Three-dimensional features of a Mach 2.1 shock/boundary layer interaction

Helmer, David; Campo, Laura; Eaton, John K.

doi:10.1007/s00348-012-1363-8

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wall-model has been validated on supersonic boundary layers as well as on the shock/boundary layer interaction in an almost square duct studied experimentally by Helmer et al [39,40]. This problem validates the capability of the wall-modeled LES to capture stress-induced secondary corner flows and, most importantly, shock/boundary layer interaction; results from this validation exercise are described in Bermejo-Moreno et al [41], and will not be repeated here.…”

Section: Wall-model and Gridsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part II: Large eddy simulations

Larsson

Laurence

Bermejo-Moreno

et al. 2015

Combustion and Flame

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Wall-model and Gridsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part II: Large eddy simulations

Larsson

Laurence

Bermejo-Moreno

et al. 2015

Combustion and Flame

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They explain that compression waves generated by each region provide the mechanism for redistributing in space the pressure gradient. Délery (2001) and Helmer, Campo & Eaton (2012) also explain that an upstream separation region will divert the streamlines to create a lateral flow that can affect the other region. These previous studies point out the need to examine the underlying flow structure and to measure both the lateral velocities and the vorticity field.…”

Section: Statement Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For example, the bottom wall separation zone has an infinite extent in the lateral direction in the 2-D case, but this lateral extent became smaller as the aspect ratio of the duct was reduced. The effect of the sidewall also was discussed by Helmer et al (2012). They used PIV to measure two velocity components but did not measure the lateral velocity or the vorticity because they did not use stereo-PIV.…”

Section: Previous Related Sbli Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

“…Details of the unperturbed base case flowfield were previously presented in several papers by Helmer et al 6,7,12,26 A brief overview of the flow features is given here to set the stage for the presentation of the perturbed cases.…”

Section: B Overview Of Unperturbed Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The properties of the incoming flow and boundary layer are discussed in detail in Helmer et al 6 The incoming flow has a boundary layer thickness of δ 0 = 5.4mm and a momentum thickness of θ = 450µm measured 21mm upstream of the foot of the compression corner. The incoming freestream velocity is U ∞ = 525 m/s, corresponding to M ∞ = 2.1.…”

Section: A Incoming Flow Properties and Boundary Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation Experiment for Shock Boundary Layer Interactions: Sensitivity to Upstream Geometric Perturbations

Campo¹,

Helmer²,

Eaton³

2012

53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference

4
0
1
0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensitivity of two shock boundary layer interactions (SBLIs) -a compression corner interaction and an incident shock interaction -to small geometric perturbations (h < 0.2δ0) was investigated using particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements. Tests were performed in a continuously operated Mach 2.1 wind tunnel with a low aspect ratio test section. The primary oblique shock was generated by a 1.1mm high 20 • degree compression wedge on the top wall of the tunnel, and small bumps were introduced upstream on the opposite wall. A total of 100 perturbed cases were tested; 45 for the compression corner interaction and 55 for the incident shock interaction. This dataset is well suited to be used for the validation of CFD codes which are intended to be used in design and analysis of systems with stochastic inputs. Both the compression corner and incident shock interactions were very sensitive to perturbations in a given region (-69mm < xp < -54mm), and insensitive to perturbations outside of it. Depending upon the location of the perturbations, the compression corner interaction could be strengthened or weakened significantly. Areas of high wall-normal velocity in the incident SBLI were intensified as larger perturbations were added in the sensitive region. For all perturbations, the incident shock interaction either moved upstream or stayed in the same location. The deviation in the position of this SBLI from its unperturbed location was a strong function of both the location and size of the perturbations. NomenclatureM Mach number P 0 Upstream stagnation pressure, kPa gauge T 0 Upstream stagnation temperature, K x Streamwise coordinate, mm y Wall-normal coordinate, mm U Mean streamwise velocity, m/s V Mean wall-normal velocity, m/s δ 0 Incoming boundary layer thickness, mm h Perturbation height, mm

show abstract

Three-dimensional features of a Mach 2.1 shock/boundary layer interaction

Cited by 23 publications

References 21 publications

Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part II: Large eddy simulations

Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part II: Large eddy simulations

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

Validation Experiment for Shock Boundary Layer Interactions: Sensitivity to Upstream Geometric Perturbations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About