Visualization of hypersonic incident shock wave boundary layer interaction

  • Zhang QinghuEmail author
  • Zhu Zhiwei
  • Lin Jingzhou
  • Xie Futian
  • Zhong Jun
Regular Paper


The incident shock interactions with the hypersonic laminar and forced turbulent boundary layer are visualized by the planar laser scattering technique. The effect of interaction strength on flow structures is also investigated. The results show that the boundary layer shape has been greatly altered by the incident shock. In both the laminar and turbulent inflows, the boundary layer thickness has an abrupt decrease at the interaction region. In laminar inflow, the boundary layer transition rapidly takes place due to the incident shock. The greater the incident shock angle, the bigger the boundary layer thickness downstream the incident shock. In turbulent inflow, the thickness downstream the shock is less than that of the inflow. Fractal analysis is firstly carried on hypersonic shock boundary layer interaction. The effect of the shock angle and inflow condition on fractal dimension is studied. The results indicate that with the stronger shock, the fractal dimension value is bigger for both laminar and forced turbulent inflows.

Graphic abstract


Shock boundary layer interaction Flow visualization Hypersonic 



This study was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2019YFA0405301) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11502280).


  1. Babinsky H, Harvey JK (2011) Shock wave-boundary-layer interactions, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gaitonde DV (2013) Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions. AIAA paper, pp 2013–2607Google Scholar
  3. Guiho F, Alizard F, Robinet J-C (2016) Instabilities in oblique shock wave/laminar boundary-layer interactions. J Fluid Mech 789:1–35MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Humble RA, Scarano F, Oudheusden BW (2009) Unsteady aspects of an incident shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. J Fluid Mech 635:47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Humble RA, Peltier SJ, Bowersox RDW (2012) Visualization of the structural response of a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer to convex curvature. Phys Fluid 24:106103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hyungrok D, Seong-kyun I, Godfrey M, Mark AC (2011) Visualizing supersonic inlet duct unstart using planar laser Rayleigh scattering. Exp Fluids 50:1654–1657Google Scholar
  7. Louis JS, Pierre D, Jean-Francois D, Jean-Paul D (2010) Effect of interaction strength on unsteadiness in turbulent shock-wave-induced separations. AIAA J 48(7):1480–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sreenivasan KR (1991) Fractals and multifractals in turbulence. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 23:539–600MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sreenivasan KR, Meneveau C (1986) The fractal facets of turbulence. J Fluid Mech 173:357–386MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wu Y, Yi SH, He L, Chen Z, Zhu YZ (2015) Flow visualization of Mach 3 compression ramp with different upstream boundary layers. J Vis 18(3):631–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhao YX, Yi SH, Tian LF, He L, Chen ZY (2008) The fractal measurement of experimental images of supersonic turbulent mixing layer. Sci China Ser G Phys Mech Astron 51:1134–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Visualization Society of Japan 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hypervelocity Aerodynamics Institute of China Aerodynamics Research and Development CenterMianyangChina

Personalised recommendations