Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:14:59.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental study of the mean structure and quasi-conical scaling of a swept-compression-ramp interaction at Mach 2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

Leon Vanstone Open the ORCID record for Leon Vanstone [Opens in a new window] ,
Mustafa Nail Musta ,
Serdar Seckin  and
Noel Clemens
Leon Vanstone*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Mustafa Nail Musta
Affiliation:
Faculty of Aviation and Space Sciences, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090 Meram/Konya, Turkey
Serdar Seckin
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Noel Clemens
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the mean flow structure of two shock-wave boundary-layer interactions generated by moderately swept compression ramps in a Mach 2 flow. The ramps have a compression angle of either $19^{\circ }$ or $22.5^{\circ }$ and a sweep angle of $30^{\circ }$. The primary diagnostic methods used for this study are surface-streakline flow visualization and particle image velocimetry. The shock-wave boundary-layer interactions are shown to be quasi-conical, with the intermittent region, separation line and reattachment line all scaling in a self-similar manner outside of the inception region. This is one of the first studies to investigate the flow field of a swept ramp using particle image velocimetry, allowing more sensitive measurements of the velocity flow field than previously possible. It is observed that the streamwise velocity component outside of the separated flow reaches the quasi-conical state at the same time as the bulk surface flow features. However, the streamwise and cross-stream components within the separated flow take longer to recover to the quasi-conical state, which indicates that the inception region for these low-magnitude velocity components is actually larger than was previously assumed. Specific scaling laws reported previously in the literature are also investigated and the results of this study are shown to scale similarly to these related interactions. Certain limiting cases of the scaling laws are explored that have potential implications for the interpretation of cylindrical and quasi-conical scaling.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer separation Aerodynamics: High-speed flow Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 841 , 25 April 2018 , pp. 1 - 27
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2018 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

∗

In the original version of this article Mustafa Nail Musta’s name was misspelled. A notice detailing this has been published (doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2018.243) and the error rectified in the online PDF and HTML versions.

References

Adler, M. C. & Gaitonde, D. V. 2017 Unsteadiness in swept-compression-ramp shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions. In 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, pp. 1–22. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Alvi, F. S. & Settles, G. S. 1992 Physical model of the swept shock wave/boundary-layer interaction flowfield. AIAA J. 30 (9), 2252–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. D. Jr 2006 Hypersonic and High-Temperature Gas Dynamics, 2nd edn. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora, N., Ali, M. Y. & Alvi, F. S. 2015 Shock-boundary layer interaction due to a sharp unswept fin in a Mach 2 flow. In 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Babinsky, H. & Harvey, J. K. 2011 Shock Wave–Boundary-Layer Interactions. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, A. K., Arora, N., Kumar, R. & Alvi, F. S. 2016 Effect of Reynolds number on 3-D shock wave boundary layer interactions. In 46th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, pp. 1–18. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, S., Charonko, J. J. & Vlachos, P. P. 2017 Stereo-particle image velocimetry uncertainty quantification. Meas. Sci. Technol. 28 (1), 015301.Google Scholar
Chapman, D. R., Kuehn, D. M. & Larson, H. K.1957 Investigation of separated flows in supersonic and subsonic streams with emphasis on the effect of transition. NACA Tech. Rep. 1356.Google Scholar
Clemens, N. T. & Narayanaswamy, V. 2014 Low-frequency unsteadiness of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46 (1), 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolling, D. S. 2001 Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J. 39 (8), 1517–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domel, N. D. 2015 A general 3D relation for oblique shocks on swept ramps. In 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, pp. 1–13. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Erengil, M. E. & Dolling, D. S. 1993 Effects of sweepback on unsteady separation in Mach 5 compression ramp interactions. AIAA J. 31 (2), 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaitonde, D. & Shang, J. S. 1995 Structure of a turbulent double-fin interaction at Mach 4. AIAA J. 33 (12), 2250–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaitonde, D., Shang, J. S. & Visbal, M. 1995 Structure of a double-fin turbulent interaction at high speed. AIAA J. 33 (2), 193–200.Google Scholar
Gaitonde, D. V. 2015 Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 72, 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaitonde, D. V., Shang, J. S., Garrison, T. J., Zheltovodov, A. A. & Maksimov, A. I. 1999 Three-dimensional turbulent interactions caused by asymmetric crossing-shock configurations. AIAA J. 37 (12), 1602–1608.Google Scholar
Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N. T. & Dolling, D. S. 2007 Effects of upstream boundary layer on the unsteadiness of shock-induced separation. J. Fluid Mech. 585, 369–394.Google Scholar
Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N. T. & Dolling, D. S. 2009 Low-frequency dynamics of shock-induced separation in a compression ramp interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 636, 397–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, Y., Clemens, N. & Dolling, D. 2003 Wide-field PIV study of shock-induced turbulent boundary layer separation. In 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Knight, D. & Longo, J. 2010 Shock interactions investigations associated with AVT-136. In 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, pp. 4–7. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Knight, D., Yan, H., Panaras, A. G. & Zheltovodov, A. 2003 Advances in CFD prediction of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 39 (2–3), 121–184.Google Scholar
Knight, D. D., Badekast, D. C., Horstmant, C. & Settles, G. S. 1992 Quasiconical flowfield structure of the three-dimensional single fin interaction. AIAA J. 30 (12), 2809–2816.Google Scholar
Knight, D. D., Horstman, C., Bogdonoff, S. & Shapey, B. 1987 Structure of supersonic turbulent flow past a sharp fin. AIAA J. 25 (10), 1331–1337.Google Scholar
Loginov, M. S., Adams, N. A. & Zheltovodov, A. A. 2006 Large-eddy simulation of shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 565 (2006), 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, F. K. 1993 Quasiconical free interaction between a swept shock and a turbulent boundary layer. AIAA J. 31 (4), 686–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panaras, A. G. 1996 Review of the physics of swept-shock/boundary layer interactions. Science 32 (95), 173–244.Google Scholar
Priebe, S. & Martín, M. P. 2012 Low-frequency unsteadiness in shock wave turbulent boundary layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 699, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmisseur, J. D. & Dolling, D. S. 1994 Fluctuating wall pressures near separation in highly swept turbulent interactions. AIAA J. 32 (6), 1151–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmisseur, J. D. & Gaitonde, D. V. 2001 Numerical investigation of strong crossing shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 39 (9), 1742–1749.Google Scholar
Schmisseur, J. D. & Gaitonde, D. V. 2011 Numerical simulation of Mach reflection in steady flows. Shock Waves 21 (6), 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciacchitano, A. & Wieneke, B. 2016 PIV uncertainty propagation. Meas. Sci. Technol. 27 (8), 084006.Google Scholar
Settles, G., Perkins, J. & Bogdonoff, S. 1980 Investigation of three-dimensional shock/boundary-layer interactions at swept compression corners. AIAA J. 18 (7), 779–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1982 Scaling of two- and three-dimensional shock/turbulent boundary-layer interactions at compression corners. AIAA J. 20 (6), 782–789.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Dolling, D. S. 1990 Swept shock/boundary-layer interactions: tutorial and update. In AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S., Fitzpatrick, T. J. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1979 Detailed study of attached and separated compression corner flowfields in high Reynolds number supersonic flow. AIAA J. 17 (6), 579–585.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Kimmel, R. L. 1986 Similarity of quasiconical shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 24 (1), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Lu, F. K. 1985 Conical similarity of shock/boundary-layer interactions generated by swept and unswept fins. AIAA J. 23 (7), 1021–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Teng, H.-Y. 1984 Cylindrical and conical flow regimes of three-dimensional shock/boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 22 (2), 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smits, A. J. A. & Dussauge, J.-P. J. 2006 Turbulent Shear Layers in Supersonic Flow. Springer.Google Scholar
Teng, H. & Settles, G. 1982 Cylindrical and conical upstream influence regimes of 3D shock/turbulent boundary layer interactions. In 3rd Joint Thermophysics, Fluids, Plasma and Heat Transfer Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Sandham, N. D. 2011 Low-order stochastic modelling of low-frequency motions in reflected shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 671, 417–465.Google Scholar
Vanstone, L., Saleem, M., Seckin, S. & Clemens, N. T. 2015 Experimental investigation of unsteadiness of swept-ramp shock/boundary layer interactions at Mach 2. In 45th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference (June), pp. 1–12. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Wang, S. Y. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1986 A re-examination of the upstream influence scaling and similarity laws for 3-D shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. In AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Wu, M. & Martín, M. P. 2008 Analysis of shock motion in shockwave and turbulent boundary layer interaction using direct numerical simulation data. J. Fluid Mech. 594, 71–83.Google Scholar