Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2019), 32(7): 1565–1576

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
[email protected]
www.sciencedirect.com

HB-2 high-velocity correlation model at high angles

of attack in supersonic wind tunnel tests
Djordje VUKOVIĆ *, Dijana DAMLJANOVIĆ

Department of Experimental Aerodynamics, Military Technical Institute, Vojnotehnicˇki Institut, Beograd 11030, Serbia

Received 18 June 2018; revised 4 July 2018; accepted 31 July 2018

Available online 25 April 2019

KEYWORDS Abstract Responding to a need for experimental data on a standard wind tunnel model at high
Base pressure; angles of attack in the supersonic speed range, and in the absence of suitable reference data, a series
Experimental aerodynamics; of tests of two HB-2 standard models of different sizes was performed in the T-38 trisonic wind tun-
High angle of attack; nel of Vojnotehnički Institut (VTI), in the Mach number range 1.5–4.0, at angles of attack up to
Standard model; +30°. Tests were performed at relatively high Reynolds numbers of 2.2 millions to 4.5 millions
Wind tunnel (based on model forebody diameter). Results were compared with available low angle of attack data
from other facilities, and, as a good agreement was found, it was assumed that, by implication, the
obtained high angle of attack results were valid as well. Therefore, the results can be used as a ref-
erence database for the HB-2 model at high angles of attack in the supersonic speed range, which
was not available before. The results are presented in comparison with available reference data, but
also contain data for some Mach numbers not given in other publications.
Ó 2019 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction high angle of attack wind tunnel testing. Moreover, this capa-
bility is needed in the development of modern high-
The capability to perform high angle of attack wind tunnel manoeuvrability military missiles3,4.
tests at supersonic speeds was necessary in mastering the atmo- The need for high angle of attack supersonic wind tunnel
spheric re-entry of manned capsules during the early space- tests is also expressed in the realm of the Computational Fluid
flight programs, as well as in the development of the Space Dynamics (CFD)5–9. Codes dealing with the high angle of
Shuttle Orbiter1,2. Many recently proposed concepts of reusa- attack aerodynamics are being developed, mostly tuned to sup-
ble launch vehicles confirm the continued need for supersonic port the design of reusable space-going vehicles. The develop-
ers note that simulation of high-speed, high angle of attack
aerodynamics presents many challenges and uncertainties
* Corresponding author.
and experimental data to be used as test cases for these codes
E-mail address: [email protected] (Dj. VUKOVIĆ). are welcome.
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. However, preparation and execution of high angle of attack
wind tunnel tests may not be straightforward tasks. Because of
the constraints of wind tunnel structures, model support mech-
Production and hosting by Elsevier anisms of many high-speed wind tunnels permit movements of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.03.022
1000-9361 Ó 2019 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1566 Dj. VUKOVIĆ, D. DAMLJANOVIĆ

the model only in the relatively small range of angles of attack, 2. HB-2 correlation model
usually within no more than ±20°. In order to perform high
angle of attack tests, additional components like twin-roll The HB-2 model (Hypervelocity Ballistic model 2, see Fig. 1)
mechanisms, bent stings, etc. are usually mounted onto the was defined in the year 1960 by the Von Karman Facility at
‘‘basic” model supports. Such add-ons may cause increased AEDC with the intent of providing a reference for correlation
aerodynamic blockage, interference by shock waves originat- of results from various hypersonic and supersonic wind tun-
ing from the model support, increased minimum operating nels.13 It is an axisymmetric cone-cylinder with a 25° nose-
pressure of the wind tunnel, increased model-support deflec- cone half-angle and a 10° tail flare (a similar configuration
tions and lowered natural frequencies of the model-support known as HB-1 differs from HB-2 in not having the tail flare
assemblies. Therefore, the confidence in the test results and is more sensitive to viscous effects13). The junctures of
obtained with high angle of attack setups may not be satisfac- the nose and the flare with the cylinder are smooth radius fair-
tory. In such cases it is good to verify the complete wind tunnel ings. The diameter of the model base is 1.6 times the diameter
measurement setup by testing a standard model (calibration D of the forebody and the length of the model is 3.9 times the
model). forebody diameter. Moment reduction centre is at 1.95D from
Unfortunately, the database of reference test results for the nose. The shape of the model is reminiscent of a re-entry
standard models at high angles of attack in the supersonic space capsule which often consists of a blunt body followed
speed range is small. Military Technical Institute, Vojnoteh- by a conical aft section with a large base. Such shapes produce
nički Institut (VTI) in Beograd, Serbia, faced this problem in a strong bow shock wave, a recirculating base-flow region and
the preparations of a high angle of attack supersonic test in complex shock-wave / boundary-layer interactions.20
its T-3810 trisonic wind tunnel. VTI normally checks the mea- The recommended geometry of the support sting for the
surement chains of its wind tunnels by periodic tests of HB-1 and HB-2 models was defined as having a constant
AGARD-B models11. However, AGARD-B configuration, diameter of no more than 0.3D and a length of at least 3D with
with its relatively large wings, could not be used in T-38 above a conical fairing at the rear, having 20° (max.) half-angle. It
Mach number 2 and at high angles of attack because of exces- should be noted, however, that the magnitude of aerodynamic
sive aerodynamic loads (in particular, high supersonic starting loads in wind tunnels with high dynamic pressure in the test
loads12). Instead, another configuration, a body of revolution section, or in wind tunnels having high supersonic starting
known as HB-213 and more convenient for high Mach number loads, may necessitate the use of stings with larger sting/base
and high angle of attack tests, was selected as an additional diameter ratios if structural safety of the model in a test is to
standard model. Although the characteristics of the model be ensured.21 Two HB-2 models, having forebody diameters
itself were appropriate, a review of available reference results of 75 mm and 100 mm, were produced for the tests in the T-
for the supersonic speed range from Mach number 1.5–4 (the 38 wind tunnel of VTI. The models were intended for measure-
supersonic operating envelope of the VTI T-38 wind tunnel) ments of forces and moments, and were designed so that each
showed rather scarce data. Practically all researchers referred of them could be tested on various force balances, using suit-
to a single dataset from the report14 by Gray and Linsday able adaptors common to both models. The models were
on tests of the HB-1 and HB-2 models in the Von Karman designed so that they could be quickly assembled and disas-
facility of Arnold Engineering and Development Center sembled and consist of aluminum-alloy outer shells and a
(AEDC), performed in 1963, which was limited to angles of cylindrical steel core, common to both models, for model-
attack up to +15° and, besides, did not provide values for balance mating (Fig. 2). Base covers were made removable in
the total axial-force coefficient. Some data were available from order to be able to provide appropriate model-sting clearances
the tests in ONERA Chalais and Vernon Facilities in 196415, for various sting diameters and in the current tests had central
but only in the small angle of attack range of about ±8°. Also, circular openings with the diameter equal to 1.2 times the sting
limited data from a Mach number 2 free-flight test on a ballis- diameter.
tic range were available16 from the NASA Ames Research
Centre. Existence of some other supersonic tests results at
3. Experimental setup
Mach number 2, Mach number 3 and Mach number 4 was
noted17,18 but those data were not available.
3.1. T-38 wind tunnel
As the reference data for the HB-2 configuration at high
angles of attack were not available, it was decided to create
VTI’s own supplementary database of tests results for this Tests were performed in the 1.5 m  1.5 m T-38 trisonic wind
model which would comprise data for a wider range of angles tunnel in VTI10 (Fig. 3) which is a blow-down, pressurized
of attack. To this end, a series of tests of two HB-2 models, experimental facility with the operating range from Mach
having forebody diameters of 75 mm and 100 mm, was per- number 0.2–4 and a high Reynolds numbers capability with
formed at Mach numbers 1.5–4 at angles of attack up to a maximum of about 110 million per metre occurring around
30°. Obtained data were compared with results19 of previous Mach number 2. During a wind tunnel run, the air from a
tests performed in the same wind tunnel in the smaller angle bank of interconnected pressurized tanks with a total volume
of attack range, and with test results from the wind tunnels of 2600 m3 is released through the wind tunnel and discharged
of AEDC14, ONERA15 and NASA16. Results can be used as into the atmosphere. The tanks can be charged up to 2 MPa
a reference high angles of attack dataset for the HB-2 model pressure by a 4 MW five-stage compressor. Available run times
in the supersonic speed range, which was not present before. depend on test conditions and vary from 6 s to about 60 s.
The results also comprise data for some Mach numbers not Mach number in the supersonic range is set by a flexible noz-
presented in other publications. zle. Regulation of flow parameters is typically within 0.1% for
HB-2 high-velocity correlation model at high angles of attack in supersonic wind tunnel tests 1567

Fig. 1 Theoretical geometry of HB-2 model and support sting.

Fig. 2 Designs of 75 mm and 100 mm models produced for T-38

wind tunnel.
Fig. 4 100 mm HB-2 model on articulated bent sting in T-38
wind tunnel.

model and 0.27 for the 100 mm model. This corresponded to

sting-to-model-forebody diameter ratios of 0.57 and 0.43 for
the two models, respectively. The sting/forebody diameter
ratio of 0.3, specified in model definition, could not be imple-
mented because a sting with a diameter so small would not
have been safe in the high-dynamic-pressure environment of
the T-38 wind tunnel.21 The length of the sting behind model
base was more than 3.5 model forebody diameters.

3.2. Instrumentation
Fig. 3 Settling chamber, flexible nozzle and test sections of T-38
wind tunnel in VTI10.
Aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the models were
measured by internal six-component strain-gauge balances,
the stagnation pressure and 0.3% for the Mach number. Flow selected according to expected loads. The steady aerodynamic
turbulence in the test section is about 0.9%; the value includes loads were similar at all Mach numbers in the test but the mod-
(because of the measurement method used) fluctuations of den- els were also subjected to supersonic starting loads, which
sity and pressure. occur during the establishment and breakdown of the super-
Models in the test section of the T-38 are usually mounted sonic flow in a wind tunnel. Those loads are primarily a char-
on a pitch-and-roll tail-sting support with pitch-angle range acteristic of the pressurized blow-down wind tunnels and can
from 12° to +20°. For the high angle of attack tests of the exceed several times the steady-flow aerodynamic loads,12
HB-2 models, an articulated bent sting was deployed which becoming significant (in T-38) above Mach number 2 and
could be configured either for a 10° bend or for a 20° bend peaking between Mach number 3 and 3.5. Therefore, the start-
in the pitch plane. Only the 10° bend angle was used, so the ing loads, not the steady-flow loads, were relevant for the selec-
angle of attack range was from 2° to +30° (Fig. 4). The sting tion of wind tunnel balances, which had to have load ranges
consists of a conical hub, mounted on the roll drive of the basic higher than desired.
model support, a blade-like pylon with a pod, and an In order to ensure safety against the starting loads, and yet
exchangeable front part with a diameter of 43 mm, attached to obtain a good accuracy of the measurement, tests of the HB-
to the pod which provided a secondary roll axis. The sting- 2 models were performed using two internal balances: one,
to-model-base diameter ratio was 0.36 for the 75 mm HB-2 with a smaller load range, for the smaller 75 mm model at
1568 Dj. VUKOVIĆ, D. DAMLJANOVIĆ

Mach numbers up to Mach number 2.5 (where the transient surement and the data were averaged at approximately 1°
starting loads were not large), and the other one, with a larger intervals within ±0.25° around the selected positions. The
load range, for the 75 mm model above Mach number 2.5 and sweep rate and the averaging interval were selected from expe-
also for the larger 100 mm model at all Mach numbers. In rience as giving correct results in static measurements.
order to enable a comparison between the results with the Dynamic pressures q in the test section were approximately
two balances, the larger-range balance was also used with 0.08–0.1 MPa at all Mach numbers and corresponded to stag-
the 75 mm model at lower Mach numbers. nation pressures P0 ranging from 0.2 MPa at Mach number 1.5
The selected smaller-load-range balance was VTI40B, a to pressure 1.3 MPa at Mach number 4. Reynolds numbers
40 mm VTI-produced monolithic device, which was one of ReD, based on forebody diameters of the models, were in the
the VTI’s balances often used for wind tunnel tests of range from 2.1 millions at Mach 1.8–4.6 millions at Mach 4.
missile-like models. The balance was wired as a direct-read22 Corresponding Reynolds numbers based on model lengths
one. Measurement uncertainty, from the calibration of the bal- were from 10.3 to 22.5 millions. Stagnation temperature was
ance, was better than 0.11% FS for all components but the about 290 K ± 5 K.
rolling moment, for which the uncertainty was about 0.17%. Mach numbers for the tests were selected so that some of
For the higher-load-range, the 2-inch Able Mk18 assembled them corresponded to those in an earlier test19 of the 75 mm
strain gauge balance was selected. It was designed and wired model in the T-38 wind tunnel at angles of attack up to 15°.
as a force balance22. Measurement uncertainty of the balance Mach numbers 1.5, 2, 3 and 4 also corresponded to those in
was in the range 0.1 0.17% FS, slightly varying from compo- the tests of the HB-2 models in the wind tunnels of AEDC13,
nent to component. and Mach numbers 1.6, 2.25, 3.0 and 3.25 corresponded to
Base pressure on the model was measured using silicon- those in the tests in ONERA wind tunnels15.
membrane piezoresistive transducers with measurement uncer-
tainty of 0.05%FS. The measurement point was in the sting 4. Test results and discussion
cavity at the centre of the base of the model, near the base
plane. 4.1. Aerodynamic coefficients
Conditions in the test section of the wind tunnel were com-
puted from measurements of the stagnation temperature and
Available data pertaining to tests of HB-2 models in other lab-
stagnation pressure in the settling chamber and either the static
oratories were reviewed in order to establish reference charac-
pressure in the test section (below Mach number 2) or the pitot
teristics for the correlation of the T-38 experimental results
stagnation pressure in the test section (at Mach number 2 and
with those from other aerodynamic laboratories. As reference
above). Silicon-membrane piezoresistive pressure transducers
data at high angles of attack were not available, current T-38
with serial digital outputs were used, with measurement uncer-
results were compared with the data from the AEDC Von Kar-
tainties better than 0.01%FS. Model pitch angle was measured
man Facility14 and ONERA Chalais and Vernon laborato-
by an absolute-position digital encoder with serial output,
ries15 only in the lower angle of attack range and in spite of
located in the mechanism of the model support, and with
much lower Reynolds numbers in the reference tests, ranging
uncertainty of about 0.01°. Roll angle was constant. Pitch
from 0.1 millions to 2.5 millions vs 2.2 millions to 4.5 millions
angle was corrected for the deflections of the sting, computed
in T-38 tests. Comparable high Reynolds number reference
from balance loads and the stiffness coefficients obtained by
data in the appropriate range of Mach numbers could not be
calibration. Aerodynamic angles and corrected Mach number
found. A limited comparison of several data points was also
were then computed taking into account the calibration of
performed with available Mach number 2 results from the
the test section.
pressurized ballistic range at the NASA Ames Centre16.
Data acquisition in the test was performed using a Teledyne
Beside the comparison with data from other facilities, cur-
RMDU system with 16-bit resolution and the data were pro-
rent T-38 test results were also compared with those from ear-
cessed using the standard wind-tunnel data-reduction software
lier tests19 of the same 75 mm HB-2 model in the T-38 wind
of VTI.
tunnel on a 48 mm diameter straight sting in the angle of
A parallel-beam schlieren system with a field-of-view diam-
attack range up to 15°, on a high drag range/high stiffness
eter of 900 mm, a three-colour filter and a digital camera was
wind tunnel balance designated as BV40. That balance was
used to create video recordings of wind tunnel runs in the test
an experimental design with semiconductor strain gauges and
of the 75 mm model. The primary purpose of this visualization
was somewhat less accurate and with larger temperature sensi-
was the monitoring of the safety of the model12, so only low-
tivity than usual balance designs, which explains the ‘‘wavi-
resolution (640  480 pixels), low-frame-rate recordings were
ness” appearing in some of the results for the axial force
made.
coefficients from that test19. An additional degree of confi-
dence in the high angle of attack results was obtained by com-
3.3. Test matrix
paring the results of the current high angle of attack T-38 tests
of two model of different sizes and tests with the same model
Tests of the two HB-2 models were performed in the Mach on two different balances.
number range from 1.5 to 4 and at angles of attack from The comparison of the total axial force coefficient with
2° to (approximately) 30° with both models, according to AEDC reference data could not be performed because avail-
the matrix shown in Table 1. Unfortunately, because of the able AEDC results14 contained only the forebody axial force
tight wind tunnel schedule, some Mach numbers had to be coefficient and the base drag coefficient was given only at zero
omitted with the larger model. The angle of attack interval angle of attack. Besides, when those two were added to com-
was covered in a continuous sweep at 2°/s rate during the mea- pute the total zero-lift axial force coefficient, the obtained
HB-2 high-velocity correlation model at high angles of attack in supersonic wind tunnel tests 1569

Table 1 Test matrix for high angle of attack HB-2 tests in VTI T-38 wind tunnel.
Flow condition Mach number
1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.25 2.5 3.0 3.25 3.5 4.0
P0 (Mpa) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.57 0.75 0.90 1.30
q (MPa) 0.086 0.084 0.079 0.090 0.092 0.090 0.098 0104 0.101 0.096
ReD (106) D = 75 mm 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.7 3.4 3.9 4.1 4.5
D = 100 mm 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 4.4
Model diameter (mm) Balance
75 VTI40B o o o o
Mk18 o o o o o o o o o o
100 Mk18 o o o o o

values differed significantly from those obtained in VTI, Malcolm and Chapman16 from the angles of Mach lines seen
ONERA Chalais and Vernon and NASA Ames which, on in shadowgraphs obtained during the tests.
the other hand, were in good agreement. The reason for this Differences in base pressure reported by various sources
discrepancy, also noted by Malcolm and Chapman16, is could also have been influenced by the design solution for
unknown. It was proposed in Ref.16 that the cause was in sting the bases of the models. It is known23,24 that the existence of
effects on the base pressure measurement in AEDC. It may a base cavity can change base drag and the exact forms of
have been so, moreover because, as schlieren photographs in the bases of the models and the shapes of the stings in various
the test report14 from AEDC show, there seem to have been experiments with HB-2 model were not well documented. It
some protuberances on the sting near the model base, which appears that the designs of model bases ranged from a plate
effectively increased the sting diameter and disturbed the recir- with even the gap between the base and the sting closed by a
culating base flow, probably influencing base drag. Besides, in labyrinth seal25,26 to designs in which the base seemed to be
the same photographs, a shock wave reflected from the wind completely open towards the cavity inside the model.13,16
tunnel walls can be seen impinging on the sting less than one It should be noted that, while the above relations for Cpb
base diameter aft of the model at Mach number 1.5. A similar and CAf assume, by convention, an ‘‘average” base pressure
occurrence was reported15 in the Mach number 1.6 test at Pb which is constant over the entire base, in reality the base
ONERA S5 Chalais facility where, too, it resulted in an erro- pressure varies across the base area, particularly at higher
neously low base drag. angles of attack27. Correct integration of an average base pres-
A good agreement of results in the angle-of-attack range sure on a model with a large base as on the HB-2 configuration
common to all tests was observed, the differences between can be a matter of debate, even if measurements can be per-
the current T-38 results and the reference data being not larger formed at several points on the base. In VTI tests, base pres-
than the differences between the different sets of reference data sure was measured at one point only, in the model cavity
themselves. This is illustrated in Figs. 5–10 by graphs of test accessed by the annular opening around the support sting.
results for the total axial force coefficient CA, normal force As the base pressure at angle of attack is increased on the lee-
coefficient CN and pitching moment coefficient Cm, obtained ward side of the base and decreased on the windward side, the
at Mach numbers 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 and the fore- measurement performed around the model centreline was
body axial force coefficient CAf obtained at Mach numbers assumed to be close to average base pressure in the presence
1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0. of a sting.
Additionally, graphs of the base pressure coefficient Cpb Comparisons of the axial force coefficients from various
from tests at Mach numbers 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 are shown sources versus Mach number at zero angle of attack are shown
in Fig. 11. Data for the base pressure coefficient and, conse- in Fig. 12, while the zero-lift base pressure coefficient is shown
quently, forebody axial force coefficient in the current tests versus Mach number in Fig. 13. The results for the forebody
were not available for Mach numbers 3.5 and 4 because of axial force coefficients from all sources agreed well, in particu-
the malfunction of the base-pressure-measurement tubing, lar in the Mach number range 2–2.5. On the other hand, while
possibly caused by the measurement-orifice being blocked by the agreement of the measured total axial force coefficient CA
frost while the model, cooled by the exposure to low static tem- with results from ONERA Chalais and Vernon15 and NASA
peratures during the wind tunnel runs, was in humid ambient Ames16 was quite good, AEDC data differed considerably,
air between runs. Base pressure coefficient Cpb = (Pb Pst)/ as already noted. It can be seen that the total axial force coef-
q, where Pst is the free-stream static pressure, was computed ficient decreases significantly as Mach number increases,
by assuming a constant base pressure Pb over the entire base mostly because of the decrease in the base pressure coefficient,
of the model(s), and the forebody axial-force coefficient was while the change in the forebody axial force coefficient is much
computed by subtracting the corresponding base drag coeffi- smaller. Therefore, the contribution of the base drag to total
cient – Cpb
Sb/Sref from the total axial force coefficient as drag diminishes with increasing Mach number.
CAf = CA + Cpb
Sb/Sref where Sref = p D2/4 and Sb = p A difference in the character of the total axial force coeffi-
(1.6 D)2/4. Base pressure coefficient from NASA Ames was cients CA obtained for two model sizes at Mach number 1.5
not obtained by pressure measurements but was estimated by was noted, as well as a difference between the forebody axial
1570 Dj. VUKOVIĆ, D. DAMLJANOVIĆ

Fig. 5 Aerodynamic coefficients of HB-2 model at Mach number 1.5.

Fig. 6 Aerodynamic coefficients of HB-2 model at Mach number 2.0.

HB-2 high-velocity correlation model at high angles of attack in supersonic wind tunnel tests 1571

Fig. 7 Aerodynamic coefficients of HB-2 model at Mach number 2.5.

Fig. 8 Aerodynamic coefficients of HB-2 model at Mach number 3.0.

1572 Dj. VUKOVIĆ, D. DAMLJANOVIĆ

Fig. 9 Aerodynamic coefficients of HB-2 model at Mach number 3.5.

Fig. 10 Aerodynamic coefficients of HB-2 model at Mach number 4.0.

Fig. 11 Base pressure coefficients of HB-2 model.

HB-2 high-velocity correlation model at high angles of attack in supersonic wind tunnel tests 1573

other sources. The future tests should include schlieren visual-

izations of the flow around the larger model, in order to inves-
tigate the possibility of anomalous near-wake flow. At this
time, the authors are not inclined to state that one of the
groups of results is ‘‘right” and the other ‘‘wrong”, so both
are presented ‘‘as they are” and the issue is as yet unresolved.
The forebody axial force coefficient CAf was reported in the
reference AEDC tests as decreasing with angle of attack at
Mach numbers below 3 and increasing with angle of attack
at Mach numbers above 3 and as being more-less constant,
gently decreasing with angle of attack at Mach number 3.
However, in all VTI T-38 tests, CAf increased with angle of
attack at Mach number 3 while, at lower Mach numbers, it
decreased with angle of attack. Therefore, the change of char-
acter of the variation of CAf with angle of attack in all VTI’s T-
38 tests seemed to occur at Mach number slightly below 3,
while in AEDC tests it occurred at Mach numbers slightly
above 3. Comparable data from ONERA S5 Chalais wind tun-
nel, although available only in a limited range of angle-of-
attack, is in better agreement with VTI T-38 results than with
AEDC results (Fig. 8).
The agreement of the data for the normal force and pitch-
ing moment from all sources is particularly good. At higher
angles of attack the normal force coefficient and pitching
moment coefficient follow the trends set at angles of attack
of about 17° to 20° in an almost linear fashion. This character
Fig. 12 Total and forebody zero-lift axial force coefficients of is similar to that observed in the high angle of attack Mach
HB-2 model versus Mach number. number 10 data from JAXA28 and similar to the behaviour
of a cylindrical body in a supersonic/hypersonic crossflow at
nonzero angles of attack.29

4.2. Measurement uncertainty

An estimate was made of the uncertainty of measurement in

the sense of two standard deviations of some of the most rele-
vant quantities on the basis of uncertainties of contributing
measurements and the sensitivities of the determined variable
to the changes of the contributing variables (combined Type-
B uncertainty). Assuming a normal distribution of errors, this
interval should encompass about 95% of measured results.
Because of the difficulty of analytically determining the neces-
sary sensitivity coefficients as partial derivatives of various
quantities in the complex calculations needed to obtain the
Fig. 13 Zero-lift base pressure coefficient of HB-2 model versus aerodynamic coefficients, the derivations were performed
Mach number. numerically, by varying the data for each directly measured
quantity for a small amount, performing the complete compu-
tation of the aerodynamic coefficients, and by noting the
force coefficients at angles of attack above 24° (Fig. 5). These changes in the computed output values. Computed estimates
differences were barely observable at Mach number 2 (Fig. 6) of measurement uncertainties of aerodynamic coefficients are
and undetectable at any higher Mach numbers. Although the shown in Table 2 for two Mach numbers within the test enve-
differences were not large when compared with dataset-to- lope. Measurement uncertainties for other Mach numbers can
dataset scatter of results seen in Figs. 12 and 13, their cause be estimated by interpolation.
should be investigated. The forebody coefficients for the two
models agreed well except at the highest angles of attack, so 4.3. Flowfield visualizations
the difference was related mostly to base drag. The factors dif-
fering between the tests were sting/base diameter ratio and Flow patterns around the 75 mm HB-2 model at Mach num-
Reynolds number, both of which are known to influence base bers 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.0 at high angles of attack in the
drag significantly. The results seem to indicate actual aerody- T-38 wind tunnel are illustrated by snapshots from video
namic effects related to those factors, but this must be corrob- recordings of schlieren visualizations shown in Fig. 14.
orated by further tests of the same two models, and, Recording of the test at Mach number 3.0 was accidentally
unfortunately, there are no comparable reference data from lost. All images were taken at angles of attack of 29° to 30°
1574 Dj. VUKOVIĆ, D. DAMLJANOVIĆ

Table 2 Estimated 2r uncertainty of aerodynamic coefficients.

Condition Value
Model diameter (mm) 75 75 75 100 100
Mach number 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0
Balance VTI40B Mk18 Mk18 Mk18 Mk18
2r uncertainty CA ±0.0029 ±0.0068 ±0.0058 ±0.0040 ±0.0033
CN ±0.009 ±0.042 ±0.036 ±0.023 ±0.020
Cm ±0.013 ±0.054 ±0.047 ±0.023 ±0.020
CAb ±0.0008 ±0.0008 ±0.0021 ±0.0008 ±0.0021

except for the snapshot at Mach number 4.0 which was taken gradients exceeded the set sensitivity range of the schlieren
at angle of attack of 13°. Density gradients positive in the system and the effect was exacerbated by the less-than-
downstream direction are represented in blue colour while perfect collimation of the system optics. When viewing these
the density gradients negative in the same direction are repre- images one should have in mind that schlieren technique shows
sented in red. In the darkened areas present in the images the the density gradients (actually, gradients of the refractive

Fig. 14 Schlieren visualization of HB-2 model.

HB-2 high-velocity correlation model at high angles of attack in supersonic wind tunnel tests 1575

index) integrated through the complete width of the test sec- on the base drag and, therefore, total axial force coeffi-
tion, not a ‘‘cross-section” of the flow field in the model’s plane cients at Mach number 1.5 to Mach number 2.0. This
of symmetry. issue has not been satisfactorily resolved and is to be
The continuous video recordings of the schlieren visualiza- investigated in future tests of the same models which will
tions proved convenient for observing the evolution of the flow be continued as circumstances and T-38 wind tunnel
with the change of the angle of attack. Boundary layer separa- schedules permit. It is also intended to provide the cur-
tion on the cylindrical part of the model, caused by the adverse rently missing forebody data at Mach numbers 3.5 and 4
pressure gradient induced by the flare could be observed at low and to collect some data for this model in the transonic
angles of attack, as reported by Gray and Linsday14. With the speed range as well.
increase of the angle of attack the separation diminished or
disappeared first on the windward side of the model, and then,
at angles of attack of about 10°, at the leeward side as well. Acknowledgments
With the further increase of the angle of attack, pronounced
separation reappeared on the leeward side, as visible in This study was supported by the Military Technical Institute
Fig. 14. The bow shock from the nose of the model became (VTI) and Ministry of Education, Science and Technological
parallel with the cylindrical part of model body on the wind- Development of Serbia (No. TP 36050).
ward side at Mach numbers above 3 as angle of attack
approached approximately 24° and stayed so with further
increase of the angle of attack (Fig. 14(d)), passing close to References
the windward shoulder of the base.
In the complex flow behind the model, Prandtl-Meyer 1. Bordano A, LeBeau G, Bryant L, Tigges M, Campbell H, Horvath
expansion fan at the shoulder of the base can be observed, T, et al. Aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In: Hale W, editor.
Wings in orbit – Scientific and engineering legacies of the Space
as well as the recirculation bubble and the shear layer separat-
Shuttle. Washington, D.C.: NASA; 2010. p. 226–41.
ing it from the outer flow. The recirculation bubble is distorted
2. Stengel RF. Strategies for control of the space shuttle transition.
by the flow at angle of attack and the presence of the sting, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 1973;10(1):73–84.
and, at the higher angles of attack, the sting is not anymore 3. Dahlem V, Flehaerty JI, Shereda DE, Prziembel CEG. High angle
in the wake of the model. of attack missile aerodynamics at Mach numbers 0.3 to 1.5. Flight
Dynamics Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base; 1980.
5. Conclusions Report No.:AFWAL-TR-80-3070.
4. Oberkampf WL, Nicolaides JD. Aerodynamics of finned missiles
at high angles of attack. AIAA J 1971;9(12):2378–84.
(1) Two HB-2 models of different sizes were tested in the 5. Hadidoolabi M, Ansiaran H. Supersonic flow over a pitching delta
Mach number range 1.5–4.0 at angles of attack up to wing using surface pressure measurements and numerical simula-
approximately +30°, and at relatively high Reynolds tions. Chin J Aeronaut 2018;31(1):65–78.
numbers up to 4.5 millions. As there were no compara- 6. Votta R. Advanced models for prediction of high altitude aero-
ble data at high angles of attack from tests in other facil- thermal loads of a space re-entry vehicle [dissertation]. Potenza:
ities, obtained results were compared with references Universita degli Studi della Basilicata; 2008.
only in the angle-of-attack range up to +15°. A good 7. Cummings RM, Forsythe JR, Morton SA, Squires KD. Compu-
correlation of results was found and, in the absence of tational challenges in high angle of attack flow prediction. Prog
any directly comparable reference data at high angles Aerosp Sci 2003;39(5):369–83.
8. Mehta R. Computations of flowfield over reentry modules at high
of attack, it was assumed that the obtained results,
speed. Comput Simul Appl 2011.
found to be good at low angles of attack, were, by impli- 9. Bai CY, Wu ZN. Hypersonic starting flow at high angle of attack.
cation, also good at high angles of attack. Chin J Aeronaut 2016;29(2):297–304.
(2) The collected data were, therefore, assumed to be valid 10. Elfstrom GM, Medved B. The Yugoslav 1.5 m trisonic blowdown
and are included in the local database of test results wind tunnel. Proceedings of the 14th AIAA aerodynamic testing
for the HB-2 models that is being formed in VTI, to conference. Reston: AIAA; 1986.
be used in future periodic verifications of the T-38 wind 11. Damljanović D, Isaković J, Rašuo B. T-38 Wind tunnel data
tunnel in the supersonic part of the operating envelope. quality assurance based on testing of a standard model. J Aircraft
The presented data may also be of use to the experi- 2013;50(4):1141–9.
menters in other wind tunnel facilities, and as test cases 12. Vuković Dj, Ćurčić D, Marinkovski D, Damljanović D,
Samardžić M, Vitić A. Living with supersonic starting loads in
for the high angle of attack CFD codes.
the T-38 trisonic wind tunnel of VTI. Proceedings of the 29th
(3) It is felt that, in all reference tests of the HB-2 model, congress of the international council of the aeronautical sciences
insufficient attention was paid to standardizing and doc- (ICAS). 2014.
umenting the factors influencing base pressure. 13. Gray JD. Summary report on aerodynamic characteristics of
Although this can be understandable as the experi- standard models HB-1 and HB-2. Arnold Engineering Develop-
menters were bound by the constraints related to the ment Center; 1964. Report No.: AEDC-TDR-64-137.
characteristics of their wind tunnels and model supports, 14. Gray JD, Lindsay EE. Force tests of standard hypervelocity
it makes correlation of the total axial force coefficient ballistic models HB-1 and HB-2 at Mach 1.5 to 10. Arnold
more difficult. Engineering Development Center; 1963. Report No.: AEDC-
(4) There are indications that, at the test conditions in the TDR-63-137.
15. Ceresuela R. Mesurés d‘efforts et de pressions sur la maquette
T-38 wind tunnel, a small but observable influence exists
balistique etalon HB-2 de Mach 2 a Mach 16,5. ONERA; 1964.
of base/sting diameters ratio and/or Reynolds number Report No.: Note Technique 13/1879 A.
1576 Dj. VUKOVIĆ, D. DAMLJANOVIĆ

16. Malcolm GN. Chapman GT. A computer program for systemat- NACA Langley Research Center; 1958. Report No.: NASA TN-
ically analyzing free-flight data to determine the aerodynamics of D4821.
axisymmetric bodies. Washington, D.C.: NASA Ames Research 24. Wiswanath PR, Patil SR. Effectiveness of passive devices for
Center; 1968. Report No.: NASA TN D-4766. axisymmetric base drag reduction at Mach 2. J Spacecraft 1990;27
17. Opalka KO. Force tests of the hypersonic ballistic standard (3):234–7.
models HB-1 and HB-2. Ballistic Research Labs, Aberdeen 25. Adamov NP, Vasenev LG, Zvegintsev VI, Mazhul II, Nali-
Proving Ground; 1966. Report No.: BLR-MR-1798. vaichenko DG, Novikov AV, et al. Characteristics of the AT-303
18. Wesstroem P. Lundgren S. Three-component force measurements hypersonic wind tunnel. Part 2. Aerodynamics of the HB-2
of a heat insulated AGARD Hb-2 model at M equals 4 and M reference model. Thermophys Aeromech 2006;13(2):157–71.
equals 7 using an uncooled balance. Stockholm: FFA; 1974. 26. Kharitonov AM, Zvegintsev VI, Adamov NP, Vasenev LG,
Report No.: FFA-TN-AX-805. Kuraeva AD, Nalivajchenko DG, et al. Calibration trials of
19. Dj Vuković, Damljanović D. Evaluation of a force balance with working capabilities of the new hypersonic wind tunnel AT-303 at
semiconductor strain gauges in wind tunnel tests of the HB-2 ITAM. Proceedings of the 1st European conference for aerospace
standard model. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G: J Aerospace Eng sciences (EUCASS). 2005.
2015;229(12):2272–81. 27. DeSpirito J. Base pressure computations of the DERA generic
20. Kumar RS, Das S, Kumar P, Prasad JK. Investigation of flow missile wind tunnel model. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen
field around a typical reentry capsule at supersonic speeds. Proving Ground; 2005. Report No.: ARL-TR-3653.
Proceedings of the XXVI national convention of aerospace engi- 28. Kuchi-Ishi S, Watanabe S, Nagai S, Tsuda S, Koyama T,
neers. 2012. Hirabayashi N, et al. Comparative force/heat flux measurements
21. Damljanović D, Rašuo B, Vuković DJ, Mandić S, Isaković J. between JAXA hypersonic test facilities using standard model HB-
Hypervelocity ballistic reference models as experimental super- 2 (Part 1: 1.27 m hypersonic wind tunnel results). Tokyo: Japan
sonic test cases. Aerosp Sci Technol 2016;52:189–97. Aerospace Exploration Agency; 2005. Report No.: JAXA-RR-04-
22. Recommended practice: Calibration and use of internal strain- 035E.
gage balances with application to wind tunnel testing. Reston: 29. Penland JA. Aerodynamic characteristics of a circular cylinder at
AIAA; 2003. Report No.: AIAA-0091-2003. Mach number 6.86 and angles of attack up to 90°. Washington, D.
23. Compton WB. Effect on base drag of recessing the bases of conical C.: NACA Langley Aerodynamic Laboratory; 1963. Report No.:
afterbodies at subsonic and transonic speeds. Washington, D.C.: NACA TN-3861.