Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:40:37.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stabilization of a swept-wing boundary layer by distributed roughness elements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2013

Seyed M. Hosseini,
David Tempelmann,
Ardeshir Hanifi and
Dan S. Henningson
Seyed M. Hosseini
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné Flow Centre, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SeRC, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
David Tempelmann
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné Flow Centre, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SeRC, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Ardeshir Hanifi*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné Flow Centre, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SeRC, SE-100 44 Stockholm, SwedenSwedish Defense Research Agency, FOI, SE-164 90 Stockholm, Sweden
Dan S. Henningson
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics, Linné Flow Centre, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SeRC, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
*
†Email address for correspondence: ardeshir.hanifi@foi.se
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.

The stabilization of a swept-wing boundary layer by distributed surface roughness elements is studied by performing direct numerical simulations. The configuration resembles experiments studied by Saric and coworkers at Arizona State University, who employed this control method in order to delay transition. An array of cylindrical roughness elements are placed near the leading edge to excite subcritical cross-flow modes. Subcritical refers to the modes that are not critical with respect to transition. Their amplification to nonlinear amplitudes modifies the base flow such that the most unstable cross-flow mode and secondary instabilities are damped, resulting in downstream shift of the transition location. The experiments by Saric and coworkers were performed at low levels of free stream turbulence, and the boundary layer was therefore dominated by stationary cross-flow disturbances. Here, we consider a more complex disturbance field, which comprises both steady and unsteady instabilities of similar amplitudes. It is demonstrated that the control is robust with respect to complex disturbance fields as transition is shifted from 45 to 65 % chord.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer receptivityFlow Control: Flow ControlInstability: Transition to turbulence

Information

Type
Rapids
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 718 , 10 March 2013, R1
Copyright
©2013 Cambridge University Press

References

Bippes, H. 1999 Basic experiments on transition in three-dimensional boundary layers dominated by cross-flow instability. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 35, 363–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, A., Saric, W. S. & Reed, H. L. 2008 Laminar flow control on a swept wing with distributed roughness. AIAA Paper 2008-7335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyhle, H. & Bippes, H. 1996 Disturbance growth in an unstable three-dimensional boundary layer and its dependence on environmental conditions. J. Fluid Mech. 316, 73–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, P. F., Lottes, J. W. & Kerkemeier, S. G. 2008 nek5000 web page. http://nek5000.mcs.anl.gov.Google Scholar
Högberg, M. & Henningson, D. 1998 Secondary instability of cross-flow vortices in Falkner–Skan–Cooke boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 368, 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F., Choudhari, M., Chang, C.-L., Streett, C. & Carpenter, M. 2009 Roughness based cross-flow transition control: a computational assessment. AIAA Paper 2009-4105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, M. R., Li, F., Choudhari, M. M. & Chang, C.-L. 1999 Secondary instability of cross-flow vortices and swept-wing boundary-layer transition. J. Fluid Mech. 399, 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patera, A. T. 1984 A spectral element method for fluid dynamics: laminar flow in a channel expansion. J. Comput. Phys. 54, 468–488.Google Scholar
Reibert, M. S., Saric, W. S., Carillo, R. B. & Chapman, K. L. 1996 Experiments in nonlinear saturation of stationary cross-flow vortices in a swept-wing boundary layer. AIAA Paper 96-0184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakov, P. 2011 gridgen-c – an orthogonal grid generator based on the crdt algorithm (by conformal mapping). http://code.google.com/p/gridgen-c/.Google Scholar
Saric, W. S. Jr., Carillo, R. B. & Reibert, M. S. 1998 Leading-edge roughness as a transition control mechanism. AIAA Paper 98-0781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saric, W. S., Reed, H. L. & White, E. B. 2003 Stability and transition of three-dimensional boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35, 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrader, L. U., Brandt, L. & Henningson, D. S. 2009 Receptivity mechanisms in three-dimensional boundary layer flows. J. Fluid Mech. 618, 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somers, D. M. & Horstmann, K.-H. 1985 Design of a medium-speed, natural laminar-flow airfoil for commuter aircraft applications. Tech. Rep. DLR-IB 129-85/26.Google Scholar
Tempelmann, D. 2011 Receptivity of cross flow-dominated boundary layers. PhD thesis, KTH, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Tempelmann, D., Schrader, L.-U., Hanifi, A., Brandt, L. & Henningson, D. S. 2012 Swept wing boundary-layer receptivity to localized surface roughness. J. Fluid Mech. 711, 516–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufo, H. M. & Fischer, P. F. 2001 Fast parallel direct solvers for coarse grid problems. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 61 (2), 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassermann, P. & Kloker, M. 2002 Mechanics and passive control of cross-flow-vortex-induced transition in a three-dimensional boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 456, 49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassermann, P. & Kloker, M. 2003 Transition mechanisms induced by travelling cross-flow vortices in a three-dimensional boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 483, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E. B. & Saric, W. S. 2005 Secondary instability of cross-flow vortices. J. Fluid Mech. 525, 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar