Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T14:34:42.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of the height of the vortex generators in the control of shock-induced separation of the boundary layers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

G. S. Cohen  and
F. Motallebi
G. S. Cohen
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
F. Motallebi
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments have been conducted to assess the effects that sub-boundary-layer vortex generators (SBVGs) have on reducing normal shock-induced turbulent boundary-layer separation. The freestream Mach number and Reynolds number were M = 1·45 and 15·9 × 106/m, respectively. Detailed measurements of a fully developed, flat plate turbulent boundary layer were used in order to assess the performance of ten different SBVG configurations. The SBVG performance was assessed by comparing total pressure profiles measured upstream of separation and downstream of reattachment. Static pressure distributions, near surface total pressure distributions, oil flow visualisation and Schlieren photographs were also used. The effect of SBVG height was investigated. The results show the largest SBVGs with height, h = 55%δ, provided the greatest static pressure recovery and maximum mixing. However, the shock pressure rise (wave drag) was highest for this case.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1133 , July 2008 , pp. 415 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

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. Lina, J. L. and Reed, W.H. III. A preliminary flight investigation of the effects of vortex generators on separation due to shock, NACA-RM-L50J02, 1950.Google Scholar
2. Freestone, M.M., Some notes on the forms of vortex generators seen on aircraft, ESDU Memorandum No. 85, April 1993.Google Scholar
3. Holmes, A.E., Hickey, P.K., Murphy, and Hilton, W.R., , D. A., The application of sub-boundary-layer vortex generators to reduce canopy ‘Mach Rumble’ interior noise on the Gulfstream III, AIAA Paper 87-0084, January 1987.Google Scholar
4. Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Fulker, J.L. and Ashill, P.R., Normal shock wave – turbulent boundary-layer interactions in the presence of streamwise slots and grooves, Aeronaut J, 106, (1063), 2002, pp 493–500.Google Scholar
5. Holden, H.A. and Babinsky, H., Shock/boundary-layer interaction control using 3D devices, AIAA Paper 03-0447, 2003.Google Scholar
6. Raghunathan, S., Passive control of shock-boundary-layer interaction, Progress in Aero Sci, 25, 1988, pp 355–378.Google Scholar
7. Stanewsky, E. and Krogmann, P., Transonic drag rise and drag reduction by active/passive boundary-layer Control, AGARD Rep No 723, 1985.Google Scholar
8. Krogmann, P., Stanewsky, E. and Theide, P., Effects of suction on shock/boundary-layer interaction and shock-induced separation, J Aircr, January 1985, 22, (1), pp 37–42.Google Scholar
9. Theide, P. and Krogmann, P., Improvement of transonic airfoil performance through passive shock/boundary-layer interaction control, IUTAM Symposium on turbulent shear layer/shock wave interactions, 1985, Palaiseau, France, Délery, J. (Ed), pp 113–123.Google Scholar
10. Bur, R., Corbel, B. and DéLery, J., Study of passive control in a transonic shock wave/boundary-layer interaction, 1997–4, AIAA 35th ASME, Reno, NV, USA, 6–9 January 1997.Google Scholar
11. Bur, R., Délery, J., Corbel, B., Soulevant, D. and Soares, R., A basic experimental investigation of passive control applied to a transonic interaction, ONERA TP 1998–74, 1998.Google Scholar
12. Pearcey, H.H., Rao, K. and Sykes, D.M., Inclined air-jets used as vortex generators to suppress shock-induced separation, Paper No 40, AGARD-CP-534, Fluid dynamics panel symposium, on computational and experimental assessment of jets in crossflow, April 1993, Winchester, UK.Google Scholar
13. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L., Simmons, M.J. and Gaudet, I.M., A review of research at DRA on active and passive control of shock waves, ICAS-96-2.1.4, 1996, pp 76–87.Google Scholar
14. Birkemeyer, J., Rosemann, H. and Stanewsky, E., Shock control on a swept wing, Aerospace Science and Tech, 4, (3), 2000, pp 147–156.Google Scholar
15. Reichert, B.A. and Wendt, B.J., An experimental investigation of S-duct flow control using arrays of low-profile vortex generators, AIAA Paper 93-0018, 1993.Google Scholar
16. Wendt, B.J. and Hingst, W.R., Measurement and modelling of flow structure in the wake of a low profile ‘Wishbone’ vortex generator, NASA TM-106468, 1994.Google Scholar
17. Rao, D.M. and Kariya, T.T., Boundary-layer submerged vortex generators for separation control – an exploratory study, 1988, AIAA 88-3546-CP.Google Scholar
18. Lin, J.C., Robinson, S.K., McGhee, R.J. and Valarezo, W.O., Separation control on high-lift airfoils via micro-vortex generators, J Aircr, 31, (6), November-December 1994.Google Scholar
19. Ashill, P., Fulker, J. and Hackett, K., Research at DERA on Sub-boundary-layer vortex generators (SBVGs), AIAA paper 01-0831, January 2001.Google Scholar
20. Lin, J., Howard, F. and Selby, G., Small submerged vortex generators for turbulent flow separation ccontrol, J Spacecraft and Rockets, September-October 1990, 27, (5), pp 503–507.Google Scholar
21. McCormick, D.C., Shock/boundary-layer interaction control with low-profile vortex generators and passive cavity, AIAA Paper 92-0064, (1992).Google Scholar
22. Holden, H.A. and Babinsky, H., Vortex generators near shock/boundary-layer interactions, AIAA Paper 2004-1242, 2004.Google Scholar
23. Gamerdinger, P.M., The Effect of Low-Profile Vortex Generators on Flow in a Transonic Fan-Blade Cascade, Naval Postgraduate School, Master’s Thesis, March 1995.Google Scholar
24. Pearcey, H.H., Shock induced separation and its prevention by design and boundary-layer control. Boundary Layer and Flow Control, 2, Lachmann, G. V. (Ed), Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1961, pp 1166–1344.Google Scholar
25. Esdu. Vortex Generators for Control of Shock-induced Separation, Parts 1-3, DATA sheet No’s. 93024, 93025, 93026, 1995.Google Scholar
26. Délery, J. and Bur, R., The physics of shock wave/boundary-layer interaction control: last lessons learned, ONERA TP 2000-181, and ECCOMAS 2000 Barcelona, Spain, 11-14 September 2000.Google Scholar
27. Délery, J. and Marvin, J.G., Shock Wave boundary-layer Interactions, Reshotko, E. (Ed) AGARD-AG-280, ISBN 92-835-1519-6, 1986.Google Scholar
28. Green, J.E., Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary-layers, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 11, 1970, pp 235–340.Google Scholar
29. Seddon, J., The flow produced by interaction of a turbulent boundary-layer with a normal shock wave of strength sufficient to cause Separation, ARC R and M No. 3502, March 1960.Google Scholar
30. Kooi, J.W., Experiments on transonic shock-wave boundary-layer interaction, AGARD-CP-168.Google Scholar
31. Gadd, G.E., Interactions between normal shock waves and turbulent boundary-layers, ARC 22, 559 – F.M. 3051, 1961.Google Scholar
32. 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 1·3 and 1·55, European J Mech, B Fluids, 1992, 11, (1), pp 93–118.Google Scholar
33. Pauley, W.R. and Eaton, J.K., Experimental study of the development of longitudinal vortex pairs embedded in a turbulent boundary-layer, AIAA J, 26, (7), 1988.Google Scholar