Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T18:33:23.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A universal scaling for the length scales of shock-induced separation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2024

Nikhil Mahalingesh Open the ORCID record for Nikhil Mahalingesh [Opens in a new window] ,
Sébastien Piponniau Open the ORCID record for Sébastien Piponniau [Opens in a new window]  and
Pierre Dupont Open the ORCID record for Pierre Dupont [Opens in a new window]
Nikhil Mahalingesh
Affiliation:
Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IUSTI, Marseille, France
Sébastien Piponniau
Affiliation:
Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IUSTI, Marseille, France
Pierre Dupont*
Affiliation:
Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IUSTI, Marseille, France
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments of transitional shock wave–boundary layer interactions (SBLIs) over 6$^\circ$ and 10$^\circ$ compression ramps were performed at Mach number 1.65. The unit Reynolds number was varied by a factor of two between 5.6 million per metre and 11 million per metre. Schlieren flow visualization was performed, and mean flow measurements were made using Pitot probes. Free interaction theory was verified from pressure measurements for all operating conditions. A new non-dimensional parameter was developed for scaling the strength of the imposed shock, which was based on the pressure required to separate a boundary layer. The validity of this new scaling was supported by the reconciliation of large discrepancies in a diverse collection of experimental results on the length scales of transitional interactions. This non-dimensional scaling was also applied to turbulent interactions, where different models were used to determine the pressure required to separate a turbulent boundary layer. Finally, a direct comparison between transitional and turbulent SBLIs was made, which revealed new insights into the evolution of length scales based on the state of the boundary layer.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer separation Compressible Flows: Compressible boundary layers Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 1000 , 10 December 2024 , A5
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agostini, L., Larchevêque, L., Dupont, P., Debiève, J.-F. & Dussauge, J.-P. 2012 Zones of influence and shock motion in a shock/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 50 (6), 1377–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babinsky, H. & Harvey, J.K. 2011 Shock Wave–Boundary-Layer Interactions, Cambridge Aerospace Series, vol. 32. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroth, E.C. & Holt, M. 1983 Investigation of supersonic separated flow in a compression corner by laser Doppler anemometry. Exp. Fluids 1 (4), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, F.W., Shapiro, A.H. & Neumann, E.P. 1951 The interaction of shock waves with boundary layers on a flat surface. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 18 (4), 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bur, R. & Garnier, E. 2016 Transition effect on a shock-wave/boundary layer interaction. In The CAero2 Platform: Dissemination of Computational Case Studies in Aeronautics, ECCOMAS Congress, pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
Burton, D.M.F. & Babinsky, H. 2012 Corner separation effects for normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in rectangular channels. J. Fluid Mech. 707, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, D.R., Kuehn, D.M. & Larson, H.K. 1958 Investigation of separated flows in supersonic and subsonic streams with emphasis on the effect of transition. Tech. Rep. Ames Aeronautical Laboratory.Google Scholar
Chen, F.-J., Malik, M.R. & Beckwith, I.E. 1989 Boundary-layer transition on a cone and flat plate at Mach 3.5. AIAA J. 27 (6), 687–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degrez, G., Boccadoro, C.H. & Wendt, J.F. 1987 The interaction of an oblique shock wave with a laminar boundary layer revisited. an experimental and numerical study. J. Fluid Mech. 177, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Délery, J., Marvin, J.G. & Reshotko, E. 1986 Shock-wave boundary layer interactions. Tech. Rep. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development Neuilly-Sur-Seine (France).Google Scholar
Diop, M. 2017 Transition à la turbulence en écoulements compressibles décollés. PhD thesis, Aix-Marseille.Google Scholar
Diop, M., Piponniau, S. & Dupont, P. 2016 On the length and time scales of a laminar shock wave boundary layer interaction. In 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 0073.Google Scholar
Diop, M., Piponniau, S. & Dupont, P. 2019 High resolution LDA measurements in transitional oblique shock wave boundary layer interaction. Exp. Fluids 60 (4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doerffer, P., Flaszynski, P., Dussauge, J.-P., Babinsky, H., Grothe, P., Petersen, A. & Billard, F. 2020 Transition Location Effect on Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction: Experimental and Numerical Findings from the TFAST Project, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design (NNFM), vol. 144. Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Dolling, D.S. 2001 Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: what next? AIAA J. 39 (8), 1517–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont, P. 1990 Etude expérimentale des champs turbulents dans une couche limite supersonique fortement chauffée. PhD thesis, Aix-Marseille 2.Google Scholar
Dupont, P., Haddad, C., Ardissone, J.P. & Debieve, J.F. 2005 Space and time organisation of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 9 (7), 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont, P., Haddad, C. & Debieve, J.F. 2006 Space and time organization in a shock-induced separated boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 559, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussauge, J.-P., Dupont, P. & Debiève, J.-F. 2006 Unsteadiness in shock wave boundary layer interactions with separation. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 10 (2), 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussauge, J.-P. & Piponniau, S. 2008 Shock/boundary-layer interactions: possible sources of unsteadiness. J. Fluids Struct. 24 (8), 1166–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadd, G.E. 1958 Interactions between shock waves and boundary layers. In Grenzschichtforschung/Boundary Layer Research: Symposium Freiburg/Br. 26–29 August 1957, pp. 239–255. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadd, G.E., Holder, D.W. & Regan, J.D. 1954 An experimental investigation of the interaction between shock waves and boundary layers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A: Math. Phys. Sci. 226 (1165), 227–253.Google Scholar
Giepman, R.H.M., Schrijer, F.F.J. & Van Oudheusden, B.W. 2015 High-resolution PIV measurements of a transitional shock wave–boundary layer interaction. Exp. Fluids 56, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giepman, R.H.M., Schrijer, F.F.J. & Van Oudheusden, B.W. 2018 A parametric study of laminar and transitional oblique shock wave reflections. J. Fluid Mech. 844, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J.D. 1967 Investigation of the effect of flare and ramp angle on the upstream influence of laminar and transitional reattaching flows from Mach 3 to 7. Arnold Engineering Development Center, Von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility, Air Force Systems Command.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakkinen, R.J., Greber, I., Trilling, L. & Abarbanel, S.S. 1959 The interaction of an oblique shock wave with a laminar boundary layer. Tech. Rep.Google Scholar
Jaunet, V., Debieve, J.F. & Dupont, P. 2014 Length scales and time scales of a heated shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 52 (11), 2524–2532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larchevêque, L. 2016 Low-and medium-frequency unsteadinesses in a transitional shock–boundary reflection with separation. In 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 1833.Google Scholar
Laufer, J. 1954 Factors affecting transition Reynolds numbers on models in supersonic wind tunnels. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 21 (7), 497–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, J. 1961 Aerodynamic noise in supersonic wind tunnels. J. Aerosp. Sci. 28 (9), 685–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, L. 1949 Interaction between the laminar boundary layer over a plane surface and an incident oblique shock wave. Princeton University, Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lewis, J.E., Kubota, T. & Lees, L. 1968 Experimental investigation of supersonic laminar, two-dimensional boundary-layer separation in a compression corner with and without cooling. AIAA J. 6 (1), 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liepmann, H.W., Roshko, A. & Dhawan, S. 1952 On reflection of shock waves from boundary layers. Tech. Rep.Google Scholar
Lusher, D.J. & Sandham, N.D. 2020 The effect of flow confinement on laminar shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 897, A18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, L.M. 1954 An experimental investigation of the temperature recovery factor. Rep. 20–80. Jet Propulsion Laboratory.Google Scholar
Marxen, O. & Henningson, D.S. 2011 The effect of small-amplitude convective disturbances on the size and bursting of a laminar separation bubble. J. Fluid Mech. 671, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, B., Duraisamy, K., Nguyen, N., Kawai, S. & Lele, S.K. 2013 Flow physics and RANS modelling of oblique shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 729, 231–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morkovin, M.V. 1956 Fluctuations and Hot-Wire Anemometry in Compressible Flows. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research.Google Scholar
Morkovin, M.V. 1959 On supersonic wind tunnels with low free-stream disturbances.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NACA, Ames Research Staff 1953 Equations, tables, and charts for compressible flows.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J.N., Lynes, L.L. & Goodwin, F.K. 1965 Calculation of laminar separation with free interaction by the method of integral relations, part I: two-dimensional supersonic adiabatic flow. Vidya Rep. No. 185, AFFDL-TR-65-107. Wright-Patterson AFB Ohio.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswatitsch, K. & Wieghardt, K. 1948 Theoretical Analysis of Stationary Potential Flows and Boundary Layers at High Speed. National Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Pate, S.R. 1964 Investigation of flow separation on a two-dimensional flat plate having a variable-span trailing-edge flap at $M_\infty =3$ and 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pate, S.R. & Schueler, C.J. 1969 Radiated aerodynamic noise effects on boundary-layer transition in supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnels. AIAA J. 7 (3), 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polivanov, P.A., Sidorenko, A. & Maslov, A. 2015 Transition effect on shock wave/boundary layer interaction at $m=1.47$. In 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 1974.Google Scholar
Potter, J.L. & Whitfield, J.D. 1962 Effects of slight nose bluntness and roughness on boundary-layer transition in supersonic flows. J. Fluid Mech. 12 (4), 501–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M.L. 1970 Transitional flow separation upstream of a compression corner. J. Spacecr. Rockets 7 (9), 1113–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansica, A., Sandham, N.D. & Hu, Z. 2016 Instability and low-frequency unsteadiness in a shock-induced laminar separation bubble. J. Fluid Mech. 798, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S.P. 2004 Hypersonic laminar–turbulent transition on circular cones and scramjet forebodies. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 40 (1–2), 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S.P. 2015 Developing mechanism-based methods for estimating hypersonic boundary-layer transition in flight: the role of quiet tunnels. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 72, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, G.S., Bogdonoff, S.M. & Vas, I.E. 1976 Incipient separation of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer at high Reynolds numbers. AIAA J. 14 (1), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfeir, A.A. 1969 Supersonic Laminar Boundary Layer Separation Near a Compression Corner. University of California.Google Scholar
Skebe, S.A., Greber, I. & Hingst, W.R. 1987 Investigation of two-dimensional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 25 (6), 777–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souverein, L.J., Bakker, P.G. & Dupont, P. 2013 A scaling analysis for turbulent shock-wave/ boundary-layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 714, 505–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Threadgill, J.A.S., Little, J.C. & Wernz, S.H. 2021 Transitional shock boundary layer interactions on a compression ramp at Mach 4. AIAA J. 59 (12), 4824–4841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touré, P.S.R. & Schülein, E. 2020 Scaling for steady and traveling shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Exp. Fluids 61, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touré, P.S.R. & Schülein, E. 2023 Interaction of a moving shock wave with a turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 964, A28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, B., Sandham, N.D., Hu, Z. & Liu, W. 2015 Numerical study of oblique shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction considering sidewall effects. J. Fluid Mech. 767, 526–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, X. & Babinsky, H. 2019 Corner effects for oblique shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in rectangular channels. J. Fluid Mech. 862, 1060–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, W.-Z., Yang, S.-Z., Zeng, C., Liao, K., Ding, R.-H., Zhang, L. & Guo, S. 2021 Improvement of the free-interaction theory for shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Phys. Fluids 33 (7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zukoski, E.E. 1967 Turbulent boundary-layer separation in front of a forward-facing step. AIAA J. 5 (10), 1746–1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuo, F.-Y., Wei, J.-R., Hu, S.-L. & Pirozzoli, S. 2022 Effects of wall temperature on hypersonic impinging shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J. 60 (9), 5109–5122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar