Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T14:44:30.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

N. D. Sandham,
E. Schülein,
A. Wagner,
S. Willems and
J. Steelant
N. D. Sandham*
Affiliation:
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
E. Schülein
Affiliation:
German Aerospace Centre (DLR), Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Bunsenstrasse 10, Göttingen, 37073, Germany
A. Wagner
Affiliation:
German Aerospace Centre (DLR), Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Bunsenstrasse 10, Göttingen, 37073, Germany
S. Willems
Affiliation:
German Aerospace Centre (DLR), Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Linder Höhe, 51147 Köln, Germany
J. Steelant
Affiliation:
European Space Research and Technology Centre, Propulsion Design and Aerothermodynamics Section, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
*
†Email address for correspondence: n.sandham@soton.ac.uk
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.

Strong interactions of shock waves with boundary layers lead to flow separations and enhanced heat transfer rates. When the approaching boundary layer is hypersonic and transitional the problem is particularly challenging and more reliable data is required in order to assess changes in the flow and the surface heat transfer, and to develop simplified models. The present contribution compares results for transitional interactions on a flat plate at Mach 6 from three different experimental facilities using the same instrumented plate insert. The facilities consist of a Ludwieg tube (RWG), an open-jet wind tunnel (H2K) and a high-enthalpy free-piston-driven reflected shock tunnel (HEG). The experimental measurements include shadowgraph and infrared thermography as well as heat transfer and pressure sensors. Direct numerical simulations (DNS) are carried out to compare with selected experimental flow conditions. The combined approach allows an assessment of the effects of unit Reynolds number, disturbance amplitude, shock impingement location and wall cooling. Measures of intermittency are proposed based on wall heat flux, allowing the peak Stanton number in the reattachment regime to be mapped over a range of intermittency states of the approaching boundary layer, with higher overshoots found for transitional interactions compared with fully turbulent interactions. The transition process is found to develop from second (Mack) mode instabilities superimposed on streamwise streaks.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: High-speed flowCompressible Flows: Shock wavesInstability: Transition to turbulence

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 752 , 10 August 2014, pp. 349 - 382
Copyright
© 2014 Cambridge University Press 

References

Arnal, D. & Delery, J. P.2004 Laminar–turbulent transition and shock wave/boundary layer interaction. Tech. Rep. RTO-EN-AVT-116. NATO RTO.Google Scholar
Babinsky, H. & Harvey, J. 2011 Shock Wave–Boundary-Layer Interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Benay, R., Chanetz, B., Mangin, B., Vandomme, L. & Perraud, J. 2006 Shock wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow. AIAA J. 44 (6), 1243–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bur, R. & Chanetz, B. 2009 Experimental study on the PRE-X vehicle focusing on the transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 13 (7), 393–401.Google Scholar
Canepa, E., Ubaldi, M. & Zunini, P.2002 Experiences in the application of intermittency detection techniques to hot-film signals in transitional boundary layers. In 16th Symposium on Measuring Techniques in Transonic and Supersonic Flow in Cascades and Turbomachines. Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Cary, A. M. & Bertram, M. H.1974 Engineering prediction of turbulent skin friction and heat transfer in high-speed flow. NASA TN D-7507.Google Scholar
Cook, W. J. & Felderman, E. J. 1966 Reduction of data from thin-film heat transfer gages: a concise numerical technique. AIAA J. 4 (3), 561–562.Google Scholar
De Tullio, N.2013 Receptivity and transtion to turbulence of supersonic boundary layers with surface roughness. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
Delery, J. M. 1985 Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction and its control. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 22, 209–280.Google Scholar
Dolling, D. S. 2001 Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J. 39 (8), 1517–1531.Google Scholar
Van Dreist, E. R. 1956 The problem of aerodynamic heating. Aeronaut. Eng. Rev. 26–41.Google Scholar
Duan, L. & Martin, M. P. 2011 Direct numerical simulation of hypersonic turbulent boundary layers. Part 4. Effect of high enthalpy. J. Fluid Mech. 684, 25–59.Google Scholar
Fiala, A., Hillier, R., Mallinson, S. G. & Wijesinghe, H. S. 2006 Heat transfer measurement of turbulent spots in a hypersonic blunt-body boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 555, 81–111.Google Scholar
Hakkinen, R. J., Greber, I., Trilling, L. & Abarbanel, S. S.1959 The interaction of an oblique shock wave with a laminar boundary layer. Tech. Rep. 2-18-59W. NASA Memo.Google Scholar
Hannemann, K., Martinez Schramm, J. & Karl, S.2008 Recent extensions to the high enthalpy shock tunnel Göttingen (HEG). In Proceedings of the 2nd International ARA Days, pp. 2008-10-20–2008-10-23. Arcachon, France.Google Scholar
Hedley, T. B. & Keffer, J. F. 1974 Turbulent non-turbulent decisions in an intermittent flow. J. Fluid Mech. 64 (JUL24), 625–644.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R. G. & Durbin, P. A. 2001 Simulations of bypass transition. J. Fluid Mech. 428, 185–212.Google Scholar
Katzer, E. 1989 On the lengthscales of laminar shock/boundary-wayer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 206, 477–496.Google Scholar
Kendall, J. M.. 1975 Wind-tunnel experiments relating to supersonic and hypersonic boundary-layer transition. AIAA J. 13 (3), 290–299.Google Scholar
Knauss, H., Roediger, T., Bountin, D. A., Smorodsky, B. V., Maslov, A. A. & Srulijes, J. 2009 Novel sensor for fast heat-flux measurements. J. Spacecr. Rockets 46 (2), 255–265.Google Scholar
Krishnan, L. & Sandham, N. D. 2007 Strong interaction of a turbulent spot with a shock-induced separation bubble. Phys. Fluids 19, 016102.Google Scholar
Langtry, R. B. & Menter, F. R. 2009 Correlation-based transition modeling for unstructured paralleized computational fluid dynamics codes. AIAA J. 47 (12), 2894–2906.Google Scholar
Laurence, S. J., Wagner, A., Hannemann, K., Wartemann, V., Luedeke, H., Tanno, H. & Itoh, K. 2012 Time-resolved visualization of instability waves in a hypersonic boundary layer. AIAA J. 50 (1), 243–246.Google Scholar
Mack, L. M.1984 Boundary layer stability theory. Tech. Rep. 705. AGARD.Google Scholar
Narasimha, R. 1985 The laminar–turbulent transition zone in the boundary layer. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 22 (1), 29–80.Google Scholar
Neumann, R. D.1972 Special topics in hypersonic flow. Tech. Rep. 42. AGARD Lecture Series.Google Scholar
Pagella, A., Babucke, A. & Rist, U. 2004 Two-dimensional numerical investigations of small-amplitude disturbances in a boundary layer at $Ma=4.8$ : Compression corner versus impinging shock wave. Phys. Fluids 16 (7), 2272–2281.Google Scholar
Pate, S. R. & Schueler, C. J. 1969 Radiated aerodynamic noise effects on boundary-layer transition in supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnels. AIAA J. 7, 450–457.Google Scholar
Piponniau, S., Dussauge, J. P., Debieve, J. F. & Dupont, P. 2009 A simple model for low-frequency unsteadiness in shock-induced separation. J. Fluid Mech. 629, 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redford, J. A., Sandham, N. D. & Roberts, G. T. 2012 Numerical simulations of turbulent spots in supersonic boundary layers: effects of Mach number and wall temperature. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 52 (SI), 67–79.Google Scholar
Renk, K. F., Betz, J., Zeuner, S., Lengfellner, H. & Prettl, W. 1994 Thermopile effect due to laser-radiation heating in thin-films of high-T-C materials. Physica C 235 (1), 37–40.Google Scholar
Reshotko, E. 1969 Stability theory as a guide to the evaluation of transition data. AIAA J. 7, 1086–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reshotko, E. 2001 Transient growth: a factor in bypass transition. Phys. Fluids 13 (5), 1067–1075.Google Scholar
Robinet, J.-Ch. 2007 Bifurcations in shock-wave/laminar-boundary-layer interaction: global instability approach. J. Fluid Mech. 579, 85–112.Google Scholar
Sandham, N. D. & Lüdeke, H. 2009 Numerical study of Mach 6 boundary-layer stabilization by means of a porous surface. AIAA J. 47 (9), 2243–2252.Google Scholar
Savitzky, A. & Golay, M. J. E. 1964 Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analyt. Chem. 36 (8), 1627–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. P. 1995 Improved methods for measuring laminar–turbulent intermittency in boundary layers. Exp. Fluids 18, 370–375.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. P. 2008 Development of hypersonic quiet tunnels. J. Spacecr. Rockets 45 (4), 641–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, D. L. & Jones, T. V.1973 Heat transfer measurements in short-duration hypersonic facilities. Tech. Rep. 165. AGARD-AG.Google Scholar
Steelant, J. & Dick, E. 1996 Modelling of bypass transition with conditioned Navier–Stokes equations coupled to an intermittency transport equation. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 23, 193–220.Google Scholar
Steelant, J. & Dick, E. 2001 Modeling of laminar–turbulent transition for high freestream turbulence. Trans. ASME J. Fluids Engng 123, 22–30.Google Scholar
Stewartson, K. & Williams, P. W. 1969 Self-induced separation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 312 (1509), 181–206.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. W. 1987 Time-dependent boundary-conditions for hyperbolic systems. J. Comput. Phys. 68 (1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Sandham, N. D. 2009 Large-eddy simulation of low-frequency unsteadiness in a turbulent shock-induced separation bubble. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 23, 79–107.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Sandham, N. D. 2011 Low-order stochastic modelling of low-frequency motions in reflected shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 671, 417–465.Google Scholar
Wagner, A., Kuhn, M., Schramm, J. M. & Hannemann, K. 2013 Experiments on passive hypersonic boundary layer control using ultrasonically absorptive carbon-carbon material with random microstructure. Exp. Fluids 54 (10), 1606.Google Scholar
White, F. M. 2006 Viscous Fluid Flow, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Willems, S. & Guelhan, A. 2014 Experiments on the effect of laminar–turbulent transition on the SWBLI in H2K at Mach 6. Exp. Fluids (submitted).Google Scholar
Yao, Y., Krishnan, L., Sandham, N. D. & Roberts, G. T. 2007 The effect of Mach number on unstable disturbances in shock/boundary-layer interactions. Phys. Fluids 19, 054104.Google Scholar
Yee, H. C., Sandham, N. D. & Djomehri, M. J. 1999 Low-dissipative high-order shock-capturing methods using characteristic-based filters. J. Comput. Phys. 150 (1), 199–238.Google Scholar