Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T07:48:43.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numerical validation and back-pressure effect on internal compression flows of typical supersonic inlet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

F. Ding ,
C.-B. Shen ,
W. Huang  and
J. Liu
W. Huang
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, Science and Technology on Scramjet Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Hunan, China
J. Liu
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, Science and Technology on Scramjet Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Hunan, China
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A numerical study was conducted to analyse the performance of different turbulence models and different turbulence intensities and turbulence length scales specified for the boundary condition of the inflow to the internal compression flow field of a typical supersonic inlet. The effect of the back-pressure ratio on the properties of the flow field was also investigated. Computational results obtained by the commercial software FLUENT, which is used to solve the full two-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, were validated through both graphical and quantitative comparisons with previously published experimental data. The two-equation models that were considered in this study are the RNG k-ε, realisable k-ε, standard k-ε, and SST k-ω turbulence models. The RNG k-ε model had the best performance among the four models and predicted good wall pressure distributions. The best agreement between the predicted results and experimental data was obtained when either the default values of the freestream turbulence intensity and length scale in the FLUENT solver were used, or the empirical formula was used to calculate the two parameters of the freestream turbulence properties. The shock wave pattern varied between the oblique mode and the fully developed normal mode with increasing back-pressure ratio, and the unstart phenomenon occurred when the back-pressure ratio was sufficiently high.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1215 , May 2015 , pp. 631 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

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

1.Wilcox, D.C. Progress in hypersonic turbulence modeling, AIAA paper 91-1785, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Fluent Inc, ANSYS, Inc, ANSYS FLUENT 13.0 Theory Guide, 2010.Google Scholar
3.Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B.Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, London, England, 1972.Google Scholar
4.Choudhury, D. Introduction to the Renormalisation Group Method and Turbulence Modeling, Fluent Inc, Technical Memorandum TM-107, 1993.Google Scholar
5.Shih, T.H., Liou, W.W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z. and Zhu, J.A new k-ε eddy-viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows, Computers & Fluids, 1995, 24, (3), pp 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Christopher, L.R.Compressibility considerations for k-ω turbulence models in hypersonic boundary-layer applications, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2010, 47, (1), pp 11–20.Google Scholar
7Wilcox, D.C.Reassessment of the scale determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), pp 1299–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Wilcox, D.C.Multiscale model for turbulent flows, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), pp 1311–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Wilcox, D.C.Turbulence Modeling For CFD, DCW Industries, Inc., La Canada, California, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
10.Menter, F.R.Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, pp 1598–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Menter, F.R., Kuntz, M. and Langtry, R.Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model, Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, 2003, 4, pp 625–632.Google Scholar
12.Menter, F.R.Review of the SST turbulence model experience from an industrial perspective, Int J Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2009, 23, (4), pp 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Kapoor, K., Anderson, B.H. and Shaw, R.J. Comparative study of turbulence models in predicting hypersonic inlet flows, NASA Technical Memorandum 105720, AIAA Paper 92-3098, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Oberkampf, W.L. and Trucano, T.G. Validation methodology in computational fuid dynamics, AIAA Paper 2000-2549, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Oberkampf, W.L.Verifcation and validation in computational fuid dynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2002, 38, pp 209–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Van Wie, D.M.Scramjet Inlets, Scramjet Propulsion, Curran, E.T. and Murthy, S.N.B.(Eds), 189, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 2000, AIAA, Reston, VA, USA, pp 447–511.Google Scholar
17.Huang, W., Wang, Z.G., Pourkashanian, M., Ma, L.Ingham, D.B., Luo, S.B., Lei, J. and Liu, J.Numerical invesitgation on the shock wave transition in a three-dimensional scramjet isolator, Acta Astronautica, 2011, 68, pp 1669–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Herrmann, C.D. and Koschel, W.W. Experimental investigation of the internal compression of a hypersonic intake, AIAA Paper 2002-4130, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Reinartz, B.U., Herrmann, C.D. and Ballmann, J.Aerodynamic performance analysis of a hypersonic inlet isolator using computation and experiment, J Propulsion and Power, 2003, 19, (5), pp 868–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Chang, J., Yu, D., Bao, W., Xie, Z. and Fan, Y.A CFD assessment of classifcations for hypersonic inlet start/unstart phenomena, Aeronaut J, 2008, 113, (1142), pp 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Chang, J., Yu, D., Bao, W. and Fan, Y.Operation pattern classifcation of hypersonic inlets, Acta Astronautica, 2009, 65, pp 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Chang, J.Bao, W., Yu, D., Fan, Y., and Shen, Y.Effects of wall cooling on performance parameters of hypersonic inlets, Acta Astronautica, 2009, 65, pp 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Chang, J., Fan, Y., Bao, W., Yu, D. and Shen, Y.Unstart margin control of hypersonic inlets, Acta Astronautica, 2010, 66, pp 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Schmitz, M.C. and Bissinger, N.C. Design and testing of a 2D fxed geometry hypersonic intake, AIAA Paper 98-1529, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Walther, R., Koschel, W., Sabelnikov, V., Korontsvit, Y. and Ivanov, V. Investigations into the aerothermodynamic characteristics of scramjet components, International Society for Air Breathing Engines, ISABE Paper 97-7085, 1997.Google Scholar
26.Huang, W., Wang, Z.G., Ingham, D.B., Ma, L. and Pourkashanian, M.Design exploration for a single expansion ramp nozzle (SERN) using data mining, Acta Astronautica, 2013, 83, pp 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B.The Numerical computation of turbulent flows, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1974, 3, pp 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Huang, P.G. and Coakley, T.J. Turbulence modeling for complex hypersonic flows, AIAA Paper 93-0200, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Erdem, E. and Kontis, K.Numerical and experimental investigation of transverse injection flows, Shock Waves, 2010, 20, pp 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar