Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:24:51.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical simulation of crossing-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction using a two-equation model of turbulence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2000

D. KNIGHT ,
M. GNEDIN ,
R. BECHT  and
A. ZHELTOVODOV
D. KNIGHT
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
M. GNEDIN
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
R. BECHT
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
A. ZHELTOVODOV
Affiliation:
Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A crossing-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction is investigated using the k–ε turbulence model with a new low-Reynolds-number model based on the approach of Saffman (1970) and Speziale et al. (1990). The crossing shocks are generated by two wedge-shaped fins with wedge angles α1 and α2 attached normal to a flat plate on which an equilibrium supersonic turbulent boundary layer has developed. Two configurations, corresponding to the experiments of Zheltovodov et al. (1994, 1998a, b), are considered. The free-stream Mach number is 3.9, and the fin angles are (α1, α2) = (7°, 7°) and (7°, 11°). The computed surface pressure displays very good agreement with experiment. The computed surface skin friction lines are in close agreement with experiment for the initial separation, and are in qualitative agreement within the crossing shock interaction region. The computed heat transfer is in good agreement with experiment for the (α1, α2) = (7°, 7°) configuration. For the (α1, α2) = (7°, 11°) configuration, the heat transfer is significantly overpredicted within the three-dimensional interaction. The adiabatic wall temperature is accurately predicted for both configurations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 409 , 25 April 2000 , pp. 121 - 147
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)