54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting 2016
DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-0077
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Unsteadiness: The Effects of Configuration and Strength

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
4
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A study by Threadgill & Bruce (2016) was performed in the same wind tunnel at the same free-stream conditions. In the study, the evolution of the boundary layer profile was characterised from ≈95 to 45 mm upstream of the AR eff = 1.00 inviscid shock impingement point.…”
Section: Regular-irregular Transitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study by Threadgill & Bruce (2016) was performed in the same wind tunnel at the same free-stream conditions. In the study, the evolution of the boundary layer profile was characterised from ≈95 to 45 mm upstream of the AR eff = 1.00 inviscid shock impingement point.…”
Section: Regular-irregular Transitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the published researches, [33][34][35] the incipience and scale of the oblique shock-induced turbulent boundary layer separation is mainly determined by the shock caused static pressure ratio. Since the effect of shock/boundary layer interaction is neglected in the cases with the existence of the reflected shock, a limitation for the normal component of first passage shock upstream Mach number, which determines the static pressure ratio, could be set to prevent arising of the large-scale shock-induced boundary layer separation, i.e.…”
Section: S1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simulation set‐up is based on the LES computation of Morgan et al 52 and the experiment of Threadgill and Bruce 53 . The inflow Mach number is chosen to be Ma=2.0$$ Ma=2.0 $$.…”
Section: Three‐dimensional Oblique Shock‐wave/turbulent Boundary‐laye...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, due to the slightly bigger Mach number of 2.05$$ 2.05 $$ and the different boundary layer properties in the reference LES, we don't expect a fully quantitative agreement with the results of Morgan et al, 52 but the same trends of the wall pressure and skin‐friction coefficient curves. The experiment of Threadgill and Bruce 53 has higher Reynolds numbers and the 3D sidewall effects of the wind tunnels, but the same Mach number and the same shock strength are utilized so that it is used for a supplementary validation by comparing with the dimensionless Strouhal number of the flow unsteadiness. Table 1 summarizes the characteristic properties of our flow conditions.…”
Section: Three‐dimensional Oblique Shock‐wave/turbulent Boundary‐laye...mentioning
confidence: 99%