pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19592 · v1 · pith:6QJOXDMKnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Hypersonic Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction on a Three-Dimensional Expansion-Compression Geometry

Anshuman Pandey , Katya Casper , Steven Beresh , Rajkumar Bhakta , Marie De Zetter , Russell Spillers This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 18:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords hypersonic flowshock-wave/boundary-layer interactionexpansion cornerrelaminarizationcompression rampcone geometryexperimental aerodynamicsseparation bubble
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strong relaminarization at the expansion corner prevents truly turbulent shock-boundary-layer interaction at Mach 8

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This experimental study maps the flow over a cone with a hyperbolic expansion slice followed by a finite-span compression ramp at Mach 5 and 8. The freestream Reynolds number is changed to produce incoming boundary layers that are laminar, transitional, or turbulent. At low Reynolds numbers the separation shock locks to the expansion corner and the bubble covers most of the slice, while higher Reynolds numbers move the shock downstream and shrink the bubble. At Mach 8 the expansion corner produces strong relaminarization that keeps the interaction from developing fully turbulent character even when the incoming layer is turbulent. The result shows how this non-canonical geometry resets boundary-layer state and changes separation dynamics in ways not seen in simpler ramp configurations.

Core claim

The strong relaminarization across the expansion corner at Mach 8 prevents the shock/boundary-layer interaction from reaching truly turbulent conditions and fundamentally changes its behavior on this non-canonical geometry.

What carries the argument

Relaminarization across the expansion corner, which resets the incoming boundary-layer turbulence state before the compression ramp is encountered.

If this is right

  • At laminar or early transitional conditions the separation shock locks onto the expansion corner and the separation region encompasses most of the slice.
  • As Reynolds number rises the separation shock moves downstream onto the slice, the separation bubble shrinks, and the shear-layer flapping frequency rises while its amplitude falls.
  • Large-scale low-frequency breathing motions of the separation region occur in all incoming boundary-layer states.
  • The interaction never reaches fully turbulent conditions at Mach 8 because of the relaminarization effect.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Expansion corners may act as a passive control feature that limits turbulent separation loads on hypersonic vehicles.
  • Direct transition sensing on the surface would be needed to confirm whether the Reynolds-number-based classification matches the actual boundary-layer state.
  • The same resetting mechanism could appear in other hypersonic geometries that place a rapid expansion upstream of a compression surface.

Load-bearing premise

The incoming boundary-layer state is correctly classified as laminar, transitional, or turbulent solely from the chosen freestream Reynolds number without direct verification of transition location on the model surface.

What would settle it

A direct surface measurement or visualization showing that the boundary layer stays turbulent immediately after the expansion corner at Mach 8 would falsify the relaminarization claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19592 by Anshuman Pandey, Katya Casper, Marie De Zetter, Rajkumar Bhakta, Russell Spillers, Steven Beresh.

Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: figure 21. Broadly similar features as in figure 18(b) can be observed although with a few minor differences. Also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This experimental work explores the flow field around a three-dimensional expansion-compression geometry on a slender cone at Mach 5 and 8 using high-frequency pressure sensors, high-framerate schlieren, temperature-sensitive paint, shear-stress measurements and oil-flow visualizations. The $7^\circ$ cone geometry has a hyperbolic slice acting as an expansion corner which is then followed by a $30^\circ$ finite-span compression ramp. The freestream Reynolds number was varied so that the boundary layer approaching the expansion corner was either laminar, transitional or turbulent. At laminar or early transitional conditions, the separation shock locks onto the expansion corner and the separation region encompasses most of the slice, with the separation shear layer flapping at a preferred frequency. As Reynolds number is increased, the separation shock moves downstream onto the slice, the separation bubble shrinks, and the shear layer flapping frequency increases while its amplitude drops. In all cases, large-scale low-frequency breathing motions are observed. The strong relaminarization across the expansion corner at Mach 8 prevents the shock/boundary-layer interaction from reaching truly turbulent conditions and fundamentally changes its behavior on this non-canonical geometry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This experimental study investigates hypersonic shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions on a three-dimensional expansion-compression geometry consisting of a 7° cone with a hyperbolic slice (expansion corner) followed by a 30° finite-span compression ramp at Mach 5 and 8. By varying the freestream Reynolds number, the authors examine the effects of laminar, transitional, and turbulent incoming boundary layers on separation behavior, shock positions, shear layer flapping frequencies, and large-scale breathing motions, concluding that strong relaminarization at Mach 8 prevents the interaction from reaching truly turbulent conditions.

Significance. If the boundary-layer states are accurately classified, the work provides important insights into non-canonical SBLI geometries relevant to hypersonic vehicles, highlighting the role of relaminarization in altering interaction dynamics. The use of multiple complementary diagnostics (pressure, schlieren, TSP, shear stress, oil flow) strengthens the qualitative observations of trends in separation and unsteadiness.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Re-variation paragraph] Abstract and paragraph describing Re variation: the incoming boundary-layer state (laminar/transitional/turbulent) is classified solely from the chosen freestream Reynolds number without direct verification of transition location on the model surface (e.g., TSP transition front, shear-stress jump, or fluctuation spectra upstream of the expansion corner). This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that relaminarization prevents the SBLI from reaching truly turbulent conditions, because if the highest-Re cases remain transitional the observed shrinkage of separation and frequency shifts cannot be attributed to relaminarization acting on turbulent flow.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: claims on frequency shifts and relaminarization lack quantitative support such as error bars, spectra, or statistical measures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and agree that strengthening the direct evidence for boundary-layer state classification will improve the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Re-variation paragraph] Abstract and paragraph describing Re variation: the incoming boundary-layer state (laminar/transitional/turbulent) is classified solely from the chosen freestream Reynolds number without direct verification of transition location on the model surface (e.g., TSP transition front, shear-stress jump, or fluctuation spectra upstream of the expansion corner). This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that relaminarization prevents the SBLI from reaching truly turbulent conditions, because if the highest-Re cases remain transitional the observed shrinkage of separation and frequency shifts cannot be attributed to relaminarization acting on turbulent flow.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and Re-variation description classify the incoming boundary-layer state primarily via freestream Reynolds number and established transition correlations for the 7° cone. While the full manuscript employs TSP, shear-stress sensors, and oil-flow visualizations as complementary diagnostics, these are not explicitly presented as upstream transition verification in the current version. We will revise the manuscript to include additional analysis (e.g., TSP transition fronts or pre-interaction pressure spectra) confirming the laminar/transitional/turbulent states immediately upstream of the expansion corner. This will directly support the relaminarization claim and the attribution of observed trends to turbulent incoming flow at the highest Re. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely observational experimental study with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper is an experimental investigation using pressure sensors, schlieren, TSP, shear-stress, and oil-flow visualizations on a cone geometry at Mach 5/8. No equations, models, or derivations are presented that could reduce to inputs by construction. Boundary-layer state classification relies on direct variation of freestream Reynolds number, which is an independent experimental control rather than a fitted or self-defined quantity. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in any load-bearing step. The study is self-contained against external benchmarks as pure observation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities; the work rests on standard experimental fluid-dynamics assumptions about flow uniformity and boundary-layer response to Reynolds number.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Freestream Reynolds number variation produces laminar, transitional, or turbulent boundary layers approaching the expansion corner.
    Paper states boundary-layer state is set by Re variation without additional verification methods described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5752 in / 1300 out tokens · 28791 ms · 2026-06-26T18:47:02.568737+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An experimental investigation of the interaction between shock waves and boundary layers,

    Gadd, G. E., W., H. D., and D., R. J., “An experimental investigation of the interaction between shock waves and boundary layers,”Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 226, 1954. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1954.0251

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1954.0251 1954

  2. [2]

    Investigation of Separated Flows in Supersonic and Subsonic Streams with Emphasis on the Effect of Transition,

    Chapman, D. R., Kuehn, D. M., and Larson, H. K., “Investigation of Separated Flows in Supersonic and Subsonic Streams with Emphasis on the Effect of Transition,”NACA-TR-1356, 1958, pp. 419–460. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930092343

    arXiv 1958

  3. [3]

    The Transition From a Turbulent to Laminar Boundary Layer,

    Sternberg, J., “The Transition From a Turbulent to Laminar Boundary Layer,”Ballistic Research Lab., Aberdeen, Report No. 906, 1954, pp. 1–104. 39

    1954

  4. [4]

    The relentless pursuit of hypersonic flight,

    Leyva, I. A., “The relentless pursuit of hypersonic flight,”Physics Today, Vol. 70, No. 11, 2017, pp. 30–36. https: //doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3762

    work page doi:10.1063/pt.3.3762 2017

  5. [5]

    Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers,

    Green, J. E., “Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 11, 1970, pp. 235–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112082002262

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112082002262 1970

  6. [6]

    Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction and its control,

    Delery, J. M., “Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction and its control,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1985, pp. 209–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-0421(85)90001-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0376-0421(85)90001-6 1985

  7. [7]

    Advances in CFD prediction of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions,

    Knight, D., Yan, H., Panaras, A. G., and Zheltovodov, A., “Advances in CFD prediction of shock wave turbulent boundary layer interactions,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 2003, pp. 121–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376- 0421(02)00069-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0376- 2003

  8. [8]

    Dynamics of Three-Dimensional Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions,

    Gaitonde, D. V., and Adler, M. C., “Dynamics of Three-Dimensional Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions,”Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2023, pp. 291–321. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-120720-022542

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-120720-022542 2023

  9. [9]

    Laminar-turbulenttransitionandshockwave/boundarylayerinteraction,

    Arnal,D.,andDelery,J.,“Laminar-turbulenttransitionandshockwave/boundarylayerinteraction,”RTO-EN-AVT-116inCritical Technologies for Hypersonic Vehicle Development, 2004, pp. 1–46. URL ftp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN- AVT-116/EN-AVT-116-04.pdf

    2004

  10. [10]

    Low-FrequencyUnsteadinessofShockWave/TurbulentBoundaryLayerInteractions,

    Clemens,N.T.,andNarayanaswamy,V.,“Low-FrequencyUnsteadinessofShockWave/TurbulentBoundaryLayerInteractions,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2014, pp. 469–492

    2014

  11. [11]

    J., and Dussauge, J

    Smits, A. J., and Dussauge, J. P.,Turbulent shear layers in supersonic flow, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, NY, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/b137383

    work page doi:10.1007/b137383 2006

  12. [12]

    Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: What next?

    Dolling, D. S., “Fifty years of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction research: What next?”AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 8, 2001, pp. 1517–1531. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1476

    work page doi:10.2514/2.1476 2001

  13. [13]

    Joint computational/experimental aerodynamics research on a hypersonic vehicle Part 1: Experimental results,

    Oberkampf, W. L., and Aeschliman, D. P., “Joint computational/experimental aerodynamics research on a hypersonic vehicle Part 1: Experimental results,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 8, 1992, pp. 2000–2009. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.11172

    work page doi:10.2514/3.11172 1992

  14. [14]

    Joint computational experimental aerodynamics research on a hypersonic vehicle. II - Computational results,

    Walker, M., and Oberkampf, W., “Joint computational experimental aerodynamics research on a hypersonic vehicle. II - Computational results,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 8, 1992, pp. 2010–2016. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.11173

    work page doi:10.2514/3.11173 1992

  15. [15]

    EXPERT: An atmospheric re-entry test-bed,

    Massobrio, F., Viotto, R., Serpico, M., Sansone, A., Caporicci, M., and Muylaert, J. M., “EXPERT: An atmospheric re-entry test-bed,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 60, No. 12, 2007, pp. 974–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.10.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.10.010 2007

  16. [16]

    Supersonic Separated and Reattaching Laminar Flows: I. General Theory and Application to Adiabatic Boundary-Layer/Shock-Wave Interactions,

    Lees, L., and Reeves, B. L., “Supersonic Separated and Reattaching Laminar Flows: I. General Theory and Application to Adiabatic Boundary-Layer/Shock-Wave Interactions,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 11, 1964, pp. 1907–1920. https: //doi.org/10.2514/3.2700

    work page doi:10.2514/3.2700 1964

  17. [17]

    Mach 8 to 22 Studies of Flow Separations Due to Deflected Control Surfaces,

    Miller, D. S., Hijman, R., and Childs, M. E., “Mach 8 to 22 Studies of Flow Separations Due to Deflected Control Surfaces,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1964, pp. 312–321. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.2289. 40

    work page doi:10.2514/3.2289 1964

  18. [18]

    On the lengthscales of laminar shock/boundary-layer interaction,

    Katzer, E., “On the lengthscales of laminar shock/boundary-layer interaction,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 206, 1989, pp. 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112089002375

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112089002375 1989

  19. [19]

    Once again on the supersonic flow separation near a corner,

    Korolev, G. L., Gajjar, J. S. B., and Ruban, A. I., “Once again on the supersonic flow separation near a corner,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 463, 2002, pp. 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112002008777

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112002008777 2002

  20. [20]

    Hypersonic compression corner flow with large separated regions,

    Gai, S. L., and Khraibut, A., “Hypersonic compression corner flow with large separated regions,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 877, 2019, pp. 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2019.599

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.599 2019

  21. [21]

    Application of the triple-deck theory of viscous-in viscid interaction to bodies of revolution,

    Huang, M., and Inger, G. R., “Application of the triple-deck theory of viscous-in viscid interaction to bodies of revolution,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 129, 1983, p. 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112083000841

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112083000841 1983

  22. [22]

    Experimental and computational investigations of hypersonic flow about compression ramps,

    Simeonides, G., and Haase, W., “Experimental and computational investigations of hypersonic flow about compression ramps,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 283, 1995, p. 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112095002229

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112095002229 1995

  23. [23]

    Shock wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow,

    Benay, R., Chanetz, B., Mangin, B., Vandomme, L., and Perraud, J., “Shock wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1243–1254. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.10512

    work page doi:10.2514/1.10512 2006

  24. [24]

    Transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow,

    Sandham, N. D., Schülein, E., Wagner, A., Willems, S., and Steelant, J., “Transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic flow,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 752, 2014, pp. 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2014.333

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.333 2014

  25. [25]

    Physics of unsteady cylinder-induced shock-wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions,

    Murphree, Z. R., Combs, C. S., Yu, W. M., Dolling, D. S., and Clemens, N. T., “Physics of unsteady cylinder-induced shock-wave/transitional boundary-layer interactions,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 918, 2021, p. A39. https://doi.org/10. 1017/jfm.2021.369

    2021

  26. [26]

    Transitionalhypersonicflowoverslendercone/flaregeometries,

    Butler,C.S.,andLaurence,S.J.,“Transitionalhypersonicflowoverslendercone/flaregeometries,”JournalofFluidMechanics, Vol. 949, 2022, p. A37. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2022.769

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.769 2022

  27. [27]

    Instability and low-frequency unsteadiness in a shock-induced laminar separation bubble,

    Sansica, A., Sandham, N. D., and Hu, Z., “Instability and low-frequency unsteadiness in a shock-induced laminar separation bubble,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 798, 2016, pp. 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2016.297

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2016.297 2016

  28. [28]

    Modal analysis of the triadic interactions in the dynamics of a transitional shock wave boundary layer interaction,

    Ben Hassan Saïdi, I., Wang, S., Fournier, G., Tenaud, C., and Robinet, J.-C., “Modal analysis of the triadic interactions in the dynamics of a transitional shock wave boundary layer interaction,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 1009, 2025, p. A43. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2025.236

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2025.236 2025

  29. [29]

    Strong interaction of a turbulent spot with a shock-induced separation bubble,

    Krishnan, L., and Sandham, N. D., “Strong interaction of a turbulent spot with a shock-induced separation bubble,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 19, No. 016102, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2432158

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2432158 2007

  30. [30]

    Turbulent spot transit of a hypersonic laminar separation,

    Estruch-Samper, D., Hillier, R., and Vanstone, L., “Turbulent spot transit of a hypersonic laminar separation,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 935, 2022, p. A25. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2022.13

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.13 2022

  31. [31]

    Relationship Between Upstream Turbulent Boundary-Layer Velocity Fluctuations and Separation Shock Unsteadiness,

    Beresh, S. J., Clemens, N. T., and Dolling, D. S., “Relationship Between Upstream Turbulent Boundary-Layer Velocity Fluctuations and Separation Shock Unsteadiness,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, No. 12, 2002, pp. 2412–2422. https://doi.org/10. 2514/2.1609. 41

    2002

  32. [32]

    A scaling analysis for turbulent shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions,

    Souverein, L., Bakker, P., and Dupont, P., “A scaling analysis for turbulent shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 714, 2013, p. 505–535. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2012.495

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2012.495 2013

  33. [33]

    Interaction of second-mode wave packets with an axisymmetric expansion corner,

    Butler, C. S., and Laurence, S. J., “Interaction of second-mode wave packets with an axisymmetric expansion corner,” Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 62, No. 7, 2021, p. 140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-021-03235-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-021-03235-2 2021

  34. [34]

    Boundary-Layer Instabilities in Supersonic Expansion Corner Flows,

    Chuvakhov, P. V., Egorov, I. V., Ilyukhin, I. M., Obraz, A. O., and Fedorov, A. V., “Boundary-Layer Instabilities in Supersonic Expansion Corner Flows,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 59, No. 9, 2021, pp. 3398–3405. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J060145

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j060145 2021

  35. [35]

    Relaminarization effects in hypersonic flow on a three-dimensional expan- sion–compression geometry,

    Pandey, A., Casper, K. M., and Beresh, S. J., “Relaminarization effects in hypersonic flow on a three-dimensional expan- sion–compression geometry,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 985, 2024, p. A25. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2024.275

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.275 2024

  36. [36]

    The rapid expansion of a supersonic turbulent flow: Role of bulk dilatation,

    Dussauge, J. P., “The rapid expansion of a supersonic turbulent flow: Role of bulk dilatation,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 174, 1987, pp. 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112087000053

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112087000053 1987

  37. [37]

    Response of a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer to favourable pressure gradients,

    Tichenor, N. R., Humble, R. A., and Bowersox, R. D. W., “Response of a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer to favourable pressure gradients,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 722, 2013, pp. 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2013.89

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.89 2013

  38. [38]

    Dilatation effect in relaminarization of an accelerating supersonic turbulent boundary layer,

    Teramoto, S., Sanada, H., and Okamoto, K., “Dilatation effect in relaminarization of an accelerating supersonic turbulent boundary layer,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2017, pp. 1469–1474. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J055368

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j055368 2017

  39. [39]

    Recoveryofasupersonicturbulentboundarylayerafteranexpansioncorner,

    Sun,M.-b.,Hu,Z.,andSandham,N.D.,“Recoveryofasupersonicturbulentboundarylayerafteranexpansioncorner,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 29, No. 7, 2017, p. 76103. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995293

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4995293 2017

  40. [40]

    Direct Numerical Simulation Database of High-Speed Flow over Parameterized Curved Walls,

    Nicholson, G. L., Duan, L., and Bisek, N. J., “Direct Numerical Simulation Database of High-Speed Flow over Parameterized Curved Walls,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 62, No. 6, 2024, pp. 2095–2118. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J063456

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j063456 2024

  41. [41]

    Development of separation in the region where a shock interacts with a turbulent boundary layer perturbed by rarefaction waves,

    Zheltovodov, A. A., Shilein, E. K., and Horstman, C. C., “Development of separation in the region where a shock interacts with a turbulent boundary layer perturbed by rarefaction waves,”Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1993, pp. 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00864786

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00864786 1993

  42. [42]

    Experimental investigation of expansion effect on shock wave boundary layer interaction near a compression ramp,

    Huo, J., Yi, S., Zheng, W., Niu, H., Lu, X., and Gang, D., “Experimental investigation of expansion effect on shock wave boundary layer interaction near a compression ramp,”Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Vol. 35, No. 12, 2022, pp. 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2022.04.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cja.2022.04.014 2022

  43. [43]

    Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent flows around a tandemexpansion-compressioncorner,

    Fang, J., Yao, Y., Zheltovodov, A. A., Li, Z., and Lu, L., “Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent flows around a tandemexpansion-compressioncorner,”PhysicsofFluids, Vol.27, No.12, 2015, p.125104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4936576

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4936576 2015

  44. [44]

    Direct numerical simulation of the effects of Reynolds number in Mach 2.9 flows over an expansion-compression corner,

    Xie, Z., Xiao, Z., Wang, G., and Yang, Y., “Direct numerical simulation of the effects of Reynolds number in Mach 2.9 flows over an expansion-compression corner,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 34, No. 12, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0131991

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0131991 2022

  45. [45]

    Onincidentshockwave/boundarylayerinteractionsunder the influence of expansion corner,

    Guo,Y.,Tan,H.,Zhang,Y.,Li,X.,Xue,H.,Luo,Z.,andHuang,H.,“Onincidentshockwave/boundarylayerinteractionsunder the influence of expansion corner,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 988, 2024, p. A28. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2024.399. 42

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.399 2024

  46. [46]

    Investigation of Separation and Associated Heat Transfer and Pressure Distribution on Cone- Cylinder-Flare Configurations at Mach Five,

    Schaefer, J. W., and Ferguson, H., “Investigation of Separation and Associated Heat Transfer and Pressure Distribution on Cone- Cylinder-Flare Configurations at Mach Five,”ARS Journal, Vol. 32, No. 5, 1962, pp. 762–770. https://doi.org/10.2514/8.6146

    work page doi:10.2514/8.6146 1962

  47. [47]

    Investigation of the effect of flare and ramp angle on the upstream influence of laminar and transitional reattaching flows from Mach 3 to 7,

    Gray, J. D., “Investigation of the effect of flare and ramp angle on the upstream influence of laminar and transitional reattaching flows from Mach 3 to 7,”AEDC-TR-66-190, 1967, pp. 1–59. URL https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0645840

    1967

  48. [48]

    Boundary-Layer Instabilities over a Cone–Cylinder–FlareModelatMach6,

    Paredes, P., Scholten, A., Choudhari, M. M., Li, F., Benitez, E. K., and Jewell, J. S., “Boundary-Layer Instabilities over a Cone–Cylinder–FlareModelatMach6,”AIAAJournal,Vol.60,No.10,2022,pp.5652–5661.https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J061829

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j061829 2022

  49. [49]

    Instability and transition onset downstream of a laminar separation bubble at Mach 6,

    Benitez, E. K., Borg, M. P., Scholten, A., Paredes, P., McDaniel, Z., and Jewell, J. S., “Instability and transition onset downstream of a laminar separation bubble at Mach 6,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 969, 2023, p. A11. https: //doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2023.533

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2023.533 2023

  50. [50]

    Separation and Transition on a Cone-Cylinder-Flare: Experimental Campaigns,

    Benitez, E. K., Caillaud, C., McDaniel, Z., Lugrin, M., Esquieu, S., Borg, M. P., Jewell, J. S., Scholten, A., Paredes, P., Li, F., and Choudhari, M. M., “Separation and Transition on a Cone-Cylinder-Flare: Experimental Campaigns,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 63, No. 6, 2025, pp. 2162–2181. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J064198

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j064198 2025

  51. [51]

    Separation and Transition on the ROTEX-T Cone–Flare,

    Davami, J., Juliano, T. J., Scholten, A., Paredes, P., Benitez, E. K., Running, C. L., Little, N., Duan, L., Dylewicz, K., Pezlar, V., Theofilis, V., Thiele, T., and Willems, S., “Separation and Transition on the ROTEX-T Cone–Flare,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 63, No. 9, 2025, pp. 3939–3966. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J064190

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j064190 2025

  52. [52]

    Transitional shockwave/boundary layer interaction experiments in the R2Ch blowdownwind tunnel,

    Lugrin, M., Nicolas, F., Several, N., Tobeli, J.-P., Beneddine, S., Garnier, E., Esquieu, S., and Bur, R., “Transitional shockwave/boundary layer interaction experiments in the R2Ch blowdownwind tunnel,”Experiments inFluids, Vol. 63, No. 46,

  53. [53]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-022-03395-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00348-022-03395-9

  54. [54]

    Hypersonic Fluid–Structure Interaction on a Cone–Slice–Ramp Geometry,

    Pandey, A., Casper, K. M., Beresh, S. J., Bhakta, R., and Spillers, R., “Hypersonic Fluid–Structure Interaction on a Cone–Slice–Ramp Geometry,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 61, No. 5, 2023, pp. 2217–2233. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J062733

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j062733 2023

  55. [55]

    Instability and transition on a cone with a slice and ramp at Mach 6,

    McKiernan, G. R., and Schneider, S. P., “Instability and transition on a cone with a slice and ramp at Mach 6,”AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, AIAA, 2021, p. 0249. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0249

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2021-0249 2021

  56. [56]

    Plasma Perturbations on an Oberkampf Geometry in Quiet Mach 6 Flow,

    Nicotra, E., May, C. J., Ritchie, D., Zhou, T., Bane, S. P., and Jewell, J. S., “Plasma Perturbations on an Oberkampf Geometry in Quiet Mach 6 Flow,”AIAA Scitech 2024 Forum, AIAA, 2024, p. 1519. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-1519

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2024-1519 2024

  57. [57]

    Separation Region Instabilities in Hypervelocity Flow on a Cone-Slice-Ramp,

    Stramenga, M., Yu, W. M., Luo, Y., Esparza-Duran, N., Austin, J. M., and Bowcutt, K. G., “Separation Region Instabilities in Hypervelocity Flow on a Cone-Slice-Ramp,”AIAA Scitech 2025 Forum, AIAA, 2025, p. 2215. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025- 2215

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2025- 2025

  58. [58]

    HypersonicShockWave-Boundary Layer Interaction in a Shock Tunnel Using Nitric Oxide Laser Induced Fluorescence,

    Jans,E.,Daniel,K.,Swain,W.,Downing,C.,Lynch,K.P.,Kearney,S.P.,andWagner,J.L.,“HypersonicShockWave-Boundary Layer Interaction in a Shock Tunnel Using Nitric Oxide Laser Induced Fluorescence,”AIAA SciTech 2025 Forum, AIAA Papaer 2025-1255, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-1255. 43

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2025-1255 2025

  59. [59]

    Computational study of high speed flow on a sliced cone-flap geometry,

    Thome, J., Reinert, J. D., Dwivedi, A., and Candler, G. V., “Computational study of high speed flow on a sliced cone-flap geometry,”2018 Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 2018-3397, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3397

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2018-3397 2018

  60. [60]

    Hypersonic Fluid–Thermal–Structural Interaction of Cone–Slice–Ramp: Computations with Experimental Validation,

    Sadagopan, A., Huang, D., Jirasek, A., Seidel, J., Pandey, A., and Casper, . M., “Hypersonic Fluid–Thermal–Structural Interaction of Cone–Slice–Ramp: Computations with Experimental Validation,”AIAA Journal, 2023, pp. 1–20. https: //doi.org/10.2514/1.J062326, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J062326

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j062326 2023

  61. [61]

    Modernization of Sandia’s hypersonic wind tunnel,

    Beresh, S. J., Casper, K. M., Wagner, J. L., Henfling, J. F., Spillers, R. W., and Pruett, B. O., “Modernization of Sandia’s hypersonic wind tunnel,”53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA, 2015, p. 1338. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1338

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2015-1338 2015

  62. [62]

    Hypersonic wind- tunnel measurements of boundary-layer transition on a slender cone,

    Casper, K. M., Beresh, S. J., Henfling, J. F., Spillers, R. W., Pruett, B. O., and Schneider, S. P., “Hypersonic wind- tunnel measurements of boundary-layer transition on a slender cone,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2016, pp. 1250–1263. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J054033

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j054033 2016

  63. [63]

    Instability Measurements in Hypersonic Flow on a Three-Dimensional Cone-Slice-Ramp Geometry,

    Pandey, A., Casper, K. M., Guildenbecher, D. R., Beresh, S., Bhakta, R., De Zetter, M. E., and Spillers, R., “Instability Measurements in Hypersonic Flow on a Three-Dimensional Cone-Slice-Ramp Geometry,”AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum, AIAA Paper 2022-1578, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1578

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2022-1578 2022

  64. [64]

    MeasurementofFluctuatingWallPressuresBeneathaSupersonicTurbulent Boundary Layer,

    Beresh,S.,Henfling,J.,Spillers,R.,andPruett,B.,“MeasurementofFluctuatingWallPressuresBeneathaSupersonicTurbulent Boundary Layer,”48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, ???? https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-305

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2010-305 2010

  65. [65]

    Experiment of the two-dimensional roughness effect on hypersonic boundary-layer transition,

    Fujii, K., “Experiment of the two-dimensional roughness effect on hypersonic boundary-layer transition,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2006, pp. 731–738. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.17860

    work page doi:10.2514/1.17860 2006

  66. [66]

    Fluctuating wall pressures measured beneath a supersonic turbulent boundary layer,

    Beresh, S. J., Henfling, J. F., Spillers, R. W., and Pruett, B. O., “Fluctuating wall pressures measured beneath a supersonic turbulent boundary layer,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 23, No. 7, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3609271

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3609271 2011

  67. [67]

    Influence of mounting on the accuracy of piezoelectric pressure measurements for hypersonic boundary layer transition,

    Ort, D. J., and Dosch, J. J., “Influence of mounting on the accuracy of piezoelectric pressure measurements for hypersonic boundary layer transition,”AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, AIAA, 2019, p. 2292. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2292

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-2292 2019

  68. [68]

    Potential of Diffractive Sail’s Sun-Earth Equilibria for Continuous Polar Observation,

    Huang, J., Duan, L., Casper, K. M., Wagnild, R. M., and Bitter, N. P., “Transducer Resolution Effect on Pressure Fluctuations Beneath Hypersonic Turbulent Boundary Layers,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 62, No. 3, 2024, pp. 882–895. https://doi.org/10.2514/1. J062994

    work page doi:10.2514/1 2024

  69. [69]

    Resolution of Pressure in Turbulence,

    Corcos, G. M., “Resolution of Pressure in Turbulence,”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1963, pp. 192–199

    1963

  70. [70]

    Quantitative Global Heat Transfer in a Mach-6 Quiet Tunnel,

    Sullivan, J. P., Schneider, S. P., Liu, T., Rubal, J., Ward, C. A. C., Dussling, J. J., Rice, C., Foley, R., Cai, Z., Wang, B., and Woodiga, S., “Quantitative Global Heat Transfer in a Mach-6 Quiet Tunnel,”NASA/CR-2012-217331, 2012. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120002664. 44

    2012

  71. [71]

    Skin friction sensor development, validation, and application for high-speed, high-enthalpy flow conditions,

    Meritt, R. J., and Schetz, J. A., “Skin friction sensor development, validation, and application for high-speed, high-enthalpy flow conditions,”Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2016, pp. 821–833. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35917

    work page doi:10.2514/1.b35917 2016

  72. [72]

    Direct skin friction measurements at Mach 10 in a hypervelocity wind tunnel,

    Meritt, R. J., Schetz, J. A., Marineau, E. C., Lewis, D. R., and Daniel, D. T., “Direct skin friction measurements at Mach 10 in a hypervelocity wind tunnel,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2017, pp. 871–882. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33657

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a33657 2017

  73. [73]

    S.,Schlieren and Shadowgraph Techniques: Visualizing Phenomena in Transparent Media, 1st ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001

    Settles, G. S.,Schlieren and Shadowgraph Techniques: Visualizing Phenomena in Transparent Media, 1st ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56640-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56640-0 2001

  74. [74]

    P.,Pressure and Temperature Sensitive Paints, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005

    Liu, T., and Sullivan, J. P.,Pressure and Temperature Sensitive Paints, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. https: //doi.org/10.1007/b137841

    work page doi:10.1007/b137841 2005

  75. [75]

    Heat-fluxmeasurementswithtemperature-sensitivepaintina mach-6 quiet tunnel,

    Liu,T.,Ward,C.A.,Rubal,J.,Sullivan,J.P.,andSchneider,S.P.,“Heat-fluxmeasurementswithtemperature-sensitivepaintina mach-6 quiet tunnel,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2013, pp. 282–293. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A32311

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a32311 2013

  76. [76]

    Quiet tunnel measurements of HIFiRE-5 boundary-layer transition,

    Juliano, T. J., Borg, M. P., and Schneider, S. P., “Quiet tunnel measurements of HIFiRE-5 boundary-layer transition,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2015, pp. 832–846. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053189

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j053189 2015

  77. [77]

    Experimentalandcomputationalresultsofacone-slice-ramp geometry at Mach 6,

    Vogel,E.A.,Coder,J.G.,Chynoweth,B.C.,andSchneider,S.P.,“Experimentalandcomputationalresultsofacone-slice-ramp geometry at Mach 6,”AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, AIAA, 2019, p. 3593. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-3593

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-3593 2019

  78. [78]

    Temperature and Velocity Profiles in the Compressible Laminar Boundary Layer with Arbitrary Distribution of Surface Temperature,

    Chapman, D. R., and Rubesin, M. W., “Temperature and Velocity Profiles in the Compressible Laminar Boundary Layer with Arbitrary Distribution of Surface Temperature,”Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 9, 1949, pp. 547–565. https://doi.org/10.2514/8.11853, URL http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/8.11853

    work page doi:10.2514/8.11853 1949

  79. [79]

    The Problem of Aerodynamic Heating,

    van Driest, E. R., “The Problem of Aerodynamic Heating,”Aeronautical Engineering Review, Vol. 15, No. 10, 1956, pp. 26 – 41

    1956

  80. [80]

    Downstream influence scaling of turbulent flow past expansion corners,

    Lu, F. K., and Chung, K. M., “Downstream influence scaling of turbulent flow past expansion corners,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 12, 1992, pp. 2976–2997. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.48983

    work page doi:10.2514/3.48983 1992

Showing first 80 references.