Three-dimensional protuberance interference heating in high speed flow

Hypersonic interference heating in the vicinity of surface protuberances

“…These findings suggest that the maximum heating in the vicinity of surface protuberances is independent of protuberance height when the boundary layer ahead of the protuberance remains unseparated. This is in contrast to equivalent studies by Hung and Clauss (1980) and Hung and Patel (1984) in which the boundary layer was fully separated ahead of the protuberance. The present investigation, however, has not considered h/δ u ratios lower than 1.…”

“…Jones (1964), Price and Stallings (1967), Coleman and Lemmon (1973), Neumann and Hayes (1981) and Wang et al (1998). The most relevant experimental studies on surface protuberances to date are those performed by Hung and Clauss (1980) and Hung and Patel (1984), who studied the fully separated interaction induced by cylindrical and rectangular protuberances under both laminar and turbulent conditions. Based on their work, distinction can be made between tall (h>2Ø or h>2W), short (h<Ø or h<W) and wide protuberances (Ø   or W   , i.e.…”

Physics of unsteady cylinder-induced shock-wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions

“…The initial UI of the SWBLI as determined by disturbances in the wall-pressure measurements occurs between 8 and 9 diameters upstream of the cylinder, whereas the literature shows that UI for a turbulent interaction is approximately 3d (Westkaemper 1968). Laminar interactions have a UI of up to 12d (Hung & Clauss 1980), indicating that this cylinder location is likely generating a transitional interaction. However, it is possible that the upstream influence location is limited by the upstream leading edge of the plate given that the cylinder is only 12d (Hill 1967)…”

Dynamics of a spherical body shedding from a hypersonic ramp. Part 2. Viscous flow

“…In reality, of course, the flow field will be much more complex, and will be dominated by the shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction (SWBLI) that forms where the sphere bow shock impinges upon the wall boundary layer. If the sphere is lying directly on the wall, the resulting flow field will resemble to some extent other blunt-body SWBLI scenarios, for example, a circular-cylinder or a blunt-fin interaction such as those examined by Sedney & Kitchens (1971), Hung & Clauss (1981), Özkan & Holt (1984), Lakshmanan & Tiwari (1994), Tutty, Roberts & Schuricht (2013) and Ozawa & Laurence (2018). Some of the key points from these studies are: a large-scale separation region forms with an upstream extent that depends on both the Mach number and Reynolds number; secondary separation regions can form within this primary separation zone, generating symmetrical vortices that are swept downstream to either side of the blunt obstacle; and an Edney-type shock–shock interaction is generated where the separation shock impinges on the bow shock of the blunt body.…”