Sie sind auf Seite 1von 334
School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering University College Australian Defence Force Academy University of
School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering University College Australian Defence Force Academy University of

School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering

University College

Australian Defence Force Academy

University of New South Wales

A STUDY OF SWEPT AND UNSWEPT NORMAL

SHOCK WAVE/TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER INTERACTION

AND CONTROL BY PIEZOELECTRIC FLAP ACTUATION

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Jonathan Stuart Couldrick

July, 2006

i

This piece of work is dedicated to my Little Chickens.

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, during my candidature, is fully acknowledged.

I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

Jonathan Stuart Couldrick

July 2006

ii

Abstract

iii

Abstract

The interaction of a shock wave with a boundary layer is a classic viscous/inviscid interaction problem that occurs over a wide range of high speed aerodynamic flows. For example, on transonic wings, in supersonic air intakes, in propelling nozzles at off- design conditions and on deflected controls at supersonic/transonic speeds, to name a few. The transonic interaction takes place at Mach numbers typically between 1.1 and

1.5. On an aerofoil, its existence can cause problems that range from a mild increase in

section drag to flow separation and buffeting. In the absence of separation the drag

increase is predominantly due to wave drag, caused by a rise in entropy through the interaction.

The control of the turbulent interaction as applied to a transonic aerofoil is addressed in this thesis. However, the work can equally be applied to the control of interaction for numerous other occurrences where a shock meets a turbulent boundary layer. It is assumed that, for both swept normal shock and unswept normal shock interactions, as long as the Mach number normal to the shock is the same, then the interaction, and therefore its control, should be the same.

Numerous schemes have been suggested to control such interaction. However, they have generally been marred by the drag reduction obtained being negated by the additional drag due to the power requirements, for example the pumping power in the case of mass transfer and the drag of the devices in the case of vortex generators. A system of piezoelectrically controlled flaps is presented for the control of the interaction. The flaps would aeroelastically deflect due to the pressure difference created by the pressure rise across the shock and by piezoelectrically induced strains. The amount of deflection, and hence the mass flow through the plenum chamber, would control the interaction. It is proposed that the flaps will delay separation of the boundary layer whilst reducing wave drag and overcome the disadvantages of previous control methods. Active control can be utilised to optimise the effects of the boundary layer shock wave interaction as it would allow the ability to control the position of the control region around the original shock position, mass transfer rate and distribution.

iv

Abstract

A number of design options were considered for the integration of the piezoelectric ceramic into the flap structure. These included the use of unimorphs, bimorphs and polymorphs, with the latter capable of being directly employed as the flap. Unimorphs, with an aluminium substrate, produce less deflection than bimorphs and multimorphs. However, they can withstand and overcome the pressure loads associated with SBLI control.

For the current experiments, it was found that near optimal control of the swept and unswept shock wave boundary layer interactions was attained with flap deflections between 1mm and 3mm. However, to obtain the deflection required for optimal performance in a full scale situation, a more powerful piezoelectric actuator material is required than currently available.

A theoretical model is developed to predict the effect of unimorph flap deflection on the displacement thickness growth angles, the leading shock angle and the triple point height. It is shown that optimal deflection for SBLI control is a trade-off between reducing the total pressure losses, which is implied with increasing the triple point height, and minimising the frictional losses.

Acknowledgements

v

Acknowledgements

There are many who have guided me through this project. Some have given me amazing advice and assistance and some have given me the occasional encouraging word or

friendly ear. In the idea of the butterfly effect, I would not have got to where I am today if

it were not from all of you.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Sudhir Gai, whose critical eye has raised the standard of my work. He, along with my other supervisors, Doctor John Milthorpe and Doctor Krishna Shankar, has supported my work financially and academically for five years. These three wise men have tolerated my style and made available numerous resources for the completion of this thesis.

Also, to all the men in the ACME workshop who truly can make anything: to Tony Carthy for giving my jobs priority at the right time; to Mark Dumbrell and Franco Foppoli for making the impossible with continually finer tolerances; and to Rik Wearing’s timeless advice about the stupidity of some of my requests. Also, I would like to thank Bob Bleakley for the numerous hours of wind tunnel time. Last, but by no means least, to Bill Doran for the 2am starts, the pearls of wisdom about life and for hopefully a nice cardigan on graduation (perhaps this should be to Fin).

This thesis would definitely have not been possible if it were not for Ms. Danica Robinson, who I am indebted to as I would not be here if it were not for her. She has tolerated my endless phone calls in the pursuit of funds and answers. These funds have allowed the provision of an amazing UCPRS ‘completion’ scholarship.

I would also like to acknowledge support for this work through the ARC Linkage

Programme (2003), which enabled me to conduct part of my research in the Engineering Department at the University of Cambridge, UK as part of a collaborative programme between CUED and UNSW@ADFA. I am grateful to Dr. Holger Babinsky for his generous advice and to Ms. Harriet Holden for help during the normal shock experiments.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement. To Antti, Jeff, Orio and Stephen I don’t think I would have had as much fun with my work

if it weren’t for you guys; especially the Uruguay contingent.

vi

Contents

vii

CONTENTS

Declaration

i

Abstract

iii

Acknowledgements

v

Table of Contents

vii

Table of Figures

xiv

Table of Tables

xx

Nomenclature

xxi

CHAPTER1 – Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-40

1.1 – Introduction

 

1

1.1.1

– Present Approach:

2

1.2 – Literature Survey

 

5

1.2.1 – The UNS Interaction

6

 

1.2.1.1 – INCIPIENT SEPARATION

8

1.2.1.2 – SEPARATION

9

1.2.2 – The SNS Interaction

13

1.2.3 – SBLI Control

18

 

1.2.3.1

– MASS TRANSFER (INJECTION OR SUCTION)

18

1.2.4 – Passive Control of Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction (PCSBLI)

21

 

1.2.4.1 – THE EFFECT OF PCSBLI ON THE FLOW FIELD

22

1.2.4.2 – FACTORS AFFECTING PCSBLI

25

1.2.4.3 – SLOT AND GROOVE CONTROL

28

1.2.4.4 – HYBRID

29

1.2.5 – Mesoflaps for Aeroelastic Recirculation Transpiration (MART)

31

1.2.6 – Piezoelectric Actuators for Flow Control

37

1.3 – Present Investigation

38

1.3.1

– Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction (ACSBLI)

38

CHAPTER 2 – Experimental Arrangement

41-60

2.1

– ADFA Experimental Facility and model

41

2.1.1 – The Wind Tunnel Facility

41

2.1.2 – Wedge/Shock Generator

43

2.1.3 – Model design

44

2.1.4 – Flow visualisation

45

viii

Contents

 

2.1.6 – Pressure Sensitive Paints – Couldrick et al. (2004b)

47

2.1.7 – Adiabatic Wall Temperature

49

2.1.8 – Data Acquisition and Controller System

50

2.1.9 – Experimental Accuracy

51

2.1.10 – Voltage Generators/Power supplies – Physik – Instrumente (1996)

51

2.2

– Cambridge experimental facility and model

53

2.2.1 – Wind Tunnel arrangement

53

2.2.2 – Co – ordinate system.

54

2.2.3 – Unimorph control device

56

2.2.4 – Measurement locations

57

2.2.5 – Flow visualization

58

2.2.6 – Calculation of velocity – Smith (2002)

58

2.2.7 – Measurement apparatus calibration and checks

59

2.2.8 – Experimental Accuracy

60

CHAPTER 3 – Piezoelectric Flap Actuators

3.1 – Introduction

3.2 – Smart Materials

3.3 – Piezoelectric Ceramic Properties

3.3.1 – Aging

3.3.2 – Temperature, Voltage and Stress limitations

3.3.2.1 TEMPERATURE LIMITATIONS

3.3.2.2 VOLTAGE LIMITATIONS

3.3.2.3 MECHANICAL STRESS LIMITATIONS

3.4 – Experimentally obtained PZT properties

3.4.1 – Young’s Modulus of Elasticity & Poisson’s Ratio

3.4.2 – Piezoelectric Material Dielectric Constant

3.5 – Bender Actuators

3.5.1

3.5.2

3.5.3 – Multimorphs

– Unimorphs

– Bimorphs

3.6 – Active Control Structural Configurations

3.6.1 – Unimorph configuration

3.6.2 – Bimorph/Multimorph Configuration

3.7 – Alternate Active Control Configurations

3.7.1 – Alternate Flap Configuration

3.7.2 – Alternate Flapless Configuration

3.8 – Multimorphs/Bimorphs Testing

61-85

61

61

63

64

64

64

65

65

65

65

67

69

69

70

70

71

71

71

74

74

75

75

Contents

ix

 

3.8.2 – Multimorph Electrical Loading – No Point Load Applied

76

3.8.3 – Multimorph Electrical Loading – Point Load Applied

78

3.8.4 – Bimorphs

80

3.8.5 – Multimorph/Bimorph Summary

80

3.9

– Unimorph testing

81

3.9.1 – Unimorph Substrate

81

3.9.2 – Unimorph configuration

81

3.9.3 – Unimorph Summary

84

3.10 – Piezoelectric Actuator Summary

84

CHAPTER 4 – Unimorph Actuator Deflection

87-116

4.1 – Introduction

87

4.2 – Literature Survey

88

4.3 – Classic Theory

92

4.4 – Finite Element Modelling (FEM)

94

4.5 – 17.64kPa Results – Line Optimisation (Couldrick et al. (2003))

95

4.5.1 – Theoretical deflection variation with substrate thickness for no load

95

4.5.2 – Theoretical deflection variation with substrate Young’s Modulus for no load

96

4.5.3 – 17.64kPa Constant Pressure Load Predictions

97

4.5.4 – Quadratic Pressure load predictions

98

4.5.5 – 17.64kPa Pressure Deflection Summary

100

4.6 – 30kPa Results – Surface Optimisation

101

4.6.1 – Deflection for no load

101

4.6.2 – Deflection for 30kPa Constant Pressure Load

103

4.6.3 – Quadratic Pressure load predictions

106

4.6.4 – Classic Theory for Quadratic pressure loads

108

4.6.5 – 30kPa Pressure Load Summary

110

4.7 – Improved FEM Prediction

111

4.8 – Unimorph Tip Deflection Contour

112

4.9 – Conclusion

115

CHAPTER 5 – Swept Normal SBLI Control

117-154

5.1 – Introduction

117

5.2 – Uncontrolled Swept SBLI

117

5.2.1 – Schlieren

117

5.2.2 – Oil Flow visualisation

118

5.3 – Piezoelectric Flap Actuator Controlled SBLI

120

5.3.1 – Oil Flow visualisation

120

5.3.2 – Surface Pressures

122

x

Contents

5.3.2.2 – BOUNDING STREAMLINE L3

126

5.3.2.3 – LEADING LEG OF THE LAMBDA SHOCK

127

5.3.3 – Drag Coefficient

128

5.3.4 – Swept Normal SBLI Unimorph Control Summary

130

5.4 – Pressure Sensitive Paint (PSP) Investigation of Swept SBLI Control

131

5.4.1 – PSP Technique

131

5.4.2 – Uncontrolled SBLI

131

5.4.3 – ‘Closed’ Unimorph (500V)

132

5.4.4 – ‘Uncontrolled’ Unimorph (0V)

134

5.4.5 – ‘Fully Deflected’ Unimorph ( – 500V)

135

5.4.6 – Flap deflection effects

137

5.4.7 – PSP Summary

137

5.5 – Mechanically deflected flap SBLI Control

138

5.5.1 – Oil Flow Visualisation

138

5.5.1.1 – 0MM FLAP DEFLECTION

138

5.5.1.2 – 1MM FLAP DEFLECTION

139

5.5.1.3 – 2MM AND 3MM FLAP DEFLECTION

140

5.5.1.4 – LEADING LEG SHOCK ANGLE

142

5.5.2 – PSP Results

143

5.5.2.1 – THE UNCONTROLLED CASE

144

5.5.2.2 – 0MM FLAP DEFLECTION

145

5.5.2.3 – 1MM FLAP DEFLECTION

145

5.5.2.4 – 2MM AND 3MM FLAP DEFLECTION

146

5.5.2.5 – COMPARISON WITH “CONTROLLED” PSP DATA

148

5.5.3 – Discrete Pressure data

149

5.5.3.1 – THE L1 STREAMLINE

149

5.5.3.2 – THE L3 STREAMLINE

150

5.6 – Swept Normal SBLI Summary

152

CHAPTER 6 – Unswept Normal SBLI Control At M=1.3

155-188

6.1 – Uncontrolled SBLI

155

6.2 – Unimorph Controlled Flap Deflection

157

6.2.1 – Oil Flow visualisation

157

6.2.2 – Schlieren and Total Pressure traverses

159

6.2.3 – Surface Pressure Measurements

163

6.2.4 – Unimorph Control Limitation

165

6.3 – Mechanically Fixed Flap Deflections – 0mm

165

6.3.1 – Schlieren and Total Pressure Traverses

166

6.3.2 – Oil Flow visualisation

168

Contents

xi

6.4 – Mechanically Set Flap Deflections – 1mm to 3mm

170

6.4.1 – Schlieren and Total Pressure Plots

170

6.4.2 – Total Pressure Maps

176

6.4.3 – Oil Flow visualisation

179

6.4.4 – Surface Pressure Measurements

180

6.4.5 – Velocity Traverses

183

6.5 – Summary

185

CHAPTER 7 – Unswept Normal SBLI Control at M=1.5

189-220

7.1 – Uncontrolled SBLI

189

7.2 – Unimorph Controlled SBLI

191

7.2.1 – Schlieren and Total Pressure traverses

191

7.2.2 – Oil Flow visualisation

195

7.2.3 – Discrete Pressure Measurements

197

7.2.4 – Unimorph Control Limitation

198

7.3 – Mechanically Set Flap Deflections – 0mm

199

7.3.1 – Schlieren and Total Pressure Traverses

199

7.3.2 – Oil Flow visualisation

201

7.3.3 – Discrete Pressure Measurements

202

7.4 – Mechanically Set Flap Deflections – 1mm to 3mm

203

7.4.1 – Schlieren and Total Pressure Traverses

203

7.4.2 – Total Pressure Maps

208

7.4.3 – Oil Flow visualisation

211

7.4.4 – Discrete Pressure Measurements

212

7.4.5 – Velocity Traverses

214

7.5 – Normal SBLI Control at M=1.5 Summary

217

7.6 – Normal SBLI Control Summary

219

CHAPTER 8 – Theoretical Optimisation

221-256

8.1 – Theoretical 2 – D Aerodynamic Model

221

8.1.1 – Downstream Mass Flow (suction) through a single hole/slot

222

8.1.2 – Total Slot Length and Mass Flow Injection Angle

224

8.1.3 – The displacement thickness growth angle

225

8.1.4 – Leading Leg Shock Angle ( )

227

8.1.5 – Triple Point Height

228

8.2 – Analysis of the MART System for an UNS Interaction at M=1.4

230

8.2.1

– The MART Six – Flap System

230

xii

Contents

8.3 – Analysis of the Unimorph System

236

8.3.1 – The Unimorph System for an UNS Interaction at M=1.5

236

8.3.2 – The Unimorph System for a SNS Interaction at M n =1.3

239

8.3.3 – The Unimorph System for an UNS Interaction at M=1.3

241

8.3.3.1

– MODIFIED THEORETICAL MODEL

242

8.4 – Piezoelectric Actuated Optimised SBLI Control

246

8.4.1 – Optimal Deflection for SBLI Control

246

8.4.2 – Acting Pressure Distribution

246

8.4.3 – Piezoelectric Requirements

246

8.4.3.1 – SNS INTERACTION CONTROL (M N =1.3)

246

8.4.3.2 – UNS INTERACTION CONTROL (M=1.3)

249

8.4.3.3 – UNS INTERACTION CONTROL (M=1.5)

250

8.5 – Optimal Shock Location

252

8.6 – Further work

253

8.7 – Conclusion

254

CHAPTER 9 – Concluding Remarks

References

Appendix A – Material Properties

A1 – Piezoelectric Properties A2 – Aluminium Data Sheet A3 – Aluminium Three Point Test

257

261-268

Appendix B – Tip Deflection Theory (Structural Modelling)

B1 – Classic Plate Theory B2 – FEM Grid Resolution

Appendix C – Programs

C1 – Finite Element Modelling (Ansys) C2 – Experimental Data Acquisition (ASYST) C3 – Pressure Sensitive Paint (Matlab)

Appendix D – Electronics

D1 – OEM Amplifiers

Appendix E – Boundary Layer Theory

Contents

xiii

E1 – Mass Flow Within a Boundary Layer

Appendix F – Published Papers

F1 – Couldrick, J. S., Shankar, K., Gai, S. and Milthorpe, J. (2003) "Design of "Smart" Flap Actuators for Swept Shock Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction Control", Structural Engineering and Mechanics: An International Journal 16(5): pp. 519-532. F2 – Couldrick, J. S., Gai, S., Milthorpe, J. and Shankar, K. (2004) "Active Control of Swept Shock Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions", The Aeronautical Journal 108(2): pp. 93-102. F3 – Couldrick, J. S., Gai, S., Milthorpe, J. and Shankar, K. (2004) "Investigation of Active Control of Swept Shock Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions using pressure sensitive paints", The Aeronautical Journal 108(9): pp. 483-490. F4 – Couldrick, J. S., Gai, S., Milthorpe, J. and Shankar, K. (2005) "Normal Shock Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction Control using "Smart" Piezoelectric Flap Actuators", The Aeronautical Journal 109(11): pp. 577-583.

xiv

List of Figures

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction using piezoelectric actuators Figure 1.2 - Weak UNS Interaction, Green (1969) Figure 1.3 – Holographic Interferometry of the uncontrolled UNS Interaction at M=1.1, Gibson et al.

(2000)

Figure 1.4 – a) Wall Shear stress distribution through a SBLI from Green (1969) and b) The separation bubble growth from Delery (1985) with increasing Mach number to demonstrate incipient separation Figure 1.5 – Lambda structure of the separated UNS interaction, Green (1969) Figure 1.6 – Detailed lambda structure, Atkin and Squire (1992) Figure 1.7 – Supersonic Tongue, Seddon (1960) Figure 1.8 – Three dimensional Sharp Fin Induced SBLI with an unseparated flow structure, Kubota and Stollery (1982) Figure 1.9 – Surface flow beneath swept normal shocks and the flow viewed parallel to the shocks for a) unseparated and b) separated flow from Green (1969) Figure 1.10 – Three dimensional Sharp Fin Induced SBLI with a separated flow structure, Kubota and Stollery (1982) Figure 1.11 – SNS Interaction showing secondary separation from Settles and Dolling (1992) Figure 1.12 – Shadowgraph and pressure distributions over an aerofoil at 6° with a) no boundary layer control and b) blowing through an upstream slot, Pearcey (1961) Figure 1.13 – Active control on a supercritical transonic aerofoil by suction through a double slot at a) 4 > and b) 5 > - Thiede et al. (1984) Figure 1.14 – Passive Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction Figure 1.15 – Drag coefficient variation with freestream Mach number for solid and porous surface aerofoils from Nagamatsu et al. (1987) Figure 1.16 – SBLI Structure with Slot Control, Smith et al. (2002) Figure 1.17 – Slot control positions on the side-wall to study SNS Interactions from Babinsky et al.

(1999)

Figure 1.18 – Hybrid SBLI Control with PCSBLI and downstream suction, Delery and Bur (1999) Figure 1.19 – Mesoflaps for Aeroelastic Transpiration a) Four stream wise flap structure, Wood et al. (1999) and b) SBLI structure, Jaiman et al. (2003) Figure 1.20 – The SBLI at M=1.37 a) uncontrolled and with b) MART Control of the SBLI with a four

flap 191 µm array, Lee et al. (2002) Figure 1.21 – Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction Figure 2.1 – ADFA Supersonic Blow-down Wind Tunnel Schematic. Figure 2.2 – ADFA Supersonic Blow-down Wind Tunnel a) photo of the Mach 2 liners with wedge on the floor to create a swept shock and b) Schematic showing dimensions. Figure 2.3 – ADFA Test Section with Shock Generator.

List of Figures

xv

Figure 2.4 – Control Plate for Swept Normal SBLI Control showing a) Pressure Port and Unimorph Layout, b) Streamlines and c) A Photograph of the Unimorph Control Plate. Figure 2.5 – Unimorph Flap Design for Swept Normal SBLI Control. Figure 2.6 – ADFA Schlieren System. Figure 2.7 – Camera/Test Surface/Light Source Set-up for PSP experiments. Figure 2.8 – High Voltage Amplifier with casing from Physik Instrumente Figure 2.9 – University of Cambridge Blow-down Supersonic Wind Tunnel #2. Figure 2.10 – Cambridge Supersonic Wind Tunnel Arrangement with interaction Control Plate. Figure 2.11 – University of Cambridge Control Plate showing pressure port layout for a) piezoelectric actuation unimorph flap control and b) mechanically pre-set flap deflection control. Figure 2.12 – Unimorph Flap Design for Unswept Normal SBLI Control. Figure 2.13 – a) Unswept Normal SBLI Control Plate showing pressure port layout and b) the mechanical deflection devices Figure 2.14 – a) Pitot tube set-up with b) a flat head pitot tube and c) a straight pitot tube - Smith (2002) Figure 3.1 - Piezoelectric ceramic clamping configuration for tensile testing Figure 3.2 – Stress strain curve for piezoelectric ceramic PZT-5H. Figure 3.3 – Stress strain curve for piezoelectric ceramic PZT-5H. Figure 3.4 – A Basic Unimorph Figure 3.5 – A Basic Bimorph Figure 3.6 – A Multimorph Figure 3.7 – Original Unimorph Testing Configuration Figure 3.8 – The Final Unimorph Configuration Figure 3.9 – A Basic Bimorph Flap Configuration Figure 3.10 – Adapted Bimorph Flap Configuration Figure 3.11 – An Alternative Active Flap Control Configuration. Figure 3.12 – An Alternative Active Control without Flaps. Figure 3.13 – Multimorph Electrical Configurations a) Manufacturer Configuration, Morgan Matroc) (2000) and b) Alternative #2 Configuration Figure 3.14 – Multimorph Performance for Datum Voltages of a) 80V, b) 90V and c) 100V Figure 3.15 – Multimorph Performance with equal Applied and Datum Voltages. Figure 3.16 – Applied Voltage Required to Obtain Zero Deflection for Variable Point Loads Figure 3.17 – Unimorph Tip Deflection variation with Applied Voltage. Figure 3.18 – Unimorph Tip Deflection variation with Point Load Figure 3.19 – Unimorph tip deflection for given applied voltages and various point loads Figure 4.1 – Modified Unimorph Flap configuration. Figure 4.2 – CLPT Model showing no deflection or slope at the start of the unimorph Figure 4.3 – Unimorph Finite Element Model in ANSYS 6.0. Figure 4.4 – Unimorph deflection vs. Normalised substrate thickness due to 500V applied voltage (1000Vmm -1 ).

xvi

List of Figures

Figure 4.5 – Deflection vs. Normalised Substrate Young’s Modulus for a 500V applied voltage (1000Vmm -1 ). Figure 4.6 – Tip deflection for a 17.64kPa uniform pressure load for varying substrate: a) thickness (E s = 70GPa); and b) Young’s Modulus (t s = 1.1mm) Figure 4.7 – Quadratic pressure loading. Figure 4.8 – FEM tip Deflection predictions for a quadratic load for varying substrate: a) thickness; and

b) Young’s Modulus.

Figure 4.9 – Contours of unimorph deflection (mm), with a 500V applied field, for a) Classic Theory and

b) FEM.

Figure 4.10 – Contours of unimorph deflection (mm) using Classic Theory, with a uniform pressure load, for applied voltages of a) -500V ‘open’ flaps and b) 500V ‘closed’ flaps Figure 4.11 – Contours of unimorph deflection (mm) using FEM, with a uniform pressure load, for applied voltages of a) -500V ‘open’ flaps and b) 500V ‘closed’ flaps Figure 4.12 – Quadratic pressure loading showing isobars Figure 4.13 – Contours of unimorph deflection (mm) using FEM, with a quadratic pressure load, for applied voltages of a) -500V ‘flaps open’ and b) 500V ‘closed’ flaps Figure 4.14 – Unimorph deflection (mm), using Classic Theory for a quadratic load, whilst varying normalised substrate thickness and Young’s Modulus for applied fields of a) -500V ‘open’ flaps and b) 500V ‘closed’ flaps Figure 4.15 – Top Profile of the unimorph deflection, Z axis, with a uniform 17.64kPa pressure for applied fields of a) -500V and b) +500V Figure 4.16 – Exaggerated Side profile of the unimorph deflection, Z axis, with a uniform 17.64kPa pressure for applied fields of a) -500V and b) +500V Figure 5.1 –Schlieren photograph of the uncontrolled swept SBLI. Figure 5.2 – Oil Flow visualisation of the uncontrolled swept SBLI a) tunnel sidewall, b) control surface and c) pen enhanced oil flow. Figure 5.3 – Pen enhanced oil flow visualisation of the swept SBLI with a 0V unimorph control.

Figure 5.4 – a) Co-ordinate system and b) Variation of 1 [= ( fs - s )] for front shock with normal Mach

number (Accuracy ±1.5°), after Squire (1996). Figure 5.5 – a) Control Plate showing Pressure Port and Unimorph Layout and b) the Surface Pressure distribution along the normal to the wedge shock. Figure 5.6 – Surface Pressure distribution along the back edge of the upstream unimorph. Figure 5.7 – a) Bounding Streamlines L1 and L3 and b) the surface pressures along L1 for swept SBLI Figure 5.8 – Surface Pressures for swept SBLI control along L3.

Figure 5.9 – Variation of ll with Normal Mach number, Squire (1996). Figure 5.10 – Drag Coefficient vs. Applied Voltage for unimorph controlled swept SBLI. Figure 5.11 – Pressure distribution map of the uncontrolled swept SBLI using PSP. Figures 5.12 – PSP Pressure distribution map of unimorph swept SBLI control with 500V applied voltage (“Closed’).

List of Figures

xvii

Figure 5.13 – a) 3D ‘Bubbles of Influence’ of slot control of the SBLI and b) the effect of slot strength,

Smith et al. (2002).

Figures 5.14 – PSP Pressure distribution map of unimorph swept SBLI control with a 0V applied voltage.

(Open actuator inactive)

Figures 5.15 – PSP Pressure distribution map of unimorph swept SBLI control with a -500V applied

voltage. (“Open”)

Figure 5.16 – Oil flow visualisation of swept SBLI control with 0mm deflected flaps test section.

Figure 5.17 – Oil flow visualisation of Swept SBLI Control at M=1.3 with a 1mm flap deflection

Figure 5.18 – Oil flow visualisation of Swept SBLI Control at M=1.3 with flap deflections of a) 2mm and

b) 3mm.

Figure 5.19 – Variation of 2 [= ( cl - s + 4.5°)] for front shock with normal Mach number, after Squire

(1996).

Figure 5.20 – Pressure distribution map of the uncontrolled swept SBLI using PSP

Figure 5.21 – Pressure distribution map of the Swept Normal SBLI using PSP with flaps deflected to

0mm

Figure 5.22 – Pressure distribution map of the Swept Normal SBLI using PSP with 1mm deflected flaps.

Figure 5.23 – Pressure distribution map of the Swept SBLI using PSP with flaps deflected to a) 2mm and

b) 3mm.

Figure 5.24 – Surface Pressures along L1 for swept SBLI control

Figure 5.25 – Surface Pressures along L3 for swept SBLI.

Figure 6.1 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) total pressure traverses of the uncontrolled SBLI at M=1.3, Holden (2004). Figure 6.2 – Oil Flow visualisation of the uncontrolled SBLI at M=1.3, Holden (2004).

Figure 6.3 – Oil Flow visualisation of SBLI with Unimorph Control at 0V at M=1.3 and Main Shock at

X/ o =0.

Figure 6.4 – Schlieren pictures of unimorph controlled SBLI at M=1.3 with a) ‘closed’ flaps (500V), b)

inert flaps 0V & c) ‘open’ flaps (-500V).

Figure 6.5 – Discrete pressure data of unimorph control at M=1.3 with

Figure 6.6 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of flap control of the SBLI with 0mm deflection at M=1.3. Figure 6.7 – Oil Flow visualisation of SBLI with 0mm Flap Deflection at M=1.3 and the Main Shock at

X/ o =0.

Figure 6.8 – Discrete pressure data of flap control with 0mm deflection at M=1.3.

Figure 6.9 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.3 SBLI control with 1mm

flap deflection

Figure 6.10 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.3 SBLI control with 2mm

flap deflection

Figure 6.11 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.3 SBLI control with 3mm

flap deflection

Figure 6.12 – Schlieren picture of Mesoflaps with Aeroelastic Transpiration Control of the SBLI at M=

1.4 , Lee et al. (2002).

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 6.13 – Total Pressure Maps with 0mm flap deflection at M=1.3.

Figure 6.14 – Total Pressure Maps of the M=1.3 SBLI control flaps deflected to a) 1mm and b) 2mm

Figure 6.15 – Total Pressure Maps of the M=1.3 SBLI control with 3mm flap deflection.

Figure 6.16 – Oil Flow visualisation of flap control of the SBLI deflected to a) 1mm, b) 2mm and c)

3mm.

Figure 6.17 – Discrete pressure data for SBLI control at M=1.3 with flaps deflected to a) 1mm and b)

2mm.

Figure 6.18 – Discrete pressure data for SBLI control at M=1.3 with 3mm flaps deflection.

Figure 6.19 – Velocity traverses for M=1.3 SBLI control with flaps deflected to a) 0mm and b) 1mm

Figure 6.20 – Velocity traverses for M=1.3 SBLI control with flaps deflected to a) 2mm and b) 3mm.

Figure 7.1 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) total pressure traverses of the M=1.5 SBLI uncontrolled, after

Holden (2004).

Figure 7.2 – Oil Flow visualisation of the uncontrolled M=1.5 SBLI, Holden (2004).

Figure 7.3 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of unimorph control of the M=1.5 SBLI

with ‘closed’ flaps (+500V).

Figure 7.4 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of unimorph control of the M=1.5 SBLI

with ‘open’ flaps (-500V).

Figure 7.5 – Oil Flow visualisation of unimorph controlled SBLI at M=1.5with 0V.

Figure 7.6 – Discrete pressure data of unimorph control for the M=1.5 SBLI a) ‘closed’ flaps (+500V), b) inert flaps 0V & c) ‘open’ flaps (-500V) Figure 7.7 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.5 SBLI with flap control at

0mm deflection.

Figure 7.8 – Oil Flow visualisation of the M=1.5 SBLI with 0mm flap deflection control.

Figure 7.9 – Discrete pressure data of flap control of the M=1.5 SBLI with 0mm flap deflection control.

Figure 7.10 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.5 SBLI control with 1mm

flap deflection.

Figure 7.11 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.5 SBLI control with 2mm

flap deflection.

Figure 7.12 – a) Schlieren pictures and b) Total pressure traverses of the M=1.5 SBLI control with 3mm

flap deflection.

Figure 7.13 – Total Pressure Maps for flap control of the SBLI deflected to a) 0mm and b) 1mm.

Figure 7.14 – Total Pressure Maps for flap control of the SBLI deflected to a) 2mm and b) 3mm.

Figure 7.15 – Oil Flow visualisation of the M=1.5 SBLI control with flaps deflected to a) 1mm, b) 2mm

and c) 3mm.

Figure 7.16 – Discrete pressure data for the M=1.5 SBLI control with flaps deflected to a) 1mm, b) 2mm and c) 3mm. Figure 7.17 – Velocity traverses for flap control of the SBLI deflected to a) 0mm and b) 1mm.

Figure 7.18 – Velocity traverses for flap control of the SBLI deflected to a) 2mm and b) 3mm.

Figure 8.1 – Theoretical SBLI Flap Control Model

Figure 8.2 –a) Actual Downstream Flap Tip Deflection and b) Modelled Downstream Flap Tip Deflection

Figure 8.3 – Flow configuration and definitions (after Doerffer and Bohning (2000))

List of Figures

xix

Figure 8.4 –The Slot Created by Upstream Flap Deflection a) dimensions and b) mass flow injection

angle

Figure 8.5 – Mass injection a) without flap deflection and b) with flap deflection.

Fugure8.6 – Calculated Angles (Not to scale)

Figure 8.7 – Model of Mass Flow Angles

Figure 8.8 – Model for calculating the shock angle from the total deflection angle for the upstream leg of

the lambda shock

Figure 8.9 – The Modelled Lambda Structure including heights

Figure 8.10 – The Modelled Lambda Structure including Lengths

Figure 8.11 – Displacement Thickness growth angle variation for the MART six-flap deflection Figure 8.12 – Schlieren pictures of the MART Six-Flap System with mesoflap thicknesses of a)63.5µm,

b)101.9µm and c)150.6µm, - Hafenrichter et al. (2003)

Figure 8.13 – The leading leg shock angle variation for mesoflap deflection of the MART six-flap

deflection assuming no mass injection effect.

Figure 8.14 – Displacement Thickness growth angle variation for deflection of the MART Four-flap system Figure 8.15 – Schlieren pictures of the MART Four-Flap System with a mesoflap thickness of 190.5µm

Hafenrichter et al. (2003)

Figure 8.16 – The leading leg shock angle variation for mesoflap deflection of the MART four-flap

deflection

Figure 8.17 – Displacement Thickness growth angle variation for Unimorph flap deflection at M 1 =1.5 Figure 8.18 – The leading leg shock angle variation for unimorph deflection.

Figure 8.19 – The Triple Point Height variation with unimorph deflection

Figure 8.20 – Displacement Thickness growth angle variation for Unimorph flap deflection at M n1 =1.3. Figure 8.21 – The leading leg shock angle variation for unimorph deflection

Figure 8.22 – The Triple Point Height variation with unimorph deflection

Figure 8.23 – Displacement Thickness growth angle variation for Unimorph flap deflection at M 1 =1.3 Figure 8.24 – The Triple Point Height variation with unimorph deflection

Figure 8.25 – The leading leg shock angle variation for unimorph deflection

Figure 8.26 – Deflection Contours for a Quadratic 17.64kPa pressure load with a -500V and a

piezoelectric charge constant d 31 of -625x10 -12 mV -1 .

Figure 8.27 – Deflection Contours for a Quadratic 17.64kPa pressure load with a -500V and a

piezoelectric charge constant d 31 of -750x10 -12 mV -1 .

Figure 8.28 – Deflection Contours for a Quadratic 21.79kPa pressure load with a -500V and a

piezoelectric charge constant d 31 of a) -750x10 -12 mV -1 and b) -1000x10 -12 mV -1 .

Figure 8.29 – Deflection Contours for a Quadratic 30kPa pressure load with a -500V and a piezoelectric

charge constant d 31 of a) -875x10 -12 mV -1 and b) -1250x10 -12 mV -1 .

Figure 8.30 – Unswept Normal SBLI Control with a rear shock position at M=1.5 using flaps deflected to

a) 0mm, b) 1mm, c) 2mm and d) 3mm.

xx

List of Tables

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 – Varying porosity effect on leading leg angles for a central shock position on a passive control

plate (100mm in length) - Gibson et al. (2000)

Table 1.2 – Oblique Shock Angles for various shock positions on a 4% porosity passive control plate

(100mm in length) - Gibson et al. (2000)

Table 1.3 – MART Flap Deflections for the six-flap and the four-flap arrays

Table 2.1 – UNSW@ADFA Oncoming Boundary Layer Properties.

Table 2.2 – University of Cambridge Oncoming Boundary Layer Properties.

Table 3.1 – Electrical strain parallel (1) and normal (2) to the applied load for the front (F) and rear (R) of

piezoelectric ceramic.

Table 4.1 – Tip deflection predictions for CLPT, Final FEM Grid Resolution and FEM with Increased

20x20x5 Grid Resolution for Uniform/Quadratic Pressure Load

Table 6.1 – Summary of shock Angles for the uncontrolled and unimorph controlled SBLI at a nominal

Mach number of 1.3, (accuracy of ±1°).

Table 6.2 – Summary of triple point height and boundary layer thickness for the uncontrolled and

unimorph controlled SBLI at M=1.3, (accuracy of ±1mm).

Table 6.3 – Shock Angles for the uncontrolled and flap controlled SBLI at M=1.3, (accuracy of angles

±1°).

Table 6.4 – Summary of triple point heights and boundary layer thicknesses for flap controlled SBLI at

M=1.3 for various Z positions and flap deflections as determined from figs. 6.6 & 6.9,

(accuracy of ±1mm).

Table 7.1 – Summary of shock Angles for the uncontrolled and unimorph controlled SBLI at M=1.5.

Table 7.2 – Summary of triple point heights and boundary layer thicknesses for flap controlled M=1.5

SBLI at various spanwise positions and flap deflections as determined from figs. 7.3a & 7.4b.

Table 7.3 – Shock Angles for the uncontrolled and flap controlled SBLI at M=1.5, (accuracy of ±1°). Table 7.4 – Summary of triple point heights and boundary layer thicknesses for flap controlled SBLI at

M=1.5 for various Z positions and flap deflections as determined from figs. 7.6 & 7.9a to c,

(accuracy of ±1mm).

Table 8.1 – Theoretical Model Inputs

Table 8.2 – Optimal deflections for unimorph controlled SBLI

Nomenclature

xxi

Symbols

A

B

B 1

c

1

c

d

C

d

C

1 , C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , C 5

d

d

1

d

d

11

31

NOMENCLATURE

Extensional Stiffness Matrix

Coupling Stiffness Matrix

Hole Flow Variable

Hole Flow Constant

Point Drag Coefficient

Drag Coefficient

Integration Constants

Diameter of pitot probe

Hole Flow Constant

1 st Element of the Bending Element of the Compliance Matrix

Piezoelectric Charge Constant

D

Bending Stiffness Matrix

dP

Pressure Difference

E

Young’s Modulus

(EI) eff

Effective Bending Stiffness

G

Gap

I

Illuminescence Intensity

k

Temperature Dependant Coefficient

l

Test Section Length

L1, L3

Streamline

L

Length

m&

Mass Flow

M

Moment

M

n

Normal Mach Number

N

Load

P

Structural Point Load

p,

P

Pressure

r

Recovery Factor

R

Reattachment Position

S

Separation Position

S1, S2, S3

Shock Position

xxii

Nomenclature

t

Thickness

T

Temperature

u

Streamwise Velocity

V

Applied Voltage

W

Structural Pressure Load

x

Normalised Substrate Thickness

X

Streamwise Distance

Y

Spanwise Distance

z

Normalised Substrate Young’s Modulus

Z

Vertical Height

Oblique Shock Angle/Leading Leg Shock Angle

;

Ratio of Specific Heats (1.4 for air)

o

Oncoming Boundary Layer Thickness

o *

Oncoming Displacement Thickness

Unimorph Deflection

1

Difference in Shock Angles ( fs - s )

2

Difference in Shock Angles ( cl - s + 4.5°)

Strain

Deflection Angle

o

Oncoming Momentum Thickness

A

Lambda

Curvature

Poisson’s Ratio

Stress

B w

Wall Shear Stress

Unit Reynold’s Number

Nomenclature

xxiii

Superscript

o

Mid Plane

Subscripts

aw

Adiabatic Wall

cl

Convergence Line

e

Boundary Layer Edge

ef

Effective

fs

Front shock

G

Gap

i

Induced

inf

Upstream Influence

inj, injection

Mass Injection

I

Initial

ll

Leading Leg

0

Stagnation

P

Piezoceramic Properties

ref

PSP Reference Picture

S

Substrate Properties

S

Main Shock

s

static

t

Test Section

T

Total

U

Unimorph

V

Applied Voltage

w

Wall

W

Pressure Load

X

Streamwise Length

Y

Vertical Height

1

Freestream (Upstream of Shock)

2

Freestream (Downstream of Shock)

Freestream

E

Swept Shock

xxiv

Nomenclature

Abbreviations

ACSBLI

Active Control of SBLI

ARC

Australian Research Council

EDM

Electro Discharge Machining

FC

Flap Controlled

FEM

Finite Element Modelling

MS

Main Shock

PCSBLI

Passive Control of SBLI

PSP

Pressure Sensitive Paint

PZT

Lead Zirconate Titanate

SBLI

Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction

SC

Slot Controlled

SNS

Swept Normal Shock

ULS

Uncontrolled Lambda Structure

UNS

Unswept Normal Shock

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-1

CHAPTER 1. – Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1.1. - Introduction

The interaction of a shock wave with a boundary layer is a classic viscous/inviscid interaction problem that occurs over a wide range of high speed aerodynamic flows; such as on transonic wings, in supersonic air intakes, in propelling nozzles at off-design conditions and on deflected controls at supersonic/transonic speeds, to name a few. The transonic interaction takes place at Mach numbers typically between 1.1 and 1.5. On an aerofoil its existence can cause problems that range from a mild increase in section drag to flow separation and buffeting. In the absence of separation the drag increase is predominantly due to wave drag, caused by a rise in the flow entropy through the interaction.

In flows without boundary layers a shock wave would meet, be generated or reflected by a solid surface. In such a flow the pressure at the surface would increase discontinuously across the shock. However, the presence of a viscous boundary layer does not allow this to happen, as the inner part of the boundary layer has subsonic velocities and discontinuities are not possible.

In real flows, the interaction has a complicated structure due to the mixed flow regions with adjacent subsonic and supersonic regions. The viscous boundary layer is predominantly subsonic, which allows pressure disturbances to be transmitted in both upstream and downstream directions. The interaction generates large shear gradients normal to the wall and at the same time the low energy air is dragged downstream. Within the outer supersonic region the effect of viscosity is relatively small and the flow can be defined in terms of the shock equations.

The control of the turbulent interaction as applied to a transonic aerofoil will be addressed in this thesis. However, the work can be applied to the control of the interaction for numerous other occurrences where a shock meets a turbulent boundary layer. Chapman et al. (1958) showed that the interaction is relatively independent of the mode of shock generation. Furthermore, Squire (1996) showed that, for both swept

1-2

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

normal shock and unswept normal shock interactions, as long as the Mach number normal to the shock is the same, then the interaction, and therefore its control, should not differ greatly.

The turbulent interaction was chosen, rather than laminar or transitional, due to the high Reynolds number realised in many practical applications that could incorporate the control method presented in this thesis. Its application to a transonic aerofoil was selected, where the boundary layer over the upper surface interacts with the terminating shock and the locally supersonic flow returns to subsonic speeds.

Numerous schemes have been suggested to control the interaction. However, they have generally been marred by the drag reduction obtained being negated by the additional drag due to the power requirements, for example the pumping power in the case of mass transfer and the drag of the devices in the case of vortex generators.

Passive control of the interaction, where a porous surface covering a plenum chamber is placed underneath the shock region, typically produces a significant reduction in drag above a normal Mach number of 1.25, or for a freestream Mach number over an aerofoil of 0.81. However, Nagamatsu et al. (1987) state that below a Mach number of about 1.25 the viscous drag rise due to the ‘rough’ porous surface is more than the wave drag savings obtained by the passive control. Also, it is not possible to turn passive control ‘on’ or ‘off’, to control the shock position or the amount of mass transfer and its distribution during operation. Furthermore, passive control increases the drag coefficient at off-design conditions, that is either in the absence of a shock or when the shock location is outside of the control region. Noticeable contributions to the study of passive control of transonic SBLI have been by Babinsky (1999), Chen (1984), Gibson (2000), Nagamatsu (1985)(1987) and Raghunathan (1987)(1988).

1.1.1. - Present Approach:

In this thesis a system of piezoelectrically controlled flaps is presented for the control of the interaction, see fig. 1.1. The flaps would deflect due to the pressure difference created by the pressure rise across the shock and by piezoelectrically induced strains. The amount of deflection, and hence mass flow through the plenum chamber, would

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-3

control the interaction. It was originally proposed that the flaps would be capable of being ‘closed’ to the flow, providing zero mass transfer/control and a ‘smooth’ surface to the flow, unlike in the case of passive control. Additionally, the existence of a matrix of flaps on a transonic aerofoil, which could open or shut independently, would enable localised control of the interaction as the swept or unswept shock moves over the aerofoil at different flight conditions, whilst producing a ‘smooth’ surface away from the shock position. It should be pointed out that no feedback system is considered in this thesis and the term active control refers to controlling the overall flap deflection, that is the mass transfer and hence degree of separation. It is proposed that the flaps will delay separation of the boundary layer whilst reducing wave drag and negate the disadvantages of previous control methods.

and negate the disadvantages of previous control methods. Figure 1.1 – Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer

Figure 1.1 – Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction using piezoelectric actuators

Piezoelectric material was selected for flap construction due to its bipolar nature, which is the ability to produce positive or negative strain. If the shock can move over a matrix of flaps then each flap would need to overcome the aeroelastic deflection, due to the presence of the shock, regardless of direction. Also, the piezoelectric material’s bipolar characteristic enables it to assist the aeroelastic deflection to promote mass transfer.

The plenum chamber pressure, to a first approximation, would be at a mean pressure of the upstream and downstream pressure, as indicated by Hafenrichter et al. (2003). Initially, the piezoelectric flaps are modelled with a constant pressure load to predict tip deflection. The pressure difference acting across the flap will be in excess of 15kPa, the

1-4

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

difference between the chamber pressure and the free stream pressure above the flaps. Improved theoretical studies, to be described in chapter 3, will account for the fact that there will be a pressure gradient through the plenum chamber and above the flaps.

Experiments initially examined the more complicated swept normal shock (SNS) interaction. This was primarily due to the fact that provisions to study an unswept normal shock (UNS) were not available when the project started. The experiments were designed to study the interaction of a swept shock, generated by an 11° wedge on the test section floor, with the naturally grown side-wall boundary layer. With a Mach 2 freestream flow a shock was generated with a normal Mach number of 1.3, when the uncontrolled interaction should be incipiently separated according to existing literature. It appears that the main requisite for interaction control is to delay or inhibit separation whilst smearing the shock foot to minimise wave drag. Therefore, the incipiently separated interaction was initially studied extending to the separated interaction.

The study of the SNS interaction is more complicated than the UNS interaction, as pointed out by Babinsky (2002). The complications arise from the three-dimensionality of the SNS interaction compared to the two-dimensional UNS interaction. The opportunity to examine the UNS interaction at the University of Cambridge arose after the initial SNS interaction study was completed. The Cambridge facility has a proven UNS experimental arrangement that allowed improved data capture and interaction visualisations, with the ability to easily record boundary layer traverses and also to obtain schlieren photographs. The Australian Research Council (ARC), through a Linkage grant, and the School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering at UNSW@ADFA jointly supported this part of the study.

The impetus to control the shock wave boundary layer interaction phenomenon comes from performance, economical and environmental considerations. Interaction control on the aerofoil of a typical transonic aircraft would help reduce buffet due to the shock instability, thus alleviate structural fatigue. Moreover, there would also be an improvement in the lift to drag ratio. This would in turn help reduce the GTOW, leading to reduced fuel consumption. Some studies have suggested that a 1% saving in

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-5

overall aircraft drag, with interaction control, could produce as much as a 5% saving in total fuel consumption on a typical 8hr transcontinental flight, see Bushnell (2004).

1.2. – Literature Survey

The Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction (SBLI) occurs on transonic aerofoils at local Mach numbers, between 1.1 and 1.5. The interaction may have an unswept or a swept shock, depending on the location of the interaction on the aerofoil, and is usually with a turbulent boundary layer, due to the high Reynolds numbers of full scale flight.

In this section, the ‘simple’ UNS interaction is initially described with the type of interaction, divided into three distinct types depending on the degree of separation; the unseparated, incipiently separated and the fully separated interaction. However, the three types of interaction occur at different Mach number ranges. It should be noted that the progression from unseparated to separated interaction is a continuous process.

The SNS interaction, and its similarities with the UNS interaction, is then discussed. The SNS interaction, although more complicated, is more widely observed on transonic transport aircraft, for example on swept wings, at the wing-fuselage junction and the fin-tail plane interfaces.

Previous methods of active and passive control of the interaction will be discussed, looking mainly at mass transfer systems. It should be noted that other methods of control have been identified, for example wall temperature control and surface contour control, to name a few. The active methods identified include mass injection and suction. The passive control methods include porous layers over a plenum chamber, slots, hybrid systems and mesoflaps, which all use a combination of mass injection/suction. However, the hybrid systems and mesoflaps use a combination of passive and active control. To reiterate, the interaction is always considered to occur with turbulent boundary layers.

1-6

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1.2.1. – The UNS Interaction For an inviscid flow * a shock would meet, be generated or be reflected by a solid surface generating a discontinuous pressure rise. In practice a boundary layer will always be present and for a weak shock, say M=1.1, the shock would continue into the boundary, see fig. 1.2.

the shock would continue into the boundary, see fig. 1.2. Figure 1.2 - Weak UNS Interaction,

Figure 1.2 - Weak UNS Interaction, Green (1969)

Green (1969) noted that for very weak shock waves with an upstream Mach number of around 1.1 the degree of interaction is relatively weak. The normal shock wave extends into the turbulent boundary layer virtually as far as the sonic line with little smearing. The streamlines diverge upstream of the interaction creating compression waves that coalesce to form the shock, see fig. 1.2. The streamwise extent of the interaction is typically two or three times the thickness of the boundary layer, see fig 1.3. Provided that no separation occurs, the interaction does not have an important effect on the global flow field. However, the occurrence of separation causes divergence and uncertainty in the expected external flow from what would be predicted with an inviscid flow.

The boundary layer, and its viscous effects, would cause the shock foot to smear due to the pressure rise across the freestream shock. The high downstream pressure is transmitted into the boundary layer, where the pressure is continuous everywhere below the sonic line, and conveyed in both upstream and downstream directions. Of particular interest is the upstream effect, which causes the boundary layer to thicken. The

* Shocks are a viscous phenomenon in aerodynamics and the term inviscid refers to a flow without a boundary layer.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-7

boundary layer thickening generates a small degree of smearing of the shock foot as the shock is subjected to reduced Mach numbers as it approaches the surface. In general the boundary layer, displacement and momentum thicknesses grow throughout the interaction and no separation is observed. As the shock becomes stronger, the higher pressure rise leads to greater upstream and downstream influence. This produces greater boundary layer thickening and results in a greater smearing of the shock foot. The smearing is the product of compression waves generated by the boundary layer thickening, creating a localised compression corner.

layer thickening, creating a localised compression corner. Figure 1.3 – Holographic Interferometry of the

Figure 1.3 – Holographic Interferometry of the uncontrolled UNS Interaction at M=1.1, Gibson et al. (2000)

A consequence of this viscous interaction phenomenon is a smoothing of the surface pressure distribution in the shock region where a steady rise replaces the discontinuity, as can be seen in the smoothing effect of the compression waves in figure 1.3. Green (1969) simplifies the UNS interaction by only considering the variables of initial boundary layer conditions approaching the interaction and the pressure rise, which is directly related to the Mach number. However, he does clarify that the overall pressure rise is influenced both by boundary conditions in the far field and the behaviour in the interaction region. For a fully turbulent boundary layer in transonic and supersonic flows at high Reynolds numbers, the lower the Reynolds number the wider the spreading of the pressure distribution. Green notes that provided the separated region is large enough, the flow up to, and possibly downstream of the separation point, depends solely on the properties of the initial boundary layer. The larger the separated region, the further downstream of the separation point does the interaction remain independent

1-8

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

of the downstream conditions. This is a simplification of the free interaction theory by Chapman et al. (1958) – the interactions that are “free from direct influences (though not from indirect influences of downstream geometry) and are free from complicating influences of the mode of inducing separation, arbitrarily [are] termed “free interactions” for brevity.”

An increase in Mach number would increase the pressure rise across the shock promoting separation. It appears that once separation occurs the interaction cannot be labelled as a ‘free interaction’. This is confirmed with the experiments of Chapman et al. (1958) who studied the Reynolds number effect on the turbulent interaction with separation, where the model shape and Mach number had to be fixed. It would appear that if separation can be minimised or removed then the UNS interaction could be considered quasi-entirely a free interaction, ignoring the downstream subsonic flow effects. It should be noted that Chapman et al. (1958) did not look at the UNS interaction with a turbulent boundary layer and that these conclusions are extrapolated from the study of rear and forward facing steps and compression corners.

1.2.1.1. - INCIPIENT SEPARATION

a)

compression corners. 1.2.1.1. - I NCIPIENT S EPARATION a) b) Fig 1.4 – a) Wall Shear

b) Fig 1.4 – a) Wall Shear stress distribution through a SBLI from Green (1969) and b) The separation bubble growth from Delery (1985) with increasing Mach number to demonstrate incipient separation

increasing Mach number to demonstrate incipient separation As the shock strengthens, the pressure rise exerted on

As the shock strengthens, the pressure rise exerted on the flow field increases producing larger compression waves and greater smearing. Furthermore, the boundary layer is more susceptible to separation and a limit is reached where incipient separation occurs at the shock foot. Incipient separation is defined as the threshold when the wall shear

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-9

stress, w , at one point equals zero but everywhere else is positive, see fig 1.4a. For a

greater pressure rise w will locally go negative, which can produce separation and

reattachment. Due to the complexities of accurately measuring w in a transonic interaction it is easier to calculate when the separation bubble becomes vanishingly small, see fig 1.4b. That is when the separation (S) and the reattachment point (R) tend towards one another as indicated by flow visualisation.

According to Pearcey (1955) the growth of the separation bubble from the shock foot does not depend much on the Reynolds number of the boundary layer provided that it is fully turbulent. Incipient separation is shown to be weakly dependent on the Reynolds number with turbulent boundary layers, as shown by Chapman et al. (1958). The degree of separation and shock smearing would be more dependent on the pressure rise and shape factor.

Delery and Marvin (1986) note that the influence of Reynolds number is commonly included in the shape parameter but they are not uniquely linked, for example with a pressure gradient or transpiration. If the influence of shape factor and Reynolds number are assumed negligible the criterion at which separation first occurs, for an UNS interaction, is generally accepted to be when the upstream Mach number is 1.3. This agrees with Inger (1981), who concluded that unseparated SBLI flows occur up to a Mach number of approximately 1.3, after which incipient separation takes place. This value of normal Mach number for the UNS interaction has now been generally accepted as the limit of incipient separation.

1.2.1.2. - SEPARATION Incipient separation does not greatly influence the turbulent boundary layer interaction or the global flow field. However, the rapid onset of separation can have a disastrous effect. Delery and Marvin (1986) note, “such a quasi-explosive increase of the size of the dissipative region considerably affects the whole flow field and generally leads to a catastrophic loss in terms of performance.” On a transonic aerofoil this would equate to a loss in lift, rise in drag, different section moment and the on-set of buffet.

1-10

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

A sizeable separation bubble forms at the shock foot when the upstream Mach number becomes noticeably greater than 1.3. The bubble is sensitive to external factors and its streamwise extent can increase dramatically as a consequence of further rises in Mach number or the action of downstream adverse pressure gradients, such as the one existing on a highly rear loaded aerofoil. An interaction strong enough to cause separation is characterised by the existence in the outer flow of a lambda shaped foot of the shock wave as well as a rapid growth in the separated boundary layer. Referring to figure 1.5, the separation bubble enhances upstream boundary layer thickening with increased compression waves, which coalesce to form the oblique leading leg of the lambda structure. The difference in strength between the oblique shock and the main shock creates two different flow regions with different pressures and velocities. In order to make the two adjacent flows compatible the trailing leg of the lambda structure is generated. The strength of both legs of the lambda structure decrease as they approach the wall. The weakening of the trailing leg is partly due to the varying upstream conditions and partly due to the effect of the compression waves generated by the growth of the displacement boundary layer effects. The formation of the oblique leading leg is dependent on the boundary layer growth, which is influenced by the incoming Mach number, the boundary layer thickness and the shape factor.

number, the boundary layer thickness and the shape factor. Figure 1.5 - Lambda structure of the

Figure 1.5 - Lambda structure of the separated UNS interaction, Green (1969)

The virtually normal trailing leg and the oblique leading leg meet the main shock at the triple point, also known as the bifurcation point. An increased upstream Mach number leads to greater separation and upstream influence. It is believed that this will cause the

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-11

oblique shock angle to marginally decrease, however, the greater upstream interaction length leads to an increased triple point height with upstream Mach number.

According to Atkin and Squire (1992), the height of the triple point is approximately 3.5 to 4 boundary layer thicknesses above the surface and the main growth in boundary layer thickness takes place between the leading and trailing shocks, with the momentum thickness increasing steadily during the whole interaction process. Their work, with normal shock waves with turbulent boundary layers, at Mach numbers from 1.3 to 1.55, showed that, as the upstream Mach number increases the distortion of the shock foot, the boundary layer thickening becomes increasingly significant. About M = 1.3, incipient separation takes place, inducing the shock wave foot to bifurcate, with an oblique leading shock followed by a rear shock, both stemming from the triple point a few boundary layer thicknesses above the wall. The incoming boundary layer, unable to overcome the pressure rise imposed by the interaction, separates to form a free shear layer that subsequently attaches further aft of the rear shock with increased pressure rise. Atkin and Squire (1992) state that after separation occurs the triple point height is not greatly altered for increased Mach number without the presence of control. This is contrary to Gibson et al. (2000), who note that as the Mach number increases after separation the leading leg becomes more oblique and the triple point lifted away from the surface. However, Gibson et al. agree with Atkin and Squire that the increase in length of the separation bubble is also significant.

Referring to figure 1.6, a slip line or vortex sheet is the consequence of the discontinuity of downstream velocities, greater in section 2 than in section 3. It arises because the Mach number downstream of the leading and trailing leg of the lambda structure is greater than the Mach number downstream of the main shock, as the total rise in entropy is always less through successive shocks than the rise through a single shock for the same final static pressure.

The difference in shock strength above and below the triple point imparts different velocities onto the flow. Below a Mach number of 1.4 the flow everywhere is subsonic downstream of the interaction. However, for Mach numbers greater than 1.4 supersonic flow is formed downstream of the trailing leg creating a ‘supersonic tongue’. The

1-12

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

supersonic tongue, which grows with increased upstream Mach number, is subsequently isentropically retarded due to the downstream subsonic influence, see fig. 1.7. Seddon (1960) notes in his experiments at a Mach number of 1.47 that the presence of the supersonic tongue in a predominantly subsonic system, between the vortex sheet and the separated region, renders the problem very difficult to analyse.

region, renders the problem very difficult to analyse. Figure 1.6 - Detailed lambda structure, Atkin and

Figure 1.6 - Detailed lambda structure, Atkin and Squire (1992)

1.6 - Detailed lambda structure, Atkin and Squire (1992) Figure 1.7 – Supersonic Tongue, Seddon (1960)

Figure 1.7 – Supersonic Tongue, Seddon (1960)

without the presence of shocks.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-13

Seddon goes on to note that the first appearance of separation, a region of reversed flow, marks an important qualitative change in the UNS interaction. Compared with fully attached flow, the presence of separation is usually associated with greater losses, greater uncertainties and, in some cases, a significant difference in the character of the external flow.

Mateer et al. (1976) worked on UNS interactions at a Mach number of 1.5 and a Reynolds number range from 10 7 to 8x10 7 . They showed that the length of separation was proportional to the incoming boundary layer thickness and a supersonic tongue appears downstream of the shock when the free stream Mach number increases above 1.4, which was also observed by Seddon (1960). The supersonic tongue extends to at least a height of four upstream boundary layer thicknesses, which is consistent with the inference of Atkin and Squire (1992). The pressure distribution has an initial steep pressure rise, followed by an abrupt change in slope and a gradual increase in pressure to a value that is below the inviscid value. The slope of the initial rise was shown to increase with Reynolds number, indicating a dependence on Reynolds number above 10 6 . The separation occurs near the onset of the pressure rise which is located increasingly upstream with increase in Mach number. However, the reattachment occurred at the same position relative to the shock independent of the Reynolds number.

1.2.2. – The SNS Interaction

of the Reynolds number. 1.2.2. – The SNS Interaction Figure 1.8 – Three dimensional Sharp Fin

Figure 1.8 – Three dimensional Sharp Fin Induced SBLI With an unseparated flow structure, Kubota and Stollery (1982)

1-14

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

Figure 1.8 shows the flow structure proposed by Kubota and Stollery (1982) for an unseparated SNS Interaction. Analysis by McCabe (1966) shows that incipient separation occurs at a normal Mach number of 1.2. This supports the conclusions of Stollery (1989) and Settles and Dolling (1992) that separation occurs more readily in SNS interactions than in UNS interactions due to the reduction in normal Mach number with sweep back. As a result most SNS interaction experiments, other than those at low freestream Mach number (M ) with weak shocks, show evidence of separation.

The pressure downstream of the shock in many UNS interactions quite quickly reaches the value predicted by inviscid theory. However, in SNS interaction the pressure at the wall downstream of the shock appears to be strongly influenced by the viscous effects present in the boundary layer. The total effect of the adverse pressure gradient, the boundary layer cross flow and the lateral distribution of disturbances produce a large interaction region downstream of the shock. The size of the interaction region, which increases with the normal Mach number to the main shock (M n ), generates an apparent decreased pressure rise.

West and Korkegi (1972) show, using intersecting wedges, that a strong resemblance between UNS and SNS interactions occur with high freestream Mach numbers greater than 3 (M n 1.36), see figs. 1.3, 1.4 and 1.9. They conclude by saying that a three dimensional SNS interaction “may be viewed locally as [a] two-dimensional [SNS] interaction with strong cross-flow.” Squire (1996) worked on SNS and UNS interactions and he suggests that correlations between the interactions can be made, provided this is done in terms of M n and pressure rises. This chapter will continue by presenting interactions and their control in terms of M n for comparisons between the studies.

Settles and Dolling (1992) formulated scaling laws for both SNS and UNS interactions. The interaction scaling depends on the upstream influence length, local boundary layer thickness, Reynolds number based on boundary layer thickness and local Mach number normal to the inviscid shock. This suggests a correlation with the free interaction theory based on the normal Mach number. Korkegi (1971) indicates that free interaction

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-15

occurs for a turbulent SNS interaction with separation, up to the pressure plateau (lambda structure or separation point).

the pressure plateau (lambda structure or separation point). Fig 1.9 – Surface flow beneath swept normal

Fig 1.9 – Surface flow beneath swept normal shocks and the flow viewed parallel to the shocks for a) unseparated and b) separated flow from Green (1969)

Koide et al. (1996) showed that there is a correlation in SNS interactions produced by several geometrically dissimilar shock generators, further cementing the concept that free interactions occur for both SNS and UNS interactions. The primary separation lines and their angles, which dictate the upstream influence length, were observed to be proportional to the normal Mach number for the different shock generators.

1-16

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

One of the first criteria for incipient separation for SNS interactions was proposed by McCabe (1966) for freestream Mach numbers, M , above 1.6 with the very simple approximation

M

0.364

[Eq. 1.1]

where N is the external flow deflection angle in radians. Korkegi (1973) found that a better agreement was obtained with 0.3 or P 2 /P 1 =1.5, which equates to M n =1.2. This holds true for high values of Reynolds number and it is assumed that if the Reynolds number is sufficiently high its influence on incipient separation is negligible. According to Kubota and Stollery (1982) the incipient separation definitions of McCabe and Korkegi are conservative since there are experiments which show that the surface flow can be deflected through angles exceeding the shock wave angle before the formation of a true separation line.

wave angle before the formation of a true separation line. Figure 1.10 – Three dimensional Sharp

Figure 1.10 – Three dimensional Sharp Fin Induced SBLI with a separated flow structure, Kubota and Stollery (1982)

The onset of incipient separation can be observed from oil flow visualisation when, Green (1969) offers, the upstream skin friction lines converge and merge asymptotically

into a separation line (S), or what Kubota and Stollery call a “convergence line,” see fig.

1.10. Delery and Marvin (1986) state that the separation line runs approximately

parallel to the swept shock. When the downstream streamlines run parallel to the

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-17

separation line w normal to the sweep of the shock should equal zero. When the boundary layer separates the surface flow pattern also reveals the existence of a reattachment line (R) close to the trace of the shock generator. Kubota and Stollery (1982) represent the interacting flow with a corner vortex and the inner part of the shock generator boundary layer is pushed under the sidewall boundary, see fig. 1.10.

Work on SNS interactions by Alvi and Settles (1992) using a sharp fin, with a M n range from 1.4 to 2.45, showed that further increases in the Mach number upstream of the shock wave continue to affect the details of the shape of the lambda structure. In particular, there is a tendency for the upstream leg of the lambda structure to become increasingly oblique with a larger primary separation bubble and an increase in the triple point height. An increased Mach number corresponds to an increased upstream influence length as suggested by free interaction theory. Furthermore, above M n of 1.64 a “secondary separation” occurs within the primary separation bubble, seen as a “bulge” in the initial reversed flow, as reported by Settles and Dolling (1992), see fig. 1.11. It appears that the secondary separation is created from the increased primary separation bubble. However, it does not further complicate the overall interaction, which is more dependent on the overall size of the separation bubble.

more dependent on the overall size of the separation bubble. Figure 1.11-SNS Interaction showing secondary separation

Figure 1.11-SNS Interaction showing secondary separation from Settles and Dolling (1992)

1-18

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1.2.3. - SBLI Control Korkegi (1976) concluded that “the structure of the three dimensional [SNS] interaction is … …. primarily dependent on the extent of separation.” This holds true for the UNS interaction as well and it appears that the objective of controlling the interaction is to extend the limiting boundaries by minimising the amount of separation. This may be accomplished by: active means, such as tangentially blowing (injection), boundary layer suction and surface heating or cooling; mechanical means, for example vortex generators; or by passive means through placing a permeable surface with a cavity beneath in the shock region. For passive control, the large pressure difference over the shock will lead to a combined suction and injection effect downstream and upstream of the shock respectively, see section 1.2.4. Furthermore, hybrid control can be employed using a combination of the above.

One of the main objectives when designing a wing for transonic speeds is to obtain as high a “drag rise Mach number” as possible, subject to certain constraints. In principle, supercritical aerofoils are shaped to delay the drag rise associated with the energy losses caused by shock waves and flow separation. At design conditions they have an extended region of supersonic flow over the upper surface, which is terminated by a nearly isentropic recompression, thus minimising wave drag. However, they have limited Mach number range and incidence before off-design conditions are met, for example a shock is formed on the aerofoil, which drastically alters the aerofoil characteristics. This can lead to separated flow, increased drag, reduced lift, a radically different moment and the existence of buffet due to the unsteadiness of the shock. Therefore, at off-design conditions the control of the SBLI is virtually essential.

1.2.3.1. - MASS TRANSFER (INJECTION OR SUCTION)

Fluid injection in the supersonic region upstream of a shock wave increases the growth rate of the boundary layer approaching the shock, decreasing skin friction, such that the effective geometry is changed to produce several weaker shocks, which replace the original shock. This softens the shock and leads to a reduction in wave drag, which is the primary desired effect in the case of injection. Pearcey (1961) showed on a transonic aerofoil with an UNS, at M =0.9 and a 6 Q angle of attack, that slot blowing at

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-19

15% chord

minimises

separation

and

greatly improves

reducing drag and increasing lift, see fig. 1.12.

the pressure

distribution,

increasing lift, see fig. 1.12. the pressure distribution, Figure 1.12 – Shadowgraph and pressure distributions over

Figure 1.12 – Shadowgraph and pressure distributions over an aerofoil at 6° with a) no boundary layer control and b) blowing through an upstream slot, Pearcey (1961)

It should be noted that excessive thickening of the boundary layer approaching the shock reduces the friction through the interaction and may lead to boundary layer separation downstream. Delery and Bur (1999) note that low injection velocities result in a lengthening of the separation bubble. However, a reversal of this effect is observed after the injected mass flow velocity is increased beyond a certain limit as the momentum within the boundary layer is increased, resisting separation.

Suction behind the shock considerably reduces the boundary layer and displacement thicknesses, affecting the whole downstream flow development. Mass suction changes the shape factor towards unity, which increases the frictional effect and makes the boundary layer less susceptible to separation. Without suction on an aerofoil, a local separation bubble, which would expand rapidly, can exist downstream of the shock. Thiede et al. (1984) showed in their work on aerofoils with double slot suction that maximum lift, and accordingly the lift coefficient for the onset of buffet, increased considerably with the application of suction, see fig 1.13. At a pre-shock Mach number

1-20

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

of 1.44 the flow was still attached and only local separation was occasionally observed.

It was shown that suction delayed shock induced separation and reduced the extent of

the separation bubble. However, it is unsure whether the results are a pure suction effect or whether there is a passive circulation effect occurring due to the fact that the two slots are not isolated from one another.

fact that the two slots are not isolated from one another. Figure 1.13 – Active control

Figure 1.13 – Active control on a supercritical transonic aerofoil by suction through a double slot at a) 4 Q and b) 5 Q- Thiede et al. (1984)

Krogmann et al. (1985) observed that suction through a perforated strip is less effective, in the reduction of separation and hence production of lift, at lower Mach numbers as compared with single and double slot suction . They also observed that with suction the shock is located further downstream of the uncontrolled position. Up to the suction position the flow is further accelerated, increasing the shock strength, which along with

a thinner velocity profile produces additional wave and friction drags. Moreover,

suction reduced pressure drag due to separation and prevented the occurrence of buffet, even at higher Mach numbers.

with a double slot configuration more effective than a single slot one.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-21

Green (1969) noted that suction is not an economical way of controlling separation on transonic aerofoils. However, it is very effective for suppressing separation in supersonic air intakes, diffusers and is virtually essential above a Mach number of 2 if high performance is essential.

1.2.4. - Passive Control of Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction (PCSBLI)

Control of Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interaction (PCSBLI) Figure 1.14 - Passive Control of Shock/Boundary Layer

Figure 1.14 - Passive Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction

According to Nagamatsu et al. (1985), Mr. Dennis Bushnell and Dr. Richard Whitcomb of the NASA Langley Research Centre originally suggested PCSBLI in 1979. The concept consists of a porous surface and a cavity, known as a plenum chamber, located underneath the shock wave Boundary layer interaction (SBLI), see fig. 1.14.

The high pressure downstream of the shock wave will force some of the boundary layer fluid into the plenum chamber and out ahead of the shock. This would be equivalent to a combination of suction downstream and blowing upstream of the shock. The plenum chamber pressure would, to a first approximation, be an average pressure of the upstream and downstream pressure.

The plenum chamber would increase the “communication” upstream of the shock, which does not happen across an inviscid shock, to create rapid thickening of the boundary layer approaching the shock. The boundary layer thickening produces an oblique leading leg shock followed by a nearly normal trailing shock, known as a lambda structure. The presence of the lambda structure reduces the wave drag, as the entropy rise is less through successive shocks than through one shock. The combination

1-22

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

of a weaker trailing leg and suction would reduce the susceptibility of the flow to separate. Furthermore, the porous surface and the plenum chamber can also dampen pressure fluctuations and the unsteadiness associated with the SBLI § . It would appear that passive control produces a lambda structure that is similar to the uncontrolled interaction with separation, having the advantage of reduced wave drag without its disadvantages, providing the control is effective in constraining the separation.

1.2.4.1. - THE EFFECT OF PCSBLI ON THE FLOW FIELD

Bahi et al. (1983), Nagamatsu et al. (1985), Nagamatsu et al. (1987), Raghunathan (1987)(1988), Raghunathan et al. (1987), Raghunathan and Mabey (1987), Savu and Trifu (1984) showed that the general effect of PCSBLI was to reduce the pressure gradients and local Mach numbers in the interaction region. The pressure distribution upstream of the porous region is virtually unaffected. On an aerofoil, the reduced pressure gradients in the interaction region indicate a reduction in shock strength and, therefore, lower pressure on the downstream suction surface that will increase lift on the upper surface. The only sharp changes in pressure gradients are those at the beginning and end of the porous region, reducing the SBLI effect on the section moment. Savu and Trifu (1984) suggest that the pressure distribution obtained with PCSBLI can be used to generate an equivalent solid aerofoil, as PCSBLI on an aerofoil is analogous to changing the surface geometry. Analysis performed on the equivalent solid aerofoil showed a similar pressure distribution as the original porous aerofoil. This seems to be the forerunner to current bump control technology that imitates the separation bubble to produce the shape of the bump, see Holden (2004).

The application of passive control splits a single shock into a series of weaker shocks forming a lambda ( ) shock foot. The leading leg of the shock foot is oblique and the trailing leg of the shock is quasi-normal. Gibson et al. (2000) observed that the bifurcation point occurs approximately 3-5 boundary thicknesses above the surface. With increase in freestream Mach number, the leading leg remained anchored at the start of the porous surface, except at high Mach numbers, and the trailing leg generally follows the same path as that of the shock on a solid surface. They went on to suggest

§ The author recognises that the SBLI is steady in the mean but uses the term ‘unsteadiness’ with reference to the minor spatial variations of the local SBLI.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-23

that passive control can be thought to fix the position of the shock in a duct. It appears that the presence of control increases downstream total pressure, forcing the shock upstream. The upstream movement would then reduce the effectiveness of the control, to be discussed in section 1.2.4.2., decreasing downstream total pressure, and therefore creating a stable shock position. Gibson et al. (2000) observed that PCSBLI has the effect of stabilising the shock wave, which is of particular relevance in controlling transonic buffet. A forward movement in shock position led to greater suction, reducing the effective back pressure and halting the forward movement, while any downstream movements were halted because the reservoir pressure was sufficient to hold the shock on the control surface.

The effect of blowing only upstream and suction only downstream of the shock wave on the pressure distribution, using passive control, shows that blowing reduces the pressure gradients and skin friction. However, the suction downstream does not increase the pressure gradients and skin friction as expected; indicating the effects of passive control are blowing dominated. The dominating influence of blowing in PCSBLI is also indicated in boundary layer displacement thickness measurements with and without passive control. Raghunathan (1987) suggests that the reason for this blowing dominated behaviour is that the development of the boundary layer in the subsonic region, downstream of the shock, is a function of the upstream influence. With passive control the boundary layer approaching the shock is thicker and when subjected to a SBLI, even with a softened shock system, takes a longer distance to rehabilitate itself and is also less resistant to separation.

One of the major effects of PCSBLI on an aerofoil is on the drag. Delery and Bur (1999) and Nagamatsu et al. (1985) showed that passive control at low transonic Mach numbers, M T =0.75, increases the overall drag whereas at higher transonic freestream Mach numbers, above M T 0.83 (M n 1.35), it reduces the drag by 33%. Bahi et al. (1983) stated that significant drag reductions could be achieved at a freestream Mach number of 0.806 (M n 1.26), agreeing with Nagamatsu et al. (1987) who suggest that, at

M greater than 0.8 (M n >1.25), the increase in viscous drag is less than the reduction in wave drag, see fig. 1.15. Raghunathan (1987) showed slight overall drag reduction at M = 0.85 (M n 1.3) depending on the type and amount of porosity. He goes on to show

1-24

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

that greater levels of overall drag reductions are achieved at M n = 1.37. Krogmann et al. (1985) showed that drag reduction can be obtained over a wide range of Mach number and incidence, although it is not clear whether viscous drag was included. It would appear that PCSBLI is beneficial for an UNS interaction above a local Mach number of 1.3, the point of incipient separation.

local Mach number of 1.3, the point of incipient separation. Figure 1.15 – Drag coefficient variation

Figure 1.15 – Drag coefficient variation with freestream Mach number for solid and porous surface aerofoils from Nagamatsu et al. (1987)

Passive control can delay aerofoil stall and improve the lift to drag ratio. Krogmann et al. (1985) obtained 20% - 50% increases in the lift to drag ratio and greatly reduced buffet with passive control, with freestream Mach numbers up to 0.86 ** . They also showed that PCSBLI can reduce unsteady pressure fluctuation in the interaction region and substantially raise the buffet boundary for a wing. It is also suggested that the low velocity plenum chamber, which allows “communication” across the shock, acts as a stabiliser for any shock movement.

The drag reduction due to PCSBLI is essentially due to the weakening of the shock, which leads to a reduction in the entropy rise. However, at off-design conditions without the presence of a shock to drive the flow there is an increase in drag due to viscous losses from the unsealed ‘rough’ holes, see Gibson et al. (2000).

** The Mach number limit of their study.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-25

1.2.4.2. - FACTORS AFFECTING PCSBLI The extent of drag reduction with PCSBLI is dependent upon numerous variables. Firstly, PCSBLI is more effective at higher Mach numbers (shock strength). Within the boundary layer the losses are essentially viscous losses, whereas outside the boundary layer the losses are due to entropy changes across the shock. In order to obtain a net reduction in drag, the reduction in entropy change has to outweigh the increase in viscous losses. Comparisons of profiles, both with and without passive control, showed that the ‘rough’ surface of passive control increased the viscous losses and the lambda structure decreases losses due to the increase in entropy across the shock. This appears to only be possible at sufficiently high Mach numbers, as discussed in section 1.2.4.1. Raghunathan (1988) shows that appreciable drag reduction is achieved at greater Mach numbers than those where incipient separation would occur without control. Furthermore, he appears to suggest that optimum control is achieved when the separation is just constrained to the control region, agreeing with Nagamatsu et al. (1985) who suggest that the boundary layer effects are more important than the total pressure losses. Savu and Trifu (1984) go on to show that for “supercritical airfoils at sub-critical Mach numbers the influence of porosity distribution is negligible.” This is presumably due to the fact that the incipient separation criteria for the uncontrolled aerofoil have not been met.

Raghunathan (1987) showed that the general effect of increasing porosity is an increase in the viscous losses near the surface but with a reduction of losses across the shock system. Whilst an increase in porosity should increase the mass injection upstream of the shock, it also reduces the pressure gradients in the interaction region, and hence an increase in skin friction. The optimum porosity for maximum drag reduction, according to Raghunathan (1988), is in the range: 2 to 3% for normal holes; 1 to 2% for forward facing holes ; and 1% for slots, where the porosity is situated over a very narrow region and the passive control mechanism is different. He also showed that the wave drag generally reduces with an increase in porosity due to a relatively weaker trailing leg of the lambda shock.

where the holes are inclined 60° forward. It is expected that these promote suction, mass transfer and upstream boundary layer thickening.

1-26

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

Gibson et al. (2000) observed that the leading leg of the lambda structure becomes more oblique with an increase in porosity. This indicates that the strength of the leading leg increases with porosity due to the amount of mass injection at the start of the control region, see table 1.1. They went on to say that the main features of the controlled SBLI vary little with degree of porosity, other than in the greater smearing that occurs for higher porosities.

Porosity

2%

4%

8%

Oblique shock angle,

52.7°

53.5°

54.4°

Table 1.1 - Varying porosity effect on leading leg angles for a central shock position on a passive control plate (100mm in length) - Gibson et al. (2000)

Bahi et al. (1983) observed in their work on transonic aerofoils that higher porosity leads to lower and higher local Mach numbers ahead of and downstream of the shockwave respectively. This implies weaker leading and terminating shocks to reduce flow separation, leading to improved total pressure recovery with reduced wave drag. However, this was only observed after the oblique shock of the lambda structure was formed. With a porosity of 1.25% the leading leg consisted of compression waves instead of the oblique shock generated with 2.5% porosity. The existence of compression waves would imply a weaker shock foot but it is unclear whether there is a lambda structure.

Shock Position

Upstream

Central

Downstream

Shock location wrt the control plate

33%

50%

66%

Oblique shock angle,

55.3°

53.5°

50.7°

Table 1.2 - Oblique Shock Angles for various shock positions on a 4% porosity passive control plate (100mm in length) - Gibson et al. (2000)

Gibson et al. (2000) observed the effect of shock location relative to the control region. A shock location upstream of the central porosity position produces a stronger leading leg of the lambda structure, see table 1.2. As the passive control action becomes limited by the small area of the porous plate, through which the higher intensity blowing has to take place, which in turn increases the strength of the leading shock wave. As the main

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-27

shock approaches the upstream solid surface, the size of the lambda structure decreases until it adopts the uncontrolled form.

Nagamatsu et al. (1985) indicates that a downstream shock position produces improved drag production. It is generally accepted that the optimum distribution for uniform porosity should be 2/3 upstream and 1/3 downstream of the shock position. The downstream shock position would have a larger lambda structure, as the decreased leading shock angle, of say 5%, would be overwhelmed by the approximate 33% increase in upstream interaction length, compared to the mid-position. However, any further movement downstream would restrict the suction, and therefore total mass transfer.

Raghunathan and Mabey (1987) observed the controlled interaction at varying shock positions with respect to the control plate, by increasing the freestream Mach number to move the shock. However, it is hard to separate the control position effects from the Mach number effects. Gibson et al. (2000) controlled the downstream total pressure, at similar Mach numbers, to control the shock position and isolate the effect of shock position. It would appear that comparison of SBLI control technique efficiencies would be limited unless similar shock positions and Mach numbers were used.

Chen et al. (1984), Savu and Trifu (1984) and Gibson et al. (2000) have shown that the type of porosity distribution influences passive control. Chen et al. (1984) conducted experiments using three types of porosity distribution: uniform distribution, maximum porosity at the shock position and maximum porosity at the mid section of the porous region, labelled type A, B and C respectively. Type A and B results indicated that for a given porosity, drag reduction increases monotonically with Mach number. Additionally, for a given Mach number, the drag reduction increases with porosity. For type C distribution, drag reduction increases with Mach number up to a certain Mach number, above which a smaller reduction in drag was observed for an increase in Mach number. Presumably, this is due to the shock located downstream of the passive control region with increased Mach number.

1-28

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

The type of porous surface is also an influencing factor. The surface can be made with normal holes, forward facing holes, backward facing holes and slots perpendicular to the flow, to name a few. Raghunathan and Mabey (1987) showed, with M n =1.37 and 1.6% porosity control, that there is a considerable difference in pressure distribution, shock position, stagnation pressure profiles and drag when the hole inclination is changed. The forward facing, rearward racing and normal holes produced drag reductions of approximately 28%, 12% and 2% respectively compared to without control. It is believed that the forward facing holes have improved mass bleed and upstream influence. The rear facing holes have less mass injection but the tangential effect reduces the disruption to the boundary layer compared to the normal holes. However, the improved wave drag reduction with the inclined holes, rear of forward facing, comes at the expense of larger viscous losses. The normal holes produced larger changes in the Mach number with some expansion at the leading edge of the porous region and improved pressure recovery downstream of the control region, near the trailing edge.

Bahi et al. (1983) showed that an increase in plenum depth reduced the pressure gradients in the interaction region, decreased the oblique shock angle (presumably from lower injection velocity) and increased pressures on the downstream suction surface. A more oblique leading shock produced by a shallower plenum would reduce wave drag due to the increased triple point height. It would appear that optimum porosity and drag reduction is a trade-off between triple point height and oblique shock angle. Raghunathan (1988), however, suggest that the overall drag reduction is not greatly affected by the plenum depth with the air velocity in the plenum, being approximately 5% of the free stream air velocity.

1.2.4.3. – SLOT AND GROOVE CONTROL

Slot and Groove Control of the SBLI, with a local Mach number of 1.3, was studied by Smith et al. (2002). The presence of streamwise slots, which are more effective than grooves, lead to a lambda shock structure that relaxes slowly towards an uncontrolled interaction with increasing spanwise distance away from a slot, (see fig. 1.16). There is an increase in boundary-layer thickness that is confined to a very narrow region about the slot, which results in reduced viscous losses for an array of slots compared to the

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-29

same total control area with passive control. Also, it would appear that slot control does not constrain the separation to the control region and that it continues downstream of the interaction. However, it is unclear whether the flow would later reattach or radically alter the external flow field if applied to a transonic aerofoil.

the external flow field if applied to a transonic aerofoil. Figure 1.16 - SBLI Structure with

Figure 1.16 - SBLI Structure with Slot Control, Smith et al. (2002)

1.2.4.4. - HYBRID

with Slot Control, Smith et al. (2002) 1.2.4.4. - H YBRID Figure 1.17 – Slot control

Figure 1.17 – Slot control positions on the side-wall to study SNS Interactions from Babinsky et al. (1999)

It has been recognised that the boundary layer usually thickens due to passive control, leading to an increase in viscous drag. It may even cause flow separation in what would normally be an unseparated flow field. Babinsky (1999) studied SBLI control comparing a single spanwise slot to a porous surface with an optional suction

1-30

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

mechanism on both systems to create ‘active’ control and reduce thickening of the boundary layer, see fig. 1.17.

It was observed that applying suction to the control cavity reduces the beneficial effects of shock smearing while also reducing boundary layer thickness, shape factor and possibility of secondary separation. Large amounts of mass bleed can remove and even reverse the shock smearing due to control. It was observed that a slot located upstream of the inviscid shock position has little influence on the interaction; slightly reducing upstream static pressures. It should be noted that excessive suction could lead to thinning of the boundary layer inducing an expansion fan in the upstream interaction region. The higher local Mach numbers will produce a stronger shock with steeper pressure gradients, negating the benefits of control. However, a slot at or downstream of the inviscid shock position has a more pronounced influence due to it being situated in the subsonic or transonic part of the flow field. It would produce a more smeared lambda structure with reduced static pressure throughout the interaction.

with reduced static pressure throughout the interaction. Figure 1.18 - Hybrid SBLI Control with PCSBLI and

Figure 1.18 - Hybrid SBLI Control with PCSBLI and downstream suction, Delery and Bur (1999)

Delery and Bur (1999) suggested a range of hybrid control techniques. Firstly, by placing a suction slot downstream of the control cavity, combining the advantage of

passive control to decrease the wave drag and the effectiveness of suction to reduce

They also considered the possibility of reproducing the

separated flow structure by a local deformation of the surface. A double wedge like

friction losses, see fig. 1.18.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-31

shape, that imitates the viscous separated fluid, would induce a shock at its origin and a second shock at the trailing edge. This system only slightly affects the boundary layer, while substantially reducing the wave drag. A bump with a more progressive contour, that is a continuous curvature, seems to be very effective at producing a nearly isentropic compression in the shock region. Bump control of the SBLI is a current area of interest in the aerodynamics community, see Holden (2004).

1.2.5. - Mesoflaps for Aeroelastic Recirculation Transpiration (MART) MART technology consists of a matrix of small flaps, rigidly fixed at the upstream end to form numerous cantilever beams, covering an enclosed plenum chamber, as shown in fig. 1.19. The presence of a shock creates a pressure difference between the free stream and plenum chamber. The pressure difference causes the flaps to undergo local aeroelastic deflection to achieve mass bleed or injection, as shown in fig. 1.19b. The MART system combines the advantages of rearward and forward facing holes, producing a ‘flush’ surface when no shock is present. However, the amount of flap deflection, and hence mass transfer, is pre-determined by the structural design of the mesoflaps. A cantilever beam deflects under a pressure load proportional to its length cubed and inversely to the thickness cubed.

a)

to its length cubed and inversely to the thickness cubed. a) b) Figure 1.19 –Mesoflaps for

b)

its length cubed and inversely to the thickness cubed. a) b) Figure 1.19 –Mesoflaps for Aeroelastic

Figure 1.19 –Mesoflaps for Aeroelastic Transpiration a) Four stream wise flap structure,

Wood et al. (1999) and b) SBLI structure, Jaiman et al. (2003)

Hafenrichter et al. (2003) studied normal SBLI control using mesoflaps at a freestream Mach number of 1.37, with a unit Reynolds number of 30x10 6 m -1 , oncoming boundary layer thickness of 2.6mm and a control region length of 57.15mm above a 19.05mm

1-32

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

deep plenum. The flaps, manufactured from a nickel-titanium shape memory alloy termed Nitinol, span 50.8mm and have thicknesses in the range of 63.5-228.6µm. Their work concentrates on four or six streamwise flap matrices with an upstream stagnation pressure of 210kPa. It was observed that the plenum chamber pressure was approximately constant, due to the subsonic velocities, at an average of the upstream and downstream pressures. It should be noted that the extremely thin flaps produced large deflections, occasionally greater than 2mm, which were often accompanied by fluttering of the flaps that often lead to mechanical failure of the mesoflaps, namely cracks.

a)

b)

to mechanical failure of the mesoflaps, namely cracks. a) b) Figure 1.20 – The SBLI at
to mechanical failure of the mesoflaps, namely cracks. a) b) Figure 1.20 – The SBLI at

Figure 1.20 – The SBLI at M=1.37 a) uncontrolled and with b) MART Control

of the SBLI with a four flap 191 µm array, Lee et al. (2002)

It is observed that the uncontrolled SBLI lambda structure is replaced by a larger lambda structure consisting of a series of longer leading oblique shocks, see fig. 1.20a and b. The oblique shocks are generated by both mass injection and ‘compression

Chapter 1.

Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-33

ramps’ created by upward deflecting mesoflaps. The thicker flaps inject flow more

transversely, compared to the tangential thinner flaps, due to the smaller flap

deflections. Also, the first oblique shock appears to be produced due to the imperfect

transition from the tunnel liner to the control plate and is initiated upstream of the

plenum chamber.

Hafenrichter et al. (2003) state that “the 63.54µm six-flap array and 127.54µm four-flap

array [produced] flap deflections … …[occasionally] greater than 2mm.” This

deflection occurs over MART flap lengths, which are approximately 5.2mm and 7.3mm

for the six-flap and four-flap arrays respectively. Assuming, the flaps produced 2mm

deflection then by simple structural scaling, namely the thickness cubed, the

approximate deflection of the other flaps and their compression ramp angles can be

calculated, see table 1.3. Although the deflections are small relative to the 2.6mm

boundary layer thickness they will still produce oblique shocks, especially when the

deflections are in the order of a displacement thickness (Y*=0.36mm) or greater.

Six-Flap Array (Length = 5.2mm)

Four-Flap Array (Length = 7.3mm)

Flap

Flap

Flap

Ramp

Flap

Flap

Flap

Ramp

thickness

deflection

deflection

angle

thickness

deflection

deflection

angle

(µm)

(mm)

(

*)

(°)

(mm)

(mm)

(

*)

(°)

63.5

2

5.56

21.04

127.5

2

5.56

15.3

78.2

1.071

2.97

11.6

150.6

1.214

3.37

9.4

101.9

0.484

1.34

5.3

190.5

0.600

1.66

5.0

127.5

0.247

0.69

2.72

228.6

0.347

0.96

2.7

150.6

0.150

0.42

1.65

       

Table 1.3 – MART Flap Deflections for the six-flap and the four-flap arrays

A ‘bow shock’ is formed by the combination of the upstream flap deflecting into the

flow and transverse mass injection across the sides of the flaps, creating a three-

dimensional flow structure. The slots around the flaps, where the Nitinol is removed to

produce the flap, are 0.4mm wide. These presumably will enhance the three

dimensionality of the flow, due to localised slot control, as they are approximately 15%

of the boundary layer thickness and of similar size to the 0.356mm displacement

thickness. The flow, however, was observed to be quasi two-dimensional over the flaps

Estimated by the Author.

1-34

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

with separation initiated at the end of the upstream flap. Moreover, reattachment occurred on the downstream (suction) flaps and from surface flow patterns the separation does not appear to continue downstream of the control region.

Hafenrichter et al. (2003) recorded surface pressure distributions upstream and downstream of the control plate. However, the distribution over the control region was not obtained, which is the region of most interest as this can indicate the strength of the structures within the lambda foot and the boundary layer characteristics through the interaction region. Within the test region the pressure downstream of the interaction tended towards but never reached the inviscid value. It would presumably reach that value at a position further downstream due to the subsonic flow behind a normal shock. From boundary layer velocity measurements the optimal flap thickness for the four flap array was observed to be 190µm, with an approximate 0.6mm flap deflection (23% of the boundary layer thickness). Large deflections cause excessive roughness and injection/bleed of the boundary layer. Small deflections cause the system to convert to a conventional slot control device with reduced injection and bleed. Their work concludes by showing that the MART system provides a lambda shock, and therefore total pressure recovery benefit, with the above four-flap system. However, the six-flap array did not demonstrate improved total pressure recovery compared to the solid wall reference case. This was presumably due to reduced mass transfer and increased surface roughness compared to the four-flap system.

Lee et al. (2004) measured the skin friction distribution and concluded that the MART system reduces the centreline skin friction downstream of the SBLI compared to solid wall values, indicating an increased susceptibility to flow separation. Furthermore, the optimal mesoflap deflection observed by Hafenrichter et al. (2003) gave a higher skin friction distribution compared to the other flap arrays, which increases with downstream distance. This is believed to imply better boundary layer recovery from the shock induced separation. Lee et al. (2004) showed that minimum skin friction distribution for the MART system was bounded by the values obtained by a conventional 5% macroporous passive control system.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-35

Jaiman et al. (2004) simulated MART control of the UNS interaction at a freestream Mach number of 1.4 using a CFD programme based on Reynolds averaged Navier- Stokes equation. To simplify the computational processes the interaction was simulated at pre-determined amounts of flap deflection, instead of being aeroelastically determined. The flap deflections were varied from 10% to 50% of the incoming displacement thickness §§ , to produce sufficient mass bleed without producing significant additional separation. It was shown that increased flap deflection; 1) increases the upstream oblique shock strength, presumably due to increased flap curvature and mass injection; 2) increases downstream static pressure indicating a reduced total pressure loss; 3) decreases skin friction downstream of the interaction with a less full boundary layer, which are trade-offs to the higher total pressure recovery; and 4) increased displacement thickness, indicating that MART control increases the susceptibility to separation. The optimal upstream and downstream flap deflections were found to be of the order of half of the incoming displacement thickness. It is unclear whether this is strictly an optimum value as the study only examined tip deflections up to this value and not at greater levels. Furthermore it was observed that to provide increased “lambda-foot” benefit the upstream flap deflection, 0.5 * , should

be marginally more than the downstream flap deflection, 0.4 * . The smaller downstream flap deflection was attributed to the importance of bleeding only a modest amount of the boundary layer, whereas the increased upstream deflection provided an improved oblique shock.

It was found that total pressure recovery rises monotonically with the number of flaps, but with corresponding deterioration in boundary layer behaviour, by way of increased displacement thickness. Jaiman et al. (2004) concluded that a two or four flap array would yield a significant improvement in total pressure recovery with only a minor increase in displacement thickness. Also, a plenum depth larger than one boundary thickness did not appreciably affect the total pressure recovery. More importantly, they did show that without a cavity, that is with no recirculation, there was considerable total pressure recovery. This indicates that the majority of control benefit comes from the protrusion of the upstream flaps into the flow. However, recirculation reduced the

§§ It would appear that 10 to 50% of the incoming boundary layer thickness would have been more appropriate from the 0.6mm deflection produced by the 190 Z m thick four flap array.

1-36

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

displacement thickness and presumably the susceptibility to downstream separation. My calculations indicate that the upstream and downstream flap deflections for this study were 50% and 40% of the incoming displacement thickness respectively; however, this is not stated in the paper. Furthermore, it is unclear how the incoming displacement thickness, and therefore the flap deflection, was calculated; whether from experimental values or obtained from CFD. Presumably, if a thinner displacement thickness eventuated in the CFD than used in the initial calculations then the flap deflection effects would be greater.

Jaiman et al. (2004) went on to state that the “tuning of upstream flap positions [relative to the inviscid shock position] or length can lead to significant improvement in the total pressure recovery.” Shifting the upstream flap location away from the shock would generate larger shock smearing, a higher bifurcation point and improved total pressure recovery. Shifting the downstream flap away from the shock would reduce the total pressure recovery, which is attributed to a reduced bleed effect after the separation zone. This appears to be an increased boundary layer thickness effect and not due to the acting pressure, which should increase with downstream distance to promote mass transfer.

Tharayil and Alleyne (2004) analysed the applicability of the MART system for active control of an oblique SBLI utilising the Nitinol material, a thermally activated shape memory alloy. The flaps were annealed flat and in such a way that when heated they would tend towards the ‘closed’, zero deflection, position. However, under a pressure difference of 4.5kPa the mesoflaps could not return to the closed position, which is presumably due to their thickness *** . The author postulates that 4.5kPa is a low acting pressure but improvements in shape memory alloys will lead to the ability of the system to overcome greater pressures and allow greater deflection/control. Furthermore, the MART system cannot be fully utilised for varying shock strength or position. Nitinol can only produce deflection in one direction. That is it can only assist or inhibit deflection. If the shock were to move about the mesoflap position then the deflection would change pole and the flaps, which originally inhibited deflection, would be passive at best. Also, if the strength of the shock or upstream static pressure, and

*** The thickness of the flaps were stated as 0.152µm, however, it appears that the authors meant

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-37

therefore the amount of mesoflap deflection, changed then the system would be unable to adapt during flight to the new conditions. It appears that Nitinol can only produce a predetermined amount of flap deflection, which depends on its structural size and fabrication. The author speculates that Nitinol cannot alter the degree, or pole, of overall deflection during flight except for two predetermined positions (aeroelastic deflection with or without the predetermined Nitinol deflection).

Additionally, there is some question over the capability of the system to overcome the extreme temperature ranges experienced in practice, from sub-zero on high altitude transonic aircraft to the hot intake of an engine intake. Nitinol is a thermally activated material and insulation would presumably be required, which would inhibit the material’s performance.

1.2.6. - Piezoelectric Actuators for Flow Control The uses of piezoelectric actuators in aerodynamic structures have been widely considered for dynamic flow control at low subsonic conditions. Jeon and Blackwelder (2000) used piezoelectric actuators to apply an oscillatory disturbance in the near wall region of a turbulent boundary layer. Cattafesta et al. (2001) optimised unimorph vibrations to control the separation over a rearward facing step in low subsonic flow. Choi et al. (2002) and Seifert et al. (1998) used vibrating actuators on low speed aerofoils to successfully increase lift by delaying separation. However, there seems to be minimal literature on the use of piezoelectric material for static control of aerospace structures, presumably due to the size of material required for appreciable deflections.

Koratkar and Chopra (2000) investigated the use of multilayer piezoelectric actuators for trailing edge flaps to control the vibration and noise level on helicopters. The rotor flow field is extremely complex and can include transonic flow on the advancing blade, dynamic stall on the retreating side of the disc, highly yawed and reversed flow, and blade-wake interactions with tip vortices from preceding blades. He estimated that the actuator flap assembly and leading edge weights for mass balancing results in a 17% increase in rotor-blade mass. This equates to 0.6% increase in gross take-off weight, compared to the higher 2% weight penalty associated with passive vibration reduction equipment available.

1-38

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1.3. - Present Investigation

1.3.1. - Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction (ACSBLI) Historically, active control has been marred by the drag reduction obtained being compromised by an additional drag due to the power requirements, for example, the pumping power in the case of mass transfer and the drag of the devices in the case of vortex generators. Passive control, generally, produces a reduction in total drag above a normal shock Mach number of 1.15, or for a freestream Mach number, over a transonic aerofoil, of 0.80. Below a normal shock Mach number of 1.15 the reduction in wave drag is less than the increase in friction drag. Furthermore, it is not possible to, turn passive control ‘off’ at low Mach numbers, control its position or the amount of mass transfer and its distribution during operation as discussed in section 1.2.4. Friction drag, due to the ‘rough’ porous surface, also increases at off-design conditions, i.e. in the absence of a shock or a shock located away from the control region.

of a shock or a shock located away from the control region. Figure 1.21 – Active

Figure 1.21 – Active Control of Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction

A system of piezoelectrically controlled flaps is now presented for the control of the interaction, see fig. 1.21. The flaps would aeroelastically deflect due to a pressure difference created by the presence of a shock. The piezoelectric material would then either assist or inhibit the aeroelastic deflection. The amount of deflection, and hence mass flow through the plenum chamber, would control the amount of interaction control. If the piezoelectric material could completely counteract the aeroelastic

To utilise passive control the system (location and size) would have to be predetermined before flight.

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

1-39

deflection then the flaps could ‘close’, providing zero deflection and minimal mass transfer/control. This would produce a ‘smooth’ surface to the flow in the absence of a shock wave and at low local Mach numbers when the presence of passive control hinders the drag reduction. It should be pointed out, however, that no feedback system is considered in this thesis and the term active control refers to controlling the overall flap deflection and hence the bleed/suction rate.

The existence of a matrix of active piezoelectric flaps on a transonic aerofoil, which could open or shut independently, would enable localised control of the interaction as the swept or unswept shock moves over the aerofoil at different flight conditions, whilst producing a ‘smooth’ surface away from the shock position. For a practical application, on a transonic transport aircraft aerofoil, the region of control would have to be approximately 1m long. A porous surface would generate large frictional drag due to the increased roughness away from the shock compared to a matrix of piezoelectrically unimorph flaps.

Piezoelectric material was selected for flap construction due to its bipolar nature, which is the ability to produce positive or negative strain/forces. If the shock can move over a matrix of flaps then each flap would need to be able to overcome the aeroelastic deflection due to the presence of the shock regardless of direction. Furthermore, the bipolar characteristic enables the piezoelectric material to assist the aeroelastic deflection to promote mass transfer.

The plenum chamber pressure would be constant, at an average of the upstream and downstream pressure as indicated by Hafenrichter et al. (2003). Initially, the piezoelectric flaps are modelled with a constant pressure load to predict tip deflection. The pressure difference acting across the flap will be in excess of 15kPa, the difference between the chamber pressure and the free stream pressure above the flap. Improved theoretical studies will account for the fact that there will be a pressure gradient through the plenum chamber and above the flaps.

A number of design options are considered for the integration of the piezoelectric ceramic, also known as PZT (Lead Zirconate Titanate), into the flap structure. These

1-40

Chapter 1. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Control

include the use of unimorphs, bimorphs and polymorphs, with the latter capable of being directly employed as the flap. The choice of material and structural configuration for the piezoelectric flaps are discussed in chapters 3 and 4. Active control can be utilised to optimise the effects of the boundary layer shock wave interaction as it would allow the ability to control the position of the control region around the original shock position, mass transfer rate and distribution.

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

2-41

CHAPTER 2 - Experimental Arrangement

2.1. - ADFA Experimental Facility and model

All swept normal SBLI experiments were performed in the supersonic wind tunnel facility at the School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University College, The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy (UNSW@ADFA), in Canberra, Australia.

2.1.1. - The Wind Tunnel Facility The school’s supersonic blow-down wind tunnel consists of an air compressor, three reservoirs, control valve with pneumatic control circuit, settling chamber, first throat with nozzle liners, second throat, subsonic diffuser and exhaust system with muffler. The compressor plant includes two oil free compressors, two filters and two silica gel driers.

oil free compressors, two filters and two silica gel driers. Figure 2.1 – ADFA Supersonic Blow-down

Figure 2.1 – ADFA Supersonic Blow-down Wind Tunnel Schematic.

The compressor plant fills up the three reservoirs with dried air to 1400kPa. The dried air is fed to the settling chamber via a control valve system, which maintains a quasi-

steady reservoir pressure throughout the tunnel run.

goes through a series of wire meshes to render the flow uniform and then into the test

The air from the settling chamber

2-42

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

section equipped with a Mach 2 nozzle liner, see fig. 2.1. The flow is steady and uniform as it accelerates through the test section nozzle to supersonic speeds. In the present study, the experiments were conducted mostly with a stagnation pressure of 343kPa, which gives a steady running time of approximately 27 seconds. The flow is then decelerated through a parallel section that acts as a second throat and then onto the subsonic diffuser that exhausts the flow to atmosphere. Magi (1990) provides more details about the tunnel, its control system and operation.

The wind tunnel test section has a cross section width and height of 90mm and 155mm respectively, see figs. 2.2a & b. The upstream Reynolds number, for a stagnation temperature and pressure of and 294°K and 343kPa respectively, is 45.67x10 6 m -1 .

a)

b)

343kPa respectively, is 45.67x10 6 m - 1 . a) b) Figure 2.2 – ADFA Supersonic
343kPa respectively, is 45.67x10 6 m - 1 . a) b) Figure 2.2 – ADFA Supersonic

Figure 2.2 – ADFA Supersonic Blow-down Wind Tunnel a) photo of the Mach 2 liners with wedge on the floor to create a swept shock and b) Schematic showing dimensions.

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

2-43

Following Crocco and Lees (1952), with a 1/7 th power law profile the uncontrolled turbulent boundary layer initiates at the throat to produce boundary layer and displacement thicknesses of 7.57mm and 1.79mm respectively at the leading edge of the wedge, see table 2.1.

Incoming

Boundary Layer Thickness

Displacement thickness

Momentum Thickness o (mm)

Shape Factor

Unit Reynolds

Mach number

H

number (m -1 )

M

o (mm)

o * (mm)

2

7.57

1.79

0.59

3.07

45.67x10 6

Table 2.1 – UNSW@ADFA Oncoming Boundary Layer Properties.

2.1.2. - Wedge/Shock Generator Passive control is effective in reducing the total drag after incipient separation occurs. For a swept normal shock interaction this occurs above a free stream Mach number of approximately 1.2, as discussed in chapter 1. It was, therefore, decided that the swept shock should have a normal Mach number of approximately 1.3. The pressure difference across the shock is proportional to the pressure load on the active control flaps, which designates the amount of flap deflection available and hence the mass transfer for control, which is further discussed in Chapter 4.

for control, which is further discussed in Chapter 4. Figure 2.3 – ADFA Test Section with

Figure 2.3 – ADFA Test Section with Shock Generator.

To produce a shock wave giving a normal Mach number of 1.3, a wedge was fabricated to have an angle of 11° to the Mach 2.0 free stream, see fig. 2.3. This would

2-44

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

This implies that, assuming a constant mean pressure in the plenum chamber, each control flap will be subject to 40.1 % of the upstream static pressure. If the freestream static pressure in the test section is 44kPa, corresponding to a stagnation pressure of 343kPa, then the control flaps will have an 18 kPa pressure difference acting across them.

2.1.3. - Model design

a)

c)

difference acting across them. 2.1.3. - Model design a) c) b ) Figure 2.4 – Control
difference acting across them. 2.1.3. - Model design a) c) b ) Figure 2.4 – Control

b)

acting across them. 2.1.3. - Model design a) c) b ) Figure 2.4 – Control Plate

Figure 2.4 – Control Plate for Swept Normal SBLI Control showing a) Pressure Port and Unimorph Layout, b) Streamlines and c) A Photograph of the Unimorph Control Plate.

A plenum chamber ( 140mm x 20mm) is placed underneath the swept shock in the sidewall of the test section. The plenum chamber is covered by a plate containing the control flaps and numerous pressure ports, to record the surface pressures in both streamwise and transverse directions, see figs. 2.4a & b. The flaps were cut into the control plate by electro discharge machining (EDM) with a gap of 0.2mm between the

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

2-45

model skin and the flap. The piezoelectric ceramic is bonded to the underside of the flap and a voltage is applied to control the actuator deflection and thus mass transfer rate, see fig. 2.5. The unimorph flap thickness was 0.9mm for the pressure sensitive paint study and 1.1mm for the discrete pressure measurement survey. A more detailed sizing of the flaps is discussed in chapter 4.

more detailed sizing of the flaps is discussed in chapter 4. Figure 2.5 – Unimorph Flap

Figure 2.5 – Unimorph Flap Design for Swept Normal SBLI Control.

SBLI control with known amounts of flap deflections was examined to identify the optimal deflection for control, the flow characteristics and the level of performance available. Known flap deflections were achieved using a mechanical system to position the flaps by a pre-determined amount prior to experiments, see section 2.2.3.

2.1.4. - Flow visualisation

experiments, see section 2.2.3. 2.1.4. - Flow visualisation Figure 2.6 – ADFA Schlieren System. A schlieren

Figure 2.6 – ADFA Schlieren System.

A

schlieren system is an optical, non-intrusive, method based on refraction of light rays

in

a varying density flow. It is a common technique for the study of supersonic flow

because it provides good qualitative information about the flow features and is

2-46

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

relatively simple to set-up. The principle of operation of schlieren is only briefly mentioned here as it has been widely covered in the literatures, see Liepman and Roshko (1957) and Kleine (2001).

A light beam is deflected and displaced by different amounts when it travels through an

area of varying density fluid. The angular deflection and the displacement are proportional to the first and second derivative of the gradient respectively. Shadowgraph flow visualization utilises the second derivative, the displacement, by placing a screen behind the test section to show light and dark regions associated with areas where the light has diverged or converged. When a knife edge is positioned, to

cut-off part of the basic image source, the illumination of deflected light rays at the viewing screen increases or decreases. The illumination change, due to the light cut-off,

is proportional to the density gradient, the first derivative, and this is called a schlieren

system.

A direction-indicating colour schlieren system is created when the knife edge is replaced by a circular iris aperture and a colour mask is ‘attached’ to the light source. The use of a circular aperture allows density gradients in any direction to be observed. Whereas, a knife edge will only allow gradients perpendicular to the knife edge to be observed. Also, the use of a colour mask allows information to be attached to certain colours, where specific colours indicate the direction of the pressure gradient. Furthermore, variations in colour hue are easier for the human eye to distinguish rather than the degree of illumination with a monochrome system. A more detailed discussion

of colour schlieren systems is given by Kleine (2001).

A continuous point light source was used with the exposure time controlled by the

shutter speed of the camera. A short exposure time enabled us to obtain so-called

‘frozen’ images, which minimize any movement observed of the shock. were obtained in complete darkness using a standard Canon SLR camera.

The images

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

2-47

2.1.5. - Oil flow visualization

A mixture of sesame oil and soy sauce was used to obtain initial oil flow visualisation pictures. It was applied with one brush stroke across the span of the test surface. Sesame oil by itself is stripped from the surface of the test section during a run and soy sauce by itself adheres to the test surface but tends to smear. The emulsion of the two produces the desired trace that stays on the model and does not smear on tunnel start up/shut down.

Additionally, oil flow visualisation was achieved with an emulsion of paraffin, titanium dioxide and oleic acid applied to the control plate with the test surface painted matt black. The flow of the mixture was observed through the runs to ensure that the mix dried during the experiment and not at tunnel start up or shut down.

2.1.6. - Pressure Sensitive Paints - Couldrick et al. (2004b)

Although pressure sensitive paint (PSP) is a relatively recent flow visualisation technique, Morris et al. (1993) note that they have been increasingly used in quantitative aerodynamic applications because of their ability to provide a picture of the instantaneous pressure field over entire surface without disturbing the flow.

Klein (2000) notes that PSP techniques are based on the deactivation of photochemically excited organic molecules, the so called luminophores, by oxygen molecules. This process is called ‘oxygen quenching’. A luminophore is shifted to an excited electronic state (singlet) when it absorbs a photon of appropriate energy. This excited luminophore can return to the ground electronic state by emitting a photon (photoluminescence). It can also return to the ground state by a collision with an oxygen molecule. If this occurs, the oxygen absorbs the excess energy of the luminophore, and the transition to the ground state is radiationless. If the number of oxygen molecules increases the chance of excited luminophores undergoing radiationless transfers increases – that is, the photoluminescence decreases.

Radiometric imaging was used to determine the global pressure distribution. It requires a calibration curve to be established before a pressure distribution can be determined from the images over the model. The pressure can be calculated using the ratio of the

2-48

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

ambient pressure intensity and the intensity during a run. The rewritten Stern-Volmer equation is then given as.

p

=

k

1

(

T

)

+

k

2

(

I

ref

I

T )

+ k

3

(

T

I

)

ref

I

2

[Eq. 2.1]

where I ref and I are the intensities at ambient pressure and during the run respectively. k 1 , k 2 and k 3 are temperature dependant constants.

A Unicoat aerosol PSP Pt(TfPP) with a response time of less than a second was utilised for ease of application combined with a UV LED 464nm light source, see fig. 2.7. The camera is perpendicular to the test surface and due to logistics the light source is positioned 10° lower and downstream of the camera. The angle of the light source creates a crescent shadow on the lower downstream test surface, which creates pressure noise in the imaging process in the shadow region.

pressure noise in the imaging process in the shadow region. Figure 2.7 – Camera/Test Surface/Light Source

Figure 2.7 – Camera/Test Surface/Light Source Set-up for PSP experiments.

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

2-49

2.1.7. - Adiabatic Wall Temperature In order to minimize the effect of heat transfer between the freestream and the PSP/test surface, the experiments were conducted with flow wall temperatures as close to the adiabatic wall temperatures as possible. It can be seen from equation 2.1 that the PSP is temperature dependent and the luminescence is variable with heat transfer. Therefore, PSP temperature variation across the test surface would create false pressure results.

In order to minimize this effect the upstream and downstream flow adiabatic wall temperatures, T aw1 and T aw2 , were calculated using the incoming Mach 2 flow with a measured upstream stagnation temperature, T 01 , starting at 287ºK (K 14ºC) and falling to 285ºK (K 12ºC) after 20 seconds runtime. The tests were conducted with an initial wall temperature, T w , of 0ºC ±2ºC. Calculations used a recovery factor, r, and ratio of specific heats, , of 0.892 and 1.4 respectively for the Mach 2 flow.

T

01

1

T

= +

1

1

2

M

2 = 1.8

r

T

= T

01

aw 1

T 1 = 0.892 T

1

[Eq. 2.2]

[Eq. 2.3]

With a measured stagnation temperature, T 01 , of 287°K, an upstream static temperature,

T 1 , of 159°K is produced, using eq. 2.2. Using eq. 2.3 this produces an upstream

adiabatic wall temperature, T aw1 , of 273°K. The 11° wedge angle, M , generated a main

shock at an angle, , of 41° to the flow, with a normal Mach number, M n1 =M 1 sin , of 1.312. From normal shock properties:

M

Therefore,

M

And

M

2

n 2

1

+

[(

=

M

)

1 / 2 M 1 / 2

(

)

n

1

]

2

2

n

1

n

2 =

0.7799

2

=

M

n 2

sin(

)

= 1.56

=

0.608

[Eq. 2.4]

 

[Eq. 2.5]

[Eq. 2.6]

2-50

Chapter 2. Experimental Arrangement

Using the temperature difference equation across a normal shock.

T

2

=

T

1

1

+

2

+

1

(

M

2

n 1

1

)

2

(

+

(

)

)

1 M

n

1

2

2

n

1

+ 1 M

= 1.1985

[Eq. 2.7]

This results in a downstream flow temperature, T 2 , of 191°K. Using eqs. 2.2 and 2.3

this produces a downstream adiabatic wall temperature, T aw2 , of 274°K. As the

stagnation temperature drops to 285°K the upstream and downstream adiabatic wall

temperatures, T aw1 and T aw2 , will both by 2°K. This would imply minimal heat transfer

to the wall during the run.

The walls of the wind tunnel were rendered cool to 0°C ±2ºC by exposing the entire test

facility to the ambient weather in winter overnight. The experiments were conducted at

approximately 5am when the ambient temperature was approximately -6ºC with fans to

maximized cool air circulation within the facility. The stagnation temperature did not

drop to quite 0°C, which is thought to be due to the hot compressors heating reservoir

air.

2.1.8. - Data Acquisition and Controller System

The UNSW@ADFA wind tunnel data acquisition/control system consists of an NEC

(IBM clone) fitted with an Analogue Devices high speed A/D, digital I/O card (815F)

and Metrabyte digital I/O card (PIO-12). The control, acquisition and analysis

programs were written using subroutines from the software package ASYST, which is

written in Forth, see Appendix C2. The system drove the scanivalve and acquired the

stagnation temperature and pressure. The stagnation pressure was measured using a

Druck PCD22 (14bar) pressure transducer feeding a Druck DPI 201 pressure indicator

and the single ended analogue output was fed into an A/D converter. The test-

section/model static pressure was measured using a Druck PCD22 (3.5 bar) pressure

transducer installed into the scanivalve. The transducer was coupled with a Druck DPI

260 pressure indicator and the single ended analogue output was fed into the A/D

converter. Both transducers were calibrated using the gravity assisted weight unit in the