Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:38:41.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controlled stationary/travelling cross-flow mode interaction in a Mach 6.0 boundary layer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2020

Alexander Arndt ,
Thomas Corke Open the ORCID record for Thomas Corke [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric Matlis  and
Michael Semper
Alexander Arndt
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Institute for Flow Physics and Control, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, Notre Dame, IN46556, USA
Thomas Corke*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Institute for Flow Physics and Control, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, Notre Dame, IN46556, USA
Eric Matlis
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Institute for Flow Physics and Control, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, Notre Dame, IN46556, USA
Michael Semper
Affiliation:
US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO80840, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were performed to further investigate a quadratic interaction between stationary and travelling cross-flow modes that was revealed in the previous experiment by Corke et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 856, 2018, pp. 822–849) in the boundary layer on a sharp right-circular cone at an angle of attack at Mach 6.0. As with the previous experiment, passive discrete roughness was applied near the cone tip, just upstream of Branch I of the linear stability neutral curve for stationary cross-flow modes. The passive roughness consisted of indentations (dimples) that were evenly spaced azimuthally to excite a specific azimuthal wavenumber. A plasma actuator was located just downstream of the discrete roughness array. This was designed to produce an azimuthally uniform unsteady disturbance with a frequency that was at the centre of the band of most amplified travelling cross-flow modes. Measurements consisted of off-wall azimuthal profiles of mean and fluctuating total pressure at different axial locations. Spectra of total-pressure fluctuations verified the receptivity of the boundary layer to the unsteady excitation. This affected the azimuthal and streamwise development of the stationary cross-flow modes, with a general effect to move the transition location upstream by approximately 16 %. The quadratic interaction between the stationary and travelling cross-flow modes was further enhanced by the excitation of the travelling cross-flow mode. This was particularly evident by an enlarged band of azimuthal wavenumbers over which a significant triple phase locking existed. The significantly enlarged range of wavenumber sum and difference interactions offered a mechanism for rapid spectral broadening that could account for the hastened transition by the addition of unsteady disturbances.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: High-speed flow Boundary Layers: Boundary layer stability Instability: Transition to turbulence
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 887 , 25 March 2020 , A30
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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

Bippes, H. 1999 Basic experiments on transition in three-dimensional boundary layers dominated by crossflow instability. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 35, 363–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonfigli, G. & Kloker, M. 2007 Secondary instability of crossflow vortices: validation of the stability theory by direct numerical simulation. J. Fluid Mech. 583, 229–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, M. & Kimmel, R. 2016 Simultaneous infrared and pressure measurements of crossflow instability modes for HIFiRE-5. In 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Borg, M., Kimmel, R., Hofferth, J., Bowersox, R. & Mai, C. 2015 Freestream effects on boundary layer disturbances for HIFiRE-5. In 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Borg, M., Kimmel, R. & Stanfield, S. 2011 HIFiRE-5 attachment-line and crossflow instability in a quiet hypersonic wind tunnel. In 41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Borg, M., Kimmel, R. & Stanfield, S. 2012 Crossflow instability for HIFiRE-5 in a quiet hypersonic wind tunnel. In 42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Borg, M., Kimmel, R. & Stanfield, S. 2013 Traveling crossflow instability for HIFiRE-5 in a quiet hypersonic wind tunnel. In 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Chernoray, V. G., Dovgal, A. V., Kozlov, V. V. & Loefdahl, L. 2005 Experiments on secondary instability of streamwise vortices in a swept-wing boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 534, 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corke, T. C., Arndt, A., Matlis, E. H. & Semper, M. 2018 Control of stationary cross-flow modes in a Mach 6 boundary layer using patterned roughness. J. Fluid Mech. 856, 822–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corke, T. C. & Knasiak, K. F. 1998 Stationary travelling cross-flow mode interactions on a rotating disk. J. Fluid Mech. 355, 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corke, T. C., Matlis, E. H. & Othman, H. 2007 Transition to turbulence in rotating-disk boundary layers – convective and absolute instabilities. J. Engng Maths 57, 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, S. & Saric, W. S. 2016 Crossflow instability in a hypersonic boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 808, 224–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R. & McLaughlin, T. 2012 Hypersonic Ludwieg tube design and future usage at the US Air Force Academy. In 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. AIAA Paper 2012-0734.Google Scholar
Estorf, M., Wolf, T. & Radespiel, R. 2005 Experimental and numerical investigations on the operation of the hypersonic Ludwieg tube Braunschweig. In 5th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, ESA Special Publication, vol. 6, p. 579.Google Scholar
King, R. A. 1992 Three-dimensional boundary-layer transition on a cone at Mach 3.5. Exp. Fluids 13, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F., Choudhari, M., Chang, C.-L. & White, J. 2010 Analysis of instabilities in non-axisymmetric hypersonic boundary layers over cones. In 10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference. AIAA Paper 2010-4643.Google Scholar
Malik, M., Li, F. & Chang, C.-L. 1994 Crossflow disturbances in three-dimensional boundary layers: nonlinear development, wave interaction and secondary instability. J. Fluid Mech. 268, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, M., Li, F., Choudhari, M. & Chang, C.-L. 1999 Secondary instability of crossflow vortices and swept-wing boundary-layer transition. J. Fluid Mech. 399, 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morkovin, M. V. 1990a On Roughness-Induced Transition: Facts, Views & Speculation. Instability and Transition, vol. I. Springer.Google Scholar
Morkovin, M. V. 1990b Panel Summary on Roughness. Instability and Transition, vol. I. Springer.Google Scholar
Neel, I. T., Leidy, A., Tichenor, N. R. & Bowersox, R. D. 2018 Influence of environmental disturbances on hypersonic crossflow instability on the HIFiRE-5 elliptic cone. In Presented at AIAA Scitech 2018. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, paper number to be assigned.Google Scholar
Preston, J. 1954 The determination of turbulent skin friction by means of Pitot tubes. J. R. Aero. Soc. 14, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radeztsky, R. H. Jr, Reibert, M. S. & Saric, W. S. 1999 Effect of isolated micron-sized roughness on transition in swept-wing flows. AIAA J. 37 (11), 1370–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, H. L. & Saric, W. S. 1989 Stability of three-dimensional boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 21, 235–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reshotko, E. 2008 Paths to transition wall layers. In Papers Presented During the EN-AVT-151-12 RTO AVT/VKI Lecture Series Held at the von Karman Institute, Rhode St. Gense, Belgium. The von Karman Institute.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Carillo, R. C. & Reibert, M. S. 1998 Leading-edge roughness as a transition control mechanism. AIAA Paper 98-0781.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S. & Reed, H. L. 2002 Supersonic laminar flow control on swept wings using distributed roughness. AIAA Paper 2002-0147.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S., Reed, H. L. & Kerschen, E. J. 2002 Boundary-layer receptivity to freestream disturbances. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saric, W. S., Reed, H. L. & White, E. B. 2003 Stability and transition of three-dimensional boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35, 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saric, W. S., West, D. E., Tufts, M. W. & Reed, H. L. 2019 Experiments on discrete roughness element technology for swept-wing laminar flow control. AIAA J. 57 (2), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuele, C.-Y.2011 Control of sationary cross-flow modes in a Mach 3.5 boundary layer using passive and active roughness. PhD thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
Schuele, C.-Y., Corke, T. C. & Matlis, E. H. 2013 Control of stationary cross-flow modes in a Mach 3.5 boundary layer using patterned passive and active roughness. J. Fluid Mech. 718, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassermann, P. & Kloker, M. 2002 Mechanisms and passive control of crossflow-vortex-induced transition in three-dimensional boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 456, 49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E. B. & Saric, W. S. 2005 Secondary instability of crossflow vortices. J. Fluid Mech. 525, 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar