Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:52:08.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the mean structure of sharp-fin-induced shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions over a cylindrical surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2019

J. D. Pickles Open the ORCID record for J. D. Pickles [Opens in a new window] ,
B. R. Mettu ,
P. K. Subbareddy  and
V. Narayanaswamy
J. D. Pickles
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
B. R. Mettu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
P. K. Subbareddy
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
V. Narayanaswamy*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: vnaraya3@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interactions between an oblique shock wave generated by a sharp fin placed on a cylindrical surface and the incoming boundary layer are investigated to unravel the mean features of the resulting shock/boundary layer interaction (SBLI) unit. This fin-on-cylinder SBLI unit has several unique features caused by the three-dimensional (3-D) relief offered by the cylindrical surface that noticeably alter the shock structure. Complementary experimental and computational studies are made to delineate both the surface and off-body flow features of the fin-on-cylinder SBLI unit and to obtain a detailed understanding of the mechanisms that dictate the mean flow and wall pressure features of the SBLI unit. Results show that the fin-on-cylinder SBLI exhibits substantial deviation from quasi-conical symmetry that is observed in planar fin SBLI. Furthermore, the separated flow growth rate appears to decrease with downstream distance and the separation size is consistently smaller than the planar fin SBLI with the same inflow and fin configurations. The causes for the observed diminution of the separated flow and its downstream growth rate were investigated in the light of changes caused by the cylinder curvature on the inviscid as well as separation shock. It was found that the inviscid shock gets progressively weakened in the region close to the triple point with downstream distance due to the 3-D relief effect from cylinder curvature. This weakening of the inviscid shock feeds into the separation shock, which is also independently impacted by the 3-D relief, to result in the observed modifications in the fin-on-cylinder SBLI unit.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Shock waves Turbulent Flows: Turbulent boundary layers
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 865 , 25 April 2019 , pp. 212 - 246
Copyright
© 2019 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

Alvi, F. S. & Settles, G. S. 1992 Physical model of the swept shock wave/boundary-layer interaction flowfield. AIAA J. 30 (9), 2252–2258.Google Scholar
Andreopoulos, J. & Muck, K. C. 1987 Some new aspects of the shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction in compression-ramp flows. J. Fluid Mech. 180, 405–428.10.1017/S0022112087001873Google Scholar
Arora, N., Alvi, F. S. & Ali, M. Y. 2016 Flowfield of a 3-D swept shock boundary layer interaction in a Mach 2 flow. 46th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference. pp. 1–18. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Babinsky, H. & Harvey, J. K. 2011 Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interactions, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, A., Arora, N., Kumar, R. & Alvi, F. 2016 Effect of Reynolds number on 3-D shock wave boundary layer interactions. In 46th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, pp. 1–18. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Barnhart, P. J. & Greber, I.1997 Experimental investigation of unsteady shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions about a blunt fin. Tech. Rep. 204339. National Aeronatics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
Bhagwandin, V. A. 2015 Numerical prediction of planar shock wave interaction with a cylindrical body. In 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Bhagwandin, V. A. & Sahu, J. 2014 Numerical prediction of pitch damping stability derivatives for finned projectiles. J. Spacecr. Rockets 51 (5), 1603–1618.Google Scholar
Blair, A. B. Jr, Allen, J. M. & Hernandez, G. 1983 Effect of tail-fin span on stability and control characteristics of a canard-controlled missile at supersonic Mach numbers. Tech. Rep. 2157. National Aeronatics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
Bogdonoff, S. M.1989 The structure and control of three-dimensional shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions. Tech. Rep. 1851. Princeton University Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.Google Scholar
Clemens, N. T. & Narayanaswamy, V. 2014 Low-frequency unsteadiness of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 469–492.Google Scholar
DeSpirito, J., Vaughn, M. E. Jr & Washington, W D. 2002 Numerical investigation of aerodynamics of canard-controlled missile using planar and grid tail fins, part 1: supersonic flow. Tech. Rep. 2848. Army Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Dolling, D. S. 2001 Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J. 39 (8), 1517–1531.10.2514/2.1476Google Scholar
Dolling, D. S. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1982 Blunt fin-induced shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 20 (12), 1674–1680.10.2514/3.8003Google Scholar
Durbin, P. A. 1996 On the k-𝜔 stagnation point anomaly. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 17 (1), 89–90.Google Scholar
Fang, J., Lu, L., Yao, Y. & Zheltovodov, A. A. 2017 Investigation of three-dimensional shock wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction initiated by a single fin. AIAA J. 55 (2), 509–523.Google Scholar
Fresconi, F., Celmins, I. & Fairfax, L.2011 Optimal parameters for maneuverability of affordable precision munitions. Tech. Rep. 5647. Army Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Gaitonde, D. V. 2015 Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 72, 80–99.Google Scholar
Garg, S. & Settles, G. S. 1996 Unsteady pressure loads generated by swept-shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 34 (6), 1174–1181.Google Scholar
Gibson, B. & Dolling, D. S. 1991 Wall pressure fluctuations near separation in a Mach 5, sharp fin-induced turbulent interaction. In 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Hooseria, S. J. & Skews, B. W. 2015 Colour surface flow visualizations of interfering slender bodies at Mach 3. J. Vis. 18 (3), 413–423.Google Scholar
Hooseria, S. J. & Skews, B. W. 2017 Shock wave interactions between slender bodies. Shock Waves 27 (1), 109–126.Google Scholar
Hopkins, E. J.1972 Charts for predicting turbulent skin friction from the Van Driest method (2). Tech. Rep. 6945. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
Horstman, C. C. 1989 Prediction of secondary separation in shock wave boundary-layer interactions. Comput. Fluids 17 (4), 611–614.10.1016/0045-7930(89)90031-5Google Scholar
Humble, R. A., Elsinga, G. E., Scarano, F. & van Oudheusden, B. W. 2009 Three-dimensional instantaneous structure of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 622, 33–62.Google Scholar
Hung, C. M.1985 Computation of three-dimensional shock wave and boundary-layer interactions. Tech. Rep. 19850027059. National Aeronatics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
Hung, C. M. & Buning, P. G. 1985 Simulation of blunt-fin-induced shock-wave and turbulent boundary-layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 154, 163–185.Google Scholar
Knight, D., Yan, H., Panaras, A. G. & Zheltovodov, A. 2003 Advances in CFD prediction of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 39 (2), 121–184.Google Scholar
Knight, D. D., Horstman, C. C., Shapey, B. & Bogdonoff, S. 1987 Structure of supersonic turbulent flow past a sharp fin. AIAA J. 25 (10), 1331–1337.10.2514/3.9787Google Scholar
Korkegi, R. H. 1973 A simple correlation for incipient-turbulent-boundary-layer separation due to a skewed shock wave. AIAA J. 11 (11), 1578–1579.Google Scholar
Kubota, H. & Strollery, J. L. 1982 An experimental study of the interaction between a glancing shock wave and a turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 116, 431–458.10.1017/S0022112082000548Google 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
MacCormack, R. W. & Candler, G. V. 1989 The solution of the Navier–Stokes equations using Gauss–Seidel line relaxation. Comput. Fluids 17 (1), 135–150.10.1016/0045-7930(89)90012-1Google Scholar
Nompelis, I., Drayna, T. W. & Candler, G. V. 2004 Development of a hybrid unstructured implicit solver for the simulation of reacting flows over complex geometries. In 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Nompelis, I., Drayna, T. W. & Candler, G. V. 2005 A parallel unstructured implicit solver for hypersonic reacting flow simulation. In 17th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, pp. 389–395. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Ozawa, H. & Laurence, S. J. 2018 Experimental investigation of the shock-induced flow over a wall-mounted cylinder. J. Fluid Mech. 849, 1009–1042.Google Scholar
Pickles, J. D., Mettu, B. R., Subbareddy, P. K. & Narayanaswamy, V. 2017 Sharp-fin induced shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in an axisymmetric configuration. In 47th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, pp. 1–20. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Pickles, J. D., Mettu, B. R., Subbareddy, P. K. & Narayanaswamy, V. 2018 Gas density field imaging in shock dominated flows using planar laser scattering. Exp. Fluids 59 (7), 1–15.10.1007/s00348-018-2562-8Google Scholar
Piponniau, S., Dussauge, J. P., Debieve, J. F. & Dupont, P. 2009 A simple model for low-frequency unsteadiness in shock-induced separation. J. Fluid Mech. 629, 87–108.Google Scholar
Sahu, J. 1990 Numerical computations of transonic critical aerodynamic behavior. AIAA J. 28 (5), 807–816.10.2514/3.25123Google Scholar
Sahu, J. 2017 CFD simulations of a finned projectile with microflaps for flow control. Intl J. Aerosp. Engng 2017, 1–15.10.1155/2017/4012731Google Scholar
Schmisseur, J. D. & Dolling, D. S. 1994 Fluctuating wall pressures near separation in highly swept turbulent interactions. AIAA J. 32 (6), 1151–1157.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Dodson, L. J. 1994 Supersonic and hypersonic shock/boundary-layer interaction database. AIAA J. 32 (7), 1377–1383.10.2514/3.12205Google Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Kimmel, R. L. 1986 Similarity of quasiconical shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 24 (1), 47–53.10.2514/3.9221Google Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Lu, F. K. 1985 Conical similarity of shock/boundary-layer interactions generated by swept and unswept fins. AIAA J. 23 (7), 1021–1027.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S., Perkins, J. J. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1980 Investigation of three-dimensional shock/boundary-layer interactions at swept compression corners. AIAA J. 18 (7), 779–785.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S., Vas, I. E. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1976 Details of a shock-separated turbulent boundary layer at a compression corner. AIAA J. 14 (12), 1709–1715.Google Scholar
Silton, S. I. & Fresconi, F. 2015 Effect of canard interactions on aerodynamic performance of a fin-stabilized projectile. J. Spacecr. Rockets 52 (5), 1430–1442.Google Scholar
Souverein, L. J., Dupont, P., Debiève, J.-F., Dussauge, J.-P., van Oudheusden, B. W. & Scarano, F. 2010 Effect of interaction strength on unsteadiness in turbulent shock-wave-induced separations. AIAA J. 48 (7), 1480–1493.10.2514/1.J050093Google Scholar
Spalart, P. R. & Allmaras, S. R. 1992 A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, pp. 5–21. American Insitute of Aeronatics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Subbareddy, P. K. & Candler, G. V. 2009 A fully discrete, kinetic energy consistent finite-volume scheme for compressible flows. J. Comput. Phys. 228 (5), 1347–1364.Google Scholar
Sykes, D. M. 1962 The supersonic and low-speed flows past circular cylinders of finite length supported at one end. J. Fluid Mech. 12 (3), 367–387.Google Scholar
Tan, D. K. M., Tran, T. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1987 Wall pressure fluctuations in a three-dimensional shock-wave/turbulent boundary interaction. AIAA J. 25 (1), 14–21.Google Scholar
Thivet, F. 2002 Lessons learned from rans simulations of shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. In 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, pp. 1–12. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Tian, L., Yi, S., Zhao, Y., He, L. & Cheng, Z. 2009 Study of density field measurement based on NPLS technique in supersonic flow. Sci. China Series G: Physics Mechanics and Astronomy 52 (9), 1357–1363.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Sandham, N. D. 2009 Large-eddy simulation of low-frequency unsteadiness in a turbulent shock-induced separation bubble. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 23 (2), 79–107.10.1007/s00162-009-0103-zGoogle Scholar
Vanstone, M. N., Musta, M. N. & Clemens, N. 2018 Experimental study of the mean structure and quasi-conical scaling of a swept-compression-ramp interaction at Mach 2. J. Fluid Mech. 841, 1–27.10.1017/jfm.2018.8Google Scholar
Voitenko, D. M., Zubkov, A. I. & Panov, Y. A. 1966 Supersonic gas flow past a cylindrical obstacle on a plate. Fluid Dyn. 1 (1), 84–88.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D. C. 1988 Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA J. 26 (11), 1299–1310.Google Scholar
Wright, M. J., Candler, G. V. & Bose, D. 1998 Data-parallel line relaxation method for the Navier–Stokes equations. AIAA J. 36 (9), 1603–1609.Google Scholar
Zheltovodov, A. A. 1982 Regimes and properties of three-dimensional separation flows initiated by skewed compression shocks. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 23 (3), 413–418.Google Scholar
Zheltovodov, A. A. 2006 Some advances in research of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions. In 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, vol. 496, pp. 1–25. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Zheltovodov, A. A., Maksimov, A. I. & Shilein, E. K. 1987 Development of turbulent separated flows in the vicinity of swept shock waves. In The Interactions of Complex 3-D Flows, pp. 67–91. Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.Google Scholar