Assessment of CFD Models for Shock Boundary Layer Interaction

DeBonis,; Oberkampf, WL; Wolf, RT; Orkwis, Paul D.; Turne, MG; Babinsky, Holger

doi:10.2514/6.2010-4823

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Orkwis and Prof. Turner acted as chair members for the AIAA workshop conducted in 2010 [11]. In this workshop, initial data from the wind tunnel experiment was provided to different computationalists who were kept "blind" to all experimental results.…”

Section: Uc -Computational Effortsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Particle Drag in Accelerating Flows with Implications for SBLI in PIV - A Numerical Analysis

Kalagotla

Orkwis

Turner

2018

2018 Fluid Dynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Uc -Computational Effortsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Particle Drag in Accelerating Flows with Implications for SBLI in PIV - A Numerical Analysis

Kalagotla

Orkwis

Turner

2018

2018 Fluid Dynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A workshop was held in Orlando in January 2010 to present the results. An overview of the CFD comparisons is presented by DeBonis et al 5 . One of the current authors analyzed this configuration, but those results could not be submitted since he had access to the experimental results.…”

Section: Previous Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design of a Glass Supersonic Wind Tunnel Experiment for Mixed Compression Inlet Investigations

Galbraith

Turner

Orkwis

et al. 2010

40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed compression inlets offer a great increase in pressure recovery compared to conventional external compression inlets at Mach numbers above two. These inlets suffer from problems with shock wave boundary layer interactions (SBLI) which cause flow instabilities and severe performance reductions. Previous experiments conducted at the University of Michigan used a wind tunnel with glass side walls with an extensive test section to measure the SBLI associated with a single oblique shock. This work presents a redesign of the single oblique shock experimental setup, using computational fluid dynamics, to also include a downstream normal shock with a diffuser. The new experimental configuration will provide insights into the effects that combined oblique/normal shock boundary layer interactions have on the health of the boundary layer in the diffuser section of a mixed compression inlet. The extensive glass walls of the wind tunnel will allow direct access for optical measurements of the shock boundary layer interactions and the diffuser section. Nomenclature AIP = Aerodynamic Interface Plane CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics NSH = Normal Shock Holder k = Turbulent Kinetic Energy M = Mach number M ∞ = Inflow Mach number OSG = Oblique Shock Generator SBLI = Shock wave boundary layer interaction

show abstract

“…The CFD solutions were interpolated to the same physical locations where the PIV data were taken, as was required by the organizers of the AIAA workshop, for purposes of computing differences between solutions and experimental data. 43 Examining these contours, the extent of the adverse pressure gradient effects indicated by the Menter SST solution are larger than the other solutions and experimental data. Further comparisons of the CFD solutions and experimental data are made for the axial velocity profiles at four axial locations in Fig.…”

Section: Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The supply stagnation pressure was 50.5 kPa and the stagnation temperature was 293 K. A schematic of the experimental configuration representing that used in the UFAST experiments is shown in Fig. 6 as taken from DeBonis et al 43 Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was used in all cases to characterize the interaction region, with both mean flow velocities and turbulent statistics obtained.…”

Section: Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contributions included RANS and LES-based computations. DeBonis et al 43 provides a comprehensive assessment of the CFD calculations, including uncertainty analysis of the submitted CFD results and experimental data obtained for the same configurations. Hirsch 44 examined some of the CFD trends, in particular effects of turbulence modeling, RANS versus LES, and numerical schemes submitted by several investigators and includes the results from our efforts described here.…”

Section: Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation