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

net/publication/338398850

Flow quality mapping of the Mach 4 Quiet Ludwieg Tube

Conference Paper · January 2020

DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-0360

CITATION READS
1 82

3 authors, including:

John Flood Stuart Craig

The University of Arizona The University of Arizona
4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Mach 6 Flared Cone Research- Second Mode View project

Nonlinear interaction between first- and Mack-mode instabilities in high-supersonic flows View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Flood on 22 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flow Quality Mapping of the Mach 4 Quiet Ludwieg Tube

John Flood∗ , Lutz Taubert† , Stuart A. Craig‡

Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

A mapping of the flow conditions of the Mach 4 Quiet Ludwieg Tube has been completed.
This report completes a prior investigation by Flood et al. [1]. That paper provided preliminary
results, which stated that the maximum quiet flow capabilities of the facility were a total pressure
of pt1 = 95.4 kPa (13.8 psia) and a unit Reynolds number of Re 0 = 4.27 × 106 m−1 . Recent
improvements to the tunnel operation and data acquisition procedures have improved this to
pt1 = 97.9 kPa (14.2 psia) and Re 0 = 4.54 × 106 m−1 . The length of the quiet core and the
Reynolds number based on quiet core length at pt1 = 96.5 kPa (14.0 psia) are measured to be
∆xqc = 97.7 mm and Reqc = 4.32 × 105 , respectively.

I. Introduction
Paramount to applicable experimental research in boundary-layer stability and transition is access to a low-disturbance,
flight-like environment. This motivated the development of "quiet" wind tunnels [2], which are kept free of free-stream
acoustic disturbances by laminarizing the nozzle-wall boundary layer, which would be turbulent and radiate noise on the
walls of a conventional wind tunnel. These acoustic disturbances, which are absent in a real-flight scenario, pollute the
test environment and increase the free-stream disturbance level by an order of magnitude. Vortical disturbances and
changes in free-stream entropy can also disrupt the quality of the flow field. The high free-stream disturbance level can
raise the initial amplitude of instabilities in high-speed boundary layers, altering the path that the boundary layer will
take to transition, as well as significantly lowering the transition Reynolds number for a given test scenario.
In a conventional test environment, the transition process can unfold in a manner completely non-indicative of
how it would in a real-world application. It has been shown that for Mach numbers greater than 3, the strong acoustic
disturbances which radiate off the nozzle walls dominate the transition process on simple geometries at moderate angles
of attack [3]. Experiments on a 5-degree flared cone were performed in both quiet and noisy flows to compare the effect
of the two flow regimes by Horvath et al. [4]. The results of the experiments showed that under quiet conditions, the
transition Reynolds number increased by 1.5 × 106 and the location of transition was 8 inches farther downstream on
the cone. Another example of the effect of conventional tunnel disturbances is apparent in the work of Chen et al. [5].
Linear stability theory (LST) showed that the transition Reynolds number for a 5-degree half angle cone should be 0.7
times the value for a flat plate. However, under conventional flow, the transition Reynolds number was higher for a cone,
and it was not until testing was performed under quiet conditions that the results matched LST predictions. There are a
number of other instances throughout the literature where acoustic disturbances from conventional wind tunnels have a
detrimental effect on transition.
Quiet wind tunnels are limited in number due to their difficulty to design, build, and maintain. The challenges in the
production process are outlined thoroughly in Schneider [2]. The challenges of supersonic quiet tunnels listed in that
paper are: the high cost of designing, building, operating, and maintaining supersonic tunnels; acquiring measurement
equipment capable of measuring the high frequency disturbances that typically dominate supersonic transition; trying to
control the laminar boundary layer and limit the acoustic disturbances through nozzle design; boundary layer transition
is a particular problem for a specific part of the design process of certain vehicles, therefore, it is difficult to obtain
sustained funding for these tunnels. Ludwieg tubes are therefore a convenient choice for a supersonic wind tunnel, as
they are notably cheap to build, operate, and maintain. Also, the flow upstream of the nozzle is naturally quiet, partially
simplifying the problem of maintaining laminar boundary layer walls.
An additional difficulty in the production of quiet tunnels is the effort to keep the facility quiet to Reynolds numbers
where transition could be expected. Conventional-type tunnels are capable of achieving quiet flow, but only at Reynolds
numbers meaninglessly low. It has been shown that on a flat plate at Mach 4.5 [6], the critical Reynolds number is
roughly 40,000. Therefore, if the Reynolds number based on the length of the quiet core in this wind tunnel can match,
∗ PhD Student, AIAA Student Member, floodjt31@email.arizona.edu
† Research Assistant Professor, AIAA Member
‡ Assistant Professor, AIAA Senior Member

1
exceed, or come close to that value, the facility will be deemed a quiet tunnel still able to perform meaningful transition
experiments.

II. Experimental Apparatus

A. Mach 4 Quiet Ludwieg Tube

The Mach 4 Quiet Ludwieg Tube (QLT4) is a short-duration, supersonic pressure-vacuum blowdown tunnel
following the basic design of Ludwieg [7]. Ludwieg tubes are a popular design choice for their reasonable price of
assembly and maintenance, naturally low-disturbance flow entering the nozzle, and their quick turnaround time between
runs. This particular Ludwieg Tube was originally installed and operated at the Purdue University and comparisons will
be made against the prior flow characterization performed by Schneider and Haven [8].
Ludwieg tubes typically consist of a driver tube that controls the operating pressure of a given experiment, and a
vacuum tank. These two components, separated by some kind of diaphragm or fast opening valve section, generate a
pressure differential. QLT4 consists of a driver tube that is 21 m (68 ft) in length and 0.30 m (1 ft) in diameter. The
vacuum tank of 708 cubic feet can generate a vacuum that is 6 0.1 torr. A double-diaphragm system downstream of
the nozzle and test section uses Mylar sheets which act to create a third volume between the driver tube and vacuum
tank. That volume is set to half the driver-tube pressure prior to a tunnel run. When operators signal the tunnel to run,
the small slug of air in the intermediate diaphragm section is evacuated to the vacuum tank and the diaphragms burst,
initiating the flow.
The imperative feature of QLT4 and all quiet wind tunnels is the nozzle section. The nozzle sits in between the
driver tube and accelerates the flow from near stagnant conditions to the design speed of Mach 4. The height and width
of the nozzle exit are 102.99 mm (4.3 in) × 96.52 mm (3.8 in). The length of the nozzle from the joint of the driver
tube and the beginning of the contraction of the nozzle to the nozzle exit is 790.00 mm (31.10 in). The area of the
throat of the nozzle is 8.83 cm2 , which gives an area ratio of 83 between the driver tube and the throat. In addition to
accelerating the flow, the QLT4 nozzle was designed specifically to maintain quiet flow. Generating quiet flow in a
supersonic wind tunnel is achieved primarily through maintaining laminar boundary-layer walls on the nozzle section
for as long as possible. Two features of the QLT4 nozzle aid in this effort: the extremely fine polish of the nozzle walls
and the slow expansion design of the diverging part of the nozzle. The entire nozzle is polished to a mirror-like finish
from x = −469.68 mm to x = 0.03 mm It is well known that the throat roughness must be significantly small in order to
prevent transition in the nozzle [9]. The finish in the throat region of QLT4 is approximately 0.02–0.04 µm rms [8]. The
laminar boundary layer wall is also maintained by use of a slow expansion-design. This design helps minimize the
effect of the Görtler instability, which most often causes transition on concave surfaces like nozzles. Another popular
design feature in laminar flow control, a bleed slot upstream of the nozzle, is not featured in QLT4.
The test section dimensions match the exit dimensions of the nozzle. The test section has a model mount and a
traversing system with 152 mm (6.00 in) of streamwise travel. QLT4 has optical access at three streamwise locations via
windows of 76.2 mm (3.00 in) on opposite sides of the nozzle and test section at streamwise distances of x = −165.74 mm
(-6.53 in), x = −63.50 mm (-2.50 in), and x = 76.20 mm (3.00 in).
The run time of QLT4 is approximately 6 seconds, including tunnel start and unstart. A complete description of the
physics taking place during a run in a Ludwieg Tube is available in Cable and Cox [10]. When the diaphragm ruptures at
the beginning of a run, a series of expansion waves travels upstream through the test section and nozzle. These continue
to form until sonic conditions are reached in the throat of the nozzle. At this point, the group of expansion waves, which
have formed an "expansion fan", travel upstream. Until they reflect off the end of the driver tube and travel back through
the test section, there are constant conditions of velocity, pressure, density and temperature in the test section. The time
that it takes for that wave to leave the nozzle and return dictates the run time, which for QLT4, is 100 ms. Every time the
wave passes through the nozzle and back again, the stagnation pressure in the driver tube drops somewhere between 0.2
and 0.3 psia. The resulting pressure trace forms a "stair-step" pattern. The drops between each stair step are sharp for
approximately the first 10 stair steps. Then, the transition between each stair-step becomes considerably less distinct. In
total, there are about 25 stairs-steps for a given run, at which point the driver tube starts to lose pressure in an almost
linear fashion. Only the first stair-step in each run was used in calculating the data presented in this report. An example
of what the pressure traces from a run look like are presented in Figure 1.

2
 Pt1 and Pt2 Traces During a 14.06 psia Run
15
pt2 middle
pt2 left
Pressure [psia]

10 pt2 right
pt1

-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s]
Fig. 1 Pressure Traces from 14.06 psia run

B. Data Acquisition System

Kulite XCE-062-20A pressure transducers were used for the three transducers in the Pitot rake. Each signal was
amplified by a factor of 256 using a Kulite KSC-2 signal conditioner (standard with XCE transducers). The signals
were low-pass filtered at 1 MHz using a Precision Filters 28400V card in tandem with a Precision Filters 28000 signal
conditioning system. The data was sampled using a PXIe-6378 analog-to-digital converter card supplied by National
Instruments. The card has 16-bit resolution and is capable of sampling 16 channels at 3.5 MS/s per channel. The Kulites
were sampled at 2 MHz. The PXIe-6378 card is housed in a National Instruments PXIe-1085 PXI Chassis. National
Instruments LabVIEW software is used to control the acquisition system. Once the Kulite pressure data has been stored,
it is digitally filtered using a 4th-order Butterworth filter with a low-pass cutoff frequency of 125 kHz and a high-pass
cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, in order to match Schneider and Haven [8].

C. The Pitot Rakes

QLT4 has a traversing system that allows access to the test section through its ceiling. The Pitot rake was mounted to
this traverse. A complete report of the length of the quiet core required measurements longer than the maximum travel
of the traverse (152 mm (6 in)). Therefore, two Pitot rakes were machined for the flow characterization campaign of
QLT4; diagrams of the rakes are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 (Note: The images are not scaled relative to each other).
Both rakes have three probes for the Kulite pressure transducers, but the probes are spaced differently for each rake.
Before describing the locations that each rake can attain, it is worthwhile to describe the coordinate system used
throughout the shakedown and in subsequent experiments in QLT4. The x, y, and z directions represent the streamwise,
cross-stream, and spanwise coordinates in the wind tunnel. The origin (x = 0 mm, y = 0 mm, z = 0 mm) of the
coordinate system lies at the nozzle exit at center span, and center height. Positive x is downstream of the nozzle exit
while negative x is upstream of the nozzle exit. Positive y increases above the origin and negative y decreases below the
origin. Positive z increases to the right of the origin when looking upstream to downstream and negative z decreases to
the left of the origin.
The longer rake can measure as far forward as z = −212.00 mm; the shorter rake can measure as far rearward as
z = −8.92 mm, nearly the nozzle exit. Both rakes have three different spanwise mounting locations, therefore, each rake
can acquire 9 different spanwise measurements. Table 1 indicates the locations that the three pressure transducers would
occupy in each orientation for each rake.

3
 Rake Type Center Position (mm) Right Position (mm) Left Position (mm)
Long Rake z=-14.40 z=0 z=14.40 z=-0.43 z=13.97 z=28.37 z=-28.37 z=-13.97 z=0.43
Short Rake z=-26.44 z=0 z=26.44 z=-12.47 z=13.97 z=40.41 z=-40.41 z=-13.97 z=12.47
Table 1 Possible Rake locations: Coordinates listed as: port,center,starboard

starboard
26.44 mm
x
center
26.44 mm z

port
193.04 mm

Fig. 2 The shorter Pitot rake

III. Results and Discussion

The goals of the experiments in this paper were: calculate the length of the quiet core, find the Reynolds number of
the flow based on that length, and establish the maximum quiet pressure and unit Reynolds number. Those data are
presented and discussed in the following sections. A spanwise asymmetry is also commented on.

A. Defining the RMS Criterion

Before discussing results regarding quiet flow versus noisy flow, it is helpful to define the criterion used in this paper
to differentiate the two types of flow. A parameter here referred to as the root mean square (RMS) is used to establish
whether the flow is quiet or noisy. The root mean square is a common mathematical value defined as the arithmetic
mean of the squares of the values. The calculations for this paper are described as follows: the mean of a set of pt2
values is subtracted from the entire set:
0
pt2 = pt2 − p̄t2 (1)
The resultant set of data, which are fluctuations about 0, has each individual value squared and summed. The resultant
of that summation is divided by the number of the points in the set. The square root of that number gives the RMS:
r
1 02
pt2,r ms =
0
(p + pt2,2
02 + .... + p 02 ) (2)
n t2,1 t2,n

That RMS is then divided by the original mean of the data set and multiplied by 100 to give a % RMS, which is used as
the criterion for quiet flow:
0
pt2,r ms
RMS = × 100 (3)
pt2
Beckwith and Miller originally suggested that the RMS should be 6 0.05% [11], however, 0.1% is commonly used as
the threshold for quiet flow throughout literature.

B. Onset of Mach 4 Flow

The beginning of the quiet core in supersonic wind tunnels can be defined as the streamwise point where the flow
reaches the design Mach number of the test facility. Supersonic nozzles converge and accelerate the flow to sonic

4
 Fig. 3 The longer Pitot rake

Streamwise onset of Mach 4 Flow

4
13.83 psia
11.50 psia

3.95

3.9

3.85
-215 -210 -205 -200 -195 -190
Streamwise Distance [mm]
Fig. 4 Onset of Mach 4 flow in QLT4 Nozzle

velocity at the throat, then diverge to accelerate the flow to the design Mach number. At this point, a pair of Mach lines
form. To measure the point where the Mach lines intersect and uniform flow begins in the QLT4 nozzle, the longer
rake took measurements from its forward most position traversing in the downstream direction until Mach 4 flow was
achieved.
These measurements were performed at two different pressures, 11.5 psia and 13.83 psia, to ensure that the Mach
number behaved similarly when pressure is varied and it indeed did. For the three runs that are shown in Figure 4, the
average difference in Mach number between the two pressures over the three measurement locations is approximately
0.001. Figure 4 shows that uniform Mach 4 flow begins at a streamwise distance of x = −191.66 mm. The flow is not
exactly at Mach 4, however, standard operation of the wind tunnel shows that the Mach number can vary by ±0.03
[1]. Thus, this point in the tunnel is defined as the beginning of uniform Mach 4 flow and the start of the quiet core.
Schneider and Haven [8] reported that the quiet core started at x=-189.68 mm when the tunnel was at Purdue University.

C. Maximum Quiet Pressure and Reynolds Number

Another important specification of a quiet wind tunnel is the maximum pressure and unit Reynolds number at which
quiet flow can be maintained. The unit Reynolds number is an especially vital characteristic in quiet tunnels as it is
used in the calculation of, Reqcl , which is the criterion that is best used to compare the performance of quiet nozzles
[12]. Table 2 contains both of these important specifications of the tunnel. The performance from the tunnel’s previous

5
 Tunnel Location Maximum Quiet Pressure Maximum Quiet Unit Reynolds Number
U. of Arizona pt1 =14.19 psia Re−1 = 4.42 × 106 m−1
U. of Arizona pt1 =13.95 psia Re−1 = 4.54 × 106 m−1
Purdue U. 14.5 psia 4.2x106 m−1
Table 2 Maximum Quiet Operating Conditions of QLT4 at University of Arizona Compared to the Tunnels
Conditions while at Purdue University

place of operation, Purdue University, is also included. It is important to note that the run with the maximum quiet
pressure in QLT4 did not match the run with the maximum quiet unit Reynolds number. The maximum value attained at
the University of Arizona is boldface in Table 2, and the other measurement is included for reference. This is due to
different stagnation temperatures during the tunnel runs. The stagnation temperature in QLT4 can vary from run to
run. Currently, there are no means of controlling the stagnation temperature in QLT4. The run with the maximum
quiet pt1 was measured at (x, y, z) = (−154 mm, 0 mm, 0 mm). The run with the maximum quiet Re−1 was measured at
(x, y, z) = (−190 mm, 0 mm, 0 mm), nearly the beginning of the quiet core.

D. Length of Quiet Core and Reynolds Number Based on That Length

Two streamwise sweeps at different stagnation pressures were performed to determine the length of the quiet core.
One sweep was done at a pressure near the maximum quiet pressure of QLT4, 14 psia, and the other was at a far more
modest pressure, 10 psia. It is expected that as the operating stagnation pressure increases, the inevitable transition of
the boundary layer wall will occur further upstream in the nozzle. Consequently, there is a decrease in the length of the
quiet core [3]. This trend was observed experimentally in QLT4 as can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The length of
the quiet core at pt1 = 14.00 psia begins at x = −191.66 mm as stated in section A and based on Figure 5, extends
downstream until x = −94.00 mm, where the RMS of the right Kulite finally extends beyond the 0.1% criterion for
quiet flow. It is curious that the right Kulite sees lower values than the center Kulite for certain streamwise locations.
Also interesting is the absence of a sharp jump to “noisy” flow immediately downstream of this location. The flow
seems to enter an intermittent state where the flow cannot be deemed quiet, nor noisy. Noisy flow typically is indicated
by RMS levels on the order of 1.0 %. The transition from quiet to noisy flow can be seen graphically as a sharp increase
in the RMS from the quiet noise levels (6 0.1%) to values near noisy levels (≈ 1.0%). Figure 5 shows a slow drift in
RMS for the center pressure transducer from x=-94.00 mm to x=-14.00 mm where the RMS goes from 0.09% to 0.44%.
Measurements between those two distances were taken in 12 mm increments. The largest ∆RMS between measurements
was 0.11%.
It is important to note that there are some points in that span where the RMS decreases despite the Pitot rake being
moved further downstream. At x = −8.92 mm (the downstream limit of measurement given the current test section
traverse and rake), the RMS of the center-span transducer increases to 0.76%, which is near levels that would inicate
noisy flow. That is a change in RMS of 0.33% from the previous upstream measurement. It is apparent that at x = −8.92
mm, the wall boundary layers have entered a fully turbulent state. Between x = −94.00 mm and x = −14.00 mm, the
boundary layer seems to be plagued by turbulent spots that originate on the boundary layer walls and cause intermittent
spikes in the trace of the Kulite pressure transducers. This trend of intermittent spikes becoming more and more
prevalent as the boundary layer has more time to develop is a characteristic of quiet nozzles [13]. Figure 7 shows how
an increase in frequency and amplitude of turbulent spikes in the pt2 pressure trace is associated with an increase in the
RMS value. The length of the quiet core at 14.0 psia is 97.66 mm. The average Re−1 for those runs was 4.42 × 106 m−1 .
Multiplying these two values, a value for the dimensionless Reynolds number based on the length of the quiet core,
Reqcl , is found: 4.32 × 105 .
In addition to the sweep near the maximum pt1 , another sweep was completed at pt1 = 10 psia. The results of this
sweep bare esemblance to the 14 psia sweep, save two stark differences. First, the length of the quiet core is much longer
for the pt1 = 10 psia sweep. The RMS values remain under the 0.1% quiet flow criterion until the most downstream
measurement point, x = −8.92 mm. Quiet flow was measured from -191.66 mm to -14.00 mm. Thus, the length of
the quiet core at this pressure is 177.66 mm. The average unit Reynolds from that set of runs is 3.18 × 106 m−1 . The
dimensionless Reynolds number based on the length of the quiet core for this sweep is Reqcl = 5.63 × 105 . The second
difference between the two sweeps is the 10 psia one does not show the region of intermittency which is prevalent in the
14 psia sweep. It is unclear if that region lies downstream of the current measuring capabilities.

6
 14 psia Streamwise Sweep
1.5
z=0 mm
z=26.44 mm
z=-26.44 mm
1 z=14.40 mm
z=-14.40mm

0.5

0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0
Streamwise Distance [mm]
Fig. 5 Streamwise Sweep of Noise Levels at pt1 = 14.00 psia

The report characterizing the quiet capabilities of QLT4 during its tenure at Purdue University stated that the Reqcl
was 4.0 × 105 . This Reynolds number was calculated by performing a sweep at 13.63 psia (Re 0 = 4.2 × 106 ) over the
length of the quiet core that they measured, which was x = −187.73 mm to x = −89.70 mm, a length of 98.03 mm.

E. Max Operating Conditions

A run was performed near the maximum pressure that QLT4 is cabapable of operating at, 50 psia. Table 3 shows the
data from this run; the transducer was located at x = −150.00 mm, y = 0 mm, z = 0 mm. This location is approximately
the center of the quiet core. The RMS for this run is an order of magnitude higher than the value at 10 and 14 psia.

pt1 M1 RMS
46.36 psia 4.07 0.511
Table 3 Data reported from tunnel run near maximum operating conditions of QLT4.

F. Investigating Edge effects

A question left unanswered from the initial report on the flow quality of QLT4 regarded an edge effect that had
appeared in the data. A rise from quiet levels to noisy levels in RMS and an equivalent drop back to quiet levels was
observed in the starboard transducer as it was moved further downstream. This trend is not seen in the data set presented
in this report. That unexpected trend from the initial report is being ruled out as an anomaly, since two complete sweeps
did not reproduce it. The two sweeps completed for this paper further uncovered a different asymmetry in the flow field
though: a disparity in RMS values between the equally space port and starboard transducers in what is supposed to
be a 2D test section were discovered. Intuitively, measurements an equal distance to the left and right of center span
would yield relatively similar RMS values. However, visible in both sweeps is a considerable difference in the RMS
values calculated from the right and left pressure transducers. In the 14 psia sweep, at x=-50.00 mm, the left transducer
already shows an RMS of 1.056%, which would indicate the transducer is in a region of noisy flow. Meanwhile, the
right transducer RMS is 0.627%. This is a difference of 0.429% at an equal distance from center span of the tunnel.
The beginning of this trend is first visible at x=-106.00 mm and is present in all measurements downstream of that
location. The same trend is visible in the 10 psia sweep but not until much further downstream, at x = −38.00 mm. The

7
 10 psia Streamwise Sweep
0.5 z=0 mm
z=26.44 mm
z=-26.44 mm
0.4 z=14.40 mm
z=-14.40mm
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0
Streamwise Distance [mm]
Fig. 6 Streamwise Sweep of Noise Levels at pt1 = 10.00 psia

difference between the two RMS values at the left transducer and the right transducer also continues downstream of
that streamwise location, with the most noticeable difference coming at the most downstream measurement location,
x = −8.92 mm. The authors presently have two theories as to why these discrepancies might exist. The first is that
during tunnel assembly, a slight step was found between the nozzle and the driver tube. At the time of installation, this
step was not quantified, but it could prove to be the source of this asymmetry. The second hypothesis is that the nozzle
is mildly corroded or damaged on the left sidewall in a way that does not exist on the right side wall. In interest of being
thorough, instrumentation should be checked as well, though a fault in instrumentation would likely lead to different
values across the entirety of the quiet core. CAD models of the nozzle along with the nozzle coordinates are in hand, so
CFD could be used to investigate this issue as well.

IV. Conclusion
This paper offers a complete characterization of the quiet flow in QLT4 at the University of Arizona. The maximum
quiet unit Reynolds number at which the tunnel can operate is Re 0 = 4.54 × 106 m−1 . The maximum quiet pressure that
the tunnel can operate at is pt1 = 97.9 kPa (14.2 psia). The maximum quiet unit Reynolds number exceeds the tunnels
performance at its previous installment at Purdue University. However, the maximum quiet pressure at University of
Arizona is less than it was at Purdue University. The length of the quiet core was calculated to be ∆xqc = 97.66 mm,
which is approximately what was measured at Purdue University. The RMS pressure fluctuations used to determined
the quiet core length at UA were measured at pt1 = 96.5 kPa (14.0 psia), while at Purdue the sweep was performed
at pt1 = 93.8 kPa (13.63 psia). Therefore, the Reynolds number based on the length of the quiet core was higher at
University of Arizona versus at Purdue University, 4.32 × 105 versus 4.0 × 105 , respectively.

V. Future Work
This flow characterization campaign has successfully surveyed the most important operating characteristics of the
QLT4 quiet tunnel. However, there exist opportunities to explore different regions of the nozzle that were not included
in this paper. As seen in Table 1, there are a total of 15 different spanwise locations that can be measured with the given
traverse and Pitot rakes. Only five were taken advantage of in this campaign. The differing noise levels on the left and
right of center-span could be better investigated if the RMS at all 15 spanwise locations was measured. The test section
traverse also has the capability to traverse the full height of the nozzle. These measurements, while interesting, are not
vital to future transition experiments. The key characteristic of the QLT4 nozzle, the length of the quiet core, has been

8
 RMS=0.0583% RMS=0.7282% RMS=1.338%
2.2 2.2

1.7

2.1 2.1

1.6

2 2
Pressure [psia]

Pressure [psia]

Pressure [psia]
1.5

1.9 1.9

1.4

1.8 1.8

1.3

1.7 1.7

1.2

1.6 1.6
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 7 RMS values increasing with intermittency in pressure trace. The plot on the left is from a run at 9.94 psia.
The center and right plot are both from a 13.99 psia run, the center plot represents the center Kulite and the
right plot represents the left Kulite. The increase of frequency and amplitude in turbulent spikes matches the
increase in RMS.

attained. The exact dimensions of the quiet core, well known to be a rhombus [14], can be estimated by drawing Mach
lines from the front and rear of the quiet core. It could be valuable to confirm these estimations with experimental data
though, as model placement depends upon knowledge of the location of the test rhombus. BLST is also in contact with
computational groups about collaborating to compare an experimental characterization with a computational one to see
if the results match reasonably.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Dr. Eric Marineau, Program Officer, Office of Naval research (ONR) through grant
N00014-17-1-2340. The authors would like to extend gratitude to Victor E. Padilla, Kyle Bearden, Wesley Bohult,
Treyton Moore, and Isaac Charcos.

References
[1] Flood, J. T., Taubert, L., and Craig, S. A., “Initial Flow Quality of the Mach 4 Ludwieg Tube,” AIAA Paper 2019, June 2019.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-3220.

[2] Schneider, S. P., “Development of Hypersonic Quiet Tunnels,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 641–664.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.34489.

[3] Beckwith, I., Harvey, W., Harris, J., and Holley, B., “Control of Supersonic Wind-Tunnel Noise by Laminarization of Nozzle-Wall
Boundary Layers,” NASA Technical Memorandum, 1973.

[4] Horvath, T., Berry, S., Hollis, B., Chang, C., and Singer, B., “Boundary Layer Transition on Slender Cones in Conventional and
Low Disturbance Mach 6 Wind Tunnels,” AIAA 2002-2743, 2003.

[5] Chen, F., Malik, M., and Beckwith, I., “Boundary-Layer Transition on a Cone and Flat Plate at Mach 3.5,” AIAA Journal,
Vol. 27, No. 6, 1989, pp. 687–693.

[6] Mack, L. M., “Boundary-Layer Linear Stability Theory,” AGARD Report No. 709, 1984.

9
 [7] Ludwieg, H., “Tube wind tunnel: A special type of blowdown tunnel,” Eleventh Meeting of the Wind Tunnel and Model Testing
Panel, AGARD Rep. 143, Scheveningen, Holland, 1957.

[8] Schneider, S. P., and Haven, C. E., “Quiet-flow Ludwieg tube for high-speed transition research,” AIAA J., Vol. 33, No. 4, 1995,
pp. 688–693. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12434.

[9] Beckwith, I., Chen, F., and Kendall, J., “Design and Operational Features of Lowe-Disturbance Wind Tunnels at NASA Langley
for Mach Numbers from 3.5 to 18,” AIAA Paper 90-1391, 1990.

[10] Cable, A. J., and Cox, R. N., “The Ludwieg Pressure-Tube Supersonic Wind Tunnel,” Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 02,
1963, pp. 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001925900002729.

[11] Beckwith, I., , and Miller, I., C.G., “Aerothermodynamics and Transition in High-Speed Wind Tunnels at NASA Langley,”
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 22, 1990, pp. 419–439.

[12] Hussaini, M., and Voigt, R., Instability and Transition: Volume II, Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, 1989.

[13] Wilkinson, S., S.P.and Anders, and Chen, F., “Status of NASA Langley Quiet Flow Facility Developments,” AIAA 18th
Aerospace Ground Testing Conference, 1994.

[14] Beckwith, I., Creel, R., Chen, F., and Kendall, J., “Free-Stream Noise and Transition Measurements on a Cone in a Mach 3.5
Pilot Low-Disturbance Tunnel,” NASA Technical Paper, 1983.

10

View publication stats