Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Laminar Heat Transfer A r o u n d Blunt Bodies

in Dissociated Air f
NELSON H. KEMP,* PETER H. ROSE/ AND RALPH W. DETRA*

Avco-Everett Research Laboratory

SUMMARY S = Eq. (8)


T = absolute temoerature
A method of predicting laminar heat-transfer rates to blunt,
u = x-component of velocity
highly cooled bodies with constant wall temperature in dissociated
v = y component of velocity
air flow is developed. Attention is restricted to the case of axi-
x = distance along meridian profile of body
symmetric bodies at zero incidence, although two-dimensional
y = distance normal to body surface
bodies could be treated the same way. The method is based on
V = Eq. (6)
t h e use of the "local similarity" concept and an extension of t h e
0 = Eq. (8)
ideas used by Fay and Riddell. 1 A simple formula is given for
\x = absolute viscosity
predicting t h e ratio of local heat-transfer rate to stagnation-point
* = Eq. (5)
rate. It depends on wall conditions and pressure distribution,
p = mass density
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

but not on the thermodynamic or transport properties of the hot


a = Prandtl Number cpfx/k
external flow, except at the stagnation point.
Experimental heat-transfer rates obtained with correct stag- Subscripts
nation-point simulation and high wall cooling in shock tubes are i =ith. component
also presented and compared with the theoretical predictions. e =external flow conditions
On the whole, t h e agreement is good, although in regions of rap- w =wall conditions, rj = 0 or y = 0
idly varying pressure there is evidence t h a t the local similarity ^ =stagnation-point conditions
assumption breaks down, and the theory underestimates t h e £» y , x> y =
differentiation with respect to indicated variable
actual heat-transfer rate by up t o 25 per cent. oo = free-stream conditions
o = local similarity solution
E = equilibrium
SYMBOLS

Ci = mass fraction of ith component (1) INTRODUCTION


Cp = Vd(dhi/dT)
D
DT

f
= diffusion coefficient
= thermal diffusion coefficient
= Eq.(7)
T HE THEORY of h e a t transfer a t a stagnation point
in a dissociating gas h a s been discussed b y F a y
a n d Riddell. 1 T h e y considered t h e mechanism of h e a t
g = Eq.(8)
transfer, with the pertinent physical and chemical
h = enthalpy per unit mass of ith component
h = enthalpy per unit mass of t h e mixture, including dis- effects which arise because of gas dissociation. I t was
sociation energy, Xci(hi — hi0) shown t h a t a similarity variable could be found, such
hi0
= heat evolved in the formation of component i at 0°K.,
t h a t t h e equations for t h e stagnation-point b o u n d a r y
per unit mass
= average atomic dissociation energy times atom mass layer with a r b i t r a r y recombination r a t e could be reduced
hD
fraction in external flow to ordinary differential equations. F a y and Riddell
H = h + (l/2)u2 pointed out t h a t t h e stagnation point appeared to be
k = thermal conductivity t h e only case in which t h e boundary-layer equations
I = PM/' PwP<w admitted this great simplification without further
Li = Lewis Number Dipcp/k = Dipa/fi
approximation. E v e n for t h e cone and flat plate, this
UT = thermal Lewis Number DiTp cp/k = DiTpor/ii
reduction is only possible for t h e extreme cases of v e r y
L = Lewis Number for atom molecule mixture
M8 Mach Number of moving shock in shock tube, referred fast or v e r y slow a t o m recombination rate, correspond-
=
to speed of sound in quiescent gas in front of it ing t o a b o u n d a r y layer, either "frozen" or in t h e r m o -
P = pressure d y n a m i c equilibrium.
Pi = initial pressure in shock tube (measured in cm. of mer- Once a stagnation-point t h e o r y is developed, t h e next
q = heat-transfer rate step is to extend t h e t h e o r y to regions a w a y from t h e
qi = vector diffusion velocity, Eq. (1) stagnation point. T h e r e are certainly regimes of flight,
r = cylindrical radius of body, recover}^ factor such as high altitudes, where t h e b o u n d a r y layer will
R = body-nose radius in meridian plane remain l a m i n a r for some distance a w a y from t h e stag-
n a t i o n point, a n d a laminar t h e o r y is, therefore, of
Received May 29, 1958.
f This work was performed during June, 1956-June, 1957. I t interest.
was sponsored by t h e Ballistic Missile Division, Air Research While t h e r e is a great deal of l i t e r a t u r e on compres-
and Development Command, USAF, under Contract AF04(645)- sible laminar b o u n d a r y layer, v e r y little of it is appli-
18. cable to t h e problem a t h a n d . T h e distinguishing fea-
The numerical calculations were performed efficient^ by Rob-
tures of t h e present problem, caused b y t h e v e r y high
ert Laubner, and many helpful discussions were held with F. R.
Riddell and J. A. Fay. flight velocity, are t h e dissociation a n d t h e large r a t i o
* Principal Research Scientist. of external to wall e n t h a l p y (or t e m p e r a t u r e ) . These

421
422 JOURNAL OF T H E AERO/SPACE S C I E N C E S —JULY, 1959

•conditions dictate large variations of fluid properties of incidence. Results for two-dimensional bodies
across t h e b o u n d a r y layer. T h e variable property could be obtained b y t h e same method.
which distinguishes this from a low-speed case is t h e There are several ways to check t h e local similarity
product of density, p, and viscosity /x, which m a y v a r y assumption theoretically. One would be to solve t h e
b y a factor of 5 or more instead of being nearly con- complete partial differential equations. Another would
stant. Most previous investigations, such as t h a t of be to compute t h e terms neglected in these equations
Cohen and Reshotko 2 and t h a t of Levy, 3 t r e a t this prod- in a n y particular case, and compare t h e m with t h e
uct as a constant. Consequently, their work cannot terms retained. A third is to make use of the momen-
be used in the present case without a careful examin- t u m and energy integral equations which are often used
ation of its validity. H e a t transfer b y atom diffusion is to construct approximate methods for predicting bound-
also a new phenomenon arising in the hypersonic case. ary-layer characteristics. These equations represent
Romig and Dore 4 have considered a dissociating gas conservation of m o m e n t u m and energy on t h e average
in thermodynamic equilibrium, b u t only for a flat across t h e b o u n d a r y layer, and contain the nonsimilar
plate with constant external flow properties and the terms which are dropped in the local similarity solution
particular case of equal heat transfer b y thermal con- described here. In Lees' approximate solution of the
duction and atomic diffusion. We wish here to allow similarity differential equations, he takes the wall en-
a variation of external properties suitable to t h e nose t h a l p y gradient constant around t h e body, so t h e non-
regions of blunt bodies, and to consider more general similar term in the energy integral equation is iden-
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

relations between thermal conduction and atomic tically zero. T h e exact solutions of these differential
diffusion. equations presented in the present work, on the other
hand, lead to boundary-layer characteristics which
Lees 5 has dealt with heat transfer to highly cooled
v a r y around t h e body, and t h u s afford t h e possibility
bodies in dissociating flow. H e made use of an assump-
of computing the nonsimilar terms in the integral equa-
tion of "local similarity." At each point on t h e body,
tions, and t h u s estimating the validity of t h e local
the boundary layer is assumed to be described b y ordi-
similarity assumption in any particular case.
nary differential equations involving one independent
similarity variable, with b o u n d a r y conditions and In addition to theoretical checks, comparison with
parameters depending on local external and wall con- experimental results is presented in this paper for b o t h
ditions. This assumption is t a n t a m o u n t to dropping hemisphere cylinders and flat-nosed bodies. T h e ex-
certain terms in the complete differential equations, as perimental results were obtained in shock tubes at high
will be shown below. Lees made a further approxi- stagnation enthalpies. T h e technique employed was
mation b y not actually solving the ordinary differential the same as used for the stagnation point measurements
equations resulting from the local similarity assump- discussed in reference 8. Only a brief description of
tion. H e gave a careful discussion of the case of high the experimental techniques is given.
wall cooling and concluded t h a t the pressure gradient
did not have a significant effect on heat transfer. H e (2) BOUNDARY-LAYER EQUATIONS
also concluded t h a t the variation of pp, across the bound-
ary layer could be approximated sufficiently well b y T h e boundary-layer equations suitable for t h e axi-
taking it constant at the external value. H e then symmetric flow of dissociating air over a b o d y of revolu-
made use of the Cohen and Reshotko (pp constant, no tion are given in reference 1. T h e air is represented
dissipation) value of the nondimensional wall enthalpy as a mixture of "air molecules" and "air a t o m s , " the
gradient for the flat plate, t h u s taking it to be a con- differences between oxygen and nitrogen being ac-
stant over the whole body. counted for b y using average properties for the air
particles. T h e diffusion velocity, measured with refer-
Probstein 6 has proposed an extension of Lees' work ence to the mass average velocity, is then taken as
in which the wall enthalpy gradient is found b y solving
the energy differential equation b y iteration, using qt = -(Dt/ct) grad c{ - (D?/T) grad T (1)
Cohen's and Reshotko's velocity profiles and starting
T h e first t e r m is t h e concentration diffusion in terms of
with their enthalpy profile for pp constant. H e found
the mass fraction ct of t h e i t h component. T h e second
t h a t only one or two iterations are necessary for good
term is t h e thermal diffusion (pressure diffusion is
convergence in most practical cases.
neglected) and the D's are the diffusion coefficients.
In the present work, the local similarity differential I t is assumed t h a t each component of t h e air is a
equations are solved exactly, with variable external perfect gas with enthalpy hif so t h a t t h e enthalpy of
pressure gradient parameter, variable p/x, and inclusion the mixture is
of the dissipation term. Lewis N u m b e r effects are also
h = 2 CiQit — ht0)
discussed. This is accomplished numerically b y an ex-
tension of the method which F a y and Riddell 1 used at where h^ is t h e heat evolved in the formation of the
the stagnation point. T h e solutions, which depend on rth component at 0°K.
the local external flow conditions, v a r y around t h e body, T h e usual boundary-layer coordinate system is intro-
in contrast to the constant values used b y Lees. Atten- duced with x measured along t h e b o d y surface from the
tion is restricted to bodies of revolution at zero angle nose and y normal to the surface, and r denoting the
L A M I N A R HEAT T R A N S F E R 423

radius of the body cross section in a plane perpendicular Energy:


to the body axis.
After t h e usual boundary-layer simplifications are (te,A), +/«, + {('/*) E cte[(ht - ht»)/H,\ x
made, the equations of mass, momentum, and energy [(Lt - 1)5,, + LtTsfiv/e]}n + (ue*/H.) X
become Eqs. (13), (17), and (21) of reference 1: {(1 - a - i ) / / , / „ } , = 2 f ( / A - ) k „ ) (11)
Eqs. (10) and (11) are t h e system to be solved f o r / and
(pur)x + {pvr)v = 0 (2)
g as functions of £ and rj, for an equilibrium b o u n d a r y
PUUX + pVUy = —pX + ([JLUy)y (3) layer. Boundary conditions are :

PUHZ + pVHy = {(k/Cp)Hy}y + {(1/2) (/X ~ >? = 0: / = / ' = 0, g = gw = hJHe (12)


2
k/cp) {u )y)v + {Y,(DiP - k/cp) (ht - hi°)civ +
*!-+ °°' f ~+ 1, g~+ 1
Y,(DiTpCt/T) (h,- h^Ty}y (4)
T r u e similarity solutions of these equations require
Here, H = h -{- u2/2, the total enthalpy, and cp = all terms to be independent of £, so t h a t t h e y reduce to
Y^ci(dhi/dT), which is t h e weighted sum of t h e com- ordinary differential equations in rj. One way t h a t this
ponent specific heats, not t h e specific heat of the mix- can occur is for t h e external flow and wall enthalpy to
ture. be independent of £—i.e., of x—which is true on a cone
Eqs. (2), (3), and (4) are suitable for the boundary of constant surface temperature. A more interesting
layer in thermal equilibrium, where the composition of case for high-speed flow is t h a t of an axisymmetric
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

the mixture is a known function of the usual thermo- stagnation point, at which Eqs. (10) and (11) also be-
dynamic variables (say, p and h). For nonequilibrium come similar. T h e external velocity ue m a y be written
situations, an additional equation for ct must be con- ue = x(due/dx)s and from Eq. (5) we easily find t h a t
sidered [Eq. (14) of reference 1]. In the present paper,
P = 2{d In ujd In £) = 1/2 (13)
attention will be focused on the equilibrium boundary
layer. Some remarks about the possible applicability In this case, Eqs. (9) and (10) reduce to
of the results to other cases will be made later.
We now proceed, as in reference 1, to introduce a VfJn+ffn + ( V 2 ) [(Pes/p) - A 2 ] = 0 (14)
transformation of the independent variables, which fe»„ +fgv + {(l/cr^Ciesm - ht«)/He] X
includes the H o w a r t h and Mangier transformations, [(Lt- l)siv + LiTsidv/d]}v = 0 (15)
as suggested b y Lees :5
These equations (with Li = 0) are the ones t h a t F a y
and Riddell have solved for the equilibrium case in
£(*0 = I PwVwuer2dx, d^/dx = plD\xwuer2 (5)
Jo reference 1.
T h e purpose of the present work is to derive informa-
v(x, y) = (uer/VW I f>dy, drj/dy = puer/V2{j (6) tion about laminar heat-transfer rates on blunt bodies
Jo away from the stagnation point b y reducing Eqs. (10)
We also choose dimensionless dependent variables and (11) to ordinary differential equations, like Eqs.
based on conditions at the edge of the b o u n d a r y layer, (14) and (15), and then solving t h e m in the same m a n -
as follows: ner as the latter equations were solved in reference 1.
This is accomplished b y the introduction of the idea of
u/ue = fv, f = I fvdr] (7) ' local similarity.''
Jo
g = H/He, 6 = T/Te, st = ct/cic (8) (3) LOCAL SIMILARITY
The functions / , g, 6, and st depend on both £ and rj.
When boundary-layer characteristics, especially heat-
The quantities at the edge of the b o u n d a r y layer are,
transfer rates, are desired for bodies with varying ex-
of course, functions of x only, except for He, which is a
ternal flow properties, we are confronted with t h e full
constant, and is t h e total enthalpy of the inviscid flow.
Eqs. (10) and (11). A reasonable approximation which
(We assume t h a t the flow at the edge of t h e b o u n d a r y
reduces t h e m to ordinary differential equations is
layer came through t h e normal shock near t h e axis of
clearly extremely useful, since partial differential equa-
revolution.) tions are difficult to handle numerically. Such an
With these transformations, the continuity Eq. (2) is approximation is t h a t of local similarity, as discussed
b y Lees, 5 and b y F a y and Riddell. 1 I n this approx-
pv = -r~lM^m)^ + Wmv] (9)
imation, at any point x, t h e dependence of t h e de-
In addition, we obtain the following transformed dif- pendent variables on £ is taken to be such t h a t their
ferential equations, with P r a n d t l N u m b e r a = cvp,/k, derivatives, with respect to £, m a y be neglected. There-
Lewis Number Lt = Dipcp/k and / = p\xf'pw\xw. fore, the right-hand sides of Eqs. (10) and (11) are taken
to be zero. Further, t h e terms on the left which depend
Momentum:
on £, arising from t h e external flow or wall conditions,
(//,,), + / / „ + 2(d In ujd In f) X are assumed to have their local values. Then, the equa-
KPe/p) ~ fv2l = 2W« ~ ftM (10) tions again become ordinary differential equations in rj
424 J O U R N A L OF T H E A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S — JULY, 1959

periment should help provide such a quantitative cri-


terion.
Notice t h a t if the local similarity solution does not
depend on the external flow properties, the nonsimilar
terms in Eqs. (16) a n d (17) are automatically zero,
and there is no possibility of evaluating t h e error in-
volved in t h e similarity assumption. Such is t h e case
with Lees' value of gvW in reference 5.
Once t h e local similarity approximation is accepted as
one which m a y give useful results, the equations t o be
solved are Eqs. (10) and (11) with zero right-hand sides.
We will neglect thermal diffusion (L? = 0), and, for t h e
time being, concentrate on t h e Lewis N u m b e r u n i t y
case (Lt — 1). Actually, t h e Lewis N u m b e r is near
1.4 according t o best present estimates, and a way t o
.2 3
take this into account will b e mentioned later. W i t h
these restrictions and recalling Eq. (13), the m o m e n t u m
FIG. 1. Heat-transfer parameter correlation. and energy equations become
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

(*/„),+//„ + 0[(p./p) -tf\ = o (18)


at any point on the body, with parameters depending (feA), +/«, + W/H.) \{l - v-'WjJ, = 0 (19)
on the local external and wall conditions, and can b e
solved for t h e boundary-layer characteristics a t t h a t with boundary conditions (12).
point.
Essentially then, local similarity represents a patch- (4) SOLUTIONS O F T H E E Q U A T I O N S
ing together of local solutions; the x-wise history of the
flow is ignored, except as it is contained in t h e external T h e solution of t h e local similarity Eqs. (18) a n d
and wall conditions, which form the coefficients of t h e (19) is based upon the solution of the stagnation point
differential equations. T h e validity of this approxi- Eqs. (14) and (15) ( w i t h L / 1 = 0) presented in reference
mation depends ultimately on t h e fact t h a t t h e external 1. T h e y both satisfy t h e same b o u n d a r y conditions,
flow properties v a r y slowly with £, and the terms neg- Eqs. (12).
lected in the differential equation are really negligible There are three points of difference between t h e
compared t o those retained. One way t o determine stagnation point and local similarity equations. T h e
this for any particular case would b e t o actually com- first is the fact t h a t the pressure gradient parameter, /3,
pute the right-side terms in Eqs. (10) and (11), once a is no longer 0.5 when one moves away from t h e stag-
solution neglecting t h e m had been obtained. nation point. This difference is easily remedied b y
Another way t o derive some theoretical information solution of Eqs. (14) and (15) with 1/2 replaced b y other
about local similarity is t o integrate Eqs. (10) and (11) values. Such solutions for /3 = 0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 are
on rj across the b o u n d a r y layer from rj = 0 t o rj = °°, shown as the open points in Fig. 1. This plot is t h e
thus obtaining t h e boundary-layer integral equations. same as t h a t of Fig. 2 of reference 1. There it was
If this is done, t h e results are found t h a t if V 2 ^ / ( l — gw) was plotted against t h e
Pfi ratio across t h e b o u n d a r y layer, pefxe/' pw\xw, t h e re-
sults fell on one curve, regardless of gw and He. This is
(/„)«• = f 7 , ( 1 - fMv + 2(d In ujd In f) X
Jo seen t o b e true for all values of /3 in Fig. 1. I n per-
forming these calculations, t h e same expressions for /
f " i(Pe/p) - JVVv + 2f (d/df) f " / , ( 1 - fn)dv (16)
Jo Jo and pel p were used as described in the Appendix of refer-
ence 1, namely
(*-%)» + {v-'EcieKhi - ht»)/He] X
[(L, - I K + LiTsfije])v> = / = pfi/pwnw = on/Vg - a2/g (20a)

Pe/P = 1 - 7 l ( l - g) ~ 72(1 - gY (20b)


f /,(1 - g)dv + 2 ^ M ) r fv(l - g)dv (17)
Jo Jo
T h e justification for using these relations will be found
The nonsimilarity term in each of these equations is the in reference 1, especially in Fig. 1 there.
last one on the right, which could b e computed in any For purposes of computation, straight lines have been
given case once a similarity solution had been obtained. fitted to the points of Fig. 1. T h e y are approximately
Qualitatively, if this term is found t o b e small, t h e valid in the range 0.15 < pe\xe/'pw\xw < 0.55, which is
approximation of similarity certainly is a good one, t h e region of interest for highly cooled walls. This fit
while if it is large, t h e approximation has broken down. yields the relation
However, a quantitative theoretical criterion for t h e
size of the term is not known. T h e ultimate practical V ^ A l - gw) = 0.648(1 + 0.096 Vp) X
test is experiment, and comparison of theory with ex- (peVe/pwVw) ' (21)
L A M I N A R HEAT T R A N S F E R 425

and shows t h e dependence on 0 of t h e enthalpy gradient. moves t h e points down approximately t h e same
Note t h a t t h e curve for 0 = 1 / 2 differs slightly from amount as t h e fluid property modification moved
t h a t given in reference 1, b u t t h e difference is negligible them up.
in t h e range of applicability of E q . (21). T h e net result of both modifications to t h e solutions
Having found t h e pressure gradient effect on t h e of t h e stagnation equations is only a small change in
stagnation-point equations, let us now go on to t h e the value of gvW/(l — gw), even for t h e largest value of
other two added effects which appear in t h e local simi- u2/He. For ue2/He = 1.5, t h e changes range from
larity equations. T h e first is, of course, t h e presence + 1 per cent for high wall cooling (gw = 0.0164) t o
of t h e dissipation t e r m which appears as t h e last one — 6 per cent at lower cooling (gw = 0.1682). I t would
in t h e energy E q . (19). This term, which introduces thus appear, at least for values of t h e P r a n d t l N u m b e r
the dissipation parameter ue2/He, is zero at t h e stagna- near 0.71, t h a t t h e value of gvW/(l ~ gw) is only slightly
tion point. affected b y t h e value of ue2/He, and mainly b y t h e pres-
T h e second added effect is a more subtle one, involv- sure gradient parameter 0. Thus, at any point on t h e
ing t h e fluid properties, as given in Eq. (20). There body, a useful approximation is to use t h e value of
they are taken t o depend on g, t h e dimensionless stag- &JW>/(1 ~ gw) appropriate to t h e local 0 and t h e stagna-
nation enthalpy. This is clearly correct at t h e stagna- tion value of t h e pn ratio especially for values of u2/He
tion point. However, elsewhere they should depend below unity and for high wall cooling. This inde-
instead on t h e dimensionless static enthalpy h, related pendence of t h e p\x ratio represents a considerable
tog by simplification of t h e heat-transfer calculations, because
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

the values of p and /z in t h e h o t external stream only


h/He = g - fvW/2He (22) have to be calculated a t t h e stagnation point and
Thus, h/He must be substituted for g in E q . (20). T h e re- nowhere else.
sulting expression for / must also be corrected, of course, T h e effect of t h e dissipation term itself is of interest
to have t h e value unity at t h e edge of t h e boundary in connection with t h e so-called recovery factor, which
layer, he/He = 1 — ue2/2He. Notice t h a t this modi- m a y be defined here as
fication of the fluid properties also depends on t h e dis- r = 1 + [Agvw/(gvW)noaiss.] [(1 ~ gw)/(u2/2He)] (23)
sipation parameter ue2/He. T h e fact t h a t both t h e
where AgvW is t h e change in gvW when t h e dissipation
dissipation term and t h e fluid property modification
term is added t o t h e energy equation. Sixteen cases
depend on t h e same parameter greatly simplifies t h e
were calculated for 0 = 0, 1/2 and ue2/He = 1/4,
numerical calculations.
1/2, 1.5 for a = 0.71. T h e value oil — r varied from
T h e size of this dissipation parameter ue2/He is
0.145 t o 0.166, or a maximum deviation of 7 per cent
limited. F o r expansion t o zero temperature it ap-
from a mean of 0.155.
proaches 2. On practical bodies in t h e shock t u b e it
T h e low-speed form of 1 — r is usually taken as close
m a y reach 0.5 to 0.6, and in flight t h e extreme value
which could be expected is not much more t h a n unity. to 1 — V a. I n t h e present case, 1 — V a = 0.157..
T h e results of calculating some sample solutions of It, therefore, seems quite satisfactory to t a k e t h e re-
Eqs. (18) and (19) with t h e fluid property and dissipa- covery factor as a for these highly cooled cases also -
tion term modifications are shown in Fig. 1. First t h e A check of one case, a t a = 0.5, showed 1 — r = 0.296
fluid property change alone was inserted, for ue2/He = compared to 1 — = 0.297, which verifies this con-
1/4, 1/2, 1.5 at several points in t h e 0 = 0, 1/2 lines. clusion.
These results are shown as t h e filled points in Fig. 1. U p t o now t h e Lewis N u m b e r for all species has been
Each filled point is obtained from a stagnation point taken to be unity. Calculations of t h e Lewis N u m b e r
solution modified b y replacing g in Eqs. (20), b y h/He effect were made in reference 1 where it was shown
from Eq. (22). I t is easy to see t h a t this replacement t h a t for L ^ 1 (the Lewis N u m b e r of all species was
increases t h e value of pep.e/ pw\xw, so t h e point is moved taken t h e same) a correction factor of t h e form [1 +
to the right. I t turns out also to increase t h e value (La — l)hD/He] should be used to multiply t h e L =
of gvW so t h e point is also moved upwards. B o t h these 1 heat-transfer rate at t h e stagnation point, a was
movements increase as ue2/He increases. T h e stagna- found to be 0.52 for equilibrium flow and 0.63 for a
tion point solution which is modified in each case has frozen b o u n d a r y layer. hD is t h e average dissociation
an arrow on it, and t h e filled points which move u p - energy per unit mass of atoms times t h e a t o m mass
ward and to t h e right from t h e arrow represent in- fraction in t h e external flow. I t seems reasonable t o
creasing values of ue2/He. believe t h a t a similar factor will hold away from t h e
Now to these calculations t h e effect of t h e dissipation stagnation point, provided hD is t h e local enthalpy in
term is added (for a = 0.71). T h e results of this addi- dissociation in t h e external flow. For a typical shock
tion are plotted as t h e half-filled points in Fig. 1. T h e y tube case of shock M a c h N u m b e r 12, initial pressure
represent complete solutions to t h e local similarity 1 cm. Hg., a check was made of t h e size of this factor
Eqs. (18) and (19). I t is seen t h a t t h e effect of adding using National Bureau of Standards d a t a for equilib-
the dissipation term is t o move t h e points straight down rium air, reference 7. T h e ratio between t h e factor a t
at a fixed P/JL ratio. T h e i m p o r t a n t thing t o note the stagnation point, and its value after a Newtonian
is t h a t for 0.15 < pev>e/PwVw < 0-6 t h e dissipation term expansion t o t h e original flow direction was 1.03 for
426 J O U R N A L OF THE A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S — JULY, 1959

L = 1.4. Since the Newtonian law probably over- Near t h e stagnation point ue = x(due/dx)s, r = x9
estimates the expansion, this represents an upper limit and £ = pwspwsx^(due/dx)s/4. so t h a t
to the change in Lewis N u m b e r factor of 3 per cent.
I t would, therefore, appear t h a t the value of the cor- rpwpwuj\2$> = v2pwspws(due/dx)s (26)
rection factor at the stagnation point is a satisfactory For cold walls—that is, where no dissociation occurs—
one to use for engineering purposes over the whole body. the summation term in t h e heat-transfer r a t e vanishes,
Any more detailed study of this point, involving actual and the use of Eq. (26) in Eq. (25) gives t h e expression
solution of local-similarity equations for L F^ 1, pre- for qs.
sents a large computing problem which does not appear Since it has been shown t h a t effects as Lewis N u m b e r
justified at this time. are accounted for b y t h e stagnation point behavior, a
T h e question of heat transfer when the boundary convenient way of finding heat transfer is to calculate
layer is not in equilibrium can also be clarified b y refer- t h e heat-transfer distribution q/qs. For a wall on
ence to the stagnation-point results of reference 1. which no recombination occurs, for example, Eqs. (25)
There it was shown that, although the mechanism was and (26) give
different, the total heat-transfer r a t e was substantially
the same for equilibrium flow, frozen flow, and all Q/& = (rPwuwue/V2£){2Pwspws(due/dx)s}~a/2) gvW/gvWS
intermediate cases. There is no reason to expect this (27)
result to change as one moves around the body. There-
fore, it appears t h a t the equilibrium results of this To evaluate q/qs from a formula like Eq. (42) is quite
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

paper m a y be used even for nonequilibrium thermody- simple using the results of the previous section. T h e
namical situations, provided the wall does not inhibit velocity and wall conditions around the b o d y must be
recombination of atoms. found, as well as t h e distribution of pressure gradient
parameter /3. Then the curve-fit of Fig. 1 can be used
(5) CALCULATIONS OF H E A T - T R A N S F E R R A T E to find gvW/gvWS b y use of

In line with the local similarity ideas presented WC 1


- £ J ] / [ W ( 1 ~ gtos)] = (1 + 0.096V/3) ~
above, the method of calculating laminar heat-transfer
(1 + 0.096V0.5) = (1 + 0 . 0 9 6 V ^ ) / 1 . 0 6 8 (28)
rates will be described here. T h e heat-transfer r a t e
to the wall q is given b y the sum of the conductive and T h e p/x term drops because, as explained above, the
diffusive transport of heat, the latter being included value of gvW/(l — gw) at any point is approximately
onlywhen atoms recombine on the wall. the same as the value at the local fi and stagnation pp,
ratio. T h e stagnation-point velocity gradient must
q= [ * ( d r / d y ) L = o + {Ep(Ai - A,0) X
also be obtained from t h e inviscid flow. For example,
[Dtpa/by) +D?(ci/T)(dT/dy)]}y = o (24)
for Newtonian flow,
As shown in Eq. (41) of reference 1, this becomes, in
nondimensional variables, (due/dx)8 = V2(ps - pm)/Ps/R

q = (rPwfiwueHe/V2^ a) {gv + E cie(ht - h^)/He X where R is t h e body radius of curvature at t h e stagna-


[(Lt - 1 K + L W , M ) , (25) tion point in a meridian plane. Using this expression

F I G . 2. Pressure distribution on hemisphere cylinder.


L A M I N A R HEAT T R A N S F E R 427

i.o ^ "|—o went from 1.0 to a maximum of 1.03 and a minimum of


0.9 1 0.94, t h u s varying only a few per cent around the body.
0.8 V"
X T h e distribution obtained directly from Lees' for-
07 o ^ mula, Eq. (15) of reference 5, is also plotted on Fig. 3.
0 ^ ^
0.6 O '
^0D D **& As might be expected from the small variation of
gvw/gvws just mentioned, it is in good agreement with
0.5

0.4
PRESENT THEORY.
-0-M 8 =l2, P, = ICM
%i
* i\
the calculations of t h e present method, except near
EQUILIBRIUM INVISCID FLOW 90°. T h e discrepancy there can be attributed to t h e
q/q c °<4Dr&\ 1

o^ deviation of ue from the straight line used b y Lees.


1I '
Il 1 1
l n &
SHOCK TUBE t
\\A c T h e results of this example tend to substantiate Lees'
M8= 10.9-13.5, P, = ICM 0
o x
\
argument t h a t gvW can be taken constant over the whole
O THIN GAGE /£> 0 body, at least for expansions of this size, where ft varied
D CALORIMETER GA
V
0 Vs
M 8 «765-8.5, P,=0.5CM only between 1.12 and 0. Thus, Lees' theory m a y be
o\ ]
A THIN GAGE expected to give values of q/qs which are in good agree-
°1 m e n t with those predicted b y Eqs. (27) and (28).
0
--*-LEES' THEORY, REE 5 A However, it should be pointed out t h a t if the heat-
transfer r a t e q itself is desired, t h e stagnation point
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 value qs should be taken from reference 1, not from
x / R BODY ANGLE-DEGREES Lees' work. As shown in reference 10, Lees' formula
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

F I G . 3. Heat-transfer distribution on hemisphere cylinder. for qs is too low b y a factor (pene/PwVw).®'1, in addition
to having no Lewis N u m b e r term. For the example
and Eq. (28) in Eq. (27), q/qs can be found as a function of Fig. 3, (peVe/PivVw)*0'1 = 0.876 and the Lewis N u m b e r
of x. qs is obtained from Eq. (63) of reference 1, for factor for L = 1.4 and thermodynamic equilibrium is
equilibrium flow, or Eq. (65) for frozen flow. 1.078. Including a slight difference in the constants,
the value of qs is t h u s larger t h a n Lees' b y a factor 1.3.
(6) R E S U L T S OF CALCULATIONS In order to test the effect of a more rapidly varying
pressure distribution, the ratio q/qs was also calculated
As one example of t h e use of formulas (27) and (28), for the flat-nosed b o d y shown in Fig. 4. Shock t u b e
a case for a hemisphere cylinder in a shock tube was conditions corresponding to stagnation point simula-
calculated. T h e case chosen was a shock M a c h N u m - tion of 14,000 ft./sec. at 80,000 ft. altitude were used
ber, Ms — 12, and an initial pressure, pi = 1 cm. Hg. (Ms = 9.5, pi = 1 cm. Hg, simulated equilibrium y of
Equilibrium stagnation conditions are then ps = 2.242 1.195.) T h e pressure distribution used is shown in
X 107 dynes per cm. 2 , Tes = 6,945°K., (equivalent to a Fig. 4. I t was obtained in the shock t u b e from M a c h
flight velocity of 18,000 ft./sec. at 70,000 ft. altitude). line measurements and was faired into the subsonic p a r t
T h e "free-stream" to stagnation pressure ratio is of a wind-tunnel distribution obtained at a M a c h N u m -
P™/Ps = 0.1087. T h e wall temperature was taken ber of 4.0 on a similar model. T h e velocity gradient
as a constant 300 °K. at the stagnation point was adjusted according to the
T h e body was assumed to have a Newtonian pressure analysis given in reference 9 because the accuracy of
distribution, p/ps 1 - (1 - pjp8) sin 2 (x/R). the wind-tunnel measurements near the stagnation
Fig. 2 shows an experimental pressure distribution ob- point leave it in doubt.
tained on a hemisphere-cylinder in t h e shock t u b e using T h e calculation was done b y means of a program for
Mach line measurements. T h e results from a n u m b e r t h e I B M 650 computer which finds q/qs from E q s .
of experiments indicate t h a t this formula fits t h e d a t a (27) and (28), as well as all t h e pertinent inviscid flow
within the limits of experimental accuracy. properties for an arbitrary body shape. T h e pressure
Three different thermodynamic assumptions were distribution and stagnation conditions, as well as the
used to find the inviscid flow: (a) thermodynamic body shape, are t h e i n p u t d a t a . T h e program uses
equilibrium corresponding to N B S data; 7 (b) constant
7 to represent equilibrium, y = 1.126; and (c) con-
stant 7 to represent gas composition frozen at t h e SHOCK TUBE M $ = 103, p,« 5 c
stagnation point, y = 1.38.
The results for the heat-transfer distribution calcu-
O TOP SURFACE "! MACH LINE
lation according to Eqs. (27) and (28) are shown in 0 BOTTOM SURFACE J MEASUREMENTS
Fig. 3. Only the curve for thermodynamic equilibrium
WIND TUNNEL
is shown because the curves from assumptions (b) and
(c) would be almost indistinguishable from it. This
indicates t h a t for expansions of t h e magnitude obtained
kum ug a""0"
in the shock tube (pm/ps of order 0.1) t h e thermody-
0
namic assumption has little effect on q/qs. Another 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

noteworthy point about this case is t h a t t h e p/m ratio X/R


varied only from 0.22 to 0.29, and t h e ratio gvW/gvWS F I G . 4. Pressure distribution on flat-nosed body.
428 J O U R N A L OF THE A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S — JULY, 1959

CORNER RADIUS in order to maintain laminar flow over the body. As


0° 30° 60° 90°
a result, thin gages were t h o u g h t to be superior to the
2.0 i r i r Tl calorimeter gages. However, similar measurements
8° 1 . 1 made with calorimeter gages, where the disturbances
o LEES THEORY
created b y t h e gages themselves m a y have introduced
1.0 o\k some uncertainties, indicate agreement within t h e
>
.8 KKfc.St.NI \ HtAJ scatter.
iioi v
v
.6 SHOCK TUBE 1 T h e heat-transfer distribution measurements re-
o M « 8 . 6 - 9 . 6 , p «lcm
A MQ»7.4-7.9,Pi-IOcm
V\ ported here were performed b y comparing heat-transfer
> o\ rates measured by two gages during t h e same experi-
* t 1 -R 1
r=1 m e n t . One gage was always a t the stagnation point
°*-i =i for reference. T h e points in Fig. 3 show d a t a from
T V such experiments compared to the theoretical line calcu-
\ lated b y the methods of this paper. One set of d a t a
covers the shock M a c h N u m b e r range of 10.9 to 13.5
(stagnation point simulation of 75,000 ft. altitude and
*0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
x/R flight velocities from 17,000 to 20,500 f t . / s e c ) ; the
F I G . 5. Heat-transfer distribution on flat-nosed body. other group of experiments is performed at lower heat-
transfer rates at a shock M a c h N u m b e r of around 8.0
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

(stagnation point simulation of 90,000 ft. at 12,000 ft./


the empirical expression for gvW/gvWS, given in E q . (28), sec).
and an effective value of 7, which is also a piece of input
T h e d a t a and the calculated heat-transfer distribu-
d a t a and m a y be chosen to suit the situation.
tions of Fig. 3 appear to show t h a t the average of the
T h e results of this calculation are shown as t h e solid
measurements lies somewhat below the predicted value.
line in Fig. 5. N o t e the heat-transfer peak predicted
This trend is equally apparent for t h e three types of
just a t the beginning of the corner. I t was found t h a t
measurements shown: (1) the calorimeter gage; (2)
t h e pressure gradient parameter, /3, which is extremely
the thin gage a t high heat-transfer rates (Ms = 12);
sensitive to the pressure distribution h a d two peaks,
and, (3) the thin gage a t low heat-transfer rates (Ms =
b o t h with values of /3 = 2.35. T h e first peak occurred
8). Three groups of d a t a are presented because of
a t t h e beginning of t h e corner, t h e second—halfway
certain experimental difficulties which are peculiar to,
round, a little aft of the sonic point.
and different for, the three groups. These difficulties,
Also shown on Fig. 5 is the heat-transfer distribution although they most probably introduce some scatter,
calculated from Lees' theory b y Eqs. (12) and (12a) of appear to have been properly accounted for. A de-
reference 5. I t was obtained using the same pressure tailed discussion of t h e problems can be found in refer-
distribution and inviscid flow d a t a as t h a t used for t h e ences 8 and 11.
calculations b y the present theory. I t predicts t h e
In addition to t h e uncertainties introduced by gage
same pressure peak as the present theory b u t is some-
signal interpretation, some scatter can be a t t r i b u t e d to
what higher on t h e rest of the corner and t h e side of the
inaccuracy in t h e measurement of gage location (data
body. Both theories are identical on t h e front face.
is plotted a t the average angle while the gage actually
There would, of course, again be a difference in the
covers between 5° and 10° on t h e model), and also
stagnation-point values which would m a k e t h e absolute
to the difficulty of matching the small hemisphere to
value of t h e heat-transfer rates differ.
the cylinder portion of the models very accurately.
Experimental points obtained from shock t u b e ex-
T h e latter effect is noticeable a t body angles over 70°.
periments are shown in Figs. 3 and 5. I t is seen t h a t
In addition to the hemisphere cylinder experiments,
t h e agreement with theory is reasonably good, except
the heat-transfer distribution on a flat-nosed body with
near the corner on the b l u n t body where t h e experi-
a corner radius equal to 1/4 of the cylindrical radius has
mental heat-transfer peak is 25 per cent higher t h a n t h e
been measured. T h e small corner radius being a more
theoretically predicted one. F u r t h e r discussion of stringent test of the similarity type of solution than
these experimental results is given below. was the hemisphere cylinder, considerable effort was
expended in obtaining as much detail of the heat-
(7) EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS transfer distribution over t h e corner as was possible.
T h e experimental techniques involved in making E a c h model was m a d e with five heat-transfer gages,
heat-transfer measurements in shock tubes have been including a t least one on the face of the model which
described in a previous report. 8,11 was either a t the stagnation point or very close to it.
Shock t u b e heat-transfer measurements h a v e been T h e corner arc was covered in intervals of 15°. Each
made successfully with two types of heat-transfer gage covered approximately 15° of the corner arc.
gages, the thin resistance thermometer and t h e calo- T h e gages were spread radially around the body so t h a t
rimeter gage. For t h e present experiment, it was felt the influence of t h e disturbances caused b y one gage is
to be important t h a t the boundary layer be disturbed minimized in its effect on the others.
as little as possible b y the presence of t h e gage element These measurements were performed over a range of
L A M I N A R HEAT T R A N S F E R 429

shock M a c h Numbers from 7.0-10.0 a t two initial A rough evaluation was made of Eq. (31) for the
pressures, and t h e results are shown in Fig. 5. T h e case presented in Fig. 3. T h e results showed t h a t t h e
heat transfer appears to reach a m a x i m u m value ap- nonsimilar t e r m was less t h a n 1 per cent of gvWo/<r u p
proximately 50 per cent higher t h a n t h e stagnation to 25°, rose to 10 per cent near 60°, and then climbed
value in the vicinity of the sonic point, which occurs rapidly, reaching 17 per cent at 70°. This would
near the 25° point of the arc. indicate t h a t similarity was valid u p to around 60° at
T h e measurements and theory shown in Fig. 5 agree least, b u t might be in doubt in t h e region of 7 0 ° - 9 0 ° .
quite well, except on the corner where t h e experimental
Comparison of the local similarity theory with experi-
results are 25 per cent higher t h a n t h e theory and seems
m e n t in Fig. 3 indicates t h a t the theory somewhat over-
to indicate a breakdown of local similarity due to the
estimates the value of q/qs compared with the mean of
rapid change in t h e flow as it expands about the sharp
the experimental data. However, t h e scatter is such
corner.
t h a t it is difficult to estimate t h e limit (in x/R) of
validity of the similarity assumption. There seems to
(8) L I M I T A T I O N S OF T H E M E T H O D be some evidence t h a t t h e agreement is worse near
80°-90°. However, experimental difficulties in t h a t
T h e principal theoretical assumption made in t h e region, as mentioned above, m a y cause most of t h e
method proposed here for calculating h e a t transfer is discrepancy.
t h a t of local similarity. Because certain terms were
neglected in t h e differential equations, t h e resulting On the flat-nosed body of Fig. 4, t h e corner presents
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

solutions do not satisfy conservation of m o m e n t u m a somewhat stronger test of similarity t h a n does t h e


and energy in t h e boundary layer, as represented, say, shoulder of a hemisphere cylinder. T h e geometric
b y t h e integral Eqs. (16) and (17). They, in fact, satisfy problems associated with the small size of the corner
these equations without t h e nonsimilar terms which cause more scatter in the d a t a of Fig. 5 t h a n in t h a t
are t h e last ones on t h e right involving d/d%. Using of Fig. 3, b u t it is clear t h a t the theory underestimates
the present solutions, it would be possible to construct t h e h e a t transfer near t h e corner, an effect which m a y
a method for obtaining boundary-layer characteristics well be due to a breakdown of similarity there. Else-
which did satisfy the complete integral equations along where, t h e agreement is satisfactory, indicating t h a t
the lines of t h e Thwaites method for low-speed flow. similarity is valid.
I t is possible with t h e present method to m a k e a theo- I n t h e practical calculation of h e a t transfer, t h e pres-
retical estimate of the validity of local similarity. ent uncertain knowledge of the external inviscid-flow
Since gvW (and fvr]W) vary around t h e body, t h e non- properties for a dissociating gas also is something of a
similarity terms in the integral equations can be com- limitation. However, this does not affect t h e method
puted in each particular case and compared with t h e presented here, which describes only calculation of t h e
other terms. N o t e t h a t such a check is n o t possible boundary-layer characteristics once the external flow
with Lees' approximate solution of reference 5 because is known.
he assumes gvW constant around t h e body, and the non-
similarity term in the energy integral is identically zero. (9) CONCLUSIONS
I n any actual case, of course, gvW will v a r y and t h e non-
A method is presented for calculating the laminar
similarity t e r m will n o t be zero.
heat transfer on b l u n t bodies of revolution in axisym-
To check the similarity assumption in t h e case of
metric, highly-cooled, dissociating flow. T h e method
Fig. 3, the energy integral E q . (17) is written
is based on exact numerical solution of t h e boundary-
layer differential equations which result from a local
gj° = f /,(1 - g)dv + 2$(d/d0 j /,(l - g)dn similarity assumption. T h e solutions are correlated
on pressure gradient parameter ft and pp, ratio le as
(29)
shown in Fig. 1. I t is found t h a t t h e effects on gvW
T h e similarity solution satisfies t h e equation obtained caused b y t h e presence of the dissipation p a r a m e t e r
b y ignoring t h e last t e r m on t h e right: ue2/He in the fluid properties and in the dissipation term
nearly offset each other. Therefore, to a useful ap-
GvA)o = f fM - go)dv (30) proximation, gvW is different from t h e stagnation-point
Jo value only because of t h e local value of 0, and is not
influenced b y t h e local pp ratio.
T h e size of the t e r m neglected with similarity assumed
is then T h e results of t h e theory are embodied in the rela-
tions
2*(<*M) f /„o(l ~ go)drj = 2£ ( i M ) ( g » (31)
Jo q/qs = (rpwpwuj\ 2f) {2pwspws(due/dx)s} ~ ( 1 / 2 ) (gvW/gvW8)

and, as long as it is small compared to griWo/cr, similarity [gvw/(l ~ gw)]/[gvws/(l ~ gws)} =


m a y be considered a good approximation. Clearly,
(1 + 0.096 V / 3 ) / l . 068
t h e more nearly constant gvWo, t h e better the similarity
solution satisfies the energy integral equation. and from reference 1 *
430 JOURNAL OF T H E A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S —JULY, 1959

-0.6
0.76(7 (PwsVws) " (PesVes) ' He(l ~ gws) X REFERENCES
1
(due/dx)s 1/2
[1 + (L« - 1) (hDs/He)} Fay, J. A., and Riddell, F. R., Theory of Stagnation Point
Heat Transfer in Dissociated Air, Journal of the Aeronautical
where a is 0.52 for t h e r m o d y n a m i c equilibrium and Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 73-85, February, 1958.
2
Cohen, C. B., and Reshotko, E., Similar Solutions for the
0.63 for frozen flow.
Compressible Laminar Boundary Layer with Heat Transfer and
T h e independence of heat-transfer distribution from Pressure Gradient, NACA T N 3325, 1955.
3
t h e local pn ratio is very convenient, because, combined Levy, S., Effect of Large Temperature Changes {Including
with t h e definition of /3, it means t h a t only t h e pressure Viscous Heating) Upon Laminar Boundary Layers with Variable
and external velocity m u s t be calculated around t h e Free-Stream Velocity, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol.
21, No. 7, pp. 459-474, July, 1954.
body, n o t t h e external density or viscosity. T h e former 4
Romig, M. F., and Dore, F. J., Solutions of the Compressible
two are comparatively easy to o b t a i n — t h r o u g h a New- Laminar Boundary Layer Including the Case of a Dissociated
tonian approximation, for example—while t h e l a t t e r Free Stream, Convair Report No. ZA 7-012, August 4, 1954, San
require use of t h e r m o d y n a m i c properties a n d t r a n s p o r t Diego, Calif.
5
coefficients a t v e r y high t e m p e r a t u r e s . Lees, L., Laminar Heat Transfer Over Blunt-Nosed Bodies at
Hypersonic Flight Speeds, Jet Propulsion, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.
Calculations using this m e t h o d are compared with
259-269, 274, April, 1956.
shock t u b e experiments on a hemisphere cylinder and 6
Probstein, R. F., Method of Calculating the Equilibrium
on a flat-nosed cylinder with corner radius one q u a r t e r Laminar Heat Transfer Rate at Hypersonic Flight Speeds, Jet Pro-
of its cylindrical radius. T h e calculations a n d experi- pulsion, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 497-499, June, 1956.
7
Hilsenrath, J., and Beckett, C , Tables of Thermodynamic
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

ments are in reasonably good agreement, except near


Properties of Argon-Free Air to 15,000°K, AEDC-TN-56-12,
t h e corner of t h e flat-nosed cylinder where t h e experi-
Arnold Engineering Development Center, ARDC, September,
mental h e a t transfer peak is 25 per cent higher t h a n t h e 1956 (ASTIA Document No. AD-98974.)
theoretical one. T h i s discrepancy is p r o b a b l y due t o 8
Rose, P. H., and Stark, W. L., Stagnation Point Heat-Trans-
the breakdown of local similarity because of t h e rapid fer Measurements in Dissociated Air, Journal of t h e Aeronautical
expansion around t h e corner. Sciences, pp. 86-97, February, 1958.
9
Probstein, R. F., Inviscid Flow in the Stagnation Point Re-
Since t h e m e t h o d gives values of gvW which depend
gion of Very Blunt-Nosed Bodies at Hypersonic Flight Speeds,
on t h e external pressure gradient t h r o u g h /3, a theoreti- WADC T N 56-395, Div. of Eng., Brown University, Providence,
cal estimate of t h e size of t h e nonsimilar t e r m s can be R.I., September, 1956 (ASTIA Document No. AD-97273.)
10
made, b y using t h e boundary-layer energy integral Fay, J. A , Riddell, F. R., and Kemp, N. H., Stagnation Point
equation, for example. Such an estimate was m a d e Heat Transfer in Dissociated Air Flow, Jet Propulsion, Vol. 27,
No. 6, pp. 672-674, June, 1957.
for t h e hemisphere cylinder case a n d showed t h a t a t 11
Rose, P. H., Development of the Calorimeter Heat Transfer
70° t h e nonsimilar t e r m in t h e energy integral was a b o u t Gage for Use in Shock Tubes, Review of Scientific Instruments,
17 per cent of t h e similar t e r m s . Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 557-564, July, 1958.

Change of Address
Since the Post Office Department does not as a rule forward magazines to forwarding addresses, it is important
that the Institute be notified of changes in address 30 days in advance of publishing date to ensure receipt of every
issue of the JOURNAL and A E R O / S P A C E E N G I N E E R I N G .
Notices should be printed legibly and sent directly t o :
Subscription Department
I n s t i t u t e of t h e A e r o n a u t i c a l Sciences, I n c .
2 E a s t 64th Street, N e w York 2 1 , N . Y .

Tenth International Congress of Applied Mechanics


Stresa, Italy, August 31-September 7, 1960
Apart from a number of invited general lectures, the technical sessions of the Congress will be held in two sections: Fluid
Dynamics (hydrodynamics and aerodynamics); and Mechanics of Solids (rigid body dynamics, vibrations, elasticity, plas-
ticity, and theory of structures).
It should be noted that thermodynamics and computational methods as such are not included, although specific applica-
tions of computational methods to pertinent problems of one of the two sections stated above are acceptable subjects for
presentation.
Abstracts should be submitted before January 1, 1960 t o : The Secretary of the International Committee, Prof.Mekelweg 2,
Delft, Netherlands. Abstracts, in four copies, should not exceed two typewritten pages (double-spaced). I t is recommended
that abstracts be in two of the official Congress languages (English, French, German, and Italian).
All correspondence, apart from submission of papers, should be addressed t o : The Italian Organizing Committee, Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche, Ufficio relazioni internazionali, Piazza delle Scienza 7, Roma.