Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:32:36.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards simulating natural transition in hypersonic boundary layers via random inflow disturbances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2018

Christoph Hader Open the ORCID record for Christoph Hader [Opens in a new window]  and
Hermann F. Fasel
Christoph Hader*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Hermann F. Fasel
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: christoph.hader@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A random forcing approach was implemented into a high-order accurate finite-difference code in order to investigate ‘natural’ laminar–turbulent transition in hypersonic boundary layers. In hypersonic transition wind-tunnel experiments, transition is caused ‘naturally’, by free-stream disturbances even when so-called quiet tunnels are employed such as the Boeing/AFOSR Mach 6 Quiet Tunnel (BAM6QT) at Purdue University. The nature and composition of the free-stream disturbance environment in high-speed transition experiments is difficult to assess and therefore largely unknown. Consequently, in the direct numerical simulations (DNS) presented here, the free-stream disturbance environment is simply modelled by random pressure (acoustic) disturbances with a broad spectrum of frequencies and a wide range of azimuthal wavenumbers. Results of a high-resolution DNS for a flared cone at Mach 6, using the random forcing approach, are presented and compared to a fundamental breakdown simulation using a ‘controlled’ disturbance input (with a specified frequency and azimuthal wavenumber). The DNS results with random forcing clearly exhibit the ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ streak pattern, which has previously been observed in our ‘controlled’ breakdown simulations and the experiments in the BAM6QT. In particular, the spanwise spacing of the ‘primary’ streaks for the random forcing case is identical to the spacing obtained from the ‘controlled’ fundamental breakdown simulation. A comparison of the wall pressure disturbance signals between the random forcing DNS and experimental data shows remarkable agreement. The random forcing approach seems to be a promising strategy to investigate nonlinear breakdown in hypersonic boundary layers without introducing any bias towards a distinct nonlinear breakdown mechanism and/or the selection of specific frequencies or wavenumbers that is required in the ‘controlled’ breakdown simulations.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer stability Aerodynamics: High-speed flow Instability: Transition to turbulence
Type
JFM Rapids
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 847 , 25 July 2018 , R3
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balakumar, P. & Chou, A. 2018 Transition prediction in hypersonic boundary layers using receptivity and freestream spectra. AIAA J. 56 (1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Bushnell, D. 1990 Notes on initial disturbance fields for the transition problem. In Instability and Transition, pp. 217–232.Google Scholar
Chynoweth, B.2015 A new roughness array for controlling the nonlinear breakdown of second-mode waves at Mach 6. Master’s thesis, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Chynoweth, B. C., Ward, C. A. C., Henderson, R. O., Moraru, C. G., Greenwood, R.T., Abney, A. D. & Schneider, S. P. 2014 Transition and instability measurements in a Mach 6 hypersonic quiet wind tunnel. In 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2014-0074.Google Scholar
Duan, L., Choudhari, M. M. & Zhang, C. 2016 Pressure fluctuations induced by a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 804, 578–607.Google Scholar
Fasel, H. F., Sivasubramanian, J. & Laible, A. C. 2015 Numerical investigation of transition in a flared cone boundary layer at Mach 6. Procedia IUTAM 14, 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. & Fasel, H. F. 2008 High-order accurate numerical method for complex flows. AIAA J. 46 (1), 204–214.Google Scholar
Hader, C. & Fasel, H. F. 2016 Laminar-turbulent transition on a flared cone at Mach 6. In 46th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA 2016-3344.Google Scholar
Hader, C. & Fasel, H. F. 2017 Fundamental resonance breakdown for a flared cone at Mach 6. In 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2016-0765.Google Scholar
Kovasznay, L. S. G. 1953 Turbulence in supersonic flow. J. Aero. Sci. 20 (10), 657–674.Google Scholar
Laible, A. & Fasel, H. F. 2011 Numerical investigation of hypersonic transition for a flared and a straight cone at Mach 6. In 41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA 2011-3565.Google Scholar
Laible, A. C.2011 Numerical investigation of boundary layer transition for cones at Mach 3.5 and 6.0. PhD thesis, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Laible, A. C., Mayer, C. S. J. & Fasel, H. F. 2008 Numerical investigation of supersonic transition for a circular cone at Mach 3.5. In 38th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA 2008-4397.Google Scholar
Laible, A. C., Mayer, C. S. J. & Fasel, H. F. 2009 Numerical investigation of transition for a cone at Mach 3.5: oblique breakdown. In 39th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA 2009-3557.Google Scholar
van Leer, B. 1982 Flux-vector splitting for the Euler equations. In International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics, vol. 170, pp. 507–512.Google Scholar
Mack, L. M. 1969 Boundary-layer stability theory. Jet Propulsion Laboratory.Google Scholar
Marineau, E. C., Moraru, G. C., Lewis, D. R., Norris, J. D., Lafferty, J. D. & Johnson, H. B. 2015 Investigation of Mach 10 boundary layer stability of sharp cones at angle-of-attack, part 1: experiments. In 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2015-1737.Google Scholar
Mayer, C. S. J., Von Terzi, D. A. & Fasel, H. F. 2011 Direct numerical simulation of complete transition to turbulence via oblique breakdown at Mach 3. J. Fluid Mech. 674, 5–42.Google Scholar
Meitz, H. L.1996 Numerical investigation of suction in a transitional flat-plate boundary layer. PhD thesis, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Morkovin, M. V. 1969 On the many faces of transition. In Viscous Drag Reduction (ed. Wells, C. S.), pp. 1–31. Springer.Google Scholar
Parziale, N. J., Shepherd, J. E. & Hornung, H. G. 2014 Free-stream density perturbations in a reflected-shock tunnel. Exp. Fluids 55 (2), 1665.Google Scholar
Pate, S. R.1980 Effects of wind tunnel disturbances on boundary-layer transition with emphasis on radiated noise: a review. Tech. Rep. ARO INC ARNOLD AFS TN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. P. 2001 Effects of high-speed tunnel noise on laminar-turbulent transition. J. Spacecr. Rockets 38 (3), 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. P. 2004 Hypersonic laminar–turbulent transition on circular cones and scramjet forebodies. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 40 (1), 1–50.Google Scholar
Sivasubramanian, J. & Fasel, H. F. 2016 Direct numerical simulation of laminar-turbulent transition in a flared cone boundary layer at Mach 6. In 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA 2016-0846.Google Scholar
Wagner, A., Schülein, E., Petervari, R., Hannemann, K., Ali, S. R. C., Cerminara, A. & Sandham, N. D. 2018 Combined free-stream disturbance measurements and receptivity studies in hypersonic wind tunnels by means of a slender wedge probe and direct numerical simulation. J. Fluid Mech. 842, 495–531.Google Scholar
Ward, C. A. C.2010 Hypersonic crossflow instability and transition on a circular cone at angle of attack. Master’s thesis, Purdue University.Google Scholar
White, F. M. 2006 Viscous Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill, International Edition.Google Scholar
Zhong, X. 1998 High-order finite-difference schemes for numerical simulation of hypersonic boundary-layer transition. J. Comput. Phys. 114 (1), 662–709.Google Scholar