AIAA JOURNAL

Vol. 31, No. 9, September 1993

Skin Friction and Velocity Profile Family for Compressible

Turbulent Boundary Layers
P. G. Huang*
Eloret Institute, Palo Alto, California 94303
P. Bradshawf
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
and
T. J. CoakleyJ
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035

The paper presents a general approach to constructing mean velocity profiles for compressible turbulent
boundary layers with isothermal or adiabatic walls. The theory is based on a density-weighted transformation
that allows the extension of the incompressible similarity laws of the wall to the compressible regions. The
velocity profile family is compared to a range of experimental data, and excellent agreement is obtained. A
self-consistent skin friction law, which satisfies the proposed velocity profile family, is derived and compared
with the well-known Van Driest II theory for boundary layers in zero pressure gradient. The results are found
to be at least as good as those obtained by using the Van Driest II transformation.

I. Introduction
A change in the effective Prandtl number in the sublayer
I N a careful evaluation of compressible turbulent boundary
layer data, Fernholz and Finley1 have concluded that the
incompressible law of the wall is preserved when the velocity
simply changes the constant of integration, here equal to Tw:
Eq. (4) seems to be an adequate fit to data. Equation (4)
profile is transformed using Van Driest's extension of the establishes the relationship between Tw and qw/rw.
mixing length formula. In compressible flow the usual loga- Since the pressure in the boundary layer is independent of y ,
rithmic part of law of the wall becomes the density ratio appearing in Eq. (2) can be replaced by the
temperature ratio, which can be obtained from Eq. (4). The
Van Driest transformation yields
+c (1)

where UT = Vrw /pw; y + = uTy/pw; K « 0.41 is the von Karman

constant; Cis chosen to be the same as its incompressible flow
counterpart, 5.2, and this choice is supported by the experi- where
mental data;1 and finally Uc is the transformed velocity2 de-
fined by A =

B = 2cpTw/Prt
±}\u (2)

Near a solid surface, convection can be neglected, and if we

also assume T = TW , the energy equation can be integrated with Or, one may also express the transformation in terms of the
respect to y to give inverse of Eq. (5)

q = qw + UTW (3) U 1 . /RUC\ I" (RUX\

— = - sinl —— ) - H 1 - cosl —— 1 (6)
UT R \ur / L \UT J\
By substituting q - - dj,tcp/Prt)(dT/dy) and TW = i*t(dU/dy)
into Eq. (3) and assuming that the effective Prandtl number in where
the viscous sublayer is equal to Prt9 one may integrate Eq. (3)
with respect to U to obtain R = uT
PrtqwU PrtU2 H = A/uT
T — J.Tw —
2 — (4)
In the present work, the turbulent Prandtl number Prt is
assumed to be 0.9, and Eq. (4) implies that the recovery factor
r is also 0.9 because the adiabatic wall temperature is defined
by
Received Nov. 6, 1992; revision received Feb. 8, 1993; accepted for
publication Feb. 16, 1993. This paper is declared a work of the U.S.
Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United
States.
*Research Scientist; mailing address: NASA Ames Research Cen-
ter, Moffett Field, CA 94035. Senior Member AIAA. Equations (5) or (6), with Uc given by Eq. (1), apply only to
tProfessor, Department of Mechanical Engineering. the log-law region. However, Eqs. (5) or (6) can be used
^Research Scientist. Associate Fellow AIAA. formally throughout the layer, in general giving a Uc profile
1600
 HUANG, BRADSHAW, COAKLEY: COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS 1601

that deviates from Eq. (1) in the outer layer and in the viscous tion for Re9> 1000. For Ree< 1000, the prediction gives higher
sublayer. To do this, we have applied Coles' law of the wake3 c/than the correlation, corresponding to the lower values pf II
for the outer regions and included a Van Driest type of mix- in the experimental data. But drawing firm conclusions is
ing-length damping4 for the viscous sublayer. Equation (1) can difficult because the difference between the present prediction
therefore be replaced by and the von Karman-Schoenherr correlation is within the
likely error of the data. It is interesting to note that at
(8) Ree = 300, the von Karman-Schoenherr correlation gives al-
most the same skin-friction value as the direct numerical simu-
lation of Spalart.7 However, Spalart (private communication)
Here, the w-function is an assumed wake profile for which we points out that at this low Reynolds number the simulation,
adopted the suggested formula by Coles,3 w(rj) = 2 sin2(r?II/ just like an experiment, may still be affected by the upstream
2); II is a wake parameter, which Fernholz and Finley1 sug- conditions. The predicted velocity profile at Ree = 300 also
gested is nearly independent of Mach number if expressed as a agrees very well with the simulation, as shown in Fig. 2. It
function of the empirically-chosen Reynolds number Re82 should be noted that, at this Ree, the wake component in the
= Ree(ne/v>w) = peUed/iJiw based on the viscosity at the wall; buffer layer is significant, giving rise to a profile slope in the
and U*b is a pure law-of-the-wall profile defined by
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

log-law region larger than I/AC. It is of course fortuitous that

Coles' "sin2" wake profile gives good agreement with the
(9) simulation in this region: the "law of the wake" is a curve fit
dy+ and does not really contain any physics.
where When extending Eq. (8) to compressible flow, we have
found that except for Watson's8 Mach 11 helium flow case, in
which Re82 is less than 1000, the two II functions produce
almost identical results. Thus, unless otherwise stated, only
For A + = 25.53, it asymptotes to Eq. (1). results obtained using the II function satisfying the von
Although the viscous sublayer is neglected in Coles' original Karman-Schoenherr correlation will be reported in the follow-
proposal for Eq. (8), we found that it is important to include ing.
the sublayer contribution for high-speed flows because it be- Hopkins and Inouye9 concluded that the Van Driest II
comes thicker and may occupy a substantial portion of the skin-friction formula is the best of those they compared. Since
whole boundary layer at hypersonic Mach number. However, then, the formula has been used as a benchmark to compare
sublayer data for compressible flows are scarce, especially for compressible turbulence models. Van Driest II is based on
large heat transfer rates (large density gradients) where the the assumption that the mixing length follows the Karman
empirical Van Driest exponential damping function may be hypothesis
inadequate. Therefore, we cannot claim detailed reliability of
our profile family in the sublayer, but it is probably adequate dU/dy
(12)
for calculations of integral thickness, certainly for evaluating d2U/dy2
ReQ. Note also that, because the temperature near the wall is
very high for high Mach number flow, Re82 is usually low
enough to be in the range where H depends on Reynolds 0.8
number in low-speed flow.
With II as a free parameter, the profile can be used to fit
experimental data or as the basis of an "integral" calculation 0.6
method, both for arbitrary pressure gradients. Once II is spec- • O s

ified in zero pressure gradient, Eq. (8), evaluated at y = 5, T.

gives a skin-friction law. In this work, we have used two ways C 0.4
to define the II function. The first way is to choose the II
O data
function directly from a curve fit to the data assembled by
—— Cebeci and Smith's n correlation
Coles.5 Cebeci and Smith6 recommended the following curve 0.2 - — predicted from K-S cf correlation
fitting formula:
= 0.55[1 - exp( - 0.24 V/te, - 0.298 Ree)] (10) I
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
The second way to derive the II function is to require Eq. (8),
3
evaluated aty =6, to agree with a standard skin-friction cor- a) II function Re e x1(T
relation (in incompressible flow). This of course means that
inaccuracies in velocity profile measurement are unimportant,
and may be the better approach, particularly if one's main
interest is in predicting skin friction rather than velocity pro-
files. Note also that the accuracy of the measured II function
depends on accurate measurement of the skin friction. Here,
we have chosen the von Karman-Schoenherr skin-friction for-
mula,
cf = 1/[17.08 (Iog10 Red? + 25.11 Iog10 Ree + 6.012] (11) o experimental data
O direct simulation
The comparison of the II functions with experimental data • K-S cf correlation
is shown in Fig. la. The II function predicted using the von — — Predicted from Cebeci and Smith's n Correlation
Karman-Schoenherr skin friction correlation seems to fall
within the experimental data bounds for Reynolds numbers
larger than 1000. Figure Ib shows the variations of skin fric- 103 104
tion Cf with momentum thickness Reynolds number Ree in an b) skin friction Re«
incompressible zero-pressure-gradient boundary-layer flow. It
can be seen that the c/prediction using II defined by Eq. (10) Fig. 1 Comparison of the two II functions. Error bars derived from
agrees very closely with the von Karman-Schoenherr correla- data plotted by Coles.5
 1602 HUANG, BRADSHAW, COAKLEY: COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS

20 tion prediction, should perhaps be considered. Such an ap-

proach is outlined in the following.

15 o Direct Simulation II. Skin Friction Algorithm

—— Eqn (8) with K-S n The foundation of the present approach is derived from the
experimental evidence that the law of the wall and the law of
b 10 the wake are transferable from incompressible flow to com-
pressible flow, provided that the velocity is defined by the
density-weighted transformation, Eq. (5), and the wake pa-
rameter II is correlated with Re&2. In other words, Eq. (8) is
considered as a general velocity profile for all zero-pressure-
gradient turbulent boundary-layer flows. To obtain cf and a
corresponding boundary-layer thickness d for a given Re8* [or
Ree—for hypersonic flow experiments, it has been argued that
the calculated displacement thicknesses are found to be less
sensitive to the choice of d and thus of Ue\ however, momen-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

tum thicknesses may sometimes be very sensitive (C. C.

Fig. 2 Mean velocity profiles at Ree = 300, compared with direct Horstman; private communication, Watson9) the following
numerical simulation. iterative procedure needs to be performed:
1) Given 6* (or 0), guess 6*/6, 0/S* and UT (or 0/6 and UT).
2) Calculate Red2 = peUed/nw and find II from Fig. la.
In the log-law region of an incompressible boundary layer, 3) Calculate y8+ = uT5/vw and obtain Uji from Eq. (8).
Eq. (12) reduces to Prandtl mixing length, / = /cy. But, for a 4) Obtain the nontransformed dimensionless velocity C/6+
compressible boundary layer, it can be shown that the Karman from Eq. (6).
length-scale assumption leads to a log region for variables Uc+ 5) Update uT=Ue/Ud+ and solve for cf = 2 (Te/Tw)(ur/
and yc+ , where Uc+ is defined by Eq. (2) and yc+ is a trans- Ue)2.
formed coordinate defined as 6) Tabulate U as a function of 77 ( = y /6) using Eqs. (8) and
(6).
(13) 7) Update 6V6 and 0/6* (or 0/6) by performing the follow-
ing integrations numerically:
In contrast, the experimental evidence suggests a log-law rela- U
tion between Uc+ and^ + , not yc+, indicating that the Prandtl
mixing length formula still holds even for high Mach number
flows. This observation is also reflected in the work of Coak-
6*
ley and Huang10 in evaluating several turbulence models for
hypersonic flows. They found that under the strongly cooled 6
i-^u,
wall conditions, models that predict skin friction in agreement
with Van Driest II tend not to follow the compressible law of where p/pe is replaced by Te/T with T obtained from Eq. (4).
the wall, and the models that predict lower skin friction than Steps 1 to 7 are repeated until the solution converges.
Van Driest II do better on velocity profiles. There is clearly an
inconsistency between the Van Driest II theory and the com- III. Results and Discussion
pressible law of the wall outlined above. For a more extensive Figure 3 shows comparisons of skin friction at Ree = 10,000
theoretical discussion of law-of-the-wall/law-of-the-wake for an air flow over an insulated surface, for Mach numbers
matching in compressible flow see Barn well,11 who uses the ranging from 0 to 10. At M = 0, both the present prediction
Prandtl formulation. and the Van Driest II formula reduce to the von Karman-
Bradshaw12 secured good agreement with Van Driest II skin Schoenherr skin-friction formula. As Mach number increases,
friction by allowing the constant Cin Eq. (1) to vary according the present method predicts higher skin friction than the Van
to the frictional Mach number and the wall heat transfer Driest II theory; at M = 10, it is nearly 13% higher. Since for
parameter, WT/CW and qw/(pwcpuTTw), respectively. This ap- a fixed Ree-, the value of y + at the edge of the boundary layer
proach, termed "Van Driest III" by Bradshaw, can be consid- yd+ decreases rapidly as Mach number increases, comparisons
ered as a reconciliation of the law of the wall and the Van are also presented for results obtained for a fixed y^ equal to
Driest II theory. Unfortunately, the value of C would have to
increase from 5.2 to about 6.4 for a Mach 5 flow over an
insulated plate at Ree = 10,000. This drastic change of C is not 4U __ i i. i .1 | i i i . | i . i i |- , , ,1
1 ' ' ' ' -
supported by the experimental evidence in Fernholz and Fin- O experimental data
ley's review. Another way to force the compressible law of the I ——— Ree » 1 0,000, K-S n
wall to predict Van Driest II skin friction is to alter the o 20 — ----- Ree * 10,000, Coles FI -
strength of the wake component. For a Mach 10 flow over an — — y% » 3,500, K-S 11
insulated plate and a moderate small Reynolds number, ; _J^1^^^^^^^" ••
Re&2 = 1700 (corresponding to Ree = 10,000 at room tempera- 0 x o ^
ture), it can be shown that to satisfy the law of the wall and at 5
the same time be able to match the Van Driest II prediction, II d" -• . •
in Eq. (8) has to be 0.73—a value much larger than the S" -20 _ air _
incompressible asymptotic value. This again is not supported
by the experimental evidence shown in Fernholz and Finley.1
The Van Driest II theory was based on very weak physical .AH " i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i , 1 , , . i '
arguments. Its popularity is entirely rooted in its success in 10
correlating experimental data, traceable at least as far back as
1971. Since there is an inconsistency between the theory and Mach
the compressible law of the wall, a new approach, deviating Fig. 3 Effect of Mach number on predictions of adiabatic-wall skin
from Van Driest II theory but still securing a good skin-fric- friction. Data from review by Hopkins and Inouye.9
 HUANG, BRADSHAW, COAKLEY: COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS 1603

3500, a value corresponding to that of an incompressible flow

at Ree = 10,000. As can be seen from the figure, the higher O experiments
level of skin friction prediction is almost insensitive to the ----- Ree-10,000, M - 2
choice of Ree, indicating that the present prediction and the •Re e - 10,000, M - 5
Van Driest theory behave in a similar fashion when subject to
the change of Reynolds number. The skin-friction values ob-
tained based on Coles' II function, or Eq. (10), are also shown
in the figure and they are almost the same as the ones obtained
using the II function defined by the von Karman-Schoenherr
skin-friction correlation. Finally, it is important to point out
that the maximum Mach number for the data used in Hopkins
and Inouye's9 comparison is only about 6. These data are also
presented in the figure for comparison, and one may argue
that the present method is at least as good as the Van Driest II
formula.
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

To further compare the present method and the Van Driest

II theory in the hypersonic range, we use the data of Watson,8
who measured skin friction and mean flow properties indepen- Fig. 5 Effect of wall-temperature ratio on predictions of skin fric-
dently for helium flows with M « 11 at the boundary-layer tion. Data from review by Hopkins and Inouye.9
edge (the title of the paper quotes a reference Mach number).
In Watson's experiments, the surface was slightly heated with predictions of skin friction at Ree = 10,000 for helium in near
Tw/Taw « 1.05. Figure 4a shows the effect of Mach number on adiabatic-wall conditions. Compared to the air flow results
shown in Fig. 3, the helium flow results shown in Fig. 4a
indicate a larger difference in the skin-friction values predicted
40
using the two II functions in high Mach numbers. The differ-
I ' ' ' ' I '
—— K-sn ence in the skin-friction predictions is also reflected in the
— — Coles n comparisons of the local skin-friction and velocity profiles,
shown in Figs. 4b and 4c, respectively. In Figs. 4b and 4c, the
results were obtained by prescribing the experimental
freestream conditions. Since Watson commented that his val-
Helium
ues of 5* were more reliable than values of 0, the calculations
§ were performed with the experimental 6*. As shown in the
cT Ree =» 104
S" -20 figure, predictions of both skin-friction and velocity profiles
(a) skin friction vs. Mach number
using the II function defined by the von Karman-Schoenherr
skin-friction correlation agree very well with the experiments.
I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . I ..
-40
2.5 5.0
The disagreement of the skin-friction prediction at Rex =
7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
21 x 106 is because the experiment at this Rex is still laminar.
a) Mach On the other hand, the skin-friction values obtained by using
Coles' II function appear to be higher than the experimental
data, and the velocity profiles obtained using Coles' II func-
4.0 tion are also not as good as the ones obtained using the II
function defined by the von Karman-Schoenherr skin-friction
3.5
correlation. The Van Driest II prediction based on the experi-
3.0 Van Driest II __ mentally reported Ree is also presented in the figure, and the
results show too low a level of skin friction, similar to that in
2.5 Fig. 4a.
Our predictions for nonadiabatic flat plates in air are pre-
2.0 sented in Fig. 5. The experimental data used by Hopkins and
(b) skin friction vs. Rex
Inouye are also shown in the figure, with the experimental
1.5
Mach numbers ranging from 3 to 7.5. To compare with the
1.0
. . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . - experimental data, the results are presented for three Mach
20 40 60 80 100 numbers: 2, 5, and 10. Figure 5 shows in general that the
b) present method predicts higher levels of c/than those obtained
by the Van Driest II theory at high Tw/TaW9 whereas at
strongly cooled wall conditions the skin friction predicted by
the present method is lower. The overprediction of the skin
friction compared with Van Driest II theory for high Tw/Taw
has been discussed previously and is supported by Watson's
experiments. The tendency of the present calculated skin fric-
tion to fall below the Van Driest II predictions in strongly
A Re x -31.8x10 6 cooled conditions also seems to be supported by the experi-
a Re x »72.8x10 6 mental data.
O Rex-104.5 x106 Hopkins et al.13 have made some direct measurements of
K-SFI
skin friction and velocity profiles for M = 6 to 7.8 at Tw/
Taw = 0.3 to 0.5 (see Fig. 6a) and concluded that the Van
Driest II theory gave the most satisfactory skin friction predic-
tions among all the theories they investigated. Figure 5 shows
that the present method is almost identical to the Van Driest II
C) theory in this range of wall temperature ratio. To further
confirm the ability of the present method to predict velocity
Fig. 4 Comparison with Watson's Mach 11 data: a) skin friction vs profiles on cooled flat plates, we have chosen Hopkins et
Mach number; b) skin friction vs Rex; and c) velocity. al.'s13 and Albertson and Ash's14 experiments for compar-
 1604 HUANG, BRADSHAW, COAKLEY: COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS

~i—I—i—i—i—r isons. Albertson and Ash's experiment is for a Mach 5 flow

with Tw/Taw «0.18. Under these flow conditions, shown in
Fig. 5, one would expect to see differences in the skin-friction
predictions between the present method and the Van Driest II
theory. Unfortunately, they did not measure the skin friction,
and the only relevant comparisons are with velocity profile
10
shape. Figure 6 shows the comparison of the shape factors
H = d*/0 of the present method with the experimental values.
Agreement with both experiments is excellent.
Last, a comparison with recent measurements by Kussoy
0.5
and Horstman15 is presented. The experiment is for a Mach
8.2 boundary layer in zero pressure gradient, with Tw/Taw
^ 0.28. Both velocity and temperature are deduced from inde-
6 7 pendent total and static pressure and total temperature sur-
a) Mach veys, and Ue is taken as the value of U at y « 2.7 cm. Figure
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

7 shows the comparison of the velocity and temperature pro-

10i i i i i files for 5* = 1.59 cm. Again, the comparison with the experi-
mental data is very good. In addition, the present method
successfully predicts the skin friction, the heat transfer Stan-
ton number, and the momentum thickness, as shown in the
panel of Fig. 7b.
- —°^°-s0—s- —— — — '~ -a- — - - Concluding Remarks
A self-consistent method to predict skin friction and veloc-
ity profiles of compressible boundary layers with zero pressure
Prediction gradient is presented. The method has been shown to give
excellent predictions when compared to experimental data. In
— — M = 5.1,Taw/Tw = 4. the Mach number range of the data used in the early 1970s to
establish the Van Driest II theory as the preferred method, the
present method predicts skin friction nearly as well as Van
10 Driest II. It has the advantage that low-Reynolds-number
b) Re e x10' 3 effects on the "wake" profile shape are taken into account. At
higher Mach numbers on adiabatic walls, the present method
Fig. 6 Shape parameter //: comparison with a) data of Hopkins et predicts higher values of skin friction than Van Driest II and
al. and b) data of Albertson and Ash. (Here, Ree is evaluated from seems to agree better with recent Mach 11 helium flow data.
fluid properties at a reference temperature given by Albertson and On the other hand, the present skin friction predictions fall
Ash.14) below Van Driest II on strongly cooled walls, which again
gives a better fit to the data.
o o References
1.0 ^ernholz, H. H., and Finley, P. J., "A Critical Commentary on
Mean Flow Data for Two-Dimensional Compressible Turbulent
0.8 Boundary Layers," AGARD-AG-253, 1980.
2
Van Driest, E. R., "Turbulent Boundary Layer in Compressible
Fluids," Journal of Aeronautical Science, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1951, pp.
ID® °-6 145-160.
o experimental data 3
Coles, D., "The Law of the Wake in the Turbulent Boundary
—— prediction Layers," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 1, July, 1956, pp.
0.4
191-226.
4
Van Driest, E. R. "On Turbulent Flow Near a Wall," Journal of
0.2 Aeronautical Science, Vol. 23, No. 11, 1956, pp. 1007-1011 and 1036.
5
Coles, D., "The Turbulent Boundary Layer in a Compressible
Fluid," RAND Corp. Rept. R-403-PR, 1962.
6
2 3 Cebeci, T., and Smith, A. M. O., Analysis of Turbulent Boundary
a) V (cm) Layers, Academic Press, New York, 1974, p. 221.
7
Spalart, P. R., "Direct Simulation of a Turbulent Boundary Layer
Up To Re = 1410," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 187, Feb. 1988,
6 pp. 61-98.
8
Watson, R. D., "Characteristics of Mach 10 Transitional and
Exp. Cal. Turbulent Boundary Layers," NASA TP-1243, 1978.
5 c 9
Hopkins, E. J., and Inouye, M., "An Evaluation of Theories for
f
st
9.88-4
5.3e-4
9.8416-4
5.467e-4 Predicting Turbulent Skin Friction and Heat Transfer on Flat Plates
6(cm) 0.094 0.09491 at Supersonic and Hypersonic Mach Number," AIAA Journal, Vol.
9, No. 6, 1971, pp. 993-1003.
10
Coakley, T. J., and Huang, P. G., "Turbulence Modeling for
High Speed Flows," AIAA Paper 92-0436, Reno, NV, Jan. 1992.
n
Barnwell, R. W., "Nonadiabatic and Three-Dimensional Effects
in Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers," AIAA Journal, Vol.
30, No. 4, 1992, pp. 897-904.
12
Bradshaw, P., "An Improved Van Driest Skin-Friction Formula
for Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers," AIAA Journal, Vol.
15, No. 2, 1977, pp. 212-214.
13
1 2 3 4 5 Hopkins, E. J., Keener, E. R., Polek, T. E., and Dwyer, H. A.,
> y(cm) "Hypersonic Turbulent Skin-Friction and Boundary-Layer Profiles
on Nonadiabatic Flat Plates," AIAA Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1972,
Fig. 7 Comparison with Kussoy and Horstman Mach 8.2 data. pp. 40-48.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jie Yao, Fazle Hussain. 2020. Turbulence statistics and coherent structures in compressible channel flow. Physical Review
Fluids 5:8. . [Crossref]
2. P. S. R. Touré, E. Schülein. 2020. Scaling for steady and traveling shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions.
Experiments in Fluids 61:7. . [Crossref]
3. Oğuz ŞİMŞEK. 2020. Farklı Akım Koşullarına Sahip Açık Kanal Akımının Sayısal Modellemesi. Türk Doğa ve Fen
Dergisi 91-100. [Crossref]
4. Oğuz ŞİMŞEK, Hüseyin İŞLEK, M. Sami AKÖZ. 2020. Ağ Elemanı Özelliklerinin Sayısal Model Sonuçları Üzerine
Etkisinin Belirlenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 195-210. [Crossref]
5. Soshi Kawai, Yoshihito Oikawa. 2020. Turbulence Modeling for Turbulent Boundary Layers at Supercritical Pressure:
A Model for Turbulent Mass Flux. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 104:2-3, 625-641. [Crossref]
6. Francisco-Javier Granados-Ortiz, Joaquin Ortega-Casanova, Choi-Hong Lai. 2019. Two-step numerical simulation of the
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

heat transfer from a flat plate to a swirling jet flow from a rotating pipe. International Journal of Numerical Methods for
Heat & Fluid Flow 30:1, 143-175. [Crossref]
7. Abdolrahim Rezaeiha, Hamid Montazeri, Bert Blocken. 2019. On the accuracy of turbulence models for CFD simulations
of vertical axis wind turbines. Energy 180, 838-857. [Crossref]
8. M.Z. Li, Y.P. He, Y.D. Liu, C. Huang. 2018. Effect of interaction of particles with different sizes on particle kinetics in
multi-sized slurry transport by pipeline. Powder Technology 338, 915-930. [Crossref]
9. Patrice S. Touré, Erich Schuelein. Numerical and experimental study of nominal 2-D Shock-Wave / Turbulent Boundary
Layer Interactions . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
10. N.L. Scuro, E. Angelo, G. Angelo, D.A. Andrade. 2018. A CFD analysis of the flow dynamics of a directly-operated
safety relief valve. Nuclear Engineering and Design 328, 321-332. [Crossref]
11. Xiaofeng Guo, Caixia Chen. 2017. Simulating the impacts of internals on gas–liquid hydrodynamics of bubble column.
Chemical Engineering Science 174, 311-325. [Crossref]
12. L. Sciacovelli, P. Cinnella, X. Gloerfelt. 2017. Direct numerical simulations of supersonic turbulent channel flows of
dense gases. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 821, 153-199. [Crossref]
13. Patrice S. Touré, Erich Schuelein. Study of 2-D Shock-Wave / Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
14. Bin Wu, Weitao Bi, Fazle Hussain, Zhen-Su She. 2017. On the invariant mean velocity profile for compressible turbulent
boundary layers. Journal of Turbulence 18:2, 186-202. [Crossref]
15. Josep Grau-Bové, Matija Strlič, Luca Mazzei. 2016. Applicability of a drift-flux model of aerosol deposition in a test
tunnel and an indoor heritage environment. Building and Environment 106, 78-90. [Crossref]
16. Robin Y. Cash, Edward Lumsdaine, Apoorv Talekar, Bashar AbdulNour. An Experimental and Computational
Investigation of Water Condensation inside the Tubes of an Automotive Compact Charge Air Cooler . [Crossref]
17. Timothy Leger, Nicholas Bisek, Jonathan Poggie. 2016. Computations of Turbulent Flow over a Sharp Fin at Mach 5.
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer 30:2, 394-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
18. Yibin Zhang, Nathan Calvert, Arthur Dogariu, Richard B. Miles. Towards shear flow measurements using FLEET .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
19. Liu-xi Cai, Shun-sen Wang, Jing-ru Mao, Juan Di, Zhen-ping Feng. 2015. The influence of nozzle chamber structure
and partial-arc admission on the erosion characteristics of solid particles in the control stage of a supercritical steam
turbine. Energy 82, 341-352. [Crossref]
20. A. Hadjadj, O. Ben-Nasr, M.S. Shadloo, A. Chaudhuri. 2015. Effect of wall temperature in supersonic turbulent
boundary layers: A numerical study. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 81, 426-438. [Crossref]
21. Nicholas J. Georgiadis, Christopher L. Rumsey, George P. Huang. Revisiting Turbulence Model Validation for High-
Mach Number Axisymmetric Compression Corner Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
22. J.D. Zhu, H. Chen. 2015. Numerical Study on Enhanced Heat Transfer by Twisted Tape Inserts inside Tubes. Procedia
Engineering 130, 256-262. [Crossref]
23. Shui-chang Liu, Zheng-qi Gu, Li-fu Li, Yong Zhang, Wan-dong ZHAO. Performance Calculation of a Vehicle Radiator
Group Based on CFD Simulation with Modified Standard Functions . [Crossref]
24. G.C.Y. Lam, R.C.K. Leung, S.K. Tang. 2014. Aeroacoustics of duct junction flows merging at different angles. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 333:18, 4187-4202. [Crossref]
25. Xavier Gloerfelt, Florent Margnat. Effect of Mach number on boundary layer noise . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 26. Timothy J. Leger, Jonathan Poggie. Computational Analysis of Shock Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
27. W. Schleicher, H. Ma, J. Riglin, Z. Kraybill, W. Wei, R. Klein, A. Oztekin. 2014. Characteristics of a micro-hydro
turbine. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 6:1, 013119. [Crossref]
28. Yang Yan Zheng, Yi Ning Wang, Qun Hui Lu, Biao Yuan. 2013. Simulation Study of Strengthening Heat Transfer of
Heat Exchanger with Notched Turbolator. Applied Mechanics and Materials 448-453, 1278-1283. [Crossref]
29. Saravana Kumar. Pressure-based Coupled Simulation of Pressure Recovery and Distortion in an S-Duct . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
30. G. C. Y. Lam, R. C. K. Leung, S. K. Tang. 2013. Aeroacoustics of T-junction merging flow. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 133:2, 697-708. [Crossref]
31. Amalia Moutsopoulou, Georgios E. Stavroulakis, Anastasios Pouliezos. Systematic Formulation of Model Uncertainties
and Robust Control in Smart Structures Using H ∞ and μ-Analysis 179-202. [Crossref]
32. Qun Hui Lu, Yang Yan Zheng, Biao Yuan. 2012. A Simulative Study on the Impact of Physical Property Parametersupon
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

Flow and Heat Transfer in Annular Space. Advanced Materials Research 516-517, 858-865. [Crossref]
33. Ying Wang, Qunhui Lu, Yangyan Zheng, Biao Yuan, Hanzhong Tao. A CFD-Based Analysis on Trends of Heat
Exchanger Fouling 1-4. [Crossref]
34. K.A. Hafez, O.A. Elsamni, K.Y. Zakaria. 2011. Numerical investigation of the fully developed turbulent flow over a
moving wavy wall using k–ε turbulence model. Alexandria Engineering Journal 50:2, 145-162. [Crossref]
35. C. Bellecci, P. Gaudio, I. Lupelli, A. Malizia, M.T. Porfiri, R. Quaranta, M. Richetta. 2011. Loss of vacuum accident
(LOVA): Comparison of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) flow velocities against experimental data for the model
validation. Fusion Engineering and Design 86:4-5, 330-340. [Crossref]
36. C. Bellecci, P. Gaudio, I. Lupelli, A. Malizia, M.T. Porfiri, R. Quaranta, M. Richetta. 2011. STARDUST experimental
campaign and numerical simulations: influence of obstacles and temperature on dust resuspension in a vacuum vessel
under LOVA. Nuclear Fusion 51:5, 053017. [Crossref]
37. Chien-Hua Chen, Paul D. Ronney. 2011. Three-dimensional effects in counterflow heat-recirculating combustors.
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33:2, 3285-3291. [Crossref]
38. D.A. Köse, E. Dick. 2010. Prediction of the pressure distribution on a cubical building with implicit LES. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 98:10-11, 628-649. [Crossref]
39. S-S Wang, J-R Mao, G-W Liu, Z-P Feng. 2010. Reduction of Solid-Particle Erosion on the Control-Stage Nozzle of
a Steam Turbine through Improved End-Wall Contouring. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C:
Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 224:10, 2199-2210. [Crossref]
40. S-S Wang, J-R Mao, G-W Liu, Z-P Feng. 2010. Performance deterioration of the governing stage nozzle caused by solid
particle erosion in the steam turbine. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and
Energy 224:2, 279-292. [Crossref]
41. Christopher L. Rumsey. 2010. Compressibility Considerations for k-w Turbulence Models in Hypersonic Boundary-
Layer Applications. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 47:1, 11-20. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
42. Olivier Cabrit, Franck Nicoud. 2009. Direct simulations for wall modeling of multicomponent reacting compressible
turbulent flows. Physics of Fluids 21:5, 055108. [Crossref]
43. Konstantin Kurbatskii. Comparison of RANS Turbulence Models in Numerical Prediction of Chevron Nozzle Jet Flows .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
44. Patrick Gnemmi, Reza Adeli, José Longo. Computational Comparisons of the Interaction of a Lateral Jet on a Supersonic
Generic Missile . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
45. T.I.P. Shih. 2008. Control of Shock-Wave/Bound-Layer Interactions by Bleed. International Journal of Fluid Machinery
and Systems 1:1, 24-32. [Crossref]
46. Kunlun Liu, Richard H. Pletcher. 2007. A fractional step method for solving the compressible Navier–Stokes equations.
Journal of Computational Physics 226:2, 1930-1951. [Crossref]
47. Neil Zuckerman, Noam Lior. 2007. Radial Slot Jet Impingement Flow and Heat Transfer on a Cylindrical Target. Journal
of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer 21:3, 548-561. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
48. Eric C. Marineau, Joseph A. Schetz, Reece E. Neel. 2007. Turbulent Navier-Stokes Simulations of Heat Transfer with
Complex Wall Temperature Variations. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer 21:3, 525-535. [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
49. Kunlun Liu, Richard H. Pletcher. 2007. Compressibility and Variable Density Effects in Turbulent Boundary layers.
Journal of Heat Transfer 129:4, 441-448. [Crossref]
 50. Christopher J. Roy, Frederick G. Blottner. 2006. Review and assessment of turbulence models for hypersonic flows.
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 42:7-8, 469-530. [Crossref]
51. Eric Marineau, Joseph Schetz, Reece Neel. Turbulent Navier-Stokes Simulations of Heat Transfer with Complex Wall
Temperature Variations . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
52. Tian-Hong Yan, Rong-Ming Lin. 2006. General optimization of sizes or placement for various sensors/actuators in
structure testing and control. Smart Materials and Structures 15:3, 724-736. [Crossref]
53. Konstantin Kurbatskii, Federico Montanari. Application of Two Moving Mesh Methods to the Problem of Unsteady
Transonic Flow Over Oscillatory Pitching Airfoil . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
54. Patrick Gnemmi, Hans Schäfer. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of a Transverse Jet Interaction on a Missile
Body . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
55. Jianbo ZHANG, Etsuo MORISHITA. 2004. An Efficient Way of Specifying Profile Inflow Boundary Conditions.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE JAPAN SOCIETY FOR AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES 47:156, 90-98.
[Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820

56. P. Gnemmi, J. Srulijes, K. Roussel, K. Runne. 2003. Flowfield Around Spike-Tipped Bodies for High Attack Angles at
Mach 4.5. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 40:5, 622-631. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
57. Julio Srulijes, Patrick Gnemmi, Kay Runne, Friedrich Seiler. High-Pressure Shock Tunnel Experiments and CFD
Calculations on Spike-Tipped Blunt Bodies . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
58. Q Wang, S T Quek, C T Sun, X Liu. 2001. Analysis of piezoelectric coupled circular plate. Smart Materials and Structures
10:2, 229-239. [Crossref]
59. Q Wang, C M Wang. 2000. Optimal placement and size of piezoelectric patches on beams from the controllability
perspective. Smart Materials and Structures 9:4, 558-567. [Crossref]
60. Q Wang, S T Quek. 2000. Flexural vibration analysis of sandwich beam coupled with piezoelectric actuator. Smart
Materials and Structures 9:1, 103-109. [Crossref]
61. D. Benson, T. Shih, D. Davis, B. Willis. Boundary conditions for CFD simulations of supersonic boundary-layer flow
through discrete holes . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
62. A. Flores, C. Amon, T. Shih, D. Davis, B. Willis. Boundary-layer bleed through micro holes . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
63. Joseph G Marvin, George P Huang. 1998. Status and future directions for turbulence modelling. Sadhana 23:5-6,
481-503. [Crossref]
64. R. M. C. So, T. B. Gatski, T. P. Sommer. 1998. Morkovin Hypothesis and the Modeling of Wall-Bounded Compressible
Turbulent Flows. AIAA Journal 36:9, 1583-1592. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
65. S. Catris, B. Aupoix. Improved turbulence models for compressible boundary layers . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
66. R. Arina, F. Ramella. Numerical Simulation of Shock Reflection with a Compressible K — ε Model 267-274. [Crossref]
67. R. Arina. ETMA Test Case 6 Shock Reflection on a Flat Plate Synthesis of the Calculations 291-298. [Crossref]
68. R. Arina, F. Ramella. Numerical Simulation of Compression Ramp Flows with a Compressible K — ε Model 323-330.
[Crossref]
69. Y.-L. Lin, M. Rimlinger, T. Shih, B. Willis, Y.-L. Lin, M. Rimlinger, T. Shih, B. Willis. Control of shock-wave/
boundary-layer interactions with passive blowing and bleeding . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
70. Y.-L. Lin, M. Stephens, T. Shih, B. Willis, Y.-L. Lin, M. Stephens, T. Shih, B. Willis. Effects of plenum size on
bleeding a supersonic boundary layer . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
71. P. G. Huang, P. Bradshaw, T. J. Coakley. 1996. Reply by the authors to F. Motallebi. AIAA Journal 34:4, 873-873.
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
72. Fariborz Motallebi. 1996. Reynolds number effects on the prediction of velocity profile in compressible flows. AIAA
Journal 34:4, 870-873. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
73. 1995. The law of the wall in turbulent flow. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical
Sciences 451:1941, 165-188. [Crossref]
74. Naji J. Nassif, William S. Janna, Gerald S. Jakubowski. 1995. Mass transfer from a sublimating naphthalene flat plate to
a parallel flow of air. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 38:4, 691-700. [Crossref]
75. P Huang, G Coleman, P Bradshaw. Compressible turbulent channel flows - A close look using DNS data . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
76. R. M. C. So, H. S. Zhang, T. B. Gatski, C. G. Speziale. 1994. Logarithmic laws from compressible turbulent boundary
layers. AIAA Journal 32:11, 2162-2168. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 77. P. G. Huang, G. N. Coleman. 1994. Van Driest transformation and compressible wall-bounded flows. AIAA Journal 32:10,
2110-2113. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
78. James M. Greer Jr., Anthony N. Palazotto. 1994. Some nonlinear response characteristics of collapsing composite shells.
AIAA Journal 32:9, 1935-1938. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
79. F. Motallebi. 1994. Comment on 'Skin friction and velocity profile family for compressible turbulent boundary layers'.
AIAA Journal 32:9, 1938-1939. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
80. P. G. Huang, P. Bradshaw, T. J. Coakley. 1994. Reply by the Authors to F. Motallebi. AIAA Journal 32:9, 1939-1939.
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
81. P. G. Huang, P. Bradshaw, T. J. Coakley. 1994. Turbulence models for compressible boundary layers. AIAA Journal 32:4,
735-740. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
82. Joseph G. Marvin, George P. Huang. Turbulence modeling — Progress and future outlook 35-56. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.11820