Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-qhdkw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-11T00:04:39.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical investigation on the effect of cowl angle in the supersonic intake performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2025

A. Ajay  and
A. Kundu Open the ORCID record for A. Kundu [Opens in a new window]
A. Ajay
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mechanics, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj, UP, India
A. Kundu*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mechanics, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj, UP, India
*
Corresponding author: A. Kundu; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A numerical simulation of a two-dimensional rectangular supersonic intake has been performed in a steady-state condition to understand the effect of separation bubble size and its position on the intake performance. Diverse characteristics of separation bubbles in terms of their position, size and quantity have been systematically investigated under varying cowl deflections ranging between $\alpha $ = 0${{\rm{\;}}^ \circ }$ and 4${{\rm{\;}}^ \circ }$ within the intake system. The study encompasses a range of Mach numbers, specifically between M = 1.5 and 3, allowing for comprehensive comparisons of pressure recovery and flow distortions associated with each configuration. The flow field is generated using compressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations along with k-$\omega $ turbulence model. The numerical model is validated using previous experimental and numerical results. Intake unstart is observed when a large separation bubble forms on the ramp surface. The separation bubble shifts from the ramp and moves towards the exit as the Mach number and cowl angle change, resulting in the intake restart. The performance of the intake is observed to be degrading as separation size increases with changes in Mach number and cowl angles. At fixed Mach number, pressure recovery of the intake is observed to be improving with increase in cowl deflection owing to the reduction in net separation bubble size. Maximum TPR of 0.772 is observed at M = 2.2 with 4${{\rm{\;}}^ \circ }$ cowl deflection characterised by net separation of 1.65 mm. Flow distortion is found to be dependent on separation size, position and number of separation bubbles.

Keywords

Shock wave - boundary layer interactionSupersonic intakeTotal pressure recoveryFlow distortionCowl angle
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Green, J.E. Interactions between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 1970, 11, pp 235–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuo, K., Miyazato, Y. and Kim, H.D. Shock train and pseudo-shock phenomena in internal gas flows, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 1999, 35, (1), pp 33–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, E.P. and Lustwerk, F. Supersonic diffusers for wind tunnels, J. Appl. Mech., 1949, 16, (2), pp 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamaki, T., Tomita, Y. and Yamane, R. A study of pseudo-shock: 1st report, $\lambda $ λ-type pseudo-shock, Bull. JSME, 1970, 13, (55), pp 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkli, P.E. Pressure recovery in rectangular constant area supersonic diffusers, AIAA J., 1976, 14, (2), pp 168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Om, D., Viegas, J.R. and Childs, M.E. Transonic shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions in a circular duct, AIAA J., 1985, 23, (5), pp 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnani, F., Zare-Behtash, H. and Kontis, K. Pseudo-shock waves and their interactions in high-speed intakes, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 2016, 82, pp 36–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, M.R., Younsi, J.S. and Farahani, M. Effects of boundary-layer bleed parameters on supersonic intake performance, J. Propul. Power, 2015, 31, (3), pp 826–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, S. and Prasad, J.K. Starting characteristics of a rectangular supersonic air-intake with cowl deflection, Aeronaut. J., 2010, 114, (1153), pp 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinartz, B.U., Herrmann, C.D., Ballmann, J. and Koschel, W.W. Aerodynamic performance analysis of a hypersonic inlet isolator using computation and experiment, J. Propul. Power, 19, (5), pp 868–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubota, S., Tani, K. and Masuya, G. Aerodynamic performances of a combined cycle inlet, J. Propul. Power, 2006, 22, (4), pp 900–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wie, D., Kwok, F. and Walsh, R. Starting characteristics of supersonic inlets, in 32nd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA, Lake Buena Vista, FL,1996, p 2914.Google Scholar
Sepahi-Younsi, J. and Forouzi Feshalami, B. Performance evaluation of external and mixed compression supersonic air intakes: Parametric study, J. Aerosp. Eng., 2019, 32, (5), p 04019066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, M.R., Younsi, J.S., Farahani, M. and Masoud, A. Numerical simulation and parametric study of a supersonic intake, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng., 2013, 227, (3), pp 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschen, C., Herrmann, D. and Gulhan, A. Experimental investigations of the performance and unsteady behaviour of a supersonic intake, J. Propul. Power, 2007, 23, (3), pp 566–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reardon, J.P., Schetz, J.A. and Lowe, K.T. Computational analysis of unstart in variable-geometry inlet, J. Propul. Power, 2021, 37, (4), pp 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontis, K. Surface heat transfer measurements inside a supersonic combustor by laser-induced fluorescence, J. Thermophys. Heat Transf., 2003, 17, (3), pp 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvin, A.C., Khobragade, N., Sasidharan, U. and Kumar, R. Computational and experimental evaluation of unstart characteristics of a mixed-compression intake, in AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, AIAA, Chicago, IL, 2022, p 3712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, H.J. and Guo, R.W. Experimental study of the unstable-unstarted condition of a hypersonic inlet at Mach 6, J. Propul. Power, 2007, 23, (4), pp 783–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, J. and Im, S.K. Boundary layer suction timing and location effects on unstarting flows in a model scramjet, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2023, 140, p 108454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepahi-Younsi, J., Forouzi Feshalami, B., Maadi, S.R. and Soltani, M.R. Boundary layer suction for high-speed air intakes: A review, Pro. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng., 2019, 233, (9), pp 3459–3481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T., Yue, L. and Chang, X. Numerical study of a fully confined supersonic slot impinging jet from bleed system, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 90, pp 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, K., Wermer, L., Im, S., Song, S.J. and Do, H. Fast-acting boundary-layer suction to control unstarting and unstarted flows, AIAA J., 2020, 58, (6), pp 2475–2485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J., Yu, D., Bao, W., Fan, Y. and Shen, Y. Effects of boundary-layers bleeding on unstart/restart characteristics of hypersonic inlets, Aeronaut. J., 2009, 113, (1143), pp 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C., Yang, X., Xue, L., Kontis, K. and Jiao, Y. Correlation analysis of separation shock oscillation and wall pressure fluctuation in unstarted hypersonic inlet flow, Aerospace, 2019, 6, (1), p 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, K., Wang, J.Y., Huang, H.X., Xie, L.R., Liu, Y. and Tan, H.J. Effects of backpressure on unstart and restart characteristics of a supersonic inlet, Aeronaut. J., 2023, 127, (1316), pp 1774–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khobragade, N., Gustavsson, J. and Kumar, R. Characterization of a supersonic mixed-compression air intake at high back pressures, Shock Waves, 2024, 34, (5), pp 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnani, F., Zare-Behtash, H., White, C. and Kontis, K. Effect of back-pressure forcing on shock train structures in rectangular channels, Acta Astronaut., 2018, 145, pp 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, S.A., Neale, M.C. and Brooks, A.J. On the sub-critical stability of variable ramp intakes at Mach numbers around 2, ARC Reports and Memoranda, 1970, 3711.Google Scholar
Wu, M. and Martin, M.P. Analysis of shock motion in shockwave and turbulent boundary layer interaction using direct numerical simulation data, J. Fluid Mech., 2008, 594, pp 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dussauge, J.P. and Piponniau, S. Shock/boundary-layer interactions: Possible sources of unsteadiness, J. Fluids Struct., 2008, 24, (8), pp 1166–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivek, P. and Mittal, S. Buzz instability in a mixed-compression air intake, J. Propul. Power, 2009, 25, (3), pp 819–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganapathisubramani, B., Clemens, N.T. and Dolling, D.S. Low-frequency dynamics of shock-induced separation in a compression ramp interaction, J. Fluid Mech., 2009, 636, pp 397–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirozzoli, S., Larsson, J., Nichols, J.W., Bernardini, M., Morgan, B.E. and Lele, S.K. Analysis of unsteady effects in shock/boundary layer interactions, in Proceedings of the Summer Program, Center for Turbulence Research (CTR), 2010, pp 153–164.Google Scholar
Grilli, M., Schmid, P.J., Hickel, S. and Adams, N.A. Analysis of unsteady behaviour in shockwave turbulent boundary layer interaction, J. Fluid Mech., 2012, 700, pp 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattnaik, S.P.S. and Rajan, N.K.S. Numerical investigation of impact of fixed-exit boundary-layer bleed on supersonic intake performance, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2022, 120, p 107286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V. and Alvi, F. Use of supersonic microjets for active separation control in diffusers, in 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA, Orlando, FL, 2003, p 4160.Google Scholar
Babinsky, H. and Ogawa, H. SBLI control for wings and inlets, Shock Waves, 2008, 18, pp 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niaz, F., Zia, U., Masud, J. and Safdar, M.M. Intake performance analysis for extra-design variations in local flow field of a supersonic aircraft, in AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, AIAA, Orlando, FL, 2024, p 0002.Google Scholar
Gahlot, N.K. and Singh, N.K. Control of shock-induced separation inside air intake by vortex generators, Heat Transf., 2022, 51, (1), pp 766–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idris, A.C., Saad, M.R., Rahman, M.R.A., Hashim, F.R. and Kontis, K. Experimental validation of artificial neural network (ANN) model for scramjet inlet monitoring and control, Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng., 2019, 7, (5S4), pp 558–563.Google Scholar
Neale, M.C. and Lamb, P.S. Tests with a variable ramp intake having combined external/internal compression, and a design Mach number of 2.2, ARC Current Papers, 1965, 805.Google Scholar
Marvin, J.G. Turbulence modeling for computational aerodynamics, AIAA J., 1983, 21, (7), pp 941–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. La Canada: DCW industries, 1998.Google Scholar
Gnani, F., Zare-Behtash, H., White, C. and Kontis, K. Numerical investigation on three-dimensional shock train structures in rectangular isolators, Eur. J. Mech.-B/Fluids, 2018, 72, pp 586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, M.S. and Steffen, C.J. Jr A new flux splitting scheme, J. Comput. Phys., 1993, 107, (1), pp 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar