Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Control Using Three-Dimensional Bumps for Transonic Wings

Ogawa, H.; Babinsky, Holger; Pätzold, Martin; Lutz, Thorsten

doi:10.2514/1.32049

Cited by 111 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This sensitivity of SCB performance to shock position is a feature of this type of two-dimensional (2-D) SCB and is something that has been confirmed by other researchers [6,7]. Figure 2, adapted from Ogawa et al [4] shows the type of undesirable expansions and secondary shock systems that can be detrimental to SCB performance.…”

supporting

confidence: 72%

“…They found that the use of a SCB significantly reduced overall drag when the shock wave was at its design location but incurred large performance penalties when the stream-wise shock position was varied. They attributed this poor robustness of SCB performance to variations in shock position to the appearance of undesirable expansions and secondary shock systems [4]. This sensitivity of SCB performance to shock position is a feature of this type of two-dimensional (2-D) SCB and is something that has been confirmed by other researchers [6,7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Re- by a smooth contoured bump [3]; (c) λ-shock foot structure produced by a wedge bump [4] search into both passive [1] and active [2] methods of shock control has been reported in the literature, although generally with rather limited success. However, one passive method of shock control which has shown promise is that of so-called shock control bumps (SCBs).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Experimental Study into the Flow Physics of Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps

Bruce

Babinsky

2012

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental Study into the Flow Physics of Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps

Bruce

Babinsky

2012

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Any additional actuators would necessitate a further two parameters to be included in the optimisation. The ideal number of actuators for a 2D SCB was investigated by [14] who evaluated the ability to replicate the centreline geometry of the default rounded bump proposed by [24]. The results showed that two actuation points were enough to provide a suitable representation of the geometry with additional actuators not providing any greater control whilst adding considerable complexity.…”

Section: Bump Parameterisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimisation of adaptive shock control bumps with structural constraints

Jinks

Bruce

Santer

2018

Aerospace Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results from a study to design an adaptive shock control bump for a transonic aerofoil. An optimisation framework comprising aerodynamic and structural computational tools has been used to assess the performance of candidate adaptive bump geometries based on a novel surfacepressure-based performance metric. The geometry of the resultant design is a unique feature of its adaptivity; being strongly influenced by the (passive) aerodynamic pressure forces on the flexible surface as well as the (active) displacement constraints. This optimal geometry bifurcates the shock-wave and carefully manages the recovering post-shock flow to maximise pressure-smearing in the shockregion with only a small penalty in L/D for the aerofoil. Short adaptive bumps (with small imposed displacements) generally perform better than taller ones, and maintain their performance advantage for a wide range of bump positions, suggesting good robustness to variations in shock position, which are an inevitable feature of a real-world flight application. Such devices may offer advantages over conventional (fixed geometry) shock control bumps, where optimal performance is achieved with taller devices, at the expense of poor robustness to variations in shock position.

show abstract

“…More recently, Jacquin et al (2005) presented experimental results on shock/boundary layer interaction and shock oscillations over a supercritical airfoil section in transonic flow. Ogawa et al (2008) conducted experimental investigations for a rounded bump in transonic channel flow. With the advent of numerical methods, transonic flow analysis was possible since late 1960s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turbulent Transonic Flow Over Smooth and Rough Circular Arc Bumps in a Freestream

Mendonca

Sharif

2010

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turbulent transonic freestream flow over a plane smooth surface embedded with smooth and rough circular arc bumps is computed and analyzed using the   k turbulence model to determine the global effect of surface roughness on the shock/boundary layer interaction. Computations are done for various freestream Mach numbers, equivalent sand grain surface roughness heights of the bump, and radius of the bump. The influence of the increase in surface roughness height transcends over onto the shock boundary layer zone and the observations are discussed. It is observed that the surface roughness causes upstream movement of the shock, increases the skin friction coefficient, extends the separation length, reduces the pre-shock Mach number, and enhances the shock/boundary layer interaction zone.

show abstract

Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Control Using Three-Dimensional Bumps for Transonic Wings

Cited by 111 publications

References 19 publications

Experimental Study into the Flow Physics of Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps

Experimental Study into the Flow Physics of Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps

Optimisation of adaptive shock control bumps with structural constraints

Turbulent Transonic Flow Over Smooth and Rough Circular Arc Bumps in a Freestream

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About