Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T06:00:06.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active control of swept shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

J. S. Couldrick ,
S. L. Gai ,
J. F. Milthorpe  and
K. Shankar
J. S. Couldrick
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
S. L. Gai
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
J. F. Milthorpe
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
K. Shankar
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper looks at active control of the swept shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction using smart flap actuators. The actuators are manufactured by bonding piezoelectric material to an inert substrate to control the bleed/suction rate through a plenum chamber. The cavity provides communication of signals across the shock, allowing rapid thickening of the boundary-layer approaching the shock, which splits into a series of weaker shocks forming a lambda shock foot, reducing wave drag. Active control allows optimum control of the interaction, as it would be capable of positioning the control region around the original shock position and control the rate of mass transfer.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1080 , February 2004 , pp. 93 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

References

1. Koide, S., Saida, N. and Ogata, R. Correlation of separation angles induced by glancing interactions, AIAA J, 1996, 34, (10), Technical Notes, pp 2198–2200.Google Scholar
2. Green, J.E. Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary-layers, Prog Aerospace Sci, 1969, 11, pp 253–340.Google Scholar
3. Alvi, A. and Settles, G.S. Physical model of the swept shock wave boundarylayer interaction flow field, AIAA J, 1992, 30, (9), pp. 2252–2258.Google Scholar
4. Inger, G.R. Application of a shock-turbulent boundary-layer interaction theory in transonic flowfield analysis, AIAA Transonic Perspective Symposium, 1981, NASA/Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA.Google Scholar
5. Kubota, H. and Stollery, J.L. An experimental study of the interaction between a glancing shock wave and a turbulent boundary-layer, J Fluid Mech, 1982, 116, pp.431–458.Google Scholar
6. Atkin, C.J. and Squire, L.C. A study of the interaction of a normal shock wave with a turbulent boundary-layer at Mach numbers between 1.30 and 1.55, Eur J Mech, B/Fluids, 1992, 11, (1), pp 93–118.Google Scholar
7. Settles, G.S. and Dolling, D.S. Swept shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions, Prog Astro and Aero, 1992, 141, Seebass, A.R. (Ed), pp 505–574.Google Scholar
8. Bahi, L., Ross, J.M., and Nagamatsu, H.T., Passive shock wave/boundary-layer control for transonic airfoil drag reduction, 1983, AIAA 21st Aerospace Sciences meeting, 1983, Reno, USA.Google Scholar
9. Savu, G. and Trifu, O. Porous airfoils in transonic flow, AIAA J, 1984, 22, (7) Technical Notes, pp 989–991.Google Scholar
10. Nagamatsu, H.T., Ficarra, R.V. and Dyer, R. Supercritical airfoil drag reduction by passive shock wave/boundary-layer control in the Mach number range ·75 to ·90, 1985, AIAA 23rd Aerospace Sciences meeting, 1985, Reno, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
11. Nagamatsu, H.T., Mitty, T.J. and Nyberg, G.A. Passive shock wave/boundary-layer control of a helicopter rotor airfoil in a contoured transonic wind tunnel, 1987, AIAA 25th Aerospace Sciences meeting, 1987, Reno, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
12. Raghunathan, S. Effects of porosity strength on passive shockwave/boundary-layer control, AIAA J, 1987, 25, (5), pp 757–758.Google Scholar
13. Raghunathan, S., Gray, J.L. and Cooper, R.K. Effects of inclination of holes on passive shock wave boundary-layer control, 1987, AIAA 25th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1987, Reno, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
14. Raghunathan, S. and Mabey, D.G. Passive shock-wave/boundary-layer control on a wall-mounted model, AIAA J, 1987, 25, (2), pp 275–278.Google Scholar
15. Raghunathan, S. Passive control of shock-boundary-layer interaction, Prog Aerospace Sci, 1988, 25, pp 271–296.Google Scholar
16. Babinsky, H. Control of swept shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions, ISSW22, 1999, Imperial College, London, UK.Google Scholar
17. Gibson, T.M., Babinsky, H. and Squire, L.C. Passive control of shock wave – boundary-layer interactions, Aeronaut J, 104, (1033), 2000, pp 129–140.Google Scholar
18. Couldrick, J.S. et al Swept shock wave boundary-layer interaction control with ‘smart’ flap actuators, Australian International Aerospace Conference, 2001, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
19. Couldrick, J.S. et al Development of ‘smart’ flap actuators for swept shock wave boundary-layer interaction control, 2002, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences meeting and exhibition, 2002, Reno, USA.Google Scholar
20. Couldrick, J.S. et al Design optimisation of ‘smart’ flap actuators for swept shock wave boundary-layer interaction control, 2002, Second Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics meeting, 2002, Pusan, Korea.Google Scholar
21. Squire, L.C. Interaction of swept and unswept normal shock waves with boundary-layers, AIAA J, 1996, 34, (10), pp 2099–2101.Google Scholar
22. Chen, C. et al, Numerical study of porous airfoils in transonic flow, AIAA J, 1984, 22, pp 989–991.Google Scholar