Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466

www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Operation pattern classification of hypersonic inlets

Juntao Chang∗ , Daren Yu, Wen Bao, Yi Fan
Harbin Institute of Technology, 150001 Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

Received 17 June 2008; received in revised form 21 December 2008; accepted 11 February 2009
Available online 2 April 2009

Abstract
Operation pattern recognition/classification is one of the most important issues of the hypersonic inlet and is also the foundation
of protection control of a scramjet. To solve this problem, the 2-D inner steady flow of the hypersonic inlet was numerically
simulated at different freestream conditions and backpressures, and two different inlet unstart phenomena were analyzed. The
pattern classifications of hypersonic inlet start/unstart, especial the inlet backpressure unstart/low Mach number unstart were
performed based on “numerical experimental” data by the support vector machine algorithms. The physical significance of the
classification criterions was explained, and the discussions of the classification criterion used in NASA/CIAM flight test were
presented. In conclusion, the operation pattern classification of hypersonic inlet can be solved well by using the support vector
machine algorithms.
Crown Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hypersonic inlet; Pattern classification; Start/unstart; Protection control

1. Introduction tested in November 1991 and demonstrated operation

The performance of a ramjet–scramjet powered hy-
personic vehicle is determined by its inlet efficiency.
Specifically, the inlet wave system influences compres-
sion efficiency, mass capture and combustion stability.
The unstart phenomenon is one of the most important
issues of the hypersonic inlet. The disturbances which
can induce inlet unstart can be either the variation of
flight conditions or the disturbance of the combustor.
For hypersonic airbreathing engines, inlet unstart causes
a large drop of both engine thrust and specific impulse,
thus it may cause catastrophic damage during the hyper-
sonic flight. There are a few flight tests to demonstrate
the dual-mode scramjet in the past years. An axisym-
metric hydrogen-fueled engine was successfully fight
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: changjuntao@hit.edu.cn (J. Chang).
in both the subsonic and supersonic combustion modes
[1]. The fight test concept utilized a Hypersonic Flying
Laboratory (HFL) named Kholod. The engine and its
support services were mounted on the nose of a mod-
ified SA-5 vehicle and remained attached to the HFL
throughout the fight. While in CIAM/NASA flight test
[2], the engine is supplied in the wrong fuel flow due
to the unstart control system’s failure, which results in
that the flight test does not achieve the desired objec-
tives. So the determination of whether inlet start or un-
start is an important aspect in the ground and flight test,
and quick inlet start/unstart detection and control are
required because the loss of the engine thrust caused by
inlet unstart results in a deceleration of the spaceplane
or even a mission failure [3,4].
The operation modes of the fixed geometry hyper-
sonic inlet are influenced by several factors (freestream
Mach number, angle of attack, freestream pressure and

0094-5765/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.02.011
458 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466
Nomenclature
k turbulent kinetic energy
 turbulent dissipation rate
M∞ Mach number of the freestream
T∞ static temperature of the freestream
p∞ static pressure of the freestream
 angle of attack of the freestream
ps surface static pressure of the inlet
x axis location of the inlet
y vertical location of the inlet
x1 shown in Fig. 1
x2 shown in Fig. 1
x3 shown in Fig. 1
p1 static pressure at x1 , pressure behind
of the first oblique shock
backpressure of the isolator, etc.), and the impact of
these factors individually or jointly make the hypersonic
inlet be different operation modes (inlet start, low Mach
unstart, backpressure unstart, etc.). The state detection
is the base of the unstart control of the hypersonic in-
let, where the state detection is referred to the pattern
recognition/classification of different hypersonic inlets
operation modes. The different operation modes of hy-
personic inlets must be distinguished by unstart control
system, otherwise the control system can not work ef-
fectively, such as the inlet in low Mach number unstart
cannot be restarted by only regulating the backpressure.
So the classification of different hypersonic inlet opera-
tion modes, especial the classification of the inlet back-
pressure unstart/low Mach number unstart, is necessary
to the unstart control of the hypersonic inlet.
Unstart phenomena of the hypersonic inlet have been
very active fields of research in last decades, there have
been many investigations devoted to this subject [5–19].
Mayer and Paynter [5,6] used an Euler solver and sim-
ulated an axisymmetric inlet unstart due to the varia-
tion of freestream variables such as temperature, veloc-
ity and pressure. Neaves and McRae [7] developed dy-
namic solution-adaptive gird algorithm introduced by
Benson and McRae [8] and simulated the 3-D inlet un-
start caused by a combustor perturbation. Zha [9,10] in-
vestigated unstart transient mechanism of a typical ax-
isymmetric HSCT (high speed civil transport) inlet at
angle of attack using CFD. Cox [11] presented several
mechanisms of the hypersonic inlet unstart, including
backpressure unstart, overcontraction unstart and angle
of attack unstart. The second approach is based on the
experimental investigation. Schmitz [12] and Van Wie
p2 static pressure at x2 , pressure under the lip
p3 static pressure at x3 , pressure at the exit of
the isolator
p4 static pressure, shown in Table 3
p5 static pressure, shown in Table 3
p6 static pressure, shown in Table 3
pmin mass-weighted averaged static pressure at
the entrance of the isolator
pmax static pressure larger than the maximal sus-
tainable backpressure of the isolator
pb static pressure at the exit of the isolator
 mass-captured coefficient
 total-pressure recovery coefficient
[13] analyzed the major factors that influence the inlet
operation modes and studied the start/unstart character-
istic of 2-D hypersonic inlet. Reinartz [14] and Saied
Emami [15] studied the variation of isolator geometry
and its influence on the overall inlet compression effi-
ciency. Tan [16] investigated the flow pattern of a hy-
personic inlet at an unstable–unstarted condition exper-
imentally, and analyzed the oscillations of the shock
system and the unsteady process of the duct flow. Wag-
ner [17] studied the unstart dynamics of an inlet/isolator
model at a Mach 5 flow experimentally. However, few
numerical and experimental investigations have been
reported on the detection of hypersonic inlet opera-
tion modes. The detection [18] has been proposed and
several measurement techniques provided useful infor-
mation by which to evaluate the inlet operating mode,
that is the flow visualization technique using the shad-
owgraph/schlieren windows, and the visualization tech-
nique is complex and not practical to the flight test. Yu
[19] discussed the classification of the inlet start/unstart
based on “numerical experimental” data, while the clas-
sification of the inlet unstart (backpressure unstart and
low Mach number unstart) has not been studied.
In this paper, the study is focused on the operation
pattern classification of hypersonic inlets based on the
simulation results, especially the classification of hyper-
sonic inlet unstart (backpressure unstart and low Mach
number unstart). To establish the classification crite-
rions, the inlet unstart phenomena (backpressure un-
start and low Mach number unstart) were studied firstly.
Based on the “numerical experiment” data, the SVM
(support vector machine) algorithms are introduced to
solve the operation pattern classification of hypersonic
 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466 459

inlets. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Table 1

Section 2 states inlet model and numerical method. The Boundary conditions for cases I, II and III.
inlet unstart phenomenon analysis is given in Section Case M ∞ T ∞ (K) p ∞ (Pa) pb (Pa)  (deg)
3. Section 4 presents the operation pattern classifica-
I 2.5 216.7 21888 [pmin , pmax ] −10, −5, 0, 5, 10
tion of hypersonic inlet by using the SVM. And some
II 3 216.6 15090 [pmin , pmax ] −10, −5, 0, 5, 10
conclusions are given in Section 5. III 4 216.6 8471 [pmin , pmax ] −10, −5, 0, 5, 10
IV 5 216.7 5415 [pmin , pmax ] −10, −5, 0, 5, 10
V 6 219.1 3743 [pmin , pmax ] −10, −5, 0, 5, 10
2. Inlet model and numerical method

2.1. Inlet model

The overall inlet geometry is based on the similar in-
let model tested within the frame of earlier Langley Re-
search Center activities [15]. The computational model
includes an inlet and constant area isolator only. Fig. 1
shows the geometric sketch of the inlet model.
2.2. Numerical method
The computation is performed using the finite-
volume technique with upwind discretization to
solve the 2-D compressible Reynolds-averaged
Navier–Stokes equations [20]. The space discretiza-
tion is performed by a cell-centered formulation. To
account for the directed propagation of information in
the inviscid part of the equations, the advection up-
stream splitting method (AUSM) flux vector splitting
is applied for the approximation of the convective flux
functions. Higher-order accuracy for the upwind dis-
cretization and consistency with the central differences
used for the diffusive term is achieved by the mono-
tonic upstream scheme for conservation laws extrap-
olations, and the total variation diminishing property
of the scheme is ensured by the Van Leer flux limiter.
To enhance convergence, a multigrid method, implicit
residuals smoothing, and local time stepping are ap-
plied. To ensure the accuracy of the turbulence flow
solution, a value of y+ below 5 is realized for the main
portion of the wall flow region. To simulate the interac-
tion between the shock and the boundary layer, the in-
tersection, and reflection of wave system, calculate the
Fig. 1. Geometric sketch of the inlet model.
flow field firstly, and perform the mesh self-adaptation
technology based on the pressure gradient and continue
to compute.
A renormalization group k– turbulence model is im-
plemented for turbulent flows. The boundary condition
of the supersonic inflow is far-pressure field, and the
freestream conditions given in Table 1 can be defined
by specifying the boundary conditions, where the defi-
nition of  is referred to Fig. 1. The boundary condition
of the exit of the isolator is the pressure outlet, and the
backpressure can be defined by specifying the pressure
value. In case of predominant supersonic outflow, the
variables are completely extrapolated from the interior
to the boundary. Otherwise, the influence of the throttle
is simulated with a prescribed backpressure at the out-
flow boundary and the remaining variables are extrapo-
lated. At solid walls, the no-slip boundary condition is
enforced by setting the velocity components to zero.
2.3. Numerical accuracy analysis
To ensure the convergence of the numerical solution,
the residuals (L2 -norm) are monitored in Fig. 2. The
solution can be considered as converged after approx-
imately 75,000 iterations, where the courant number
is 0.5. At this stage, the continuity residual, x-velocity
residual, y-velocity residual and energy residual reach
their minimum values after falling for over four or-
ders of magnitude. The turbulence (k and ) residual
have a five orders of magnitude decrease. An additional
convergence criterion enforced in this current analysis
requires the difference between computed inflow and
outflow mass flux to drop below 0.5 percent. The eval-
uation was performed using the medium mesh.
The performance of a grid sensitivity analysis con-
firmed that the grid resolution used here is sufficient.
Table 2 shows the performance parameters (mass-
captured coefficient, total-pressure recovery coeffi-
cient and static pressure ratio) of hypersonic inlets
(M ∞ = 6, p ∞ = 3743 Pa, T ∞ = 219.1 K) at differ-
ent grid-refinement levels: coarse (605×65), medium
(1034×105) and fine (2132×198); and the maximum
460 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466

discrepancy between the three mesh levels is less than
5 percent, where the performance parameter is referred
to the one (mass-weighted averaged) at the exit of the
isolator. Out of this analysis, the medium grid was
selected, and all results shown are computed applying
this resolution. The use of a medium grid resolution
greatly saves the CPU time.
The accuracy of the current numerical investigation is
evaluated by comparison with the experimental results.
Comparison of a schlieren picture [14,21] without throt-
tling and corresponding Mach number contour lines of
the computation is shown in Fig. 3, and it reveals an
overall good agreement. The shock wave pattern, the
separation, and the approximate boundary-layer thick-
ness of the schlieren picture are also present in the simu-
lation results. The surface pressure distributions shown
in Fig. 4, allow for a more quantitative comparison be-
tween numerical and experimental results. Here, a dis-
crepancy in the ramp pressure distribution can be seen
in the expansion region with subsequent separation. The
computed separation appears smaller than experimen-
tally observed, and thus, the separation shock is weaker
and impinges downstream of the measured location on
the cowl surface. The reason for the discrepancy is prob-
ably the deficiency of the turbulence model, the differ-
ences between experiment and computation conditions,
or the measurements error of the sensor. In a word, the
computation results of the hypersonic inlet accord with

Fig. 2. Residuals for hypersonic inlet computations.

Table 2
Performance parameter of hypersonic inlets at different grid-
refinement levels.
Grid level   p3 /p0

Coarse 0.711 0.341 13.12

Medium 0.705 0.352 13.05
Fine 0.722 0.358 13.25
Fig. 4. Surface pressure distributions of hypersonic inlets.

Fig. 3. Comparison of a schlieren picture (bottom) without throttling and corresponding Mach number contour lines (top) of the computation.
 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466
the physical conception of the aerodynamics. It can re-
veal the intersection of oblique shock waves and ex-
pansion waves and capture the primary characteristic of
internal flowfield. The simulation results can be used
as data to investigate the multiple classifiers fusion of
hypersonic inlet start/unstart.
The numerical accuracy analysis of the hypersonic
inlet unstart phenomena (backpressure unstart and low
Mach number unstart phenomena) is referred to Refs.
[19,22,23].
3. Inlet unstart phenomenon analysis
Generally speaking, there are two main different
classes of inlet unstart for the fixed geometry hyper-
sonic inlet, one is backpressure unstart, and the other
is low Mach number unstart.
3.1. Backpressure unstart
Firstly, we discuss the backpressure unstart of hyper-
sonic inlets. In scramjet, a precombustion shock system
is developed inside of the isolator because of the sub-
sequent high-pressure combustion zone. To produce a
similar shock wave system in the test, the effect of the
operating engine is simulated by a specified backpres-
sure. Fig. 5 shows surface pressure distributions at dif-
ferent backpressure ratios. The high backpressure leads
to the separation of the boundary layer. The pressure
buildup proceeds continuously due to the rapidly grow-
ing boundary layer. As the backpressure increases, the
onset of pressure buildup moves upstream into the isola-
tor. At pb /p ∞ = 37.5, the complete isolator contributes
to the pressure buildup and the maximum pressure ratio
Fig. 5. Surface pressure distributions with different backpressures,
M ∞ = 4 and  = 0.
461
Fig. 6. Variations of mass-captured coefficient, total pressure recov-
ery coefficient and dynamics kinetic efficiency with Mach number
of the freestream.
pb /p ∞ is achieved. After even a slight shift of the oper-
ating point (pb /p ∞ = 37.5), the pressure rise is pushed
forward into the contracting part of the inlet. A fur-
ther increase of the backpressure causes a severe flow
blockage and results in a strong decrease of the cap-
tured mass flow. In this condition, the inlet flowfield is
unstable and the inlet is no longer started. This class of
unstart phenomenon is the backpressure unstart.
3.2. Low Mach number unstart
Then we analyze the low Mach number unstart of
hypersonic inlets. The internal contraction ration of
the hypersonic inlet is about 1.9, which is above the
Kantrowitz limit for self-starting. Fig. 6 shows the
variations of mass-captured coefficient, total-pressure
recovery coefficient and kinetic energy efficiency with
Mach number of freestream, where the performance
index is referred to the one (mass-weighted averaged)
at the exit of the isolator. The Mach number contours
of hypersonic inlets at different M ∞ are shown in
Fig. 7. As M ∞ decreases, the mass-captured coeffi-
cient and kinetic energy efficiency gradually decreases
and the total-pressure recovery coefficient increases.
When M ∞ decreases to Mach 3.2, the performance
parameter varies abruptly because the separated flow
appears and the backward shock is formed, thus the
inlet is no longer started. This class of unstart phe-
nomenon is the low Mach number unstart, and the
starting Mach number of the hypersonic inlet is about
3.2 at the attack of angle zero.
There probably exist two stable solutions at the same
boundary conditions, at this condition the solutions
462 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466
Fig. 7. Mach number contour of the hypersonic inlet at different
Mach number. (a) M ∞ = 4, (b) M ∞ = 3.2, (c) M ∞ = 3.1.
depend on the initial values of hypersonic inlet. If the
initial values of the inlet is started, the inlet is started;
else unstarted. The two classes of solutions of hyper-
sonic inlet at the same boundary conditions are both
obtained. Here the term “started” is used to denote op-
eration mode under which the shock system structures
in the internal portions of the inlet do not alter the
mass-captured characteristics, and this is the essence
differences between the inlet start and unstart. How-
ever you approach the CFD solutions, the inlet start
or unstart can be defined based on the mass-captured
characteristics.
4. Operation pattern classification of hypersonic
inlets by using SVM
Pattern classification is the act of taking in the raw
data and taking an action based on the “category” of the
pattern. For the classification of hypersonic inlet opera-
tion modes, the first step is to obtain the surface pressure
distributions which include the inlet start, backpressure
unstart and low Mach number unstart. The data can be
acquired by the numerical simulation or experiment of
the hypersonic inlet. The data samples used in this pa-
per is from the numerical simulation results.
Generally speaking, for the fixed geometry inlet, the
boundary among the different operation modes is a very
Fig. 8. Surface pressure distributions with different boundary con-
ditions.
complex function of Mach number of the freestream,
angle of attack, pressure of the freestream and the pres-
sure at the exit of the isolator (or fueling rate). Deter-
mining the boundary approximate function expression
is difficult involving these variables with uncertainty. So
the operation pattern classification of hypersonic inlets
is difficult.
The five sets of conditions identified in Table 1 were
analyzed as representative operating conditions for a hy-
personic inlet. The ramp surface pressure distributions
of inlet at different boundary conditions are shown in
Fig. 8. It includes 117 surface pressure distributions of
inlet start, 61 distributions of backpressure unstart and
40 distributions of low Mach number unstart, and every
pressure distribution includes 1034 data point. The high
dimension of data set brings difficulty in understand-
ing the data and constructing classifier. As can be seen
from Fig. 8, there are no intuitively distinct features
by which the inlet operation modes could be classified.
Therefore, it is necessary to introduce the knowledge
of feature selection and various intelligence algorithms
to solve classification problems of the inlet operation
modes. The aim of feature selection is to find a subset
of original features from a given dataset by removing
irrelevant and redundant features [24]. In recent years
feature selection has attracted much attention from pat-
tern recognition and machine learning society [25], and
it can provide faster and more cost-effective predictor
and improve the prediction performance [26]. There are
many statistical methods of clustering and classifica-
tion used for feature selection and pattern classifica-
tion. SVM proposed in 1990s by Vapnik, has already
been known as an efficient tool for discovering informa-
tive feature attributes [27]. A lot of researches on SVM
were carried on. In 2002, SVM was first applied to gene
 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466 463

Table 3
Axis location of feature attributions.

Feature attributions 6 (p1 ) 160 (p2 ) 980 (p3 )

Axis location (m) 0.0390 0.1546 0.3041

selection for cancer classification as a method of fea-

ture selection, and the main iterative procedures can be
referred to Refs. [19,28].
The operation pattern classification of hypersonic in-
lets can be divided into two subproblems of pattern clas-
sification. One is the classification of hypersonic inlet
start/unstart, and the other is the classification of hy-
personic inlet backpressure unstart/low Mach number
unstart.

4.1. Pattern classification of hypersonic inlets

start/unstart

We discuss the pattern classification of hypersonic

inlet start/unstart firstly. Select 70 percent of samples
as the train set randomly, and the feature selection is
studied based on the train sample set by using the al-
gorithm of SVM. First of all, use all the feature attribu-
tions to train SVM and get their accuracies. Then ap-
ply SVM to select the relevant feature subset. Finally
the feature attributions [6, 160] are found, here 6 de-
notes the sixth pressure point of every surface pressure
distribution and so on. The axis location of every fea-
ture attribution is referred to Table 3. The classifica-
tion hyperplane p2 −1.0033×p1 −6995.3 = 0 is obtained
based on the feature attributions [6, 160], here p1 and
p2 are the pressure of sixth and 160th, respectively.
There exist two boundaries, one is the boundary of in-
let start, and the other is the boundary of inlet unstart.
The classification criterions are described as follow. If
p2 −1.0033×p1 −14301 > 0, the inlet is unstarted; else
if p2 −1.0033×p1 +310.4 < 0, the inlet is started. The
classification hyperplane is validated by the remnant 30
percent of samples, which is shown in Fig. 9a. Secondly
select 70 percent of samples as the train set randomly,
the classification hyperplane can be obtained by using
the same method and it is validated by the remnant 30
percent of samples shown in Fig. 9b. The physical sig-
nificance of the classification criterions is referred to
Ref. [19].
4.2. Pattern classification of hypersonic inlets
backpressure unstart/low Mach number unstart
Then we discuss the pattern classification of hy-
personic inlet backpressure unstart/low Mach number
unstart. Select 70 percent of samples as the train set
Fig. 9. Train and test of the classification between the hypersonic
inlet start and unstart. (a) Train and test I. (b) Train and test II.
randomly, and the feature selection is studied based on
the train sample set by using the algorithm of SVM.
First of all, use all the feature attributions to train SVM
and get their accuracies. Then apply SVM to select
the relevant feature subset. Finally the feature attri-
butions [6, 980] are found, here 6 denotes the sixth
pressure point of every surface pressure distribution
and so on. The axis location of every feature attribution
is referred to Table 3. The classification hyperplane
p3 −2.6838×p1 −47290 = 0 is obtained based on the
feature attributions [6, 980], here p1 and p3 are the pres-
sure of sixth and 980th, respectively. There exist two
boundaries, one is the boundary of backpressure un-
start, and the other is the boundary of low Mach number
unstart. The classification criterions are described as
follow. If p3 −2.6838×p1 −83350 > 0, the inlet is back-
pressure unstart; else if p3 −2.6838×p1 −11230 < 0, the
inlet is low Mach number unstart. The classification
hyperplane is validated by the remnant 30 percent of
samples, which is shown in Fig. 10a. Secondly select
464 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466
Fig. 10. Train and test of the classification between hypersonic inlet
backpressure unstart and low Mach number unstart. (a) Train and
test I. (b) Train and test II.
70 percent of samples as the train set randomly, the
classification hyperplane can be obtained by using the
same method and it is validated by the remnant 30
percent of samples shown in Fig. 10b.
The inlet backpressure unstart/low Mach number un-
start can be determined by two pressure points p1 and
p3 . The physical significance of the classification cri-
terions is explained below. p1 is located behind of the
first oblique shock, its magnitude depends on the inten-
sity of shock, namely depends on M ∞ , p ∞ and , and
its magnitude denotes the freestream conditions. p3 is
located at the exit of the isolator, and its magnitude de-
notes the compression degree of the hypersonic inlets.
There exist no shocks in the isolator when the inlet is
low Mach number unstart, so p3 is lower. p3 is larger
due to the high backpressure when the inlet is back-
pressure unstart. So the inlet backpressure unstart/low
Mach number unstart can be determined by only p3
for the fixed geometry inlet and freestream conditions.
However the freestream conditions are varied, and there
Table 4
Axis location of feature attributions.
Feature attributions 36 (p4 ) 200 (p5 ) 223 (p6 )
Axis location (m) 0.0608 0.3812 0.4306
Fig. 11. Surface pressure distributions with different boundary con-
ditions.
exits that p3 of inlet low Mach number unstart at higher
Mach number and positive angle of attack is greater than
p3 of inlet backpressure unstart at lower Mach number
and negative angle of attack. Thus determining the in-
let backpressure unstart or low Mach number unstart by
only p3 is not enough, p1 which denotes the freestream
conditions should be added.
4.3. Discussion of the classification criterion used in
Ref. [2]
In the CIAM/NASA ground and flight test [2], the
scramjet control system determines the inlet start/unstart
by the ratio of the pressure near the entrance of isola-
tor to the pressure under the lip, namely by the p6 /p5 ,
where the axis locations of p6 and p5 are referred to
Table 4, and the detailed inlet geometry measurements
are referred to Ref. [2]. If p6 /p5 is less than one, the inlet
is started, else unstarted. The inlet operation mode is not
properly sensed, which results in that the flight test does
not achieve the desired objectives. We study the classi-
fication criterion of the hypersonic inlet [2] start/unstart
by the SVM algorithms, and try to give the proper clas-
sification criterions of hypersonic inlet start/unstart.
The surface pressure distributions of the hypersonic
inlet [2] at different boundary conditions are shown in
Fig. 11, it includes 55 surface pressure distributions of
 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466
Fig. 12. Train and test of the classification between hypersonic inlet
start and unstart.
inlet start, and 45 distributions of inlet unstart. Select 70
percent of samples as the train set randomly, and the fea-
ture selection is studied based on the train sample set by
using the algorithm of SVM. First of all, use all the fea-
ture attributions to train SVM and get their accuracies.
Then apply SVM to select the relevant feature subset.
Finally the feature attributions [36, 200] are found, here
36 denotes the 36th pressure point of every surface pres-
sure distribution and so on. The axis location of every
feature attribution is also referred to Table 4. The clas-
sification hyperplane p5 −1.1897×p4 −6840 = 0 is ob-
tained based on the feature attributions [36, 200], here p4
and p5 are the pressure of 36th and 200th, respectively.
There exist two boundaries, one is the boundary of in-
let start, and the other is the boundary of inlet unstart.
The classification criterions are described as follows. If
p5 −1.1897×p4 −9079 > 0, the inlet is unstarted; else if
p5 −1.1897×p4 −4600 < 0, the inlet is started. The clas-
sification hyperplane is validated by the remnant 30 per-
cent of samples, which is shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 13 shows p6 and p5 at different M0 , p0 and
, there exists the classification hyperplane of in-
let start/unstart, but the classification criterion is not
p6 −p5 = 0. That is to say, the classification criterion
used in Ref. [2] is sometimes true, sometimes false,
and is not completely proper. This is probably the rea-
son why the control system could not properly sense
the inlet start/unstart.
5. Conclusions
The investigation of the operation pattern recogni-
tion/classification of hypersonic inlets is motivated by
465
Fig. 13. p6 and p5 at different M ∞ , p ∞ and .
the need for protection control system of scramjets. For
this investigation, the 2-D inner steady flow of the hy-
personic inlet was numerically simulated at different
freestream conditions and backpressures, and the two
different inlet unstart phenomena were analyzed, and
the SVM algorithms were introduced to solve the op-
eration pattern classification of hypersonic inlets in this
paper. The classification criterions between inlet start
and inlet unstart, between backpressure unstart and low
Mach number unstart were obtained by the SVM algo-
rithm, and the validation results prove the validity of
the classification criterions. In conclusion, it is useful
to introduce the SVM algorithms to solve the operation
pattern classification of hypersonic inlets.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by China National Natu-
ral Science Foundation (No. 90816028, No. 90716012),
and the authors thank the reviewer’s valuable advices
on this paper.
References
[1] A. Roudakov, Y. Schickhman, V. Semenov, Ph. Novelli, O.
Fourt, Flight testing an axisymmetric scramjet: Russian recent
advances, International Astronautical Federation, IAF Paper 93-
S.4.485.44th, October 1993.
[2] R.T. Voland, A.H. Auslender, CIAM/NASA Mach 6.5 scramjet
flight and ground test, AIAA Paper 1999-4848.
[3] D.H. Campbell, F-12 series aircraft propulsion system
performance and development, Journal of Aircraft 11 (11)
(1974) 670–676.
[4] J. Seddon, E.L. Goldsmith, Intake Aerodynamics, AIAA
Educational Series, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1989 pp. 149–168.
466 J. Chang et al. / Acta Astronautica 65 (2009) 457 – 466
[5] D. Mayer, G.C. Paynter, Prediction of supersonic inlet unstart
caused by freestream disturbances, AIAA Journal 33 (2) (1995)
266–275.
[6] D. Mayer, G.C. Paynter, Boundary conditions for unsteady
supersonic inlet analyses, AIAA Journal 32 (6) (1994)
1200–1206.
[7] M.D. Neaves, D.S. McRae, J.R. Edwards, High-speed inlet
unstart calculations using an implicit solution adaptive mesh
algorithm, AIAA Paper 2001-0825.
[8] R.A. Benson, D.S. McRae, Numerical simulations of the unstart
phenomenon in supersonic inlet/diffuser, AIAA Paper 1993-
2239.
[9] G.C. Zha, D. Knight, D. Smith, Numerical investigations of
high speed civil transport inlet unstart transient at angle of
attack, Journal of Aircraft 35 (6) (1998) 851–856.
[10] G.C. Zha, D. Knight, D. Smith, Numerical simulation of high
speed civil transport inlet operability with angle of attack,
AIAA Journal 36 (7) (1998) 1223–1229.
[11] C. Cox, C. Lewis, R. Pap, Prediction of unstart phenomena in
hypersonic aircraft, AIAA Paper 1995-6018.
[12] D.M. Schmitz, N.C. Bissinger, Design and testing of fixed-
geometry hypersonic intakes, AIAA Paper 1998-1529.
[13] D.M. Van Wie, F.T. Kwok, Starting characteristics of supersonic
inlets, AIAA Paper 1996-2914.
[14] B.U. Reinartz, C.D. Herrmann, Aerodynamic performance
analysis of a hypersonic inlet isolator using computation and
experiment, Journal of Propulsion and Power 19 (5) (2003)
868–875.
[15] S. Emami, C.A. Trexler, Experimental investigation of inlet-
combustor isolators for a dual-mode scramjet at a Mach number
of 4, NASA Technical Paper 3502, May 1995.
[16] H. Tan, R. Guo, Experimental study of the unstable–unstarted
condition of a hypersonic inlet at mach 6, Journal of Propulsion
and Power 23 (4) (2007) 783–788.
[17] J.L. Wagner, A. Valdivia, An experimental investigation of
supersonic inlet unstart, AIAA Paper 2007-4352, June 2007.
[18] W.R. Hawkins, E.J. Marquart, Two-dimensional generic inlet
unstart detection at Mach 2.5–5.0, AIAA Paper 1995-6019,
April 1995.
[19] D. Yu, J. Chang, W. Bao, Z. Xie, Optimal classifications
criterions of hypersonic inlet start/unstart, Journal of Propulsion
and Power 23 (2) (2007) 310–316.
[20] D. Drikakis, Advances in turbulent flow computations using
high-resolution methods, Progress in Aerospace Science (39)
(2003) 405–424.
[21] C.D. Herrmann, W.W. Kosvhel, Experimental investigation of
the internal compression of a hypersonic intake, AIAA Paper
2002–4130.
[22] J. Chang, D. Yu, W. Bao, L. Qu, Dimensionless analysis of
the unstart boundary for 2-D mixed hypersonic inlets, The
Aeronautical Journal 112 (1135) (2008) 547–555.
[23] T. Cui, D. Yu, J. Chang, W. Bao, Topological geometry
interpretation of hypersonic inlet start/unstart-catastrophe,
hysteresis and bifurcation, AIAA Journal of Aircraft 45 (4)
(2008) 1464–1468.
[24] H. Liu, L. Yu, M. Dash, H. Motoda, Active feature
selection using classes, Pacific–Asia Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining (2003) 474–485.
[25] M. Dash, H. Liu, Feature selection for classification, Intelligent
Data Analysis 1 (3) (1997) 131–156.
[26] Q. Hu, D. Yu, Z. Xie, Information-preserving hybrid data
reduction based on fuzzy-rough techniques, Pattern Recognition
Letters 27 (5) (2006) 414–423.
[27] I. Guyon, N. Matic, V. Vapnik, Discovering Informative Patterns
and Data Cleaning, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996 pp. 181–203.
[28] I. Guyon, J. Weston, S. Barnhill, V. Vapnik, Gene selection for
cancer classification using support vector machines, Machine
Learning 46 (1–3) (2002) 389–422.