Effects of upstream boundary layer on the unsteadiness of shock-induced separation

By Bharathram Ganapathisubramani, N. Clemens, D. Dolling. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2006

312 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Aerospace Engineering, Computational Mechanics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7565f70a8df5c6d3a8db6cbd3a5c123caedd265a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Aerospace Engineering

In Computational Mechanics

Citations in the corpus

Low-frequency dynamics in a shock-induced separated flow (2016, background): “Based on DNS data of a Mach 2.9 compression-ramp STBLI, Priebe & Martín (2012) found evidence for low-frequency variations of the turbulence intensity in the shear layer.”
Large-eddy simulation of low-frequency unsteadiness in a turbulent shock-induced separation bubble (2009, methodology): “[18] have recently reported very long coherent structures of about fifty boundary-thicknesses long (termed “superstructures”), using PIV and Taylor’s hypothesis (note that the use of Taylor’s hypothesis may be valid as shown by Dennis and Nickels [8]).”
Analysis of shock motion in shockwave and turbulent boundary layer interaction using direct numerical simulation data (2007, result): “The same analysis performed here yields a correlation of about 0.5, which is similar to the value 0.4 found by Ganapathisubramani et al. (2007b).”
Large-scale features in turbulent pipe and channel flows (2007, methodology): “The former point is unique to pipe and channel flow as there appears to be a breakdown of the large scales outside the log-layer in boundary layers (Ganapathisubramani et al. 2003). The increasing width of the structures has also been noted by Hutchins, Hambleton & Marusic (2005) and Tomkins & Adria”
A scaling analysis for turbulent shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions (2013, background): “…the Reynolds number of the upstream boundary layer based on the momentum thickness), several experimental studies have suggested relating the separation shock motions to unsteady very large structures developed in the upstream boundary layer (Ganapathisubramani et al. 2007a; Humble et al. 2009a).”
Three-dimensional instantaneous structure of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction (2009, methodology): “Ganapathisubramani et al. (2007) report lengths of up to 40δ using planar laser scattering (PLS) and Taylor’s hypothesis in their Mach 2 boundary layer.”
Low-frequency dynamics of shock-induced separation in a compression ramp interaction (2009, methodology): “These findings are consistent with the PLS/PIV results of Ganapathisubramani et al. (2007), where the authors found a correlation between the presence of elongated uniform speed regions and a surrogate for the instantaneous location of separation.”
A simple model for low-frequency unsteadiness in shock-induced separation (2009, methodology): “Ganapathisubramani, Clemens & Dolling (2007a); Ganapathisubramani et al. (2007b), using conditional analysis of their experimental observations, obtained evidence of strong links between upstream large scales and unsteadiness in the interaction in the case of a Mach 2 compression ramp flow.”
Flow physics and RANS modelling of oblique shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction (2013, methodology): “In the work by Ganapathisubramani et al. (2007, 2009), particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were taken at a height of 0.2δ0, which required them to utilize a surrogate function for separation; for them, separation was defined by any point such that u(x, z) < Uline − 4(U′lineU′line)1/2,…”
Three-dimensional vortex organization in a high-Reynolds-number supersonic turbulent boundary layer (2010, methodology): “Ganapathisubramani et al. (2007b) even report lengths up to 40δ at y/δ = 0.2 in their supersonic boundary layer visualization based on high repetition rate PIV measurements and using Taylor’s hypothesis.”
Low-order stochastic modelling of low-frequency motions in reflected shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions (2011, background): “This does not mean that specific forcing from upstream (see Ganapathisubramani et al. 2007, amongst others) or downstream (see Pirozzoli & Grasso 2006; Robinet 2007; Piponniau et al. 2009; Touber & Sandham 2009b) does not play a role, but that they are not necessary.”