ISABE-2003-

AN APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY COMPONENT-WISE DESIGN OF DUAL-MODE AIRBREATHING

ENGINE FOR HYPERSONIC VEHICLES

B. Roy; D. Mahadik; and A. Batra

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India
e-mail: aeroyia@aero.iitb.ac.in

Abstract Introduction
A preliminary level work has been done to cover the The design of an air breathing powerplant for
ground for design of a dual-mode ramjet scramjet hypersonic application is the most intricate job-at-hand
powerplant for hypersonic vehicles. Various is sues in the for the aerospace community. Inherent phenomena like
design of such powerplants have been presented. Brayton the complicated shock-boundary layer aerodynamics,
cycle suited to the mission requirements have been fuel injection & mixing, combustion instabilities etc.
constructed and analyzed. An analytical approach to aid leading to tremendous total pressure losses have posed a
the initial design of the dual-mode ramjet-scramjet big challenge to materialize a continuously positive
powerplant for a hypersonic vehicle has been laid down. thrust producing engine.
A preliminary geometry of a typical propulsion unit has The present work had a primary aim of
been proposed, which includes a combustor design study development of understanding of various design issues of
in some detail. such powerplants. A simple approach has been adopted
to arrive at preliminary geometry of the components (viz.
Nomenclature inlet, isolator, combustor, nozzle) and engine as a whole.
A cross-sectional area of gas flow path (m2 ) Note that for this reason, at certain points, the weight
CV Heating (Calorific value) of fuel given to a particular design issue may found to be
DAB Molecular diffusivity of substance A in B (m2 /s) insufficient. The engine design process is aided with a
d Fuel jet diameter (m) reference design for the vehicle and its mission.
H Height of a component The mission statement includes altitude, Mach
h Enthalpy (kJ/kg) number, vehicle lift & drag data, vehicle angle of attack,
L Length of any component and thrust requirement through the course of the mission.
Lm Length for mixture to become flammable (m) Based on this, certain discreet points of operation are
M Mach number selected, cruise (Mach 7.0, Altitude 35 km) being the
m mass flow rate (kg/s) design point. The design thereafter is analyzed and
p, P Static, Total pressure (Pa) scrutinized from basic performance parameters at all the
PRF Pressure recovery factor other discreet points.
T Temperature (K) The mission data is converted to engineering
u velocity (m/s) parameters (SFC, efficiency etc.) for comparison with
x axial distance from injector (m) typical values quoted in literature [1] and for some
? ratio of specific heats of a gas tuning to ensure its smooth variation through the course
δm mixing layer thickness (m) of the mission (see table 1). The thermodynamic cycle
φ Equivalence ratio construction is carried out by finding the coordinates of
ηM mixing efficiency, extent of mixing the compression, combustion and expansions legs of the
ρ density (kg/m3 ) Brayton cycle (Figure 1).

Component Analysis and Design

Subscripts : Forebody and Intake

A air We consider a twin-shock forebody configuration. The
F fuel intensity of the forebody shocks depends on the upstream
0, t stagnation/total property (temperature, pressure) Mach number, vehicle angle of attack and the ramp
m mixing angles. For a given length of the vehicle, the ramp angles
x In axial direction were decided such that at the design point, the two
oblique shocks impinge at the inlet cowl. To estimate the
properties across the inlet, the shock structure in the inlet
is configured at various operating points (Figure 2).

1
Using the seventh root velocity profile [2] for turbulent
boundary layers, the inlet boundary layer thickness is
estimated. Thus, a corrected inlet area for mass flows is
obtained.
Table 1: Mission data
mixing. From the extensive experimental work by Billig
et. al. as reported in [5], it is known that the pressure
distribution characteristics in a rectangular constant area
duct, with accommodated shock train, follows the

Altitude Mfreestr. Drag Reqd. V exit Spec. thrust Air kg SFC Overall
(m) (N) Thrust (N) (m/s) (N/kg) (kg/s) (kg/N.s) eff.
13045 3.5 52186 93991.83 1906.5 865.6 108.5 7.70E-05 0.306
15573 4.0 41420 76635.48 2002.4 861.0 89.0 7.74E-05 0.334
19670 4.5 24358 46284.52 2118.5 816.7 56.6 8.16E-05 0.361
21815 5.0 19270 37583.26 2235.9 771.9 48.6 8.63E-05 0.384
23193 5.5 17566 35132.4 2355.1 720.7 48.7 9.25E-05 0.400
24996 6.0 14951 28555.49 2456.5 667.7 42.7 9.98E-05 0.405
27903 6.5 11235 20446.26 2577.2 612.3 33.3 1.08E-04 0.408
35000 7.0 9908 10045 2782.6 546.7 18.3 1.22E-04 0.415

characteristics given by Figure 3. Therefore using Figure

3 and Figure 4, depending upon the required static
pressure rise and the isolator entry Mach number, L/H
for the isolator is selected.

One-dimensional analysis and design methodology

In the current work, design based on properties predicted
by one-dimensional models is attempted. One-
dimensional methods are capable of suggesting [3] the
properties on a section as a whole. This means that the
variation in properties over a particular section is
suppressed in these models, and in most cases, the
predicted properties are to be treated as the average over
the section. One-dimensional models are known to have
limited accuracy. They are, however, popular and
extensively used because they give useful insight into the
phenomena while being easy to implement. Thus they
are useful for the purpose of preliminary design.

Preliminary design methodology

The preliminary design steps have been devised. The
first step is to lay down the thermodynamic cycle of the
propulsion unit. This can be summarized as follows:
i. Pressure Ratio Factor has been applied to arrive
Fig.2.1 : Free-Stream flow into the Engine at P03 .
ii. T03 /T01 has been assumed as per expected
thermodynamic cycle configuration.
iii. Compression efficiency, ? c has been assumed.
Isolator iv. Between station 1 (inlet face) and station 3
The isolator contains the shock structure that gets (combustor entry), above assumptions have
“smeared” due to its interaction with the boundary layer. been applied without any further gasdynamic
Thus the isolator can be seen as an “elongated throat” to analysis.
accommodate the terminal normal shock train, across v. Combustor length is decided by cold-mixing
which the flow turns subsonic from supersonic in the criteria.
ramjet mode. Thus, the design of isolator is essentially vi. Combustor exit conditions are decided by
based on ramjet mode requirements. In scramjet mode, energy requirements for thrust production.
where the diffusion is partial as compared to ramjet vii. Combustor geometry and combustion products
mode, the isolator space is utilized for fuel injection and (including heat release model) are studied using

2
 equilibrium chemistry model. (NASA CEA
code) [11]
viii. Combustor area ratio and air/fuel ratio
(equivalence ratio) are being optimized meeting
T04 and M 4 , which would meet the thrust
requirements.
ix. Nozzle gasdynamic analysis is being carried out
on the basis of full expansion assumption to
meet the exit velocity requirement (for the
required thrust). This is then used to obtain an
estimate of the required nozzle area ratio.
where, the subscript `t’ signifies total quantities, ‘2’ signifies
station number at the entry to the combustor and ‘x’ is the axial
direction.
In this equation, A(x) – geometry, and mf (x) – fuel
injector layout – are design parameters. Whereas
boundary conditions (M, Tt and ma at x = 0) come from
operating conditions and intake analysis. In designing the
comb ustor of a dual mode, air-breathing power plant
following factors are to be decided.
1. Area variation along x, 2. Heat release rate along x;

Combustor Table 2: Conditions at Combustor inlet

The primary objective in scramjet combustor P03 T03 T3 P3
design is to produce uniform combustible mixture with M3 PRF ψ
(kPa) (K) (K) (kPa)
minimal pressure loss. Selection of fuel injectors of
0.40 0.39 2.90 546.3 578 560.3 489.3
appropriate type, injection capacity (injection area) and
quantity play pivotal role in the design. In dual-mode 0.44 0.32 3.50 577.4 613 590.5 505.5
engine, the combustor performs additional function of
0.49 0.27 4.17 449.6 718 685.4 381.5
thermal choking and relieving. Thus, area variation along
the axis becomes an important parameter. For a given 1.35 0.30 3.80 641.9 901 660.6 216.3
geometry (area profile) thermal choking is governed by 1.50 0.27 4.20 808.7 1058 729.8 220.3
amount of fuel injected along the axis, which is in turn
governed by the injector layout. These parameters (viz. 1.68 0.24 4.53 946.6 1207 771.5 197.6
A(x), mf (x), mfi and type of injector) were chosen as 1.84 0.22 4.87 906.8 1397 833.1 148.4
independent parameters in the design. Suitable values of
these parameters are to be chosen for desired 2.00 0.21 5.18 506.8 1753 973.6 64.8
performance parameters.

Relation between performance of combustor and design Since the rate of change of Mach number is
parameters :A one dimensional model was developed to decided by rate of change of area and rate of change of
relate combustor performance with design parameters. heat content, we can achieve an appropriate geometry by
Major performance parameters like SFC, combustor exit varying these two parameters. The geometry should be
properties and thrust produced can be calculated using capable of operating in both ramjet and scramjet modes.
the model. This model is based on the There cannot be a physical throat in the combustor, as
aerothermodynamic first order governing equation model that geometry will not operate in scramjet mode. So the
presented by Heiser and Pratt [1], which relates area combustor is entirely a diverging duct. The divergence
variation, head addition and mass flow with Mach should be such that flow chokes thermally towa rds the
number (Equation 1). end of combustion in ramjet mode.
 γ −1 2  So by choosing different A(x) and Tt (x) we can
1 + M 
 −  1 dA  + 1 + γ M  1 dTt  
= (m& f + m& a )
2
dM 2 obtain a number of geometry that suits all operating
  
dx  1− M 2
   A dx  2  Tt dx  


conditions. These geometries can later be compared for
  best performance. The equations above can be used to
(1) obtained the static temperature, pressure and velocity
profiles in the combustor.
Parametric variation along x being defined as follows :
This differential equation can be solved using
the Runge-Kutta method. It requires conditions at inlet of
  γ − 1 2  combustor as boundary conditions
 1+  M 2  Geometry (A(x)) and heat released (Tt(x)) also
T ( x ) = T2
Tt ( x )   2  
Tt 2 ( x )   γ − 1 2  need to be supplied. The value of Cp and ? also changes
 1+   M ( x) 
 with progress of combustion and this should also be
  2   considered. Pressure lost due to friction, heat addition
A2 M 2 T (x ) and momentum change is calculated in the code,
p (x ) = p 2
Ac ( x) M (x ) T2 however a correction factor, which fills the gap between
γ theoretical and actual pressure loss, needs to be applied.
p( x )  T2 T t ( x )  γ −1 The procedure is outlined in figure 5.1.
Pt (x ) = Pt 2  
p2  T (x ) Tt 2  The remaining term, heat addition to the stream
is dependant on a) amount of fuel injected, b) mixing of
fuel with air and c) pressure loss in combustor. The
M ( x) T ( x)
u ( x) = u2
M2 T2

3
amount of fuel injected is again a design parameter,
whereas quality of fuel-air mixing is dependant on i) type
of injector and ii) layout of injectors.
Mixing of fuel and air : In order to establish relation
between fuel-air mixing and injector selection and
layout, mixing efficiency as defined by Heiser & Pratt
was used. Mixing efficiency at a section is defined as the
ratio of amount of fuel that will react under the mixing
conditions prevailing at that axial location to the amount
of fuel that would react in completely mixed stream.
Mixing data for various injectors is available in
literature. The data includes, Heiser & Pratt [1], Fuller et
al [6], Kurian et al [7], Diana & Mo [8], Schadaw et al
[9] and Kraus & Cutler [10]. Normal injection, ramped
injection and injection from/ after cavities are widely
discussed methods. Fuel jets having swirl and non-
circular cross-section are also being considered. For the
present studies, mixing efficiency data for fuel injection
behind a swept and raised ramp was taken from [6].
In order to use the data for analysis at operating
point of our problem, mixing data, available in literature,
needs to be corrected for temperature, pressure (density),
reactivity, type of fuel and velocity ratio. Corrections for
density ratio and velocity ratio were taken from [1],
whereas [11] gives effect of combustion reaction on fuel-
air mixing for practical purposes. In order to study
mixing behavior completely, an inert substance like
Helium in many experiments. This is done to 1) avoid
fuel-air reaction and 2) visual study of fuel flow and
dispersion. When a different fuel, having different
molecular diffusivity in air, is to be used correction
needs to be applied to the mixing data. Fuel correction to
mixing efficiency was approximated by the following
equation.
 D FAproblem 
η Mproblem = η M exp t ⋅   (2)
 D 
 FAexp t 
Figure 5 gives corrected mixing efficiency along axial
distance as applied on the data given by Fuller [6].
Heat addition : Fuel-air mixing data in the form of
mixing efficiency was used to find out the amount of
heat added to the flow due to combustion. Since mixing
efficiency is dependant on amount of combustible fuel,
heat added is
∆h = η m ⋅ m& f ⋅ CV ?lean mixtures (3)
where, ∆h is amount of heat added up to the
section at which ηm is calculated.
The rate of combustion reactions acts as a lag between
fuel-air mixing and heat addition. However, it has been
shown that this lag is negligible for kerosene combustion
[12]. The rate of heat addition for different types of
injectors is given in figure 7. Further contribution to heat
addition comes from pressure loss .
Using these inputs for heat addition, along with
fuel flow and operating conditions, Mach number and
temperature profile can be calculated in the combustor as
4
well as in the nozzle. Further performance parameters
like thrust and specific fuel consumption can be
calculated.
Combustor analysis was aimed to relate design
parameters (fuel flow, geometry, etc.) with performance
parameters (SFC, thrust production, exhaust gas
properties). To obtain flow properties (velocity, static
pressure, Mach number) at combustor exit, a one
dimensional model (presented by Heiser & Pratt [1]) that
considers effect of area variation as well as heat addition
was used.
Heat added to the flow depends on amount of
fuel added, mixing of fuel with air and reactivity of the
fuel. Mixing model was taken from various reported
experiments performed with non-reacting (cold) flow.
Corrections for temperature, velocity and reactivity were
applied to the mixing models (Fig. 5). Superimposing
chemical reaction model on mixing gave the amount of
heat added at each axial location [13]; the model takes
injector placing and amount of fuel to be injected as
inputs (Fig.5.1).
The placement of fuel injectors, amount of fuel
injected and variation of flow area are the controlling
parameters for thermal choking. Initial results of one
dimensional analysis (Fig. 6) pertain to a preliminary
geometry and injector layout given in Figure 8. The
different parameters are normalized with their values at
injection point. During the analysis of the preliminary
combustor, thermal choking was achieved up to flight
Mach number 4.5.
Components: Nozzle
The required thrust is obtained by letting the
combustor exhaust to expand through the nozzle.
Considering full expansion taking place at design point,
the exhaust gas velocity can be obtained.
The preliminary Brayton cycle analysis gives
the nozzle exhaust temperature which thus leads to a
value of nozzle exhaust Mach number. A 1-D code based
on “Method of Influence Coefficients” (for shock-free
adapted ducts) is then used [14] to arrive at a value of the
area ratio required to obtain these exit conditions.
At design point, in this case,
Thrust 10045 N
Vinlet face 1947 m/s
Mass flow 19.5 kg/s
Vnozzle exit 2475 m/s
Tnozzle exit 1336 K
Mnozzle exit 3.5
Area ratio, A4 /A3 13.2 ( isentropic flow).
The present model is found to be insufficient
and would require schemes like ‘method of
characteristics’ to arrive at better estimates. This is
especially true in the region of the nozzle that is partially
open to the atmosphere and makes use of the jet
boundary. The divergence requirements in the nozzles of
hypersonic vehicles make the use of the concept of these
free-jet nozzles inevitable.

Conclusion
From the basic mission requirements, the
required Brayton cycle coordinates were computed. The
complex flow is modeled using popular one-dimensional
scheme called the ‘method of influence coefficients’,
where the complex flow is seen as one with simultaneous
action of potentials. The numerical code developed,
based on this scheme, is capable of giving aerothermal
map of flow inside a adapted shock free duct with
simultaneous area variation, heat addition, mass
injection, wall friction and particle drag. To use this
code, a good starting estimate of these flow potentials
would be required. Parametric analysis around a baseline
configuration can then be done.
The study allowed to develop a quick method
for analyses and design of dual mode propulsor. This
method is useful to arrive at a preliminary design to meet
mission requirements. Further work will focus on using
the method to optimise geometry for reduced losses and
SFC.
References
1. Heiser, William H. & Pratt, David T.,
Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion, AIAA
Education Series, AIAA Inc., Washington, DC,
1994.
2. Mahoney, J. J., Inlets for Supersonic Missiles,
AIAA Educational Series, AIAA Inc., 1990, pp.
67-80.
3. Beans, E.W., Computer solution to generalized
one-dimensional flow, Journal of spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 7, No. 12, pp. 1460-1464,
December 1970.
4 Waltrup, P. J., "Upper bounds on the flight
speed of hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet-powered
vehicles", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol.
17 No. 6, Nov-Dec 2001.
5 Kazuyasu Matsuo et. al., Shock Train and
Pseudo Shock Phenomena in Internal Gas
Flows, Progress in Aeronautical Sciences, Vol.
35, pp. 33-100, 1999.
5
6 Fuller, Raymond P., Wu Pei-Kuan, Nejad
Abdollah S., Schetz Joseph A., Comparison of
Physical and Aerodynamic Ramps as Fuel
Injectors in Supersonic Flow, Journal of
Propulsion and Power, AIAA, Vol. 14, No. 2,
1998, pp. 135 – 145.
7 Srikrishnan A.R., Kurian, J., Sriramulu V.,
Experimental Study on Mixing Enhancement by
Petal Nozzle in Supersonic Flow, Journal of
Propulsion and Power, AIAA, Vol. 12 No. 1,
Jan-Feb 1996.
8 Diana D. Glawe & Mo Samimy, Effects of
Nozzle Geometry on Parallel Injection into a
Supersonic Flow, Journal of Propulsion and
Power, AIAA, Vol. 12 No. 6, Nov-Dec 1996.
9 K.C. Schadow, M. J. Lee and E. Gutmark;
Enhancement of Mixing in Reacting Fuel-Rich
Plumes Issued from Elliptical Nozzles, , Journal
of Propulsion and Power, AIAA, Vol. 3 No. 2,
Mar-Apr 1987.
10 D.K. Kraus & A.D. Cutler, Mixing of Swirling
Jets in a Supersonic Duct Flow, Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 12 No. 1, Jan-Feb
1996.
11 Gordon, S., and McBride, B. J., Computer
program for calculation of complex chemical
equilibrium compositions and applications,
NASA RP-1311, Lewis Research Centre,
NASA, Oct. 1994.
12 .T. Curran and S.N.B. Murthy (ed.), Scramjet
Propulsion, Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics Vol. 189, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2000.
13 D. A. Mahadik,, Effect of Fuel Injection and
Combustor Geometry on Scramjet Performance,
M. Tech. Dissertation, Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, 2002.
14 A. Batra, Aerothermal Flow Path Analysis and
Design of a Hypersonic Propulsion Unit,
M.Tech Dissertation, IIT, Bombay, 2002.
 7000

M=3.5
6000
M=5.5
M=7
5000
Temperature (K)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000

Entropy (J/K)

Figure 1: Brayton cycle from mission data

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8 1
[p/pi] / [p(st)/pi]

0.75

0.7

0.65 12

0.6
Realativised Pressure Distribution through Normal
0.55 Shock Train in Rectangular Section Constant Area
Duct
0.5
Isolator Enrty Mach = 1.25 to 4.0 at steps of 0.25
0.45 (curve 1 and 12 correspond to Mach 1.25 and 4.0 respectively)

0.4 Curve is independent of (theta/H) and Reynold's no. value

0.35
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

[x/H] / [L/H]
Figure 3: Pressure distribution in duct containing shock train

6
Figure 4: Duct L/H vs. entry Mach no. for different boundary layer thickness
2

1.8

1.6

1.4
Mixing efficiency, ηΜ

1.2

0.8
Cold flow data
0.6
Effect of Temperature
0.4
Effect of reaction (conc. change +
temperature change)
0.2
Effect of difference in injection
velocity
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Axial distance from injector, m

Figure 5: Corrections to mixing model (expressed as mixing efficiency)

Fig.5.1 Combustor Analysis Process [13, 14]

7
 2.5
Static Pressure

Static Temperature

Velocity
2
Mach Number
Non-dimensionalised parameters .

Total Pressure

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Axial distance from injector, x

Figure 6 : Flow parameters in combustor at free stream Mach Number 7.0

0.4
Swept Ramp 30º rise Lm = 0.8
Swept Ramp 30º rise Lm = 0.6
0.35 Swept Ramp 10º rise Lm = 0.6
Unswept Ramp 10º rise Lm = 0.6
0.3 Fuel jet parallel to airstream
Fuel jet at 90º to airstream
Swept Ramp 10º rise Lm = 0.6 (Fuller et al)
HRR / Total HR, (m-1)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
x, (m)

Figure 7 : Heat release rate for different injectors

8
 Figure 8: Combustor area variation and injector layout
(schematic)

Figure 9: Layout of the propulsion unit (dimensions expressed as a fraction of powerplant length)

9
 Abstract

ISABE-2003-

AN APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY COMPONENT-WISE DESIGN OF DUAL-MODE AIRBREATHING

ENGINE FOR HYPERSONIC VEHICLES

B. Roy; D. Mahadik and A. Batra

Department of Aerospace Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India.
e-mail: aeroyia@aero.iitb.ac.in

In the present paper a preliminary level work has been reported, which cover
the ground for the analysis and design of a dual-mode ramjet scramjet powerplant
for hypersonic vehicles. Various issues in the design of such powerplants have
been presented. Brayton cycle suited to the mission requirements have been
configured and analyzed. An analytical approach to aid the initial design of the
dual-mode ramjet-scramjet powerplant for a hypersonic vehicle has been laid
down. ‘Method of influence coefficients’ has been numerically implemented for
developing one-dimensional analysis capability. Simplistic estimate of the
boundary layer and the forebody shock reflections in the inlet is made. The
empirical laws available from earlier literature have been implemented to obtain
the required length of the isolator, without going in to the details of the
shockwave-boundary layer interaction. A preliminary geometry of a typical
propulsion unit has been proposed, which includes a combustor design study in
some detail. The parametric performance studies for the engine has been done
using an in-house developed code.

10
 Author Sheet
Biography of the presenting Author

Paper An approach to Preliminary Component wise Design of

Dual Mode Air Breathing Engine for Hypersonic Vehicles
Name BHASKAR ROY
Qualification B.Tech & Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering :
Title Professor
Experience 24 Years as faculty of Aerospace Engg.
Presently at Aerospace Engineering Department
I.I.T., Bombay
Mumbai 400 076, INDIA
aeroyia@aero.iitb.ac.in
Field of Interest Airbreathing Propulsion,
Turbomachines ; Axial Flow Compressor – Design
Of Highly Loaded Blades

Publications 6 Publications in ISABE in the last 18 years

8 Publications in ASME/IGTI conferences
10 Publications in various International Journals
15 Publications in Journals and Conferences in India

11