Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T14:16:00.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sub boundary-layer vortex generators for the control of shock induced separation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

G. S. Cohen  and
F. Motallebi
G. S. Cohen
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
F. Motallebi
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The results of an investigation into the effects that sub-boundary layer vortex generators (SBVGs) have on reducing normal shock-induced turbulent boundary-layer separation are presented. The freestream Mach number and Reynolds number were M = 1·45 and 15·9 × 106/m, respectively. Total pressure profiles, static pressure distributions, surface total pressure distributions, oil flow visualisation and Schlieren photographs were used in the results analysis. The effects of SBVG height, lateral spacing and location upstream of the shock were investigated. A novel curved shape SBVG was also evaluated and comparisons against the conventional flat vane type were made. The results show that in all but two cases, separation was completely eliminated. As expected, the largest SBVGs with height, h = 55%δ, provided the greatest pressure recovery and maximum mixing. However, the shock pressure rise was highest for this case. The experiments showed that the mid height SBVG array with the largest spacing provided similar results to the SBVG array with the largest height. Reducing the distance to shock to 10δ upstream also showed some improvement over the SBVG position of 18δ upstream. It was suggested that total elimination of the separated region may not be required to achieve a balance of improved static pressure recovery whilst minimising the pressure rise through the shock. The effect of curving the SBVGs provided an improved near wall mixing with an improved static and surface total pressure recovery downstream of the separation line. The optimum SBVG for the current flow conditions was found to be the curved vanes of h = 40%δ, with the largest spacing, located at 18δ upstream of the shock. Overall, it was apparent from the results that in comparison to larger vortex generators with a height comparable to δ, for SBVGs the parameters involved become more important in order to obtain the highest degree of mixing from a given SBVG configuration.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1106 , April 2006 , pp. 215 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

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

1. Lina, J.L. and Reed, W.H., A preliminary flight investigation of the effects of vortex generators on separation due to shock, 1950, NACA-RM-L50j02.Google Scholar
2. Freestone, M.M., Some notes on the forms of vortex generators seen on aircraft, April 1993, ESDU Memorandum No 85.Google Scholar
3. Holmes, A.E., Hickey, P.K., Murphy, W.R. and Hilton, D.A., The application of sub-boundary-layer vortex generators to reduce canopy ‘Mach rumble’ interior noise on the Gulfstream III, January 1987, AIAA paper 87-0084.Google Scholar
4. Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Fulker, J.L. and Ashill, P.R., Normal shock wave – turbulent boundary layer interactions in the presence of streamwise slots and grooves, Aeronaut J, 2002, 106, (1063), pp 493–500.Google Scholar
5. Holden, H.A. and Babinsky, H., Shock/boundary layer interaction control using 3D devices, 2003, AIAA paper 03-0447.Google Scholar
6. Raghunathan, S., Passive control of shock-boundary layer interaction, Prog in Aerospace Sci, 1988, 25, pp 355–378.Google Scholar
7. Stanewsky, E. and Krogmann, P., Transonic drag rise and drag reduction by active/passive boundary layer control, 1985, AGARD Rep No 723.Google Scholar
8. Krogmann, P., Stanewsky, E. and Theide, P., Effects of suction on shock/boundary layer interaction and shock-induced separation, J Aircr, January 1985, 22, (1), pp 37–42.Google Scholar
9. Theide, P. and Krogmann, P., Improvement of transonic airfoil performance through passive shock/boundary-layer interaction control, 1985, IUTAM Symposium on ‘Turbulent shear layer/shock wave interactions’, Palaiseau, France, Délery, J. (Ed). pp 113–123.Google Scholar
10. Bur, R., Corbel, B. and Délery, J., Study of passive control in a transonic shock wave/boundary layer interaction, AIAA 35th ASME, 1997–4, Reno NV, January 6-9, 1997.Google Scholar
11. Bur, R., Délery, J., Corbel, B., Soulevant, D. and Soares, R., A basic experimental investigation of passive control applied to a transonic interaction, 1998, ONERA TP 1998-74.Google Scholar
12. Pearcey, H.H., Rao, K., and Sykes, D.M., Inclined air-jets used as vortex generators to suppress shock-induced separation, Paper No. 40, AGARD-CP-534, Fluid Dynamics Panel Symposium, on computational and experimental assessment of jets in crossflow, April 1993, Winchester, UK.Google Scholar
13. Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L., Simmons, M.J. and Gaudet, I.M., A review of research at DRA on active and passive control of shock waves, ICAS-96-2.1.4, 1996, pp 76–87.Google Scholar
14. Birkemeyer, J., Rosemann, H. and Stanewsky, E., Shock Control on a Swept Wing, Aerospace Science & Tech, 2000, 4, (3), pp 147–156.Google Scholar
15. Reichert, B.A. and Wendt, B.J., An experimental investigation of S-Duct flow control using arrays of low-profile vortex generators, 1993, AIAA Paper 93 0018.Google Scholar
16. Wendt, B.J. and Hingst, W.R., Measurement and modelling of flow structure in the wake of a low profile ‘Wishbone’ vortex generator, 1994, NASA TM-106468.Google Scholar
17. Rao, D.M. and Kariya, T.T., Boundary-layer submerged vortex generators for separation control – an exploratory study, 1988, AIAA 88-3546-CP.Google Scholar
18. Lin, J.C., Robinson, S.K., McGhee, R.J. and Valarezo, W.O., Separation control on high-lift airfoils via micro-vortex generators, J Aircr, November-December, 1994, 31, (6).Google Scholar
19. Ashill, P., Fulker, J. and Hackett, K., Research at DERA on sub-boundary layer vortex generators (SBVGs), January 2001, AIAA paper 01-0831.Google Scholar
20. Lin, J., Howard, F. and Selby, G., Small submerged vortex generators for turbulent flow separation control, J Spacecraft and Rockets, September October, 1990, 27, (5), pp 503–507.Google Scholar
21. McCormick, D.C., Shock/boundary-layer interaction control with low-profile vortex generators and passive cavity, 1992, AIAA Paper 92-0064.Google Scholar
22. Holden, H.A. and Babinsky, H., Vortex generators near shock/boundary layer interactions, AIAA Paper 2004-1242, 2004.Google Scholar
23. Gamerdinger, P.M., The Effect of Low-profile Vortex Generators on Flow in a Transonic Fan-Blade Cascade, March, 1995, Naval Postgraduate School, Master’s Thesis.Google Scholar
24. Pearcey, H.H., Shock-induced separation and its prevention by design and boundary-layer control. Boundary Layer and Flow Control, 2, Lachmann, G.V. (Ed), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1961, pp 1166–1344.Google Scholar
25. ESDU. Vortex generators for control of shock-induced separation, 1995, Parts 1-3, DATA sheets No. 93024, 93025, 93026,.Google Scholar
26. Délery, J. and Bur, R., The physics of shock wave/boundary layer interaction control: last lessons learned, 11-14 September, 2000, ONERA TP 2000-181, & ECCOMAS 2000 Barcelona.Google Scholar
27. Wik, E. and Shaw, S.T., Numerical simulation of micro vortex generators, 2004, AIAA Paper, 2004-2697.Google Scholar
28. Allen, J.M., Pitot probe displacement in a supersonic turbulent boundary layer, April, 1972, NASA TN-D 6759.Google Scholar
29. Délery, J. and Marvin, J.G., Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interactions, 1986, Reshotko, E. (Ed) AGARD-AG-280, ISBN 92-835-1519-6,Google Scholar
30. Green, J.E., Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers, Progress in Aero Sci, 1970, 11, pp 235–340.Google Scholar
31. Seddon, J., The flow produced by interaction of a turbulent boundary layer with a normal shock wave of strength sufficient to cause separation, March, 1960, ARC R & M, 3502.Google Scholar
32. Kooi, J.W., Experiments on transonic shock-wave boundary layer interaction, AGARD-CP-168.Google Scholar
33. Gadd, G.E., Interactions between normal shock waves and turbulent boundary layers, 1961, ARC 22, 559 – F.M. 3051.Google Scholar
34. Atkin, C.J. and Squire, L.C., A study of the interaction of a normal shock wave with a turbulent boundary layer at Mach numbers between 1.3 and 1.55, Euro J of Mech, B Fluids, 1992, 11, (1), pp 93–118.Google Scholar
35. Pauley, W.R. and Eaton, J.K., Experimental study of the development of longitudinal vortex pairs embedded in a turbulent boundary layer, AIAA J Google Scholar