A preliminary study of the awakening and startle effects of simulated sonic booms
Awakening and startle effects of simulated sonic booms
SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Awakening and startle effects of simulated sonic booms
Winds and inhomogeneous atmosphere effects on sonic boom strength and propagation, using model based on shock wave/vortex sheet interaction concept
Design and performance of sonic boom simulator
Supersonic overflight program for sonic boom experimentation
Sonic boom effects on Corti organs of guinea pigs
Sonic boom effects on guinea pigs Corti organ, comparing auditory damage in cochlea with hair cell damage
Far field sonic boom pressure profiles simulation by methane-oxygen mixture detonation in balloons
Atmospheric turbulence effects on sonic boom rise times by statistical theory
Sonic boom characteristics of a 0.0004-scale model of the space shuttle orbiter were studied. Pressure signatures were measured at Mach numbers of 2.8 and 4.14 and at angles of attack of 0.3 deg, 19.0 deg, and 41.0 deg. To allow for observation of signature development and to provide data for extrapolation to larger distances, measurements were made at distances of from 8 to 32 body lengths. Relatively simple purely theoretical prediction methods provided reasonably accurate estimates of bow-shock overpressure and signature impulse.
Several aspects of designing for reduced sonic boom were investigated to assess the adequacy of the conventional modified linear theory. For a simple test case of a nacelle with a small forecowl angle (2 degrees) mounted below a flat plate, the linear theory compared favorably for a case with simulated nacelle lift and for a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. In a second study, several methods of analyzing the area distribution due to volume were examined. And finally, in a preliminary study, the effect of forebody shape on the rise time of the bow shock was investigated, indicating a significant increase (several msec) can be obtained by proper forebody shaping.
A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for being mounted by a swept blade strut that attached at top of model ahead of the inlet, or by a rear-entry sting that held the model at the location of the nacelle. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made on a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the wind tunnel strut and the balance. Spatial averaging of model pressure signatures acquired over a range of longitudinal positions reduced the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for representative variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.
A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for being mounted by a swept blade strut that attached at top of model ahead of the inlet, or by a rear-entry sting that held the model at the location of the nacelle. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made on a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the wind tunnel strut and the balance. Spatial averaging of model pressure signatures acquired over a range of longitudinal positions reduced the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for representative variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.
A wind tunnel test was conducted to investigate near-field sonic boom pressure signatures from a model of the X-59 Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator aircraft. A 1.62%-scale model of the aircraft in the C612A configuration was fabricated for the wind tunnel test, which took place in the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel in September and October 2021. The model had provisions for two different mounting options: a swept blade strut that attached at the top of model ahead of the inlet, and rear-entry sting that was made as one piece with a dummy nacelle, and which had a 2”-long cylindrical segment aft of the nozzle exit before tapering up in size. The blade strut allowed for a clean aft end of the model for evaluation of the shocks from that region, while the sting avoided the significant distortions of the flow and shocks from the blade strut along the top of the model. Both the sting and the strut had adapters that attached to a force balance. The model had alternate parts for ±0.5° deflections of the flaps, ailerons, and stabilator, and ±1° deflections of the T-tail horizontal surface. Off-body static pressure measurements of the flow field below the model were made by use of a pressure rail which had 420 orifices along its tip. The model was positioned at various heights from the rail by vertical movement of the wind tunnel strut, and at various longitudinal stations relative to the rail by means of a linear actuator mounted between the tunnel strut and the balance. The longitudinal positioning allowed multiple pressure signatures to be obtained along different portions of the rail. These signatures were aligned by accounting for the model longitudinal movement and then averaged to take out the effects of tunnel flow distortions and the interference of the rail flow field and shocks on the model pressure signatures. The test was run at approximate Mach numbers of 1.36, 1.4, and 1.47, and the model was set at various angles of attack and roll relative to the rail. Plots of the model signatures for all the variations of Mach number, model angles, control deflections, and height relative to the rail are provided throughout the report. Repeatability was generally very good and gave confidence in the quality of the measurements. The signatures measured at various heights from the rail provided insight into the aging of the model shocks as they propagated from 1.2 to 3 body lengths from the model. Off-track signatures up to 45° from centerline obtained by rolling the model gave indications of the shock flow fields across the width of the sonic boom carpet. The deflections of the various control surfaces allowed assessment of the boom sensitivity to the control surface movements.
Test flights of supersonic aircraft and field investigations of damage to structures by sonic boom
Wind tunnel and flight testing of airplane configuration influence on sonic boom characteristics
Correlation of sonic boom theory with wind tunnel and flight measurements
Digital computer utilization to estimate sonic boom characteristics of complex airplane configuration
An evaluation of two methods for improving the process for generating unstructured CFD grids for sonic boom analysis and design has been conducted. The process involves two steps: the generation of an inner core grid using a conventional unstructured grid generator such as VGRID, followed by the extrusion of a sheared and stretched collar grid through the outer boundary of the core grid. The first method evaluated, known as COB, automatically creates a cylindrical outer boundary definition for use in VGRID that makes the extrusion process more robust. The second method, BG, generates the collar grid by extrusion in a very efficient manner. Parametric studies have been carried out and new options evaluated for each of these codes with the goal of establishing guidelines for best practices for maintaining boom signature accuracy with as small a grid as possible. In addition, a preliminary investigation examining the use of the CDISC design method for reducing sonic boom utilizing these grids was conducted, with initial results confirming the feasibility of a new remote design approach.