Laminar Heat Transfer A r o u n d Blunt Bodies

in Dissociated Air f
NELSON H. KEMP,* PETER H. ROSE/ AND RALPH W. DETRA*

Avco-Everett Research Laboratory

SUMMARY S = Eq. (8)

T = absolute temoerature
A method of predicting laminar heat-transfer rates to blunt,
u = x-component of velocity
highly cooled bodies with constant wall temperature in dissociated
v = y component of velocity
air flow is developed. Attention is restricted to the case of axi-
x = distance along meridian profile of body
symmetric bodies at zero incidence, although two-dimensional
y = distance normal to body surface
bodies could be treated the same way. The method is based on
V = Eq. (6)
t h e use of the "local similarity" concept and an extension of t h e
0 = Eq. (8)
ideas used by Fay and Riddell. 1 A simple formula is given for
\x = absolute viscosity
predicting t h e ratio of local heat-transfer rate to stagnation-point
* = Eq. (5)
rate. It depends on wall conditions and pressure distribution,
p = mass density
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

but not on the thermodynamic or transport properties of the hot

a = Prandtl Number cpfx/k
external flow, except at the stagnation point.
Experimental heat-transfer rates obtained with correct stag- Subscripts
nation-point simulation and high wall cooling in shock tubes are i =ith. component
also presented and compared with the theoretical predictions. e =external flow conditions
On the whole, t h e agreement is good, although in regions of rap- w =wall conditions, rj = 0 or y = 0
idly varying pressure there is evidence t h a t the local similarity ^ =stagnation-point conditions
assumption breaks down, and the theory underestimates t h e £» y , x> y =
differentiation with respect to indicated variable
actual heat-transfer rate by up t o 25 per cent. oo = free-stream conditions
o = local similarity solution
E = equilibrium
SYMBOLS

Ci = mass fraction of ith component (1) INTRODUCTION

Cp = Vd(dhi/dT)
D
DT

f
= diffusion coefficient
= thermal diffusion coefficient
= Eq.(7)
T HE THEORY of h e a t transfer a t a stagnation point
in a dissociating gas h a s been discussed b y F a y
a n d Riddell. 1 T h e y considered t h e mechanism of h e a t
g = Eq.(8)
transfer, with the pertinent physical and chemical
h = enthalpy per unit mass of ith component
h = enthalpy per unit mass of t h e mixture, including dis- effects which arise because of gas dissociation. I t was
sociation energy, Xci(hi — hi0) shown t h a t a similarity variable could be found, such
hi0
= heat evolved in the formation of component i at 0°K.,
t h a t t h e equations for t h e stagnation-point b o u n d a r y
per unit mass
= average atomic dissociation energy times atom mass layer with a r b i t r a r y recombination r a t e could be reduced
hD
fraction in external flow to ordinary differential equations. F a y and Riddell
H = h + (l/2)u2 pointed out t h a t t h e stagnation point appeared to be
k = thermal conductivity t h e only case in which t h e boundary-layer equations
I = PM/' PwP<w admitted this great simplification without further
Li = Lewis Number Dipcp/k = Dipa/fi
approximation. E v e n for t h e cone and flat plate, this
UT = thermal Lewis Number DiTp cp/k = DiTpor/ii
reduction is only possible for t h e extreme cases of v e r y
L = Lewis Number for atom molecule mixture
M8 Mach Number of moving shock in shock tube, referred fast or v e r y slow a t o m recombination rate, correspond-
=
to speed of sound in quiescent gas in front of it ing t o a b o u n d a r y layer, either "frozen" or in t h e r m o -
P = pressure d y n a m i c equilibrium.
Pi = initial pressure in shock tube (measured in cm. of mer- Once a stagnation-point t h e o r y is developed, t h e next
q = heat-transfer rate step is to extend t h e t h e o r y to regions a w a y from t h e
qi = vector diffusion velocity, Eq. (1) stagnation point. T h e r e are certainly regimes of flight,
r = cylindrical radius of body, recover}^ factor such as high altitudes, where t h e b o u n d a r y layer will
R = body-nose radius in meridian plane remain l a m i n a r for some distance a w a y from t h e stag-
n a t i o n point, a n d a laminar t h e o r y is, therefore, of
Received May 29, 1958.
f This work was performed during June, 1956-June, 1957. I t interest.
was sponsored by t h e Ballistic Missile Division, Air Research While t h e r e is a great deal of l i t e r a t u r e on compres-
and Development Command, USAF, under Contract AF04(645)- sible laminar b o u n d a r y layer, v e r y little of it is appli-
18. cable to t h e problem a t h a n d . T h e distinguishing fea-
The numerical calculations were performed efficient^ by Rob-
tures of t h e present problem, caused b y t h e v e r y high
ert Laubner, and many helpful discussions were held with F. R.
Riddell and J. A. Fay. flight velocity, are t h e dissociation a n d t h e large r a t i o
* Principal Research Scientist. of external to wall e n t h a l p y (or t e m p e r a t u r e ) . These

421
 422 JOURNAL OF T H E AERO/SPACE
•conditions dictate large variations of fluid properties
across t h e b o u n d a r y layer. T h e variable property
which distinguishes this from a low-speed case is t h e
product of density, p, and viscosity /x, which m a y v a r y
b y a factor of 5 or more instead of being nearly con-
stant. Most previous investigations, such as t h a t of
Cohen and Reshotko 2 and t h a t of Levy, 3 t r e a t this prod-
uct as a constant. Consequently, their work cannot
be used in the present case without a careful examin-
ation of its validity. H e a t transfer b y atom diffusion is
also a new phenomenon arising in the hypersonic case.
Romig and Dore 4 have considered a dissociating gas
in thermodynamic equilibrium, b u t only for a flat
plate with constant external flow properties and the
particular case of equal heat transfer b y thermal con-
duction and atomic diffusion. We wish here to allow
a variation of external properties suitable to t h e nose
regions of blunt bodies, and to consider more general
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
relations between thermal conduction and atomic
diffusion.
Lees 5 has dealt with heat transfer to highly cooled
bodies in dissociating flow. H e made use of an assump-
tion of "local similarity." At each point on t h e body,
the boundary layer is assumed to be described b y ordi-
nary differential equations involving one independent
similarity variable, with b o u n d a r y conditions and
parameters depending on local external and wall con-
ditions. This assumption is t a n t a m o u n t to dropping
certain terms in the complete differential equations, as
will be shown below. Lees made a further approxi-
mation b y not actually solving the ordinary differential
equations resulting from the local similarity assump-
tion. H e gave a careful discussion of the case of high
wall cooling and concluded t h a t the pressure gradient
did not have a significant effect on heat transfer. H e
also concluded t h a t the variation of pp, across the bound-
ary layer could be approximated sufficiently well b y
taking it constant at the external value. H e then
made use of the Cohen and Reshotko (pp constant, no
dissipation) value of the nondimensional wall enthalpy
gradient for the flat plate, t h u s taking it to be a con-
stant over the whole body.
Probstein 6 has proposed an extension of Lees' work
in which the wall enthalpy gradient is found b y solving
the energy differential equation b y iteration, using
Cohen's and Reshotko's velocity profiles and starting
with their enthalpy profile for pp constant. H e found
t h a t only one or two iterations are necessary for good
convergence in most practical cases.
In the present work, the local similarity differential
equations are solved exactly, with variable external
pressure gradient parameter, variable p/x, and inclusion
of the dissipation term. Lewis N u m b e r effects are also
discussed. This is accomplished numerically b y an ex-
tension of the method which F a y and Riddell 1 used at
the stagnation point. T h e solutions, which depend on
the local external flow conditions, v a r y around t h e body,
in contrast to the constant values used b y Lees. Atten-
tion is restricted to bodies of revolution at zero angle
S C I E N C E S —JULY, 1959
of incidence. Results for two-dimensional bodies
could be obtained b y t h e same method.
There are several ways to check t h e local similarity
assumption theoretically. One would be to solve t h e
complete partial differential equations. Another would
be to compute t h e terms neglected in these equations
in a n y particular case, and compare t h e m with t h e
terms retained. A third is to make use of the momen-
t u m and energy integral equations which are often used
to construct approximate methods for predicting bound-
ary-layer characteristics. These equations represent
conservation of m o m e n t u m and energy on t h e average
across t h e b o u n d a r y layer, and contain the nonsimilar
terms which are dropped in the local similarity solution
described here. In Lees' approximate solution of the
similarity differential equations, he takes the wall en-
t h a l p y gradient constant around t h e body, so t h e non-
similar term in the energy integral equation is iden-
tically zero. T h e exact solutions of these differential
equations presented in the present work, on the other
hand, lead to boundary-layer characteristics which
v a r y around t h e body, and t h u s afford t h e possibility
of computing the nonsimilar terms in the integral equa-
tions, and t h u s estimating the validity of t h e local
similarity assumption in any particular case.
In addition to theoretical checks, comparison with
experimental results is presented in this paper for b o t h
hemisphere cylinders and flat-nosed bodies. T h e ex-
perimental results were obtained in shock tubes at high
stagnation enthalpies. T h e technique employed was
the same as used for the stagnation point measurements
discussed in reference 8. Only a brief description of
the experimental techniques is given.
(2) BOUNDARY-LAYER EQUATIONS
T h e boundary-layer equations suitable for t h e axi-
symmetric flow of dissociating air over a b o d y of revolu-
tion are given in reference 1. T h e air is represented
as a mixture of "air molecules" and "air a t o m s , " the
differences between oxygen and nitrogen being ac-
counted for b y using average properties for the air
particles. T h e diffusion velocity, measured with refer-
ence to the mass average velocity, is then taken as
qt = -(Dt/ct) grad c{ - (D?/T) grad T (1)
T h e first t e r m is t h e concentration diffusion in terms of
the mass fraction ct of t h e i t h component. T h e second
term is t h e thermal diffusion (pressure diffusion is
neglected) and the D's are the diffusion coefficients.
I t is assumed t h a t each component of t h e air is a
perfect gas with enthalpy hif so t h a t t h e enthalpy of
the mixture is
h = 2 CiQit — ht0)
where h^ is t h e heat evolved in the formation of the
rth component at 0°K.
T h e usual boundary-layer coordinate system is intro-
duced with x measured along t h e b o d y surface from the
nose and y normal to the surface, and r denoting the
 L A M I N A R HEAT T R A N S F E R 423

radius of the body cross section in a plane perpendicular Energy:

to the body axis.
After t h e usual boundary-layer simplifications are (te,A), +/«, + {('/*) E cte[(ht - ht»)/H,\ x
made, the equations of mass, momentum, and energy [(Lt - 1)5,, + LtTsfiv/e]}n + (ue*/H.) X
become Eqs. (13), (17), and (21) of reference 1: {(1 - a - i ) / / , / „ } , = 2 f ( / A - ) k „ ) (11)
Eqs. (10) and (11) are t h e system to be solved f o r / and
(pur)x + {pvr)v = 0 (2)
g as functions of £ and rj, for an equilibrium b o u n d a r y
PUUX + pVUy = —pX + ([JLUy)y (3) layer. Boundary conditions are :

PUHZ + pVHy = {(k/Cp)Hy}y + {(1/2) (/X ~ >? = 0: / = / ' = 0, g = gw = hJHe (12)

2
k/cp) {u )y)v + {Y,(DiP - k/cp) (ht - hi°)civ +
*!-+ °°' f ~+ 1, g~+ 1
Y,(DiTpCt/T) (h,- h^Ty}y (4)
T r u e similarity solutions of these equations require
Here, H = h -{- u2/2, the total enthalpy, and cp = all terms to be independent of £, so t h a t t h e y reduce to
Y^ci(dhi/dT), which is t h e weighted sum of t h e com- ordinary differential equations in rj. One way t h a t this
ponent specific heats, not t h e specific heat of the mix- can occur is for t h e external flow and wall enthalpy to
ture. be independent of £—i.e., of x—which is true on a cone
Eqs. (2), (3), and (4) are suitable for the boundary of constant surface temperature. A more interesting
layer in thermal equilibrium, where the composition of case for high-speed flow is t h a t of an axisymmetric
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

the mixture is a known function of the usual thermo- stagnation point, at which Eqs. (10) and (11) also be-
dynamic variables (say, p and h). For nonequilibrium come similar. T h e external velocity ue m a y be written
situations, an additional equation for ct must be con- ue = x(due/dx)s and from Eq. (5) we easily find t h a t
sidered [Eq. (14) of reference 1]. In the present paper,
P = 2{d In ujd In £) = 1/2 (13)
attention will be focused on the equilibrium boundary
layer. Some remarks about the possible applicability In this case, Eqs. (9) and (10) reduce to
of the results to other cases will be made later.
We now proceed, as in reference 1, to introduce a VfJn+ffn + ( V 2 ) [(Pes/p) - A 2 ] = 0 (14)
transformation of the independent variables, which fe»„ +fgv + {(l/cr^Ciesm - ht«)/He] X
includes the H o w a r t h and Mangier transformations, [(Lt- l)siv + LiTsidv/d]}v = 0 (15)
as suggested b y Lees :5
These equations (with Li = 0) are the ones t h a t F a y
and Riddell have solved for the equilibrium case in
£(*0 = I PwVwuer2dx, d^/dx = plD\xwuer2 (5)
Jo reference 1.
T h e purpose of the present work is to derive informa-
v(x, y) = (uer/VW I f>dy, drj/dy = puer/V2{j (6) tion about laminar heat-transfer rates on blunt bodies
Jo away from the stagnation point b y reducing Eqs. (10)
We also choose dimensionless dependent variables and (11) to ordinary differential equations, like Eqs.
based on conditions at the edge of the b o u n d a r y layer, (14) and (15), and then solving t h e m in the same m a n -
as follows: ner as the latter equations were solved in reference 1.
This is accomplished b y the introduction of the idea of
u/ue = fv, f = I fvdr] (7) ' local similarity.''
Jo
g = H/He, 6 = T/Te, st = ct/cic (8) (3) LOCAL SIMILARITY
The functions / , g, 6, and st depend on both £ and rj.
When boundary-layer characteristics, especially heat-
The quantities at the edge of the b o u n d a r y layer are,
transfer rates, are desired for bodies with varying ex-
of course, functions of x only, except for He, which is a
ternal flow properties, we are confronted with t h e full
constant, and is t h e total enthalpy of the inviscid flow.
Eqs. (10) and (11). A reasonable approximation which
(We assume t h a t the flow at the edge of t h e b o u n d a r y
reduces t h e m to ordinary differential equations is
layer came through t h e normal shock near t h e axis of
clearly extremely useful, since partial differential equa-
revolution.) tions are difficult to handle numerically. Such an
With these transformations, the continuity Eq. (2) is approximation is t h a t of local similarity, as discussed
b y Lees, 5 and b y F a y and Riddell. 1 I n this approx-
pv = -r~lM^m)^ + Wmv] (9)
imation, at any point x, t h e dependence of t h e de-
In addition, we obtain the following transformed dif- pendent variables on £ is taken to be such t h a t their
ferential equations, with P r a n d t l N u m b e r a = cvp,/k, derivatives, with respect to £, m a y be neglected. There-
Lewis Number Lt = Dipcp/k and / = p\xf'pw\xw. fore, the right-hand sides of Eqs. (10) and (11) are taken
to be zero. Further, t h e terms on the left which depend
Momentum:
on £, arising from t h e external flow or wall conditions,
(//,,), + / / „ + 2(d In ujd In f) X are assumed to have their local values. Then, the equa-
KPe/p) ~ fv2l = 2W« ~ ftM (10) tions again become ordinary differential equations in rj
 424 J O U R N A L OF T H E A E R O / S P A C E
.2 3
FIG. 1. Heat-transfer parameter correlation.
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
at any point on the body, with parameters depending
on the local external and wall conditions, and can b e
solved for t h e boundary-layer characteristics a t t h a t
point.
Essentially then, local similarity represents a patch-
ing together of local solutions; the x-wise history of the
flow is ignored, except as it is contained in t h e external
and wall conditions, which form the coefficients of t h e
differential equations. T h e validity of this approxi-
mation depends ultimately on t h e fact t h a t t h e external
flow properties v a r y slowly with £, and the terms neg-
lected in the differential equation are really negligible
compared t o those retained. One way t o determine
this for any particular case would b e t o actually com-
pute the right-side terms in Eqs. (10) and (11), once a
solution neglecting t h e m had been obtained.
Another way t o derive some theoretical information
about local similarity is t o integrate Eqs. (10) and (11)
on rj across the b o u n d a r y layer from rj = 0 t o rj = °°,
thus obtaining t h e boundary-layer integral equations.
If this is done, t h e results are
(/„)«• = f 7 , ( 1 - fMv + 2(d In ujd In f) X
Jo
f " i(Pe/p) - JVVv + 2f (d/df) f " / , ( 1 - fn)dv (16)
Jo Jo
(*-%)» + {v-'EcieKhi - ht»)/He] X
[(L, - I K + LiTsfije])v> =
f /,(1 - g)dv + 2 ^ M ) r fv(l - g)dv (17)
Jo Jo
The nonsimilarity term in each of these equations is the
last one on the right, which could b e computed in any
given case once a similarity solution had been obtained.
Qualitatively, if this term is found t o b e small, t h e
approximation of similarity certainly is a good one,
while if it is large, t h e approximation has broken down.
However, a quantitative theoretical criterion for t h e
size of the term is not known. T h e ultimate practical
test is experiment, and comparison of theory with ex-
S C I E N C E S — JULY, 1959
periment should help provide such a quantitative cri-
terion.
Notice t h a t if the local similarity solution does not
depend on the external flow properties, the nonsimilar
terms in Eqs. (16) a n d (17) are automatically zero,
and there is no possibility of evaluating t h e error in-
volved in t h e similarity assumption. Such is t h e case
with Lees' value of gvW in reference 5.
Once t h e local similarity approximation is accepted as
one which m a y give useful results, the equations t o be
solved are Eqs. (10) and (11) with zero right-hand sides.
We will neglect thermal diffusion (L? = 0), and, for t h e
time being, concentrate on t h e Lewis N u m b e r u n i t y
case (Lt — 1). Actually, t h e Lewis N u m b e r is near
1.4 according t o best present estimates, and a way t o
take this into account will b e mentioned later. W i t h
these restrictions and recalling Eq. (13), the m o m e n t u m
and energy equations become
(*/„),+//„ + 0[(p./p) -tf\ = o (18)
(feA), +/«, + W/H.) \{l - v-'WjJ, = 0 (19)
with boundary conditions (12).
(4) SOLUTIONS O F T H E E Q U A T I O N S
T h e solution of t h e local similarity Eqs. (18) a n d
(19) is based upon the solution of the stagnation point
Eqs. (14) and (15) ( w i t h L / 1 = 0) presented in reference
1. T h e y both satisfy t h e same b o u n d a r y conditions,
Eqs. (12).
There are three points of difference between t h e
stagnation point and local similarity equations. T h e
first is the fact t h a t the pressure gradient parameter, /3,
is no longer 0.5 when one moves away from t h e stag-
nation point. This difference is easily remedied b y
solution of Eqs. (14) and (15) with 1/2 replaced b y other
values. Such solutions for /3 = 0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 are
shown as the open points in Fig. 1. This plot is t h e
same as t h a t of Fig. 2 of reference 1. There it was
found t h a t if V 2 ^ / ( l — gw) was plotted against t h e
Pfi ratio across t h e b o u n d a r y layer, pefxe/' pw\xw, t h e re-
sults fell on one curve, regardless of gw and He. This is
seen t o b e true for all values of /3 in Fig. 1. I n per-
forming these calculations, t h e same expressions for /
and pel p were used as described in the Appendix of refer-
ence 1, namely
/ = pfi/pwnw = on/Vg - a2/g (20a)
Pe/P = 1 - 7 l ( l - g) ~ 72(1 - gY (20b)
T h e justification for using these relations will be found
in reference 1, especially in Fig. 1 there.
For purposes of computation, straight lines have been
fitted to the points of Fig. 1. T h e y are approximately
valid in the range 0.15 < pe\xe/'pw\xw < 0.55, which is
t h e region of interest for highly cooled walls. This fit
yields the relation
V ^ A l - gw) = 0.648(1 + 0.096 Vp) X
(peVe/pwVw) ' (21)
 L A M I N A R HEAT
and shows t h e dependence on 0 of t h e enthalpy gradient.
Note t h a t t h e curve for 0 = 1 / 2 differs slightly from
t h a t given in reference 1, b u t t h e difference is negligible
in t h e range of applicability of E q . (21).
Having found t h e pressure gradient effect on t h e
stagnation-point equations, let us now go on to t h e
other two added effects which appear in t h e local simi-
larity equations. T h e first is, of course, t h e presence
of t h e dissipation t e r m which appears as t h e last one
in t h e energy E q . (19). This term, which introduces
the dissipation parameter ue2/He, is zero at t h e stagna-
tion point.
T h e second added effect is a more subtle one, involv-
ing t h e fluid properties, as given in Eq. (20). There
they are taken t o depend on g, t h e dimensionless stag-
nation enthalpy. This is clearly correct at t h e stagna-
tion point. However, elsewhere they should depend
instead on t h e dimensionless static enthalpy h, related
tog by
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
h/He = g - fvW/2He (22)
Thus, h/He must be substituted for g in E q . (20). T h e re-
sulting expression for / must also be corrected, of course,
to have t h e value unity at t h e edge of t h e boundary
layer, he/He = 1 — ue2/2He. Notice t h a t this modi-
fication of the fluid properties also depends on t h e dis-
sipation parameter ue2/He. T h e fact t h a t both t h e
dissipation term and t h e fluid property modification
depend on t h e same parameter greatly simplifies t h e
numerical calculations.
T h e size of this dissipation parameter ue2/He is
limited. F o r expansion t o zero temperature it ap-
proaches 2. On practical bodies in t h e shock t u b e it
m a y reach 0.5 to 0.6, and in flight t h e extreme value
which could be expected is not much more t h a n unity.
T h e results of calculating some sample solutions of
Eqs. (18) and (19) with t h e fluid property and dissipa-
tion term modifications are shown in Fig. 1. First t h e
fluid property change alone was inserted, for ue2/He =
1/4, 1/2, 1.5 at several points in t h e 0 = 0, 1/2 lines.
These results are shown as t h e filled points in Fig. 1.
Each filled point is obtained from a stagnation point
solution modified b y replacing g in Eqs. (20), b y h/He
from Eq. (22). I t is easy to see t h a t this replacement
increases t h e value of pep.e/ pw\xw, so t h e point is moved
to the right. I t turns out also to increase t h e value
of gvW so t h e point is also moved upwards. B o t h these
movements increase as ue2/He increases. T h e stagna-
tion point solution which is modified in each case has
an arrow on it, and t h e filled points which move u p -
ward and to t h e right from t h e arrow represent in-
creasing values of ue2/He.
Now to these calculations t h e effect of t h e dissipation
term is added (for a = 0.71). T h e results of this addi-
tion are plotted as t h e half-filled points in Fig. 1. T h e y
represent complete solutions to t h e local similarity
Eqs. (18) and (19). I t is seen t h a t t h e effect of adding
the dissipation term is t o move t h e points straight down
at a fixed P/JL ratio. T h e i m p o r t a n t thing t o note
is t h a t for 0.15 < pev>e/PwVw < 0-6 t h e dissipation term
T R A N S F E R 425
moves t h e points down approximately t h e same
amount as t h e fluid property modification moved
them up.
T h e net result of both modifications to t h e solutions
of t h e stagnation equations is only a small change in
the value of gvW/(l — gw), even for t h e largest value of
u2/He. For ue2/He = 1.5, t h e changes range from
+ 1 per cent for high wall cooling (gw = 0.0164) t o
— 6 per cent at lower cooling (gw = 0.1682). I t would
thus appear, at least for values of t h e P r a n d t l N u m b e r
near 0.71, t h a t t h e value of gvW/(l ~ gw) is only slightly
affected b y t h e value of ue2/He, and mainly b y t h e pres-
sure gradient parameter 0. Thus, at any point on t h e
body, a useful approximation is to use t h e value of
&JW>/(1 ~ gw) appropriate to t h e local 0 and t h e stagna-
tion value of t h e pn ratio especially for values of u2/He
below unity and for high wall cooling. This inde-
pendence of t h e p\x ratio represents a considerable
simplification of t h e heat-transfer calculations, because
the values of p and /z in t h e h o t external stream only
have to be calculated a t t h e stagnation point and
nowhere else.
T h e effect of t h e dissipation term itself is of interest
in connection with t h e so-called recovery factor, which
m a y be defined here as
r = 1 + [Agvw/(gvW)noaiss.] [(1 ~ gw)/(u2/2He)] (23)
where AgvW is t h e change in gvW when t h e dissipation
term is added t o t h e energy equation. Sixteen cases
were calculated for 0 = 0, 1/2 and ue2/He = 1/4,
1/2, 1.5 for a = 0.71. T h e value oil — r varied from
0.145 t o 0.166, or a maximum deviation of 7 per cent
from a mean of 0.155.
T h e low-speed form of 1 — r is usually taken as close
to 1 — V a. I n t h e present case, 1 — V a = 0.157..
It, therefore, seems quite satisfactory to t a k e t h e re-
covery factor as a for these highly cooled cases also -
A check of one case, a t a = 0.5, showed 1 — r = 0.296
compared to 1 — = 0.297, which verifies this con-
clusion.
U p t o now t h e Lewis N u m b e r for all species has been
taken to be unity. Calculations of t h e Lewis N u m b e r
effect were made in reference 1 where it was shown
t h a t for L ^ 1 (the Lewis N u m b e r of all species was
taken t h e same) a correction factor of t h e form [1 +
(La — l)hD/He] should be used to multiply t h e L =
1 heat-transfer rate at t h e stagnation point, a was
found to be 0.52 for equilibrium flow and 0.63 for a
frozen b o u n d a r y layer. hD is t h e average dissociation
energy per unit mass of atoms times t h e a t o m mass
fraction in t h e external flow. I t seems reasonable t o
believe t h a t a similar factor will hold away from t h e
stagnation point, provided hD is t h e local enthalpy in
dissociation in t h e external flow. For a typical shock
tube case of shock M a c h N u m b e r 12, initial pressure
1 cm. Hg., a check was made of t h e size of this factor
using National Bureau of Standards d a t a for equilib-
rium air, reference 7. T h e ratio between t h e factor a t
the stagnation point, and its value after a Newtonian
expansion t o t h e original flow direction was 1.03 for
 426 J O U R N A L OF THE
L = 1.4. Since the Newtonian law probably over-
estimates the expansion, this represents an upper limit
to the change in Lewis N u m b e r factor of 3 per cent.
I t would, therefore, appear t h a t the value of the cor-
rection factor at the stagnation point is a satisfactory
one to use for engineering purposes over the whole body.
Any more detailed study of this point, involving actual
solution of local-similarity equations for L F^ 1, pre-
sents a large computing problem which does not appear
justified at this time.
T h e question of heat transfer when the boundary
layer is not in equilibrium can also be clarified b y refer-
ence to the stagnation-point results of reference 1.
There it was shown that, although the mechanism was
different, the total heat-transfer r a t e was substantially
the same for equilibrium flow, frozen flow, and all
intermediate cases. There is no reason to expect this
result to change as one moves around the body. There-
fore, it appears t h a t the equilibrium results of this
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
paper m a y be used even for nonequilibrium thermody-
namical situations, provided the wall does not inhibit
recombination of atoms.
(5) CALCULATIONS OF H E A T - T R A N S F E R R A T E
In line with the local similarity ideas presented
above, the method of calculating laminar heat-transfer
rates will be described here. T h e heat-transfer r a t e
to the wall q is given b y the sum of the conductive and
diffusive transport of heat, the latter being included
onlywhen atoms recombine on the wall.
q= [ * ( d r / d y ) L = o + {Ep(Ai - A,0) X
[Dtpa/by) +D?(ci/T)(dT/dy)]}y
As shown in Eq. (41) of reference 1, this becomes, in
nondimensional variables,
q = (rPwfiwueHe/V2^ a) {gv + E cie(ht - h^)/He
[(Lt - 1 K + L W , M ) ,
F I G . 2. Pressure distribution on hemisphere cylinder.
A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S — JULY, 1959
Near t h e stagnation point ue = x(due/dx)s, r = x9
and £ = pwspwsx^(due/dx)s/4. so t h a t
rpwpwuj\2$> = v2pwspws(due/dx)s (26)
For cold walls—that is, where no dissociation occurs—
the summation term in t h e heat-transfer r a t e vanishes,
and the use of Eq. (26) in Eq. (25) gives t h e expression
for qs.
Since it has been shown t h a t effects as Lewis N u m b e r
are accounted for b y t h e stagnation point behavior, a
convenient way of finding heat transfer is to calculate
t h e heat-transfer distribution q/qs. For a wall on
which no recombination occurs, for example, Eqs. (25)
and (26) give
Q/& = (rPwuwue/V2£){2Pwspws(due/dx)s}~a/2) gvW/gvWS
(27)
To evaluate q/qs from a formula like Eq. (42) is quite
simple using the results of the previous section. T h e
velocity and wall conditions around the b o d y must be
found, as well as t h e distribution of pressure gradient
parameter /3. Then the curve-fit of Fig. 1 can be used
to find gvW/gvWS b y use of
WC 1
- £ J ] / [ W ( 1 ~ gtos)] = (1 + 0.096V/3) ~
(1 + 0.096V0.5) = (1 + 0 . 0 9 6 V ^ ) / 1 . 0 6 8 (28)
T h e p/x term drops because, as explained above, the
value of gvW/(l — gw) at any point is approximately
the same as the value at the local fi and stagnation pp,
ratio. T h e stagnation-point velocity gradient must
also be obtained from t h e inviscid flow. For example,
= o (24)
for Newtonian flow,
(due/dx)8 = V2(ps - pm)/Ps/R
X where R is t h e body radius of curvature at t h e stagna-
(25) tion point in a meridian plane. Using this expression
 L A M I N A R HEAT T R A N S F E R 427

i.o ^ "|—o went from 1.0 to a maximum of 1.03 and a minimum of

0.9 1 0.94, t h u s varying only a few per cent around the body.
0.8 V"
X T h e distribution obtained directly from Lees' for-
07 o ^ mula, Eq. (15) of reference 5, is also plotted on Fig. 3.
0 ^ ^
0.6 O '
^0D D **& As might be expected from the small variation of
gvw/gvws just mentioned, it is in good agreement with
0.5

0.4
PRESENT THEORY.
-0-M 8 =l2, P, = ICM
%i
* i\
the calculations of t h e present method, except near
EQUILIBRIUM INVISCID FLOW 90°. T h e discrepancy there can be attributed to t h e
q/q c °<4Dr&\ 1

o^ deviation of ue from the straight line used b y Lees.

1I '
Il 1 1
l n &
SHOCK TUBE t
\\A c T h e results of this example tend to substantiate Lees'
M8= 10.9-13.5, P, = ICM 0
o x
\
argument t h a t gvW can be taken constant over the whole
O THIN GAGE /£> 0 body, at least for expansions of this size, where ft varied
D CALORIMETER GA
V
0 Vs
M 8 «765-8.5, P,=0.5CM only between 1.12 and 0. Thus, Lees' theory m a y be
o\ ]
A THIN GAGE expected to give values of q/qs which are in good agree-
°1 m e n t with those predicted b y Eqs. (27) and (28).
0
--*-LEES' THEORY, REE 5 A However, it should be pointed out t h a t if the heat-
transfer r a t e q itself is desired, t h e stagnation point
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 value qs should be taken from reference 1, not from
x / R BODY ANGLE-DEGREES Lees' work. As shown in reference 10, Lees' formula
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128

F I G . 3. Heat-transfer distribution on hemisphere cylinder. for qs is too low b y a factor (pene/PwVw).®'1, in addition
to having no Lewis N u m b e r term. For the example
and Eq. (28) in Eq. (27), q/qs can be found as a function of Fig. 3, (peVe/PivVw)*0'1 = 0.876 and the Lewis N u m b e r
of x. qs is obtained from Eq. (63) of reference 1, for factor for L = 1.4 and thermodynamic equilibrium is
equilibrium flow, or Eq. (65) for frozen flow. 1.078. Including a slight difference in the constants,
the value of qs is t h u s larger t h a n Lees' b y a factor 1.3.
(6) R E S U L T S OF CALCULATIONS In order to test the effect of a more rapidly varying
pressure distribution, the ratio q/qs was also calculated
As one example of t h e use of formulas (27) and (28), for the flat-nosed b o d y shown in Fig. 4. Shock t u b e
a case for a hemisphere cylinder in a shock tube was conditions corresponding to stagnation point simula-
calculated. T h e case chosen was a shock M a c h N u m - tion of 14,000 ft./sec. at 80,000 ft. altitude were used
ber, Ms — 12, and an initial pressure, pi = 1 cm. Hg. (Ms = 9.5, pi = 1 cm. Hg, simulated equilibrium y of
Equilibrium stagnation conditions are then ps = 2.242 1.195.) T h e pressure distribution used is shown in
X 107 dynes per cm. 2 , Tes = 6,945°K., (equivalent to a Fig. 4. I t was obtained in the shock t u b e from M a c h
flight velocity of 18,000 ft./sec. at 70,000 ft. altitude). line measurements and was faired into the subsonic p a r t
T h e "free-stream" to stagnation pressure ratio is of a wind-tunnel distribution obtained at a M a c h N u m -
P™/Ps = 0.1087. T h e wall temperature was taken ber of 4.0 on a similar model. T h e velocity gradient
as a constant 300 °K. at the stagnation point was adjusted according to the
T h e body was assumed to have a Newtonian pressure analysis given in reference 9 because the accuracy of
distribution, p/ps 1 - (1 - pjp8) sin 2 (x/R). the wind-tunnel measurements near the stagnation
Fig. 2 shows an experimental pressure distribution ob- point leave it in doubt.
tained on a hemisphere-cylinder in t h e shock t u b e using T h e calculation was done b y means of a program for
Mach line measurements. T h e results from a n u m b e r t h e I B M 650 computer which finds q/qs from E q s .
of experiments indicate t h a t this formula fits t h e d a t a (27) and (28), as well as all t h e pertinent inviscid flow
within the limits of experimental accuracy. properties for an arbitrary body shape. T h e pressure
Three different thermodynamic assumptions were distribution and stagnation conditions, as well as the
used to find the inviscid flow: (a) thermodynamic body shape, are t h e i n p u t d a t a . T h e program uses
equilibrium corresponding to N B S data; 7 (b) constant
7 to represent equilibrium, y = 1.126; and (c) con-
stant 7 to represent gas composition frozen at t h e SHOCK TUBE M $ = 103, p,« 5 c
stagnation point, y = 1.38.
The results for the heat-transfer distribution calcu-
O TOP SURFACE "! MACH LINE
lation according to Eqs. (27) and (28) are shown in 0 BOTTOM SURFACE J MEASUREMENTS
Fig. 3. Only the curve for thermodynamic equilibrium
WIND TUNNEL
is shown because the curves from assumptions (b) and
(c) would be almost indistinguishable from it. This
indicates t h a t for expansions of t h e magnitude obtained
kum ug a""0"
in the shock tube (pm/ps of order 0.1) t h e thermody-
0
namic assumption has little effect on q/qs. Another 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

noteworthy point about this case is t h a t t h e p/m ratio X/R

varied only from 0.22 to 0.29, and t h e ratio gvW/gvWS F I G . 4. Pressure distribution on flat-nosed body.
 428 J O U R N A L OF
CORNER RADIUS
0° 30° 60° 90°
2.0 i r i r Tl
8° 1 . 1
o LEES THEORY
1.0 o\k
.8 KKfc.St.NI \ HtAJ
iioi
.6 SHOCK TUBE 1 T h e heat-transfer distribution measurements re-
o M « 8 . 6 - 9 . 6 , p «lcm
A MQ»7.4-7.9,Pi-IOcm
* t 1 -R 1
r=1
°*-i =i
\ lated b y the methods of this paper. One set of d a t a
*0 .2 .4 .6 .8
x/R
F I G . 5. Heat-transfer distribution on flat-nosed body.
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
the empirical expression for gvW/gvWS, given in E q . (28),
and an effective value of 7, which is also a piece of input
d a t a and m a y be chosen to suit the situation.
T h e results of this calculation are shown as t h e solid
line in Fig. 5. N o t e the heat-transfer peak predicted
just a t the beginning of the corner. I t was found t h a t
t h e pressure gradient parameter, /3, which is extremely
sensitive to the pressure distribution h a d two peaks,
b o t h with values of /3 = 2.35. T h e first peak occurred
a t t h e beginning of t h e corner, t h e second—halfway
round, a little aft of the sonic point.
Also shown on Fig. 5 is the heat-transfer distribution
calculated from Lees' theory b y Eqs. (12) and (12a) of
reference 5. I t was obtained using the same pressure
distribution and inviscid flow d a t a as t h a t used for t h e
calculations b y the present theory. I t predicts t h e
same pressure peak as the present theory b u t is some-
what higher on t h e rest of the corner and t h e side of the
body. Both theories are identical on t h e front face.
There would, of course, again be a difference in the
stagnation-point values which would m a k e t h e absolute
value of t h e heat-transfer rates differ.
Experimental points obtained from shock t u b e ex-
periments are shown in Figs. 3 and 5. I t is seen t h a t
t h e agreement with theory is reasonably good, except
near the corner on the b l u n t body where t h e experi-
mental heat-transfer peak is 25 per cent higher t h a n t h e
theoretically predicted one. F u r t h e r discussion of
these experimental results is given below.
(7) EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
T h e experimental techniques involved in making
heat-transfer measurements in shock tubes have been
described in a previous report. 8,11
Shock t u b e heat-transfer measurements h a v e been
made successfully with two types of heat-transfer
gages, the thin resistance thermometer and t h e calo-
rimeter gage. For t h e present experiment, it was felt
to be important t h a t the boundary layer be disturbed
as little as possible b y the presence of t h e gage element
THE A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S — JULY, 1959
in order to maintain laminar flow over the body. As
a result, thin gages were t h o u g h t to be superior to the
calorimeter gages. However, similar measurements
made with calorimeter gages, where the disturbances
created b y t h e gages themselves m a y have introduced
some uncertainties, indicate agreement within t h e
>
scatter.
v
v
V\ ported here were performed b y comparing heat-transfer
> o\ rates measured by two gages during t h e same experi-
m e n t . One gage was always a t the stagnation point
for reference. T h e points in Fig. 3 show d a t a from
T V such experiments compared to the theoretical line calcu-
covers the shock M a c h N u m b e r range of 10.9 to 13.5
(stagnation point simulation of 75,000 ft. altitude and
1.0 1.2 1.4
flight velocities from 17,000 to 20,500 f t . / s e c ) ; the
other group of experiments is performed at lower heat-
transfer rates at a shock M a c h N u m b e r of around 8.0
(stagnation point simulation of 90,000 ft. at 12,000 ft./
sec).
T h e d a t a and the calculated heat-transfer distribu-
tions of Fig. 3 appear to show t h a t the average of the
measurements lies somewhat below the predicted value.
This trend is equally apparent for t h e three types of
measurements shown: (1) the calorimeter gage; (2)
the thin gage a t high heat-transfer rates (Ms = 12);
and, (3) the thin gage a t low heat-transfer rates (Ms =
8). Three groups of d a t a are presented because of
certain experimental difficulties which are peculiar to,
and different for, the three groups. These difficulties,
although they most probably introduce some scatter,
appear to have been properly accounted for. A de-
tailed discussion of t h e problems can be found in refer-
ences 8 and 11.
In addition to t h e uncertainties introduced by gage
signal interpretation, some scatter can be a t t r i b u t e d to
inaccuracy in t h e measurement of gage location (data
is plotted a t the average angle while the gage actually
covers between 5° and 10° on t h e model), and also
to the difficulty of matching the small hemisphere to
the cylinder portion of the models very accurately.
T h e latter effect is noticeable a t body angles over 70°.
In addition to the hemisphere cylinder experiments,
the heat-transfer distribution on a flat-nosed body with
a corner radius equal to 1/4 of the cylindrical radius has
been measured. T h e small corner radius being a more
stringent test of the similarity type of solution than
was the hemisphere cylinder, considerable effort was
expended in obtaining as much detail of the heat-
transfer distribution over t h e corner as was possible.
E a c h model was m a d e with five heat-transfer gages,
including a t least one on the face of the model which
was either a t the stagnation point or very close to it.
T h e corner arc was covered in intervals of 15°. Each
gage covered approximately 15° of the corner arc.
T h e gages were spread radially around the body so t h a t
the influence of t h e disturbances caused b y one gage is
minimized in its effect on the others.
These measurements were performed over a range of
 L A M I N A R
shock M a c h Numbers from 7.0-10.0 a t two initial
pressures, and t h e results are shown in Fig. 5. T h e
heat transfer appears to reach a m a x i m u m value ap-
proximately 50 per cent higher t h a n t h e stagnation
value in the vicinity of the sonic point, which occurs
near the 25° point of the arc.
T h e measurements and theory shown in Fig. 5 agree
quite well, except on the corner where t h e experimental
results are 25 per cent higher t h a n t h e theory and seems
to indicate a breakdown of local similarity due to the
rapid change in t h e flow as it expands about the sharp
corner.
(8) L I M I T A T I O N S OF T H E M E T H O D
T h e principal theoretical assumption made in t h e
method proposed here for calculating h e a t transfer is
t h a t of local similarity. Because certain terms were
neglected in t h e differential equations, t h e resulting
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
solutions do not satisfy conservation of m o m e n t u m
and energy in t h e boundary layer, as represented, say,
b y t h e integral Eqs. (16) and (17). They, in fact, satisfy
these equations without t h e nonsimilar terms which
are t h e last ones on t h e right involving d/d%. Using
the present solutions, it would be possible to construct
a method for obtaining boundary-layer characteristics
which did satisfy the complete integral equations along
the lines of t h e Thwaites method for low-speed flow.
I t is possible with t h e present method to m a k e a theo-
retical estimate of the validity of local similarity.
Since gvW (and fvr]W) vary around t h e body, t h e non-
similarity terms in the integral equations can be com-
puted in each particular case and compared with t h e
other terms. N o t e t h a t such a check is n o t possible
with Lees' approximate solution of reference 5 because
he assumes gvW constant around t h e body, and the non-
similarity term in the energy integral is identically zero.
I n any actual case, of course, gvW will v a r y and t h e non-
similarity t e r m will n o t be zero.
To check the similarity assumption in t h e case of
Fig. 3, the energy integral E q . (17) is written
gj° = f /,(1 - g)dv + 2$(d/d0 j /,(l - g)dn
T h e similarity solution satisfies t h e equation obtained
b y ignoring t h e last t e r m on t h e right:
GvA)o = f fM - go)dv
Jo
T h e size of the t e r m neglected with similarity assumed
is then
2*(<*M) f /„o(l ~ go)drj = 2£ ( i M ) ( g »
Jo
and, as long as it is small compared to griWo/cr, similarity
m a y be considered a good approximation. Clearly,
t h e more nearly constant gvWo, t h e better the similarity
solution satisfies the energy integral equation.
HEAT T R A N S F E R 429
A rough evaluation was made of Eq. (31) for the
case presented in Fig. 3. T h e results showed t h a t t h e
nonsimilar t e r m was less t h a n 1 per cent of gvWo/<r u p
to 25°, rose to 10 per cent near 60°, and then climbed
rapidly, reaching 17 per cent at 70°. This would
indicate t h a t similarity was valid u p to around 60° at
least, b u t might be in doubt in t h e region of 7 0 ° - 9 0 ° .
Comparison of the local similarity theory with experi-
m e n t in Fig. 3 indicates t h a t the theory somewhat over-
estimates the value of q/qs compared with the mean of
the experimental data. However, t h e scatter is such
t h a t it is difficult to estimate t h e limit (in x/R) of
validity of the similarity assumption. There seems to
be some evidence t h a t t h e agreement is worse near
80°-90°. However, experimental difficulties in t h a t
region, as mentioned above, m a y cause most of t h e
discrepancy.
On the flat-nosed body of Fig. 4, t h e corner presents
a somewhat stronger test of similarity t h a n does t h e
shoulder of a hemisphere cylinder. T h e geometric
problems associated with the small size of the corner
cause more scatter in the d a t a of Fig. 5 t h a n in t h a t
of Fig. 3, b u t it is clear t h a t the theory underestimates
t h e h e a t transfer near t h e corner, an effect which m a y
well be due to a breakdown of similarity there. Else-
where, t h e agreement is satisfactory, indicating t h a t
similarity is valid.
I n t h e practical calculation of h e a t transfer, t h e pres-
ent uncertain knowledge of the external inviscid-flow
properties for a dissociating gas also is something of a
limitation. However, this does not affect t h e method
presented here, which describes only calculation of t h e
boundary-layer characteristics once the external flow
is known.
(9) CONCLUSIONS
A method is presented for calculating the laminar
heat transfer on b l u n t bodies of revolution in axisym-
metric, highly-cooled, dissociating flow. T h e method
is based on exact numerical solution of t h e boundary-
layer differential equations which result from a local
similarity assumption. T h e solutions are correlated
on pressure gradient parameter ft and pp, ratio le as
(29)
shown in Fig. 1. I t is found t h a t t h e effects on gvW
caused b y t h e presence of the dissipation p a r a m e t e r
ue2/He in the fluid properties and in the dissipation term
nearly offset each other. Therefore, to a useful ap-
(30) proximation, gvW is different from t h e stagnation-point
value only because of t h e local value of 0, and is not
influenced b y t h e local pp ratio.
T h e results of t h e theory are embodied in the rela-
tions
(31)
q/qs = (rpwpwuj\ 2f) {2pwspws(due/dx)s} ~ ( 1 / 2 ) (gvW/gvW8)
[gvw/(l ~ gw)]/[gvws/(l ~ gws)} =
(1 + 0.096 V / 3 ) / l . 068
and from reference 1 *
 430 JOURNAL OF T H E A E R O / S P A C E S C I E N C E S —JULY, 1959

-0.6
0.76(7 (PwsVws) " (PesVes) ' He(l ~ gws) X
(due/dx)s 1/2
[1 + (L« - 1) (hDs/He)}
where a is 0.52 for t h e r m o d y n a m i c equilibrium and
0.63 for frozen flow.
T h e independence of heat-transfer distribution from
t h e local pn ratio is very convenient, because, combined
with t h e definition of /3, it means t h a t only t h e pressure
and external velocity m u s t be calculated around t h e
body, n o t t h e external density or viscosity. T h e former
two are comparatively easy to o b t a i n — t h r o u g h a New-
tonian approximation, for example—while t h e l a t t e r
require use of t h e r m o d y n a m i c properties a n d t r a n s p o r t
coefficients a t v e r y high t e m p e r a t u r e s .
Calculations using this m e t h o d are compared with
shock t u b e experiments on a hemisphere cylinder and
on a flat-nosed cylinder with corner radius one q u a r t e r
of its cylindrical radius. T h e calculations a n d experi-
Downloaded by 123.2.138.201 on July 19, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.8128
REFERENCES
1
Fay, J. A., and Riddell, F. R., Theory of Stagnation Point
Heat Transfer in Dissociated Air, Journal of the Aeronautical
Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 73-85, February, 1958.
2
Cohen, C. B., and Reshotko, E., Similar Solutions for the
Compressible Laminar Boundary Layer with Heat Transfer and
Pressure Gradient, NACA T N 3325, 1955.
3
Levy, S., Effect of Large Temperature Changes {Including
Viscous Heating) Upon Laminar Boundary Layers with Variable
Free-Stream Velocity, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol.
21, No. 7, pp. 459-474, July, 1954.
4
Romig, M. F., and Dore, F. J., Solutions of the Compressible
Laminar Boundary Layer Including the Case of a Dissociated
Free Stream, Convair Report No. ZA 7-012, August 4, 1954, San
Diego, Calif.
5
Lees, L., Laminar Heat Transfer Over Blunt-Nosed Bodies at
Hypersonic Flight Speeds, Jet Propulsion, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.
259-269, 274, April, 1956.
6
Probstein, R. F., Method of Calculating the Equilibrium
Laminar Heat Transfer Rate at Hypersonic Flight Speeds, Jet Pro-
pulsion, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 497-499, June, 1956.
7
Hilsenrath, J., and Beckett, C , Tables of Thermodynamic

ments are in reasonably good agreement, except near

t h e corner of t h e flat-nosed cylinder where t h e experi-
mental h e a t transfer peak is 25 per cent higher t h a n t h e
theoretical one. T h i s discrepancy is p r o b a b l y due t o
the breakdown of local similarity because of t h e rapid
expansion around t h e corner.
Since t h e m e t h o d gives values of gvW which depend
on t h e external pressure gradient t h r o u g h /3, a theoreti-
cal estimate of t h e size of t h e nonsimilar t e r m s can be
made, b y using t h e boundary-layer energy integral
equation, for example. Such an estimate was m a d e
for t h e hemisphere cylinder case a n d showed t h a t a t
70° t h e nonsimilar t e r m in t h e energy integral was a b o u t
17 per cent of t h e similar t e r m s .
Properties of Argon-Free Air to 15,000°K, AEDC-TN-56-12,
Arnold Engineering Development Center, ARDC, September,
1956 (ASTIA Document No. AD-98974.)
8
Rose, P. H., and Stark, W. L., Stagnation Point Heat-Trans-
fer Measurements in Dissociated Air, Journal of t h e Aeronautical
Sciences, pp. 86-97, February, 1958.
9
Probstein, R. F., Inviscid Flow in the Stagnation Point Re-
gion of Very Blunt-Nosed Bodies at Hypersonic Flight Speeds,
WADC T N 56-395, Div. of Eng., Brown University, Providence,
R.I., September, 1956 (ASTIA Document No. AD-97273.)
10
Fay, J. A , Riddell, F. R., and Kemp, N. H., Stagnation Point
Heat Transfer in Dissociated Air Flow, Jet Propulsion, Vol. 27,
No. 6, pp. 672-674, June, 1957.
11
Rose, P. H., Development of the Calorimeter Heat Transfer
Gage for Use in Shock Tubes, Review of Scientific Instruments,
Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 557-564, July, 1958.

Change of Address
Since the Post Office Department does not as a rule forward magazines to forwarding addresses, it is important
that the Institute be notified of changes in address 30 days in advance of publishing date to ensure receipt of every
issue of the JOURNAL and A E R O / S P A C E E N G I N E E R I N G .
Notices should be printed legibly and sent directly t o :
Subscription Department
I n s t i t u t e of t h e A e r o n a u t i c a l Sciences, I n c .
2 E a s t 64th Street, N e w York 2 1 , N . Y .

Tenth International Congress of Applied Mechanics

Stresa, Italy, August 31-September 7, 1960
Apart from a number of invited general lectures, the technical sessions of the Congress will be held in two sections: Fluid
Dynamics (hydrodynamics and aerodynamics); and Mechanics of Solids (rigid body dynamics, vibrations, elasticity, plas-
ticity, and theory of structures).
It should be noted that thermodynamics and computational methods as such are not included, although specific applica-
tions of computational methods to pertinent problems of one of the two sections stated above are acceptable subjects for
presentation.
Abstracts should be submitted before January 1, 1960 t o : The Secretary of the International Committee, Prof.Mekelweg 2,
Delft, Netherlands. Abstracts, in four copies, should not exceed two typewritten pages (double-spaced). I t is recommended
that abstracts be in two of the official Congress languages (English, French, German, and Italian).
All correspondence, apart from submission of papers, should be addressed t o : The Italian Organizing Committee, Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche, Ufficio relazioni internazionali, Piazza delle Scienza 7, Roma.