Abstract
The interaction of an impinging shock and a supersonic helium cooling film is investigated experimentally by high-speed particle-image velocimetry. A laminar helium jet is tangentially injected into a turbulent air freestream at a freestream Mach number \(\mathrm{Ma}_\infty =2.45\). The helium cooling film is injected at a Mach number \(\mathrm{Ma}_{\mathrm{i}}=1.30\) at a total temperature ratio \(T _{0,\mathrm {i}}/ T _{0,\infty }=0.75\). A deflection \(\beta =8^\circ\) generates a shock that impinges upon the cooling film. A shock interaction case and a reference case without shock interaction are considered. The distributions of the turbulent mass flux and the turbulent Schmidt number are determined qualitatively. The results are compared with large-eddy simulation (LES) data by Konopka et al. (Phys Fluids 25(10):106101, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4823745) for a comparable flow configuration. The streamwise and wall-normal turbulent mass fluxes are in qualitative agreement with the LES solutions. The turbulent Schmidt number differs significantly from unity. Without shock interaction, the turbulent Schmidt number is in the range \(0.5 \le {\mathrm {Sc}}_{\mathrm{t}}\le 1.5\) which is in agreement with the literature. With shock interaction, the turbulent Schmidt number varies drastically in the vicinity of the shock interaction. Thus, the experimental results confirm the numerical data showing a massively varying turbulent Schmidt number in supersonic film cooling flows, i.e., the standard assumption of a constant turbulent Schmidt number is valid neither without nor with shock interaction.
Graphic abstract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alzner E, Zakkay V (1971) Turbulent boundary-layer shock interaction with and without injection. AIAA J 9(9):1769–1776. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.49979
Araya G, Castillo L (2012) DNS of turbulent thermal boundary layers up to \({\rm Re}_\theta =2300\). Int J Heat nd Mass Transf 55(15–16):4003–4019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.03.038
Astarita T, Cardone G (2005) Analysis of interpolation schemes for image deformation methods in PIV. Exp Fluids 38(2):233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-004-0902-3
Benedict LH, Gould RD (1996) Towards better uncertainty estimates for turbulence statistics. Exp Fluids 22(2):129–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003480050030
Brinckman KW, Calhoon WH, Dash SM (2007) Scalar fluctuation modeling for high-speed aeropropulsive flows. AIAA J 45(5):1036–1046. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.21075
Combs CS, Clemens NT (2019) Simultaneous scalar and velocity imaging in a Mach five boundary layer. AIAA J. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058614
Crabb D, Whitelaw JH et al (1981) A round jet normal to a crossflow. J Fluids Eng 103(1):142–153. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3240764
Eklund D, Baurle R, Gruber M (2001) Numerical study of a scramjet combustor fueled by an aerodynamic ramp injector in dual-mode combustion. In: 39th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, p 379. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-379
Goldberg UC, Palaniswamy S, Batten P, Gupta V (2010) Variable turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl number modeling. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 4(4):511–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2010.11015337
Goldstein RJ (1971) Film cooling. Adv Heat Transf 7:321–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2717(08)70020-0
He G, Guo Y, Hsu AT (1999) The effect of Schmidt number on turbulent scalar mixing in a jet-in-crossflow. Int J Heat Mass Transf 42(20):3727–3738. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(99)00050-2
Hjertager LK, Hjertager BH, Deen NG, Solberg T (2003) Measurement of turbulent mixing in a confined wake flow using combined PIV and PLIF. Can J Chem Eng 81(6):1149–1158. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450810604
Holden M, Nowak R, Olsen G, Rodriguez K (1990) Experimental studies of shock wave/wall jet interaction in hypersonic flow. AIAA Paper 90–0607. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1990-607
Immerkaer J (1996) Fast noise variance estimation. Comput Vis Image Understanding 64(2):300–302. https://doi.org/10.1006/cviu.1996.0060
Jiang LY, Campbell I (2009) Prandtl/Schmidt number effect on temperature distribution in a generic combustor. Int J Therm Sci 48(2):322–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2008.03.014
Jones WP, Launder BE (1972) The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence. Int J Heat Mass Transf 15(2):301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(72)90076-2
Juhany K, Hunt M (1994) Flowfield measurements in supersonic film cooling including the effect of shock-wave interaction. AIAA J 32(3):578–585. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12024
Kamath P, Holden M, McClinton C (1990) Experimental and computational study of the effect of shocks on film cooling effectiveness in scramjet combustors. In: AIAA/ASME 5th joint thermophysics and heat transfer conference, Seattle, AIAA Paper 90-1713. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1990-1713
Kamotani Y, Greber I (1974) Experiments on confined turbulent jets in cross flow. In: 6th fluid and plasmadynamics conference, p 647. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1973-647
Konopka M, Meinke M, Schröder W (2012) Large-eddy simulation of shock-cooling-film interaction. AIAA J 50(10):2102–2114. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.j051405
Konopka M, Meinke M, Schröder W (2013) Large-eddy simulation of shock-cooling-film interaction at helium and hydrogen injection. Phys Fluids 25(10):106101. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4823745
Koochesfahani M, Cohn R, MacKinnon C (2000) Simultaneous whole-field measurements of velocity and concentration fields using a combination of mtv and lif. Meas Sci Technol 11(9):1289. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/11/9/306
Kwok FT, Andrew PL, Ng WF, Schetz JA (1991) Experimental investigation of a supersonic shear layer with slot injection of helium. AIAA J 29(9):1426–1435. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10756
Li D, Luo K, Fan J (2016) Direct numerical simulation of heat transfer in a spatially developing turbulent boundary layer. Phys Fluids 28(10):105104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4964686
Li Q, Schlatter P, Brandt L, Henningson DS (2009) DNS of a spatially developing turbulent boundary layer with passive scalar transport. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 30(5):916–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2009.06.007
Marquardt P, Klaas M, Schröder W (2019) Experimental investigation of isoenergetic film cooling flows with shock interaction. AIAA J 57(9):3910–3923. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058197
Marquardt P, Klaas M, Schröder W (2020) Comparison of shock/cooling-film interaction for cooled and isoenergetic injection. AIAA J 58(5):2078–2092. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058471
Melnick MB, Thurow BS (2014) On the relationship between image intensity and velocity in a turbulent boundary layer seeded with smoke particles. Exp Fluids 55(2):1681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-014-1681-0
Olsen GC, Nowak RJ, Holden MS, Baker NR (1990) Experimental results for film cooling in 2-D supersonic flow including coolant delivery pressure, geometry, and incident shock effects. AIAA Paper 90–0605: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1990-605
Raffel M, Willert CE, Wereley ST, Kompenhans J (2007) Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72308-0
Samimy M, Lele SK (1991) Motion of particles with inertia in a compressible free shear layer. Phys Fluids Fluid Dyn 3(8):1915–1923. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.857921
Scarano F (2004) On the stability of iterative PIV image interrogation methods. In: 12th international symposium on the application of laser and imaging techniques to fluid dynamics, lisbon, Portugal
Seban RA, Back LH (1962) Velocity and temperature profiles in turbulent boundary layers with tangential injection. J Heat Transf 84:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3684292
Tominaga Y, Stathopoulos T (2007) Turbulent Schmidt numbers for CFD analysis with various types of flowfield. Atmos Environ 41(37):8091–8099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.06.054
Tsai RY (1987) A versatile camera calibration technique for high-accuracy 3d machine vision metrology using off-the-shelf tv cameras and lenses. IEEE J Robot Autom 3(4):323–344. https://doi.org/10.1109/jra.1987.1087109
Westerweel J, Scarano F (2005) Universal outlier detection for PIV data. Exp Fluids 39:1096–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-005-0016-6
Wilcox DC (1988) Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA J 26(11):1299–1310. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10041
Wu X, Moin P (2010) Transitional and turbulent boundary layer with heat transfer. Phys Fluids 22(8):085105. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3475816
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the research project “Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Supersonic Film-Cooling Flows” (SCHR 309/62-1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marquardt, P., Klaas, M. & Schröder, W. Experimental investigation of the turbulent Schmidt number in supersonic film cooling with shock interaction. Exp Fluids 61, 160 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-020-02983-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-020-02983-x