Fig.1

Shock wave/boundary layer interaction phenomena involved in high-speed vehicles［11］

Fig.2

Two types of shock wave reflection structures in ideal inviscid flow［3］

Fig.3

Detachment criterion and von Neumann criterion shock polars at Ma∞=3［3］

Fig.4

Three typical flow structures［3］

Fig.5

Comparison of uncertainty of plateau pressure estimated by free interaction theory following introduction of Eq.（2） and traditional free interaction theory ［30］

Fig.6

Comparison of theoretical analysis results （dashed line） and numerical simulation results［31］

Fig.7

Flow region division of curved shock wave/ turbulent boundary layer interaction［32］

Fig.8

Schematic diagram of Type IV shock wave interaction flow field［33］

Fig.9

Schlieren images of shock wave reflection at incoming Mach number 5［37］

Fig.10

Upper and lower double separation shock wave interference and reflection structure ［37］

Fig.11

Evolution process of Regular Reflection （RR） and Mach Reflection （MR）， and comparison of theoretical solutions with shadowgraph image statistical results［37］

Fig.12

Reflection shock solution path that satisfies MEP［37］

Fig.13

Detailed division of flow field in RR SWBLI［39］

Fig.14

Theoretical analysis solution of shock separation angle［39］

Fig.15

Different combinations of MEP and FIT［39］

Fig.16

Schlieren images at Ma∞=2 and AReff=1.38［39］

Fig.17

A summary of flow structure of boundary layer separation induced by incident shock wave［39］

Fig.18

Schematic diagram of boundary layer separation induced by incident shock wave［40］

Fig.19

Test results at different deflection angles［40］

Fig.20

Comparison of theoretical and test results at different Mach numbers［41］

Fig.21

Comparison of MEP solutions and test results （Ma∞ = 6， 7， 8）［41］

Fig.22

Schematic diagram of propulsion systems for hypersonic vehicles in near-space［42］

Fig.23

Schematic diagram of simplified structure of shock train［42］

Fig.24

Schematic representation of possible separation positions and shock angles

Fig.25

MEP solutions of RR

Fig.26

Schematic of experiment setup

Fig.27

Evolution of shock wave

Fig.28

Shock polar satisfying MEP

Fig.29

Comparison of statistical results of separation positions observed in schlieren images with theoretical solution

Fig.30

Entropy increase model of two-dimensional compressed corner flow field［50］

Fig.31

MEP solutions for compression inflection separation of surge angles at different incoming Mach numbers［50］

Fig.32

Comparison of MEP solutions， CFD results and test results for separating surge angles at different incoming Mach numbers［50］