You are on page 1of 8

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

Crossing Shockwave Boundary Layer Interaction


Using Swept Fins
Harpreet Singh Suri

Ganapati N Joshi

Aerospace Engineering Department


Defence Institute of Advanced Technology
Pune, India
joshiganapati@gmail.com

Aerospace Engineering Department


Defence Institute of Advanced Technology
Pune, India
suriharpreetsingh@gmail.com
Abstract A computational study has been made to
understand effect of sweep on crossing-shock- wave/ boundary
layer interactions. A symmetric double fin flow field structure at
mach 4 and fin angle of 15 deg is examined. Computed results for
unswept fin interaction captures essential features studied in
benchmark experiments. The effect of sweep on crossing shock
interaction is studied at sweep angles of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25
and 30 and compared with unswept case. A reduction in peak
surface pressure and skin friction coefficient was observed.
Keywords Crossing shock wave boundary layer interactions,
Swept fin, Boundary layer separation.

I. INTRODUCTION
Interaction of shock wave and turbulent boundary
layer (SWBLI) are observed in supersonic and hypersonic
flights of aircraft, space vehicles and projectiles. These
interactions are commonly presents at aircraft inlet and
compressors, aircraft control surface and wing body junctions.
These interactions produce undesirable effects such as
increase of drag, large vortical flow structure, separation of
flow, high wall heating and large unsteadiness of shock
induced separation. Thus the shock wave boundary layer
interactions degrade vehicle or machine performance. [1]
When two separate single shocks converges and
interacts with each other and also with a boundary layer, such
an interaction is called Crossing- Shock Interaction. These
interactions can be produced by a simple configuration of two
fins placed opposite to each other (symmetrically or
asymmetrically) on a flat plate in the flow as shown in the Fig.
1. This arrangement represents inlet configuration of
propulsion systems. [2]
The parameters affecting crossing shock wave
boundary layer interactions are free stream Mach number, fin
angles, Reynolds number and boundary layer thickness. [3]
Vast experimental as well as theoretical research
work had been carried out for understanding of flow field
structure of crossing shock wave boundary interactions which
include symmetric and asymmetric double fins [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
.These studies also commented on various flow parameters
such as surface pressure distributions, skin friction and heat
transfer coefficients.

Fig. 1 Schematic double fin geometry (Settles 1993 [2])

Although significant work has been carried out for an


understanding of the flow phenomena by changing the
governing parameters, no documented study is available on
the effect of fin sweep on crossing SWBLI.
In the present paper, the effect of sweep on a
crossing shock wave/ boundary layer interaction is
investigated for a free stream Mach number 4 and fin angle of
15. The investigation is carried out in two parts: (a) Study of
the unswept fin interaction and (b) Study of the interaction
with Sweep. The first study is compared with existing
benchmark experimental results and serve for validating the
code as well.
II. COMPUTATIONAL SETUP AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
A. Numerical Solver
Computations have been carried out for the integral, three
dimensional, steady, compressible Reynolds Averaged Navier
Stokes (RANS) equations using a finite volume based code
STAR CCM+. A coupled implicit solver is used. The inviscid
fluxes, in the discretized system are evaluated using an
upwind flux-difference splitting scheme [9]. The
discretization is second order accurate in space. Dynamic
viscosity is computed using Sutherlands law. The equation of

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1037

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

state is used ideal gas equation. The realizable k- 2 layer (keps) all Y+ wall treatment turbulence model is used.
The free stream conditions are chosen to match the
experimental conditions. The boundary layer is taken to be
fully turbulent from the start since the transition zone as per
the experiments is far upstream of the fin and does not affect
the region of interest.
The turbulent intensity is set to 5% and the ratio of
turbulent to molecular viscosity is 50 on all the boundaries. It
is verified that within a range around these values, the
computed solutions remain unchanged. The boundary
conditions specified are inlet stagnation pressure, (p0) =1.5
x106 Pa, inlet stagnation temperature, (T0) = 295 K and
incoming flow Mach number, (M) = 3.85.
B. Computational Domain
Computational domain is shown in Fig. 2a, b. The
geometry consists of two vertical fins, both mounted at angle
= 15, to a horizontal flat plate. The computational domain
extends 213 mm upstream and 163.4 mm downstream of
leading edge of the fin. Height of the fin is taken as 82.5 mm.
and incoming boundary layer thickness (0) is 3.5 mm.
Utilizing symmetry of the crossing-shock interaction about
centre-line; flow through half of the geometry has been
simulated [2].
The free stream conditions are chosen to match the
experimental conditions of the unswept interaction. In Figure
2b, face ABCD is presented as Inlet having p0=1.5 x106 Pa
and T0= 295 K. Face EFGH is presented as Outlet and at this
face the stream wise gradients are set to zero. Face KIJL (Fin),
Face IHEJ and Face ALJEFB (Plate) is prescribed as Wall. On
these faces Adiabatic, zero normal pressure gradient and noslip conditions are used. Face BFGC is assigned as symmetry
plane and the normal component of the velocity and the
normal derivatives of the flow quantities are set as zero.
Three different grids were used to examine grid
independence of computational solutions. To ensure that
viscous sub-layer is completely resolved, 20 grid points are
provided within 20% of the boundary layer thickness. The
details of grids are summarized in Table 1:

Fig. 2b Computational domain for unswept fin

TABLE I
GRID DETAILS

Case

Nx

Ny

Nz

NTotal

Y+
Mean

Y+
Max

Coarse
Grid

85

60

45

229500

1.902

0.8052

Medium
Grid

125

70

60

525000

1.606

0.2295

Fine Grid

165

80

75

990000

1.232

0.2159

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


A. Grid Independence
Surface pressure is computed along interaction middle line
and is plotted in Fig. 3 for coarse, medium and fine grid.
16
Coarse Grid
Medium Grid

14

Fine Grid
12

P/Pinf

10
8
6
4
.

2
0
0

Fig 2a
Top view of computational geometry; =fin angle, = Outflow
Duct angle, P = Primary Shock, R = Reflected Shock, E = Expansion Fan.
(Settles 1993 [2])

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1038

10

20

x/0

30

Fig. 3 Pressure comparison for grid independence

40

50

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

20

It is evident from the graph that there is significant


variation between results of coarse and medium mesh.
However, results obtained using medium and fine meshes are
almost invariant. Also computation time for medium grid is
lesser than fine grid. Hence, for further analysis and to
optimise the computational efforts, the results of the medium
mesh are used.

15

P/Pinf

B. Unswept Fin Interaction (Code validation)


Computational setup code validation is done by comparing
computational results with experimental results of Garrison
and Settles [2, 10] for 15-Deg symmetric crossing shock wave
boundary layer at Mach number 4. The surface pressure ratio
and skin friction coefficient are plotted against non
dimensional distance along x-axis x/0 along interaction
middle line.

baldwin lomax r2
balwin lomax r3
spalart almaras edwards
keps
exp
computatinal k eps

10

0
0

1) Surface pressure: Computed surface pressure values


along the interaction centre line are plotted against the
experimental values of surface pressure along interaction
centre line and shown in Fig. 4a. The computed surface
pressure values along the interaction center line shows a good
agreement with the experimental values. The model has
correctly predicted location of beginning of pressure rise i.e.
upstream influence however over estimated the pressure at
other places. The computed values of pressure are also
compared with computational results mentioned in AGARDAR-319 [11] and presented in Fig. 4b. The computational
results show close agreement with other computational
results.
16

10

20

30

40

x/0
Fig. 4b : Pressure comparison for unswept fin interaction with other
computations (AGARD-AR-319 [11])

2)
Skin Friction: The computed values of skin friction
are compared with the experimental results of surface pressure
along interaction centre line and shown in Fig. 5 a. The model
predict onset of separation in close agreement. The
downstream values are not in very much agreement with the
experimental results and model overestimate the skin friction
coefficient. This feature is also observed in other
computational results mentioned in AGARD-AR-319 [11].
The comparison of computed skin friction with other
computational results mentioned in AGARD-AR-319 [11] is
shown in Fig 5b.
0.005

14
12
Skin friction coefficent

0.004
P/Pinf

10
8
6
4

0.003

0.002

0.001

2
0
0

10
Computational

20

x/0

30

40

50

10
Computational

Experimental (Settles,1993)

Fig. 4a : Pressure comparison for unswept fin interaction with experiment

20

30
40
x/0
Experimental (Settles, 1993)

Fig. 5a Skin Friction comparison for unswept fin interaction with experiment

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1039

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

0.006

balwin lomax
baldwin lomax edward
balwin lomax panaras
k eps g2
k eps g3
k eps r3
exp
computation k eps

0.005
Skin Friction Coefficient

EXPERIMENTAL/
COMPUTATIONAL
(SETTLES 1993)

0.004
0.003
0.002

(a)

FLOW FIELD
DIAGRAM
(SETTLES 1993)

COMPUTATIONAL

EXPERIMENT COMPUTATION

(b)

0.001
0.000

-0.001
0

10

20

30

40

x/0
Fig. 5b Skin Friction comparison for unswept fin interaction with other
computations (AGARD-AR-319 [11])

3) Pressure Couture Comparison: A comparison of


computed values of normalized static pressure P/Pinf with the
experimental results [2] for 14 steam wise (y-z) planes
throughout the interaction has been carried out. These frames
are at equally spaced intervals of non dimensional distance
along x-axis x/0 = 1.43 with the first frame at x/0 = 16.6.
The origin of the x axis is on the interaction centerline at the
fin leading-edge position. The location of these planes is
shown in Fig. 6.
Experimental
PLS/computatinal
Images,
their
corresponding flow field diagram and compuated static
pressure contours are presented in the subsequent Fig. 7a-d .
For brevity only 4 frames (3, 6, 9, 12), corresponding to
region just upstream and downstream of interaction, are
presented. The size and shape of the various important
features such as primary shock, separation shock, and
reflected shock of computational images are in well
agreement with the experimental result images throughout the
interaction region.

(c)

(d)

Fig. 7 a-d Comparison of experimental PLS /computational and flow field


diagrams (Settles 1993 [2]) and computational results. (a) Frame 3, (b) Frame
6, (c) Frame 9 and (d) Frame 12

Form above mentioned comparison of surface pressure,


skin friction coefficient and similarity of wave structure it is
seen that the computational results of unswept double fin
model is fairly matching with the experimental results.
C. Swept Fin Interactions
In this section, effect of fin sweep on the crossing shock
interaction is discussed. Computations have been carried out
for crossing shock wave boundary layer interaction with fins
having sweep angles of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
respectively for same set up and under same operating
conditions. The results are compared with unswept case to
investigate the effect of sweep on the interaction and flow field
parameters.

Fig. 6 Location of frame with respect to fin (Settles 1993 [2])

1) Streamline Structure: Streamline structure comprise


of a low pressure jet which consist of two counter rotating
vortices. These vortices are similar to the vortices formed by
single fin interactions. In the unswept fin case, these vortices

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1040

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

interact at center line and lifted up from the flat plate forming
a jet like structure. The same is evident in the surface pressure
contours observed as a low pressure region in Fig 7 (a) (frame
number 3).
The streamline structure of unswept fin, 10 0, 200 and 300
sweep fin is shown in Fig. 8 a-d respectively. It is observed
from these streamline structure that vortex are becoming
weaker with increase in fin sweep angle. Due to this
weakening of these vortices the streamlines becomes more
disperse with increase in sweep. This feature is predominant
in the region x/0> 25. Streamlines originating from the fin
apex undergo a large deflection towards the centreline.

Flow Direction
R1

S1
S3

S4
S2

2) Skin Friction Lines: The skin friction lines of unswept


fin, 100, 200 and 300 sweep fin is shown in Fig. 9 a-d
respectively.
The separation of the flow is indicated by the convergence
of skin friction lines. The line S1 represents the separation line
as shown in Fig .9a. A fluidic throat is observed downstream
which is formed due to convergence of separation lines S1
and S2. The width of this fluidic throat is seen to increase with
increase in fin sweep angle.
Moving downstream, the primary separation lines come
together at the interaction centreline, forming a node of
separation, the primary separation lines initially converge

Flow Direction

x/0
a
Fig. 9 a-d Skin Friction lines comparison for swept fin and unswept fin
interaction, (a) Unswept , (b) 10, (c) 20, (d) 30 sweep.

toward the centreline, then diverge from it, and finally


approach it again further downstream. On moving further
downstream, secondary separation phenomenon is observed as
shown by the area encompassed by separation lines S3 and S4
in Fig 9a. The comparison of the streamlines of swept fins
shows that this central separation region elongates with
increase in sweep.
No dominant effect is observed on structure of
reattachment line R1 in Fig 9a-d, in unswept and swept fin
case, however, a divergence of skin friction lines in
reattachment region near to expansion corner is observed.

x/0
Fig. 8 a-d Streamline comparison for swept fin and unswept fin interaction,
(a) Unswept, (b) 10, (c) 20 and (d) 30 sweep.

3) Surface Pressure comparison:


Surface pressure is
computed along the interaction middle line. The surface
pressure ratio (P/Pinf) is plotted against non dimensional
distance along x-axis (x/0) with origin located in line with the
fin apex at interaction centerline. The Fig. 10 represents
variation in surface pressure with increase in sweep angle of
fin as compared to unswept fin.
For unswept, fin initial pressure rise i.e. upstream
influence occurs at approximately x/0 = 13.02 and peak
surface pressure occurs at x/0 =38.4 which is down stream of
primary shock intersection location (i.e. x/0 =15 approx).

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1041

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

0.006
Unswept
5
10
15
20
25
30

14
12

P/Pinf

10
8

Unswept
5
10
15
20
25
30

0.005
Skin Friction Coefficient

16

6
4

0.004
0.003

P3

0.002
0.001

2
0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

x/0

10

20

30

40

50

x/0

Fig. 10 Pressure comparison for swept fin and unswept fin interaction.

Fig. 11 Skin Friction comparison for swept fins and unswept fin interaction.

In this region the local maxima of skin friction diminishes with


increase in fin sweep angle. This is due to increase in
dispersion of the surface streamlines and divergence of skin
friction lines in reattachment region near to the expansion
corner in the corresponding region.
The Fig.12 shows percentage change in area average
of skin friction coefficient over the plate on which the fins are
mounted with increase in sweep. The magnitude of skin
friction is reduced by 3.55% for 30 SWEPT fin as compared
to unswept case.

4) Skin Friction Comparison: Skin friction coefficient


(Cf) measured stream wise direction along interaction
centerline and plotted against non dimensional distance along
x-axis (x/0) with origin located in line with the fin apex at
interaction centerline. Fig. 11 represents variation in skin
friction coefficient along interaction center line with increase
in sweep angle of fin as compared to unswept fin.
For unswept fin onset of reduction of skin friction
coefficient occurs at approximately x/0 = 13.02 before
reaching to a minimum value at x/0 = 19.88. This decrease in
skin friction is due to the intersection of swept shocks. Further
moving to downstream skin friction increases to local
maximum values at x/0 = 22.17, 29.03, 36.77 and 41.63
respectively. The magnitude of peak skin friction coefficient
is 0.00527 and occurs at x/0 = 41.63.
With increase in sweep although there is a slight delay
in onset of reduction of skin friction coefficient but minimum
skin friction coefficient is achieved nearly at same location.
The skin friction coefficient plots of swept fins shows
same trend as that of unswept fin. However the dominant
change is observed in third peak region shown as P3 in Fig.11.

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1042

Fin Sweep Angle


Unswept 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.00
% Change in Skin Friction Coefficent

The magnitude of peak surface pressure ratio is 14.95.


With increase in sweep angle the upstream influence line is
marginally moved forward causing marginal delayed
separation. Further with increase in sweep there is reduction
in the peak pressure and that is also moved further
downstream. The magnitude of peak surface pressure ratio of
30 swept fin is 12.11 occurs at x/0 =40 which is 19% less
from peak pressure of unswept fin.
The area average of surface pressure ratio for unswept
and 30 swept fin configuration at outlet is 1.96 and 1.94
respectively. The comparison of static pressure ratios shows
that changing the configuration from unswept to 30 deg swept
fin results in a 1.2% decrease in surface pressure ratio at
outlet.

-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00
-3.50
-4.00

Fig. 12 Effect of fin Sweep on Skin Friction coefficient

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

5) Pressure Contour Comparison: A comparison of


computed values of normalized static pressure (P/Pinf) for fin
at various sweep angles with unswept fin is carried out at the
previously mentioned 14 stream wise (y-z) planes (Fig.6). For
brevity only 6 frames (3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 at x/ 0= 19.46,
23.75, 25.18, 26.61, 28.04 and 32.33 respectively) are
presented in Fig. 13 a-f.
These frames are corresponding to regions just upstream
and downstream of interaction. Following aspects of effect of
sweep can be deduced from these figures.
From Fig. 13 a (frame 3) it is evident that there is an
UNSWEPT

5 SWEEP

10 SWEEP

increase in the pressure near to the wall with increase in the


sweep. From Fig. 13 b and c (frame 6 and 7) it is evident that
there is a reduction in boundary layer separation around the
centerline as evident in high pressure region (reduced red
region). From Fig. 13 d and e (frame 8 and 9) it clearly evident
that the interaction of individual fin swept shocks is getting
delayed. From Fig. 13 f (frame 12) it is evident that although
the onset of separation is getting delayed with the sweep
however the pressure along the centerline downstream of
interaction increases much faster as the sweep increases.
(Central red regions in frame).

15 SWEEP

20 SWEEP

25 SWEEP

30 SWEEP

Fig. 13a-f Comparison of surface pressure (P/P) contours; Unswept, 5,10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 sweep

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1043

P/P

International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Developments [ICRAMID - 2014]

The Fig. 14 shows % change in area average of surface


pressure ratio of 14 frames of all swept fin cases with respect
to unswept fin.
1

Frame number
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Department Aerospace Engineering DIAT (DU) for providing


constant support, guidance and motivation.
REFERENCES
[1]

1
0

[2]

% Change in P/Pinf

-1
[3]

-2
-3

[4]

-4
[5]

-5
-6

[6]

-7
-8
5

10

15

20

25

[7]

30

[8]
Fig. 14 Effect of fin Sweep on P/P

There is gradual reduction of area average surface pressure


ratio with increase in sweep. This observation also
substantiates the decrease in pressure ratio as discussed in
comparison of surface pressure along interaction centerline.

[9]

[10]

IV. CONCLUSION
A computational investigation of effect of fin sweep on
flow field structure of a crossing shock wave turbulent
boundary layer interaction is performed for 15 symmetric fin
configuration at Mach number 4. Comparison of flow field
parameters, such as streamline structure, surface pressure
ratio, skin friction coefficient and surface pressure contours,
of unswept and swept fin at sweep of 5 to 30 has been
carried out.
From the results following conclusions can be drawn.
With introduction of sweep, 1) the vortices become weaker
and the streamlines becomes more disperse. 2) Peak pressure
is damped and there is 1.2% decrease in surface pressure ratio
at outlet. 3) There is a reduction in skin friction coefficient by
3.55%. 4) Separation is marginally delayed. 5) The
compression is higher near to wall and also along the
centerline between the interaction before and after the shockshock interaction respectively.

[11]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Ms. Roschelle, Ph.D. scholar of Defence
Institute of Advance Technologies (DIAT), Deemed
University (DU), Pune for familiarizing computational fluid
dynamics software and providing valuable inputs at various
stages. Authors also acknowledge Dr. S E Talole, Head of

ISBN 978-1-4799-3158-3
1044

The Springer link Website. [Online]. Available: http://


link.springer.com /article /10.1007 %2Fs00193 - 009 - 0238 - 2 ? LI
= true # page - 1
T.J. Garrison, G.S. Settles, N. Narayanswami and D.D. Knight,
Structure of crossing shock wave boundary layer interactions ,
AIAA Journal, vol. 31, pp.2204-2211, Dec 1993
D. Gaitonde and D. Knight, Numerical Experiments on the 3-D
Shock wave boundary layer interaction generated by sharp fin,
AIAA paper 88-0309, 1988
T.J. Garrison, G.S. Settles, N. Narayanswami, D.D. Knight, C.C.
Horstman, Flow field surveys and computations of a crossing-shock
wave/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J. 34 (1) 5056, 1996
A.A. Zheltovodov, A.I. Maksimov, Symmetric and asymmetric
crossing-shock-waves/turbulent boundary layer interactions,
Technical Report EOARD F61708-97-W0136, ITAM, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia, 1998
D. Gaitonde, J.S. Shang, T.J. Garrison, A.A. Zheltovodov, A.I.
Maksimov, Three-dimensional turbulent interactions caused by
asymmetric crossing-shock configurations, AIAA J. 37 (12), 1602
1608, 1999
J Zheltovodov A. A., Some Advances in Research of Shock Wave
Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions. AIAA ,2006-496, 2006.
Zheltovodov A.A., Maksimov A.I., Shevchenko A.M., Vorontsov
S.S., Knight D.D., Experimental study and computational
comparison of crossing shock wave/turbulent boundary layer
interaction, in International Conference on the Methods of Aerophysical Research (ICMAR94), Part I, Novosibirsk, Russia, 221
230, 1994
W. Rodi, Experience with Two-Layer Models Combining the k-e
Model with a One-Equation Model near the Wall, AIAA- Paper 910216, January 1991.
G.S. Settles, L.J. Dodson, Hypersonic Shock/Boundary Layer
Interaction Database: New and Corrected Data, Ames Research
Center, Moffett Field, California, NASA Contract Report 177638,
1994
D.D. Knight, G. Degrez. Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interactions
in High Mach Number Flows A Critical Survey of Current Numerical
Predication Capabilities. AGARD AR-319 Vol. 2, 1998, pp. 1-18 to
1-19.