Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T08:15:54.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hypersonic attachment-line instabilities with large sweep Mach numbers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2021

Youcheng Xi Open the ORCID record for Youcheng Xi [Opens in a new window] ,
Jie Ren Open the ORCID record for Jie Ren [Opens in a new window]  and
Song Fu Open the ORCID record for Song Fu [Opens in a new window]
Youcheng Xi
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing100084, PR China
Jie Ren
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, NottinghamNG7 2RD, UK
Song Fu*
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing100084, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: fs-dem@tsinghua.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims to shed light on hypersonic attachment-line instabilities with large sweep Mach numbers. Highly swept flows over a cold cylinder that give rise to large sweep Mach numbers are studied. High-fidelity basic flows are obtained by solving full Navier–Stokes equations with a high-order shock-fitting method. Using local and global stability theories, an attachment-line mode is found to be dominant for the laminar–turbulent transition along the leading edge that agrees qualitatively with the experimental observations (Gaillard et al., Exp. Fluids, vol. 26, 1999, pp. 169–176). The behaviour of this mode explains the reason for the transition occurring earlier as the sweep Mach number is above 5. In addition, this attachment-line mode is absent if the basic flow is calculated with boundary layer assumptions, indicating that the influence of inviscid flow outside the boundary layer cannot be ignored as is normally done. It is clearly demonstrated that the global modes display the features of both attachment-line modes, as in sweep Hiemenz flow, and the second Mack modes further downstream along the surface. In the large sweep Mach number regime, the attachment-line mode is inviscid in nature and its growth rate increases with the sweep angle. In contrast, in the lower sweep Mach number regime, the attachment-line instability exhibits the features of viscous Tollmien–Schlichting waves, and the sweep angle first increases but then decreases the maximum growth rate.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer stability Compressible Flows: Compressible boundary layers Aerodynamics: High-speed flow
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 915 , 25 May 2021 , A44
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Balakumar, P. & King, R.A. 2012 Receptivity and stability of supersonic swept flows. AIAA J. 50 (7), 1476–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balakumar, P. & Malik, M.R. 1992 Discrete modes and continuous spectra in supersonic boundary-layers. J. luid Mech. 239, 631–656.Google Scholar
Brooks, G.P. & Powers, J.M. 2004 Standardized pseudospectral formulation of the inviscid supsersonic blunt body problem. J. Comput. Phys. 197 (1), 58–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhari, M., Chang, C.-L., Jentink, T., Li, F., Berger, K., Candler, G. & Kimmel, R. 2009 Transition Analysis for the HIFiRE-5 Vehicle. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, C.B. & Reshotko, E. 1956 The compressible laminar boundary layer with heat transfer and arbitrary pressure gradient. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Report. 1294.Google Scholar
Creel, T.J., Beckwith, I. & Chen, F.J. 1986 Effects of Wind-Tunnel Noise on Swept-Cylinder Transition at Mach 3.5. Fluid Dynamics and Co-located Conferences. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Fedorov, A. 2011 Transition and stability of high-speed boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43 (1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorov, A. & Tumin, A. 2003 Initial-value problem for hypersonic boundary-layer flows. AIAA J. 41 (3), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorov, A. & Tumin, A. 2011 High-speed boundary-layer instability: old terminology and a new framework. AIAA J. 49 (8), 1647–1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, L., Benard, E. & Alziary de Roquefort, T. 1999 Smooth leading edge transition in hypersonic flow. Exp. Fluids 26 (1), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J.J. & Beckwith, I.E. 1959 Local heat transfer and recovery temperatures on a yawed cylinder at a Mach number of 4.15 and high Reynolds numbers. Tech. Rep. NASA-TR R104. Langley Research Center.Google Scholar
Gaster, M. 1967 On the flow along swept leading edges. Aeronaut. Q. 18 (2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennaro, E.M., Rodríguez, D., Medeiros, M.A.F. & Theofilis, V. 2013 Sparse techniques in global flow instability with application to compressible leading-edge flow. AIAA J. 51 (9), 2295–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, G.H. & Van Loan, C.F. 2013 Matrix Computations, 4th edn. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Görtler, H. 1955 Dreidimensionale instabilität der ebenen staupunktströmung gegenüber wirbelartigen störungen. 50 Jahre Grenzschichtforschung, 304–314.Google Scholar
Hader, C. & Fasel, H.F. 2019 Direct numerical simulations of hypersonic boundary-layer transition for a flared cone: fundamental breakdown. J. luid Mech. 869, 341–384.Google Scholar
Hall, P., Malik, M.R. & Poll, D.I.A. 1984 On the stability of an infinite swept attachment line boundary layer. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 395 (1809), 229–245.Google Scholar
Hämmerlin, G., Görtler, H. & Tollmien, W. 1955 Zur instabilitätstheorie der ebenen staupunktströmung. 50 Jahre Grenzschichtforschung, 315–327.Google Scholar
Hanifi, A., Schmid, P.J. & Henningson, D.S. 1996 Transient growth in compressible boundary layer flow. Phys. Fluids 8 (3), 826–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermanns, M. & Hernandez, J.A. 2008 Stable high-order finite-difference methods based on non-uniform grid point distributions. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 56 (3), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joslin, R.D. 1995 Direct simulation of evolution and control of three-dimensional instabilities in attachment-line boundary layers. J. luid Mech. 291, 369–392.Google Scholar
Kimmel, R.L., Adamczak, D.W., Borg, M.P., Jewell, J.S., Juliano, T.J., Stanfield, S.A. & Berger, K.T. 2019 First and fifth hypersonic international flight research experimentation's flight and ground tests. J. Spacecr. Rockets 56 (2), 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopriva, D.A. 1999 Shock-fitted multidomain solution of supersonic flows. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng 175 (3), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, L. & Lin, C.C. 1946 Investigation of the stability of laminar boundary layer. NACA Tech. Rep. 1115.Google Scholar
Lele, S.K. 1992 Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution. J. Comput. Phys. 103 (1), 16–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, R.-S. & Malik, M.R. 1995 Stability and transition in compressible attachment-line boundary-layer flow. Tech. Rep. 952041. SAE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, R.-S. & Malik, M.R. 1996 On the stability of attachment-line boundary layers. Part 1. The incompressible swept Hiemenz flow. J. luid Mech. 311, 239–255.Google Scholar
Lin, R.-S. & Malik, M.R. 1997 On the stability of attachment-line boundary layers. Part 2. The effect of leading-edge curvature. J. luid Mech. 333, 125–137.Google Scholar
Mack, C.J. & Schmid, P.J. 2010 a Direct numerical study of hypersonic flow about a swept parabolic body. Comput. Fluids 39 (10), 1932–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, C.J. & Schmid, P.J. 2010 b A preconditioned Krylov technique for global hydrodynamic stability analysis of large-scale compressible flows. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (3), 541–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, C.J. & Schmid, P.J. 2011 a Global stability of swept flow around a parabolic body: features of the global spectrum. J. luid Mech. 669, 375–396.Google Scholar
Mack, C.J. & Schmid, P.J. 2011 b Global stability of swept flow around a parabolic body: the neutral curve. J. luid Mech. 678, 589–599.Google Scholar
Mack, C.J., Schmid, P.J. & Sesterhenn, J.L. 2008 Global stability of swept flow around a parabolic body: connecting attachment-line and crossflow modes. J. luid Mech. 611, 205–214.Google Scholar
Mack, L.M. 1975 Linear stability theory and the problem of supersonic boundary-layer transition. AIAA J. 13 (3), 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, L.M 1984 Boundary-layer linear stability theory. In Special Course on Stability and Transition of Laminar Flow. Report No. 709. AGARD.Google Scholar
Malik, M.R. 1990 Numerical-methods for hypersonic boundary-layer stability. J. Comput. Phys. 86 (2), 376–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, M.R. & Beckwith, I.E. 1988 Stability of supersonic boundary layer along a swept leading edge. In AGARD-CP-438, pp. 3/1–3/9.Google Scholar
Malik, M.R., Li, F. & Chang, C.L. 1994 Crossflow disturbances in three-dimensional boundary layers: nonlinear development, wave interaction and secondary instability. J. luid Mech. 268, 1–36.Google Scholar
Moretti, G. 1987 Computation of flows with shocks. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 19 (1), 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, A., Stanewsky, E. & Krogmann, P. 1996 Boundary-layer transition on swept cylinders at hypersonic speeds. AIAA J. 34 (4), 649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrist, D. & Schmid, P.J. 2003 a On the linear stability of swept attachment-line boundary layer flow. Part 1. Spectrum and asymptotic behaviour. J. luid Mech. 493, 1–29.Google Scholar
Obrist, D. & Schmid, P.J. 2003 b On the linear stability of swept attachment-line boundary layer flow. Part 2. Non-modal effects and receptivity. J. luid Mech. 493, 31–58.Google Scholar
Paredes, P., Choudhari, M.M. & Li, F. 2020 Mechanism for frustum transition over blunt cones at hypersonic speeds. J. luid Mech. 894, A22.Google Scholar
Paredes, P., Gosse, R., Theofilis, V. & Kimmel, R. 2016 Linear modal instabilities of hypersonic flow over an elliptic cone. J. luid Mech. 804, 442–466.Google Scholar
Paredes, P., Hermanns, M., Le Clainche, S. & Theofilis, V. 2013 Order 104 speedup in global linear instability analysis using matrix formation. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng 253, 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfenninger, W. 1965 Flow phenomena at the leading edge of swept wings. In Recent Developments in Boundary Layer Research – Part IV. AGARDograph 97. AGARD.Google Scholar
Poll, D.I.A. 1979 Transition in the infinite swept attachment line boundary layer. Aeronaut. Q. 30 (4), 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, H.L. & Saric, W.S. 1989 Stability of three-dimensional boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 21 (1), 235–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, H.L., Saric, W.S. & Arnal, D. 1996 Linear stability theory applied to boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28 (1), 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, J. & Fu, S. 2014 Competition of the multiple gortler modes in hypersonic boundary layer flows. Sci. China Phys. Mech. 57 (6), 1178–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, J. & Fu, S. 2015 Secondary instabilities of gortler vortices in high-speed boundary layer flows. J. luid Mech. 781, 388–421.Google Scholar
Reshotko, E. & Beckwith, I.E. 1958 Compressible laminar boundary layer over a yawed infinite cylinder with heat transfer and arbitrary Prandtl number. NACA Tech. Rep. 1379.Google Scholar
Rosenhead, L. 1963 Laminar Boundary Layers, 1st edn, Fluid Motion Memoirs. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saric, W.S., Reed, H.L. & White, E.B. 2003 Stability and transition of three-dimensional boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35 (1), 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichting, H. & Gersten, K. 2017 Boundary-Layer Theory, 9th edn. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semisynov, A.I., Fedorov, A.V., Novikov, V.E., Semionov, N.V. & Kosinov, A.D. 2003 Stability and transition on a swept cylinder in a supersonic flow. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 44 (2), 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skuratov, A.S. & Fedorov, A.V. 1991 Supersonic boundary layer transition induced by roughness on the attachment line of a yawed cylinder. Fluid Dyn. 26 (6), 816–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P.R. 1988 Direct numerical study of leading-edgy contamination. In AGARD CP-438, pp. 5/1– 5/13.Google Scholar
Speer, S., Zhong, X., Gong, L. & Quinn, R. 2004 DNS of Attachment-Line/Crossflow Boundary Layer Instability in Supersonic Swept Wing Flows. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, G. 2002 a Addendum to ‘a Krylov–Schur algorithm for large eigenproblems’. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Applics. 24 (2), 599–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, G. 2002 b A Krylov–Schur algorithm for large eigenproblems. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Applics. 23 (3), 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewfik, O.K. & Giedt, W.H. 1960 Heat transfer, recovery factor, and pressure distributions around a circular cylinder, normal to a supersonic rarefied-air stream. J. Aerosp. Sci. 27 (10), 721–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theofilis, V. 1995 Spatial stability of incompressible attachment-line flow. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 7 (3), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theofilis, V. 1998 On linear and nonlinear instability of the incompressible swept attachment-line boundary layer. J. luid Mech. 355, 193–227.Google Scholar
Theofilis, V., Fedorov, A., Obrist, D. & Dallmann, U.W.E.C. 2003 The extended Görtler– Hämmerlin model for linear instability of three-dimensional incompressible swept attachment-line boundary layer flow. J. luid Mech. 487, 271–313.Google Scholar
Theofilis, V., Fedorov, A.V. & Collis, S.S. 2006 Leading-edge boundary layer flow (Prandtl's vision, current developments and future perspectives). In Solid Mechanics and its Applications, chap. 7, pp. 73–82. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumin, A. 2007 Three-dimensional spatial normal modes in compressible boundary layers. J. luid Mech. 586, 295–322.Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Wang, L. & Fu, S. 2017 Control of stationary crossflow modes in swept Hiemenz flows with dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuators. Phys. Fluids 29 (9), 94–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Wang, L., Wang, Q., Xu, S. & Fu, S. 2018 Control of crossflow instability over a swept wing using dielectric-barrier-discharge plasma actuators. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 73, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, X. 1998 High-order finite-difference schemes for numerical simulation of hypersonic boundary-layer transition. J. Comput. Phys. 144 (2), 662–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, X.L. & Wang, X.W. 2012 Direct numerical simulation on the receptivity, instability, and transition of hypersonic boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44 (1), 527–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar