Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:45:26.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supersonic boundary-layer interactions with various micro-vortex generator geometries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

S. Lee  and
E. Loth
S. Lee
Affiliation:
[email protected]
E. Loth
Affiliation:
[email protected], Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Illinois, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various types of micro-vortex generators (μVGs) are investigated for control of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer subject to an oblique shock impingement, which causes flow separation. The micro-vortex generators are embedded in the boundary layer to avoid excessive wave drag while still creating strong streamwise vortices to energise the boundary layer. Several different types of µVGs were considered including micro-ramps and micro-vanes. These were investigated computationally in a supersonic boundary layer at Mach 3 using monotone integrated large eddy simulations (MILES). The results showed that vortices generated from μVGs can partially eliminate shock induced flow separation and can continue to entrain high momentum flux for boundary-layer recovery downstream. The micro-ramps resulted in thinner downstream displacement thickness in comparison to the micro-vanes. However, the strength of the streamwise vorticity for the micro-ramps decayed faster due to dissipation especially after the shock interaction. In addition, the close spanwise distance between each vortex for the ramp geometry causes the vortex cores to move upwards from the wall due to induced upwash effects. Micro-vanes, on the other hand, yielded an increased spanwise spacing of the streamwise vortices at the point of formation. This resulted in streamwise vortices staying closer to the floor with less circulation decay, and the reduction in overall flow separation is attributed to these effects. Two hybrid concepts, named ‘thick-vane’ and ‘split-ramp’, were also studied where the former is a vane with side supports and the latter has a uniform spacing along the centreline of the baseline ramp. These geometries behaved similar to the micro-vanes in terms of the streamwise vorticity and the ability to reduce flow separation, but are more physically robust than the thin vanes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 113 , Issue 1149 , November 2009 , pp. 683 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2009 

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. Loth, E., Smart mesoflaps for control of shock boundary layer interactions, AIAA 2000-2476.Google Scholar
2. McCormick, D.C., Shock/boundary-layer interaction control with vortex generators and passive cavity, AIAA J, 31, (1), pp 91–96.Google Scholar
3. Holmes, A.E., Hickey, P.K., Murphy, W.R., Hilton, D.A., The application of sub-boundary layer vortex generators to reduce canopy Mach rumble interior noise on the Gulfstream III, AIAA 87-0084.Google Scholar
4. Anderson, B., Tinapple, J. and Surber, L., Optimal control of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions using micro-array actuation, AIAA 2006-3197.Google Scholar
5. Ghosh, S., Choi, J. and Edwards, J., Rans and hybrid LES/RANS simulations of the effects of micro vortex generators using immersed boundary methods, AIAA 2008-3728.Google Scholar
6. Lee, S., Loth, E., Wang, C. and Kim, S., LES of supersonic boundary layers μVGs, AIAA 2007-3916.Google Scholar
7. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Hackett, K.C., Studies of flows induced by sub boundary layer vortex generators (SBVGs), AIAA 2002-0968.Google Scholar
8. Urbin, G., Knight, D. and Zheltovodov, A.A., Compressible large-eddy simulation using unstructured grid: supersonic turbulent boundary layer and compression corner, AIAA 99-0427.Google Scholar
9. Holst, T.L., On approximate factorization scheme for solving the full potential equation, NASA TM 110435.Google Scholar
10. Urbin, G., Knight, D. and Zheltovodov, A.A., Large-eddy simulation of a supersonic compression corner, Part I, AIAA 2000-0398.Google Scholar
11. Lund, T., Wu, X. and Squires, K., Generation of turbulent inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations, J Computational Physics, 140, (2), pp 233–258.Google Scholar
12. Cantwell, B., Organized motion in turbulent flow, Annual Review of Fluid Dynamics, 1981, 13, pp 457–515.Google Scholar
13. Pirozzoli, S. and Grasso, F., Direct numerical simulation of impinging shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction at M = 2.25, Physics of Fluids, 2006, 18, (6), Article 065113.Google Scholar
14. Wu, M. and Martin, P., Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp, AIAA J, 2007, 45, (4), pp 879–889.Google Scholar
15. Babinsky, H., Li, Y. and Pitt Ford, C., Microramp control of supersonic oblique shock wave/boundary layer interactions, AIAA J, 47, (3), pp 668–675.Google Scholar
16. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L. and Hackett, K.C., A review of recent developments in flow control, Aeronaut J, 2005, 109, (1095), pp 205–232.Google Scholar
17. Delery, J.M., Aspects of vortex breakdown, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1994, 30, pp 1–59.Google Scholar
18. Smart, M.K., Kalkhoran, I.M. and Popovic, S., Some aspects of streamwise vortex behavior during oblique shock wave/vortex interaction, Shock Waves, 1998, 8, p 243–255.Google Scholar