Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T08:06:13.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of shock/shock interferences on the aerodynamics of a fragment in the wake of debris in a rarefied regime/at high altitude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2023

Vincente Cardona Open the ORCID record for Vincente Cardona [Opens in a new window]  and
Viviana Lago Open the ORCID record for Viviana Lago [Opens in a new window]
Vincente Cardona
Affiliation:
ICARE, CNRS, 1C av. de la Recherche Scientifique, CS 50060, F-45071 Orléans cedex 2, France
Viviana Lago*
Affiliation:
ICARE, CNRS, 1C av. de la Recherche Scientifique, CS 50060, F-45071 Orléans cedex 2, France
*
†Email address for correspondence: viviana.lago@cnrs-orleans.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work presents an experimental investigation focused on the analysis of aerodynamic properties between two interacting spheres in a supersonic rarefied flow. Atmospheric re-entries of space debris, whether natural or man-made, begin at altitude 120 km, and observations of historical re-entries have shown that fragmentation occurs between 90 and 50 km. The resulting fragments interact with each other, altering their own trajectories while traversing the different flow regimes between the free molecular and continuum regimes. This study focuses on the intermediate slip regime, where viscous effects of varying magnitude can influence the nature of the interactions of the shocks and modify them from the already known behaviour in the continuum regime. Specifically, this study examines how two spheres interact with each other upon re-entry into the atmosphere, focusing particularly on the six types of shock/shock interactions identified by Edney. The experiments were performed in the MARHy wind tunnel, in a steady Mach 4 laminar flow with static pressure 2.67 Pa. To highlight the differences between the six types of interferences, a variety of set-ups and devices were used: flow-field visualization, aerodynamic forces (through two diagnoses, aerodynamic balance and the swinging sphere technique) and wall pressure measurements. Results demonstrate the identification of differences according to the type of interference observed, showing in particular the viscous effect of rarefied flows by making a comparison with the continuum regime.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: Aerodynamics Compressible Flows: Compressible Flows Rarefied Gas Flow: Rarefied Gas Flow
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 973 , 25 October 2023 , A26
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by 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

Ahmad, N. & Fitri, E. 2021 Preliminary determination of footprint area of uncontrolled space debris: case study of Tiangong-1 space station. Indones. J. Geogr. 53 (2), 192–197.Google Scholar
Ailor, W., Hallman, W., Steckel, G. & Weaver, M. 2005 Analysis of reentered debris and implications for survivability modeling. In 4th European Conference on Space Debris, vol. 587, p. 539. ESA.Google Scholar
Ailor, W.H. & Patera, R.P. 2007 Spacecraft re-entry strategies: meeting debris mitigation and ground safety requirements. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs 221 (6), 947–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akhlaghi, H. & Roohi, E. 2021 Generalized description of the Knudsen layer thickness in rarefied gas flows. Phys. Fluids 33 (6), 061701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annaloro, J., Galera, S., Kärräng, P., Prigent, G., Lips, T. & Omaly, P. 2017 Comparison between two spacecraft-oriented tools: PAMPERO & SCARAB. J. Space Safety Engng 4 (1), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aroesty, J. 1962 Sphere drag in low density supersonic flow. Tech. Rep. HE-150-192. California University Berkley Institute of Engineering Research.Google Scholar
Bailey, A.B. 1966 Sphere drag measurement in aeroballistics range at high velocities and low Reynolds numbers. Tech. Rep. AEDC-TR-66-59. ARO INC ARNOLD AFS TN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, G.A. 1994 Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Boldyrev, S.M., Borovoy, V.Y., Chinilov, A.Y., Gusev, V.N., Krutiy, S.N., Struminskaya, I.V., Yakovleva, L.V., Délery, J. & Chanetz, B. 2001 A thorough experimental investigation of shock/shock interferences in high Mach number flows. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 5 (3), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borovoy, V.Y., Chinilov, A.Y., Gusev, V.N., Struminskaya, I.V., Délery, J. & Chanetz, B. 1997 Interference between a cylindrical bow shock and a plane oblique shock. AIAA J. 35 (11), 1721–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, V., Joussot, R. & Lago, V. 2021 Shock/shock interferences in a supersonic rarefied flow: experimental investigation. Exp. Fluids 62 (6), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, V. & Lago, V. 2022 Aerodynamic forces of interacting spheres representative of space debris re-entry: experiments in a supersonic rarefied wind-tunnel. Acta Astronaut. 191, 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, A.B. & Wilmoth, R.G. 1992 Shock interference prediction using direct simulation Monte Carlo. J. Spacecr. Rockets 29 (6), 780–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambre, P.A. & Schaaf, S.A. 1961 Flow of rarefied gases. In Flow of Rarefied Gases (ed. C. duP. Donaldson). Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coumar, S. & Lago, V. 2017 Influence of Mach number and static pressure on plasma flow control of supersonic and rarefied flows around a sharp flat plate. Exp. Fluids 58 (6), 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogra, V.K., Moss, J.N., Wilmoth, R.G. & Price, J.M. 1994 Hypersonic rarefied flow past spheres including wake structure. J. Spacecr. Rockets 31 (5), 713–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edney, B. 1968 Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions on blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds in the presence of an impinging shock. Tech. Rep. FFA-115. Flygtekniska Forsoksanstalten.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESOC 2021 ESA's Annual Space Environment Report. Tech. Rep. GEN-DB-LOG-00288-OPS-SD. ESA.Google Scholar
Fisher, T.B. 2019 Development of Advanced Techniques for Aerodynamic Assessment of Blunt Bodies in Hypersonic Flows. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Fisher, T., Quinn, M.K. & Smith, K. 2018 Free-flight testing of hypersonic Edney shock interactions. In 2018 Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference, p. 4283.Google Scholar
Flores-Abad, A., Ma, O., Pham, K. & Ulrich, S. 2014 A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 68, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, C.E. 1999 Numerical simulation of low-density shock-wave interactions. NASA Tech. Rep. TM-1999-209358.Google Scholar
Golubev, V.K. 2012 Computational visualization of aerodynamic interaction of simple objects in supersonic flows. In 15th International Symposium on Flow Visualization.Google Scholar
Grasso, F., Purpura, C., Chanetz, B. & Délery, J. 2003 Type III and type IV shock/shock interferences: theoretical and experimental aspects. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 7 (2), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gusev, V.N. & Erofeev, A.I. 2004 Oblique shock/bow shock interference in rarefied flow past a cylinder. Fluid Dyn. 39 (5), 827–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossein, S.H., Acernese, M., Cardona, T., Cialone, G., Curianò, F., Mariani, L., Marini, V., Marzioli, P., Parisi, L. & Piergentili, F. 2020 Sapienza space debris observatory network (SSON): a high coverage infrastructure for space debris monitoring. J. Space Safety Engng 7 (1), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärräng, P., Lips, T. & Soares, T. 2019 Demisability of critical spacecraft components during atmospheric re-entry. J. Space Safety Engng 6 (3), 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyes, J.W. & Hains, F.D. 1973 Analytical and experimental studies of shock interference heating in hypersonic flows. NASA Tech. Rep. TN-D-7139.Google Scholar
Khatta, A. & Gopalan, J. 2018 Hypersonic shock tunnel studies of Edney type III and IV shock interactions. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 72, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppenwallner, G., Fritsche, B. & Lips, T. 2001 Survivability and ground risk potential of screws and bolts of disintegrating spacecraft during uncontrolled re-entry. In 3rd European Conference on Space Debris, pp. 533–539. ESA.Google Scholar
Koppenwallner, G., Fritsche, B., Lips, T. & Heiner, K. 2005 SCARAB – a multi-disciplinary code for destruction analysis of space-craft during re-entry. In Fifth European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles (ed. D. Danesy), p. 281.Google Scholar
Kovacs, L., Passaggia, P.-Y., Mazellier, N. & Lago, V. 2022 Detection method for shock-waves in viscous flows. Exp. Fluids 63 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S.J. & Deiterding, R. 2011 Shock-wave surfing. J. Fluid Mech. 676, 396–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S.J., Deiterding, R. & Hornung, G. 2007 Proximal bodies in hypersonic flow. J. Fluid Mech. 590, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S.J., Parziale, N.J. & Deiterding, R. 2012 Dynamical separation of spherical bodies in supersonic flow. J. Fluid Mech. 713, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiser, D., Löhle, S., Zander, F., Buttsworth, D.R., Choudhury, R. & Fasoulas, S. 2022 Analysis of reentry and break-up forces from impulse facility experiments and numerical rebuilding. J. Spacecr. Rockets 59 (4), 1275–1288.Google Scholar
Lips, T. 2003 Re-entry analysis of Terrasar-X with SCARAB. In 54th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law, pp. IAA–5.Google Scholar
Lips, T. 2013 Equivalent re-entry breakup altitude and fragment list. In 6th European Conference on Space Debris, p. 54. ESA.Google Scholar
Lips, T. & Fritsche, B. 2005 A comparison of commonly used re-entry analysis tools. Acta Astronaut. 57 (2–8), 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lips, T., Fritsche, B., Koppenwallner, G. & Klinkrad, H. 2004 Spacecraft destruction during re-entry – latest results and development of the SCARAB software system. Adv. Space Res. 34 (5), 1055–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, H., Yue, L., Xiao, Y. & Zhang, X. 2013 Interaction of isentropic compression waves with a bow shock. AIAA J. 51 (10), 2474–2484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrossan, M.N. 2007 Scaling parameters for hypersonic flow: correlation of sphere drag data. In 25th International Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics, pp. 759–764.Google Scholar
Marwege, A., Willems, S., Gülhan, A., Aftosmis, M.J. & Stern, E.C. 2018 Superposition method for force estimations on bodies in supersonic and hypersonic flows. J. Spacecr. Rockets 55 (5), 1166–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
More, A. & Murugan, S. 2021 Dynamics of morphing robotic arm with space debris capture. In 8th European Conference on Space Debris. ESA Space Debris Office.Google Scholar
Moss, J.N., Pot, T., Chanetz, B. & Lefebvre, M. 1999 DSMC simulation of shock/shock interactions: emphasis on type IV interactions. In 22nd International Symposium on Shock Waves, London.Google Scholar
Muthoo, S.K. & Brundin, C.L. 1974 Near wake flow field measurements behind spheres in low Reynolds number hypersonic flow. In 9th International Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics, Göttingen, July 1974 (ed. M. Becker). DFVLR.Google Scholar
Noubel, H. & Lago, V. 2021 Experimental analysis of waverider lift-to-drag ratio measurements in rarefied and supersonic regime. In Hypersonic Vehicles – Applications, Recent Advances, and Perspectives (ed. G. Pezzella & A. Viviani). IntechOpen.Google Scholar
Ostrom, C. & Sanchez, C. 2018 ORSAT modelling and assessment. In 4th International Workshop on Space Debris Re-Entry. NASA.Google Scholar
Paoli, R. 2018 Numerical simulations of shock–shock interactions. Open J. Fluid Dyn. 8 (4), 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, C. & Brown, J.D. 2012 Fragmentation and spreading of a meteor-like object. Astron. J. 144 (6), 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S.H., Laboulais, J.N., Leyland, P. & Mischler, S. 2020 Re-entry survival analysis and ground risk assessment of space debris considering by-products generation. Acta Astronaut. 179, 604–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S.H. & Park, G. 2017 Reentry trajectory and survivability estimation of small space debris with catalytic recombination. Adv. Space Res. 60 (5), 893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, J., Luo, C.T., Han, Z.J., Hu, Z.M., Han, G.L. & Jiang, Z.L. 2020 Parameter-correlation study on shock–shock interaction using a machine learning method. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 107, 106247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pot, T., Chanetz, B., Lefebvre, M. & Bouchardy, P. 1999 Fundamental study of shock/shock interference in low density flow: flowfield measurements by DLCARS. In RGD: rarefied gas dynamics (Marseille, 26–31 July 1998), pp. 545–552.Google Scholar
Prevereaud, Y., Vérant, J.L., Moschetta, J.M., Sourgen, F. & Blanchard, M. 2012 Debris aerodynamic interactions during uncontrolled atmospheric reentry. In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, p. 4582.Google Scholar
Reeves, B.L. & Lees, L. 1965 Theory of laminar near wake of blunt bodies in hypersonic flow. AIAA J. 3 (11), 2061–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Register, P.J., Aftosmis, M.J., Stern, E.C., Brock, J.M., Seltner, P.M., Willems, S., Guelhan, A. & Mathias, D.L. 2020 Interactions between asteroid fragments during atmospheric entry. Icarus 337, 113468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rembaut, N., Joussot, R. & Lago, V. 2020 Aerodynamical behavior of spherical debris in the supersonic and rarefied wind tunnel MARHy. J. Space Safety Engng 7 (3), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyhanoglu, M. & Alvarado, J. 2013 Estimation of debris dispersion due to a space vehicle breakup during reentry. Acta Astronaut. 86, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riabov, V.V. & Botin, A.V. 1999 Shock interference in hypersonic rarefied-gas flows near a cylinder. In 17th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, p. 3207.Google Scholar
Sanderson, S. 1995 Shock wave interaction in hypervelocity flow. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vashchenkov, P., Kashkovsky, A. & Ivanov, M. 2003 Aerodynamics of fragment in spacecraft wake. In Rarefied Gas Dynamics: 23rd International Symposium (ed. A.D. Ketsdever & E.P. Muntz), pp. 226–233. American Institute of Physics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, P.P. & Ashkenas, H. 1961 Wind tunnel measurements of sphere drag at supersonic speeds and low Reynolds numbers. J. Fluid Mech. 10 (4), 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, T.J. & Laurence, S.J. 2021 Experiments on the separation of sphere clusters in hypersonic flow. Exp. Fluids 62 (4), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. & Kontis, K. 2018 The effect of increasing rarefaction on the Edney type IV shock interaction problem. In Shock Wave Interactions: Selected Articles from the 22nd International Shock Interaction Symposium, University of Glasgow, UK, 4–8 July 2016, pp. 299–311. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windisch, C., Reinartz, B.U. & Müller, S. 2016 Investigation of unsteady Edney type IV and VII shock–shock interactions. AIAA J. 54 (6), 1846–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuest, W. 1974 Simulation of high altitude flight in wind-tunnels and correlation of free-flight and wind tunnel data. In 9th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, pp. 357–368.Google Scholar
Zhu, C., Liang, S.C. & Fan, L.S. 1994 Particle wake effects on the drag force of an interactive particle. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 20 (1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuppardi, G. & Paterna, D. 2015 Influence of partial accommodation coefficients on the aerodynamic parameters of an airfoil in hypersonic, rarefied flow. Adv. Aircraft Spacecr. Sci. 2 (4), 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar