- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Flow structure and unsteadiness in a highly confined shock-wave–boundary-layer interaction

Jonathan Poggie* and Kevin M. Porter†

  • School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA

  • *jpoggie@purdue.edu
  • †Present address: Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Palmdale, CA 93599, USA; porter28@purdue.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 024602 – Published 8 February, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.024602

Abstract

Numerical simulations were carried out to examine a 24∘ compression ramp interaction in which the confinement effect of sidewalls was very strong. The ratio of turbulent boundary-layer thickness to domain width at the start of the interaction was δ/w=0.12. Inflow conditions of M∞=2.25 and Reθi=1800 were chosen to match previous simulations. Comparing to the limited data available from similar computations, the centerline separation length scale Ls/δ was seen to vary with the flow confinement parameter δ/w, as previously recognized in reflected shock interactions. Significant differences in flow structure were observed between these computations with confining sidewalls and previous computations with periodic boundary conditions at the lateral boundaries of the domain. The most intense turbulent fluctuations occurred in the corners of the domain. Symmetric and antisymmetric motions of the separation region were identified in the instantaneous flow using conditional averages and spatial correlations. The presence of the sidewalls was found to influence both the mean and unsteady flow. Accurately capturing the sidewall flows is judged to be essential in realistic modeling of confined flows.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (54)

  1. S. Bogdonoff, Some experimental studies of the separation of supersonic turbulent boundary layers, Princeton University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering Report No. 336, 1955 (unpublished).
  2. A. L. Kistler, Fluctuating wall pressure under a separated supersonic flow, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 36, 543 (1964).
  3. J. E. Green, Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 11, 235 (1970).
  4. D. S. Dolling, Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: What next? AIAA J. 39, 1517 (2001).
  5. J.-P. Dussauge and S. Piponniau, Shock/boundary-layer interactions: Possible sources of unsteadiness, J. Fluids Struct. 24, 1166 (2008).
  6. J. R. Edwards, Numerical simulations of shock/boundary layer interactions using time-dependent modeling techniques: A survey of recent results, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 44, 447 (2008).
  7. N. T. Clemens and V. Narayanaswamy, Low-frequency unsteadiness of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 469 (2014).
  8. D. V. Gaitonde, Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 72, 80 (2015).
  9. D. C. Reda and J. D. Murphy, Shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions in rectangular channels, AIAA J. 11, 139 (1973).
  10. D. C. Reda and J. D. Murphy, Sidewall boundary-layer influence on shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions, AIAA J. 11, 1367 (1973).
  11. D. M. F. Burton and H. Babinsky, Corner separation effects for normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in rectangular channels, J. Fluid Mech. 707, 287 (2012).
  12. H. Babinsky, J. Oorebeek, and T. G. Cottingham, Proceedings of the 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 2013), paper 2013-0859.
  13. J. A. Benek, C. J. Suchyta, and H. Babinsky, Proceedings of the 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (Ref. [12]), paper 2013-0862.
  14. M. Pizzella, S. Warning, M. McQuilling, A. Purkey, R. Scharnhorst, M. Mani, J. Benek, C. J. Suchyta, and H. Babinsky, Proceedings of the 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 2017), paper 2017-0535.
  15. E. Garnier, Stimulated detached eddy simulation of three-dimensional shock/boundary layer interaction, Shock Waves 19, 479 (2009).
  16. M. Funderburk and V. Narayanaswamy, Experimental investigation of primary and corner shock boundary layer interactions at mild back pressure ratios, Phys. Fluids 28, 086102 (2016).
  17. B. Morgan, K. Duraisamy, and S. K. Lele, Large-eddy simulations of a normal shock train in a constant-area isolator, AIAA J. 52, 539 (2014).
  18. B. Wang, N. D. Sandham, Z. Hu, and W. Liu, Numerical study of oblique shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction considering sidewall effects, J. Fluid Mech. 767, 526 (2015).
  19. N. J. Bisek, Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 2015), paper 2015-1976.
  20. F. M. White, Viscous Fluid Flow, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991).
  21. J. Poggie, N. J. Bisek, and R. Gosse, Resolution effects in compressible, turbulent boundary layer simulations, Comput. Fluids 120, 57 (2015).
  22. S. K. Lele, Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution, J. Comput. Phys. 103, 16 (1992).
  23. D. V. Gaitonde and M. R. Visbal, High-order schemes for Navier-Stokes equations: Algorithm implementation into FDL3DI, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Air Force Research Laboratory Report No. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-1998-3060, 1998, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a364301.pdf.
  24. M. R. Visbal and D. V. Gaitonde, On the use of higher-order finite-difference schemes on curvilinear and deforming meshes, J. Comput. Phys. 181, 155 (2002).
  25. M. R. Visbal and D. V. Gaitonde, Proceedings of the 43rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 2005), paper 2005-1265.
  26. R. C. Swanson and E. Turkel, On central-difference and upwind schemes, J. Comput. Phys. 101, 292 (1992).
  27. J. Morrison, Proceedings of the 2nd International Aerospace Planes Conference (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 1990), paper 90-5251.
  28. W. K. Anderson, J. L. Thomas, and B. van Leer, Comparison of finite volume flux vector splittings for the Euler equations, AIAA J. 24, 1453 (1986).
  29. M. R. Visbal and D. P. Rizzetta, Large-eddy simulation on curvilinear grids using compact differencing and filtering schemes, J. Fluid. Eng. 124, 836 (2002).
  30. T. H. Pulliam and D. S. Chaussee, A diagonal form of an implicit approximate-factorization algorithm, J. Comput. Phys. 39, 347 (1981).
  31. T. H. Pulliam and J. L. Steger, Implicit finite-difference simulations of three-dimensional compressible flow, AIAA J. 18, 159 (1980).
  32. P. D. Thomas and C. K. Lombard, Geometric conservation law and its application to flow computations on moving grids, AIAA J. 17, 1030 (1979).
  33. M. M. Rai, T. B. Gatski, and G. Erlebacher, Proceedings of the 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1995), paper 95-583.
  34. S. Pirozzoli, F. Grasso, and T. B. Gatski, Direct numerical simulation and analysis of a spatially evolving supersonic turbulent boundary layer at M=2.25, Phys. Fluids 16, 530 (2004).
  35. D. P. Rizzetta and M. R. Visbal, Large-eddy simulation of supersonic boundary-layer flow by a high-order method, Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 18, 15 (2004).
  36. N. Bisek, D. Rizzetta, and J. Poggie, Plasma control of a turbulent shock boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J. 51, 1789 (2013).
  37. K. M. Porter and J. Poggie, Selective upstream influence on the unsteadiness of a separated turbulent compression ramp flow, Phys. Fluids 31, 016104 (2019).
  38. N. J. Georgiadis, D. P. Rizzetta, and C. Fureby, Large-eddy simulations: Current capabilities, recommended practices, and future research, AIAA J. 48, 1772 (2010).
  39. N. J. Mullenix, D. V. Gaitonde, and M. R. Visbal, Spatially developing supersonic turbulent boundary layer with a body-force-based method, AIAA J. 51, 1805 (2013).
  40. J. C. Gonsalez and D. S. Dolling, Proceedings of the 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 1993), paper 93-0776.
  41. P. Dupont, C. Haddad, and J. F. Debieève, Space and time organization in a shock-induced separated boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 559, 255 (2006).
  42. J. W. Nichols, J. Larsson, M. Bernardini, and S. Pirozzoli, Stability and modal analysis of shock/boundary layer interactions, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 31, 33 (2017).
  43. J. Poggie, P. J. Erbland, A. J. Smits, and R. B. Miles, Quantitative visualization of compressible turbulent shear flows using condensate-enhanced Rayleigh scattering, Exp. Fluids 37, 438 (2004).
  44. M. Éléna and J. P. Lacharme, Experimental study of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer using a laser Doppler anemometer, J. Mec. Theor. Appl. 7, 175 (1988).
  45. S. Piponniau, J. P. Dussauge, J. F. Debiève, and P. Dupont, A simple model for low-frequency unsteadiness in shock-induced separation, J. Fluid Mech. 629, 87 (2009).
  46. S. Pirozzoli and M. Bernardini, Turbulence in supersonic boundary layers at moderate Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech. 688, 120 (2011).
  47. E. R. van Driest, On the turbulent flow near a wall, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 23, 1007 (1956).
  48. M. V. Morkovin, in Méchanique de la Turbulence, edited by A. Favre (CNRS, Paris, 1962), pp. 367–380.
  49. A. E. Alving, Boundary layer relaxation from convex curvature, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1988.
  50. S. Navarro-Martinez and O. R. Tutty, Numerical simulation of Görtler vortices in hypersonic compression ramps, Comput. Fluids 34, 225 (2005).
  51. S. Priebe, J. H. Tu, C. W. Rowley, and M. P. Martín, Low-frequency dynamics in a shock-induced separated flow, J. Fluid Mech. 807, 441 (2016).
  52. A. E. Perry and M. S. Chong, A description of eddying motions and flow patterns using critical point concepts, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 19, 125 (1987).
  53. S. Priebe and M. P. Martín, Low-frequency unsteadiness in shock wave-turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 699, 1 (2012).
  54. https://engineering.purdue.edu/∼jpoggie/sidewalls/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 024602– Published 8 February, 2019
  • Received 6 October 2018
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2019 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation