Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-pf7kn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-26T04:20:36.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Type IV shock interaction with a two-branch structured transonic jet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2022

Chen-Yuan Bai Open the ORCID record for Chen-Yuan Bai [Opens in a new window]  and
Zi-Niu Wu Open the ORCID record for Zi-Niu Wu [Opens in a new window]
Chen-Yuan Bai
Affiliation:
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Fluid Mechanics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, PR China
Zi-Niu Wu*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: ziniuwu@tsinghua.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type IV shock interference has two triple points which produce two sliplines, forming a narrow jet that penetrates into the subsonic flow region behind the bow shock. Type IV shock interference in the case that the jet is supersonic has been extensively studied in the past. In this paper, type IV shock interference where the jet is transonic is studied. The transition condition from a supersonic to a transonic jet is identified and the influence of compression Mach waves, created inside the leading portion of the jet due to the pressure gradient outside the jet, on the transition and jet shape is analysed. It is found that these compression waves advance the transition from a supersonic to a transonic jet and make the flow inside the transonic jet have a two-branch structure: the lower branch is subsonic, the upper branch is supersonic and is composed of a combination of compressive and expansive waves. The mechanism by which the two-branch structure is produced is explained.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: High-speed flow Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 941 , 25 June 2022 , A45
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.D. Jr. 2001 Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Boldyrev, S.M., Borovoy, V.Y.., Chinilov, A.Y.., Gusev, V.N., Krutiy, S.N., Struminskaya, I.V., Yakovleva, L.V., Délery, J. & Chanetz, B. 2001 A thorough experimental investigation of shock/shock interferences in high Mach number flows. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 5, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramlette, T.T. 1974 Simple technique for predicting type III and IV shock interference. AIAA J. 12, 1151–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernyshov, M.V., Kapralova, A.S. & Savelova, K.E. 2021 Ambiguity of solution for triple configurations of stationary shocks with negative reflection angle. Acta Astronaut. 179, 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W.L. & Chang, I.S. 1974 Mach reflection associated with over-expanded nozzle free jet flows. AIAA J. 13, 762–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Y.B. & Lu, X.Y. 2012 Characteristics of unsteady type IV shock/shock interaction. Shock Waves 22, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edney, B. 1968 a Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions on blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds in the presence of an impinging shock. Rep. 115. Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden, Stockholm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edney, B. 1968 b Effects of shock impingement on the heat transfer around blunt bodies. AIAA J. 6, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frame, M.J. & Lewis, M.J. 1997 Analytical solution of the type IV shock interaction. J. Propul. Power 13, 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaitonde, D. & Shang, J.S. 1995 On the structure of an unsteady type IV interaction at Mach 8. Comput. Fluids 24, 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guan, X.K., Bai, C.Y. & Wu, Z.N. 2020 Double solution and influence of secondary waves on transition criteria for shock interference in pre-Mach reflection with two incident shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 887, A22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guan, X.K., Bai, C.Y., Lin, J. & Wu, Z.N. 2020 Mach reflection promoted by an upstream shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 903, A44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasso, F., Purpura, C., Chanetz, B. & Délery, J. 2003 Type III and type IV shock/shock interferences: theoretical and experimental aspects. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 7, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hains, F.D. & Keyes, J.W. 1972 Shock interference heating in hypersonic flows. AIAA J. 10, 1441–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasimoto, Z. 1964 Interaction of a simple expansion wave with a shock wave in two-dimensional flows of a gas. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 19, 1074–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, M.S., Wieting, A.R., Moselle, J.R. & Glass, C. 1988 Studies of aerothermal loads generated in regions of shock/shock interaction in hypersonic flow. AIAA Paper 1988-0477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawamura, R. & Saito, H. 1956 Reflection of shock waves-1. Pseudo-stationary cases. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 11, 584–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyes, J.W. & Hains, F.D. 1973 Analytical and experimental studies of shock interference heating in hypersonic flows. NASA Tech. Rep. TND-7139.Google Scholar
Khatt, A. & Jagadeesh, G. 2018 Hypersonic shock tunnel studies of Edney type III and IV shock interactions. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 72, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. & Ben-Dor, G. 1995 Oblique-shock/expansion-fan interaction–analytical solution. AIAA J. 34, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, H.B., Yue, L.J., Xiao, Y.B. & Zhang, X.Y. 2013 Interaction of isentropic compression waves with a bow shock. AIAA J. 51, 2473–2484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meshkov, V.R., Omelchenko, A.V. & Uskov, V.N. 2002 The interaction of the stationary shock with the expansion wave of opposite direction. Vestn. St. Petersbg. 2 (9), 99–106 (in Russian).Google Scholar
Moeckel, W.E. 1952 Interaction of oblique shock waves with regions of variable pressure, entropy, and energy. NACA Tech. Rep. TN 2725, p. 35.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. 1943 Oblique reflection of shock. Explos. Res. Rep. 12. Navy Department, Bureau of Ordinance, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. 1945 Refraction, intersection and reflection of shock waves. NAVORD Rep. 203–245. Navy Department, Bureau of Ordinance, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Roe, P.L. 1986 Characteristic based schemes for the Euler equations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosciszewski, J. 1960 Calculations of the motion of non-uniform shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 8, 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silnikov, M.V., Chernyshov, M.V. & Uskov, V.N. 2014 Analytical solutions for Prandtl–Meyer wave–oblique shock overtaking interaction. Acta Astronaut. 99, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skews, B.W. & Ashworth, J.T. 2005 The physical nature of weak shock wave reflection. J. Fluid Mech. 542, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uskov, V. & Chernyshov, M. 2014 The interaction of Prandtl–Meyer wave with the oblique shock of the same direction. J. Energy Power Engng 8, 121–136.Google Scholar
Wieting, A.R. & Holden, M.S. 1989 Experimental shock-wave interference heating on a cylinder at Mach 6 and 8. AIAA J. 27, 1557–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windisch, C., Reinartz, B.U. & Müller, S. 2016 Investigation of unsteady Edney type IV and VII shock–shock interactions. AIAA J. 54, 1846–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, S., Takasu, N. & Nagatomo, H. 1999 Numerical investigation of shock/vortex interaction in hypersonic thermochemical nonequilibrium flow. J. Spacecr. Rockets 36, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar