Synopsis of the Project EUROSHOCK II

Stanewsky, E.; Délery, Jean; Fulker, J. L.; Matteis, Paolo

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45856-2_1

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 5, adapted from Ogawa et al [26], illustrates this point, showing the impact of shock position on the flow structure over a 2-D SCB with a simple (straight ramp and straight tail) geometry. This sensitivity of SCB performance to shock position, although not unique to this type of flow control, is a highly prevalent flow characteristic of this type of 2-D SCB and is something that has been confirmed by other researchers [29,33]. The systems of shock waves and expansions illustrated in Fig.…”

Section: -D Scbsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…In 1992, Ashill et al [2] were the first to consider SCBs as a method for wave drag reduction on laminarflow aerofoils. Their results were promising and stimulated a significant research effort in the following decade, with major projects in Europe (Euroshock II [33]) and in the US (NASA's Aircraft Morphing project [20]) with significant elements dedicated to exploring the potential of SCBs.…”

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The flow structures generated by 2-D and 3-D SCBs are highly sensitive to parameters such as (streamwise) shock position and incoming boundary layer state. 3-D SCBs are often considered as an alternative to 2-D devices in response to concerns over the poor performance of 2-D SCBs at so-called 'off-design conditions' (defined in most investigations as being when the shock wave is deemed to be upstream or downstream of its optimal location) [2,26,29,33]. This sensitivity necessitates a thorough understanding of the flow characteristics of SCBs over a range of operating conditions, rather than at a single design point, to accurately characterise their practical performance potential.…”

Section: Basic Flow Physicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a modern turbulent supercritical wing, this only occurs at high values of C L and/or Mach number that are in excess of typical cruise values. For this reason, many argue that the true potential of SCBs for drag reduction can only be realised in the long term with an integrated approach where next-generation wings are designed specifically to take advantage of the beneficial control effects offered by SCBs [13,20,33].…”

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of their potential for reducing drag, SCBs (both 2-D and 3-D) are most effective when applied to flows exhibiting strong and relatively stationary shock waves such as are found on laminar flow supercritical wings [33]. For the purpose of weakening such shock waves, our understanding of the potential and limitations of SCBs has reached a level of maturity where they can be considered a viable option as a laminar-flow enabling technology.…”

Section: Drag Reductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Review of research into shock control bumps

Bruce

Colliss

2014

Shock Waves

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a review of research on shock control bumps (SCBs), a class of flow control device with potential for application to transonic wings. Beginning with a brief review of the origins of the SCB concept, the primary focus is on the more recent studies from the last decade. Results from both experimental and numerical work are considered and the synergy between these two approaches to SCB research is critically explored. It is shown that the aerodynamic performance enhancement potential of SCBs, namely their capacity for drag reduction and delaying the onset of buffet for transonic wings, has been widely demonstrated in the literature, as has the high sensitivity of SCB performance to flow conditions including shock strength and position, and post-shock adverse pressure gradient. These characteristic features of SCBs are relatively well explained in terms of the flow physics that have been observed for different bump geometries. This stems from a number of studies that have focused on the balance of viscous and inviscid flow features and also the mechanism by which finite span SCBs generate streamwise vorticity. It is concluded that our understanding of SCBs is reaching an advanced level of maturity for SCBs in simple configurations and steady flow fields. However, SCB performance in unsteady flow and on swept wings requires further investigation before the concept can be considered a viable candidate for transonic wings. These investigations should adopt a multi-disciplinary approach combining carefully designed experiments and targeted computations. Finally, two concepts for future SCB research are suggested: the adaptive SCB and SCBs in engine intakes.Communicated by A. Hadjadj.

show abstract

Section: -D Scbsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%