Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:05:25.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Velocity and temperature fluctuations in a high-speed shock–turbulence interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2021

B. McManamen ,
D.A. Donzis Open the ORCID record for D.A. Donzis [Opens in a new window] ,
S.W. North  and
R.D.W. Bowersox Open the ORCID record for R.D.W. Bowersox [Opens in a new window]
B. McManamen
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX77845, USA
D.A. Donzis
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX77845, USA
S.W. North
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX77845, USA
R.D.W. Bowersox*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX77845, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shock-wave–turbulence interactions are important problems with ubiquitous applications in high-speed flight and propulsion. The complex physical processes during the interaction are not fully understood, where contemporary high-fidelity numerical simulations have brought into question classical linear interaction analyses (LIA). The differences are most pronounced at high Mach number ($>$2). The objective of this study was to experimentally examine the role of a normal shock wave on the modification of velocity and temperature fluctuations to provide an empirical basis to help close the emerging knowledge gap between classical and contemporary theories. The experiments were performed in a pulsed wind tunnel facility at Mach 4.4. The free-stream disturbances provided the test bed for the study. A Mach-stem normal shock was generated through the interaction of two mirrored oblique shock waves. Molecular tagging velocimetry and two-line planar laser induced fluorescence thermometry were conducted upstream and downstream of the normal shock wave and the fluctuating intensities were compared. The measured axial velocity fluctuation amplification factor was nominally 1.1–1.2 over the Reynolds number range tested. The measured values were more consistent with LIA than contemporary theory. The temperature fluctuation amplification factor was found to vary between 3.0 and 4.5, where the lowest Reynolds number condition saw the highest free-stream disturbances and largest amplification. The free-stream fluctuations were primarily in the entropic mode, which is believed to lead to the significantly higher amplification of the entropic mode reported in these measurements.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Gas dynamics Turbulent Flows: Compressible turbulence
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 913 , 25 April 2021 , A10
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Agui, J.H., Briassulis, G. & Andreopoulos, Y. 2005 Studies of interactions of a propagating shock wave with decaying grid turbulence: velocity and vorticity fields. J. Fluid Mech. 524, 143–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barre, S., Alem, D. & Bonnet, J.P. 1996 Experimental study of a normal shock/homogeneous turbulence interaction. AIAA J. 34 (5), 968–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermejo-Moreno, I., Larsson, J. & Lele, S.K. 2010 LES of canonical shock-turbulence interaction. In Annual Research Briefs, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford CA, pp. 209–222.Google Scholar
Braun, N.O., Pullin, D.I. & Meiron, D.I. 2019 Large eddy simulation investigation of the canonical shock–turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 858, 500–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briassulis, G. & Andreopoulos, J. 1996 High resolution measurements of isotropic turbulence interacting with shock waves. In 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, p. 42.Google Scholar
Chen, C.H. & Donzis, D.A. 2019 Shock–turbulence interactions at high turbulence intensities. J. Fluid Mech. 870, 813–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chpoun, A. & Leclerc, E. 1999 Experimental investigation of the influence of downstream flow conditions on Mach stem height. Shock Waves 9 (4), 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donzis, D.A. 2012 a Amplification factors in shock-turbulence interactions: effect of shock thickness. Phys. Fluids 24 (1), 011705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donzis, D.A. 2012 b Shock structure in shock-turbulence interactions. Phys. Fluids 24 (12), 126101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, T., Domaradzki, J.A. & Honein, A. 2002 The subgrid-scale estimation model applied to large eddy simulations of compressible turbulence. Phys. Fluids 14 (5), 1781–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducros, F., Ferrand, V., Nicoud, F., Weber, C., Darracq, D., Gacherieu, C. & Poinsot, T. 1999 Large-eddy simulation of the shock/turbulence interaction. J. Comput. Phys. 152 (2), 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnier, E., Sagaut, P. & Deville, M. 2002 Large eddy simulation of shock/homogeneous turbulence interaction. Comput. Fluids 31 (2), 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grube, N., Taylor, E. & Martin, P. 2011 Numerical investigation of shock-wave/isotropic turbulence interaction. In 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p. 480.Google Scholar
Haas, J.-F. & Sturtevant, B. 1987 Interaction of weak shock waves with cylindrical and spherical gas inhomogeneities. J. Fluid Mech. 181, 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannappel, R., Hauser, T. & Friedrich, R. 1995 A comparison of ENO and TVD schemes for the computation of shock-turbulence interaction. J. Comput. Phys. 121 (1), 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesselink, L. & Sturtevant, B. 1988 Propagation of weak shocks through a random medium. J. Fluid Mech. 196, 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honkan, A. & Andreopoulos, J. 1990 Experiments in a shock wave/homogeneous turbulence interaction. In 21st Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Lasers Conf, Seattle, WA, USA, 18–20 June 1990. AIAA Paper 1990-1647.Google Scholar
Honkan, A. & Andreopoulos, J. 1992 Rapid compression of grid-generated turbulence by a moving shock wave. Phys. Fluids A 4 (11), 2562–2572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honkan, A., Watkins, C.B. & Andreopoulos, J. 1994 Experimental study of interactions of shock wave with free-stream turbulence. J. Fluids Engng 116 (4), 763–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornung, H.G. & Robinson, M.L. 1982 Transition from regular to mach reflection of shock waves. Part 2. The steady-flow criterion. J. Fluid Mech. 123, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, L., Blin, E. & Geffroy, P. 1993 a An experiment on free turbulence/shock wave interaction. In Turbulent Shear Flows 8, (ed. F. Durst, F. Rainer, B. Launder, F. Schmidt, U. Schumann & J. Whitelaw), pp. 229–248. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, L., Cambon, C. & Blin, E. 1993 b Turbulence amplification by a shock wave and rapid distortion theory. Phys. Fluids A 5 (10), 2539–2550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, L. & Geffroy, P. 1997 Amplification and reduction of turbulence in a heated jet/shock interaction. In Proc. of the 11th Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flows (ed. F. Durst, B.E. Launder, F.W. Schmidt & J.H. Whitelaw), pp. L12-L17. Springer.Google Scholar
Jamme, S., Cazalbou, J.-B., Torres, F. & Chassaing, P. 2002 Direct numerical simulation of the interaction between a shock wave and various types of isotropic turbulence. Flow Turbul. Combust. 68 (3), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, J. & Merzkirch, W. 1994 Interaction of a normal shock wave with a compressible turbulent flow. Miner. Deposita 29 (1), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovasznay, L.S.G. 1953 Turbulence in supersonic flow. J. Aero. Sci. 20 (10), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, J. 2010 Effect of shock-capturing errors on turbulence statistics. AIAA J. 48 (7), 1554–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, J., Bermejo-Moreno, I. & Lele, S.K. 2013 Reynolds-and Mach-number effects in canonical shock–turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 717, 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, J. & Lele, S.K. 2009 Direct numerical simulation of canonical shock/turbulence interaction. Phys. Fluids 21 (12), 126101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. 1993 Large eddy simulation of shock turbulence interaction. In Annual Research Briefs, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford CA, 1992.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S.K. & Moin, P. 1993 Direct numerical simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 251, 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S.K. & Moin, P. 1997 Interaction of isotropic turbulence with shock waves: effect of shock strength. J. Fluid Mech. 340, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lele, S.K. 1992 Shock-jump relations in a turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids A 4 (12), 2900–2905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh, K., Lele, S.K. & Moin, P. 1997 The influence of entropy fluctuations on the interaction of turbulence with a shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 334, 353–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mai, C.L. & Bowersox, R.D. 2014 Effect of a normal shock wave on freestream total pressure fluctuations in a low-density mach 6 flow. In 44th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA. AIAA Paper 2014-2641.Google Scholar
Mai, C.L.N. 2014 Near-region modification of total pressure fluctuations by a normal shock wave in a low-density hypersonic wind tunnel. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
McManamen, B. 2019 Velocity and temperature measurements in a high mach number shock turbulence interaction. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
Moore, F.K. 1953 Unsteady oblique interaction of a shock wave with a plane disturbance. NACA TN-2879.Google Scholar
Mouton, C.A. & Hornung, H.G. 2007 Mach stem height and growth rate predictions. AIAA J. 45 (8), 1977–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quadros, R., Sinha, K. & Larsson, J. 2016 a Kovasznay mode decomposition of velocity-temperature correlation in canonical shock-turbulence interaction. Flow Turbul. Combust. 97 (3), 787–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quadros, R., Sinha, K. & Larsson, J. 2016 b Turbulent energy flux generated by shock/homogeneous- turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 796, 113–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribner, H.S. 1954 Convection of a pattern of vorticity through a shock wave. NACA Tech. Rep. 1164.Google Scholar
Ribner, H.S. 1955 Shock-turbulence interaction and the generation of noise. NACA Tech. Rep. 1233.Google Scholar
Ribner, H.S. 1987 Spectra of noise and amplified turbulence emanating from shock-turbulence interaction. AIAA J. 25 (3), 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotman, D. 1991 Shock wave effects on a turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids A 3 (7), 1792–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryu, J. & Livescu, D. 2014 Turbulence structure behind the shock in canonical shock–vortical turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 756, R1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Gonzalez, R. 2012 Advanced laser diagnostics development for the characterization of gaseous high speed flows. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
Sánchez-González, R., Bowersox, R.D.W. & North, S.W. 2014 Vibrationally excited NO tagging by NO (A 2 $\varSigma$+) fluorescence and quenching for simultaneous velocimetry and thermometry in gaseous flows. Opt. Lett. 39 (9), 2771–2774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semper, M., Pruski, B. & Bowersox, R. 2012 Freestream turbulence measurements in a continuously variable hypersonic wind tunnel. In 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Nashville, TN, USA. AIAA Paper 2012-732.Google Scholar
Trolier, J.W. & Duffy, R.E. 1985 Turbulence measurements in shock-induced flows. AIAA J. 23 (8), 1172–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. & Zhong, X. 2012 DNS of strong shock and turbulence interactions with thermochemical non-equilibrium effects. In 42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, New Orleans, LA, USA. AIAA Paper 2012-3162.Google Scholar
Xanthos, S., Briassulis, G. & Andreopoulos, Y. 2002 Interaction of decaying freestream turbulence with a moving shock wave: pressure field. J. Propul. Power 18 (6), 1289–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar