Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:27:04.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shock-shock, shock-vortex interaction and aerodynamic heating in hypersonic corner flow

Part of: 75 year anniversary of Aeronautical Engineering at Glasgow University

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Ning Qin ,
Karl W. Scriba  and
Bryan E. Richards
Ning Qin
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow
Karl W. Scriba
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow
Bryan E. Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A symmetric Mach 12·76 hypersonic flow in a 90° corner, formed by 30° swept back intersecting 8° wedges, was investigated in detail through numerical simulation using locally conical Navier-Stokes equations. Three different numerical schemes for spatial discretisation, MacCormack central differencing, van Leer’s flux vector splitting and Osher’s flux difference splitting, were studied to compare their capabilities to capture both strong shock waves and thin shear layers. Comparison with experimental data was made to validate the simulation. The numerical simulation provided further insight into the flowfield and a pair of counter-rotating vortices were discovered near the junction of the corner.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 95 , Issue 945 , May 1991 , pp. 152 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1991 

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.)

References

1. Hummel, D. Experimental investigation on blunt bodies and corner configurations in hypersonic flow, AGARD-CP-428, paper 6, 1987.Google Scholar
2. Mollenstadt, W. Experimentelle Untersuchhungen an lang-sangestromten, gepfeilten Eckenkonfigurationen im Hypers- challbereich, Dissertation TU Braunschweig, 1984.Google Scholar
3. Maccormack, R. W. A numerical method for solving the equations of compressible viscous flow, AIAA J, 1982, 20, (9), pp 1275–1281.Google Scholar
4. Van Leer, B. Flux vector splitting for the Euler equations, Led Notes Phys, 1982, 170, pp 507–511.Google Scholar
5. Osher, S. and Solomon, F. Upwind schemes for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws, Math Comp, 1982, 38, pp 339–374.Google Scholar
6. Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S. R. Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general coordinates, J Comp Phys, 1983, 50, pp 447–481.Google Scholar
7. Spekreijse, S. P. Multigrid Solution of the Steady Euler Equations, 1987, PhD Thesis, CWI also available as CWI Tract 46, 1988, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
8. Van Leer, B. Upwind-difference methods for aerodynamic problems governed by the Euler equations, Led Appl Math, 1985, 22, Part II, pp 327–336.Google Scholar
9. Tracy, R. R. Hypersonic Flow Over a Yawed Circular Cone, California Institute of Technology Aeronautical Laboratory Memorandum, 1963, No. 69.Google Scholar
10. Cross, E. J. JR and Hankey, W. L. Investigation of the leeward side of a delta wing at hypersonic speeds, AIAA J, 1969, 6, (2), pp 185–190.Google Scholar
11. Feldhun, R. F., Winkelman, A. E. and Pasiuk, L. An experimental investigation of the flowfield around a yawed cone, AIAA J, 1977, 9, pp 1074–1081.Google Scholar
12. Stetson, K. F. Experimental Results of a Laminar Boundary Layer Separation on a Slender Cone at Angle of Attack at M = 14.2, ARL 71-0127, 1971, Aero Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.Google Scholar
13. Macrae, D. S. A Numerical Study of Supersonic Viscous Cone Flow at High Angle of Attack, AIAA Paper 76-97, 1976.Google Scholar
14. Bluford, G. S. Numerical simulation of the supersonic and hypersonic viscous flow around thin delta wings, AIAA J, 1979, 17, (9), pp 942–949.Google Scholar
15. Qin, N. and Richards, B. E. Numerical Experiments with Hypersonic Flows Beneath a Cone-Delta-Wing Combination, AGARD-CP-428, paper 20, 1987.Google Scholar
16. Newsome, R. W. A Comparison of Euler and Navier-Stokes Solutions for Supersonic Flow Over a Conical Delta Wing, 1985, AIAA paper 85-0111.Google Scholar
17. Macrae, D. S. and Hussaini, M. Y. Numerical Simulation of Supersonic Cone Flow at High Angle of Attack, AGARD-CP-247, paper 23, 1978.Google Scholar
18. Van Leer, B., Thomas, J. L., Roe, P. and Newsome, R. W. A Comparison of Numerical Flux Formulas for the Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations, AIAA-87-1104, 1987.Google Scholar
19. Anderson, W. K., Thomas, J. L. and Van Leer, B. A comparison of finite volume flux vector splittings for the Euler equations, AIAA J, 1986, 24, (9), pp 1453–1460.Google Scholar
20. Qin, N. and Richards, B. E. Simulation of hypersonic viscous flows around a cone-delta-wing combination by an implicit method with multigrid acceleration, Led Notes Phys, 1986, 287, pp 528–532.Google Scholar
21. Roberts, G. O. Computational meshes for boundary layer problems, Led Notes Phys, 1971, 8, pp 171–177.Google Scholar
22. Qin, N. Towards Numerical Simulation of Hypersonic Flow around Space-Plane Shapes, 1987, PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
23. Jameson, A., Schmidt, W. and Turkel, E. Numerical Solutions of Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods using Runge- Kutta Time-Stepping Schemes, 1981, AIAA paper 81-1259.Google Scholar