Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T12:33:07.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turbulence modelling for supercritical flows including examples with passive shock control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. Sedaghat ,
J. A. D. Ackroyd  and
N. J. Wood
A. Sedaghat
Affiliation:
The Manchester School of EngineeringAerospace Engineering Division, University of ManchesterManchester, UK
J. A. D. Ackroyd
Affiliation:
The Manchester School of EngineeringAerospace Engineering Division, University of ManchesterManchester, UK
N. J. Wood
Affiliation:
The Manchester School of EngineeringAerospace Engineering Division, University of ManchesterManchester, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aerodynamic performance of supercritical aerofoils at transonic speeds is strongly influenced by the shock wave-boundary-layer interaction. Passive shock control is one of the techniques used for controlling the undesirable effects of strong shock wave-boundary-layer interaction leading to extensive separation. Using passive shock control, the stall margin is increased and the onset of buffeting is delayed. Passive shock control is modelled by introducing a closed plenum chamber underneath a perforated surface at the foot of the shock wave where a combination of blowing and suction is generated. As a result, a strong normal shock wave is changed into a series of weak shock waves with lambda shape. Since the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model has been used extensively for passive shock control modelling, which exhibits poor predictability for separated flows, an attempt has been made to modify the Reynolds normal stresses for this model so as to improve the accuracy of numerical results for flows with separation. Further modification to the Baldwin-Lomax model has been employed so that the mass transpiration effects are taken into account for the passive shock control computations. In this paper, a brief description on an implicit finite-volume TVD scheme in general coordinates is given and the details of the Balwin-Lomax turbulence model and its modifications are presented. The validated numerical results for several RAE 2822 aerofoil problems plus corresponding results for the modelled methods are presented and compared with some experimental data and other numerical results.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1020 , February 1999 , pp. 113 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1999 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Raohunathan, S. Passive control of shock-boundary-layer interaction, Prog Aerospace Sci, 1988, 25, pp 271–296.Google Scholar
2. Stanewsky, E., Delery, J., Fulker, J. and Geibler, W. EURO-SHOCK — Drag reduction by passive shock control, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, 56, Vieweg, 1997.Google Scholar
3. Lien, F.S. and Leschziner, M.A. Modelling 2D separation from a high lift aerofoil with a non-linear eddy-viscosity model and second-moment closure, Aeronaut J, April 1995, 99, (984), pp 125–144.Google Scholar
4. Gillan, M.A. A Computational Analysis of Viscous Flow Over Porous Aerofoils, PhD Thesis, The Queen's University of Belfast, May 1993.Google Scholar
5. Harten, A. A high resolution scheme for the computation of weak solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws, J Comp Phys, 1983, 49, pp 357–393.Google Scholar
6. Harten, A. On a class of high resolution total-variation-stable finite difference schemes, SIAM J Numer Anal, 1984, 21, pp 1–23.Google Scholar
7. Yee, H.C., Warming, R.F. and Harten, A. Implicit total variation diminishing (TVD) schemes for steady-state calculations, J Comp Phys, 1985, 57, pp 327–360.Google Scholar
8. Yee, H.C. Linearised form of implicit TVD schemes for the multidimensional Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, Int J on Comp and Math with Appl, 1986, 12 A, (4/5), pp 413–432.Google Scholar
9. Yee, H.C., Klopfer, G.H. and Montagne, J.L. High-resolution shock-capturing schemes for inviscid and viscous hypersonic flows, NASA TM-100097, April 1990.Google Scholar
10. Sedaghat, A., Shahpar, S. and Hall, I.M. Drag reduction for super-critical aerofoils, 20th ICAS Congress, Sorrento, Italy, September 1996.Google Scholar
11. Yee, H.C. and Harten, A. Implicit TVD schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws in curvilinear coordinates, A1AA J, 1986, 25, (2), pp 226–274.Google Scholar
12. Sedaghat, A., Shahpar, S. and Hall, I.M. A mixed finite-difference and finite-volume TVD scheme for computation of transonic flows, First International Symposium on Finite-Volumes for Complex Applications, Problems, and Perspectives, Rouen, Hermes, Paris, July 1996, pp 317–322.Google Scholar
13. Baldwin, B. and Lomax, H. Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows, AIAA Paper 78–257, 1978.Google Scholar
14. Fletcher, C.A.J. Computational Techniques for Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
15. Roe, P.L. Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes, J Comp Phys, 1981, 43, pp 357–372.Google Scholar
16. Johnston, L.J. Solution of the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for transonic aerofoil flows, Aeronaut J, 95, (948), 1991, pp 253–273.Google Scholar
17. Degani, D. and Schiff, L.B. Computation of supersonic viscous flows around pointed bodies at large incidence, AIAA Paper 83–0034, 1983.Google Scholar
18. Holst, T. L. Viscous Transonic Airfoil Workshop compendium of results, AIAA Paper 87-1460, 1987; J Airer, 1988, 25, (12), pp 1073–1087.Google Scholar
19. Batten, P., Loyau, H. and Leschziner, M.A. ERCOFTAC Workshop on Shock/Boundary-Layer Interaction, UMIST, 25–26 March 1997.Google Scholar
20. Leschziner, M.A. EUROVAL: an European Initiative on Validation of CFD Codes, Turbulent Flow Validation Symposium, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1993.Google Scholar
21. Delery, J., Copy, C. and Reisz, J. Analyse au velocimetre laser bidirectionnel dune interaction choc-couche limite avec decollement etendu. ONERA Report Technique, 37:7078 AY014, 1980.Google Scholar
22. Chen, C.L., Chow, C.Y., Dalsem, W.R.V. and Holst, T.L. Computation of viscous transonic flow over porous airfoils, J Aircr, December 1989, 26, (12), pp 1067–1075.Google Scholar
23. Chokani, N. and Squire, L.C. Transonic shockwave-turbulent boundary-layer interactions on a porous surface. Aeronaut J, May 1993, 97, (965), pp 163–170.Google Scholar
24. Cebeci, T. Behaviour of turbulent flow near a porous wall with pressure gradient, AIAA J, 1970, 82, pp 2152–2156.Google Scholar
25. Rizzi, A. and Vivand, H. Numerical methods for the computation of inviscid transonic flows with shock waves, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, 3, Vieweg, 1981.Google Scholar
26. Alsalihi, Z. Two dimensional hyperbolic grid generation, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Technical Note 162, October 1987.Google Scholar
27. Jameson, A. and Baker, T.J. Solution of the Euler equations for complex configurations, AIAA Paper 83-1929, 1983.Google Scholar
28. Cook, P.H., McDonald, M.A. and Firmin, M.C.P. Aerofoil RAE 2822 — Pressure Distribution, and Boundary Layer and Wake Measurements, AGARD AR 138, A6, May 1979.Google Scholar
29. Taki, M. Computation of the Aerodynamic Performance of High-Lift Aerofoil System at Low Speed and Transonic Flow Conditions, PhD Thesis, UMIST, May 1997.Google Scholar