Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1056–1071 | Cite as

Numerical exploration on jet oscillation mechanism of counterflowing jet ahead of a hypersonic lifting-body vehicle

  • Fan DengEmail author
  • Feng Xie
  • Wei Huang
  • Hao Dong
  • Dong Zhang


Numerical investigation of a supersonic jet from the nose of a lifting-body vehicle opposing a hypersonic flow with the freestream Mach number being 8.0 at 40 km altitude was carried out by solving the three-dimensional, time-accurate Navier-Stokes equations with a hybrid meshes approach. Based on the analysis of the flow field structures and aerodynamic characteristics, the behaviours relevant to the LPM jet were discussed in detail, including the drag reduction effect, the periodic oscillation and the feedback loop. The obtained results show that the flow oscillation characteristic of the LPM jet is low-frequency and high-amplitude while that of the SPM jet is high-frequency and low-amplitude. Compared with the clearly dominant frequencies of the LPM jet, the SPM jet exhibits a broad-band structure. The LPM jet can sustain drag reduction effect until the angle of attack is 8°, and the lift-to-drag ratio of the vehicle is effectively improved by 6.95% at angle of attack of 6°. The self-sustained oscillation process was studied by a typical oscillating cycle of the drag force coefficient and the variation of the instantaneous pressure distribution, which reveals an off-axial flapping motion of the conical shear layer. The variation of the subsonic recirculation zone ahead of the vehicle nose strengthens the understanding of the jet behavior including the source of instability in the long penetration mode and the mechanism of the feedback loop. The aim of this paper is to advance the technology readiness level for the counterflowing jet applied as an active control technology in hypersonic flows by gaining a better insight of the flow physics.


hypersonic lifting-body vehicle counterflowing jet LPM periodic oscillation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was supported by the Aerospace International Innovation Talent Cultivation Project of Program China Scholarship Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11502291). This work was funded to support the first author to conduct the research as an academic visitor at the University of Sheffield in collaboration with domestic research team.


  1. 1.
    Sziroczak D, Smith H. A review of design issues specific to hypersonic flight vehicles. Prog Aerospace Sci, 2016, 84: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang Z, Sun X, Huang W, et al. Experimental investigation on drag and heat flux reduction in supersonic/hypersonic flows: A survey. Acta Astronaut, 2016, 129: 95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmed M Y M, Qin N. Recent advances in the aerothermodynamics of spiked hypersonic vehicles. Prog Aerospace Sci, 2011, 47: 425–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Imani M, Ganji D D. Heat reduction using conterflowing jet for a nose cone with aerodisk in hypersonic flow. Aerosp Sci Technol, 2014, 39: 652–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang W, Liu J, Xia Z. Drag reduction mechanism induced by a combinational opposing jet and spike concept in supersonic flows. Acta Astronaut, 2015, 115: 24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerdroodbary M B, Hosseinalipour S M. Numerical simulation of hypersonic flow over highly blunted cones with spike. Acta Astronaut, 2010, 67: 180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barzegar Gerdroodbary M. Numerical analysis on cooling performance of counterflowing jet over aerodisked blunt body. Shock Waves, 2014, 24: 537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schnepf C, Wysocki O, Schülein E. Wave drag reduction due to a self-aligning aerodisk. In: Progress in Flight Physics. Volume 7. EDP Sciences, 2015. 475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kremeyer K, Reilly M P, Miley G H. Lines of energy deposition for supersonic/hypersonic temperature/drag-reduction and vehicle control. Classical Quant Grav, 2009, 20: 4015–4042Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sperber D, Eckel H A, Steimer S, et al. Objectives of laser-induced energy deposition for active flow control. Contrib Plasma Phys, 2012, 52: 636–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riggins D, Johnson E, Nelson H F. Blunt-body wave drag reduction using focused energy deposition. AIAA J, 1999, 37: 460–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang W, Yan L, Liu J, et al. Drag and heat reduction mechanism in the combinational opposing jet and acoustic cavity concept for hypersonic vehicles. Aerosp Sci Technol, 2015, 42: 407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Bishehsari S, Hosseinalipour S M, et al. Transient analysis of counterflowing jet over highly blunt cone in hypersonic flow. Acta Astronaut, 2012, 73: 38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang W, Jiang Y, Yan L, et al. Heat flux reduction mechanism induced by a combinational opposing jet and cavity concept in supersonic flows. Acta Astronaut, 2016, 121: 164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Imani M, Ganji D D. Investigation of film cooling on nose cone by a forward facing array of micro-jets in Hypersonic flow. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer, 2015, 64: 42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang W. A survey of drag and heat reduction in supersonic flows by a counterflowing jet and its combinations. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A, 2015, 16: 551–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hefner J N, Keyes J W. Effect of forward-facing jets on aerodynamic characteristics of blunt configurations at Mach 6. J Spacecr Rockets, 1967, 4: 533–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romeo D J, Sterrett J R. Flow field for sonic jet exhausting counter to a hypersonic mainstream. AIAA J, 1965, 3: 544–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Romeo D J, Sterrett J R. Exploratory investigation of the effect of a forward-facing jet on the bow shock of a blunt body into a supersonic free stream. NASA Report, 1963Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adams R H, Jarvinen P O. The effects of retrorockets on the aerodynamic characteristics of conical aeroshell planetary entry vehicles. In: 8th Aerospace Sciences Meeting. New York, 1970Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Finley P J. The flow of a jet from a body opposing a supersonic free stream. J Fluid Mech, 1966, 26: 337–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang C L, Venkatachari B S, Cheng G. Effect of counterflow jet on a supersonic reentry capsule. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. Sacramento, 2006Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fomichev V P, Fomin V M, Korotaeva T A, et al. Hypersonic flow around a blunted body with counterflow plasma jet. In: 11th International Conference on Methods of Aerophysical Research. Novosibirsk, 2002. 51–55Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kulkarni V, Reddy K. Counterflow drag reduction studies for a blunt cone in high enthalpy flow. Int J Hypersonics, 2010, 1: 69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daso E O, Pritchett V E, Wang T S, et al. Dynamics of shock dispersion and interactions in supersonic freestreams with counterflowing jets. AIAA J, 2009, 47: 1313–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daso E O, Beaulieu W, Hager J O, et al. Prediction of drag reduction in supersonic and hypersonic flows with counterflow jets. In: AIAA/AAAF 11th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. Orleans, 2002Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malmuth N D, Formin V M, Maslov A A, et al. Influence of counterflow jet on supersonic blunt-body pressures. AIAA Paper, 1999Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fomin V M, Fomichev V P, Korotaeva T A, et al. Influence of a counterflow plasma jet on supersonic blunt-body pressures. AIAA J, 2002, 40: 1170–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shang J S, Hayes J, Wurtzler K, et al. Jet-spike bifurcation in highspeed flows. AIAA J, 2001, 39: 1159–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shang J S, Hayes J, Menart J. Hypersonic flow over a blunt body with plasma injection. J Spacecr Rockets, 2002, 39: 367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shang J S. Plasma injection for hypersonic blunt-body drag reduction. AIAA J, 2002, 40: 1178–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karashima K, Sato K. An experimental study of an opposing jet. Bull Inst Space Aeronaut Sci Univ Tokyo, 1975, 11: 53–64Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marconi F. An investigation of tailored upstream heating for sonic boom and drag reduction. In: 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, 1998Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farr R, Chang C L, Jones J H, et al. On the comparison of the long penetration mode (LPM) supersonic counterflowing jet to the supersonic screech jet. In: 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. Dallas, TX, 2015Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venkatachari B S, Cheng G, Chang C L, et al. Long penetration mode counterflowing jets for supersonic slender configurations-a numerical study. In: 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. San Diego, CA, 2013Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Venkatachari B S, Mullane M, Cheng G, et al. Numerical study of counterflowing jet effects on supersonic slender-body configurations. In: 33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. Dallas, TX, 2015Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li S, Wang Z, Barakos G N, et al. Research on the drag reduction performance induced by the counterflowing jet for waverider with variable blunt radii. Acta Astronaut, 2016, 127: 120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huang W, Ma L, Wang Z, et al. A parametric study on the aerodynamic characteristics of a hypersonic waverider vehicle. Acta Astronaut, 2011, 69: 135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Korzun A, Cordell Jr C, Braun R. Comparison of inviscid and viscous aerodynamic predictions of supersonic retropropulsion flowfield. In: 10th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference. Chicago, Illinois, 2010Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kleb W, Schauerhamer D, Trumble K, et al. Toward supersonic retropropulsion CFD validation. In: 42nd AIAA Thermophysics Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venkatachari B S, Ito Y, Cheng G, et al. Numerical investigation of the interaction of counterflowing jets and supersonic capsule flows. In: 42nd AIAA Thermophysics Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii, 2011Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Ganji D D, Amini Y. Numerical study of shock wave interaction on transverse jets through multiport injector arrays in supersonic crossflow. Acta Astronaut, 2015, 115: 422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huang W, Tan J, Liu J, et al. Mixing augmentation induced by the interaction between the oblique shock wave and a sonic hydrogen jet in supersonic flows. Acta Astronaut, 2015, 117: 142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kimmel R, Adamczak D, Berger K, et al. HIFiRE-5 flight vehicle design. In: 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. Chicago, Illinois, 2010Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Juliano T J, Schneider S P. Instability and transition on the HIFiRE-5 in a Mach-6 quiet tunnel. In: 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. Chicago, Illinois, 2010Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kimmel R L, Borg M P, Jewell J S, et al. HIFiRE-5 boundary layer transition and HIFiRE-1 shock boundary layer interaction. Report. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB OH, Aerospace Systems Directorate, 2015Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huang W, Liu W, Li S, et al. Influences of the turbulence model and the slot width on the transverse slot injection flow field in supersonic flows. Acta Astronaut, 2012, 73: 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huang W. Transverse jet in supersonic crossflows. Aerosp Sci Technol, 2016, 50: 183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Huang W. Effect of jet-to-crossflow pressure ratio arrangement on turbulent mixing in a flowpath with square staged injectors. Fuel, 2015, 144: 164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    de Cacqueray N, Bogey C, Bailly C. Investigation of a high-machnumber overexpanded jet using large-eddy simulation. AIAA J, 2011, 49: 2171–2182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Meyer B, Nelson H F, Riggins D W. Hypersonic drag and heat-transfer reduction using a forward-facing jet. J Aircraft, 2001, 38: 680–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fujita M. Three-dimensional oscillations of a supersonic opposing jet flow around a hemispherical nose. Japan Soc Aeronaut Space Sci, 2003, 50: 373–379Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Romeo DJ, Sterrett J R. Exploratory Investigation of the Effect of a Forward-Facing Jet on the Bow Shock of a Blunt Body in a Mach 6 Free Stream. Washington: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1963Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tolle FF. An investigation of the influence of a forward ejected gas stream on hypersonic flow about blunt bodies. Dissertation of Doctoral Degree. Tucson, AZ: Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Arizona, 1973Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rockwell D, Naudascher E. Self-sustained oscillations of impinging free shear layers. Annu Rev Fluid Mech, 1979, 11: 67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Debiève J F, Ardissone J P, Dussauge J P. Shock motion and state of turbulence in a perturbed supersonic flow around a sphere. J Turbul, 2003, 4: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chen L W, Wang G L, Lu X Y. Numerical investigation of a jet from a blunt body opposing a supersonic flow. J Fluid Mech, 2011, 684: 85–110CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bilal Hussain Shah S, Lu X Y. Computational study of drag reduction at various freestream flows using a counterflow jet from a hemispherical cylinder. Eng Appl Comp Fluid Mech, 2010, 4: 150–163Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fujita M, Karashima K. An experimental and computational study on self-excited oscillations in supersonic opposing jet flows. Trans Japan Soc Aeronaut Space Sci, 1999, 42: 112–119Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Deng F, Du X, Tan H J, et al. Design and validation of cold-flow test for air-breathing hypersonic cruise vehicle (in Chinese). J Beijing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut, 2014, 40: 1341–1348Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huang W, Wang Z. Numerical study of attack angle characteristics for integrated hypersonic vehicle. Appl Math Mech-Engl Ed, 2009, 30: 779–786CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Liu J, Sun H S, Huang Y, et al. Numerical investigation of an advanced aircraft model during pitching motion at high incidence. Sci China Tech Sci, 2016, 59: 276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Deng F, Ren H, Xie F, et al. Research on wing-rudder interference of near-space hypersonic vehicle (in Chinese). J Astronaut, 2013, 34: 741–747Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Deng F, Ren H Y, Li X G, et al. Study on rudder effect of near-space hypersonic gliding vehicle with different control surfaces. Acta Aerodyn Sin, 2014, 32: 264–270Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jiang Z L, Liu Y, Han G. Conceptual study on non-ablative TPS for hypersonic vehicles. In: 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. San Francisco, 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fan Deng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Feng Xie
    • 2
  • Wei Huang
    • 3
  • Hao Dong
    • 4
  • Dong Zhang
    • 5
  1. 1.Science and Technology on Space Physics LaboratoryChina Academy of Launch Vehicle TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.Hypervelocity Aerodynamics InstituteChina Aerodynamics Research and Development CenterMianyangChina
  3. 3.Science and Technology on Scramjet LaboratoryNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  4. 4.College of Aerospace EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina
  5. 5.National Key Laboratory of Aerospace Flight DynamicsNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations