PT Analysis Report

Acknowledgement
We thank Dr Sajeer Ahmed, Deputy Head, Experimental Aerodynamics Division and Dr

N. B. Mathur for their advice and support through out the project. We also thank the staff
of 0.3m tunnel for providing us necessary help during the project.
Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 1

By: Ashish Gupta (99D01003) and Moble Benedict (99D010011)
Abstract
Experiment on 2-D internal compression inlet with 2-shock system at Mach number 3.0
and total pressure = 60 psi was conducted in 0.3 m trisonic wind tunnel. The simulation
of backpressure, which is caused by the combustion process in the engine combustor, is
performed by inserting the wedge in the diffuser in upstream direction. By analyzing the
pressure distribution along the intake, it was found that at isolator, the maximum rise in
static pressure occurs at wedge position, W = 60 mm and minimum energy loss occurs at
W = 57.5 mm. Also qualitative analysis is being done on intake model using both viscous
(using oil flow technique) and inviscid (theoretically predicted) flow pattern.

Contents
Page No
Acknowledgement 1
Abstract 2
Nomenclature 4
List of Figure 5
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Inlet Design Parameters 7
1.2 Inviscid/Viscous Coupling 8
1.3 Boundary Layer Development 10
1.4 Shock-Wave Boundary Layer Interaction 12
1.5 Starting & Contraction Limits 13
1.6 Blunt Leading-Edge 14
2. Experimental facility 15
3. Model Details 16
4. Instrumentation 16
5. Test Program 17
6. Result & Discussion 17
6.1 Sidewall pressure distribution 17
6.2 Top & bottom wall pressure distribution 18
6.3 Distribution of Total pressure 18
6.4 Effect of plug position on Total pressure distribution 18
6.5 Distribution of Mach number 18
6.6 Analysis of Oil flow pattern 19
7 Concluding Remarks 20
References 21
Appendix 23
Figures 24

Nomenclature
PS Local static pressure (psi).
PO Total or stagnation pressure (psi).
P∝ Free stream static pressure (psi).
q∝ Free stream dynamic pressure (psi).
CP Pressure coefficient
M Local Mach number
M∝ Free stream Mach number
γ Specific heat ratio (=1.4 for air)
X Distance from the entry (positive downstream) (mm).
W Wedge position (mm).

List of Figures
Fig No 1 0.3 M trisonic wind tunnel

Fig No 2 Model details
Fig No 3 Location of ports on the top & bottom plate
Fig No 4 Location of the ports on the side plate
Fig No 5 Conical wedge
Fig No 6 Side plate Cp distribution
Fig No 7 Top plate Cp distribution
Fig No 8 Bottom plate Cp distribution
Fig No 9 Front rake pressure distribution
Fig No 10 Rear rake pressure distribution
Fig No 11 Inviscid flow diagram
Fig No 12 Plot of Mach no, Ps/ Psinf & PO / POinf
Fig No 13 Oil flow pattern for PO = 60 psi
Fig No 14 Oil flow pattern for PO = 70 psi
Fig No 15 Diagram for Interaction of shock wave-boundary layer

1. Introduction
The primary purpose of an inlet (intake / diffuser) for any air-breathing

propulsion system is to capture and compress air for processing by the remaining portion
of the engine. Inlets may be classified in accordance with the following descriptions that
are not necessarily all-inclusive and are arranged in an arbitrary order:
1. Operating Mach number regime (subsonic, transonic, supersonic, hypersonic, or
combinations);
2. Family (axisymmetrical, two dimensional, or three dimensional);
3. Geometry (fixed or variable);
4. Supersonic diffuser form (all external, all internal, or combination external /
internal);
5. Supersonic compression complexity (normal shock, single surface, isentropic
surface, or multiple surface);
6. Supersonic compression direction [outward (relative to a vehicle body), inward,
or downward];
7. Location on vehicle body (nose, chin, cheek, top, bottom, side, forward, mid, or
aft);
8. Number (Single, dual, three, or four); and
9. Interface with combustor [in-line (usually with podded engine) or off-set (flow
dumps from inlet into combustor with integral engines)].
In a conventional jet engine the inlet works in combination with a mechanical
compressor to provide the proper compression for the entire engine. For vehicles flying at
high supersonic (3 < M < 5) or hypersonic (M > 5) speeds, adequate compression can be
achieved without a mechanical compressor. A scramjet inlet captures and compresses the
air for use in the combustor, so there must be optimum degree of compression. The
compression must be sufficiently high that combustion can be sustained, but also
sufficiently low that large non-equilibrium chemical losses are not incurred within the
combustor and nozzle. Because the airflow and compression ratio for these engines are
provided entirely by the inlets, an efficient design of an inlet is crucial to the success of
the engine operation.

1.1. Inlet Design Parameters
The goal in the design of any supersonic / hypersonic inlet is to define a minimum
weight geometry that provides an efficient compression process, generates low drag,
produces nearly uniform flow entering the combustor, and provides these characteristics
over a wide range of flight and engine operating conditions. The design of hypersonic
inlets is complicated by the many constrains, both aerodynamic and mechanical, that are
imposed on the inlet. Examples of aerodynamic constraints including starting limits,
boundary-layer separation limits, and constraints on combustor entrance flow profiles.
Examples of mechanical constraints include limits on leading-edge radii, variable
geometry flexibility, and cooling system limits.
The various aerothermodynamic phenomena that are encountered by scramjet inlets
at hypersonic flight are illustrated in fig (1). These phenomena includes blunt leading-
edge effects, boundary-layer development issues, transition, inviscid / viscous coupling,
shock-shock interactions, shock-boundary-layer interactions, and flow profile effects. For
inlets that are designed to operate within a narrow Mach number / altitude envelope, an
understanding of a few of these phenomena might be required. For inlets designed to
operate over large range of speed and altitude (such as an aerospace plane), nearly all of
these aerodynamic issues must be addressed.
The features of a scramjet inlet tend to be different from those of external

compression ramjet or turbojet inlets, as illustrated in fig (2). The ramjet or turbojet inlet
captures, compresses, and diffuses the air stream to low subsonic speeds. Most of the
compression occurs on the external portion of the inlet with little to no internal
contraction. These inlets require a large amount of turning to achieve the desired
compression ratio, which creates a tradeoff between the external cowl drag and the

internal aerodynamic performance of the inlet. Along with the high level of total turning,
the inlets often use boundary-layer bleed to increase pressure recovery, stabilize shock
wave / boundary-layer interactions, and serve as a trap for a terminal shock system.
Scramjet operates at higher speeds than ramjet or turbojet that makes the
compression ratio sufficiently high at smaller amount of turning as compared to ramjet or
turbojet inlets. In most scramjet inlets design the compression is split between the
external and internal portions of the inlet, so that high internal contraction ratios are
common. Because these engines are designed to fly at very high speeds, optimum designs
possess very low external cowl drag. Although bleed is common in a ramjet or turbojet
inlet, the use of boundary layer bleed is uncommon in a scramjet inlet because of the high
air temperature encountered and the inherent resistance to separation of hypersonic
boundary layers. At high speeds and for low level of heat release, the scramjet inlet will
operate with supersonic flow throughout. At lower speed and / or higher values of heat
release, a precombustion shock system forms in the inlet throat as a result of the thermal
blockage of the combustion process. Depending on the strength of this precombustion
shock system, the flow existing in the inlet can be supersonic or subsonic.
1.2. Inviscid/Viscous Coupling

Compressive surface located on a hypersonic vehicle serve either to decelerate the
flow or to increase the static pressure. The compressive surface shown in fig (3) serves to
decelerate the flow prior to reaching the engine inlet and, therefore, to produce acceptable
flow velocities in the combustion zone. Although this deceleration can be accomplished

by a single, normal-shock wave standing just upstream of a pitot-type intake, “the loss in
total pressure makes this simple solution unacceptable for flight Mach numbers in excess
of M =1.5. In reality, the intake designers use a number of (mostly oblique) shock wave
to compress and decelerate the incoming flow”. Consider the flow that has to be turned
compressively through some specified angle α, if the turning is accomplished gradually
through a series of infinitesimal turns, the deceleration process is isentropic. If the
compressive turning of the flow is isentropic, the resultant static pressure is much higher
that if the α degrees turn is accomplished by passing the air through a single oblique
shock wave. Thus, the local pressure is a function of the freestream Mach number, the
local flow direction, the gas-property model, and the process through which the flow is
turned.
Although a totally isentropic inviscid compression process can be designed, these

inlets tend to be very long with substantial viscous losses. Viscosity is a property of the
fluid that resists shearing motion and is the by-product of the random molecular motion
of the particles and their ability to transport momentum. A factor governing the
development of viscous flow is the Reynold’s number, Re. Qualitatively; Re is a ratio of
the flow momentum to the viscous force trying to retard it. As a compromise between
inviscid and viscous losses, discrete oblique shocks are often used in the compression
process. After using inviscid tools to construct the basic inlet layout, compensation for
the boundary layer must be made. As illustrated in fig (4), the inviscid flow pattern is
generated by the combination of the inlet surface and the boundary-layer displacement
thickness. The growth of the boundary layer provides compression that is in addition to
the turning provided by the inlet surface. The boundary layer also modifies the apparent
location of the inviscid shock relative to the actual geometry. Through development of
the proper correlations, the inviscid surface can be directly modified to account for the

boundary-layer displacement. A coupled inviscid / viscous analysis is then used to verify
the inlet design.
1.3 Boundary Layer Development

At supersonic and hypersonic speeds the development of the boundary layer within
an inlet has a major influence on the performance and operability of the inlet. This
influence arises because the growth of the boundary layer adds to the effective
compression of the captured flow. In regions of high adverse-pressure gradients, the
separation of the boundary layer must be considered and may lead to design constraints
on the inlet. Furthermore, the losses as a result of friction within the boundary layer
represent the single largest loss mechanism for both supersonic and hypersonic inlets.
Due to large amount of losses in the boundary layer in supersonic and hypersonic flows,
viscous effects cannot be neglected. Initially from the leading edge, the boundary layer is
laminar and then transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layer takes place, where
the fluid particles move in random and chaotic fashion. As a laminar boundary layer
becomes thicker, it tends to become unstable. Transition is influenced by many factors
including local Reynolds number, surface roughness, freestream turbulence, etc, which
make the exact transition location very difficult to predict. It is generally believed that
boundary-layer transition occurs when some disturbance to the boundary layer grow to a
critical amplitude that produces a breakdown of the laminar boundary layer. Not all
disturbances produce boundary layer transition. In some instances, the disturbances
attenuate and the boundary layer remains laminar. As the disturbances grows, three-
dimensional unstable waves and hairpin eddies develop and subsequently, turbulent spots
occurs, fig (5). The fig indicates that the boundary layer is laminar downstream (as well

as upstream) of the turbulent spot. Turbulent boundary layers are characterized by
chaotic, unsteady flow often depicted by eddies, but a well defined boundary layer profile
still exists if we consider the time average of the velocity.
Because of the desire to compress the captures airstream in a short length, the
boundary layer is subjected to high adverse-pressure gradients. Boundary-layer
separation is undesirable, and limits are often placed on the design of an inlet such that
separation does not exist. Turbulent boundary layers can sustain much larger pressure
gradients without separation compared to laminar boundary layers, so that turbulent
boundary layers can extend the operational capabilities of the inlet. Unfortunately,
turbulent boundary layer also increases the heat loads and frictional losses with in an
inlet. Ideally, an inlet would contain just enough turbulent flow to prevent separation yet
minimize viscous losses, thus boundary-layer transition is important in inlet design
because it can significantly affect the performance and operability. The existence of
separated flow in a scramjet inlet is undesirable because of: -
• The creation of additional shock wave that may not have been designed as a part of
compression process.
• The losses associated with compression – expansion – recompression of the flow.
• The existence of a zone of high heat transfer near the reattachment point.
• The generation of unsteady waves within the inlet that creates loads.
• The weakening of the boundary layer such that downstream influences are more
easily propagated upstream.
• The generation of an aerodynamic contraction that may cause the inlet to unstart.

1.4 Shock-Wave Boundary Layer Interaction
One of the main problems for the design of scramjet inlet is a shock-wave boundary
layer interaction as shown in fig (6). The interactions include nominally two-dimensional
interactions, such as those caused by a compression corner or shock reflection, and three-
dimensional interactions caused by glancing shock wave or swept compression surfaces.
In each of these interactions, an incipient separation pressure rise can be defined as the
highest-pressure rise that can be sustained without evidence of significant separation. The
corresponding turning angle is called the incipient turning angle.
The separated flow fields for two-dimensional and three-dimensional shock-wave/

boundary-layer interactions are illustrated in fig (7). The two-dimensional interaction is
characterized by a separation shock followed by an expansion around the separation
bubble and a recompression shock as the flow is turned again parallel to the wall. The
three-dimensional interaction results in a complicated flow structure that includes the roll
up of a vortex that generates a zone of high heat transfer. This roll up occurs in both
sidewall compression inlets and along the sidewalls of two-dimensional inlets.

There are two prominent techniques for controlling shock-wave/boundary-layer
interactions and that are bleeding and blowing. With a bleed system the low-momentum
flow near the wall is removed such that the remaining flow can negotiate pressure rise.
The disadvantages of a bleed system lie in the substantial drag associated with the bleed
air. At hypersonic speeds an additional disadvantage lies in the high temperature of the
bleed air, which complicates the design of the bleed system. In a blowing system the flow
is injected axially in an attempt to energize the boundary layer such that subsequent
adverse pressure gradients can be negotiated. Blowing systems avoid the high drag and
internal ducting of a bleed system, but a high-pressure source for the injected fluid must
be provided.
1.5 Starting & Contraction Limits

For the proper operation all scramjet inlets must operate in a started mode. The term
started is used to denote operation under conditions where flow phenomena in the
internal portion of the inlet do not alter the capture characteristics of the inlets. An inlet
can be unstarted either by over-contracting to the point where the flow chokes at the inlet

throat or by raising the backpressure beyond the level that can be sustained by the inlet.
The flow field of an unstarted hypersonic scramjet inlet can be quite different from that
found in a conventional external compression turbojet or ramjet inlet, as illustrated in fig
(8). In a ramjet or turbojet inlet the ratio of the boundary layer height to inlet height at the
cowl-tip plane is usually small. When this inlet unstarts, a normal shock is expelled, and
the flow is spilled subsonically. For hypersonic scramjet inlet a substantial portion of the
flow at the cowl tip can be boundary layer. When these inlet unstart, the expelled shock
system is sufficiently strong to separate the boundary layer, creating the flow field
illustrated in the fig (8). The flow field is characterized by large separation region and
supersonic flow spillage. In this condition the portion of the flow that is captured by the
unstarted inlet can be predominantly supersonic. In general, an unstarted inlet captured

less airflow with lower efficiency and higher aerodynamic and thermal loads compared to
started inlets.
1.6 Blunt Leading-Edge

Another important design issue for scramjet inlets concerns the blunting of leading
edges on surfaces such as the fore body and cowl tip. These surfaces should be blunted to
obtain acceptable heating levels at hypersonic speeds. Unfortunately, the bluntness
generally degrades the performance of the inlet. As shown schematically in fig (9), blunt
leading edges cause curved bow shocks that generate larger entropy layers. These entropy
layers modify the downstream boundary layer development, including transition, and can

create significant changes in the inviscid flow field such as the shock positioning and air-
captive characteristics.
Thus it is clear from the above design constraints, design of scramjet inlet is not
simple and it requires lot research for successful design.
2. Experimental Facility
The 0.3 m trisonic tunnel is an intermittent, blowdown type wind tunnel capable of
operating in Mach number range of 0.2 to 3 (Fig 1). Compressed air stored at 10 bar in a
large reservoir of about 2830 cubic meter capacity is discharged through the tunnel
circuit in a regulated way to achieve the desired mach number in the test section. Pressure
regulating wall maintains constant pressure in settling chamber, which in turn ensures
constant condition in the test section during the blow down. Supersonic mach numbers
are achieved by nozzle block designed and contoured to provide a desired supersonic
mach number in a 0.3m x 0.3m test section. At present the tunnel is equipped with nozzle
blocks to generate free stream mach numbers (M) of 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.5 and 3.0.
Operating pressure of the tunnel varies with the Mach number and is about 1.79 bar (26
psi) and 4.83 bar (70 psi) at M=3.0. Reynolds number capability of the tunnel based on
the operating pressure ranges from 4 to 32 million per meter in Mach number range from
0.2 to 3.0. For the present series of tests M = 3.0 nozzle block is used and a mechanical

block specially fabricated, is located downstream of the nozzle to mount the internal
compression intake model (Fig 2).
3. Model Description
The intake model is made of 4 detachable plates (the top plate, the bottom plate and
two side plates) as shown in the fig (3 & 4). The plates are made of mild steel and coated
with black paint. Holes are drilled on these plates to bolt them together. The 3 main parts
of the model are the intake, the isolator and the diffuser. The intake extends to a length of
130 mm measured from the tip of the top plate. The intake is followed by an isolator,
which has a length of 120 mm and finally the diffuser of length 100 mm. There are ports
along the top plate, bottom plate and one of the side plates for measuring the static
pressures. Two rakes are fixed just at the beginning of the isolator and the diffuser
respectively for measuring the total pressures. The former is called the front rake and
latter the rear rake. A wedge, which can be moved inside and outside from the rear
portion of the diffuser control the mass flow in the model (Fig 5). The wedge is actually
simulating the backpressure, which occurs in the real situations. The whole model is
mounted on a strut at an angle of 13.2 degrees so that the incoming flow is parallel to the
initial portion of the bottom plate. The strut is in turn fixed on to a tunnel-mounting block
inside the test section of the wind tunnel.
4. Instrumentation
Static pressure ports were located along the top, bottom and sidewall of the model.
Schematic of pressure ports location is shown in fig (0) and the distance of pressure port
from the intake entry are given in the tables. The pressure ports are of 0.5 mm internal
diameter. Polythene tubes from the steel tube located at the end of brass bush connect the
port to the ESP scanner of range +/- 10 psid. Pressure data from each of the tube is
acquired and processed and presented in the form of pressure coefficient. Free stream
total pressure was measured through a pitot tube located at settling chamber using 0 to
100 psid DRUCK transducer and the tunnel wall static pressure was measured using a +/-
10 psid DRUCK transducer. For the measurement of total pressure inside the model two
rakes were used. Rake pressures were measured using ESP scanner of range +/-30 psid.

5. Test Program
Experiments were carried out at a free stream mach number of 3.0 for different
mass flow conditions through the model. By varying the position of the plug located at
the exit of the model, mass flow through the duct is varied. The position of plug is
expressed as the ratio of geometrical area it subtends at the exit plane of the model to the
cross section area of the diffuser exit. Flow field inside the model was visualized using
the Oil flow technique and the photographs were taken for the different positions of the
plug (W = 0, 20, 40, 50, 55, 57.5, 60, 80, 100 mm). At the different plug positions static
pressure, total pressure from the rake and the surface flow pattern on all the four walls
were obtained. Pressure recovery of the flow at different exit areas was determined by
measuring the total pressure profile of the flow inside the model using the rake. To get
the surface flow patterns a mixture of Oleic acid, Vacuum pump oil and Titanium dioxide
in the ratio of 1:5:10 by volume were used.
6. Results & Discussion
6.1 Side wall pressure distribution

The CP distribution is very similar for the wedge positions, W = 0, 20 and 40mm. In
this three cases the CP value increase steadily but gradually till X = 95mm. Then there is
a sudden decrease in CP value at near about X = 185mm. This sudden decrease can be
due to the expansion wave caused by the reflection of shock wave from the boundary
layer. Then there is an alternate increase and decrease of CP (Fig 6) along the length of
the intake. That is due to reflected shock and expansion waves. For the wedge position W
= 50, 55 and 57.5 mm the trend is similar to the previous positions of the wedge till about
X = 220 mm (Fig 6). But after that the CP value increases at a faster rate. It can be seen
from the fig that the shock is moving upstream as the wedge is moved further inside. For
the wedge position W = 60 and 80 mm, unlike the previous cases the CP value rises very
rapidly till X = 170 mm. Further in the intake there is alternate rise and drop in CP as in
the previous cases. But the magnitude of the fluctuations is comparatively smaller.
Maximum static position rise is obtained for wedge position, W = 60 mm. In the case of

wedge position, W = 100mm, initially there is a sharp increase in CP but after that in
becomes almost constant.
6.2 Top and Bottom wall pressure distribution

The top and bottom wall pressure distribution are given in (Figs 7 & 8). This
concurs with the pressure distribution on the sidewall.
6.3 Distribution of Total Pressure

The total pressure is measured experimentally only at the two rakes. Total pressure
is decreasing downstream along the length of intake model. This is due to the pressure
loss across the reflected shock train. But towards the end of the model there is a
considerable fall in total pressure (Figs 9 & 10).
6.4 Effect of plug position on Total pressure distribution

As the plug advances into the diffuser, the exit area is decreased (thereby increasing
the back pressure) causing decrease of total pressure. This can be seen from the total
pressure measured at the rakes for the different plug positions (Figs 9 & 10).
6.5 Distribution of Mach number

From the total pressures measured at the rakes and the static pressures measured 3
mm ahead of the rakes the Mach number was calculated using the Rayleigh-Pitot formula
(appendix). The Mach numbers at the various locations were calculated theoretically
using these two experimental values and considering the inviscid shock diagram (Fig. 11)
(Table) & (Fig. 12). It is seen that Mach number decreases downstream along the length
of the intake and as the plug is moved more inside it is observed that the shock at the
beginning of the intake becomes stronger and the flow becomes subsonic very early
inside the model.

6.6 Analysis of Oil flow pattern
Photographs of the oil flow pattern on the top, bottom and two side plates at two
different inlet total pressure i.e. Po = 60 psi (Fig. 13) and Po = 70 psi (Fig. 14) are
available. The observations that can be made from the two photographs are given below
Po = 70 psi
The oil flow pattern on the side plates (Fig. 14) is typical and in good accordance
with the inviscid flow theory. However there is a big separated zone just after the first
expansion corner at the bottom plate. An examination of the bottom plate oil flow pattern
clearly shows this separation. This phenomenon is however can be explained if we take
into account the boundary layer and its interaction with shock waves. According to the
shock boundary layer interaction theory this separation is caused due to high adverse
pressure gradient. Due to shock there is pressure rise outside the boundary layer however
there is no such pressure rise in the subsonic region of the boundary layer which causes
high pressure gradient and the subsequent separation. On reflection of the shock wave
from the boundary layer expansion waves are formed which turns the flow towards the
wall, reattaching the flow to the wall. This phenomenon can be understood from the
figure attached (Fig. 15). This whole phenomenon can be seen in the oil flow pattern. Oil
flow pattern downstream shows the formation of shock waves at location, which are at
good accordance with the prediction of the inviscid theory.
Po = 60 psi
The oil flow pattern for PO = 60 psi (Fig. 13) is different from what is predicted by
the inviscid flow theory. Initially there is a shockwave and expansion wave at the corners.
Also there is separation at the first expansion corner as predicted by the shock-boundary-
layer interaction theory if we take into account the viscous effects. An examination of the
bottom plate shows the separation of the flow at the expansion corner. However the
thickness of the separated zone is not as big on the side plate of PO = 60 psi as compared
to the side plate oil flow pattern for PO = 70 psi. The oil flow pattern downstream is a bit
different from the oil flow pattern predicted by the inviscid flow theory. This difference
maybe due to effect of boundary layer, which modifies the apparent location of the

inviscid shock relative to the actual geometry. Thus we get a pattern different from the
inviscid prediction. The effect of the boundary layer on the flow is governed by the
Reynolds number of the flow so this maybe the reason why oil flow pattern for PO = 70
psi & PO = 60 psi differ from each other.
7. Concluding Remarks
To understand the flow field associated with internal compression intake at
supersonic speeds an experimental program is initiated in the 0.3 m tunnel. An
arrangement was made to mount the model inside the test section of the tunnel. The flow
variation at the different exit areas was studied through measurement of surface
pressures, rake pressures and flow visualization. Pressure distribution inside the model
for different wedge positions have revealed that the flow separation occurs just at the
beginning of the intake. This causes the efficiency of intake to fall considerably. The
separation can be due to shock-boundary-layer interaction. Experimental studies also
revealed that maximum static pressure rise was obtained for wedge position, W = 60 mm
and minimum total pressure loss was obtained for the wedge position, W = 57.5 mm. The
variation of pressure distribution inside the model due to the change of back pressure is
reasonably understood. But the separation caused by oblique shock wave and boundary
layer interaction is yet to be understood fully.

Reference:
1. Van Wie, D.M., “Scramjet Engine”, Progress in Aerospace and Aeronautics,

AIAA Washington, D.C., 2001, PP: 447-511.
2. Bertin, J.J., “Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics”, AIAA Education Series, AIAA
Washington, D.C., 1994.
3. Mahoney, J.J., “Inlets for Supersonic Missiles”, AIAA Education Series, AIAA
Washington, D.C., 1990.
4. Young, A.D., “Boundary Layer”, AIAA Education Series, AIAA Washington,
D.C., 1989.
5. Chew, Y.T., “Shockwave and Boundary Layer Interaction in the Presence of an
Expansion Corner”, Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol-30, 1979, PP: 506-527.
6. Mattingly, J.D.; William, H.H.; Daniel, H.D., “Aircraft Engine Design”, AIAA
Education Series, AIAA Washington, D.C., 1987.
7. Gadd, G.E., “Interaction Between Wholly Laminar or Wholly Turbulent
Boundary Layers and Shock Wave Strong Enough to Cause Separation”, Journal
of Aeronautical Sciences, Vol-20, No-11, November 1953.
8. Gadd, G.E., “A Theoretical Investigation of Laminar Separation in Supersonic
Flow”, Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, October 1957.
9. Oosthuizen, P.H., “An Analysis of the Interaction of Boundary Layer and the
Corner Expansion Wave in Supersonic Flow”, UTIAS Tech Note 117, 1967.
10. Curle, N., “Shock-Induced Separation of a Laminar Boundary Layer in
Supersonic flow past a Convex Corner”, The Aeronautical Quarterly, February
1965.
11. Westphal, R.V., Jonston, J.P., and Easton, J.K., 1984. “Experimental Study of
Flow Reattachment in a Single-Sided Sudden-Expansion,” NASA CR 3765.
12. Mirua, H., “Prandtl-Mayer Flow of a Dusty Gas with a Small Deflection Angle,”
Phys. Soc. Japan, 37 (1974) 1145-52.
13. Miura, H., and Glass, I.I., “Supersonic Expansion of a Dusty Gas Around a Sharp
Corner,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A415 (1988), pp. 91- 105.

14. Delery, J.M., “Shock-Wave/Turbulent Boundary Interaction and its Control,”
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol-22, 1985, pp. 209-280.
15. Stollery, J.L., “Some Aspect of Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction
Relevant to Intake Flows,” Hypersonic Combined Cycle Propulsion, AGARD-
CP-479, June 1990.

Appendix
Procedure for calculating the Mach number upstream of the rake
Mach number measurements were made using the top wall mounted total pressure rakes
connected to an ESP scanner of range +/- 30 psid and ports on the sidewall, which
measures static pressure. The side wall ports were 3mm ahead of the plane of rakes so
that the static pressure measured was upstream of the detached shock (due to the rake)
and the total pressure measured was after the detached shock..
1. Calculate the local Mach number before the rake using Raleigh-Pitot formula
1
⎛ 2γ γ − 1 ⎞ γ − 1
⎜⎜ M 2 − ⎟⎟
⎛ Ps ⎞ ⎝ γ + 1 γ + 1⎠
⎜ ⎟ = γ
⎝ Po ⎠ ⎛ γ + 1 ⎞ γ −1
⎜ M 2 ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎧ 3.44 ⎫ −1
⎪ ⎛ Ps ⎞ ⎡ Ps ⎤ ⎪⎛ Ps ⎞ 2
M = ⎨0.88185 − 0.2147 ⎜ ⎟ − 0.2478 ⎢ + 0.06 ⎥ ⎬⎜ ⎟
⎪⎩ ⎝ Po ⎠ ⎣ Po ⎦ ⎪⎭⎝ Po ⎠
2. Calculate the local Total pressure upstream of the rake using isentropic formula.
⎛ Po ⎞ ⎡ (γ − 1) 2 ⎤
⎜ ⎟ = ⎢1 + M ⎥
⎝ Ps ⎠ ⎣ 2 ⎦

Figures


PT Analysis Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PT Analysis Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acknowledgement

We thank Dr Sajeer Ahmed, Deputy Head, Experimental Aerodynamics Division and Dr

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 1

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 2

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 3

PS Local static pressure (psi).

PO Total or stagnation pressure (psi).

P∝ Free stream static pressure (psi).

q∝ Free stream dynamic pressure (psi).

M Local Mach number

M∝ Free stream Mach number

γ Specific heat ratio (=1.4 for air)

X Distance from the entry (positive downstream) (mm).

W Wedge position (mm).

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 4

Fig No 1 0.3 M trisonic wind tunnel

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 5

The primary purpose of an inlet (intake / diffuser) for any air-breathing

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 6

The features of a scramjet inlet tend to be different from those of external

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 7

1.2. Inviscid/Viscous Coupling

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 8

Although a totally isentropic inviscid compression process can be designed, these

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 9

1.3 Boundary Layer Development

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 10

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 11

The separated flow fields for two-dimensional and three-dimensional shock-wave/

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 12

1.5 Starting & Contraction Limits

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 13

unstarted inlet can be predominantly supersonic. In general, an unstarted inlet captured

1.6 Blunt Leading-Edge

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 14

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 15

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 16

6. Results & Discussion

6.1 Side wall pressure distribution

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 17

6.2 Top and Bottom wall pressure distribution

6.3 Distribution of Total Pressure

6.4 Effect of plug position on Total pressure distribution

6.5 Distribution of Mach number

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 18

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 19

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 20

1. Van Wie, D.M., “Scramjet Engine”, Progress in Aerospace and Aeronautics,

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 21

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 22

Procedure for calculating the Mach number upstream of the rake

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 23

Submitted to Department of Aerospace, IIT Bombay 24

You might also like