Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-7l7zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-09T06:50:01.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On incident shock wave/boundary layer interactions under the influence of expansion corner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2024

Yunjie Guo ,
Huijun Tan Open the ORCID record for Huijun Tan [Opens in a new window] ,
Yue Zhang ,
Xin Li Open the ORCID record for Xin Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Hongchao Xue ,
Ziqi Luo  and
Hexia Huang Open the ORCID record for Hexia Huang [Opens in a new window]
Yunjie Guo
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
Huijun Tan*
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
Yue Zhang*
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
Xin Li
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
Hongchao Xue
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
Ziqi Luo
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
Hexia Huang
Affiliation:
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: thj@263.net, y.zhang@nuaa.edu.cn
†Email address for correspondence: thj@263.net, y.zhang@nuaa.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cowl-induced incident shock wave/boundary layer interactions (ISWBLIs) under the influence of shoulder expansion represent one of the dominant phenomena in supersonic inlets. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of how an expansion corner affects the ISWBLI, a detailed experimental and analytical study is performed in a Mach 2.73 flow in this work. Pressure measurement, schlieren photography and surface oil-flow visualisation are used to record flow features, including the pressure distribution, separation extent and surface-flow topological structures. Our results reveal three types of ISWBLIs influenced by the expansion corner. When the shock intensity is weak, the separation is small scale with the expansion waves emanating from the expansion corner. This is the first type of expansion-corner-affected ISWBLI (EC-ISWBLI). When the incident shock wave is strong, large-scale separation occurs, accompanied by the disappearance of expansion waves, forming the second type of EC-SWBLI. The expansion corner induces a ‘lock-in’ effect in which the separation onset is consistently locked near the expansion corner regardless of the incident shock intensity and impingement position. The third type of EC-ISWBLI occurs when the shock is sufficiently strong and the impingement point is close to the expansion corner. In this interaction, the ‘lock-in’ effect ceases to manifest. Moreover, a shock polar-incorporating inviscid model is employed to elucidate the shock patterns. Two criteria are established by combining free interaction theory with this model. The first criterion provides valuable insights into the evolution of separations with a minimal overall pressure rise and the second criterion determines the threshold for the occurrence of the ‘lock-in’ effect.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: High-speed flow Boundary Layers: Boundary layer separation Compressible Flows: Shock waves

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 988 , 10 June 2024 , A28
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, M.C. & Gaitonde, D.V. 2018 Dynamic linear response of a shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction using constrained perturbations. J. Fluid Mech. 840, 291–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertson, C., Emami, S. & Trexler, C. 2006 Mach 4 test results of a dual-flowpath, turbine based combined cycle inlet. In 14th AIAA/AHI Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, p. 8138. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. 2011 EBOOK: Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (SI units). McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ardonceau, P.L. 1984 The structure of turbulence in a supersonic shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 22 (9), 1254–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babinsky, H. & Harvey, J.K. 2011 Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interactions, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bur, R., Corbel, B. & Delery, J. 1998 Study of passive control in a transonic shock wave/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 36 (3), 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemann, A. 1935 Gasströmung mit laminarer grenzschicht entlang einer platte. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 15 (1–2), 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrière, P., Sirieix, M. & Solignac, J.-L. 1969 Similarity properties of the laminar or turbulent separation phenomena in a non-uniform supersonic flow. In Applied Mechanics: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Applied Mechanics, Stanford University, August 26–31, 1968 (ed. M. Hetényi & W.G. Vincenti), pp. 145–157. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J., Wang, L., Bao, W., Qin, J., Niu, J. & Xue, W. 2012 Novel oscillatory patterns of hypersonic inlet buzz. J. Propul. Power 28 (6), 1214–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, D.R., Kuehn, D.M. & Larson, H.K. 1958 Investigation of separated flows in supersonic and subsonic streams with emphasis on the effect of transition. NACA Tech. Rep. 3869.Google Scholar
Charwat, A.F. 1970 Supersonic flows with imbedded separated regions. In Advances in Heat Transfer, vol. 6, pp. 1–132. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Y.T. 1979 Shockwave and boundary layer interaction in the presence of an expansion corner. Aeronaut. Q. 30 (3), 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, K.-M. 2001 Investigation on turbulent expansion-corner flow with shock impingement. Trans. ASME J. Fluids Engng 123 (1), 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, K.-M. & Lu, F.K. 1995 Hypersonic turbulent expansion-corner flow with shock impingement. J. Propul. Power 11 (3), 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocco, L. 1932 Sulla trasmissione del calore da una lamina piana a un fluido scorrente ad alta velocita. L'Aerotecnica 12 (181–197), 126.Google Scholar
Délery, J. & Dussauge, J.-P. 2009 Some physical aspects of shock wave/boundary layer interactions. Shock waves 19 (6), 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Délery, J., Marvin, J.G. & Reshotko, E. 1986 Shock-Wave Boundary Layer Interactions. AGARD.Google Scholar
Devaraj, M.K.K., Jutur, P., Rao, S., Jagadeesh, G. & Anavardham, G.T.K. 2020 Experimental investigation of unstart dynamics driven by subsonic spillage in a hypersonic scramjet intake at Mach 6. Phys. Fluids 32 (2), 026103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolling, D.S. 2001 Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J. 39 (8), 1517–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolling, D.S. & Brusniak, L. 1989 Separation shock motion in fin, cylinder, and compression ramp-induced turbulent interactions. AIAA J. 27 (6), 734–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolling, D.S. & Murphy, M.T. 1983 Unsteadiness of the separation shock wave structure in a supersonic compression ramp flowfield. AIAA J. 21 (12), 1628–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edney, B. 1968 Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions on blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds in the presence of an impinging shock. Tech. Rep. Flygtekniska Forsoksanstalten, Stockholm (Sweden).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdos, J. & Pallone, A. 1962 Shock-boundary layer interaction and flow separation. In Proceedings of the 1962 Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute (ed. F.E. Ehlers, J.J. Kauzlarich, C.A. Sleicher Jr. & R.E. Street), vol. 15, pp. 239–254. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Giepman, R.H.M., Schrijer, F.F.J. & Van Oudheusden, B.W. 2018 A parametric study of laminar and transitional oblique shock wave reflections. J. Fluid Mech. 844, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gounko, Y.P., Mazhul, I.I. & Nurutdinov, V.I. 2014 Numerical investigation of supersonic flow breakdown at the inlet duct throttling. Thermophys. Aeromech. 21, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, I.J. & Bruce, P.J.K. 2018 Confinement effects on regular–irregular transition in shock-wave–boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 853, 171–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H.-X., Tan, H.-J., Cai, J. & Sun, S. 2021 Restart processes of rectangular hypersonic inlets with different internal contraction ratios. AIAA J. 59 (7), 2427–2439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H.-X., Tan, H.-J., Sun, S. & Sheng, F.-J. 2017 Unthrottled flows with complex background waves in curved isolators. AIAA J. 55 (9), 2942–2955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, C., Chang, J., Li, Y. & Li, N. 2020 Flowfield reconstruction and shock train leading edge detection in scramjet isolators. AIAA J. 58 (9), 4068–4080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkegi, R.H. 1975 Comparison of shock-induced two-and three-dimensional incipient turbulent seperation. AIAA J. 13 (4), 534–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, L., Sandham, N.D. & Steelant, J. 2009 Shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in a model scramjet intake. AIAA J. 47 (7), 1680–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X., Zhang, Y., Tan, H., Jin, Y. & Li, C. 2022 Comparative study on single-incident and dual-incident shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions with identical total deflection angle. J. Fluid Mech. 940, A7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Gao, W., Jiang, H. & Yang, J. 2013 Unsteady behaviors of a hypersonic inlet caused by throttling in shock tunnel. AIAA J. 51 (10), 2485–2492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheis, J. & Hickel, S. 2015 On the transition between regular and irregular shock patterns of shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 776, 200–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M.J., Sajben, M. & Kroutil, J.C. 1992 Experimental investigation of normal-shock/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions with and without mass removal. AIAA J. 30 (2), 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narasimha, R. & Viswanath, P.R. 1975 Reverse transition at an expansion corner in supersonic flow. AIAA J. 13 (5), 693–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodi, P.E., Emami, S. & Trexler, C.A. 1996 Unsteady pressure behavior in a ramjet/scramjet inlet. J. Propul. Power 12 (3), 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, B.W. & Weir, L.J. 1999 Advanced technology inlet design, NRA 8-21 cycle II: Draco flowpath hypersonic inlet design. NASA Tech. Rep. 121499.Google Scholar
Sanders, B.W. & Weir, L.J. 2008 Aerodynamic design of a dual-flow Mach 7 hypersonic inlet system for a turbine-based combined-cycle hypersonic propulsion system. NASA Tech. Rep. 215214.Google Scholar
Saravanan, R., Desikan, S.L.N., Francise, K.J. & Kalimuthu, R. 2021 Experimental investigation of start/unstart process during hypersonic intake at Mach 6 and its control. Aerosp. Sci. 113, 106688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathianarayanan, A. & Verma, S.B. 2017 Experimental investigation of an incident shock-induced interaction near an expansion corner. J. Spacecr. Rockets 54 (3), 769–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlatter, P. & Örlü, R. 2010 Assessment of direct numerical simulation data of turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 659, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, D. & Bissinger, N. 1998 Design and testing of 2-D fixed-geometry hypersonic intakes. In 8th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, p. 1529. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, G.S. 1976 An Experimental Study of Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layer Separation at High Reynolds Numbers. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Settles, G.S. & Bogdonoff, S.M. 1982 Scaling of two-and three-dimensional shock/turbulent boundary-layer interactions at compression corners. AIAA J. 20 (6), 782–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souverein, L.J., Bakker, P.G. & Dupont, P. 2013 A scaling analysis for turbulent shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 714, 505–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, H., Futamura, H., Shimodaira, K., Morimoto, T., Kojima, T. & Okai, K. 2003 Design study on hypersonic engine components for TBCC space planes. In 12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies, p. 7006. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, H.J., Sun, S. & Huang, H.X. 2012 Behavior of shock trains in a hypersonic inlet/isolator model with complex background waves. Exp. Fluids 53, 1647–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, F.O., Putnam, C.M. & Chu, H.C. 1994 On the mechanism of unsteady shock oscillation in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Exp. Fluids 18 (1–2), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, F., Li, X., Yuan, X. & Yu, C. 2020 Incident shock wave and supersonic turbulent boundary-layer interactions near an expansion corner. Comput. Fluids 198, 104385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Driest, E.R. 1951 Turbulent boundary layer in compressible fluids. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 18 (3), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, B., Sandham, N.D., Hu, Z. & Liu, W. 2015 Numerical study of oblique shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction considering sidewall effects. J. Fluid Mech. 767, 526–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, L.J., Reddy, D.R. & RUPP, G.D. 1989 Mach 5 inlet CFD and experimental results. In 25th Joint Propulsion Conference, p. 2355. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, L., Schrijer, F.F.J., Van Oudheusden, B.W., Wang, C., Shi, Z. & Cheng, K. 2020 Theoretical study on regular reflection of shock wave–boundary layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 899, A30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, J., Yu, A., Le, J., Yang, S., Rong, X. & Li, F. 2017 Experimental research on restarting characteristics of supersonic inlet based of injection regulation. In 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, p. 2387. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Q.F., Tan, H.J., Sun, S., Bu, H.X. & Rao, C.Y. 2016 Unstart of a hypersonic inlet with side compression caused by downstream choking. AIAA J. 54 (1), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Tan, H.-J., Sun, S., Chen, H. & Li, C.-H. 2017 Experimental and numerical investigation of a fluidically variable hypersonic inlet. AIAA J. 55 (8), 2597–2606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Tan, H.-J., Sun, S. & Rao, C.-Y. 2015 Control of cowl shock/boundary-layer interaction in hypersonic inlets by bump. AIAA J. 53 (11), 3492–3496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Tan, H.-J., Zhuang, Y. & Wang, D.-P. 2014 Influence of expansion waves on cowl shock/boundary layer interaction in hypersonic inlets. J. Propul. Power 30 (5), 1183–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zukoski, E.E. 1967 Turbulent boundary-layer separation in front of a forward-facing step. AIAA J. 5 (10), 1746–1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar