1

CFD Open Series/Patch 2.65

ag

Aerodynamic Basics

Edited & Adapted by : Ideen Sadrehaghighi

Airfoil Aerodynamics

Flow Over a
Supersonic Blunt Body

ANNAPOLIS, MD
 2

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
1.2 Motivation .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
1.2.1 Aerodynamic Heating in Re-entry Body ............................................................................ 12
1.3 From Subsonic to Hypersonic Wings .......................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Aerodynamic Flow Control ............................................................................................................................. 14
1.4.1 References ......................................................................................................................... 15

2 Viscous Flow ............................................................................................................................... 17

2.1 Qualitative Aspects of Viscous Flow ............................................................................................................ 17
2.1.1 No-Slip Wall Condition....................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2 Flow Separation ................................................................................................................. 17
2.1.2.1 Supersonic Laminar Flow.............................................................................................................. 18
2.1.3 Skin Friction and Skin Friction Coefficient ......................................................................... 19
2.1.3.1 Case Study - Image-Based Modelling of the Skin-Friction Coefficient ........................ 20
2.1.3.1.1 Inclined Structures and Drag Production................................................................... 20
2.1.3.1.2 Reference ................................................................................................................................. 22
2.1.4 Aerodynamic Heating ........................................................................................................ 22
2.1.5 Reynolds Number .............................................................................................................. 23
2.1.6 Reynolds Number Effects in Reduced Model .................................................................... 23
2.1.7 Case Study - Scaling and Skin Friction Estimation in Flight using Reynold Number .......... 24
2.1.7.1 Interaction Between Shock Wave and Boundary Layer ................................................... 25
2.1.7.2 Reynolds Number Scaling ............................................................................................................. 25
2.1.7.3 Discrepancy in Flight Performance and Wind Tunnel Testing ...................................... 26
2.1.7.4 Flow Separation Type (A - B) ....................................................................................................... 27
2.1.7.5 Over-Sensitive Prediction in Flight Performance................................................................ 28
2.1.7.6 Aerodynamic Prediction ................................................................................................................ 29
2.1.7.7 Skin Friction Estimation ................................................................................................................ 29

3 Aerodynamics Distinction...................................................................................................... 32
3.1 Aerodynamic Practical Application ............................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Physics of Aerodynamic Lift ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.2.1 Do Recent Explanations Solve The Mysteries of Aerodynamic Lift? ................................. 33
3.2.2 Two Competing Theories ................................................................................................... 34
3.2.3 The Flawed Classics ........................................................................................................... 34
3.2.3.1 Bernoulli's Theorem ........................................................................................................................ 35
3.2.3.2 Newton's 3rd Law ............................................................................................................................. 35
3.2.4 New Ideas of Lift ................................................................................................................ 35
3.2.4.1 Co-Dependency of Lift's Four Elements .................................................................................. 35
3.2.4.2 How Low Pressure Forms Above The Wing .......................................................................... 36
3.2.5 Historical Understanding ................................................................................................... 37
3.2.6 Toward a Complete Theory of Lift ..................................................................................... 37
3.2.7 Turning on the Reciprocity of Lift ...................................................................................... 38
3.3 Drag Estimation ................................................................................................................................................... 39
3.3.1 Induced Drag...................................................................................................................... 40
 3

3.3.2 Friction/Form Drag ............................................................................................................ 41

3.3.3 Drag - A Major Concern for Car Manufacturers and Beyond ............................................ 41
3.3.3.1 Experiments on Bluff Bodies........................................................................................................ 42
3.3.3.2 Wake Flow Behind a Bluff Body ................................................................................................. 42
3.3.3.3 Drag Variation with the Slant Angle.......................................................................................... 43
3.3.3.4 References ........................................................................................................................................... 43
3.3.4 Case Study - Aerodynamic Study of a Drag Reduction System and Its Actuation System
for a Formula Student Competition Car ........................................................................................... 44
3.3.4.1 Abstract................................................................................................................................................. 44
3.3.4.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 45
3.3.4.3 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................... 46
3.3.4.3.1 Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 46
3.3.4.3.2 Actuator .................................................................................................................................... 48
3.3.4.3.3 CFD Domain ............................................................................................................................ 48
3.3.4.4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.4.4.1 S1123 Profile (2D) ............................................................................................................... 50
3.3.4.4.2 S1123 Multi-Element Profile ........................................................................................... 51
3.3.4.4.3 S1123 Multi-Element 3D Wing without Actuator ................................................... 53
3.3.4.4.4 S1123 Multi-Element 3D Wing with Actuator .......................................................... 53
3.3.4.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 55
3.3.4.6 References ........................................................................................................................................... 56
3.4 Aerodynamic Forces and Moments ............................................................................................................. 57
3.5 Leading-Edge Flow as a Governing Factor in Leading-Edge Vortex (LEV) Initiation in
Unsteady Airfoil Flows .................................................................................................................................................. 58
3.5.1 Identification of LEV Initiation From CFD Data .................................................................. 59
3.6 Measure of Compressibility & Compressible vs. Incompressible Flows ...................................... 59
3.7 Speed of Sound ..................................................................................................................................................... 60
3.8 Sonic Boom ............................................................................................................................................................ 60
3.8.1 Propagation of Sonic Boom .............................................................................................. 61
3.8.2 Reference........................................................................................................................... 62
3.9 Mach Number........................................................................................................................................................ 63
3.9.1 Flow Regions Based on Mach Number .............................................................................. 64
3.9.1.1 Subsonic Flow (M < 1 everywhere) .......................................................................................... 64
3.9.1.2 Transonic Flow (Mixed Regions Here M < 1 and M > 1) .................................................. 64
3.9.1.3 Supersonic Flow (M > 1 Everywhere)..................................................................................... 65
3.9.1.4 Hypersonic Flow (M ≥ 5) ............................................................................................................... 66
3.9.1.4.1 Characteristics of Hypersonic Atmosphere .............................................................. 66
3.9.1.4.2 Re-entry Vehicles (RV) ....................................................................................................... 67
3.9.1.4.3 Cruise and Acceleration Vehicle (CAV) ....................................................................... 67
3.9.1.4.4 Ascent and Reentry Vehicles (ARV) .............................................................................. 67
3.9.1.4.5 Aero assisted Orbit Transfer Vehicle (AOTV) ........................................................... 67
3.9.1.5 Physics of Hypersonic Flow Regime ......................................................................................... 67
3.9.1.5.1 Thin Shock Layers ................................................................................................................ 67
3.9.1.5.2 Entropy Layer ........................................................................................................................ 68
3.9.1.5.3 Viscous Interaction .............................................................................................................. 68
3.9.1.5.4 High-Temperature Flows .................................................................................................. 68
3.9.1.5.5 Low-Density Flow ................................................................................................................ 69
3.10 Case Study 1 - A Data Fusion Method using Combined Variable Fidelity Modeling and
Space Mapping for Aerodynamic Database .......................................................................................................... 71
 4

3.10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 71

3.10.2 High & Low Fidelity Data for Numerical Example.............................................................. 71
3.10.3 VFM Airfoil Prediction ....................................................................................................... 72
3.10.4 SM and VFM Combined Airfoil Prediction ......................................................................... 73
3.11 Case Study 2 – Nature Aerodynamic Lift From the Tail Reduces Drag as Relates to Birds
74
3.11.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 74
3.11.2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 74
3.11.3 Experimental Setup ........................................................................................................... 76
3.11.3.1 Vortex Structure Identification Using the Q-Criterion ................................................ 76
3.11.3.2 Downwash Calculation ............................................................................................................. 76
3.11.3.3 Bird Planform ............................................................................................................................... 77
3.11.4 Results ............................................................................................................................... 77
3.11.4.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 78
3.11.4.2 Derived Downwash Results and Discussion ................................................................... 80
3.11.4.3 Further Caveats and Comments ........................................................................................... 81
3.11.4.3.1 Note on Passive Longitudinal Stability ....................................................................... 81
3.11.4.3.2 Note on Non-Elliptical Loading for Induced Drag Minimization ...................... 82
3.11.5 References ......................................................................................................................... 82

4 Shock Waves ............................................................................................................................... 85

4.1 Preliminaries ......................................................................................................................................................... 85
4.1.1 Attached vs. Detached Shocks........................................................................................... 86
4.1.2 References ......................................................................................................................... 88
4.2 Difficulties in Shock Wave Detection .......................................................................................................... 89
4.3 Traditional Shock Detection Methods ........................................................................................................ 90
4.4 Compressible 1D Shock Waves Relations ................................................................................................. 91
4.5 Quasi -1D Correlation Applied to Variable Area Ducts ........................................................................ 93
4.6 Oblique Shock Crossing Interaction ............................................................................................................ 94
4.6.1 Experimental Data ............................................................................................................. 95
4.6.2 Case Study 1 – 2D Oblique Shock Crossing Numerical Simulations .................................. 95
4.6.2.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 96
4.6.3 Case Study 2 - Unsteady 3D Numerical Study of Laminar Flow in Sudden Expansion
Channel (Effect of Aspect Ratio) ....................................................................................................... 97
4.6.4 Case Study 3 – Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation .................. 98
4.6.4.1 Abstract................................................................................................................................................. 98
4.6.4.2 Background and Literature Survey ........................................................................................... 98
4.6.4.3 Experimental Setup for Flow Facility .................................................................................... 100
4.6.4.4 Results of Plume Pitot Pressure .............................................................................................. 101
4.6.4.5 Wall Pressure Statistics ............................................................................................................... 101
4.6.4.6 Correlations Between Wall Pressure Ports ....................................................................... 102
4.6.4.7 Correlations Between Wall Pressure Ports and Dynamic Pitot Probe .................... 102
4.6.4.8 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................... 103
4.6.4.9 References ........................................................................................................................................ 104
4.6.5 Case Study 4 - Three-Dimensional Passive and Active Control Methods of Shock Wave
Train Physics in a Duct .................................................................................................................... 104
4.6.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 105
4.6.5.2 Mathematical Model ..................................................................................................................... 107
4.6.5.2.1 Precision Estimates .......................................................................................................... 107
 5

4.6.5.3 Geometry and Boundary Condition ....................................................................................... 109

4.6.5.4 Result and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 109
4.6.5.4.1 Grid Properties ................................................................................................................... 109
4.6.5.4.2 Validation of current numerical method ................................................................. 110
4.6.5.4.3 Bump....................................................................................................................................... 111
4.6.5.4.4 Passive Cavity...................................................................................................................... 112
4.6.5.4.5 Suction ................................................................................................................................... 114
4.6.5.4.6 Blowing .................................................................................................................................. 116
4.6.5.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 117
4.6.5.6 References ........................................................................................................................................ 117
4.7 Effect of Heating Loads on Shock-Shock Interaction in Hypersonic Flows.............................. 120
4.7.1 Case Study – University of Buffalo Research Center (CUBRC) Test Case ........................ 121
4.7.1.1 Computational Contributions ................................................................................................... 122
4.7.1.2 Computational Results ................................................................................................................ 123

List of Tables
Table 3.3.1 Boundary conditions ................................................................................................................................ 48
Table 3.3.2 Aerodynamic study of the angles of attack of the multi-element profile ........................... 51
Table 3.9.1 Classification of Mach Number ............................................................................................................ 63
Table 3.10.1 Prediction Error....................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 3.11.1 Mean (±s.d.) morphology, flight and Aerodynamic parameters for the three study
individuals, each for three flights ................................................................................................................................... 77
Table 4.6.1 Theoretical Detachment D and Neumann N Conditions Q the Flow Deflection Angle
and a is the Shock-Wave Angle ........................................................................................................................................ 95
Table 4.6.2 Nomenclature for Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation .......... 98
Table 4.6.3 Boundary condition applied to the nozzle ................................................................................... 109
Table 4.6.4 Results of the grid study ...................................................................................................................... 109
Table 4.6.5 Bump Dimensions .................................................................................................................................. 111
Table 4.6.6 Summary results of applying the suction ..................................................................................... 114
Table 4.7.1 CUBRC Test Conditions (V, H, SGL, R in inches) ......................................................................... 122

List of Figures
Figure 1.2.1 Flow over a Supersonic Blunt Body ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 1.2.2 Energy of re-entry goes into heating both the body and the air around the body
(Aerodynamic Heating) – Courtesy of (Anderson Jr., 2011) .............................................................................. 12
Figure 1.2.3 Contrast of aerodynamic heating for slender .............................................................................. 13
Figure 1.3.1 Optimal Aerodynamic Configuration At Different Speed Ranges ........................................ 14
Figure 1.4.1 The Aircraft Pedigree (Courtesy of Küchemann) ...................................................................... 14
Figure 1.4.2 A sketch of Passive Flow Controls using vortex generator rows [2,3] .............................. 15
Figure 1.4.3 Representation sketch of Passive Flow Controls using the flow vane [2,3] .................... 15
Figure 2.1.1 Boundary Layer Flow along a Wall................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.1.2 Airflow Separating from a Wing at a High Angle of Attack..................................................... 17
Figure 2.1.3 Drag on Slender & Blunt Bodies ........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2.1.4 The Porous Titanium LFC Glove is Clearly .................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.1.5 Illustrating the calculation of Skin Friction – Courtesy of John D. Anderson Jr. ............ 19
Figure 2.1.6 Evolutionary geometry of vortical or scalar structures, sketched by the ellipses with
different scales and inclination angles, in the boundary-layer transition, along with the rise of the
skin-friction coefficient Cf .................................................................................................................................................. 20
 6

Figure 2.1.7 Diagram of the geometry of material surfaces and typical vortex lines near the
surfaces, along with the rise of cf . Solid lines denote vortex lines, and solid vectors n_ denote the
normal of material surfaces. ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 2.1.8 The contour of the Lagrangian wall-normal displacement ΔY and contour lines for the
strong shear layers on the x–y plane in the transitional region at M∞ = 6. .................................................... 21
Figure 2.1.9 Quantitate Aspects of Viscous Flow ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2.1.10 Effects of Reynolds Number in Inertia vs Viscosity ................................................................ 23
Figure 2.1.11 Drag Coefficient versus Reynolds Number for a 1:5 Model and a Car (Courtesy of 35)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.1.12 Flow features sensitive to Reynolds number for a cruise condition on a wing section
....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.1.13 Schematic representation of direct and indirect Reynolds number effects ................. 25
Figure 2.1.14 Comparison of C-141 Wing Pressure Distributions Between Wind Tunnel and Flight
....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.1.15 Standard NACA 64-series airfoil compared with a supercritical airfoil at cruise lift
conditions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.3.1 Typical Drag Breakdown Terminology ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.3.2 Pressure & viscous drag w.r.t. Mach number ............................................................................... 41
Figure 3.3.3 Aircraft section contributions to total drag at different Mach numbers........................... 41
Figure 3.3.4 The Ahmed bluff body............................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 3.3.5 Wake flow behavior behind Ahmed’s bluff body ........................................................................ 43
Figure 3.3.6 Flowchart with the geometries analyzed and software used ................................................ 46
Figure 3.3.7 Case studies include: (a) simple profile; (b) multi-element profile; (c) 3D Wing
without ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 3.3.8 (a) Actuator and (b) mechanism used to move the DRS system. Rods 2, 3, and 4
transform .................................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 3.3.9 Example of the mesh detail: (a) trailing edge of 2D profile and (b) 3D rear wing with
actuator...................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3.3.10 Analysis of mesh properties for three AoA: (a) 0, (b) 10, and (c) 12 degrees ............. 50
Figure 3.3.11 Comparison of XFOIL data with simulated results: (a) CL and (b) CD.............................. 51
Figure 3.3.12 (a) Speed contour and (b) pressure contour for the multi-element wing. From top to
bottom, different sections of the rear wing are represented .............................................................................. 52
Figure 3.3.13 Multi-element profile speed contour graph ............................................................................... 52
Figure 3.3.14 (a) Speed contour and (b) pressure contour for the multi-element wing with
actuators.................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3.3.15 Speed contour near the endplate zone: (a) closed DRS; (b) open DRS. ......................... 54
Figure 3.3.16 Path lines: (a) closed DRS; (b) open DRS .................................................................................... 55
Figure 3.4.1 Schematic of Lift and Drag ................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.5.1 Vorticity Plots from CFD (first row), Flow Visualization from Experiment (second
row) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 3.8.1 Illustration of a Sonic Boom as Received by Human Ears....................................................... 60
Figure 3.8.2 Sonic-Boom Propagation [4] ............................................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.9.1 An F/A-18 Hornet Creating a Vapor Cone at Transonic Speed ............................................. 63
Figure 3.9.2 Block Diagram Categorizing the Types of ...................................................................................... 64
Figure 3.9.3 Different Regimes of Flow (Courtesy of John D. Anderson) ................................................... 65
Figure 3.10.1 Inputs of Coefficients for Numerical Examples, lift(a), Drag (b), Moment (c) ............. 72
Figure 3.10.2 Lift and Moment Coefficients Maximum Error Location ...................................................... 73
Figure 3.10.3 SM+VFM Method Lift Coefficient Prediction.............................................................................. 73
 7

Figure 3.11.1 Air motions caused by gliding raptors visualized with bubbles. Photographs of a
gliding barn owl (top), tawny owl (middle) and goshawk (bottom) as, or narrowly after, they
passed through ....................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 3.11.2 Post hoc hypotheses for competing models of tail function in steady gliding – [see
103] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 3.11.3 An example reconstruction of vortex structures behind a gliding tawny Owl ............ 77
Figure 3.11.4 Comparison of Competing Models of Drag Minimization (see 105) ................................ 79
Figure 3.11.5 Measured downwash quantitatively agrees with a significant role for viscous drag
minimization and qualitatively refutes alternative hypotheses of tail function in gliding ..................... 81
Figure 4.1.1 Evolution of Shock Wave ...................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 4.1.2 Contour Concentration Examples at M = 5 ; From Left to Right ; (a) Mach number (b)
Pressure (c) Density (d) Temperature ........................................................................................................................ 85
Figure 4.1.3 Two U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School T-38 Aircraft Fly in Formation ................................. 86
Figure 4.1.4 Schematics of attached and detached shock waves: (a) attached shock wave; (b)
detached shock wave. .......................................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 4.1.5 Illustration of inviscid and viscous flows through a triangular wedge: (a) inviscid
flow; (b) viscous flow. .......................................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.3.1 Solution of Shock Capturing for Euler Equations ...................................................................... 90
Figure 4.4.1 Qualitative Depiction of 1D Flow Through Normal and Oblique Shocks.......................... 91
Figure 4.4.2 Oblique Shock Reflections (Train) on a Channel Flow (M∞ = 2 AoA = 15˚) ................... 92
Figure 4.4.3 Normal Shock Train Structure on a 2D Constant Area Channel (M∞ =1.61, AoA = 0∘) -
Courtesy of Mogan et al.) .................................................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.5.1 Compressible Flow in Converging-Diverging Ducts (Nozzles and Diffusers) ................ 93
Figure 4.5.2 Oblique Shock Relationship ................................................................................................................. 94
Figure 4.6.1 Schematic of the Experimental Configuration used by the Ivanov Group and Sample
Laser Light-Sheet Visualization from the same M = 4, α =37 degrees, b/w =3.75, g/w =0.3................ 95
Figure 4.6.2 Isobars Demonstrating Hysteresis in 2D Simulations of (Schmisseur and Gaitonde) 96
Figure 4.6.3 Schematic of Sudden Expansion with the Boundary Condition .......................................... 97
Figure 4.6.4 Velocity Profile with the High of Channel at Different Aspect Ratio .................................. 97
Figure 4.6.5 Primary Jet Flow at Mach 0.9 Surrounded by an annular secondary flow at Nozzle
Pressure Ratio NPR =1.7 (a) Secondary Nozzle is Convergent; (b) Secondary Nozzle is Convergent-
Divergent – (Courtesy of 36) .............................................................................................................................................. 99
Figure 4.6.6 Schematic of Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation (Top), vs. schlieren Image (Bottom) ,
(Courtesy of Papamoschou, D., Zill) – (Courtesy of 36) ........................................................................................ 100
Figure 4.6.7 RMS Total Pressure Profile of Jet Plume at x/he = 0.5 for Straight Nozzle (Ae/At =1)
and Convergent-Divergent Nozzle (Ae/At =1.6) – (Courtesy of 36) ................................................................. 101
Figure 4.6.8 RMS Wall Static Pressure Fluctuation vs. Nozzle Pressure Ratio Presenting Different
Flow Regimes – Courtesy of 36 ....................................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 4.6.9 Cross Correlations of Upper and Lower Wall Transducers for Various Flow Regimes –
Courtesy of 36 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 102
Figure 4.6.10 Coherence Between Upper and Lower Walls (C12), DPP and Lower Wall (C13), and
DPP and Upper Wall (C23) – Courtesy of 36 ............................................................................................................... 102
Figure 4.6.11 Translation Paths of Dynamic Pitot Probe (DPP). Red Points Indicate Measurement
Locations – Courtesy of 36................................................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 4.6.12 A schematic of a shock train system [Segal, 2009]............................................................... 105
Figure 4.6.13 Sketch of the nozzle geometry considered in the present work, X-axis starts at the
throat ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4.6.14 Comparison between the current numerical solutions and experimental data of
Weiss et al. 2009] ............................................................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 4.6.15 Wall pressure distributions for cases with and without bump....................................... 109
 8

Figure 4.6.16 Shadowgraph contours for cases with bump ......................................................................... 111
Figure 4.6.17 (a) Wall pressure distributions and (b) centerline Mach number with and without
cavity........................................................................................................................................................................................ 113
Figure 4.6.18 Shock wave distributions for cases with and without cavity........................................... 113
Figure 4.6.19 Mach number distributions for various DSRs ........................................................................ 114
Figure 4.6.20 Shadowgraph contours for various DSRs ................................................................................ 115
Figure 4.6.21 Wall pressure distributions of various DBRs ......................................................................... 116
Figure 4.6.22 Shadowgraph contours for various DBRs ................................................................................ 116
Figure 4.7.1 Schematic of Edney Type IV Shock-Shock Interaction .......................................................... 120
Figure 4.7.2 Schematic of the CUBRC Edney IV Interaction Generator (Courtesy of Holden) ...... 121
Figure 4.7.3 Experimental and Numerical Results for the Conditions of CUBRC Run #38 ............. 123
Figure 4.7.4 Contours of Constant Translational Temperature for; a) Navier-Stokes and b) DSMC
Solutions for CUBRC Run #44 ....................................................................................................................................... 124
 9

Preface
This note is intended for all undergraduate, graduate, and scholars of Fluid Mechanics. It is not
completed and never claims to be as such. Therefore, all the comments are greatly appreciated. In
assembling that, I was influenced with sources from my textbooks, papers, and materials that I
deemed to be important. At best, it could be used as a reference. I also would like to express my
appreciation to several people who have given thoughts and time to the development of this article.
Special thanks should be forwarded to the authors whose papers seemed relevant to topics, and
consequently, it appears here©. Finally I would like to thank my wife, Sudabeh for her understanding
and the hours she relinquished to me. Their continuous support and encouragement are greatly
appreciated.

Ideen Sadrehaghighi
June 2018
 10

1 Introduction
1.1 Definitions
Aerodynamics is the study of how gases interact with moving bodies. Because the gas that we
encounter most is air, aerodynamics is primarily concerned with the forces of drag and lift, which are
caused by air passing over and around solid bodies1. Engineers apply the principles of aerodynamics
to the designs of many different things, including buildings, bridges and even soccer balls; however,
of primary concern is the aerodynamics of aircraft and automobiles. Aerodynamics comes into play
in the study of flight and the science of building and operating an aircraft, which is called
aeronautics. Aeronautical engineers use the fundamentals of aerodynamics to design aircraft that
fly through the Earth's atmosphere.
In another similar definition from Wikipedia, aerodynamics is defined as the study of motion of air,
particularly as interaction with a solid object, such as an airplane wing. It is a sub-field of fluid
dynamics and gas dynamics, and many aspects of aerodynamics theory are common to these fields.
The term aerodynamics is often used synonymously with gas dynamics, the difference being that "gas
dynamics" applies to the study of the motion of all gases, and is not limited to air. The formal study
of aerodynamics began in the modern sense in the eighteenth century, although observations of
fundamental concepts such as aerodynamic drag were recorded much earlier. Most of the early
efforts in aerodynamics were directed toward achieving heavier-than-air flight, which was first
demonstrated by Otto Lilienthal in 1891. Since then, the use of aerodynamics through mathematical
analysis, empirical approximations, wind tunnel experimentation, and computer simulations has
formed a rational basis for the development of heavier-than-air flight and a number of other
technologies. Recent work in aerodynamics has focused on issues related to compressible flow,
turbulence, and boundary layers and has become increasingly computational in nature.

1.2 Motivation
Imagine that you are an aeronautical engineer in the later 1950s. You have been given the task of
designing an atmospheric entry vehicle in those days it would have been an intercontinental ballistic
missile2. You are well aware of the fact that such vehicles will enter the earth’s atmosphere at very
high velocities, about 7.9 km/s for entry from earth orbit and about 11.2 km/s for entry after
returning from a lunar mission. At these extreme hypersonic speeds, aerodynamic heating of the
entry vehicle becomes very severe, and is the dominant concern in the design of such vehicles.
Therefore, you know that your task involves the design of a blunt body for hypersonic speed.
Moreover, you know from supersonic wind tunnel experiments that the flow field over the blunt body
is qualitatively like that sketched in Figure 1.2.1. You know that a strong curved bow shock wave
sits in front of the blunt nose, detached from the nose by the distance δ, called the shock detachment
distance. You know that the gas temperatures between the shock and the body can be as high as
7000K for an ICBM, and 11000K for entry from a lunar mission.
And you know that you must understand some of the details of this flow field in order to intelligently
design the entry vehicle. So, your first logical step is to perform an analysis of the aerodynamic flow
over a blunt body in order to provide detailed information on the pressure and heat transfer
distributions over the body surface, and to examine the properties of the high temperature shock
layer between the bow shock wave and the body. You ask such questions as: what is the shape of the
bow shock wave; what is the detachment distance δ; what are the velocity, temperature and pressure
distributions throughout the shock layer, etc.? However, much to your dismay, you find that no

1Live Science Web Page.

2 John D. Anderson Jr., Joris Degroote, G´erard Degrez, Erik Dick, Roger Grundmann and Jan Vierendeels,
“Computational Fluid Dynamics - An Introduction”, 3rd Edition, ISBN: 978-3-540-85055-7, 2009.
 11

reliable, accurate aerodynamic theory exists to answer your questions. You quickly discover that an
accurate and practical analysis of supersonic blunt body flows is beyond your current state-of-the-
art. As a result, you ultimately resort to empirical information along with some simplified but
approximate theories (such as Newtonian theory) in order to carry out your designated task of
designing the entry vehicle.
The above paragraph illustrates one of the most important, yet perplexing, aerodynamic problems of
the 1950s and early 1960s. The application of blunt bodies had become extremely important due to
the advent of ICBMs, and later the manned space program. Yet, no aerodynamic theory existed to
properly calculate the flow over such bodies. Indeed, entire sessions of technical meetings (such as
meetings of the Institute for Aeronautical Sciences in the USA, later to become the American Institute
for Aeronautics and Astronautics) were devoted exclusively to research on the supersonic blunt body
problem. Moreover, some of the best aerodynamicists of that day spent their time on this problem,
funded and strongly encouraged by the NACA (later NASA), the US Air Force and others. What was
causing the difficulty? Why was the flow field over a body moving at supersonic and hypersonic
speeds so hard to calculate? The answer rests basically in the sketch shown in Figure 1.2.1, which
illustrates the steady flow over a supersonic blunt body. The region of steady flow near the nose
region behind the shock is locally subsonic, and hence is governed by elliptic partial differential
equations. In contrast, the flow
further downstream of the nose
becomes supersonic, and this
locally steady supersonic flow is
governed by hyperbolic partial
differential equations. (What is
meant by ‘elliptic’ and
‘hyperbolic’ equations, and the
mathematical distinction
between them, will be discussed
them later). The dividing line
between the subsonic and
supersonic regions is called the
sonic line, as sketched in Figure
1.2.1.
The change in the mathematical
behavior of the governing
equations from elliptic in the Figure 1.2.1 Flow over a Supersonic Blunt Body
subsonic region to hyperbolic in
the supersonic region made a
consistent mathematical analysis, which included both regions, virtually impossible to obtain.
Techniques were developed for just the subsonic portion, and other techniques (such as the standard
‘method of characteristics’) were developed for the supersonic region. Unfortunately, the proper
patching of these different techniques
through the transonic region around the sonic line was extremely difficult. Hence, as late as the mid-
1960s, no uniformly valid aerodynamic technique existed to treat the entire flow field over the blunt
body. This situation was clearly noted in the classic textbook by [Liepmann and Roshko]3 published
in 1957, where in a discussion of blunt body they state: The shock shape and detachment distance
cannot, at present, be theoretically predicted. The purpose of this lengthy discussion on the status
of the blunt body problem in the late 1950s is to set the background for the following important point.
In 1966, a breakthrough occurred in the blunt body problem. Using the developing power of

3 Liepmann, H.W. and Roshko, A., “Elements of Gas dynamics”, Wiley, New York, 1957.
 12

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) at that time, and employing the concept of a ‘time-
dependent’ approach to the steady state, [Moretti and Abbett] 4 developed a numerical, finite-
difference solution to the supersonic blunt body problem which constituted the first practical,
straightforward engineering solution for this flow. After 1966, the blunt body problem was no longer
a real problem. Industry and government laboratories quickly adopted this computational technique
for their blunt body analyses. Perhaps the most striking aspect of this comparison is that the
supersonic blunt body problem, which was one of the most serious, most difficult, and most
researched theoretical aerodynamic problems of the 1950s and 1960s, is today assigned as a
homework problem in a computational fluid dynamics graduate course at the University of Maryland.
Therein lies an example of the power of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The above example
concerning blunt body flows serves to illustrate the importance of computational fluid dynamics to
modern aerodynamic applications. Here is an important problem which was impossible to solve in a
practical fashion before the advent of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), but which is now tractable
and straightforward using the modern techniques of CFD. Indeed, this is but one example out of many
where CFD is revolutionizing the world of aerodynamics.
1.2.1 Aerodynamic Heating in Re-entry Body
According to (Anderson Jr., 2011)5, in 1951, a major breakthroughs in aerospace engineering was
created by H. Julian Allen at the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) Ames
Aeronautical Laboratory. He introduced the concept of the blunt re-entry body. His thinking was
paced by the following concepts. At the beginning of re-entry, near the outer edge of the atmosphere,
the vehicle has a large amount of kinetic energy due to its high velocity and a large amount of
potential energy due to its high altitude. However, by the time the vehicle reaches the surface of the
earth, its velocity is relatively small and its altitude is zero; hence, it has virtually no kinetic or
potential energy. Where has all the energy gone? The answer is that it has gone into
1. heating the body and
2. heating the airflow around the body.
This mainly called Aerodynamic
Heating and will be discussed later
(Figure 1.2.2). Here, the shock
wave from the nose of the vehicle
heats the airflow around the vehicle;
at the same time, the vehicle is heated
by the intense frictional dissipation
within the boundary layer on the
surface. Allen reasoned that if more
of the total re-entry energy could be
dumped into the airflow, then less
would be available to be transferred
to the vehicle itself in the form of
heating. In turn, the way to increase
the heating of the airflow is to create
a stronger shock wave at the nose Figure 1.2.2 Energy of re-entry goes into heating both the
(i.e., to use a blunt-nosed body). The body and the air around the body (Aerodynamic Heating) –
contrast between slender and blunt Courtesy of (Anderson Jr., 2011)
reentry bodies is illustrated in

4 Moretti, G. and Abbett, M., ‘A Time-Dependent Computational Method for Blunt Body Flows,’ AIAA Journal, Vol.
No. 12, December 1966, pp. 2136–2141.
5 Anderson Jr., J. D. (2011). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill
 13

Figure 1.2.3. This was a stunning

conclusion to minimize aerodynamic
heating, you actually want a blunt
rather than a slender body. The result
was so important that it was bottled up
in a secret government document.
Moreover, because it was so foreign to
contemporary intuition, the blunt-
reentry-body concept was accepted
only gradually by the technical
community.

1.3 From Subsonic to

Hypersonic Wings
The aerodynamic characteristics of an
aircraft are closely related to its flight
speed range 6 . As shown in Figure
1.3.1 and Figure 1.4.1 7 , the
optimized aerodynamic configurations
are quite different in different speed
ranges. Therefore, combining the
configuration characteristics of the
aircraft in different flight speed ranges
can be used as a development idea to
find the optimal wide speed range
wave rider configuration. To this end,
a good understanding of the non-linear
behavior of the vortex generated lift as
discussed in is very important. As Figure 1.2.3 Contrast of aerodynamic heating for slender
discussed in Ref. 8 , the aerodynamic and blunt reentry vehicles. (a) Slender reentry body.
performance of the wave rider is (b) Blunt reentry body. Courtesy of (Anderson Jr., 2011)
closely related to the aerodynamic
state of its leading edge, that is, to the
average aspect ratio of the wave rider. When the leading edge of the wave rider is subsonic, the flow
field exhibits typical characteristics of a subsonic flow field, and its lift is mainly derived from leading
edge vortices near the leading edge of the upper surface. On the other hand, when the leading edge
is supersonic, the compression effect of the shock near the leading edge becomes the main source of
the lift of the wave rider. Therefore, another development idea of the wide-speed range wave rider
is to analyze and study the characteristics of vortex flow around the wave rider, and then design a
wave rider which can effectively employ the vortex effect to improve the subsonic performance and
the shock effect to improve the super/hypersonic performance, respectively. For example, the study
in Ref. 9 is a design that combines vortex lift and compression lift to improve the aerodynamic

6 Zhen-tao Zhao, Wei Huang,Li Yan, Yan-guang Yang,, “An overview of research on wide-speed range wave rider

configuration”, Article in Progress in Aerospace Sciences · February 2020.

7 Küchemann D. The aerodynamic design of aircraft. Pergamon Press, 1978.
8 Li WD, Ding H H, Wang F M. Research on aerodynamic characteristics of wave rider-based vehicles flying at low-

Mach states. Journal of Astronautics, 2010, 31(5): 1283-1288 (in Chinese).

9 Liu C Z, Liu Q, Bai P, et al. Planform-customized wave rider design integrating with vortex effect. Aerospace

Science and Technology, 2019,86: 438-443.

 14

performance of the wave rider

over a wide-speed range.

1.4 Aerodynamic Flow

Control
Aerodynamic flow control is the
practice of manipulating a flow
field through some form of
actuation or interaction to
produce a desired change in the
flow behavior [1]. This process
commonly involves forced
changes to flow structures, mixing
behavior, or momentum injection
in the flow field to produce more
desirable performance Figure 1.3.1 Optimal Aerodynamic Configuration At Different
characteristics from an Speed Ranges
aerodynamic geometry.
Historically, flow control has been
used to delay laminar-turbulent transition, postpone boundary-layer separation, enhance lift and/or
reduce drag of an aerodynamic body, augment turbulent mixing, and suppress noise. Aerodynamic
flow control can be introduced passively through the addition or modification of surface
features, such as vortex generator [5], vanes, dimpled surface textures (Figure 1.4.2 & Figure
1.4.3), or serrated trailing-edge geometries and geometric shape optimization. Flow control
can also be performed actively,
where some actuation device is
utilized to modify the flow
field. Examples of common
actuation devices include
pneumatic systems (surface
suction and blowing), plasma
actuation, and electromagnetic
or piezoelectric driven
cavities.
Flow control can be utilized to
enable substantial improvements
in aerodynamic performance,
making it an appealing
technology for future air vehicle
development. In commercial
transport systems, active flow
control can be used to achieve
greater lift at lower speeds or
greater control authority
provided by control surfaces.
These factors can lead to
substantial reductions in the Figure 1.4.1 The Aircraft Pedigree (Courtesy of Küchemann)
weight and complexity of vehicle
systems, which subsequently
 15

results in improved vehicle

fuel efficiency. In military
aircraft, the performance
enhancements offered by
aerodynamic flow control
open a new realm of
operational capabilities,
including shorter takeoff field
requirements and increased
vehicle agility.
The essential difference
between active and passive Figure 1.4.2 A sketch of Passive Flow Controls using vortex
generator rows [2,3]
flow control techniques is that
some sort of energy input is
necessary for active flow
control to manipulate the
flow, while passive flow
control methods manipulate
the flow by not requiring any
exterior energy resources (no
control loop)[2]. Shagufta et
al. [4] provides an excellent
source on discussing the
subject.
1.4.1 References
[1] University of Illinois
Urbana Champaign, The Figure 1.4.3 Representation sketch of Passive Flow Controls using
Grainger College of the flow vane [2,3]
Engineering, Aerospace
Engineering.
[2] From The Edited Volume, Autonomous Vehicles, Edited By George Dekoulis, IntechOpen Limited,
London, UK.
[3] Pechlivanoglou G. Passive and Active Flow Control Solutions for Wind Turbine Blades. 2013.
[4] Shagufta Rashid, Fahad Nawaz, Adnan Maqsood, Shuaib Salamat, Rizwan Riaz, “Review of wave
drag reduction techniques: Advances in active, passive, and hybrid flow control”, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, First Published 2022.
[5] M. Manolesos, L. Chng, N. Kaufmann, P. Ouro, D. Ntouras, G. Papadakis, Using vortex generators
for flow separation control on tidal turbine profiles and blades, Renewable Energy, Volume 205,
2023, Pages 1025-1039, ISSN 0960-1481, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.009.
16
 17

2 Viscous Flow
2.1 Qualitative Aspects of Viscous Flow
Viscous flow could be defined as a flow where the effects of viscous dissipation, thermal conductivity,
and mass diffusion are important and could not be ignored10. All are consequence of assuming a
viscous surface where the effects of friction, creating shear stress, on the surface are pronounced.
There are number of interesting and important conditions associated with viscous effect that should
be analyzed separately. In general, two regions to
consider, even the divisions between not very
sharp:
➢ A very thin layer in the intermediate
neighborhood of the body, δ, in which the
velocity gradient normal to the wall, ∂u/∂y,
is very large (Boundary Layer). In this
region the very small viscosity of μ of the
fluid exerts an essential influence in so far as
the shearing stress τ = μ (∂u/∂y) may
assume large value.
➢ In the remaining region no such a large
velocity gradient occurs and the influence of
viscosity is unimportant. In this region the Figure 2.1.1 Boundary Layer Flow along a
flow is frictionless and potential. Wall

The general form on boundary layer equations, shown in Figure 2.1.1, and their characteristic will
be discussed later.
2.1.1 No-Slip Wall Condition
Due to influence of friction, the velocity approaches zero on the surface and this is dominant factor
in viscous flows which could easily be observed. Or more precisely:

V fluid = V solid & T fluid = T solid

Eq. 2.1.1
2.1.2 Flow Separation
Another contribution due to friction and shear
stress is the effects of flow separation or adverse
pressure gradient. If the flow over a body is
turbulent, it is less likely to separate from the
body surface, and if flow separation does occur,
the separated region will be smaller (see Figure
2.1.2). As a result, the pressure drag due to flow
separation Dp will be smaller for turbulent flow.
Figure 2.1.2 Airflow Separating from a Wing at a
This discussion points out one of the great
High Angle of Attack
compromises in aerodynamics. For the flow
over a body, is laminar or turbulent flow
preferable? There is no pat answer; it depends on the shape of the body. In general, if the body is
slender, as sketched in Figure 2.1.3-a, the friction drag Df is much greater than Dp. For this case,
because Df is smaller for laminar than for turbulent flow, laminar flow is desirable for slender bodies.

10 White, Frank M. 1974: Viscous Fluid Flow, McGraw-Hill Inc.

 18

In contrast, if the body is

blunt, as sketched in
Figure 2.1.3-b, Dp is
much greater than Df . For
this case, because Dp is
smaller for turbulent than
for laminar flow, turbulent
flow is desirable for blunt
bodies.
The above comments are
not all-inclusive; they
simply state general
trends, and for any given
body, the aerodynamic Figure 2.1.3 Drag on Slender & Blunt Bodies
virtues of laminar versus
turbulent flow must
always be assessed. Although, from the above discussion, laminar flow is preferable for some cases,
and turbulent flow for other cases, in reality we have little control over what actually happens. Nature
makes the ultimate decision as to whether a flow when left to itself, will always move toward its state
of maximum disorder. To bring order to the system, we generally have to exert some work on the
system or expend energy in some manner. (This analogy can be carried over to daily life; a room will
soon become cluttered and disordered unless we exert some effort to keep it clean.) Since turbulent
flow is much more “disordered” than laminar flow, nature will always favor the occurrence of
turbulent flow. Indeed, in the vast majority
of practical aerodynamic problems,
turbulent flow is usually present11.
2.1.2.1 Supersonic Laminar Flow
In recent years, there was a tendency to
achieve laminar flow in supersonic speeds,
without violating Figure 2.1.4. The goal
was to investigate active and passive
Laminar Flow Control (LFC) as a
potential technology for a future High
Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) 12 . The
computation of boundary-layer properties
and laminar-to-turbulent transition
location is a complex problem generally
not undertaken in the context of aircraft
design13. Yet this is just what must be done
if an aircraft designer is to exploit the
advantages of laminar flow while making
the proper trade-offs between inviscid Figure 2.1.4 The Porous Titanium LFC Glove is Clearly
drag, structural weight and skin friction. seen on the Left Wing of test aircraft - NASA Photo
Potential benefits of laminar flow over an EC96-43548-7

11 John D. Anderson, Jr., “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007.
12 NASA TF-2004-12 DFRC.
13 Peter Sturdza, “An Aerodynamic Design Method For Supersonic Natural Laminar Flow Aircraft”, a dissertation

submitted to the department of aeronautics and astronautics and the committee on graduate studies of
Stanford university, December 2003.
 19

aircraft’s wings include increased range, improved fuel economy, and reduced aircraft weight. These
benefits add up to improved economic conditions, while also reducing the impact of exhaust
emissions in the upper atmosphere where a supersonic transport would normally operate.
Laminar conditions are hard to achieve and maintain. There are two basic techniques to achieve
laminar conditions: passive (without mechanical devices), and active (using suction devices).
Passive laminar flow can be achieved in the wing design process, but the laminar condition is
normally very small in relation to the wing’s cord and is usually confined to the leading edge region.
Passive laminar flow can also be created on an existing wing by altering the cross-sectional contour
of the lifting surface to change the pressure gradient. Both of these laminar conditions are called
natural laminar flow. Active control LFC must be used to achieve laminar flow across larger distances
from the leading edge. The main means of achieving active LFC is to remove a portion of the turbulent
boundary layer with a suction mechanism that uses porous material, slots in the wing, or tiny
perforations in the wing skin. Figure 2.1.4 displays the active mode of LFC with a suction system
beneath the wing’s surface was used to achieve laminar flow over 46 percent of the glove’s surface
while flying at a speed of Mach 2 in a successful demonstration of laminar flow at supersonic speeds.
Other methods include the boundary-layer analyses which are computationally inexpensive, as well
as, sufficiently accurate to provide guidance for advanced design studies. The boundary-layer solver
could be based on an enhanced quasi-3D sweep/taper theory which is revealed to agree well with
3D Navier-Stokes results14. The transition calculation scheme is implemented within the boundary-
layer solver and automatically triggers a turbulence model at the predicted transition front.
transition for a supersonic flight test.
2.1.3 Skin Friction and Skin Friction Coefficient
When the boundary layer equations are integrated, the velocity distribution can be deduced, and
point of separation can be determined. This in turn, permits us to calculate the viscous drag (skin
friction) around a surface by a simple process of integrating the shearing stress at the wall and
viscous drag for a 2D flow becomes:

∂u
Τw = μ ( )
∂y y=0
L
Df = b ∫ τw cos φ ds
s=o
Eq. 2.1.2
Where b denotes the height of cylindrical
body, φ is the angle between tangent to the
surface and the free-stream velocity U∞, and Figure 2.1.5 Illustrating the calculation of Skin
s is the coordinate measured along the Friction – Courtesy of John D. Anderson Jr.
surface, as shown in Figure 2.1.5. The
dimensionless friction coefficient Cf, is
commonly referred to the free-stream dynamic pressure as:

2τw
Cf = 2
ρU∞
Eq. 2.1.3

14 See Previous.
 20

2.1.3.1 Case Study - Image-Based Modelling of the Skin-Friction Coefficient

We develop a model of the skin-friction coefficient based on scalar images in the compressible,
spatially evolving boundary-layer transition [Zheng et al.]15. The multi-scale and multi-directional
geometric analysis is applied to characterize the averaged inclination angle of spatially evolving
filtered component fields at different scales ranging from a boundary-layer thickness to several
viscous length scales. The prediction of the skin-friction coefficient Cf in compressible boundary
layers is critically important for the design of high-speed vehicles and propulsion systems. The
boundary-layer transition has a strong influence on aerodynamic drag and heating, because much
higher friction and heating can be generated on the surface of aerospace vehicles in turbulent flows
than those in laminar flows. Despite considerable efforts in theoretical, experimental and numerical
studies, the reliable prediction of the skin friction coefficient in compressible boundary layers is still
very challenging [Zhong & Wang].
The theoretical study of the empirical formula of Cf in compressible boundary layers, in general, is
restricted to the laminar or fully developed turbulent state. The empirical formulae of Cf for
compressible laminar and turbulent boundary layers are transformed from their counterparts in
incompressible boundary layers.
In general, the averaged inclination angles increase along the streamwise direction, and the variation
of the angles for large-scale structures is smaller than that for small-scale structures. Inspired by the
coincidence of the increasing averaged inclination angle and the rise of the skin-friction coefficient,
The evolutionary geometry of coherent structures with different scales and inclination angles in the
laminar–turbulent transition is sketched in Figure 2.1.6, along with the rise of Cf . The superposition
of hierarchies of attached and inclined vortical structures is also suggested by the models (e.g. Perry
& Chong 1982; Marusic & Monty) based on the attached eddy hypothesis (Townsend).

Figure 2.1.6 Evolutionary geometry of vortical or scalar structures, sketched by the ellipses with
different scales and inclination angles, in the boundary-layer transition, along with the rise of the skin-
friction coefficient Cf

2.1.3.1.1 Inclined Structures and Drag Production

The relatively accurate prediction of Cf in the image-based model indicates that the generation of
inclined small-scale flow structures is closely related to the drag production. As sketched in Figure
2.1.7, one possible reason is that the lifts of material surfaces during the transition, which are good
surrogates of vortex surfaces consisting of vortex lines, can generate strong inclined shear layers

15Wenjie Zheng1, Shanxin Ruan, Yue Yang, Lin He and Shiyi Chen, “Image-based modelling of the skin-friction
coefficient in compressible boundary-layer transition”, J. Fluid Mech. (2019), vol. 875, pp. 1175_1203.
 21

[Zhao et al.] to increase Cf . Assume

the flow field is filled with wall-
parallel material surfaces in the
laminar state with all the surface
normal nϕ=⊽ϕ/|⊽ϕ| pointing to the
wall-normal direction.
In the transitional region, the near-
wall material surfaces are lifted due
to the growing streamwise
vorticity. This elevation event is
quantified by the wall-normal
Lagrangian displacement where Y
is the wall-normal location of a fluid Figure 2.1.7 Diagram of the geometry of material surfaces and
particle on a material surface. The typical vortex lines near the surfaces, along with the rise of cf .
displacement ΔY quantifies the Solid lines denote vortex lines, and solid vectors n_ denote the
scalar transport in the wall-normal normal of material surfaces.
direction within a time interval of
interest, and [Zhao et al.] define the Lagrangian events ‘elevation’ with ΔY > 0 and ‘descent’ with 1Y
< 0. The contour of ΔY and the contour lines of high shear ∂u/∂y in the transitional region are shown
in Figure 2.1.8.

Figure 2.1.8 The contour of the Lagrangian wall-normal displacement ΔY and contour lines for the
strong shear layers on the x–y plane in the transitional region at M∞ = 6.

In general, the inclined high shear layers cover the region with ΔY > 0, which is similar to the
observation in an incompressible temporal transitional channel flow in [Zhao et al.], because the
strong shear layer can be generated between the elevated low-speed fluid and the surrounding high-
speed fluid. Furthermore, the region with ΔY > 0, which also corresponds to the inclined scalar
structure with nϕ, deviates from the wall-normal direction as sketched in Figure 2.1.7, which can be
characterized as a finite < α > in the multi-directional analysis. Thus the inclined high shear layers
accelerate the momentum transport and produce the large Reynolds shear stress [Zhao et al.], which
can increase Cf implied by the relation between the Reynolds shear stress and Cf [Fukagata et al.;
Gomez, Flutet & Sagaut].
 22

2.1.3.1.2 Reference
• Zhong, X. & Wang, X. 2012 Direct numerical simulation on the receptivity, instability, and
transition of hypersonic boundary layers. Annual Rev. Fluid Mech. 44, 527–561.
• Perry, A. E. & Chong, M. S. 1982 On the mechanism of wall turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 119.
• Marusic, I. & Monty, J. P. 2019 Attached eddy model of wall turbulence. Annual Rev. Fluid Mech.
51, 49–74.
• Townsend, A. A. 1976 The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow, 2nd ed. Cambridge University
Press.
• Zhao, Y., Xiong, S., Yang, Y. & Chen, S. 2018 Sinuous distortion of vortex surfaces in the lateral
growth of turbulent spots. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 074701.
• Zhao, Y., Yang, Y. & Chen, S. 2016 Evolution of material surfaces in the temporal transition in
channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 793, 840–876.
• Fukagata, K., Iwamoto, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the
skin friction in wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 14, L73–76.
• Gomez, T., Flutet, V. & Sagaut, P. 2009 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin
friction in compressible turbulent channel flows. Phys. Rev. E 79, 035301.
2.1.4 Aerodynamic Heating
Another overall physical aspect of viscous flow is the influence of thermal conduction. On a fluid over
a surface, the moving fluid elements have certain amount of kinetic energy. As the flow velocity
decreases under influence of friction, the kinetic energy decreases 16 . This lost kinetic energy
reappears in the form on internal energy of the fluid, hence, causing temperature to rise. This
phenomenon is called viscous dissipation within the fluid. This temperature gradient between fluid
and surface would cause the transfer of heat from fluid to surface. This is called Aerodynamic
Heating of a body. Aerodynamic heating becomes more severe as the flow velocity increase, because
more kinetic energy is dissipated by friction, and hence, the temperature gradient increases. In fact
it is one of the dominant aspects of hypersonic flows. The block diagram of Figure 2.1.9,

Figure 2.1.9 Quantitate Aspects of Viscous Flow

16 Anderson, John D. 1984: “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hills Inc.

 23

summarizes these finding for viscous flow.

2.1.5 Reynolds Number
The Reynolds number is a measure of ratio of inertia forces to viscous forces,

ρUL UL Reynolds Number (Re)

Re = = Eq. 2.1.4
μ ν 0.05 10.0 200.0 3000.0
Where U and L are local velocity and
characteristic length. This is a very
important scaling tool for fluid flow
equations as to be seen later.
Additionally, it could be represents
using dynamic viscosity ν = μ/ρ. This
is a really is measure or scaling of
inertia vs viscous forces as shown in
Figure 2.1.10 and has great
importance in Fluid Mechanics. It can
be used to evaluate whether viscous Figure 2.1.10 Effects of Reynolds Number in Inertia vs
or inviscid equations are appropriate Viscosity
to the problem. The Reynolds Number
is also valuable tool and guide to the in a particular flow situation, and for the scaling of similar but
different-sized flow situations, such as between an aircraft model in a wind tunnel and the full size
version17.
2.1.6 Reynolds Number Effects in Reduced Model
The kinematic similarity between full scale and scaled tests has to be maintained for reduced model
testing (wind-tunnels). In order to maintain this kinematic similarity, all forces determining a flow
field must be the same for both cases. For incompressible flow, only the forces from inertia and
friction need to be considered (i.e., Reynold Number). Two flow fields are kinematically similar if the
following condition is met
U1 L1 U2 L2
=
ν1 ν2
Eq. 2.1.5
To recognize Reynolds number effects a dependency test should be done 18 . Results from such a
dependency study are presented in Figure 2.1.11. At high Reynolds numbers, the drag coefficient is
almost constant, and the values for the full scale vehicle are slightly lower than those for the scaled
model. Below a certain Reynolds number, however, the drag coefficient from the scaled test
noticeably deviates from the full scale results. That is due to the fact, that in this range, individual
components of the car go through their critical Reynolds number. Violating Reynolds’ law of
similarity can cause considerable error. On the other hand, for small scales, sometimes it is hard to
maintain the same Reynolds number. That is for two main reasons. Wind tunnels have limited top
speed. At the same time, increasing speed in model testing also has its limits in another perspective.

17 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

18 Bc. Lukáš Fryšták, “Formula SAE Aerodynamic Optimization”, Master's Thesis, BRNO 2016.
 24

Figure 2.1.11 Drag Coefficient versus Reynolds Number for a 1:5 Model and a Car (Courtesy of 35)

2.1.7 Case Study - Scaling and Skin Friction Estimation in Flight using Reynold Number
Now that we familiar ourselves with some concepts if viscous flow, such as Reynolds Number,
separation, boundary layer and skin friction, it is time to see their effects in real life situation. The
purpose here is to conduct a brief review of skin-friction estimation over a range of Reynolds
numbers, as this is one of the key parameters in performance estimation and Reynolds number
scaling. These are among the most important in Aerodynamic performance. The flow around modern
aircraft can be highly sensitive to Reynolds number and its effects when they move significantly the
design of an aircraft as derived from sub-scale wind tunnel testing as investigated by [Crook ]19. For
a transport aircraft, the wing is the component most sensitive to Reynolds number change. Figure

Figure 2.1.12 Flow features sensitive to Reynolds number for a cruise condition on a wing section

19 A. Crook, “Skin-friction estimation at high Reynolds numbers and Reynolds-number effects for transport
aircraft”, Center for Turbulence Research Annual Research Briefs, 2002.
 25

2.1.12 shows the flow typically responsible for such sensitivity, which includes boundary layer
transition, shock/boundary layer interaction and trailing-edge boundary layer.
2.1.7.1 Interaction Between Shock Wave and Boundary Layer
The nature of the interaction between a shock wave and an attached boundary layer depends largely
upon whether the boundary layer is laminar or turbulent at the foot of the shock. For a laminar
boundary layer, separation of the boundary layer will occur for a relatively weak shock and upstream
of the freestream position of the shock. The majority of the pressure rise in this type of shock
/boundary layer interaction, generally described as a ¸ shock, occurs in the rear leg. The interaction
of the rear leg with the separated boundary layer causes a fan of expansion waves that tend to turn
the flow toward the wall, and hence re-attach the separated boundary layer. This is in contrast to the
interaction between a turbulent boundary layer and a shock wave, in which the majority of the
pressure rise occurs in the front leg of the shock wave. The expansion fan that causes reattachment
of the laminar separated boundary layer is therefore not present, and the turbulent boundary layer
has little tendency to re-attach. Here lies the problem of predicting the flight performance of an
aircraft when the methods used to design the aircraft have historically relied upon wind tunnels
operating below flight Reynolds number, together with other tools such as (CFD), empirical and semi-
empirical methods and previous experience of similar design aircraft. Industrial wind tunnels can
only achieve a maximum chord Reynolds number of between 3 x 106 < Rec <16 x 106, compared with
a typical value of 45 x 106 for cruise conditions. Therefore historically, results from wind tunnels have
to be extrapolated to flight
conditions in a process known as
Reynolds Number Scaling. Wind
tunnel models are generally
supported free flying. As flow
around them is constrained by the
tunnel walls, and therefore support
and wall interference must be
accounted for correctly. The
freestream flow may also have a
different turbulent length scale,
turbulence intensity and spectrum
to that occurring in the atmosphere.
Other effects which can be wrongly
interpreted as Reynolds number
effects include the tunnel
calibration, buoyancy effects,
thermal equilibrium and humidity,
as discussed by [Haines]20
2.1.7.2 Reynolds Number
Scaling
Rendering to [Haines & Elsenaar]21,
there are two types of scale effect: Figure 2.1.13 Schematic representation of direct and indirect
Direct and Indirect, which is based Reynolds number effects
upon the definition by Hall22 of scale

20 Haines, A. B., “Scale Effects On Aircraft and Weapon Aerodynamics”, AGARDograph AG-323, 1994.
21 Haines, A. B. & Elsenaar, A., “An outline of the methodology Boundary layer simulation and control in wind
tunnels”, AGARD Advisory Report AR-224, 96-110-1988.
22 Hall, M. G., “Scale Effects In Flows Over Swept Wings”, AGARD CP 83-71, 1971.
 26

effects being the complex of interactions between the boundary layer development and the external
inviscid flow. Direct and Indirect Reynolds number effects are represented schematically in Figure
2.1.13 and defined as:
1. Direct Reynolds Number effects occur as a consequence of a change in the boundary layer
development for a fixed (frozen) pressure distribution. Examples of direct effects range from
the well-known variation of skin friction with Reynolds number for a given transition
position to complex issues such as changes in the length of a shock-induced separation bubble
for a given pressure rise through a shock.
2. Indirect Reynolds number properties are associated with changes in the pressure
distribution arising from changes with Reynolds number in the boundary layer and wake
development. An example of an indirect effect is when changes in the boundary layer
displacement thickness with Reynolds number lead to changes in the development of
supercritical flow, and hence in shock position and shock strength. Therefore, a change in
wave drag with Reynolds number at a given CL or incidence, can appear as an indirect
Reynolds number effect23.
2.1.7.3 Discrepancy in Flight Performance and Wind Tunnel Testing
[Haines] provides a historical review of scale effects and gives examples of aircraft where direct
24

properties dominated the wing flow, and indirect effects were probably small. The examples given
are those of the VC-10 and X-1 aircraft, and correlation between wing pressure distributions in the
wind tunnel and in flight are good. It is observed that the shock position in flight is slightly aft of that
found in the tunnel test for these test conditions, when the flow is attached, with little or no trailing
edge separation, and is turbulent. The reason for this behavior in these two cases is the thinning of
the boundary layer with increasing Reynolds number, with the displacement thickness being roughly
proportional to Re-1/5. The effective thickness of the wing therefore decreases and the effective
camber increases with increasing Reynolds number. The shock wave will move downstream with

Figure 2.1.14 Comparison of C-141 Wing Pressure Distributions Between Wind Tunnel and Flight

23 A. Crook, “Skin-friction estimation at high Reynolds numbers and Reynolds-number effects for transport

aircraft”, Center for Turbulence Research Annual Research Briefs, 2002.

24 Haines, A. B., “Lanchester Memorial Lecture: Scale Effect in Transonic Flow”, Aeronautical J., August-September

1987, 291-313, 1987.

 27

reduced viscous effects until the limiting case of inviscid flow is reached. If however, C L is kept
constant for a given Mach number, and the Reynolds number varied, the increased aft loading must
be compensated by a decrease in the load over the front of the airfoil. This is generally accomplished
by a decrease in the angle of incidence, which normally results in the forward movement of the shock
wave. The final outcome of these opposing efforts will depend upon their relative strength. When the
flow is attached or mostly attached, indirect Reynolds-number effects appear to be small. However,
when the flow is separated large variations in the pressure distribution can result with varying
Reynolds number i.e. indirect effects can be large as demonstrated in Figure 2.1.14 where the
comparison of C-141 wing pressure distributions between wind tunnel and flight for regions of
subcritical (a) and Supercritical flow (b) is made. Aside from the separation that can occur due to an
adverse pressure gradient at the trailing edge, shock-boundary layer interaction is one of the primary
causes of separation in transonic flight.
2.1.7.4 Flow Separation Type (A - B)
Following the work of [Pearcey] 25 such flow separations are classed as either type A or B.
[Elsenaar]26 describes the differences between type A and type B separation, and states that the final
state is the same both, namely a boundary-layer separation from the shock to the trailing edge.
However, the mechanism by which this final state is achieved, differs for the two. For a type A
separation, the bubble that forms underneath the foot of the shock grows until it reaches the trailing-
edge. The type B separation has three variants, with the common feature being a trailing edge
separation that is present before the final state is reached. The final state is reached when the
separation bubble and Trailing-edge separation merge. The type B separation is considered to be
more sensitive to Reynolds number
than type A. This is partly because the
trailing-edge separation is dependent
upon the boundary layer parameters
such as its thickness and displacement
thickness. Furthermore, it was shown
by [Pearcey & Holder] 27 that the
supersonic tongue that exists in a
shock- boundary interaction is the
dominant factor in the development of
the separation bubble, and that the
incoming boundary layer is less
important. Moreover, the local shock
Mach number that causes shock-
induced separation is a weak function of
the freestream Mach number. Relevant
to wind tunnel-to-flight scaling is the
possibility that at sufficiently high
Reynolds numbers, the trailing edge Figure 2.1.15 Standard NACA 64-series airfoil compared
separation will disappear and the type with a supercritical airfoil at cruise lift conditions
B flow that is observed in wind tunnels
becomes a type A separation at flight

25 Pearcey, H. H., Osborne, J. & Haines, A. B.,” The interaction between local effects at the shock and rear
separation - a source of significant scale effects in wind tunnel tests on airfoils and wings”, AGARD CP 35, 1968.
26 Elsenaar, A. Introduction. Elsenaar, A., Binion, T. W. & Stanewsky, E.,”Reynolds number effects in transonic

flow”, AG-303, 1-6, 1988.

27 Pearcey, H. H. & Holder, D. W., “Examples of shock induced boundary layer separation in Transonic flight”,

Aeronautical Research Council Technical Report R & M No. 3012, 1954.

 28

conditions.
The behavior of the trailing-edge separation and that of the separation bubble are highly coupled,
with the trailing-edge separation amplified by the upstream effects of the shock-boundary layer
interaction. The trailing-edge separation will modify the pressure distribution in a Reynolds-
number-dependent manner, and this in turn will alter the shock strength and the conditions for
separation at the foot of the shock. This will then affect the boundary layer at the trailing edge. The
sensitivity to Reynolds number of this interaction process will be dependent upon the pressure
distribution and hence the type of airfoil. It is also argued that most pre-1960 airfoils show a rapid
increase in shock strength with increasing Mach number and angle of incidence. By implication
viscous effects would be small, and the dominant effect would be lengthening of the shock-induced
separation bubble. By contrast, modern supercritical airfoils28 (see Figure 2.1.15) are designed to
limit the variation in shock-wave strength and have higher aft loading and hence greater pressure
gradients over the rear of the airfoil. Viscous effects will therefore be more important for these
airfoils and there performance more sensitive to Reynolds number.
2.1.7.5 Over-Sensitive Prediction in Flight Performance
As demonstrated by Figure 2.1.14, estimation of aircraft performance and characteristics based
upon data from wind-tunnel tests at low Reynolds number can lead to flight performance that is
worse than that predicted. In the case of the C-141, the wing pressure distribution in flight shows
that the shock is further aft than predicted by the wind tunnel tests. This increased aft loading meant
that the pitch characteristics of the wing were very different in flight to that predicted and this
necessitated a complete re-design of the wing. There are many examples of where flight performance
is worse than predicted using wind tunnel tests at lower Reynolds numbers. Examples include higher
than expected interference drag of the F-111 airframe, the lack of performance benefit for the DC-10
and recently the wing- drop phenomenon of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The flight performance
need not be worse than predicted from wind tunnel data. The fact that the flight performance is better
than predicted means that the design point was calculated incorrectly and raises the possibility that
the design is overly conservative. The financial incentives for designing and predicting the flight than
predicted using wind tunnel tests at lower Reynolds numbers. Examples include higher than
performance of an aircraft at high Reynolds numbers are large. [Mack & McMasters]29 reported that
a 1% reduction in drag equates to several million dollars in savings per year for a typical aircraft.
[Bocci]30 examined what performance might be lost by designing an airfoil at a typical test Reynolds
number of 6 x 106 instead of a typical full-scale Reynolds number of 35 x 106. The results were gained
by calculating the 2D transonic flow over an airfoil section, and it was found that:
• The CL for the section designed (using CFD) to operate at Re = 6 x 106, but simulated at Rec =
35x106 is 4% higher for the same Mach number and shock strength on the upper surface.
• For the airfoil section designed (using CFD) for a Reynolds number of 35x106, the
improvement in CL is 13% over the section designed and simulated at a Rec = 6 x 106.
The accurate prediction of flight performance would also save time in the development process by
reducing the number of wind-tunnel hours, flight-test hours and design iterations. The use of CFD
has helped reduce the upward trend in the number of wind-tunnel hours required to develop an
aircraft, although approximately 20,000 wind tunnel hours were still required to develop the Boeing
777-200. Differences between predicted and flight performance have led to many different methods

28 The supercritical airfoil for commercial aircraft allows airplanes to fly faster without the increase in fuel
consumption. This was due to the increase in the critical Mach number, which allowed commercial aircraft to
fly faster without the impact of transonic effects or wave drag.
29 Mack, M. D. & McMasters, J. H.,” High Reynolds number testing in support of transport airplane development”,

AIAA Paper 92-3982.

30 Bocci, A. J., “Airfoil design for full scale Reynolds number”, ARA Memo 211, 1979.
 29

of simulating the flight Reynolds number flow using low Reynolds number testing facilities. In flight,
transition normally occurs near the leading edge of the wing, and the boundary layer interacting with
the shock wave is therefore turbulent. In wind tunnels, it is possible for the boundary layer to remain
laminar over a large percentage of the chord, and therefore a laminar boundary layer-shock
interaction may occur. These two types of interaction are vastly different in their nature, and
therefore the flow is generally tripped.
2.1.7.6 Aerodynamic Prediction
The current status of Reynolds-number scaling can be assessed from a number of recent publications.
The full details are too long to discuss in this brief, but an attempt at a summary is provided herein.
• Angle of incidence at cruise, drag-rise Mach number, CL and CM are all functions of Reynolds
Number.
• The effect of Reynolds Number on drag can be predicted if the empirical relationship is
matched to drag measured at a Reynolds number of 8-10 M or above.
• The shape of drag polar varies with Reynolds number up to flight Reynolds numbers of
approximately 40 million, although vortex generators reduce the variation slightly.
• Drag-rise Mach number is increased with increasing Reynolds number, indicating that higher
Reynolds number testing would predict a higher cruise Mach number than that achieved
using a tunnel such as the Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel (BTWT).
• The effect of vortex generators on drag at cruise varies with Reynolds number, causing a
higher drag at low Reynolds numbers and having very little or a slightly beneficial effect at
flight Reynolds numbers. Vortex generators also have little effect on span wise loading at
flight Reynolds numbers, compared with a large effect at low Reynolds numbers. This
indicates that if wing loads were developed from low Reynolds number data, an unnecessary
structural weight penalty would be paid.
• Buffet onset is very difficult to predict, and is often difficult to measure in a wind tunnel
because the model dynamics and that of the aircraft are very different.
As Reynolds number scaling remains a topic that receives a great deal of attention 50 years after such
effects were first observed. The advent of high Reynolds number tunnels such as the NTF and ETW
has not lessened the need for good Reynolds number scaling techniques, but has provided the
facilities in which to test new methods and aircraft designs before their first flight, helping to reduce
risk. Comparison of flight data with that taken in such tunnels is good for cruise conditions. However,
buffet onset is still very difficult to predict, due primarily to the fact that the wind tunnel model and
support dynamics are very different to the real aircraft.
2.1.7.7 Skin Friction Estimation
Drag estimation is an important part of the design process, and involves the prediction of wave drag,
vortex-induced drag and viscous drag, with the latter contributing approximately 50% to the total
drag during cruise [Thibert]31. A simple estimate of the scaled viscous drag is often gained by using
a combination of formula and flat plate skin friction formulae once the transition location is known.
This method relies upon an accurate description of the skin friction coefficient, Cf from low Reynolds
numbers found in wind tunnels to flight Reynolds numbers. The accurate prediction of drag at flight
Reynolds number using low Reynolds number wind tunnels remains a challenge, and it appears that
a Re = 8 -10 x 106 or above is required if empirical methods are to be used for extrapolation to flight
conditions. The error in the extrapolation is likely to be higher than the variation of Cf with Reynolds
number predicted by the best empirical methods discussed. It is therefore concluded that the
measurements of skin friction taken in the NTF over a very large range of Reynolds number match

31Thibert, J. J., Reneaux, J. & Schmitt, R. V., “ONERA activities on drag reduction”, Proceedings of the 17th
Congress of the ICAS. 1053-1059, 1990.
 30

the predictions of [Spalding] 32 and [Karman-Schoenherr] 33 well enough for skin friction
extrapolation purposes.
The direct and accurate measurement of skin friction however remains very challenging, although
micro fabricated skin friction devices are promising. The relationships of Spalding and Karman-
Schoenherr34 are used for comparison with the data taken in the National Transonic Facility (NTF) at
NASA Langley in 1996. Although a flat-plate experiment was originally proposed by [Saric &
Peterson] 34 , it posed too many problems in the high-dynamic, environment of the NTF. An
axisymmetric body, 17ft long, for which transverse-curvature effects are small (δ/R = 0.25) was
therefore tested at Mach numbers between 0.2 and 0.85 and unit 6x106 < Re < 94 x106 per foot. Skin
friction was measured using three different techniques: a skin friction balance, Preston tubes and
velocity profiles from which the skin friction was inferred by the Clauser method. The last method
relies upon the validity of the logarithmic law and the constants used, which have been a subject of
debate over the last decade, and one that is still not settled. [Hites et al.]35 compared the skin friction
velocity uτ measured by a near-wall hot wire, a micro fabricated hot wire on the wall, and a
conventional hot wire on the wall to that obtained by measuring the velocity profile using a hot wire
and applying the Clauser technique. In all cases, the measured uτ is higher than that predicted by the
Clauser technique. The prediction of uτ is also sensitive to the values of log-law. The comparison of
the measured values of uτ to that predicted by the Clauser method should however be treated with
care as significant errors can occur, even for micro fabricated devices, due to thermal conduction to
the substrate and connecting wires. More recently, Watson36 carried out a comparison of the semi-
empirical relationships of [Ludwieg & Tillmann]37, [Spalding]38, [Schoenherr]39 and [Fernholz]40. The
methods of Karman-Schoenherr and Spalding show opposite trends at low and high Reynolds
numbers with the inter section point at 6000 < Reϴ < 7000. The relationship of [Fernholz]41
consistently under-predicts the skin friction compared to the other methods. The skin friction
predicted by [Ludwieg-Tillmann]38 matches that of Karman-Schoenherr for 3000 <Reϴ < 20000. Both
the methods of [Spalding and Fernholz]41 rely upon the logarithmic law and hence the von Karman
constant κ and the additive constant, B. Watson report that the method of Spalding incorrectly
predicts the skin friction if the usual value of κ is used. This is because the relationship relies upon
Spalding's sub layer-buffer-log profile which does not take the wake region into account correctly.
Despite this, the relationships of [Karman-Schoenherr]40 and [Spalding]39 are observed to be the best
fit to the data of [Coles]41 and [Gaudet]42.

32 Spalding, D. B.,”A new analytical expression for the drag of a °at plate valid for both turbulent and laminar
regimes”, Int. Journal Heat and Mass Transf. 5, 1133-1138, 1962.
33 Schoenherr, K. E.,”Resistance of flat surfaces moving through a fluid Trans”, SNAME. 40, 279-313, 1932.
34 Saric, W. S. & Peterson, J. B., Jr.,” Design of high Reynolds number flat plate experiments in the NTF”, AIAA, 1984.
35 Hites, M., Nagib, H. & Wark, C.,” Velocity and wall shear stress measurements in high Reynolds number turbulent

boundary layers”, AIAA Paper 97-1873, 1997.

36 Watson, R. D., Hall, R. M. & Anders, J. B., ”Review of skin friction measurements including recent high Reynolds

number results from NASA Langley NTF”, AIAA Paper 2000-2392, 2000.
37 Ludwieg, H. & Tilmann, W., “Investigations of the wall shearing stress in turbulent boundary layers”, NACA TM-

1285. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1950.

38 See 48.
39 Schoenherr, K. E., “Resistance of °at surfaces moving through a fluid”, Trans. SNAME. 40, 279-13, 1932.
40 Fernholz, H. H., Ein halbempirisches Gesetz fÄur die Wandreibung in kompressiblen turbulenten

renzschichten bei isothermer and Adiabater Wand. ZAMM. 51, 149-149-1971.

41 Coles, D.,”The turbulent boundary layer in a compressible fluid”, R-403-PR, Rand Corp, 1962.
42 Gaudet, L.,”Experimental investigation of the turbulent boundary layer at high Reynolds Number and a Mach

number of 0.8”, TR 84094, Royal Aircraft Establishment, 1984.

31
 32

3 Aerodynamics Distinction
A distinction between solids, liquids, and gases can be made in a simplistic sense as follows. Put a
solid object inside a larger, closed container. The solid object will not change; its shape and
boundaries will remain the same. Now put a liquid inside the container. The liquid will change its
shape to conform to that of the container and will take on the same boundaries as the container up
to the maximum depth of the liquid. Now put a gas inside the container. The gas will completely fill
the container, taking on the same boundaries as the container. The word fluid is used to denote either
a liquid or a gas. A more technical distinction between a solid and a fluid can be made as follows.
When a force is applied tangentially to the surface of a solid, the solid will experience a finite
deformation, and the tangential force per unit area the shear stress will usually be proportional to
the amount of deformation. In contrast, when a tangential shear stress is applied to the surface of a
fluid, the fluid will experience a continuously increasing deformation, and the shear stress usually
will be proportional to the rate of change of the deformation (Anderson)43. The most fundamental
distinction between solids, liquids, and gases is at the atomic and molecular level. In a solid,
the molecules are packed so closely together that their nuclei and electrons form a rigid geometric
structure, “glued” together by powerful intermolecular forces. In a liquid, the spacing between
molecules is larger, and although intermolecular forces are still strong they allow enough movement
of the molecules to give the liquid its “fluidity.” In a gas, the spacing between molecules is much
larger (for air at standard conditions, the spacing between molecules is, on the average, about 10
times the molecular diameter). Hence, the influence of intermolecular forces is much weaker, and the
motion of the molecules occurs rather freely throughout the gas. This movement of molecules in both
gases and liquids leads to similar physical characteristics, the characteristics of a fluid quite different
from those of a solid. Therefore, it makes sense to classify the study of the dynamics of both liquids
and gases under the same general heading, called fluid dynamics. On the other hand, certain
differences exist between the flow of liquids and the flow of gases; also, different species of gases
(say, N2, He, etc.) have different properties. Therefore, fluid dynamics is subdivided into three areas
as follows:
• Hydrodynamics - flow of liquids
• Gas dynamics - flow of gases
• Aerodynamics - flow of air
These areas are by no means mutually exclusive; there are many similarities and identical
phenomena between them. Also, the word aerodynamics has taken on a popular usage that
sometimes covers the other two areas.

3.1 Aerodynamic Practical Application

Acceding to (Anderson)43, aerodynamics is an applied science with many practical applications in
engineering. No matter how elegant an aerodynamic theory may be, or how mathematically complex
a numerical solution may be, or how sophisticated an aerodynamic experiment may be, all such
efforts are usually aimed at one or more of the following practical objectives:
1. The prediction of forces and moments on, and heat transfer to, bodies moving through a fluid
(usually air). For example, we are concerned with the generation of lift, drag, and moments
on airfoils, wings, fuselages, engine nacelles, and most importantly, whole airplane
configurations. We want to estimate the wind force on buildings, ships, and other surface
vehicles. We are concerned with the hydrodynamic forces on surface ships, submarines, and
torpedoes. We need to be able to calculate the aerodynamic heating of flight vehicles ranging

43 John D. Anderson, Jr., “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, 2011.
 33

from the supersonic transport to a planetary probe entering the atmosphere of Jupiter. These
are but a few examples.
2. Determination of flows moving internally through ducts. We wish to calculate and measure
the flow properties inside rocket and air-breathing jet engines and to calculate the engine
thrust. We need to know the flow conditions in the test section of a wind tunnel. We must
know how much fluid can flow through pipes under various conditions. A recent, very
interesting application of aerodynamics is high-energy chemical and gas-dynamic lasers,
which are nothing more than specialized wind tunnels that can produce extremely powerful
laser beams.
The applications in item 1 come under the heading of external aerodynamics since they deal with
external flows over a body. In contrast, the applications in item 2 involve internal aerodynamics
because they deal with flows internally within ducts. In external aerodynamics, in addition to forces,
moments, and aerodynamic heating associated with a body, we are frequently interested in the
details of the flow field away from the body. For example is the flow associated with the strong
vortices trailing downstream from the wing tips of large subsonic airplanes such as the Boeing 747.
What are the properties of these vortices, and how do they affect smaller aircraft which happen to fly
through them? The above is just a sample of the countless applications of aerodynamics. There are
three major fluid forces of interest:
➢ Drag
➢ Lift
➢ Buoyancy which is closely related to the concept of density
From those, The drag force acts in a direction that is opposite of the relative flow velocity.
➢ Affected by cross-section area (form drag)
➢ Affected by surface smoothness (surface drag)
And the lift force acts in a direction that is perpendicular to the relative flow.
➢ The lift force is not necessarily vertical.

3.2 Physics of Aerodynamic Lift

Author : Ed Regis has written 10 science books, including Monsters: The Hindenburg Disaster and the
Birth of Pathological Technology (Basic Books, 2015). He has also logged 1,000 hours flying time as a
private pilot. Credit: Nick Higgins.
Original Appearance : This article was originally published with the title "The Enigma of Aerodynamic
Lift" in Scientific American 322, 2, 44-51 (February 2020).
Source : doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0220-44
3.2.1 Do Recent Explanations Solve The Mysteries of Aerodynamic Lift?
In Brief
• On a strictly mathematical level, engineers know how to design planes that will stay aloft.
But equations don't explain why aerodynamic lift occurs.
• There are two competing theories that illuminate the forces and factors of lift. Both are
incomplete explanations.
• Aerodynamicists have recently tried to close the gaps in understanding. Still, no consensus
exists.
In December 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight of the Wright brothers,
the New York Times ran a story entitled “Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?” The point
of the piece was a simple question: What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to
 34

John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of
several textbooks in the field.
What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the
aerodynamic force known as lift. “There is no simple one-liner answer to this,” he told the Times.
People give different answers to the question, some with “religious fervor.” More than 15 years after
that pronouncement, there are still different accounts of what generates lift, each with its own
substantial rank of zealous defenders. At this point in the history of flight, this situation is slightly
puzzling. After all, the natural processes of evolution, working mindlessly, at random and without
any understanding of physics, solved the mechanical problem of aerodynamic lift for soaring birds
eons ago. Why should it be so hard for scientists to explain what keeps birds, and airliners, up in the
air?
Adding to the confusion is the fact that accounts of lift exist on two separate levels of abstraction: the
technical and the nontechnical. They are complementary rather than contradictory, but they differ in
their aims. One exists as a strictly mathematical theory, a realm in which the analysis medium
consists of equations, symbols, computer simulations and numbers. There is little, if any, serious
disagreement as to what the appropriate equations or their solutions are. The objective of technical
mathematical theory is to make accurate predictions and to project results that are useful to
aeronautical engineers engaged in the complex business of designing aircraft.
But by themselves, equations are not explanations, and neither are their solutions. There is a second,
nontechnical level of analysis that is intended to provide us with a physical, commonsense
explanation of lift. The objective of the nontechnical approach is to give us an intuitive understanding
of the actual forces and factors that are at work in holding an airplane aloft. This approach exists not
on the level of numbers and equations but rather on the level of concepts and principles that are
familiar and intelligible to non-specialists.
It is on this second, nontechnical level where the controversies lie. Two different theories are
commonly proposed to explain lift, and advocates on both sides argue their viewpoints in articles, in
books and online. The problem is that each of these two nontechnical theories is correct in itself. But
neither produces a complete explanation of lift, one that provides a full accounting of all the basic
forces, factors and physical conditions governing aerodynamic lift, with no issues left dangling,
unexplained or unknown. Does such a theory even exist?
3.2.2 Two Competing Theories
By far the most popular explanation of lift is Bernoulli’s theorem, a principle identified by Swiss
mathematician Daniel Bernoulli in his 1738 treatise, Hydrodynamica. Bernoulli came from a family
of mathematicians. His father, Johann, made contributions to the calculus, and his Uncle Jakob coined
the term “integral.” Many of Daniel Bernoulli’s contributions had to do with fluid flow: Air is a fluid,
and the theorem associated with his name is commonly expressed in terms of fluid dynamics. Stated
simply, Bernoulli’s law says that the pressure of a fluid decreases as its velocity increases, and vice
versa. Bernoulli’s theorem attempts to explain lift as a consequence of the curved upper surface of an
airfoil, the technical name for an airplane wing. Because of this curvature, the idea goes, air traveling
across the top of the wing moves faster than the air moving along the wing’s bottom surface, which
is flat. Bernoulli’s theorem says that the increased speed atop the wing is associated with a region of
lower pressure there, which is lift.
3.2.3 The Flawed Classics44
On a commonsense, everyday basis, two theories have been advanced to explain what keeps an airplane
aloft. One is Bernoulli's theorem, which associates lift with the area of higher speed and lower
pressure atop the wing. The other is the Newtonian principle of action and reaction, which explains
lift as an upward push on the wing from the moving air below. Each of these theories is correct in its

44 L-Dopa
 35

way, and neither one contradicts the other, although proponents of each theory argue their viewpoints
with a zeal bordering on mania. Still, neither theory by itself provides a complete explanation of lift, nor
do both of them together, because each leaves something out. A complete explanation must account for
all the forces and factors acting on the wing, with no issue, major or minor, left dangling.
3.2.3.1 Bernoulli's Theorem
As applied to an airplane wing, technically called an airfoil Bernoulli's theorem attempts to explain
lift as a consequence of the wing's curved upper surface. The idea is that because of this curvature, the
air traveling across the top of the wing moves faster than the air moving along the wing's bottom
surface, which is flat. Bernoulli's theorem says that the increased speed atop the wing is associated with
a region of lower pressure there, which is lift.
BUT...
Although Bernoulli's theorem is largely correct, there are several reasons that the principle does not
constitute a complete explanation of lift. It is a fact of experience that air moves faster across a curved
surface, but the theorem alone does not explain why this is so or why the higher velocity atop the wing
brings lower pressure along with it. And practically speaking, an airplane with wings that have a curved
upper surface, or even flat surfaces on top and bottom, is capable of flying inverted, so long as the airfoil
meets the oncoming wind at an appropriate angle.
3.2.3.2 Newton's 3rd Law
Air has mass. Therefore, Newton's third law would say that the wing's downward push results in an
equal and opposite push back upward. This Newtonian account of lift applies to wings of any shape,
curved or flat, symmetrical or not, and it holds for aircraft flying inverted or right-side up (the critical
feature being a suitable angle of attack). For these reasons, it is a more comprehensive and universally
applicable explanation of lift than Bernoulli's.
BUT...
Taken by itself, the principle of action and reaction still fails to explain the lower pressure atop the wing,
which exists in that region irrespective of whether the airfoil is cambered or not.

Mountains of empirical data from streamlines (lines of smoke particles) in wind-tunnel tests,
laboratory experiments on nozzles and Venturi tubes, and so on provide overwhelming evidence that
as stated, Bernoulli’s principle is correct and true. Nevertheless, there are several reasons that
Bernoulli’s theorem does not by itself constitute a complete explanation of lift. Although it is a fact of
experience that air moves faster across a curved surface, Bernoulli’s theorem alone does not explain
why this is so. In other words, the theorem does not say how the higher velocity above the wing came
about to begin with.
3.2.4 New Ideas of Lift45
Today's scientific approaches to aircraft design are determined by computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
simulations, as well as equations that take full account of the actual viscosity of real air. Although we
still do not have a singular and satisfying physical, qualitative explanation of lift, some recent attempts
may have gotten us a bit closer.
3.2.4.1 Co-Dependency of Lift's Four Elements
As applied to an airplane wing technically called an airfoil Bernoulli's theorem attempts to explain lift
as a consequence of the wing's curved upper surface. The idea is that because of this curvature, the air
traveling across the top of the wing moves faster than the air moving along the wing's bottom surface,
which is flat. Bernoulli's theorem says that the increased speed atop the wing is associated with a region
of lower pressure there, which is lift.
BUT...

45 See Previous
 36

Although McLean says the reduced pressure above and increased pressure below result from the airfoil
being "completely surrounded by flowing air," this doesn't explain how the reduced pressure
up top got there initially.
3.2.4.2 How Low Pressure Forms Above The Wing
[Mark Drela], an expert on fluid dynamics, has attempted to address what evaded Newton and Bernoulli:
how the low-pressure zone, or partial vacuum, above the wing comes into existence. The air above the
wing momentarily flows straight back forming a void or vacuum. This vacuum will then strongly pull
the air back down , filling in and thus eliminating most but not all of the vacuum. Just enough vacuum
remains to pull the air into the curved path that follows the wing.
There are plenty of bad explanations for the higher velocity. According to the most common one the
“equal transit time” theory parcels of air that separate at the wing’s leading edge must rejoin
simultaneously at the trailing edge. Because the top parcel travels farther than the lower parcel in a
given amount of time, it must go faster. The fallacy here is that there is no physical reason that the
two parcels must reach the trailing edge simultaneously. And indeed, they do not: the empirical fact
is that the air atop moves much faster than the equal transit time theory could account for. There is
also a notorious “demonstration” of Bernoulli’s principle, one that is repeated in many popular
accounts, YouTube videos and even some textbooks. It involves holding a sheet of paper horizontally
at your mouth and blowing across the curved top of it. The page rises, supposedly illustrating the
Bernoulli effect. The opposite result ought to occur when you blow across the bottom of the sheet:
the velocity of the moving air below it should pull the page downward. Instead, paradoxically, the
page rises.
The lifting of the curved paper when flow is applied to one side “is not because air is moving at
different speeds on the two sides,” says [Holger Babinsky], a professor of aerodynamics at the
University of Cambridge, in his article “How Do Wings Work?” To demonstrate this, blow across a
straight piece of paper, for example, one held so that it hangs down vertically and witness that the
paper does not move one way or the other, because “the pressure on both sides of the paper is the
same, despite the obvious difference in velocity.”
The second shortcoming of Bernoulli’s theorem is that it does not say how or why the higher velocity
atop the wing brings lower pressure, rather than higher pressure, along with it. It might be natural
to think that when a wing’s curvature displaces air upward, that air is compressed, resulting in
increased pressure atop the wing. This kind of “bottleneck” typically slows things down in ordinary
life rather than speeding them up. On a highway, when two or more lanes of traffic merge into one,
the cars involved do not go faster; there is instead a mass slowdown and possibly even a traffic jam.
Air molecules flowing atop a wing do not behave like that, but Bernoulli’s theorem does not say why
not.
The third problem provides the most decisive argument against regarding Bernoulli’s theorem as a
complete account of lift: An airplane with a curved upper surface is capable of flying inverted. In
inverted flight, the curved wing surface becomes the bottom surface, and according to Bernoulli’s
theorem, it then generates reduced pressure below the wing. That lower pressure, added to the force
of gravity, should have the overall effect of pulling the plane downward rather than holding it up.
Moreover, aircraft with symmetrical airfoils, with equal curvature on the top and bottom or even
with flat top and bottom surfaces are also capable of flying inverted, so long as the airfoil meets the
oncoming wind at an appropriate angle of attack. This means that Bernoulli’s theorem alone is
insufficient to explain these facts.
The other theory of lift is based on Newton’s third law of motion, the principle of action and reaction.
The theory states that a wing keeps an airplane up by pushing the air down. Air has mass, and from
Newton’s third law it follows that the wing’s downward push results in an equal and opposite push
back upward, which is lift. The Newtonian account applies to wings of any shape, curved or flat,
symmetrical or not. It holds for aircraft flying inverted or right-side up. The forces at work are also
 37

familiar from ordinary experience for example, when you stick your hand out of a moving car and tilt
it upward, the air is deflected downward, and your hand rises. For these reasons, Newton’s 3rd law
is a more universal and comprehensive explanation of lift than Bernoulli’s theorem. But taken by
itself, the principle of action and reaction also fails to explain the lower pressure atop the wing, which
exists in that region irrespective of whether the airfoil is cambered. It is only when an airplane lands
and comes to a halt that the region of lower pressure atop the wing disappears, returns to ambient
pressure, and becomes the same at both top and bottom. But as long as a plane is flying, that region
of lower pressure is an inescapable element of aerodynamic lift, and it must be explained.
3.2.5 Historical Understanding
Neither Bernoulli nor Newton was consciously trying to explain what holds aircraft up, of course,
because they lived long before the actual development of mechanical flight. Their respective laws and
theories were merely repurposed once the Wright brothers flew, making it a serious and pressing
business for scientists to understand aerodynamic lift.
Most of these theoretical accounts came from Europe. In the early years of the 20th century, several
British scientists advanced technical, mathematical accounts of lift that treated air as a perfect fluid,
meaning that it was incompressible and had zero viscosity. These were unrealistic assumptions but
perhaps understandable ones for scientists faced with the new phenomenon of controlled, powered
mechanical flight. These assumptions also made the underlying mathematics simpler and more
straightforward than they otherwise would have been, but that simplicity came at a price: however
successful the accounts of airfoils moving in ideal gases might be mathematically, they remained
defective empirically.
In Germany, one of the scientists who applied themselves to the problem of lift was none other than
Albert Einstein. In 1916 Einstein published a short piece in the journal Die
Naturwissenschaften entitled “Elementary Theory of Water Waves and of Flight,” which sought to
explain what accounted for the carrying capacity of the wings of flying machines and soaring birds.
“There is a lot of obscurity surrounding these questions,” Einstein wrote. “Indeed, I must confess that
I have never encountered a simple answer to them even in the specialist literature.” Einstein then
proceeded to give an explanation that assumed an incompressible, frictionless fluid that is, an ideal
fluid. Without mentioning Bernoulli by name, he gave an account that is consistent with Bernoulli’s
principle by saying that fluid pressure is greater where its velocity is slower, and vice versa. To take
advantage of these pressure differences, Einstein proposed an airfoil with a bulge on top such that
the shape would increase airflow velocity above the bulge and thus decrease pressure there as well.
Einstein probably thought that his ideal-fluid analysis would apply equally well to real-world fluid
flows. In 1917, on the basis of his theory, Einstein designed an airfoil that later came to be known as
a cat’s-back wing because of its resemblance to the humped back of a stretching cat. He brought the
design to aircraft manufacturer LVG (Luftverkehrsgesellschaft) in Berlin, which built a new flying
machine around it. A test pilot reported that the craft waddled around in the air like “a pregnant
duck.” Much later, in 1954, Einstein himself called his excursion into aeronautics a “youthful folly.”
The individual who gave us radically new theories that penetrated both the smallest and the largest
components of the universe nonetheless failed to make a positive contribution to the understanding
of lift or to come up with a practical airfoil design.
3.2.6 Toward a Complete Theory of Lift
Contemporary scientific approaches to aircraft design are the province of computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations and the so-called Navier-Stokes equations, which take full account of the
actual viscosity of real air. The solutions of those equations and the output of the CFD simulations
yield pressure-distribution predictions, airflow patterns and quantitative results that are the basis
for today’s highly advanced aircraft designs. Still, they do not by themselves give a physical,
qualitative explanation of lift. In recent years, however, leading aerodynamicist Doug McLean has
attempted to go beyond sheer mathematical formalism and come to grips with the physical cause-
 38

and-effect relations that account for lift in all of its real-life manifestations. McLean, who spent most
of his professional career as an engineer at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, where he specialized in
CFD code development, published his new ideas in the 2012 text Understanding Aerodynamics:
Arguing from the Real Physics.
Considering that the book runs to more than 500 pages of fairly dense technical analysis, it is
surprising to see that it includes a section entitled “A Basic Explanation of Lift on an Airfoil, Accessible
to a Nontechnical Audience.” Producing these 16 pages was not easy for McLean, a master of the
subject; indeed, it was “probably the hardest part of the book to write,” the author says. “It saw more
revisions than I can count. I was never entirely happy with it.” McLean’s complex explanation of lift
starts with the basic assumption of all ordinary aerodynamics: the air around a wing acts as “a
continuous material that deforms to follow the contours of the airfoil.” That deformation exists in the
form of a deep swath of fluid flow both above and below the wing. “The airfoil affects the pressure
over a wide area in what is called a pressure field,” McLean writes. “When lift is produced, a diffuse
cloud of low pressure always forms above the airfoil, and a diffuse cloud of high pressure usually
forms below. Where these clouds touch the airfoil they constitute the pressure difference that exerts
lift on the airfoil.”
The wing pushes the air down, resulting in a downward turn of the airflow. The air above the wing is
sped up in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. In addition, there is an area of high pressure below
the wing and a region of low pressure above. This means that there are four necessary components
in McLean’s explanation of lift: a downward turning of the airflow, an increase in the airflow’s speed,
an area of low pressure and an area of high pressure.
But it is the interrelation among these four elements that is the most novel and distinctive aspect of
McLean’s account. “They support each other in a reciprocal cause-and-effect relationship, and none
would exist without the others,” he writes. “The pressure differences exert the lift force on the airfoil,
while the downward turning of the flow and the changes in flow speed sustain the pressure
differences.” It is this interrelation that constitutes a fifth element of McLean’s explanation: the
reciprocity among the other four. It is as if those four components collectively bring themselves into
existence, and sustain themselves, by simultaneous acts of mutual creation and causation.
There seems to be a hint of magic in this synergy. The process that McLean describes seems akin to
four active agents pulling up on one another’s bootstraps to keep themselves in the air collectively.
Or, as he acknowledges, it is a case of “circular cause-and-effect.” How is it possible for each element
of the interaction to sustain and reinforce all of the others? And what causes this mutual, reciprocal,
dynamic interaction? McLean’s answer: Newton’s 2nd law of motion.
Newton’s second law states that the acceleration of a body, or a parcel of fluid, is proportional to the
force exerted on it. “Newton’s 2nd law tells us that when a pressure difference imposes a net force on
a fluid parcel, it must cause a change in the speed or direction (or both) of the parcel’s motion,”
McLean explains. But reciprocally, the pressure difference depends on and exists because of the
parcel’s acceleration. Aren’t we getting something for nothing here? McLean says no: If the wing were
at rest, no part of this cluster of mutually reinforcing activity would exist. But the fact that the wing
is moving through the air, with each parcel affecting all of the others, brings these co-dependent
elements into existence and sustains them throughout the flight.
3.2.7 Turning on the Reciprocity of Lift
Soon after the publication of Understanding Aerodynamics, McLean realized that he had not fully
accounted for all the elements of aerodynamic lift, because he did not explain convincingly what
causes the pressures on the wing to change from ambient. So, in November 2018, McLean published
a two-part article in The Physics Teacher in which he proposed “a comprehensive physical
explanation” of aerodynamic lift.
Although the article largely restates McLean’s earlier line of argument, it also attempts to add a better
explanation of what causes the pressure field to be nonuniform and to assume the physical shape
 39

that it does. In particular, his new argument introduces a mutual interaction at the flow field level so
that the nonuniform pressure field is a result of an applied force, the downward force exerted on the
air by the airfoil.
Whether McLean’s section 7.3.3 and his follow-up article are successful in providing a complete and
correct account of lift is open to interpretation and debate. There are reasons that it is difficult to
produce a clear, simple and satisfactory account of aerodynamic lift. For one thing, fluid flows are
more complex and harder to understand than the motions of solid objects, especially fluid flows that
separate at the wing’s leading edge and are subject to different physical forces along the top and
bottom. Some of the disputes regarding lift involve not the facts themselves but rather how those
facts are to be interpreted, which may involve issues that are impossible to decide by experiment.
Nevertheless, there are at this point only a few outstanding matters that require explanation. Lift, as
you will recall, is the result of the pressure differences between the top and bottom parts of an airfoil.
We already have an acceptable explanation for what happens at the bottom part of an airfoil: the
oncoming air pushes on the wing both vertically (producing lift) and horizontally (producing drag).
The upward push exists in the form of higher pressure below the wing, and this higher pressure is a
result of simple Newtonian action and reaction.
Things are quite different at the top of the wing, however. A region of lower pressure exists there that
is also part of the aerodynamic lifting force. But if neither Bernoulli’s principle nor Newton’s third
law explains it, what does? We know from streamlines that the air above the wing adheres closely to
the downward curvature of the airfoil. But why must the parcels of air moving across the wing’s top
surface follow its downward curvature? Why can’t they separate from it and fly straight back?
Mark Drela, a professor of fluid dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author
of Flight Vehicle Aerodynamics, offers an answer: “If the parcels momentarily flew off tangent to the
airfoil top surface, there would literally be a vacuum created below them,” he explains. “This vacuum
would then suck down the parcels until they mostly fill in the vacuum, i.e., until they move tangent to
the airfoil again. This is the physical mechanism which forces the parcels to move along the airfoil
shape. A slight partial vacuum remains to maintain the parcels in a curved path.”
This drawing away or pulling down of those air parcels from their neighboring parcels above is what
creates the area of lower pressure atop the wing. But another effect also accompanies this action: the
higher airflow speed atop the wing. “The reduced pressure over a lifting wing also ‘pulls horizontally’
on air parcels as they approach from upstream, so they have a higher speed by the time they arrive
above the wing,” Drela says. “So the increased speed above the lifting wing can be viewed as a side
effect of the reduced pressure there.” But as always, when it comes to explaining lift on a nontechnical
level, another expert will have another answer. Cambridge aerodynamicist Babinsky says, “I hate to
disagree with my esteemed colleague Mark Drela, but if the creation of a vacuum were the
explanation, then it is hard to explain why sometimes the flow does nonetheless separate from the
surface. But he is correct in everything else. The problem is that there is no quick and easy
explanation.”
Drela himself concedes that his explanation is unsatisfactory in some ways. “One apparent problem
is that there is no explanation that will be universally accepted,” he says. So where does that leave
us? In effect, right where we started: with John D. Anderson, who stated, “There is no simple one-
liner answer to this.”

3.3 Drag Estimation

Accurate drag estimation is critical in making computational design studies1. Drag may be estimated
thousands of times during a multidisciplinary design optimization, and computational fluid dynamics
is not yet possible in these studies. The current model has been developed as part of an air-vehicle
conceptual-design multidisciplinary design optimization framework. Its use for subsonic and
transonic aircraft configurations is presented and validated. We present our parametric geometry
definition, followed by the drag model description. The drag model includes induced, friction, wave,
 40

and interference drag. The model is compared with subsonic and transonic isolated wings, and a
wing/body configuration used previously in drag prediction workshops. The agreement between the
predictions of the drag model and test data is good, but lessens at high lift coefficients and high
transonic Mach numbers. In some cases the accuracy of this drag estimation method exceeds much
more elaborate analyses. It is common to divide a configuration’s total drag into two components:
induced and parasite. Several nomenclatures can be found for the parasite-drag breakdown,
whereas the current research uses three components: friction/form, interference, and wave drag.
Figure 3.3.1 displays the drag breakdown into its various components. Each of the parasite-drag
components include the influence of lift; thus, the parasite drag cannot be defined as the zero-lift
drag. Still, the influence of lift on the total parasite drag is generally small.

Skin Friction

Pressure Drag
Friction/Form Sometimes Call
Drag Form Drag

Additional Profile Drag

Due to Lift

Due to Intersection
Parasite Drag Interference Geometry
Drag Drag
Induced drag Due to Lift

Wave Due to Due to Volume

Generation of
Shock Waves Due to Lift

Figure 3.3.1 Typical Drag Breakdown Terminology

3.3.1 Induced Drag

Induced drag often contributes about half of the entire vehicle drag, and thus accurate induced-drag
modeling is essential. Several induced-drag models exist, such as the Trefftz plane2, Prandtl’s lifting-
line theory3, and the vortex lattice method4. The current research uses a Weissinger nonlinear
lifting-line model. This method takes advantage of two-dimensional lift data, and thus the viscosity
and compressibility effects can be included, although the model was originally developed for linear
aerodynamics and incompressible flow. The airfoil two-dimensional lift data only contributed at
high-lift conditions, well away from most conditions of interest. Thus, a linear 2D lift model can be
used at low-lift conditions, and in some cases, the theoretical lift-slope value 2π can be used. Note
that the current model does not make use of the two-dimensional airfoil drag data. These data are
sometimes of low reliability, as demonstrated in for the NACA-0012 airfoil. The airfoil drag is
calculated using the friction/form drag model. A detailed description of the method that is used in
the current model is given in5.
 41

3.3.2 Friction/Form Drag

According to the drag breakdown shown in Figure 3.3.1, the friction/form drag can be divided into
three components: skin friction, pressure, and lift-related profile drag. The current model
neglects the third component, which is small, and the remaining two components are addressed
simultaneously. The friction/form drag coefficient CD,F is calculated using the following relation for
each component:
Swet
CD,F = CF FF
Sref
Eq. 3.3.1
where CF is a flat-plate skin-friction
coefficient, FF is the form factor of the
component, and Swet and Sref are the wetted
and reference areas, respectively. The full
configuration is divided into components,
and Eq. 3.3.1 is used separately for each
component. Finally, the total friction/form
drag is found by summing the contributions
of these components. For each component,
the reference area and wetted areas are well
defined, but the flat-plate skin-friction
coefficient and the form factor are estimated
based on semi-empirical models. An total
drag analysis for an F16 fighter plane, Figure 3.3.2 Pressure & viscous drag w.r.t. Mach
number
compromising the pressure & skin friction
.
drags is done by [Akgun et al.]10. The results provided in Figure 3.3.2 shows the changes with
respect to Mach number, almost inverse of each other. Same authors investigated the contribution
from the different aircraft sections to drag coefficient with result displayed results displayed in
Figure 3.3.3 with respect
to increasing Mach number.
Various skin-friction and
form-factor models exist in
the literature. Comparison
of these models reveals
small differences, and thus
we chose the most well-
known and validated
models for the current
method. For laminar flow,
the Eckert reference
temperature method is
used, and for turbulent Figure 3.3.3 Aircraft section contributions to total drag at different
flow, the Van Driest II Mach numbers.
method (based on the von
Kármán–Schoenherr model) is used. The total skin friction coefficient is based on a composition of
the laminar/turbulent flow. Similar to the skin-friction models, several composition formulas are
available, and Schlichting’s composition formula is used for the current research5. (please see the
Case Study 2 at end on Chapter).
3.3.3 Drag - A Major Concern for Car Manufacturers and Beyond
In the past, the external shape of cars has evolved particularly for safety reasons, comfort
 42

improvement and also aesthetic considerations v (Dumas)6. Consequences of these guidelines on car
aerodynamics were not of major concern for many years. However, this situation changed in the 70’s
with the emergence of the oil crisis. To promote energy conservation, studies were carried out and it
was discovered that the amount of the aerodynamic drag in the fuel consumption ranges between
30% during an urban cycle and 75% at a 120 km/h cruise speed. Since then, decreasing the drag
force acting on road vehicles and thus their fuel consumption, became a major concern for car
manufacturers. Growing ecological concerns within the last decade further make this a critically
relevant issue in the automotive research centers. The process of drag creation and the way to control
it was first discovered experimentally. In particular, it was found that the major amount of drag was
due to the emergence of flow separation at the rear surface of cars. Unfortunately, unlike in
aeronautics where it can be largely excluded from the body surface, this aerodynamic phenomenon
is an inherent problem for ground vehicles and cannot be avoided. Moreover, the associated three-
dimensional flow in the wake behind a car exhibits a complex 3D behavior and is very difficult to
control because of its unsteadiness and its sensitivity to the car geometry. The pioneering
experiments of [Morel & Ahmed ] done in the late 70’s on simplified geometries also called bluff
bodies, are now described in sections 3.3.3.2 - 3.3.3.3. Readers are also encouraged to consult the
(Jahanmiri)9 in regard to general drag reduction in aircraft industry.
3.3.3.1 Experiments on Bluff Bodies
Two major experiments have been done on bluff bodies, the first one by (Morel)7 and the second by
(Ahmed)8. The objective was to study the flow behavior around cars with a particular type of rear
shape called
hatchback or
fastback. These
experiments are
even now used
as a reference in
many numerical
studies. The bluff
body used by
Ahmed, similar
to the one used
by Morel, is
illustrated in
Figure 3.3.4. It Figure 3.3.4 The Ahmed bluff body
has the same
proportions as a
realistic car but with sharp edges. More precisely, the ratio of length/width/height is equal to
3.33/1.5/1. In both cases, the rear base is interchangeable by modifying the slant angle denoted here
as α. The Reynolds numbers are taken equal to 1.4 × 106 and 4.29 × 106 in the Morel and Ahmed
experiments, respectively.
3.3.3.2 Wake Flow Behind a Bluff Body
The most difficult flow region to predict is located at the wake of the car where recirculation and
separation occur. It is also the region which is responsible for most of the car drag (see 3.3.3.3). In
a time-averaged sense, two distinct regimes depending on the slant angle α, called Regime I and II,
have been observed in the experiments done by Morel and Ahmed. The value of the critical angle αc
between both regimes is approximately equal to 30 degrees in each experiment but can slightly
change depending on the Reynolds number and the exact geometry.
 43

• Regime I (αc < α < 90◦): In this

case, the flow exhibits a full 3D
behavior with a separation area
including the whole slant and
base area. The recirculation
zones, coming from the four parts
of the car (roof, floor and the two
base sides) gather and form a pair
of horseshoe vortices situated
one above another in a separation
bulb (see zones A and B in Figure
3.3.5). Vortices, coming off the
slant side edges are also present
(zone C in Figure 3.3.5).
• Regime II (0 < α < αc ): For low
values of α, the flow remains two
dimensional and separates only
at the rear base. Two counter- Figure 3.3.5 Wake flow behavior behind Ahmed’s bluff
rotating vortices appear from the body
roof and the floor similar to what
happens around airfoils. When increases up to αc, the flow becomes three-dimensional
because of the appearance of two longitudinal vortices issued from the side walls of the car.
The critical value of CLc corresponds to an unstable configuration associated with a peak in the drag
coefficient (see section 3.3.3.3). In this case, a slight change can generate a high modification of the
wake flow. For these reasons, it is essential to avoid such angle value in the design of real cars.
3.3.3.3 Drag Variation with the Slant Angle
A dimensionless coefficient, called drag coefficient and related to the drag force acting on the bluff
body, is defined as follows:
𝐅D
CD =
1
ρV 2 S
2 ∞
Eq. 3.3.2
In this expression, ρ represents the air density, V∞ is the freestream velocity, S is the cross section
area and Fd is the total drag force acting on the car projected on the longitudinal direction. Note that
the drag force Fd can be decomposed into a sum of a viscous drag force and a pressure drag force.
A first striking result observed by Morel is that the slant surface and the rear base are responsible for
more than 90% of the pressure drag force. Moreover, the latter represents more than 70% of the
total drag force. These observations have been confirmed by the Ahmed experiment where only 15%
to 25% of the drag is due to the viscous drag.
3.3.3.4 References
1 Ohad Gur, William H. Mason, and Joseph A. Schetz, “Full-Configuration Drag Estimation”, Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 4, July–August 2010.

2 Blackwell, J., “Numerical Method To Calculate the Induced Drag or Optimal Span Loading for Arbitrary

Non-Planar Aircraft,” NASA SP-405, May 1976.

3 Prandtl, L., “Tragfliigeltheorie,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,

1918.
4 Falkner, V., “The Solution of Lifting-Plane Problems by Vortex-Lattice Theory,” Aeronautical Research

Council Reports and Memoranda No. 2591, London, 1943.

 44

5 Ohad Gur, William H. Mason, and Joseph A. Schetz, “Full-Configuration Drag Estimation”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 4, July–August 2010.
6 Laurent Dumas, “Chapter 7- CFD-based Optimization for Automotive Aerodynamics”, Optimization

and Computational Fluid Dynamics, ISBN 978-3-540-72152-9, 2008.

7 Morel, T.: Aerodynamic drag of bluff body shapes characteristic of hatch-back cars. SAE Paper

7802670 (1978)
8 Ahmed, S.R., Ramm, R., Faltin, G.: Some salient features of the time averaged ground vehicle wake.

SAE Paper 840300 (1984).

9 Mohsen Jahanmiri, “Aircraft Drag Reduction: An Overview”, Research report 2011:02
10 Akgün, O., Golcuk, A. İ., Kurtuluş, D. F., & Kaynak, Ü. (2016). Drag Analysis of a Supersonic Fighter

Aircraft. Ninth International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD9), Istanbul,

TURKEY. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/79292

3.3.4 Case Study - Aerodynamic Study of a Drag Reduction System and Its Actuation System for a
Formula Student Competition Car
Authors : Ricardo Loução1, Gonçalo O. Duarte1,2 and Mário J. G. C. Mendes1,3
Affiliations : 1ISEL- Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa,
1959-007 Lisbon, Portugal
2Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research (IN+), Associação para o

Desenvolvimento do Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001

Lisbon, Portugal
3Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean Engineering (CENTEC), Instituto Superior

Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

Citation : Loução, R.; Duarte, G.O.; Mendes, M.J.G.C. Aerodynamic Study of a Drag Reduction System
and Its Actuation System for a Formula Student Competition Car. Fluids 2022, 7, 309.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids7090309
License : © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Adaption Mode : Minor due to formatting
3.3.4.1 Abstract
This work presents a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis of a drag reduction system (DRS)
used in a Formula Student competition vehicle, focusing on the interaction between the triple wing
elements, as well as on the electrical actuators used to provide movement to the upper two flaps. The
S1123 wing profile was chosen, and a 2D analysis of the wing profile was made. The trailing edge
was rounded off to conform to Formula Student competition safety rules, resulting in around a 4%
decrease in the lift coefficient and around a 12% increase in the drag coefficient for an angle of attack
of 12∘, compared to the original wing profile. The multi-element profile characteristics are: wing
main plate with 4∘, first flap 28∘, and second flap 60∘. To evaluate the wing operation, end plates and
electrical linear actuators were added, generating a maximum lift coefficient of 1.160 and drag
coefficient of 0.397, which provides around a 10% reduction in lift and a 9% increase in drag
compared to the absence of the linear actuators. When activating the DRS, the flap rotation generates
about a 78% decrease in the aerodynamic drag coefficient and 53% in the lift coefficient for the
minimum aerodynamic drag setting.
Keywords: aerodynamic study; drag reduction system; wings actuators; formula student
competition car
 45

3.3.4.2 Introduction
The DRS system was introduced in Formula 1 in 2011, and it allows the rear wing flap to be placed
at a horizontal position at certain locations on the track when the pilot is one second apart from the
pilot in front. As a result, the aerodynamic drag force is reduced by about 20%, increasing the
possibility of overtaking [1]. An 83% reduction in aerodynamic drag was achieved for a free-flow
tested multi-element rear wing, while for a ground-effect tested multi-element front wing, it achieved
a 70% reduction. Together, these two systems contributed to a 53% reduction in aerodynamic drag
created by the car [2]. A similar application of DRS can be done to Formula student (FST) competition
cars, leading to lap reduction times of circa 1.5 s tested on a track, covering 30 laps [3].
The wing profiles used in motorsport are identical to those used in aviation. Therefore, there are
several different wing profiles for different types of use. Numerous aerodynamic studies can be found
with different types of profiles aimed at motorsport, including a wide variety of NACA (National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) profiles and others designed by Liebeck, Eppler Siegler, and
Wortmann. However, and based on a broad research perspective, the application of some high lift
wing profiles are very common, for example, the profiles, Eppler 423, S1223, FX74-CL5-140, are used
due to their high lift coefficients in flows with a low Reynolds number [4].
During the last decades, some methodologies for creating high lift wing profiles were devised. In
1975, A.M. Smith [5] describes the physics of high lift wing profiles and how to achieve the best lift
coefficient without separating its boundary layer, concluding that, to obtain the highest lift coefficient
without boundary layer separation, it is necessary to use a fast pressure recovery methodology, such
as Stratford recovery or concave recovery.
Unlike convex pressure recovery, concave pressure recovery reaches a very high adverse pressure
gradient at the beginning of pressure recovery, causing the boundary layer to be in constant
imminent separation [5]. However, because the boundary layer is so thin and sensitive, any
disturbance causes the maximum lift coefficient to be greatly reduced. Another disadvantage is the
sudden drop in lift once the profile exceeds the maximum angle of attack (AoA).
Numerical analysis of the profiles applied on FST vehicles can be done recurring to Computational
Fluid Dynamics, which is a technique that can be used to simulate the behavior of fixed [6] or rotating
[7] wings. Using numerical simulation and a criteria of low Reynolds number, high lift coefficient, and
a good efficiency between the lift coefficient and aerodynamic drag, the best wing profile for FST
application was found to be the S1123 profile due to its lift and aerodynamic resistance ratio [8]. Due
to geometry restrictions implemented in Formula Student regulations (the trailing edge of the profile
must have a minimum rounding radius of 1.5 mm, as sharp edges are not allowed for safety reasons),
further improvements on the S1223 wing profile were made to implement it in a Formula Student
race car [9]. The profile, S1223, was chosen after comparison with other profiles, due to its highest
lift coefficient for Reynolds numbers between 2⤫105 and 3⤫105. The modified trailing edge of the
S1123 profile was analyzed in 2D and 3D using Ansys® 2019 R2 software, Ansys Inc. As expected,
the modified wing profile has lower aerodynamic coefficients (CL = 1.405; CD = 0.0510) [9] than the
original S1123 profile (CL = 2.2; CD = 0.046) [10].
For the case of FST, it is important to have a multi-element system. The basic parameters to consider
when designing a multi-element wing profile are the angles of attack and the gap between the main
profile and the flaps. In order to achieve a highly efficient design, McBeath [11] indicates that “gap”
and “overlap” values should stay between 1-4% and 1-6% of the profile chord size, respectively,
which leads to the optimization of larger AoA. It is also suggested an angle of attack between 4 and
6% for the main wing, an angle of attack between 25 and 30% for the first flap, and 30-70% for the
second flap [11].
The DRS operation requires an actuator, typically electric, to take advantage of the electrical systems
of the FST vehicle. There are several types of actuators: linear or rotational, whose objective will be
to transform their movement into the rotational movement of the two upper elements of the rear
wing. However, the actuator shape, positioning, and components used to move the flaps also affect
 46

the aerodynamics of the rear wing. There was no information found on the impacts of introducing
these elements on the aerodynamic characteristics of the rear wing. Consequently, this work aims to
numerically simulate the structural and fluid dynamics, for the full functioning active DRS system
(with a new linear electric actuator), using CFD tools. It was necessary to perform the following tasks:
1. Develop and model the multi-element profile, according to FST competition rules and
regulations.
2. Develop a multi-element rear wing and study its aerodynamic behavior using finite element
methods.
3. Develop a DRS System based on existing technologies in the literature that may be suitable
for the FST competition.
4. Implement an active DRS System on the multi-element rear wing, using a new and different
electric actuator (in a new position on the wing), and study its aerodynamic behavior using
finite element methods.
This paper is defined by the following sections: in Section 3.3.4.2, a brief Introduction on the
subject is done, considering the most used wing profiles and the information to build the multi-
element wing, as well as the actuators used to the operation of a DRS system. Section 3.3.4.3
presents the case studies, the actuator chosen, and the CFD domain characteristics. Section 3.3.4.4
provides the Results for the profile chosen, the multi-element profile, and the 3D wing with and
without actuator. Finally, Discussion analyzes the results and limitations of the study.
3.3.4.3 Materials and Methods
Figure 3.3.6 presents the main methodology regarding the numerical study of the rear wing with
DRS actuators. Commercial software was used for geometry design (Solidworks® Student Edition
2020, Dassault Systemes) and to analyze the flow behavior (Ansys® 2019 R2, Ansys Inc.), following
the flowchart presented.

Figure 3.3.6 Flowchart with the geometries analyzed and software used

3.3.4.3.1 Profile
Based on the literature review, the geometry of the rear wing will be designed with the profile S1223.
In order to achieve an efficient design, following [11], a vertical gap of 3.8% and a horizontal gap of
5.2% of the profile chord size were used to create the multielement profile. Additionally, angles of
 47

Figure 3.3.7 Case studies include: (a) simple profile; (b) multi-element profile; (c) 3D Wing without
actuator; (d) 3D wing with two actuators

attack between 4∘ and 5∘ for the main element, between 28∘ and 32∘ for flap 1 and 60∘ and 65 there
were studied for flap 2, also following [11]. The dimensions of the wings were defined, taking into
account the regulatory restrictions of the Formula Student [12]. Thus, a chord length of 320 mm was
defined for the main wing, with a 40% reduction for flap 1 and a 40% reduction for flap 2 compared
to flap 1. The dimensions of the wing main, flap 1, and flap 2 can be seen in Figure 3.3.7a), while the
dimensions of the horizontal and vertical gaps can be seen in Figure 3.3.7b).
There were four datasets performed, consisting of the S1123 profile (for validation), the S1123 multi-
element profile (2D analysis, to define the best combination of AoA), the 3D wing without the
actuators (Figure 3.3.7c), and with the actuators (Figure 3.3.7d). The full final rear wing consists
of the wing profiles, endplates, and the DRS system actuators. For each of the configurations studied,
the lift and drag coefficients were calculated following

FLift FDrag
CL = , CD =
1 2 1 2
ρU A ρU A
2 ∞ 2 ∞
Eq. 3.3.3
This Equations use information from air density (ρ), free flow air speed (U∞), and wing area (A). In
these equations, it is used as the lift force for CL and the drag force for CD. All the variables are in SI
units.
 48

Figure 3.3.8 (a) Actuator and (b) mechanism used to move the DRS system. Rods 2, 3, and 4 transform
linear motion into circular motion

3.3.4.3.2 Actuator
A LAS 1 electric linear actuator from TECNOPOWER was selected, with a stroke of 200 mm, weight of
1.04 kg, maximum propulsion and traction force of 1200 N, maximum holding force of 800 N,
actuation speed between 8 and 12 mm/s, powered by 12 V and 6A, with protection against water
class IP65 [13]. In this work, two actuators (placed symmetrically on the endplates) were used to
rotate the wing with synchronism and to withstand the forces involved. Figure 3.3.8 shows the
actuator and the respective mechanism responsible for transforming the linear movement of the
actuator into a circular movement of the rear wing flaps. Rods 2, 3, and 4 are fixed between them and
do not have individual freedom of movement. The system is closed when the actuator stem is at rest
and the wings are at the maximum angle of attack, according to the design selected. When the linear
actuator rod moves 6 mm, rods 2, 3, and 4 transform the linear movement into circular movement,
rotating Flaps 1 and 2, having attack angles of 0∘, and the system is considered open.
3.3.4.3.3 CFD Domain
The configuration of the computational domain used in this study was obtained based on the best
practices for automotive aerodynamic simulation, indicating that the domain must be at least three
times the length of the car from the front and five times the length from the rear [14]. The S1123
multi-element profile 2D study domain has the following dimensions: 20 meters long and 10 meters
high. In this case, as the aerodynamic analysis is only performed on the rear wing (isolated from the
vehicle), the dimensions were
defined through the minimum
chassis length established in
the Formula Student
competition regulations (1500
mm) [12]. Due to the
complexity of the chosen wing
profile, the virtual wind tunnel
was designed with a length four
times longer than the car from Table 3.3.1 Boundary conditions
the front and eight times the
 49

length from the rear, which is very close to the minimum guidelines defined by Lanfrit[14]. The wing
was centered in the middle of the virtual tunnel to increase the ability to capture the turbulent flow
behavior caused by the wing.
The boundary conditions of the present study (Table 3.3.1) were defined to represent the track
conditions in a Formula Student race. The fluid at the entrance of the virtual wind tunnel (“inlet”)
was defined with a velocity of 14.7 m/s with a direction normal to it. The fluid velocity is equivalent
to a Reynolds number of 1⤫106, calculated for an S1223 wing profile with 1 meter of chord. The
“walls” of the domain were defined as “no slip moving wall” to simulate free flow, with a translational
velocity equal to the velocity of the fluid at the entrance of the domain.
Atmospheric free flow simulations have very small turbulence intensities, often approximately 0.1%.
Experimentally, it is verified that lower values do not modify the location of the laminar-turbulent
transition. The turbulent viscosity ratio under boundary conditions is generally between 1 and 10
for external flows [15].
The turbulence properties at the entrance of the virtual wind tunnel were assigned again, according
to the recommendations of Lanfrit [14], turbulence intensity of 0.003%, and a turbulent viscosity
ratio in the order of 1. The virtual wind tunnel (“outlet”) was configured to behave as a pressure
outlet with a gage pressure of 0 Pa and with turbulence properties identical to the inlet. The “walls”
of the domain were characterized as “Stationary Wall” and “Specified Shear” to simulate the rear
wing in free mode.
The turbulence model chosen to develop the rear wing study was the Transition (ϒ-Reθ) SST model,
due to its adequacy over other models used for the analysis of the behavior of the boundary layer for
low Reynolds numbers [16], which is the case of Formula Student. This model has also been identified
to provide more reliable results, clearly identifying the flow transition behavior for low Reynolds
numbers, as well as for low and high angles of attack [17].
Eq. 3.3.4 presents the transport equation for the transition momentum-thickness, where ∼Reθ is the
transition onset momentum-thickness Reynolds number, Pθt represents a source term that forces the
∼Re to match the local transition momentum-thickness Reynolds number, while ρ, ϻ, and U represent
θ
the density, dynamic viscosity, and flow speed, respectively [18].

̃
∂(ρRe θt ) ∂(ρŨ
j Reθt ) ∂ ̃
μt ∂(Re θt )
+ = Pθt + [σθt (μ + ) ]
∂t ∂xj ∂xj σg ∂xj
Eq. 3.3.4
In the present project, the mesh quality for each simulation was analyzed through its asymmetry and
orthogonality [19], as well as the residuals. An unstructured mesh with tetrahedral elements were
used in all domains studied, except for the prismatic elements within the inflation layers. Tetrahedral
elements were used because they present the fastest way to generate a computational mesh with the
least amount of memory required, which is an important feature when using state-of-the-art
commercial PC configurations.
Moreover, due to the complex shape of the wing, with the flaps and DRS actuator, the unstructured
mesh allows a better study of these areas. For the 3D studies, in order to increase the mesh density
near the trailing edges, the area of worst asymmetry and mesh orthogonality, the surface elements
associated with the trailing edges of the wing profiles, was dimensioned with 0.0008 meters and a
volumetric rate maximum growth rate of 1.1. Figure 3.3.9 presents a detail of the mesh for the 2D
profile and 3D rear wing with the actuator.
 50

Figure 3.3.9 Example of the mesh detail: (a) trailing edge of 2D profile and (b) 3D rear wing with
actuator

Figure 3.3.10 Analysis of mesh properties for three AoA: (a) 0, (b) 10, and (c) 12 degrees

3.3.4.4 Results
3.3.4.4.1 S1123 Profile (2D)
For the 2D simulation, an analysis of mesh properties was made, by changing the number of elements
and evaluation of asymmetry and orthogonality, for three AoA (0∘,10∘, and 12∘). Figure 3.3.10
presents the impact of increasing the number of elements on CL and CD using the coarser mesh
(112908 elements) as reference.
Results suggest that increasing the number of elements above 352358 elements provide small
changes on CL and CD data. Therefore, this mesh was selected as the basis for the profile analysis since
it uses low computational requirements and provides good quality on asymmetry (0.72573) and
orthogonality (0.41782). Comparing the results obtained through the aerodynamic simulations in
the Ansys® 2019 R2 software, Ansys Inc. and the values generated in the XFOIL® v. 6.99 software,
 51

Figure 3.3.11 Comparison of XFOIL data with simulated results: (a) CL and (b) CD

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), confirmed through the literature, deviations between
3.4% and 11.2% can be observed for the aerodynamic resistance coefficients and between 4.3% and
11.2% for the lift coefficients. Figure 3.3.11a represents the comparison of the aerodynamic lift
coefficient, while Figure 3.3.11b presents the comparison of the resistance coefficient, compared
with the values obtained from the XFOIL® v. 6.99 software, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT). In both cases, the similarities of the curves can be observed, such as a slight increase in the
aerodynamic drag coefficient and a small decrease in the lift coefficient. The differences found can
be explained by the rounding of the trailing edge (according to the Formula Student rules) and
following the literature, which has already stated that a small change in the profile can have a large
impact on its aerodynamic behavior [20].

Table 3.3.2 Aerodynamic study of the angles of attack of the multi-element profile

3.3.4.4.2 S1123 Multi-Element Profile

The best aerodynamic results obtained were CL = 3.4254 and a CD = 0.1223, resulting from a
configuration (4∘, 28∘, 60∘), that is, an AoA of 4∘ for the main wing, 28∘ for flap 1, and finally, 60∘ for
flap 2. The aerodynamic results from this study can be observed and compared in Table 3.3.2. The
mesh used had 481875 elements and a good quality, with 0.8153 for asymmetry and 0.2930 for
orthogonality.
 52

Figure 3.3.13 Multi-element profile speed contour graph

Observing the speed contour plot (Figure 3.3.13) around the multi-element profile generated by
the Ansys® 2019 R2 software, Ansys Inc. after the simulation, the control of boundary layer
separation is done by increasing speed due to the space between the elements near the low speed,

Figure 3.3.12 (a) Speed contour and (b) pressure contour for the multi-element wing. From top to
bottom, different sections of the rear wing are represented
 53

prone to flow separation. The maximum speed obtained was on the mainplane of the multi-element
profile with a velocity of 59.2 m/s, decreasing afterwards. Comparing with the maximum velocity of
the profile S1223, studied in the previous section with an angle of attack of 12∘, the maximum speed
increased by 83.2%.
3.3.4.4.3 S1123 Multi-Element 3D Wing without Actuator
The rear wing has a lift coefficient of 1.2806 and an aerodynamic drag coefficient of 0.4329. The flow
behavior caused by the rear wing is expected, creating a low-speed zone represented in blue and a
positive pressure zone, characterized by the orange color. Moreover, on the mainplane, a high-speed
zone can be seen in red and yellow, as well as a negative pressure zone in light blue and green.
Observing Figure 3.3.12, it can be seen that the endplates fulfill their role by preventing the
appearance of large wingtip vortices on the edges of the wings and delaying their appearance, thus
improving the ability to generate negative lift of the three elements belonging to the rear wing.
However, vortices are formed on the upper and lower surface of the endplates with a vorticity that is
33% lower than those generated without the endplates.
3.3.4.4.4 S1123 Multi-Element 3D Wing with Actuator
The actuator of the DRS system is responsible for a 9.5% decrease in the lift coefficient and 8.3% in

Figure 3.3.14 (a) Speed contour and (b) pressure contour for the multi-element wing with actuators.
From top to bottom, different sections of the rear wing are represented

the aerodynamic drag coefficient compared to the rear wing without an actuator. The rear wing plus
DRS set has a maximum lift coefficient of 1.1597, while the maximum drag coefficient is 0.3969.
Figure 3.3.14 represents the speed and pressure generated on the rear wing with actuators by
Ansys® 2019 R2 software, Ansys Inc. It can be observed that the linear actuator causes a deceleration
 54

of the flow around it, generating a very low speed and pressure zone in the immediate vicinity of the
actuator. The vortex on the upper surface of the endplate has the same behavior, as presented in
Figure 3.3.12. However, the vortex generated on the lower surface of the endplate has a larger core
but circulates with a lower vorticity. When the DRS system is operated, the flaps rotate until they
reach an angle of attack of zero degrees (Figure 3.3.15). When opening the flaps, the DRS system
provides a 78% decrease in the aerodynamic drag coefficient, as well as a 53% decrease in the lift

Figure 3.3.15 Speed contour near the endplate zone: (a) closed DRS; (b) open DRS.

coefficient in relation to a closed DRS system. The rear wing, with the open DRS system, generates a
lift coefficient of 0.5421 and an aerodynamic drag coefficient of 0.0864.
Figure 3.3.16 presents the path lines over the closed and open DRS system. When the DRS is closed
it can be observed with a higher vorticity near the endplates, which is propagated behind the rear
wing, increasing the drag. When the DRS is open, the flow is less affected by the vorticity near the
endplates, particularly near the midsection of the rear wing. It is also suggested by the straight path
lines that the interaction between the two upper flaps is lower when the DRS is open, as expected.
 55

Figure 3.3.16 Path lines: (a) closed DRS; (b) open DRS

3.3.4.5 Discussion
This work presents the aerodynamic impacts of installing two electric actuators for DRS operation in
a rear wing. It has been verified that rounding the edges of the S1123 profile to meet FST criteria
generates a negative impact up to 11%, depending on the AoA. It was also evaluated that the best
configuration for the multi-element wing (4∘, 28∘, 60∘, with CL = 3.4254 and CD = 0.1223) and the
same configuration for the 3D wing (CL= 1.2806 and CD = 0.4329). It has also been shown the impacts
of the physical implementation of the two actuators and the moving elements in the rear wing. This
element is responsible for a 9.5% decrease in lift coefficient and an 8.3% increase in drag coefficient.
Numerical simulations of complex geometries use large computational resources.
The quality of the data collected was verified using mesh asymmetry and orthogonality, as well as
the residuals. For 2D simulations (single profile and multi-element) it was possible to obtain a mesh
qualified as good [19] (below 0.8 for asymmetry and over 0.29 for orthogonality). The residuals are
all below 10 − 4. Regarding 3D simulations, computational effort is much higher, limiting the
asymmetry values to 0.96 and orthogonality to 0.004. These values generate a bad quality mesh,
although residuals are below 10-4, excluding continuity, which was 10-3.
This paper also shows that CFD tools require computational efforts that, even for simple case studies,
such as the one presented, need dedicated hardware to obtain better mesh layouts. Considering the
context of a Formula Student study, the limitations presented indicate that CFD studies require
 56

several computing hours and hardware resources, limiting the final data quality. However, the results
presented indicate that it is possible to evaluate the aerodynamic impact of the DRS system actuators
and obtain the potential impacts of its introduction of the multi-element rear wing [21].
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.O.D. and M.J.G.C.M.; methodology, R.L, G.O.D. and
M.J.G.C.M.; software, R.L.; validation, R.L., G.O.D. and M.J.G.C.M.; formal analysis, R.L, G.O.D. and
M.J.G.C.M.; investigation, R.L.; resources, R.L.; data curation, R.L.; writing original draft preparation, R.L,
G.O.D. and M.J.G.C.M.; writing review and editing, R.L., G.O.D. and M.J.G.C.M.; visualization, R.L.;
supervision, G.O.D. and M.J.G.C.M.; project administration, G.O.D. and M.J.G.C.M. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request to the
authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
3.3.4.6 References
1. Bhatnagar, U.R. Formula 1 Race Car Performance Improvement By Optimization of the Aerodynamic
Relationship Between the Front and Rear Wings; Master Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University,
2014.
2. Wordley, S.; McArthur, D.; Phersson, L.; Tudball Smith, D.; Burton, D. Development of a Drag
Reduction System (DRS) for Multi-Element Race Car Wings. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian
Fluid Mechanics Conference, AFMC 2014, Melbourne, Australia, 8–11 December 2014.
3. Kajiwara, S. Passive Variable Rear-Wing Aerodynamics of an Open-Wheel Racing Car. Automot.
Engine Technol. 2017, 2, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41104-017-0021-9.
4. Pakkam, S.S. High Downforce Aerodynamics for Motorsports; Master Thesis, North Carolina State
University, 2011.
5. Smith, A. High-Lift Aerodynamics /37th Wright Brothers Lecture/. In Proceedings of the 6th
Aircraft Design,Flight Test and Operations Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 12–14 August 1974;
Volume 12. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1974-939.
6. Tabatabaei, N.; Hajipour, M.; Mallor, F.; Örlü, R.; Vinuesa, R.; Schlatter, P. RANS Modelling of a
NACA4412 Wake Using Wind Tunnel Measurements. Fluids 2022, 7, 153.
https://doi.org/10.3390/FLUIDS7050153.
7. Mamouri, A.R.; Lakzian, E.; Khoshnevis, A.B. Entropy Analysis of Pitching Airfoil for Offshore Wind
Turbines in the Dynamic Stall Condition. Ocean. Eng. 2019, 187, 106229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2019.106229.
8. Kratochvíl, M.; Astraverkhau, N.; Slanina, V. Wings Improving Driving Parameters. J. Middle Eur.
Constr. Des. Cars 2015, 12, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2478/mecdc-2014-0005.
9. Muralidharan, V.; Balakrishnan, A.; Suresh Kumar, Y. Design Optimization of Front and Rear
Aerodynamic Wings of a High Performance Race Car with Modified Airfoil Structure. In Proceedings
of the 2015 International Conference on Nascent Technologies in the Engineering Field, ICNTE 2015,
Navi Mumbai, India, 9–10 January 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNTE.2015.7029904.
10. Aramayo, S.A.O.; Nallim, L.; Oller, S. Usability of the Selig S1223 Profile Airfoil as a High Lift
Hydrofoil for Hydrokinetic Application. J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 2015, 9, 537–542.
11. McBeath, S. Competition Car Aerodynamics: A Practical Handbook; Haynes Publishing, ISBN
1844252302; 2006.
12. SAE International. Formula SAE Rules 2019, Available online.
 57

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiJzcSpxZf6
AhUGWBoKHYkhA3QQFn
oECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fsaeonline.com%2Fcdsweb%2Fgen%2FDownloadDocum
ent.aspx%3FDocumentID
%3D64b861c2-980a-40fc-aa88-6a80c43a8540&usg=AOvVaw0x1l38EJ-pmZSwzNOTdTmS
(accessed on 22 July 2022).
13. Tecnopower Actuadores Lineales-Husillos de Bolas o Rosca Trapecial Motores C.C. Available
online:
https://www.tecnopower.es/catalogos?gclid=CjwKCAjwt7SWBhAnEiwAx8ZLap8N0ysBIuf_AFxk8l
KOfZwHiSIPFp_K41MMt (accessed on 22 July 2022).
14. Lanfrit, M. Best Practice Guidelines for Handling Automotive External Aerodynamics with Fluent.
Fluent 2005, 2, 1-14.
15. Wilcox, D. C. Turbulence modeling for CFD. Vol. 2. La Canada, CA: DCW industries, 1998.
16. Langtry, R. B. and Menter, F. R. Correlation-Based Transition Modeling for Unstructured
Parallelized Computational Fluid
17. Aftab, S.M.A.; Rafie, A.S.M.; Razak, N.A.; Ahmad, K.A. Turbulence Model Selection for Low Reynolds
Number Flows. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153755.
18. Menter, F.R.; Langtry, R.B.; Likki, S.R.; Suzen, Y.B.; Huang, P.G.; Völker, S. A Correlation-Based
Transition Model Using Local Variables—Part I: Model Formulation. J. Turbomach. 2006, 128, 413–
422. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2184352.
19. Liseikin, V.D. Grid Generation Methods; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 53;
ISBN 9788578110796.
20. Menter, F.R.; Smirnov, P.E.; Liu, T.; Avancha, R. A One-Equation Local Correlation-Based
Transition Model. Flow Turbul. Combust. 2015, 95, 583–619.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-015-9622-4.
21. Loução, R.A.M. Sistema DRS Para Um Carro de Competição Fórmula Student, Master Thesis,
Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa; 2021.

3.4 Aerodynamic Forces and Moments

The aerodynamic forces and moments on a body are
due to only two basic sources: Pressure and Shear
Stress distributions over the body. Both have
dimensions of force per unit area where pressure
acts normal to surface and shear tangential. The net
effect of P and τ distributions integrated over the
complete body surface is a resultant aerodynamic
force R and moment M on the body. Lift is the
perpendicular component of R w.r.t. free stream
while Drag represents the parallel (Anderson) 46 .
Therefore, source of aerodynamic Lift, Drag, and
Moments on the body are the pressure and shear
stress distributions integrated over the body. To
better represent these forces, dimensionless
coefficients of Lift, C L, drag, C D, and moment, C M, Figure 3.4.1 Schematic of Lift and Drag
introduced as Coefficients vs Angle of Attack on a Airfoil
(Courtesy of Anderson)

46 Anderson, John D. 1984: “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hills Inc.

 58

L D M
CL = , CD = , CM =
q∞ S q∞ S q∞ SL
Eq. 3.4.1
Where q∞ is the previously defined dynamic pressure, ½ ρV2 , and reference area S and reference
length L are chosen to pertain to given geometric shape; for different shapes , S and L may be different
things. For example, for an airplane wing S is the plan form area and L the mean chord length.
However for a sphere, S would be the cross-section area while L is the diameter. More information
such as lifting airfoil and finite wing theory, and other relevant topics, can be obtained in any
aerodynamic specific text books such as [Anerson]47.. Generic variations for CL and CD versus angle of
attack (α) are sketched in Figure 4.1.1. Note that CL increases linearly with α until an angle of attack
is reached when the wing stalls, the lift coefficient reaches a peak value, and then drops off as CL is
further increased. The maximum value of the lift coefficient is denoted by CL,max, as illustrated.

3.5 Leading-Edge Flow as a Governing Factor in Leading-Edge Vortex (LEV)

Initiation in Unsteady Airfoil Flows
A leading-edge suction parameter (LESP) that is derived from potential flow theory as a measure of
suction at the airfoil leading edge is used to study initiation of Leading Edge Vortex (LEV) formation
by [Ramesh et al.]48. The LESP hypothesis is presented, which states that LEV formation in unsteady
flows for specified airfoil shape and Reynolds number occurs at a critical constant value of LESP,
regardless of motion kinematics. The hypothesis is seen to hold except in cases with slow-rate
kinematics which evince significant trailing-edge separation. Low-Reynolds-number flows at low
speeds and small scales, despite being incompressible and non-thermodynamic, are rife with
complexity owing to the effects of viscosity and flow separation. Much research on this topic in the
twenty-first century has been driven by interest in Micro-Air Vehicle (MAV) design, a problem at
the interface between low Re fluid mechanics and flight vehicle engineering. The design problem in
this regime has been driven by seeking bio-inspiration from insects which employ flapping flight at
high
dimensionless rates of motion (reduced frequencies) to achieve remarkable flying prowess. It has
been shown that the single most important aerodynamic phenomenon largely responsible for the
success of flapping flight at low Reynolds numbers is the leading-edge vortex (LEV). The conditions
under which such LEVs develop on rounded-leading-edge airfoils form the subject of this study and
are investigated with a large set of unsteady test cases using experiments, computations, and
theoretical methods. Two-dimensional problems without additional complexity involving span-wise
flow and wingtip vortices are considered here and serve as a starting point for more complex
investigations. LEV formation is initiated by reversed flow at the airfoil surface in the vicinity of the
leading edge, followed by the formation of a free shear layer. The free shear layer then builds up into
a vortex, which traverses the airfoil chord and convects into the wake. Research contributions on
LEV formation have largely arisen from the rotorcraft community and the more recent low-Re/MAV
community.

47John D. Anderson, Jr., “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, 2011.
48Kiran Ramesh, Kenneth Granlund, Michael V. Ol, Ashok Gopalarathnam, Jack R. Edwards, “Leading-edge flow
criticality as a governing factor in leading-edge vortex initiation in unsteady airfoil flows”, Theoretical
Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2017.
 59

3.5.1 Identification of LEV Initiation From CFD Data

The procedure used in this research for identifying the initiation of LEV formation from CFD skin
friction information is illustrated here with the baseline case listed. Figure 3.5.1 presents results
from experiments and CFD for the baseline case at four instants during the motion. The upper surface
skin friction (Cf ) distributions from CFD (on the third row of the figure) are examined at various time

(a) (b) (c ) (d)

Figure 3.5.1 Vorticity Plots from CFD (first row), Flow Visualization from Experiment (second row)

instants of the motion to identify several key steps that lead to the formation of the LEV. The flow
features leading to LEV formation have been discussed by several authors. The four time instants at
(a)–(d), are used to highlight the following flow features:
(a) Attached flow - Before the initiation of the LEV formation, the flow is attached at the leading edge.
The attached boundary layer is thin and the Cf is positive.
(b) Onset of reversed flow - LEV formation is first preceded by the formation of a small region of
reversed flow near the leading edge of the airfoil, signaled by appearance of counterclockwise
vorticity near the surface and a small region of negative Cf .
(c) Initiation of LEV formation - Next, a small region of clockwise vorticity starts to develop at the
surface within the region of counterclockwise vorticity seen in (b). This manifests as a spike in the
negative Cf distribution that reaches up to zero and subsequently becomes a region of positive Cf
within the region of negative Cf distribution. This flow feature signals the formation of the shear layer
in which there is an eruption of surface flow into the mainstream. As in previous work, the instant
when the spike in the negative Cf region first reaches the zero value is taken as the time
corresponding to initiation of LEV formation.
(d) Formation and feeding of the LEV - The eruption of surface flow, initiated in (c), results in a plume
of clockwise vorticity flowing into the mainstream. During these time instants, there are several
spikes in the Cf distribution corresponding to positive-Cf regions embedded within a larger negative-
Cf region.

3.6 Measure of Compressibility & Compressible vs. Incompressible Flows

A flow is classified as being compressible or incompressible depending on the level of variation of
density during flow. Physically, compressibility is the fractional change in volume of the fluid
element per unit change in pressure or isothermal compressibility

1 dv 1 1 dρ
τ=− ( ) for v = ⇒ τ = where ρ = ρ (p ,T)
v dp T ρ ρ dp
 60

Eq. 3.6.1
Therefore, for incompressible flow or constant ρ, the compressibility of gas (τ = 0). In contrast, if ρ =
ρ (p, T), then flow is considered compressible. There are number of aerodynamic problems that could
be considered incompressible without any determinable loss of accuracy. For example flow for
liquids could be considered incompressible, and hence most hydrodynamic problem assume ρ =
constant. Also the flow of gases at low Mach number (M∞ < 0.3) is essentially incompressible. This
is not true for high speed flow when the density fluctuations are apparent and must be treated as
compressible49.

3.7 Speed of Sound

The speed of sound, a molecular phenomenon, in a calorically perfect gas is given by

a = √γRT
Eq. 3.7.1
This is a function of temperature only and related to the average molecular velocity. It is also relates
to compressibility of gas, τ by

1
a=√
ρτ
Eq. 3.7.2
The lower the compressibility, the higher the speed of sound. For an incompressible flow, τ = 0, then
speed of sound is theoretically infinite. The Mach number M = (V/a) is therefore, zero. Hence, the
incompressible flow could be theoretically characterized as zero Mach number flow.

3.8 Sonic Boom

A sonic boom is the sound associated
with the shock waves created by an
object traveling through the air faster
than the speed of sound. Sonic booms
generate significant amounts of sound
energy, sounding much like an
explosion to the human ear 50 . The
crack of a supersonic bullet passing
overhead or the crack of a bullwhip are
examples of a sonic boom in miniature.
Contrary to popular belief, a sonic
boom does not occur only at the
moment an object crosses the speed of
sound; and neither is it heard in all Figure 3.8.1 Illustration of a Sonic Boom as Received by
directions emanating from the Human Ears
speeding object. Rather the boom is a
continuous effect that occurs while the object is travelling at supersonic speeds. But it only affects
observers that are positioned at a point that intersects an imaginary geometrical cone behind the
object. As the object moves, this imaginary cone also moves behind it and when the cone passes over
the observer, they will briefly experience the boom. When an aircraft passes through the air it

49 Anderson, John D. 1984: “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hills Inc.

50 Wikipedia.
 61

creates a series of pressure waves in front of it and behind it, similar to the bow and stern waves
created by a boat. These waves travel at the speed of sound and, as the speed of the object increases,
the waves are forced together, or compressed, because they cannot get out of the way of each other.
Eventually they merge into a single shock wave, which travels at the speed of sound, a critical speed
known as Mach 1, and is approximately 1,235 km/h (767 mph) at sea level and 20 °C (68 °F). In
smooth flight, the shock wave starts at the nose of the aircraft and ends at the tail. Because the
different radial directions around the aircraft's direction of travel are equivalent (given the "smooth
flight" condition), the shock wave forms a Mach cone, similar to a vapor cone, with the aircraft at its
tip (see Figure 3.8.1). As a reference, a systematic grid resolution and time step resolution studies
made by [Yang et al.] 51 using the high-order scheme for supersonic flows and for sonic boom
prediction problems. Considerable improvements in accuracy are found when using the new 3 rd
order U-MUSCL52 scheme.
3.8.1 Propagation of Sonic Boom
Sonic Boom and its propagation encompasses a major field of study in acoustic CFD, in conjunction
with conceptual design of a supersonic aircrafts (mainly military). Therefore, its coverage beyond
the scope of current technical report. Suffice to say, it plays an imperative role in design of
supersonic jets. The near-field solutions (close to aircraft) are highly important to compute the sonic
boom acoustic accurately while considering the presence of all complex phenomena such as
nozzle/plume interaction or shock/boundary-layer interaction (R. Imrak, et al.)[1]. Because of the
complexity of the near-field flow, high fidelity simulations (i.,e., Euler) are needed to obtain the local
pressure field accurately. From the near-field to the ground the Augmented Burgers Equation
(ABE) is solved which is not trivial but only given here as a reference :

Burger Like Equation

⏞ 1 2 Cν ∂2τ ∂σ G ∂σ (ρ0 c0 )
∂σ P = p ∂
⏟ τ P + ∂ P + P − P + P
Γ τ
⏟ 1 + θν ∂ τ
⏟ ⏟
2G ⏟2ρ0 c0
1
2 3 4 5
where P = Dimensionless Pressure
σ = Dimensionless Distance , τ = Dimensionless Time
Eq. 3.8.1
And
1 = Non Linearity , 2 = Viscosity , 3 = Molecular Relaxation ,
4 = Ray Tube Spreading , 5 = Atmosphere Stratification
Definition of the near, mid and far-fields can be seen in Figure 3.8.2 (S. Vincent, 2014 ) [2]. A near-
field is usually defined as 2-3 times of the total length of the aircraft away from the aircraft. In this
research, to obtain the sonic boom loudness accurately, an open-source code SU2 is used as the flow
solver[3]. CFD simulations provide the near field pressure distribution required by the sBOOM code
to compute the sonic boom produced by aircraft. sBOOM is a sonic boom prediction software
developed at NASA Langley Research Center and takes nonlinear atmospheric effects into account
while propagating the near field pressure to the ground. In summary, sBOOM solves the nonlinear

51 Simon Yang, H. Q. Yang, and Robert E. Harris, “Sonic Boom Prediction Using FUN3D High-Order U-MUSCL
Schemes”, 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference.
52 A variable extrapolation formulation for unstructured finite volume codes developed by [Burg] has been

implemented in FUN3D. This scheme is called U-MUSCL and closely resembles the MUSCL scheme used within
structured flow solvers. The formulation is based on information currently available to the unstructured flow
solvers, namely the variable information and the gradient information, and as such, it is trivial to implement
within finite volume flow solvers.
 62

Burger equations (i.e., ABE) to obtain the ground pressure signature.

Figure 3.8.2 Sonic-Boom Propagation [4]

3.8.2 Reference
[1] Rumed Imrak, Emre Karaselvi, Bulent Tutkun and Melike Nikbay. "Exploration of Optimal
Propulsion System Airframe Integration Design Concepts for a Low Boom Supersonic Aircraft," AIAA
2021-2469. AIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUM. August 2021.
[2] S. Vincent, “Augmented Burgers Equation and Supersonic Aircraft Design”, bcam.org, 2014.
[3] Economon, T. D., Palacios, F., Copeland, S. R., Lukaczyk, T. W., and Alonso, J. J., “SU2: An Open-
Source Suite for Multiphysics Simulation and Design,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2016, pp. 828–846
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053813, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053813.
[4] Juan J. Alonso And Michael R. Colonno, Multidisciplinary Optimization with Applications to Sonic-
Boom Minimization, Annual Rev. Fluid. Mech. 44 (2012)
 63

3.9 Mach Number

In fluid dynamics, the Mach number (M or Ma) is a
dimensionless quantity representing the ratio of flow
velocity past a boundary to the local speed of sound
53-54,

V
M=
c
Eq. 3.9.1
Where M is the Mach number, V is the local flow
velocity with respect to the boundaries (either
internal, such as an object immersed in the flow, or
external, like a channel), and c is the speed of sound
in the medium. The local speed of sound, and thereby
the Mach number, depends on the surrounding
medium, in particular the temperature and pressure.
Figure 3.9.1 shows an F/A-18 creating a vapor cone Figure 3.9.1 An F/A-18 Hornet Creating a
at transonic speed just before reaching Mach 1 (By Vapor Cone at Transonic Speed
Ensign John Gay, U.S. Navy).
Regime Mach knots mph Km/h m/s
Subsonic < 0.8 < 530 < 609 < 980 < 273
Transonic 0.8 - 1.2 530-794 609-914 980-1470 273-409
Supersonic 1.2 - 5.0 794-3308 915-3806 1470-6126 410-1702
Hypersonic 5.0 - 10.0 3308-6615 3806-7680 6125-12251 1702-3403
High-Hypersonic 10.0 -24.0 6615-16537 7680-19031 12251-30626 3403-8508
Re-Entry Speeds > 24.0 > 16537 > 19031 > 30626 > 8508

Table 3.9.1 Classification of Mach Number

The Mach number is primarily used to determine the approximation with which a flow can be treated
as an incompressible flow. The medium can be a gas or a liquid. While the terms "subsonic" and
"supersonic," in the purest sense, refer to speeds below and above the local speed of sound
respectively, aerodynamicists often use the same terms to talk about particular ranges of Mach
values. This occurs because of the presence of a "transonic regime" around M = 1 where
approximations of the Navier-Stokes equations used for subsonic design actually no longer apply; the
simplest explanation is that the flow locally begins to exceed M = 1 even though the freestream Mach
number is below this value. Meanwhile, the "supersonic regime" is usually used to talk about the
set of Mach numbers for which linearized theory may be used, where for example the (air) flow is not
chemically reacting, and where heat-transfer between air and vehicle may be reasonably neglected
in calculations. In the following table ( Table 3.9.1), the "regimes" or "ranges of Mach values" are
referred to, and not the "pure" meanings of the words "subsonic" and "supersonic". Generally,
NASA defines "high" hypersonic as any Mach number from 10 to 25, and re-entry speeds as anything
greater than Mach 24. Aircraft operating in this regime include the Space Shuttle and various space
planes in development. Further details regarding the Mach number regimes can be obtained from

53 Young, Donald F.; Bruce R. Munson; Theodore H. Okiishi; Wade W. Huebsch (2010). A Brief Introduction to
Fluid Mechanics (5 Ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 95.
54 Graebel, W.P. (2001). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Taylor & Francis. p. 16.
 64

[Anderson] 55 . In summary,
we attempt to organize our
study of aerodynamic flows
according to one or more of
the various categories
discussed in this section 56 .
The block diagram in
Figure 3.9.2 is presented
to help emphasize these
categories and to show how
they are related.
3.9.1 Flow Regions Based
on Mach Number
Looking at the whole field
simultaneously, four
different speed regimes can
be identified using Mach
number as the criterion:

Figure 3.9.2 Block Diagram Categorizing the Types of

Aerodynamic Flows (Courtesy of John D. Anderson)

3.9.1.1 Subsonic Flow (M < 1 everywhere)

A flow field is defined as subsonic if the Mach number is less than 1 at every point. Subsonic flows
are characterized by smooth streamlines (no discontinuity in slope), as sketched in Figure 3.9.3 a.
Moreover, since the flow velocity is everywhere less than the speed of sound, disturbances in the flow
(say, the sudden deflection of the trailing edge of the airfoil in Figure 3.9.3 a) propagate both
upstream and downstream, and are felt throughout the entire flow field. Note that a freestream Mach
number M∞ less than 1 does not guarantee a totally subsonic flow over the body. In expanding over
an aerodynamic shape, the flow velocity increases above the freestream value, and if M ∞ is close
enough to 1, the local Mach number may become supersonic in certain regions of the flow. This gives
rise to a rule of thumb that M∞ < 0.8 for subsonic flow over slender bodies. For blunt bodies, M∞ must
be even lower to ensure totally subsonic flow. (Again, emphasis is made that the above is just a loose
rule of thumb and should not be taken as a precise quantitative definition). Also, we will show later
that incompressible flow is a special limiting case of subsonic flow where M → 0.
3.9.1.2 Transonic Flow (Mixed Regions Here M < 1 and M > 1)
As stated above, if M∞ is subsonic but is near unity, the flow can become locally supersonic (M > 1).
This is sketched in Figure 3.9.3 b, which shows pockets of supersonic flow over both the top and
bottom surfaces of the airfoil, terminated by weak shock waves behind which the flow becomes
subsonic again. Moreover, if M is increased slightly above unity, a bow shock wave is formed in front
of the body; behind this shock wave the flow is locally subsonic, as shown in Figure 3.9.3 c. This
subsonic flow subsequently expands to a low supersonic value over the airfoil. Weak shock waves

55John D. Anderson, “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hill Inc. pp.37-39, 1976.

56John D. Anderson, Jr, Professor Emeritus University of Maryland, “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 5th edition,
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, 2011.
 65

Figure 3.9.3 Different Regimes of Flow (Courtesy of John D. Anderson)

are usually generated at the trailing edge, sometimes in a “fishtail” pattern as shown in Figure 3.9.3
c. The flow fields shown in Figure 3.9.3 b and c are characterized by mixed subsonic-supersonic
flows and are dominated by the physics of both types of flow. Hence, such flow fields are called
transonic flows. Again, as a rule of thumb for slender bodies, transonic flows occur for freestream
Mach numbers in the range 0.8 < M < 1.2.
3.9.1.3 Supersonic Flow (M > 1 Everywhere)
A flow field is defined as supersonic if the Mach number is greater than 1 at every point. Supersonic
 66

flows are frequently characterized by the presence of shock waves across which the flow properties
and streamlines change discontinuously. This is illustrated in Figure 3.9.3 d for supersonic flow
over a sharp-nosed wedge; the flow remains supersonic behind the oblique shock wave from the tip.
Also shown are distinct expansion waves, which are common in supersonic flow. (Again, the listing
of M∞ > 1.2 is strictly a rule of thumb. For example, in Figure 3.9.3 d, if θ is made large enough, the
oblique shock wave will detach from the tip of the wedge and will form a strong, curved bow shock
ahead of the wedge with a substantial region of subsonic flow behind the wave. Hence, the totally
supersonic flow sketched in Figure 3.9.3 d is destroyed if θ is too large for a given M∞. This shock
detachment phenomenon can occur at any value of M∞ > 1, but the value of θ at which it occurs
increases as M∞ increases. In turn, if θ is made infinitesimally small, the flow field in Figure 3.9.3 d
holds for M∞ ≥ 1.0. The above discussion clearly shows that the listing of M∞ > 1.2 in Figure 3.9.3
d is a very tenuous rule of thumb and should not be taken literally). In a supersonic flow, because
the local flow velocity is greater than the speed of sound, disturbances created at some point in the
flow cannot work their way upstream (in contrast to subsonic flow). This property is one of the most
significant physical differences between subsonic and supersonic flows. It is the basic reason why
shock waves occur in supersonic flows, but do not occur in steady subsonic flow ( J. D. Anderson )57.
Typical challenges of supersonic flight include wave drag, acoustic signature, and aerodynamic
heating due to the formation of shock waves ahead of the vehicle [Shagufta et al.]58. Efforts in the
form of sleek aerodynamic designs, better propulsion systems, and the implementation of passive
and active techniques are generally adopted to achieve a weaker shock wave system. Shock
reduction can improve flight range, reduce fuel consumption and provide thermal protection of the
forebody region.
3.9.1.4 Hypersonic Flow (M ≥ 5)
Refer again to the wedge in Figure 3.9.3 d. Assume θ is a given, fixed value. As M increases above
1, the shock wave moves closer to the body surface. Also, the strength of the shock wave increases,
leading to higher temperatures in the region between the shock and the body (the shock layer). If M
is sufficiently large, the shock layer becomes very thin, and interactions between the shock
wave and the viscous boundary layer on the surface occur. Also, the shock layer temperature
becomes high enough that chemical reactions occur in the air. The O2 and N2 molecules are torn apart;
that is, the gas molecules dissociate. When M∞ becomes large enough such that viscous interaction
and/or chemically reacting effects begin to dominate the flow (Figure 3.9.3 e), the flow field is called
hypersonic. (Again, a somewhat arbitrary but frequently used rule of thumb for hypersonic flow is
M∞ > 5). Hypersonic aerodynamics received a great deal of attention during the period 1955 –1970
because atmospheric entry vehicles encounter the atmosphere at Mach numbers between 25
(ICBMs) and 36 (the Apollo lunar return vehicle). Again during the period 1985–1995, hypersonic
flight received a great deal of attention with the concept of air-breathing supersonic-combustion
ramjet-powered trans atmospheric vehicles to provide single-stage-to-orbit capability. Today,
hypersonic aerodynamics is just part of the whole spectrum of realistic flight speeds59.
3.9.1.4.1 Characteristics of Hypersonic Atmosphere 60
Hypersonic flight has special traits, some of which are seen in every hypersonic flight. Presence of
these particular features during a flight is highly dependent on type of trajectory, configuration etc.

57 John D. Anderson, Jr, Professor Emeritus University of Maryland, “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, 5th edition,
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, 2011.
58 Shagufta Rashid, Fahad Nawaz, Adnan Maqsood, Shuaib Salamat, Rizwan Riaz, “Review of wave drag

reduction techniques: Advances in active, passive and hybrid flow control”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering,
2022.
59 See Previous.
60 Nptel Online courses.
 67

In short it is the mission requirement which decides the nature of hypersonic atmosphere
encountered by the flight vehicle. Some missions are designed for high deceleration in outer
atmosphere during reentry. Hence, those flight vehicles experience longer flight duration at high
angle of attacks due to which blunt nosed configuration are generally preferred for such aircrafts. On
the contrary, some missions are centered on low flight duration with major deceleration closer to
earth surface hence these vehicles have sharp nose and low angle of attack flights. Reentry flight path
of hypersonic vehicle is thus governed by the parameters called as ballistic parameter and lifting
parameter. These parameters are obtained by applying momentum conservation equation in the
direction of the flight path and normal to it. Velocity-altitude map of the flight is thus made from the
knowledge of these governing flight parameters, weight and surface area. Ballistic parameter is
considered for non-lifting reentry flights like flight path of Apollo capsule, however lifting parameter
is considered for lifting reentry trajectories like that of space shuttle. Therefore hypersonic flight
vehicles are classified in four different types based on the design constraints imposed from mission
specifications.
3.9.1.4.2 Re-entry Vehicles (RV)
These vehicles are typically launched using rocket propulsion system. Reentry of these vehicles is
controlled by control surfaces. Large angle of attack flight of blunt nosed configurations is the need
of these flights. Space shuttle ( US ), BURAN (Russian), HOPE ( Japan ) and HERMES (European) are
some examples of these kind vehicles.
3.9.1.4.3 Cruise and Acceleration Vehicle (CAV)
Slender configurations with low angle of attack flights are main features of these flights. These
vehicles are prepared for high heating loads with ablative cooling system. Air breathing propulsion
system of ram or scramjet type is generally preferred for these vehicles. Sanger, which is a two stage
(TSTO) hypersonic vehicle, has first stage with air breathing propulsion and second stage is propelled
with rocket. Hence first stage of Sanger falls in CAV category for which separation takes place at Mach
7.
3.9.1.4.4 Ascent and Reentry Vehicles (ARV)
These vehicles have opposing requirements of their design due to dual duty of ascent, which is
dominated by fuel requirements, and reentry by aero-braking. Rocket or air breathing propulsion
systems can be preferred for these flights. NASP or National Aerospace Plane of US, Space Plane by
Japan and HOTOL are some examples of these vehicles.
3.9.1.4.5 Aero assisted Orbit Transfer Vehicle (AOTV)
This is one more class in which hypersonic vehicles are classified. Ionization and hence presence of
plasma in the vicinity of the spacecraft is the major concern of these vehicles.
Each of these vehicles faces different flight challenges based on their missions and flight
configurations. These challenges form the topic of research in the field of hypersonic aerodynamics.
3.9.1.5 Physics of Hypersonic Flow Regime
Definition of flow regime is based on the Mach number of the flow. If Mach number is below unity
then the flow is called as subsonic. Sonic flow has Mach number exactly equal to one however flow in
the narrow range of Mach number (0.8 ≤ M ≤ 1.2) is called as transonic flow. When the flow Mach
number exceeds beyond 1 then flow is called as supersonic flow. As per the thumb rules, when flow
speed exceeds five times the sound speed, it is treated as hypersonic flow. However hypersonic flow
has certain characteristics which when experienced in the flow, should then only be termed as
hypersonic. These characteristics of hypersonic flow are mentioned below:
3.9.1.5.1 Thin Shock Layers
Region between shock and the body (flight vehicle) is named as shock layer. From the relations
 68

between shock angle, Mach number and flow deflection angle or wedge angle, it would be clear that,
for same flow deflection angle, shock angle decreases with increase in Mach number. Hence the
thickness of the shock layer decreases with increase in Mach number for the same flow deflection
angle. Therefore hypersonic flows have thin shock layer. This interpretation of shock layer thinness
for calorically perfect gas is also applicable for thermally perfect gas and chemically reacting flow.
However, complexity of flow field increases due to thin shock layer where the boundary layer
thickness and shock layer thickness become comparable.
3.9.1.5.2 Entropy Layer
One of the main properties of the curved shock waves in that, each streamline passing through the
shock faces differential entropy rise where stronger portion of shock leads to higher entropy rise
than the weaker portion. Therefore, a layer of entropy variation getting formed downstream of the
shock is termed as entropy layer. Analysis of hypersonic flow becomes further troublesome with
consideration of this entropy layer since according to Croco's principle the entropy layer leads to
vorticity. As it was evident that the shock layer thickness decreases with increase in Mach number
and shock comes closer to the sharp leading edge configurations like wedge or cone, it is also obvious
that shock detachment distance decreases with increase in Mach number for blunt bodies. Hence the
entropy layer exhibits strong gradient of entropy which leads to higher vorticity at higher
magnitudes of Mach numbers. Due to presence of entropy layer it becomes difficult to predict the
boundary layer properties and properties at the edge of the boundary layer of hypersonic flow due
to interaction of boundary layer vorticity and entropy layer vorticity. This interaction is termed as
vorticity interaction.
3.9.1.5.3 Viscous Interaction
As we know, formation of boundary layer takes place near the wall due to no-slip property of the
viscous fluid flow. Formation of this boundary layer takes place across enormous loss of kinetic
energy at hypersonic speeds. This kinetic energy necessarily gets converted in to thermal energy
which leads to increase in temperature of the flow in the vicinity of the wall. This phenomenon is
called as viscous dissipation. Viscous dissipation leads to increase in boundary layer thickness due to
increase in viscosity coefficient with temperature. This situation can also be interpreted from
boundary layer theory where pressure is considered to be constant across the boundary layer. This
thickened boundary layer displaces outer inviscid flow hence freestream hypersonic flow encounters
an inflated object which changes the shock shape and intern boundary layer parameters along with
surface pressure, wall heat flux, skin friction etc. This interaction or communication loop between
viscous boundary layer and outer inviscid flow is called as viscous interaction. As a result of this
interaction aerodynamic parameters such as lift, drag etc deviate a lot from their base value without
interaction. Hence it becomes mandatory to treat viscous interaction for hypersonic flights since
whole shock layer tends to become viscous due to this interaction.
3.9.1.5.4 High-Temperature Flows
As we know, viscous dissipation leads to higher boundary layer thickness and temperature of the
boundary layer fluid. Therefore any hypersonic flight experiences presence of high temperature fluid
in the vicinity of the flight vehicle. Apart from this, blunt nosed configurations encounter very high
temperatures due to normal shock present at the stagnation point. Therefore at these elevated
temperatures, treatment of fluid as calorically perfect or with constant thermodynamic properties
leads to unrealistic estimations. Hence it becomes essential to take in to account the dependence of
specific heats and their ratio as function of temperature for rational estimates.
The dependence of thermodynamic properties on temperature mainly comes from microscopic
changes in the fluid due to increase in internal energy of the fluid by the virtue of loss of kinetic
energy. Increased internal energy leads initially to vibrational excitation followed by dissociation and
finally ionization according to the extent of increase in internal energy. As per the order of magnitude
 69

estimate, vibrational excitation of air takes place at around 800K. Oxygen dissociation starts at
around 2000 K and completes at 4000 K. At around 4000 K nitrogen dissociation commences and
completes at 9000 K. Ionization of this high temperature air or mixture of gases starts from 9000 K
temperature. Hence the initial air with atmospheric composition becomes plasma after 9000 K. As a
result of all these reactions, hypersonic vehicle gets engulfed by reacting boundary layer and high
temperature plasma. Therefore treatment of air or any fluid flowing with hypersonic speed over any
configuration should be done properly by incorporating all the microscopic changes which
essentially leads to change in thermodynamic properties with temperature. This dependence is
highly non-linear, hence analysis or prediction of flow field becomes tougher in this flow regime.
Therefore two types of assumptions are generally made about the flow conditions for high
temperature fluid as equilibrium flow and non-equilibrium flow. If the microscopic changes or
reactions are at faster rate than the movement of the fluid, then it is treated as equilibrium flow
otherwise it is treated as non-equilibrium flow which is difficult to analyze. All these difficulties are
collectively termed as ‘real gas effects'.
Some consequences of presence of high temperature reacting fluid or plasma in the vicinity of the
flight vehicle include, influence on aerodynamic parameters, aerodynamic heating and
communication block-out. Flight parameters like pitch, roll, drag, lift, defection of control surfaces
get largely deviated from their usual estimate of calorically perfect gas. Presence of hot fluid near the
cold vehicle surface induces heat transfer not only through convection but also through radiation.
Communication waves which are necessarily radio waves get absorbed by free electrons formed
from ionization of atmospheric fluid. This phenomenon is called as communication block-out where
on board and ground communication gets terminated.
3.9.1.5.5 Low-Density Flow
Hypersonic flights at higher altitudes experience very low density flows. The governing non-
dimensional parameter for these regimes is called as Knudsen number which is defined as the ratio
of mean free path to the characteristic length of the object. Here mean free path is termed as the mean
distance traveled by the fluid molecule between two successive collisions with other molecules. Since
density of air is very high on the earth's surface, therefore Knudsen number is close to zero for
standard dimensions of hypersonic flights. However if we consider any standard hypersonic flight
taking off from earth surface, it becomes clear that, the flight vehicle is going to encounter change in
density with increase in altitude. Validation of continuum assumption and in turn the usage of usual
governing equations remains intact till the altitude of around 90 km from earth surface where
Knudsen number is below 0.3. Above this altitude, till 150 km from earth surface, density becomes
lower as a effect of which fluid velocity and temperature at the surface do not remain in equilibrium
with the surface. Therefore flow for Knudsen number in range 0.3 to 1 is treated in the transitional
regime where slip wall boundary conditions should be used along with the usual governing equations
based on continuum assumption. However above 150 km from earth's surface, density of air becomes
very low therefore this region is called as free molecular flow where Knudsen number becomes more
than or equal to unity. Thus need for change in governing equations arise in this regime. Hence kinetic
theory of gases finds its application for hypersonic flights at such altitudes.
From these specifications of hypersonic flow regime, it is clear that Mach number to be very much
greater than one is the formal definition of hypersonic flow. Higher density ratio is also one of the
definitions of hypersonic flow. Density ratio across normal shock would reach 6 for calorically perfect
gas (air or diatomic gas) at very high Mach numbers. If concerned fluid is chemically reacting mixture
or even thermally perfect then this ratio increases to value more than 20, which was reached in
Apollo flight. For density ratio to reach more than 20, the specific heat ratio should decrease and
reach a value close to one for air. In actual flight conditions, hypersonic flow field can be reached with
increasing the flight velocity without altering thermal properties of surrounding fluid. However, it is
difficult to achieve this flow in ground testing with very high kinetic energy and high Mach number
 70

without change in thermal properties the fluid. Therefore there are many challenges for experimental
simulation of hypersonic flow. One solution for this problem is the use of different gases to simulate
the low specific heat ratio condition. Tetrafluoroethane is used for specific heat ratio of 1.2 and
hexafluoroethane for 1.1. Understanding the challenges faced by hypersonic flight and derived
solutions for some of those problems are the themes of this subject.
 71

3.10 Case Study 1 - A Data Fusion Method using Combined Variable Fidelity Modeling
and Space Mapping for Aerodynamic Database
Authors : MuKyeom Kim, Maxim Tyan, Vinh Pham, Nadhie Juliawan, Sangho Kim, Jae-Woo Lee
Affiliations : 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea
Title of Paper : A Data Fusion Method using Combined Variable Fidelity Modeling and Space Mapping
for Aerodynamic Database
Citation : (MuKyeom, et al., 2018)
Bibliography : MuKyeom, K., Maxim, T., Vinh, P., Nadhie, J., Sangho, K., & Jae-Woo, L. (2018). A Data
Fusion Method using Combined Variable Fidelity Modeling and Space Mapping for
Aerodynamic Database. China: APISAT2018.
Aerodynamic database is an important component of flight simulation, propeller blade analysis,
aircraft loads analysis, and other types of engineering analysis (MuKyeom, et al., 2018). Construction
of such database may require the use of multiple sources of data and analysis at the same time. A
data fusion method is pro-posed which is an efficient trade-off between computationally
costly high-fidelity methods and cheap but less accurate low fidelity. The proposed data fusion
method uses combination of variable fidelity modeling with space mapping algorithm. The variable
fidelity modeling uses scaling factor to approximate the differences between high and low fidelity
functions. Space mapping makes correction to the input variables by adjusting peak point to reduce
nonlinearity of a scaling function. Aerodynamic table of 2D airfoil is constructed to demonstrate the
proposed method and compare to the original one. The result demonstrates that the proposed
method has absolute maximum prediction error of 0.0361, com-paring with 0.1035 using original
variable fidelity modeling.
3.10.1 Introduction
Nowadays, the importance of flight simulation is increasing. From flight simulation for entertaining
content to simulation for aviation certification, the importance of simulation is increasing. One of the
key components for creating a simulation is aerodynamic database. In flight simulation for fun,
precision of aerodynamic database is not that important. On the other hand, accuracy of aerodynamic
for pilot training or aviation certification is very important. In the aerospace field, the most popular
and relatively accurate way to analyze aerodynamic characteristic is Wind Tunnel Test (WT) and
(CFD). Someone who performs WT test or CFD can face the limitation of such jobs. One of the
problems is that it takes too much time to calculate or the cost for WT could be expensive. In CFD, it
can be taking more than a week to calculate for just one flight condition with one angle of attack. And
in WT case, WT needs model to perform tests, also need WT itself. Those ones cost so much and
perhaps we could need a building for WT. In such situation, there were several attempts to reduce
such time and expense while maintaining accuracy of analysis.
Here, high fidelity data prediction with combined method between Variable Fidelity Modeling (VFM)
and Space Mapping (SM) was performed. Both methods have been developed for reducing calculation
time and expense. Case of VFM, the goal is to obtain reliable full data set in the design area by
combining large amounts of low fidelity data which can get fast and cheap with a small number of
high fidelity data set. In the case of SM, it is used as a method to overcome the prediction limit which
is caused by converting 2d into 1d when using only VFM (Jiang et al.)61.
3.10.2 High & Low Fidelity Data for Numerical Example
Clark Y airfoil aerodynamic data were used for numerical examples. Java Foil was used as a low
fidelity analysis tool which is based on panel method. Java Foil calculates the velocity distribution at
the surface and then computes the flow at the boundary layer based on the result. However, since

61Ping Jiang, Tingli Xie, Qi Zhou, Xinyu Shao, Jiexiang Hu, and Longchao Cao, A space mapping method based on
Gaussian process model for variable fidelity metamodeling, Simulation Modeling Practice and Theory, 2018.
 72

the flow separation is not considered, the accuracy is low where the stall occurs. As a high fidelity
analysis tool, ANSYS Fluent® with RANS solver was used to solve 301 by 100 structured C type mesh.
Y+ is equal to 1.0 and Spalart-Allmaras model was used as turbulence model. For low fidelity data
you can see Figure 3.10.1, represented by the wire-frame surface, the analysis results from Clark Y
airfoil using Java foil at Mach number 0.1 to 0.9 with 0.1 deg intervals and angle of attach -20 to 20
degrees with interval 1deg. For high fidelity data, represented by dot in Figure 3.10.1, using ANSYS
Fluent tools result at Mach number 0.1, 0.5 and 0.8, and -20 to 20 degrees with intervals of 2degree.

(a) Input CL Data (b) Input CD Data

(c) Input CM Data

Figure 3.10.1 Inputs of Coefficients for Numerical Examples, lift(a), Drag (b), Moment (c)

3.10.3 VFM Airfoil Prediction

Compared to input data, prediction data are close to high fidelity data. Mean Absolute Error (MAE)
and maximum error locations of the data predicted by high fidelity data and Data Fusion are as
Table 3.10.1. As evidence from the above table, MAE is quite low, but maximum error looks like too
large to use as a coefficient.
Generally, this large error can be MAE Max. Error [%] [AOA, Mach]
a problem because lift, drag, and CL 5.35 × 10−2 0.2972 [39.6%] [ 2.0, 0.7]
moment coefficients are CD 0.6124 × 10−2 0.0296 [18%] [14.0, 0.6]
originally very small values. C M 0.7716 × 10−2 0.0592 [81.2%] [ -6.0, 0.7]
However, it should be noted that
not only the magnitude of Table 3.10.1 Prediction Error
maximum error is large, but also
 73

the location of maximum error occurs. It can be confirmed that all errors occur in the transonic region
and location of peak point as you can see below figure. This is because, in the case of low fidelity data,
there is a smooth transition from subsonic to supersonic due to the limitations of the analysis tool,
whereas in the case of high fidelity data, there is a sudden change in the same area due to the effect
of more accurate analysis result.
This kind of problem is caused by big difference between low fidelity and high fidelity data. Besides,
it caused by problem of Gaussian Process in VFM method. It seems like that Gaussian Process has
difficulty to predict scaling function if the model has too much non-linear trend such as the location

(a) CL at M = 0.7 (b) CM at M =0.7

Figure 3.10.2 Lift and Moment Coefficients Maximum Error Location

of peak points like CL,max point or Cm,min point. For this reason, it is necessary to reduce the non-
linearity of scaling factor function between low fidelity and high fidelity data in the transonic and
peak point region before performing VFM. See Figure 3.10.2.
3.10.4 SM and VFM Combined Airfoil Prediction
So, SM was performed to reduce such
non-linearity. VFM was performed after
SM to overcome big error in transonic
region and peak point. We performed SM
before VFM based on peak point CL max
point. So, SM moved CL max point of low
fidelity to same point with high fidelity cl
max point. As you can see above, SM +
VFM result is quite similar to VFM only
result. But in the peak points like CL max
point or cl min point, it decreased
maximum error. Maximum error is
changed from 0.10353 (VFM only) to
0.03615 (SM+VFM) of error value,
numerically about 68% decreased. See
Figure 3.10.3.
Figure 3.10.3 SM+VFM Method Lift Coefficient
Prediction
 74

3.11 Case Study 2 – Nature Aerodynamic Lift From the Tail Reduces Drag as Relates
to Birds
Authors : James R. Usherwood, Jorn A. Cheney, Jialei Song, Shane P. Windsor, Jonathan P. J. Stevenson,
Uwe Dierksheide, Alex Nila and Richard J. Bomphrey
Title : High Aerodynamic Lift From The Tail Reduces Drag In Gliding Raptors
Appeared in : Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Journal of Experimental Biology (2020)
Source : doi:10.1242/jeb.214809
Citation : (Usherwood, et al., 2020)
Bibliography : Usherwood, J. R., Cheney, J. A., Song, J., Windsor, S. P., Stevenson, J. P., Dierksheide, U., . . .
Bomphrey, R. J. (2020). High Aerodynamic Lift From The Tail Reduces Drag In Gliding Raptors.
Format : Extracted for Contents
3.11.1 Abstract
Many functions have been postulated for the aerodynamic role of the avian tail during steady-state
flight. By analogy with conventional aircraft, the tail might provide passive pitch stability if it
produced very low or negative lift. Alternatively, aeronautical principles might suggest strategies that
allow the tail to reduce inviscid, induced drag: if the wings and tail act in different horizontal planes,
they might benefit from biplane-like aerodynamics; if they act in the same plane, lift from the tail
might compensate for lift lost over the fuselage (body), reducing induced drag with a more even
downwash profile. However, textbook aeronautical principles should be applied with caution
because birds have highly capable sensing and active control, presumably reducing the demand for
passive aerodynamic stability, and, because of their small size and low flight speeds, operate at
Reynolds numbers two orders of magnitude below those of light aircraft. Here, by tracking up to
20,000, 0.3 mm neutrally buoyant soap bubbles behind a gliding barn owl, tawny owl and goshawk,
we found that downwash velocity due to the body/tail consistently exceeds that due to the wings.
The downwash measured behind the centerline is quantitatively consistent with an alternative
hypothesis: that of constant lift production per planform area, a requirement for minimizing viscous,
profile drag. Gliding raptors use lift distributions that compromise both inviscid induced drag
minimization and static pitch stability, instead adopting a strategy that reduces the viscous drag,
which is of proportionately greater importance to lower Reynolds number fliers.
3.11.2 Introduction
Bird tails clearly perform many roles, both in terms of display and as aerodynamically active surfaces.
The potential aerodynamic roles performed by bird tails can be divided into maneuverability,
stability, lift production and drag reduction through a variety of mechanisms (Thomas, 1996;
Maybury and Rayner, 2001; Huyssen et al., 2012). These functions often have opposing demands: it
is difficult to enhance both maneuverability and static stability; lift production often comes at the
cost of increased drag. Conventional aircraft tails act as rudders, elevators and stabilizers, providing
moments about the center of mass to initiate and maintain turns, and restoring moments that correct
perturbations from trimmed, level flight. Bird tails have a quite different form, lacking the vertical fin
of typical aircraft. Further, tails are not a requirement for competent, maneuverable flight for flapping
animals: birds without tails are still able to achieve some – albeit ungainly – level of control, and many
bats are functionally tailless.
Flying animals differ markedly from traditional fixed wing aircraft in a number of ways: they flap,
they have rapid sensing and complex control capability, and they are, at least in some gliding cases,
aerodynamically unstable (Durston et al., 2019; Durston, 2019). They are also smaller and slower, so
potentially operate under quite different aerodynamic regimes. How, then, should the aerodynamic
role of the bird tail be understood? In order to explore the aerodynamics of gliding in a range of
raptors, we measured the flow field through particle tracking of neutrally buoyant 0.3 mm helium
bubbles (Figure 3.11.1). Application of automated Lagrangian particle tracking velocimetry (M2:
 75

https://youtube/HlBEZv0sRf0) to the study of bird flight is novel, though seeding the air with helium
bubbles builds upon the early studies of animal flight (Spedding et al., 1984; Spedding, 1987); and
wakes have been measured using smoke and particle image velocimetry for a range of considerably
smaller flapping (Spedding et al., 2003;Warrick et al., 2005; Van Griethuijsen et al., 2006; Tobalske et
al., 2009; Altshuler et al.,
2009; Johansson et al.,
2018) and gliding
(Henningsson and
Hedenström, 2011;
Henningsson et al., 2014;
Klein Heerenbrink et al.,
2016) birds.
Following initial inspection
of the bubble motions,
interpretations for various
wake structures were
developed. These can be
presented here as
hypotheses, though their
post hoc nature should be
acknowledged. The
rotational sense and initial
relative position of trailing
vortices behind wing tips
and body/tail section
distinguish certain
potential tail actions
(Figure 3.11.2). Many
traditional aircraft make
use of negative lift from the
tail, resulting in Figure 3.11.1 Air motions caused by gliding raptors visualized with
‘longitudinal dihedral’ to bubbles. Photographs of a gliding barn owl (top), tawny owl (middle)
improve stability in pitch; and goshawk (bottom) as, or narrowly after, they passed through
this would result in upwash a 0.1 m light sheet seeded with neutrally buoyant 0.3 mm soap bubbles.
from the tail, and trailing See also M1
vortices following the
wing/body of opposite sense to those following the wing tips on the same side (Figure 3.11.2 A). A
tail/body section that does not disrupt the downwash would result in the absence of trailing vortices
behind the tail (Figure 3.11.2 B). Drag reduction through biplane aerodynamics (Thomas, 1996)

Figure 3.11.2 Post hoc hypotheses for competing models of tail function in steady gliding – [see 103]
 76

would require wing tip and body/tail trailing vortices of the same sense each side, but with vertical
offset (Figure 3.11.2 C). Vortices with the same sense each side but without the offset (Figure
3.11.2 D) indicate an increased lift across the body/tail section, detrimental to induced drag
minimization but potentially consistent with drag reduction at low Reynolds numbers62.
3.11.3 Experimental Setup
Experiments were conducted within a purpose-built indoor flight corridor at the Royal Veterinary
College (Hatfield, UK). The corridor was constructed to (1) prevent ambient air flow from introducing
noise to the measured flow fields; (2) prevent dispersal of the helium-filled soap bubble tracer
particles; and (3) create a dark background for maximizing image signal (bubbles) to noise
(background). The corridor was roofed and black on all inner surfaces. It was contained within a
larger room, with the end of the flight path open to the room, allowing ambient light to illuminate the
receiving handler. The measurement volume was not illuminated until after the birds entered it;
otherwise, birds reacted to the illuminated volume of bubbles as if it were a wall. The corridor was
approximately 1.8 m wide×1.8 m tall×14 m long. Results from three trials each for the three birds are
reported here. For each trial, bubbles were injected into the volume and allowed to quiesce prior to
the flight. Bubbles were generated with 40 nozzles, and a fluid supply unit (LaVision GmbH) regulated
soap, helium and air content to maintain neutral buoyancy. Bubbles were approximately 300 μm in
diameter and, because of their large size and light scattering properties, were approximately 10,000
times brighter than standard-use aerosol particles for particle image velocimetry (Caridi, 2018),
allowing LED lights to provide sufficient illumination, rather than high-power laser light sources that
could potentially be damaging to birds’ vision. During each recorded flight, the bird flapped along the
corridor, gaining speed before entering a smooth, steady glide just before the measurement volume.
Initiation of LED illumination of the measurement volume was controlled using a hand trigger.
3.11.3.1 Vortex Structure Identification Using the Q-Criterion
The Q-criterion aims to capture the fluid ‘particles’ for which rotation predominates over shear
strain, with the additional condition that pressure is lower than the ambient value (Jeong and
Hussain, 1995). In our implementation, we considered the flow to be incompressible (Mach number
∼0.03), and solved the Q-value as:
1
Q = − ui,j uj,i
2
Eq. 3.11.1
where ui,j describes the partial derivative of the flow along axis i, taken in the j direction, and i, j =
1,2,3 as in the Einstein summation. Critical Q-values were selected to highlight the dominant vortex
structures (Figure 3.11.3)63.
3.11.3.2 Downwash Calculation
To compute downwash, particle velocities were placed into a uniform 3D grid using the Fine scale
reconstruction (or VIC#) module in DaVis 10. Fine scale reconstruction is a PTV interpolation method
similar to the ‘vortex in cell plus (VIC+) method which interpolates flow using the instantaneous
spatial and temporal information from each bubble, linking the two with the Navier–Stokes equations
(Schneiders and Scarano, 2016). The approach is grid based, and here we selected a 16×16×16 voxel

62 Negative lift from the tail (A) might improve pitch stability; induced drag might be low (B) if the tail
counteracted loss of lift over the body; or induced drag might be reduced through biplane aerodynamics (C). A
step increase in lift over the body/tail section would be evident from trailing vortices following behind the tail
of the same sense as those following the wingtips on the same side (D), associated with an increase in
downwash velocity, and would be inconsistent with simple pitch stability or minimization of induced drag.
63 Iso surfaces of the wake displayed using the Q-criterion highlight two discrete pairs of trailing vortices: an

outer pair behind the wing tips and a narrower pair trailing the body/tail section (blue – clockwise facing the
bird; red – anticlockwise)
 77

Figure 3.11.3 An example reconstruction of vortex structures behind a gliding tawny Owl

window to form the grid. Window size was selected based on the observation that flow speed was
maintained when compared with smaller windows, but with substantially less noise. To estimate
wake evolution, the middle, frontal plane for each time step in the flight direction was extracted and
stacked. The time axis was converted to a spatial axis based on average forward flight speed, which
was estimated from digitization of the birds passing through the volume.
3.11.3.3 Bird Planform
We could not comprehensively resolve bird planform from our camera views, but made use of
relevant 3D reconstruction data collected from an earlier series of observations. To ensure
appropriate planform selection, we digitized wing- and tail-tip position from images of the birds in
the measurement volume, and selected planforms that best matched the spans and span ratio in this
study. Planforms are from the same barn owl and goshawk individuals, but a different tawny owl. We
then calculated planform from the boundary of the projected point clouds, from which chord profiles
and derivative metrics were calculated (Table 3.11.1).

Table 3.11.1 Mean (±s.d.) morphology, flight and Aerodynamic parameters for the three study
individuals, each for three flights

3.11.4 Results
Flights selected for analysis were steady, broadly level glides at relatively low speeds (Table 3.11.1).
Motion of the seeding bubbles revealed trailing vortices in the wake of the wingtips, clearly visible in
the photographs (Figure 3.11.1). These vortices were tracked and quantified are displayed using
iso surfaces of the wake Q-value (Figure 3.11.3). Trailing vortices behind the wing tips associated
 78

with downwash following the birds – and the momentum flux resulting in weight support – are not
surprising, and entirely match expectations from aerodynamic theory and experience from
aeronautics. What is more noteworthy is that discrete trailing vortices were also consistently
observed in the wake behind the body and tail (Figure 3.11.1 - Figure 3.11.3).
3.11.4.1 Discussion
The trailing vortices following the tail, and the associated downwash near the bird centerline,
demonstrate that the body/tail section produces greater aerodynamic lift per span than the wings.
This positive lift is opposite to that required for tails producing stability through longitudinal
dihedral: the tails of conventional, passively stable aircraft produce negative lift and accelerate air in
the opposite direction – upwards – which would be associated with trailing vortices of the opposite
sense. If not used for passive pitch stability, it might be expected that the bird tails contribute to
weight support during slow flight, and this is consistent with balancing of pitch moments in hawks
(Tucker, 1992), visualization of gliding swift (Henningsson and Hedenström, 2011; Henningsson et
al., 2014) and jackdaw (KleinHeerenbrink et al., 2016) wakes, and direct pressure measurements
through pigeon tails (Usherwood et al., 2005). However, the observed trailing vortices behind the tail
indicate that lift contribution of the central section is considerably in excess of simply filling in the
lift distribution between the wings. The lift coefficients calculated for the tawny owl and goshawk
were high for raptor wings (Withers, 1981; Van Oorschot et al., 2016), close to 1, so there is the
possibility that tail lift is merely allowing slow gliding while preventing stall, analogous to the flaps
deployed by landing aircraft (Pennycuick, 1975). However, the barn owl operated with a mean lift
coefficient close to 0.7 – well below the maximum lift coefficient measured for isolated raptor wings
(Withers, 1981; Van Oorschot et al., 2016) – yet also displayed the step increase in downwash behind
the tail, meaning that a simple account based on stall avoidance is insufficient.
The apparently excessive aerodynamic lift produced by the body/tail is significant because it affects
the drag experienced by the gliding bird. To understand its implications in terms of overall drag, we
adapted classical approaches (Tucker, 1987; Spedding and McArthur, 2010) to model the drag D
produced by wings of aspect ratio AR and area S through air of density ρ at flight speed V with wings
at lift coefficient CL. In this presentation, total drag due to the wings can be separated into three
components:
CL 2 kCL 2 ρ
D=( + 2 + CD,0 ) SV 2
πARei ev 2
Eq. 3.11.2
where ei and ev are inviscid and viscous efficiency factors, respectively. An e value of 1 is ideal, and
the factors reducing efficiency from unity form the basis of the analysis developed here. The first
term is the inviscid or induced drag coefficient – that associated with accelerating air downward in
order to provide weight support. The second and third terms together combine to give the profile
drag coefficient, with CD,0 the minimum drag coefficient (assumed here to occur close to zero lift). It
is important to highlight that the second term increases with the square of lift coefficient, denoting
the C-shape of a lift–drag polar for a generic pre-stall airfoil (2D); the curvature of the polar relates
to the constant k that expresses the quadratic rise of this drag term with lift (Spedding and McArthur,
2010), and tends to be more extreme at lower Reynolds numbers (Abbott and Doenhoff, 1949). This
dependency on lift can present some confusion as it is sometimes convenient to combine it with the
inviscid induced drag term (Houghton et al., 2016; Spedding and McArthur, 2010), which also varies
with C2L. It is, however, a form of viscous drag and is therefore of proportionally greater magnitude
at lower Reynolds numbers. Relating drag minimization predictions to downwash profiles In order
to compare the predictions from minimization of inviscid and viscous (or induced and profile) drag
 79

separately, the downwash profiles minimizing each were calculated and compared with measured
profiles for gliding barn owl, tawny owl and goshawk (Figure 3.11.4)64.

Figure 3.11.4 Comparison of Competing Models of Drag Minimization (see 105)

64Hypothetical spanwise lift profiles (A) and associated sectional lift coefficients (Cl; B), and their modelled
consequences in terms of downwash profiles (colored lines) for three glides per species (Ci–iii). Green lines
indicate the hypothetical inviscid or induced-drag minimizing case, with elliptical spanwise lift distribution,
variable lift coefficient and constant downwash velocity across the span. Red lines indicate the theoretical
 80

Inviscid or induced drag is classically minimized with an elliptical lift distribution across the span
(Prandtl, 1921; Munk, 1923) (Figure 3.11.4 A, green lines), leading to a constant downwash velocity
of sufficient magnitude to support body weight, but resulting in lift coefficients that vary across the
planform (Figure 3.11.4 C, green lines). Viscous, profile drag, in contrast, is minimized (Figure
3.11.4, red lines) if the lift coefficient is constant for every section :

CL 2
ev = 2
̅̅̅̅̅
C 1
Eq. 3.11.3
for wings of sectional lift coefficient Cl and near-constant airfoil section shape. This requires that lift
is evenly distributed across the planform area, and so spanwise lift profile matches the aerodynamic
chord profile – in which case C2l = C2L and ev = 1. Minimization of inviscid, induced drag and viscous,
profile drag cannot both be met simultaneously without an elliptical planform.
Spanwise chord profiles matching the wing and tail spans of the measured glides were calculated
from point clouds, excluding the head, from earlier glides using high-speed video photogrammetric
methods, and were fitted with 50 Fourier terms to provide a close –though constrained to be
symmetrical about the center line – representation of the chord profile. This technique allows
classical aerodynamic methods (Munk, 1923; Prandtl, 1921; Houghton et al., 2016, Phillips et al.,
2019) to be applied to determine the associated downwash profiles given the assumption that profile
drag is minimized if all sections operate at constant lift coefficient (and the lift coefficient is sufficient
to support body weight).
3.11.4.2 Derived Downwash Results and Discussion
Downwash velocity fields for each trial were measured for a transverse plane closely after the
passage of the tail trailing edge, but also dependent on good bubble seeding coverage. As these planes
we’re not exactly at the ‘lifting line’ aerodynamic abstraction (a concept underlying the simplest 3D
wing theory – Prandtl, 1921; see Abbott and Doenhoff, 1949), downward convection, though gradual
(Figure 3.11.3), meant that no single horizontal transect across the plane provided an adequate
measurement of downwash profile; instead, we show the range between maximum and minimum
downwash values for transects at 0, 50 and 100 mm below the wingtips (Figure 3.11.4).
Downwash values at the centerline did not match the prediction of constant downwash from inviscid
induced drag minimization. Instead, they provide a good quantitative match (Figure 3.11.5)65 with

viscous or profile-drag minimizing strategy, with lift distribution matching the chord profile of the wings/body
planform resulting in a constant spanwise lift coefficient and – because the planform is not elliptical – varying
downwash velocity. The deviation in planform from elliptical, largely due to the projecting central tail area, is
evident from A, in which the loading profile is either elliptical or in direct proportion to chord (excluding the
head). Grey shading indicates measurements spanning the maximum to minimum downwash velocities across
horizontal transects of transverse planes after passage of the bird, located level with the wingtips, and 50 and
100 mm below the wingtips.
65 Measurements of downwash following the body/tail centerline section (A) (three species, three trials each)

show close agreement (24% root mean square error, RMSE) with a profile drag minimizing (red) role for the
tail; whereas, the induced drag minimizing (green) model consistently underpredicts downwash (247%
RMSE). Treating each glide as an independent sample (while acknowledging the issues with this assumption),
Mann–Whitney U-tests on the residuals indicate that the two models deviate from observation to different
degrees (P < 0.05): the induced drag minimizing model deviates significantly from observation (P < 0.005) but
the profile drag minimizing model does not (P = 0.25). The profile drag minimizing, constant spanwise lift
coefficient hypothesis with increased lift over and downwash behind the broader body/tail section is
supported both qualitatively, with the presence of discrete tail tip vortices associated with positive lift (Error! R
eference source not found.-Error! Reference source not found. ; M1, 2; contrast with Error!
 81

predictions based on constant spanwise

lift coefficient and minimized profile
drag. The success of the second model,
and contrast with aircraft-based
postulations, may reflect both the
relatively large contribution of viscous
effects at the low Reynolds numbers (∼
100,000) experienced by birds and a low
cost to birds for their moderate
deviation from perfect induced drag
minimization. Indeed, using the
constant-Cl theoretical downwash
profiles, ei is only reduced to 0.8–0.9.
We can therefore reject the action of the
tail – at least under the conditions
measured – as: (1) passive pitch Figure 3.11.5 Measured downwash quantitatively agrees
stabilizer, which would require negative with a significant role for viscous drag minimization and
qualitatively refutes alternative hypotheses of tail function
lift from the tail, upwash and associated
in gliding
trailing vortices of opposite sense from
those we observed behind the body/tail
(Figure 3.11.2 A); (2) downwash compensator, restoring lift lost over the body and minimizing
inviscid induced drag (Huyssen et al., 2012), as this would result in constant downwash and only
wingtip vortices being manifest in the wake (Figure 3.11.2 B); or (Figure 3.11.3) a functional
biplane (Thomas, 1996) (Figure 3.11.2 C), because the wing and tail tips and their trailing vortices
initially lie in the same horizontal plane. We found that the body/tail section contributes lift
proportional to chord, thereby spreading the load across a greater surface and reducing the profile
drag. We conclude, therefore, that the tail does not contribute to passive pitch stability with a
longitudinal dihedral mechanism but, in addition to its role in moment generation when
maneuvering Downwash velocity (e.g. Gillies et al., 2011), acts as an aerodynamic wing ‘flap’,
expanding the aerodynamic planform area. However, whereas aircraft flaps are required for stall
avoidance and increase drag, bird tails produce aerodynamic lift even when not near a stall limit, and
act to reduce overall drag at low Reynolds numbers.
3.11.4.3 Further Caveats and Comments
3.11.4.3.1 Note on Passive Longitudinal Stability
We do not present here a full stability analysis for the birds of this study; this would require
measurement or modelling of the inertial properties of each bird in gliding posture. See [Durston
(2019)] for such an analysis of two raptors, which demonstrates a high degree of longitudinal
instability. Positive lift from an aft airfoil does not necessarily preclude the possibility that static
longitudinal stability is obtained; indeed, this is a feature of certain airplane styles such as the ‘canard’
design, which has a smaller pair of wings ahead of the main, often delta, wing. However, the
traditional airplane design appears to be a better initial analogue, with the larger lifting surface ahead
of the smaller. In this case, a large upward lift from the tail is inconsistent with longitudinal static
stability. The observed strong downwash and positive lift from the tail does therefore suggest that
the tail is not contributing to static longitudinal stability, at least by the mechanism of longitudinal
dihedral as exploited in traditional airplane designs.

Reference source not found. ), and quantitatively through downwash modelling. Circles: barn owl; crosses:
tawny owl; stars: goshawk.
 82

3.11.4.3.2 Note on Non-Elliptical Loading for Induced Drag Minimization

While an elliptical loading distribution provides the theoretical minimum induced drag for a
constrained wing span, other loading distributions are optimal given different constraints. Various
structural, geometrical and weight considerations, along with passive yaw stability, may be
important in aircraft design, leading to a range of non-elliptical loading distributions providing
theoretical optima for minimizing induced drag (Prandtl, 1933; Phillips et al., 2019). The optimal
loading distributions with such constraints tend to be more ‘bell shaped’, with a bias in loading
towards central sections of the vehicle. However, the question of relevance in the current case is not
‘how can induced drag be minimized given certain constraints to do with stress, deflection or bending
moment?’ but ‘how would induced drag be minimized given the wings available?’, i.e. given their
maximum span. Induced drag is only reduced with bell-shaped loading distributions if the wing span
is unconstrained. The spans of the birds in this study were certainly constrained, and so the
theoretical minimum induced drag prediction remains that of elliptical spanwise loading and
perfectly constant downwash velocity in the immediate wake.
Despite this, the conceptual basis behind the advantages of bell-shaped loading distributions may
have some relevance to the case of birds. High weight support by the central sections would indeed
reduce the bending moment demanded at the wing roots – corresponding to torque around the
shoulders – reducing at least some degree of muscle action and associated physiological costs. Bell-
shaped loading distributions therefore have the potential to reduce the metabolic demands of gliding
with a mechanism other than drag reduction. Consequently, while the viscous drag minimizing
account proposed here provides a reasonable and quantitatively sufficient reasoning for the action
of the tail during gliding, some alternative options cannot be rejected without further study.
3.11.5 References
Abbott, I. H. and von Doenhoff, A. E. (1949). Theory of Wing Sections. NY: Dover Publications Inc.
Altshuler, D. L., Princevac, M., Pan, H. and Lozano, J. (2009). Wake patterns of the wings and tail of
hovering hummingbirds. Exp. Fluids 46, 835-846. doi:10. 1007/s00348-008-0602-5
Caridi, G. C. A. (2018). Development and application of helium-filled soap bubbles: For large-scale PIV
experiments in aerodynamics. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Durston, N. E. (2019). Quantifying the flight stability of free-gliding birds of prey. PhD Thesis,
University of Bristol. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/ 198573023/thesis_c.pdf.
Durston, N. E., Wan, X., Liu, J. G. and Windsor, S. P. (2019). Avian surface reconstruction in free flight
with application to flight stability analysis of a barn owl and peregrine falcon. J. Exp. Biol. 222,
jeb185488. doi: 10.1242/jeb.185488
Gillies, J. A., Thomas, A. L. R. and Taylor, G. K. (2011). Soaring and maneuvering flight of a steppe eagle
Aquila nipalensis. J. Avian Biol. 42, 377-386. doi:10.1111/j. 1600-048X.2011.05105.x
Henningsson, P. and Hedenströ m, A. (2011). Aerodynamics of gliding flight in common swifts. J. Exp.
Biol. 214, 382-393. doi:10.1242/jeb.050609
Henningsson, P., Hedenströ m, A. and Bomphrey, R. J. (2014). Efficiency of lift production in flapping
and gliding flight of swifts. PLoS ONE 9, e90170. doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0090170
Houghton, E. L., Carpenter, P. W., Collicott, S. H. and Valentine, D. T. (2016). Aerodynamics for
Engineering Students. 7th edn.: Elsevier. ISBN: 978-0-08- 100194-3.
Huyssen, R. J., Spedding, G. R., Mathews, E. H. and Liebenberg, L. (2012). Wing-body circulation control
by means of a fuselage trailing edge. J. Air. 49, 1279-1289. doi:10.2514/1.C031543
Jeong, J. and Hussain, F., (1995). On the identification of a vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 285, 69-94.
doi:10.1017/S0022112095000462
Johansson, L. C., Maeda, M., Henningsson, P. and Hedenströ m, A. (2018). Mechanical power curve
measured in the wake of pied flycatchers indicates modulation of parasite power across flight speeds. J.
R. Soc. Interface 15,20170814. doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0814
 83

KleinHeerenbrink, M., Warfvinge, K. and Hedenströ m, A. (2016). Wake analysis of aerodynamic

components for the glide envelope of a jackdaw (Corvus monedula). J. Exp. Biol. 219, 1572-1581.
doi:10.1242/jeb.132480
Maybury, W. J. and Rayner, J. M. V. (2001). The avian tail reduces body parasite drag by controlling
flow separation and vortex shedding. Proc. R. Soc. London B 268, 1405-1410.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1635
Munk, M. M. (1923). The minimum induced drag of aerofoils. NACATR-121. NACA Technical Report
121. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930091456
Pennycuick, C. J. (1975). Mechanics of flight. In Avian Biology, Vol. 5 (ed. D. S. Farner and J. R. King) pp.
1-75. London: Academic Press.
Phillips,W. F., Hunsaker, D. F. and Joo, J. J. (2019). Minimizing induced drag with lift distribution and
wingspan. J. Air. 56, 431-441. doi:10.2514/1.C035027
Prandtl, L. (1921). Applications of modern hydrodynamics to aeronautics. NACATR 116. NACA
Technical Report 121. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp? R=19930091180
Prandtl, L. (1933). Über tragflu ̈ gel kleinsten induzierten widerstandes. Z. Flugtech.
Motorluftschiffahrt 24, 305-306.
Schanz, D., Schrö der, A., Gesemann, S., Michaelis, D. and Wieneke, B. (2013). ‘Shake The Box’: a highly
efficient and accurate Tomographic Particle Tracking Velocimetry (TOMO-PTV) method using
prediction of particle positions. PIV13; 10th International Symposium on Particle Image Velocimetry.
Schanz, D., Gesemann, S. and Schrö der, S. (2016). Shake-The-Box: lagrangian particle tracking at
high particle image densities. Exp. Fluids 57, 70. doi:10.1007/s00348-016-2157-1
Schneiders, J. R. G. and Scarano, R. (2016). Dense velocity reconstruction from tomographic PTV with
material derivatives. Exp. Fluids 57, 139. doi:10.1007/s00348-016-2225-6
Spedding, G. R. (1987). The wake of a kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) in gliding flight. J. Exp. Biol. 127.
Spedding, G. R. and McArthur, J. (2010). Span efficiencies of wings at low Reynolds Numbers. J. Aircr.
47, 120-128. doi:10.2514/1.44247
Spedding, G. R., Rayner, J. M. V. and Pennycuick, C. J. (1984). Momentum and energy in the wake of a
pigeon (Columba livia) in slow flight. J. Exp. Biol. 111, 81-102. Spedding, G. R., Rose ́ n, M. and
Hedenströ m, A. (2003). A family of vortex wakes generated by a thrush nightingale in free flight in a
wind tunnel over its entire natural range of flight speeds. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 2313-2344. doi:10.1242/jeb.
00423
Thomas, A. L. R. (1996). Why do birds have tails? The tail as a drag reducing flap, and trim control. J.
theorical Biol. 183, 247-253. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0218
Tobalske, B. W., Hearn, J. W. D. and Warrick, D. R. (2009). Aerodynamics of intermittent bounds in flying
birds. Exp. Fluids 46, 963-973. doi:10.1007/s00348- 009-0614-9
Tucker, V. A. (1987). Gliding birds: the effect of variable wing span. J. Exp. Biol. 133, 33-58.
Tucker, V. A. (1992). Pitching equilibrium, wing span and tail span in a gliding Harris’ hawk, Parabuteo
unicinctus. J. Exp. Biol. 165, 21-41.
Usherwood, J. R., Hedrick, T. L., McGowan, C. P. and Biewener, A. A. (2005). Dynamic pressure maps
for wings and tails of pigeons in slow, flapping flight, and their energetic implications. J. Exp. Biol. 208,
355-369. doi:10.1242/jeb.01359
Van Griethuijsen, L., Rosen, M., Hedenströ m, A. and Spedding, G. R. (2006). Vortex wakes of birds:
recent developments using digital particle image velocimetry in a wind tunnel. Anim. Biol. 56, 535-549.
doi:10.1163/ 157075606778967856
Van Oorschot, B. K., Mistick, E. A. and Tobalske, B. W. (2016). Aerodynamic consequences of wing
morphing during emulated take-off and gliding in birds. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 3146-3154.
doi:10.1242/jeb.136721 Warrick, D. R., Tobalske, B. W. and Powers, D. R. (2005). Aerodynamics of the
hovering hummingbird. Nature 435, 1094-1097. doi:10.1038/nature03647 Withers, P. C. (1981). An
aerodynamic analysis of bird wings as fixed airfoils. J. Exp. Biol. 90, 143-1.
84
 85

4 Shock Waves
4.1 Preliminaries
A shock wave is a very thin region in a supersonic compressible flow across which there is a large
variation in the flow properties. Because there variation occur in such a short distance, viscosity and
heat conductivity play a dominant role in the structure of shocks. These will be revisited later while
Figure 4.1.1 displays shock wave for different flow regions as applicable to a jet fighter. Another

Figure 4.1.1 Evolution of Shock Wave

examples in detecting of shocks would be the concentration of contour lines. As a discontinuity in

the flow field, the contour line of Mach number, pressure, density and temperature all concentrate
near the shock wave. For slip plane and contact discontinuity, pressure contour lines do not
concentrate. Figure 4.1.2 displays contour lines of all relevant of flow features exemplifying a bow
shock in presence of blunt body, in supersonic flow66.

Figure 4.1.2 Contour Concentration Examples at M = 5 ; From Left to Right ; (a) Mach number (b)
Pressure (c) Density (d) Temperature

As an intriguing example, Figure 4.1.3 shows two U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School T-38 aircraft fly in
formation, approximately 30 feet apart, at supersonic speeds, or faster than the speed of sound,
producing shockwaves that are typically heard on the ground as a sonic boom. The images, originally

66Wu Ziniu , Xu Yizhe, Wang Wenbin, Hu Ruifeng, “Review of shock wave detection method in CFD post-
processing”, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2013.
 86

monochromatic and shown here as colorized

composite images, were captured during a
supersonic flight series flown in part to better
understand how shocks interact with aircraft
plumes, as well as with each other67.
4.1.1 Attached vs. Detached Shocks
Citation : Wu, K., Kim, H. Computational study
on the detachment and attachment phenomena
of shock waves. J Mech Sci Technol 35, 3445–
3454 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-021-0717-7
Nomenclature
D : Wedge width (mm)
Dc : Cone width (mm)
Figure 4.1.3 Two U.S. Air Force Test Pilot
L : Wedge length (mm) School T-38 Aircraft Fly in Formation
Lc : Cone length (mm)
M : Freestream Mach number
Mcir : Critical freestream Mach number
β : Shock wave angle (°)
θ : Wedge angle (°)
Rendering to (Wu & Kim, 2021), supersonic air vehicles have recently gained extensive concern from
public agencies and private companies. Attached and detached shock waves always occur for
various supersonic air vehicles [1]. Schematics of two typical attached and detached shock waves in
a supersonic freestream are shown in Figure 4.1.4. Figure 4.1.4 (a) depicts an attached oblique
shock wave at the tip of a cone or wedge when the associated pressure difference is small. Figure
4.1.4 (b) presents the occurrence of a detached shock wave when the associated pressure difference
is large. Specifically, a subsonic region appears around the tip of the cone or wedge, which is

Figure 4.1.4 Schematics of attached and detached shock waves: (a) attached shock wave; (b) detached
shock wave.

67 Photo released March 22, 2019. NASA/Handout via Reuters.

 87

surrounded by upper and lower sonic lines and detached shock waves. Narayan et al. [2] numerically
analyzed the effects of four fineness ratios (Lc/Dc = 1, 1.2, 3.6, 4.7) of parabolic nose and spherically
blunted cones on the aerodynamic properties of corresponding attached and detached shock waves.
They expounded that the spherically blunted cone offers minimum total drag for Lc/Dc < 1.2, whereas
the parabolic nose cone achieves a better total drag reduction for Lc/Dc > 1.2. Owens [3]
experimentally investigated the influence of the bluntness ratio of cones on aerodynamic features
under the circumstances of different freestream Mach numbers between 0.5 and 5. At high levels of
the freestream Mach number and zero angles of attack, the effects of the bluntness ratio on the total
drag coefficient are more remarkable for a small-angle cone than that for a large-angle cone. Arsalan
et al. [4] computationally analyzed the effect of bluntness ratio on the aerodynamic properties of a
spherically blunted cone under different orientations and cone angles.
The shape prediction of attached and detached shock waves is necessary to understand the shock
wave dynamics academically. Whitham’s [5] approach is based on linear theory to predict the shape
of attached shock waves, but it must follow strict limitations. Love and Long [6] presented another
means that relies on the known shock slope at the apex and end of a cone to gain the shape of the
attached shock wave. They also considered a new equation for an unspecified shock shape that
belongs to a circular arc in general. Heberle et al. [7] conducted a series of experimental studies on
the location and shape of detached shock waves for spheres and cones under different freestream
Mach numbers. Accurate data were collected to establish an equation that properly describes a shock
wave.
In the recent decade, considerable experimental and numerical investigations have been performed
to predict shock shape and the standoff distance for detached shock waves to calculate he shock
shape over a wide range of nose shapes and freestream Mach numbers [8-11].
The above studies expounded the substantial differences in aerodynamic property between attached
and detached shock waves and proposed several useful methods to predict shock shape. Meaningful
conclusions were provided to demonstrate the characteristics of attached and detached shock waves.
However, the transitional
process between attached
and detached shock waves
is rarely concerned.
Findings show that an
attached shock wave can
turn into a detached shock
wave by varying the wedge
angle or the freestream
Mach number and vice
versa. To be specific, as
shown in Figure 4.1.4,
when the wedge or cone
angle θ is larger than its
maximum angle θmax for a
fixed freestream Mach
number M, an attached
shock wave transforms into
a detached shock wave. For
a fixed wedge or cone, as the
freestream Mach number M
declines to its critical value Figure 4.1.5 Illustration of inviscid and viscous flows through a
Mcir, the attached shock triangular wedge: (a) inviscid flow; (b) viscous flow.
wave becomes a detached
 88

shock wave. This transitional process is always accompanied by remarkable variations in

aerodynamic performance.
The detachment boundary plays an important role to illustrate this transitional process.
Nevertheless, no investigation has been conducted to clarify the transitional condition between
attached and detached shock waves. Hence, realistic detachment boundaries of shock waves are
studied for the first time to fill up some blank sides. Differences exist between theoretical and realistic
detachment boundaries due to the differentials for viscous flows. A comparison of inviscid and
viscous flows through a triangular wedge is shown in Figure 4.1.5 to illustrate the variation in shock
wave angle. Figure 4.1.5 (a) displays a schematic of an inviscid flow through a triangular wedge.
Only one oblique shock wave 1 that has a wave angle of β1 forms. Figure 4.1.5 (b) shows a schematic
of a viscous flow through a triangular wedge. Owing to the influence of gas viscosity on the
occurrence and development of the boundary layer, not only an oblique shock wave 1 that has a large
shock wave angle of β2 (β2 > β1) is obtained, but also a new oblique shock wave 2 with a small shock
wave angle of β3 (β3 < β1 < β2) appears. In this work, the theoretical detachment boundary is deduced
on the basis of the oblique shock wave relationship.
The realistic detachment boundary considers the effect of gas viscosity. 2D computational
simulations are conducted by solving the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations to
demonstrate real shock wave detachment and attachment processes. In addition, hysteresis
phenomena in various compressible and viscous flow systems have captured much attention in the
recent decade [12-21]. For instance, Jiao et al. [22] computationally studied the hysteretic behavior
at the hypersonic inlet under high-speed freestream Mach numbers and expounded the hysteresis
resulting from continuously changing downstream pressure. Yasunobu et al. [23] stated that
hysteresis features affect the reflection type of shock waves in an overexpanded supersonic jet.
Setoguchi et al. [24] experimentally and numerically elucidated the hysteresis of shock waves by
varying the pressure ratio step by step. In the current study, the hysteresis effect is analyzed, given
that the realistic flight of supersonic air vehicles usually follows continuous deceleration or
acceleration. Specifically, the processes of decreasing and increasing Mach number are performed
numerically.
4.1.2 References
[1] S. K. Raman, K. X. Wu, T. H. Kim, A. Suryan and H. D. Kim, Effects of flap on the reentry
aerodynamics of a blunt cone in the supersonic flow, International Journal of Mechanics Science, 176
(2020) 105396.
[2] A. Narayan, S. Narayanan and R. Kumar, Hypersonic flow past nose cones of different geometries:
a comparative study, Simulations, 94 (8) (2018) 665-680.
[3] R. V. Owens, Aerodynamic Characteristics of Spherically Blunted Cones at Mach Numbers from 0.5
to 5.0, NASA TN D-3088, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., USA
(1965).
[4] M. S. Arsalan, M. Husain and M. N. Qureshi, Effects of nose bluntness ratio on aerodynamic
performance for reentry vehicle, Journal of Space Technology and Science, 1 (1) (2012) 38-41.
[5] G. B. Whitham, The flow pattern of a supersonic projectile, Communications on Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 5 (3) (1920) 301-348.
[6] E. S. Love and R. H. Long, A Rapid Method for Predicting Attached-Shock Shape, NACA TN 4167,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Federal Government of USA (1957).
[7] J. W. Heberle, G. P. Wood and P. B. Gooderum, Data on Shape and Location of Detached Shock Waves
on Cones and Spheres, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., USA (1950).
[8] R. L. Hunt and M. Gamba, Shock train unsteadiness characteristics, oblique-to-normal transition,
and three-dimensional leading shock structure, AIAA Journal, 56 (4) (2018) 1569-1587.
[9] J. Sinclair and X. Cui, A theoretical approximation of the shock standoff distance for supersonic
flows around a circular cylinder, Physics of Fluids, 29 (2) (2017) 026102.
 89

[10] J. D. Martel and B. Jolly, Analytical shock standoff and shape prediction with validation for blunt
face cylinder, Proc. AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Kissimmee, Florida, USA (2015).
[11] A. R. Davari and M. R. Soltani, On the relationship between unsteady forces and shock angles on
a pitching airplane model, Scientia Iranica, 17 (2) (2010) 102-107.
[12] K. A. Morris, What is hysteresis, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 64 (5) (2011) 1-14.
[13] J. T. Chang, L. Wang, W. Bao, Q. C. Yang and J. Qin, Experimental investigation of hysteresis
phenomenon for scramjet engine, AIAA Journal, 52 (2) (2014) 447-451.
[14] S. Feng, J. T. Chang, C. L. Zhang, Y. Y. Wang, J. C. Ma and W. Bao, Experimental and numerical
investigation on hysteresis characteristics and formation mechanism for a variable geometry dual-
mode combustor, Aerospace Science and Technology, 67 (2017) 96-104.
[15] W. Huang, Transverse jet in supersonic crossflows, Aerospace Science and Technology, 50 (2016)
183-195.
[16] W. Huang, Z. B. Du, L. Yan and R. Moradi, Flame propagation and stabilization in dual-mode
scramjet combustors: a survey, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 101 (2018) 13-30.
[17] R. R. Zhang, W. Huang, L. Q. Li, L. Yan and R. Moradi, Drag and heat flux reduction induced by the
pulsed counterflowing jet with different periods on a blunt body in supersonic flows, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 127 (2018) 503-512.
[18] R. R. Zhang, W. Huang, L. Yan, L. Q. Li and R. Moradi, Numerical investigation of drag and heat
flux reduction mechanism of the pulsed counterflowing jet on a blunt body in supersonic flows, Acta
Astronautica, 146 (2018) 123-133.
[19] L. Yan, L. Liao, W. Huang and L. Q. Li, Nonlinear process in the mode transition in typical strut-
based and cavity-strut based scramjet combustors, Acta Astronautica, 145 (2018) 250-262.
[20] S. Matsuo, T. Setoguchi, J. Nagao, M. Md. A. Alam and H. D. Kim, Experimental study on hysteresis
phenomena of shock wave structure in an over-expanded axisymmetric jet, Journal of Mechanical
Science and Technology, 25 (10) (2011) 2559-2565.
[21] K. X. Wu, Y. Z. Jin and H. D. Kim, Hysteresis behaviors in counter-flow thrust vector control,
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 32 (4) (2019) 1-9.
[22] X. L. Jiao, J. T. Chang, Z. Q. Wang and D. Yu, Hysteresis phenomenon of hypersonic inlet at high
Mach number, Acta Astronautica, 128 (2016) 657-668.
[23] T. Yasunobu, K. Matsuoka, H. Kashimura, S. Matsuo and T. Setoguchi, Numerical study for
hysteresis phenomena of shock wave reflection in over-expanded axisymmetric supersonic jet,
Journal of Thermal Science, 15 (3) (2006) 220-225.
[24] T. Setoguchi, S. Matsuo, M. M. A. Alam, J. Nagao and H. D. Kim, Hysteresis phenomenon of shock
wave in a supersonic nozzle, Journal of Thermal Science, 19 (6) (2010) 526-532.
[25] K. X. Wu and H. D. Kim, Numerical study on the shock vector control in a rectangular supersonic
nozzle, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, 233 (13) (2019) 4943-4965.
[26] K. X. Wu, S. K. Raman, V. R. P. Sethuraman, G. Zhang and H. D. Kim, Effect of the wall temperature
on Mach stem transformation in pseudo-steady shock wave reflections, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, 147 (2020) 118927.

4.2 Difficulties in Shock Wave Detection

There exist several difficulties for shock detection from CFD result:
➢ The numerical dissipation and oscillation in CFD may cause some shock waves to be
undetected. The numerical dissipation smears the discontinuity in the flow field, and makes
weak shock waves undetectable.
➢ The numerical oscillation produces structures similar to weak shock waves just near real
shock wave, and thus may lead to false detection results.
 90

➢ The similarity among shock waves and other discontinuous flow structures like slip lines can
lead to incorrect detection results.
➢ The graphical display of shock detection result is also a problem for three-dimensional and
multiple shock waves.

4.3 Traditional Shock Detection Methods

According to investigation by [Ziniu, et al. ]68, traditionally, through the contour lines one may detect
shock waves since near shock waves the contour lines are concentrated. While pressure, density,
temperature and Mach number contour lines all concentrate near shock waves, only pressure
contour is recommended for shock detection, because the others cannot distinguish shock wave from
slip line, shear layer or contact discontinuity. However, it is still difficult to get a clear view of the
shock wave structure from pressure contour. Also contour method cannot give a direct way to display
shock surfaces in three-dimensional flow field. These disadvantages highly restrict the use of this
contour shock detection method. Another traditional shock detection method is to plot the iso-
surface of Mach number. It is convenient to approximate the shock surface around the vehicle by
displaying a Mach number iso-surface just a little lower than the freestream Mach number. This
method can yield a full shock wave surface in three-dimensional flow field. However, it may produce
too many surfaces other than desired shock wave surfaces, and become helpless to detect shock wave
except the leading shock wave.
In numerical solutions of fluid flow with discontinuities (shock wave) by the shock-capturing
method. The shock wave can be smoothed by low-order scheme or there are spurious oscillations
near shock surface by high-order scheme69, as shown in Figure 4.3.1, where solid lines represent

Computed with first- Computed with second-order

order Godunov’s Method two-step Lax-Wendroff Method

Figure 4.3.1 Solution of Shock Capturing for Euler Equations

analytical solution, and dotted lines represent computed result. In the classical boundary shock-
fitting method, shock wave must be introduced explicitly as outer flow boundary, which depends on
experimental, theoretical or numerical-based knowledge on shock shape and location. While in the
floating shock-fitting method proposed by Moretti70, shock waves are detected through Rankine–
Hugoniot jump condition and the method of characteristics, which may be applicable to shock
detection in post-processing.

68 see Previous.
69 Toro EF. “Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics”. 3rd Edition, Berlin: Springer; 2009.
70 Moretti G. “Experiments in multi-dimensional floating shock fitting”. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn,

Brooklyn, NY, PIBAL, Report No. 73–18, 1973.

 91

4.4 Compressible 1D Shock Waves Relations

An undesirable side effect to supersonic, compressible flow is the phenomena called shock wave
that almost always associated with aerodynamic losses and should be avoid. A shock wave is a thin
region across which flow properties exhibit a large gradient71. On molecular level, the disturbance
due to an obstacle is propagated upstream via molecular collisions (momentum) at approximately
the local speed of sound. If the upstream flow is subsonic, the disturbances have no problem working
their way upstream, thus giving the incoming flow plenty of time to move out of way of obstacle. On
the other hand, if upstream flow is supersonic, the disturbances cannot work their way upstream,
but rather at some finite distance from the obstacle. This disturbance wave pile up and coalesce,
forming a thin standing wave in front of the body. Hence, the physical generation of shocks and
expansion wave is due to propagation of information via molecular collisions and due to the fact that
in supersonic flow this information cannot work its way into certain region of supersonic flow. The
shock wave is usually at an oblique angle to the flow, attached or detached, however, there are many
cases that it could be the stronger normal type. In both cases, the pressure increases almost
discontinuously across the wave.
Figure 4.4.1, the qualitative changes across the wave is noted, for region 1 ahead, and region 2
behind, with normal shock (left), and oblique shock (right). The pressure, density, temperature, and

Figure 4.4.1 Qualitative Depiction of 1D Flow Through Normal and Oblique Shocks

entropy increases across the shock, whereas the total pressure, Mach number, velocity decreases.
Since the flow across the shock is adiabatic (no external heating), the total enthalpy is constant
across. Behind the oblique shock the flow remain usually supersonic, but weaker. For normal shock,
the downstream flow is always subsonic. U1 and U2 are normal component of velocity. The quantities
downstream could be directly evaluated by upstream values 72 . Another relation vital to oblique
shock wave is the relations between deflection angle θ and wave angle β in relation to upstream Mach
number (M1) as
M12 sin2 β − 1
tan θ = 2 cot β 2
M1 (γ + cos 2β) + 2
Eq. 4.4.1
This is an important relationship between upstream Mach number, M1, deflection angle θ, wave
deflection β, and should be analyzed thoroughly. Using known ϴ we could obtain the tangential
velocity components (Ut1, Ut2), and use of previously relationship to obtain the downstream values
as:

71Anderson, John D. 1984: “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hills Inc.

72 Anderson, John D. 1984: “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics”, McGraw Hills Inc.
 92

U12 U22
ρ1 U1 = ρ2 U2 , p1 + ρ1 U12 = p2 + ρ2 U22 , Ut1 = Ut2 , h1 + = h2 +
2 2
Eq. 4.4.2
Other consideration in obtaining ϴ include:
1. For any upstream Mach number, M1, there exists a maximum deflection angle, θmax, where
there is no solution exists for straight oblique shock. Instead, nature establishes a curved
shock wave, detached from the body.
2. For any values less than θmax, there are two straight oblique shock solutions, denoting to weak
and strong shock solutions.
3. If θ = 0, then β = 90 degrees and therefore normal shock results.
4. For a fixed θ, increasing the upstream Mach number M1, causes the shock becomes stronger
and closer to the body (β decreases). This would cause stronger dissipative effects near
surface (shear and thermal conductivity), clearly an undesirable effect in thermal
management of body.

Figure 4.4.2 Oblique Shock Reflections (Train) on a Channel Flow (M∞ = 2 AoA = 15˚)

The physical effects of oblique shock discussed above are very important. Yet another feature is the
shock interactions and reflections. An impinging oblique shock on a surface would not simply
disappear but rather weakens and reflects, provided the flow on the surface preserves the tangential
quantities. Figure 4.4.2 exhibits the reflection of oblique shock wave (trains) on an in-viscid 2D
constant area channel flow. It is generated by its edges with free-stream Mach number of 2.0, AOA =
15˚ and slip wall boundary conditions. Figure 4.4.3 illustrates similar plots of instantaneous
density gradient magnitude for a normal shock (Morgan et al., 2012)73.

Figure 4.4.3 Normal Shock Train Structure on a 2D Constant Area Channel (M∞ =1.61, AoA = 0∘) -
Courtesy of Mogan et al.)

73Brandon Morgan,∗ Karthik Duraisamy,† and Sanjiva K. Lele, “Large-Eddy Simulations of a Normal Shock
Train in a Constant-Area Isolator”, AIAA Journal, Paper 2012-1094.
 93

4.5 Quasi -1D Correlation Applied to Variable Area Ducts

Following the trend developed for 1D shock relations, and expanding on the idea that the area could
change A = A(x). But the area variations are moderate and the components in y and z are small
relative to x, enabling p = p(x), ρ = ρ(x), u = u(x), etc. Most supersonic wind tunnels could fall within
such assumption. Where the momentum equation is seen previously as Euler’s equation holding
along a stream line. Now we see that holds for quasi 1-D flow. Manipulating the continuity relation
with some help from momentum, yield an important relation between velocity and area called the
area-velocity relation as:
dA du
= (M 2 − 1)
A u
Eq. 4.5.1
Depending the character of coefficient (M2 - 1), and assuming positive values u and A meant an
increase in du or dA, following observations could be made,
1. For subsonic flows (M < 1), the coefficient in parentheses is negative. Hence an increase in
velocity (positive du) is associated with a decrease in area (negative dA). Likewise, a decrease
in velocity (negative du) is associated with an increase in area (positive dA). Clearly for a
subsonic compressible flow, to increase the velocity, we must have a convergent duct and to
decrease, the velocity, must have a divergent duct. Similar to incompressible flow.
2. For supersonic flows (M > 1), the coefficient is positive. Therefore, an increase in velocity
(positive du) is associated with an increase in area (positive dA). Inversely, a decrease in
velocity (negative du), cause a decrease in area (negative dA). For supersonic flows, to
increase the velocity we must have a divergent duct, and decease the velocity must have a
convergent duct.
3. For M = 1 or sonic flow, it can be shown that dA = 0 which corresponds mathematically to
local max/min in area. Physically, it represents the minimum area (throat).

Figure 4.5.1 Compressible Flow in Converging-Diverging Ducts (Nozzles and Diffusers)

 94

These findings for converging-diverging duct, could best illustrated using the following Figure 4.5.1
and by introduction to concepts of nozzle and diffuser. Where a nozzle is designed to achieve
supersonic flow at is exit, conversely a diffuser tries to bring the flow down to subsonic. Nozzles are
equipment used for controlling the flow rate, flow direction and increasing the velocity. We can see
the nozzles in gas jets, fluid jets, hydro jets, jet engines, sprays, vacuum cleaner, etc. one of the most
popular nozzles is converging diverging nozzle which has a converging section, throat and diverging
section. Converging and diverging nozzles are used in many different systems such as propulsion
systems, rackets and jet engines and steam turbines. The relationship for oblique shock and
comparison with theory is given be where incident Mach number (M∞ = 3) is plotted against the
theory74 as depicted in Figure 4.5.2.

Figure 4.5.2 Oblique Shock Relationship

4.6 Oblique Shock Crossing Interaction

Oblique crossing shock interactions in steady flows with conditions in the dual-solution domain were
examined both numerically and experimentally75. Two and 3D simulations were compared with the
measured Mach-stem heights determined from flow visualization. Hysteresis in the shock-reflection
configuration was demonstrated for two-dimensional solutions with the same limits of the hysteresis
loop observed by both participating research groups. The transition from regular to Mach reflection
occurs very near the theoretical detachment condition, while for decreasing flow deflection angles
the transition from Mach to regular reflection occurs before the flow deflection angle has decreased
to the Neumann condition. Both the two and three-dimensional solutions show reasonable
agreement between the numerical and experimental Mach-stem heights on the interaction
centerline. Additionally, the 3D simulations closely predict the span-wise variation of the Mach-stem
height observed in the experiments.
While numerical simulations of the oblique crossing shock interaction appear to predict the shock
structure with reasonable accuracy, the question of which reflection configuration (Mach or regular)
is correct for flows in the dual-solution domain remains an issue. Computations of these interactions
accurately predict the resulting flow as long as the correct initial conditions (either Mach or regular
reflection) are employed. Outstanding questions remain regarding which configuration should be
expected in real flows within the dual solution domain and what initial conditions should be
employed to ensure prediction of the same shock structure observed in real flows.

74 ©2012 Mentor Graphics Corporation.

75 S. Walker and J.D. Schmisseur, “CFD Validation of Shock-Shock Interaction Flow Fields”, RTO-TR-AVT-007-V3.
 95

4.6.1 Experimental Data

Experimental data for evaluation of the two-dimensional numerical simulations of crossing oblique
shock interactions were collected by the Ivanov group in tunnel T313 at ITAM, Novosibirsk. A
schematic of the experimental geometry is
shown in . The wedges could be rotated Mach Number θD αD θN αN
symmetrically about the trailing edges. The 5 27.7 39.3 20.9 30.9
freestream Mach number was 5 and the
Reynolds number, based on the wedge Table 4.6.1 Theoretical Detachment D and
compression surface length, w, was 2 million. Neumann N Conditions Q the Flow Deflection
Angle and a is the Shock-Wave Angle
The wedge aspect ratio was b/w = 3.75, while
the distance between the trailing edge of the
wedge and the plane of symmetry was g/w = 0.42. The theoretical compression and shock angles for
the Neumann and detachment conditions are listed in Table 4.6.1 where θ is the flow deflection
angle and α is the resulting shock-wave angle. (See also Figure 4.5.2).
4.6.2 Case Study 1 – 2D Oblique Shock Crossing Numerical Simulations
2D simulations for the geometry and flow conditions defined above were performed by the Ivanov
Group at the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (ITAM), Novosibirsk, Russia and
[Schmisseur and Gaitonde] at the United Stated Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). Both groups
used upwind-biased schemes to compute the flows and a common procedure for incorporating
changes in the wedge angle. The converged solution at a previous wedge angle was used as the initial
condition for the next solution with an incremental change in wedge angle. The computations of the
Ivanov Group were carried out with a multi-block shock capturing Euler TVD code using MUSCL
reconstruction of the HLLE (Harten-Lax-van Leer-Einfeldt) solver. Time integration was
accomplished with a third-order Runge-Kutta scheme. In the computations of [Schmisseur and
Gaitonde], two different methods are considered for the discretization of the inviscid components of
the governing equations, the Roe scheme and the van Leer scheme. The upwind-biased MUSCL
method is used for reconstruction. The viscous fluxes in the governing equations are evaluated with

Figure 4.6.1 Schematic of the Experimental Configuration used by the Ivanov Group and Sample Laser
Light-Sheet Visualization from the same M = 4, α =37 degrees, b/w =3.75, g/w =0.3
 96

standard second-order central differences. The equations are integrated in time with an implicit
approximately-factored scheme. Newton-like sub-iterations are incorporated to accelerate
convergence.

Figure 4.6.2 Isobars Demonstrating Hysteresis in 2D Simulations of (Schmisseur and Gaitonde)

4.6.2.1 Discussion
Hysteresis in the shock-reflection configuration for solutions in the dual-solution domain was
verified by computing a sequence of solutions with first gradually increasing and then gradually
decreasing compression wedge angles. For a few of the solutions where the wedge angle was
gradually increased from an (Regular Reflection) RR solution, uniform flow initial conditions were
employed. In terms of the final solution attained, for the demonstration of hysteresis, this approach
was similar to that in which the initial condition was a converged RR solution at a lesser wedge angle.
(When starting from a uniform flow initial condition the developing shock system propagates away
from the fin surface and reflects regularly in the initial transient). See the discussion in [Ivanov, et
al.]76. All solutions for decreasing fin angles utilized the previous solution for the higher angle as an
initial condition to obtain the new solution at the lower angle. The phenomenon of hysteresis is seen
in Figure 4.6.1 which shows the shock structure computed by [Schmisseur & Gaitonde] for two sets
of computations with g/w = 0.42 and g/w = 0.34. In the dual-solution domain, when the initial
condition was a regular reflection or uniform flow the RR configuration persisted until the theoretical
value of the detachment condition. As may be seen in Figure 4.6.2, for the cases with g/w = 0.42

76Ivanov M.S., Markelov G.N., Kudryavtsev A.N., and Gimelshein S.F., “Numerical analysis of shock wave reflection
transition in steady flows”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 11, 1998.
 97

the transition from RR to (Mach Reflection) MR occurred for a flow deflection angle between 27 and
28 degrees. For the cases with g/w = 0.34 smaller wedge angle increments were employed and the
range for transition from RR to MR was narrowed to wedge angles between 27.5 and 27.85 degrees.
This range of values is in close agreement with the theoretical value for detachment, 27.7 degrees.
For solutions with MR initial conditions the MR pattern persists through much of the dual solution
space, but transitions to an RR configuration before the Neumann condition is reached. For complete
analysis and discussion, please consult the paper by [Walker and Schmisseur]77.

Figure 4.6.3 Schematic of Sudden Expansion with the Boundary Condition

4.6.3 Case Study 2 - Unsteady 3D Numerical Study of Laminar Flow in Sudden Expansion Channel
(Effect of Aspect Ratio)
Authors : Ahmed N. Naeyyf1 and Qais A. Rishack2
Affiliations : 1Post Graduate Student, Engineering College Mechanical Engineering Department, Basra
Iraq, 2Lecture Engineering College Mechanical Engineering Department, Basra Iraq
Citation : (MuKyeom, et al., 2018)
Bibliography : Naeyyf, A. N., & Rishack, Q. A. (2019). Unsteady Three-Dimensional Numerical Study of
Laminar Flow in Sudden Expansion Channel (Effect of Aspect Ratio). Journal of Mechanical Engineering
and Technology (IJMET).
As an example, 3D, Unsteady Laminar Flow
through Sudden Expansion Channel has been
studied numerically by (Naeyyf & Rishack,
2019). They used rectangular and symmetric
sudden expansions (ER = H/h) with different
aspect ratio (AR = Wch/h) as described in
Figure 4.6.3. From the results founded the
time steady state increase with the increasing of
the aspect ratio and this effects become
more clearly at the high of Reynolds numbers
and the aspect ratio, so founded high effect of
the time on the hydrodynamic parameters,
behavior of the flow, recirculation region and
the velocity profile, and this effect was clearly at Figure 4.6.4 Velocity Profile with the High of
high of Reynolds numbers. Also observed the Channel at Different Aspect Ratio

77 S. Walker* and J.D. Schmisseur, “CFD Validation of Shock-Shock Interaction Flow Fields”, RTO-TR-AVT-007-V3
 98

increasing both the Reynolds numbers and aspect ratio leaded to increase the recirculation zone and
stream wise velocity, the pressure drop increase with Reynolds number increase but reduce with
increasing the aspect ratio, the results of the numerical study were compared with the other research
and obtained acceptable convergence. Figure 4.6.4 shows the effect of the aspect ratio on the
distribution of the velocity profile with the z axis, the center of channel and at position x = 2, observed
the value of velocity decrease with the increasing of aspect ratio this for 30% of the first width after
this the velocity will increase with aspect ratio increasing, that’s mean the flow will become two
dimensional velocities due the large of aspect ratio.
4.6.4 Case Study 3 – Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation
Authors : Dimitri Papamoschou and Andrew Johnson
Affiliations : University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-3975
Title of Paper : Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation
Adapted From : AIAA 2006-3360
Citation : (Papamoschou & Johnson, 2006)
Bibliography : Papamoschou, D., & Johnson, A. (2006). Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle
Flow Separation. AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference & Exhilbit. San Francisco.
4.6.4.1 Abstract
The work by (Papamoschou & Johnson, 2006) considers the instability of the jet plume from an over
expanded, shock containing convergent-divergent nozzle and attempts to correlate this instability to
internal shock-induced separation phenomena. Time resolved wall pressure measurements and
Pitot measurements are used as primary diagnostics. For the conditions of this study flow separation
is asymmetric resulting in a large separation zone on one wall and a small separation zone on the
other wall. Correlations of wall pressures indicate a low-frequency, piston-like shock motion without
any resonant
tones. A Cross Sectional Area Subscripts
Correlations of C Coherence a Ambient
Pitot pressure f Frequency e Exit
with wall h Nozzle Height o Total
pressures NPR Nozzle Pressure Ratio = pres/pa res Reservoir
indicate strong P Pressure rms Root Mean Square
coherence of R Normalized Correlation t Throat
shear-layer S Spectrum 1 lower wall transducer
instability with U Velocity 2 upper wall transducer
the shock σ Standard Deviation 3 dynamic Pitot probe
motion. The
likely source of Table 4.6.2 Nomenclature for Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow
the plume Separation
instability is the
interaction of unsteady waves generated past the main separation shock with the shear layer of the
large separation region. In order to facilitate further, a nomenclature is given in Table 4.6.2.
4.6.4.2 Background and Literature Survey
Supersonic flow separation in a convergent-divergent nozzle results in instability of the plume
exiting the nozzle. This can be used to enhance mixing of the nozzle flow. Alternatively, the instability
can be used as an excitation means to destabilize a flow adjacent to the nozzle. Potential applications
include fuel injection, ejectors, and thermal signature reduction from jet engines. The instability
phenomenon was initially observed in cannular jet experiments at the University of California, Irvine
[1], where an arbitrary primary jet surrounded by a secondary jet from a convergent-divergent
nozzle showed substantial improvements in mixing compared to the case where the secondary
 99

nozzle was simply convergent. Figure 4.6.5 presents a visual example of such instability. This has
been investigated in round and rectangular jets at NASA Glenn Research Center [2].
A typical result is that the length of the potential core is reduced by 50% and the velocity past the
potential core decays at a much faster rate than for the equivalent jet without MESPI. For a nozzle

Figure 4.6.5 Primary Jet Flow at Mach 0.9 Surrounded by an annular secondary flow at Nozzle Pressure
Ratio NPR =1.7 (a) Secondary Nozzle is Convergent; (b) Secondary Nozzle is Convergent-Divergent –
(Courtesy of 36)

with a given expansion ratio, the range of nozzle pressure ratios over which the instability occurs
coincides with the range of nozzle pressure ratios for which a shock was located inside the nozzle.
Therefore, the phenomenon of supersonic nozzle flow separation was deemed responsible for the
observed instability. Numerous past studies have investigated supersonic nozzle flow separation [3-
4], but their focus was on the internal flow phenomena and not so much on the unstable plume that
emerges from the separation shock. A related effort has focused on the phenomenon of transonic
resonance in convergent-divergent nozzles [5]. Transonic resonance appears to occur in relatively
small nozzles where the boundary layer before the shock is laminar. For large nozzles with a
turbulent boundary layer, such as those investigated here, there is no evidence of ringing phenomena.
To better understand the phenomenon of nozzle flow separation and its connection to flow
instability, a fundamental experimental effort was started at UCI using a specially designed facility,
to be described later in this report. shows a picture of nozzle flow separation obtained in this facility
[6]. As is evident from the photograph, the phenomenon is very complex and much more intricate
than one would expect from quasi-one dimensional theory. The illustration of Figure 4.6.6 (Top)
highlights some key features of the flow, but it is by no means complete. The shock in the viscous case
takes on a bifurcated structure consisting of an incident shock and a reflected shock merging into a
Mach stem. This is commonly referred to as a lambda foot, and the point at which the three
components meet is called the triple point. The Mach stem is essentially a normal shock producing
subsonic outflow. For the range of conditions of interest here, the incident and reflected shocks are
of the “weak” type resulting in supersonic outflow past both. The adverse pressure gradient of the
incident shock causes the boundary layer to separate and detach from the wall as a shear layer that
bounds the separation (recirculation) region.
 100

Emerging from the triple point is a slipstream forming a sonic throat that acts to reaccelerate the
subsonic region. The
reflected portion of the main
shock structure will then
emerge from the separation
shear layer as an expansion
fan that is then transmitted
through the slipstream
toward the other separation
shear layer where it is
reflected again into
compression waves, this
pattern repeating with
downstream distance.
Therefore the separation
“jet” that emerges from the
shock contains a series of
alternating compression and
expansion waves. In nozzles
with straight or convex walls
subjected to nozzle pressure
ratios above about 1.4,
separation is asymmetric
wherein one lambda foot is
larger than the other (see for
example Figure 4.6.6 Figure 4.6.6 Schematic of Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation (Top),
(Bottom)). The asymmetry vs. schlieren Image (Bottom) , (Courtesy of Papamoschou, D., Zill) –
does not flip during an (Courtesy of 36)
experiment but may change
sides from one experiment to the next. A recent computational effort by (Xiao et al.) [7] also predicted
asymmetric separation. This asymmetry has been recognized as a key factor for mixing enhancement.
(Papamoschou and Zill) [8] discovered large eddies forming in the shear layer of the large separation
region, sometimes occupying over half the test section height. It was suspected that these eddies were
due to the unsteady nature of the main shock. The objective of this paper is to investigate possible
connections between the oscillation of the main shock and the occurrence of large-scale turbulent
fluctuations downstream of the shock.
4.6.4.3 Experimental Setup for Flow Facility
The experiments used a facility designed specifically for studying flow separation in nozzles of
various shapes as described by (Papamoschou and Zill) [9]. The nozzle apparatus consists of two
flexible plates that can be shaped using two sets of actuators to form the upper and lower walls. One
set of actuators controls the transverse force applied to the plates and the other controls the moment
applied, allowing variations in nozzle area ratio, nozzle contour and exit angle. The nominal test
section dimensions are 22.9 mm in height, 63.5 mm in width, and 117 mm in length from throat to
exit. The sidewalls of the nozzle incorporate large optical windows for visualization of the entire
internal flow, from the subsonic converging section to the nozzle exit. The apparatus is connected to
a system of pressure-regulated air capable of nozzle pressure ratios as high as 3.5. The nozzle
pressure ratio (NPR) ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 resulting in ideally-expanded velocities Ue ranging from
170 m/s to 320 m/s. The Reynolds number prior to the shock, based on axial distance from the
throat, was typically 2.5×106. This indicates a fully-turbulent boundary layer.
 101

4.6.4.4 Results of Plume Pitot Pressure

A parametric investigation of the jet plume
versus nozzle shape and pressure ratio has
shown significant increase in turbulence
fluctuations levels as the exit-to-throat area
ratio increases. The fluctuations are
quantified in terms of the pressure p3
measured by the Dynamic Pitot Probe
(DPP), which for the experiments discussed
here equals the local total pressure p0.
Figure 4.6.7 shows the distribution of
p3,rms a short distance from the nozzle exit
and the threefold increase in rms
fluctuation levels as the nozzle area ratio
changes from Ae/At =1 (straight) to Ae/At
=1.6 (converging-diverging).
Figure 4.6.7 RMS Total Pressure Profile of Jet Plume at
4.6.4.5 Wall Pressure Statistics x/he = 0.5 for Straight Nozzle (Ae/At =1) and Convergent-
Before attempting correlations of the shock Divergent Nozzle (Ae/At =1.6) – (Courtesy of 36)
motion with plume fluctuations, it is helpful
to understand the behavior of the oscillating shock as well as the nature of the unsteady flow in its
vicinity. To measure the fluctuations in the entire neighborhood of the shock, the nozzle was held at
a fixed area ratio of Ae/At =1.6 and the nozzle pressure ratio was gradually increased pushing the
shock from upstream to downstream of the wall transducers.
Figure 4.6.8 shows the variation of p1, rms with nozzle pressure ratio. The resulting curve shows
the relative magnitude of the wall pressure
fluctuations in the various regions around the
shock. At higher NPR, corresponding to when the
wall transducers are measuring the attached
boundary layer upstream of the shock, the
fluctuations are comparatively small in
magnitude. At the nozzle pressure ratio where
the shock begins to influence the pressure
transducer, there is a steep increase in p1, rms as
a consequence of the large pressure jump across
the shock. At lower nozzle pressure ratios,
where the transducers are located in the
separated region, the fluctuations are larger than
in the attached boundary layer but significantly
smaller than when the shock is over the
transducer. The spectrum of the fluctuations in Figure 4.6.8 RMS Wall Static Pressure
the attached boundary layer is significantly Fluctuation vs. Nozzle Pressure Ratio Presenting
lower in intensity than the spectra in the two Different Flow Regimes – Courtesy of 36
other regimes. It is reasonable to assume that the
attached boundary layer plays little or no role on the shock motion. The spectral levels in the
separated region are substantial and match those of the shock motion for fhe/Ue> 0.3. Therefore, the
fluctuations in the separation zone are likely to have an effect on the shock motion.
 102

4.6.4.6 Correlations Between Wall Pressure Ports

The cross correlation and coherence of
the two wall transducers illuminate some
important characteristics of the unsteady
phenomena in supersonic nozzle flow
separation. Figure 4.6.9 show the cross
correlation and coherence, respectively,
of the two wall transducers situated
upstream, downstream and at the
location of the shock. As one might
expect, in the attached boundary layer
there is no correlation between the upper
and lower wall since the fluctuations are a
result of random turbulent eddies. There
is a significant correlation when
measuring the shock itself, implying that
the shock oscillates in a “piston-like” Figure 4.6.9 Cross Correlations of Upper and Lower
manner. The coherence plot confirms the Wall Transducers for Various Flow Regimes – Courtesy of
36
relatively low frequency of the shock
motion.
4.6.4.7 Correlations Between Wall Pressure Ports and Dynamic Pitot Probe
Several experiments were conducted at area ratio Ae/At = 1.6, taking simultaneous measurements of
the DPP and the wall mounted transducers. Initially the DPP was held at fixed positions in both the
large and small separation zones and the nozzle pressure ratio was varied. Later the NPR was fixed
at 1.6 and the DPP was translated along certain paths inside and outside the nozzle. For studying the
effect of NPR on the coherence between wall pressures and DPP, we consider the case of the DPP
being situated near the upper wall where the large separation zone occurs for NPR > 1.4. Error! R
eference source not found. plots the nces for NPR = 1.2 and 1.6. For NPR = 1.2, separation occurs
fairly symmetrically and the wall probes are in the separated region. There is no significant
coherence between the DPP and either of the wall probes. At NPR =1.6, the shock sits over the wall
probes and separation is asymmetric. We observe significant coherence between the DPP and the
wall probes, the coherence between the DPP and lower wall (small separation zone) exceeding the

NPR=1.2 NPR=1.6

Figure 4.6.10 Coherence Between Upper and Lower Walls (C12), DPP and Lower Wall (C13), and DPP
and Upper Wall (C23) – Courtesy of 36
 103

coherence between the DPP and upper wall (large separation zone) at low frequencies. The
coherences drop when the NPR increases further, pushing the shock downstream and locating the
wall probes in the attached region. This experiment suggests that the best correlations between wall
probes and DPP occur when the shock sits in the vicinity of the wall probes. It also suggests that
asymmetric separation may amplify those correlations, although this is still speculative. also plots
the coherence between the two wall probes, which remains large as the shock moves upstream of the
probes. Having established that the best correlations between wall probes and DPP occur for NPR =
1.6 (shock sits over wall ports), the next step was to conduct a search for the locations of DPP where
the correlations were maximized.
The search pattern is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. For a rapid assessment of the t

Figure 4.6.11 Translation Paths of Dynamic Pitot Probe (DPP). Red Points Indicate Measurement
Locations – Courtesy of 36

rends of the correlations versus DPP position, [see 10]. Close to the shock, the correlations peak
when the DPP is in the large separation zone (upper wall). There is consistently better correlation
of DPP with the lower wall probe that with the upper wall probe. As we exit the nozzle, the DPP
remains significantly correlated with the wall probes, and this correlation becomes rather insensitive
with the transverse position of the DPP. This is probably because the instability excites the entire
plume so it does not matter where the DPP sits. Interestingly, the better correlation of the DPP with
the lower wall probe persists even as the DPP moves outside the nozzle. This suggests that instability
eddies are created through an interaction between the expansion reflected from the smaller lambda
foot and the shear layer of the larger separation. To provide further details, please consult the work
by (Papamoschou & Johnson) [11].
4.6.4.8 Concluding Remarks
An investigation has been conducted into the source of plume instability from over expanded
convergent divergent nozzles. The effect of internal shock phenomena on the plume unsteadiness
was a particular focus. Time resolved measurements of wall static pressures and total pressure in the
plume were correlated. A summary of the key findings is as follows:
➢ For nozzle pressure ratios that give rise to shock formation inside the nozzle, increasing the
nozzle area ratio from 1 (straight nozzle) to 1.6 (convergent-divergent nozzle) results in a
three-fold increase in the rms total pressure fluctuations near the nozzle exit. Spectra
indicate that most of the instability energy is contained at low to moderate frequencies.
➢ For the conditions of this study, the separation shock is asymmetric. This gives rise to a large
separation region on one wall and a small separation region on the other wall.
 104

➢ The coherence and cross correlation of pressures measured on the upper and lower nozzle
walls indicate that the shock oscillates in a piston-like manner with no noticeable rotational
motion. The oscillation is a low-frequency phenomenon without any resonant tones.
➢ There are substantial correlations between the wall pressures caused by the shock motion
and the total pressure inside the large separation zone. The frequency content of the total
pressure fluctuation is similar to that of the shock motion.
➢ There is consistently better coherence between the total pressure in the large separation
zone and the pressure on the wall opposite that zone. This suggests that the instability
mechanism is due to an interaction between the expansion fan reflected from the smaller
lambda foot with the shear layer of the larger separation zone.
4.6.4.9 References
1 Papamoschou, D., “Mixing Enhancement Using Axial Flow,” AIAA Paper 2000-0093, Jan 2000.
2 Zaman, K.B.M.Q, and Papamoschou, D., “Study of Mixing Enhancement Observed with a Co-Annular

Nozzle Configuration,” AIAA Paper 2000-0094, Jan. 2000.

3 Morrisette, E.L., and Goldberg, T.J., “Turbulent Flow Separation Criteria for Over expanded Supersonic

Nozzles," NASA TP 1207, Aug. 1978.

4 Romine, G.L., “Nozzle Flow Separation,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No.9, 1998, pp. 1618-1625.
5 Zaman, K.B.M.Q., Dahl, M.D., Bencic, T.J., and Loh, C.Y., “Investigation of a Transonic Resonance with

Convergent- Divergent Nozzles,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 263, 2002, pp. 313-343.
6 Papamoschou, D., Zill, A., “Fundamental Investigation of Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation,” AIAA Paper 2004-

1111.
7 Xiao, Q., Tsai, H.M., and Papamoschou, D., “Numerical Investigation of Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation,” AIAA

Paper 2005-4640, June 2005.

8 Papamoschou, D., Zill, A., “Fundamental Investigation of Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation,” AIAA 2004.
9 See Previous
10 Dimitri Papamoschou and Andrew Johnson, “Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation”,
AIAA 2006-3360, 36th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 5 - 8 June 2006, San Francisco, California.
11 Dimitri Papamoschou and Andrew Johnson, “Unsteady Phenomena in Supersonic Nozzle Flow Separation”,

AIAA 2006-3360, 36th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 5 - 8 June 2006, San Francisco, California.
4.6.5 Case Study 4 - Three-Dimensional Passive and Active Control Methods of Shock Wave Train
Physics in a Duct
Authors : Reza Kamali, Seyed Mahmood Mousavi and Danial Khojasteh
Affiliations : School of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71936-16548, Iran
Original Appearance : International Journal of Applied Mechanics Vol. 8, No. 4 (2016) 1650047 (18
pages) DOI: 10.1142/S1758825116500472
Citation : Three-Dimensional Passive and Active Control Methods of Shock Wave Train Physics in a
Duct Reza Kamali (School of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71936-16548,
Iran), Seyed Mahmood Mousavi (School of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71936-
16548, Iran), and Danial Khojasteh (School of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71936-
16548, Iran), International Journal of Applied Mechanics 2016 08:04
In the present work, the physics of a three-dimensional shock train in a convergent divergent nozzle
is numerically investigated. In this regards, the Ansys-Fluent Software with Algebraic Wall-Modeled
Large-Eddy Simulation (WMLES) is used. To estimate precision and errors accumulation we used the
Smirinov’s method; fine flow structures are obtained via Laplacian of density called shadowgraph
and the shock parameter is defined as multiplication of flow Mach number by the normalized
pressure gradient, in which shock wave structures are visible distinctly. The results are compared
with the experimental data of Weiss et al. [Experiments in Fluids 49(2) (2010) 355–365], in the same
conditions including geometry, boundary conditions, etc. The results show that there is good
 105

agreement with experimental trends concerning wall pressure and centerline Mach number profiles.
Therefore, the focus of the present study is an assessment of various flow control methods to change
the shock structures. Consequently, we investigated the effects of passive (bump and cavity) and
active (suction and blowing) control methods on the starting point of shock, shock strength,
minimum pressure, maximum flow Mach number, etc. All CFD investigations are carried out by High
Performance Computing Center (HPCC).
Keywords: Shock train; WMLES model; bump; cavity; suction; blowing.
4.6.5.1 Introduction
When a supersonic flow is decelerated to a subsonic flow in ducts, a complicated multiple shock
waves system is produced, which is called shock train due to the shock waves and duct wall turbulent
boundary layer interaction. The shock train forms in the isolator as a result of the adjustment to the
pressure rise in the combustion chamber, as shown in Figure 4.6.12. This figure demonstrates the
schematic of the flow field in a constant cross-section area of an isolator. The flow compresses

Figure 4.6.12 A schematic of a shock train system [Segal, 2009]

through the oblique shock train in region 1 and through area expansion of the subsonic flow in region
2. In addition, a separation forms near the wall in region 3 [Segal, 2009]. Owing to the importance
of this phenomenon in various flow devices, many researchers have studied the shock wave structure
and boundary layer interaction by means of experiments and numerical simulations in recent years.
From the experiment point of view, Carroll and Dutton [1990] investigated a multiple shock
wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in a rectangular duct.
They found that at Mach number of 1.6, the pattern consisted of a bifurcated normal shock followed
by weaker, un-bifurcated normal shocks and the boundary layer under the bifurcated shock was
incipiently separated. Nill and Mattick [1996] studied the shock/boundary layer interactions in a
closed duct in order to investigate the impact of this highly dissipative process on the performance
of the shock wave reactor.
Their results show that when the boundary layer is thinner, as in the entrance region of the duct, and
the shock system is less spread out, the pressure and temperature of even the core flow stabilize
quickly. Lin et al. [2006] surveyed shock train structures inside constant-area isolators. Two heat
sink isolators, one with a rectangular configuration and one with a round configuration were back
pressurized using a throttle valve. They found that the round isolator can sustain a higher back
pressure before unstarting the flow than the rectangular isolator and the rectangular isolator with
smooth ceramic panels exhibits better shock holding capability than the heat sink rectangular
isolator. Shock train inside a diverging duct is analyzed at different pressure levels and Mach
numbers by Weiss et al. [2010].
 106

Mandal et al. [2011] presented the numerical analysis of a sudden expansion with fence viewed as a
diffuser at the Reynolds numbers of 20 to 100. They found that, for lower Reynolds number regime,
the effectiveness with fence offered benefit depending on the position of the fence and fence
subtended angle. In order to examine the structure and pressure recovery inside the shock train, the
means of wall pressure measurements, Schlieren images and total pressure probes are applied. They
indicated that the Reynolds number has some small effects on the shock position and the length of
the shock train. In other works by Weiss and Olivier [2012a, 2012b, 2014] they found that by means
of a normal suction slot placed on all four walls of a rectangular nozzle, a shock train with Mach
numbers between 1.45 and 1.85 can be transferred into a single normal shock.
Zhu and Jiang [2014] experimentally and analytically studied on the shock wave length in convergent
and convergent–divergent nozzle ejectors. The influence of the first shock wavelength on the ejector
entrainment performance was analyzed to show that the ejector entrainment performance decreases
as the shock wave wavelength is increased at a given primary flow inlet pressure. Taishi et al. [2014]
outlined the structure of shock trains and pseudo-shock waves in a constant-area circular duct and
compared the experimental values for the static pressure ratio across the pseudo-shock with the
theoretical ones by the mass-averaging pseudo-shock model.
Zhu and Jiang [2014] presented the entrainment performance and the shock wave structures in an
ejector by applying Schlieren flow visualization. It was concluded that the expansion waves in the
shock train do not reach the mixing chamber wall when the ejector is working at the sub-critical
mode. Furthermore, they used a three-dimensional CFD model with four turbulence models to
compare with the experimental data which indicated that the RNG k-ε model agrees best with the
predicted values of the mass flow rate and shock wave structures.
Furthermore, in this regard other numerical research studies have been carried out such as the
effects of the divergence angle on the shock train in the scramjet isolator, presented by Huang et al.
[2011]. They discovered that with increasing the divergence angle of the scramjet isolator, the static
pressure along the central symmetrical line of the isolator decreases sharply. Grilli et al. [2012]
analyzed the unsteady behavior in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. Their results
supported the assumption that the observed shock-wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction
phenomenon is a consequence of the inherent dynamics between flow separation and shock. The
three-dimensional Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) analysis were employed to study the
influence of geometrical shape (square to circular) transition on the performance of scramjet
isolators by Sirdhar et al. [2013]. They reported that, the length of pseudo shock is shorter for square
to circular configuration. Quaatz et al. [2014] experimentally and numerically inquired a research on
how the pressure distribution within the channel as well as the size, shape and oscillation of the
pseudo-shock system are affected by the gap size.
Mousavi and Roohi [2014a, 2014b] numerically investigated the effects of working parameters on
shock train system and presented various successful methods such as Reynolds average model and
LES methodology to detect the behavior of shock train system in a convergent divergent nozzle. In
addition, to simulate the shock train structure, the LES methodology was confirmed by Morgan et al.
[2014] and Quaatz et al. [2014]. Wang et al. [2015] experimentally and numerically examined the
characteristics of low Reynolds number flow through conical and planar diffuser/nozzle elements
with varying half-angle and area ratio. They reported that the optimal half-angle at which maximum
diffuser efficiency occurs, was found to decrease with Reynolds number for both conical and planar
elements. Kuzmin [2015] investigated the flow instability in a divergent duct where a shock wave is
formed due to a bend of the upper wall (not due to compression waves in a local supersonic region),
while the sonic line increases over an expansion corner of the lower wall. Moreover, a few researches
have been done to control the shock waves behaviors that can be named include: Titchener et al.
[2013], Campo et al. [2015] and Valdivia et al. [2014]. However, there is a growing interest about the
behavior of shock waves, due to enormous applications of shock train phenomenon in the modern
 107

aerodynamics, the shock train structure still requires further investigations to understand and
control its behaviors under different working parameters.
In our previous work [Kamali et al., 2015], we examined the various sub grid scale models and found
that the WMLES model is an appropriate method to simulate the shock train system. Thus, in the
present paper, by using wall-modelled LES methodology [Goshtasbi Rad and Mousavi, 2015], the
detailed structure, velocity and pressure distributions of the shock wave train in a convergent
divergent nozzle have been surveyed. In addition, to evaluate the accuracy of the numerical
predictions, we compared the numerical results with the experimental ones. In addition, to examine
the errors accumulation, the recommended relations in Smirnov et al. [2014] are used. In this context,
after assuring the accuracy of the simulations, the effects of applying the boundary layer suction with
varying suction pressure and location of suction are examined using the hybrid initialization and the
dynamic grid adaption techniques under three dimensional investigations. All results reported in the
paper are time-averaged.
4.6.5.2 Mathematical Model
The naturally three-dimensional and unsteady turbulent flows are often influenced by strong
nonhomogeneous effects and rapid transformations which prevent using the isotropic models in
simulations. The modified sub-grids methods are also available to improve LES models however,
while their utilizations are confined due to their natural complexity. Therefore, new methods for
simulating the sub-grids scale are in progress. In common methods some models are expressed to
consider the effects of sub-grids scale in filtered Navier–Stokes equations [Mousavi and Abolfazli-
Esfahani, 2014]. In the LES methodology which is more common than the other models, at first large
scales should be solved with energy which is given to them.
For this purpose, the wasted effects of the small scales should be considered in energy balance.
Furthermore, the filter is used to separate the large scales from small ones, namely, all variables like
f are divided into two parts, grid and sub-grid scales [Mousavi et al., 2014c]. By filtering the variables
in compressible Navier–Stokes equations, the instantaneous filtered equation leads to the following
equations. More detailed discussions can be found in the textbooks by Lesieur [2005] and Garnier
[2009] and it won’t repeated here due to clarity.
In the present work, the wall-modelled LES (WMLES) has been employed to model the sub grid-scale
turbulent viscosity. In WMLES, the RANS portion of the model is only activated in the inner part of
the logarithmic layer and the outer part of the boundary layer is covered by a modified LES
formulation. Since the inner portion of the boundary layer is responsible for the Reynolds number
dependency of the LES model, the WMLES approach can be applied at the same grid resolution to an
ever increasing Reynolds number for channel flow simulations. In this model, the sub grid-scale
turbulent viscosity is calculated as following [Kawai and Larsson, 2010]

τw
μt = κρdw √ [1 − exp(y + /25)]2
ρ
Eq. 4.6.1
In which, dw, and y+ are the wall distance, wall stress and the normal to the wall inner scaling,
respectively, and κ is Von K´arm´an constant. This method confirmed the large eddy simulation (LES)
for modeling the shock train behavior by Zachary and Sanjiva [2013].
4.6.5.2.1 Precision Estimates
Estimating precision and errors accumulation is necessary for large scale simulations of complex gas
dynamics in unsteady state flows [Smirnov et al., 2014]. Depending on spatial resolution and
numerical solver used a definite error occurs in integration at each time step. This error can be
expressed in absolute or relative values. Accumulation of error takes place for successive time steps.
 108

To this end, the average ratio of cell size (ΔL) to the domain size (L1) is applied using the relation
proposed by Smirinov et al. [2014] as follows:

∆L k+1
S1 ≈ ( )
L1
Eq. 4.6.2
which in the uniform grid it could be S1 = (1/N1)(k+1), where N1 and k are the number of cells in the
direction of integration and the order of accuracy of numerical scheme, respectively. In the presence
of several directions in integration the errors are being summed up Smirnov et al., 2014]:

Serr = ∑ Si
i=1
Eq. 4.6.3
The allowable value of total error Smax after the solution is finalized should be defined by the user of
the simulator. However, we presume it should be between 1% and 5%, because initial and boundary
conditions are usually not known with a higher accuracy. Then the following inequality should be
satisfied [Smirnov et al., 2014]:
Serr ∙ √n = S max
Eq. 4.6.4
where n is the number of time steps in Navier–Stokes equations integration as well as the maximal
allowable number of time steps for solving a problem for each code could be determined by [Smirnov
et al., 2014]:
S max 2
nmax =( )
S𝑒𝑟𝑟
Eq. 4.6.5
There can be introduced another important characteristic for the results of supercomputer
simulations. That is the ratio of maximal allowable number of time steps for the problem, and the
actual number of time steps used to obtain the result:

nmax
RS =
n
Eq. 4.6.6
Eq. 4.6.6 characterizes reliability of results, i.e., how far below the limit the simulations were
finalized. Indirectly it characterizes the accumulated error. The higher is the value of Eq. 4.6.6 the
lower is the error. On tending Rs to unity the error tends to maximal allowable value.

Figure 4.6.13 Sketch of the nozzle geometry considered in the present work, X-axis starts at the throat
[Weiss et al., 2010]
 109

4.6.5.3 Geometry and BC Types Ptotal (kPa) Pstatic (kPa) ReDh Mach
Boundary
Inflow 480 88000 0.25
Condition
Outflow 325
The nozzle considered in the
Table 4.6.3 Boundary condition applied to the nozzle
present work is shown [Weiss et al., 2010]
schematically in Figure
4.6.13. According to this
figure, the height of throat is 6mm and located at 50mm away from the nozzle inlet and the total
length is 0.65 m. The inlet Mach number, Reynolds number based on hydraulic diameter and
pressure are obviously illustrated in Table 4.6.3 in order to compare the numerical results with the
available experimental data [Weiss et al., 2010]. No slip, impenetrable and constant temperature
conditions are applied for walls.

Table 4.6.4 Results of the grid study

4.6.5.4 Result and Discussion

4.6.5.4.1 Grid Properties
In order to obtain a grid independent solution, the model was solved using four different grid cells.
The results of different grids for maximum centerline Mach number and minimum centerline

Figure 4.6.14 Wall pressure distributions for cases with and without bump
 110

pressure as well as the

averaged x-velocity at the
distance of 0.2m from the
throat are shown in Table
4.6.4. As is evident from this
table, the data obtained from
the numerical solutions with
the computational cells finer
than 3.2 × 107 by the
minimum volume of 4 × 10−14
are almost identical.
Considering this low
deviation and the
computational costs, grid with
3.2 × 107 cells has been
applied in this work. The
surveys were conducted for
all investigations and sections.
4.6.5.4.2 Validation of
current numerical
method
In our previous work, we
compared the various sub grid
scales (WALE, Smagorinsky,
WMLES) models in view point
of accuracy and
computational cost, and found
that the WMLES sub grid
model is more appropriate
than the other sub grid
models to detect the shock
train structure. Therefore, in
this work, the WMLES sub
grid model is used for
simulation, directly. Figure
4.6.14 shows the comparison
between the WMLES sub grid
model results and the
experimental data of Weiss et
al. [2010] for the time- Figure 4.6.15 Comparison between the current numerical solutions
averaged mean centerline and experimental data of Weiss et al. 2009]
Mach number and wall
pressure. In this context, the
values of R-Square [Mousavi and Roohi, 2014a] for WMLES predicting the time-averaged mean wall
pressure and centerline Mach number are 93 and 94, respectively, while these values are 92 and 90
for WALE sub grid model with higher number of grid cells. As shown in Figure 4.6.14, the main
differences in the results are in regions 1 and 2. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the MWLES sub
grid model is a proper model for the case of the nozzle shock train. Furthermore, we estimated the
 111

precision and errors accumulation, and the results satisfied the conditions presented in Smirnov et
al. [2014].
4.6.5.4.3 Bump
In this section, we examined the effect of three-dimensional bump on shock train structure and the
obtained results are shown in Figure 4.6.15. Generally the bump is employed at the flow separation
point while in this study the bump is located at the starting point of bifurcated shock wave which is
a constituent of the lambda shock. In this context, we used the Hicks–Henne function

t
f(x) = hB (sin(πx ∗m ))
Eq. 4.6.7
to create various bump shapes [Tian et al.,
2011]. Here, the quantities of x*, hB and t, are hB CB/lB T lB
dimensionless length normalized with 0.001c-0.01 0.4-0.85 0.5-3 0.25c
respect to the bump length, bump height and
Table 4.6.5 Bump Dimensions

Figure 4.6.16 Shadowgraph contours for cases with bump

 112

slope control parameter, respectively. Their values tabulated in Table 4.6.5. Furthermore,
m = ln(0.5) / ln(cB /lB )
Eq. 4.6.8
is an asymmetry index. This parameter lies between 0 and 1, and value of 0.5 stands for a symmetric
bump. Geometrical parameters for a typical SCB are shown in Figure 4.6.15. This figure
demonstrates the wall pressure distribution for three different bumped cases (h/l equal to 0.004,
0.02 and 0.04 for cases 2–4, respectively), without bump, and the pressure contour of cases 1 and 3,
to illustrate the flow structure of both bump configurations. Comparing this figure for cases 2 and 4,
it is clear that the pressure fluctuations are increased and a normal shock is formed. These effects
are the main factors of energy dissipation and lower the efficiency, making the two cases of 2 and 4
inappropriate for controlling the flow behavior. This is because the bump acts like a convergent
divergent nozzle with a large length compared to the throat area and thus affecting the upstream
flow, i.e. before the bump, the boundary layer grew, and leads to the formation of the normal shock.
Moreover, there is a low deflection angle for case 3 that causes the formation of separation normal
shock. In contrast to cases 2 and 4, for cases of without bump and with bump (case 3) normal shock
does not occur at upstream. Furthermore, in comparison of cases 2 and 4, it is observed that, by using
case 3, the pressure drop is reduced, so the shock strength decreases.
Figure 4.6.16 illustrates the slices of x-plane shadowgraph contours for cases 1 and 3, with the
proper structure of shock train. The lambda-shock structures are observed in these plots, which
indicate the distance between two lambda-shape plugs increases for controlled case to 3.4mm. As
claimed before, the shock strength diminished by employing the bump (case 3), thus, it can be
concluded that, as the distance between two Lambda-shape plugs increases the shock strength
reduces. In addition, as shown in Figure 4.6.16, an oblique shock is attached to the bump which
means that before this zone, the boundary layer profile is relatively unchanged.
4.6.5.4.4 Passive Cavity
In this section, the effects of cavity as a passive method are investigated to control the behaviors of
compressible flows with shock waves. The location of the cavity is determined by Hicks–Henne
function [Tian et al., 2011], which is applied for two different depths. The results show that employing
the cavity controlling system will reduce the pressure loss and shock strength, in comparison with
the uncontrolled case. The normalized pressure of the wall is indicated in Figure 4.6.17 (a). It is
obvious that the pressure loss is diminished due to the cavity and as the cavity depth increases the
pressure loss reduction is more significant owing to more isentropic compression over a larger
lateral region. Also, as the cavity depth increases the pressure rise spreads over a larger length
through the nozzle. In other words, the pressure increases gradually over the cavity due to the
generation of Prandtl–Meyer compression waves through the cavity which is caused by the curved
shape of cavity. Cavity induces a passive suction and injection of flow upstream of the shock wave
through the cavity curved shape which reduces the shock strength. As shown in Figure 4.6.17 (b),
since the cavity is utilized, the maximum Mach number decreases and as the cavity depth enhances
the maximum Mach number reduction is more significant which attenuates the shock strength,
resulting in less energy loss. In addition, the maximum Mach number and shock occurrence locations
move towards the throat (flow upstream) as the cavity depth increases. This is mainly due to the
injection upstream of the flow over the cavity enhances boundary-layer thickness, causing a series of
compression waves. Figure 4.6.18 shows the distributions of filtered relation

∇P
u∙∇ √Px2 + Py2 + Pz2
a
Eq. 4.6.9
Filtration is expressing that the previous _ relation is equal to zero when
 113

√Px2 + Py2 + Pz2 < 14 P∞

Eq. 4.6.10

Figure 4.6.17 (a) Wall pressure distributions and (b) centerline Mach number with and without
cavity

This method is an appropriate solution to determine the shock numbers. Figure 4.6.18 illustrates
the distribution of filtered relation for the nozzle center line. It is indicated that for the uncontrolled
case, a series of 6 shocks are generated while cavity diminishes the shock numbers. This is because
cavity decreases the maximum Mach number and consequently, fewer shock numbers are needed to
coordinate the outlet pressure. Furthermore, since the pressure loss decreases, the number of shocks
is reduced.

Figure 4.6.18 Shock wave distributions for cases with and without cavity
 114

Figure 4.6.19 Mach number distributions for various DSRs

4.6.5.4.5 Suction
There are many methods to control the boundary layer separation. Suction is one of the methods
which can be applied for this purpose. In this section, the influence of applying a suction boundary
layer with varying mass flow rates on location and strength of shock train is investigated. The initial
conditions are same as , while two suctions that have the dimensionless suction rate (m˙ /m˙ in)
(DSR) of 0.075 and 0.15 are added at the position which shock occurred. The results indicated that,
the flow behaviors are completely different comparing to the flow which has no suction and as the
mass flow rate increases, this difference enhances gradually. For the DSR of 0.075, the flow physics
is almost same as the shock train behavior but as the DSR increases, the flow structure will changed
and it cannot be shock train anymore, because, as mentioned in first section, the flow Mach number
before the first shock must be greater than 1.5 in order to generate the shock train.
As shown in contours of Figure 4.6.19, the flow Mach number before the first shock for a case with
no suction and for case 2 are 1.8 and 1.6, respectively, which is one of the conditions that is necessary
for the shock train. In case 3, the flow Mach number before the first shock is 1.4 and the condition
for forming the shock train is not satisfied. As is clear from Figure 4.6.19, it is obvious that by
applying the suction, the shock strength is diminished as the ratio of the Mach number before and
after the shock is reduced from 2.28 for case 1 to 2 for case 2, while in a case with no suction the ratio
is equal to 3 (see Table 4.6.6).
It can be noted that by
employing suction, the pressure
drop that caused by the shock is
decreased significantly. This is
due to the suction that is an
effective means of the boundary Table 4.6.6 Summary results of applying the suction
layer Laminarization, which
 115

attenuates friction losses. The influences of suction on the laminar boundary layer stability is due to
decrease of the boundary layer thickness (a thinner boundary layer is less liable to turbulation) and
also due to the changes in the velocity profiles, i.e., it becomes more filled via suction. Another reason
of shock strength reduction is delaying the transition of the boundary layer from a laminar one to a
turbulent one and to avoid the boundary layer separation. A portion of the laminar boundary layer
removes which stabilizes the boundary layer. This is because the growth of instabilities in the laminar
boundary layer decreases, i.e., the Tollmien–Schichting waves are damped. As shown in Figure
4.6.19 by applying suction the flow behaviors change entirely, especially at distance between the
throat and the shock occurrence position.
Figure 4.6.20 is contoured in order to predict the forms of shock structures for cases 2 and 3. It is
noted that a lambda shock is formed for case 2 which has the DSR of 0.075, while for case 3 the lambda
shock is not formed in a way that only the normal shock occurs and the source of shock generation
that is due to compression region is swallowed by suction. The simplified relation of Biling shows
that while the ratio of compression region length and the momentum thickness are constant, with
decreasing the boundary layer and momentum layer thickness the length of compression region
decreases. It is obvious that for case 2 the shock occurrence location is tended towards the nozzle’s
outlet and as the DSR increases the shock occurrence location is tended towards the throat, which is
because, a part of the turbulent boundary layer is sucked away, and prevents the growth of boundary
layer while keeping it attached to the wall and avoiding separation. In doing so, it is possible to
control the location of shock waves. The summary results of applying the suction are represented in
Table 4.6.6.

Figure 4.6.20 Shadowgraph contours for various DSRs

 116

4.6.5.4.6 Blowing
Blowing as an active control method has a significant impact on the flow state. The effect of the
blowing at the location of the first lambda shock on the shock train system is investigated in this
section. The surveys have been carried out for three different dimensionless blowing rates (DBR)
including; 0.0325, 0.075 and 0.11. In this way, Figure 4.6.21 illustrates the wall pressure

Figure 4.6.21 Wall pressure distributions of various DBRs

Figure 4.6.22 Shadowgraph contours for various DBRs

 117

distribution for three cases. The results are indicating significant changes on flow structure by
employing blowing technique. With increasing the DBR, the fluctuations in distribution of wall
pressure enhance and the pressure loss rises in the first Lambda shock wave. This means that the
strength of the first shock increases as the DBR grows, because of the blowing reduces the wall-shear
stress significantly [Ricco and Dilib, 2010]. In addition, the changes in the distributions of pressure
for the blowing downstream are almost similar to each other. Figure 4.6.22 represents the
shadowgraph contour for three blowing cases. As shown, an increment in DBR causes the first
lambda shock to move toward the nozzle throat and increase the distance between first and second
shocks locations. Moreover, by rising the blowing mass flow rate, the number of shock waves
increase. On the other hand, blowing method reduces the momentum thickness, and optimizes the
velocity profile, consequently, increases the boundary layer stability.
4.6.5.5 Conclusion
The three-dimensional investigation of a shock train in a convergent-divergent nozzle was performed
using WMLES methodology, corresponding to experimental conditions, allowing a direct
comparison. The results demonstrated that the WMLES sub grid model could predict the flow
structures and detect the location of the first shock train position quite accurate, and provide good
quantitative agreement with experimental data [Weiss et al., 2010]. The benefit of the current work
is that, the influence of passive and active methods on flow field structure has been studied in detail.
The following important conclusions can be drawn:
➢ Applying the bump, the pressure drop is reduced so the shock strength decreases.
➢ As the distance between two lambda-shape plugs increases the shock strength attenuates.
➢ The pressure loss is diminished due to the cavity and as the cavity depth increases the
pressure loss reduction is more significant owing to more isentropic compression over a
larger lateral region. Furthermore, as the cavity depth increases the pressure rise spreads
over a larger length through the nozzle. The maximum Mach number decreases and as the
cavity depth increases, the maximum Mach number reduction is more notable which
attenuates the shock strength, resulting in less energy loss. For the uncontrolled case, a series
of 6 shocks are generated while cavity diminishes the number of shock.
➢ As the DSR increases, the flow structure will changed and it cannot be shock train anymore.
By applying the suction, the shock strength is reduced. It is obvious that for case 2 the shock
occurrence location is tended toward the nozzle’s outlet and as the DSR increases the shock
occurrence location moves toward the throat.
➢ With increasing the DBR, the fluctuations in distribution of wall pressure grow and the
pressure loss rises in the first lambda shock wave. This means that the strength of the first
shock increases as the DBR enhances.
4.6.5.6 References
Campo, L. M. and Eaton, J. K. [2015] “Shock boundary layer interactions in a low aspect ratio duct,”
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 51(0), 353–371.
Carroll, B. F. and Dutton, J. C. [1990] “Characteristics of multiple shock wave/turbulent boundary-
layer interactions in rectangular ducts,” Journal of Propulsion and Power 6(2), 186–193.
Dexun, F. and Yanwen, M. [1986] “A new implicit factored scheme for the compressible Navier–
Stokes equations,” Acta Mechanica Sinica 2(2), 100–108.
Garnier, E., Adams, N. and Sagaut, P. [2009] Large Eddy Simulation for Compressible Flows (Springer
Science and Business Media).
Goshtasbi Rad, E. and Mousavi, S. M. [2015] “Wall modeled large eddy simulation of supersonic flow
physics over compression–expansion ramp,” Acta Astronautica 117, 197–208.
Grilli, M., Schmid, P. J., Hickel, S. and Adams, N. A. [2012] “Analysis of unsteady behavior in shockwave
turbulent boundary layer interaction,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 700, 16–28.
 118

Hanxin, Z. [1988] “Advances in the study of separated flows,” Acta Mechanica Sinica 4(2), 93–111.
Huanga, W., Wang, Z.-G., Pourkashanian, M., Ma, L., Ingham, D. B., Luo, S.-B., Lei, J. and Liu, J. [2011]
“Numerical investigation on the shock wave transition in a three dimensional scramjet isolator,” Acta
Astronautica 68, 1669–1675.
Kamali, R., Mousavi, S. M. and Binesh, A. R. [2015] “Three dimensional CFD investigation of shock
train structure in a supersonic nozzle,” Acta Astronautica 116, 56–67.
Kawai, S. and Larsson, J. [2010] A dynamic wall model for large-eddy simulation of high Reynolds
number compressible flows. CTR Annual Research Briefs, 25–37.
Kuzmin, A. [2015] “Shock wave instability in a channel with an expansion corner,” International
Journal of Applied Mechanics 7(2), 1550019.
Lin, K.-C., Tam, C.-J., Jackson, K., Eklund, D. and Jackson, T. [2006] Characterization of Shock Train
Structures inside Constant-Area Isolators of Model Scramjet Combustors (American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics).
Lesieur, M., M´etais, O. and Comte, P. [2005]. Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulence (Cambridge
University Press).
Mandal, D. K., Manna, N. K., Bandyopadhyay, S., Biswas, B. P. and Chakrabarti, S. [2011] “A numerical
study on the performance of a sudden expansion with multi steps as a diffuser,” International Journal
of Applied Mechanics 3(4), 779–802.
Morgan, B., Duraisamy, K. and Lele, S. K. [2014] “Large-eddy simulations of a normal shock train in a
constant-area isolator,” AIAA Journal 52(3), 539–558.
Mousavi, S. and Abolfazli-Esfahani, J. [2014c] “Numerical investigation of the flameless oxidation of
natural gas in the IFRF furnace using large eddy simulation,” International Journal of Spray and
Combustion Dynamics 6(4), 387–410.
Mousavi, S. M., Abolfazli-Esfahani, J. and Yazdi-Mamaghani, M. [2014] Numerical study of entropy
generation in the flameless oxidation using large eddy simulation model and OpenFOAM software,”
International Journal of Thermodynamics 17(4), 02–208. 1650047-16 Int. J. Appl. Mechanics 2016.08.
Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE on 07/11/16.
For personal use only. Three-Dimensional Passive and Active Control Methods of Shock Wave Train
Physics
Mousavi, S. M. and Roohi, E. [2014a] “Large eddy simulation of shock train in a convergent–divergent
nozzle,” International Journal of Modern Physics C 25(4), 1450003.
Mousavi, S. M. and Roohi, E. [2014b] “Three dimensional investigation of the shock train structure in
a convergent–divergent nozzle,” Acta Astronautica 105(1), 117–127.
Nill, L. and Mattick, A. [1996] “An experimental study of shock structure in a normal shock train, 34th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), p.799.
Quaatz, J. F., Giglmaier, M., Hickel, S. and Adams, N. A. [2014] “Large-eddy simulation of a pseudo-
shock system in a Laval nozzle,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 49(0), 108–115.
Ricco, P. and Dilib, F. [2010] “The influence of wall suction and blowing on boundarylayer laminar
streaks generated by free-stream vortical disturbances,” Physics of Fluids 22(4), 044101.
Segal, C. [2009] The Scramjet Engine: Processes and Characteristics (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, New York).
Smirnov, N. N., Betelin, V. B., Shagaliev, R. M., Nikitin, V. F., Belyakov, I. M., Deryuguin, Y. N., Aksenov,
S. V. and Korchazhkin, D. A. [2014] “Hydrogen fuel rocket engines simulation using LOGOS code,”
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39(20), 10748–10756.
Sridhar, T., Chandrabose, G. and Thanigaiarasu, S. [2013] “Numerical investigation of geometrical
influence on isolator performance,” International Journal on Theoretical and Applied Research in
Mechanical Engineering 2, 7–12.
Taishi, O., Daisuke, O. and Yoshiaki, M. [2014] Study of shock trains and pseudo-shock waves in
constant area ducts, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting (American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics).
 119

Tian, Y., Liu, P. and Feng, P. [2011] “Shock control bump parametric research on supercritical airfoil,”
Science China Technological Sciences 54(11), 2935–2944.
Titchener, N. and Babinsky, H. [2013] “Shock wave/boundary-layer interaction control using a
combination of vortex generators and bleed,” AIAA Journal 51(5), 1221–1233.
Valdivia, A., Yuceil, K. B.,Wagner, J. L., Clemens, N. T. and Dolling, D. S. [2014] “Control of supersonic
inlet-isolator unstart using active and passive vortex generators,” AIAA Journal 52(6), 1207–1218.
Wang, J., Aw, K. C., McDaid, A. and Sharma, R. N. [2015] “Comprehensive investigation of
diffuser/nozzle element at low reynolds number aimed at valveless pump design,” International
Journal of Applied Mechanics 7(4), 1550058.
Weiss, A., Grzona, A. and Olivier, H. [2010] “Behavior of shock trains in a diverging duct,” Experiments
in Fluids 49(2), 355–365.
Weiss, A. and Olivier, H. [2012a] “Behaviour of a shock train under the influence of boundary-layer
suction by a normal slot,” Experiments in Fluids 52(2), 273–287.
Weiss, A. and Olivier, H. [2012] “Influence of a normal slot boundary layer suction system onto a
shock train,” Paper presented at the 28th International Symposium on Shock Waves.
Weiss, A. and Olivier, H. [2014] “Shock boundary layer interaction under the influence of a normal
suction slot,” Shock Waves 24(1), 11–19.
Zachary, P. V. and Sanjiva, K. L. [2013] “Simulations of a normal shock train in a constant area duct
using wall-modeled LES,” 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA.
Zhu, Y. and Jiang, P. [2014] “Experimental and analytical studies on the shock wave length in
convergent and convergent–divergent nozzle ejectors,” Energy Conversion and Management 88(0),
907–914.
Zhu, Y. and Jiang, P. [2014] “Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of shock wave
characteristics on the ejector performance,” International Journal of Refrigeration 40(0), 31–42.
 120

4.7 Effect of Heating Loads on Shock-Shock Interaction in Hypersonic Flows

The heating rates generated by shock-shock interactions can result in some of the most severe
heating loads imposed on the thermal protection systems of hypersonic lifting bodies and air-
breathing propulsion systems, as investigated by [Walker and Schmisseur]. In regions near a leading
edge heating levels up to 30 times those encountered in an undisturbed stagnation flow can be
generated. In these regions the strong gradients, unsteadiness and transitional nature of the flow
combine to make accurate prediction of the flow field a challenging endeavor. The severe heating
loads developed in a shock-shock interaction were first studied in detail following the X-15 scramjet
program where shock-shock heating resulted in a structural failure in the pylon supporting the
scramjet engine78. A series of studies were conducted in the late 1960s where the main focus was
the interaction between a shock wave and vertical fin. The studies by [Edney]79 of shock interactions
on spherical configurations, coupled with his analysis of various interaction geometries that can be
developed over cylinders and struts, provided the basic groundwork for the semi-empirical
prediction of these flows. Another similar
study conducted by [Chettle et al.]80 where
hypersonic research engine model was
attached to the underside of the aircraft,
and the oblique shock generated by the
wing of the X-15 interacted with the bow
shock of the engine support pylon 81 . This
resulted in catastrophic damage to the
pylon and incineration of part of the
protective skin. This damage was due to an
increase in the peak heat transfer and
pressure at the surface of the pylon, as a
simple demonstration of an overall
schlieren image in Figure 4.7.1.
Understanding and controlling these
interactions is a key part of moving
forward in creating and maintaining a
viable hypersonic program. A review of
these earlier studies together with
measurements of heat transfer and
pressure distribution in regions of shock-
shock interaction over cylindrical leading
edges in laminar, transitional and
turbulent interaction regions were Figure 4.7.1 Schematic of Edney Type IV Shock-
presented by [Holden et al.]82. Historically, Shock Interaction
the empirical modeling of these flows has

78 Watts J.D., “Flight experience with shock impingement and interference heating on the X-15-2 research
airplane”, NASA TM X-1669, 1968.
79 B. Edney, Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions on blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds in the

presence of an impinging shock. Rep. 115, Flygtekniska Forsoksanstalten (The Aeronautical Research Institute
of Sweden), Stockholm, 1968.
80 A. Chettle1, E. Erdem1, and K. Kontis, “Edney IV Interaction Studies at Mach 5”, Conference Paper · July 2013.
81 J. Watts, “Flight experience with shock impingement and interference heating on the X-15-2 research airplane”,

NASA Technical Reports, NASA TM (X-1669), (1968).

82 Holden M.S., Moselle J.R., Lee J., Weiting A.R., and Glass C., “Studies of aerothermal loads generated in regions

of shock-shock interaction in hypersonic flow”, NAS1-17721, 1991.

 121

been based on defining a small stagnation region downstream of a jet like flow such as that observed
in the Type IV interaction.
However, experiments have revealed that it is extremely difficult to distinguish between the heating
loads generated by the various flow field elements such as the strong viscous effects or transitional
nature of the shear layer83. It has been observed that the heating rates derived from an Edney IV
shock-shock interaction vary widely depending on whether the flow is laminar, transitional or
turbulent as well as whether the gas is considered perfect or real. In laminar flow, both Navie.r-
Stokes and DSMC predictions have compared well with experiments if well-defined grid resolution
studies are performed. When the shear layers or the boundary layers in the reattachment region
become transitional a significant increase in the heating load results. Edney also demonstrated that
the jet like model proposed for the Type IV interaction was highly sensitive to the specific heat ratio
and the freestream Mach number through the sensitivity of the compression processes to these
parameters. Specifically, he concluded that real gas effects could lower specific heat ratio, and result
in significant increases in heating in these regions. Experimental studies of this have yielded
conflicting results and computational techniques, both Navier-Stokes and DSMC, have shown 50%
increases in peak heating rates over ideal gas heating predictions84.
In summary, the Edney IV shock-shock interaction flow field is a complex shock-shock
interaction relevant to high-speed airframe-propulsion system. Given the geometric
simplicity of the shock generators and the numerical challenges associated with accurate
simulation of the resulting flow field, it is an excellent test case for CFD validation studies for
propelled vehicles in hypersonic flight.
4.7.1 Case Study – University of Buffalo Research Center (CUBRC) Test Case
[Holden]85 at the Calspan-University of Buffalo Research Center (CUBRC) developed the second Edney
IV shock-shock interaction test case. Flow conditions, experimental setup, and detailed
measurements are reported in86. CUBRC conducted an extensive series of studies over a range of
Mach numbers from 10 to 16 to define the aerothermal loads generated in regions of shock-shock
interaction from the rarefied to the fully continuum turbulent flow regimes. Detailed heat transfer
and pressure measurements were made in the 48-inch, 96-inch and LENS shock tunnels. The results
of these studies were analyzed
to provide guidance to predict
the heating enhancement
factors in laminar,
transitional, and turbulent
flows. The experimental data
presented in this section are
for fully laminar flows. The
CUBRC model configuration is
shown in Figure 4.7.2. The
regions of shock-shock
interaction studied were
generated over a series of Figure 4.7.2 Schematic of the CUBRC Edney IV Interaction
cylindrical leading edge Generator (Courtesy of Holden)

83 S. Walker and J.D. Schmisseur, “CFD Validation of Shock-Shock Interaction Flow Fields”, RTO-TR-AVT-007-V3.
84 Carlsen A.B. and Wilmoth R.G., “Monte Carlo simulation of a near-continuum shock-shock interaction problem”,
AIAA 27th Thermo-physics Conference, Nashville, TN, 1992.
85 Holden M.S.,” A review of the aerothermal characteristics of laminar, transitional, and turbulent shock-shock

interaction regions in hypersonic flows”, AIAA 98-0899, 1998.

86 Holden M.S., “Database of aerothermal measurements in hypersonic flow for CFD validation”, CUBDAT Version

2.2 CDROM, Calspan-University of Buffalo Research Center, 1999.

 122

configurations with nose radii of 0.351, 0.953, and 3.81 cm. Each of these leading edges was densely
instrumented with heat transfer instrumentation placed to have a circumferential resolution less
than 1 degree. The thin-film instrumentation was deposited on a low conductivity surface to
minimize measurement errors associated with lateral conduction in the large heat transfer gradients
generated in the region of peak heating. The high-frequency response of the thin-film
instrumentation was also a key factor in accurately determining the heating distribution for shock-
shock interactions, which exhibited intrinsic flow unsteadiness. The flow conditions for this study

Table 4.7.1 CUBRC Test Conditions (V, H, SGL, R in inches)

produced perfect gas, planar flow field, laminar flow shock-shock interactions. For the exact flow
conditions of test runs 38, 43, 44, and 105, (please see Table 4.7.1). The experimental data includes
surface temperature, heat transfer, pressure distributions and Schlieren photographs.
4.7.1.1 Computational Contributions
The three contributors for this test case were Dr Domenic D’Ambrosio, Politecnico di Torino, Torino,
Italy, Dr Graham Candler, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, and Dr. Iain Boyd, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. D’Ambrosio’s numerical technique was the same as that described above
for the ONERA test case. Results were obtained using a coarse (75 X 150) and a fine (250 X 300) grid.
Candler’s computations were performed with a CFD code that uses second-order accurate modified
Steger-Warming flux vector splitting and an implicit parallel time integration method. The grid
consisted of 382 points in the circumferential direction, and 256 points normal to the cylinder
surface. The grid was exponentially stretched from the surface, and care was taken to have sufficient
near-wall resolution to capture the large flow gradients at the surface. Because of the relatively low
enthalpy conditions of the experiments, chemical reactions were not considered, however ibrational
relaxation of the gas was allowed. A vibrational equilibrium free-stream was assumed. Standard
transport property models were used for the gas as in [Candler and Mac Cormack]. Candler
computed post-shock conditions using the experimental free-stream conditions and the 10 degree
turning angle of the shock generator. The post-shock conditions were then used as inflow conditions
everywhere below a specified distance from the cylinder centerline. This distance was adjusted until
the maxima in the heat transfer rate and surface pressure were located at the same point on the
cylinder as in the experiments. This approach was required since very slight differences in the
location of the shock generator relative to the cylinder result in large differences in the structure of
the shock interaction.
The DSMC solutions provided by Boyd were performed using the MONACO code: a general, object-
oriented, cell-based, parallelized implementation of the DSMC method developed by Dietrich and
[Boyd] 87 . MONACO employs the Variable Soft Sphere (VSS) collision model of [Koura et al] 88 , a

87 Dietrich, S. and Boyd, I. D., “Scalar optimized parallel implementation of the direct simulation Monte Carlo

method”, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 126, pp. 328-342, 1996.

88 Koura, K. and Matsumoto, H., “Variable soft sphere molecular model for air species”, Physics of Fluids A, Vol. 4,

pp. 1083-1085, 1992.

 123

variable rotational energy exchange probability model of [Boyd] 89 and the variable vibrational
energy exchange probability model of [Vijayakumar et al.]90 . The flow conditions here do not involve
chemical reactions. Simulations of particle/wall interaction employ accommodation and momentum
reflection coefficients of 0.85. The present simulations employ grids of 512 by 512 cells (Run 105)
and 1024 by 1024 cells (Run 43), which give maximum sizes of 2 local mean free paths. The time step
employed in both simulations is (10)-9 sec and this is less than the local mean time between collisions
everywhere. The total numbers of particles employed is 2 million (Run 105) and 8 million (Run 43).
This allows the minimum number of particles per cell to be everywhere greater than 4.
4.7.1.2 Computational Results
A comparison of the numerical results with the measured CUBRC Run 38 data of Holden is shown in
Figure 4.7.3. Both surface pressure and surface non-dimensional heat transfer are plotted in
angular coordinates around the cylinder. Inspection reveals that both the calculated pressure
coefficient and heat transfer ratio are severely over-predicted. In a similar manner as described
above, D’Ambrosio corrected this over-prediction by averaging his CFD results over the experimental
measurement resolution. However, for the CUBRC experiments, this resolution was undetermined at
the time of the computations. If similar averaging schemes were utilized, improved agreement
between simulation and experiment resulting from the CFD averaging process would suggest that
the experiment is highly unsteady and that the data are actually average quantities of an unsteady,
oscillating impinging jet.

Figure 4.7.3 Experimental and Numerical Results for the Conditions of CUBRC Run #38

The sensitivity of the solutions to the shock impingement location may have an important effect on
the interpretation of the experimental data. Slight variations in the free-stream conditions result in
changes in the shock impingement location, which substantially change the surface quantities. Thus,
it is possible that the experimental results represent some averaging of the shock impingement
location. This would tend to broaden the peaks and reduce their magnitudes, as seen in the
comparison between the computations and experiments. Another reason may be that because the
cylinders are small in diameter, and the pressure instrumentation is limited, there are some cases
where the actual peak pressure falls between two transducers and is not fully recorded. This may be

89 Boyd, I. D., “Analysis of rotational non-equilibrium in standing shock waves of Nitrogen”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 28,
pp. 1997-1999, 1990.
90 Vijayakumar, P., Sun, Q. and Boyd, I. D., “Detailed models of vibrational-translational energy exchange for the

direct simulation Monte Carlo method”, Physics of Fluids, Vol. 11, pp. 2117-2126, 1999.
 124

the case, especially with Run 43, where there is almost no experimental peak pressure coefficient. (In
Run 105, the cylinder was too small to incorporate any pressure sensors, so there is no experimental
pressure data available for this case). The off-peak surface pressure coefficient beneath the
interaction location is not well predicted by either Navier-Stokes or DSMC for Run 43, while the heat
transfer ratio comparisons are much better.
The good off peak heat transfer comparisons
may be a function of the better resolution of
heat transfer instrumentation.
Also, both Navier-Stokes and DSMC methods
required several milliseconds to reach steady-
state solutions and for some shock
impingement locations, the solutions never did
stabilize. Run 43 is a particularly strong
interaction, and the supersonic jet impinging
on the surface is likely to be unstable. Of
course, the capacity for the present CFD
simulations to accurately capture this
unsteadiness is suspect. The translational
temperature contours for both Navier-Stokes
and DSMC are shown in Figure 4.7.4 (a, b).
Both methods predict similar flow fields.
Overall, considering both peak and off-peak Figure 4.7.4 Contours of Constant Translational
regions, Run 44 represents the best that DSMC Temperature for; a) Navier-Stokes and b) DSMC
and Navier-Stokes methods can offer. Solutions for CUBRC Run #44
However, it is still apparent that there are
many inconsistencies between the computational methods and the experimental data that need to
be resolved.