Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:53:28.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On ramped vanes to control normal shock boundary layer interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2018

S. Lee  and
E. Loth
S. Lee*
Affiliation:
Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueNew Mexico, USA
E. Loth
Affiliation:
Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleVirginia, USA
*
sanglee@unm.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A novel vortex generator design positioned upstream of a normal shock followed by a subsequent diffuser was investigated using large eddy simulations. In particular, “ramped-vane” flow control devices with three different heights relative to the incoming boundary layer thickness (0.34δ, 0.52δ and 0·75δ) were placed in a supersonic boundary layer with a freestream Mach number of 1.3 and a Reynolds number of 2400 based on the momentum thickness. This is the first numerical study to investigate the size effect of the ramped-vane for flow control device in terms of shape factor, flow separation and flow unsteadiness. The results showed that these devices generated strong streamwise vortices that entrained high-momentum fluid to the near-wall region and increased turbulent mixing. The devices also decreased shock-induced flow separation, which resulted in a higher downstream skin friction in the diffuser. In general, the largest ramped-vane (0.75δ) produced the largest reductions in flow separation, shape factor and overall unsteadiness. These results and a careful review of the literature study also determined the quantitative correlation of optimum VG height with Mach number, whereby h/δ~1 is often optimum for incompressible flows while higher Mach numbers lead to small optimum heights, tending towards h/δ~0.45 at M=2.5.

Keywords

Shock-induced Flow SeparationFlow ControlVortex Generators
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1256 , October 2018 , pp. 1568 - 1585
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Smits, A.J. and Dussauge, J.P. Turbulent Shear Layers in Supersonic Flow, 2nd Ed. Springer, Berlin; 2006.Google Scholar
2. Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N. T. and Dolling, D. S. Large-scale motions in a supersonic turbulent boundary layer, J of Fluid Mech, 2006, 556, pp 271–282.Google Scholar
3. Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N. T. and Dolling, D. S. Effects of upstream boundary layer on the unsteadiness of shock-induced separation, J of Fluid Mech, 2007, 585, pp 369–394.Google Scholar
4. Clemens, N.T. and Narayanaswamy, V. Low-frequency unsteadiness of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions, Annual Review of Fluid Mech, 2014, 46, pp 469–492.Google Scholar
5. Wu, M. and Martin, M. P. Analysis of shock motion in shock wave and turbulent boundary layer interaction using direct numerical simulation data, J of Fluid Mech, 2008, 594, pp 71–83.Google Scholar
6. Rizzetta, D. P., Visbal, M. R. and Gaitonde, D. V. Large-Eddy simulation of supersonic compression-ramp flow by high-order method, AIAA J, 2001, 39, (12), pp 2283–2292 Google Scholar
7. Edwards, J. R., Choi, J. and Boles, J. A. Large-Eddy/Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes simulation of a Mach 5 compression-corner interaction, AIAA J, 2008, 46, (4), pp 977–991 Google Scholar
8. Pirozzoli, S., Bernardini, M. and Grasso, F. Direct numerical simulation of transonic shock/boundary layer interaction under conditions of incipient separation, J of Fluid Mech, 2010, 657, pp 361–393.Google Scholar
9. Loth, E. Smart Mesoflaps for Control of Shock Boundary Layer Interactions, 2000, AIAA Paper 2000–2476.Google Scholar
10. Kalra, C. S., Shneider, M. N. and Miles, R. B. Numerical study of boundary layer separation control using magnetogasdynamics plasma actuators, Physics of Fluids, 2009, 21, 106101.Google Scholar
11. Im, S., Do, H. and Cappelli, M. A. Dielectric barrier discharge control of a turbulent boundary layer in a supersonic flow, Applied Physics Letters, 2010, 97, (4), 041503.Google Scholar
12. Webb, N., Clifford, C. and Samimy, M. Control of oblique shock wave boundary layer interactions using plasma actuators, Experiments in Fluids, 2013, 54, (6), 1545.Google Scholar
13. Bisek, N. J., Rizzetta, D. P. and Poggie, J. Plasma control of a turbulent shock boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J, 2013, 51, (8), pp 1789–1804 Google Scholar
14. Blinde, P. L., Humble, R. A., van Oudheusden, B. W. and Scarano, F. Effects of micro-ramps on a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, Shock Waves, 2009, 19, pp 507–520.Google Scholar
15. Verma, S. B., Manisankar, C. and Raju, C. Control of shock unsteadiness in shock boundary-layer interaction on a compression corner using mechanical vortex generators, Shock Waves, 2012, 22, pp 327–339.Google Scholar
16. Babinsky, H., Li, Y. and Pitt-Ford, C. W. Microramp control of supersonic oblique shock-wave/boundary layer interactions, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (3), pp 668–675 Google Scholar
17. Gosh, S., Choi, J. and Edwards, J. Numerical simulations of effects of micro vortex geneartors using immersed-boundary methods, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (1), pp 92–103 Google Scholar
18. Bruce, P., Burton, D., Titchener, N. and Babinsky, H. Corner flows and separation in transonic channel flows, 45th Symposium of Applied Aerodynamics, 2010, Marseille.Google Scholar
19. Bruce, P., Burton, D., Titchener, N. and Babinsky, H. Corner effect and separation in transonic channel flows, J of Fluid Mech, 2011, 679, pp 247–262.Google Scholar
20. Titchener, N. and Babinsky, H. Microvortex generators applied to a flowfield containing a normal shock wave and diffuser, AIAA J, 2011, 48, (5), pp 1046–1056 Google Scholar
21. Titchener, N. and Babinsky, H. Shock wave/boundary–layer interaction control using a combination of vortex generators and bleed, AIAA J, 2013, 51, (5), pp 1221–1233 Google Scholar
22. Barter, J. W. and Dolling, D. S. Reduction of fluctuating pressure loads in shock boundary–layer interactions using vortex generators, AIAA J, 1995, 33, (10), pp 1842–1849 Google Scholar
23. Holden, H. and Babinsky, H. Effect of microvortex generators on separated normal shock/boundary layer interactions, J of Aircr, 2007, 44, (1), pp 170–174 Google Scholar
24. Titchener, N. and Babinsky, H. A review of the use of vortex generators for mitigating shock-induced separation, Shock Waves, 2015, 25, pp 473–494.Google Scholar
25. Lee, S. and Loth, E. Impact of ramped vanes on normal shock boundary–layer interaction, AIAA J, 2012, 50, (10), pp 2069–2079 Google Scholar
26. Rybalko, M., Babinsky, H. and Loth, E. Vortex generators for a normal shock/boundary layer interaction with a downstream diffuser, J of Propulsion and Power, 2012, 28, (1), pp 71–82.Google Scholar
27. Godard, G. and Stanislas, M. Control of a decelerating boundary layer, Part 1: optimization of passive vortex generators, Aerospace Science and Technology , 2006, 10, (3), pp 181–191 Google Scholar
28. Ashill, P. R., Fulker, J. L. and Hackett, K. C. Studies of flows induced by Sub Boundary Layer Vortex Generators, 2002, AIAA paper 2002-14121.Google Scholar
29. Boris, J. P. On large Eddy simulation using subgrid turbulence models, wither turbulence? Turbulence at the cross roads. edited by J. L. Lumley Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin; 1989, 257, pp 344–353.Google Scholar
30. Lee, S., Loth, E. and Babinsky, H. Normal Shock Boundary Layer Control with Various Vortex Generator Geometries, Computer and Fluids, 2011, 49, pp 233–246.Google Scholar
31. Loth, E., Titchener, N., Babinsky, H and Povinelli, L. Canonical normal shock wave/boundary-layer interaction flows relevant to external compression inlets, AIAA J, 2013, 51, (9), pp 2208–2217.Google Scholar
32. Bush, R. H., Power, G. D. and Towne, C. E. WIND: The Production Flow Solver of the NPARC Alliance, 1998, AIAA Paper 98-0935.Google Scholar
33. Urbin, G. and Knight, D. Large-Eddy simulation of a supersonic boundary layer using an unstructured grid, AIAA J, 2001, 39, (7), pp 1288–1295 Google Scholar
34. Lund, T. S., Wu, X. and Squires, K. D. Generation of turbulent inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations, J of Computational Physics, 1998, 140, (2), pp 233–258.Google Scholar
35. Kawai, S., Shankar, S. K. and Lele, S. K. Assessment of localized artificial diffusivity scheme for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows, J of Computational Physics, 2010, 229, (5), pp 1739–1762 Google Scholar
36. Visbal, M. R. and Rizzetta, D. P. Large-eddy simulation on curvilinear grids using compact differencing and filtering schemes, J of Fluids Engineering, 2002, 124, (4), pp 836–847 Google Scholar
37. Li, Y. and Wang, Z. J. A priori and a posteriori evaluations of sub-grid scale models for the Burger’s equation, Computers and Fluids, 2016, 139, pp 92–104.Google Scholar
38. Courant, R., Isaacson, E. and Rees, M. On the solution of non-linear hyperbolic differential equations, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1952, 5, (3), pp 243–255 Google Scholar
39. Roe, P. L. and Pike, J. Efficient Construction and Utilization of Approximate Riemann Solutions, Computing Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, VI, R. Glowinski and J. L. Lions (Eds), Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 1984 Philadelphia; pp 499–518.Google Scholar
40. Laney, C. B. Computational Gasdynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, U.K., 1998. pp 470–471.Google Scholar
41. Beam, M. and Warming, R. F. An implicit finite difference algorithm for hyperbolic systems in conservation-law form, J of Computational Physics, 1976, 22, (1), pp 87–110 Google Scholar
42. Parmies, M., Weiss, P., Garnier, E., Deck, S. and Sagaut, P. Generation of synthetic turbulent inflow data for large eddy simulation of spatially evolving wall-bounded flows, Physics of Fluids, 2009, 21, (4), 045103.Google Scholar
43. Pearcey, H. H. Shock-Induced Separation and Its Prevention by Design and Boundary Layer Control, Boundary Layer and Flow Control, It’s Principal and Applications, Vol. 2. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, U.K, 1961, 1166–1344.Google Scholar
44. Holmes, A. E., Hickey, P. K., Murphy, W. R. and Hilton, D. A. The Application of Sub-Boundary Layer Vortex Generators to Reduce Canopy Mach Rumble Interior Noise on the Gulfstream III, 1987, AIAA Paper 87–0084.Google Scholar
45. McCormick, D. C. Shock/boundary-layer interaction control with vortex generators and passive cavity, AIAA J, 1993, 31, (1), pp 91–96 Google Scholar
46. Burton, D. M. F. and Babinsky, H. Corner separation effects for normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in rectangular channels, J of Fluid Mech, 2012, 707, pp 287–306.Google Scholar
47. Lee, S., Goettke, M. K., Loth, E., Tinapple, J. and Benek, J. Micro-ramps upstream of an oblique-shock boundary layer interaction, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (1), pp 104–118 Google Scholar
48. Adams, N. A. Direct simulation of the turbulent boundary layer along a compression ramp at M=3 and Re=1685, J of Fluid Mech, 2000, 420, pp 47–83.Google Scholar
49. Lee, S. and Loth, E. Effect of Mach number on flow past micro-ramps, AIAA J, 2011, 49, (1), pp 97–110 Google Scholar
50. Jeong, J. and Hussain, F. On the identification of a vortex, J of Fluid Mech, 1992, 285, pp 69–94.Google Scholar
51. Wu, M. and Martin, M. P. Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp, AIAA J, 2007, 45, (4), pp 879–889 Google Scholar
52. Garnier, E., Sagaut, P. and Deville, M. Large Eddy simulation of shock/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J, 2002, 40, (10), pp 1935–1944 Google Scholar
53. Lin, J. Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control boundary-layer separation, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2002, 38, pp 389–420.Google Scholar
54. Frenandez, U., Zamorano, G. and Zulueta, E. Computational study of the vortex path variation with the VG height, J of Physics: Conference Series, 2014, 524, 012024.Google Scholar
55. Rybalko, M. and Loth, E. Simulations of a Supersonic Single-Stream Low-Boom Inlet, 2011, AIAA paper 2011-3803.Google Scholar
56. Anderson, B. H., Tinapple, J. and Surber, L. Optimal Control of Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions Using Micro-Array Actuation, 2006, AIAA Paper 2006-3197.Google Scholar
57. Pierce, A. J., Li, Q., Shih, Y., Lu, F. K. and Liu, C. Interaction of Micro-Vortex Generator Flow with Ramp-Induced Shock/Boundary-Layer Interactions, 2011, AIAA paper 2011-32.Google Scholar