Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T09:39:22.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using shock control bumps to improve engine intake performance and operability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2020

A. John Open the ORCID record for A. John [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Bower ,
N. Qin ,
S. Shahpar  and
A. Smith
A. John*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
J. Bower
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
N. Qin
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
S. Shahpar
Affiliation:
Rolls-Royce plc., Derby, United Kingdom
A. Smith
Affiliation:
Rolls-Royce plc., Derby, United Kingdom
*
a.john@sheffield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shock control bumps can be used to control and weaken the shock waves that form on engine intakes at high angles of attack. In this paper, it is demonstrated how shock control bumps applied to an engine intake can reduce or eliminate shock-induced separation at high incidence, and also increase the incidence at which critical separation occurs. Three-dimensional Reynolds-average Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulations are used to model the flow through a large civil aircraft engine intake at high incidence. The variation in shock strength and separation with incidence is first studied, along with the flow distribution around the nacelle. An optimisation process is then employed to design shock control bumps that reduce shock strength and separation at a fixed high incidence condition. The bump geometry is allowed to vary in shape, size, streamwise position and circumferential direction around the nacelle. This is shown to be key to the success of the shock control geometry. A further step is then taken, using the optimisation methodology to design bumps that can increase the incidence at which critical separation occurs. It is shown that, by using this approach, the operating range of the engine intake can be increased by at least three degrees.

Keywords

IntakeAerodynamicsShock ControlSeparationOptimisation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1282 , December 2020 , pp. 1913 - 1944
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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

REFERENCES

Farokhi, S. Aircraft Propulsion. John Wiley & Sons, 2014, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Oriji, U.R. and Tucker, P.G. Modular turbulence modeling applied to an engine intake, J. Turbomach., 2014, 136, (5), p 051004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C.A. and Hynes, T.P. Measurements of intake separation hysteresis in a model fan and nacelle rig, J. Propulsion Power, 2006, 22, (4), pp 872–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, T., Vadlamani, N.R., Tucker, P.G., Smith, A.R., Slaby, M. and Sheaf, C.T.J. Fan-intake interaction under high incidence, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 2017, 139, (4), p 041204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, M.J. and Schweiger, P.S. Ultra high bypass nacelle aerodynamics inlet flow-through high angle of attack distortion test, NASA CR-189149. (NASA CR-189149), 1992.Google Scholar
Boldman, D.R., Iek, C., Hwang, D.P., Larkin, M. and Schweiger, P. Effect of a rotating propeller on the separation angle of attack and distortion in ducted propeller inlets, (NASA TM-105935), 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A., Spakovszky, Z.S., Lord, W.K. and Rose, B. Ultrashort nacelles for low fan pressure ratio propulsors, J. Turbomach., 2015, 137, (2), p 021001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, R., Heidebrecht, A. and MacManus, D. An automated approach to nacelle parameterization using intuitive class shape transformation curves, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 2017, 139, (6), p 062601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, N., Zhu, Y. and Shaw, S.T. Numerical study of active shock control for transonic aerodynamics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow, 2004, 14, (4), pp 444–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.N., Babinsky, H., Fulker, J.L. and Ashill, P.R. Normal shock wave-turbulent boundary-layer interactions in the presence of streamwise slots and grooves, Aeronaut. J., 2002, 106, (1063), pp 493–500.Google Scholar
Chokani, N. and Squire, L.C. Transonic shockwave/turbulent boundary layer interactions on a porous surface, Aeronaut. J., 1993, 97, (965), pp 163–170.Google Scholar
Wong, W.S., Qin, N., Sellars, N., Holden, H. and Babinsky, H. A combined experimental and numerical study of flow structures over three-dimensional shock control bumps, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2008, 12, (6), 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A., Qin, N. and Shahpar, S. Using shock control bumps to improve transonic fan/compressor blade performance, J. Turbomach., 2019, 141, (8), p 081003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tai, T.C. Theoretical aspects of dromedaryfoil. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1977.Google Scholar
Tai, T.C., Huson, G.G., Hicks, R.M. and Gregorek, G.M. Transonic characteristics of a humped airfoil. J. Aircr., 1988, 25, (8), pp 673–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashill, P.R. and Fulker, J.L. A novel technique for controlling shock strength of laminar-flow aerofoil sections, The First European Symposium on Laminar Flow, Hamburg, March 1992, pp 175–183.Google Scholar
Drela, M. and Giles, M.B. Viscous-inviscid analysis of transonic and low Reynolds number airfoils, AIAA J., 1987, 25, (10), pp 1347–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, A., Lutz, T. and Wagner, S. Design of adaptive transonic airfoils by means of numerical optimisation, Proceedings of ECCOMASS 2000, Barcelona, 2000.Google Scholar
Stanewsky, E. Drag Reduction by Shock and Boundary Layer Control: Results of the Project EUROSHOCK II. Supported by the European Union 1996-1999, vol. 80. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, N., Monet, D. and Shaw, S.T. 3D bumps for transonic wing shock control and drag reduction, CEAS Aerospace Aerodynamics Research Conference. Royal Aeronautical Society, 2002.Google Scholar
Qin, N., Wong, W.S. and Le Moigne, A. Three-dimensional contour bumps for transonic wing drag reduction, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. G J. Aerosp. Eng., 2008, 222, (5), pp 619–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colliss, S.P., Babinsky, H., NÜbler, K. and Lutz, T. Vortical structures on three-dimensional shock control bumps, AIAA J., 2016, 54, (8), pp 2338–2350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, P.J.K. and Colliss, S.P. Review of research into shock control bumps, Shock Waves, 2015, 25, (5), pp 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, Y., Liu, P.Q. and Li, Z. Multi-objective optimization of shock control bump on a supercritical wing, Sci. China Technol. Sci., 2014, 57, (1), pp 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, F. and Qin, N. Using mesh adjoint for shock bump deployment and optimisation on transonic wings, 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, number – AIAA 2015-1488, 2015. No. AIAA 2015-148.Google Scholar
Zhu, F. Geometric Parameterisation and Aerodynamic Shape Optimisation. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 2014.Google Scholar
Shahpar, S. and Lapworth, L. Padram: Parametric design and rapid meshing system for turbomachinery optimisation, ASME Turbo Expo 2003, collocated with the 2003 International Joint Power Generation Conference, pp 579–590. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulfan, B.M. Recent extensions and applications of the “CST” universal parametric geometry representation method, Aeronaut. J., 2010, 114, (1153), pp 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinchliffe, B.L. Using Surface Sensitivity for Adjoint Aerodynamic Optimisation of Shock Control Bumps, PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 2016.Google Scholar
Lapworth, L. Hydra-CFD: A framework for collaborative CFD development, International Conference on Scientific and Engineering Computation (IC-SEC), Singapore, June, vol. 30, 2004.Google Scholar
Moinier, P. Algorithm Developments for an Unstructured Viscous Flow Solver. PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1999.Google Scholar
Stokes, G.G. On the theories of internal friction of fluids in motion. Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc., 1845, 8, pp 287–305.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A one equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA J. (AIAA 1992-439), 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinchliffe, B. and Qin, N. Using surface sensitivity from mesh adjoint for transonic wing drag reduction, AIAA J., 2016, 55, (3), pp 818–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polynkine, A.A., Van Keulen, F. and Toropov, V.V. Optimization of geometrically non-linear structures based on a multi-point approximation method and adaptivity. Eng. Comput., 1996, 13, (2/3/4), pp 76–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A., Shahpar, S. and Qin, N. Novel compressor blade shaping through a free-form method, J. Turbomach., 2017, 139, (8), p 081002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

John et al. supplementary material

John et al. supplementary material

Download John et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 20.4 MB