4.5 Article

Direct Numerical Simulation of the Pulsed Arc Discharge in Supersonic Compression Ramp Flow

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1581-1593

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11630-020-1380-5

关键词

direct numerical simulation; pulsed arc discharge; shock waves; turbulent boundary layer; flow separation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91941105, 51522606, 51907205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct numerical simulation (DNS) of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction (SWTBLI) with pulsed arc discharge is carried out in this paper. The subject in the study is aMa=2.9 compression flow over a 24-degree ramp. The numerical approaches were validated by the experimental results in the same flow conditions. The heat source model was added to the Navier-Stokes equation to serve as the energy deposition of the pulsed arc discharge. Four streamwise locations are selected to apply energy deposition. The effect of the pulsed arc discharge on the ramp-induced flow separation has been studied in depth. The DNS results demonstrate the incentive locations play a dominant role in suppressing the separated flow. Results show that pulsed heating is characterized by a thermal blockage, which leads to streamwise deflection. The incentive locations upstream the interaction zone of the base flow have a better control effect. The separation bubble shape shows as spikes, and the downstream flow of the heated region is accelerated due to the momentum exchange between the upper boundary layer and the bottom boundary layer. The high-speed upper fluid is transferred to the bottom, and thus enhances its ability to resist the flow separation. More stripe vortex structures are also generated at the edge of the flat-plate. Furthermore, the turbulent kinetic disturbance energy is increased in the flow filed. The disturbances that originate from the pulsed heating are capable of increasing the turbulent intensity and then diminishing the trend of flow separation.

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

4.5
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