48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 2010
DOI: 10.2514/6.2010-871
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental investigation into Parameters Governing Corner Interactions for Transonic Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, the M ∞ = 1.4 data point (attached flow) from Burton et al (2010) lies very slightly below the dashed line in figure 4, suggesting that it may be sensitive to manipulations of the corner flow-field. In practice, any reduction of the corner flow separation should push the test case towards the domain where flow separation in the centre is observed.…”
Section: Review Of Factors Affecting Separation In Normal Sblismentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interestingly, the M ∞ = 1.4 data point (attached flow) from Burton et al (2010) lies very slightly below the dashed line in figure 4, suggesting that it may be sensitive to manipulations of the corner flow-field. In practice, any reduction of the corner flow separation should push the test case towards the domain where flow separation in the centre is observed.…”
Section: Review Of Factors Affecting Separation In Normal Sblismentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The results from a number of experimental studies are plotted in figure 3 against Re θ and H i0 . In addition to the results from figure 2, data are also included from tests by Burton, Babinsky & Bruce (2010) and Chriss et al (1989). The latter of these two is particularly noteworthy because they found that the boundary layer along the tunnel centreline remained attached through a M ∞ = 1.59 SBLI in a confined channel.…”
Section: Review Of Factors Affecting Separation In Normal Sblismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, recent research has shown that even the 2-D region, specifically the severity of the separation, is affected by the overall three-dimensionality of the interaction. 30 Secondly, separation is clearly visible in all three of the interaction strengths. Thirdly, the most noticeable change between the three cases is the two-dimensionality of the 2-D region.…”
Section: Surface Oil Flow Visualizationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The flow is also closely symmetric. This lack of shock-induced separation at this relatively high Mach number is discussed in detail by Burton et al [11] and is thought to be a result of three-dimensional effects. Agreement between the surface-flow visualizations obtained in position 1 and in a configuration without a diffuser is evidence that the diffuser is too far downstream to have any significant detrimental effect in the interaction region itself.…”
Section: Uncontrolled Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 65%