Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T05:47:53.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflection of a rightward-moving oblique shock of first family over a steady oblique shock wave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2024

Miaomiao Wang Open the ORCID record for Miaomiao Wang [Opens in a new window] ,
ZhongZiheng Xu  and
Ziniu Wu Open the ORCID record for Ziniu Wu [Opens in a new window]
Miaomiao Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
ZhongZiheng Xu
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
Ziniu Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: wmm20@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reflection of a rightward-moving oblique shock (RMOS) belonging to the first family, over an initially steady oblique shock wave (SOSW) produced by a wedge, is studied in this paper. To cover all possibilities, the problem is divided into a pre-shock reflection problem, for which the incident shock is assumed to reflect over the pre-interaction part of the SOSW, and a post-shock reflection problem, for which the incident shock is assumed to reflect over the post-interaction part. Such division, together with the definition of the equivalent problem defined on the reference frame co-moving with the nominal intersection point of the two shock waves, allows us to connect the reflection patterns with the six types of shock interference of Edney, which include type I–VI shock interferences depending on how an upstream oblique shock intersects a bow shock (types I and II are regular and Mach reflections of two shocks from the opposite sides; type III and type IV have two triple points or two Mach reflection configuration; type V and type VI are irregular and regular reflections of two shocks from the same side). We are thus able to identify all possible shock reflection types and find their transition conditions. Pre-shock reflection may yield IV, V and VI (of Edney's six types) shock interferences and post-shock reflection may yield I, II and III shock interferences. Pre- and post-shock reflections possibly occur at two different parts of the SOSW, and the complete reflection configuration may have one or both of them. Both transition condition study and numerical simulation are used to show how pre-shock reflection and post-shock reflection exist alone or coexist, leading to various types of combined pre-shock and post-shock reflections.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 979 , 25 January 2024 , A28
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. 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.)

References

Athira, C.M., Rajesh, G., Mohanan, S. & Parthasarathy, A. 2020 Flow interactions on supersonic projectiles in transitional ballistic regimes. J. Fluid Mech. 894, A27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Dor, G. 1988 Steady, pseudo-steady and unsteady shock wave reflections. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 25 (4), 329–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Dor, G., Igra, O. & Elperin, T. 2000 Handbook of Shock Waves, Three Volume Set. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Blankenship, V.D. 1965 Shock-shock interaction on a slender supersonic cone. J. Fluid Mech. 22 (3), 599–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramlette, T.T. 1974 Simple technique for predicting type 11 and IV shock interference. AIAA J. 12 (8), 1151–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E.A. & Mullaney, G.J. 1965 Experiments on the head-on shock-shock interaction. AIAA J. 3 (11), 2168–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, D.H. 1973 A graphical method for the investigation of shock interference phenomena. AIAA J. 11 (11), 1590–1592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edney, B. 1968 Anomalous heat transfer and pressure distributions on blunt bodies at hypersonic speeds in the presence of an impinging shock. Tech. Rep. Flygtekniska Forsoksanstalten, Stockholm (Sweden).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 (2), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornung, H. 1986 Regular and mach reflection of shock waves. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18 (1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inger, G.R. 1966 a Blast wave impingement on a slender wedge moving at hypersonic speeds. AIAA J. 4 (3), 428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inger, G.R. 1966 b Oblique blast impingement on slender hypersonic bodies. AIAA J. 4 (8), 1475–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D.M., Martin, P.M.E., Thornhill, C.K. & Penney, W.G. 1951 A note on the pseudo-stationary flow behind a strong shock diffracted or reflected at a corner. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 209 (1097), 238–248.Google Scholar
Keyes, J.W. & Hains, F.D. 1973 Analytical and experimental studies of shock interference heating in hypersonic flows. Report, NASA TN D-7139.Google Scholar
Kudryavtsev, A.N., Khotyanovsky, D.V., Ivanov, M.S., Hadjadj, A. & Vandromme, D. 2002 Numerical investigations of transition between regular and mach reflections caused by free-stream disturbances. Shock Waves 12 (2), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutler, P. & Sakell, L. 1975 Three-dimensional, shock-on-shock interaction problem. AIAA J. 13 (10), 1360–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutler, P., Sakell, L. & Aiello, G. 1974 On the shock-on-shock interaction problem. In 7th Fluid and PlasmaDynamics Conference, p. 524. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutler, P., Sakell, L. & Aiello, G. 1975 Two-dimensional shock-on-shock inter action problem. AIAA J. 13 (3), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, C., Felthun, L.T. & Skews, B.W. 2003 Two-dimensional numerical study of planar shock-wave/moving-body interactions. Part I. Plane shock-on-shock interactions. Shock Waves 13, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, C. & Skews, B.W. 2003 Two-dimensional numerical study of planar shock-wave/moving-body interactions. Part II. Non-classical shock-wave/moving-body interactions. Shock Waves 13, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. & Ben-Dor, G. 1997 Analytical investigation of two-dimensional unsteady shock-on-shock interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 340, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Chpoun, A. & Ben-Dor, G. 1999 Analytical and experimental investigations of the reflection of asymmetric shock waves in steady flows. J. Fluid Mech. 390, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, M.-S. 1996 A sequel to AUSM: AUSM+. J. Comput. Phys. 129 (2), 364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Ruiz, D., Huete, C., Martínez-Ferrer, P.J. & Mira, D. 2019 Irregular self-similar configurations of shock-wave impingement on shear layers. J. Fluid Mech. 872, 889–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, D.L. & Aronson, P.M. 1966 Free flight shock interaction studies. AIAA 3rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 66–57.Google Scholar
Merritt, D.L. & Aronson, P.M. 1967 Wind Tunnel Simulation of Head-On Bow Wave-Blast Wave Interactions, vol. 67. United States Naval Ordnance Laboratory.Google Scholar
Olejniczak, J., Wright, M.J. & Candler, G.V. 1997 Numerical study of inviscid shock interactions on double-wedge geometries. J. Fluid Mech. 352, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyrl, J.L. 1963 The impact of a shock-wave on a thin two-dimensional aerofoil moving at supersonic speed. J. Fluid Mech. 15 (2), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesdall, A.M., Sanders, R. & Keyfitz, B.L. 2008 Self-similar solutions for the triple point paradox in gasdynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Maths 68 (5), 1360–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M.-M. & Wu, Z.-N. 2022 Reflection of rightward moving shocks of the first and second families over a steady oblique shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 936, A18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar