An experimental investigation of the response of an oblique shock train to downstream periodic pressure perturbations was conducted. The oblique shock train is generated in a Mach 2.7 ducted flow and controlled by a downstream elliptical shaft. Cyclic rotating of the shaft leads to a periodic oscillatory motion of the oblique shock train. Six cases of perturbation frequency are studied. The results indicate that the downstream pressure perturbations propagate upstream to cause the oblique shock train to oscillate with a translational motion back and forth and the wall pressure to fluctuate with the same frequency. There is no distinct relative motion between the first oblique shock and the second shock during the motion process of the oblique shock train. The entire oblique shock train exhibits its behaviour of rigid motion and the strength of the first oblique shock of the oblique shock train is nearly stable during its periodic motion. There is a clear hysteresis effect in that the oblique shock train travels along a different path for the upstream and downstream motions. A simple analytical model was built based on these experimental data to analyse the oblique shock train dynamics.
MatsuoKMiyazatoYKimHD. Shock train and pseudo-shock phenomena in internal gas flows. Prog Aerospace Sci1999; 35: 33–100.
2.
HeiserWHPrattDT. Hypersonic air breathing propulsion, Washington: AIAA Education Series, 1994.
3.
GnaniFZare-BehtashHKontisK. Pseudo-shock waves and their interactions in high-speed intakes. Prog Aerospace Sci2016; 82: 36–56.
4.
WaltrupPJBilligFS. Structure of shock waves in cylindrical ducts. AIAA J1973; 11: 1404–1408.
5.
MorganBDuraisamyKLeleSK. Large-eddy simulations of a normal shock train in a constant-area isolator. AIAA J2014; 52: 539–558.
6.
Wagner J, Yuceil K and Clemens N. PIV measurements of unstart of an inlet-isolator model in a Mach 5 flow. In: 39th AIAA fluid dynamics conference, 2009, p.4209.
7.
GaoTLiangJSunMet al.Analysis of separation modes variation in a scramjet combustor with single-side expansion. AIAA J2017; 55: 1307–1317.
8.
ChangJLiNXuKet al.Recent research progress on unstart mechanism, detection and control of hypersonic inlet. Prog Aerospace Sci2017; 89: 1–22.
9.
LinK CJacksonKBehdadniaRet al.Acoustic characterization of an ethylene-fueled scramjet combustor with a cavity flameholder. J Propulsion Power2010; 26: 1161–1170.
10.
OmDChildsME. Multiple transonic shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction in a circular duct. AIAA J1985; 23: 1506–1511.
11.
ReinartzBUHerrmannCDBallmannJet al.Aerodynamic performance analysis of a hypersonic inlet isolator using computation and experiment. J Propulsion Power2003; 19: 868–875.
12.
LiNChangJYuDet al.Mathematical model of shock-train path with complex background waves. J Propulsion Power2017; 33: 468–478.
13.
XuKChangJZhouWet al.Mechanism and prediction for occurrence of shock-train sharp forward movement. AIAA J2016; 54: 1403–1412.
14.
TanHJSunSHuangHX. Behavior of shock trains in a hypersonic inlet/isolator model with complex background waves. Exp Fluids2012; 53: 1647–1661.
Ott P, Bölcs A and Fransson TH. Experimental and numerical study of the time-dependent pressure response of a shock wave oscillating in a nozzle. In: ASME 1993 international gas turbine and aeroengine congress and exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1993, pp.V001T03A061.
20.
BenayRBerthouzePBurR. Modeling of controlled shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in transonic channel flow. AIAA J2001; 39: 2293–2301.
21.
GalliACorbelBBurR. Control of forced shock-wave oscillations and separated boundary layer interaction. Aerospace Sci Technol2005; 9: 653–660.
22.
BurRBenayRGalliAet al.Experimental and numerical study of forced shock-wave oscillations in a transonic channel. Aerospace Sci Technol2006; 10: 265–278.
BrucePJKBabinskyHTartinvilleBet al.Experimental and numerical study of oscillating transonic shock waves in ducts. AIAA J2011; 49: 1710–1720.
25.
BrucePJKBabinskyH. An experimental study of transonic shock/boundary layer interactions subject to downstream pressure perturbations. Aerospace Sci Technol2010; 14: 134–142.
26.
Klomparens R, Driscoll JF and Gamba M. Response of a shock train to downstream back pressure forcing. In: 54th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, 2016, p.0078.
27.
Fan X, Xiong B, Wang Y, et al. Self-excited and forced oscillation of a shock train in a rectangular isolator at Mach 3. In: 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, 2017, p.2114.
28.
XiongBWangZGFanXQet al.Experimental study on the flow separation and self-excited oscillation phenomenon in a rectangular duct. Acta Astronaut2017; 133: 158–165.
29.
Hurrell HG. Analysis of shock motion in ducts during disturbances in downstream pressure. National advisory committee for aeronautics. NACA TN 4090.
30.
CulickFECRogersT. The response of normal shocks in diffusers. AIAA J1983; 21: 1382–1390.
31.
ChangJYuDBaoWet al.Mathematical modeling and rapid recognition of hypersonic inlet buzz. Aerospace Sci Technol2012; 23: 172–178.
32.
HuJChangJQinBet al.Scramjet isolator shock-train leading-edge position modeling based on equilibrium manifold. J Aerospace Eng2013; 28: 04014064–04014064.
33.
ChangJWangLBaoW. Mathematical modeling and characteristic analysis of scramjet buzz. Proc IMechE, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering2014; 228: 2542–2552.
34.
HandaTMasudaMMatsuoK. Mechanism of shock wave oscillation in transonic diffusers. AIAA J2003; 41: 64–70.
