Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:39:07.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of supersonic turbulent boundary layers to local and global mechanical distortions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

ISAAC W. EKOTO ,
RODNEY D. W. BOWERSOX ,
THOMAS BEUTNER  and
LARRY GOSS
ISAAC W. EKOTO
Affiliation:
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA 94511-9056, USA
RODNEY D. W. BOWERSOX*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3141, USA
THOMAS BEUTNER
Affiliation:
DARPA, Arlington, VA 22203-1714, USA
LARRY GOSS
Affiliation:
Innovative Scientific Solutions Inc., Dayton, OH 45440-3638, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: bowersox@aeromail.tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of the mean and turbulent flow structure of a supersonic high-Reynolds-number turbulent boundary layer flow subjected to local and global mechanical distortions was experimentally examined. Local disturbances were introduced via small-scale wall patterns, and global distortions were induced through streamline curvature-driven pressure gradients. Local surface topologies included k-type diamond and d-type square elements; a smooth wall was examined for comparison purposes. Three global distortions were studied with each of the three surface topologies. Measurements included planar contours of the mean and fluctuating velocity via particle image velocimetry, Pitot pressure profiles, pressure sensitive paint and Schlieren photography. The velocity data were acquired with sufficient resolution to characterize the mean and turbulent flow structure and to examine interactions between the local surface roughness distortions and the imposed pressure gradients on the turbulence production. A strong response to both the local and global distortions was observed with the diamond elements, where the effect of the elements extended into the outer regions of the boundary layer. It was shown that the primary cause for the observed response was the result of local shock and expansion waves modifying the turbulence structure and production. By contrast, the square elements showed a less pronounced response to local flow distortions as the waves were significantly weaker. However, the frictional losses were higher for the blunter square roughness elements. Detailed quantitative characterizations of the turbulence flow structure and the associated production mechanisms are described herein. These experiments demonstrate fundamental differences between supersonic and subsonic rough-wall flows, and the new understanding of the underlying mechanisms provides a scientific basis to systematically modify the mean and turbulence flow structure all the way across supersonic boundary layers.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 630 , 10 July 2009 , pp. 225 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

REFERENCES

Antonia, R. & Wood, D. 1975 Calculation of a turbulent boundary layer downstream of a small step change in surface roughness. Aeronaut. Q. 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnette, S. A., Samimy, M. & Elliott, G. S. 1996 The effects of expansion regions on the turbulence structure of compressible boundary layers. AIAA Paper 96-0656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, L. H. & Gould, R. D. 1996 Towards better uncertainty estimates for turbulence statistics. Exp. Fluids 22, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, D. 1979 Surface roughness effect on a Mach 6 turbulent boundary layer. AIAA J. 17 (9), 929–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bons, J., Taylor, R., McClain, S. & Rivir, R. 2001 The many faces of turbine surface roughness. J. Turbomach. 123 (4), 739–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowersox, R. 1996 Combined laser Doppler velocimetry and cross-wire anemometry analysis for supersonic turbulent flow. AIAA J. 34, 2269–2275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, P. 1969 The analogy between streamline curvature and buoyancy in turbulent shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 36, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, P. 1974 The effect of mean compression or dilatation on the turbulence structure of supersonic boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 63 (3), 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolling, D. S. 1990 Unsteadiness of supersonic and hypersonic shock induced turbulent boundary layer separation. AGARD R 704, Chapter 7.Google Scholar
Dussauge, J. P. & Gaviglio, J. 1987 The rapid expansion of a supersonic turbulent flow – role of bulk dilatation. J. Fluid Mech. 174, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussauge, J. P., Smith, R., Smits, A., Fernholtz, H., Finley, P. & Spina, E. 1996 Turbulent boundary layers in subsonic and supersonic flow. AGARDograph No. 335, NATO, Canada Communications Group, Hull (Quebec) Canada.Google Scholar
George, J. & Simpson, R. 2000 Some effects of sparsely distributed three-dimensional roughness elements on two-dimensional turbulent boundary layers. AIAA Paper 2000-0915, Reno, NV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, F. 1959 Effects of uniformly distributed roughness on turbulent skin-friction drag at supersonic speeds. J. Aero/Space Sci. 26 (1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grass, A. 1971 Structural features of turbulent flow over smooth and rough boundaries. J. Fluid Mech. 50, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, L., Cambon, C. & Blin, E. 1993 Turbulence amplification by a shock-wave and rapid distortion theory. Phys. Fluids A 5, 2539–2550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jimenez, J. 2004 Turbulent flows over rough walls. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, J. & Merzkirch, W. 1990 Interaction of a normal shock with a compressible turbulent flow. Exp. Fluids 8, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klebanoff, P. May 1955 Characteristics of turbulence in a boundary layer with zero pressure gradient. Report 1247, National Committee for Aeronautics (and NASA TN 3178).Google Scholar
Latin, R. & Bowersox, R. 2000 Flow properties of a supersonic boundary layer with wall roughness. AIAA J. 38 (10), 1804–1821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latin, R. & Bowersox, R. 2002 Temporal turbulent flow structure for supersonic rough-wall boundary layers. AIAA J. 40 (5), 832–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Launder, B., Reece, G. & Rodi, W. 1974 Progress in the development of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure. J. Fluid Mech. 68, 537–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liepmann, H. & Goddard, F. 1957 Note on Mach number effect upon the skin friction of rough surfaces. J. Aero/Space Sci. 24 (10), 784.Google Scholar
Ligrani, P. & Moffat, R. 1986 Structure of transitionally rough and fully rough turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 162, 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, T. & Sullivan, J. P. 2005 Pressure and Temperature Sensitive Paints. Springer.Google Scholar
Luker, J., Bowersox, R. & Buter, T. 2000 Influence of a curvature driven favorable pressure gradient on a supersonic turbulent boundary layer. AIAA J. 38 (8), 1351–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh, K., Lele, S. & Moin, P. 1993 The response of anisotropic turbulence to rapid homogenous one-dimensional compression. Phys. Fluids 6 (2), 1052–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh, K., Lele, S. & Moin, P. 1995 The interaction of an isotropic field of acoustic waves with a shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 300 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh, K., Lele, S. & 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
McClain, S., Hodge, K. & Bons, J. 2003 Predicting skin friction and heat transfer for turbulent flow over real gas-turbine surface roughness using the discrete element method. GT2003–38813, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo Power for Land, Sea and Air. Atlanta GA.Google Scholar
Morkovin, M. 1961 Effects of compressibility on turbulent flows. In The Mechanics of Turbulence (ed. Favre, A.), pp. 368–380. Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Navarra, K. R., Rabe, D. C., Fonov, S. D., Goss, L. P. & Hah, C. 2001 The application of pressure- and temperature-sensitive paints to an advanced compressor. ASME Trans. 123, 823–829.Google Scholar
Nikuradse, J. 1933 Stromungsgesetze in rauhen rohren. Forschg.-Arb. Ing.-Wesen. No. 361.Google Scholar
Perry, A., Schofield, W. H. & Joubert, P. N. 1969 Rough wall turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 37, 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, A., Lim, K. & Henbest, S. 1987 An experimental study of the turbulent structure in smooth- and rough-wall boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 177, 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reda, D., Ketter, F. & Fan, C. 1975 Compressible turbulent skin friction on rough and rough/wavy walls in adiabatic flow. AIAA J. 13, 553–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M., Antonia, R. & Rajagopalan, S. 1991 Rough wall turbulent boundary layers. Appl. Mech. Rev. 44, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichting, H. 1955 Boundary Layer Theory. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. & Flack, K. 2007 The rough-wall turbulent boundary layer from the hydraulically smooth to the fully rough regime. J. Fluid Mech. 580, 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shockling, M., Allen, J. & Smits, A. 2006 Roughness effects in turbulent pipe flow. J. Fluid Mech. 564, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. 1973 A generalized correlation of roughness density effects on the turbulent boundary layer. AIAA J. 11 (2), 242–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, K., Mahesh, K. & Candler, G. V. 2003 Modelling shock unsteadiness in shock/turbulence interaction. Phys. Fluids 15 (8), 2290–2297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, K., Mahesh, K. & Candler, G. V. 2005 Modelling the effect of shock unsteadiness in shock/turbulent boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 43 (3), 586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. & Smits, A. 1991 The rapid expansion of a turbulent boundary layer in a supersonic flow. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dynam. 2, 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smits, A. & Dussauge, J-P. 1996 Turbulent Shear Layers in Supersonic Flow. American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
Smits, A., Spina, E., Alving, A., Smith, R., Fernando, E. & Donovan, J. 1989 A comparison of the turbulence structure of subsonic and supersonic boundary layers. Phys. Fluids A 1 (11), 1865–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spina, E., Smits, A. & Robinson, S. 1994 The physics of supersonic turbulent boundary layers. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 26, 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thivet, F., Knight, D. D., Zheltovodov, A. A. & Maksimov, A. I. 2001 Insights in turbulence modeling for crossing-shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 39 (6), 985–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, A. 1976 The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Driest, E. 1951 Turbulent boundary layers in compressible fluids. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 26 (3), 287–319.Google Scholar
Wallin, S. & Johansson, A. V. 2000 An explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model for incompressible and compressible turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 403, 89–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D. 2000 Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd Ed., DCW Industries, Inc.Google Scholar