art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 27 June 2014
Accepted 11 September 2014
Available online 15 November 2014
Recent advances in shock wave boundary layer interaction research are reviewed in four areas:
(i) understanding low frequency unsteadiness, (ii) heat transfer prediction capability, (iii) phenomena
in complex (multi-shock boundary layer) interactions and (iv) ow control techniques. Substantial
success has been achieved in describing the phenomenology of low frequency unsteadiness, including
correlations and coherent structures in the separation bubble, through complementary experimental
and numerical studies on nominally 2-D interactions. These observations have been parlayed to propose
underlying mechanisms based on oscillation, amplication and upstream boundary layer effects. For
heat transfer prediction capability, systematic studies conducted under the auspices of AFOSR and RTOAVT activities have shown that for axisymmetric laminar situations, heat transfer rates can be measured,
and in many cases predicted, reasonably accurately even in the presence of high-temperature effects.
Efforts have quantied uncertainty of Reynolds averaged turbulence models, and hybrid methods have
been developed to at least partially address deciencies. Progress in complex interactions encompass
two of the major phenomena affected by SBLI in scramjet owpaths: unstart and mode transition from
ramjet (dual mode) to scramjet. Control studies have attempted to leverage the better understanding of
the fundamental phenomena with passive and active techniques, the latter exploiting the superior
properties of newer actuators. Objectives include reduction in size of the separation region, surface loads
and modulation of spectral content. Finally, SBLI studies have beneted handsomely from successful
ground and ight test campaigns associated with the HIFiRE-1 and HIFiRE-2 campaigns, results from
which are woven into the discussion, as are limitations in current capability and understanding.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Shock boundary layer interactions
Separated ows
Viscousinviscid interactions
1. Introduction
Shock-wave boundary layer interactions (SBLI) occur in all
practical transonic, supersonic and hypersonic vehicles. In one of the
earliest reviews on the subject, Green [1] identies four important
situations: transonic aerofoils, high-speed inlets, nozzles at off-design
conditions, and near control aps. This paper examines the last three,
where typically the boundary layer, which could be laminar, transitional or turbulent (STBLI), on a surface encounters a shock wave,
generated perhaps by an adjacent or opposite surface. The practical
impact can be very harmful and must be factored into design tradeoffs.
On the exterior of the aircraft, SBLI can cause loss of control authority,
peaks in surface thermomechanical loading, and unsteadiness of a
nature that can induce adverse structural response. In internal ows,
SBLI can enhance pressure losses and distortion, and in extreme cases
could trigger potentially catastrophic events leading to unstart. From a
fundamental uid dynamics perspective, such viscousinviscid interactions generate a diverse range of phenomena. In strong interactions,
the ow separates to yield vortical structures, turbulence amplication
81
82
Fig. 2. Flight test articles: (a) HIFiRE-1 [21]. (b) HIFiRE-2 [25].
during the last decade, focused on nominally 2-D congurations, has provided plausible explanations for the observations.
Results from these efforts are summarized in Section 2. The
structural differences between 2-D and 3-D separation, specically closed bubbles in the mean ow in the former versus
open structures with little or no reversed ow in the latter are
then employed to comment on factors in extending the analysis
to 3-D ows.
b. Heat transfer rates: The second major well known difculty has
been the determination of heat transfer rates (and skin friction
coefcients) and the dynamics that establish the observed values.
The classical preferred approach, suitable for engineering purposes, has been to perform parametric studies whose results were
then assimilated into empirical correlations. During the last
decade or so however, carefully conducted CFD-friendly experiments have been performed with highly reliable and accurate
diagnostics in simple congurations with complex owelds,
such as the hollow cylinder and double cone. Tightly coordinated
and well organized computational exercises, some blind in nature,
have shown that the heat transfer rates under laminar conditions,
even with high temperature effects, can often be computed
accurately enough with adequate mesh support and if the freestream conditions are properly characterized. These results are
summarized in Section 3, followed by a discussion of issues
related to determination of turbulent heat transfer rates, about
which much remains to be learned. Progress has been made
however in quantifying uncertainty of Reynolds averaged methods, and in the development of hybrid approaches. The 3-D ow
structure discussed in Section 2 is again employed to highlight
pertinent dynamics likely to be of importance going forward.
c. Complex congurations: The increasing pace of research on
scramjet development is exemplied by the active HIFiRE-2 and
X-51 programs. Extensive ground test results are available from
the former. Some of the main activities in this area, including
experiments in the dynamics of unstart, and simulations of
mode transition, from ramjet (dual mode) to scramjet, are
presented in Section 4.
d. Control: The traditional approach for SBLI control has been
through bleed techniques, which alter the near wall low energy
region to mute the deleterious effects of the interaction. The
search for a more optimal solution has taken several directions,
including passive (e.g., microramps with and without auxiliary
bleed) and active (e.g., plasma-based or microjet) control
techniques. The combination of a better understanding of the
unsteadiness and the development of new high-bandwidth
2. Unsteadiness
As noted earlier, in this context, the term unsteadiness refers to
frequencies of relatively high amplitudes in bands which are an order
of magnitude or more lower than those associated with ne-scale
turbulence in the incoming boundary layer. The problem of unsteadiness, in both nominally 2-D and 3-D circumstances, has been the
focus of experimental studies at speeds ranging from transonic to
hypersonic over the course of several decades see e.g., Refs. [1,33]
for early descriptions and key results from those and subsequent
efforts are summarized in the reviews of Refs. [7,10].
Since the publication of Ref. [10], sustained synergistic computational and experimental efforts have been conducted on the
study of nominally 2-D situations, including both the ramp and
impinging shock ows. Fig. 3(a) shows a schematic of the overall
expected mean ow features of a separated impinging shock
conguration. Inside the boundary layer, the shock typically bends
as it encounters lower Mach numbers and ultimately breaks up
into a compression fan [34] and a reected shock develops as
shown. For a given boundary layer, if the shock is strong enough,
separation occurs. The compression corner ow shown in Fig. 3
(b) has a single major shock associated with the ramp. However,
the dynamics in terms of unsteadiness and separation is generally
similar to the impinging shock (see Ref. [4] for a discussion on the
differences between the two types of interactions). The length of
the separation region, Lsep, and the incoming boundary layer
thickness are the two larger length scales in the ow. Fig. 3
(c) and (d) shows SBLI in canonical axisymmetric situations. The
former is taken from Ref. [35] on the HIFiRE-1 conguration
discussed in more detail below. The ow represents the counterpart of the 2-D compression ramp, with similar topological
features, except for the addition of a shoulder, which is necessary
in practical situations. Frame (d), taken from Ref. [36] is the
laminar Mach 9 ow past the double-cone 25551 conguration
measured by Holden et al. [37,38]. The ow structure for this
particular case has been couched in Ref. [36] in terms of a Type V
interaction of Edney [39]. Briey, the two cones yield individual
shocks linked at two triple points with a connector shock. A shear
83
Flow
Sonic line
Separation Region
Inviscid
shock
Flow
Separation
shock
Sonic
line
Reattachment
shock
Li
Lsep
Fig. 3. Aspects of ow structure in 2-D and axisymmetric interactions (a) impinging shock (2-D); (b) compression corner (2-D); (c) cylinder-are (axisymmetric); and
(d) double-cone (axisymmetric).
layer emanates from the aft triple point, effectively separating the
subsonic ow from the near-wall supersonic jet. The viscous
interaction associated with the reattachment shock is similar to
that described for transonic interactions [40]. Comments on
turbulence in such ows are deferred to Section 3.
Returning to the problem of low-frequency content in 2-D SBLI,
numerous recent efforts have examined the problem. The overall
implication of this recent work, with most efforts focused in the
Mach 2 to Mach 3 range, is that the phenomenology of unsteadiness
has been claried and mechanisms that explain the observations
have been proposed, though there remain some nuances in the
details, only partly as a matter of semantics: the task is particularly
difcult because the dynamics of the low subsonic separated ow
region makes causation and correlation difcult to separate, with a
similar consideration for mechanisms that initiate or sustain the
unsteadiness. Nonetheless, these studies have collectively discounted
the possibility that this was some unknown wind tunnel manifestation and indeed, the phenomenon has also been obtained in the
HIFiRE-1 ight test as discussed below. We summarize rst the
observations and then the main proposed mechanisms.
The lower frequency motions are manifested in several macroscopic ways. Some of these features are illustrated in Fig. 4. Frames
(a) and (b) are taken from the simulations of Priebe and Martin
[41]: the rst shows a long time trace of the wall pressure, on
which longer scales can be visually identied as marked. Frame
(b) shows power spectral densities and highlights the large
amplitudes at frequencies much lower than those associated with
turbulence. In a recent study by Mullenix and Gaitonde [42],
a detailed comparison of LES results was made with new data from
Webb et al. [43]. The normalized and weighted power spectral
density of the pressure signal on the surface is shown in Fig. 4(c) at
several locations: station 1 is 3 upstream of the mean separation
point, while station 6 is about 2 downstream of attachment. There
is clearly a broad band character, with an increasing peak frequency
as one proceeds downstream. The simulations are processed in
different ways to highlight the structures. In the results of Fig. 4
(c) for example, the results are rst low pass ltered and then
84
Fig. 4. Elements of unsteadiness in impinging shock SBLI (a) pressure trace versus time [41]; (b) premultiplied power spectral density [41]; and (c) normalized weighted PSD
at different points in interaction, compared with experiments [42].
level of insight suited for this review article. Touber and Sandham
[58,59] examined different interaction strengths with LES. Their
examination of the features of the interaction showed that instantaneous reversed velocities could be very large even in relatively
weaker interactions. Their innovative efforts in using theory and
simulation to propose underlying mechanisms are discussed
further below.
Priebe and Martin [61] used low-pass ltering and spanwise
averaging of DNS data to analyze in detail the motion of the shock
and the shear layer formed at separation, which they note is
different from canonical planar layers because of the existence of
two inection points at certain times. They connect their results to
the likelihood of shear layer instability as the origin of the
unsteadiness. In a more recent effort [41], they conrm the
breathing of the bubble and associated apping of the shear layer
and further show that shock motion is more correlated to the
downstream ow features (separation bubble and shear layer)
than to the upstream boundary layer.
Agostini et al. [62] used LES to explore the effect of interaction
strength, from incipient to fully separated, in a Mach 2.3 impinging
shock conguration with different generator angles, putting
emphasis on the motion of the leading shock. Using correlations,
they establish convection velocities of vortical structures in the
mixing layer as a function of frequency to show that low
frequencies do not have a convective component while intermediate frequencies do. They further separate the shock motion into
components upstream and downstream of the crossing point and
show their connection to the kinematics of the vortical structures
and the foot of the separation shock.
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the observations. As noted earlier, Ganapathisubramani et al. [45] observed that
the incoming upstream boundary layer entering the interaction had
long (streamwise) structures which they subsequently connected to
similar motions in incompressible ows [63]. These structures were
also correlated to a waxing and waning of the boundary layer prole
and could explain the unsteadiness since when the boundary layer
85
X-5.6
Computation
Experiment
Comp
Computation
Expt
Pitot
Experiment
15x15x10
Fig. 5. Comparison of computation and experiment for 3-D double-n interactions. Experimental data taken from Refs. [79,80,75]. (a) Surface oil ow; (b) surface pressure;
(c) Pitot pressure on crossow plane; and (d) shock structure.
86
Fig. 6. Three dimensional ow elds: (a) double-n ow; (b) surface streamline pattern for double-n ow; (c) oweld near upper symmetry plane in cylinder-offset are
interaction; and (d) schematic of vortical structure in cylinder-offset are interaction.
in the 3-D case even in the time-mean sense. Indeed, for the single
n, there is no reversed ow at all, while for the double n, it is
restricted to a very small region near the centerline.
The ow past 3-D circular cross-section geometries also displays an open structure. Fig. 6(c) and (d) shows a cylinder-are
conguration in which the are axis is displaced relative to that of
the cylinder. The experiments and simulations are discussed in
Refs. [17,84] respectively. Again, the surface oil ow, pressure and
overall ow structure (but not Cf) are accurately reproduced by
RANS methods and careful analysis of the computed ow reveals a
vortical structure whose legs wrap around the cylinder-are
juncture before being vented downstream as shown in Fig. 6(d).
This brief description of 3-D SBLI is now used to discuss
contamination of nominally 2-D interactions due to sidewall
boundary layer inuences. Several efforts have explored the effect
of sidewall interactions in studies designed to explore nominally
2-D ows. For example, Garnier [72] computed the whole wind
tunnel span of the IUSTI experiment [12] with Stimulated
Detached Eddy Simulations to show that for strongly separated
interactions, the centerline of the tunnel is contaminated with
endwall effects. Their restricted streamline pattern is shown in
Fig. 7(a). The description of such ows is greatly aided by the use
of topological tools such as those described in Refs. [8587]. The
recent surface pattern measured by Babinsky et al. [71], shown in
Fig. 7(b) has a similar topological structure, comprised of a
prominent focus/node. The same basic structure is also obtained
in a double-n interaction, when a strong shock from one n
interacts with the boundary layer of the opposing n, which has a
much smaller angle. Such interactions were examined experimentally by Zheltovodov [88] and simulated by Gaitonde et al. [78].
Their simulated surface patterns are shown in Fig. 7(c), reoriented
and scaled to highlight the overall similarity with the recent
observations. In addition to the separation and attachment lines,
the main topological feature is a focus similar to that observed in
Refs. [71,72]. The corresponding ow eld, shown in Fig. 7(d) with
streamlines in addition to the surface pattern on the plate and
sidewall, shows that the main feature is the ejection of the corner
vortex due to the adverse pressure gradient. This pattern then
smoothly asymptotes to the essentially 2-D separation region far
from the plate (corresponding to the 2-D center region of typical
nominally 2-D congurations, as it must.
87
Fig. 7. Sidewall contamination of nominally 2-D interactions. (a) Restricted streamlines from Garnier et al. [72]; (b) surface oil ow from Babinsky et al. [71]; (c) sidewall
simulated streamlines from Gaitonde et al. [78]; (d) ow eld structure corresponding to observed topology, simulations of Gaitonde et al. [78]. All gures reoriented from
their originals to highlight topological similarities.
88
same method. The method is very attractive, and further characterization in terms of multi-point correlations and parametric studies
at different Mach numbers should yield valuable data on efciency
of the method.
Spatially evolving boundary layers by tripping mechanisms
may be subdivided into two major approaches; an unsteady
blowing suction technique used in, for example, Refs. [53,91] and
a more recently developed steady counterow force based trip
[92], which is a supersonic extension of the method of Visbal [93].
In this, an initial laminar boundary layer is subjected to a sharp
retarding force that causes a small separated region, which in turn
accelerates the process of transition to turbulence. Select highlights of the approach are shown in Fig. 8. Frame (a) shows the
force eld located a short distance downstream of a leading edge
where a laminar incoming boundary layer prole is specied.
Frame (b) shows the evolution of the spatially developing boundary layer in terms of coherent structures: detailed analyses show
that the obtained boundary layer has the correct mean, single and
two-point statistics as well as anticipated coherent structures with
no signature of the tripping mechanism (see Fig. 8(c)(e)). The
method requires no special initial conditions other than a laminar
compressible incoming boundary layer. As a method of upstream
boundary layer generation, it is more expensive than the others
typically about 4050 is required to obtain an equilibrium prole.
However, the subsequent SBLI is performed on essentially the
same mesh and a measure of efciency is recovered. Current
efforts are focused on making the process more efcient by
determining the required force eld for any Mach and Reynolds
numbers with small computations focused on signatures in the
recovering boundary layer near trip region [94].
Unsteadiness in genuinely 3-D congurations, such as the
sharp or double n, has predominantly been the domain of
experiments, mostly performed until the late 1990s. Dolling
and colleagues have examined numerous such congurations
Fig. 8. Counterow actuator force method to obtain upstream boundary layer prole (a) schematic showing location of force; (b) development of coherent structures after
transition; (c) law of the wall; (d) spectra in equilibrium region; and (e) Reynolds stress variation. Different Dc levels indicate force strength.
89
90
Fig. 9. Sample results on double cone congurations. (a) and (b) pressure and heat transfer rates in cold ow; (c) and (d) pressure and heat transfer rates in ow with hightemperature effects; (e) instantaneous Mach number contours of non-convergent case; and (f) evolution of heat transfer rates for non-convergent case.
hybrid RANS/LES methods. RANS methods have leveraged understanding of shockturbulence interactions to generate workable
model modications in 2-D by accounting for different phenomena such as compressibility, streamline curvature, effect of adverse
pressure gradients, turbulence amplication through shocks and
reattachment (see e.g., Refs. [121123]).
A few recent efforts to characterize the accuracy (uncertainty
quantication) of RANS in STBLI are now summarized. Roy and Blottner
[124] compile an exhaustive database of experiments and use several
to review and assess a wide range of turbulence models for compression corners, cylinder ares, conecones and 2-D and axisymmetric
impinging shocks. They make several specic recommendations for
future experimental campaigns regarding uncertainty characterization.
DeBonis et al. [125] also review the efforts of several researchers using
different models to reproduce experiments from IUSTI and University
of Michigan. They examine velocity and Reynolds stress proles in an
uncertainty quantication based framework to conclude that the
performance of the turbulence model depends on the quantity
employed to assess it, with some models performing well for one
quantity but not for the others. Grid type (unstructured versus
structured) did not have signicant inuence.
Very recently, Bose et al. [126] introduce a special section of the
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets to examine uncertainties in
predictions of heat ux and pressure in hypersonic ight using
state-of-the-art aerothermodynamics codes. Of the four problems
of interest, two involve SBLI, those due to compression corners and
impinging shocks. Results including heat transfer rate comparison
with data obtained mainly from CUBRC and NASA are presented by
Gnoffo et al. [127] and Brown [128], respectively at mission-relevant
conditions and include high-temperature effects for the compression corner. These papers carefully describe the different modications employed in each turbulence model used and then introduce
systematic criteria to assess uncertainty and accuracy. They successfully highlight the difculty in performing careful assessment, since
91
Fig. 10. Computational and experimental results from the HIFiRE-1 ight test. (a) shock structure and surface sreamline visualization; (b) streamlines near are and channel
cutout; (c) pressure coefcient near are region; (d) heat transfer coefcient near are region.
92
Fig. 11. Correlation between shock, streamline structure and skin friction coefcient. (a) 3-D view of ow with wall-jet-like feature and (b) skin friction coefcient at
different stations as compared to experiment.
Fig. 12. Internal ows in propulsion systems: (a) rectangular cross-section ow path and (b) circular cross-section owpath (jaws conguration).
93
Fig. 13. Unstart process. Top gure shows conguration. The contours show streamwise velocity contours at successive time instants into the unstart process [149].
Fig. 14. Computational and experimental results for the HIFiRE-2 conguration. (a) Computed shock structure in ground test condition; (b) computed shock structure in
ight test condition; and (c) comparison of Cp on vertical and horizontal symmetry plane surfaces with ground test.
94
5. Control
The traditional approach for SBLI control has centered around
mass transfer. Bleed is frequently employed to alter the properties
of the boundary layer, for example reducing its shape factor thus
making it more robust to adverse pressure gradients, while
blowing and transpiration are considerations for cooling purposes.
The basic challenges in the use of mass transfer have been
discussed in Ref. [4], which summarizes several issues such as
determination of optimal regions including location, distribution
and inclination of holes or porosity. Simulations on a 3-D interaction due to a sharp n with bleed and zero mass ux techniques
may be found in Refs. [159,160] respectively.
The recent decade has seen the development and application of
several passive and active methods. Reference [161] discusses the
use of Mesoaps for Aeroelastic Recirculating Transpiration
(MARTs), which use variable deformation aeroelastic aps to
exploit pressure differentials at different locations to induce
advantageous recirculation. Experimental results indicate that
certain arrays of such devices could yield signicant improvements in pressure recovery of a normal shock interaction. Ghosh
et al. [136] simulate this ow using an immersed boundary
method and RANS and hybrid RANS/LES models. Their results
suggest that for the conguration tested, there is a possibility of
a connection between the dominant frequency of the ap and the
low frequency shock motion and further that the axial separation
is not substantially inuenced by the control system.
Streamwise slots have also been shown to yield a degree of
control authority as discussed in Ref. [162]. The effect of these
essentially 3-D devices, i.e., segmented in the spanwise direction,
was shown to have a global control effect and lead to reduced
stagnation pressure loss, with the original 2-D separation bubble
being divided into highly three-dimensional regions of attached and
separated ows. Bumps have also been employed to generate
similar effects: in Ref. [163], different congurations were evaluated
to essentially break up the 2-D separation region associated with a
normal shock interaction by generating streamwise vortex pairs. The
use of protuberances (microramps [164] or microvortex generators)
to generate such vortices to enhance entrainment and mixing has
95
Fig. 16. LAFPA control of SBLI interaction. (a) Overview of actuator location and results; (b) skin friction variation; (c) and (d) velocity proles at different locations in the
interaction.
96
duty cycle of 50% were examined. The results suggest that the steady
control case yielded the largest reduction in separation length (75%),
low frequency content and amplitude of the turbulent kinetic energy
in the separated region and downstream of attachment respectively.
Other magnetohydrodynamic based methods for SBLI control have
been discussed in Ref. [178] which exploits 3-D relationships between
the magnetic and electric eld and velocity vectors to propose an
eddy current based method to suppresses secondary separation in the
double-n conguration. Leonov et al. [179] and Bobashev et al. [180]
discuss numerous experimental results documenting the use of MHD
on inlet associated shocks.
Finally, pulsed plasma-jet actuators have been tested for SBLI
control [181,182]. These devices, with demonstrated capability of
up to 4 kHz frequency, essentially use a spark in a cavity inside the
plate to generate a jet which is then ejected into the ow.
A parametric study [182] indicates that for a Mach 3 ow past a
201 compression ramp, jets angled 201 from the wall and pulsed at
3.2 kHz reduced the size of an approximate measure of the
separation region by up to 40% and increased the momentum of
the downstream reattached boundary layer. The optimal placement was observed to be 1.5 upstream of the corner. The effect
appears to be a combination of both momentum injection and
streamwise vortex generation.
6. Conclusion
Recent activity in SBLI and its control over the past several
years has been summarized with emphasis on the conclusions
derived by various researchers together with some insights into
outstanding issues. Breakthrough progress has been achieved in
predicting and understanding the problem of low frequency
unsteadiness in nominally 2-D interactions. This success has been
achieved through complementary experimental and numerical
analyses, which have identied the main phenomenology and
integrated these into uid dynamics models that provide insight
into the main driving mechanisms. Control techniques based on
this understanding have been attempted but may be considered to
be in their infancy. Heat transfer rates measurement and prediction capability have also seen progress. For axisymmetric laminar
ows without and with high temperature effects, there appears to
be fair success at reproducing even very complex phenomena at
moderate enthalpies. The uncertainty in turbulent heat transfer
rates using RANS on nominally 2-D situations has been quantied
as a take-off point for accuracy enhancements. The 3-D situation
has not been examined in as much detail, though hybrid RANS/LES
methods have shown promising results. The acquisition and
continuing analysis of carefully characterized ight and parallel
ground test data is an exciting development that will greatly
determine future research direction.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to acknowledge extended discussions on
SBLI with several colleagues, within and outside the context of this
paper. The author is grateful to J. Poggie and M. Visbal, who
respectively claried the distinctions between different unsteadiness mechanisms and their implications in 3-D separated ows.
Other individuals whose insights have beneted the author
include F. Alvi, N. Bisek, M. Brown, G. Candler, M. Choudhari,
N. Clemens, J. Donbar, J. Edwards, M. Gruber, M. Hagenmaier,
R. Kimmel, M. Holden, J. Schmisseur, M. Samimy and J. Shang.
The author has used schematics provided by F. Alvi and N. Webb
and is especially grateful to Robert Yentsch for his assistance. The
simulations described were performed with a grant of computer
time from the DoD HPCMP and the Ohio Supercomputer Center.
The research was sponsored by AFOSR (monitor: J. Schmisseur).
References
[1] Green J. Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers.
Prog Aerosp Sci 1970;11:235340.
[2] Schmisseur J, Erbland P. Introduction: assessment of aerothermodynamic
ight prediction tools through ground and ight experimentation. Prog
Aerosp Sci 2012;4849:27.
[3] Korkegi R. Survey of viscous interactions associated with high Mach number
ight. AIAA J 1971;9(5):77184.
[4] Delery J. Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction and its control.
Prog Aerosp Sci 1985;22:20980.
[5] Panaras A. Review of the physics of swept-shock/boundary layer interactions.
Prog Aerosp Sci 1995;31:173244.
[6] Smits AJ, Dussauge J. Turbulent shear layers in supersonic ow. New York,
USA: AIP Press; 1996.
[7] Settles G, Dolling D. Tactical missile aerodynamics: general topics. In: Swept
shock wave/boundary-layer interactions, vol. I. AIAA; 1997.
[8] Knight D, Degrez G. Shock wave boundary layer interactions in high Mach
number ows a critical survey of current CFD prediction capabilities,
Technical Report, AR-319, vol. 2, AGARD; 1997.
[9] Zheltovodov A. 2006. Some advances in research of shock wave turbulent
boundary layer interactions, AIAA Paper 2006-496.
[10] Dolling D. Fifty years of shock wave/boundary layer interaction research:
what next? AIAA J 2010;39(8).
[11] Babinsky H, Harvey J, editors. Shock wave-boundary layer interactions. New
York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
[12] Doerffer P, Hirsch C, Dussauge J-P, Babinsky H, Barakos G, editors. Unsteady
effects of shock wave induced separation, notes on numerical uid
mechanics and multidisciplinary design. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010.
[13] Settles G, Dodson L. Supersonic and hypersonic shock/boundary-layer interaction database. AIAA J 1994;32(7):137783.
[14] Kussoy M, Horstman K. Documentation of two- and three-dimensional
shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction ows at Mach 8.2, Technical Report 103838, NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California
94035-1000 (May 1991).
[15] Dolling D. Problems in the validation of CFD codes through comparison with
experiment. In: AGARD symposium on theoretical and experimental methods in hypersonic ows, Turin, Italy; 1992.
[16] Dussauge J-P, Dupont P, Debieve J-F. Unsteadiness in shock wave boundary
layer interactions with separation. Aerosp Sci Technol 2006;10:8591.
[17] Wideman J, Brown J, Miles J, Ozcan O. Skin-friction measurements in a threedimensional, supersonic shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J
1995;33(5):80511.
[18] Goyne CP, McDaniel JC, Quagliaroli TM, Krauss RH, Day SW. Dual-mode
combustion of hydrogen in a Mach 5 continuous-ow facility. J Propuls
Power 2001;17(6):1313.
[19] Dolvin DJ. Hypersonic international ight research and experimentation
(HIFiRE) fundamental sciences and technology development strategy. In:
15th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, 2008, Dayton, OH; AIAA-2008-2581; 2008.
[20] Adamczak D, Kimmel R, Paull A, Alesi H. HIFiRE-1 ight trajectory estimation
and initial experimental results, AIAA Paper, 2011-2358, 2011.
[21] Kimmel R, Adamczak D. Hire-1 background and lessons learned, AIAA
Paper 2012-1088.
[22] Gruber M, Jackson K, Jackson T, Liu J. Hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet combustor owpath development for Mach 68 hire ight experiment. In: 55th
JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Boston, MA, 2008.
[23] Jackson KR, Gruber MR, Buccellato S. Hire ight 2 overview and status
update 2011. In: 17th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic
systems and technologies conference; 2011. AIAA 2011-2202.
[24] Cabell K, Hass N, Storch A, Gruber M. HIFiRE direct-connect rig (HDCR) phase I
scramjet test results from the NASA Langely arc-heated scramjet test facility.
In: 17th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and
technologies conference, 2011, San Francisco, California; 2011, AIAA 20112248.
[25] Jackson K, Gruber M, Buccellato S. HIFiRE ight 2a program overview.
In: 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, no. AIAA 2013-0695, AIAA; 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-695.
[26] Murphree Z, Yuceil K, Clemens N, Dolling D. Experimental studies of
transitional boundary layer shock wave interactions, AIAA Paper 20071139, 2007.
[27] Teramoto S. Large-eddy simulation of transitional boundary layer with
impinging shockwave. AIAA J 2005;43(11):235463.
[28] Dolling D, Or C. Unsteadiness of the shock wave structure in attached and
separated compression ramp ows. Exp Fluids 1985;3:2432.
[29] Gramann R, Dolling D. Detection of turbulent boundary-layer separation
using uctuating wall pressure signals. AIAA J 1990;28:10526.
[30] Gonsalez J, Dolling D. Correlation of interaction sweepback effects on the
dynamics of shock-induced turbulent separation, AIAA Paper 93-0776, 1993.
[31] Muck KC, Dussauge JP, Bogdonoff SM. Structure of the wall pressure uctuations
in a shock-induced separated turbulent ow, AIAA Paper 85-0179, 1985.
[32] Souverein L, Dupont P, Debieve J-F, Dussauge J-P, van Oudheusden J-P,
Scarano F. Effect of interaction strength on unsteadiness in turbulent shockwave-induced separations. AIAA J 2010;48(7):148093.
[33] Trilling L. Oscillating shock boundary-layer interaction. J Aerosp Sci 1958;25
(5):3014.
[34] Adamson T, Messiter A. Analysis of two-dimensional interactions between
shock waves and boundary layers. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1980;12:10338.
[35] Yentsch R, Gaitonde D. Evaluation of a RANS model for analysis of the
HIFiRE-1 ight test. J Spacecr Rockets.
[36] Gaitonde D, Canupp P, Holden M. Heat transfer predictions in a laminar
hypersonic viscous/inviscid interaction. J Thermophys Heat Transf 2002;
16(4).
[37] Holden M, Wadhams T. Code validation study of laminar shock/boundary
layer and shock/shock interactions in hypersonic ow. Part A: experimental
measurements, AIAA Paper 2001-1031, 2001.
[38] Harvey J, Holden M, Wadhams T. Code validation study of laminar shock/
boundary layer and shock/shock interactions in hypersonic ow. Part B:
Comparison with NavierStokes and DSMC solutions, AIAA Paper 2001-1031,
2001.
[39] Edney B. Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions on blunt bodies
at hypersonic speeds in the presence of an impinging shock. Technical
Report 115, The Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, Stockholm;
February 1968.
[40] Delery J, Marvin J. Shock-wave boundary layer interactions, AGARD report
no. 280, 1986.
[41] Priebe S, Martin M. Low-frequency unsteadiness in shock wave-turbulent
boundary layer interaction. J Fluid Mech 2012;699:149.
[42] Mullenix N, Gaitonde D. Analysis of unsteady behavior in shock/turbulent
boundary layer interactions with large-eddy simulations, AIAA Paper 2013404, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-404.
[43] Webb N, Clifford C, Samimy M. Control of oblique shock wave/boundary
layer interactions using plasma actuators. Exp Fluids 2013;54(6).
[44] Helm C, Martin M, Dupont P. Characterization of the shear layer in a Mach
3 shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction, AIAA Paper 2014-0941,
2014.
[45] Ganapathisubramani B, Clemens N, Dolling D. Effects of upstream boundary
layer on the unsteadiness of shock-induced separation. J Fluid Mech
2007;585:36994.
[46] Dupont P, Piponniau S, Sidorenko A, Debieve J. Investigation by particle
image velocimetry measurements of oblique shock reection with separation. AIAA J 2008;46:136570.
[47] Piponniau S, Collin E, Dupont P, Debieve J. Simultaneous wall pressurePIV
measurements in a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. In: Seventh
international symposium on turbulence and shear ow phenomena (TSFP-7).
[48] Kubota H, Stollery J. An experimental study of the interaction between a
glancing shock wave and a turbulent boundary layer. J Fluid Mech
1982;116:43158.
[49] Kimmel R, Adamczak D, Paull A, Paull R, Shannon J, Pietsch R, et al. HIFiRE-1
preliminary aerothermodynamic measurements, AIAA Paper 2011-3413,
2011.
[50] Poggie J, Bisek N, Kimmel R, Staneld S. Spectral characteristics of separation
shock unsteadiness, AIAA Paper 2013-3203, 2013.
[51] Bookey P, Wyckham C, Smits A, Martin M. New experimental data of STBLI at
DNS/LES accessible Reynolds numbers, AIAA Paper 2005-309, 2013.
[52] Adams N. Direct simulation of the turbulent boundary layer along a
compression ramp at m 3 and re 1685. J Fluid Mech 2000;420:4783.
[53] Rizzetta D, Visbal M, Gaitonde D. Large-eddy simulation of supersonic
compression-ramp ow by high-order method. AIAA J 2001;39(12):228392.
[54] Pirozzoli S, Grasso F. Direct numerical simulation of impinging shock wave/
turbulent boundary layer interaction at m 2.25. Phys Fluids 18, 2006.
[55] Wu M, Martin M. Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent
boundary layer over a compression ramp. AIAA J 2007;45:87989.
[56] Pirozzoli S, Beer A, Bernardini M, Grasso F. Computational analysis of
impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction under conditions of
incipient separation. Shock Waves 2009;19:48797.
[57] Priebe S, Martin M. Direct numerical simulation of a reected-shock-wave/
turbulent-boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J 2009;47(5):117385.
[58] Touber E, Sandham N. Large-eddy simulation of low-frequency unsteadiness
in a turbulent shock-induced separation bubble. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn
2009;23:79107.
[59] Touber E, Sandham N. Comparison of three large-eddy simulations of
shock-induced turbulent separation bubbles. Shock Waves 2009;19:46978.
[60] Morgan B, Kawai S, Lele S. A parametric investigation of oblique shockwave/
turbulent boundary layer interaction using LES. AIAA 2011-3430, 2011.
[61] Priebe S, Martin M. Low-frequency unsteadiness in DNS of shock wave/
turbulent boundary layer interaction, AIAA Paper 2011-725, 2011.
[62] Agostini L, Larcheveque L, Dupont P, Denieve J-F, Dussauge J-P. Zones of
inuence and shock motion in a shock/boundary layer interaction. AIAA J 50
(6), 2012.
[63] Kim KC, Adrian RJ. Very large-scale motion in the outer layer. Phys Fluids
1999;11:41722.
[64] Dupont P, Haddad C, Debieve JF. Space and time organization in a shockinduced separated boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech 2006;559:25577.
[65] Piponniau S, Dussauge J, Debieve J, Dupont P. A simple model for lowfrequency unsteadiness in shock-induced separation. J Fluid Mech
2009;629:87108.
97
98
[102] Holden M, Moselle J, Sweet S, Martin S. A database of aerothermal measurement in hypersonic ow for CFD validation, AIAA Paper 96-4597, 1996.
[103] Van Driest ER. Turbulent boundary layer in compressible uids. J Aeronaut
Sci 1951;18(3):14560.
[104] Eckert E. Engineering relations for friction and heat transfer to surfaces in
high velocity ow. J Aeronaut Sci 1955;22:5857.
[105] Garrison T, Settles G, Horstman C. Measurements of the triple shock/wave
turbulent boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J 1996;34(1):5764.
[106] Holden M, Wadhams T. A database of aerothermal measurements in hypersonic
ow in building block experiments for CFD validation, AIAA Paper 2003-1137,
2003.
[107] Candler G, Nompelis I. Druguet M-C. NavierStokes predictions of hypersonic
double-cone and cylinder-are ow elds, AIAA Paper 2001-1024, 2001.
[108] Gnoffo P. CFD validation studies for hypersonic ow prediction, AIAA Paper
2001-1025, 2001.
[109] Kato H, Tannehill J. Computation of hypersonic laminar separated ows using
an iterated pns algorithm, AIAA Paper 2001-1028, 2001.
[110] Moss J. DSMC computations for regions of shock/shock and shock/boundary
layer interaction, AIAA Paper 2001-1027, 2001.
[111] Boyd I, Wang W-L. Monte Carlo computations of hypersonic interacting ows,
AIAA Paper 2001-1029, 2001.
[112] D'Ambrosio D. Numerical prediction of laminar shock/shock interactions in
hypersonic ow, AIAA Paper 2002-1, 2002.
[113] Nompelis I, Candler GV, Holden MS. Effect of vibrational nonequilibrium on
hypersonic double-cone experiments. AIAA J 2003;41(11):21629.
[114] Nompelis I, Candler G, MacLean M, Wadhams T, Holden M. Numerical
investigation of high enthalpy chemistry on hypersonic double-cone experiments, AIAA Paper 2005-584, 2005.
[115] MacLean M, Holden M. Wadhams T, Parker R. A computational analysis
of thermochemical studies in the lens facilities, AIAA Paper 2007-0121,
1997.
[116] Wright M, Sinha J, Olejniczak K, Candler G, Magruder T, Smits A. Numerical
and experimental investigation of double-cone shock interactions. AIAA J
2000;38(12):226876.
[117] Holden M, Wadhams T, MacLean M. Experimental studies in the lens
supersonic and hypersonic tunnels for hypervelocity vehicle performance
and code validation, AIAA Paper 2008-2505, 2008.
[118] Knight D, Longo J, Drikakis D, Gaitonde D, Lani A, Nompelis I, et al.
Assessment of CFD capability for prediction of hypersonic shock interactions.
Prog Aerosp Sci 2012;4849:826.
[119] Gaitonde D. An assessment of CFD for prediction of 2-d and 3-d high-speed
ows, AIAA Paper 2010-1284, 2010.
[120] Karl S, Martinez Schramm J, Hannemann K. High enthalpy cylinder ow in
HEG: a basis for CFD validation, AIAA Paper 2003-4252, 2003.
[121] Coakley T, Huang P. Turbulence modeling for high speed ows, AIAA Paper
92-0436, 1992.
[122] Sinha A, Mahesh K, Candler G. Modeling shock unsteadiness in shock/
turbulence interaction. Phys Fluids 2003;15:22907.
[123] Wilcox D. Turbulence modeling for CFD. DCW Industries, Inc; 2006.
[124] Roy C, Blottner FG. Review and assessment of turbulence models for
hypersonic ows: 2d/axisymmetric cases. AIAA Paper 2006-713, 2006.
[125] DeBonis J, Oberkampf W, Wolf RT, Orkwis P, Turner MG, Babinsky H, et al.
Assessment of computational uid dynamics and experimental data for
shock boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J 2012;50:891903. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2514/1.J051341.
[126] Bose D, Brown J, Prabhu D, Gnoffo P, Johnston C, Hollis B. Uncertainty
assessment of hypersonic aerothermodynamics prediction capability.
J Spacecr Rockets 50 (1), 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.A32268.
[127] Gnoffo PA, Berry SA, Van Norman JW. Uncertainty assessments of hypersonic
shock wave-turbulent boundary-layer interactions at compression corners.
J Spacecr Rockets 50 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.A32250.
[128] Brown J. Hypersonic shock wave impingement on turbulent boundary layers:
computational analysis and uncertainty. J Spacecr Rockets 2013;50(1):
96123. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.A32250.
[129] Wadhams TP, Mundy E, MacLean MG, Holden MS. Ground test studies of the
HIFiRE-1 transition experiment part 1: experimental results. J Spacecr Rockets 2008;45:113448.
[130] Berger K, Greene FA, Kimmel R, Alba C, Johnson H. Aerothermodynamic
testing and boundary-layer trip sizing of the hIFiRE ight 1 vehicle. J Spacecr
Rockets 2008;45:111724.
[131] MacLean M, Wadhams T, Holden M, Johnson H. Ground test studies of the
HIFiRE-1 transition experimentpart 2: computational analysis. J Spacecr
Rockets 2008;45:114964.
[132] Yentsch R, Gaitonde D. Numerical investigation of hypersonic phenomena
encountered in HIFiRE ight 1, AIAA Paper 2012-0943.
[133] Xiao X, Edwards J, Hassan H. Blending functions in hybrid large-eddy/
Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes simulations. AIAA J 2004;42(12):
25082515.
[134] Fan T, Edwards J, Hassan H, Baurle R. Hybrid large-eddy/Reynolds-averaged
NavierStokes simulations of shock-separated ows. J Spacecr Rockets
2004;41(6):897906.
[135] Ghosh S, Choi J-I, Edwards J. Simulation of shock boundary layer interactions with
bleed using immersed boundary methods. J Propuls Power 2010;26(2):20314.
[136] Ghosh S, Choi J-I, Edwards J. Numerical simulation of the effects of mesoaps
in controlling shock/boundary layer interactions. J Propuls Power 2012;28
(5):95570.
[137] Xiao X, Edwards J, Hassan H, Baurle R. Inow boundary conditions for hybrid
large-eddy/Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes simulations. AIAA J 2003;41
(8):148190.
[138] Edwards J, Choi J-I, Boles J. Hybrid large-eddy/Reynolds-averaged Navier
Stokes simulation of a Mach-5 compression corner interaction. AIAA J
2008;46(4):97791.
[139] Gieseking D, Edwards J. Simulations of a Mach 3 compression-ramp interaction using LES/RANS models. AIAA J 2012;50(10):205768.
[140] Boles J, Edwards J. Hybrid large-eddy/Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes
simulation of a Mach 8.3 crossing-shock interaction, AIAA Paper 20063039, 2006.
[141] Thivet F, Knight D, Zheltovodov A, Maksimov A. Some insights in turbulence
modeling for crossing-shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions, AIAA Paper
2000-0131, 2000.
[142] Srikant S, Wagner JL, Valdivia A, Akella MR, Clemens N. Unstart detection in a
simplied-geometry hypersonic inlet-isolator ow. J Propuls Power
2010;26:105971.
[143] Wagner JL, Yuceil KB, Valdivia AV, Clemens NT, Dolling DS. Experimental
investigation of unstart in an inlet/isolator model in Mach 5 ow. AIAA J
2009;47:152842.
[144] Yentsch R, Gaitonde D. Numerical investigation of the HIFiRE-2 scramjet
owpath, AIAA Paper 2013-119, 2013.
[145] Boles J, Edwards J, Choi J-I, Baurle R. Simulations of high-speed internal ows
using LES/RANS models, AIAA Paper 2009-1324, 2009.
[146] Boles J, Hagenmaier M, Hsu K-Y. Analysis of hybrid LES/RANS simulations of a
back-pressured supersonic isolator, AIAA Paper 2011-5825, 2011.
[147] Cocks P, Donohue J, Bruno C, Haas M. Iddes of a dual-mode ethylene
fueled cavity ameholder with an isolator shock train, AIAA Paper 2013116, 2013.
[148] Brown M, Barone D, Barhorst T, Eklund D, Gruber M, Mathur T, et al. TDLASbased measurements of temperature, pressure, and velocity in the isolator of
an axisymmetric scramjet, AIAA Paper 2010-6989, 2010.
[149] Wagner JL, Yuceil KB, Clemens NT. Velocimetry measurements of unstart of
an inlet-isolator model in Mach 5 ow. AIAA J 2010;48:187588.
[150] Hutchins K, Akella M, Clemens N, Donbar J. Detection and transient dynamics
modeling of experimental hypersonic inlet unstart, AIAA Paper 2012-2808,
2012.
[151] Hass N, Cabell K, Storch A. HIFiRE direct-connect RIG (HDCR) phase I ground
test results from the NASA Langley arc-heated scramjet test facility. In:
JANNAF 43rd combustion; 31st airbreathing joint meeting, NASA Langley,
ATK Space Systems; 2010. p. 124.
[152] Ferlemann P. Forebody and inlet design for the HIFiRE 2 ight test. In: 55th
JANNAF propulsion meeting, Boston, MA, 2008.
[153] Storch AM, Bynum M, Liu J, Gruber M. Combustor operability and performance verication for HIFiRE ight 2. In: 17th AIAA international space
planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, 2011, San
Francisco, California; 2011, AIAA-2011-2249.
[154] Bynum M, Baurle RA. Design of experiments study for the HIFiRE ight 2 ground
test computational uid dynamics results, AIAA Paper 2011-2203, 2011.
[155] Liu J, Gruber M. Preliminary preight CFD study on the HIFiRE ight
2 experiment, AIAA Paper 2011-2204, 2011.
[156] Holden M, Wadhams T, MacLean M, Dufrene A, Mundy E, Marineau E.
A review of basic research and development programs conducted in the lens
facilities in hypervelocity ows, AIAA Paper 2012-0469, 2012.
[157] Kouchi T, Goyne C, Rockwell Jr R, Reynolds R, Krauss R, McDaniel J. FocusingSchlieren visualization in direct-connect dual-mode scramjet, AIAA Paper
2012-5834, 2012.
[158] Donbar J, Brown M, Linn G, Hsu K-Y. Simultaneous high-frequency pressure
and TDLAS measurements in a small-scale axisymmetric isolator with bleed,
2012-0331.
[159] Gaitonde D, Knight D. A numerical investigation of effect of bleed on 3-d
turbulent interactions due to sharp ns. AIAA J 1991;29(11).
[160] Croker B. Numerical investigation of 3-d swept shock interaction control
with porous surfaces, AIAA Paper 2006-3346.
[161] Hafenrichter ES, Lee Y, Dutton JC, Loth E. Normal shock/boundary layer
interaction control using aeroelastic mesoaps. AIAA J 2003;19(3):46472.
[162] Holden H, Babinsky H. Separated shock-boundary-layer interaction control
using streamwise slots. J Aircraft 2005;42(1):16671.
[163] Ogawa H, Babinsky H. Shock/boundary layer interaction control using threedimensional bumps in supersonic engine inlet, AIAA Paper 2008-599.
[164] Blinde P, Oudheusden BV, Scarano F. Effects of micro-ramps on a shock wave/
turbulent boundary layer interaction. Shock Waves 2009;19:50720.
[165] Lee S, Loth E. Impact of ramped vanes on normal shock boundary layer
interaction. AIAA J 2012;50:206979.
[166] Oorebeek J, Nolan W, Babinsky H. Comparison of bleed and micro-vortex
generator effects on supersonic boundary-layers, AIAA Paper 2012-0045,
2012.
[167] Titchener N, Babinsky H. Shock wave/boundary-layer interaction control using a
combination of vortex generators and bleed. AIAA J 2013;51(5):122133.
[168] Kumar R, Ali M, Alvi F, Venkatakrishnan L. Generation and control of oblique
shocks using microjets. AIAA J 2011;49(12):27519.
[169] Ali M, Alvi F, Manisankar C, Verma S, Venkatakrishnan L. Studies on the
control of shock wave-boundary layer interaction using steady microactuators, AIAA Paper 2011-3425.
[170] Verma S, Manisankar C. Shockwave/boundary-layer interaction control on a
compression ramp using steady microjets. AIAA J 2012;50(12):2573764.
99