Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:19:47.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of diaphragm opening time on shock-tube flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Donald R. White
Donald R. White
Affiliation:
General Electric Research Laboratory, Schenectady, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shock waves generated in a shock tube by use of hydrogen or helium as a driver gas and air, nitrogen, oxygen or argon as a driven gas have higher velocities than predicted by simple theory when sufficiently large diaphragm pressure ratios are used. Expected shock-tube performance curves have been constructed using the equilibrium Hugoniot for the driven gas, both for the usual model of shock tube flow, which assumes instantaneous diaphragm removal, and for a suggested model based on a finite rupture time for the diaphragm. Agreement between experiment and the latter model is in general good, and the differences are qualitatively accounted for by the pressure waves expected to result from mixing between driver and driven gases at the contact surface. These waves may be either compression or expansion waves, depending on the relative heat capacities of the two gases. The maximum shock strength observed as a shock goes down the tube was found to occur at a distance from the diaphragm which increases with the shock strength, and the strongest shocks were found to be still accelerating at the end of a 42 ft. long shock tube of 3 1/2 in. square cross-section. Diaphragm breaking time has been measured and found to be consistent with the observations on the shock formation distance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 4 , Issue 6 , November 1958 , pp. 585 - 599
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alpher, R. A. & Greyber, H. D. 1958 General Electric Research Lab., Schenectady, Rep., no. 58-RL-1915.
Alpher, R. A. & White, D. R. 1958 J. Fluid Mech. 3, 457.
Bleakney, W., Weimer, D. K. & Fletcher, C. H. 1949 Rev. Sci. Inst. 20, 807.
Bond, J. W. 1954 Los Alamos Scientific Lab. Rep. no. LA-1693.
Geiger, F. W. & Mautz, C. W. 1949 University of Michigan, Engr. Res. Inst. Rep., Proj. M 720-4.
Gilmore, F. R. 1955 Rand Corporation Rep. no. RM-1543.
Glass, I. I., Martin, W. & Patterson, G. N. 1953 Institute of Aerophysics, University of Toronto, UTIA Rep. no. 2.
Hilsenrath, J. 1955 Nat. Bur. Stand., Wash., Circular no. 564.
Huber, P. W. 1958 J. Aero. Sci. 25, 269.
Rabinowicz, J. 1957 California Institute of Technology, Guggenheim Aeronautical Lab., Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Project, Mem. no. 38.
Wray, K. L. 1956 Ph.D. Thesis, Brown University.
Yoler, Y. A. 1954 California Institute of Technology, Guggenheim Aeronautical Lab., Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Project, Mem. no. 18.