See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264816214

Tandem nozzle supersonic wind tunnel design

Article in International Journal of Engineering Systems Modelling and Simulation January 2013
DOI: 10.1504/IJESMS.2013.052369

CITATIONS

READS

313

2 authors:
Jie Wu

Rolf Radespiel

Technische Universitt Braunschweig

Technische Universitt Braunschweig

10 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS

301 PUBLICATIONS 1,734 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Jie Wu

Retrieved on: 05 July 2016

FP04-2012-wu.pdf

TANDEM NOZZLE SUPERSONIC WIND TUNNEL DESIGN

(1)

(2)

Jie Wu , Rolf Radespiel

(1)

Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Institute for Fluid Mechanics, Bienroder Weg 3, 38106
Braunschweig, Germany, j.wu@tu-braunschweig.de
(2)
Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Institute for Fluid Mechanics, Bienroder Weg 3, 38106
Braunschweig, Germany, r.radespiel@tu-braunschweig.de

ABSTRACT
A new tandem nozzle supersonic wind tunnel was designed for Technische Universitt Braunschweig. Based
on the infrastructure of the existing M=6 Ludwieg Tube in Braunschweig (HLB), two nozzles in tandem
configuration are designed to get supersonic flow with a similar test section size. The first nozzle and the
intermediate settling chamber serve as a throttling device to provide the flow correct mass flow for operating
the second nozzle, which expands into the M=3 test section. Preliminary design trades are presented on the
basis of one-dimensional flow analysis. Using alternate methods, i.e., the methods of characteristics,
Witozinsky curve of contraction, as well as the Hall method for the throat design, contours of the second
nozzle are designed. Further steps of numerical optimization of the second nozzle are accomplished using
the DLR TAU-Code, by which reliable estimates of flow uniformity in the test section are obtained. In order to
achieve a uniform flow in the test section, suited flow straighteners are employed in the settling chamber and
analyzed by both, compressible engineering flow theory and RANS solutions. The flow analysis determines a
reasonable configuration of the overall tandem nozzle wind tunnel and yields realistic estimates of flow
uniformity in the test section. In conclusion the present work provides quantitative design trades, detailed
flow quality and performance data for cost-efficient extensions of hypersonic Ludwieg tubes into the
supersonic flow range.
1 INTRODUCTION
Motivated by need for supersonic flow studies, an
axisymmetric M=3 tandem nozzle supersonic
wind tunnel is designed at Technische Universitt
Braunschweig. Considering power and cost
requirements, the intermittent type supersonic
wind tunnel is chosen. An attractive design
scheme is the Ludwieg tube, which was first
conceived by H. Ludwieg in 1955 [1]. The
Ludwieg tube is employed in supersonic and
hypersonic wind tunnels because of its low cost
and high Reynolds number, as well as its
reasonably long running time. It consists of four
sections: high pressure gas storage tube, a
nozzle, a test section and a vacuum dump tank [2].
Designing a M=3 supersonic Ludwieg tube from
scratch is not a difficult task, but the construction
cost is significant. In Braunschweig the
Hypersonic Ludwieg Tube (HLB) exists, and
hence storage tube, control valves, test section
and dump tank may be reused along with the
wind tunnel infrastructure. This offers significant
cost savings. HLB is a M=6 hypersonic flow
facility, its unit Reynolds number is up to 30
million and the test section size is 500 mm [3]. In
such a case, the size of test section will be limited
by the smallest cross section in the valve for a
given test section Mach number according to
Schrijer [4]. Simply increasing the throat area

cannot work since the flow will not reach sonic

condition at the throat. A possible way to solve
such problem is to add another nozzle and a
settling chamber, which serve together as a
throttling device to yield a correct mass flow for
the second nozzle with the large throat. Thus the
tandem nozzle supersonic wind tunnel is
introduced. This tunnel type is not widely used at
present, but it is a cost-efficient way to design a
supersonic wind tunnel on the basis of an existing
hypersonic wind tunnel. A typical configuration of
tandem nozzle supersonic wind tunnel is
represented in Fig.1.

Figure 1. Sketch of tandem nozzle wind tunnel

The present work deals with the M=3 tandem
nozzle supersonic wind tunnel design based on
HLB facility data. First, the theoretical design is
carried out by employing various methods. The
second nozzle is carefully designed together with
Witozinsky curve for the subsonic contraction,

Halls method to design the throat region,

methods of characteristics (MOC) to design the
supersonic section and Rottas boundary layer
correction method. Then, the straightening device
settings in the settling chamber are analysed with
compressible flow theory. The contour of the
second nozzle is analyzed by numerical flow
simulations based on the RANS equations.
RANS simulations are also used to determine a
suited number of flow straighteners and the
opening angle of the first nozzle. Finally, the
whole tunnel flow is numerically simulated and the
results are carefully analyzed.

Subscript 0 denotes the initial state while 1

characterizes the condition in the storage tube
after the valve is operated. Subscript t denotes the
stagnation condition, is temperature, is the
pressure and is Mach number, is the ratio of
specific heats for a perfect gas. M1 is determined
by the diameter ratio of the storage tube to the
first throat area [5], as Eq.3.
d1

d
1_ st

Pt ,1_ st
Pt ,2 _ nd

T0

1 2
M1
2
1
(1 +
M1 )2
2

1 2 1

Pt ,1 1 + 2 M1
=

P0
(1 + 1M1 ) 2

(4)

2.2 The first nozzle design

The first nozzle accelerates the flow to supersonic
first. Then the flow turns into a mixed flow
containing subsonic and supersonic flow regions
because of the interaction of backpressure and
viscous boundary layer, which means there will be
a system of shocks and flow separations in the
first nozzle. In view of this feature, the detailed
contour of the first nozzle is less important while
the opening angle governs mainly the length of
the first nozzle. Therefore, a conical nozzle design
with proper opening angle is employed here. The
total pressure drop between the first throat and
the second throat is generated by shock waves
and viscous losses in the settling chamber. We
note that if a large part of the pressure drop is
generated by shocks, the shocks will exhibit
strong fluctuations in time. However, for
preliminary design work a normal shock may be
assumed within the the first nozzle as shown in
Fig.2.

(1)

1+

D2 _ nd
=
D
1_ st

where D is the diameter of the cross section of

throat. Subscript 1_st denotes the first throat and
2_nd refers to the second throat. With Eq.3 the total
pressure of the second nozzle is known, which
means the total pressure drop between the first
nozzle and the second nozzle is fixed when the
throat areas are given. The total pressure may be
used to compute the resulting flow state in the test
section for a given test section Mach number.

2.1 Storage tube design

The storage tube is an important section of the
whole design with high cost. A simple gas
dynamic description is presented here, for more
design details see [5]. Pressurized air flows into
the nozzle when the valve is opened. As a result
an expansion wave travels upstream into the
storage tube. As the startup of continuous flow is
relatively quick, this process may be regarded as
impulsive [6]; therefore the expansion wave may
be described by a centered expansion wave. Total
flow variables change during the expansion wave
according to Eq.1 and Eq.2, for details see [7].

(3)

where d is the diameter of cross section. Flow

along the total nozzle can be considered as
adiabatic flow. Assuming that sonic flow exists
both in the first and second throats, the total
pressure ratio between the first nozzle and the
second nozzle is written in Eq.4 according to [8],

2 THEORECTICAL DESIGN
The operation principle of tandem nozzle wind
tunnel is as follows. High-pressure and hightemperature air is stored in storage tube. The
storage tube is separated from the first supersonic
nozzle by a fast-opening valve. As the valve
opens, the air expands into the first nozzle with a
sonic throat. The subsequent flow in the
supersonic part of the first nozzle and in the
settling chamber is assumed to generate
significant losses of total pressure by which the
mass flow density is reduced so that the flow is
sonic at the large throat of the second nozzle as
well. These losses are generated by shock waves
and by viscous losses. Note that the detailed
design of the settling chamber is important to
obtain a homogeneous, steady flow in the wind
tunnel test section. The design of the tunnel is
carried out by dividing it into five sections: the
storage tube, the first nozzle, the settling chamber,
the second nozzle, and the test section.

T t ,1

+1

2( 1)

= 1 2 1 + 1 M12

M
+
1
2

(2)

The total pressure drop coefficient correction is

shown in Fig.3 as an example. The other method
to calculate pressure drop is used by Emanuel
[11]. It divides the flow through the straightener
into 3 stages as sketched in Fig.4. Here the flow
is assumed isentropic from point 1 to point 2,
viscous energy dissipation takes place from point
2 to point 3 and irreversible subsonic
compression is assumed between point 3 and 4.

Figure 2. Normal shock in the first nozzle

Using this inviscid model the flow within the first
part of the nozzle accelerates as long as it is
supersonic. It turns into subsonic flow after shock,
and then decelerates until the settling chamber.

Figure 4. Flow states along flow straightener

2.3 The settling chamber design

The total pressure drop between the first throat
and the second throat is fixed, and a significant
part of it is generated by the shock in the first
nozzle. However, a large pressure drop within the
settling chamber will be used to obtain
homogeneous flow in the test section. Settling
chambers usually employ flow straighteners, such
as honeycombs or porous plates for promoting
uniformity of the flow and for reducing turbulence
in the air stream [9]. Different from flow
straighteners used in low subsonic flow, the flow
straighteners used here need to withstand a
remarkably large aerodynamic load, hence rather
solid flow straighteners are necessary. Moreover,
the flow he should be considered as compressible
since significant changes in pressure and density
are expected. Flow compressibility may be taken
into account following two approaches. One
method is recommended by Pinker and Herbert:
One obtains the pressure drop coefficient with
incompressible theory first. Then the ratio of
pressure drop coefficient for compressible flow is
obtained as an empirical correction that depends
on flow Mach number and porosity [10].

While the isentropic flow acceleration from point 1

to 2 is computed from simple compressible flow
theory, process from point 2 to point 3 is nonisentropic because of viscous effect. The relation
between Mach number and friction coefficient is
given by Eq.5 [12]:
4c f

L* 1 M 2 + 1
( + 1) M 2
=
+
ln[
]
D M 2
2
2 + ( 1) M 2

(5)

where c f is the mean friction coefficient and

chosen to be 0.005 here, M is the Mach number
at station 2. L* is the length of flow tube for which
sonic flow conditions occur, and D is the diameter
of the holes in the flow straightener. When the
flow leaves the straightener, it diffuses into the
station 4. Based on momentum equation, the flow
condition at station 4 is obtained. According to
Emanuels work [11], the Mach number and
pressure relations can be written as Eq.6 if the
inflow Mach number is reasonably small.

M 1 = M 2 = (

P4
P
) M 3 = ( 4 )M 4
P1
P1

(6)

where is the porosity of flow straighteners. With

the two methods above, the number of flow
straighteners can be estimated so that the desired
total pressure drop is obtained.
2.4 The second nozzle design
The second nozzle is the core of the tandem
nozzle. Its design is composed of three parts:
Contraction, throat and supersonic section. The
contraction accelerates the flow from subsonic to
sonic at the throat of the nozzle. The throat allows
a smooth transition from subsonic flow to
supersonic flow. The supersonic section is
designed to expand the flow to the test section
design Mach number. Since the contour of the
nozzle directly affects the flow quality in the test

Figure 3. Pressure drop coefficient ratio between

compressible and incompressible flow [10]

limiting characteristic. At the same time, an initial

data line which is downstream of the limiting
characteristic is chosen to start the method of
characteristics solution (HA-AA). In the procedure
of flow field calculating, the limiting characteristic
serves for the initial data line. More details are
given in reference [18].

section, the design of nozzle contour is important.

The method of characteristics (MOC) is used
frequently in supersonic nozzle design assuming
that no shock and hence entropy changes occur.
This approach allows rapid design computations.
It is the design approach followed in this paper.
There are two steps in designing a nozzle by
using MOC. First one can assume the flow to be
ideally inviscid, which is used to generate an
initial potential flow contour. Then one can
estimate the development of boundary layer
parameters in order to add a boundary layer
correction to the initial contour.
2.4.1 Contraction design
For the contraction design, there is no specific
rule which is better than any others. Several
methods are available for the designing a wind
tunnel contraction, such as Witozinsky curve [13],
fifth-order polynomial by Bell and Mehta [14] and
matched cubic curves by Morel [15]. For
moderate contraction ratios the details of the
geometric rules employed appear less important if
the contour is sufficiently smooth to avoid flow
separation. The known design variants are
therefore compared in Chapter 3 by using
numerical flow computations.

Figure 5. The sketch of expansion and

straightening section
The limiting characteristics HA-AI also provides
flow direction information to HA-AA. A point along
the Hall contour is specified to be the beginning
point to generate the expansion contour; this
contour uses gradually increasing turning angles
by which the supersonic flow will expand.
Computing the streamline equation, the contour of
expansion section is generated until the turning
angle reaches its prescribed maximum value.

2.4.2 Throat design

The throat region is of considerable importance
because the flow conditions just downstream of
the narrowest section are required in order to start
the supersonic design. There is no conclusion
about the best approach to calculate the sonic
line, but the general guideline is to avoid an over
curved sonic line. The theory used here to
calculate the flow field is due to Hall [16]. The
profile near the throat is assumed to be a circular
arc. The radius of curvature is the important
parameter, and it depends mostly on experience.
A large radius of curvature is desired, but it is
impossible to keep the sonic line straight in
axisymmetric flow. The commonly used radius of
curvature is about 4-8 times the throat radius.
However, it appears somewhat arbitrary to get a
proper radius of curvature for specific nozzle
design. This will be demonstrated with numerical
simulations in Chapter 3.

2. Straightening section design

The portion of the contour where the turning angle
keeps decreasing is the straightening section,
which is designed to eliminate the expansion
waves generated by the expansion section.
Assume XD to be an arbitrary point along CD-AD.
A plane radial flow is defined, see Fig.5, for which
all the variables are a function only of the distance
r from a fixed point in the plane, according to
McCabe [19]. Thus, the Mach number distribution
along characteristic CD-AD is given as:
+1

r 1 1 1 2 2 ( 1)
=
1+
M

2
r * M + 1

(7)

r* is the sonic radius of radial flow. Using the

principle that the velocity change in wave is
normal to the wave [8] and Eq. 7, the turning
angle acts as Eq. 8 and has a certain range with
a maximum value of half Prandtl-Meyer angle at
the design Mach number in the test section,

2.4.3 Supersonic section design

1. Expansion section design
Usually, the supersonic part of the nozzle is
composed of two sections: the expansion section
which quickly accelerates the flow and the
straightening section composed of a series of
simple waves. In the designing the contour of the
supersonic section with MOC, a limiting
characteristic needs to be specified first according
Anderson [17]. In Fig.5, HA-AI is chosen to be the

+1
1 2
arctan
(M 1) + c (8)
1
+1
In Eq. (8), c is a constant. For the given turning
= arctan M 2 1

Mach number. When the incoming Mach number

is large, the deflection angle of shock will be small
which means a larger model size can be chosen.
These considerations were computed numerically
for the HLB tandem nozzle by taking into account
the maximum allowed storage tube pressure of 30
bar. The design parameters, these are test
section diameter, test section Mach number and
total temperature were varied based on the gas
dynamic equations of Chapter 2.1. The resulting
Reynolds numbers for the generic capsule and
rocket models are displayed in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7,
respectively, along with trajectory data of Apollo
and Ariane 5.

angle value at point CD in Fig. 5 it is possible to

solve the Mach number, and therefore the
Prandtl-Meyer angle is known by the PrandtlMeyer equation [8].

+1
1 2
arctan
( M 1) arctan M 2 1 (9)
1
+1

After that, the turning angle is decreased

gradually until zero is obtained, and the radius for
each point along characteristic CD-AD will be
obtained. Thus the flow information on the
characteristic CD-AD is known. Based on
continuity equation, the contour of CD-CE is
computed from algebraic relations.
2.5 Boundary layer correction
The nozzle contour from the design method
described above is just a potential flow contour.
However, a boundary layer grows along the wall
of the nozzle. This is taken into account by
displacing the potential flow contour away from
the center axis by using the displacement
thickness of the boundary layer. There are several
approximate methods to predict the rate of the
boundary layer growth along the nozzle wall as
summarized by Thompson [20]. In the present
design the boundary layer thickness from the
throat to the straightening section was calculated
by using an expression given by Rotta, for more
details refer to [21].

Figure 6. Maximum model Reynolds number as a

function of Mach number for Apollo capsule [22]

2.6 The test section design

The design of the test section is to allow for
supersonic flow around the wind tunnel model at
a reasonable Reynolds number that is virtually
free of any interference with the test section wall.
The size of the wind tunnel model is restricted by
two effects: The start up problem of blunt wind
tunnel models and the adverse effects of reflected
shock waves on slender configurations. Both
problems depend on the test section Mach
number and its diameter and they restrict the
attainable Reynolds number of the model.
In the present design we investigate these design
constraints using two generic wind tunnel models:
A rocket model with a lengthto-diameter ratio of
4.5 that represents the Ariane 5 afterbody and a
blunt capsule model that represents the Apollo reentry capsule. Ariane 5 and the Apollo capsule
exhibit two different aerodynamic flow problems.
Apollo capsule model is a blunt body with a strong
detached shock. Recent experience shows that
successful start up of the capsule flow is obtained
at a ratio between model and test section
diameters of 0.36. Ariane 5 model is a pointed
body, where the allowed size of interference free
flow in the test section varies with the incoming

Figure 7. Maximum model Reynolds number as a

function of Mach number for Ariane 5 rocket [23]
It appears that the obtained Reynolds number
depends on flow total temperature more than on
the test section size. The maximum Reynolds
number of the tandem nozzle test section covers
flight Reynolds numbers of the Apollo Capsule
between M=3 and M=6, given the operational
limitations of the HLB. Hence it is decided to
choose the test section Mach number of 3 for
tandem nozzle design. Note, that the flight
Reynolds numbers of Ariane 5 model are
significantly larger than the model Reynolds
numbers for M<4. This situation does not change
much if the test section diameter is varied.

Therefore, the original test section size of 500mm

is kept for the new tandem nozzle configuration
and hence, manufacturing cost of the tandem
nozzle is kept as low as possible.
3 DETAILED DESIGN BASED ON CFD
The DLR TAU-Code is used to analyse the flow
field of the tandem nozzle. It is a software system
for the prediction of viscous and inviscid flows
about complex geometries from the low subsonic
to the hypersonic flow regime, employing hybrid
unstructured grids composed of tetrahedrons,
pyramids, prisms and hexahedrons and second
order discretizations [24, 25]. AUSM (Advection
Upstream Splitting Method) upwind scheme was
used to capture the shocks in supersonic flow [26,
27], and the k turbulence model is used for
turbulent transport. RANS and URANS iterative
solution algorithms are used to obtain steady and
unsteady flow fields. With the method of
Witozinsky to design contraction, Hall method to
calculate the throat region, and method of
characteristics code supplied by DLR Kln [18], a
rough nozzle contour is generated in the first
design step. Then numerical computations of the
Euler equations are used to assess primary
design sensitivities of the second nozzle. Finally,
RANS simulations are used for detailed design
assessment.

Figure 9. Mach number distribution in test section

for x=1.2m for various Rc
3.2 Contraction flow
Numerical simulations of different contraction
design methods have been performed, which are
shown in Fig.10. From the Mach number
distribution in the contraction, Witozinsky curve,
and matched cubic geometry seem to provide a
more vertical sonic line at the throat compared
with fifth-order polynomial. Because of the
curvature discontinuity of matched cubic curve
[14], Witozinsky curve is finally chosen as most
suited.

3.1 Detailed throat design

The first step is to choose a proper radius of
curvature at the throat. A too small radius of
curvature of the throat yields a rapid acceleration
in the transonic section, which may induce
unwanted reflected waves. Thus computations for
a series of radii of curvature (Rc) are compared in
Fig.8. The Mach number distribution indicates that
the throat with Rc=1.5 is the best, which can be
also found from the Mach number distribution in
the test section as displayed in Fig.9. It seems
that the nozzle with larger radius of curvature has
a better throat flow, but the flow in test section is
worse.

Figure 10. Comparison of sonic line at throat

under different contraction design
3.3 Length of nozzle
In the next step we analyze the effect of nozzle
length. The longer the nozzle is, the thicker the
boundary layer will be, and the manufacturing
cost will increase. Three possible lengths are
compared in Fig.11, along with the Mach number
distribution for x=const. in the test section. The
results indicate that the medium nozzle length
provides acceptable flow uniformity in the test
section, while all designs still display a certain
amount of reflected waves within the nozzle and
test section. Considering existing space
limitations
and
manufacturing
costs
the
intermediate nozzle length is accepted for the
further design work.

Figure 8. Mach number distribution of second

nozzle flow field for different Rc

(a)
Figure 11. Mach number distribution of different
nozzle lengths
Eventually, a suited design of the second nozzle
is obtained: We use a subsonic contraction based
on Witozinsky curve, a throat radius of curvature
of 1.5 times the value of the throat radius and a
medium supersonic nozzle length to perform
RANS flow analysis as depicted in Fig.12.
(b)
Figure 13. Mach number in axial and vertical
directions
3.4 Verification of settling chamber flow
straighteners
The effect of up to six flow straighteners is
numerically computed in order to verify the
compressible flow theory as presented in Chapter
2.3. Computation grids are generated in a mixed
way, as shown in Fig.14. Again, the Wilcox k
turbulence model is employed for simulating
turbulent transport.

Figure 12. Mach number distribution in N-S

simulation of optimized contour and initial contour
Compared to the initial, somewhat shorter nozzle
variant the optimized contour has a much better
flow uniformity in the test section. To check the
flow quality in the test section, Mach numbers
along axial and longitudinal slices are extracted
as shown in Fig.13 (a) and Fig.13 (b). The
optimized contour has a higher flow quality in
terms of Mach number variations. Note that with
the boundary layer correction, the maximum
Mach number in the test section of the optimized
contour is 2.99, which is close to the design Mach
number 3.0. The relative Mach number error is
about 0.33%.

Figure 14. Computation grids of simulation

A special way to estimate the pressure drop
coefficient for the flow straightener was employed.
First a single flow straightener with an incoming
flow at Ma= 0.15 was computed to obtain an
approximate incompressible pressure drop.
Based on this incompressible pressure drop
coefficient, the static and total pressure drop
coefficients of the device in compressible flow
were obtained with Pinkers method. For the
second method due to Emanuel, we extracted the

Fig.17. On the other hand It is appears that a

homogeneous flow in the test section is achieved
with six flow straighteners for all opening angles.
Hence the short 30 nozzle may be chosen
without any penalty in flow quality.

onset flow to the flow straightener from the

detailed CFD solution and then calculated the
pressure drop coefficient as given by in Chapter
2.3. With such computations, the computed
pressure drop coefficients are displayed in Fig.15
and Fig.16. Here we compare the numerical flow
simulation with the two theories of Chapter 3.2.

Figure 17. Flow field Mach number distribution for

different opening angles of first nozzle
Figure 15. Total pressure drop ratio comparison
3.6 Settling chamber analysis
With the opening angle of the first nozzle fixed,
the next step is to choose a suited number of flow
straighteners in the settling chamber, as this
number affects the facility length as well. A variety
of flow computations was therefore performed, out
of which a computation with two flow straighteners
is shown in Fig.18. It is appears that the flow is
already much improved with two straighteners,
albeit some gradient in vertical direction still exists.

Figure 16. Static pressure drop ratio comparison

As the flow ahead of the first flow straightener is
very inhomogeneous due to shocks and flow
separations, we begin the analysis at the second
flow straightener. Both the results of static
pressure drop and total pressure loss ratio display
the same trend. It appears that the calibrated
Pinker method performs better than Emanuels
approach. One possible reason is the mean
friction coefficient, which relies on the Reynolds
number. The comparison shows that the theory of
compressible flow through flow straighteners is
useful for preliminary design of tandem nozzle
settling chambers.

Figure 18. Total flow field with two flow

straighteners simulation
From that simulation, it becomes clear that the
first flow straighteners function by removing the
large flow separation generated in the first nozzle.
Using more straighteners a more uniform flow in
the test section is generated; meanwhile this will
result in a longer settling chamber.

3.5 Opening angle of the first nozzle

The opening angle of the first nozzle affects the
tunnel overall length. Normally, the opening angle
for a supersonic nozzle is chosen in between 6to
8 to obtain a homogeneous nozzle flow. In the
present work a variety of opening angles are
investigated that range from small angles to very
large angles. The computation results using six
flow straighteners in the settling chamber indicate
that flow separation in the nozzle is not removed
even for small nozzle angles as displayed in

Figure 19. Mach number distribution under

different flow straighteners
Hence

the

effect

of

the

number

of

flow

straighteners on the Mach number distribution in

the test section is displayed in Fig. 19. It appears
that the flow quality in the test section is no more
improved if more than four straighteners are used.
The number of four flow straighteners is therefore
adopted in the design of the tandem nozzle wind
tunnel.
3.7 Total flow field simulation and analysis
Based on the theoretical design and numerical
optimization of design parameters, the final
configuration of tandem nozzle supersonic wind
tunnel is now determined. The numerical flow
simulation of this tandem nozzle is shown in
Fig.20, it shows a good Mach number distribution
in the core area of test section.

Figure 22. Relative Mach number and pressure

deviation in test section along axis
4 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the concept of tandem nozzle wind
tunnel for supersonic speed is investigated and
analysed by using theoretical design approaches
and numerical flow simulations. A specific design
application is discussed that extends the
operation range of the hypersonic wind tunnel
HLB into the supersonic flow range. The overall
design problem is divided into defining the test
section size, the first nozzle, the settling chamber,
and the second nozzle. The latter is composed of
a subsonic contraction, the throat and the
supersonic expansion. It turns out that the design
of the second nozzle is important to avoid
reflected Mach waves in the test section. The
specific shape of the first nozzle is less important.
A very short design of the first nozzle is
appropriate if a suited layout of the settling
chamber is chosen. The settling chamber is
extremely important to obtain uniform flow in the
test section. It appears that good results are
obtained by using flow straighteners, which are
designed as solid plates with drilled holes to
obtain a given porosity. The overall flow field of
the tandem nozzle shows a very good flow
uniformity in the test section, which demonstrates
that the tandem nozzle is a suited and cost
effective device to extend the operation range of
high-speed wind tunnels.

Figure 20. Mach number contours of the final

tandem nozzle and distribution at x=1.2 m. in test
section
The relative Mach number and pressure
deviations relative to the maximum Mach number
and maximum pressure along the vertical and
axial direction in the test section are compared in
Fig. 21 and Fig.22. Using this analysis the flow in
the test section appears as very uniform, both in
streamwise and normal directions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are thankful to Dr. Ali Glhan for
providing the FORTRAN code [18] that was used
to design the second nozzle and DLR (Deutsches
Zentrum fr Luft- und Raumfahrt) for providing the
DLR TAU Code.

Figure 21.Vertical relative Mach number and

pressure deviation in test section at x=1.2m

REFERENCES
1. Ludwieg, H. (1955). Der Rohrwindkanal,.
Zeitschrift fr Flugwissenschaften, 3(7),
206-216.
2. Warmbrod, J.D. (1969). A Theoretical And
Experimental Study Of Unsteady Flow

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

No.1, 225-233.
16. Hall, I.M. (1962). Transonic Flow in TwoDimensional and Axially Symmetric
Nozzles. Quart. J. of Mech. And Appl.
Math. 15 part 4, 487-508.
17. Anderson, J. D. (1989). Fundamentals of
Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, USA.
18. Grmmer,
K.(1976).
Ein
Rechenprogramm fr den Entwurf ebener und
rotationssymmetrischer berschallwindkanaldsen. DLR FB 76-59.
19. McCabe, A. (1964). Design of a Supersonic Nozzle. A.R.C. 25 716 F.M. 3433
A.C. 1022, March.
20. Thompson, B.J.G. (1964). A Critical
Review of Existing Methods of Calculation
the Turbulent Boundary Layer, Reports
and Memoranda No.3447*.
21. Rotta, J.C. (1971). FORTRAN-IV-Rechenprogramm
fr
Grenzschichten
bei
kompressiblen ebenen and achsensymmetrischen Strmungen. DLR FB 7151.
22. APOLLO 7 MISSION REPORT (1968).
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration Manned Spacecraft Center.
Houston, Texas, USA.
23. Schaefer, K. & Zimmermann, H. (2004).
Simulation of Flight Conditions for Rocket
Engine Qualification. Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Green
Propellants for Space Propulsion, ESA
SP-557.
24. Gerhold, T. (2005). Overview of the
Hybrid RANS Code Tau, in MEGAFLOW
Numerical flow simulation for Aircraft
Design, Notes on Numerical Fluid
Mechanics and Multi-disciplinary Design,
vol. 89, pp. 81-92, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
25. Mack, A., Hannemann, V. (2002).
Validation of the Unstructured DLR-TAUCode for Hypersonic Flows, AIAA-2002nd
3111, 32 Fluid Dynamics Conference &
Exhibit, St. Louis, Missouri.
26. Liou, M-S., Steffen, Jr.C.J. (1993). A new f
lux splitting scheme. Journal of Computati
onal Physics, 107, , 23-39.
27. Liou, M-S. (1996). A sequel to AUSM: AU
SM+. Journal of Computational Physics, 1
29, 364-382.

Processed In A Ludwieg Tube Wind

Tunnel. NASA Technical Note. NASA TN
D-5469.
Kozulovic, D., Radespiel, R., MllerEigner, R. (2003). Aerodynamic design
parameters of a hypersonic Ludwieg tube
nozzle. In: West East High Speed Flow
Fields. Aerospace applications from high
subsonic to hypersonic regime. D.E.
Zeitoun et al. (Eds.), CIMNE, Barcelona,
Spain.
Schrijer, F.F.J. and Bannink, W.J. (2008).
Description and Flow Assessment of the
Delft Hypersonic Ludwieg Tube, AIAA
Paper 2008-3943.
Schrijer, F.F.J. (2010). Experimental
investigation of re-entry aerodynamic
phenomena. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn.,
17-21.
Estorf, M., Wolf, T., Radespiel, R. (2005).
Experimental and numerical investigations on the operation of the hypersonic
Ludwieg Tube Braunschweig. Proceedings of the Fifth European Symposium on
Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles,
8-11. Cologne, Germany, ESA SP-563.
Bannink, W.J. (1996). De hypersone test
faciliteit delft(htfd). Lezing: Najaarscolloquium J.M. Burgerscentrum.
Anderson, J. D. (2003). Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York,
USA, 129-172.
Pope, A. and Goin, K.L. (1965). High
Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. New York, USA, 99-103.
Pinker, R.A., Herbert, M.V. (1967).
Pressure
loss
associated
with
compressible flow through square-mesh
wire gauzes. J.Mech.Eng.Sci. 9, 11-23
Emanuel, G., Jones, J.P.(1966).Compressible flow through a porous plate. Air
Force Report, NO.SSD-TR-66-165.
Shapiro, A.H. (1953).The dynamics and
Thermodynamic of Compressible Fluid
Flow. Volume I., New York, USA, 162-173.
Su, Y.X; Lin, C.Q, Liu, H. (1992). Design
problem of three-dimensional contractions.
Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica.
Vol.13, No.2, B9-B13.
Bell, J.H. and Mehta, R.D. (1989).
Boundary-Layer Predictions for Small
Low-Speed Contractions. AIAA J., Vol. 27,
372-374.
Morel, T. (1975). Comprehensive Design
of Axisymmertic Wind Tunnel Contractions. Journal of Fluid Engineering, Vol.97,

10