Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MODELS
P. P. Donde*, A.G. Marathe$ and K. Sudhakar$
e-mail : pratik.donde@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The current work has been directed towards combining low-fidelity models with CFD for parametric
optimization of a hypersonic intake. After identifying the performance parameters, design variables
and constraints, samples were picked through stratified sampling for CFD analysis. Results from
this analysis were used for developing low-fidelity models, which were used for modifying the
design space. Samples from the new design space were analyzed using CFD and the
configuration leading to the highest gain in performance parameters was considered the optimal
geometry.
Keywords : intake, optimization, CFD
Nomenclature
Beta
Cp
F
FD
l
M
Ps
PR
Th
u
yP
+
y
!
"
#
#w
$
Sub-scripts
1
First Ramp
2
Second Ramp
C
Cowl
e
Intake exit
i
Intake entry
max
Maximum value
min
Minimum value
1. INTRODUCTION
Based on shock location, supersonic intakes
can be classified into internal, external and
mixed compression. Mixed compression
intakes, which are a compromise between
internal and external compression intakes,
find the widest application in supersonic
aircrafts and the airframe integrated scramjet
powered hypersonic vehicle design uses this
type. The design of the intake depends
largely on the operating speed of the vehicle,
in addition to constraints related to size and
combustor performance. This leads to an
interesting optimization problem.
The present work demonstrates parametric
optimization of a generic hypersonic intake
3.3 Constraints
In order to incorporate constraints related to
geometry, the permissible variations in l1 and
l2 are limited to 20% of their nominal values.
Limits for Th1 are set between 50%. Since
the value of Th2 is very low in the baseline
configuration, unsymmetrical limits between
0 and 10 are set. Length of the cowl is
varied such that even when the other
variables are at their extreme values, the
fore-body shock touches the cowl lip.
Constraints dictated by the combustor
require the Mach number (Me) and static
pressure at the combustor entry (Pse) to be
maintained at within 10% of the values given
by the baseline configuration (approximately
Mach 2.1 and 52.5kPa with a tolerance of
10%).
3.4 Mathematical Statement
The problem for optimization can be posed
for as follows:
Maximize
PR = f(l1, l2, lC, Th1, Th2)
!
Table 2
Grid Study
Cells
Grid 1
Grid 2
Grid 3
31213
63700
91728
Total
Pressure
Recovery
0.2696
0.2782
0.2779
Mach
Number
y& %
Here,
#"$ y P
"
"$ % $ w # w
2.1062
2.1773
2.1718
Mass Flow
Rate
21.045
20.810
20.890
Wall y+
Averaged Maximum
53.72
18.83
11.07
239.33
84.78
59.35
Table 3
Results from Latin Hypercube Sampling
Overall
Started
solutions
Not-started
solutions
Acceptable
solutions
49
20
l1
Min
1.344
1.344
Max
2.017
2.017
l2
Min
2.287
2.287
Max
3.432
3.432
lc
Min
0.8
0.8
Max
1.778
1.778
Th1
Min
3.138
3.138
Max
9.413
7.323
Th2
Min
0
0
Max
5.291
4.407
29
1.344
2.017
2.287
3.432
0.8
1.778
3.138
9.413
5.291
1.344
1.792
2.668
3.432
1.3
1.778
3.138
6.275
0.9
4.407
Sample 1
Sample 1
Modified
Table 4
Shock-on-lip analysis: Sample geometry specification
l1
l2
lc
Th1
1.766
2.859
0.499
6.085
1.766
2.859
1
6.085
Th2
1.19
1.19
Sample 1
Sample 1
Modified
Table 5
Shock-on-lip analysis: Performance improvement in sample geometry
Mach
Pressure
Mass Flow Drag (N)
Static
Number
recovery
Rate (kg/s)
Pressure
(Pa)
39380
2.3752
0.2776
16.1662
6279.63
53593.72
2.1600
2.8010
21.0730
6973.36
The results in Table 5 show that a shock-onlip situation leads to an improvement in both
!
m /Fd
0.00257
0.00302
(1)
(2)
(4)
7 New Analysis
Based on the models discussed in the above
section, the new design space proposed for
Latin Hypercube Sampling is as shown in
Table 6.
Table 6
Limits for Latin Hypercube Sampling
l1
Min
1.344
l2
Max
2.017
Min
2.287
Max
3.432
!
Min
45.5
Max
49.3
Min
3.7
Th1
Max
6.9
F
Min
0.8
Table 7
Optimum Configuration: Geometry
Optimum
Baseline
l1
2.017
1.68
l2
2.859
2.859
Max
1.2
lc
0.722
1
Th1
3.7
6.275
Th2
3.7
1
Table 8
Optimum Configuration: Performance Parameters
Optimum
Baseline
Variation
(Optimum/Baseline)
Static
Pressure
(Pa)
Mach
Number
Pressure
recovery
52102.2
52485.2
0.992703
2.2847
2.1773
1.04933
0.3433
0.2782
1.2376
Mass
Flow
Rate
(kg/s)
20.5681
20.81
0.9844
Drag (N)
6421.19
7017.56
0.915
m /Fd
0.003203
0.00297
1.08171
REFERENCES
1. Berens T. M., Bissinger N. C.,
Forebody Precompression Effects and
Inlet Entry Conditions for Hypersonic
Vehicles, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1998, pp 3036.
2. Bebesma E. J., Heuvelink G. B., Latin
Hypercube Sampling of Gaussian
random Fields, Technometrics, Vol.
41, No. 4, 1999, pp 303-312.
3. McKay M. D., Beckman R. J., Conover
W. J., A Comparison of Three
Methods for Selecting Values of Input
Variables in the analysis of output from
a computer code, Technometrics, Vol.
12, No. 2, 1979, pp 239-245.
4. Lewis M., Designing Hypersonic Inlets
for Bow Shock Location Control,
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.
9, No. 2, 1993, pp 313-321.
Fig. 7 Variation between first ramp angle (Th1) and fore-body shock angle (Beta)