Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:41:18.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental and computational investigations of hypersonic flow about compression ramps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

G. Simeonides  and
W. Haase
G. Simeonides
Affiliation:
Von Karman Institute, Chaussée de Waterloo, 72, B-1640 Rhode St-Genèse, Belgium
W. Haase
Affiliation:
Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, D-88039 Friedrichshafen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comprehensive results of a joint experimental and computational study of the two-dimensional flow field over flat plate/compression ramp configurations at Mach 14 are presented. These geometries are aimed to simulate, in a simplified manner, the region around deflected control surfaces of hypersonic re-entry vehicles. The test cases considered cover a range of realistic flow conditions with Reynolds numbers to the hinge line varying between 4.5 × 105 and 2.6 × 106 (with a reference length taken as the distance between the leading edge and the hinge line) and a wall-to-total-temperature ratio of 0.12. The combination of flow and geometric parameters gives rise to fully laminar strong shock wave/boundary layer interactions with extensive separation, and transitional interactions with transition occurring near the reattachment point. A fully turbulent interaction is also considered which, however, was only approximately achieved in the experiments by means of excessive tripping of the oncoming hypersonic laminar boundary layer. Emphasis has been placed upon the quality and level of confidence of both experiments and computations, including a discussion on the laminar-turbulent transition process and the associated striation phenomenon. The favourable comparison between the experimental and computational results has profided the grounds for an enhanced understanding of the relevant flow processes and their modelling. Particularly in relation to transitional shock wave/boundary layer interactions, where laminar-turbulent transition is promoted by the adverse pressure gradient and flow concavity in the reattachment region, a method is proposed to compute extreme adverse effects in the interaction region avoiding such inhibiting requirements as transition modelling or turbulence modelling over separated regions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 283 , 25 January 1995 , pp. 17 - 42
Copyright
© 1995 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

Arnal, D. 1989 Laminar-turbulent transition problems in supersonic and hypersonic flows. AGARD-FDP/VKI Special Course on Aerothermodynamics of Hypersonic Vehicles, AGARD Rep. 761.
Arnal, D. 1993 Boundary layer transition: predictions based on linear theory. AGARD-FDP/VKI Special Course on Progress in Transition Modelling, AGARD Rep. 793.
Bogdonoff, S. M. 1991 comments on experiments for computational validation for fluid dynamic predictions. In Hypersonic flows for reentry problems (ed. J. A. desideri, R. glowinski, J. periaux), vol.i. Springer.
Bushnell, D. M., & Weinstein, L. M. 1968 Correlation of peak heating for reattachment of separated flows. J. Spacecraft Rockets 5, 1111–1112.Google Scholar
Cebeci, T. & Smith, A. M. O. 1974 Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layers. Academic.
Delery, J. 1989 Shock/shock and shock/boundary layer interactions in hypersonic flows. AGARD-FDP/VKI Special Course on Aerothermodynamics of Hypersonic Vehicles, AGARD Rep. 761.
Delery, J. & Marvin, J. G. 1986 Shock wave boundary layer interactions. AGARDograph 280.Google Scholar
Desideri, J. A., Glowinski, R. & Periaux, J. 1991 Hypersonic Flows for Reentry Problems, Vols I, II and III (1992), Springer.
Dhawan, S. & Narasimha, R. 1958 Some properties of boundary layer flow during the transition from laminar to turbulent motion. J. Fluid Mech. 3, 418–436.Google Scholar
Eckert, E. R. G. 1955 Engineering relations of friction and heat transfer to surfaces in high velocity flow. J. Aero. Sci. 22, 585–587.Google Scholar
Emmons, H. W. 1951 The laminar-turbulent transition in a boundary layer. J. Aero. Sci. 18, 490–498.Google Scholar
Floryan, J. M. 1991 On the Görtler instability of boundary layers. Prog. Aerospace Sci. 28, 235–271.Google Scholar
Ginoux, J. J. 1969 On some properties of reattaching laminar and transitional high speed flows. Von Karman Institute TN 53.
Green, J. E. 1970 Interaction between shock waves and boundary layers. Prog. Aerospace Sci. 11, 235–340.Google Scholar
Haase, W. 1990 Viscous hypersonic flows over compression ramps. In Proc. 8th GAMM Conf. on Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics (ed. P. Wesseling).Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 29, Vieweg.
Haase, W., Brandsma, F., Elsholz, E., Leschziner, M. & Schwamborn, D. (eds.) 1993 EUROVAL - A European initiative on validation of CFD codes. Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vol 42, Vieweg.
Haase, W. & Echtle, H. 1987 Computational results for viscous transonic flow around airfoils. AIAA 25th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-87-0422.
Haase, Wagner, B. & Jameson, A 1983 Development of a Navier-Stokes method based on a finite volume technique for the unsteady Euler equations. In Proc. 5th GAMM Conf. on Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics (ed. P. Pandolfi). Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 7. Vieweg.
Hankey, W. L. & Holden, M. S. 1975 Two dimensional shock wave boundary layer interactions in high speed flows. AGARDograph 203.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. & Newmann, R. D. 1992 Introduction to aerodynamic heating analysis of supersonic missiles. In Tactical Missile Aerodynamics – Prediction Methodology (ed. M. R. Mendenhall). AIAA Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 142, Chap. 3.
Hayes, W. D. & Probstein, R. F. 1959 Hypersonic Flow Theory. Academic.
Holden, M. S. 1971 Boundary layer displacement and leading edge bluntness effects on attached and separated laminar boundary layers in a compression corner. Part II: Experimental study. AIAA J. 9, 84–93.Google Scholar
Holden, M. S. 1986 A review of aerothermal problems associated with hypersonic flight. AIAA Paper 86-0267.
Holden, M. S. & Moselle, J. R. 1970 Theoretical and experimental studies of the shock wave boundary layer interaction on compression surfaces in hypersonic flow. ARL 70-0002.
Horstman, C. C. 1991 Hypersonic shock wave turbulent boundary layer interaction flows-experiment and computation. AIAA Paper 91-1760.
Horstman, C. C., Settles, G. S., Vas, I. E., Bogdonoff, S. M. & Hung, C. M. 1977 Reynolds number effects on shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions. AIAA J. 15, 1152–1158.Google Scholar
Hung, C. M. & Maccormack, R. W. 1976 Numerical solutions of supersonic and hypersonic laminar compression corner flows. AIAA J. 14, 475–481.Google Scholar
Jameson, A., Schmidt, W. & Turkel, E. 1981 Numerical solutions of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge-Kutta time-stepping schemes. AIAA Paper 81-1259.
Lukasiewicz, J. 1961 Hypersonic flow – blast analogy. AEDC TR-61-4. Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Airforce Station, Tennessee, U.S. Airforce.
Marvin, J. G. 1986 Future requirements of wind tunnels for computational fluid dynamics code verification. AIAA Paper 86-0752.
Marvin, J. G. 1990 Turbulence modeling for hypersonic flows. Proc. 3rd Joint Europe/US Short Course in Hypersonics, Forum Weltraumforschung, RWTH Aachen.
Mehta, U. B. 1990 Computational requirements for hypersonic flight performance estimates. J. Spacecraft Rockets 27, 103–112.Google Scholar
Power, G. D. & Barber, T. J. 1988 Analysis of complex hypersonic flows with strong viscous/inviscid interaction. AIAA J. 26, 832–840.Google Scholar
Rizzetta, D. & Mach, K. 1989 Comparative numerical study of hypersonic compression ramp flows. AIAA Paper 89-1877.
Roberts, T. P. & East, R. A. 1989 Dynamic effects of hypersonic separated flow. Proc. Intl Conf. on Hypersonic Aerodynamics, RAeS/University of Manchester.
Rudy, D. H., Thomas, J. L. & Kumar, A. 1992 Computational study of laminar hypersonic flow over a 2D ramp. In Hypersonic Flows for Reentry Problems (ed. J. A. Desideri, R. Glowinski & J. Periaux), Vol. III, pp. 236–247. Springer.
Rudy, D. H., Thomas, J. L., Kumar, A., Gnoffo, P. A. & Chakravarthy, S. R. 1989 A validation study of four Navier-Stokes codes for high speed flows. AIAA Paper 89-1838.
Schultz, D. L. & Jones, T. V. 1973 Heat transfer measurements in short duration facilities. AGARDograph 165.Google Scholar
Settles, G. S. & Dodson, L. J. 1991 Hypersonic shock boundary layer interaction database. AIAA Paper 91-1763.
Settles, G. S., Fitzpatrick, T. J. & Bogdonoff, S. M. 1979 Detailed study of attached and separated compression corner flowfields in high Reynolds number supersonic flow. AIAA J. 17, 579–585.Google Scholar
Simeonides, G. 1990 The VKI hypersonic wind tunnels and associated measurement techniques. Von Karman Institute TM 46.
Simeonides, G. 1992 Hypersonic shock wave boundary layer interactions over compression corners. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol/von Karman Institute.
Simeonides, G. 1993 Hypersonic shock wave boundary layer interactions over simplified deflected control surface configurations In Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interactions in Supersonic and Hypersonic Flows. AGARD-FDP/VKI Special Course, AGARD Rep. 792.
Simeonides, G. & Wendt, J. F. 1990 An experimental contribution to the flat plate 2D compression ramp shock/boundary layer interaction problem at Mach 14: Test case 3.7. In Hypersonic Flows for Reentry Problems, Vol. II, pp. 129–151. Springer.
Stock, H. W. & Haase, W. 1989 Determination of length scales in algebraic turbulence models for Navier-Stokes methods. AIAA J. 27, 5–14.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. A. 1963 Hypersonic flow over slender double wedges. AIAA J. 1, 1927.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, J. P. & Simeonides, G. 1992 Parametric studies of shock wave boundary layer interactions over 2D compression corners at Mach 6. Von Karman Institute TN 181.