Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

HYPERSONIC INTAKE OPTIMIZATION USING CFD WITH LOW-FIDELITY

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
$

Fore-body shock angle


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

*Research Assistant, Department of aerospace


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

using a combination of CFD and low-fidelity


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.

3. OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM STATEMENT


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.
!

Engine mass-flow rate ( m ): This parameter


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.

Both m and Fd depend on size (gross


dimensions) as well as shape (relative
dimensions) of the intake. Also, their effect
on intake performance is complimentary.
!

Hence the ratio m /Fd can be used for


performance evaluation, thus also combining
the propulsion criteria with external
aerodynamic requirements1.
!

m /Fd and PR will be used as the


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

Variable Nominal Values


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)
!

m / Fd= 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

A multi-block structured grid has been used


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

Pressure recovery, Mach number and mass


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

is the friction velocity,

where $w and #w are the shear stress and


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

The analysis consisted of stratified data


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

Here the second column describes the


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

only just touched the cowl lip. Such a


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
!

and m /Fd needed to be investigated. In


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.

The baseline configuration of the intake was


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
!

pressure recovery as well as m /Fd. It also


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

be fitted to demarcate the boundary between


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)

Figure 4 shows that equations 1 and 2 give


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

As discussed in sub-section 5.2, the intake


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

is calculated. A brief summary of the results


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)

Here F varies between 0.8 and 1.2. Thus the


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

Since there are five design variables, 49


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

the best configuration. Geometric and


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

Table 8 shows that the new configuration


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

reducing the number of samples required for


analysis..

recovery and an 8% increase in m /Fd. The


new geometry thus is comprehensively
better than the baseline.

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION


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. 1 Intake Geometry

Fig. 2 Computational Domain

Fig. 3 Distribution of Started, Non-started and Acceptable solutions

Fig. 4 Started and Acceptable Solutions

Fig. 5 Lines marking Startable and Acceptable Solutions

Fig. 6 Model for Startable and Acceptable Solutions

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