Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:55:28.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of back pressure and freestream dynamic pressure on a typical Ramjet engine duct under realistic supersonic inlet condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

R. Saravanan ,
S.L.N. Desikan  and
T.M. Muruganandam
R. Saravanan
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India Wind Tunnel Data Division, Aeronautics Entity, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, India
S.L.N. Desikan*
Affiliation:
Wind Tunnel Data Division, Aeronautics Entity, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, India
T.M. Muruganandam
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the behaviour of the shock train in a typical Ramjet engine under the influence of shock and expansion waves at the entry of a low aspect ratio (1:0.75) rectangular duct/isolator at supersonic Mach number (M = 1.7). The start/unstart characteristics are investigated through steady/unsteady pressure measurements under different back and dynamic pressures while the shock train dynamics are captured through instantaneous Schlieren flow visualisation. Two parameters, namely pressure recovery and the pressure gradient, is derived to assess the duct/isolator performance. For a given back pressure, with maximum blockage (9% above nominal), the duct/isolator flow is established when the dynamic pressure is increased by 23.5%. The unsteady pressure measurements indicate different scales of eddies above 80 Hz (with and without flap deflection). Under the no flap deflection (no back pressure) condition, the maximum fluctuating pressure component is 0.01% and 0.1% of the stagnation pressure at X/L = 0.03 (close to the entry of the duct) and X/L = 0.53 (middle of the duct), respectively. Once the flap is deflected (δ = 8°), decay in eddies by one order is noticed. Further increase in back pressure (δ ≥ 11°) leads the flow to unstart where eddies are observed to be disappeared.

Keywords

RamjetDuct/IsolatorBack PressureShock TrainSupersonic Flow
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1247 , January 2018 , pp. 83 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Waltrup, P.J. and Billig, F.S. Prediction of pre-combustion wall pressure distribution in scramjet engines, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 1973, 10, (9), pp 620–622.Google Scholar
2. Donbar, J. Shock train position control in an axisymmetric scramjet combustor flow path 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 30 July-1 August 2012, Atlanta, Georgia, AIAA Paper 2012-4145, 2012.Google Scholar
3. Fischer, C. and Olivier, H. Experimental investigation of the shock train in an duct/isolator of a scramjet inlet, 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 11-14 April 2011, San Francisco, California, AIAA Paper 2011-2220, 2011.Google Scholar
4. Matsuo, K., Miyazato, Y and Kim, H.D. Shock train and pseudo shock phenomena in internal gas flows, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1999, 35, pp 35–100.Google Scholar
5. Carroll, B. and Dutton, C. Characteristics of multiple shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in rectangular ducts, J Propulsion and Power, 1990, 6, (2), pp 186–193.Google Scholar
6. Om, D. and Childs, M.E. Transonic shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in a circular duct, 1985, AIAA J, 23, (10), pp 707–714.Google Scholar
7. Chang, J., Yu, D., Bao, W., Fan, Y and Shen, Y. Effects of boundary layer bleeding on un-start/restart characteristics of hypersonic inlets, The Aeronautical J, 2009, 113, (1143), pp 319–327.Google Scholar
8. Wagner, J.L., Yuceil, K.B., Valdivia, A., Clemens, N.T. and Dolling, D.S. Experimental investigation of un-start in an inlet/duct/isolator model in Mach 5 flow, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (6), pp 1528–1542.Google Scholar
9. Wagner, J.L., Yuceil, K.B. and Clemens, N.T. Velocimetry measurements of un-start in an inlet-duct/isolator model in Mach 5 flow, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (9), pp 1875–1888.Google Scholar
10. Carroll, B. and Dutton, C. Turbulence phenomena in a multiple normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction, AIAA 21st Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Lasers Conference, 18-20 June 1990, Seattle, WA, AIAA Paper 90-1455, 1990.Google Scholar
11. Sajben, M., Morris, M., Bogar, T. and Kroutil, J. Confined normal shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction followed by an adverse pressure gradient, 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 9-12 January 1989, Reno, Nevada, AIAA Paper 89-0354, 1989.Google Scholar
12. Bruce, P.J.K. and Babinsky, H. An experimental study of transonic shock/boundary layer interactions subject to downstream pressure perturbations, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2010, 14, pp. 134–142.Google Scholar
13. Su, W.Y. and Zhang, K.Y. Back-pressure effects on the hypersonic inlet-duct/isolator pseudo shock motions, J Propulsion and Power, 2013, 29, (6), pp 1391–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Tichener, N. and Babinsky, H. Shock wave/boundary layer interaction control using a combination of vortex generators and bleed, AIAA J, 2013, 51, (5), pp 1221–1233.Google Scholar
15. Weiss, A. and Olivier, H. Behavior of a shock train under the influence of boundary layer suction by a normal slot, Experiments of Fluids, 2012, 52, (2), pp 273–287.Google Scholar
16. Wei, H., Wang, Guo, Z., Puorkashanian, M., Ma, L., Insham, D., Luo, S., Lei, J. and Liu, J. Numerical investigation on the shock wave transition in a three-dimensional scramjet duct/isolator, Acta Astronatica, 2011, 68, (11), pp 1669–1675.Google Scholar
17. Birgit, B., Reinartz, U., Carsten, D., Herrmann, Ballmann, J. and Koschel, W.W. Aerodynamic performance analysis of a hypersonic inlet duct/isolator using computation and experiment, J Propulsion and Power, 2003, 19, (5), pp 868–875.Google Scholar
18. Varadarajan, P.A. and Roe, P.L. Geometrical shock dynamics and engine unstart, 41st AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 27-30 June 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, AIAA 2011-3909, 2011.Google Scholar
19. Chung, K. and Lu, F. Hypersonic turbulent expansion-corner flow with shock impingement, AIAA Fourth International Aerospace Planes Conference, 1-4 December 1992, Orlando, Florida, AIAA Paper 92-5101, 1992.Google Scholar
20. Eagle, W.E. and Driscoll, J.F. Shock wave-boundary layer interactions in rectangular inlets: Three-dimensional separation topology and critical points, J. Fluid Mechanics, 2014, 756, pp 328–353.Google Scholar
21. Beresh, S.J. Clemens, N.T. and Dolling, D.S. Relationship between upstream turbulent boundary-layer velocity fluctuations and separation shock unsteadiness, AIAA J, December 2002, 40, (12), pp 2412–2422.Google Scholar
22. Lee, H.J. and Lee, B.J. Flow characteristics of small-sized supersonic inlets, J Propulsion and Power, 2011, 27, (2), pp 306–318.Google Scholar