manipulation of a shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction in
TRANSCRIPT
J.-B.Tô, N. Bhardwaj, N. Simiriotis, A. Marouf,
J.C.R. Hunt and M. Braza
IMFT-CNRS / Institut de Mécanique des Fluides de Toulouse
ICUBE – Univ. Strasbourg
Manipulation of a shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction in the transonic
regime around a supercritical morphing wingBy
5th FSSIC2019 27-30/08/19 Chania, Crete, Greece
Study under the H2020 EU-Project SMS No 723402“Smart Morphing & Sensing
for Aeronautical configurations”
2
A320 Morphing prototypes in SMS
in cruise flight
sRS
Subsonic Reduced Scale
tRS
Transonic Reduced Scale
LS
Large Scale Subsonic
70 cm chord
15 cm chord
Wing:
2.40 m chord
High-lift flap:
1m chord
3
Wing of 15 cm chord. Mach number 0.78, Re= 2.06 x 106
Expermental resutls under way in the SMS – EU project
Transonic windtunnel (IMP PAN –
Gdansk, Poland)
Internal schematics of the transonic prototype of chord C=15 cm with the
embedded piezoelectric actuator (blue) and the force transmission chain
(red and green).
The « Reduced scale « Transonic morphing pototype
for the wind tunnel of IMP-PAN
5
Test section
6
Flow direction
profile
Flow direction
profile
Forces measurement system
View on the sidewall windows and forces measurement system
7
profile100 mm
Leading edge
Kulite probes
Static pressure taps
Profile mounted in the wind
tunnel
Pressure taps and kulite
locations
Effect of Angle of Attack - Inlet Mach number 0.765
8
Shock wave
Flow
direction
Schlieren
pictures
Isentropic Mach numberAoA
1.8°
AoA
2.0°
AoA
2.2°
AoA
2.4°
Shock wave moves downstream with increasing AoA
Mach number upstream of shock wave increases with AoA
Grossi et al., AIAA 2014
Q-criterion iso-contours
Re=3.24M
Ma=0.7
Alpha=7°
Buffet instability
characterised by a
strong interaction
between the shock
wave and the boundary
layer
For the A320
wing, at 𝛼 = 1.8°, f𝐵 = 111 𝐻𝑧
11
Deflection and deformation of the trailing edge. Computations using ALE
Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian mesh deformation and motion in the NSMB code
190,000 mesh points in 2D.
Dt= 5*10-6
Turbulence modelling: OES –Organised Eddy Simulation : Braza et al, JFS 2006, ‘08,
‘14, ‘15,’19 : capturing the coherent structures and relate instabilities development :
Method used in 9 EU research programmes in aeronautics
A320 wing section
C-H topology
Computational domain2-dimensional
computation
• Mach number:
Ma=0.78
• Reynolds number:
Re=2.06M
• Angle of incidence:
1.8°or 5°
A320 airfoil
The cases of morphing:
• Upwards deflection « D » -
2°upward deflection of the
trailing edge (TE)
• Flapping alone : « F » -
1°vibration of the trailing
edge
• Hybrid : « D+F » - 2°upward deflection
combined with a vibration
of TE.
Flapping motion of the
trailing edge around its initial
position. The black lines
and grey region are the blocks
within the computational domain.
Simulations done with the
NSMB code
(Navier Stokes MultiBlock)
Morphing by means of deformation and vibration of the near-trailing edge region
X-density gradient + streaklines
« D+F » configuration: flapping frequency of
90 Hz
Force coefficient time series with
the three types of morphing
actuation
Time-averaged aerodynamic coefficients –
comparison between morphing actuation and
static case performance at various
frequencies between 100 Hz and 500 Hz
16
Drag evolution
Lift evolution
Lift to Drag evolution
17
Time-averaged wake
velocity profiles for different
actuation frequencies
(f=300; 350; 400 Hz)
at x/c= 1.26
300 Hz
Actuation frequency
effects on the energy
levels of the force
coefficients
350 Hz
90 Hz
CONCLUSIONS
➢Physical analysis of the instabilities, shock-vortex interaction and
of the feedback effects
➢Morphing acts through a manipulation of shear-layers, trailing-
edge and near-wake coherent structures acting on the fluid-
structure system
➢Considerable increase of the aerodynamic performance in the
transonic regimes for the A320 morphing configuration in cruise
speeds
21
Thank you for your attention
The transonic buffet over a
supercritical wing
Interaction of the near-wake and
trailing edge instabilities with the
shock
25
Parameters Angle of incidence (in deg) Angle of deflection (in deg) Angle of flapping (in deg) Chord (m)
-1,8 +2 +/-1 0,15
Computation results frequency of flapping (in Hz) Mean lift percentage change Mean drag percentage change Mean Lift to drag percentage change
200 +1,18% +1,31% -0,21%
300 +1,31% +1,22% +0,09%
400 +0,95% +0,88% +0,06%
500 +1,43% +1,09% +0,33%
Computation results Type of trailing edge (TE) morphing Mean lift to drag percentage change Mean drag percentage change
Deflection (D) +10,40% -21,10%
Deflection + flapping (D+F) (flapping frequency = 90Hz) +4,30% -9,47%
Parameters Angle of incidence (in deg) Chord (m)
-5 0,23
Computation results Angle of deflection (in deg) Mean lift to drag percentage change
+0 +0,00%
+1 +2,97%
+1,5 +4,24%
+2 +4,94%
Case 3: A320 reduced scale, chord=15cm, Ma=0.78, Re=2.06*10^6, AOA=1.8°
A320 reduced scale, chord=23cm, Ma=0.73, Re=2.93*10^6, AOA=5°
1- Comparison between different
flapping frequencies in terms of
aerodynamic performance
2- Comparison between different
types of morphing
3- Comparison between different
angles of deflection (upward
camber of the trailing edge)
+2° camber
up
“Static”
configuration
PSD of Monitor point at x/c ≈ 1.2
fact = 300 Hz
Wake instability mode around f ≈ 9000 Hz
In Strouhal numbers
29
f = 350 Hz
f = 400 Hz
Time-averaged vorticity iso-contours
near the wall of the airfoil
Time-averaged aerodynamic coefficients –
comparison between morphing actuation and
static case performance at various frequencies
between 70 Hz and 500 Hz
32
Drag evolution
Lift evolution
Lift to Drag evolution
Time-averaged aerodynamic coefficients –
comparison between morphing actuation and
static case performance at various frequencies
between 500 Hz and 1500 Hz
33
Drag evolution
Lift evolution
Lift to Drag evolution