Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T17:00:30.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wall skin friction analysis in a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2024

Tongbiao Guo Open the ORCID record for Tongbiao Guo [Opens in a new window] ,
Ji Zhang Open the ORCID record for Ji Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Yanhua Zhu Open the ORCID record for Yanhua Zhu [Opens in a new window]  and
Xinliang Li Open the ORCID record for Xinliang Li [Opens in a new window]
Tongbiao Guo
Affiliation:
LHD, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China
Ji Zhang
Affiliation:
LHD, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, PR China
Yanhua Zhu
Affiliation:
LHD, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, PR China
Xinliang Li*
Affiliation:
LHD, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: lixl@imech.ac.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, direct numerical simulations in hypersonic turbulent boundary layers over a $24^{\circ }$ compression ramp at Mach 6.0 are performed. The wall skin friction and its spanwise non-homogeneity in the interaction region are analysed via the spectral analysis and drag decomposition method. On the compression ramp, the premultiplied spanwise energy spectrum of wall shear stress $\tau _{w}$ reveals two energetic spanwise length scales. One occurs in the region of $x/\delta _{ref}=0\unicode{x2013}3$ ($x=0$ lies in the compression corner; $\delta _{ref}$ is the boundary layer thickness upstream of the interaction region) and is consistent with that of the large-scale streamwise vortices, indicating that the fluctuation intensity of $\tau _{w}$ is associated with the Görtler-type structures. The other one is observed downstream of $x/\delta _{ref}=3.0$ and corresponds to the regenerated elongated streaky structures. The fluctuation intensity of $\tau _{w}$ peaks at $x/\delta _{ref}=3.0$, where both the above energetic length scales are observed. The drag decomposition method proposed by Li et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 875, 2019, pp. 101–123) is extended to include the effects of spanwise non-homogeneity so that it can be used in the interaction region where the mean flow field and the mean skin friction $C_f$ exhibit an obvious spanwise heterogeneity. The results reveal that, in the upstream turbulent boundary layer, the drag contribution arising from the spanwise heterogeneity can be neglected, while this value on the compression ramp is up to 20.7 % of $C_f$, resulting from the Görtler-type vortices. With the aid of the drag decomposition method, it is found that the main flow features that contribute positively to the amplification of $C_f$ and its rapid increase on the compression ramp includes: the density increase across the shock, the high mean shear stress and turbulence amplification around the detached shear layer and the Favre-averaged downward velocity towards the ramp wall. Compared with the spanwise-averaged value, $C_f$ and its components at the spanwise station where the downwash and upwash of the Görtler-type vortices occur reveal a spanwise variation exceeding 10 %.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Hypersonic Flow Compressible Flows: Shock waves Turbulent Flows: Turbulent boundary layers
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 988 , 10 June 2024 , A23
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Andersson, P., Brandt, L., Bottaro, A. & Henningson, D.S. 2001 On the breakdown of boundary layer streaks. J. Fluid Mech. 428, 29–60.Google Scholar
Cao, S., Klioutchnikov, I. & Olivier, H. 2019 Görtler vortices in hypersonic flow on compression ramps. AIAA J. 57 (9), 3874–3884.Google Scholar
Chung, D., Monty, J.P. & Hutchins, N. 2018 Similarity and structure of wall turbulence with lateral wall shear stress variations. J. Fluid Mech. 847, 591–613.10.1017/jfm.2018.336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dang, G., Liu, S., Guo, T., Duan, J. & Li, X. 2022 Direct numerical simulation of compressible turbulence accelerated by graphics processing unit: an open-source high accuracy accelerated computational fluid dynamic software. Phys. Fluids 34 (12), 126106.Google Scholar
Diaz-Daniel, C., Laizet, S. & Vassilicos, J.C. 2017 Wall shear stress fluctuations: mixed scaling and their effects on velocity fluctuations in a turbulent boundary layer. Phys. Fluids 29 (5), 055102.10.1063/1.4984002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolling, D.S. 1993 Fluctuating loads in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction: tutorial and update. In AIAA, 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting.Google Scholar
Duan, J., Li, X., Li, X. & Liu, H. 2021 Direct numerical simulation of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression–decompression corner. Phys. Fluids 33 (6), 065111.Google Scholar
Duan, J., Tong, F., Li, X. & Liu, H. 2023 Decomposition of mean skin friction in incident shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction flows at Mach 2.25. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 36 (9), 178–194.10.1016/j.cja.2023.06.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont, P., Piponniau, S. & Dussauge, J.P. 2019 Compressible mixing layer in shock-induced separation. J. Fluid Mech. 863, 620–643.10.1017/jfm.2018.987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, Y., Li, W. & Pirozzoli, S. 2019 Decomposition of the mean friction drag in zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 31 (8), 086105.10.1063/1.5111009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, J., Zheltovodov, A.A., Yao, Y., Moulinec, C. & Emerson, D.R. 2020 On the turbulence amplification in shock-wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 897, A32.10.1017/jfm.2020.350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K., Iwamoto, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 14 (11), L73–L76.Google Scholar
Grilli, M., Hickel, S. & Adams, N.A. 2013 Large-eddy simulation of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression–expansion ramp. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 42, 79–93.Google Scholar
Guo, T., Fang, J., Zhong, S. & Moulinec, C. 2022 Energy-based drag decomposition analyses for a turbulent channel flow developing over convergent–divergent riblets. Phys. Fluids 34 (2), 025115.Google Scholar
Guo, T., Zhang, J., Tong, F. & Li, X. 2023 Amplification of turbulent kinetic energy and temperature fluctuation in a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp. Phys. Fluids 35 (4), 046118.Google Scholar
Helm, C.M. & Martín, M.P. 2022 Large eddy simulation of two separated hypersonic shock/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 074601.Google Scholar
Helm, C.M., Martín, M.P. & Williams, O.J.H. 2021 Characterization of the shear layer in separated shock/turbulent boundary layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 912, A7.Google Scholar
Huang, J., Duan, L. & Choudhari, M.M. 2022 Direct numerical simulation of hypersonic turbulent boundary layers: effect of spatial evolution and Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 937, A3.Google Scholar
Humble, R.A., Scarano, F. & Van Oudheusden, B.W. 2009 Unsteady aspects of an incident shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 47–74.Google Scholar
Jameson, A., Schmidt, W. & Turkel, E. 1981 Numerical solution of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge Kutta time stepping schemes. In AIAA, 14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference.10.2514/6.1981-1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kametani, Y. & Fukagata, K. 2011 Direct numerical simulation of spatially developing turbulent boundary layers with uniform blowing or suction. J. Fluid Mech. 681, 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W., Fan, Y., Modesti, D. & Cheng, C. 2019 Decomposition of the mean skin-friction drag in compressible turbulent channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 875, 101–123.10.1017/jfm.2019.499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loginov, M.S., Adams, N.A. & Zheltovodov, A.A. 2006 Large-eddy simulation of shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 565, 135–169.Google Scholar
Mathis, R., Marusic, I., Chernyshenko, S.I. & Hutchins, N. 2013 Estimating wall-shear-stress fluctuations given an outer region input. J. Fluid Mech. 715, 163–180.10.1017/jfm.2012.508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medjnoun, T., Vanderwel, C. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2018 Characteristics of turbulent boundary layers over smooth surfaces with spanwise heterogeneities. J. Fluid Mech. 838, 516–543.10.1017/jfm.2017.849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquariello, V., Hickel, S. & Adams, N.A. 2017 Unsteady effects of strong shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction at high Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 823, 617–657.Google Scholar
Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F. & Gatski, T.B. 2004 Direct numerical simulation and analysis of a spatially evolving supersonic turbulent boundary layer at $M=2.25$. Phys. Fluids 16 (3), 530–545.10.1063/1.1637604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priebe, S. & Martín, M.P. 2021 Turbulence in a hypersonic compression ramp flow. Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 034601.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.034601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, J. & Fu, S. 2015 Secondary instabilities of Görtler vortices in high-speed boundary layer flows. J. Fluid Mech. 781, 388–421.10.1017/jfm.2015.490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renard, N. & Deck, S. 2016 A theoretical decomposition of mean skin friction generation into physical phenomena across the boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 790, 339–367.Google Scholar
Roghelia, A., Olivier, H., Egorov, I. & Chuvakhov, P. 2017 Experimental investigation of Görtler vortices in hypersonic ramp flows. Exp. Fluids 58, 1–15.Google Scholar
Schlatter, P. & Örlü, R. 2010 Assessment of direct numerical simulation data of turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 659, 116–126.Google Scholar
Tong, F., Duan, J., Lai, J., Sun, D. & Yuan, X. 2023 Hypersonic shock wave and turbulent boundary layer interaction in a sharp cone/flare model. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 36 (3), 80–95.Google Scholar
Tong, F., Sun, D. & Li, X. 2021 Direct numerical simulation of impinging shock wave and turbulent boundary layer interaction over a wavy-wall. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 34 (5), 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderwel, C., Stroh, A., Kriegseis, J., Frohnapfel, B. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2019 The instantaneous structure of secondary flows in turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 862, 845–870.Google Scholar
Wangsawijaya, D.D., Baidya, R., Chung, D., Marusic, I. & Hutchins, N. 2020 The effect of spanwise wavelength of surface heterogeneity on turbulent secondary flows. J. Fluid Mech. 894, A7.Google Scholar
Wenzel, C., Gibis, T. & Kloker, M. 2022 About the influences of compressibility, heat transfer and pressure gradients in compressible turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 930, A1.10.1017/jfm.2021.888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willert, C.E. 2015 High-speed particle image velocimetry for the efficient measurement of turbulence statistics. Exp. Fluids 56, 17.Google Scholar
Wu, M. & Martin, M.P. 2007 Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp. AIAA J. 45 (4), 879–889.Google Scholar
Wu, X. & Moin, P. 2009 Direct numerical simulation of turbulence in a nominally zero-pressure-gradient flat-plate boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 630, 5–41.Google Scholar
Xu, D., Ricco, P. & Duan, L. 2023 a Decomposition of the skin-friction coefficient of compressible boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 35 (3), 035107.Google Scholar
Xu, D., Wang, J. & Chen, S. 2022 Skin-friction and heat-transfer decompositions in hypersonic transitional and turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 941, A4.10.1017/jfm.2022.269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, D., Wang, J. & Chen, S. 2023 b Reynolds number and wall cooling effects on correlations between the thermodynamic variables in hypersonic turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 965, A4.Google Scholar
Yao, J., Chen, X. & Hussain, F. 2019 Reynolds number effect on drag control via spanwise wall oscillation in turbulent channel flows. Phys. Fluids 31 (8), 085108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, M., Dong, S., Liu, P.X., Tang, Z.G., Yuan, X.X. & Xu, C.X. 2023 Post-shock turbulence recovery in oblique-shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction flows. J. Fluid Mech. 961, A26.Google Scholar
Yu, M., Liu, P.X., Fu, Y.L., Tang, Z.G. & Yuan, X.X. 2022 Wall shear stress, pressure and heat flux fluctuations in compressible wall-bounded turbulence. II. Spectra, correlation and nonlinear interactions. Phys. Fluids 34 (6), 065140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, C., Duan, L. & Choudhari, M.M. 2018 Direct numerical simulation database for supersonic and hypersonic turbulent boundary layers. AIAA J. 56 (11), 4297–4311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, X.K., Yu, C.P., Tong, F.L. & Li, X.L. 2017 Numerical study on wall temperature effects on shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 55 (1), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar