R.A., Jr., "A Computer Program for
1956, pp. 259-269, 274. Calculating the Perfect Gas Inviscid Flow Field About Blunt
27
Johnson, C.B. and Bushnell, D.M., "Power-Law Velocity- Axisymmetric Bodies at an Angle of Attack of 0°," NASA TM X-
Profile-Exponent Variations With Reynolds Number, Wall Cooling, 2843, Dec. 1973.
51
and Mach Number in a Turbulent Boundary Layer," NASA TN D- Falanga, R.A. and Olstad, W.B., "An Approximate Inviscid
5753, April 1970. Radiating Flow-Field Analysis for Sphere-Cone Venusian Entry
28
Kutateladze, S.S. and Leont'ev, A.I., Turbulent Boundary Vehicles," AIAA Paper 74-758, July 1974.
52
Zoby, E.V., Sutton, K., Olstad, W.B., and Moss, J.N., "An
Layers in Compressible Gases, Academic Press, Inc., New York,
Approximate Inviscid Radiating Flow-Field Analysis for Outer Planet
1964.
29
Entry Probes," Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics: Outer
Kays, W.M., Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, McGraw-Hill, Planet Entry Heating and Thermal Protection, Vol. 64, edited by R.
New York, 1966. Viskanta, AIAA, New York, 1979, pp. 42-64.
30 53
Cooke, J.C., "An Axially Symmetric Analogue for General Moss, J.N., Simmonds, A.L., and Anderson, E.C., "The Impact
Three-Dimensional Boundary Layers," Ministry of Aviation, A.R.C. of Turbulence on a Radiating Shock Layer With Coupled Ablation
Technical Report, R&M No. 3200, June 1959. Injection," AIAA Paper 78-1186, July 1978.