Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Designing an Optimal Scoop for Holloman High-Speed Test Track Water Braking Mechanism using Computational Fluid Dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Side guard rails increase water-brake drag by 40 percent in CFD.

desk verdict Workmanlike CFD design comparison, internally consistent but verified only at 100 m/s while the real track runs near 300 m/s; the ranking is conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18939 v1 pith:U6W5UMVM submitted 2024-11-28 physics.flu-dyn

Jose A. Terrazas , Piyush Kumar , Arturo Rodriguez , Luis F. Rodriguez , Richard O. Adansi , Vinod Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords waterbrakingrocketsledscoopdesignmultiphaseCFDk-epsilonturbulencemodeldragforcehigh-speedtesttrack
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish which shape of water-braking scoop, the wedge that dips into a water trough to stop a rocket sled, gives the best combination of stopping force and safe, durable operation. Using three-dimensional multiphase CFD at 100 m/s, it compares five scoop designs and assigns each geometric change a quantitative effect: side guard rails raise drag by about 40 percent, removing the small flat perpendicular surfaces lowers drag by about 8 percent, and cutting a 45-degree 'v' into the bottom front lowers force by about 20 percent. The authors conclude that the safest optimal scoop pairs the bottom 'v' cut with a 60-degree trim on the back top, while the maximum-drag configuration pairs that same back trim with the perpendicular surfaces. If the simulations are right, sled designers get a geometry-by-geometry map of the trade-off between braking authority and the lift, roll, turbulence, and component damage that high-speed water impact produces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scoop, a wedge-shaped brake paddle fixed to the sled that dips into the water channel. The argument is carried by five three-dimensional multiphase flow models (Designs 6 through 10) built with the same k-epsilon RANS turbulence model and SIMPLE scheme; water and air are accelerated to 100 m/s past a stationary scoop to mimic relative motion, and the computed drag force, pressure fields, vorticity, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent intensity are compared across geometries. The geometric variants isolate specific features: side guard rails, removal of flat perpendicular surfaces, a 60-degree back-top trim, and a 45-degree bottom 'v' cut.

What would settle it

Equip a sled with the guarded-scoop design, run it through a water channel at 100 m/s, and measure the total braking force from the deceleration trace; if the measured force does not fall near the computed 195 kN, with the model's uncertainty accounted for, the 40 percent drag increase and the design ranking would need revisiting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the drag of a water-braking scoop can be tuned by local geometry changes, and the tuning is large. Adding 0.3-meter side guard rails to the front arc channels water through the scoop and increases the computed drag from 139 kN to 195 kN, about 40 percent. Smoothing the top and bottom flat surfaces into the arc removes the perpendicular surfaces' disruptive turbulence and costs about 8 percent of the drag. A 60-degree trim on the back top leaves force essentially unchanged at 180 kN while calming the wake behind the scoop, and a 45-degree bottom 'v' cut reduces force to about 143 kN, roughly the same as the unguarded baseline, while producing steadier flow. The paper's two design conclusions are that the safest optimal scoop combines the bottom cut with the back-top trim, and the maximum-drag scoop pairs the back-top trim with the perpendicular surfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking rests on the assumption that a stationary scoop in a uniform 100 m/s water-air flow, computed with the k-epsilon RANS model and SIMPLE scheme, behaves like a sled moving through a real water channel at the same speed; the paper offers no grid-convergence study, time-step study, or comparison with track test data to test that equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Side guard rails are the strongest single drag lever tested, raising the computed force by about 40 percent at 100 m/s.
  • Removing flat perpendicular surfaces lowers drag about 8 percent but also cuts peak pressure and turbulence, which should reduce wear on the scoop.
  • A 60-degree back-top trim keeps drag nearly unchanged while producing a calmer wake, so it can reduce unsteady loading on the pusher sled behind the scoop.
  • A 45-degree bottom 'v' cut sacrifices about 20 percent of braking force in exchange for steadier flow and lower lift and roll risk, making it a candidate for conservative designs.
  • The two recommended configurations bracket the design space: a maximum-drag scoop (back trim plus perpendicular surfaces) and a safest-optimal scoop (bottom cut plus back trim), with about a 20 percent drag difference between them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the 40 percent figure should be read as conditional on the turbulence model and mesh; a grid-convergence study or a tow-tank check could rescale all of the quoted percentages.
  • Beyond the paper, because only Design.9 was run near 300 m/s, the recommendations for track speeds near Mach rest on an extrapolation from 100 m/s; running the other designs at higher speeds is the direct next test.
  • Beyond the paper, the safest configuration's 20 percent braking deficit could be recovered operationally by lengthening the water trough or increasing water depth, a trade-off the paper does not quantify.
  • Beyond the paper, the stationary-inflow setup ignores the unsteady free surface and the sled's own deceleration; a moving-body or towed-sled simulation would show whether the relative-motion equivalence holds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports three-dimensional two-phase CFD simulations of five scoop geometries for the water-braking mechanism at the Holloman High-Speed Test Track (HHSTT). The computational domain, mesh settings, k-epsilon RANS turbulence model, and SIMPLE scheme are held fixed while the scoop geometry is varied. All five geometries are simulated at a 100 m/s water/air inlet; the central results are a ~40% drag increase from adding side guard rails (Design.7: 195 kN vs Design.6: 139 kN), an ~8% drag drop when the flat top/bottom perpendicular surfaces are removed (Design.8: 179 kN), and a further force reduction of about 20% from cutting a 'V' into the bottom front of the scoop (Design.10: 143 kN). A 2D companion case at 300 m/s is checked against a momentum hand calculation (8.7 vs 9.0 MN/m), and a 3D hand-check for Design.7 gives 195 vs 200 kN. The paper notes that only Design.9 was 'modeled successfully to an extent of 300 m/s' and that this run 'did not fully converge.' The conclusion recommends Design.10 with the Design.9 60-degree back trim as the safest design and Design.9 with Design.7 perpendicular surfaces for maximum drag.

Significance. The paper's strengths are its controlled comparison and its independence from fitted parameters: the same domain, solver, mesh-size settings, and turbulence model are used for all five geometries, so the relative rankings are not artifacts of calibration; the hand calculations are independent momentum estimates that agree well for Design.7 (195 vs 200 kN); and the 40% side-guard effect is a physically plausible channeling result. If the ranking and the effect sizes persist at the operational 300 m/s regime, the work would provide useful preliminary design guidance for HHSTT brake scoops and a clear basis for targeted experiments or higher-fidelity simulations. However, the paper provides no grid-independence study, no time-step study, and no experimental comparison, and the only high-speed 3D run is non-converged, so the quantitative significance for the actual operating regime is currently prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [METHODOLOGY | 3-D MODELING] All five scoop designs were simulated only at 100 m/s, while the operational HHSTT regime is near 300 m/s; the sole 300 m/s run (Design.9) is reported in the Conclusion as having 'did not fully converge' and in the Methodology as 'modeled successfully to an extent of 300 m/s.' The headline percentages — the 40% drag increase from side guards (Design.7 section), the 8.3% drop from removing perpendicular surfaces (Design.8 section), and the 'about 20%' reduction from the V-cut (Conclusion) — are therefore measured in a regime that is never verified at speed. Because the Froude number, Weber number, and air compressibility (the authors themselves describe the 300 m/s flow as 'near Mach speed') change substantially between 100 and 300 m/s, the ranking cannot be assumed to persist without a speed-dependence study, a scaling law, or an explicit scope limitation; as written, the 'optimal scoop' recommendation overreaches the simulation evidence.
  2. [METHODOLOGY | 3-D MODELING] No grid-independence or time-step study is reported. The Methodology states that mesh quality, domain, turbulence model, numerical scheme, and transient specifications were kept consistent 'to allow valid comparisons between geometries,' but consistency ensures internal comparability, not numerical accuracy. Quantitative statements such as 'about a 40% increase' (Design.7 section) and 'a drop of about 8.3% from Design.7' (Design.8 section) are given to two significant figures with no measure of discretization error, and the same applies to the force values 139, 195, 179, 180, and 143 kN. A grid-convergence study on at least one design, and preferably a second mesh refinement on the recommended design, is needed before the percentages can be treated as quantitative design guidance.
  3. [CONCLUSION] The recommendation of Design.10 as the 'safest optimal' design is based on the four optimization criteria listed in the Conclusion — drag, lift, roll, and damage/maintenance — but only drag force is ever quantified in the Results sections. The text states only that velocity and vorticity data 'help gather perceptions of lift and roll,' and the paper itself notes that damage would require an FSI study. The Conclusion's assertion that Design.10 would reduce 'the chance of lift, roll, and damage to the sled' is therefore not supported by any reported lift or roll force, moment, or structural analysis, and the recommendation should be either confined to drag-based statements or backed by the missing quantitative loads.
  4. [VERIFICATION | 2-D MODELING] The numerical checks against independent estimates do not validate the 3D simulations at 100 m/s. The 2D verification case is run at 300 m/s, and the Design.7 hand check, though close (195 kN computational vs 200 kN by hand), is reported with inconsistent units: the text block gives 'Force (by hand) = 2.0e5 N/m' and 'Force (2D model) = 1.95e5 N/m' while the prose correctly calls these kN values for a 3D model. The Design.10 check shows a 20% mismatch (50 kN hand vs 60 kN computational) that is attributed to 'the area estimate' without any quantification of the hand calculation's sensitivity to that area. As a result, the verification evidence is thinner than the '200 kN compared to a computational value of 195 kN' sentence implies.
minor comments (6)
  1. [RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 3-D MODELING] Figure 19, which appears in the Design.8 section, is captioned 'Design.7 (a) velocity magnitude contour...' but shows Design.8 results; the caption should be corrected.
  2. [RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 3-D MODELING] The text refers to 'Figure 3.18,' 'Figure 3.19,' 'Figure 3.21,' and 'Plot 3.1,' which are numbering artifacts from the source thesis; they should be renumbered consistently with the manuscript's Figures 13–28 and Plots 1–5.
  3. [ABSTRACT] The abstract contains typos ('a round our brake' for 'around our brake'), the Introduction contains 'the i mpact of rain' with a stray space, and the Design.6 section says 'velocity in the Y-axis on the bottom correct' where 'right' is meant.
  4. [RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 2-D MODELING] The 2D force is reported as '8.79E6 N' in the Results section and '8.7e6 N/m' in the Verification section; for a 2D model the per-unit-depth unit N/m is appropriate, and the two statements should be made consistent.
  5. [CONCLUSION] The Conclusion's percentages are quoted against different baselines without stating them ('about 8%' versus 'about 8.3%'; 'about 20%' versus the 143 kN value, which is about 27% below Design.7); the baselines should be explicit to avoid apparent inconsistency.
  6. [ABSTRACT] The abstract's statement that 'by adjusting the air and water inlet velocity, it is possible to simulate HHSTT sled tests at various operating speeds' overstates what is demonstrated, since only one converged 3D speed (100 m/s) is reported.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the design ranking and drag deltas are simulation outputs, not fitted inputs or self-citational definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a direct CFD comparison of five scoop geometries under fixed boundary conditions, with no parameter fitted to the reported drag values. The 40% drag increase claim for Design.7, the 8.3% drop for Design.8, and the 20% reduction for Design.10 are all read off the simulations, not enforced by any model constructed from those outputs. The authors' self-citations, chiefly references [25]-[27], establish prior framework and setup choices, but those citations do not define the new force values or ranking; the quantitative results are generated in the present study. The hand-calculation checks (9.0e6 vs 8.7e6 N/m in 2-D; 200 kN vs 195 kN for Design.7; 50 kN vs 60 kN for Design.10) are independent momentum estimates, not regression fits. The paper's admitted limitation that all 3-D designs except Design.9 were only converged at 100 m/s, while the real track operates near 300 m/s, is a validity and credibility concern rather than a circularity one: it weakens the external applicability of the ranking but does not make the ranking equivalent to its inputs by construction. No equation is shown to reduce to a definition of the claimed result, and no prediction is a renamed fitted parameter. Thus the circularity burden is near zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not depend on fitted constants; the simulation inputs are standard fluid properties and chosen design dimensions. The main ledger items are modeling assumptions: relative-motion equivalence, RANS turbulence closure, and unstated channel geometry. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A stationary scoop with water and air inlet velocities is dynamically equivalent to a scoop moving through a stationary water trough.
    Invoked in the abstract and in the Problem Definition; this relative-motion simplification is the basis for all force measurements.
  • domain assumption The k-epsilon two-equation RANS model with SIMPLE scheme is adequate for high-speed water-air flow around the scoop.
    Stated as the solver choice for all five designs; no verification against higher-fidelity simulations or experiments is provided.
  • domain assumption The channel water depth, track geometry, and fluid properties match real HHSTT conditions.
    The paper references HHSTT but does not report the water depth or channel geometry used in the simulations, so representativeness cannot be audited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing an Optimal Scoop for Holloman High-Speed Test Track Water Braking Mechanism using Computational Fluid Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6W5UMVM

@misc{pith2026241118939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing an Optimal Scoop for Holloman High-Speed Test Track Water Braking Mechanism using Computational Fluid Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6W5UMVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18939}
}
read the original abstract

Specializing in high-speed testing, Holloman High-Speed Test Track (HHSTT) uses water braking to stop vehicles on the test track. This method takes advantage of the higher density of water, compared to air, to increase braking capability through momentum exchange by increasing the water content in that section at the end of the track. By studying water braking using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the forces acting on tracked vehicles can be approximated and prepared before actual testing through numerical simulations. In this study, emphasis will be placed on the brake component of the tracked sled, which is responsible for interacting with water to brake. By discretizing a volume space around our brake, we accelerate the water and air to simulate the brake coupling relatively. The multiphase flow model uses the governing equations of the gas and liquid phases with the finite volume method to perform 3D simulations. By adjusting the air and water inlet velocity, it is possible to simulate HHSTT sled tests at various operating speeds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18939 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Test article and pusher of the sled design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Water braking at Holloman High-Speed Test Track In recent decades, CFD simulation tools have developed and become powerful tools for analyzing and understanding fluid dynamics phenomena. Due to the further development of CFD tools, Air Force system designs, such as the high-speed sleds at HHSTT, can be improved[16,17]. The credibility of CFD simulations can only be established through a rigorous verification and val… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 3-D boundary conditions and set-up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3-D boundary conditions and set-up METHODOLOGY | 2-D MODELING The initial 2-D scoop design is inspired by channeling water flow through the scoop while providing a 60-degree divergent geometry behind the bottom to reduce the lift force caused by water flowing under the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 2-D Design.6 mesh The discretization of the 2-D model was focused mainly on greater fidelity around the scoop and water channel, as most of the force will be coming from the water (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mach number (left) and density of air (right) of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variations between the different 3-D scoop designs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Isometric view of the different scoop designs To that end, the same type of cell topology, tetrahedrons, was used, as were efforts to obtain a similar mesh quality. Geometric differences meant that having the same mesh statistics was impossible, but they were all withi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the volumetric flow rate of water in front, isometric, and side views. It illustrates how the water engages explicitly with the scoop and how the water flows. Critical to this analysis is the inspiration for geometric changes to attempt to channel water flow in …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Design.6 velocity contours (left) and pressure contours (right) Turbulent kinetic energy, in conjunction with turbulent intensity and vorticity, is essential in determining the amount of turbulence generated and, hence, the drag on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Design.6 Turbulent Kinetic Energy (KE) contours (left), Turbulent Intensity contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Design.7 geometry changes and views from changes made from Design.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Design.7 absolute pressure contour (top) and plot (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Design.7 (a) velocity magnitude contour (b) vorticity magnitude contour (c) turbulent kinetic energy contour (d) turbulent intensity contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Design.7 (a) water volumetric flow rate (isometric view) (b) volume fraction of air [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Design.8 absolute pressure contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Design.7 (a) velocity magnitude contour (b) vorticity magnitude contour (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Design.8 (a) water volumetric flow rate (isometric view) (b) volume fraction of air [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Design.9 geometry changes and views from changes made from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Design.9 absolute pressure contour Velocity distribution as a magnitude is also more evenly distributed behind the scoop; there are no longer as clear spikes in velocity points as in Design.8. Vorticity, much like velocity, has also been reduced behind the scoop, Figu…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Design.9 (a) velocity magnitude contour (b) vorticity magnitude contour (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Design.9 (a) water volumetric flow rate (isometric view) (b) Volume fraction of air in a plane through the middle of the domain Plot 4: Design.9 drag force by scoop height The force on the scoop was about 180kN, the same as in Design. 8. The marked difference is the f…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Design10 geometry changes and views from changes made from Design.9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Design.10 absolute pressure contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Design.10 (a) velocity magnitude contour (b) vorticity magnitude contour (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Design.10 (a) water volumetric flow rate (isometric view) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_28.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Three-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow Simulations of Water Braking Phenomena for High-Speed Test Track Sled,

    Terrazas, J., Rodriguez, A., Kumar, V., Adansi, R., and Krushnarao Kotteda, V. M., 2021, “Three-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow Simulations of Water Braking Phenomena for High-Speed Test Track Sled,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Engineering Division (Publication) FEDSM, 1. https://doi.org/10.1115/FEDSM2021-65799

    work page doi:10.1115/fedsm2021-65799 2021

  2. [2]

    Physics-Informed Long-Short Term Memory Neural Network Performance on Holloman High-Speed Test Track Sled Study,

    Pérez, J., Baez, R., Terrazas, J., Rodríguez, A., Villanueva, D., Fuentes, O., Kumar, V., Paez, B., and Cruz, A., 2022, “Physics-Informed Long-Short Term Memory Neural Network Performance on Holloman High-Speed Test Track Sled Study,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Engineering Division (Publication) FEDSM, 2. https://doi.org/10.1115/FEDS...

    work page doi:10.1115/fedsm2022-86953 2022

  3. [3]

    Validation of Dynamic Simulation Techniques at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,

    Hooser, M., and Schwing, A., 2000, “Validation of Dynamic Simulation Techniques at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,” 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-155

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2000-155 2000

  4. [4]

    Soft Sled Test Capability at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,

    Turnbull, D., Hooser, C., Hooser, M., and Myers, J., 2010, “Soft Sled Test Capability at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,” U.S. Air Force T and E Days

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Determination of the Constitutive Equations for 1080 Steel and Vascomax 300,

    Kennan, Z. A., 2005, “Determination of the Constitutive Equations for 1080 Steel and Vascomax 300,” (June), p. 186. [Online]. Available: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/3654

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    CTEIP Funded Advances in Hypersonic Testing at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,

    Minto, D. W., 2004, “CTEIP Funded Advances in Hypersonic Testing at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,” 24th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004- 2740

    doi:10.2514/6.2004- 2004

  7. [7]

    Advanced Hypersonic Test Facilities,

    Marren, D., and Lu, F., 2002, “Advanced Hypersonic Test Facilities,” Advanced Hypersonic Test Facilities. https://doi.org/10.2514/4.866678. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering 34

    work page doi:10.2514/4.866678 2002

  8. [8]

    The Holloman High-Speed Test Track Hypersonic Upgrade Program,

    Minto, D., 2012, “The Holloman High-Speed Test Track Hypersonic Upgrade Program,” 22nd AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference

    work page 2012

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Recent Increases in Hypersonic Test Capabilities at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,

    Minto, D. W., 2000, “Recent Increases in Hypersonic Test Capabilities at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,” 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2000-154

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    A Hypersonic Test Capabilities at the Holloman High-Speed Test Track,

    Minto, D. W., and Bosmajian, N., 2002, “A Hypersonic Test Capabilities at the Holloman High-Speed Test Track,” Advanced Hypersonic Test Facilities, pp. 499–

    2002

  3. [11]

    Analysis and Simulation of Hypervelocity Gouging Impacts for a High Speed Sled Test,

    Cinnamon, J. D., and Palazotto, A. N., 2009, “Analysis and Simulation of Hypervelocity Gouging Impacts for a High Speed Sled Test,” Int J Impact Eng, 36(2), pp. 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.11.009

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Holloman High-Speed Test Track Design Manual

    Factor, L., 2005, “Holloman High-Speed Test Track Design Manual.”

    2005

  5. [13]

    Reusable Thrust-Powered Sled Mounted on an Inclined Track for Launching Spacecraft and Airborne Vehicles at Supersonic Speeds

    Maker, D., and Meyer, C., 2006, “Reusable Thrust-Powered Sled Mounted on an Inclined Track for Launching Spacecraft and Airborne Vehicles at Supersonic Speeds.”

    2006

  6. [14]

    Captive Flight Testing by Means of Rocket Sleds

    RASMUSSEN, H., 1968, “Captive Flight Testing by Means of Rocket Sleds.” https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1968-364

    1968 doi

  7. [15]

    L., and Hohnstreiter, G

    Uncapher, W. L., and Hohnstreiter, G. F., 1995, Radioactive Material Package Testing Capabilities at Sandia National Laboratories, Sandia National Labs

    1995

  8. [16]

    Field Predictions of Hypersonic Cones Using Physics-Informed Neural Networks,

    Villanueva, D., Paez, B., Rodriguez, A., Chattopadhyay, A., Kotteda, V. M. K., Baez, R., Perez, J., Terrazas, J., and Kumar, V., 2022, “Field Predictions of Hypersonic Cones Using Physics-Informed Neural Networks,” Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, American Society o...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Causal Inference Analysis to Find Relationships Found in Boundarylayer Transition Part i: Theoretical,

    Rodriguez, A., Terrazas, J., Adansi, R., Krushnarao Kotteda, V. M., Munoz, J. A., and Kumar, V., 2021, “Causal Inference Analysis to Find Relationships Found in Boundarylayer Transition Part i: Theoretical,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fluids Engineering Division...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    High-Frequency Excitation Active Flow Control for High- Speed Weapon Release (HIFEX),

    Bower, W., Kibens, V., Cary, A., Alvi, F., Raman, G., Annaswamy, A., and Malmuth, N., 2004, “High-Frequency Excitation Active Flow Control for High- Speed Weapon Release (HIFEX),” 2nd AIAA Flow Control Conference, p. 2513

    2004

  11. [19]

    Aerodynamics of High-Speed Trains,

    Schetz, J. A., 2001, “Aerodynamics of High-Speed Trains,” Annu Rev Fluid Mech, 33(1), pp. 371–414

    2001

  12. [20]

    Study Evolvement of Train Aerodynamics in China,

    Hong-Qi, T., 2006, “Study Evolvement of Train Aerodynamics in China,” 交通运 输工程学报, 6(1), pp. 1–9

    2006

  13. [21]

    Focusing Schlieren Photography at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,

    Weinstein, L. M., and Minto, D., 1997, “Focusing Schlieren Photography at the Holloman High Speed Test Track,” 22nd International Congress on High-Speed Photography and Photonics, SPIE, pp. 865–873

    1997

  14. [22]

    Research and Development of High Speed Test Track Facility in Japan,

    Nakata, D., Yajima, J., Nishine, K., Higashino, K., Tanatsugu, N., and Kozu, A., 2012, “Research and Development of High Speed Test Track Facility in Japan,” 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p. 928. ASME Journal of...

    2012

  15. [23]

    Kotteda, V. M. K., Kumar, V., Spotz, W., Stephens, A., and Adams, B., 2018, Dakota Integrated with MFiX for UQ Analysis: Sensitivity of Particle Size on Pressure Drop in a Fluidized Bed DEM Simulations., Sandia National Lab.(SNL- NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics,

    Oberkampf, W. L., and Trucano, T. G., 2002, “Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics,” Progress in aerospace sciences, 38(3), pp. 209– 272

    2002

  17. [25]

    The CFD Modeling of the Water Braking Phenomena for the Holloman High-Speed Test Track

    Terrazas, J, Kotteda, VMK, Kumar, V, Edmonds, R, & Zeisset, M. "The CFD Modeling of the Water Braking Phenomena for the Holloman High-Speed Test Track." Proceedings of the ASME-JSME-KSME 2019 8th Joint Fluids Engineering Conference. Volume 1: Fluid Mechanics. San Francisco, Ca...

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Using Computational Fluid Dynamics And Machine Learning To Predict Sled Profile During High Speed Water Braking At Holloman High Speed Test Track

    Terrazas, Jose A., "Using Computational Fluid Dynamics And Machine Learning To Predict Sled Profile During High Speed Water Braking At Holloman High Speed Test Track" (2020). Open Access Theses & Dissertations. 3126. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/open_etd/3126

    2020

  19. [27]

    Computational Analysis Of Water Braking Phenomena For High-Speed Sled And Its Machine Learning Framework

    Terrazas, Jose A., "Computational Analysis Of Water Braking Phenomena For High-Speed Sled And Its Machine Learning Framework" (2023). Open Access Theses & Dissertations. 3859. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/open_etd/3859 ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledge the Holloman High-Speed Tes...

    2023

  20. [530]

    https://doi.org/10.2514/5.9781600866678.0499.0530

  21. [2010]

    https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-1708

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.