Numerical and Experimental Validation of Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps

König, Benedikt; Pätzold, Martin; Lutz, Thorsten; Krämer, Ewald; Rosemann, Henning; Richter, Kai; Uhlemann, Heiko

doi:10.2514/1.41441

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In simplistic terms, this effect can be attributed to a 3-D SCB localising its negative impact on the boundary layer to the region directly behind it. However, the real situation is rather more complex, due primarily to the fact that 3-D SCBs have been observed to introduce streamwise vorticity into the flow [17,26,38]. The precise mechanism by which this vorticity is generated is still a subject of research, although a recent publication suggesting that the spanwise pressure gradients present on a 3-D SCB are of key importance [9] is perhaps the most convincing to date.…”

Section: -D Scbmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SCB geometry is known to be an important factor that influences off-design performance: for example, König et al [17] report that although smoothly contoured SCBs (such as the hill-SCB in Fig. 4) can give optimal drag reduction for the shock at its design point, more angular wedge-shaped devices give improved robustness to variations in shock position with very little loss of efficiency.…”

Section: Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of experiments have been performed in the past where a SCB was mounted on a wing model in the wind tunnel-for example, König et al [17], as well as a number of unpublished tests. This clearly deals with the issue of representativeness of the baseline flow, and offers other advantages such as the ability to directly measure the effect on lift and drag, as well as having a shock strength which varies with operating condition, which is more realistic of wings.…”

Section: Design Of Experiments For Scb Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, many studies have focused on comparing the performance of arrays of 3-D SCBs with single 2-D devices [10,17,26,27,29,38]. In general, these studies have shown that, while 2-D SCBs offer the maximum potential benefit in terms of design-point drag reduction for a transonic wing, an array of 3-D SCBs is able to deliver very similar levels of performance benefit (in terms of wave drag saving) with the added advantages of reduced installation cost and complexity and improved robustness to variations in shock position [26,29].…”

Section: -D Versus 3-dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Results from: a Milholen and Owens [13]; b Eastwood and Jarrett [10], reproduced with permission from Jeremy Eastwood also promote boundary layer separation [26]. Despite this, some studies have argued that 2-D SCBs can still have a positive impact on off-design performance in one of the two ways: (1) Delaying the onset of transonic buffet by breaking up large regions of separated flow and inhibiting communication between an oscillating shock and an aerofoil's trailing edge [2,4,18]; and, (2) In the case of a straight ramp-type design, improving shock stability by effectively anchoring the front shock leg [17].…”

Section: -D Scbmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Review of research into shock control bumps

Bruce

Colliss

2014

Shock Waves

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a review of research on shock control bumps (SCBs), a class of flow control device with potential for application to transonic wings. Beginning with a brief review of the origins of the SCB concept, the primary focus is on the more recent studies from the last decade. Results from both experimental and numerical work are considered and the synergy between these two approaches to SCB research is critically explored. It is shown that the aerodynamic performance enhancement potential of SCBs, namely their capacity for drag reduction and delaying the onset of buffet for transonic wings, has been widely demonstrated in the literature, as has the high sensitivity of SCB performance to flow conditions including shock strength and position, and post-shock adverse pressure gradient. These characteristic features of SCBs are relatively well explained in terms of the flow physics that have been observed for different bump geometries. This stems from a number of studies that have focused on the balance of viscous and inviscid flow features and also the mechanism by which finite span SCBs generate streamwise vorticity. It is concluded that our understanding of SCBs is reaching an advanced level of maturity for SCBs in simple configurations and steady flow fields. However, SCB performance in unsteady flow and on swept wings requires further investigation before the concept can be considered a viable candidate for transonic wings. These investigations should adopt a multi-disciplinary approach combining carefully designed experiments and targeted computations. Finally, two concepts for future SCB research are suggested: the adaptive SCB and SCBs in engine intakes.Communicated by A. Hadjadj.

show abstract