4.2 Article

Topological modifications due to ramped vanes in a flare-induced shock-boundary layer interaction flowfield

期刊

JOURNAL OF VISUALIZATION
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 991-1010

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12650-020-00735-x

关键词

Compression corner; Flare; Flow control; Vortex generators; Flow separation

资金

  1. DIAT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the effect of 'ramped vane'-type vortex generators on shock-induced flow separation near an axisymmetric compression corner. By placing these devices at different positions upstream of the compression corner, significant changes were observed in the shock-boundary layer interaction flowfield, leading to transformation of separation bubble structures and widening of attached flow zones.
Effect of 'ramped vane'-type vortex generators on a shock-induced flow separation in the vicinity of an axisymmetric compression corner was evaluated. Numerical simulations were performed at Mach 2 on a cone-cylinder-flare model with a flare angle of 24 degrees. The undisturbed boundary layer thickness (delta) at the location of the compression corner was 5 mm. A single array of these vortex generators with a device height of 0.28 delta (1.4 mm) was placed on the cylinder surface at different streamwise positions, viz. 5 delta, 10 delta and 15 delta upstream of the compression corner, and their ability to manipulate the shock-boundary layer interaction flowfield was compared. The presence of these devices caused substantial changes in the interaction region and the separation bubble structure. The separation bubble transformed into a series of spade-shaped structures with pockets of attached flow in between them. The ramped vanes increased the separation length along the device centreline, but this effect was attenuated considerably, by bringing them closer to the interaction region. Moving the ramped vanes closer also had a collapsing effect on the spade-shaped structures, which simultaneously widened the attached flow zones in between them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据