Laser interferometer skin-friction measurements of crossing-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions

Garrison, T. J.; Settles, Gary S.; Narayanswami, N.; Knight, Doyle

doi:10.2514/3.12125

Cited by 36 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11(b) indicates consistency with the surface oil flow (Fig. 5) and experiments of Garrison et al [79]. As discussed extensively in Ref.…”

Section: Heat Transfer and Skin Friction Coefficientsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Other efforts include a particularly detailed and systematic set of measurements, including surface pressure, heat transfer, skin friction and field Pitot surveys, at Mach 8.3 on impinging shock, single-fin and double fin interactions by Kussoy et al [75,14]. Similarly, Garrison et al [105,79] publish skin friction coefficient results for the double fin.…”

Section: Heat Transfer and Skin Friction Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Gaitonde

2015

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

475

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…11(b) indicates consistency with the surface oil flow (Fig. 5) and experiments of Garrison et al [79]. As discussed extensively in Ref.…”

Section: Heat Transfer and Skin Friction Coefficientsupporting

confidence: 68%

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

“…The simulation conditions [8,10] are: the Mach number is 2.91, the incoming total temperature 295K, the wall condition can be approximated as adiabatic wall, the thickness of the boundary layer is 3.02 mm, Re/ m = 6.2×10 7 . Fig.4 shows the wall pressure distribution on the center line of the symmetric fin by the three turbulence models, which the calculated pressure was dimensionless with the incoming pressure.…”

Section: The Calculation Results and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical simulation on supersonic shock wave/turbulent boundary interaction

Yang¹,

Li²,

Zhang³

2017

Proceedings of the 2016 International Forum on Mechanical, Control and Automation (IFMCA 2016)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Supersonic shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions were simulated by employing three popular engineering turbulence models, namely Spalart-Allmaras(SA), k-ω, shear stress transport(SST) over a 24ºcompression ramp at Mach 2.84 and a 11º×11º double-sharp fin plates at Mach 2.91. Comparisons of pressure distributions and skin friction coefficient on the wall with experimental results show that, for the compression ramp, SA model is superior to other models for calculating pressure distribution, the friction coefficient given by SST model is closest to the experimental results. For double fin plates, the pressure distributions of three turbulence models are all close to the experimental results at the centerline, except peaking value, SST model is more accurate for skin friction distributions than SA model and K-ω model. In summary, SST model is more accurate for calculating wall pressure and skin friction coefficient distributions, improvements must be made for simulating supersonic shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction to the three turbulence models.

show abstract

“…6 the regions where c l s > 1/ 3 are circled with thick solid lines. Relation (6) indicates that, in an incompressible ow, these circled regions should contain the irrealizable zones. It can be seen that, even in a compressible ow, the correlation between the 1/ 3 limit for c l s and irrealizability is very good.…”

Section: Irrealizability Of the Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 This rst model was then re ned and compared with computational results in the 15 15 deg Mach 4 con guration. The comparison includes the structure of the shocks, 5 the skin-friction coef cients, 6 the pitot and stagnation pressures, as well as the ow deviations. 7 In parallel Gaitonde et al provided a rst analysis of the main threedimensional features of these ows, rst in a 15 15 deg Mach 8.3 con guration 8 and then in the 15 15 deg Mach 4 case.…”

Section: Nomenclaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Insights in Turbulence Modeling for Crossing-Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of turbulence modeling on the numerical simulation of the crossing-shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions occuring in a Mach 4 ow on 7 £ £ 7 deg, 7 £ £ 11 deg, and 15 £ £ 15 deg double-sharp n plates is analyzed.The full Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are solved with linear and weakly nonlinear formulations of the k-! turbulence model, on grids up to 4 £ £ 10 6 cells. The overpredicted heat transfer on the bottom plate is shown to be closely related to the main three-dimensional features developing in these ows. The stronger the interaction, the more the numerical solutions violate the realizability principles. By introducing a dependence of cµ on the velocity gradients, realizable solutions are obtained and analyzed. The heat-transfer coef cients are effectively lowered but not suf ciently to meet the experimental data. The expected impact of other corrections, based on a limitation of the turbulent length scale or some compressibility effects, is evaluated and shown to be insuf cient to ll the gap between computed and measured heat-transfer coef cients. The streamlines arriving near the wall in the regions of overpredicted heat transfer are shown to originate from the very narrow regions close to the n leading edges, in the upper part of the incoming boundary layer, and to be associated with an increase of turbulent kinetic energy when approaching the bottom wall, rather than when crossing the shock waves. Nomenclature C h= heat-transfer coef cient or Stanton number; Eq. (1) c l = coef cient in the constitutive equation for l t , 0.09 D t (q } ) = substantial derivative, @q } / @t @q U õ } / @X i k = turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), 1 2 ] u õ u õ P k = TKE production rate, q ] u õ u Ò S õ Ò S = strain invariant, (2S õ Ò S õ Ò ) S õ Ò = strain rate, 1 2 (@U õ / @x Ò @U Ò / @x õ ) S õ Ò = traceless strain rate, S õ Ò 1 3 S kk d õ Ò s = dimensionless strain invariant, S/ x U õ = mass-averaged velocity components U , V , W u õ = uctuating velocity components u, v, w (mass averaging) ] u õ u Ò = mass-averaged velocity correlations x Ò = Cartesian coordinates x, y, z a m = realizability factor; Eq. (8) d õ Ò = Kronecker symbol d 0 = incoming boundary-layerthickness, 3.5 mm ² = dissipation of TKE l , m = dynamic and kinematic molecular viscosities, l q m l t , m t = Dynamic and kinematic turbulent viscosities, l t q m t $ = dimensionless vorticity invariant, X / x q = mass density X = vorticity invariant, (2X õ Ò X õ Ò )

show abstract

Laser interferometer skin-friction measurements of crossing-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions

Cited by 36 publications

References 16 publications

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Numerical simulation on supersonic shock wave/turbulent boundary interaction

Insights in Turbulence Modeling for Crossing-Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About