Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-22T01:10:01.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low-frequency unsteadiness mechanisms of unstart flow in an inlet with rectangular-to-elliptical shape transition under off-design condition at a Mach number of 4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2024

Jiaxiang Zhong Open the ORCID record for Jiaxiang Zhong [Opens in a new window] ,
Feng Qu Open the ORCID record for Feng Qu [Opens in a new window] ,
Di Sun ,
Qingsong Liu ,
Qing Wang Open the ORCID record for Qing Wang [Opens in a new window]  and
Junqiang Bai
Jiaxiang Zhong
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, PR China
Feng Qu*
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, PR China
Di Sun
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, PR China
Qingsong Liu
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, PR China
Qing Wang
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, PR China
Junqiang Bai
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: qufeng@nwpu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The unsteady mechanism of unstart flow for an inlet with rectangular-to-elliptical shape transition (REST) under the off-design condition at a Mach of 4 is investigated using the delay detached eddy simulation method. With the help of numerical simulations, the unsteady dynamics, especially the low-frequency characteristics of the REST inlet unstart flow, as well as the self-sustaining mechanism, is investigated. The instantaneous flow illustrates the unsteady phenomena of the REST unstart flow, including the interaction between the cowl-closure leading edge (CLE) shock and the shear layer, breathing of the separation bubble, flapping of the separation shock, instability of the shear layer and vortex shedding along the shear layer. The spectral analysis reveals that the lower frequency dynamics is associated with the breathing of the separation bubble and the flapping motion of the separation shock wave, while the higher frequency is related to the instability of the shear layer affected by cowl-closure leading edge shock and the formation of shedding vortices. Further, coherence analysis shows that the contribution of these flow structures dominating the low-frequency dynamics couple with each other. Based on the dynamic mode decomposition results, the characteristics that contribute to the unsteady behaviour of unstart flow are summarized. The streamwise vortices downstream of the separation and the shedding vortices are believed to be the main driving force of the global low-frequency unsteadiness of the REST inlet unstart flow under the off-design condition. Moreover, the CLE shock plays an important role in the process during the dominant flow structure conversion from the backflow within the separation bubble into elongated streamwise structures.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer separation Compressible Flows: Shock waves Compressible Flows: Supersonic flow
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 991 , 25 July 2024 , A9
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bagheri, H., Mirjalily, S.A.A., Oloomi, S.A.A. & Salimpour, M.R. 2021 Effects of micro-vortex generators on shock wave structure in a low aspect ratio duct, numerical investigation. Acta Astronaut. 178, 616–624.Google Scholar
Bogdanoff, D.W. 1983 Compressibility effects in turbulent shear layers. AIAA J. 21 (6), 926–927.Google Scholar
Chang, J., Li, N., Xu, K., Bao, W. & Yu, D. 2017 Recent research progress on unstart mechanism, detection and control of hypersonic inlet. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 89, 1–22.Google Scholar
Chen, H. & Tan, H.-j. 2019 Buzz flow diversity in a supersonic inlet ingesting strong shear layers. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 95, 105471.Google Scholar
Devaraj, M.K.K., Jutur, P., Rao, S.M.V., Jagadeesh, G. & Anavardham, G.T.K. 2021 Investigation of local unstart in a hypersonic scramjet intake at a Mach number of 6. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 115, 106789.Google Scholar
Estruch-Samper, D. & Chandola, G. 2018 Separated shear layer effect on shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction unsteadiness. J. Fluid Mech. 848, 154–192.Google Scholar
Fu, L., Bose, S. & Moin, P. 2022 Prediction of aerothermal characteristics of a generic hypersonic inlet flow. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 36 (2), 345–368.Google Scholar
Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N.T. & Dolling, D.S. 2007 Effects of upstream boundary layer on the unsteadiness of shock-induced separation. J. Fluid Mech. 585, 369–394.Google Scholar
Grilli, M., Hickel, S. & Adams, N.A. 2013 Large-eddy simulation of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression–expansion ramp. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 42, 79–93.Google Scholar
Hillier, R. 2007 Shock-wave/expansion-wave interactions and the transition between regular and Mach reflection. J. Fluid Mech. 575, 399–424.Google Scholar
Hu, W., Hickel, S. & Van Oudheusden, B. 2019 Dynamics of a supersonic transitional flow over a backward-facing step. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4 (10), 103904.Google Scholar
Hu, W., Hickel, S. & Van Oudheusden, B. 2020 Influence of upstream disturbances on the primary and secondary instabilities in a supersonic separated flow over a backward-facing step. Phys. Fluids 32, 056102.Google Scholar
Hu, W., Hickel, S. & Van Oudheusden, B.W. 2021 Low-frequency unsteadiness mechanisms in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions over a backward-facing step. J. Fluid Mech. 915, A107.Google Scholar
Huang, H.-x., Tan, H.-j., Sun, S. & Wang, Z.-y. 2018 Behavior of shock train in curved isolators with complex background waves. AIAA J. 56 (1), 329–341.Google Scholar
Im, S.-k. & Do, H. 2018 Unstart phenomena induced by flow choking in scramjet inlet-isolators. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 97, 1–21.Google Scholar
Jin, Y., Zhang, Y., Tan, H.-J., Li, X., Sun, S. & Wang, D.-P. 2022 Oscillations in rectangular supersonic inlets with large internal contraction ratio. AIAA J. 60 (8), 4628–4638.Google Scholar
Johnson, E., Jenquin, C., McCready, J., Narayanaswamy, V. & Edwards, J. 2023 Experimental investigations of the hypersonic stream-traced performance inlet at subdesign Mach number. AIAA J. 61 (1), 23–36.Google Scholar
Kussoy, M.I. & Horstman, K.C. 1992 Intersecting shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions at Mach 8.3. NASA Tech. Rep. TM-103909.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 2010 X-51 scrams into the future. Aerosp. Am. 48 (9), 27–31.Google Scholar
Li, N., Chang, J., Jiang, C., Yu, D., Bao, W., Song, Y. & Jiao, X. 2018 Unstart/restart hysteresis characteristics analysis of an over–under TBCC inlet caused by backpressure and splitter. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 72, 418–425.Google Scholar
Li, N., Chang, J., Yu, D., Bao, W. & Song, Y. 2017 Mathematical model of shock-train path with complex background waves. J. Propul. Power 33 (2), 468–478.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Liang, J. & Wang, Y. 2016 Flow mechanism in a hypersonic sidewall compression inlet with a rectangular-to-circular isolator. J. Spacecr. Rockets 53 (3), 549–557.Google Scholar
Liu, X.-D., Osher, S. & Chan, T. 1994 Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 115 (1), 200–212.Google Scholar
Menter, F.R. 1994 Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J. 32 (8), 1598–1605.Google Scholar
Papamoschou, D. & Roshko, A. 1988 The compressible turbulent shear layer: an experimental study. J. Fluid Mech. 197, 453–477.Google Scholar
Pasquariello, V., Hickel, S. & Adams, N.A. 2017 Unsteady effects of strong shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction at high Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 823, 617–657.Google Scholar
Piponniau, S., Dussauge, J.-P., Debieve, J.-F., & Dupont, P. 2009 A simple model for low-frequency unsteadiness in shock-induced separation. J. Fluid Mech. 629, 87–108.Google Scholar
Qin, B., Chang, J., Jiao, X. & Bao, W. 2015 Unstart margin characterization method of scramjet considering isolator–combustor interactions. AIAA J. 53 (2), 493–500.Google Scholar
Qu, F., Chen, J., Sun, D., Bai, J. & Zuo, G. 2019 A grid strategy for predicting the space plane's hypersonic aerodynamic heating loads. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 86, 659–670.Google Scholar
Qu, F. & Sun, D. 2017 Investigation into the influences of the low-speed flows’ accuracy on RANS simulations. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 70, 578–589.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, C.G. 2003 Computational fluid dynamics analysis of the central institute of aviation motors/NASA scramjet. J. Propul. Power 19 (4), 547–555.Google Scholar
Rohde, J. 1992 Airbreathing combined cycle engine systems. In Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle (RBCC) Propulsion Technology Workshop. Tutorial Session.Google Scholar
Rowley, C.W., Mezić, I., Bagheri, S., Schlatter, P. & Henningson, D.S. 2009 Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 115–127.Google Scholar
Sakata, K., Yanagi, R., Murakami, A., Shindo, S., Honami, S., Shizawa, T., Sakamoto, K., Shiraishi, K. & Omi, J. 1993 An experimental study of supersonic air-intake with 5-shock system at Mach 3. In AIAA, SAE, ASME, and ASEE, Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 29th, Monterey, CA, p. 1993.Google Scholar
Sandham, N.D. & Reynolds, W.C. 1990 Compressible mixing layer-linear theory and direct simulation. AIAA J. 28 (4), 618–624.Google Scholar
Schmid, P.J. 2010 Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5–28.Google Scholar
Segal, C. 2009 The Scramjet Engine: Processes and Characteristics, vol. 25. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sethuraman, V.R.P., Kim, T.H. & Kim, H.D. 2021 Effects of back pressure perturbation on shock train oscillations in a rectangular duct. Acta Astronaut. 179, 525–535.Google Scholar
Smart, M.K. 1999 Design of three-dimensional hypersonic inlets with rectangular-to-elliptical shape transition. J. Propul. Power 15 (3), 408–416.Google Scholar
Smart, M.K. & Trexler, C.A. 2004 Mach 4 performance of hypersonic inlet with rectangular-to-elliptical shape transition. J. Propul. Power 20 (2), 288–293.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R., Deck, S., Shur, M.L., Squires, K.D., Strelets, M.Kh. & Travin, A. 2006 A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 20, 181–195.Google Scholar
Sun, D., Qu, F., Liu, C., Yao, F. & Bai, J. 2021 Numerical study of the suction flow control of the supersonic boundary layer transition in a framework of gas-kinetic scheme. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 109, 106397.Google Scholar
Sun, D., Qu, F. & Yan, C. 2018 An effective flux scheme for hypersonic heating prediction of re-entry vehicles. Comput. Fluids 176, 109–116.Google Scholar
Tan, H.J., Sun, S. & Huang, H.X. 2012 Behavior of shock trains in a hypersonic inlet/isolator model with complex background waves. Exp. Fluids 53, 1647–1661.Google Scholar
Tan, H.-j., Li, L.-g., Wen, Y.-f. & Zhang, Q.-f. 2011 Experimental investigation of the unstart process of a generic hypersonic inlet. AIAA J. 49 (2), 279–288.Google Scholar
Tan, H.-J., Sun, S. & Yin, Z.-L. 2009 Oscillatory flows of rectangular hypersonic inlet unstart caused by downstream mass-flow choking. J. Propul. Power 25 (1), 138–147.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Sandham, N.D. 2009 Large-eddy simulation of low-frequency unsteadiness in a turbulent shock-induced separation bubble. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 23, 79–107.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Sandham, N.D. 2011 Low-order stochastic modelling of low-frequency motions in reflected shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 671, 417–465.Google Scholar
Trapier, S., Deck, S. & Duveau, Ph. 2008 Delayed detached-eddy simulation and analysis of supersonic inlet buzz. AIAA J. 46 (1), 118–131.Google Scholar
Voland, R., Auslender, A., Smart, M., Roudakov, A., Semenov, V. & Kopchenov, V. 1999 CIAM/NASA Mach 6.5 scramjet flight and ground test. In 9th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, p. 4848.Google Scholar
Wang, D., Li, Z., Zhang, Z., Liu, N.-S., Yang, J. & Lu, X.-Y. 2018 Unsteady shock interactions on V-shaped blunt leading edges. Phys. Fluids 30 (11), 116104.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Qu, F., Sun, D. & Bai, J. 2023 Numerical study of instabilities and compressibility effects on supersonic jet over a convex wall. J. Fluid Mech. 954, A6.Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Qu, F., Zhao, Q. & Bai, J. 2022 Numerical study of the hysteresis effect on the supercritical airfoil for the transonic circulation control. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 126, 107645.Google Scholar
Xu, K., Chang, J., Zhou, W. & Yu, D. 2016 Mechanism and prediction for occurrence of shock-train sharp forward movement. AIAA J. 54 (4), 1403–1412.Google Scholar
Yiming, L., Zhufei, L. & Zhang, Y. 2021 Tomography-like flow visualization of a hypersonic inward-turning inlet. Chinese J. Aeronaut. 34, 44–49.Google Scholar
Yu, K., Xu, J., Li, R., Liu, S. & Zhang, X. 2018 Experimental exploration of inlet start process in continuously variable Mach number wind tunnel. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 79, 75–84.Google Scholar
Yuan, H. & Liang, D.-w. 2006 Analysis of characteristics of restart performance for a hypersonic inlet. J. Propul. Technol.-Beijing 27 (5), 390.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Li, Z. & Yang, J. 2021 Transitions of shock interactions on V-shaped blunt leading edges. J. Fluid Mech. 912, A12.Google Scholar
Zheng, Y., Yan, C. & Zhao, Y. 2020 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of inflow parameters for HyShot II scramjet numerical simulaiton. Acta Astronaut. 170, 342–353.Google Scholar
Zhong, J., Qu, F., Sun, D., Fu, J., Wang, X., Wang, Z. & Bai, J. 2023 Numerical investigation of the unstart flow at off-design condition of rest inlet at a Mach of 4. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 136, 108232.Google Scholar
Zvegintsev, V.I. 2017 Gas-dynamic problems in off-design operation of supersonic inlets. Thermophys. Aeromech. 24, 807–834.Google Scholar