Hypersonic Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Studies on a Flat Plate at Elevated Surface Temperature

  • Alexander Wagner
  • Jan Martinez Schramm
  • Klaus Hannemann
  • Ryan Whitside
  • Jean-Pierre Hickey
Conference paper

Abstract

Experimental shock wave boundary layer interactions (SBLI) at a compression corner of a flat plate model with deflectable flap and variable surface temperature were studied in the High Enthalpy Shock Tunnel Göttingen (HEG) of the German Aerospace Center (DLR) at Mach 7.4 and \({6.65\times 10^6}\,{\text {m}^{-1}}\) unit Reynolds number. The present paper focuses on the effect of the leading edge bluntness and surface temperature. The effects are discussed based on surface heat flux and surface pressure measurements as well as schlieren visualizations. The study confirms that the state of the incoming boundary layer is crucial for the interaction. A small change of the leading edge bluntness was found to affect the boundary layer stability and thus the SBLI. In contrast, surface heating was found to destabilize the boundary layer. Tests at different flap deflection angles and transitional incoming boundary layers revealed that the transition process was completed in the separated shear layer, leading to a fully turbulent reattachment on the flap. The experimental effort is complemented by Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) computations providing insights into fundamental trends. The 2D simulations underpredict the size of the separation bubble in the compression corner but qualitatively mirrored the experimental trends. The wall heating resulted in an increased boundary layer thickness, reduced the extent of the separation bubble and elevated the peak boundary layer temperature on the flap.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was performed within the Aero-Thermodynamic Loads on Lightweight Advanced Structures II project investigating high-speed transport. ATLLAS II, coordinated by ESA-ESTEC, is supported by the EU within the 7th Framework Programme Theme 7 Transport, Contract no.: ACP0-GA-2010-263913. Further info on ATLLAS II can be found on http://www.esa.int/techresources/atllas_II. Computations were performed on the GPC supercomputer at the SciNet HPC Consortium through Compute Canada’s Resource Allocation Competition (RAC).

References

  1. 1.
    Babinsky, H., Harvey, J.K. (eds.): Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interactions. Cambridge University Press (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bleilebens, M., Olivier, H.: On the influence of elevated surface temperatures on hypersonic shock wave/boundary layer interaction at a heated ramp model. Shock Waves (Springer) 15, 301–312 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolling, D.S.: Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J. 39(8), 1517–1531 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Driest, E.R.: The problem of aerodynamic heating. In: Aeronautical Engineering Review, pp. 26–41 (1956)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerhold, T.: Overview of the Hybrid RANS Code TAU MEGAFLOW—Numerical Flow Simulation for Aircraft Design in Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, vol. 89. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hannemann, K., Schramm, J.M., Karl, S.: Recent extensions to the high enthalpy shock tunnel Göttingen (heg). In: 2nd International ARA Days (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holden, M.S.: Shock wave-turbulent boundary layer interaction in hypersonic flow. In: AIAA 10th Aerospace Sciences Meeting (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holden, M.S.: A study of flow separation in regions of shock wave-boundary layer interaction in hypersonic flow. In: AIAA 11th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference (1978)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horstman, C.C.: Hypersonic shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction flows. AIAA J. 30(6), 1480–1481 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karl, S.: Numerical investigation of a generic scramjet configuration. Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology Dresden (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laurence, S., Lieber, D., Schramm, J.M., Hannemann, K., Larsson, J.: Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part I: Shock-tunnel experiments. Combust. Flame 162(4) (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laurence, S., Wagner, A., Hannemann, K.: Schlieren-based techniques for investigating instability development and transition in a hypersonic boundary layer. Exp. Fluids 55(8) (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Law, C.H.: Supersonic shock wave turbulent boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 14(4), 730–734 (1976)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis, J.E., Kubota, T., Lees, L.: Experimental investigation of supersonic laminar two-dimensional boundary layer separation in a compression corner with and with cooling. In: AIAA 5th Aerospace Science Meeting (1967)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neuenhahn, T.: Investigation of the shock wave/boundary layer interaction of scramjet intake flows. Ph.D. thesis, Rheinisch-Westflischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen Fakultät für Maschinenwesen (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palacios, F., Alonso, J., Duraisamy, K., Colonno, M., Hicken, J., Aranake, A., Campos, A., Copeland, S., Economon, T., Lonkar, A., Lukaczyk, T., Taylor, T.: Stanford university unstructured: an open-source integrated computational environment for multi-physics simulation and design. In: Aerospace Sciences Meetings. AIAA (2013).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-287
  17. 17.
    Reimann, B., Johnston, I., Hannemann, V.: DLR \(\tau \)-code for high enthalpy flows. In: Breitsamter, C., Laschka, B., Heinemann, H.J., Hilbig, R. (eds.) New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics IV: Contributions to the 13th STAB/DGLR Symposium Munich, Germany 2002, pp. 99–106. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandham, N.D., Schülein, E., Wagner, A., Willems, S., Steelant, J.: Transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow. J. Fluid Mech. 752, 349–382 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2014.333
  19. 19.
    Schülein, E.: Effects of laminar-turbulent transition on the shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction. In: 44th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwamborn, D., Gerhold, T., Heinrich, R.: The DLR tau-code: recent applications in research and industry. In: European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics ECCOMAS CFD (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scortecci, F., Paganucci, F., d’Agostino, L.: Experimental investigation of shock wave/boundary layer interactions over an artificially heated model in hypersonic flow. AIAA (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatakrishnan, V.: Convergence to steady state solutions of the Euler equations on unstructured grids with limiters. J. Comput. Phys. 118(1), 120–130 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner, A., Hannemann, K., Kuhn, M.: Ultrasonic absorption characteristics of porous carbon-carbon ceramics with random microstructure for passive hypersonic boundary layer transition control. Exp. Fluids 55(6) (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, A., Kuhn, M., Martinez Schramm, J., Hannemann, K.: Experiments on passive hypersonic boundary layer control using ultrasonically absorptive carbon-carbon material with random microstructure. Exp. Fluids 54(10) (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Wagner
    • 1
  • Jan Martinez Schramm
    • 1
  • Klaus Hannemann
    • 1
  • Ryan Whitside
    • 2
  • Jean-Pierre Hickey
    • 2
  1. 1.Spacecraft DepartmentGerman Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow TechnologyGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Mechanical and Mechatronics EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations