4.6 Article

Investigation on conical separation vortex generated by swept shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction

期刊

ACTA ASTRONAUTICA
卷 199, 期 -, 页码 103-112

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.07.018

关键词

Supersonic flow; Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction; Conical separation vortex; Sharp fin; Flow visualization

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11502294]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effects of Mach number, Reynolds number, and deflection angle on the conical separation vortex. The results show that Reynolds number is the main factor affecting the vortex core position, while Mach number and deflection angle influence the growth rate and intensity of the vortex.
To study the effects of Mach number, Reynolds number and deflection angle on the conical separation vortex generated by swept shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, the experimental and numerical simulation methods are used. The Mach numbers are Ma = 2.95 and Ma = 4. The deflection angles are 12 degrees, 15. and 18.. The incoming boundary layer thickness delta(0.99) is 4.6 mm, 23 mm and 115 mm. The evolution characteristics of the vortex, including the vortex core position, the vortex area and the vortex intensity, and the effects of Mach number, Reynolds number and deflection angle on them are analyzed. The results show that the core trajectory of the vortex is distributed along the rear shock foot line of the lambda shock structure. The Reynolds number is the main factor affecting the separation vortex core. The vortex area increases linearly along the direction of the inviscid shock, and the Reynolds number and the Mach number both are the factors affecting the growth rate of the separation vortex. The vortex intensity increases linearly along the direction of the inviscid shock. The vortex intensity is mainly affected by the Mach number and the deflection angle, but is not affected by the Reynolds number.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据