See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226269260

Aerodynamic force measurement using 3-component accelerometer force

balance system in a hypersonic shock tunnel

Article  in  Shock Waves · February 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s00193-008-0172-8

CITATIONS READS

14 908

3 authors:

Saravanan Selvaraj Jagadeesh Gopalan

Indian Institute of Science Indian Institute of Science
42 PUBLICATIONS   329 CITATIONS    254 PUBLICATIONS   1,244 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

K P J Reddy
Indian Institute of Science
237 PUBLICATIONS   1,172 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of shock wave deformation on materials View project

Measurements inside the cavity for hypersonic flows View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jagadeesh Gopalan on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Shock Waves (2009) 18:425–435
DOI 10.1007/s00193-008-0172-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Aerodynamic force measurement using 3-component
accelerometer force balance system in a hypersonic shock tunnel
S. Saravanan · G. Jagadeesh · K. P. J. Reddy
Received: 18 March 2008 / Revised: 23 July 2008 / Accepted: 18 September 2008 / Published online: 14 October 2008
© Springer-Verlag 2008
Abstract A new three-component accelerometer force
balance has been designed, calibrated and tested in hyper-
sonic shock tunnel (HST2) of Indian Institute of Science.
The newly designed balance is able to measure aerodynamic
forces (within test time of one millisecond) on test models
at angles of attack from 0 to 12◦ . Two models, a blunt cone
with after body and a blunt cone with after body and frustum
are used to establish the accuracy of the force balance. The
tests were conducted for the above two configurations with a
constant Mach number of 8 and total enthalpy of 2.0 MJ/kg.
The effectiveness of the balance is demonstrated by compa-
ring the forces and moments of measured data with AGARD
models. The flow fields around the test model are simulated
using a 3D axisymmetric Navier–Stokes solver and the simu-
lated results were compared with the measured values. Mea-
sured and computed force data are matched within ±10% for
two different models tested here. The accuracy of the force
balance is also estimated with the Newtonian theory and the
values are approximately ±10% for the axial component and
±8% for the normal and pitching moment components.
Keywords Accelerometer force balance ·
Force measurements · High enthalpy ·
Shock tunnel and hypersonics
Communicated by R. Boyce.
S. Saravanan (B) · G. Jagadeesh · K. P. J. Reddy
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012, India
e-mail: saravan@aero.iisc.ernet.in
G. Jagadeesh
e-mail: jaggie@aero.iisc.ernet.in
K. P. J. Reddy
e-mail: laser@aero.iisc.ernet.in
PACS 47.85.Gj
1 Introduction
Force measurements in ground-based testing facilities are of
major interest to the designers of hypersonic flight vehicles.
Accurate experimental results are essential to support and
validate the flight data and results from computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) codes. In particular, the prediction of fun-
damental aerodynamic forces presents an important problem
for the vehicle performance (stability and control). Aerody-
namic coefficients can be obtained by (1) conducting a wind
tunnel test which will be costly and time consuming and
would probably produce results which are more accurate than
warranted for preliminary and intermediate design, (2) per-
forming hand calculations using analytical expressions [1]
and (3) developing a computer program based on analyti-
cal techniques which is efficient and produces accuracies on
the order of ±10%. These methods can provide fundamental
measurements and the data obtained from them will be very
useful for the research and development activities.
Today, however, coupling of three main methods of hyper-
sonic flight vehicle design, namely hypersonic ground based
testing, CFD and flight testing are becoming economically
achievable. The first one, although costlier and time consu-
ming initially, is the best approach for long-term use and is
the one which will be addressed in this paper. Impulse faci-
lities [2] are necessary for ground-based experiments that
simulate flight enthalpies corresponding to flight Mach num-
bers exceeding 10. The penalty that we pay for simulation of
hypersonic flight conditions in such tunnels is the extremely
short test times (500 µs–10 ms). Unfortunately, conventional
force measurement techniques do not possess the required
response times, thus making force measurement in impulse
facilities a non-trivial matter. However, progress has been
123
426
made in recent years to develop techniques which enable
successful measurement of forces over short time scales. The
techniques used to overcome this problem are stress wave
measurement techniques [3,4], strain gauge balance [5] and
acceleration measurement techniques [6]. However, design
and calibration methodologies for these balances are different
and some of the important types of force balances reported
in literature for impulse facilities are briefly discussed here.
An attempt was made in 1960s to study and resolve some
of the important technical issues of force measurements
exclusively for impulse facilities. Naumann et al. [7] deve-
loped a free flying technique and measured the acceleration
of a model in a shock tunnel using a complex model moun-
ting system. This system releases the model just before the
onset of hypersonic flow and the subsequent movement of the
model was measured by a set of small piezo accelerometers.
However, the complete measurement system was very com-
plex and cumbersome to implement. Carbonaro [8] reported
a six-component balance that was used in the VKI Longshot
tunnel and the balance was based on an acceleration compen-
sation of strain-gauged signals. It involved the measurement
of model accelerations using miniature sensors. But, measu-
rement systems needed inertial corrections which had to be
optimized taking into account the accelerometer transverse
sensitivity effects, time lags, signal filtering or smoothing and
tuning for the inertia of vibrating masses. In addition, stress
wave force balance systems had been developed at the Uni-
versity of Queensland, Australia, [3,4] using strain gauges
for measuring forces in hypervelocity flows of millisecond
duration. The balance was based on interpretation of tran-
sient signals obtained from strain gauges and the complete
model had to be suspended in the test section using inelastic
strings. Moreover, mounting technique of strain gauges on
the model sting will be more complicated and this method
needs an exhaustive finite element analysis. The procedure
for static calibration of strain gauges was very tedious and
calibration had to be repeated whenever it was mounted on a
new model. The errors introduced in the actual measurements
due to static calibration procedure limit the use of this balance
in short-duration facilities. Srulijes et al. [9] measured the
aerodynamic forces on the body using piezo-electric pres-
sure transducers. The individual values of the pressure signals
were resolved in particular directions and then integrated over
the model surface to get the total aerodynamic forces on the
body. Hubner et al. [10] used pressure-sensitive paints to
measure the step changes in pressure in a shock tube. The
characteristic response times of the pressure-sensitive paints
(PSP) was around 3–6 ms, which is too long a response time
for the short duration test facilities. Lam and Stollenwerk [11]
used the free-flight technique in a shock tunnel for the deter-
mination of forces and moment in a complex aerodynamic
configuration. Optical instrumentation was used to monitor
the model excursion. The model flight path was monitored
123
S. Saravanan et al.
by tracking a target located at center of gravity of the model
and aerodynamic coefficients were evaluated by monitoring
the model flight path. Suspending the model and releasing
mechanism makes this system very complex and moreover,
launching a model at the proper time and orientation will dic-
tate the level of accuracy during the measurements. Jessen
and Gronig [12] developed a technique to measure the force
components in impulse facilities with flow duration as short
as one millisecond.
Conventional force measurement techniques cannot be
used in the shock tunnels (HST2) because of the short test
time. To overcome the problem, the force measurement tech-
nique using accelerometers was proposed. The design of
a three-component accelerometer balance at Cornell Aero-
nautical Laboratory [13], has been described by Vidal.
Accelerometer balance system was used by Joshi and Reddy
[14] and Raju and Reddy [15] to measure the aerodynamic
forces acting on missile-shaped configurations flying at hype-
rsonic Mach numbers in the hypersonic shock tunnel HST1.
Although the above configurations have been used success-
fully to measure forces at a stagnation enthalpy of about
1 MJ/kg, elaborate calibration of accelerometer balance has
not been carried out. Moreover, the signals were noisy and
hence the data reduction procedure were rather complex.
Recently, the high enthalpy research group at IISc develo-
ped miniature 3-component accelerometer balances [16,17]
to measure drag, lift and pitching moment on various spiked
blunt bodies, flying at a free stream Mach number of 5.75.
But, none of these balances were tested at an enthalpy level
more than 1.1 MJ/kg. The load acting on the model-balance
system was small for those enthalpy. For high-enthalpy shots,
the forces acting on a model-balance system will be suffi-
ciently large and as a result, rubber bushes used in the balance
system may shear out. The free stream properties seen by the
model-balance system at 2.2 MJ/kg of the present investiga-
tion are entirely different from 1.1 MJ/kg. In addition, they
were not standardized with FEM which will be useful in veri-
fying the accelerometer response and integrating the balance
system with the model during the tunnel testing.
In an effort to address this issue, Finite Element Analy-
sis (FEA) is used in the present study for the design of the
accelerometer balance system. In the present paper, a new-
three component accelerometer force balance system is used
to measure the aerodynamic coefficients for two different
test models at an enthalpy of about 2 MJ/kg and Mach 8.
In order to quantify the measured fundamental aerodynamic
coefficients, the configurations of test model have been cho-
sen to be very similar to AGARD models (HB1 and HB2).
Here, the results of a shock-tunnel data for various angles of
attack are compared with modified Newtonian theory, CFD
and AGARD data for two different test configurations at a
hypersonic Mach number of 8 in the IISc hypersonic shock
tunnel HST2. The details of the balance design, its calibration
Force measurements over missile shaped body at Mach 8
and sample results along with the CFD and AGARD results
are presented in this paper.
2 Facility description and instrumentation
The shock tube (Fig. 1) has an internal diameter of 5.1 cm,
length of 7.12 m and is divided into driver and driven sections
by an aluminum diaphragm. A Mylar diaphragm divides the
driven section from the wind tunnel, which is at even lower
pressure (10−5 mbar). The shock wave velocity in the driven
section of the shock tube can be measured by using two pres-
sure transducers of 1,000 psi range (Model 113A24, PCB-
Piezotronics Ltd, USA), mounted 0.525 m apart at end of
the driven section. The pressure behind the primary and the
reflected shock waves was measured using a pressure trans-
ducer (Model 113A22, PCB-Piezotronics Ltd, USA) located
at end of the driven section. The wind tunnel portion of the
HST2 shock tunnel consists of a truncated conical nozzle
terminating into a 30 × 30 cm test section, which is atta-
ched to a dump tank of about 1m3 volume. The free stream
Mach number could be varied in the reflected mode by adding
a convergent-divergent portion with different throat inserts,
which produces range of Mach numbers from 8 to 13. All
the experiments have been carried out only with the Mach 8
nozzle with a Reynolds number of ∼ one million per meter.
The tunnel is capable of producing a reservoir enthalpy of
∼4 MJ/kg with an effective test time of ∼1 ms.
All the data are sampled digitally, using a 12-bit multi-
channel system (NI PXI-6115 DAS, manufactured by NI Ltd)
and data are recorded at 1 MHz/channel.
Fig. 1 Schematic set-up and operation principle of a shock tunnel
427
3 Pitot tube and the inviscid core
The tunnel reservoir pressure history was measured just
upstream of the nozzle. Pitot probe is less sensitive than the
static probe to the flow alignment, which gives better accu-
racy even it is at higher yaw angle (up to 20◦ ). Hence, for
the present investigation static pressure measurement was
not used to determine the free stream Mach number. There-
fore, the core flow in the test section has been characterized
by using a pitot rake with three probes and the distance of
105 mm between the probes was selected based on test sec-
tion width as shown in Fig. 2a. The chosen pressure tapping
diameter was small enough that the pressure gradient over the
surface of the tapping is negligible. The pitot pressures were
measured with PCB type HM113A28 pressure transducers.
The ratio of total pressure to pitot pressure was computed
and then free stream Mach number could be easily determi-
ned from normal shock table. Pressure measurements were
taken from the pitot rake mounted at various axial locations
to determine experimentally the uniformity and size of the
nozzle core. In this investigation, results havebeen highligh-
ted only for the nozzle exit and measurement of other loca-
tions was discussed in detail elsewhere [18]. Figure 2b shows
typical results of calibration tests at stagnation enthalpy of
2 MJ/kg. It is clear from the pressure trace that the nozzle-
starting process takes about 0.6 ms. There exists a region of
constant pressure after this starting process and then termi-
nated by the arrival of a normal shock (i.e., disc shock at the
nozzle exit). The mean pressure value during this constant
period was used to evaluate the free stream Mach number.
From the pitot pressure measurement, it is seen that the varia-
tion in Mach number is almost negligible across the nozzle.
Similarly, when the rake was mounted 225 mm away from the
nozzle exit along the axis of the test section it was found that
the variation in Mach number was negligible over a distance
of nearly 225 mm from the nozzle exit (results are not shown
here). Indeed, for the current tunnel operating conditions, the
viscous layer at the nozzle exit may occupy approximately
one third of the exit radius. Therefore, the test jet is ∼200 mm
in diameter and overall model lengths are limited to about
225 mm because of size constraints imposed by the test sec-
tion dimensions and angle of attack. Hence, based on the
above tunnel results, the location of model is chosen at exit
of the nozzle and along with the model a single pitot tube is
mounted permanently to measure the localized (point) pitot
pressure of the airflow (i.e., flow behavior). The Mach num-
ber distribution across the flow at two different axial locations
in the tunnel is represented in the schematic diagram shown
in Fig. 3. The variation in Mach number at exit of the nozzle
is less than 1%, whereas it was 4.5%, when the Pitot rake
was mounted 225 mm away from the nozzle exit. The pitot
pressure measurement using a single probe (Fig 4), indicates
the presence of a steady flow for about 1 ms, which in turn
123
428 S. Saravanan et al.

(a)

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of Mach number distribution across the flow

at two different locations in test section of hypersonic shock tunnel

2500
Stagnation pressure
Pitot pressure x 50
2000

Pressure (kPa)
1500

(b) 40
(a) Flow establishment time (b) Test time and
1000
(c) Flow termination

30 (a) (b) (c)

Pitot pressure (kPa)

500

20 0
0 1 2 3 4
Average −3
Time (s) x 10
10 steady
state test Fig. 4 The typical variation of pitot pressure recorded during the expe-
time Pitot 1
riment along with the corresponding stagnation pressure variation
Pitot 2(centre)
0
Pitot 3
Table 1 Nominal test conditions in HST2 shock tunnel
1 2 3 4 5
Time (s) −3 M∞ P0 H0 ρ∞ p∞ Re∞ /m T∞
x 10 (Mpa) (MJ/kg) (kg/m3 ) (pa) (K)
Fig. 2 a Schematic diagram of a pitot rake used for the nozzle cali- 8.0 2.01 2.01 0.0052 212 1.05e6 149
bration (Note that all dimensions are in mm) and b typical Pitot signals
(pressure-time history) obtained at exit of the nozzle

for its simple design and represents AGARD configuration,

is taken as the useful test duration of HST2 facility. Also, it
is very clear that both the stagnation pressure in the shock
tube and pitot pressure in the test section start decreasing after
about 1 ms of test duration. The nominal flow conditions used
in this study are summarized in Table 1.
4 Test model
In the present investigation, two different models have been
used, namely (a) blunt cone with after body and (b) blunt
cone with after body and frustum, as shown in Fig. 5. The
first test model (blunt cone with after body) has been chosen
HB-1 (Hypervelocity Ballistic model). The first part of the
model is a blunt cone which has an apex angle of 41◦ and
length of 40.6 mm. The second part of the model is the cylin-
der of 51 mm outer diameter and a length of 186 mm. The
model has a spherical nose radius of 15 mm. The second test
model (Blunt cone with after body and frustum) represents
a simple AGARD configuration, HB-2. The geometry of the
blunt coneremains the same and the length of the cylinder is
reduced to 111 mm with the outer diameter of 51 mm. The
frustum has an axial length of 75 mm with a semi-vertex
angle of 5◦ . For both the configurations, the total length of
the model has been kept the same in order to maintain the
exact L/D (i.e., length to diameter) ratio of the model, such

123
Force measurements over missile shaped body at Mach 8
Fig. 5 Schematic diagram of test models; a 41◦ apex-angle blunt cone
model with an after body, b 41◦ apex-angle blunt cone model with an
after body and flare for lifting purpose
Table 2 Typical dimension of test models with AGARD
Configuration Semi-apex angle θ (deg) Length to diameter
AGARD Saravanan et al. AGARD Saravanan et al.
Cone-cylinder 22.5 20.5 4.9 4.44
Cone-cylinder- 22.5 20.5 4.9 4.44
frustum
that both the models can be accommodated onto the single
force balance system. For a comparison of present models
with AGARD, the typical dimensions of both the configura-
tions are summarized in Table 2. The material used for the
model was commercial duraluminum in order to reduce the
mass.
5 Initial design of the accelerometer balance system
An equivalent spring–mass system [13] was used in the
preliminary design methodology for the accelerometer
balance which was based on analytical solutions. Although
accelerometer force balance have been used for many
decades, there were no attempts to carry out the integrated
analysis of the complete system to understand the effect of
restraint characteristics on the measured acceleration history.
Hence, the concept of finite-element analysis for the accele-
rometer balance system was introduced recently by Sahoo
et al. [19,20] to study the dynamic behavior of the integra-
ted model-balance system. The analysis was used for axi-
symmetric blunt-cone configuration. In the present analysis,
this has been extended to three-dimensional modeling of inte-
grated system for a cone-cylinder and cone-cylinder-frustum
model configurations. The objective of the finite-element
analysis is to evaluate the effect of rubber bushes on
429
acceleration history within the observation window and
verify the experimentally measured balance output with the
simulated response. In addition, the specification of the acce-
lerometer (i.e., sensitivity and range) and location of accele-
rometer with respect to center of gravity of the model have
been chosen using finite-element analysis.
5.1 Finite element modeling and analysis
The test model (nose cone-cylinder) exposed to hypersonic
flow at 0◦ angle of attack is considered for FE analysis (FEA)
to study the objectives described in previous section. Here,
FEA has been focused to study only the drag component of
the aerodynamic force experienced by the model by conside-
ring a drag accelerometer placed along the model axis and at
a particular node. At the nodes, displacements are restrained
along the bases of the rubber bushes. Axi-symmetric finite-
element mesh was used for the test model. The finite element
modeling consists of 9,237 three-dimensional 10-node ele-
ments which are tetrahedral in shape. Evaluation of a particu-
lar support arrangement and drag sensor location plays a vital
role by providing the signal and retaining enough information
about the frequency content of the loading. The accelerome-
ters are treated as point sources with lumped mass and their
masses are negligible compared to the model mass.
In the present investigation, the pressure profile on the
model surface in the experimental test flow domain can be
obtained from the CFD technique using a commercial pack-
age CFX-Ansys 5.7. This code solves three-dimensional vis-
cous flow Navier–Stokes equations in the conservative form.
Viscous effects are incorporated in the numerical simulation.
The flow is assumed to be laminar throughout the computa-
tional domain (The Reynolds number based on model length
is estimated from the free stream properties and found to be
0.237 million). Boundary conditions used in this simulation
are based on the experimental free stream conditions in the
test section of the shock tunnel, used to solve the Navier–
Stokes equations. At the outlet of the computational domain,
variables like pressure, temperature, density, force, wall heat
flux etc., are extrapolated from the interior domain. At the
wall, no-slip condition is used and can be treated as adia-
batic. Other bounds of the computational domain, excluding
inlet and outlet, are specified as symmetry planes to simulate
axisymmetric flow situation. The fluid velocity is assumed to
be tangential at these symmetry planes. In the initial simu-
lation, grid size of 9, 70, 474 is used for the computations
of flow fields around blunt cone model with an after body
and flare. In the subsequent runs, the number of grid points
are increased (grid independent study) and simulations are
once again carried out to check variations in the static pres-
sure. Figure 6 shows the surface static pressure predicted by
three different meshes and zero on X -axis refers to junction
123
430
9,70,474 elements
15000 13,39,694 elements
33,19,220 elements
Static pressure, P (Pa)
10000
5000
0
−0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Axial distance, X (m)
Fig. 6 Assessment of mesh convergence for a blunt-cone model with
an after body and flare
of the bluntcone and cylinder of a frustum configuration. It
is seen that there is no change in the static pressure, irrespec-
tive of grid size. These meshes produce very close matching
throughout the model length. Finally, total number of around
13,39,634 nodes (grid points) has been chosen for the present
study. Similarly, the other configuration (i.e.,cone model with
an after body) was modeled using around 1.3 million nodes.
A high resolution second order accurate scheme has been
used for the computations with a local time step of 0.8. The
target residuals to terminate the simulation have been set at
10−5 . About 600 iterations (time steps) have been used for
the convergence and approximately 8 hours of CPU time was
required for the simulation on an Intel Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz
processor and 2 GB of RAM speed. The program was run
on a Windows NT platform. The average pressure on model
surfaces is preprocessed based on CFD technique and given
as inputs to the finite element simulation (i.e., applied load).
Linear transient dynamic analysis with uniform time step of
0.1 µs (finite element analysis) is performed for 0◦ angle of
attack using MSC/NASTRAN software. The result was ana-
lyzed using MSC/PATRAN. To start the FE analysis, property
of the rubber material has to be known. The detailed parame-
tric studies on stiffness of the rubber material had been carried
out by Sahoo et al. [20] using FE analysis, which can ensure
a sufficiently soft suspension system (i.e., model-balance) to
measure the aerodynamic forces within the observation time
window. They have chosen aluminum and stainless steel as
the model and balance materials, respectively, and finite ele-
ment analysis were carried out to quantify the quality of the
rubber bushes (i.e., Youngs modulas, E). They found that, for
rubber bushes with higher values of E (>3 MPa), the stress-
wave induced oscillation becomes more predominant and
also that the peak acceleration as well as the mean acce-
leration drops down drastically during the observation test
time window. It was found that rubber bushes with 3 MPa
123
S. Saravanan et al.
30
E=3 MPa
25
20
Acceleration (m/s 2 )
15
10
5
0
0.2
−5 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
−3
Time (s) x 10
Fig. 7 FE simulated acceleration–time history for the integrated
model-balance system with E = 3 MPa
resembles the response of a free-floating body. Hence, in the
present investigation we have used the same property of the
rubber bushes in designing the balance system. FE analy-
sis has been carried out for an integrated cone-cylinder with
balance system and the corresponding acceleration–time his-
tory is shown in Fig. 7. It is found that there is no drop in
the mean acceleration amplitude (Fig. 7) and at the same
time, the rubber is flexible to hold the model-balance sys-
tem. Based on the FE analysis result, we can conclude that
the stiffness of rubber material plays an important role on
the sensitivity of the integrated system and we were able to
select an accelerometer with a sensitivity of 10 mV/g and
range of 500 g.
5.2 Calibration of the accelerometer force balance
In general, any measuring system needs a calibration. The
calibration of accelerometer has also been carried out by
using a standard accelerometer calibration kit (PCB Piezo-
tronics Type 086C01), which has a Piezo crystal oscillating
at 1 g with a frequency range of 9,500 Hz. The accelerometer
output was assumed to be linear with the applied accelera-
tion over the range up to 500 g. But it is advisable to calibrate
the Piezo crystal accelerometers before the experiments since
harsh environmental changes and temperature variations will
produce drifts in the sensitivity of accelerometers. A negli-
gible difference has been found between the sensitivity values
obtained from the calibration and the sensitivities given by
the manufacturer. Hence, for the present study, the calibra-
ted accelerometer sensitivities (8.45–10.15 mV/g) have been
considered for the computation.
Different methods are available in practise to evaluate the
system response function or transfer function which includes,
ball impact, wire cutting and impulse hammer. But, for the
Force measurements over missile shaped body at Mach 8 431

present investigation, we have used an impulse hammer to
get the transfer function. It is typically a linear dynamic sys-
tem connecting input (applied load) and output (acceleration
signal). In order to obtain transfer function, the model has to
be fitted with an accelerometer force balance system which
is in turn mounted on a support system, very similar to shock
tunnel testing. A gentle hit can be given at the nose portion
of a test model using PCB impulse hammer. During the cali-
bration, importance has been given to the drag component
and hence, force signal generated by the hammer and drag
acceleration signal from accelerometer balance system were
recorded. These signals are used to determine the transfer
function using a Fourier transform technique. Deconvolution
is carried out in the frequency domain. The obtained trans-
fer function from the calibration experiments are verified by
means of recovering the force signals of either from same test
or different hammer test. Hence, the transfer function [21] can
be successfully used to measure the actual aerodynamic drag
force acting on a model during the shock tunnel testing using
the measured model acceleration from the balance system.
6 Force measurement technique and accelerometer
balance for hypersonic flows
A schematic diagram and photograph of the newly designed
3-component balance system is shown in Figs. 8a,b. This
was used to measure the fundamental aerodynamic coeffi-
cients on two different test models. The balance is made out
of stainless steel and consists 3 fast response piezo electric
accelerometers (PCB, model 303A02), two flexible rubber
bushes and two stainless steel rings on which the model is
suspended. The annular rubber bushes are fixed between the
steel rings and the central sting. In the balance system, two
accelerometers are used to measure the acceleration in the
normal direction and another accelerometer is mounted along
the axis of the model to measure the drag force. The drag
accelerometer is threaded directly into the nose portion of
the model. Accelerometers whose frequency ranges were up
to approximately 10 kHz were used.
The normal force N (t), center of pressure location from
base of the model (e N ) and axial force C(t) on the model are
calculated using the measured accelerations from the follo-
wing equations [22]:


bξ N1 + aξ N2
N (t) = m (1)
a+b



I ξ N1 − ξ N2
eN = (2)
m bξ N1 + aξ N2
C(t) = m ∗ ξ A (3)
where, ξ N1 , ξ N2 and ξ A are the measured accelerations, a and
b are the locations of the accelerometers from the center of
gravity of the model, m is the weight of the model and I is
the mass moment of inertia of the model. By knowing the
angle of attack and center of pressure location from base of
the model, the fundamental aerodynamic coefficients can be
computed by using the following equations.



N (t) C(t)
Cl = cos α − sin α (4)
q∞ S q∞ S



N (t) xcg + e N
Cm = (5)
q∞ S DB



C(t) N (t)
Cd = cos α + sin α (6)
q∞ S q∞ S

where, xcg is the location of center of gravity from the base

of the model, q∞ is the free stream dynamic pressure, S is
the reference area, D B is the base diameter of the cylinder
and α is the angle of attack.

7 Results and discussion

The mass, moment of inertia of the model and center of gra-

Fig. 8 a Schematic illustration of the three-component accelerometer vity from the model base are estimated. The details of total
balance system and b Photograph of the three-component force balance mass, center of gravity location and mass moment of inertia
system along with miniature accelerometers used for the present study for the two configurations of test model are given in Table 3.

123
432 S. Saravanan et al.

Table 3 Centre of gravity location and mass moment of inertia for
different model configurations
Model Mass c.g from base
configuration (kg) of the model
X c.g (mm)
Blunt cone-cylinder 0.365 115
Blunt cone-cylinder- 0.43 72
frustum
7.1 Force measurements
The results of FE simulations are compared with the experi-
mentally measured acceleration from the drag accelerometer
at a stagnation enthalpy of 2 MJ/kg with flow Mach num-
ber of 8, in Fig. 9. The response shown in Fig. 9, has ini-
tial transients similar to the input step load followed by local
oscillations due to the mass distributed and constrained dyna-
mics. The values are plotted for a test window of 1.4 ms as
shown in Fig. 9. The plots show moderate agreement between
the filtered response from FE simulations and the measured
balance output in the steady region within the observation
window. The deviation between the experiment and FEM is
17.4%. Based on the results shown in Fig. 9, this integrated
model-balance modeling is considered to be suitable for the
shock tunnel investigation. It is clear that the magnitude of the
simulated acceleration amplitude remains unchanged with a
gradual flow development over the model and matches with
the measured balance output in the steady region within the
observation window. It shows that we have chosen a location
in the FEM simulation, where we get the maximum amplitude
of the signal which will in turn essentially give the location
of accelerometer along the model axis. Similarly, analysis
can be carried out for normal force accelerometers with res-
pect to c.g of the model and for the present investigation,
Mass moment simulation was carried out only for the drag signal. From the
of inertia of results of FEM, we are able to choose the location of drag
system, I accelerometer.
(10−4 kg-m2 )
Two to three experiments for each angle of attack and
10.816 model configuration are carried out to check the repeatabi-
4.181 lity of the signals. The typical acceleration response obtai-
ned from the accelerometers mounted in the three-component
balance system and in the model are shown in Fig. 10. Time-
history of pitot pressure is also shown in the same figure
and it is seen that time history of force closely follow the
time history of pitot pressure. It is seen that the output of
the accelerometer balance system shows a gradual rise for
about 0.5 ms and remains approximately constant for the test
period of 0.4 ms. Good repeatability has been found during
the shock tunnel testing. Since the pitot and drag sensors
are located at the same point, the response time of the drag
accelerometer matches well with the reference pitot signal
whereas the lift accelerometers are mounted apart from the
drag accelerometer [i.e., on either side of c.g of the model
(Fig. 8)] and hence, the response of normal force accelero-
meters will not be the same as the drag accelerometer (shown
in Fig. 10). Aft lift accelerometer remains constant for a per-
iod of approximately 0.4 ms. Time delay in measuring the
normal force acceleration (i.e., response of the accelerome-
ters) was estimated and found to be about 20 and 225 µs,
respectively, with respect to drag signal. However, this time
delay can be theoretically estimated by knowing the location
of accelerometers and flow velocity.
All the experimental data of both the configurations are
deduced by averaging results during the steady flow dura-
tion of 0.4 ms, whereas 1 ms test time is obtained from the
pitot pressure measurement mounted in the test section. The

30 drag
FEM 1 steady state test time
front lift
25 Experimental
aft lift
pitot
20
Drag acceleration (m/s2)

0.5
Voltage (Volts)

pitot
15

10
0
steady state test time
5
of 0.4 ms

0 −0.5

−5 2 2.5 3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 −3
−3 Time (s) x 10
Time (s) x 10
Fig. 10 Typical signals from various accelerometers mounted in the
Fig. 9 Comparison of the measured drag accelerometer response with model and accelerometer balance system for the test model flying at
the FE simulated acceleration-time history with step inputs Mach 8

123
Force measurements over missile shaped body at Mach 8 433

discrepancy in test time may be due to hitting of either particle both the configurations and shown in Figs. 12 and 13. The
(i.e., primary diaphragm), or paper diaphragm on surface of experimental results for the cone-cylinder model are in good
the model. The deconvolved drag signal is plotted with the agreement with theory as compared to frustum configura-
measured drag value. It can be clearly seen from Fig. 11 tions. The measured drag coefficient (frustum configuration)
that the measured drag signal contains irregular and high- value is less than theoretical value over the ranges of angle
frequency noise and hence there is a necessity to find out the of attack.
dominant frequency of the flow. This dominant frequency This difference could be probably due to the body shock
is estimated by using a pitot pressure measurement and an which does not closely envelop the body and as a result the
efficient algorithm of fast Fourier transform (FFT) which is
found to be 3–6 kHz. Hence, in order to get the useful data,
(a) 0.7
a 10 kHz low pass filter has been used in the analysis and Theory
Fig. 10 shows the filtered drag signal. The deconvolved drag 0.6
Expt.
signal is recovered successfully (Fig. 11). CFD

d
Drag coefficient, C
The experimental values are compared with the theoreti- AGARD
0.5
cal values of aerodynamic coefficients at angles of attack by
using modified Newtonian theory [1], taking into account of 0.4
centrifugal forces. This theory can often be used analytically
0.3
to provide reasonable estimation of the local pressure. Fur-
thermore, one can easily integrate the pressure distributions
0.2
to obtain adequate estimates of the forces and moments. The
drag contributed by the skin friction component is considered 0.1
0 5 10
in the modified Newtonian theory whereas base pressure is
Angle of attack (degrees)
not included. However, base pressure could be obtained from
CFD simulation. The value of base pressure from numeri- (b) Theory
cal simulation is approximately 10–15 pa for both the confi- 0.6 Expt.
gurations which is too low compared with the wave drag CFD
0.5
(i.e., pressure experienced at nose of the vehicle is 15 kpa,
Lift coefficient, Cl

AGARD
as shown in Fig. 6), due to the formation of shock waves. 0.4
Hence, in the present investigation, base pressure is neglec- 0.3
ted for both the configurations. These results are shown in
0.2
Figs. 12 and 13. For better estimates of the force coefficients,
it is necessary to use CFD codes. Hence, the measured values 0.1

are also compared with numerical values computed using a 0

commercial CFD code (CFX- Ansys 5.7) and AGARD data
−0.1
[23]. The error band for the measured data is estimated for 0 5 10
Angle of attack (degrees)

30 (c)
raw drag signal Theory
2
Pitching moment coefficient, Cm

calibrated signal Expt.

20
CFD
1.5 AGARD
Acceleration ms 2

10
−

1
0

− 10 0.5

− 20 0
0 5 10
− 30 Angle of attack (degrees)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
−4
Fig. 12 Variation of aerodynamic coefficients for the 41◦ apex angle
Time (s) x 10 blunt cone model with after body flying at Mach 8 for various angles
of attack: a drag coefficient, b lift coefficient and c pitching moment
Fig. 11 Deconvolved signal from the drag accelerometer coefficient

123
434 S. Saravanan et al.

(a) 0.8 characteristics in relation to various parametric changes, like

Theory
0.7 Expt.
flare angle and flare length.
CFD It is also noted for both the configurations that the scat-
Drag coefficient, Cd

0.6 AGARD ter in measured values of Cl and Cm are due to the diffe-
0.5
rences in center of pressure location and the effect of mea-
suring error with respect to low values. In Fig. 12, it is
0.4 noted that increase in normal force is not exactly linear with
increasing angles of attack, whereas it was the drag force
0.3
remains almost same. As angle of attack increases, the
0.2 pressure acting on windward surface increases which will
produce an increase in the normal force. For a chosen confi-
0.1
0 5 10 guration of test model, we find that the center of gravity is
Angle of attack (degrees) aft of center of pressure and hence, the vehicle is statically
(b) 0.7 unstable. It means that that any perturbation which produces
Theory an increased angle of attack causes a nose-up (positive) pit-
0.6 Expt. ching moment which further increases the angle of attack. As
CFD
0.5 a result, the pitching moment coefficient exhibits a non-linear
Lift coefficient, C l

AGARD
0.4
trend with angle of attack. This non-linear behavior is due to
unstable configuration. However, both the axial and normal
0.3
force contribute to the pitching moment. Thus, it is possible
0.2 that the vehicle is statically stable when X c· p = X c·g . The
0.1
variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack for both the
configurations at Mach 8 is presented in Figs. 12 and 13.
0
The variation of Cl is essentially linear with angle of inci-
−0.1 dence for both configuration and it can be clearly seen for
0 5 10
Angle of attack (degrees)
angles less than 8◦ . At 8◦ angle of attack, where the flow
on the leeward side of a body separates, flow models (com-
(c) puted) usually fail to represent the actual flow and hence,
Theory
1.6 they lie below the measured values. The initial slope of the
m

Expt.
Pitching moment coefficient, C

1.4 CFD
1.2 AGARD
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 a stabilizing moment at all angles of attack and the curve
0 5 10
Angle of attack (degrees)
Fig. 13 Variation of aerodynamic coefficients for the 41◦ apex angle
blunt cone model with after body and frustum flying at Mach 8 for
various angles of attack: a drag coefficient, b lift coefficient and
c pitching moment coefficient
Newtonian theory is not accurate. Indeed, the prediction of
axial force coefficient is marginally better at lower angles of
attack and difference becomes more when the angle of attack
is increased. In addition, the flare is known to act as a wedge
near its junction with the cylinder and as a result, the flow
changes to conical along its length. However, this theory can
be used to provide a basis for the trend of basic aerodynamic
curve for the flared body is practically one and half times
the values produced by simple cone-cylinder configuration.
Similarly, the data for pitching moment coefficient is shown
in the Fig. 13. The figure shows initially a non-linear trend
at small angles of attack which is characteristic of the dif-
ferential movement of boundary-layer reattachment around
the flare circumference and for higher angles of attack, it
exhibits linear trend. The addition of flared tail is to produce
shows the linear trend which is a good indication of stable
configuration.
7.2 Measurement uncertainty
The uncertainty analysis has been carried out based on Mee
[24]. The estimated uncertainties in the measured data are,
Cd /Cd = ±0.0783, Cl /Cl = ±0.0806 and Cm /Cm =
±0.0953. Uncertainties in the sensor sensitivities, setting of
angle of attack, free stream conditions in the tunnel test sec-
tion, the restraint offered by the rubber bushes to the free
flight of the model during test time, outputs of the accelero-
meter balance system and data acquisition systems are some
of the factors that contribute to the above force measurement
uncertainties.

123
Force measurements over missile shaped body at Mach 8
8 Conclusions
The following are the main observations drawn from this
work.
• We have developed a three-component accelerometer
force balance system for short duration testing facilities
and used it to measure the aerodynamic force coefficients
for two different test models at flow Mach number of 8
in the HST2 hypersonic shock tunnel.
• The accelerometer force balance has a number of advan-
tage in comparison with classical conventional balances
for shock tunnel testing.
• By providing a flare to the basic model configuration
(blunt cone with afterbody), the contribution to Cn α is
quite significant and in addition, the model is more stati-
cally stable.
• Investigations have shown that drag coefficient remains
same for both the configurations at higher angles of attack
whereas it decreased about 8–4% for zero and lower
angles of attack for frustum model configuration.
• For moderate angles of attack, the lift coefficient of frus-
tum increased by 8.2–30% compared with basic confi-
guration. For a pitching moment, frustum configuration
shows a gradual decrease at lower angles of attack and at
higher angle of attack, it decreased by 34%.
Acknowledgments The support rendered by Dr. Reddeppa,
Mr. Mahapatra, Mr. Vinayak Kulkarni, Mr. K. Nagashetty and
Mr. Rajagopal during the course of this work is gratefully acknow-
ledged. We would like to thank Mr. Ramesh Babu for his patience and
care in the drawing.
References
1. Truitt, R.W.: Hypersonic Aerodynamics. The Ronald Press
Company, New York (1959)
2. Stalker, R.J.: Development of a hypervelocity wind tunnel.
Aeronaut. J. 76, 374–384 (1972)
3. Sanderson, S.R., Simmons, J.M.: Drag balance for hypersonic
impulse facilities. AIAA J. 29, 2185–2191 (1991)
4. Mee, D.J., Daniel, W.J.T., Simmons, J.M.: Three-component force
balance for flows of millisecond duration. AIAA J. 34-1, 590–
595 (1996)
5. Storkmann, V., Olivier, H., Gronig, H.: Force measurements in
hypersonic impulse facilities. AIAA J. 36-3, 342–348 (1998)
6. Takahashi, M., Komuro, K., Itoh, K.H.T., Ueda, S.: Development
of a new force measurement method for scramjet testing in a high
enthalpy shock tunnel. AIAA Paper 1999–4961 (1999)
View publication stats
435
7. Naumann, K.W., Ende, H., Mathieu, G., George, A.: Millisecond
aerodynamic force measurement with side jet model in the ISL
shock tunnel. AIAA J. 31-6, 1068–1074 (1993)
8. Carbonaro, M.: Aerodynamic force measurements in the VKI
longshot hypersonic facility. New trends in instrumentation for
hypersonic research, pp. 317–325 (1993)
9. Srulijes, J., Gnemmi, P., Runne, K., Seiler, F.: High-pressure shock
tunnel experiments and CFD calculations on spike-tipped blunt
bodies. AIAA Paper 2002–2918 (2002)
10. Hubner, J.P., Carroll, B.F., Schanze, K.S., Ji, H.F.: Pressure-
Sensitive paint measurements in a shock tube. Exp. Fluids 28, 21–
28 (2000)
11. Lam, L.Y., Stollenwerk, E.J.: Aerodynamic force measurement of
free-flight models in a hypervelocity shock tunnel. AIAA 1966–
0771 (1966)
12. Jessen, C., Gronig, H.: A six component balance for short duration
hypersonic facilities. New trends in Instrumentation for hyperso-
nic research, pp. 295–305 (1993)
13. Vidal, R.J.: Model instrumentation techniques for heat transfer
and force measurements in a hypersonic shock tunnel. Cornell
Aeronautical Laboratory Report, WADC TN 56-315 (1956)
14. Joshi, M.V., Reddy, N.M.: Aerodynamic force measurements over
missile configuration in IISc shock tunnel at Mach 5.5. Exp.
Fluids 4, 338–340 (1986)
15. Raju, C., Reddy, N.M.: Aerodynamic force measurements over
missile configuration in IISc shock tunnel at Mach 3.85 and
9.15. Exp. Fluids 10, 175–177 (1990)
16. Viren, M., Saravanan, S., Jagadeesh, G., Reddy, K.P.J.: Expe-
rimental investigations of hypersonic flow over highly blunted
cones with aerospikes. AIAA J. 41-10, 1955–1966 (2003)
17. Viren, M., Saravanan, S., Reddy, K.P.J.: Shock tunnel study of
spiked aerodynamic bodies flying at hypersonic Mach Number.
Shock Waves. 12, 197–204 (2002)
18. Saravanan, S.: Experimental investigation of the effect of nose
cavity on the aerothermodynamics of the missile shaped bodies
flying at hypersonic Mach numbers: Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore, India (2007)
19. Sahoo, N., Mahapatra, D.R., Jagadeesh, G., Gopalakrishnan, S.,
Reddy, K.P.J.: Aerodynamic force measurements on 60◦ apex
angle blunt cones flying at Mach 5.75 using a 3-component acce-
leromeer balance: AIAA Paper-2002-5204(2002)
20. Sahoo, N., Mahapatra, D.R., Jagadeesh, G., Gopalakrishnan, S.,
Reddy, K.P.J.: An accelerometer balance system for measurement
of aerodynamic force coefficients over blunt bodies in a hyperso-
nic shock tunnel. Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 260–272 (2003)
21. Mee, D.J.: Dynamic calibration of force balances for impulse
facilities. Shock Waves 12-6, 443–456 (2003)
22. Reddy, N.M.: Aerodynamic force measurements in the hypersonic
shock tunnel. In: Proceedings of 14th International Symposium
on Shock Waves, p. 358 (1983)
23. Ashby, G.C. Jr., Cary, A.M. Jr.: A parametric study of the aero-
dynamic characteristics of nose-cylinder-flare bodies at a Mach
number of 6.0 : NASA TN D-2854 (1965)
24. Mee, D.J.: Uncertainties analysis of conditions in test section of
the T4 shock tunnel. University of Queensland, Centre for Hyper-
sonics Research Report No 4/93, Australia (1993)
123