2015
DOI: 10.2514/1.j053271
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation for Length of Impinging Shock-Induced Large Separation Bubble at Hypersonic Speed

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar correlations were also obtained based on experiments for laminar SBLI (Davis & Sturtevant 2000;Sriram & Jagadeesh 2015;Sriram et al 2016). While the variables in the correlations based on experimental and numerical data are the same or a modified form of the variables in the theoretically obtained scaling laws, notably the pressure term (the term in the right hand side of equation 4.1) is linear in the correlations, while the theory predicts a non-linear pressure term with an exponent of 1.5.…”
Section: Scaling Lawsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Similar correlations were also obtained based on experiments for laminar SBLI (Davis & Sturtevant 2000;Sriram & Jagadeesh 2015;Sriram et al 2016). While the variables in the correlations based on experimental and numerical data are the same or a modified form of the variables in the theoretically obtained scaling laws, notably the pressure term (the term in the right hand side of equation 4.1) is linear in the correlations, while the theory predicts a non-linear pressure term with an exponent of 1.5.…”
Section: Scaling Lawsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Previous SBLI experiments in hypersonic impulse facilities examined the high-temperature aerothermodynamic effects of flow separation in various model configurations. Such configurations include compression ramp/double wedge (Mallinson, Gai & Mudford 1997;Bleilebens & Olivier 2006;Swantek & Austin 2015;Knisely & Austin 2016;Wagner et al 2018) and impinging shock (Sandham et al 2014;Sriram & Jagadeesh 2015;Sriram et al 2016). In the two-dimensional impinging shock configuration, Sandham et al (2014) observed enhanced transition from impinging an oblique shock with a deflection angle of 2 • and 4 • at Mach 6; however, the shock strength was not sufficient to fully separate the boundary layer.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the two-dimensional impinging shock configuration, Sandham et al (2014) observed enhanced transition from impinging an oblique shock with a deflection angle of 2 • and 4 • at Mach 6; however, the shock strength was not sufficient to fully separate the boundary layer. Researchers at the Indian Institute of Science (Sriram & Jagadeesh 2015;Sriram et al 2016) utilised a model with higher deflection angles of 27 • or 31 • to examine the laminar separation length L sep , the streamwise distance from the start of the separation to the impingement point. An inviscid scaling law between L sep and the reattachment pressure ratio was developed using their data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as the wedge shock strength increases, we expect a transition to a normal reattachment where the reattachment pressure ratios are relatively high. The experimental observation of ‘large’ separation bubbles and a detached shock at reattachment that is strongly curved near the wall was reported by Sriram (2013), Sriram & Jagadeesh (2014, 2015), Srinath (2015) and Sriram et al. (2016).…”
Section: Modellingmentioning
confidence: 64%