Three-Dimensional Shock Boundary layer interaction at Mach 5

© All Rights Reserved

0 visualizações

Three-Dimensional Shock Boundary layer interaction at Mach 5

© All Rights Reserved

- Demonstration of the effect of flow regime on pressure drop
- CFD Pro 14.5 WS05 Catalytic Converter CFX
- Heat Flow Study in Wave Rotor
- Syllabus
- Syllabus (CIvil Engg.)
- Unsteady Computation
- Regular and Mach Refn of Shocks
- Fluid Mechanics - Lecture 7 - 9 _viscous + NNF Pipe Flowx
- Hascon's Model Ling Canopy-Fumes Simulation.pdf.PDF
- fluid mechanics
- Question Pattern- Fluid Mechanics
- Me2204 Apr May11
- 0113
- Tfaws 2003 Aerothermal Tutorial - Russell
- 202 (2)
- coreannular.pdf
- 2014 Lecture 3
- Temperature prediction on a Turbine Blade using a combination of turbulent and laminar flow models
- Comparison of Experimental Results of Horizontal Kaplan Turbine w
- up_mof.pdf

Você está na página 1de 12

Amjad A. Pasha

Engineering

ISSN 2193-567X

Volume 43

Number 9

DOI 10.1007/s13369-018-3210-6

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by King Fahd

University of Petroleum & Minerals. This e-

offprint is for personal use only and shall not

be self-archived in electronic repositories. If

you wish to self-archive your article, please

use the accepted manuscript version for

posting on your own website. You may

further deposit the accepted manuscript

version in any repository, provided it is only

made publicly available 12 months after

official publication or later and provided

acknowledgement is given to the original

source of publication and a link is inserted

to the published article on Springer's

website. The link must be accompanied by

the following text: "The final publication is

available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3210-6

with a Fin at Mach 5

Amjad A. Pasha1

Received: 1 August 2017 / Accepted: 19 March 2018 / Published online: 27 March 2018

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Abstract

The three-dimensional single-fin configuration finds application in an intake geometry where the cowl-shock wave interacts

with the side-wall boundary layer. Accurate numerical simulation of such three-dimensional shock/turbulent boundary-layer

interaction flows, which are characterized by the appearance of strong crossflow separation, is a challenging task. Reynolds-

averaged Navier–Stokes computations using the shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras model is carried out at Mach

of 5 at large fin angle of 23◦ . The computed results using the modified model are compared to the standard Spalart–Allmaras

model and validated against the experimental data. The focus of the work is to implement the modified model and to study

the flow physics in detail in the complex region of swept-shock-wave turbulent boundary-layer interaction in terms of the

shock structure, expansion fan, shear layer and the surface streamlines. The flow structure is correlated with the wall pressure

and skin friction in detail. It is observed that the standard model predicts an initial pressure location downstream of the

experiments. The modified model reduces the eddy viscosity at the shock and predicts close to the experiments. Overall,

the surface pressure using modified model has predicted accurately at all the locations. The skin friction is under-predicted

by both the models in the reattachment region and is attributed to the poor performance of turbulence models due to flow

laminarization.

Keywords High-speed flows · Shock wave · Turbulent boundary layer · Shock-unsteadiness · Separation bubble · Turbulence

modeling · Single fin · Compressible flows · Computational fluid dynamics

List of symbols

b1 Shock-unsteadiness damping parameter Subscripts

Cf Skin friction coefficient 0 Stagnation condition

cb 1 Shock-unsteadiness parameter n Normal to shock wave

M1n Upstream Mach number normal to shock w Wall condition

z 2+ Wall-normal distance to the nearest point ∞ Freestream condition

in wall coordinates

δ0 Boundary-layer thickness upstream of inter- Abbreviation

action CFL Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy

μT Eddy viscosity SA Spalart–Allmaras

ν Kinematic molecular viscosity

ν̃ Modified turbulent kinematic viscosity

1 Introduction

layer interaction is generated on a single-fin configuration. It

B Amjad A. Pasha consists of a flat plate with a sharp fin mounted perpendicular

aapasha@kau.edu.sa

to it. The oblique shock wave generated by the fin interacts

1 Department of Aeronautical Engineering, with the turbulent boundary layer on the plate and results

King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia in flow separation. The three-dimensional vortical flow thus

123

Author's personal copy

4880 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888

generated alters the inviscid flow pattern. Additional shock of the experiments and under-predicted the skin friction in

waves, expansion regions and free shear layers are generated the reattachment region. Thivet [12] computed three differ-

that result in a complex flow in the interaction region. Practi- ent single-fin configuration cases with M∞ = 3, θ = 15◦ ,

cal applications of single-fin configuration include scramjet M∞ = 4, θ = 20◦ and M∞ = 4, θ = 30.6◦ , using the

inlets, where the oblique shock generated by the cowl inter- two-equation standard and modified k−ω turbulence mod-

acts with the side wall boundary layer [1]. els. The prediction of secondary vortex region was improved

The single-fin shock boundary-layer interaction flows are using modified k−ω model, hence improving the wall data

characterized by localized regions of increased pressure, skin in this region. The review articles [14–18] discusses different

friction and heat transfer rate. Prediction of these surface single-fin configurations flow physics and wall data in detail.

properties is important in the design of scramjet inlets. In The review articles discuss the experimental study for single-

addition, the flow distortion caused by the interaction can fin configurations with deflection angles of 8◦ , 12◦ , 15◦ , 16◦ ,

degrade the performance of these inlets significantly. There- 18◦ , 20◦ , 24◦ , 31◦ and Mach numbers in the vicinity of 3, 4,

fore, the aerodynamic loads generated from these interactions 5 and 8. The Reynolds number based on the boundary-layer

play a significant role in the structural integrity of hyper- thickness upstream of the interaction region lies in the vicin-

sonic vehicle [2,3]. Computational fluid dynamic approach ity of 2 × 105 for most of the cases. Surface oil flow patterns,

is a useful tool to understand the complex three-dimensional wall pressure and skin friction measurements have been stud-

flow pattern in these shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions ied. These configurations have been computed using RANS

and to predict its influence on the wall data. The direct method using algebraic, one- and two-equation turbulence

numerical simulation and large eddy simulation demand a models for predicting the surface pressure and skin friction.

large number of grid points at high Reynolds number flows The computations for 20◦ at M∞ = 4 showed that the k−ω

leading to large computational resources and computational model showed a delayed separation and higher values of

times to capture the fine features of shock-wave/turbulent wall pressure and Cf in the plateau of conical recirculation

boundary-layer interaction cases [4–7]. As an engineer- region [18]. The standard k− and Spalart–Allmaras mod-

ing approach, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) els show similar trend to k−ω model predictions [14,16].

method is applied in the present work along with one- Similar trend in wall data was observed by these turbulence

equation turbulence models to compute these flowfields. models for the weaker interaction case of 15◦ at Mach 3 [17].

Experiments and computations were carried by many The computations using RANS method for single-fin flows

authors [8–13] for single-fin geometry. Kubota et al. [8] with an angle of α = 20◦ and free stream Mach number

based on the experimental study, proposed a flow model of of 3.0 predicted some of the features of crossflow vortices

for single-fin geometry with deflection angle θ = 15◦ and and shock waves [15]. The three-dimensional contour plots

M∞ = 2.3. They showed that for this weak shock/boundary- were plotted using eigen values of the velocity gradient field.

layer interaction, a strong and stiff vortex is formed attached The flow consists of the vortical structure with the ellip-

to a fin and a weak stretched vortex is formed above it, tical cross section in the core of this cone. This vorticity

attached to the flat plate. As the interaction is weak, no sheet lifts up at separation line and forms the conical vor-

lambda shock was observed in this case. Alvi et al. [9] per- tex.

formed experiments for single fin with deflection angle θ = Several modifications have been proposed in the liter-

16◦ and M∞ = 2.95. The proposed flowfield model depicted ature [19], namely compressibility correction, realizability

an inviscid shock which bifurcated to form a separation shock constraint, rapid-distortion correction and length-scale cor-

and a rear shock, representing a lambda structure in a cross rection. The implementation of pressure gradient across

plane perpendicular to the flow direction. The separated con- shock waves to the Spalart–Allmaras model, modified wake

ical vortical flow region is formed underneath the lambda function to the Baldwin–Lomax model and limitation of pro-

shock structure. A slip line is generated from the triple point duction of turbulent kinetic energy to k− model is also used

of intersection of three shock waves, and a set of compression to improve the wall pressure in shock/boundary-layer inter-

and expansion waves are formed between the shear layer and action flows [20–22]. Their performance varied from one test

the slip line. Panaras [11,13] computed using RANS code for case to another.

deflection angle of θ = 20◦ and M∞ = 3.0. The wall pres- The shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras model

sure data were improved using modified Baldwin–Lomax of Sinha et al. [23] has shown potential in improving separa-

turbulence model, compared to the standard Baldwin–Lomax tion bubble prediction in two-dimensional and axisymmetric

model. Edwards et al. [10] studied the performance of four flows [23,24]. The application of shock-unsteadiness modi-

different one-equation turbulence models at M∞ = 8 and fication by Sinha et al. [23] to Spalart–Allmaras model was

θ = 15◦ . Among them, the standard Spalart–Allmaras model limited to simple compression corner geometry at supersonic

has shown to predict the surface properties close to the exper- Mach number of 2.8 at deflection angle 24◦ . The standard

iments. This model predicted flow separation downstream Spalart–Allmaras model predicted lower values of eddy vis-

123

Author's personal copy

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888 4881

experiments. Therefore, a larger separation bubble size is Fin angle, θ

wall Single−Fin o

predicted; consequently, the wall pressure and skin friction 23

are not predicted accurately as compared to the experiments. Inviscid

shock

The shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras model wave Fin−tip Flow

corrects the amplification of eddy viscosity across the shock.

The higher values of eddy viscosity predicted by the mod- z

ified model push the initial pressure location close to the x Origin

experiments and predict accurate separation bubble size. y

mm

152 m

Both the standard and modified Spalart–Allmaras models

mm

m

mm

mm

182

mm

162

under-predicted the skin friction coefficient in the reattach-

m

142

m

122

92 m

ment region as compared to the experiments. The modified

102

82 m

Turbulent

Spalart–Allmaras model showed higher values of skin fric- boundary

layer

tion as compared to the standard Spalart–Allmaras model. Sections Flat−plate

Later, Pasha et al. [24] applied the shock-unsteadiness

modified Spalart–Allmaras model to axisymmetric cone- Fig. 1 Three-dimensional single-fin configuration with a fin mounted

flare geometry at significantly higher Mach numbers of on the flat plate. The surface measurements [26] were taken along the

11–13 with two flare angles, 36◦ and 42◦ . The higher dashed lines

pressure rise across flare-shock results in largely separated

flows. In contrast, to simulate separated flows at supersonic

K and stagnation pressure P0 = 2.12 MPa were taken in

Mach numbers, it is comparatively difficult to simulate such

the reservoir of the Ludweig tube experimental facility. The

flows at hypersonic Mach flows. The computed results were

free stream temperature and pressure corresponding to their

compared to the experimental data. The standard Spalart–

stagnation values are T∞ = 68.3 K and p∞ = 4008.5

Allmaras turbulence model suppressed flow separation at

N/m2 . A fin of height = 100 mm normal to the flat plate

the corner and therefore did not reproduce the correct shock

is taken. The fin tip is placed at a distance of 286 mm

structure in the interaction region due to a high level of tur-

downstream of the flat plate edge. Both the flat plate and

bulence predicted at the shock wave. By comparison, the

fin wall are maintained under the isothermal condition of

shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras model damp-

300 K. The flow is turbulent, upstream of the interaction

ens the turbulence amplification at the shock. It thereby

region with a unit Reynolds number of Re1∞ = 37 × 106

reproduced the separation bubble size observed experimen-

m−1 . Wall data like pressure, skin friction and heat trans-

tally and matched the wall pressure measurements well. The

fer rates were measured at different cross sections in the

shock-unsteadiness model also predicted the flow topology

shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction region (see

in the interaction region correctly. The modification had a

Fig. 1). The undisturbed turbulent boundary-layer proper-

negligible effect on weak interactions, where the standard

ties were measured on the flat plate at a distance of 20 mm

Spalart–Allmaras model performed reasonably well.

upstream of the fin tip. The boundary-layer thickness δ of 3.8

In this paper, an attempt is made to extend the shock-

mm, displacement thickness = 1.6 mm, momentum thick-

unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras to three-dimensional

ness = 0.16 mm and skin friction Cf = 1.35 × 10−3 is

single-fin configuration flows and study the flowfield in

measured.

detail. First, the test case is described, which is followed by

the simulation methodology. Next, the computed flowfield

using modified Spalart–Allmaras model is explained for the

strongest shock strength case with fin deflection angle of 23◦ 3 Simulation Methodology

and M∞ = 5. Next, the computed wall pressure and skin fric-

tion using modified model [23] and the standard model [25] The three-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes

are compared with the experimental results [26]. equations [27] are used in the numerical simulations. The

turbulence model equations are fully coupled to the mean

flow equations. The shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–

2 Test Case Allmaras model of Sinha et al. [23] and its standard ver-

sion [25] are used for calculating the eddy viscosity. A

The schematic of the single-fin configuration used in the compressible correction to standard Spalart–Allmaras model

experiments of Schulein [26] is shown in Fig. 1. The fin is has been proposed by Catris et al. [28] by modifying the

inclined with a deflection angle of θ = 23◦ to the flow direc- diffusion laws in the turbulence model, but this strategy com-

tion at M∞ = 5. The stagnation temperature of T0 = 410 plicates the numerical implementation for three-dimensional

123

Author's personal copy

4882 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888

used in the present work. The governing equations are dis-

o

cretized in a finite-volume formulation where the inviscid 23

fluxes are computed using a modified low-dissipation form of

the Steger–Warming flux-splitting approach. The method is Top

Fin−wall

Inlet

second-order accurate both in stream-wise and wall-normal

directions. The viscous fluxes and the turbulent source terms

are evaluated using central difference method. More details i k

of the numerical method are given in Ref. [30]. The code is j

Exit

capable of running on parallel machines and has been used Flow

Flat−plate

successfully in several supersonic and hypersonic applica-

tions [23,24,31,32].

The shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras model

of Sinha et al. [23] accounts for the effect of unsteady shock Extrapolation

motion in a steady mean flow. The shock-unsteadiness cor-

rection is achieved by adding a source term of the form Fig. 2 Computational domain with appropriate boundary conditions

−cb 1 ρ̄ ν̃ Sii in the transport equation for ρ̄ ν̃, where ρ̄ is mean

density, ν̃ is modified turbulent kinematic viscosity, Sii is

mean dilatation and shock-unsteadiness parameter wall boundary conditions identical to those listed above. The

formulation of two-dimensional code used in the flat plate

4 2 numerical simulation is similar to, as described in Sect. 3.

cb 1 = (1 − b1 ) − c1 . (1)

3 3 The value of the momentum thickness reported in the exper-

iments [26] is matched to obtain the mean flow and the

Note that this additional term is effective only in regions turbulence profiles at the inlet boundary of the computational

of strong dilatation and therefore does not alter the standard domain.

Spalart–Allmaras model elsewhere. Here, b1 is model param- A single-block grid is generated using a code, and a careful

= 1.25+0.2(M −1). The model parameter b

eter and c1 1n 1 grid refinement study is performed by systematically varying

represents the coupling between the unsteady shock motion the number of grid points in each direction, as well as refining

and the upstream velocity fluctuations, and is given by, the cell size in critical regions. The origin is taken at a tip of

the single-fin, and the grid is stretched exponentially in the

b1 = max 0, 0.4 1 − e1−M1n (2) upstream and downstream directions of origin with initial

grid size of 1 × 10−4 m. A structured mesh with exponential

It is zero for subsonic flows without shock waves, and it stretching normal to the plate and fin walls are used to span

reaches an asymptotic value of 0.4 for high Mach numbers. the computational domain. Wall pressure and skin friction

The detailed formulation of shock-unsteadiness modified coefficient are found to be sensitive to the computational

Spalart–Allmaras model and its implementation for two- mesh and are used to identify a grid converged solution. First,

dimensional compression corner and axisymmetric cone- the number of points in the wall parallel direction is refined

flare flows at supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers is and it is observed that among the three grids, the 100 ×

presented in Refs. [23,24]. In the current work, the modifi- 110 × 110, 140 × 110 × 110, and 200 × 110 × 110, the

cation is applied to the three-dimensional flows which are last two grids match. Next, 140 × 110 × 110 grid is taken

more difficult to simulate as compared to their counterpart and only the distance of the first cell center from the wall

two-dimensional flows. is successively reduced by halve-times from its initial value

The computational domain and boundary conditions for of 2 × 10−6 m. Wall pressure and Cf variation indicate that

three-dimensional single-fin configuration are identified in 1 × 10−6 m is sufficient for an accurate solution. The z 2+

Fig. 2. The freestream conditions taken in the simulations varies between 0.06 in the undisturbed boundary layer to

are T∞ = 68.3 K and p∞ = 4008.5 Pa. At the fin wall a maximum value of z 2+ < 0.6 in the shock/boundary-layer

and flat plate, a constant wall temperature of 300 K and no- interaction region. This value of the z 2+ is sufficient to capture

slip velocity condition is applied. An extrapolation boundary the high gradients of the mean and turbulent variables in the

condition is assigned at top and exit planes. The freestream boundary layer in the wall-normal direction, especially at

and wall boundary conditions for the turbulence model vari- the reattachment region. In the next step, using 140 × 110 ×

ables are taken as ν̃∞ = 0.1ν∞ and (νT )w = 0. The inlet 110 grid, the number of points in the transverse direction is

profiles for the computations are obtained from separate increased. It is observed that variation in wall pressure and

two-dimensional flat plate simulation at the freestream and skin friction for 140 × 160 × 110 and 140 × 200 × 110 is less

123

Author's personal copy

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888 4883

single-fin shock/boundary-layer

Fin-wall

interaction in terms of the 12

computed surface streamlines Planar 10

on the plate. The shock structure shock 7

is shown by pressure contours at 4

x-sections = 92 and 182 mm 1

Separation

shock

Reattachment

line (R1)

Flat-plate

Fin-tip

(origin)

Separation X

line (S1) Y

than 3%. Finally, the number of points in the flat plate normal Separation z/δ0 = 0.8

direction is increased to arrive at the 140 × 160 × 160 grid. Fin shock z/δ0 = 0.25

Surface properties variation shows that further refinement to wall

140 × 160 × 200 grid points yields less than 2% variation in

wall pressure and skin friction. A converged grid of 140 × Pressure

160 × 160 is obtained with 140 points along the stream-wise contours

Z

Y

normal to the plate. X

beginning and it is gradually increased to 10 in the first 3500

iterations. It is further increased to 100 at 6000 iterations

and to 1000 at 8000 iterations. A maximum CFL of 5000 is Reattachment Separation

line Vortex Streamline

surfaces line

used after 10,000 iterations. The corresponding time steps core

vary from 2 × 10−12 s for the initial iterations to 2 × 10−5 s

at steady state solution. It takes 190 cpu-hours to reach the Fig. 4 Computed stream surfaces starting at z/δ0 = 0.8 and z/δ0 =

0.25 showing vortex region, and the pressure contours at x-section =

steady state solution in 30,000 iterations. The time step was 82 mm, as viewed from the downstream direction

calculated using the relationship τ = CFLz min /(u + a),

where z min is the minimum cell size and, u and a refer to

the local velocity and speed of sound [33]. tion shock. The flow separates at the primary separation

line S1 and attaches at the primary reattachment line R1

near the fin wall. The streamlines converge at separation

4 Flow Physics line S1, and the fluid moves upwards normal to the plate

and then turns in a counter clockwise direction to form a

In this section, the computed results using modified Spalart– helical flow as shown in Fig. 4. Two stream surfaces origi-

Allmaras model are discussed. An isometric view of the nating at z/δ0 = 0.8 and z/δ0 = 0.25 are shown, where z is

flow solution for the fin is shown in Fig. 3. The pressure the normal distance from the plate and δ0 is the undisturbed

contours are taken at two x-sections of 92 and 182 mm boundary-layer thickness. The fluid impinges on the plate at

to identify the shock structure. The flow pattern is indi- the reattachment line from the top, making the streamlines

cated by the streamlines taken in the cell adjacent to the diverge in either direction. The inviscid shock wave in Fig. 4

flat plate and behave similarly to the skin friction lines. bifurcates into a lambda structure and encloses the vortex

A planar shock wave generated by the fin interacts with region.

the turbulent boundary-layer on the plate. It separates the The computed stagnation pressure contours in Fig. 5

boundary-layer and results in the formation of the separa- indicate that an inviscid shock bifurcates and forms a sep-

123

Author's personal copy

4884 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888

M

Inviscid shock 5.0

0.3 3.8

Rear 2.5

shock Triple point 1.3

Expansion 0.1

2.6 region

Separation

0.2 shock

z/x

2.3 2.8 Shear-layer

3.2 4.9

Fin 4.1

vortex 4. 4

0.1 3. 6 2.6 3.9

2.8

3.4

2.4 2.5

2.8

3.0

1.5 3.3 2.6 2.9

2.6

2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.3 3.1 2.3

0

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

y/x

Fig. 5 Computed stagnation pressure contours at x-section = 122 mm Fig. 7 Enlarged region of computed Mach contours at x-section =

122 mm

near the corner region of fin wall and plate. The impinge-

ment of the supersonic jet (entropy layer) emanating from

the triple point of shock–shock interaction results in peak

values of pressure as indicated in the region marked in

Fig. 6. A small fin-vortex is formed when the fluid com-

ing from the inviscid region interacts with fin wall and

turns in the clockwise direction, as viewed from the down-

stream direction. Similar, corner-vortex was observed in the

vapor screen images of the experiments [8]. The schematic

sketches of these flowfield features are explained in detail in

Refs. [9,18].

122 mm

5 Comparison of Computed Wall Data with

Experiments

aration shock and a rear shock, and results in the formation

of lambda structure in a cross plane perpendicular to the Figures 8 and 9 show the computed pressure and speed

freestream flow direction. The shear layer is formed over contours, overlapped with the wall pressure and skin fric-

the vortex region, which emanates from the separation point. tion on the flat plate at x-section = 122 mm. The distance

It interacts with the rear shock wave and then rolls up and along the y-axis is normalized with the corresponding x-

turns back to form a tongue. An entropy layer is gener- section distance measured from the fin tip. The surface data

ated from the triple point of the intersection of three shock are taken along the dashed lines as shown in Fig. 1. The

waves and a set of compression, and expansion waves are wall pressure remains constant in the undisturbed boundary-

formed between the shear layer and the slip line (see Fig. 7). layer before the interaction region. The separation shock

A secondary flow separation region was observed in the affects the upstream flow at the point of influence U, and

experiments [26], whereas in the present computation, it the wall pressure rises effectively across the separation

is not predicted. The computed pressure contours in Fig. 6 shock at primary separation point S1. It remains constant

indicate that an expansion fan is generated when the rear in the separated vortex flow and rises to peak values at pri-

shock wave reflects from the shear layer. The computed mary reattachment R1. The wall pressure then decreases

Mach contours in Fig. 7 shows that a type-IV shock-shock away from the reattachment region and rises near the fin-

interaction [34] is observed at the triple point. An alter- plate junction. The skin friction does not vary significantly

nate increase and decrease in Mach contours in the region in the unperturbed boundary layer before the region of

between shear layer and jet represents the weak compres- influence U. The boundary layer is compressed across the

sion and expansion waves. The flow remains supersonic in separation shock wave, and hence it increases the velocity

the separated region. Small subsonic pockets are observed gradient and thereby increases skin friction. The skin fric-

123

Author's personal copy

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888 4885

by the standard model at all other x-sections as shown in

Table 1. A vortex region is calculated based on the distance

between S1 and R1. The standard Spalart–Allmaras model

predicts a small vortex region of 74 mm as compared to the

experimental value of 82 mm. There is a difference of 11%

in the vortex region between the Spalart–Allmaras model

and the experimental value. The skin friction coefficient pre-

dicted by the standard model in Fig. 11 matches close to the

experiments, except in the secondary flow separation region.

The model also under-predicts the peak values in the reat-

tachment region.

The shock-unsteadiness parameter cb 1 as described in

Eq. 1 is a function of the upstream normal Mach num-

Fig. 8 Computed pressure contours overlapped with wall pressure at ber M1n and needs to be evaluated at each shock wave

x-section = 122 mm

so as to implement the shock-unsteadiness correction. For

two-dimensional compression corner flows [23] and axisym-

metric cone-flare flows [24], an average value of M1n was cal-

culated and based on it cb 1 was calculated and implemented.

This is the drawback and limitation of the shock-unsteadiness

Spalart–Allmaras model. The three-dimensional shock struc-

ture in the single-fin configuration is quite complex. It is not

easy to find the orientation of the different shock waves and

the inclination of the upstream flow at each shock. There-

fore, it is a difficult task to calculate the mean value of M1n .

An alternate approach is to use different values of cb 1 in the

current single-fin case to improve the flow predictions. A

higher magnitude of cb 1 yields a larger separation, and cb 1 =

− 0.2 is found to match the experimental separation location

closely and therefore is used in the present simulations. A

similar approach by Gaitonde et al. [22] was used for sim-

Fig. 9 Computed speed contours overlapped with skin friction coeffi-

cient at x-section = 122 mm ulating three-dimensional double-fin shock/boundary-layer

interaction. The turbulence model constants were varied by

limiting the value of production term in standard k- turbu-

lence model. A smaller value of model constant resulted in

lower turbulent kinetic energy. Hence, the computed solution

resulted in a larger separated region and matched well with

the experimental flowfield and wall pressure.

In the present case, a shock-unsteadiness parameter of

cb 1 = − 0.2 is chosen to yield a larger separation and is

found to match the experimental initial pressure rise location

closely as indicated in Fig. 10. The shock-unsteadiness cor-

rection reduces the turbulent eddy viscosity in the region of

Fig. 10 Comparison of computed wall pressure at x-section = 152 mm the separation shock. This causes an increase in the length

with experiments [26] using standard Spalart–Allmaras model [25] and

modified Spalart–Allmaras model [23] of the separation shock and hence brings the separation

point predictions close to the experiments. The same trend is

observed in the axisymmetric flows over cone-flare cases at

tion reaches a peak value at the reattachment point R1 due hypersonic Mach numbers in Ref. [24].

to the high values of the velocity gradient and hence shear Figures 12 and 13 indicate that the modification predicts

stress. lower values of μT /μ∞ in the region of y/x 1.2, as com-

Figure 10 indicates that at x-section = 152 mm, exper- pared to the standard Spalart–Allmaras model. Hence, the

iments give an initial pressure rise location at y/x = 1.22, modified model improves the initial pressure rise location S1

where as the standard Spalart–Allmaras model predicts a (see Fig. 10) to around 6%. Also, the pressure distribution

123

Author's personal copy

4886 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888

Table 1 Comparision of

x-section (mm) S1 R1

primary separation point S1 and

reattachment point R1 using Experiment SA Modified SA Experiment SA Modified SA

standard Spalart–Allmaras (SA)

and shock-unsteadiness 82 1.3 1.24 1.3 – 0.5 0.5

modified SA model with the 92 1.27 1.22 1.27 – 0.51 0.51

experiments [26] at different 122 1.23 1.16 1.21 – 0.51 0.51

x-sections on the flat plate

152 1.22 1.14 1.2 0.52 0.52 0.52

162 – 1.13 1.18 – 0.51 0.51

182 – 1.12 1.15 0.52 0.52 0.52

tion due to the poor performance of turbulence models. The

models indicated lower values of turbulence inside the sepa-

ration vortices, making the flow almost laminar in this region.

Also, it is the incapability of one-equation model to capture

the peak velocity gradients in the reattachment region, though

you put more number of grid points in this region to capture

it. Therefore, both the models underestimate the skin friction

than the experimental results. Similar observation was made

in the numerical simulations of Edwards et al. [10] where the

Fig. 11 Comparison of computed skin friction at x-section = 122 mm

standard Spalart–Allmaras model under-predicted the skin

with experiments [26] using standard Spalart–Allmaras model [25] and

modified Spalart–Allmaras model [23] friction in the reattachment region for flow over single-fin

configuration with Mach 8 and θ = 15◦ . More advanced

500 μT/μ∞ two-equation turbulence models [35–37] can be applied to

0.2

14000 capture the velocity gradients and hence predict the peak skin

9500

friction at the reattachment region accurately. Currently, this

z/x

5000

500 is beyond the scope of work. The modified Spalart–Allmaras

0.1

00 model predicts vortex region length between S1 and R1 to

70 14500 4500

500

2000 10500 1000

2500 4000 8500

3500

6000 2500 be 79 mm with a difference of 5% to the experimental value.

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 The computed locations of primary separation point S1 and

y/x

reattachment point R1 are compared with the experimental

Fig. 12 Computed normalized eddy-viscosity contours at x-section = data at different x-sections in Table 1. Overall, the modified

122 mm using standard Spalart–Allmaras model [25] Spalart–Allmaras model matches to the experimental data at

all locations.

500 μT/μ∞

14000

0.2 9500

z/x

5000

0.1

500 6 Conclusion

00

65 14500 4500

500 1000

2000 10500

2500 3000 8500 6000 2000 Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes based computations were

3000

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 carried out to investigate the three-dimensional shock/boundary-

y/x

layer interaction in a single-fin configuration at Mach 5 with a

Fig. 13 Computed normalized eddy-viscosity contours at x-section large deflection angle of 23◦ . The shock-unsteadiness modi-

= 122 mm using shock-unsteadiness modified Spalart–Allmaras

model [23]

fied Spalart–Allmaras model and its standard version are used

in the computations. The inviscid shock generated by the fin

interacts with the boundary layer on the adjacent flat plate

is well predicted in the reattachment region and the corner and results in a formation of a complex region. The viscous

region of the plate fin junction by the modified model as effects cause the bifurcation of inviscid shock and result in

compared to the standard model. the formation of a lambda shock structure, one edge being the

Figure 11 depicts that the modified model over predicts the separation shock and the other being the rear shock. Type-IV

skin friction between y/x = 0.65 and 0.72, whereas it under- shock-shock interaction results from the interaction of these

predicts the skin friction by 42% at the reattachment region shock waves. The lambda shock encloses a cross flow coni-

123

Author's personal copy

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888 4887

cal vortex. A shear layer emanates from the separation point 10. Edwards, J.R.; Chandra, S.: Comparison of eddy viscosity-

and interacts with the rear shock wave and then rolls up and transport turbulence models for three-dimensional shock-separated

flowfields. AIAA J. 34(4), 756–763 (1996)

turns back to form a tongue. An entropy layer is generated 11. Panaras, A.G.: The effect of the structure of swept-shock-

at the triple point, and a set of compression and expan- wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions on turbulence model-

sion waves are embedded in it and the shear layer. These ing. J. Fluid Mech. 338, 203–230 (1997)

flow features influence the wall pressure and skin friction 12. Thivet, F.: Lessons learned from RANS simulations of shock

wave/boundary layer interactions. AIAA Paper, p. 583 (2002)

and a correlation between them is explained. The standard 13. Panaras, A.G.: Calculation of flows characterized by extensive

Spalart–Allmaras model predicts initial pressure location crossflow separation. AIAA J. 42(12), 2474–2475 (2004)

downstream of experiments. The shock-unsteadiness cor- 14. Delery, J.; Marvin, J. G.; Reshotko, E.: Shock-wave boundary layer

rection leads to an improvement in prediction of the initial interactions. AGARDograph No. 280. ISBN 92-835-159-6 (1996)

15. Panaras, A.G.: Review of the physics of swept-shock/boundary

pressure rise location. This leads to an accurate prediction of layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 32, 173–244 (1996)

vortex size and hence the shock structure. The skin friction is 16. Knight, D.D.; Degrez, G.: Shock wave turbulent boundary layer

under-predicted at reattachment region in comparison with interactions in high mach number flows—a critical survey of

experiments by both the modified model and its standard ver- current numerical prediction capabilities. AGARD Advis. Rep.

319(2), 1.1–1.35 (1998)

sion. This behavior is attributed to the poor performance of 17. Knight, D.; Yan, H.; Panaras, A.G.; Zheltovodov, A.: Advances in

these models due to the prediction of laminar flow in this CFD prediction of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interac-

region. Further improvements to the present computations tions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 39(2–3), 121–184 (2003)

are envisaged by simulating the more advanced two-equation 18. Babinsky, H.; Harvey, J.K.: Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interac-

tions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)

turbulence models. 19. Roy, C.J.; Blottner, F.G.: Review and assessment of turbulence

models for hypersonic flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 42(7–8), 469–530

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Prof. Krishnendu (2006)

Sinha from Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of 20. Ma, L.; Lu, L.; Fang, J.; Wang, Q.: A study on turbulence

Technology Bombay, for his valuable guidance, help and selflessness transportation and modification of Spalart–Allmaras model for

time investment to accomplish this work. I would like to thank our Chair- shock-wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction flow. Chin. J.

man Dr. Khalid A. Juhany and Prof. Mahmood Khalid for supporting Aeronaut. 27(2), 200–209 (2014)

this work. 21. Panaras, A.G.: Turbulence modeling of flows with extensive cross-

flow separation. Aerospace 2(3), 461–481 (2015)

22. Gaitonde, D.V.: Progress in shock-wave/boundary-layer interac-

tions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 721, 80–99 (2015)

23. Sinha, K.; Mahesh, K.; Candler, G.V.: Modeling the effect of shock-

unsteadiness in shock/turbulent boundary-layer interactions. AIAA

References J. 43(3), 586–594 (2005)

24. Pasha, A.A.; Sinha, K.: Shock unsteadiness model applied to hyper-

1. Van Wie, D.M.: Scramjet inlets. In: Curran, E.T., Murthy, S.N.B. sonic shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions. J. Propul.

(eds.) Scramjet Propulsion, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronau- Power 28(1), 46–60 (2012)

tics, pp. 447–511. Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc., 25. Spalart, P. R.; Allmaras, S. R.: A one-equation turbulence model

Reston (2000) for aerodynamic flows. AIAA Paper, p. 439 (1992)

2. Bose, D.; Brown, J.L.; Prabhu, D.K.; Gnoffo, P.; Johnston, C.O.; 26. Schulein, E.: Optical skin friction measurements in short-duration

Hollis, B.: Uncertainty assessment of hypersonic aerothermody- facilities. AIAA J. 44(8), 1732–1742 (2006)

namics prediction capability. J. Spacecr. Rockets 50(1), 12–18 27. Wilcox, D.C.: Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd edn, pp. 491–

(2003) 492. DCW Industries, La Canada (2000)

3. Marvin, J. G.; Brown, J. L.; Gnoffo, P. A.: Experimental database 28. Catris, S.; Aupoix, B.: Density corrections for turbulence models.

with baseline CFD solutions: 2-d and axisymmetric hyper- Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 4(1), 1–11 (2000)

sonic shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions, NASA 29. Deck, S.; Duveau, P.; d’Espiney, P.; Guillen, P.: Development and

TM2013216604 (2013) application of Spalart–Allmaras one-equation turbulence model to

4. Garnier, E.; Adams, N.; Sagaut, P.: Large Eddy Simulation for three-dimensional supersonic complex configurations. Aerosp. Sci.

Compressible Flows. Springer, Berlin (2009) Technol. 6(3), 171–183 (2002)

5. Georgiadis, N.J.; Yoder, D.A.; Vyas, M.A.; Engblom, W.A.: Sta- 30. Sinha, K.; Candler, G. V.: Convergence improvement of two-

tus of turbulence modeling for hypersonic propulsion flowpaths. equation turbulence model calculations. AIAA Paper p. 2649

Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 28(3), 295–318 (2014) (1998)

6. Yang, Z.: Large-eddy simulation: past, present and the future. Chin. 31. Pasha, A.A.; Sinha, K.: Shock-unsteadiness model applied to

J. Aeronaut. 28(1), 11–24 (2015) oblique shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction. Int. J.

7. Fang, J.; Yao, Y.; Zheltovodov, A.A.; Lu, L.: Investigation of Comput. Fluid Dyn. 22(8), 569–582 (2008)

three-dimensional shock wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interac- 32. Pasha, A.A.: Study of parameters affecting separation bubble size

tion initiated by a single fin. AIAA J. 55(2), 509–523 (2017) in high speed flows using k-ω turbulence model. J. Appl. Comput.

8. Kubota, H.; Stollery, J.: An experimental study of the interaction Mech. 4(2), 95–104 (2018)

between a glancing shock wave and a turbulent boundary layer. J. 33. Nompelis, I.: Computational study of hypersonic double-cone

Fluid Mech. 116, 431–58 (1982) experiments for code validation. Thesis (Ph.D.), University of Min-

9. Alvi, F.S.; Settles, G.: Physical model of the swept shock nesota (2004)

wave/boundary layer interaction flowfield. AIAA J. 30(9), 2252– 34. Edney, B. E.: Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions

2258 (1992) on blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds in the presence of an imping-

123

Author's personal copy

4888 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2018) 43:4879–4888

ing shock. FFA Rept. 115, The Aeronautical Research Institute of 37. Roy, S.; Pathak, U.; Sinha, K.: Variable turbulent Prandtl number

Sweden, Stockholm (1968) model for shock/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 56(1), 342–

35. Quadros, R.; Sinha, K.; Larsson, J.: Turbulent energy flux generated 355 (2018)

by shock/homogeneous turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 976,

113–157 (2016)

36. Quadros, R.; Sinha, K.: Modelling of turbulent energy flux in

canonical shock-turbulence interaction. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 61,

626–635(2016)

123

- Demonstration of the effect of flow regime on pressure dropEnviado porsohanlal29
- CFD Pro 14.5 WS05 Catalytic Converter CFXEnviado porMahir Soyer
- Heat Flow Study in Wave RotorEnviado porYogi Vimal
- SyllabusEnviado porVasudev Gupta
- Syllabus (CIvil Engg.)Enviado porKrishnan Chockalingam
- Unsteady ComputationEnviado porSharat Chandra
- Regular and Mach Refn of ShocksEnviado porVarad Wategaonkar
- Fluid Mechanics - Lecture 7 - 9 _viscous + NNF Pipe FlowxEnviado porking4life
- Hascon's Model Ling Canopy-Fumes Simulation.pdf.PDFEnviado porŞaban YAZICI
- fluid mechanicsEnviado porThulasi Raman Kowsigan
- Question Pattern- Fluid MechanicsEnviado porjohnalbino
- Me2204 Apr May11Enviado porkbhaskar66
- 0113Enviado porFabiola Lisete
- Tfaws 2003 Aerothermal Tutorial - RussellEnviado porMichael Briggs
- 202 (2)Enviado porVenkat Ganapathi
- coreannular.pdfEnviado porvitorteles
- 2014 Lecture 3Enviado porBhavya Patel
- Temperature prediction on a Turbine Blade using a combination of turbulent and laminar flow modelsEnviado porkasemeid
- Comparison of Experimental Results of Horizontal Kaplan Turbine wEnviado porla zeki
- up_mof.pdfEnviado porMohamed Saeed
- Ch09 Viscous Flow Along a WallEnviado porYash Dhabalia
- Week 6 Heat Transfer LectureEnviado porArep SLeep Love
- Chapter 13Enviado porMohamed Ali Rauff
- vol7no2-10_FangJEnviado porGian Carlos Perea Diaz
- Lecture Notes Unit-iEnviado portagoreboopathy
- Turbulence 1Enviado porVivek
- KuriyamaEnviado porHotnCrispy Crispy
- Homework1_20181Enviado porJuan Carlos Marín
- Basic Aerodynamics - Incompressible Flow ( PDFDrive.com ).pdfEnviado porAzeez
- 2017 Areview Effectofpressureonhomogenization (1)Enviado porSiddharth Mohapatra

- Hypersonics, Shock Tube & Shock Tunnel Flow-. Stollery (Auth.), Dr. Raymond Brun, Dr. Lucien Z. DumitrescuEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Amjad_etal_AJSE_micropipe_2019_10.1007_s13369-019-03797-8Enviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- new book thermodynamicEnviado porمخلص العيفاري.
- 01 Ae 412 Recap ThermodynamicsEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- 03 Mep261 Pure Substances NewEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- 01 02 Thermodynamics Introduction Heat Work FormsofEnergy DrAmjadEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- AstudyforcavitatingflowanalysisusingDESmodelOnurUstaEminKorkutEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Anderson Ch 05Enviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Advanced NozzlesEnviado porArun Kumar
- Properties of Air Altitude HeiserEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- ch16Enviado porpuhumight
- Ostlund05_Supersonic Flow Separation With Application to Rocket Engine NozzlesEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Holden Aiaa Atlanta Swtbi m3!8!2014Enviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- NASATM–2013–216604_SWTBLIEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Supersonic Wind Tunnel Design.pdfEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Turbulent SWTBL PaperEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha
- Chap 14 Work BookEnviado porAmjad Ali Pasha

- RefEnviado porEngr Jonathan O Okoronkwo
- Physics Formula SheetEnviado porDiego Palhano
- JMSA MicrobubblesEnviado porKURNIAWAN
- Civil TemplatesEnviado porNirbhay Tiwary
- 8 Convection External FlowEnviado porRicky Thomas
- HMT Model QPEnviado porsubramanikcemech
- Assignment Golf 2Enviado porMacliffton Fascicularis
- 53554.pdfEnviado pord882011
- AY2014 CE2134 Hydraulics 4P Boundary layer flow over a flat plate IIEnviado porMiraJo-Ling
- SyllabusEnviado porAlam Mohammad Parvez Saifi
- gate 2001Enviado porTarak A Positive
- Workshop Book of AbstractsEnviado portolomeo10
- PROF YVESEnviado porOgunfuye Samuel Abimbola
- HMT-NOTES.pdfEnviado porSenthil Kumar Subramanian
- Syllabus Copy Mumbai University Semester 5 mechanical Engineering Revised 2008Enviado porsankirna_joshi
- Baddi University Syll of MEEnviado porKunal Kumbha
- GgjfgEnviado porashu070390
- 323212.docxEnviado porPoyraz Bulut
- Aplications of JetsEnviado porPaulo Serrano
- Cfd Examination QuestionsEnviado porGurleen Kaur
- 150518 Final PhD Adm Info-Brochure 2015-16-VJTIEnviado porSaurabh Pednekar
- Fluid Mechanics and Machinery_UnitTest-04_2013_JD (B.E.-3rd Sem)Enviado porae00505
- Xalatin ZestEnviado porMuhammad Ali
- Bulletin Mechanical Engineering Modeling 2016 BMEEnviado porBálint Vincze
- Analytical Study on Flow Through a Pelton TurbineEnviado porbaca88
- Airfoile Noise OptimizationEnviado porLuca Anzidei
- EFDC Theory & Tech Aspects of Sed Trans (2003 05)Enviado porjdj2007
- New Theory FlightEnviado porErnesto D. Aguirre
- Thermal Plasma Torches and Technologies - Vol.1 - Plasma Torches. Basic Studies and Design (O. P. Solonenko; 2003)Enviado porAbir Aboura
- Trajectory Analysis of a Soccer BallEnviado porRagil Mery Yaniska

## Muito mais do que documentos

Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.

Cancele quando quiser.