Steady and Unsteady Transonic Flow

Seegmiller, H. L.; Marvin, J. G.; Levy, Lionel L.

doi:10.2514/3.61042

Cited by 75 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The well-known unsteady flow test case of 18% circular arc airfoil of Seegmiller et al (1978) is presented. The flow condition is M "0)76 and Re "11;10.…”

Section: Unsteady Flow Static Gridmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-Dimensional Transonic Aeroelastic Analysis Using Thin-Layer Navier–stokes Method

Prananta

Hounjet

Zwaan

1998

Journal of Fluids and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The well-known unsteady flow test case of 18% circular arc airfoil of Seegmiller et al (1978) is presented. The flow condition is M "0)76 and Re "11;10.…”

Section: Unsteady Flow Static Gridmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-Dimensional Transonic Aeroelastic Analysis Using Thin-Layer Navier–stokes Method

Prananta

Hounjet

Zwaan

1998

Journal of Fluids and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At this step, the remains of both junctions of shocks 1 and 2 are in nitesimal. Unfortunately, the window frame limitation hampers us from following the main shock over model A; however, according to the literature, it nally stands on the trailing edge [5,11]. Finally, at Step 11, there is no trace of the previous shocks at junctions 1 and 2 and the normal shock on the parabolic portion, which has now moved back exactly on junction 3, is miniature.…”

Section: Subsonic Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Investigation of Shock Waves Formation and Development Process in Transonic Flow

Farahani

Jaberi

2017

Scientia Iranica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. An extensive experimental investigation was performed to explore the shock waves formation and development process in transonic ow. Shadowgraph visualization technique was employed to provide visual description of the ow eld features. Based on the visualization, the formation process was categorized into two intrinsically di erent phases, namely, subsonic and supersonic. The characteristics of subsonic phase are well known; however, those of the supersonic one are far less studied. The supersonic phase itself is made up of two consecutive phases, namely, approaching and sweeping. The e ects of each phase on the ow eld characteristics and on shaping the supersonic regime were studied in details. In order to generalize the results, three di erent models were tested. A special terminology is suggested by authors to ease the process description and pave a way for future studies. Above all, as the transition from transonic regime to the supersonic one is a vague concept in terms of physical reasoning, a new explanation is proposed that can be used as a criterion for distinguishing between transonic and supersonic regimes.

show abstract

“…1). More details about the flow physics of this specific two-dimensional configuration can be found in [25][26][27][28]. …”

Section: Transition Features In the Compressible Flow Past An Airfoilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Order Modeling for Unsteady Separated Compressible Flows by POD-Galerkin Approach

Bourguet

Braza

Harran

et al. 2009

IUTAM Symposium on Unsteady Separated Flows and Their Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A low-dimensional model is developed on the basis of the unsteady compressible Navier-Stokes equations by means of POD-Galerkin methodology in the perspective of physical analysis and computational savings. This approach consists in projecting the complex physical model onto a subspace determined to reach an optimal statistical content conservation. This leads to a drastic reduction of the number of degrees of freedom while preserving the main flow dynamics. The high-order system formulation is modified and an inner product which couples the contributions of both kinematic and thermodynamic state variables is selected. The associated reduced order model is a quadratic polynomial ordinary differential equation system which presents an inherent sensitivity to POD basis truncation for long-term prediction. A calibration process based on the minimisation of the prediction error with respect to reference dynamics is implemented. The predictive capacities of the low-order approach are evaluated by comparison with results issued from the 2D Navier-Stokes simulation of a transonic flow around a NACA0012 airfoil, at zero angle of incidence. This configuration is characterised by a complex unsteadiness caused by a von Kármán instability mode induced by shock/vortex interaction, and a low frequency buffeting mode.

show abstract

Steady and Unsteady Transonic Flow

Cited by 75 publications

References 8 publications

Two-Dimensional Transonic Aeroelastic Analysis Using Thin-Layer Navier–stokes Method

Two-Dimensional Transonic Aeroelastic Analysis Using Thin-Layer Navier–stokes Method

Experimental Investigation of Shock Waves Formation and Development Process in Transonic Flow

Low-Order Modeling for Unsteady Separated Compressible Flows by POD-Galerkin Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About