Effect of Upstream Boundary Layer on Unsteadiness of Swept-Ramp Shock/Boundary Layer Interactions at Mach 2

Vanstone, Leon; Saleem, Mohammad; Seckin, Serdar; Clemens, Noel T.

doi:10.2514/6.2016-0076

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The flow conditions of the current work are described in table 1, in which the simulation conditions are placed in context with those of the experiments for both the SCR (Vanstone et al. 2016) and SF (Baldwin et al. 2016; Arora et al.…”

Section: Theoretical and Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various quantities have been validated in conjunction with experiments for both the SCR (Vanstone et al. 2016, 2018) and SF (Baldwin et al. 2016; Arora et al.…”

Section: Theoretical and Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These thrusts have been prompted by several recent advances in massively parallel simulations (Poggie, Bisek & Gosse 2015) as well as time-resolved unsteady measurements of high-speed flows (Beresh et al 2015) and other novel measurement techniques (Fahringer & Thurow 2018). The effort combines experimental measurements of the SCR (Vanstone et al 2016(Vanstone et al , 2018 and SF (Baldwin et al 2016;Jones et al 2017;Arora et al 2018) interactions, along with high-fidelity large-eddy simulations (Adler & Gaitonde 2017, 2018b, 2019a of both configurations. The swept-impinging-shock (SIS) interaction is also of great interest, and is the subject of parallel experimental (Doehrmann et al 2018) and computational (Gross, Little & Fasel 2018) efforts, but is not considered here.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dynamics of strong swept-shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions

Adler

Gaitonde

2020

J. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical and Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various quantities have been validated in conjunction with experiments for both the SCR (Vanstone et al. 2016, 2018) and SF (Baldwin et al. 2016; Arora et al.…”

Section: Theoretical and Numerical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamics of strong swept-shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions

Adler

Gaitonde

2020

J. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…18 These structures have been directly associated with spanwise wrinkling of the shock in various compression ramp tests. 14,15,19 However, despite the strong correlations between the incoming boundary layer and the shock dynamics, Beresh et al 12 acknowledged that, while significant, the upstream influence may not provide the fundamental mechanism that drives the large-scale low-frequency interaction unsteadiness but instead may influence content at higher-frequencies. Indeed, it has been proposed that the upstream mechanism may be present in the majority of SBLIs, but its influence is overshadowed by more dominant downstream mechanisms for strongly separated flows [20][21][22][23] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unsteady Flow Features Across Different Shock/Boundary-Layer Interaction Configurations

Threadgill

Bruce

2020

AIAA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experimental study has been conducted to investigate unsteady flow phenomena observed within various two-dimensional configurations of shock/boundary layer interactions. Six configurations have been tested in Mach 2 flow: ϕ1 = 14 • and 20 • compression ramps, and incident shock reflections from ϕ1 = 7 • , 8 • , 9 • , and 10 • shock generators; Reynolds numbers in each case are Re θ ≈ 8350. The flow is assessed using an array of fast-response pressure transducers in conjunction with a high-repetition rate PIV system. Development of the mean flow structures early in each interaction is observed to be consistent with the Free Interaction concept. Unsteady wall-pressure energy content at frequencies above those associated with the characteristic low-frequency shock motion also show significant similarities in the vicinity of the shock foot. Results confirm that this low-frequency peak is not associated with a narrow-band forcing mechanism from either upstream or downstream, but rather a characteristic frequency that varies with interaction strength, which describes the flow's dynamic response. These findings support various models published in literature that have sought to explain the source of low-frequency unsteady shock motion.

show abstract

“…Currently, the low frequency signals are not clearly related to particular flow field parameters and they occupy most of the turbulent energy (Pasquariello et al, 2017). Some investigations (Priebe et al, 2009;Humble et al, 2009;Priebe et al, 2012;Vanstone et al, 2016) pointed out the importance of the coherent structure and the boundary layer conditions upstream of the shock wave foot. On the contrary, the boundary layer conditions downstream of the shock wave was supposed to be the key factor in the studies of Priebe et al (2012) and Clemens et al (2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large Eddy Simulation of Pulsed Blowing in a Supersonic Compressor Cascade

Meng

Chen

Ding

et al. 2020

JAFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large Eddy Simulation (LES) of a two dimensional supersonic compressor cascade is performed in the current study. It is found that the Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction causes a large scale of total pressure losses and presents strong fluctuation features. Thus the pulsed and steady excitation jets are applied to suppress the flow separations and to reduce the total pressure losses. Several impacting parameters, such as jet axial location, jet hole width, jet angle to the local blade surface and jet mass flowrate are chosen based on the primary analysis by the calculations by the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations. In addition, based on the results of frequency spectrum and POD analysis, the excitation jet frequency is chosen for the pulsed excitation jet scheme. It is concluded that the pulsed excitation jet scheme achieves a 9.8% reduction of total pressure loss in comparison to the steady excitation jet scheme under the same time-averaged excitation jet mass flow rate. The excitation jets affect both the flow field near the jet hole on the suction surface and the flow field on the pressure surface via the management of the reflection shock wave. In addition, the excitation frequency dominates not only the time-averaged flow field, but also the second and third modes which stand for the unsteady structures in the flow field under the POD analysis. The first mode contains most energy in the flow field and the energy percentage decreases dramatically with the increase of the mode number. In comparison to the steady excitation jet scheme, the pulsed excitation jet scheme gathers more energy to the low orders of the modes, especially the first four modes. With the mixing effect and high dissipation rate of the high-frequency signals, the high-frequency signals shrink in the wake and the flow field builds up more uniformity.

show abstract

Effect of Upstream Boundary Layer on Unsteadiness of Swept-Ramp Shock/Boundary Layer Interactions at Mach 2

Cited by 23 publications

References 16 publications

Dynamics of strong swept-shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions

Dynamics of strong swept-shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions

Unsteady Flow Features Across Different Shock/Boundary-Layer Interaction Configurations

Large Eddy Simulation of Pulsed Blowing in a Supersonic Compressor Cascade

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About