Aerothermal Problems Associated with Viscous/Inviscid Interaction over Hypersonic Flight Vehicles

  • Michael S. Holden
Conference paper
Part of the International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics book series (MANUTECH)


In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the development of hypersonic vehicles whose designs are significantly more sophisticated than the essentially ballistic re-entry vehicles which have been constructed and flown to date. In assessing the prediction techniques associated with the design of systems like the trans-atmospheric vehicle (TAV), the orbital transfer vehicle (AOTV), and a number of vehicles designed to be highly maneuverable at hypersonic speeds, it has become evident that there are a number of important aerothermal problems which must be addressed. Such problems include the prediction of low density non-equilibrium flows in the transition regime, the transition to turbulence at hypersonic speeds, turbulent boundary layer and shear layer development in strong pressure gradients, and the development of turbulent reacting boundary layers over ablating and transpiration-cooled surfaces. However, in both laminar and turbulent flows, the classes of problems associated with viscous/inviscid interaction or shock/boundary layer interaction represent those which create the most serious aerothermal load problems and, at the same time, are the most difficult to compute with accuracy.


Mach Number Turbulent Boundary Layer Layer Interaction Hypersonic Flow Hypersonic Vehicle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Holden, M.S., “Studies of the Heat-Transfer and Flow Characteristics of Rough and Smooth Indented Noseshapes Part 1. Steady Flows,” AIAA-86-0384, January 6–9, 1986, Reno, NV.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holden, M.S., “A Review of Aerothermal Problems Associated with Hypersonic Flight,” AIAA-86-0267, January 6–9, 1986, Reno, NV.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    English E.A., “Nosetip Recovery Vehicle Postflight Development Report” SAND75-8059, Sandia Laboratories, Livermore, CA, January 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knight, D.D., “Prolems in Reconciling Computation and Experiment” 1985 Princeton University Workshop on the Structure of High-Speed Turbulent Boundary Layers.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knight, D., Horstmann, C.C., Shapey, B., and Bogdonoff, S., “The Flowfield Structure of the 3-D Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Generated by a 20 degree Sharp Fin at Mach 3” AIAA-86-343 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horstmann, C.C. and Hung, C.M., “Computations of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Separated Flows at Supersonic Speeds,” AIAA Paper 79-2, January 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shang, J.S., Hankey, W.L., and Petty, J.S., “Three-Dimensional Supersonic Interacting Turbulent Flow Along a Corner,” AIAA Paper 78-1210, July 1978; also AIAA Journal, Vol. 17, No. 7, July 1979, pp. 706–713.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Settles, G.S. and Horstmann, C.C., “Flowfield Scaling of a Swept Compression Corner Interaction—A Comparison of Experiment and Computation,” AIAA-84-0096, 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 9–12, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Settles, G.S., Bogdonoff, S.M., and Vas, I.E., “Incipient Separation of a Supersonic Turbulent Boundary Layer at Moderate to High Reynolds Numbers,” AIAA Paper 75-7, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newmann, R.D. and Burke, G., “The Influence of Shock Wave-Boundary Layer Effects on the Design of Hypersonic Aircraft,” AFFDL-TR-68-152, USAF Flight Dynamic Laboratory, 1968.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Law, H.C., “Three-Dimensional Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions at Mach 6,” ARL TR-75-0191, June 1975.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Token, K.H., “Heat Transfer Due to Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions on High-Speed Weapon Systems,” AFFDL-TR-74-77, April 1974.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scuderi, L.F., “Expressions for Predicting 3D Shock Wave-Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction Pressures and Heating Rates,” AIAA Paper 78-162, January 1978.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holden, M.S. “Experimental Studies of Quasi-Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Viscous Interaction Regions Induced by Skewed-Shock and Swept-Shock Boundary Layer Interactions” Calspan Report No. 7018-A-2 Report Covering Period 15 January 1982–31 July 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hung, C.M. and MacCormack, R.W., “Numerical Solutions of Supersonic and Hypersonic Laminar Flows Over a Two-Dimensional Compression Corner,” AIAA Paper 75-2, January 1975.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCabe, A., “The Three-Dimensional Interaction of a Shock Wave with a Turbulent Boundary Layer,” Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol. XVII, August 1966, pp. 231–252.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reshotko, E., and Tucker, M., “Effect of a Discontinuity on Turbulent Boundary Layer Thickness Parameters with Application to Shock Induced Separation,” NACA TN3454, 1955.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ericsson, L.E., Reding, J.P., and Guenther, R.A., “Effects of Shock-Induced Separation,” Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, CA, L-87-69-1, July 1969.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Settles, G.S., and Perkins, J.J., “Upstream Influence Scaling of 2D & 3D Shock/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions at Compression corners,” AIAA-81-0334, 19th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 12–15, 1981.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Settles, G.S. and Teng, H.Y., “Flow Visualization of Separated 3D Shock Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions,” AIAA-82-0229, 20th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 11–14, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael S. Holden
    • 1
  1. 1.Calspan/UB Research CenterBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations