MOTIVATION
With recent advancements in space
exploration technology, a complete new generation of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs)
designs has been proposed. These reusable launch vehicles
have a unique aerodynamic design. For example, the proposed X-33 has a truncated
base, as shown in Fig.1, in order to accommodate an aero-spike engine. The
large base area of these RLVs causes a large base drag, which adversely affects
the flight characteristics (i.e. the cross range, the down range, the glide
slope angle, and the descent velocity) during
an un-powered re-entry into the earth's atmosphere. As the drag increases, the
glide slope angle becomes steeper, thereby causing the vehicles to
have poor range characteristics. With limited range, landing options are
severely restricted for such vehicles.

Figure 1 - X-33 flight
vehicle. Figure is courtesy of NASA.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION
Earlier research work has shown that there exists a potential way of reducing the base drag without altering the design of these RLVs. Hoerner[1] showed that there was a possible means of reducing the total drag on the bodies with a truncated base. He correlated a large set of drag data for bluff bodies and showed that an empirical relationship between the fore-body viscous drag coefficient (CDfb) and the base drag coefficient (CDb)
existed. From the relationship provided by Hoerner shown in Fig. 2, it can be
concluded that, the total drag can be substantially reduced by increasing the
fore-body drag. The location where total drag reaches its minima is called the
"drag bucket." RLVs operating in the drag bucket region will have
optimal drag. As shown in Fig. 2, most of the old generation of RLVs are on the
right side of the drag bucket, whereas the new generation of RLVs are on the
extreme left section of the curve. Hence, for the new generation of RLVs, an
increase in the viscous fore-body drag can reduce the base/total drag.

Figure 2 - Hoerner's
relationship between CDfb and CDb.
OBJECTIVES
1) To verify the base drag
reduction phenomena at the higher Reynolds number.
2) Understand the mechanism behind
the base drag reduction phenomena.
3) Efficient active/passive control
of base drag.
MODEL DESIGN
To investigate the effect of fore-body drag / boundary layer
state on base drag, a model with the following features was needed: (i) the
ability to easily manipulate boundary layer
thickness, (ii) a low base-area-to-fore-body-area ratio, and (iii) the
flexibility to perform different
measurements. In order to incorporate these features, the modular design concept
shown in Fig.3 was used. The model had
an half angle of 2.5 degree ,which
kept the base-area-to-fore-body-area ratio low, and
the modular design provided the ability to vary the
base-area-to-fore-body area ratio. Interchangeable plates
allowed for changing the surface roughness on the
model and for using different plates to perform various
measurements. The model had
three important sections: (i) the leading edge, (ii) the ramp area, and (iii)
the base area as shown in Fig. 3. The leading
edge was elliptical to provide a smooth transition
between the ellipse and ramp sections. For this
study, all tests were made at zero degree angle
of attack.

Fig. 3 Schematic of the models used in the base drag
experiment
WIND TUNNEL
The experiments discussed here were conducted in
the
University of Wyoming Aeronautical Laboratories (UWAL)
2' x2'
wind tunnel. The wind tunnel is a fan-driven,
open-return design with a 0.61 x 0.61
x 1.219 m
test section. Using a variable-speed motor, free-stream velocities of 10-50 m/s
are possible at Reynolds's number up to
2.5x10^6.
The inlet section of the tunnel has a
honeycomb insert and three screens located
just upstream of a contraction section with a 12:1
ratio. The measured free-stream turbulence above the
model was 0.3%.
TEST CASES
|
Velocity (m/s) |
Test case name |
20 m/s |
30 m/s |
40 m/s |
50 m/s |
|
Model-1 with medium sand |
M1R1 |
B,D |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
|
Model-1 with large sand |
M1R2 |
B,D |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
|
Model-1 with smooth plate |
M1R0 |
A,B,C,D |
A,B,C,D,E |
A,B,C,D,E |
A,B,C,D,E |
|
Model-2 with medium sand |
M2R1 |
B,D |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
|
Model-2 with large sand |
M2R2 |
B,D |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
|
Model-2 with smooth plate |
M2R0 |
A,B,C,D |
A,B,C,D,E |
A,B,C,D,E |
A,B,C,D,E |
|
Model-3 with medium sand |
M3R1 |
B,D |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
|
Model-3 with large sand |
M3R2 |
B,D |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
B,D,E |
|
Model-3 with smooth plate |
M3R0
|
A,B,C,D |
A,B,C,D,E |
A,B,C,D,E |
A,B,C,D,E |
LEGEND
A :Pressure measurements on fore-body
B: Pressure measurements on fore-body
C: skin friction measurements on the fore-body
D: Hot-wire survey before the separation
E: Hot-wire measurements in the wake of the model