Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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 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).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamali et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: