Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SCALE MODELS”

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.

At least 883 records · Page 49
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1957

Summary of Scale-Model Thrust-Reverser Investigation

An investigation was undertaken to determine the characteristics of several basic types of thrust-reverser. Models of three types, target, tailpipe cascade, and ring cascade, were tested with unheated air. The effects of design variables on reverse-thrust performance, reversed-flow boundaries, and thrust modulation characteristics were determined.

Povolny, John H↗
NASA NTRS1944

Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Shielded Horn Balances and Tabs on a 0.7-Scale Model of XF6F Vertical Tail Surface

Results of subject tests indicate the difficulty of obtaining closely balanced rudder surfaces for most tail assemblies with shielded horns and maintaining a near zero rate-of-change of hinge-moment coefficient without an additional balancing device. A comparison is made between shielded and unshielded horn test results. Pressure distribution and tuft tests of flow over different shaped horns showed higher critical speed for medium-taper nosed horn. The trim tab nose shape had little effect on tab test results.

CONTROL SURFACES, BALANCED-HORN↗
NASA NTRS1992

Results of experimental investigations to determine external tank protuberance loads using a 0.03-scale model of the Space Shuttle launch configuration (model 47-OTS) in the NASA/ARC unitary plan wind tunnel, volume 1

Data were obtained on a 3-percent model of the Space Shuttle launch vehicle in the NASA/Ames Research Center 11x11-foot and 9x7-foot Unitary Plan Wind Tunnels. This test series has been identified as IA190A/B and was conducted from 7 Feb. 1980 to 19 Feb. 1980 (IA190A) and from 17 March 1980 to 19 March 1980 and from 8 May 1980 to 30 May 1980 (IA190B). The primary test objective was to obtain structural loads on the following external tank protuberances: (1) LO2 feedline, (2) GO2 pressure line, (3) LO2 antigeyser line, (4) GH2 pressure line, (5) LH2 tank cable tray, (6) LO2 tank cable tray, (7) Bipod, (8) ET/SRB cable tray, and (9) Crossbeam/Orbiter cable tray. To fulfill these objectives the following steps were taken: (1) Eight 3-component balances were used to measure forces on various sections of 1 thru 6 above. (2) 315 pressure orifices were distributed over all 9 above items. The LO2 feedline was instrumented with 96 pressure taps and was rotated to four positions to yield 384 pressure measurements. The LO2 antigeyser line was instrumented with 64 pressure taps and was rotated to two positions to yield 128 pressure measurements. (3) Three Chrysler miniature flow direction probes were mounted on a traversing mechanism on the tank upper surface centerline to obtain flow field data between the forward and aft attach structures. (4) Schlieren photographs and ultraviolet flow photographs were taken at all test conditions. Data from each of the four test phases are presented.

Houlihan, S. R.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Results of Experimental Investigations to Determine External Tank Protuberance Loads Using a 0.03-Scale Model of the Space Shuttle Launch Configuration (Model 47-OTS) in the NASA/ARC Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, Volume 2

Data were obtained on a 3-percent model of the Space Shuttle launch vehicle in the NASA/Ames Research Center 11x11-foot and 9x7-foot Unitary Plan Wind Tunnels. This test series has been identified as IA19OA/B and was conducted from 7 Feb. 1980 to 19 Feb. 1980 (IA19OA) and from 17 March 1980 to 19 March 1980 and from 8 May 1980 to 30 May 1980 (IA19OB). The primary test objective was to obtain structural loads on the following external tank protuberances: (1) LO2 feedline; (2) GO2 pressure line; (3) LO2 antigeyser line; (4) GH2 pressure line; (5) LH2 tank cable tray; (6) LO2 tank cable tray; (7) Bipod; (8) ET/SRB cable tray; and (9) Crossbeam/Orbiter cable tray. To fulfill these objectives the following steps were taken: Eight 3-component balances were used to measure forces on various sections of 1 thru 6 above; 315 pressure orifices were distributed over all 9 above items. The LO2 feedline was instrumented with 96 pressure taps and was rotated to four positions to yield 384 pressure measurements. The LO2 antigeyser line was instrumented with 64 pressure taps and was rotated to two positions to yield 128 pressure measurements; Three Chrysler miniature flow direction probes were mounted on a traversing mechanism on the tank upper surface centerline to obtain flow field data between the forward and aft attach structures; and Schlieren photographs and ultraviolet flow photographs were taken at all test conditions. Data from each of the four test phases are presented.

Houlihan, S. R.↗
NASA NTRS1995

On why dynamic subgrid-scale models work

Dynamic subgrid models have proved to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of turbulent flows. Part of the reasons for their success are well understood. Since they are constructed to generate an effective viscosity which is proportional to some measure of the turbulent energy at the high wavenumber end of the spectrum, their eddy viscosity vanishes as the flow becomes laminar. This alone would justify their use over simpler models. But beyond this obvious advantage, which is confined to inhomogeneous and evolving flows, the reason why they also work better in simpler homogeneous cases, and how they do it without any obvious adjustable parameter, is not clear. This lack of understanding of the internal mechanisms of a useful tool is disturbing, not only as an intellectual challenge, but because it raises the doubt of whether it will work in all cases. This note is an attempt to clarify those mechanisms. We will see why dynamic models are robust and how they can get away with even comparatively gross errors in their formulations. This will suggest that they are only particular cases of a larger family of robust models, all of which would be relatively insensitive to large simplifications in the physics of the flow. We will also construct some such models, although mostly as research tools. It will turn out, however, that the standard dynamic formulation is not only robust to errors, but also behaves as if it were substantially well formulated. The details of why this is so will still not be clear at the end of this note, specially since it will be shown that the 'a priori' testing of the stresses gives, as is usual in most subgrid models, very poor results. But it will be argued that the basic reason is that the dynamic formulation mimics the condition that the total dissipation is approximately equal to the production measured at the test filter level.

Jimenez, J.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Assessment of the Subgrid-Scale Models at Low and High Reynolds Numbers

Accurate SGS models must be capable of correctly representing the energy transfer between GS and SGS. Recent direct assessment of the energy transfer carried out using direct numerical simulation (DNS) data for wall-bounded flows revealed that the energy exchange is not unidirectional. Although GS kinetic energy is transferred to the SGS (forward scatter (F-scatter) on average, SGS energy is also transferred to the GS. The latter energy exchange (backward scatter (B-scatter) is very significant, i.e., the local energy exchange can be backward nearly as often as forward and the local rate of B-scatter is considerably higher than the net rate of energy dissipation.

Horiuti, K.↗