Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:18:19.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Computational investigation of cavity flow control using a passive device

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

B. Khanal*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
K. Knowles*
Affiliation:
Aeromechanical Systems Group, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK
A. J. Saddington*
Affiliation:
Aeromechanical Systems Group, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK

Abstract

In this paper, flow control effectiveness of a passive device in relation to open cavity flowfield is investigated computationally and compared with experimental work. Specifically the modification in the cavity flowfield due to the presence of a spoiler is studied in details to explain the physics behind the flow control effects. A combination of 2D and 3D flow visualisation tools are used to understand the flow behaviour inside the cavity and the quantitative analysis of the unsteady pressure fluctuations is also performed to assess the unsteady effects. Flow simulations with a turbulence model based on a hybrid RANS/LES (commonly known as Detached-Eddy Simulation (DES)) are used in this study. The time-mean flow visualisation clearly showed the presence of three dimensional effects inside the empty cavity whereas the 3D effects were found to diminish in the presence of a spoiler. In the unsteady flow analysis, near-field acoustic spectra were computed for empty cavity as well as cavity-with-spoiler cases. Study of unsteady pressure spectra for the cavity-with-spoiler case was found to record the complete suppression of the dominant tones in the presence of the spoiler. The analysis has indicated that the main reason behind this suppression is due to the inability of faintly energised vortical structures (faintly energised as a result of the extraction of turbulent kinetic energy by the spoiler) to maintain the unsteady flapping of the separated shear layer.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

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. Srinivisan, S. and Baysal, O. Navier-Stokes calculations of transonic flow past cavities, J Fluid Engineering, September 1991, 113, pp 369376.Google Scholar
2. Tam, C.K.W. and Block, P.J.W. On the tones and pressure oscillations induced by flow over rectangular cavities, J Fluid Mechanics, 1978, 89, pp 373399.Google Scholar
3. Vakili, A. and Gauthier, C. Control of cavity flow by upstream mass-injection, J Aircr, February 1994, 31, (1), pp 9096.Google Scholar
4. Huang, X. and Weaver, D. Active control of shear layer oscillations across a cavity in the presence of pipeline acoustic resonance, J Fluids and Structures, March 1991, 5, (2), pp 207219.Google Scholar
5. Cattafesta, L., Song, Q., Williams, D., Rowley, C. and Alvi, F. Active control of flow-induced cavity oscillations, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2008, 44, (7-8), pp 479502.Google Scholar
6. Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. Assessment of passive flow control for transonic cavity flow using detached-eddy simulation, J Aircr, 2009, 46, (3), pp 10091029.Google Scholar
7. Cattafesta, L., Shukla, D., Garg, S. and Ross, J. Development of an adaptive weapons bay suppression system, No. AIAA–99–1901, 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Bellevue, Washington, USA, May 1999.Google Scholar
8. Cattafesta, L., Williams, D., Rowley, C. and Alvi, F. Review of active control of flow-induced cavity resonance, No. AIAA–2003–3567, 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, June 2003.Google Scholar
9. Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach, Proceedings of first AFOSR international conference on DNS/LES, Ruston, Louisiana, USA, August 1997.Google Scholar
10. Nichols, R.H. Comparison of hybrid turbulence models for a circular cylinder and a cavity, AIAA J, 2006, 46, (6), pp 12071219.Google Scholar
11. Sinha, N., Dash, S., Chidambaram, N. and Findlay, D. A perspective on the simulation of cavity aeroacoustics, No. AIAA–1998–0286, January 1998.Google Scholar
12. Spalart, P.R., Deck, S., Shur, M.L., Squires, K.D., Strelets, M.K. and Travin, A. A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities, Theoritical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2006, 20, pp 181195.Google Scholar
13. Xiao, X., Edwards, J.R. and Hassan, H.A. Blending functions in hybrid large–Eddy/Reynolds-averaged Navier-stokes simulations, AIAA J, 2004, 42, (12), pp 25082515.Google Scholar
14. Stallings, R. and Wilcox, F. Experimental cavity pressure distributions at supersonic speeds, Tech. Rep. NASA—TP–2683, NASA, June 1987.Google Scholar
15. ESDU, Aerodynamics and aero-acoustics of rectangular planform cavities. Part I: Time-averaged flow, IHS ESDU, London, UK, 2004, ESDU Data Item 02008.Google Scholar
16. Tracy, M.B. and Plentovich, E. Measurements of fluctuating pressure in a rectangular cavity in transonic flow at high Reynolds number, Tech. Rep. NASA–TM–4363, NASA Langley Research Center, 1992.Google Scholar
17. Rossiter, J. Wind-tunnel experiments on the flow over rectangular cavities at subsonic and transonic speeds, Tech. Rep. 3438, Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, 1966.Google Scholar
18. Heller, H., Holmes, D. and Covert, E. Flow-induced pressure oscillations in shallow cavities, J Sound and Vibration, 1971, 18, pp 545553.Google Scholar
19. Khanal, B., Knowles, K. and Saddington, A. Computational Study of Cavity Flowfield at Transonic Speeds, No. AIAA–2009–701, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2009.Google Scholar
20. Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, No. AIAA–1992–0439, 30th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, January 1992.Google Scholar
21. Geraldes, P. Instabilities in Transonic Cavity Flows, PhD thesis, Cranfield University, October 2005.Google Scholar
22. Kim, S., Dai, Y., Koutsavdis, E.K., Sovani, S., Kadam, N.A. and Ravuri, K.M.R. A Versatile Implementation of Acoustic Analogy Based Noise Prediction Method in a General-Purpose CFD Code, No. AIAA–2003–3202, 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, May 2003.Google Scholar
23. Mathey, F., Morin, O., Caruelle, B. and Debatin, K. Simulation of aeroacoustic sources in aircraft climate control systems, No. AIAA–2006–2493, 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, May 2006.Google Scholar
24. Knowles, R.D., Finnis, M.V., Saddington, A.J. and Knowles, K. Planar visualization of vortical flows, Proceedings of IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 220, No. G6, 2006, pp 619627, Special Issue on Integrating CFD and Experiments in Aerodynamics.Google Scholar
25. Atvars, K., Knowles, K., Ritchie, S.A. and Lawson, N.J. Experimental and computational investigation of an S′ openŠ transonic cavity flow, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, 2009, 23, (4), pp 357368.Google Scholar
26. Khanal, B., Knowles, K. and Saddington, A.J. Computational study of flowfield characteristics due to presence of stores in cavities, 2nd CEAS European Air and Space Conference, Manchester, UK, 2009.Google Scholar
27. Khanal, B., Knowles, K. and Saddington, A.J. Study of cavity unsteady flowfield, No. ISSN0377-8312, 4th Symposium on Integrating CFD and Experiments in Aerodynamics, Belgium, 2009.Google Scholar
28. Taborda, N.M., Bray, D. and Knowles, K. Visualisation of three-dimensional cavity flows, No. ExHFT5, In 5th World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2001.Google Scholar
29. Joeng, J. and Hussain, F. On the identification of a vortex, J Fluid Mechanics, 285, 1995, pp 6994.Google Scholar