Assessment of Computational Fluid Dynamics and Experimental Data for Shock Boundary-Layer Interactions

DeBonis, James R.; Oberkampf, William L.; Wolf, Richard T.; Orkwis, Paul D.; Turner, Mark G.; Babinsky, Holger; Benek, John A.

doi:10.2514/1.j051341

Cited by 60 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other sources of information are the reviews of the classic 2-D SBLI (Adamson & Messiter 1980;Délery & Dussauge 2009;Babinsky & Harvey 2011). For the case of a two-dimensional mean flow, extensive measurements and simulations were reported by Cantwell (1981), Dupont et al (2005), Ganapathisubramani, Clemens & Dolling (2007), Humble, Scarano & van Oudheusden (2007), Dupont et al (2008), Humble et al (2009), Priebe, Wu & Martín (2009), Souverein et al (2010 and DeBonis et al (2012). Relevant mathematical analysis has been presented by Wu et al (2000) and Surana, Grunberg & Haller (2006), Surana et al (2008).…”

Section: Previous Related Sbli Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

Shock wave–boundary layer interactions in rectangular inlets: three-dimensional separation topology and critical points

Eagle

Driscoll

2014

J. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction between two separated flow regions was studied for the fundamental problem of a shock wave-boundary layer interaction (SBLI) within a rectangular inlet. One motivation is that the inlet of an engine on a supersonic aircraft may contain separation zones on the sidewalls and the bottom wall; if one region separates first it can alter the flow on the other wall and lead to engine unstart. In our work an oblique shock wave was generated by a wedge suspended from the upper wall of a Mach 2.75 wind tunnel. Stereo particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were recorded in 25 planes that include all three possible orthogonal orientations. The lateral velocity and vorticity measurements help to explain the underlying flow structure and these quantities were not measured previously for this problem. It is concluded that the sidewall and bottom wall separation zones interact due to an underlying flow structure that is similar to the two types of 3-D separation patterns previously described by Tobak & Peake (Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., vol. 14, 1982, pp. 61-85). Separation first occurs at an upstream location where the shock interacts with the sidewall. Lateral velocities direct flow toward the centreline to cause separation on the bottom wall. This causes significant curvature of the shock wave, so that even the region near the tunnel centreline cannot be explained by conventional 2-D concepts. A number of critical points (saddle points, nodes, focus points) were identified. Results are consistent with the general ideas of Burton & Babinsky (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 707, 2012, pp. 287-306) and help to provide details of how the sidewalls redistribute the adverse pressure gradient in space.

show abstract

Section: Previous Related Sbli Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

Shock wave–boundary layer interactions in rectangular inlets: three-dimensional separation topology and critical points

Eagle

Driscoll

2014

J. Fluid Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They make several specific recommendations for future experimental campaigns regarding uncertainty characterization. DeBonis et al [125] also review the efforts of several researchers using different models to reproduce experiments from IUSTI and University of Michigan. They examine velocity and Reynolds stress profiles in an uncertainty quantification based framework to conclude that the performance of the turbulence model depends on the quantity employed to assess it, with some models performing well for one quantity but not for the others.…”

Section: Heat Transfer and Skin Friction Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 97%

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Gaitonde

2015

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

475

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3, it was generally found that the BSL and SST models provided predictions on either side of the experimental measurements. In particular, the BSL model underpredicted the magnitude of the separation while the SST model, using the standard a 1 value of 0.31 significantly overpredicted the size of the separation.…”

Section: Structure Parameter In Swtbli Regionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recalibration of the Shear Stress Transport Model to Improve Calculation of Shock Separated Flows

Georgiadis

Yoder

2013

51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of Computational Fluid Dynamics and Experimental Data for Shock Boundary-Layer Interactions

Cited by 60 publications

References 19 publications

Shock wave–boundary layer interactions in rectangular inlets: three-dimensional separation topology and critical points

Shock wave–boundary layer interactions in rectangular inlets: three-dimensional separation topology and critical points

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Recalibration of the Shear Stress Transport Model to Improve Calculation of Shock Separated Flows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About