Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:22:47.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Numerical Study of Strong Interplay Between Cavity and Store During Launching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

P. P. Yan
Affiliation:
Department of MechanicsSchool of Civil EngineeringBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijing, China
Q. F. Zhang*
Affiliation:
Department of MechanicsSchool of Civil EngineeringBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijing, China
J. Li
Affiliation:
Shenyang Aircraft Design and Research InstituteAviation Industry of ChinaShenyang, China
*
*Corresponding author (zhangqunfeng@263.net)
Get access

Abstract

Numerical investigation of the strong interplay between a cavity and a store under supersonic inflow condition is conducted by using Improved Delayed Detach-Eddy Simulation (IDDES). Pressure fluctuations in the cavity are analyzed with smooth pseudo Winger-Vile distribution method and the time-frequency features are obtained. The effects of fluctuating flow inside the cavity on the aerodynamic loads of the store are also studied. It was shown that when the store is falling through the shear layer, the self-sustained oscillation loop is destroyed and the cavity tone vanishes. Vortex structures concentrate in the back of the cavity, as a result the noise levels at the rear of the cavity increase. After the store falls out of the cavity, the oblique shock wave formed at store's head interferences with the shear layer, which changes the cavity tone frequencies. The forces and moments acting on the store fluctuate strongly influenced by highly unsteady flow-field. Affected by oblique shock and the impact of shear layer, the store's pitch up angle keeps rising up and reaches to 24° at its maximum.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 2018 

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. Gai, S. L., Kleine, H. and Neely, A. J., “Supersonic Flow over a Shallow Open Rectangular Cavity,” Journal of Aircraft, 52, pp. 609616 (2014).Google Scholar
2. Beresh, S. J., Wagner, J. L. and Pruett, B. M., “Supersonic Flow over a Finite-Width Rectangular Cavity,” AIAA Journal, 53, pp. 296310 (2014).Google Scholar
3. Handa, T., Miyachi, H. and Kakuno, H., “Modeling of a Feedback Mechanism in Supersonic Deep-Cavity Flows,” AIAA Journal, 41, pp. 420425 (2014).Google Scholar
4. Li, W., Nonomura, T. and Oyama, A., “Feedback Mechanism in Supersonic Laminar Cavity Flows,” AIAA Journal, 51, pp. 253257 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Sun, Y., Zhang, Y. and Taira, K., “Width and Sidewall Effects on High Speed Cavity Flows,” 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego (2016).Google Scholar
6. Thiemann, C. L., Milne, G. J. and Vakili, A. D., “An Experimental Investigation of Supersonic Cavity Flow Control with Vertical Cylinders,” 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Diego (2013).Google Scholar
7. Givogue, G., Fowler, W. and Vakili, A., “An Experimental Investigation of 2-D Cylinders Affecting Supersonic Cavity Flow,” 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Honolulu (2011).Google Scholar
8. Zhang, Y., Sun, Y. and Arora, N., “Suppression of Cavity Oscillations via Three-Dimensional Steady Blowing,” 45th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Dallas (2015).Google Scholar
9. Williams, D. R., Cornelius, D. and Rowley, C. W., “Closed Loop Control of Linear Supersonic Cavity Tones,” 45th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Miami (2007).Google Scholar
10. Thangamani, V. and Kurian, J., “Control of Cavity Oscillations in a Supersonic Flow by Microjet Injection,” Journal of Aircraft, 50, pp. 13051309 (2013).Google Scholar
11. Robertson, G., Kumar, R. and Doyle, S., “Acoustics of a Supersonic Cavity with a Generic Store,” 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, U.S.A. (2015).Google Scholar
12. Blazek, J., Computational Fluid Dynamics Principles and Applications, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, London, pp. 1618 (2005).Google Scholar
13. Shur, M. L., Spalart, P. R. and Strelets, M., “A Hybrid RANS-LES Approach with Delayed-DES and Wall-Modelled LES Capabilities,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 29, pp. 16381649 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Menter, F. R., “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Modeling for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal, 32, pp. 15981605 (1994).Google Scholar
15. Strelets, M., “Detached Eddy Simulation of Massively Separated Flows,” 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, U.S.A. (2001).Google Scholar
16. Spalart, P. R., Jou, W. H. and Strelets, M., “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, U.S.A. (1997).Google Scholar
17. Spalart, P. R., Deck, S. and Shur, M. L., “A New Version of Detached Eddy Simulation, Resistant to Ambiguous Grid Densities,” Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, 20, pp. 181195 (2006).Google Scholar
18. Bey, N. Y., “Multi-Resolution Fourier Analysis: Time-Frequency Resolution in Excess of Gabor–Heisenberg Limit,” Signal, Image and Video Processing, 8, pp. 765778 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Xiao, J. and Flandrin, P., “Multitaper Time-Frequency Reassignment for Non-Stationary Spectrum Estimation and Chirp Enhancement,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 55, pp. 28512860 (2007).Google Scholar
20. Auger, F. and Flandrin, P., “Improving the Readability of Time Frequency and Time Scale Representations by the Reassignment Method,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 43, pp. 10681089 (1995).Google Scholar
21. Hadzic, H., “Development and Application of Finite Volume Method for the Computation of Flows Around Moving Bodies on Unstructured, Overlapping Grids,” M. S. Thesis, Department of Fluid Dynamics and Ship Theory, Technische University Harburg, Germany (2006).Google Scholar
22. Steger, J. L. and Dougherty, F. C., “A Chimera Grid Scheme,” Advances in Grid Generation Asme, 5, pp. 1523 (1983).Google Scholar
23. Togashi, F., Ito, Y. and Nakahashi, K., “Overset Unstructured Grids Method for Viscous Flow Computations,” AIAA Journal, 44, pp. 16171623 (2006).Google Scholar
24. Zhang, L. P., Deng X. G. and Zhang, H. X., “Reviews of Moving Grid Generation Techniques and Numerical Methods for Unsteady Flow,” Advances in Mechanics, 40, pp. 424447 (2010).Google Scholar
25. Henshaw, M. C., “M219 Cavity Case: Verification and Validation Data for Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics,” Technical Report RTO-TR-26, pp. 453472 (2002).Google Scholar
26. Rossiter, J. E., “Wind Tunnel Experiments on the Flow over Rectangular Cavities at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds,” Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, No. 3438, Farnborough (1964).Google Scholar
27. Heller, H. H., Holmes, D. G. and Covert, E. E., “Flow Induced Pressure Oscillations in Shallow Cavities,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 18, pp. 535546 (1971).Google Scholar
28. Zhuang, N. and Alvi, F. S., “Aeroacoustic Properties of Supersonic Cavity Flows and Their Control,” 9th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, U.S.A. (2003).Google Scholar
29. Heim, E. R., “CFD Wing/Pylon/Finned Store Mutual Interference Wind Tunnel Experiment,” Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee (1991).Google Scholar
30. Meakin, R. L., “Multiple-Body Proximate-Flight Simulation Methods,” 17th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Toronto, Canada (2005).Google Scholar
31. Hunt, H., Wary, A. A. and Moin, P., “Eddies, Streams, and Convergence Zones in Turbulent Flows,” Center for Turbulence Research, pp. 193207 (1988).Google Scholar
32. Wu, M. and Martin, M. P., “Direct Numerical Simulation of Supersonic Turbulent Boundary Layer over a Compression Ramp,” AIAA Journal, 45, pp. 879889 (2007).Google Scholar