Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:49:14.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A computational investigation of laminar shock/wave boundary layer interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

N. R. Deepak ,
S. L. Gai  and
A. J. Neely
N. R. Deepak*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
S. L. Gai
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
A. J. Neely
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypersonic laminar flow past a compression corner has been numerically investigated using time-accurate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach. Two flow conditions were considered relevant to high and low enthalpy conditions with a total specific enthalpy of 19MJ/kg and 2·8MJ/kg. The Mach number and unit Reynolds number per metre were 7·5, 9·1 and 3·10 × 105 and 32·2 × 105 respectively. These free stream conditions provided attached, incipiently separated and fully separated flows for ramp angles between θw = 5° to 24°. A grid independence study has been carried out to estimate the sensitivity of heat flux and skin friction in the strong interaction regions of the flow. The investigation was carried out assuming the flow to be laminar throughout and high temperature effects such as thermal and chemical nonequilibrium are studied using Park’s two temperature model with finite rate chemistry. A critical comparison has been made with existing steady state computational and experimental data and the study has highlighted the importance of high temperature effects on the flow separation and reattachment.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1187 , January 2013 , pp. 27 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2013 

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

1. MacCormack, R.W. and Paullay, A.J. Computational efficiency achieved by time splitting of finite difference operators, 1972, 10th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 17-19 January 1972, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
2. Hung, C.M. and MacCormack, R.W. Numerical solutions of supersonic and hypersonic laminar flows over a two-dimensional compression corner, 1975, No 75-2, AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting.Google Scholar
3. Hung, C.M. and MacCormack, R.W. Numerical solutions of supersonic and hypersonic laminar compression corner flows, AIAA J, 1976, 14, (4).Google Scholar
4. MacCormack, R.W. A numerical method for solving the equations of compressible viscous flow, AIAA J, 1982, 20, (9), pp 1275–1281.Google Scholar
5. Madhavan, N.S. and Swaminathan, V. Numerical solution of the supersonic laminar flow over a two dimensional corner using a implicit approach, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 1986, 6, pp 387–393.Google Scholar
6. Holden, M.S. and Moselle, J.R. Theoretical and experimental studies of the shock wave-boundary layer interaction on compression surfaces in hypersonic flow, 1970, Technical Report ARL 70-0002, Aerospace Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB.Google Scholar
7. Fay, J.F. and Sambamurthi, J. Laminar hypersonic flow over a compression corner using the hana code, 1992, AIAA-1992-2896, 27th AIAA Thermophysics Conference, 6-8 July 1992, Nashville, TN, USA Google Scholar
8. Rudy, D.H., Thomas, J.L., Kumar, A., Gnoffo, P.A. and Chakravarthy, S.R. Computation of laminar hypersonic compression-corner flows’, AIAA J, 1991, 29, (7), pp 1108–1113.Google Scholar
9. Lee, J.Y. and Lewis, M.J. Numerical study of the flow establishment time in hypersonic shock tunnels’, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 1993, 30, (2), pp 152–163.Google Scholar
10. Gaitonde, D.V. and Shang, J.S. Accuracy of flux-split algorithms in high-speed viscous flows, AIAA J, 1993, 31, (7), pp 1215–1221.Google Scholar
11. Simeonides, G. and Haase, W., Experimental and computational investigations of hypersonic flow about compression ramps, J Fluid Mechanics, 1995, 283, pp 17–42.Google Scholar
12. Grumet, A.A., Anderson, J.D. and Lewis, M.J. A numerical study of shock wave/boundary layer interaction in nonequilibrium chemically reacting air: The effects of catalytic walls, 1991, AIAA-1991-0245, 29th Aerospace Science Meeting, 7-10 January 1991, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
13. Wu, S.T., Zhu, Y.H. and Ritter, A. A numerical study of the heat transfer due to shock-boundary layer interactions with finite-rate chemical reaction and radiation effects, 1994, AIAA-1994-0694, 32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibition, 10-13 January 1994, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
14. Grasso, F. and Leone, G. Chemistry effects in shock wave boundary layer interaction problems, 1994, Proceedings of the IUTAM Symposium on Aerothermochemistry of Spacecraft and Associated Hypersonic Flows, 1994, Marseilles, France, pp 220–227.Google Scholar
15. Furumoto, G.H., Zhong, X. and Skiba, J.C. Numerical studies of real-gas effects on two-dimensional hypersonic shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction, Physics of Fluids, 1997, 9, (1), pp 191–210.Google Scholar
16. Olejniczak, J. and Candler, G.V., Computation of hypersonic shock interaction flow fields, 1998, Seventh AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, AIAA.Google Scholar
17. Mallinson, S.G., Gai, S.L. and Mudford, N.R. The interaction of a shock wave with a laminar boundary layer at a compression corner in high-enthalpy flows including real gas effects, J Fluid Mechanics, 1997, 342, pp 1–35.Google Scholar
18. Davis, J.-P. and Sturtevant, B. Separation length in high-enthalpy shock/boundary-layer interaction’, Physics of Fluids, 2000, 12, (10), pp 2661–2687.Google Scholar
19. Matsumoto, A., Aso, S. and Kurotaki, T. A study on high temperature effects in shock wave/boundary layer interaction induced by compression corner, Mem Fac Eng Kyushu University, 2003, 63, (2), pp 123–138.Google Scholar
20. Mallinson, S.G. Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction at a Compression Corner in Hypervelocity Flows, 1994, PhD thesis, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, UNSW, Australian Defence Force Academy.Google Scholar
21. Stalker, R.J. and Hornung, H.G. The Australian National University free piston shock tunnel, 1971 T-3, Technical Report Laboratory Report PF-5, Physics Department, ANU, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
22. Stalker, R.J. Development of a hypervelocity wind tunnel, Aeronaut J, 1972, 76, pp 374–384.Google Scholar
23. Stalker, R.J. Modern developments in hypersonic wind tunnels, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1103), pp 21–39.Google Scholar
24. Jacobs, P.A. and Gollan, R.J. The Eilmer3 code, 2010 Technical Report, Report 2008/07, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
25. Jacobs, P.A., Gollan, R.J., Denman, A.F., O’Flaherty, B.T., Potter, D.F., Petrie-Repar, P.J. and Johnston, I.A. Eilmer’s theory book: Basic models for gas dynamics and thermochemistry, 2010, Technical Report, Report 2010/09, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
26. Park, C. Review of chemical-kinetic problems of future NASA missions, I: Earth entries, J Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, 1993, 7, (3), pp 385–398.Google Scholar
27. Deepak, N.R., Computational Studies of Hypersonic High Enthalpy Separated Flows, 2010, PhD thesis, School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New SouthWales, Australian Defence Force Academy.Google Scholar
28. van Albada, G.D., Leer, B.V. and Roberts, W.W. A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982, 108, (1), pp 76–84.Google Scholar
29. Leer, B.V. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method, J Computational Physics, 1979, 32, pp 101–136.Google Scholar
30. Anderson, W.K. and Thomas, J.L. A comparison of finite volume flux vector splittings for the Euler equations, AIAA, 1986, 24, (9), pp 1453–1460.Google Scholar
31. Wada, Y. and Liou, M.S. A flux splitting scheme with high-resolution and robustness for discontinuities, 1994, AIAA-1994-83, 32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition 10-13 January 1994, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
32. Gollan, R.J. The Computational Modelling of High-Temperature Gas Effects with Application to Hypersonic Flows, 2008, PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
33. Ait-ALI-Yahia, D. A Finite Element Segregated Method for Thermo-Chemical Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Hypersonic Flows Using Adapted Grids, 1996, PhD thesis, Concordia University.Google Scholar
34. Mott, D.R. New Quasi-Steady-State and Partial-EquilibriumMethods for Integrating Chemically Reacting Systems, 1999, PhD thesis, The University of Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
35. Gordon, S. and McBride, B.J. Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications: I Analysis, 1994, Technical Report Reference Publication 1311, NASA.Google Scholar
36. McBride, B.J. and Gordon, S. Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications: II User manual and program description, 1996, Technical Report Reference Publication 1311, NASA.Google Scholar
37. Gupta, R.N., Yos, J.M., Thompson, R.A. and Lee, K.-P. A review of reaction rates and thermo-dynamic and transport properties for an 11-species air model for chemical and thermal nonequilibrium calculations to 30,000K, 1990, Technical Report 1232, NASA.Google Scholar
38. Park, G. Hypervelocity Aerothermodynamics of Blunt Bodies Including Real Gas Effects, 2010, PhD thesis, School of Engineering & IT, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy.Google Scholar
39. Potter, D.F. Modelling of radiating shock layers for atmospheric entry at Earth and Mars, 2010, PhD thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
40. Ng, W.F., Mitchell, C.R., Ajmani, K.A.C., Taylor, I. and Brock, J.S. Viscous analysis of high speed flows using an upwind finite volume technique, 1989, AIAA-89-0001, 27th AIAA Aerospace SciencesMeeting, 9-12 January 1989, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
41. Rizzetta, D. and Mach, K. Comparative numerical study of hypersonic compression ramp flows, 1989, AIAA-89-1877, 20th AIAA Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Lasers Conference, 12-19 June 1989, Buffalo, NY, USA.Google Scholar
42. Gnoffo, P.A. CFD validation studies for hypersonic flow prediction, 2001, 2001-1025, 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibition, 8-11 January 2001, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
43. Druguet, M.-C., Ben-Dor, G. and Zeitoun, D. The interaction of supersonic and hypersonic flows with a double cone: comparison between inviscid, viscous, perfect and real gas model simulations, 2007, Vol 2, 26th International Symposium on ShockWaves, Gottingen, Germany.Google Scholar
44. Druguet, M.-C., Candler, G.V. and Nompelis, I. Effects of numerics on Navier-Stokes computations of hypersonic double-cone flows, AIAA J, 2005, 43, (3), pp 616–623.Google Scholar
45. Park, G., Gai, S.L. and Neely, A.J. Aerothermodynamics behind a blunt boday at superorbital speeds, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (8), pp 1804–1816.Google Scholar
46. Jackson, A.P., Hillier, R. and Soltani, S. Experimental and computational study of laminar cavity flows at hypersonic speeds, J Fluid Mechanics, 2001, 427, pp 329–358.Google Scholar
47. Papadopoulos, P., Venkatapathy, E., Prabhu, D. and Loomis, M.P. Current grid-generation strategies and future requirements in hypersonic vehicle design, analysis and testing, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 1999, 23, (9), pp 705–735.Google Scholar
48. Bertin, J.J. and Cummings, R.M. Critical hypersonic aerothermodynamic phenomena, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2006, 38, pp 129–157.Google Scholar
49. ICEM-CFD, 2008, ANSYS ICEM CFD, 2009, Ansys Inc, Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA. URL: http://www.ansys.com/ Google Scholar
50. Candler, G.V., Nompelis, I. and Holden, M.S. Computational analysis of hypersonic laminar viscous inviscid interactions, 2000, AIAA-2000-0532, 38th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 10-13 January 2000, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
51. Marini, M. Analysis of hypersonic compression ramp laminar flows under sharp leading edge conditions, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2001, 5, (4), 257–271.Google Scholar
52. Roache, P.J. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1997, 29, pp 123–160.Google Scholar
53. AIAA 1994, Policy statement on numerical accuracy and experimental uncertainty’, AIAA J, 32, (1), (3), (editorial).Google Scholar
54. Roache, P.J., Ghia, K.N. and White, F.M. Editorial policy statement on the control of numerical accuracy, ASME J Fluids Engineering, 1986, 108, (2).Google Scholar
55. Roache, P. J. Verification of codes and calculations, AIAA J, 1998, 36, (5), pp 696–702.Google Scholar
56. Harvey, J.K., Holden, M.S. and Wadhams, T.P. Code validation study of laminar shock/boundary layer and shock/shock interactions in hypersonic flow Part B: Comparison with Navier-Stokes and DSMC solutions, 2001, AIAA-2001-1031, 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 8-11 January 2001, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
57. Holden, M.S. A study of flow separation in regions of shock wave-boundary layer interaction in hypersonic flow, 1978, AIAA 78-1169, 11th AIAA Fluid and PlasmaDynamics Conference, 10-12 July 1978, Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
58. Candler, G.V., Nompelis, I. and Druguet, M.-C. Navier-Stokes predictions of hypersonic double-cone and cylinder-flare flow fields, 2001, AIAA 2001-1024, 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibition, 8-11 January 2001, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
59. Nompelis, I., Candler, G.V., MacLean, M., Wadhams, T.P. and Holden, M.S. Numerical investigation of double-cone flow experiments with high-enthalpy effects, 2010, AIAA 2010-1283, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting/New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 4-7 January 2010, Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
60. Stollery, J.L. and Bates, L. Turbulent hypersonic viscous interaction, J Fluid Mechanics, 1974, 63, (1), pp 145–156.Google Scholar