Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T01:04:15.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Normal shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction control using ‘smart’ piezoelectric actuators

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, UNSW, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
S. L. Gai
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, UNSW, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
J. F. Milthorpe
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, UNSW, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
K. Shankar
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University College, UNSW, 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 normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction (SBLI) 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 allows rapid thickening of the boundary-layer approaching the shock, which splits into a series of weaker shocks forming a lambda shock foot, thus reducing wave drag. Active control allows optimisation of the interaction, as it would be capable of either positioning the control region around the original shock position using a series of unimorph flaps or fixing the shock position by controlling the rate of mass transfer.

The level of control achieved by unimorph piezoelectric actuators is not large because of small amounts of deflection possible. It is believed that to provide optimal control a piezoelectric material, which can provide greater strain and hence higher amounts of deflection is needed. However, currently such a piezoelectric material is not commercially available.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 109 , Issue 1101 , November 2005 , pp. 577 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2005 

References

1. Green, J.E.. Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers, Progress in Aero Sci, 1969, 11, pp 253–340.Google Scholar
2. Alvi, A. and Settles, G.S.. Physical model of the swept shock wave boundary-layer interaction flowfield, AIAA J, 1992, 30, (9), pp 2252–2258.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Settles, G.S. and Dolling, D.S.. Swept Shock-Wave/Boundary Layer Interactions, Progress in Astron and Aeron, 1992, 141 (Seebass, A.R. (Ed)), pp 505–574.Google Scholar
5. Inger, G.R.. Application of a shock-turbulent boundary layer interaction theory in transonic flowfield analysis, AIAA Transonic Perspective Symposium, NASA/Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA, 18-20 February 1981.Google Scholar
6. 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
7. Gibson, T.M., Babinsky, H. and Squire, L.C.. Passive control of shock wave/boundary layer interactions, Aeronaut J, 2000, pp 124–140.Google Scholar
8. Bahi, L., Ross, J.M. and Nagamatsu, H.T.. Passive shock wave/boundary layer control for transonic airfoil drag reduction, AIAA 21st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA., January 1983.Google Scholar
9. Babinsky, H.. Control of swept shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions, ISSW22, Imperial College, London, UK, July 18-23 1999.Google Scholar
10. 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, AIAA 25th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1987.Google Scholar
11. Nagamatsu, H.T., Ficarra, R.V. and Dyer, R.. Supercritical airofoil drag reduction by passive shock wave/boundary layer control in the Mach number Range ·75 to ·90. AIAA 23rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1985.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, AIAA 25th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1987.Google Scholar
14. Raghunathan, S. and Mabey, D.G.. Passive shock-wave/boundary layer control on a wall-mounted model, 1987, AIAA J, 25, (2), pp 275–278.Google Scholar
15. Raghunathan, S.. Passive control of shock-boundary layer interaction, Progress in Aeros Sci, 1988, 25, pp 271–296,Google Scholar
16. Savu, G. and Trifu, O.. Porous airfoils in transonic flow, 1984, AIAA J, 22 (7 – Technical Notes), pp 989–991.Google Scholar
17. Couldrick, J.S., Gai, S., Milthorpe, J. and Shankar, K.. Development of ‘smart’ flap actuators for swept shock wave boundary layer interaction control. Australian International Aerospace Conference, Canberra, Australia, 2001.Google Scholar
18. Couldrick, J.S., Gai, S., Milthorpe, J. and Shankar, K.. Swept shock wave boundary layer interaction control with ‘smart’ flap actuators, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, USA, January 2002.Google Scholar
19. Couldrick, J.S., Shankar, K., Gai, S. and Milthorpe, J.. Design optimisation of ‘smart’ flap actuators for swept shock wave boundary layer interaction control, 2nd Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Pusan, Korea, 21-23 August 2002.Google Scholar
20. Couldrick, J.S., Gai, S., Milthorpe, J. and Shankar, K.. Active control of swept shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions, Aeronaut J, 2004, 108, (2), pp 93–102.Google Scholar
21. Couldrick, J.S., Shankar, K., Gai, S. and Milthorpe, J.. Design of ‘smart’ flap actuators for swept shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction control, Struct Eng and Mech: An Inter Journal, 2003, 16, (5), pp 5191–532.Google Scholar
22. Seddon, J.. The flow produced by interaction of a turbulent boundary layer with a normal shock wave of strength sufficient to cause separation, No. 3502, HMSO ARC, R&M London, March 1960.Google Scholar
23. Wood, B., Loth, E. and Geubelle, P.. Mesoflaps for aeroelastic transpiration for SBLI control, AIAA 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1999.Google Scholar
24. Lee, Y., Hafenrichter, E.S., Orphanides, M.J., Dutton, J.C., Grafton, W., Wilkins, L.J., McIlwain, S.T. and Loth, E., Experimental study of normal shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction control using the SMART system, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 14-17 January 2002.Google Scholar
25. Jaiman, R.K., Loth, E. and Dutton, J.C., Simulations of normal shock-wave/boundary layer interaction control using mesoflaps, 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 6-9 January 2003.Google Scholar
26. Crawley, E.F.. Intelligent structures for aerospace: a technology overview and assessment, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1689–1699.Google Scholar