Three-Dimensional Normal Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction in a Rectangular Duct

Handa, Taro; Masuda, Mitsuharu; Matsuo, Kazuyasu

doi:10.2514/1.12976

Cited by 44 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two possible mechanisms for how corner flows affect the centreline are proposed: Firstly, large corner flow separations may cause a large three-dimensional bifurcation of the shock wave structure that spans a significant proportion of the wind tunnel and has an effect on the amount of pressure smearing experienced by the tunnel wall boundary layers. This is in agreement with the findings of previous authors such as Weber et al (2002) and Handa, Masuda & Matsuo (2005), who observed that the 3-D (bifurcated) shock structure produced in a confined transonic SBLI increased the amount of pressure smearing near the corners. Secondly, corner flow separations may act as an effective blockage to the core flow in the tunnel and (depending on their size and relative positions) could decelerate the (supersonic) pre-shock flow and/or re-accelerate the (subsonic) post-shock flow, both of which would act to smear the adverse pressure gradient imposed by the normal shock wave.…”

Section: Review Of Factors Affecting Separation In Normal Sblissupporting

confidence: 93%

Corner effect and separation in transonic channel flows

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An investigation into parameters affecting separation in normal shock wave/boundary layer interactions (SBLIs) has been conducted. It has been shown that the effective aspect ratio of an experimental facility (defined as δ * /tunnel width) is a critical factor in determining when shock-induced separation will occur. Experiments examining M ∞ = 1.4 and 1.5 normal shock waves in a wind tunnel with a small rectangular cross-section have been performed and show that a link exists between the extent of shock-induced separation on the tunnel centre-line and the size of corner-flow separations. In tests where the corner-flows were modified ahead of the shock (through suction and vortex generators), the extent of separation around the tunnel centre-line was seen to vary significantly. These observations are attributed to the way corner flows modify the three-dimensional shock-structure and the impact this has on the magnitude of the adverse pressure gradient experienced by the tunnel wall boundary layers.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Factors Affecting Separation In Normal Sblissupporting

confidence: 93%

Corner effect and separation in transonic channel flows

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, we simulate the flow at a Reynolds number which is an order of magnitude lower than the experiment to ensure adequate mesh resolution. In this case, we take Re θ ≈ 1660 (Re δ ≈ 16,200). Since information about pressure in the core of the flow is not available from the experiment, we assume that the pressure is constant at the outlet plane; although this is likely not exactly correct.…”

Section: A the Idealized Shock Trainmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In an experiment at similar flow conditions and aspect ratio, Handa et al 16 were able to characterize the three dimensionality of a normal shock train in a constant area duct using laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and found the flow to be mostly symmetric about the center planes ** . Utilizing this insight, we exploit the symmetry of the problem to simulate a quarter-duct geometry and impose symmetry conditions at y/δ r = 3.125 and at z/δ r = 7.056.…”

Section: Les Of Channel With Sidewallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Large-Eddy and RANS Simulations of a Normal Shock Train in a Constant-Area Isolator

Morgan

Duraisamy

Lele

2012

50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-eddy simulations (LES) of a normal shock train in a constant-area isolator (M ∞ = 1.61, Re θ = 1660) are carried out with a high-order compact differencing scheme using localized artificial diffusivity (LAD) for shock capturing. We examine sensitivities of the solution to a variety of physical modeling assumptions. Simulations with spanwise periodic boundary conditions are first performed, the results of which are compared to experiment and validated with a three-level grid refinement study. Due to the computational cost associated with resolving near-wall structures, the LES is run at a Reynolds number lower than that in the comparison experiment; thus, the confinement effect of the turbulent boundary layers is not exactly duplicated. While this discrepancy affects the location of the first normal shock, the overall structure of the shock train and its interaction with the boundary layers matches the experiment quite closely. Observations of pertinent physical phenomena in the experiment such as a lack of reversed flow and the development of secondary shear layers are captured by the simulation. Next, a series of linear eddy viscosity based Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) simulations are performed to assess the ability of reduced-order models to accurately capture the complicated physics of multiple shock/boundary layer interactions. It is found that the RANS solutions exhibit a wide range of variations, indicating a strong sensitivity -particularly with respect to streamwise location of the initial shock --to model formulation. Finally, three-dimensional effects due to the side walls of the isolator are investigated by performing LES of the same shock train interaction in a three-dimensional, low-aspect-ratio rectangular duct geometry. A significant three-dimensional flow feature is observed in the region of the strong initial shock, which agrees well with experimental oil flow visualizations. NomenclatureC f = skin friction coefficient k = turbulence kinetic energy h = isolator half-height l = turbulent length scale L x , L y , L z = extent of the computational mesh M = Mach number N x , N y , N z = number of grid points in computational mesh p = static pressure Re = Reynolds number S ij = Strain-rate tensor s L = length of shock train t = time T = temperature u = velocity vector u = streamwise velocity component u τ = friction velocity w = value at wall v = wall-normal velocity component w = spanwise velocity component δ = boundary layer thickness δ ij = Dirac delta θ = momentum thickness μ t = eddy viscosity ρ = density τ = shear stress ω = specific dissipation rate Superscript + = wall unit quantity ′ = fluctuation quantity inn = inner boundary layer value out = outer boundary layer value 2 Subscript ∞ = freestream value in = value at isolator inlet out = value at isolator outlet r = reference value ahead of initial shock VD = van Driest-transformed quantity

show abstract

“…Bruce et al [12,34] and Benek et al [13] established the importance of the aspect ratio of the facility in determining the possibility of flow separation in a SBLI. Handa et al [35] conducted two-dimensional (2-D) measurements and computations of a 3-D normal SBLI problem; unfortunately, 2-D measurements are not sufficient to generate a complete picture of the dominant dynamics. Helmer et al [16] conducted 2-D PIV measurements in similarly oriented data planes, which again suffered from the same limitation.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%