Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:51:46.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linear interaction of two-dimensional free-stream disturbances with an oblique shock wave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2019

Zhangfeng Huang Open the ORCID record for Zhangfeng Huang [Opens in a new window]  and
Huilin Wang
Zhangfeng Huang*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Tianjin University, Tianjin300072, PR China State Key Laboratory of Aerodynamics, China Aerodynamic Research and Development Center, Mianyang, Sichuan621000, PR China
Huilin Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Tianjin University, Tianjin300072, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of interaction between disturbances and shock waves was solved by a theoretical approach called linear interaction analysis in the mid-twentieth century. More recently, great progress has been made in analysing shock–turbulence interactions by direct numerical simulation. However, an unsolved theoretical problem remains: What happens when no acoustic waves are stimulated behind the shock wave? The concept of a damped wave is introduced, which is a type of excited plane wave. Based on this, the dispersion and amplitude relationships between any incident plane wave and resulting stimulated waves are constructed analytically, systematically and comprehensively. The physical essence of damped waves and the existence of critical angles are clarified. It is demonstrated that a damped wave is a complex number space solution to the acoustic dispersion relationship under certain conditions. It acts as a bridge connecting fast and slow acoustic waves at the position where the $x$ component of the group velocity is zero. There are two critical angles that can excite fast and slow acoustic waves, which determine the conditions that stimulate a damped wave. Our results show good agreement with theoretical and simulation results. The contribution of each excited wave to the transmission coefficient is evaluated, the distribution of the transmission coefficient is analysed and application to an engineering wedge model is performed.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer receptivity Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 873 , 25 August 2019 , pp. 1179 - 1205
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2019 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.)

Footnotes

‡

The original version of this article was published with incorrect author information. A notice detailing this has been published and the error rectified in the online PDF and HTML copies.

References

Arnal, D. & Casalis, G. 2000 Laminar–turbulent transition prediction in three-dimensional flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 36 (2), 173–191.10.1016/S0376-0421(00)00002-6Google Scholar
D’iakov, S. P. 1958a Interaction of shock waves with small perturbations I. Sov. Phys. JETP 33 (4), 729–739.Google Scholar
D’iakov, S. P. 1958b Interaction of shock waves with small perturbations II. Sov. Phys. JETP 33 (4), 739–747.Google Scholar
Fedorov, A. 2011 Transition and stability of high-speed boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43, 79–95.10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160750Google Scholar
Jamme, S., Cazalbou, J. B., Torres, F. & Chassaing, P. 2002 Direct numerical simulation of the interaction between a shock wave and various types of isotropic turbulence. Flow Turbul. Combust. 68 (3), 227–268.10.1023/A:1021197225166Google Scholar
Jiang, G. S. & Shu, C. W. 1996 Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. Comput. Phys. 126 (1), 202–228.10.1006/jcph.1996.0130Google Scholar
Kerrebrock, J. L.1956 The interaction of flow discontinuities with small disturbances in a compressible fluid. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Larsson, J., Bermejo-Moreno, I. & Lele, S. K. 2013 Reynolds and Mach-number effects in canonical shock–turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 717, 293–321.10.1017/jfm.2012.573Google Scholar
Larsson, J. & Lele, S. K. 2009 Direct numerical simulation of canonical shock/turbulence interaction. Phys. Fluids 21 (054102), 1–12.10.1063/1.3275856Google Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1993 Direct numerical simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 251, 533–562.10.1017/S0022112093003519Google Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1997 Interaction of isotropic turbulence with shock waves: effect of shock strength. J. Fluid Mech. 340, 225–247.10.1017/S0022112097005107Google Scholar
Ma, Y. & Zhong, X. L. 2003a Receptivity of a supersonic boundary layer over a flat plate. Part 1. Wave structures and interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 488, 31–78.10.1017/S0022112003004786Google Scholar
Ma, Y. & Zhong, X. L. 2003b Receptivity of a supersonic boundary layer over a flat plate. Part 2. Receptivity to free-stream sound. J. Fluid Mech. 488, 79–121.10.1017/S0022112003004798Google Scholar
Ma, Y. & Zhong, X. L. 2005 Receptivity of a supersonic boundary layer over a flat plate. Part 3. Effects of different types of free-stream disturbances. J. Fluid Mech. 532, 63–109.10.1017/S0022112005003836Google Scholar
McKenzie, J. F. & Westphal, K. O. 1968 Interaction of linear waves with oblique shock waves. Phys. Fluids 11 (11), 2350–2362.10.1063/1.1691825Google Scholar
Moore, F. K.1954 Unsteady oblique interaction of a shock wave with a plane disturbance. NACA Tech. Rep. TR-1165.Google Scholar
Potter, J. L. & Whitfield, J. D. 1962 Effects of slight nose bluntness and roughness on boundary-layer transition in supersonic flows. J. Fluid Mech. 12 (4), 501–535.10.1017/S0022112062000385Google Scholar
Reshotko, E. 1976 Boundary-layer stability and transition. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 8 (1), 311–349.10.1146/annurev.fl.08.010176.001523Google Scholar
Ribner, H. S.1954 Convection of a pattern of vorticity through a shock wave. NACA Tech. Rep. TR-1164.Google Scholar
Robinet, J. C. & Casalis, G. 2001 Critical interaction of a shock wave with an acoustic wave. Phys. Fluids 13 (4), 1047–1059.10.1063/1.1351548Google Scholar
Ryu, J. & Livescu, D. 2014 Turbulence structure behind the shock in canonical shock–vortical turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 756 (R1), 1–13.10.1017/jfm.2014.477Google Scholar
Shu, C. W. & Osher, S. 1988 Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes. Comput. Phys. 77 (2), 439–471.10.1016/0021-9991(88)90177-5Google Scholar
Stetson, K. F., Thompson, E. R., Donaldson, J. C. & Siler, L. G. 1984 Laminar boundary layer stability experiments on a cone at Mach 8. Part 2: Blunt cone. AIAA Paper 1984-0006.Google Scholar
Su, C. H. & Geng, J. L. 2017 Interaction of weak free-stream disturbance with an oblique shock: validation of the shock-capturing method. Appl. Math. Mech. -Engl. Ed. 38 (11), 1601–1612.10.1007/s10483-017-2279-9Google Scholar
Tian, Y., Jaberi, F. A., Li, Z. & Livescu, D. 2017 Numerical study of variable density turbulence interaction with a normal shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 829, 551–588.10.1017/jfm.2017.542Google Scholar
Zhong, X. L. 1998 High-order finite-difference schemes for numerical simulation of hypersonic boundary-layer transition. Comput. Phys. 144 (2), 662–709.10.1006/jcph.1998.6010Google Scholar
Zhong, X. L. & Wang, X. W. 2012 Direct numerical simulation on the receptivity, instability, and transition of hypersonic boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44, 527–561.10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101208Google Scholar