Shock Waves (2009) 19:487–497
DOI 10.1007/s00193-009-0215-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave
boundary layer interaction under conditions
of incipient separation
Sergio Pirozzoli · Alexandre Beer ·
Matteo Bernardini · Francesco Grasso
Received: 13 February 2009 / Revised: 27 May 2009 / Accepted: 15 June 2009 / Published online: 8 July 2009
© Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract The interaction of an oblique shock wave with a
turbulent boundary layer under conditions of incipient sepa-
ration is analyzed by means of large-eddy simulation (LES)
and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence
models, with the objective to explore their predictive capabil-
ities, in particular with respect to the unsteady features of the
interaction. Consistent with earlier direct numerical simula-
tions, we have found that the flow dynamics in the interaction
zone is characterized by strong intermittency associated with
the formation of scattered spots of flow reversal near the nom-
inal position of the reflected shock. Comparison with exper-
imental results (at much larger Reynolds number) show that
the qualitative features of the interaction are predicted rea-
sonably well by both LES and RANS models. RANS models
supplemented with a semi-empirical closure are also found to
provide reasonable estimate of the fluctuating pressure loads
at the wall.
Keywords Shock waves · Boundary layers ·
Large eddy simulation
PACS 47.27.em · 47.27.ep · 47.27.N- · 47.40.Nm
Communicated by A. Hadjadj.
S. Pirozzoli (B) · A. Beer · M. Bernardini · F. Grasso
Dipartimento di Meccanica e Aeronautica,
Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,
Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy
e-mail: sergio.pirozzoli@uniroma1.it
A. Beer
e-mail: alexandre.beer@uniroma1.it
M. Bernardini
e-mail: matteo.bernardini@uniroma1.it
F. Grasso
e-mail: francesco.grasso@uniroma1.it
1 Introduction
The interaction of shock waves with turbulence has been the
subject of extensive research over the last decades. Shock
wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions (referred to as
SBLI in the following) occur in a variety of flows of prac-
tical interest, such as flow over control surfaces, supersonic
inlets, and scramjet combustion chambers. For aircraft
flying in the transonic and the supersonic regime, the
presence of unsteady flow separation may cause severe
vibrations due to the onset of large scale, low-frequency
oscillations. Very large fluctuating pressure loads may occur
[1,3], with characteristic frequencies close to the resonant
frequencies of aircraft structural components. The localized
heating rates typical of shock/boundary layer interactions can
also threaten the structural integrity of aircraft. The under-
standing of such complex physical phenomena is extremely
important for the development of improved engineering
models.
The shock wave interacting with a (turbulent) boundary
layer may be either produced at the surface where the bound-
ary layer is developing (as when a control surface is acti-
vated), or impinge on the boundary layer, being generated
from an external source. Accordingly, shock wave/turbu-
lent boundary layer interactions are classified [19] as ‘com-
pression corner’ interactions or ‘incident shock’ interactions.
The overall picture of the phenomenon for the two types of
interactions is similar: (i) the boundary layer develops under
adverse pressure gradient; (ii) the wall pressure rise occurs
upstream of the nominal interaction point due to an upstream
influence mechanism; (iii) for strong interactions the flow
separates and pressure has a plateau in the separation zone;
(iv) the shock system and the separation bubble experience
a three-dimensional motion characterized by low-frequency
unsteadiness; and (v) turbulence and mixing are enhanced
123
488 S. Pirozzoli et al.

across the interacting shock, and they undergo a relaxation carried out within the framework of the European sixth
process downstream of the interaction. framework program UFAST (Unsteady effects in shock-
The interaction of a shock wave impinging on a flat plate wave-induced separation), with the main objective to vali-
turbulent boundary layer in the presence of mean flow sepa- date the use of LES and RANS models for the prediction of
ration has been experimentally investigated by Dussauge and SBLI, in particular with respect to the unsteady features.
coworkers (see [4] and references therein). The experiments
indicate the dominance of low-frequencies in the interaction
zone, which are related to the formation of a mixing layer
2 Computational strategy
near the mean separation point. With regard to the turbulence
statistical properties, the experimental data show a different
Upon suitable simplifications, the filtered- and the RANS
amplification of the tangential and normal Reynolds stresses,
equations have the same form (although the meaning of the
whose maxima are found to occur away from the wall and
variables is different), which allows to use similar strate-
to have strong association with the coherent structures of the
gies for numerical discretization [8]. In Cartesian coordinates
mixing layer.
(x1 = x corresponding to the streamwise direction, x2 = y
Experiments of SBLI under conditions of incipient flow
to the wall-normal direction, and x3 = z to the spanwise
separation have recently been performed at the Technical
direction), the equations are cast in conservation form as
University of Delft (TUD) [20–22] by means of dual PIV.
follows
Those authors have shown that, under the selected flow con-
ditions, a large region of slow-moving motion forms near the ∂ρ ∂(ρ
u j)
+ = 0,
wall, with the occurrence of regions of instantaneous flow ∂t ∂x j
reversal, associated with substantial increase of the velocity u i ) ∂(ρ

∂(ρ
ui
u j) ∂p
fluctuations and Reynolds stress. The TUD experiments have + =−
∂t ∂x j ∂ xi
also confirmed anisotropy between the streamwise and the
∂  
lateral fluctuation component (the peak value of the former +

σi j −τi j , i = 1, 2, 3,
being a factor of four larger than the latter), and a much faster ∂x j
return to equilibrium of the streamwise velocity fluctuations.


∂(ρ E) ∂(ρ E + p)
uj ∂  
+ = (

σi j − τi j ) ũ i
Garnier et al. [7] carried out the first large-eddy simulation ∂t ∂x j ∂x j
(LES) of an oblique shock wave impinging upon a turbulent ∂  
boundary layer at conditions that mimic the experimental − q̃ j + Q j , (1)
∂x j
conditions of Dussauge et al. [4]. Those authors found gen-
erally good agreement between the computed mean global where ρ, u i , p, E, σi j and qi are the density, the velocity vec-
quantities, such as skin friction and displacement thickness, tor, the pressure, the total energy, the viscous stress tensor and
and experimental results. Mean and fluctuating longitudinal the heat flux vector, with
velocities were found to be in satisfactory agreement with
∂T
experimental data, while the Reynolds shear stress was some- σi j = 2 µ Si∗j , qi = −κ ,
what underestimated. ∂ xi
  (2)
SBLI at conditions close to the ones considered by 1 ∂u i ∂u j 1 ∂u k
Si∗j = + − δi j .
Dussauge et al. [4] boundary layer has been investigated by 2 ∂x j ∂ xi 3 ∂ xk
means of direct numerical simulation (DNS) by Pirozzoli and
Grasso [13]. That study confirmed the experimental finding The molecular viscosity µ is evaluated using Sutherland’s
that turbulence amplification is primarily associated with the law, and the thermal conductivity κ is related to µ through
formation of a mixing layer, resulting in a different amplifi- κ = c p µ/Pr (Pr = 0.72). The overbar denotes the spa-
cation of turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds shear stress. tial filtering operator for LES, and the Reynolds ensemble
The same authors [14] also proposed a simple analogy to averaging operator in the case of RANS models. The tilde
estimate the acoustic pressure load at the wall from the max- is used to denote density-weighted (Favre) averages,
f =
imum of the Reynolds shear stress across the boundary layer ρ f /ρ; fluctuations with respect to Reynolds and Favre aver-
at a given location. ages are denoted with a single or double prime, respectively.
In the present paper, we report results of LES and The unresolved terms in the momentum and energy equa-
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence mod- tions are to be interpreted as either the effect of the sub-
els under conditions similar to the ones used in the TUD grid scales of motion onto the resolved ones in LES, with
experiments. However, due to the limitations of today’s τi j = ρ (
u i u j − u
i u
j ), Q j =

u
j , or as the effect
Tuj − T
available computational resources, LES was performed at a of turbulent fluctuations on the mean flow in RANS models,
(substantially) reduced Reynolds number. The study has been with τi j = ρ u
 
 
i u j, Q j = T u j.

123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 489

2.1 Turbulence modeling The model constants are here set to cb1 = 0.1355, cb2 =
0.622, cw1 = 3.24, σ = 2/3, and the effect of the presence
A simple eddy-viscosity assumption is made for both LES of the solid wall is accounted for through the destruction term
and RANS to model τi j and Q j (last term at r.h.s. of (6)), and through the damping functions
f w , f v1 (for a full account of the model, see [23]).
1
τi j − δi j τkk = −2 ρ νt

Si∗j , (3)
3


∂T 2.2 Boundary conditions
Q j = −κt , (4)
∂ xi
Isothermal, no-slip boundary conditions are enforced at the
where νt denotes the eddy viscosity, and the turbulent thermal bottom boundary (with Tw = Taw ), and extrapolation of all
conductivity κt is determined as κt = c p ρ νt /Prt (Prt = flow variables is performed at the outlet. The shock is arti-
0.60). ficially generated by enforcing a jump in the flow variables
so as to satisfy the Rankine–Hugoniot relations at the upper
2.1.1 LES model boundary. Periodicity is enforced in the spanwise direction
to exploit homogeneity of the flow.
The mixed-time-scale subgrid-scale (SGS) model of Inagaki Large eddy simulation of turbulent flows requires the pre-
et al. [9] is selected for LES to model the effect of the SGS scription of three-dimensional, unsteady inflow boundary
motions onto the resolved ones, as it guarantees the correct conditions to get fast transition to a fully turbulent state. In the
asymptotic behavior to the eddy viscosity at solid walls with- present work we have implemented the synthetic turbulence
out using ad hoc wall damping functions. The turbulent vis- approach proposed by Sandham et al. [17], whereby time-
cosity is determined from dependent perturbations are introduced at the inlet (super-
CMTS  posed onto a mean turbulent boundary layer profile), which
νt = −1
 kes , (5) mimic coherent boundary layer structures. The synthetic
1 + (R CT )
√ velocity disturbances in the streamwise and wall-normal
where R = kes /( 
S ∗ ), and kes is the SGS turbulent directions are specified as follows
kinetic energy, kes = (
u −

u )2 . The hat symbol indicates 
the test filter, derived from the trapezoidal rule [16], and  ρw 4

u (x, y, z, t) = u∞ a j A1 j (y) F j (x, t) G j (z),
is the filter width. To avoid the uncertainties associated with ρ(y)
j=0
filtering in the (inhomogeneous) wall-normal direction [10],

filtering is only performed in the wall-parallel planes, and ρw
4
consistently the filter width is defined as  = (x z)1/2 . v  (x, y, z, t) = u∞ b j A2 j (y) F j (x, t) G j (z),
ρ(y)
As suggested by Touber and Sandham [24], the model con- j=0
stants are set to CMTS = 0.03, CT = 10. (8)

with
2.1.2 RANS model
A1 j (y) = (y/y j ) e−y/y j ,
The Spalart–Allmaras one-equation RANS model is used to
determine νt [23]. The standard formulation of the model A2 j (y) = (y/y j )2 e−(y/y j ) ,
2

involves the solution of an additional transport equation for (9)

the pseudo-eddy-viscosity ν̃,  
F j (x, t) = sin ω j (x/u c j − t) ,
∂ρ ν̃ ∂ρ ν̃

uj  
+ = cb1  S̃ ρ ν̃ G j (z) = cos 2π z/λz j + φ j .
∂t ∂x j

 
1 ∂ ∂ ν̃ The mode j = 0, is associated with inner layer streaks
+ (µ + ρ ν̃) and streamwise vortices with spanwise spacing λ+
σ ∂x j ∂x j z = 120,
  2 and length λ+ x = 520, whereas the modes j = 1, . . . , 4,
∂ ν̃ ∂ ν̃ ν̃
+ cb2 ρ − cw1 f w ρ , correspond to large eddies scaling in outer units. The ampli-
∂x j ∂x j y tudes a j , b j , and the length- and time- scales of the various
(6) modes, selected so as to provide fast transition to fully tur-
bulent state with correct statistics, are provided in Table 1. In
that is related to the eddy viscosity through
order to suppress symmetries, divergence-free random veloc-
χ3 ν̃ ity fluctuations with maximum amplitude u  /u ∞ = 4% have
νt = ν̃ f v1 , f v1 = , χ= . (7)
χ 3 + cv1
3 ν been also added within the boundary layer [11]. The spanwise

123
490 S. Pirozzoli et al.

Table 1 Parameters for

synthetic inlet forcing of LES j yj aj bj ωj uc j λz j φj
(as from (8))
0 12.0δv 1.20 −0.25 0.12u τ /δv 10u τ 120δv 0.00
1 0.25δ0 0.32 −0.06 1.2u ∞ /δ0 0.9u ∞ L z /3 5.01
δ0 and δv 0 = νw /u τ 0 are, 2 0.35δ0 0.20 −0.05 0.6u ∞ /δ0 0.9u ∞ L z /4 4.00
respectively, the boundary layer 3 0.5δ0 0.08 −0.04 0.4u ∞ /δ0 0.9u ∞ L z /5 3.70
thickness and the viscous length 4 0.6δ0 0.04 −0.03 0.2u ∞ /δ0 0.9u ∞ L z /6 0.99
scale at the inlet station

Table 2 Boundary layer

properties at the reference EXP LES RANS-LR RANS-HR
station
Reθ r 50000 2678 2833 44954
Cfr 1.49E-3 2.55E-3 2.59E-3 1.71E-3
δi∗ r /δr 0.116 0.162 0.148 0.108
Hi r 1.25 1.39 1.40 1.26
L/δr 1.92 2.85 2.51 1.67
pi denotes the inviscid L/δi∗ r 16.6 17.6 17.0 15.4
pressure jump across the
incoming shock pi /(2 τwr ) 58.2 33.8 31.1 47.9

velocity component is finally determined assuming that the

inlet velocity field is solenoidal.
The synthetic inlet formulation is found to yield a fully
turbulent state at a distance of approximately 15δ0 from the
inlet (δ0 being the boundary layer thickness at the inlet sta-
tion), with proper distribution of turbulence statistics up to
second order.

2.3 Numerical discretization

The computational strategy to solve the governing equa-

tions relies on a finite-difference approach that has been
extensively validated in previous works both for isotropic
decaying compressible turbulence and for wall bounded tur-
bulent supersonic flows [12,13]. The convective fluxes are
discretized by means of a hybrid seventh-order WENO/cen-
tral scheme, with a switch based on the Ducros sensor. Vis-
cous fluxes (cast in Laplacian form) are approximated with
second-order central differences. Time advancement is per-
formed by means of the classical four-stage, fourth-order
explicit Runge–Kutta algorithm. The transport equation for
ν̃ in the Spalart–Allmaras model is integrated by means of
a standard second-order TVD scheme with Van Leer limiter
to ensure positivity of the transported variable.
2.4 Description of test cases
The selected flow conditions correspond to the SBLI
experimentally investigated by Souverein et al. [22] (exper-
imental data are referred to in the following with the abbre-
viation EXP). The free-stream Mach number in the TUD
Fig. 1 Sketch of the flow configuration for SBLI analysis
experiment is M = 1.7, the shock generator angle is θ = 6◦ ,
and the Reynolds number of the incoming boundary layer is
Reθ ≈ 50000. Such large Reynolds number is far from the
current capabilities of LES, and a reduced Reynolds number
(see Table 2) is considered instead. RANS models give access
to large Reynolds numbers with little computational efforts,
and therefore two RANS calculations were conducted, one
at conditions similar to the LES (referred to as RANS-LR),
and one at conditions similar to the experiment (referred to as
RANS-HR). Note that the Reynolds numbers do not match
exactly due to the fact that the boundary layer properties are
measured right upstream of the interaction zone, where flow
properties cannot be precisely controlled.
As shown in Fig. 1, the computational domain for both
LES and RANS simulations is rectangular, and restricted
to the boundary layer development, the interaction and the

123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction
relaxation regions. The size of the computation box is L x ×
L y × L z = 36δ0 × 7.4δ0 × 4.1δ0 . The computational domain
for LES is discretized with a grid consisting of 448 × 151 ×
141 points, and the grid resolution in wall units is + x ×
+ yw ×  + = 43.5 × 1.76 × 15.54, with 90 grid points inside
z with respect to the wall. As observed experimentally both in
the boundary layer. The grid nodes are uniformly distributed
in the streamwise and spanwise directions and stretched in
the wall-normal direction using a hyperbolic sine function
up to the edge of the computational domain. To guarantee
a fair comparison of LES and RANS simulations, the com-
putational grid for the RANS-LR simulation is taken to be
a two-dimensional slice of the grid used for LES. The com-
putational grid for the RANS-HR simulation has a similar
resolution in terms of wall units, and therefore points are
more clustered toward the wall. A series of preliminary cal-
culations has shown that the RANS solutions presented in the
following are properly grid-converged. Different turbulence
models, including the k–ω [26] and the Fares–Schröder [5]
model, were also considered, which gave very similar results
to Spalart–Allmaras.
The statistical properties of the flow are obtained from
LES by averaging both in time and in the spanwise direc-
tion. The first part of the computation (lasting approximately
200 δ0 /u ∞ non-dimensional time units) was necessary to get
a statistically steady state. Time averaging has then been per-
formed over additional 200 time units, which allows good
convergence of flow statistics up to second order. In the fol-
lowing, the (inviscid) impingement point of the incoming
oblique shock-wave xi (placed at a distance 28.78 δ0 from
the inlet) is used as origin for the streamwise coordinates,
and lengths are made non-dimensional with respect to the
99% boundary layer thickness right upstream of the interac-
tion (δr ), conventionally measured at the streamwise location
(x − x0 )/δr = −4. Flow properties taken at such reference
station are hereafter denoted with the subscript r .
Several integral parameters are reported in Table 2 to
characterize the state of the boundary layer upstream of the
interaction, including the skin friction coefficient C f , the
‘incompressible’ displacement thickness δi∗ , and the ‘incom-
pressible’ shape factor, Hi . The size of the interaction zone
is characterized in terms of the interaction lengthscale L,
defined as the distance of the nominal shock impingement
point from the apparent origin of the reflected shock, L =
xi − xo (see Fig. 1).
3 Results
3.1 Instantaneous properties
A qualitative understanding of the flow organization can
be gained from the analysis of instantaneous slices of the
flow field, as reported in Figs. 2 and 3. The instantaneous
491
temperature field in the x–y plane, reported in Fig. 2a for
LES, reveals the existence of complex organized motion in
the outer part of the boundary layer, which is characterized by
the occurrence of turbulent bulges inclined at an acute angle
subsonic and supersonic turbulent boundary layers [19] these
structures are separated from the surrounding essentially irro-
tational fluid by sharp interfaces that have a three-dimen-
sional character. The flow pattern observed in the RANS
simulation is much simpler, as all turbulent fluctuations are
filtered out, resulting in a steady flow.
Figure 3 depicts the instantaneous streamwise velocity
distribution is wall-parallel planes at various distances from
the wall (zones of instantaneous flow reversal are marked
with solid lines). The figure clearly shows the occurrence of
elongated streaky patterns of alternating high- and low-speed
in the very near-wall region upstream of the interaction zone,
whose characteristic spacing in the spanwise direction is of
the order of 100 wall units, and whose length is of the order of
1,000 wall units. Inside the interaction zone, scattered spots
of flow reversal are observed, which are prevalently found
upstream of the nominal impingement point. Moving away
from the wall, the structures become less elongated, and more
nearly isotropic, and the probability of instantaneous flow
reversal decreases. The analysis of the flow animations has
further shown that excursions of the instantaneous separation
line from a straight shape are associated to zones of high/low
u upstream of the shock [6].
3.2 Statistical properties
To assess the validity of LES and RANS simulations upstream
of the interaction zone, in Fig. 4 we report the distribution of
the Van Driest-transformed mean streamwise velocity at the
reference station in a semi-logarithmic plot. In the figure we
also report the universal logarithmic wall law
1
u+
vd = C + log y + , (10)
k
where, for supersonic boundary layers C ≈ 5.2, k ≈ 0.41
[15]. Figure 4 shows the occurrence in both LES and
RANS simulations of a (more or less extended) layer with
logarithmic dependence of velocity upon the wall distance.
In agreement with many previous LES studies (e.g.
Touber and Sandham [24]) the log-layer constant is found to
be of the order of 6. As expected, LES and RANS-LR sim-
ulations are far from the experimental data (which are only
reliable starting at about y + ≈ 200) being the Reynolds num-
bers vastly different. The structure of the incoming boundary
layer is rather well reproduced by the RANS-HR simulation,
except for a shift in the log-law constant, which is found to
be C ≈ 6.2 in the TUD experiment.
123
492 S. Pirozzoli et al.

Fig. 2 Iso-contours of
temperature (T /T∞ ) in x–y (a)
4
plane a LES, b RANS-LR
3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

(b)
4

3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Fig. 3 Iso-contours of
streamwise velocity (u/u ∞ ) for
-.10 -.05 -.00 .05 .10 .15
LES in x–z planes at a y + = 2,
b y + = 20, c y + = 100 (the
iso-line u = 0 is shown in black) 3

0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

-.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

The distributions of the skin friction, of the ‘incom- et al. [22] did not allow direct measurements of wall prop-
pressible’ shape factor and of the mean wall pressure are erties. Thus, the skin friction and shape factor data shown in
shown in Fig. 5. Note that the PIV study of Souverein Fig. 5 are based on extrapolation of the available data inside

123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 493

35 0.003

30 0.0025

0.002
(a)
25
0.0015
20
0.001
15 0.0005

10 0

-0.0005
5
-0.001
0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
2.5
(b)
Fig. 4 Distribution of Van Driest-transformed mean streamwise
velocity upstream of interaction in inner scaling. Symbols denote data 2
from Souverein et al. [22] (open circle dual-PIV, open square boundary
layer zoom), solid line LES, dashed line RANS-LR, dashed dotted line
RANS-HR, dotted line law-of-the-wall 1.5

the boundary layer. An estimate of the wall pressure from the

PIV data was also made based on the approach to integrate the 1
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
momentum equations introduced by van Oudheusden [25].
As expected, only the RANS-HR simulation is capable to 2
correctly predict the boundary layer structure both upstream (c) p3 /p ∞
1.8
and downstream of the interaction zone. In particular, it very
well estimates the global evolution of the shape factor, and 1.6

also predicts the correct trend of the skin friction coefficient 1.4
past the interaction. However, as also seen from Table 2, the
RANS-HR simulation significantly underpredicts the extent 1.2

of the interaction zone. 1

Both LES and RANS-LR simulations are quite far from
the experimental data, due to the vast disparity in the
Reynolds number, and both exhibit mean flow separation
(which is more evident in the RANS simulation). In this
respect, note that the height of the mean separation bub-
ble found in numerical simulations amounts to but a few
wall units, which would imply that mean flow separation (if
any) would not be detected in the experiment due to lack
of sufficient resolution near the wall. We also note that the
RANS-LR simulation well agrees with LES in terms of the
prediction of the boundary layer shape across the interac-
tion, and exhibits recovery of boundary layer equilibrium on
a similar length-scale. However, it ovepredicts skin friction
upstream of the interaction, and slightly underpredicts it in
the relaxation zone.
The wall pressure distribution shows significant similari-
ties between experiment and LES, especially in the recovery
zone, whereas the upstream influence mechanisms is greatly
over-estimated. The occurrence of an inflection point in the
experimental pressure distribution is likely to be due to prob-
lems in integrating the pressure gradient equation across the
impinging shock foot.
The distributions of the mean velocity components
from LES and RANS simulations, scaled by the reference
0.8
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(x − xi )/δ r
Fig. 5 Distribution of mean flow properties at the wall a skin fric-
tion, b ‘incompressible’ shape factor, c wall pressure ( p3 is the nom-
inal pressure downstream the reflected shock). Open circle Souverein
et al. [22], solid line LES, dashed line RANS-LR, dashed dotted line
RANS-HR
friction velocity and by the reference density profile, are
compared in Figs. 6 and 7. In the selected representation, the
structure of the velocity fields is quite similar, even though
the length-scales are somewhat different. In all cases, sig-
nificant thickening of the boundary layer is found past the
interaction zone, and strong wall-normal motion is observed
near the foot of the impinging shock. However, note that
the low-Reynolds-number simulations predict very gradual
growth of the boundary layer even upstream of the reflected
shock foot, and the latter is found to diffract and spread sig-
nificantly above the boundary layer. In the TUD experimen-
tal data the boundary layer is seen to be undisturbed up to
(x − x0 )/δr ≈ −2, and the reflected shock is found to be
relatively straight. Such interaction pattern is very similar to

123
494 S. Pirozzoli et al.

Fig. 6 Map of normalized

mean defect velocity 2 2
 1 4 7 10 13 16 1 4 7 10 13 16
ρ r /ρ r w (u ∞ − u)/u τ r in the
interaction zone 1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

2 2
1 4 7 10 13 16 1 4 7 10 13 16

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

Fig. 7 Map of normalized

mean wall-normal velocity 2 2

ρ r /ρ r w v/u τ r in the
-3.5 -2 -0.5 1 2.5 -3.5 -2 -0.5 1 2.5

interaction zone 1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

2 2
-3.5 -2 -0.5 1 2.5 -3.5 -2 -0.5 1 2.5

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

the one found in the RANS-HR simulation, even though the
overall scale of the interaction there is much smaller. Note
that, as pointed out by Delery and Marvin [2], and seen from
Table 2, the results would be more similar if reported in terms
of the reference displacement thickness.
The distributions of the normalized turbulent shear stress
are reported in Fig. 8. For clarity of interpretation we point out
that the Reynolds stresses reported for LES do not account for
the contribution of the subgrid scales, whereas in the RANS
simulations they are reconstructed from (3). In both LES and
RANS simulations , strong shearing stresses are produced
near the apparent origin of the reflected shock, which are
subsequently transported away from the wall in the down-
stream direction. Such pattern is consistent with the observa-
tions of Pirozzoli and Grasso [13], who pointed out that the
generation of turbulent stress is strictly related to the unsteady
shedding of coherent vortical structures associated with the
occurrence of inflection points in the instantaneous velocity
profiles. The same scenario is also observed in the experi-
ment, where, however, strong stresses are only found past
the foot of the impinging shock, perhaps due to the above
mentioned difficulties in measuring very-near-wall veloci-
ties. The peak shearing stress is found at about the same
distance of about 0.18δr in the experiment and in the
RANS-HR simulation, whereas in the LES and RANS-LR
simulations the shear stress peak lies at a distance of about
0.3 δr from the wall, with substantial underestimation of the
peak value.

123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 495

Fig. 8 Map of normalized

Reynolds shear stress 2 2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3 4
−ρ r u
 v  /(ρ
r w u τ r ) in the
2
1.5 1.5
interaction zone
1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

2 2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3 4

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

Fig. 9 Probability of 0.2 0.2

instantaneous velocity reversal 50 50
45 45
in the interaction zone in percent 0.15 40
35 0.15
40
35
30 30
scale 25
20
25
20
15 15
10 10
0.1 5
0.1 5

0.05 0.05

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0

3.3 Unsteady properties 162

2
150 154 158 162 166 170 174 178

The analysis of the unsteady properties of the flow field is

5
useful in that it can provide insight for the prediction of the
6
16

168
fluctuating pressure loads occurring in the interaction zone.
4
1 150 6 16
LES is a natural candidate to get such information, but, as we 17
164
shall see, some reasonable estimate of the incurred unsteady 156
5 1 70
pressure loads can also be gained from RANS simulations.
0

164
16

We preliminarily observe that, although no mean flow
reversal is observed, the adverse pressure gradient is suffi-
ciently strong to locally cause scattered spots of reversed flow
in the interaction zone. The distribution of the intermittency
of local flow reversal, defined as the statistical frequency of
points where u < 0, is shown in Fig. 9. The figure indi-
cates that a shallow region with non-zero probability of flow
reversal is found in the LES for −2.5 ≤ (x − xi )/δr ≤ 0,
with maximum probability of approximately 60% inside the
separation bubble. Such pattern differs somewhat from the
experimental data, which show a much taller zone (extending
up to y/δr ≈ 0.15), which is less extended in the streamwise
direction.
The distribution of the r.m.s. pressure fluctuations esti-
mated from LES, reported in Fig. 10, shows that the noise
168
166
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1
Fig. 10 Map of r.m.s. pressure fluctuations from LES in the interaction
zone (dB scale)
levels upstream of the interaction zone are relatively uniform
across the boundary layer, and attain values of O(155) dB.
Noise levels become much larger in the interaction zone,
with a maximum of about 177 db in the proximity of the
mean position of the incoming shock foot, and which is likely
related to its unsteady movement. Large values of the fluctu-
ating pressure of approximately 166 dB are also found away
from the wall in the region where the mixing layer develops.

123
496 S. Pirozzoli et al.

Fig. 11 Pre-multiplied pressure 10

2
2
10
spectra across the interaction 1 (a) (b)
10 1
zone obtained from LES at 10
(x − x0 )/δr = −3.9 (a),

f · P SD
0
10 0
10
−2.4 (b), 0.16 (c), 3.96 (d) -1
10 -1
10
-2
10 -2
10
-3
10 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1
10 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

2 2
10 10
1 (c) 1 (d)
10 10
0 0
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 10
-3 -3
10 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10
-3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Additional detail into the unsteady dynamics of the 170

interaction can be gained from the analysis of the weighted
power spectral densities (PSD) of the pressure time series,
which are reported in Fig. 11 at selected streamwise stations, 165
corresponding to points located upstream of the interaction,
near the apparent origin of the reflected shock, near the nom-
inal position of the impinging shock, and past the interaction. 160
The spectra upstream of the interaction show the typical
behavior found in canonical boundary layers, with energy
concentrated around St ≈ 1, which is the typical frequency 155
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
for large eddies of size of the order of the boundary layer
thickness. The energy spectra across the interaction zone
exhibit significant strengthening of the lowest-frequency Fig. 12 Distribution of r.m.s. wall-pressure fluctuations. Solid line
modes, which can be an indication of the occurrence of low- LES, dashed line theory ((11) with α = 2.75) applied to RANS data
frequency motions associated with the appearance of glob-
ally unstable modes [24]. In addition, the spectral peak is
found to be less sharp and move to lower frequencies, which by the corresponding values of the maximum turbulent shear
may be due either to the thickening of the boundary layer, or stress in the wall-normal direction. In particular, they showed
to the onset of frequencies associated with the shedding of that
vortical structures in the mixing layer.
The distribution of the rms pressure fluctuations at the wall 
pw ≈ α max τx y , (11)
is reported in Fig. 12. The figure shows substantial amplifi- y

cation of noise near the shock foot by as much as 10 dB

compared to the levels upstream of the interaction, and a sud-
den relaxation right downstream of the nominal interaction
point.
To extract useful information on the unsteady pressure
field from RANS simulations, we exploit the analogy
between the behavior of turbulent shear stress and the r.m.s.
pressure fluctuations, first proposed by Simpson et al. [18],
in the context of attached and separated incompressible
turbulent boundary layers, and confirmed for SBLI by
Pirozzoli and Grasso [14]. Those authors found good
collapse of the wall pressure distribution when normalized
with 1.8 ≤ α ≤ 4.3. This analogy makes it possible to exploit
the distribution of turbulent shear stress obtained from the
RANS simulation to infer the r.m.s. pressure level at the wall.
The data obtained from the analogy (11) (with α = 2.75 to
match the upstream r.m.s. pressure amplitude) applied to the
RANS data are show in Fig. 12 as dashed lines. Very good
agreement of the semi-empirical predictions with the LES
data is found. In particular, differences of the order of 1 dB
are observed in the peak of the r.m.s. pressure, which is some-
what shifted downstream compared to LES, and differences
of approximately 2 dB are found in the recovery zone.

123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction
4 Conclusions
The interaction of a shock wave with a turbulent boundary
layer under conditions of incipient separation has been stud-
ied by means of both LES and RANS simulations. LES gives
full insight into the unsteady, three-dimensional flow behav-
ior, and shows the occurrence of coherent structures very sim-
ilar to the ones observed in full DNS. The interaction zone
is shown to be dominated by strongly unsteady dynamics
characterized by the occurrence of spattered spots of instan-
taneously reversed flow to which is associated the shedding
of vortical structures, which are the main responsible for tur-
bulence amplification across the interaction zone. Overall,
both LES and RANS simulations lead to qualitatively cor-
rect prediction of the main features of the flow field. How-
ever, the interaction lengthscale sensitively depends upon the
Reynolds number, and it is underestimated by RANS simu-
lations performed at the same Reynolds number as the ref-
erence experiment, whereas it is overestimated by LES and
RANS simulations at reduced Reynolds number. The analy-
sis of the unsteady pressure field in the interaction zone has
shown the occurrence of very intense acoustic loads at the
wall, reaching up to 168 dB near the foot of the impinging
shock. Using a simple analogy between the r.m.s. pressure
fluctuations and the maximum turbulent shear stress across
the boundary layer, we have shown that some useful informa-
tion on the unsteady pressure field can also be extracted from
RANS simulations, which leads to maximum error on the
overall sound amplitude of the order of approximately 2 dB.
Acknowledgments The present research has been carried out within
the UFAST project (Unsteady effects in shock-wave-induced separa-
tion), supported by the European Union within the 6th Framework Pro-
gram. We are indebted to Louis Souverein and Bas van Oudheusden
of the Technical University of Delft for providing the experimental
data reported in the paper and for helpful discussions. The authors also
acknowledge the CASPUR computing consortium of the University of
Rome “La Sapienza” for providing the computational resources to per-
form the numerical simulations under the 2009 Standard Standard HPC
Grant “Direct numerical simulation of boundary layers at high Mach
numbers”.
References
1. Brusniak, L., Dolling, D.S.: Engineering estimates of fluctuating
loads in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. AIAA
J. 34, 2554–2561 (1996)
2. Delery, J., Marvin, J.G.: Shock-wave boundary layer interactions.
AGARDograph 280 (1986)
3. Dolling, D.S.: Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interac-
tion research: what next? AIAA J. 39, 1517–1530 (2001)
4. Dussauge, J.P., Dupont, P., Debiève, J.F.: Unsteadiness in shock
wave boundary layer interactions with separation. Aerosol Sci.
Tech. 10, 85–91 (2006)
5. Fares, E., Schröder, W.: A general one-equation turbulence model
for free shear and wall-bounded flows. Flow Turbul. Com-
bust. 73, 187–215 (2004)
497
6. Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N.T., Dolling, D.S.: Effects of
upstream boundary layer on the unsteadiness of shock-induced
separation. J. Fluid Mech. 585, 369–394 (2007)
7. Garnier, E., Sagaut, P., Deville, M.: Large-eddy simulation
of shock/boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 40(10), 1935–
1944 (2002)
8. Hanjalic, K.: Will RANS survive LES? A view of perspectives.
J. Fluids Eng. 127, 831–839 (2005)
9. Inagaki, M., Kondoh, T., Nagano, Y.: A mixed-time-scale sgs
model with fixed model-parameters for practical LES. J. Fluids
Eng. 127(1), 1–13 (2005)
10. Lesieur, M., Métais, O.: New trends in large-eddy simulations of
turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28, 45–82 (1996)
11. Li, Q., Coleman, G.N. : DNS of an oblique shock wave impinging
upon a turbulent boundary layer. In: Geurts, B., Friedrich, R.,
Metais, O. (eds.) Direct and large-eddy simulations, ercoftac
series, pp. 387–396. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)
12. Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F.: Direct numerical simulation of isotropic
compressible turbulence: influence of compressibility on dynamics
and structures. Phys. Fluids 16(12), 4386–4407 (2004)
13. Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F.: Direct numerical simulation of imping-
ing shock-wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction at M =
2.25. Phys. Fluids 18(6), 1–17 (2006)
14. Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F.: Self-sustained oscillations in shock
wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. AIAA Paper 2006-2406
(2006)
15. Pirozzoli, S., Grasso, F., Gatski, T.B.: Direct numerical simulation
and analysis of a spatially evolving supersonic turbulent boundary
layer at M = 2.25. Phys. Fluids 16(3), 530–545 (2004)
16. Sagaut, P.: Large-eddy simulation for incompressible flows: an
introduction to large-eddy simulations. Springer, Berlin (2001)
17. Sandham, N.D., Yao, Y.F., Lawal, A.A.: Large-eddy simula-
tion of transonic turbulent flow over a bump. Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 24(4), 584–595 (2003)
18. Simpson, R.L., Ghodbane, M., McGrath, B.E.: Surface pressure
fluctuations in a separating turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid
Mech. 177, 167–186 (1987)
19. Smits, A.J., Dussauge, J.P.: Turbulent shear layers in supersonic
flow. American Institute of Physics, New York (2006)
20. Souverein, L., Dupont, P., Debiève, J.F., Dussauge, J.P., van
Oudheusden, B.W., Scarano, F.: Unsteadiness characterization in a
shock wave turbulent boundary layer interaction through dual-PIV.
AIAA Paper 2008-4169 (2008)
21. Souverein, L.J., van Oudheusden, B.W., Scarano, F., Dupont, P.:
Unsteadiness characterization in a shock wave turbulent boundary
layer interaction through dual-PIV. AIAA Paper 2008-4169 (2008)
22. Souverein, L.J., van Oudheusden, B.W., Scarano, F., Dupont, P.:
Application of a dual-plane particle image velocimetry (dual-PIV)
technique for the unsteadiness characterization of a shock wave tur-
bulent boundary layer interaction. Meas. Sci. Technol. 20, 074,003
(16 pp) (2009)
23. Spalart, P., Allmaras, S.: A one-equation turbulence model for aero-
dynamic flows. Rech. Aérospatiale 1, 5–21 (1994)
24. Touber, E., Sandham, N.D.: Large-eddy simulation of low-
frequency unsteadiness in a turbulent shock-induced separation
bubble. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. (2009) (accepted)
25. van Oudheusden, B.W.: Principles and application of velocime-
try-based planar pressure imaging in compressible flows with
shocks. Exp. Fluids 45, 657–674 (2008)
26. Wilcox, D.C.: Turbulence modeling for CFD, 3rd edn. DCW Indus-
tries, La Cañada, CA (2006)
123