In this paper, the design spaces of the 2D and 3D shock control bumps on an infinite unswept natural laminar flow wing are investigated by adopting an optimization enhanced parametric study method. The design space spanned by the design variables are explored through a series of design optimization and their landscapes around the optima are revealed. The effects of the bump spacing, bump length, and Mach number are investigated respectively around the optima. The maximum cross-sectional area, bump incident angle, and aspect ratio are found to be important design parameters. The associated flow physics is discussed in relation to these parameters. The comparative performance of the 2D and 3D bumps are explained in the context of the transonic area rule. Two types of flow separation are identified by varying the bump aspect ratio at off-design conditions. It is concluded that the 2D and 3D shock control bumps can have nearly the same performances at optimal designs with similar cross-sectional areas. Some practical design principles and guidelines are suggested.
Tai TC. Theoretical aspects of Dromedaryfoil. David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Technical Report No. 770104, November 1977.
2.
TaiTCHusonGGHicksRMet al.Transonic characteristics of a humped airfoil. J Aircraft1988; 25: 673–674.
3.
Ashill P, Fulkner J and Shires A. A novel technique for controlling shock strength of laminar-flow aerofoil sections. DGLR Bericht, Pt. 6, 1992, pp.175–183.
4.
Fulker JL, Ashill PR and Simmons MJ. Study of simulated active control of shock waves on an aerofoil. Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, Technical Report TR93025, May 1993.
5.
Stanewsky E, Délery J, Fulker J, et al. Synopsis of the Project EUROSHOCK. In: Notes on numerical fluid mechanics: EUROSHOCK - Drag reduction by passive shock control, results of the Project EUROSHOCK. Vol. 56, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1997, pp.1–81.
6.
BirkemeyerJRosemannHStanewskyE. Shock control on a swept wing. Aerosp Sci Technol2000; 4: 147–156.
7.
StanewskyE. Adaptive wing and flow control technology. Prog Aerosp Sci2001; 37: 583–667.
8.
Stanewsky E, Délery J, Fulkner J, et al. Synopsis of the Project EUROSHOCK II. In: Notes on numerical fluid mechanics and multidisciplinary design: Drag reduction by shock and boundary layer control—results of the Project EUROSHOCK II. Vol. 80, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag, 2002, pp.1–124.
9.
QinNZhuYShawST. Numerical study of active shock control for transonic aerodynamics. Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow2004; 14: 444–466.
10.
Qin N, Monet D and Shaw ST. 3D Bumps for transonic wing shock control and drag reduction. In: CEAS aerospace aerodynamics research conference, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
11.
QinNWongWSLe MoigneA. Three-dimensional contour bumps for transonic wing drag reduction. Proc IMechE, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering2008; 222: 619–629.
12.
WongWSLe MoigneAQinN. Parallel adjoint-based optimisation of a blended wing body aircraft with shock control bumps. Aeronaut J2007; 111: 165–174.
13.
WongWSQinNSellarsNet al.A combined experimental and numerical study of flow structures over three-dimensional shock control bumps. Aerosp Sci Technol2008; 12: 436–447.
14.
Holden HA and Babinsky H. Shock/boundary layer interaction control using 3D devices. In: The 41st aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 2003, AIAA Paper 2003-447.
15.
OgawaHBabinskyHPätzoldMet al.Shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction control using three-dimensional bumps for transonic wings. AIAA J2008; 46: 1442–1452.
16.
Bruce PJK, Colliss SP and Babinsky H. Three-dimensional shock control bumps: Effects of geometry. In: 52nd aerospace sciences meeting, National Harbor, MD, 2014, AIAA 2014-0943.
17.
CollissSPBabinskyHNüblerKet al.Vortical structures on three-dimensional shock control bumps. AIAA J2016; 54: 2338–2350.
18.
EastwoodJPJarrettJP. Toward designing with three-dimensional bumps for lift/drag improvement and buffet alleviation. AIAA J2012; 50: 2882–2898.
19.
JonesNREastwoodJPJarrettJP. Adapting three-dimensional shock control bumps for swept flows. AIAA J2017; 55: 861–873.
20.
HinchliffeBQinN. Using surface sensitivity from mesh adjoint for transonic wing drag reduction. AIAA J2017; 55: 818–831.
21.
BrucePJKCollissSP. Review of research into shock control bumps. Shock Waves2015; 25: 451–471.
22.
KönigBPätzoldMLutzTet al.Numerical and experimental validation of three-dimensional shock control bumps. J Aircraft2009; 46: 675–682.
23.
SacksJWelchWJMitchellTJet al.Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci1989; 4: 409–423.
24.
SimpsonTWPoplinskiJDKochPNet al.Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: Survey and recommendations. Eng Comput2001; 17: 129–150.
25.
DengFQinNLiuXQet al.Shock control bump optimization for a low sweep supercritical wing. Sci China Technol Sci2013; 56: 2385–2390.
26.
JonesDRSchonlauMWelchWJ. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Global Optim1998; 13: 455–492.
27.
JonesDR. A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Global Optim2001; 21: 345–383.
28.
LaurenceauJMeauxMMontagnacMet al.Comparison of gradient-based and gradient-enhanced response-surface-based optimizers. AIAA J2010; 48: 981–994.
29.
EpsteinBJamesonAPeiginSet al.Comparative study of three-dimensional wing drag minimization by different optimization techniques. J Aircraft2009; 46: 526–541.
30.
Powell MJD. The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. Centre for Mathematical Sciences. Rept. DAMTP 2009/NA06, University of Cambridge, UK, August 2009.
SclafaniAJDeHaanMAVassbergJCet al.Drag prediction for the common research model using CFL3D and OVERFLOW. J Aircraft2014; 51: 1101–1117.
33.
Fulker JL and Simmons MJ. An experimental study of shock control methods. DRA/AS/HWA/TR94007/1, 1994.
34.
MclntoshSCQinN. The influence of transition onset location on the performance of shock control bumps. Aeronaut J2013; 117: 1037–1051.
35.
Whitcomb RT. A study of the zero-lift drag-rise characteristics of wing-body combinations near the speed of sound. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Rept. NACA Technical 1273, 1956.
36.
CarlsenWD. Development of transonic area-rule methodology. J Aircraft1995; 32: 1056–1061.
37.
Wong WS. Mechanisms and optimizations of 3D shock control bumps. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK, 2006.
