4.4 Article

Investigation of shock-acoustic-wave interaction in transonic flow

Journal

EXPERIMENTS IN FLUIDS
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00348-017-2466-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG SCHR 309/40-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The buffet flow field around supercritical airfoils is dominated by self-sustained shock wave oscillations on the suction side of the wing. Theories assume that this unsteadiness is driven by an acoustic feedback loop of disturbances in the flow field downstream of the shock wave whose upstream propagating part is generated by acoustic waves. Therefore, in this study, first variations in the sound pressure level of the airfoil's trailing-edge noise during a buffet cycle, which force the shock wave to move upstream and downstream, are detected, and then, the sensitivity of the shock wave oscillation during buffet to external acoustic forcing is analyzed. Time-resolved standard and tomographic particle-image velocimetry (PIV) measurements are applied to investigate the transonic buffet flow field over a supercritical DRA 2303 airfoil. The freestream Mach number is M-infinity = 0.73, the angle of attack is alpha = 3.5 degrees, and the chord-based Reynolds number is Re-c = 1.9 x 10(6). The perturbed Lamb vector field, which describes the major acoustic source term of trailing-edge noise, is determined from the tomographic PIV data. Subsequently, the buffet flow field is disturbed by an artificially generated acoustic field, the acoustic intensity of which is comparable to the Lamb vector that is determined from the PIV data. The results confirm the hypothesis that buffet is driven by an acoustic feedback loop and show the shock wave oscillation to directly respond to external acoustic forcing. That is, the amplitude modulation frequency of the artificial acoustic perturbation determines the shock oscillation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available