4.7 Article

Control of separated flow in a reflected shock interaction using a magnetically-accelerated surface discharge

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4772197

关键词

-

资金

  1. Air Force Fully Reusable Access to Space Technology (FAST) program
  2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research [LRIR-12RB09COR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A numerical investigation was carried out to explore the effects of a magnetically-accelerated surface discharge on a separated, turbulent boundary layer in supersonic flow. The geometry and test conditions were chosen for comparison to experiments carried out at Princeton University. For those studies, a reflected shock interaction was created using a 14 degrees shock generator acting on an incoming turbulent boundary layer with a Reynolds number based on momentum thickness of 1 x 10(4) and a freestream Mach number of 2.6. Three-dimensional, Reynolds-averaged, Navier-Stokes (RANS) calculations were carried out to simulate the experiments, using the US3D code developed at the University of Minnesota. The baseline code was modified to include a semi-empirical model of the surface discharge actuator, implemented through source terms in the momentum equation, vibrational energy equation, and total energy equation. The computational results for the baseline flow and several control cases were compared to experimental measurements of mean surface pressure. The level of discrepancy was typical of well-resolved RANS computations of three-dimensional, separated flows: qualitative agreement was obtained, and the general experimental trends were captured by the numerical model. Substantial three-dimensionality was observed even in the baseline flow, and significant changes in the flow topology were observed with the application of the actuator. Because of the highly three-dimensional nature of this shock interaction, the initial interpretation of the experiments may need to be revisited. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4772197]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据