Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:19:35.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of shock-induced vortex breakdown on a delta-wing-body configuration in the transonic regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2021

Rajan B. Kurade Open the ORCID record for Rajan B. Kurade [Opens in a new window] ,
L. Venkatakrishnan Open the ORCID record for L. Venkatakrishnan [Opens in a new window]  and
G. Jagadeesh Open the ORCID record for G. Jagadeesh [Opens in a new window]
Rajan B. Kurade*
Affiliation:
Principal Scientist, CSIR - National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore – 560017, India
L. Venkatakrishnan
Affiliation:
Chief Scientist, CSIR - National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore – 560017, India
G. Jagadeesh
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shock-induced vortex breakdown, which occurs on the delta wings at transonic speed, causes a sudden and significant change in the aerodynamic coefficients at a moderate angle-of-attack. Wind-tunnel tests show a sudden jump in the aerodynamic coefficients such as lift force, pitching moment and centre of pressure which affect the longitudinal stability and controllability of the vehicle. A pneumatic jet operated at sonic condition blown spanwise and along the vortex core over a 60° swept delta-wing-body configuration is found to be effective in postponing this phenomenon by energising the vortical structure, pushing the vortex breakdown location downstream. The study reports that a modest level of spanwise blowing enhances the lift by about 6 to 9% and lift-to-drag ratio by about 4 to 9%, depending on the free-stream transonic Mach number, and extends the usable angle-of-attack range by 2°. The blowing is found to reduce the magnitude of unsteady pressure fluctuations by 8% to 20% in the aft portion of the wing, depending upon the method of blowing. Detailed investigations carried out on the location of blowing reveal that the blowing close to the apex of the wing maximises the benefits.

Keywords

Vortex breakdownShock-induced vortex breakdownTransonic regimeDelta wingsFlow controlSpan-wise blowingAlong-the-core blowing
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 126 , Issue 1299 , May 2022 , pp. 768 - 792
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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

Delery, J. Aspects of Vortex Breakdown, Prog Aerosp Sci, 1994, 30, pp 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannink, W.J., Houtman, E.M. and Ottachian, S.P. Investigation of the Vortex Flow Over a Sharp-edged Delta Wing in the Transonic Speed Regime, Report LR-594, October 1989.Google Scholar
Hall, R.M. and Woodson, S.H. Introduction to the Abrupt Wing Stall Program, J Aircr, 2004, 41, (3), pp 425–435.Google Scholar
Sutton, E.P. Some Observations of the Flow over a Delta-Winged Model with 55-deg Leading-Edge Sweep at Mach Numbers between 0.4 and 1.8, ARC R&M No. 3190, November 1955.Google Scholar
Vorropoulos, G. and Wendt, J.F. Laser Velocimetry study of compressibility effects on the flow field of a delta wing, AGARD-CP-342, 1983, pp 9.1–9.13.Google Scholar
Houtman, E.M. and Bannink, B.J. Experimental and numerical investigation of the vortex flow over a delta wing at transonic speeds, AGARD Conference Proceedings “Vortex Flow Aerodynamics”, AGARD-CP-494, July 1991, pp 5.1–5.11.Google Scholar
Elsenaar, A. and Hoeijmakers, H.W.M. An experimental study of the flow over a sharp-edged delta wing at subsonic and transonic speeds, AGARD Conference Proceedings “Vortex Flow Aerodynamics”, AGARD-CP-494, July 1991, pp 15.1–15.19.Google Scholar
Erickson, G.E. Wind tunnel investigation of the interaction and breakdown characteristics of slender-wing vortices at subsonic, transonic and supersonic speeds, NASA Technical Paper 3114, November 1991.Google Scholar
Kalkhoran, I.M. and Smart, M.K. Aspects of shock wave-induced vortex breakdown, Prog Aerosp Sci, November 1991, 36, pp 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, A. Euler solutions of transonic vortex flow around the Dillner wing - Compared and analyzed, AIAA paper 84-2142, August 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandil, O.A., Kandil, H.A. and Liu, C.H. Shock-vortex interaction over a 65 degree delta wing in transonic flow, AIAA 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, Orlando, Florida, AIAA-93-2973, 6–9 July 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longo, J.M.A. Compressible Inviscid Vortex Flow of a Sharp Edge Delta Wing, AIAA J, April 1995, 33, (4).Google Scholar
Oyama, A., Imai, G., Ogawa, A. and Fujii, K. Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Delta Wing at High Angles of Attack, 5th AIAA International Space Planes and ypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Dayton, Ohio, AIAA-2008-2563, 28 April - 1 May 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ke, Z., Zheng-hong, G. and Jiang-tao, H. Numerical simulation of Transonic shock-vortex interaction flow around the VFE-2 delta wing based on MDDES, 28th International Congress of Aeronautical Science, Brisbane, Australia, 23–28 September, 2012.Google Scholar
Tao, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Z. and Liu, Z. Transonic wing stall of a blended flying wing common research model based on DDES method, Chinese J Aeronaut, 2016, 29, (6), pp 1506–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiavetta, L.A., Boelens, O.J., Crippa, S., Cummings, R.M., Fritz, W. and Badcock, K.J. Shock Effects on Delta Wing Vortex Breakdown, J Aircr, 2009, 46, (3), pp 903–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A.M. and Délery, J.M. Research into vortex breakdown control, Prog Aerosp Sci, 2001, 37, pp 385–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gursul, I., Wang, Z. and Vardaki, E. Review of flow control mechanisms of leading-edge vortices, Prog Aerosp Sci, 2007, 43, pp 246–270.Google Scholar
Guillot, S., Gutmark, E.J. and Garrison, T.J. Delay of Vortex Breakdown over a Delta Wing via Near-Core Blowing, 36th Aerospace Science meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA-98-0315, January 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A.M., Molton, P., Barberis, D. and Délery, J. Oscillation of Vortex Breakdown Location and Control of the Time-Averaged Location by Blowing, AIAA J, 2000, 38, (5), pp 793–803.Google Scholar
Farcy, D. and Renier, O. Wing-blowing on combat aircraft: Evaluation and gains in high angles of attack maneuvers, AIAA Atmospheric Flight mechanics conference, Portland, OR, AIAA-99-4180, 9–11 August 1999.Google Scholar
Miyaji, K. and Arasawa, T. High-Lift devices for a Delta Wing installed around a Trailing-edge, J Aircr, 2003, 40, (5), pp 932–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, C.J., Dansby, T. and Quniton, Philipe Poisson Benefits of spanwise blowing at transonic speeds, 11th International Congress of Aeronautical Science (ICAS), Lisboa, Portugal, September 10–16, 1978.Google Scholar
Riou, J., Garnier, E. and Basdevant, C. Control of the flow over a delta wing in the transonic regime, AIAA J, August 2010, 48, (8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Hackett, K.C. Research at DERA on sub boundary layer vortex generators (SBVGs), 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2001-0887, 8–11 January 2001.Google Scholar
Molton, P., Dandois, J., Lepage, A., Brunet, V. and Bur, R. Control of Buffet Phenomenon on a Transonic Swept Wing, AIAA J, April 2013, 51, (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejero, F., Doerffer, P. and Szulc, O. Shock wave induced flow separation control by air-jet and rod vortex generators, Task Quart, 2015, 19, (2), pp 167–180.Google Scholar
Ericsson, L.E. Effect of fuselage geometry on Delta-Wing Vortex Breakdown, J Aircr, 1998, 35, (6), pp 898–904.Google Scholar
Milillo, J.R. Test results of the AGARD calibration model B and a modified AGARD model C in the AEDC transonic model tunnel, AEDC-TN-57-6, May 1957.Google Scholar
Milillo, J.R. Transonic tests of an AGARD model B and a modified model C at 0.01 percent blockage, AEDC-TN-58-48, August 1958.Google Scholar
Dick, R.S. Tests in the PWT 16-Ft Transonic circuit of an AGARD model B and a modified AGARD model C at 1.15% blockage, AEDC-TN-59-32, April 1959.Google Scholar
Valk, H. and Van der Zwaan, J.H. A review of measurement on AGARD calibration model B in the transonic speed range, AGARDograph 64, November 1961, pp 35–94.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.F. An investigation of the aerodynamic characterisitics of the AGARD model B for Mach numbers from 0.2 to 1.0, AEDC-TR-70-100, May 1970.Google Scholar
Seetharam, H.C. and Rangarajan, R. Force calibration of AGARD B model in transonic flow Mach numbers, NAL-TM-PR.200/69-70, July 1970.Google Scholar
Damlijanovic, D., Vitic, A. and Vukovic, D. Testing of AGARD-B calibration Model in the T-38 Trisonic wind tunnel, Sci Tech Rev, 2006, LVI, (2), pp 52–62.Google Scholar
Xudong, R., Chao, G., Zizie, Z., Juntao, X., Liu, F. and Luo, S. Boundary layer transition effects on aerodynamic characteristics of AGARD-B model, 50th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,Nashville, Tennessee, AIAA-2012-1217, 9–12 January 2012.Google Scholar
Amiri, K., Soltani, M.R. and Haghiri, A. Steady flow quality assessment of a modified transonic wind tunnel, Scientia Iranica B, 2013, 20, (3), pp 500–507.Google Scholar
Lombardi, G., Morelli, M. and Haghiri, A. Analysis of some interference effects in a Transonic wind tunnel, J Aircr, 1995, 32, (3), pp 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raju, C. and Viswanath, P.R. Pressure-sensitive paint measurements in a blowdown wind tunnel, J Aircr, 2005, 42, (2), pp 908–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raju, C. and Venkatakrishnan, L. Pressure-sensitive paint technique, Lecture Course on Advanced Flow Diagnostic Techniques, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, 17–19 September 2008.Google Scholar
Gregory, J.W., Asai, K., Kameda, M., Liu, T. and Sullivan, J.P. A review of pressure-sensitive paint for high-speed and unsteady aerodynamics, Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng, 2008, 222, (2), pp 249–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J.H., Schairer, E.T., Hand, L.A. and Mehta, R.D. Surface pressure measurements using luminescent coatings, Annu Rev Fluid Mech, 2001, 33, pp 155–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS INC.®, http://psp-tsp.com/binarypsp, Online; accessed 19-Apr-2016,Google Scholar
Venkatakrishnan, L. Comparative Study of Different Pressure-Sensitive-Paint Image Registration Techniques, AIAA J, 2004, 42, (11), pp 2311–2319.Google Scholar
Assessment of Experimental Uncertainty with Application to Wind Tunnel Testing, S-071A-1999, AIAA, Reston, AIAA Standard, 1999.Google Scholar
Sundaramurthy, H. and Krishnan, A. Statistical analysis of repeat test results for assessment of wind tunnel data quality, PD-NT-0817, NAL project document, Bangalore, India, July 2008.Google Scholar
Menke, M., Yang, H. and Gursul, I. Experiments on the unsteady nature of vortex breakdown over delta wings, Exp Fluids, 1999, (27), pp 262–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambourne, N.C. and Bryer, D.W. The Bursting of Leading-Edge Vortices-Some Observations and Discussion of the Phenomenon, Aeronautical Research Council R&M, No. 3282, 1962.Google Scholar