Comparative Numerical Investigation of a Sonic Jet in a Supersonic Turbulent Crossflow

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

We scrutinize new and previously published Large Eddy Simulation (LES) data for a sonic jet injected into a supersonic crossflow. Jet and crossflow consist of air, the crossflow Mach number is M ∞ = 1. 6 and the jet to crossflow momentum ratio is J = 1. 7. For this case, experimental measurements and rich numerical data are available in literature. Results of previous numerical studies and our LES are in excellent agreement. However, all numerical data sets show very similar deviations from the available measurements. We analyse sensitivities on uncertain flow parameters to identify the parameters that are most likely responsible for the discrepancy between the numerical and experimental data.

Keywords

Mach Number Large Eddy Simulation Streamwise Velocity Wall Pressure Horse Shoe Vortex 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The support of this research within the Research Training Group “Aero-Thermodynamic Design of a Scramjet Propulsion System for Future Space Transportation Systems” 1095/2 by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS) is greatly acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Chai, X., Mahesh, K.: Simulations of high speed turbulent jets in crossflows. AIAA J. (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eberhardt, S., Hickel, S.: Implicit LES of a sonic jet in a supersonic crossflow. In: Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation IX. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Everett, D.E., Woodmansee, M.A., Dutton, J.C., Morris, M.J.: Wall pressure measurements for a sonic jet injected transversely into a supersonic crossflow. J. Propuls. Power (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gottlieb, S., Shu, C.-W.: Total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta schemes. Math. Comput. (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grilli, M., Hickel, S., Hu, X.Y., Adams, N.A.: Conservative immersed interface method for compressible viscous flows with heat transfer. In: Academy Colloquium on Immersed Boundary Methods: Current Status and Future Research Directions. Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickel, S., Adams, N.A., Domaradzki, J.A.: An adaptive local deconvolution method for implicit LES. J. Comput. Phys. (2006). doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.08.017MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hickel, S., Larsson, J.: On implicit turbulence modeling for LES of compressible flows. Advances in Turbulence XII. Springer (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03085-7.209MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kawai, S., Lele, S.K.: Large-eddy simulation of jet mixing in supersonic crossflows. AIAA J. (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrache, O., Hickel, S., Adams, N.A.: Large eddy simulations of turbulent enhancement due to forced shock motion in shock-boundary layer interaction. AIAA J. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pirozzoli, S., Bernardini, M., Grasso, F.: Characterization of coherent vortical structures in a supersonic turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santiago,J.G., Dutton, J.C.: Velocity measurements of a jet injected into a supersonic crossflow. J. Propuls. Power (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Segal, C.: The Scramjet Engine, Processes and Characteristics. Cambridge University Press (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    VanLerberghe, W.M., Santiago, J.G., Dutton, J.C., Lucht, R.P.: Mixing of a sonic transverse jet injected into a supersonic flow. AIAA J. (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Aerodynamics and Fluid MechanicsGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations