2009
DOI: 10.2514/1.41107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions in a Model Scramjet Intake

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These values were set from initial tests for turbulent channel flow with our code and have since been left unchanged [20].…”
Section: B Mixed-time-scale Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These values were set from initial tests for turbulent channel flow with our code and have since been left unchanged [20].…”
Section: B Mixed-time-scale Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, some studies during NASP indicated that an important delay of transition could eventually reduce the GTOW up to a factor of 2. On the other hand, the boundary layer on an intake surface is more robust in a turbulent state as an earlier transition can prevent massive separation [62] [63].…”
Section: High-speed Transitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these inlets, the captured air is decelerated by a series of shock waves. As a result, the growing boundary layer along the wall of the inlet will experience several adverse pressure gradients, possibly leading to boundary-layer separation, which causes large total pressure loss, large distortion at the engine face, and even an inlet unstart [2,3]. It is therefore beneficial to control the flow either before or during the interaction process to prevent shock-induced separation, thereby improving the efficiency and reducing the distortion for hypersonic inlets.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%