Hypersonic/CFD Papers

© All Rights Reserved

32 vues

Hypersonic/CFD Papers

© All Rights Reserved

- CFX12_01_Intro_CFD
- CFD.docx
- Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics i to 13
- ANSYS CFX Introduction 14.5
- Eulerian/Eulerian CFD simulation of a cold flowing FCC riser
- Intro Ansys Fluent 170 2pp
- Computational Fluid and Particle Dynamic in the Human Respiratory System
- Chapter-6
- Mit 1. Introduction to Cfd
- RET Bellmouth Sept
- Nasa Rotor67
- computational fluid dynamics i
- cfd pipe
- Iaetsd-jaras-Thermal Design, Mathematical Modelling, Cfd Analysis&
- CFD Notes Details
- 1-06-Floyd
- introcfd
- 1-Polyflow_12.1-lecture02-intro-to-cfd
- Fluid Dynamics En
- Final Exam January 2006

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

MODELS

P. P. Donde*, A.G. Marathe$ and K. Sudhakar$

e-mail : pratik.donde@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The current work has been directed towards combining low-fidelity models with CFD for parametric

optimization of a hypersonic intake. After identifying the performance parameters, design variables

and constraints, samples were picked through stratified sampling for CFD analysis. Results from

this analysis were used for developing low-fidelity models, which were used for modifying the

design space. Samples from the new design space were analyzed using CFD and the

configuration leading to the highest gain in performance parameters was considered the optimal

geometry.

Keywords : intake, optimization, CFD

Nomenclature

Beta

Cp

F

FD

l

M

Ps

PR

Th

u

yP

+

y

!

"

#

#w

$

Specific heat at constant pressure

Correction factor

Drag force

Ramp length

Mach number

Mass flow rate

Static Pressure

Pressure Recovery

Ramp Length

Friction velocity

Distance between cell center and

wall

Wall Y-Plus

Ratio of specific heats

Molecular viscosity

Density

Shear stress at cells near wall

Fluid density at cells near wall

Cone angle with respect to the

horizontal

Engineering, IIT Bombay

$

Professor, Department of aerospace Engineering, IIT

Bombay

Sub-scripts

1

First Ramp

2

Second Ramp

C

Cowl

e

Intake exit

i

Intake entry

max

Maximum value

min

Minimum value

1. INTRODUCTION

Based on shock location, supersonic intakes

can be classified into internal, external and

mixed compression. Mixed compression

intakes, which are a compromise between

internal and external compression intakes,

find the widest application in supersonic

aircrafts and the airframe integrated scramjet

powered hypersonic vehicle design uses this

type. The design of the intake depends

largely on the operating speed of the vehicle,

in addition to constraints related to size and

combustor performance. This leads to an

interesting optimization problem.

The present work demonstrates parametric

optimization of a generic hypersonic intake

models.

2. GEOMETRY

The vehicle fore-body is a part of the intake.

A 3-ramp compression system has been

considered in the current study. The baseline

geometry

with

important

geometric

parameters has been shown in Fig. 1. l1, l2

and lC denote lengths of the first ramp,

second ramp and the cowl. Th1 and Th2 are

inclinations of the first and the second ramp

respectively.

Optimization in the current context would

consist

of

improvising

on

certain

performance parameters of the intake

subject to constraints imposed by size and

combustor performance.

3.1 Performance Parameters

Total pressure recovery (PR): Total pressure

recovery is the ratio of total pressure at

intake exit to that in the free-stream. This

parameter is one of the means for evaluating

the efficiency with which the flow has been

decelerated in the intake. The total pressure

recovery indirectly influences the thrust

developed.

!

is a function of air density and velocity at the

engine inlet and, for a given geometry, has a

direct influence on the thrust produced.

Drag force on the intake wall (Fd): The drag

force can be defined in this case as the force

acting on the intake body in the positive xdirection. It is the arithmetic sum of the

pressure and viscous forces and primarily

dependent on the pressure variation along

the ramps, and hence on the shock

structure.

dimensions) as well as shape (relative

dimensions) of the intake. Also, their effect

on intake performance is complimentary.

!

performance evaluation, thus also combining

the propulsion criteria with external

aerodynamic requirements1.

!

performance parameters.

3.2 Design Variables

The performance of a generic hypersonic

intake depends on the shock structure and

intake area ratio (ratio of area at intake entry

to that at its exit), which is dictated by the

ramp angles and ramp lengths. Five

parameters which independently dictate

these factors were selected as design

variables. These are

! Lengths of the first and second ramp

(l1, l2)

! Angle subtended by the first ramp

with the horizontal (Th1)

! Angle subtended by the second

ramp with the first ramp (Th2)

! Length of the cowl (lc)

These have also been shown in Fig. 1. Table

1 gives nominal values of the design

variables. Here, all lengths and angles have

been normalized with respect to the cowl

length and second ramp angle respectively.

Table 1

Design Variables

l1

1.687

l2

2.859

lc

1

Th1

6.275

Th2

1

3.3 Constraints

In order to incorporate constraints related to

geometry, the permissible variations in l1 and

l2 are limited to 20% of their nominal values.

Limits for Th1 are set between 50%. Since

the value of Th2 is very low in the baseline

configuration, unsymmetrical limits between

0 and 10 are set. Length of the cowl is

varied such that even when the other

variables are at their extreme values, the

fore-body shock touches the cowl lip.

Constraints dictated by the combustor

require the Mach number (Me) and static

pressure at the combustor entry (Pse) to be

maintained at within 10% of the values given

by the baseline configuration (approximately

Mach 2.1 and 52.5kPa with a tolerance of

10%).

3.4 Mathematical Statement

The problem for optimization can be posed

for as follows:

Maximize

PR = f(l1, l2, lC, Th1, Th2)

!

Side constraints:

1.344 ! l1 ! 2.016

2.287 ! l2 ! 3.432

3.138 ! Th1 ! 9.413

0 ! Th2 ! 5.291

0.8 ! lC ! 1.778

Combustor constraints:

1.89 ! Me ! 2.31

47.25kPa ! Pse ! 57.75kPa

4 SOLVER AND GRID

for modeling the computational domain. The

shape and extent of this domain has been

shown in Fig. 2.

4.1 Solver

A CFD solver employing a second order

accuracy unsteady implicit scheme has been

used. Turbulence has been modeled using

the two equation k-" turbulence model with

standard wall functions. Temperatures were

found to be in the region of 1800K; hence

molecular viscosity (") has been modeled

using Sutherlands law and specific heat at

constant pressure (Cp) has been modeled in

a step-wise linear fashion using values from

gas tables. An overall mass balance of the

order of 2x10-6 has been used as the

convergence criterion for all steady-state

solutions.

4.2 Boundary Conditions

All external boundaries have been allocated

the far-field boundary condition with a static

pressure, static temperature and Mach

number equal to 830 kPa, 200K and 6.5

respectively. Also, an angle of attack of 5

has been imposed on the flow.

4.3 Grid Independence Study

A computational grid with 31,213 cells was

taken as a reference (Grid 1). Based on this

grid, finer grids were developed by

increasing the number of cells by 40% and

70% to obtain Grid 2 and Grid 3 with 63,700

cells and 91,728 cells respectively. Results

from the study have been summarized in

Table 2.

Table 2

Grid Study

Cells

Grid 1

Grid 2

Grid 3

31213

63700

91728

Total

Pressure

Recovery

0.2696

0.2782

0.2779

Mach

Number

flow rate are mass-weighted averaged

quantities measured at the intake exit while

+

wall y is area-weighted averaged measured

at the intake surface. The wall y+ is a nondimensional parameter defined as

y& %

Here,

#"$ y P

"

"$ % $ w # w

density at cells near the wall. yP is the

distance from centroid of the cell to the wall

and " is the fluid viscosity. For capturing

near-wall turbulence, the maximum value of

y+ should not exceed 90. From the results

shown in Table 2, we can conclude that Grid

2 with 63,700 cells gives sufficiently accurate

results. This grid shall be used in all future

analyses.

5 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

A preliminary analysis was performed in the

five-dimensional design space bounded by

the constraints mentioned in Section 3.3.

2.1062

2.1773

2.1718

Mass Flow

Rate

21.045

20.810

20.890

Wall y+

Averaged Maximum

53.72

18.83

11.07

239.33

84.78

59.35

sampling using the Latin Hypercube method

followed by computational solutions of the

sampled geometries.

5.1 Data sampling using Latin Hypercube

method

In this case, the Latin Hypercube method

was used as it employs stratified sampling

and gives better results than random

sampling2,3. In the algorithm used, the

number of samples is a function of the

number of design variables. If there are x

design variables, then each of them is

divided into n number of intervals, where n

is the lowest prime number greater than x.

In the case under consideration, x is 5;

hence n is 7. The number of samples is

equal to n2; that is 49. Solutions to these 49

geometries were obtained using the grid and

solver discussed in the previous section.

Table 3 summarizes results from this

exercise. All lengths and angles normalized

with respect to the baseline cowl length and

second ramp angle respectively.

Table 3

Results from Latin Hypercube Sampling

Overall

Started

solutions

Not-started

solutions

Acceptable

solutions

49

20

l1

Min

1.344

1.344

Max

2.017

2.017

l2

Min

2.287

2.287

Max

3.432

3.432

lc

Min

0.8

0.8

Max

1.778

1.778

Th1

Min

3.138

3.138

Max

9.413

7.323

Th2

Min

0

0

Max

5.291

4.407

29

1.344

2.017

2.287

3.432

0.8

1.778

3.138

9.413

5.291

1.344

1.792

2.668

3.432

1.3

1.778

3.138

6.275

0.9

4.407

number of solutions of the type under

consideration obtained. Started solutions

refer to those in which the Intake Starts; ie

the flow is decelerated without spillage

leading to the expected shock structure.

Acceptable solutions are those which fall

within the constraints dictated by Mach

number and Static Pressure at the

combustor entry. These results show that

most of the solutions (59%) obtained from

this exercise were not-started; and even

amongst the started solutions, only 3 were

actually acceptable. Hence, this exercise

emphasizes on a need to develop lower

fidelity models which would increase the

possibility of obtaining a started and

acceptable solution. This has been

discussed in the succeeding sections.

5.2 Shock-on-lip analysis

situation is called Shock-on-lip and ensures

a theoretically maximum mass-flow rate for a

given geometric configuration. Also, the

location of the shock affects wave drag on

the intake4 (an increase in the distance

between the fore-body shock and cowl lip

increases the wave drag). However, the

effect of Shock-on-lip on pressure recovery

!

doing so, random geometries which satisfy

geometric constraints were selected and

solutions were obtained using CFD. A

shock-on-lip situation was then created by

manipulating the cowl length (lC). Geometric

parameters of a typical example have been

shown in Table 4.

Performance parameters obtained from the

computational solutions for the two

geometries mentioned above have been

specified in Table 5.

designed such that the fore-body bow shock

Sample 1

Sample 1

Modified

Table 4

Shock-on-lip analysis: Sample geometry specification

l1

l2

lc

Th1

1.766

2.859

0.499

6.085

1.766

2.859

1

6.085

Th2

1.19

1.19

Sample 1

Sample 1

Modified

Table 5

Shock-on-lip analysis: Performance improvement in sample geometry

Mach

Pressure

Mass Flow Drag (N)

Static

Number

recovery

Rate (kg/s)

Pressure

(Pa)

39380

2.3752

0.2776

16.1662

6279.63

53593.72

2.1600

2.8010

21.0730

6973.36

The results in Table 5 show that a shock-onlip situation leads to an improvement in both

!

increases static pressure and reduces Mach

number so that a previously unacceptable

solution now lies within the constraints

imposed by the combustor, thereby turning

into an acceptable solution.

6 LOW FIDELITY MODELS

The preliminary analysis from Section 5

showed that certain models needed to be

developed and incorporated into the

sampling method so that

! sampled geometries picked provide a

startable and acceptable solution

! the geometries leads to a shock-on-lip

situation

Models developed with this motive have

been discussed in this section.

6.1 Model 1: For started and acceptable

solutions

Results from Table 3 showed that started

solutions covered the entire design space for

all design variables except Th1 and Th2. A

distribution of started, non-started and

acceptable solutions from results obtained

from exercises mentioned in subsection 5.1

and 5.2, in a 2D design space (Th1 versus

Th2), is shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3 shows that only half of the Th1

versus Th2 design space is occupied by

started solutions. Hence a straight line can

m /Fd

0.00257

0.00302

started and non-started solutions. Also, a

separate curve can be fitted to mark

acceptable solutions.

Th2 = -0.8011 Th1 + 6.7741

Th2 = -1.0729 Th1 + 7.7011

(1)

(2)

the relation between Th2 and Th1 for a

Started and Acceptable solution respectively.

A solution obtained from equation 2 would

always be started as well as acceptable

when Th1 is between 3.7 and 6.9. Therefore,

equation 2 needs to be incorporated into the

Latin Hypercube Sampling discussed in subsection 5.2 for obtaining a larger number of

useful solutions. In order to further validate

the relations represented by equations 1 and

2, solutions to random geometries were

obtained and the results were plotted as

shown in Fig. 5.

As can be observed from Fig. 5, acceptable

solutions lie close to the line represented by

equation 2. Also, the percentage variation of

Th2 increases as Th1 is increased. (15% at

Th1=10.5; 30% at Th1=6.5) Hence, a triangle

with minimum angle $min=45.5 and

maximum angle $max=49.3 (as shown in Fig.

6) can be used to mark the region of interest.

Design variable Th2 can now be replaced by

$ with limits 45.5 ! # ! 49.3

6.2 Model 2: For Shock-on-lip

performance improves when the fore-body

shock just touches the cowl-lip. Hence, the

design space can be greatly reduced if a low

fidelity model predicting shock-on-lip is

introduced into the sampling strategy.

The position of the fore-body shock depends

on the overall vehicle geometry, but the

angle subtended by this shock with respect

to the horizontal depends on two geometric

parameters, namely the vehicle nose radius

and the first ramp angle. The former is not

considered a design variable in the current

problem, and therefore is constant. Figure 7

shows the variation between the first ramp

angle (Th1) and forebody shock angle (Beta).

Equation 3 mentioned below gives the

relation between Th1 and Beta.

Beta = 0.0954 (Th1)2 0.2623 Th1 + 8.8272

(3)

Using equation 3 and other parameters

related to vehicle geometry, the cowl length

obtained thereof is

! 73.8% of the calculated values are within

10% of actual values

! 90.5% values within 20% of actual

values

! 7% values show more than 25%

deviation

A variation of 20% can therefore be

incorporated into equation 3 by introducing

the factor F, such that

lC = lC (model) F

(4)

design variable lC can now be replaced by F

such that 0.8 ! F ! 1.2

7 New Analysis

Based on the models discussed in the above

section, the new design space proposed for

Latin Hypercube Sampling is as shown in

Table 6.

Table 6

Limits for Latin Hypercube Sampling

l1

Min

1.344

l2

Max

2.017

Min

2.287

Max

3.432

!

Min

45.5

samples were generated and solved using

CFD. Since there are two performance

parameters

under

consideration,

an

algebraic sum of the fractional increase in

these two parameters was used for finding

Max

49.3

Min

3.7

Th1

Max

6.9

F

Min

0.8

performance parameters from the optimum

configuration obtained from this analysis

have been mentioned in Table 7 and Table

8.

Table 7

Optimum Configuration: Geometry

Optimum

Baseline

l1

2.017

1.68

l2

2.859

2.859

Max

1.2

lc

0.722

1

Th1

3.7

6.275

Th2

3.7

1

Table 8

Optimum Configuration: Performance Parameters

Optimum

Baseline

Variation

(Optimum/Baseline)

Static

Pressure

(Pa)

Mach

Number

Pressure

recovery

52102.2

52485.2

0.992703

2.2847

2.1773

1.04933

0.3433

0.2782

1.2376

leads to a 23.8% increase in Pressure

Mass

Flow

Rate

(kg/s)

20.5681

20.81

0.9844

Drag (N)

6421.19

7017.56

0.915

m /Fd

0.003203

0.00297

1.08171

analysis..

new geometry thus is comprehensively

better than the baseline.

The optimization exercise undertaken in this

chapter started with a preliminary parametric

study. The Latin Hypercube Method was

used for sampling. Based on the results

obtained thereof, two low-fidelity models

were developed and the design space was

modified. This was followed by another

computational study wherein, samples from

the new design space were analyzed. From

this, an optimum solution was obtained

which showed a significant improvement in

the

performance

parameters

under

consideration.

This work thus successfully uses low fidelity

methods with CFD for optimization, thereby

REFERENCES

1. Berens T. M., Bissinger N. C.,

Forebody Precompression Effects and

Inlet Entry Conditions for Hypersonic

Vehicles, Journal of Spacecraft and

Rockets, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1998, pp 3036.

2. Bebesma E. J., Heuvelink G. B., Latin

Hypercube Sampling of Gaussian

random Fields, Technometrics, Vol.

41, No. 4, 1999, pp 303-312.

3. McKay M. D., Beckman R. J., Conover

W. J., A Comparison of Three

Methods for Selecting Values of Input

Variables in the analysis of output from

a computer code, Technometrics, Vol.

12, No. 2, 1979, pp 239-245.

4. Lewis M., Designing Hypersonic Inlets

for Bow Shock Location Control,

Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.

9, No. 2, 1993, pp 313-321.

Fig. 7 Variation between first ramp angle (Th1) and fore-body shock angle (Beta)

- CFX12_01_Intro_CFDTransféré parRafael Peres
- CFD.docxTransféré parThiam Chun Ong
- Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics i to 13Transféré parpavlone
- ANSYS CFX Introduction 14.5Transféré pargebrefikru
- Eulerian/Eulerian CFD simulation of a cold flowing FCC riserTransféré parignacio7paz
- Intro Ansys Fluent 170 2ppTransféré parfrank_the_bang
- Computational Fluid and Particle Dynamic in the Human Respiratory SystemTransféré parSpongebob Fans
- Chapter-6Transféré parkaren
- Mit 1. Introduction to CfdTransféré parkulov1592
- RET Bellmouth SeptTransféré parPravin Rajan
- Nasa Rotor67Transféré parprakulmittal2
- computational fluid dynamics iTransféré parapi-296698256
- cfd pipeTransféré parUmer Rauf
- Iaetsd-jaras-Thermal Design, Mathematical Modelling, Cfd Analysis&Transféré pariaetsdiaetsd
- CFD Notes DetailsTransféré parAnonymous drYNHe
- 1-06-FloydTransféré parJacob Chezz
- introcfdTransféré parSyed Kazim Ali
- 1-Polyflow_12.1-lecture02-intro-to-cfdTransféré parwoongs73
- Fluid Dynamics EnTransféré parresocman
- Final Exam January 2006Transféré parSam Rutherford
- IJEAS0103007Transféré parerpublication
- 2019 CP502 CFD Project Guidelines With ILOs.170120820Transféré parPrabhasha Jayasundara
- cfd assigment.docxTransféré parVijay Gunalan
- CFDCoursePlanTransféré parSiddharth Choudhary
- Computational Fluid Dynamics 2017 M.techTransféré parAvinav Mishra
- CFDlabTransféré paraverentz
- 6647Transféré parlumostar
- CFD_notes_01[1]Transféré parAnonymous 7BQxlt8c
- cfd cat1 set 2Transféré parMr. Faisal Shameem
- Comparitive CFD Study for a Ship Hull With Sonar Dome at Different PositionsTransféré parManoj Kumar

- Sheet 17-2-2013Transféré parAhmad Salah
- 750 Double Interlock Preaction System, Type D, 2 to 8 InchesTransféré parAhmad Salah
- Foreign EASA Part 145Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Small HVAC Design GuideTransféré parstthomas
- Ctrl MidtermSol 2009Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Courses Uploads Attachment 112Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Courses Uploads Attachment 167Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Struc_Sheet1Pb5Transféré parAhmad Salah
- SolvedExamADPTransféré parAhmad Salah
- Sol Mid Term Exam 2012-2013(My)Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Courses Uploads Attachment 358Transféré parAhmad Salah
- 31543131122311321231232Transféré parAhmad Salah
- TA_15264Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Courses Uploads Attachment 263Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Sol Mid Term Exam 2012-2013(Load)Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Sol 2nd Mid Term Exam 2012-2013-Q1,2Transféré parAhmad Salah
- Stick Free CharacteristicsTransféré parPratap Veer
- [FEA] UGS Femap 9.3 Composite TutorialTransféré parUma Sree Samanvitha
- Compressors and TurbinesTransféré parahmet_ozan1
- PDE Tutorial 1 Intro LuTransféré parkannan_aero055
- Non Ideal Gas TurbinesTransféré parShaurya Sachdev

- 1-s2.0-S003808061300019X-mainTransféré parMa Rco
- Design of Microstrip Log Periodic Patch Antenna with The Help of HFSS SoftwareTransféré parEditor IJRITCC
- 2nd week test 6 weeks Algebra TestTransféré parJunaid K Jumani
- CalcIII CompleteTransféré parRohan Newaskar
- MATH4017 10% AssignmentTransféré parwaseem555
- 000550.pdfTransféré parAdarshpatankar
- QMW Mathematical Sciences Handbook 2007-08Transféré parucaptd3
- Gibbs Phase rule article 1876 - Equilibrium of Heterogeneous SubstancesTransféré parHerman Franken
- syllabus math course 3 pre algebraTransféré parapi-264828249
- revision complex numbers.docTransféré parJon Hadley
- Symbolic Mathematics in Python — Scipy lecture notesTransféré parFIKRUL ISLAMY
- admath azmilTransféré parMuhammad Azmil Alimi
- Master Applied Physics 2016 EnTransféré parAbhishek Sharma
- 16. CAD lab-ME 382Transféré parSwetha Pattela
- Doc-1003B-B.P.S.-X-S.A.-I-Maths-Chapterwise-5-Printable-Worksheets-with-Solution-2014-15.pdfTransféré parKAPIL SHARMA
- Intro2MatlabCh2 - Hadi Saadat.pdfTransféré par9290894
- GeophysicsTransféré parXimena Melgarejo
- (Unpublished) Application of Bayesian Point Estimation on Life TablesTransféré parJohann Sebastian Claveria
- HT Materials-Phase ChangeTransféré parLindi Newman
- Ees ManualTransféré parJr Mercury
- Introduction to Inverse Problems - Sari LasanenTransféré parMarcoags26
- b.techTransféré parshiv communication
- SMA 2471 Numerical Analysis TIETransféré parSamuel Kamau
- Form 5 Midyear Paper 2 2013Transféré paryokecheng20003826
- Mathematics for Edexcel GCSE - Foundation 2-Higher 1 (2015)Transféré partalatali
- PHDbrochure_2014_2015Transféré parAnjnaKandari
- Exponential Equation LP FinalTransféré parAngelo Belandres Llonora
- 0618611045Transféré parAmaury Guillermo Baez
- STEVE WILSON MATH 131 LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEM NUMBER 2.docxTransféré parJujuz Cassie Dbsk
- Ancient Vedic MathematicsTransféré parapi-27469451