Accepted Manuscript

Design optimization of a three-dimensional diffusing S-duct using a modified SST

turbulent model

Wenbiao Gan, Xiaocui Zhang

PII: S1270-9638(16)31351-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.12.016
Reference: AESCTE 3865

To appear in: Aerospace Science and Technology

Received date: 20 June 2016

Revised date: 19 December 2016
Accepted date: 22 December 2016

Please cite this article in press as: W. Gan, X. Zhang, Design optimization of a three-dimensional diffusing S-duct using a modified SST
turbulent model, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.12.016

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing
this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is
published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Design optimization of a three-dimensional diffusing S-duct using a modified
SST turbulent model

Wenbiao Gana,*, Xiaocui Zhangb

a
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, 100191, People’s Republic of China
b
The first aircraft design institute of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, Xi’an, 710089, People’s Republic of China

1 ARTICLE INFO ABSTACT

2 ______________________________
3 Article history: This paper examines design optimization of a three-dimensional diffusing S-duct
4 Received using a modified k-Ȧ shear stress transport (SST) turbulent model as a turbulence
5 Received prediction method. According to based-Reynolds-stress and based-separation
6 Accepted ideas, a robust solution procedure for the model is described and a grid
7 Available on line convergence study is presented. An automated system employs this model to
8 ______________________________ design a S-duct. The aerodynamic performances of the optimal duct are
9 Keywords: investigated in on-design and off-design conditions. It is shown that the sensitivity
10 S-duct of the modified model with respect to shape variations allows its use in the design
11 Design optimization system. Using a multi-objective optimization strategy, this design system
12 Modified SST turbulent model significantly improves aerodynamic performance of the S-duct and has low
13 Separation computation cost and excellent design efficiency. The centerline's curvature
14 Flow distortion and the cross-sectional area ratio become reasonable to avoid overexpand of the
15 Total pressure recovery optimal duct. Compared with the original design, the flow distortion coefficient of
16 the optimal duct is reduced by 16.3% and the total pressure recovery factor is
17 increased by 1.1% in on-design condition.
18 © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
19
20
E-mail address: ganhope@buaa.edu.cn.
21 1. Introduction 42 was shown that at high incidence there was flow
43 separation after the first bend and a pair of contra-
22 Modern advance aircrafts should have high 44 rotating vortices in the flow after the second bend.
23 stealth performance. To reduce radar cross section 45 These features caused serious flow distortion of the
24 (RCS) of propulsion system, typical advance stealth 46 S-duct. The experimental flow distortion of the S-
25 aircraft (such as the RQ180) always employs a S- 47 duct was analyzed by Seddon[3]. To improve
26 duct. This duct has complex shape and special 48 aerodynamic performance of the S-duct, practical
27 aerodynamic performance, which is mainly affected 49 intake aerodynamic design was introduced by
28 by two factors: 1) the flow distortion, 2) the total 50 Goldsmith [4] and indicated the computational fluid
29 pressure recovery. 51 dynamics (CFD) was promising for intake design.
30 The flow distortion will produce cross flow 52 Numerical simulation of the S-duct has been
31 pressure gradient and induce a secondary flow. At 53 developing rapidly in recent years. Xiao[5] applied
32 the same time, the boundary layer and the 54 a modified kíω turbulence model to investigate
33 secondary flow will interfere with each other and 55 transonic flow features of a S-duct. Based on RNG
34 cause detached vortex. These may lead to more 56 kíİ turbulence model, Saha[6] studied flow
35 serious total pressure loss and flow distortion. 57 characteristics of the S-duct. Gerolymos[7] adopted
36 Many scholars had done lots of researches to 58 Reynolds stress model to analyze the flowfield
37 improve aerodynamic performance of the S-duct. 59 structure of a dual S-duct. Zhang[8] used kíİ
38 Faced to total pressure loss and velocity 60 turbulence model to design a S-duct. The sensitivity
39 distribution, Weske [1] carried out the experiment 61 of different turbulence models was investigated for
40 of a S-duct. Guo [2] investigated swirl features in 62 the S-duct by Lee[9]. It indicated that the result of
41 the S-duct. It 63 Menter's k-ω Shear Stress transport(SST[10])
_____________________________ 64 model was more reliable than the other three
*Corresponding author.
65 models. Zhang[11] investigated multidisciplinary
66 design strategy of a S-duct, which used SST k-Ȧ

1
 1 turbulence model for numerical simulation. 39 where S is the magnitude of shear rate( S = 2Sij Sij ).
2 Aranake[12] employed MOGA-II and SST k-Ȧ
3 turbulence model to design a low-speed S-duct. 40 The production items are modeled as:
4 Using the basic SST k-Ȧ turbulence model as a 41 Pk = μT S 2 (4)
5 turbulence prediction method, Magnus[13] and
42 γρ Pk
6 Paul[14] analyzed the S-duct with vortex generators. Pω = (5)
7 These studies mostly focused on flow analysis and μT
8 controlling swirl of the S-duct, but didn't pay 43 The shear rate rapidly increases over the
9 special attention to conformal stealth constraint of 44 separation region and affects the accuracy of the
10 the airframe. Though the controlling swirl can 45 Reynolds stress. Thus, the model is modified
11 improve aerodynamic performance, sometimes has 46 according to higher precise mechanism of
12 difficulty with automatic realization of optimization. 47 predicting Reynolds stress (so-called based-
13 Therefore, it is necessary to consider conformal 48 Reynolds-stress idea[15]). Its production items and
14 stealth constraint and carry out an automated design 49 eddy viscosity are based on the magnitude of
15 optimization of the S-duct. Moreover, traditional
50 vorticity ȍ ( Ω = 2Ω ij Ω ij ) and are improved as
16 turbulence models have not got enough mechanism
17 of precisely predicting Reynolds stress and 51 follows:
18 separation. It is difficult to obtain reliable analysis
2 ∂u
19 in optimization process. The numerical simulation 52 Pk = μT Ω 2 − ρ kδ ij i (6)
3 ∂x j
20 method should be modified to improve accuracy of
21 optimization design. 53 ρ k a1ρ k § Re ·
μT = min[ ˈ ¨ ¸] (7)
22 In this paper, a modified SST turbulent model is ω ΩF2 © M ∞ ¹
23 proposed and validated. Based on this model, an
24 automated design system is constructed and used to 54 The equilibrium assumption of transport
25 obtain the optimal duct, whose on-design and off- 55 equations is no longer suitable for separation [15].
26 design aerodynamic performances are particularly 56 The relationship between the production and
27 analyzed. 57 dissipation of transport equations must be adjusted
58 to increase the sensitivity of predicting separation.
59 The model is modified with more mechanism of
28 2. The numerical Methods
60 predicting separation (so-called based-separation
61 idea[15]). It has a more suitable length scale and a
29 2.1. The modified SST model 62 more appropriate turbulent production mechanism
63 over separation region. It can be summarized as
30 A k-Ȧ shear stress transport model is proposed 64 five parts:
31 by Menter [10]. It combines the advantages of the 65 1) A blending function is constructed in Eq.8
32 original k-ѓ and k-Ȧ models by using the k-Ȧ model 66 based on the production of turbulence kinetic
33 near the wall, and the k-ѓ model away from the 67 energy,
34 wall. The transport equations of the model are 68 2) The constraint of the blending function is
35 summarized as follows: 69 given in Eqs.9 and 10,
70 3) The correction blending function of the length
∂ ( ρk ) ∂k §M · § Re · 71 scale is employed in Eqs.11 and 12,
+ ρu j = Pk ¨ ∞ ¸ − β ' ρ kω ¨ ¸
∂t ∂x j © Re ¹ © M∞ ¹ 72 4) The production of specific dissipation rate is
36 (1) 73 improved in Eqs.13 and 14,
∂ ª§ μ · ∂k º § M ∞ · 74 5) the length scale and the turbulence production
+ «¨ μ + T ¸ »
∂x j ¬«© σ k ¹ ∂x j ¼» ¨© Re ¸¹ 75 items are modified.
∂ ( ȡω ) ∂ω §M · 2 § Re · Pk § M ∞ ·
2
+ ȡu j = Pω ¨ ∞ ¸ − β ȡω ¨ ¸ 76 prkw = (8)
∂t ∂x j © Re ¹ © M∞ ¹ β ρ kω ¨© Re ¸¹
'

∂ ª§ μ · ∂ω º § M ∞ · 77 f1 = C1p rkw − C2 (9)

37 + «¨ μ + T ¸ » (2)
∂x j ¬« © σ k ¹ ∂ x j ¼» ¨© Re ¸¹ 78 f 2 = min(max ( f1 , C3 ) , C4 ) (10)
ȡ∂k ∂ω § M∞ ·
+ 2(1 − F1 ) ¨ ¸ μT + μ § M ∞ ·
σ ω2 ω ∂x j ∂x j © Re ¹ rd =
79 ρU κ 2 d 2 ¨© Re ¸¹ (11)
38 ρ k a1ρ k § Re · f d = 1.0 − tanh((8rd )3 )
 μT = min[ ˈ ¨ ¸] (3) 80 (12)
ω SF2 © M ∞ ¹
81 f3 = f 2 f d + (1.0 − f d ) (13)

2
 1 Pω = f 3 Pω (14) 46 Fig.3 shows typical velocity profiles using MSST
47 (x/Cre=1.00). Although the velocity profile
2 where , ț is Von Karman 48 predicted by the coarse mesh is different from
U = ( Sij Sij + ȍ ij ȍ ij ) / 2
49 others, the three finer grids have a similar feature of
3 constant. Pω replaces Pω in Eq.2. 50 velocity profile.
4 In addition to the model constants in Eqs.12 and 51 Table 1
5 13, the following constants are introduced in the 52 Mesh sizes for the grid convergence study.
6 model:
Mesh Total cells Max y+
7 C1 = 4, C2 = 5, C3 = 1, C4 = 12, (15) Coarse 325×89 3.2
Medium 487×131 1.6
8 All constants are given to ensure the numerical Fine 729×197 0.8
9 simulation accuracy in many typical cases as Extra-fine 1093×295 0.4
10 Ref.[15]. 0

-2
11 2.2. The splitting method and boundary conditions
Coarse
Medium
-4 Fine
12 A structured Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes

log(R)
Extra-fine
13 code is used as the flow solver [15]. The implicit
-6
14 approximate factor (AF) splitting time method [16]
15 and Roe flux-difference splitting spatial discrete
-8
16 method are used. The turbulence transport
17 equations have been solved with special handling.
18 Their time discrete still uses AF method. Explicit -10
0 4000 8000
19 processing is used for the production terms. The 53 Iteration
54 Fig.1. Convergence of the density residual on the
20 dissipation and diffusion terms are implicitly 55 different meshes.
21 processed and employed as source terms. At solid
22 boundaries, the no-slip condition enforces k=0, ω
2
800 μ § M ∞ ·
23 satisfies ω = as Ref.[10]. At far field
ρ d 2 ¨© Re ¸¹
24 boundaries, k is determined by freesteam turbulence
25 intensity, ω is specified as ω = k 0.009 in Ref.[15].

26 2.3. Validations

27 The CFDVAL2004 includes a case without flow

28 control [17]. To explain the modified mechanism
29 step by step, the original, based-Reynolds-stress
30 and full modified SST model are applied to predict 56
57 Fig.2. The flow field for fine grid (MSST).
31 separation for this case respectively. They are
58
32 referred to as SST, SST-M1 and MSST. A family of
33 grids is generated for which exact sizes are listed in 0.15
34 table 1. The computational domain extends -
Coarse
35 1.95”x/Cre”3.64 and 0”y/Cre”0.91, where Cre is the Medium
36 distance from the onset of the hump to experiment 0.1
Fine
Extra-fine
37 reattachment point. At x/Cre=í1.95, the momentum-
y/Cre

38 thickness Reynolds number is 6771 and the

39 turbulence intensity is 0.5%. 0.05
40 Figure 1 shows the density residual convergence
41 of MSST for the four grids. The finer grids require
42 more iterations to converge. Fig.2 shows the 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
43 computed flow field using MSST for the fine grid. 59 u/Uinf
44 It indicates the separation and reattachment points 60 Fig. 3. Computational and experimental velocity profiles
45 in the photomicrographs. 61 at x/Cre=1.00.

3
 -0.6
SST Separation
44 separation region, SST-M1 has more reasonable
SST Reattachment 45 turbulent production than SST. But it has low
SST-M1 Separation
SST-M1 Reattachment 46 sensitivity of separation. Based on SST-M1, the
MSST Separation
-1.3 MSST Reattachment 47 separation-based modified SST turbulent model has
48 good sensitivity of separation to improve the
log(|Δx/Cre|)

49 computational accuracy.
-2 50 Table 2
51 The compassion of computation and experiment.

Location(x/xre) SST SST-M1 MSST Exp

-2.7 Separation 0.598 0.603 0.602 0.6045
-2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2
1 log(N-1/2) Reattachment 0.975 1.024 0.991 1.000
2 Fig. 4. Grid convergence of the aerodynamic coefficients. 52
3 N is the total number of cells in the grid and ¨x/Cre is the
4 difference between computation and experiment. 0.15
u-experiment
v-experiment
u-SST
v-SST
5 In order to visualize the convergence behavior, u-SST-M1
v-SST-M1
u-MSST
6 the data points of separation and reattachment 0.1 v-MSST

y/Cre
7 (determined by flow field, such as Fig.2) are plotted
8 in Fig.4. A good level of convergence is achieved
9 by three methods. The difference between the three 0.05
10 finer meshes is less than 1% for both separation and
11 reattachment.
12 Table 2 shows the comparison of fine grid 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
13 computational and experimental results, which are (u,v)/Uinf
53
14 nondimensionalized by reattachment distance. The 54 Fig.5. Computational and experimental velocity profiles
15 difference between computational and experimental 55 at x/xre=1.00.
16 [18,19] result is small. The reattachment points of
17 SST and SST-M1 are away from experiment. The uv-experiment
vv-experiment
18 result of MSST is in good agreement with 0.15 uu-experiment
uv-SST
19 experimental data. vv-SST
uu-SST
uv-SST-M1
20 Fig.5 shows computational and experimental vv-SST-M1
uu-SST-M1
21 velocity profiles at x/xre=1.00. Velocity profiles of 0.1
uv-MSST
vv-MSST
22 MSST are closer to experiment than SST and SST- uu-MSST
y/C

23 M1. In fact, the SST model in previous

24 publications[18,19] is always based on vorticity. 0.05
25 The SST-M1 is similar with these publications, but
26 has more precise production item of turbulent
27 energy in Eq.6. Thus, the reattachment point of the
0
28 SST-M1 is away from the experimental result and a -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
(uu,uv,vv)/U2inf
29 little similar with previous publications. 56
30 Fig.6 shows computational and experimental[18] 57 (a) x/xre=1.00
uv-experiment
31 Reynolds stress. Compared with the experiment at vv-experiment
uu-experiment
uv-SST
32 x/xre=1.00, SST significantly overestimates 0.15
vv-SST
uu-SST
uv-SST-M1

33 Reynolds stress u ′v′

, whereas SST-M1
vv-SST-M1
uu-SST-M1
uv-MSST
34 underestimates Reynolds stress and is better than vv-MSST
uu-MSST
0.1
35 SST. MSST has better computational accuracy of
y/C

36 Reynolds stress than SST-M1. At x/xre=1.0909,

37 since it is away from reattachment point,
0.05
38 computational results of various models tend to be
39 consistent.
40 The rapidly increasing shear rate over the
0
41 separation region can greatly cause the strengthen -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 2
0.04 0.06 0.08
58 (uu,uv,vv)/Uinf
42 Reynolds stress u ′v′ of SST. Since the increase of 59 (b) x/xre=1.0909
43 vorticity is slower than shear rate over the 60 Fig. 6. Computational and experimental Reynolds stress.

4
 0.6
1 The experimental NASA S-duct was designed to
2 study complex three-dimensional flow features,
0.4
3 such as separation and secondary flows [20, 21]. It
4 is used for validated computation. 0.2
5 A family of grids is generated for which exact

CP
10o Coarse
6 sizes are listed in table 3. The grids are created by 0 90o o Coarse
170 Coarse
7 skipping every other point in the finer mesh. The 10oo Medium
90 o Medium
170 Medium
8 first layer y+ over the wall is increased four times. -0.2 10oo Fine
90 o Fine
9
Fig. 7 shows the medium grid of the duct. The 170 Fine

10 grid's density of symmetric plane is reasonable. -0.4

0 1 2 3 4 5
39 s/D1

11 Table 3 40 (a) SST

0.6
12 Mesh sizes of NASA S-duct.

Mesh Total cells(O-H) Max y + 0.4

Coarse (29×29+41×113)×109 3.6

0.2
Medium (57×57+81×225)×217 0.9
Fine (113×113+161×449)×433 0.225

CP
10o Coarse
0 90o o Coarse
170 Coarse
13 10oo Medium
90 o Medium
170 Medium
-0.2 10oo Fine
90 o Fine
170 Fine

-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5
41 s/D1
42 (b) MSST
43 Fig. 8. Pressure coefficient for all grids.

0.6
14
15 (a) cross-section
0.4

0.2
CP

10oo MSST
0 90 MSST
170o MSST
10o Exp
90o Exp
16 -0.2
o
170 Exp
10o SST
17 (b) symmetry o
90 o SST
170 SST
18 Fig. 7. The medium grid of NASA S-duct. -0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5
44 s/D1

19 Fig. 8 shows pressure coefficient at 10o, 90o and 45 Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental and computed
20 170o locations for all grids. Although the result of 46 pressure coefficient based on the fine mesh.
21 coarse method is different from the two fine grids,
22 the pressure coefficient curves of two fine grids are
23 almost superimposed for both SST and MSST.
24 A comparison of pressure coefficient along the
25 duct's surface at 10o, 90o and 170o locations is
26 shown in Fig.9. The computations based on the fine
27 mesh are compared with the experimental data [20].
28 The modified model suitability predicts the pressure
29 coefficient along the duct's centerline for each 47
30 angular location. It has better precision than SST
31 model whose results are similar in Ref.[21].
32 The computed streamlines in the duct's symmetry
33 plane, shown in Fig.10, appear to be qualitatively
34 very similar to those in experiment. But the highest
35 point of the separation bubble in experiment is not 48
36 obvious in computation. 49 Fig.10. Computed and experimental streamlines in the
37 Fig.11 and Fig.12 show the comparisons between 50 symmetry plane of the duct.
38 the computational and experimental Mach number

5
 1 and the total pressure coefficient respectively at the 29 constraint, the design problem is expressed as
2 aerodynamic interface plane (AIP). It is clear from 30 special parameter optimization problem. Secondly,
3 Fig.11 that the present model predicts the velocity 31 the system builds RBF surrogate model and applies
4 distribution very well. The total pressure coefficient 32 MOGA to optimization. Furthermore, some points
5 contours behave in a similar manner due to 33 of Pareto frontier are used as increased samples to
6 separation predicted in the computation, as seen in 34 carry out the updated optimization. Finally, the
7 Fig.12. 35 performance of optimization result is analyzed and
0.2 36 certificated.
0.2
5

Express Optimization
0. 0
1 .3 and Initial sample
Ma
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25 Solve of modified SST model
0.2
0.15
0.05

0.1
5 5
0.1 0.3

0.05
Build surrogate model
0.3

4
0.

Basic
0.2 process Start MOGA
8 01 0.25

9 Experiment Computational
10 Fig.11. Mach contours at aerodynamic interface
11 plane(AIP). Optimization base on surrogate model

0
0.84 .72
Yes
Optimization
end condition
No
0.6
6

CP0
0.96
0.90 Transfer to the update optimized solution
0.84
0.78
0.72
0.66 Certification analysis of
0 .9

00.7 0.90
6

0.60
optimization result
.680

37
0.84

38 Fig.13. The framework of the design system.

0.72
12
13 Experiment Computational 39 3.2. Experimental design and surrogate model
14 Fig.12. The total pressure coefficient contours at AIP.
40 In the design process, the strategy of updated
15 It is shown that the modified SST turbulent 41 optimization selects partition Pareto solutions in
16 model is sufficiently robust and reliable to simulate 42 each round of optimization operation. These
17 aerodynamic features of VALCFD2004 and the 43 solutions are solved by CFD and increased as
18 typical S-duct. The model has almost equivalent 44 sample points to improve the credibility of
19 computational cost as the original model and is fit 45 surrogate model. The Latin hypercube sample[23]
20 for design and analysis of the S-duct. 46 is used as the initial experimental design. To
47 enhance the efficiency of optimization, RBF is
21 3. The automated design system 48 employed as the surrogate model. The RBF method
49 is a feed forward neural network with strong self-
22 3.1. The framework of the design system 50 adapt as Eq.15 and is always used in aerodynamic
51 optimization. Its details can be found in Ref.[15].
23 The design system combines with the modified  K
24 SST turbulent model, radial basis function 52 f ( x) = ¦ ωkφ ( x − Ck ) + bk (15)
25 (RBF[22]) surrogate model and multi-object k =1

26 genetic algorithm. Fig.13 shows the framework of

27 the design system, which includes four parts. 53 3.3. Optimization algorithm and grid deformation
28 Firstly, taken into account conformal stealth

6
 1 The multi-object genetic algorithm (MOGA [24]) 37 4. The design optimization and analysis
2 is used to conduct the multi-object optimization. It
3 has been real-coded as the basic optimization 38 4.1. The design problem
4 algorithm. To evaluate the fitness of each individual
5 in the population, the value of each objective is 39 In the design process, based on conformal stealth
6 determined, and then the normalized value of 40 constraint of the aircraft, the airframe's shape and
7 fitness is expressed in Ref.[24]. The MOGA usually 41 the duct's inlet station are firstly determined to meet
8 can handle complex aerodynamic optimization 42 requirement of stealth. Fig.14 shows the shape
9 problems. The algorithm has four steps. At first, a 43 schematic of the duct and airframe. The shape of
10 random population in size N is generated. Secondly, 44 the duct is parameterized. The solid model and grid
11 after evaluation of initial population, non- 45 are automatically updated using the TFI method.
12 dominated solutions are determined and archived. 46 The design process includes several CFD
13 And then offspring population is generated using 47 computations, reconstructions of surrogate model,
14 roulette wheel selection, crossover and mutation 48 iterates of optimization.
15 operators. At last, after producing child population, 49 Fig.15 is multi-directional view of the duct,
16 the next generation (Ȝ+ȝ)-selection strategy is 50 which is based on conformal stealth constraint. The
17 applied as survivor selection rule. In the process of 51 centerline,area ratio and offset are parameterized,
18 survival selection, Ȝ offspring are produced and 52 and respectively described as Eq. (20), (21) and
19 calculated the respective fitness. And then, 53 (22).
20 according to (Ȝ+ȝ)-selection strategy, the best ȝ
21 chromosomes in Ȝ+ȝ ones are selected as the next 54
y − y0 = [a1(Δx)2 + b1(Δx)3 + c1(Δx)4 + d1(Δx)5 ] + x0 (20)
22 population members in each generation [25]. In A A2
23 each generation, the archive of non-dominated = ( −1)[a2 (Δx)2 + b2 (Δx)3 + c2 (Δx)4 ] +1
24 solution is updated by the current population. A1 A1
55 (21)
25 The transfinite interpolation (TFI [26]) method z − z0 = [a3 (Δx) + b3 (Δx)2 + c3 (Δx)3 ] + x0
56 (22)
26 has been widely adapted to grid deformation. It is
27 used to compute the displacements in the interior of 57 Fig.16 shows the surface mesh of the S-duct. The
28 the grid blocks. The displacement is computed by 58 grid's density is reasonable.
29 straight-line interpolation in the direction:
JJG1 JJG
dx (ξ ,η,ς ) = ω1(ξ ,η,ς )(1 − tξ ,η,ς )dx(0,η,ς )
JJG
+ω2 (ξ ,η,ς )tξ ,η,ς dx(NI ,η,ς )
30 (16)
31 Then the mismatch of the displacements must be 59 
60 Fig.14. The shape of the S-duct and fuselage.
32 added along the other two directions. 61
JJG2 JJG1
dx (ξ,η,ς ) = dx (ξ,η,ς ) +
JJG JJG1
33 ω3(ξ,η,ς )(1− sξ ,η,ς )(dx(ξ,0,ς ) − dx (ξ,0,ς )) (17)
JJG JJG1
+ω4 (ξ,η,ς )sξ ,η,ς (dx(ξ, NJ ,ς ) − dx (ξ, NJ ,ς ))
62
JJG3 JJG 2
dx (ξ ,η,ς ) = dx (ξ ,η,ς ) +
JJG JJG 2
34 ω5 (ξ ,η,ς )(1 − uξ ,η ,ς )(dx(ξ ,η,0) − dx (ξ ,η,0)) (18)
JJG JJG 2 63
+ω6 (ξ ,η,ς )uξ ,η ,ς (dx(ξ ,η, NK ) − dx (ξ ,η, NK )) 64 Fig.15. The multi-directional view of the S-duct.
65
35 Finally, the grid deformation is finished as

36 JJG JJG3
dx(ξ,η,ς ) = dx (ξ,η,ς ) (19) 66
67 Fig.16. The surface mesh of the S-duct.

7
 1 4.2. Design results and analysis 39 than the original duct in the front half. The
40 centerline's curvature and the area ratio of the
2 The design goals are the total pressure recovery 41 optimal duct are reasonable to avoid overexpand.
3 ıP0 and the total pressure distortion DC60 at design
42 The distortion coefficient of the optimal S-duct is
4 state (Eq.(23) and Eq.(24)). The design state is Ma
43 reduced by 16.3%, and the total pressure recovery
5 = 0.6, Į = 2Û.
44 factor is increased by 1.1% at design state (as
P0,outlet 45 shown in Fig.20 and Fig.21). As Mach and attack
6 ıP0 = (23) 46 angle increase, the total pressure recovery is smaller
P0,inlet 47 and the distortion coefficient becomes larger.

7 [P0 − P0 (φ,ψ )] 0.4

DCψ = max (24)
0≤φ ≤2 q
0.3
8 where q is the mean dynamic pressure with

DC60
9 1 0.2
q= ρV 2 , ȡ is the density and V is the magnitude
2
10 of the velocity, and P0 is the mean total pressure. 0.1 Origin
Sample
Pareto
Design
2π R

11  P =
³ ³ P (r,θ )rdrdθ
0 0 0
(25) 48
0
0.92 0.94 0.96
σP0
0.98 1
0 π 2 R
³ ³ rdrdθ 0 0
49 Fig.17. Samples and Pareto frontier.
ψ R

12 P0 (φ,ψ ) =
³³
0 0
P0 (r,φ +θ )rdrdθ
(26)
Z

ψ R
³³
0 0
rdrdθ Origin
Optimized
X Y

2π 1 2
R

13 ³ ³ 0 0 2
ρV rdrdθ
(27)
q= 2π R
³ ³ rdrdθ
0 0

14 The angle ‫ ׋‬is the starting angle of a pie-shaped 2

15 slice of angle ȥ over which the total pressure is 3

4 X
16 integrated. When ȥ is 60o in Eq.26, the coefficient 5
-1 5
17 DC60 has been defined. -0.5
0
Y 0.5 6
18 Fig.17 shows results of Pareto frontier in the last 50
19 updated optimization and all sample points. The
20 distribution of Pareto frontier is uniform. In the 51 Fig.18. The centerlines of S-ducts.
21 optimization process, Latin hypercube sample has
22 got 61 sample points. There are 5 increased sample 52
23 points, which are always near the Pareto frontier, in 1.5
24 each updated optimization. The total of 15 sample
25 points are added to construct update RBF. Four
26 rounds of updated optimization converge to global 1.25

27 minimal. Therefore, 76 design shapes are carried

28 out CFD calculations in all. There are 18 times
AR

1
29 verified calculation for design result. It is shown Origin
30 that the design optimization has low computation Optimized

31 cost and excellent optimization efficiency. 0.75

32 Fig.18 shows the centerlines of original and
33 optimization design. Obviously, compared to the
0.5
34 original design, the centerline of the optimal duct is 53 1.5 3 x 4.5 6
35 smoother and has more suitable offset. It helps to
36 reduce the flow distortion and the total pressure 54 Fig.19. Area ratio vs. distance.
37 loss. Fig.19 is the comparison of the cross-sectional
38 area ratio. The optimal duct has smaller area ratio 55

8
 0.7
Origin, Ma=0.6 6 Fig.22 shows total pressure distributions of the
Optimized, Ma=0.5
0.6 Optimized, Ma=0.6 7 outlet at Ma=0.6. There are two distortion regions
Optimized, Ma=0.7
Origin, Ma=0.7
8 of low total pressure at Į=2Û. But they mix into one
0.5
9 at Į•4Û. With attack angle increasing, low total
10 pressure region and separation region gradually
DC60

0.4
11 extend, but adverse pressure gradient of boundary
0.3 12 layer enhances.
0.2
13 Fig.23 shows the total pressure distribution at
14 Ma=0.6, Į=2Û. The edges of the inlet are conformal
0.1
-2 0 2 4 6 8
15 with the airframe. They induce inhomogeneous
1 α /o 16 flow to cause flow distortion. The distortion
2 Fig.20. The distortion coefficient at different Mach. 17 increases along the streamwise. The secondary flow
1
18 and two low total pressure regions appear at rear.
19 Fig.24 shows streamlines at Ma=0.6, Į=2Û.
0.95 20 Obviously, there are cross flow characteristics at
21 the rear of the duct.
0.9 22 Fig.25 shows turbulent vortices at Į=2Û and
23 Į=8Û(Ma=0.6). The vortices gradually increase and
σP0

Origin, Ma=0.6

0.85
Optimized, Ma=0.5
Optimized, Ma=0.6
24 concentrate into the inhomogeneous total pressure
Optimized, Ma=0.7 25 region. And then, they rapidly concentrate into the
Origin, Ma=0.7
26 secondary flow region. There are a significant high
0.8
-2 0 2 4 6 8 27 vortex region and a vortex core at Į=8Û.
3 α /o
4 Fig.21. The total pressure recovery factor at different
5 Mach.
28
P0 P0
7008.57 7006
6914.29 6916
6820 6826
6725.71 6736
6631.43 6646
6537.14 6556
6442.86 6466
6348.57 6376
6254.29 6286
6160 6196
6065.71 6106
5971.43 6016
5877.14 5926
5782.86 5836
5688.57 5746
5594.29 5656
5500 5566
29
30 (a) Į=2Û (b) Į=4Û
P0 P0
7003 7006
6914.7 6916
6826.41 6826
6738.11 6736
6649.81 6646
6561.52 6556
6473.22 6466
6384.92 6376
6296.63 6286
6208.33 6196
6120.03 6106
6031.74 6016
5943.44 5926
5855.14 5836
5766.84 5746
5678.55 5656
5590.25 5566

31
32 (c) Į=6Û (d) Į=8Û
33 Fig.22. Total pressure distributions of the outlet at Ma=0.6.

9
 1
2 Fig.23. The total pressure of Ma =0.6, Į=2Û. Fig.24. Streamlines of Ma =0.6,Į=2Û.

3
4 (a) Į=2Û (b) Į=8Û
5 Fig.25. Turbulent vortices at different attack angles(Ma =0.6).

6 Fig.26 shows total pressure distributions of the 20 interaction and large separation. These could
7 outlet at Ma=0.5 and 0.7. The flow characteristics 21 enhance flow distortion of the duct.
8 of Ma=0.5 and 0.6 have certain similarities(as 22 Fig.28 shows turbulent vortices of different
9 Fig.22). But the flow features of Ma=0.7 are 23 Mach at Į=8Û. At Ma=0.5, the variation of vortices
10 special. There is a large region of low total pressure 24 corresponds with total pressure distribution
11 at Ma=0.7, Į=6Û. The low total pressure region 25 (Fig.27a). At the secondary flow region, vortices
12 changes into a large recirculation region at Ma=0.7, 26 change obviously. Compared to Ma=0.5 and
13 Į=8Û. 27 Ma=0.6 (Fig.25b), there are flow features of larger
14 Fig.27 shows total pressure distributions of 28 distortion at Ma=0.7.
15 different Mach at Į=8Û. The distortion of total 29 Taken together, aerodynamic performance of
16 pressure is small at Ma=0.5, but is very large at 30 Ma=0.5 is as good as on-design condition(Ma=0.6),
17 Ma=0.7. In fact, since freestream velocity increases, 31 but the performance of Ma=0.7 rapidly decreases
18 there are wave shocks of outflow. They lead to 32 just like with the original S-duct.
19 strong adverse pressure, shock/boundary layer
P0 P0
6527.76 6527.51
6463.74 6464.69
6399.72 6401.87
6335.71 6339.05
6271.69 6276.23
6207.67 6213.41
6143.65 6150.59
6079.63 6087.77
6015.61 6024.95
5951.59 5962.13
5887.57 5899.31
5823.56 5836.49
5759.54 5773.67
5695.52 5710.85
5631.5 5648.03
5567.48 5585.21
5503.46 5522.39
33
34 (a) Ma=0.5,Į=4Û (b) Ma=0.5,Į=6Û

10
 P0 P0
7604.08 7588.76
7488.13 7482.06
7372.17 7375.36
7256.21 7268.66
7140.26 7161.96
7024.3 7055.25
6908.34 6948.55
6792.39 6841.85
6676.43 6735.15
6560.47 6628.45
6444.52 6521.75
6328.56 6415.04
6212.61 6308.34
6096.65 6201.64
5980.69 6094.94
5864.74 5988.24
5748.78 5881.54

1
2 (c) Ma=0.7,Į=6Û (d) Ma=0.7,Į=8Û
3 Fig.26. Total pressure distributions of the outlet at Ma=0.5 and Ma=0.7.

4
5 (a) Ma=0.5,Į=8Û (b) Ma=0.7,Į=8Û
6 Fig.27. Total pressure distributions of different Mach at Į=8Û.

7
8 (a) Ma=0.5,Į=8Û (b) Ma=0.7,Į=8Û
9 Fig.28. Turbulent vortices of different Mach at Į=8Û.

10 5. Conclusions 27 overexpand. Compared with original design, its

28 flow distortion coefficient is reduced by 16.3% and
11 A modified Menter's k-Ȧ SST turbulent model is 29 total pressure recovery factor is increased by 1.1%
12 proposed by based-Reynolds-stress and based- 30 in design condition. Its low-speed off-design
13 separation ideas. Validation of the model including 31 performance is as good as on-design, but high-
14 grid convergence has been performed and shows 32 speed performance is decreased.
15 that the present implementation is sufficiently
16 robust and suitable to use in aerodynamic design of 33 References
17 the S-duct.
18 Based on the modified SST model, an automated 34 [1] J.R. Weske, Pressure loss in ducts with compound
19 design system is set up and used to gain an optimal 35 elbows. NACA Wartime Rept. W-39, National
20 S-duct. The system can take into account conformal 36 Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1943.
21 stealth constraint and well combine with the present 37 [2] R. Guo, J. Seddon, An investigation of swirl in a S-
38 duct, The Aeronautical Quarterly. 33 (1982) 25–58.
22 turbulent model, RBF surrogate model and multi-
39 [3] J. Seddon, E. Goldsmith, Intake aerodynamics.
23 object genetic algorithm. It has low computation 40 American Institute of Aeronautics and
24 cost and excellent design efficiency. 41 Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1985.
25 The optimal S-duct has suitable parameters of the
26 centerline and the cross-sectional area ratio to avoid

11
 1 [4] E. Goldsmith, J. Seddon, Practical intake 61 [20] S.R. Wellborn, T.H. Okiishi, B.A. Reichert, A study
2 aerodynamic design, Blackwell Scienti¿c 62 of compressible flow through a diffusing S-duct.
3 Publications, Boston, 1993. 63 NASA-TM/1993-106411, 1993.
4 [5] Q. Xiao, M.H. Tsai, Computation of transonic 64 [21] C. Fiola, R.K. Agarwa, Simulation of secondary and
5 Diffuser flows by a lagged k–Ȧ turbulence model, 65 separated flow in a diffusing S-duct using four
6 Journal of Propulsion and Power. 19 (2003) 473– 66 different turbulence models, ProcIMechE Part G:
7 483. 67 Journal of Aerospace Engineering. 28 (2014) 1954–
8 [6] K. Saha, S.N. Singh, V. Seshadri, Computational 68 1963.
9 analysis on flow through transition S-Diffusers: 69 [22] I.R.H. Jackson, Convergence properties of radial
10 effect of inlet shape, Journal of Aircraft. 44(2007) 70 Basis function. Constructive Approximation. 4
11 187–193. 71 (1988) 243-246.
12 [7] G.A. Gerolymos, S. Joly, M. Malle, I. Vallet,
72 [23] J. Sacks, W.J. Welch, T.J. Michel, H.P. Wynn,
13 Reynolds-Stress model flow prediction in Aircraft-
73 Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments,
14 Engine intake Double-S-Shaped duct, Journal of
74 Statistical Science, 4 (1989) 409-435.
15 Aircraft. 47 (2010) 1368–1381.
75 [24] E. Zitzler, L. Thiele, Multi-Objective evolutionary
76 algorithms: a Comparative case study and the
16 [8] W. Zhang, D, Knight, D Smith, Automated design of 77 strength Pareto approach, IEEE Trans. on
17 subsonic diffuser, Journal of Propulsion and Power. 78 Evolutionary Computation. 3 (1999) 257-271.
18 16 (2000) 1132–1140. 79 [25] G. Zhou, H. Min, M. Gen, A genetic algorithm
19 [9] B.J. Lee, C. Kim, Automated design methodology of 80 approach to the bi criteria allocation of customers to
20 turbulent internal flow using discrete adjoint 81 warehouses, International Journal of Production
21 formulation, Aerospace Science and Technology. 11 82 Economics. 86 (2003) 35–45.
22 (2007) 163–173. 83 [26] R.E. Smith, Transfinite interpolation(TFI) generation
23 [10] F.R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity 84 systems, CRC Press Inc , London,1999.
24 turbulence models for engineering applications,
25 AIAA Journal. 32 (1994)1598-1605.
26 [11] J.M. Zhang, C.F. Wang, K.Y. Lum,
27 Multidisciplinary design of S-shaped intake, AIAA
28 Paper 2008-7060,2008.
29 [12] A. Aranake, J.G. Lee, D. Knight D, R.M.
30 Cummings, J. Cox, M. Paul, A. R. Byerley,
31 Automated design optimization of a Three-
32 Dimensional subsonic diffuser, Journal of
33 propulsion and power. 27 (2011) : 838-846.
34 [13] T. Magnus, Design and analysis of compact UAV
35 ducts, AIAA Paper 2006-2828,2006.
36 [14] A. R. Paul, P. Ranjan, V. K. Patel, A. Jain,
37 Comparative studies on flow control in rectangular
38 S-duct diffuser using submerged-vortex generators,
39 Aerospace Science and Technology. 28 (2013) 332–
40 343.
41 [15] W.-B. Gan, Research on Aerodynamic numerical
42 simulation and design of near space Low-Reynolds-
43 number unmanned aerial vehicles, Ph.D.
44 Dissertation, Northwestern Polytechnical University,
45 Xi'an, 2014.
46 [16] S.L. Krist, R.T. Biedron, C.L. Rumsey, CFL3D
47 user’s manual: Ver.5.0, NASA NASA-TM/1998-
48 208444, 1998.
49 [17] C.L. Rumsey, T. B. Gatski,W. Sellers, N. Vatsa, S.
50 Viken, Summary of the 2004 computational fluid
51 dynamics validation workshop on synthetic jets.
52 AIAA Journal. 44 (2006), 194–20.
53 [18] C.L. Rumsey, Proceedings of the 2004 workshop on
54 CFD validation of synthetic jets and turbulent
55 separation control, NASA/CP-2007-214874, 2007.
56 [19] A. Avdis, S. Lardeau, M. Leschziner, Large eddy
57 simulation of separated flow over a two-dimensional
58 hump with and without control by means of a
59 synthetic slot-jet, Flow Turbulence Combust, 83
60 (2009) 343–370.

12