1. Jcase were obtained with 27 points i n the circumferential direction and 45 points along each radial ray. When the normal spacing near the wall was decreased from N+ of about 2.7 (8-1.8001) to about 1.8 (p1.80005). the change i n predicted heat transfer using the CS model was less than one percent. A marching step size of approximatelv 0.02 in. was used t o obtain these results. starting at the sphere-cone tangency point (;=2.il in.) and ending at Z=15.4 in. The CS model results were obtained by using condition (22a) for total enthalpy (with 2-0.085 and 8.001) to estimate the boundary layer edge.
2. The predicted heat transfer with this modified EL model and the CS model beginning at the sphere-cone juncture i s shown i n Figure 9 along with experimental data on the sphere and downstream of the sphere-cone tangency point. The BL prediction shows good agreement with the experimental data. The difference between the two CS predictions i s due to the significantly different values of the outer eddy viscosity. The CS model with a larger boundary layer thickness (2-0.001) shows better agreement with the data than the CS model with the smaller boundary layer thickness (E-8.005). Figure 10 shows the variation of the predicted total enthalpy and x-component of velocity across the lower portion of the shock layer. The boundary layer thicknesses which correspond to conditions (22a) and (26) are shown; these profiles are taken from the CS prediction using (22a) with c-0.801. While the velocity increases through the inviscid region of the shock layer, the total enthalpy reaches a constant value just outside the boundary layer. A small overshoot i n the total enthalpy near the edge of the boundary layer (at N/NSh:O.l) i s indistinguishable i n Figure 10. This overshoot, however, contributed to a significantly thicker boundary layer using eq. (22a) with 2=0.001 than with 8=0.885. In the former case, the boundary layer thickness was selected on the shock side of the overshoot. The larger boundary layer thickness i n turn caused the computed displacement thickness and edge velocity to be 120 percent and 7 percent larger. respectively. Figure 10 also shows condition (26). which was used to determine the boundary layer thickness for the M.=3 case. The displacement thickness computed using (26) i s about 55 percent larger than that computed using (22a) with E-0.001.
3. Numerical Solution of Supersonic Viscous Flow over Blunt Delta Wings