Comparison and Improvement of Wall Heat Transfer Prediction in Crossing-Shock-Wave/Turbulent-Boundary-Layer Interaction Conditions

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Salin ◽  
Yufeng Yao ◽  
Alexander Zheltovodov
Keyword(s):  
Heat Transfer ◽  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Shock Wave ◽  
Turbulent Boundary Layer ◽  
Wall Heat Transfer ◽  
Layer Interaction ◽  
Boundary Layer Interaction

Fluctuation of heat transfer in shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction

AIAA Journal ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masanori Hayashi ◽  
Shigeru Aso ◽  
Anzhong Tan
Keyword(s):  
Heat Transfer ◽  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Shock Wave ◽  
Turbulent Boundary Layer ◽  
Layer Interaction ◽  
Boundary Layer Interaction

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

2000 ◽  
Vol 409 ◽  
pp. 121-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. KNIGHT ◽  
M. GNEDIN ◽  
R. BECHT ◽  
A. ZHELTOVODOV
Keyword(s):  
Heat Transfer ◽  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Shock Wave ◽  
Turbulent Boundary Layer ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Equation Model ◽  
Adiabatic Wall ◽  
Layer Interaction ◽  
Boundary Layer Interaction ◽  
Good Agreement

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document