Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, 1996, pp. 328-335

A9635118, AIAA Paper 96-3401

Parametric investigation of idealized hypersonic cruise configurations

Rick Graves
Colorado Univ., Boulder

George Emanuel
Oklahoma Univ., Norman

AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, San Diego, CA, July 29-31, 1996,
Technical Papers (A96-35084 09-08), Reston, VA, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1996

The lift and drag of 2D hypersonic configurations are evaluated for steady, compressible, inviscid flow. The two
configurations differ in their engine design with one configuration exhibiting a shock wave followed by a downstream
expansion wave, while the other has the waves in reverse order. The theoretical formulation is outlined, and results are
presented for a variety of parameters, including vehicle length, nozzle exit Mach number, and lift and drag. The
lift-to-drag ratio is shown to be a maximum when the size of the engine inlet opening is a maximum, with the lip of the
cowl still inside the shock layer. In addition, the utility of configurations possessing negative lift and configurations
free of shock wave-boundary layer interaction are discussed. (Author)

Page 1
 96*101

A96-35118
AIAA-96-3401-CP

PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATION OF IDEALIZED

HYPERSONIC CRUISE CONFIGURATIONS

Rick Graves*
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
The University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0429

George Emanuel*
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0601

ABSTRACT a* = boundary between cases A and B (ES family)

The lift and drag of two-dimensional hypersonic a** = boundary between cases B and C (ES family)
configurations are evaluated for steady, compressible, ft = shock angle
inviscid flow. The two configurations differ in their 7 = ratio of specific heats
engine design with one configuration exhibiting a shock 6 = angle relative to ttfoo
wave followed by a downstream expansion wave while Of = forebody angle
the other has the waves in reverse order. The theoretical Oj = inlet angle
formulation is outlined and results are presented for a 77 = expansion fan angle
variety of parameters, including vehicle length, nozzle p = density
exit Mach number, and lift and drag. The lift-to-drag (J,(M) = sin-1(l/M) = Mach angle
ratio is shown to be a maximum when the size of
the engine inlet opening is a maximum, with the lip
of the cowl still inside the shock layer. In addition,
the utility of configurations possessing negative lift = Prandtl-Meyer function
and configurations free of shock wave-boundary layer ( )I_B = point positions
interaction are discussed. ( )SE = shock-expansion family
( )ES = expansion-shock family
NOMENCLATURE ( )i-vi = uniform flow regions
Cd,C{ = two-dimensional drag and lift coefficients ( ]00= freestream quantity
C5^= control surface
d, t= two-dimensional drag and lift forces INTRODUCTION
$x, ey = Cartesian unit vectors
Fx, Fy = drag and lift components Ongoing interest in researching the performance
Lf = forebody length aspects of hypersonic cruise vehicles (HCVs) with
LSE, LES = cowl length parameter respect to scramjet inlet design has resulted in the
M = Mach number predominance of certain configurations. One promising
H = unit normal vector family of configurations, the single expansion ramp
p = pressure nozzle (SERN), has been investigated by several
r = radial length researchers.1"3 This family of vehicles (Fig. 1) features
s = arc length a single-sided expansion nozzle and high nozzle exit
«T = flow velocity velocities with minimal external engine drag. The
x,y = Cartesian distances in the flow and transverse internal flow exiting the combustor interacts with the
directions
ac = cowl location parameter
ass, (XES = cowl rotation parameter

* Graduate Student, Member, AIAA.

t Professor, Associate Fellow, AIAA.

Copyright © 1996 by the American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Figure 1. Generic HCV scramjet engine geometry.

328
 yi
Lf
. . . . \
Prandtl-Meyer
bow shock
Figure 2. Schematic of the shock-expansion (SE) configuration.
free stream through a shear layer, while the nozzle wall
bounds the expanding gas on the other side.
Other researchers have shown that simplified
models can be useful in fluid mechanics, since they are
easy to interpret and provide dominant trends. This
is particularly important for supersonic and hypersonic
flow problems. For example, Shaw and Duclr studied
the problem of stability in supersonic boundary-layer
flows, where inviscid disturbances are more important
than viscous disturbances. Bonataki et al.5 calculated
the optimal shape of turbomachinery blade sections
assuming compressible flow using an inviscid design
method. Broadbent6 emphasized scramjet combustion
and the role of inlet shock waves. Our investigation is
similar to Broadbent's in that most of his assumptions are
retained, including the two-dimensional, inviscid flow
of a perfect gas. In contrast, the flowfield is allowed
to be hypersonic, there is no combustion process, and
the configuration geometries and overall approach are
different. We further assume that all shock waves are of
the weak solution variety and the forebody is a wedge.
The constant slope nozzle wall characteristic of
SERN configurations is limiting when designing HCVs.
Therefore, we generalize this family by allowing the
nozzle wall to possess some degree of curvature.
Furthermore, parameters are introduced which allow
direct control over the amount of air entering the
vehicle's inlet and the characteristics of the engine
cowl. Analytical models representing these extended
configurations are outlined, and their lift and drag
coefficients are computed. Our principal objective is
to examine basic trends, such as the effects of Mx and
329
control surrace
expansion
the cowl's shape and location on lift and drag. The next
section discusses the formulation, with the remaining
sections containing results and conclusions. For further
details, Hsu7 and Graves8 should be consulted.
FORMULATION
Shock-expansion configuration
Figure 2 provides a schematic of the shock-
expansion (SE) configuration, in which the nozzle inlet
duct contains an oblique shock wave followed by an
expansion wave. Wall turn angles are such that at a given
MOO , the oblique shock does not reflect from point 4 and
the expansion does not reflect from the upper surface
of the cowl. The cowl extends from point 3 to point 8,
confines the inlet flow, and between points 7 and 8 is the
lower nozzle wall. The forebody is a wedge of length
Lf, with its upper surface parallel to WQO- The length
LSE of the upper surface of the inlet region is arbitrary.
Between points 3 and 6, the cowl is parallel to wall 4-5,
with both walls at an angle AO = Of - Oj relative to WQO-
The angle Of is specified, whereas
6'/ = aSEOf
determines Oj. The specified parameter ag^ ranges
from zero, when the inlet shock wave between points 3
and 4 becomes a Mach wave, to unity when the walls
between points 4 and 5 and between 3 and 6 are parallel
to tSao, and the point 5 expansion reduces to a Mach
line. The labeled regions (I-VI) represent uniform flows,
with region IV here limited to the trailing edge of the
expansion. Centered Prandtl-Meyer expansions emanate
 upper cowl
wall with the result

where ac = X2/X-). When ac approaches zero, the cowl

approaches the body, while when ac = 1, the lip of the
cowl touches the bow shock. Hence, the parameter ac
lower cowl determines the amount of air that enters the inlet. The
wall final form for the lift and drag coefficients are based on
m the vehicle's overall length, and are given by
2
- % 2 L/ d
Xg pooLf
Figure 3. Curved cowl schematic.
where

from points 3 and 5, and the cowl wall between points 6 ' — PooQ-cX^ + PVl(x& — £7) "~ PVV&(My — 1 ) '
and 7 has the curved shape of a streamline of the point 5
expansion. On the underside of the cowl, between points +P///[(a;6 - £3)2 + (2/6 - J/3)2]1/2 cos(% - 6/)
6 and 7, is another Prandtl-Meyer expansion wave, which
is non-centered, since M/// > M//.
The inlet shock wave and downstream expansion and
wave operate in combination to turn the flow in region
I parallel to WOQ. The nozzle flow, which is bounded -(2/6-2/3) 2 ] 1/2 sin(6>/-0/)
by points 5-7-8-9-5, isentropically expands the gas to a
uniform state and a velocity that is also parallel to WQO •
This expansion is achieved with a nozzle of minimum
length using a lens analogy.9 In general, pv differs from - Qc)a;3 tan*?/ + Lfdl_-,}
Poo and pvi- Thus, there is a shock wave, slipstream,
and expansion wave that emanate from points 8 and The quantities Zg_ 7 and d<J_7 are associated with the
9. The subsequent downstream flow has a downwash curved part of the cowl (Fig. 3), and are given by
velocity when the vehicle has a positive lift. The
( ^rj 2
• 1 \\V'
point 3 expansion intersects the bow shock and reflects
as a compression wave. When the reflected wave is
downstream of point 8, the lift and drag results of the SE
i*6--,=c r Jrn
+1 tan zn (77) cos ?/>„

configuration are exact. Nevertheless, the strength of the

reflected wave is quite weak.10 As in shock-expansion 1/2
theory, we neglect the reflected wave. TO - cos il>n + f ^j J tan 2//(7?) sin ^
The dotted line in Fig. 2 represents the control drj
surface (CS), where point 2 is the location where the
streamline that wets the cowl crosses the bow shock. where
To apply the momentum theorem to the corresponding
control volume requires knowledge of the shape of the = P///KX6 -
CS, the pressure on it, and the velocity on those sections
of the CS that are not tangent to a wall. In addition,
the shape of the 6-7 wall and the pressure integrals
that provide the lift and drag contributions need to be
established.
The momentum theorem is written as

fJcsi[pw(w •n) + pn]ds = -de^ - T+

and each of the seven sections of the CS in Fig. 2 is
evaluated. Thus, for section 1-2, we have
(1)

330
 control surface

1 ••

bow shock cowl

/
forebody expansion Prandtl-Meyer
expansion

Figure 4. Schematic of the expansion-shock (ES) configuration.

tan 2/7(77) tan Furthermore, point 3 no longer occurs and some of the
-1 + gas that crosses the curved bow shock between points 6
and 8 now enters the inlet. In contrast to cases A and
tan i/)(n) + tan 2/7(77)
B, an accurate mass flux calculation at the inlet would
require inclusion of the reflected wave from the curved
TJ6 = 7J7 = -0f+0l
part of the bow shock. This could be accomplished with
Equations (1) and (2) provide M(rj) along section 6-7, a method-of-characteristics computation; however, this
and the above integrals are numerically evaluated. The is beyond the scope of this study. Hence, only cases A
geometry of the SE configuration, as well as the lift and and B are considered (i. e., ac < a**).
drag coefficients, depends only on 7, M^,, Of, LSE/L/, As in the SE case, the CS consists of seven
USE* anda c . sections, which are individually evaluated. Although
the geometry depends on whether the configuration is
Expansion- shock configuration case A or case B, the lift and drag coefficient formulas
Figure 4 is a schematic of the expansion-shock (ES)
configuration. An expansion wave followed by a shock 2 Lf I 1 Lf d
wave now turns the inlet flow so that in region IV it is
parallel to w<». The isentropic nozzle flow, bounded
by points 10-11-12-13-10, is again based on the lens do not, where
analogy.9 In contrast to the SE case, the cowl is a flat
plate that is parallel to WOQ, and thus has no drag. The
streamline that wets the cowl is 2-3-5-9, where 3-5 is
curved. In this case, ac is defined as 2/2/1/7. where
x^ = xs is on the trailing edge of the expansion; this ac +Pl[(x3 -ar2)2+(2/3 -2/2)2]1/2 cos 6>/ -
definition differs from the one used in the SE case. When +pn[(x9 - xs)2 + (2/9 - 2/5)2]1/2 cos(0/ - - F
ac is small compared to unity, we have #7 < x?,, which
is denoted as case A. With an increase in ac, points 6 and
and 7 coincide and we set ac = a*. For larger values
of a.c, we obtain the configuration sketched in Fig. 4, x2f + (2/3 - 3/2)2]1
denoted as case B, where x-j > x&, but Xf, > XT..
For a still larger ac value, £2 = #6 and QC = a**.
When x2 > X6, we have case C, point 5 is then close
to point 8, and point 9 is close to the bow shock. x sin(0/ - #/) - - Fx

331
In these relations, Fx and Fy are force components
associated with section 3-5 in Fig. 4 (see Graves8 for
their lengthy analytical expressions). Results depend on
7, Moo, 6f, LEs/Lf, <XES, and ac.
Limiting case
Hsu7 considered the limiting SE case when LSE = 0
and asE = 1- In this circumstance, points 4 and 5
coincide (Fig. 2), the expansion from point 5 is reduced
to a Mach line, and the cowl is a flat plate parallel to
WK,. The CS now has five sections and the associated
lift and drag of each section is evaluated. One important
conclusion is that a properly defined lift coefficient for
the forebody substantially exceeds that for the entire
configuration. Much effort has gone into optimizing
waverider (WR) forebodies for performance parameters
such as the lift-to-drag (1/d) ratio.11"13 The wedge
forebody in our study can be viewed as a WR, albeit a
simple one. Nevertheless, this result calls into question
the usefulness of separately optimizing a forebody
configuration relative to some criteria and constraints.
Moreover, the large difference (a multiplicative factor of
5) between the two lift coefficients raises doubts about
the viability of a WR forebody. This configuration
is typically very slender and has little useful volume
compared to its large surface area.
The SE formulation is singular when ac equals
unity.7 In this circumstance, the lip of the cowl, point
3 in Fig. 2, is on the bow shock. The shock wave
may continue below the cowl, as it does in the present
formulation, or terminate at the cowl's lip. In either
case, there is still an expansion emanating from point
3, although the strength differs, since the upstream
Mach number also differs. As a consequence, the lift
coefficients differ, as will the drag coefficients when
(y2)s
0.0
Figure 5. Mass flow comparison vs. ac when Me*, =1,6f = 10°,
and LSE = LES = 0.5Lf.
332
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0
(b)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
Figure 6. Vehicle length vs. ac when 6; = 10°, LSE = LES =
0.5Lf, and USE = ass = 0.5; (a) SE configuration, (b) ES
configuration.
RESULTS
A parametric study8 was performed with 7 = 1.4,
MOO = 4,7,10, 9f = 5,10,15°, aSE = aEs = 0,0.5,1,
LsE/Lf = LES/Lf = 0,0.5,1, and ac = 0.01 to 1
for the SE configuration and ac = 0.01 to a** for the
ES configuration. The definition of the cowl location
parameter ac differs for the SE and ES configurations.
Therefore, results are provided in Fig. 5 which show
a 2/2 ratio that is proportional to the ratio of the inlet
mass flow rates. The ES inlet often has a substantially
larger flow rate for the same ac value. The curves
are truncated when ac - a** for the ES configuration.
Curve truncation occurs in later figures for the same
reason.
Selected results are shown in Figs. 6-11 for the SE
and ES configurations (see reference 8 for additional
results). As is evident in Fig. 6, the ES design
approach produces configurations that are longer than
SE configurations for large values of ac. In addition, for
the parameters in Fig. 6, both configurations are seen to
have a minimum length of about 4Lf. However, further
examination of the global parameter space reveals that
both configurations have a minimum length of about
2L/.8 Figure 7 shows the nozzle exit Mach number,
which approaches MOO at large ac values. Conversely,
My approaches infinity when ac approaches zero.
When QC is large, the nozzle area ratio is small, whereas
when ac approaches zero, the area ratio becomes infinite.
This behavior also causes the nozzle exit pressure ratio in
Fig. 8 to increase steadily with QC . Although not evident
in the figure, the pressure ratio Pv/Poo can exceed unity
when ac is large and USE = 1, or OES = 0- In fact,
for the parameter space considered, both configurations
have a maximum value of about 2.2 for pv/Poo- When
Pv/Poo is less than unity, a substantial truncation of the
 (a)

0.0 0.2 0,4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(b)

0.0 0,2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 0.0 0.2 04 0.6 0,8 1.0

Figure 7. Nozzle exit Mach number (My) vs. «c when 9f = 10°, Figure 9. Lift coefficient (Cj) vs. ac when Of = 10°, LSE =
LS£ = LES = O.SLf, and OSE = «ES = 0.5; (a) SE configuration, LES = O.SLf, and USB = <*ES = 0.5; (a) SE configuration, (b)
(b) ES configuration. ES configuration.

0.0 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0

a.

(b)

a.

Figure 8. Nozzle exit pressure ratio (PV/POO)VS. ac when 6f = 10°, Figure 10. Drag coefficient (C<j) - ac when fff = 10", LSE -
vs

LSE = LES = 0.5L/, and OSE = CUES - 0.5; (a) SE configuration, LES = O.SLf, and <XSE - &ES - 0.5; (a) SE configuration, (b) ES
(b) ES configuration. configuration.

long upper nozzle wall results in an increase in lift and
a modest loss of thrust. This point is further examined
for viscous nozzle flow by Bae and Emanuel.14 Note
that pv/Poo is relatively insensitive to Mx, and would
be large if a constant area combustion process occurs
upstream of the nozzle's inlet. In this circumstance,
cycle analysis would clearly favor the higher pressure
level associated with the SE configuration.
Figure 9 shows the lift coefficient, which has a
maximum value when ac is near 0.1. Note that Cj
becomes negative when ac approaches zero. This is
caused by the low pressure, compare to POO on the upper
nozzle wall 5-9 (SE) or 10-13 (ES). Except at small ac
values, there is little effect of MOO on C\. The drag
coefficient is shown in Fig. 10, where it is observed
that minimum drag occurs at a large ac value. Although
the drag coefficient decreases with increasing MOO, the
drag itself has the opposite trend. Figure 11 shows
l/d, which becomes negative when ac approaches zero
and is a maximum when ac is a maximum. As the
analysis in Graves8 shows, the main influence on l/d is
MOO and ac, with increasing values for these parameters
increasing l/d. For the parameter space considered,
the SE configuration has a maximum l/d value of 4.9,
whereas the ES configuration has a maximum value of
6.1.

333

o—o M = 4 (b)
Q——EJ7
«—010
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 11. Lift-to-drag ratio (I/it) vs. a0 when 6f = 10°, LSE =
LES = 0.5Lf, and asE = OES = 0.5; (a) SE configuration, (b) ES
configuration.
An important observation of this study is that d
is a maximum when ac « 0.1, whereas l/d is a
maximum when ac is a maximum, say, unity for the
SE configuration. As shown by Fig. 9, Cj is reduced
from its maximum value by at least a factor of two
when ac is a maximum. Thus, the large C\ value
required by HCVs during acceleration conflicts with the
range maximization characteristics of a large l / d . One
resolution, of course, is a moveable cowl.
Combination vehicle
By adjusting the forebody length Lf, it is possible
to combine two configurations, as illustrated in Fig. 12.
The configurations can be designed using either the SE
or ES approach, have different ac and Of values, etc.
All that is required is that Mx and the overall vehicle
length be the same. The lift and drag coefficients for the
combined vehicle are
Ci = CIB - CIA, Cd = CdB + CdA
Additional lift is thus obtainable if configuration A has
negative lift.
Figure 12. Combination vehicle.
334
bow shock expansion
Figure 13. Wind tunnel configuration.
Wind tunnel model
The ES configuration with a^s - 1 possesses
the unique characteristic of having no shock wave-
boundary layer interaction. A scaled view of this type
of configuration is shown in Fig. 13, where MOO = 4,
Of - 30°, LES/Lf = 0.2, UES = 1, and ac = 0.33. The
inlet shock wave is now a Mach wave and the Mach wave
at the start of the nozzle is also shown (this is line 10-11 in
Fig. 4). If there is a sizeable pressure mismatch between
Pv and poo. boundary layer separation inside the nozzle
or on the external surface may occur. For turbulent
boundary layers, this may not happen for the illustrated
case, since pv/Poo = 0.80 andpv//p/// = 0.62.
CONCLUSIONS
A momentum theorem formulation is provided
for the lift and drag of two supersonic/hypersonic
configurations. The relative amount of inlet air flow
rate is controlled by the parameter ac. This flow
rate decreases to zero when ac approaches zero, and
the lift becomes negative. The lift coefficient is a
maximum when ac « 0.1, whereas the lift-to-drag
ratio is a maximum when ac is a maximum. Both
the shock-expansion (SE) and expansion-shock (ES)
configurations have similar aerodynamic properties.
However, the SE configuration can be used with a ramjet
or scramjet engine, while the ES configuration may be
more advantageous for wind tunnel testing.
REFERENCES
1
Ruffin, S. M., Venkatapathy, E., Lee, S. H., Keener, E.
R., and Spaid, F. W., 1992, "Single expansion ramp
nozzle simulations," AIAA Paper No. 92-0387.
2
Canupp, P. W. and Candler, G. V., 1993, "Effects of
thermochemical nonequilibrium on scramjet nozzle
performance," AIAA Paper No. 93-2838.
3
Spaid, F. W. and Keener, E. R., 1993, "Hypersonic
nozzle/afterbody CFD code validation part I: exper-
imental measurements," AIAA Paper No. 93-0607.
4
Shaw, S. J. and Duck, P. W., 1992, "The inviscid
stability of supersonic flow past heated or cooled
axisymmetric bodies," Physics of Fluids A, Vol. 4,
No. 7, pp. 1541-1557.
5
Bonataki, E., Chaviaropoulos, P., and Papailiou, K.
D., 1993, "An inverse inviscid design method for the
design of quasi-three-dimensional turbomachinery
cascades," Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 115,
pp. 121-127.
6
Broadbent, E. G., 1976, "Flows with heat addition,"
Progress in the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 17, pp.
93-108.
7
Hsu, C.-H., 1990, "Lift and drag of an idealized
configuration in supersonic flight," M. S. Thesis, The
University of Oklahoma, School of Aerospace and
Mechanical Engineering, Norman, Oklahoma.
8 Bowcutt, K. G., Anderson, J. D., Jr., and Capriotti,
Graves, R. E., 1992, "Performance of an idealized
configuration in supersonic flight," M. S. Thesis, The
University of Oklahoma, School of Aerospace and
Mechanical Engineering, Norman, Oklahoma.
9
Emanuel, G., 1986, Gasdynamics: Theory and
Applications, AIAA Education Series, Washington,
D.C., pp. 311-312.
10
Eggers, A. J., Jr., Savin, R. C., and Syvertson,
C. A., 1955, "The generalized shock-expansion
method and its application to bodies traveling at
335
high supersonic speeds," Journal of the Aeronautical
Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 231-238.
11
Kirn, B.-S., Rasmussen, M. L., and Jischke, M.
C., 1983, "Optimization of waverider configurations
generated from axisymmetric conical flows," Jour-
nal of Spacecraft and Rockets,Vol. 20, pp. 461-469.
12
D. P., 1987, "Viscous optimized waveriders," AIAA
Paper No. 87-0272.
13
Jones, K. D., Bauer, S. X. S., and Dougherty,
F. C., 1991, "Hypersonic waverider analysis: a
comparison of numerical and experimental results,"
AIAA Paper No. 91-1696.
14
Bae, Y.-Y. and Emanuel, G., 1991, "Performance of
an aero-space plane propulsion nozzle," Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 28, pp. 113-122.