Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:25:28.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct numerical simulation of roughness-induced transition controlled by two-dimensional wall blowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

Yuhan Lu Open the ORCID record for Yuhan Lu [Opens in a new window] ,
Fanzhi Zeng Open the ORCID record for Fanzhi Zeng [Opens in a new window] ,
Hongkang Liu ,
Zaijie Liu Open the ORCID record for Zaijie Liu [Opens in a new window]  and
Chao Yan Open the ORCID record for Chao Yan [Opens in a new window]
Yuhan Lu
Affiliation:
National Key Laboratory of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Beihang University, Beijing100191, PR China
Fanzhi Zeng
Affiliation:
National Key Laboratory of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Beihang University, Beijing100191, PR China
Hongkang Liu
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track, Ministry of Education, School of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha410075, PR China
Zaijie Liu
Affiliation:
National Key Laboratory of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Beihang University, Beijing100191, PR China
Chao Yan*
Affiliation:
National Key Laboratory of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Beihang University, Beijing100191, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discrete roughness-induced transition in Mach $2.25$ flow controlled by two-dimensional wall blowing is studied using direct numerical simulation. Spectral analysis and flow freezing operations reveal that the main source of unsteadiness in the case without blowing is the separated shear layer/counter-rotating vortex system: the shear layer is bent by the vortex pair, and this interaction induces disturbance growth at the shear layer. With the existence of weak wall blowing, the transition is delayed. Flow visualization demonstrates that upstream-positioned blowing achieves this by lifting the inflow boundary layer and decreasing the roughness Reynolds number. In contrast, downstream-positioned blowing takes effect by weakening the counter-rotating vortex pair and inhibiting the interaction. Vorticity transportation analysis suggests that this result is accomplished by increasing dissipation for streamwise vorticity and converting some of it into spanwise vorticity. In cases with strong wall blowing, the control effect is reversed, as wall blowing with enough strength can induce unsteadiness and promote transition. In upstream-positioned strong blowing cases, a new unstable mode is observed in spectral results throughout the near-roughness region, and further analysis indicates that this mode originating from the separation zone upstream of the blowing is the key factor for transition. With regard to downstream-positioned strong blowing cases, a very low-frequency mode is generated from the separation bubble between the roughness element and the blowing, but it only provides an initial disturbance for the transition process. The transition that occurs downstream is due to the distortion of the boundary layer in the wake.

JFM classification

Instability: Transition to turbulence Flow Control: Instability control Compressible Flows: Compressible boundary layers
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 920 , 10 August 2021 , A28
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Bajura, R.A. & Catalano, M.R. 1975 Transition in a two-dimensional plane wall jet. J. Fluid Mech. 70 (4), 773–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C.J. 1979 The laminar horseshoe vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 95 (2), 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balakumar, P. & Kegerise, M. 2016 Roughness-induced transition in a supersonic boundary layer. AIAA J. 54 (8), 2322–2337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, M., Pirozzoli, S., Orlandi, P. & Lele, S.K. 2014 Parameterization of boundary-layer transition induced by isolated roughness elements. AIAA J. 52 (10), 2261–2269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L. 2014 The lift-up effect: the linear mechanism behind transition and turbulence in shear flows. Eur. J. Mech. (B/Fluids) 47, 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G.L., Lee, M. -K. & Moser, R.D. 2015 Vorticity transport: the transfer of viscous stress to Reynolds stress in turbulent channel flow. In Proceedings of TSFP-9, pp. 673–678. TSFP Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Bucci, M.A., Puckert, D.K., Andriano, C., Loiseau, J.-C.., Cherubini, S., Robinet, J.-C.. & Rist, U. 2018 Roughness-induced transition by quasi-resonance of a varicose global mode. J. Fluid Mech. 836, 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J.C. 2003 Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, 2nd edn. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, A., Kegerise, M.A. & King, R.A. 2020 Transition induced by streamwise arrays of roughness elements on a flat plate in mach $3.5$ flow. J. Fluid Mech. 888, A21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citro, V., Giannetti, F., Luchini, P. & Auteri, F. 2015 Global stability and sensitivity analysis of boundary-layer flows past a hemispherical roughness element. Phys. Fluids 27 (8), 084110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, D. 1956 The law of the wake in the turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 1 (2), 191–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Tullio, N., Paredes, P., Sandham, N.D. & Theofilis, V. 2013 Laminar–turbulent transition induced by a discrete roughness element in a supersonic boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 735, 613–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, X.-G., Mao, M.-L., Tu, G.-H., Liu, H.-Y. & Zhang, H.-X. 2011 Geometric conservation law and applications to high-order finite difference schemes with stationary grids. J. Comput. Phys. 230 (4), 1100–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, R.S.III, White, E.B. & Denissen, N.A. 2008 Transient growth and transition induced by random distributed roughness. AIAA J. 46 (2), 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Driest, E.R. 1951 Turbulent boundary layer in compressible fluids. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 18 (3), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergin, F.G. & White, E.B. 2006 Unsteady and transitional flows behind roughness elements. AIAA J. 44 (11), 2504–2514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estruch-Samper, D., Hillier, R., Vanstone, L. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2017 Effect of isolated roughness element height on high-speed laminar–turbulent transition. J. Fluid Mech. 818, R1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K., Iwamoto, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 14 (11), L73–L76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, T., Flutet, V. & Sagaut, P. 2009 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in compressible turbulent channel flows. Phys. Rev. E 79 (3), 035301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N. & Walker, W.S. 1956 The effect on transition of isolated surface excrescences in the boundary layer. Tech. Rep. Aeronautical Research Council, Ministry of Supply.Google Scholar
Hamed, A.M., Sadowski, M., Zhang, Z. & Chamorro, L.P. 2016 Transition to turbulence over 2D and 3D periodic large-scale roughnesses. J. Fluid Mech. 804, R6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J.C.R., Wray, A.A. & Moin, P. 1988 Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. In Proceedings of the 1998 Summer Program, pp. 193–208. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jiang, G.-S. & Shu, C.-W. 1996 Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 126 (1), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jovanović, M.R., Schmid, P.J. & Nichols, J.W. 2014 Sparsity-promoting dynamic mode decomposition. Phys. Fluids 26 (2), 024103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, J.M. 1981 Study of the effect of free-stream turbulence upon disturbances in the pre-transitional laminar boundary layer. Tech. Rep. AFWAL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klebanoff, P.S., Cleveland, W.G. & Tidstrom, K.D. 1992 On the evolution of a turbulent boundary layer induced by a three-dimensional roughness element. J. Fluid Mech. 237, 101–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, R., Fukunishi, Y., Nishikawa, T. & Kato, T. 1994 The receptivity of flat-plate boundary-layers with two-dimensional roughness elements to freestream sound and its control. In Laminar–Turbulent Transition, pp. 507–514. IUTAM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuester, M.S. & White, E.B. 2015 Roughness receptivity and shielding in a flat plate boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 777, 430–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landahl, M.T. 1980 A note on an algebraic instability of inviscid parallel shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 98 (2), 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X.-L., Fu, D.-X., Ma, Y.-W. & Gao, H. 2009 Acoustic calculation for supersonic turbulent boundary layer flow. Chin. Phys. Lett. 26 (9), 1–4.Google Scholar
Li, X.-L., Fu, D.-X., Ma, Y.-W. & Liang, X. 2010 Development of high accuracy CFD software Hoam-OpenCFD. e-Sci. Technol. Appl. 1, 53–59.Google Scholar
Lin, T.C. 2008 Influence of laminar boundary-layer transition on entry vehicle designs. J. Spacecr. Rockets 45 (2), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loiseau, J.-C., Robinet, J.-C., Cherubini, S. & Leriche, E. 2014 Investigation of the roughness-induced transition: global stability analyses and direct numerical simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 760, 175–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y.-H., Liu, H.-K., Liu, Z.-J. & Yan, C. 2020 a Assessment and parameterization of upstream shielding effect in quasi-roughness induced transition with direct numerical simulations. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 100, 105824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y.-H., Liu, H.-K., Liu, Z.-J. & Yan, C. 2020 b Investigation and parameterization of transition shielding in roughness-disturbed boundary layer with direct numerical simulations. Phys. Fluids 32 (7), 074110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. 2000 Reynolds-number-independent instability of the boundary layer over a flat surface: optimal perturbations. J. Fluid Mech. 404, 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumley, J.L. 1970 Stochastic Tools in Turbulence. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Martin, M.P., Taylor, E.M., Wu, M. & Weirs, V.G. 2006 A bandwidth-optimized WENO scheme for the effective direct numerical simulation of compressible turbulence. J. Comput. Phys. 220 (1), 270–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mori, E., Quadrio, M. & Fukagata, K. 2017 Turbulent drag reduction by uniform blowing over a two-dimensional roughness. Flow Turbul. Combust. 99, 765–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muppidi, S. & Mahesh, K. 2012 Direct numerical simulations of roughness-induced transition in supersonic boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 693, 28–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F. & D'Andrea, A. 2001 Interaction of a shock wave with two counter-rotating vortices: shock dynamics and sound production. Phys. Fluids 13 (11), 3460–3481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F. & Gatski, T.B. 2004 Direct numerical simulation and analysis of a spatially evolving supersonic turbulent boundary layer at $M=2.25$. Phys. Fluids 16 (3), 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poinsot, T.J. & Lele, S.K. 1992 Boundary conditions for direct simulations of compressible viscous flows. J. Comput. Phys. 101 (1), 104–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puckert, D.K. & Rist, U. 2018 Experiments on critical Reynolds number and global instability in roughness-induced laminar–turbulent transition. J. Fluid Mech. 844, 878–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puckert, D.K. & Rist, U. 2019 Experimental observation of frequency lock-in of roughness-induced instabilities in a laminar boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 870, 680–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reshotko, E. 2001 Transient growth: a factor in bypass transition. Phys. Fluids 13 (5), 1067–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, C.W., Mezić, I., Bagheri, S. & Schlatter, P. 2009 Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayadi, T. & Schmid, P.J. 2016 Parallel data-driven decomposition algorithm for large-scale datasets: with application to transitional boundary layers. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 30, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P.J. 2010 Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S.P. 2015 Developing mechanism-based methods for estimating hypersonic boundary-layer transition in flight: the role of quiet tunnels. Prog. Aeosp. Sci. 72, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semper, M.T. & Bowersox, R.D.W. 2017 Tripping of a hypersonic low-Reynolds-number boundary layer. AIAA J. 55 (3), 808–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, A., Drews, S., Kuester, M.S., Goldstein, D.B. & White, E.B. 2014 Evolution of disturbances due to distributed surface roughness in laminar boundary layers. AIAA Paper 2014-0235. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S., Shadloo, M.S., Hadjadj, A. & Kloker, M.J. 2019 Control of oblique-type breakdown in a supersonic boundary layer employing streaks. J. Fluid Mech. 873, 1072–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, P. & Candler, G.V. 2019 Direct numerical simulation of high-speed transition due to roughness elements. J. Fluid Mech. 868, 762–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.M.O. & Clutter, D.W. 1959 The smallest height of roughness capable of affecting boundary-layer transition. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 26 (4), 229–256.Google Scholar
Steger, J.L. & Warming, R.F. 1981 Flux vector splitting of the inviscid gasdynamic equations with application to finite-difference methods. J. Comput. Phys. 40 (2), 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewartson, K. 1964 The Theory of Laminar Boundary Layers in Compressible Fluids. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subbareddy, P.K., Bartkowicz, M.D. & Candler, G.V. 2014 Direct numerical simulation of high-speed transition due to an isolated roughness element. J. Fluid Mech. 748, 848–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suryanarayanan, S., Goldstein, D.B., Berger, A.R., White, E.B. & Brown, G.L. 2020 Mechanisms of roughness-induced boundary-layer transition control by shielding. AIAA J. 58 (7), 2951–2963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suryanarayanan, S., Goldstein, D.B., Brown, G.L., Berger, A.R. & White, E.B. 2017 On the mechanics and control of boundary layer transition induced by discrete roughness elements. AIAA Paper 2017-0307. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towne, A., Schmidt, O.T. & Colonius, T. 2018 Spectral proper orthogonal decomposition and its relationship to dynamic mode decomposition and resolvent analysis. J. Fluid Mech. 847, 821–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuji, Y., Morikawa, Y., Nagatani, T. & Sakou, M. 1977 The stability of a two-dimensional wall jet. Aeronaut. Q. 28 (4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernz, S. & Fasel, H. 1997 Numerical investigation of forced transitional wall jets. AIAA Paper 1997-2022. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E.B. 2002 Transient growth of stationary disturbances in a flat plate boundary layer. Phys. Fluids 14 (12), 4429–4439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, F.M. & Christoph, G.H. 1972 A simple theory for the two-dimensional compressible turbulent boundary layer. Trans. ASME J. Basic Engng 94 (3), 636–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E.B., Rice, J.M. & Ergin, F.G. 2005 Receptivity of stationary transient disturbances to surface roughness. Phys. Fluids 17 (6), 064109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar