49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition AIAA 2011-248

4 - 7 January 2011, Orlando, Florida

Viscous Shock Layer Calculation of Stagnation-Region Heating Environment

in Neptune Aerocapture
Chul Park∗
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea

The theoretical model describing the nonequilibrium
and radiation phenomena in a hydrogen-helium-methane
mixture developed earlier by the present author is applied
to carry out a viscous shock layer calculation of the stag-
nation region of a blunt body. The calculation is made for
the vehicles performing aerocapturing maneuver in Nep-
tune, including those considered earlier by Hollis et al and
by Jits et al. The present heat flux values are substan-
tially higher than those obtained by the earlier investiga-
tors. The radiative heat flux value is calculated over a
range of flow parameters.
Nomenclature
A : Reaction rate constant, cm3 /s.
e : Energy feed back factor.
kf : Forward reaction rate coefficient, cm3 /s.
n : Pre-exponential power in rate coefficient, dim-
: ensionless.
p : Pressure, Pascal or Torr.
qr : Radiative heat flux, W/cm2 or kW/cm2 .
Ta : Effective temperature of reaction, K.
Td : Reaction temperature, K.
Us : Shock speed in a shock tube, m/s.
ρ : Density, kg/m3 .
Subscript
1 : Freestream.
Introduction
The chemical kinetics and radiation phenomena occur-
ring in the shock layer over a body entering the atmo-
spheres of outer planets have been studied in [1] through
[3]. The atmospheres of all these outer planets are simi-
lar: they consist mostly of hydrogen, a small concentra-
tion of helium, and a trace concentration of methane. For
the entry flight into Jupiter, the shock layer flow can be
considered to be in thermochemical equilibrium because
of the relatively high stagnation pressures. In the flights
into other outer planets, peak heating is likely to occur at
lower stagnation pressures, and therefore, the shock layer
flow may not be in equilibrium.
∗ electrons are produced by the collisions of carbon atoms
Visiting Professor, Department of Aerospace Engi-
neering; Fellow, AIAA; cpark216@kaist.ac.kr.
The need to fly through the atmosphere of Neptune
will arise if one hopes to be captured into an orbit around
the planet that passes by Neptune’s moon Triton. This
aerocapturing flight will occur at an entry speed of up to
about 30 km/s. At such a flight speed, the shock layer
flow will be partly ionized. Radiation, which is strongly
related to ionization, may be substantial. In order to pre-
dict the radiative heating rate, one must know the thermo-
chemical processes producing electrons. It is well known
that, in general, collisions of electrons with atoms are the
most efficient in producing ionization. But the mecha-
nism to produce the first electrons varies considerably by
gas mixtures. For the hydrogen-helium-methane mixture
under consideration, this mechanism is not yet fully un-
derstood.
In the 1970s, shock tube experiments were carried out
with a hydrogen-helium mixture, to a shock speed of 18
km/s by Leibowitz [4] with a helium-rich mixture, and to
38 km/s by Livingston and Poon [5] with a hydrogen-rich
mixture. The times to ionization equilibration was mea-
sured in both experiments. Livingston and Poon mea-
sured the electron density also. Leibowitz theorized that
the ionization process is started with collisions of hydro-
gen and helium atoms with hydrogen atoms, and deduced
the cross section controlling the process. But these two
sets of results on ionization equilibration time did not
agree with each other. Moreover, the electron densities
determined by Livingston and Poon were higher than
the equilibrium Rankine-Hugoniot values. More recently,
Bogdanoff and Park [6] carried out an experiment similar
to that by Leibowitz. Very fast ionization and very large
electron densities were observed. It was determined that
the driver of the shock tube heated by an electric dis-
charge reached a high temperature and emitted a strong
radiation. This radiation radiatively heated the driven
gas to cause early and high ionization.
In [1], a thermochemical model is developed to rec-
oncile these inconsistencies by considering the radiative
heating by the hot driver gas. In [3], the effect of trace
concentration of methane on ionization process was in-
vestigated theoretically. By interpreting the published
results of several atomic beam experiments, the rate co-
efficients of the reactions involving carbon and hydrogen
were deduced. Through this procedure, a complete set of
reaction rates controlling the hydrogen-helium-methane
mixture was derived. According to the model, the first
and hydrogen atoms. Ref. [3] used this reaction model

Copyright © 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
2

to predict the radiative heat transfer rates occurring in Method of Calculation

the entry flights into the planet Neptune. The conditions
considered were those by Hollis et al [7] and those by Jits
et al [8]. The stagnation streamline flow was considered
to be an inviscid constant-area one-dimensional flow as in
a shock tube.
The main shortcoming in [3] is that the stagnation-
region flow is different from a shock tube flow in that the
former provides a longer flow residence time: very roughly,
in the inviscid region of the shock layer, the flow speed is
proportional to the distance from the wall. Therefore, the
flow residence time approaches a logarithmic infinity. It
is the purpose of the present work to remedy this flaw in
[3]. Here a viscous shock layer calculation was carried out
for the stagnation region. The chemistry and radiation
calculations are the same as in [3]. The calculation is ap-
plied to the entry flight conditions of Hollis et al and Jits
et al. The results show that the radiative heating rates
vary between those of the corresponding shock tube flow
and twice those values depending on the condition. The
calculation results were presented for a range of possible
flight conditions, with the hope that the radiative heat-
ing rate for all practical Neptune entry missions could be
predicted to an engineering approximation through inter-
polation of these values.
Table 1. Reaction mechanisms and rate coefficients. A is in the units of cm3 /s.
Reaction Kinetics of H2 +He+CH4 Mixtures
Neptune’s atmosphere [5] is believed to consist of, by
mol, about 80 to 82% H2 , 17 to 18% He, and 1 to 2%
hydrocarbon, mostly CH4 . The present work assumes
it to be 81% H2 , 17.5% He, and 1.5% CH4 . As men-
tioned, the reaction kinetics of this mixtures behind the
bow sock wave are proposed in [3]. The proposed scheme
does not include C3 or C2 H. However, in a shock layer
over a blunt body, one must also account for C3 and C2 H
because they are formed as a result of ablation of the
heat-shield. Therefore three exchange reactions involving
C3 and C2 are included in the present work. The needed
rate coefficients are drawn from [10] to [17]. The reaction
scheme so constructed is shown in Table 1. Therein, the
quantities A, n, and Td are the three parameters in the
expression for the forward reaction rate coefficient
kf = ATan exp(−Td /Ta ) cm3 /s.
The quantity e in Table 1 is the energy feedback factor,
i.e., the amount of the energy fed back to vibrational-
electron-electronic mode during a reaction, expressed as
a fraction of the reaction energy.

No. Reaction A n Td e Remarks

R1 H2 + H2 → H + H + H2 -4.48 eV 2.967−7 -0.5165 52,530 0.73 Kim et al(2009)

R2 H2 + H → H + H + H - 4.48 eV 3.18−4 -1.0735 55,105 0.65 Kim et al (2009)
R3 H2 + He → H + H + He - 4.48 eV 9.272−4 -1.4773 55,105 0.63 Kim et al (2009)
R4 CH3 + H2 → CH4 + H - 0.00 eV 3−20 3 4,045 0 Sutherland et al(2001)
R5 CH3 + H → CH2 + H2 - 0.22 eV 1−10 0 7,600 0 Baulch et al(1994)
R6 CH2 + H → CH + H2 + 0.12 eV 1−11 0 900 0 NIST(2003)
R7 C + H2 → CH + H - 0.99 eV 6.6−10 0 11,700 0 Dean et al(1991)
R8 C + H → CH+ + e - 7.15 eV 1.26−21 2 90,300 0 Present work
R9 C+ + H2 → CH+ + H - 0.37 eV 6.86−10 -0.115 5086 0 Park (2010c)
R10 C+ + H → C + H+ - 2.34 eV 4.31−31 3.26 13,018 0 Park(2010c)
R11 H + M → H+ + e + M - 13.6 eV ∗ ∗ ∗
0.8 Park(2010a)
R12 C + e → C+ + e + e - 11.26 eV 1.63−8
0.330 98,810 0.8 Dunn (1971)
R13 C2 H + H → C2 + H2 - 1.44 eV 3.50−4 0. 30,000 0 Kruse and Roth (1997)
R14 C3 + H → C2 H + C - 1.64 eV 1.50−13 0. 19,000 0 Kruse and Roth (1997)
R15 C3 + C → C2 + C2 - 1.41 eV 1.44−11 0.75 16,000 0 Kruse and Roth (1997)
∗
Not expressible as a simple function, see Park (2010a).

Flow-field
The viscous shock layer code developed earlier and
used by the present author for calculating several dif-
ferent entry flows [18,19] is used in the present work
also. It solves the viscous shock layer equation along the
stagnation streamline assuming the pressure to be con-
stant. The code allows two temperatures, i.e., heavy par-
ticle translational-rotational temperature and vibrational-
electron-electronic temperature, and assumes a laminar
flow. At the shock wave, the flow conditions are deter-
mined by the Rankine-Hugoniot condition accounting for
the shock slip. At wall, ablation and pyrolysis gas in-

jection phenomena are described totally kinetically, i.e.,
the specie production rate at wall is equated with the
rate of removal by diffusion. In calculating the diffusion
flux of species, the bifurcation model is used. Transport
properties necessary for this model are obtained from the
work of Kim et al [20]. The bifurcation parameters were
determined from the assumption that they are inversely
proportional to the square-root of the species molecular
weight. All calculations in this work are carried out as-
suming no ablation, though the code is capable of han-
dling ablation phenomenon.
Because of the assumption of constant pressure, the
method overestimates shock stand-off distance by nearly
20% for a given nose radius. Therefore, nose radius
smaller than the true nose radius is used in order to pro-
duce the desired shock stand-off distance.
In the calculation of radiation, only H and C are con-
sidered. Radiation of other species is neglected because [3]
showed that they are unimportant. Radiation is loosely
coupled with the flow-field. Radiation is calculated from
60 nm to 800 nm at 39160 selected wavelengths. Twenty
iterations between the flow-field calculation and radiation
calculation were performed in order to obtain a converged
solution.
Calculation was performed on a personal computer
equipped with the quadri-core I7 architecture. Typically,
5 hours was expended to obtain a converged solution.
1.0x10
17
Calculated electron density
p1=1 Torr, Us=30 km/s
82.7%H2-15.8%He-1.5%CH4
0.8 Shock layer, present work
Shock tube, Park(2010)
-3
Electron density, cm
Equilibration
0.6 distance
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Distance from shock wave, cm
Figure 1. Comparison of the calculated electron
densities between the inviscid shock tube flow
and the present viscous shock layer flow.
Results
Shock Tube Flow
3
Calculation was made first for a case considered in [3],
which is a flow in a shock tube with a test gas consisting
of a 82.7%H2 +15.8%He+1.5%CH4 . The ambient tem-
perature and pressure are 300 K and 1 Torr, respectively.
The shock wave moves at a speed of 30 km/s. In [3],
this condition was calculated to a distance from the shock
wave of 1.2 cm. In the viscous shock layer calculation, the
freestream condition is the same, but the flow-field stud-
ied is the stagnation region of a spherical body of 14 cm
radius. The shock stand off distance becomes 1.4 cm for
this flow.
In Fig. 1, the calculated electron densities are com-
pared. As seen, the distance to ionization equilibrium is
nearly the same in the two calculations. The present cal-
culation exhibits a more gradual rise to the equilibrium
value compared with the shock tube flow. This can be at-
tributed to the effect of diffusion: as mentioned, the shock
tube flow calculation was made assuming an inviscid flow.
The viscous diffusion and conduction phenomena tend to
smear the variations in properties.
In Fig. 2, temperatures are compared between the
present viscous shock layer calculation and the inviscid
shock tube calculation. As seen here, difference is small.
4
4x10
Calculated temperatures
p1=1 Torr, Us=30 km/s
Shock layer, present work
3 Shock tube, Park (2010c)
Heavy particle
Temperature, K
translational-rotational
2
1
Vibrational-electron-electronic
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Distance from shock wave, cm
Figure 2. Comparison of the calculated temperatures
Wall
between the inviscid shock tube flow
and the present viscous shock layer flow.
1.0 1.2 1.4
In Fig. 3, the radiative heat flux in the downstream
direction are compared between the two cases. As the fig-
ure shows, the rise in the radiative heat flux starts earlier
in the shock layer flow, corresponding to the early rise in
electron density seen in Fig. 1. In the shock layer solu-
tion, radiative heat flux reaches a peak at the boundary
layer edge, and decreases toward the wall, understandably
due to boundary layer absorption. The peak value at the
4

boundary layer edge is nearly the same as the peak value 8

Calculated radiative heat flux
in the shock tube flow. Hollis et al (2004) trajectory, no ablation
2
Present model, wall (133 kJ/cm )
2
Present model, boundary layer edge (185 kJ/cm )
2
Shock tube, Park (2010c) (104 kJ/cm )
3000 2
6 Hollis et al (2004) (46 kJ/cm )

2
Radiative heat flux, kW/cm
Calculated radiative heat flux
p1=1 Torr, Us=30 km/s
2500
82.7%H2-15.8%He-1.5%CH4
Shock layer, present work
2
Radiative heat flux, W/cm

Shock tube, Park (2010) 4

2000

1500
2

1000

500 0
Wall 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Flight time, sec
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Figure 4. Radiative heat fluxes and heat loads
Distance from shock wave, cm in the entry flight into Neptune for the
Figure 3. Comparison of the calculated radiative trajectory of Hollis et al (2004).
heat flux between the inviscid shock tube flow
and the present viscous shock layer flow. 4x10
4
1.0x10
17

Neptune Entry Calculated temperatures and electron density

Hollis et al (2004) trajectory, 180 sec point
Temperature
In Fig. 4, the radiative heat fluxes in the entry flight Electron density 0.8
into Neptune are shown for the trajectory calculated 3

by Hollis et al [7] and are compared with their values

Electron density, cm
and with the values calculated assuming the stagnation Heavy particle
Temperature, K

translational-rotational 0.6
streamline flow to be a shock tube flow. The peak value
2
occurring at the boundary layer edge and the wall value
are shown. The calculation was made assuming a nose 0.4
radius of 0.28 meter, which reproduces the shock stand-

-3
off distance of 2.8 cm obtained by Hollis et al. The heat
1
loads, i.e., the time integration of the heat fluxes, are Vibrational-electron- 0.2
shown in the parentheses also. Both sets of present values electronic
are significantly higher than the other two sets of values.
In particular, the present heat load value at the wall is 0 0.0
three times higher than the value calculated by Hollis et 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

al. The present values are higher than the shock tube flow Distance from wall, cm

values at low densities where the nonequilibrium phenom-
ena are strong: the logarithmic increase in flow residence
time toward the wall is allowing equilibrium to be reached
in this low density regime. Because of this phenomenon,
the highest radiative heat transfer rate occurred at 170 sec
time point; in the solution by Hollis et al and in the shock
tube calculation, the highest heat transfer rate occurs at
180 sec time point.
The flow-field variables are shown for the 180 sec point
in the Hollis et al’s trajectory in Figs. 5(a) to (c). In Fig.
5(a), the variations in temperature and electron density
are shown. Qualitatively, temperature variation in the
shock layer is the same as that in a shock tube shown in
Fig. 2.
Figure 5. Flow-field properties for the 180 sec
point in the entry trajectory of Hollis et al
(2004). (a) Temperatures and electron density.
In Fig. 5(b), species mol fractions are shown. One
notes in this figure that C+ exists in a respectable con-
centration. This implies that the excited states of C are
populated significantly, and, consequently, radiation of C
could be strong.
In Fig. 5(c), radiative heat fluxes in two directions,
toward the wall and toward the shock wave, are shown.
The heat flux toward the wall reaches its peak value at the
distance of 2 cm. From Figs. 5(a) and (b) one sees that
flow is not yet reached equilibrium at the peak-radiation
 5

point: the two temperatures are slightly higher than the stand-off distance of 1 cm. Jits et al did not calculate
equilibrium temperature, and C+ concentration is slightly the radiative heat transfer rates in their work. Therefore,
higher than the equilibrium value. That is, the peak in the present calculation is compared only with the calcu-
radiation represents nonequilibrium radiation overshoot. lation made for a shock tube flow earlier by the author
0
[3]. As seen, the shock layer flow produces a stronger
10
H He
radiation compared with the shock tube flow in the low
10
-1
density regime: the peak value at 174 sec point is more
+
-2
H C
+ pronounced than in a shock tube flow, as was for the Hollis
10
et al’s case shown in Fig. 4.
-3
C
10
5000
Species mol fraction

Calculated species molfraction

-4 Hollis et al (2004) trajectory, 180 sec point CH2
10

-5
10 H2 4000
CH4

2
Radiative heat flux, W/cm
-6 +
10 CH CH
C2

10
-7
3000
CH3
-8
10 C3

10
-9 2000
C2H
Calculated radiative heat flux
Hollis et al (2004) trajectory, 180 sec point
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
with nose radius
Distance from wall, cm 1000 Wall
Boundary layer edge
Figure 5. (b) Species mol fractions.
7000 0
5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.1 1
6000 Nose radius, m
Calculated radiative heat flux
Hollis et al (2004) trajectory, 180 sec point Figure 6. Dependence of radiative heat flux
Toward shock wave
2

on nose radius for the 180 sec point.

Radiative heat flux, W/cm

5000 Toward wall

5
4000 Calculated radiative heat flux
Jits et al (2005) trajectory, no ablation
2
Present work, wall (62.5 kW/cm )
2
3000 4 Present work, boundary layer edge (88.4 kJ/cm )
2
Shock tube flow, Park (2010c) (42.2 kJ/cm )
2
Radiative heat flux, kW/cm

2000
3

1000

2
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Distance from wall, cm
1
Figure 5. (c) Radiative heat fluxes.
In order to explore how the nonequilibrium radiation
overshoot phenomenon manifests itself in radiative heat 0
transfer rates, calculation was repeated for the 180 sec 150 160 170 180 190 200 210

point with different nose radii. Fig. 6 shows the results. Flight time, sec

The figure shows that there is an unusually large increase Figure 7. Radiative heat fluxes and heat loads
in heat flux between the nose radii of 0.07 and 0.14 m. in the entry flight into Neptune for the
Seemingly, the overshoot phenomenon occurs prominently trajectory of Jits et al (2005).
in this regime for this particular case.
In Fig. 7, the radiative heat fluxes are shown for the Parametric Study
trajectory calculated by Jits et al [8]. For this calculation, The calculation was made by systematically varying
nose radius was taken to be 0.9 m to produce a shock the nose radius, flight speed, and freestream density. The
6

results are presented in Table 2. In the parentheses, the Conclusions

calculated shock stand-off distances are shown also. As
The viscous shock layer calculations made for the stag-
mentioned, the present method is inaccurate in predicting
nation region of a blunt body show approximately the
shock stand-off distance. For a comparison with a method
same relaxation phenomena as in a constant-area flow. In
more accurate than the present method in shock stand-
an entry flight into the planet Neptune, the viscous shock
off distances, the shock stand-off distance values should be
layer calculation shows a higher radiative heat transfer
used instead of nose radii. Only the boundary layer edge
rates than a shock tube flow in the low density regime. For
values of the radiative heat flux are given, because these
the entry flight considered by Hollis et al, the present cal-
are thought to be more meaningful: the wall values are
culation predicts substantially higher heat transfer rates.
affected by ablation phenomena. By interpolating these
Radiative heat transfer rates are presented parametrically
values, one should be able to predict the radiative heating
over a range of possible flight conditions.
rate to a Neptune aerobraking vehicle to an engineering
accuracy.
References
Table 2. Radiative heat fluxes calculated at
the boundary layer edge for different nose radii, [1] Park, C., “Nonequilibrium Ionization and Radia-
flight speed, and freestream density. Heat flux is tion in Hydrogen-Helium Mixtures,” AIAA Paper 2010-
in kW/cm2 . 814 (2010a); submitted to Journal of Thermophysics and
Heat Transfer.
ρ1 , kg/m3 3.16−6 1.0−5 3.16−5 1.0−4 3.16−4 1.0−3 [2] Park, C., “Stagnation-Point Radiative Heat Fluxes
in Neptune aerobraking,” paper presented at 7th Interna-
Nose radius = 10 cm tional Planetary Probe Workshop, Barcelona, June 14-18,
U s=30 0.579 3.223 5.882 11.420 2010 (2010b).
(1.254) (1.159) (1.043) (1.005) [3] Park, C., “Nonequilibrium Chemistry and Radia-
29 0.417 2.258 4.234 8.129 tion for Neptune Entry,” AIAA Paper 2510-4510, 2010
(1.275) (1.157) (1.052) (0.984) (2010c).
28 0.308 1.318 2.854 6.167 [4] Leibowitz, L. P., “Measurement of the Structure
(1.251) (1.150) (1.057) (1.039) of Ionizing Shock Wave in a Hydrogen-Helium Mixture,”
27 0.0439 0.733 1.808 3.785 The Physics of Fluids, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1973, pp. 59-68.
(1.222) (1.135) (1.058) (1.033) [5] Livingston, F. R., and Poon, T. Y., “Relaxation Dis-
26 0.0176 0.305 0.971 2.204 tance and Equilibrium Electron Density Measurements in
(1.191) (1.114) (1.051) (1.038) Hydrogen-Helium Plasmas,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 14, No.
Nose radius = 31.62 cm 9, 1976, pp. 1335-1337.
U s=30 0.521 2.988 4.897 6.497 [6] Bogdanoff, D. W., and Park, C., ”Radiative Inter-
(3.976) (3.656) (3.239) (3.046) action Between Driver and Driven Gases in an Arc-Driven
29 0.308 1.806 3.242 4.858 Shock Tube,” Journal of Shock Waves, Vol 12, 2002, pp
(4.044) (3.631) (3.265) (3.090) 205-214.
28 0.153 1.081 1.931 4.063 [7] Hollis, B. R., Wright, M. J., Olejniczak, J.,
(3.894) (3.614) (3.287) (3.185) Takashima, N., Sutton, K., and Prabhu, D., “Preliminary
27 0.049 0.623 1.205 2.504 Convective-Radiative Heating Environments for a Nep-
(3.894) (3.586) (3.302) (3.206) tune Aerocapture Mission,” AIAA Paper 2004-5177, 2004.
26 0.008 0.273 0.612 1.470 [8] Jits, R., Wright, M., and Chen, Y-K., “Closed-Loop
(3.800) (3.529) (3.292) (3.209) Trajectory Simulation for Thermal Protection System De-
Nose rdius = 100 cm sign for Neptune Aerocapture,” Journal of Spacecraft and
U s=30 0.534 3.095 4.564 3.754 Rockets, Vol. 42, No. 6, November-December 2005, pp.
(12.70) (11.72) (10.16) (9.230) 1025-1034.
29 0.267 1.893 2.947 2.846 [9] Gautier, D., Conrath, B. J., Owen, T., de Pater,
(12.78) (11.56) (10.23) (9.390) I., and Atreya, S. K., “The Troposphere of Neptune,” in
28 0.130 0.964 1.782 2.608 Neptune and Triton, edited by D. P. Cruikshank, The
(12.60) (11.40) (10.30) (9.777) University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 1995, pp.
27 0.052 0.535 0.951 1.640 547-610.
(12.38) (11.28) (10.31) (9.869) [10] Sutherland, J. W., Su, M. C., and Michael, J. V.,
26 0.010 0.245 0.444 0.944 “Rate Constants for H + CH4 , CH3 + H2 , and CH4 Dis-
(12.10) (11.17) (10.33) (9.934) sociation at High Temperature,” International Journal of
Chemical Kinetics, Vol. 33, No. 11, 2001, pp. 669-684.
 7

[11] Dean, A. J., Davidson, D. F., and Hanson, R. K.,

“A Shock Tube Study of Reactions of C Atoms with H2
and O2 Using Eximer Photolysis of C3 O2 and C Atom
Atomic Resonance Absorption Spectroscopy,” The Jour-
nal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 95, No. 1, 1991, pp.
183-181.
[12] http://kinetics.nist.gov/CKMech/Links.jsp, NIST
Chemical Kinetics Database, Ver. 7.0, 2003.
[13] Baulch, D. L., Cobos, C. J., Cox, R. A., Prank,
P., Hayman, G., Just, Th., Kerr, J. A., Murrels, T.,
Pilling, M. J., Troe, J., Walker, R. W., and Warnatz,
J., “Evaluated Kinetic Data for Combustion Modelling,
Supplement I,” Journal of Physical Chemistry Reference
Data, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1994, pp. 847-1033.
[14] Kim, J. G., Kwon, O. J., and Park, C., “Master
Equation Study and Nonequilibrium Chemical Reactions
for H + H2 and He + H2 ,” Journal of Thermophysics and
Heat Transfer, Vol. 23, No. 3, July-September 2009, pp.
443-453.
[15] Kim, J. G., Kwon, O. J., and Park, C., “State-
to-State Rate Coefficients and Master Equation Study for
H2 + H2 ,” AIAA Paper 2009-1023, January 2009; to be
published in Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Trans-
fer.
[16] Dunn, M. G., “Measurement of C+ + e + e and
CO+ + e Recombination in Carbon Monoxide Flows,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 9, No. 11, Vol. 9, No. 11, November
1971, pp. 2184-2191.
[17] Kruse, T., and Roth, P., “Kinetics of C3 Reac-
tions During High-Temperature Pyrolysis of Acetylene,”
Journal of Physical Chemistry, A, Vol. 101, 1997, pp.
2138-2146.
[18] Park, C., “Dissociative Relaxation in Viscous Hy-
personic Shock Layers,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 7,
July 1964, pp. 1202-1207.
[19] Park, C., “Calculation of Stagnation-Point Heat-
ing Rates Associated with Stardust Vehicle,” Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 44, No. 1, January-February
2007, pp. 24-32.
[20] Kim, J. G., Kwon, O. J., and Park, C., “A High
Temperature Elastic Collision Model for DSMC Based on
Collision Integrals,” AIAA Paper 2006-3803, 2006.