Response of a 3D flexible panel to shock impingement with control of cavity pressure

Gramola, Michela; Bruce, Paul J.; Santer, Matthew

doi:10.2514/6.2020-0314

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The peak wall pressure of the rigid STBLI is greater than for the flexible case. The pressure drop over the panel prior to flow separation and the reduction of peak wall pressure compared with the rigid case are also seen in numerical simulations by Zope et al (2021) and Pasquariello et al (2015), and experiments by Gramola et al (2020) and Varigonda and Narayanaswamy (2019). For the flexible panel, the wall pressure peaks farther downstream and rises (induced by the separation shock) farther upstream than in the rigid-wall configuration.…”

Section: Effects Of Panel Flexibility On Wall Pressure Skin Friction ...mentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Tripathi, Mears, Shoele, and Kumar (2020) assessed the effects of the Reynolds number, shock impingement location and cavity pressure on the panel dynamics and separation bubble characteristics in M ∞ = 2 oblique STBLIs. Testing M ∞ = 2 oblique and M ∞ = 1.4 normal STBLI-panel coupling, Gramola, Bruce, and Santer (2020) found a strong influence of the cavity pressure on the aerostructural dynamics, suggesting potential strategies of wave drag passive control through adaptive shock control bumps. Experiments of M ∞ = 4 STBLIs impinging on a thin steel panel by Neet and Austin (2020) observed a flattened and elongated Flow E35-3 separation region and a reduction of static pressure in the flexible configuration, relative to a rigid panel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fluid–structural coupling of an impinging shock–turbulent boundary layer interaction at Mach 3 over a flexible panel

Hoy

Bermejo-Moreno²

2022

Flow

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present high-fidelity numerical simulations of the interaction of an oblique shock impinging on the turbulent boundary layer developed over a rectangular flexible panel, replicating wind tunnel experiments by Daub et al. (AIAA Journal, vol. 54, 2016, pp. 670–678). The incoming free-stream Mach and unit Reynolds numbers are $M_{\infty } = 3$ and $Re_{\infty }=49.4\times 10^6 {\rm m}^{-1}$ , respectively. The reference boundary layer thickness upstream of the interaction with the shock is $\delta _0 = 4$ mm. The oblique shock is generated with a rotating wedge initially parallel to the flow that increases the deflection angle up to $\theta _{{max}} = 17.5^{\circ }$ within approximately $15$ ms. A loosely coupled partitioned flow–structure interaction simulation methodology is used, combining a finite-volume flow solver of the compressible wall-modelled large-eddy simulation equations, an isoparametric finite-element solid mechanics solver and a spring-system-based mesh deformation solver. Simulations are conducted with rigid and flexible panels, and the results compared to elucidate the effects of panel flexibility on the interaction. Three-dimensional effects are evaluated by conducting simulations with both full ( $50 \delta _0$ ) and reduced ( $5\delta _0$ ) spanwise panel width, the latter enforcing spanwise periodicity. Panel flexibility is found to increase the separation bubble size and modify its spectral dynamics. Time- and spanwise-averaged streamwise profiles of the wall pressure exhibit a drop over the flexible panel prior to the interaction and a reduced peak pressure in comparison with the rigid case. Spectral analyses of wall pressure data indicate that the low-frequency motions have a similar spectral distribution for the rigid and flexible cases, but the flexible case shows a wider region dominated by low-frequency motions and traces of the panel vibration on the wall pressure signal. The sensitivity of the interaction to small variations in the wedge extent and incoming boundary layer thickness is evaluated. Predictions obtained from lower-fidelity modelling simplifications are also assessed.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Panel Flexibility On Wall Pressure Skin Friction ...mentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Fluid–structural coupling of an impinging shock–turbulent boundary layer interaction at Mach 3 over a flexible panel

Hoy

Bermejo-Moreno²

2022

Flow

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies by Dowell (1966) and Visbal (2014) have demonstrated the significant impact of cavity pressure on the aeroelastic characteristics of the panel. The unbalanced cavity pressure induces additional shock/expansion wave systems, resulting in changes in the unsteady aerodynamic force characteristics (Visbal 2014;Gramola, Bruce & Santer 2020). Studies have shown that this phenomenon further enhances the nonlinear characteristics of the system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the aeroelastic bifurcation of a flexible panel subjected to cavity pressure and inviscid oblique shock

Zhang,

Ye,

2024

J. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aeroelasticity of a panel in the presence of a shock is a fundamental issue of great significance in the development of hypersonic vehicles. In practical engineering, cavity pressure emerges as a crucial factor that influences the nonlinear dynamical characteristics of the panel. This study focuses on the aeroelastic bifurcation of a flexible panel subjected to both cavity pressure and oblique shock. To this end, a computational method is devised, coupling a high-fidelity reduced-order model for unsteady aerodynamic loads with nonlinear structural equations. The solution is meticulously tracked by continuous calculations. The obtained results indicate that cavity pressure plays a pivotal role in determining the bifurcation and stability characteristics of the system. First, the system exhibits hysteresis behaviour in response to the ascending and descending dynamic pressures. The evolution of hysteresis behaviour originates from the phenomenon of cusp catastrophe. Second, variations in cavity pressure induce three types of bifurcation phenomena, exhibiting characteristics akin to supercritical Hopf bifurcation, subcritical Hopf bifurcation and saddle-node bifurcation of cycles. The system's response at the critical points of these bifurcations manifests as long-period asymptotic flutter or explosive flutter. Lastly, the evolution of the dynamical system among these three types of bifurcations is an important factor contributing to the discrepancies observed in certain research results. This study enhances the understanding of the nonlinear dynamical behaviour of panel aeroelasticity in complex practical environments and provides new explanations for the discrepancies observed in certain research results.

show abstract

“…Kirk R. Brouwer et al [11] designed an experimental method to study the effects of turbulence and shock/boundary layer interference on the post-flutter response of panels. Gramola et al [12] studied the impact response of three-dimensional flexible plates under the control of active (using manual valve) and passive (through breathing hole) cavity pressure through wind tunnel experiments, and studied the impact response of oblique shock wave and positive shock wave to three-dimensional flexible plates. In 2020, Meng et al [13] studied the influence of changing panel vibration parameters on flow field in isolator through numerical simulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of panel oscillation on the shock flow field in isolator under complex background wave system

Wang

Zhu

et al. 2023

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, a self-developed solver is used to numerically simulate the isolator section under complex inlet conditions, and the influence of forced panel vibration on the shock flow field in the isolator under complex inlet conditions is investigated. The results show that the forced vibration of the panel has a certain influence on the shock flow field in the isolator under complex inlet conditions.

show abstract

Response of a 3D flexible panel to shock impingement with control of cavity pressure

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Fluid–structural coupling of an impinging shock–turbulent boundary layer interaction at Mach 3 over a flexible panel

Fluid–structural coupling of an impinging shock–turbulent boundary layer interaction at Mach 3 over a flexible panel

On the aeroelastic bifurcation of a flexible panel subjected to cavity pressure and inviscid oblique shock

Influence of panel oscillation on the shock flow field in isolator under complex background wave system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About