Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:33:06.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shock-tunnel investigations on the evolution and morphology of shock-induced large separation bubbles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2016

R. Sriram  and
G. Jagadeesh
R. Sriram
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
G. Jagadeesh*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shock-tunnel experiments are carried out to study the strong interaction between an impinging shock wave and boundary layer on a flat plate, accompanied by large separation bubble with a length comparable to the distance of the location of shock impingement from the leading edge of the plate. For nominal freestream Mach numbers ranging from 6 to 8.5, moderate to high total enthalpies of 1.3MJ/kg to 6MJ/kg are simulated in the Indian Institute of Science's hypersonic shock tunnels HST-2 (a conventional Hypersonic Shock Tunnel) and Free Piston Shock Tunnel (FPST) with freestream Reynolds numbers ranging from 4 × 106/m to 0.3 × 106/m. The strong impinging shock is generated by a wedge (or shock generator) at an angle of 30.96° to the freestream. From the time-resolved Schlieren flow visualisations using a high-speed camera and surface pressure measurements on the flat plate using fast response sensors, a statistically steady flow field with a large separation bubble was established within the short test time of the shock tunnels (around 600µs in HST-2 and 300µs in FPST). The role of various parameters on the interaction – Mach number, location of shock impingement and flow total enthalpy – are investigated from the measured separation length and surface pressure distribution. For the nominal Mach number of 8.5, with shock impingement at 100mm from the leading edge, the separation length increased from 60mm to 70mm as the total enthalpy is increased from 1.6MJ/kg to 2.4MJ/kg; whereas it dropped drastically to 30-40mm at 6MJ/kg. This is due to the prominence of real gas effects at higher enthalpies.

Keywords

Hypersonic flowshock boundary-layer interaction (SBLI)separated flowshock-tunnel experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1229 , July 2016 , pp. 1123 - 1152
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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

REFERENCES

1.Delery, J. and Marvin, J.G. Shock-wave boundary layer interactions, AGARD-AG-280, 1986.Google Scholar
2.Gadd, G.E., Holder, D.W. and Regan, J.D.An experimental investigation of the interaction between shock waves and boundary layers, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 1954, 226, (1165), pp 227–253.Google Scholar
3.Elfstrom, G.M.Turbulent hypersonic flow at a wedge-compression corner, J Fluid Mechanics, 1972, 53, (1), pp 113–127.Google Scholar
4.Fay, J.G., and Sambamurthi, J. Laminar hypersonic flow over a compression corner using the HANA code, AIAA Pap. No. 92-2896, 1992.Google Scholar
5.Childs, M.E., Hijman, R. and Miller, D.S.Mach 8 to 22 studies of flow separations due to deflected control surfaces, AIAA J, 1964, 2, (2), pp 312–321.Google Scholar
6.Hayakawa, K. and Squire, L.C.The effect of the upstream boundary layer state on the shock interaction at a compression corner, J Fluid Mechanics, 1982, 122, pp 369–394.Google Scholar
7.Needham, D.A. and Stollery, J.L. Boundary layer separation in hypersonic flow, AIAA Pap. No. 66-455, 1966.Google Scholar
8.Coleman, G.T. and Stollery, J.L.Heat transfer from hypersonic turbulent flow at a wedge compression corner, J Fluid Mechanics, 1972, 56, (4), 741–752.Google Scholar
9.Settles, G.S. and Bogdonoff, S.M.Scaling of two- and three dimensional shock/turbulent boundary-layer interactions at compression corners, AIAA J, 1982, 20, (6), pp 782–789.Google Scholar
10.Humble, R.A., Elsinga, G.E., Scarano, F. and van Oudheusden, B.W.Three-dimensional instantaneous structure of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, J Fluid Mechanics, 2009, 622, pp 33–62.Google Scholar
11.Dupont, P., Haddad, C. and Debieve, J.F.Space time organization in a shock-induced separated boundary layer, J Fluid Mechanics, 2006, 559, pp 255–277.Google Scholar
12.Garnier, E., Sagaut, P. and Deville, M.Large eddy simulation of shock boundary layer interaction, AIAA J, 2002, 40, (10), pp 1935–1944.Google Scholar
13.Wu, M. and Pino Martin, M.Analysis of shock motion in shock wave and turbulent boundary layer interaction using direct numerical simulation data, J Fluid Mechanics, 2008, 594, pp 71–83.Google Scholar
14.Bray, K.N.C., Gadd, G.E. and Woodger, M. Some calculations by the Crocco-Lees and other methods of interactions between shock waves and laminar boundary layers, including effects of heat transfer and suction, ARC-C.P. No. 556, 1961.Google Scholar
15.Kubota, T.Lees, L. and Lewis, J.E.Experimental investigation of supersonic laminar, two-dimensional boundary-layer separation in a compression corner with and without cooling, AIAA J, 1968, 6, (1), pp 7–14.Google Scholar
16.Spaid, F.W. and Frishett, J.C.Incipient separation of a supersonic, turbulent boundary layer, including effects of heat-transfer, AIAA J, 1972, 10, (7), pp 915–922.Google Scholar
17.Bleilebens, M. and Olivier, H.On the influence of elevated surface temperatures on hypersonic shock wave/boundary layer interaction at a heated ramp model, Shock Waves, 2006, 15, (5), pp 301–312.Google Scholar
18.Delery, J. and Coet, M.-C. Experiments on shock wave/boundary layer interactions produced by two-dimensional ramps and three-dimensional obstacles, Workshop on Hypersonic Flows for Reentry Problems, 1990, Antibes, France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Holden, M.S.Establishment time of laminar separated flows, AIAA J, 1971, 9, (11), pp 2296–2298.Google Scholar
20.Mallinson, S.G., Gai, S.L. and Mudford, N.R.Establishment of steady separated flow over a compression-corner in free-piston shock tunnel, Shock Waves, 1997, 7, (4), pp 249–253.Google Scholar
21.Swantek, A.B. and Austin, J.M.Flowfield establishment in hypervelocity shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions, AIAA J, 2015, 53, (2), pp 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Mallinson, S.G., Gai, S.L. and Mudford, N.R.The interaction of a shock wave with a laminar boundary layer at a compression corner in high-enthalpy flows including real gas effects, J Fluid Mechanics, 1997, 342, pp 1–35.Google Scholar
23.Davis, J.-P. and Sturtevant, B.Separation length in high-enthalpy shock/boundary layer interaction, Physics of Fluids, 2000, 12, (10), pp 2661–2687.Google Scholar
24.Mahapatra, D. and Jagadeesh, G.Studies on unsteady shock interactions near a generic scramjet inlet, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (9), pp 2223–2232.Google Scholar
25.Moss, J.N., O'Byrne, S., Deepak, N.R. and Gai, S.L. Simulations of hypersonic, high-enthalpy separated flow over a ‘tick’ configuration, AIP Conference Proceedings 2012, 1501, pp. 1453–1460.Google Scholar
26.Kumar, C.S. and Reddy, K.P.J.Experimental investigation of heat fluxes in the vicinity of protuberances on a flat plate at hypersonic speeds, J Heat Transfer, 2013, 135, (12), pp 121701:1–9.Google Scholar
27.Krek, R.M. and Jacobs, P.A. STN, shock tube and nozzle calculations for equilibrium air, Research Report No. 2/93, 1993, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
28.Sriram, R. Shock tunnel investigations on hypersonic impinging shock wave boundary layer interaction, PhD Dissertation, 2014, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Ram, S.N. Measurement of Static Pressure Over Bodies in Hypersonic Shock Tunnel using MEMS-Based Pressure Sensor Array, MSc (Eng) Dissertation, 2011, Dept of Aerospace Engineering, IISc, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
30.Satheesh, K. The effect of energy deposition in hypersonic blunt body flow field, PhD Dissertation, 2007, Dept of Aerospace Engineering, IISc, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
31.Moffat, R.J.Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Sci, 1988, 1, (1), pp 3–17.Google Scholar
32.Krishnan, L., Yao, Y., Sandham, N.D. and Roberts, G.T.On the response of shock-induced separation bubble to small amplitude disturbances, Modern Physics Letters, 2005, 19, (28–29), pp 1495–1498.Google Scholar
33.Chapman, D.R., Kuhen, D.M. and Larson, H.K. Investigation of separated flows in supersonic and subsonic streams with emphasis on the effect of transition, NACA TN-3869, 1957.Google Scholar
34.Sriram, R. and Jagadeesh, G.Shock tunnel experiments on control of shock induced large separation bubble using boundary layer bleed, Aerospace Sci and Tech, 2014, 36, pp 87–93.Google Scholar
35.Simeonides, G.A. Laminar-turbulent transition correlations in supersonic/hypersonic flat plate flow, 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2004.Google Scholar
36.Davies, W.R. and Bernstein, J.L., Heat transfer and transition to turbulence in the shock-induced boundary layer on a semi-infinite flat plate, J Fluid Mechanics, 1969, 36, (1), pp 87–112.Google Scholar
37.Eckert, E.R.G.Engineering relations for friction and heat transfer to surfaces in high velocity flow, J Aeronautical Sciences, 1955, 22, (8), pp 585–587.Google Scholar
38.Clemens, N.T. and Narayanaswamy, V.Low-frequency unsteadiness in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2014, 46, pp 469–492.Google Scholar
39.Loth, E. and Matthys, M.W.Unsteady low Reynolds number shock boundary layer interactions, Physics of Fluids, 1955, 7, (5), pp 1142–1150.Google Scholar
40.Kulkarni, V. Investigation of flow modification techniques to reduce drag and heat transfer for large angle blunt cones in high enthalpy flows, PhD Dissertation, 2007, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.Google Scholar
41.Mohammed Ibrahim, S., Sriram, R. and Reddy, K.P.J.Experimental investigation of heat flux mitigation during Martian entry by coolant injection, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2014, 51, (4), pp 1363–1368.Google Scholar
42.Furumoto, G.H., Zhong, X. and Skiba, J.C.Numerical studies of real gas effects on two-dimensional hypersonic shock wave/boundary layer interaction, Physics of Fluids, 1997, 9, (1), pp 191–210.Google Scholar