CJA 1288 No.

of Pages 8
3 June 2019
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2019), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx
1

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

3 Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an

4 integrated bump/forebody
5 Shangcheng XU, Yi WANG *, Zhenguo WANG, Xiaoqiang FAN, Xingyu ZHAO

6 Science and Technology on Scramjet Laboratory, College of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

7 National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, China

8 Received 5 March 2018; revised 21 May 2018; accepted 13 June 2018

9

11 KEYWORDS Abstract Numerical simulations and experiments showed that bump inlet had a remarkable effect
12
13 Hypersonic inlets; on boundary layer diversion of supersonic flow. However, the design and analysis of bump in
14 Inlet start; hypersonic flow was still few. In this paper, the mechanism of a supersonic bump inlet is introduced
15 Integration design; to the design of hypersonic forebody. A hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody is
16 Method Of Characteristics obtained by the Method Of Characteristics (MOC) based on a chin inlet. Numerical simulations
17 (MOC); show that the modified inlet achieves diversion of low-speed flow. Besides, the integrated bump/-
18 Separation zone forebody is also beneficial to inlet start. During the starting process, the shape of the separation
zone is rebuilt by the modified forebody surface which makes spillage much easier. This new design
leads to a reduction of the self-start Mach number by 0.95.
19 Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

20 1. Introduction boundary layer in supersonic flow.3–6 Bump played a role as 28

a diversion system of the boundary layer due to the transverse 29

21 A boundary layer is formed on a fuselage due to the effect of pressure gradient on the bump surface.7 The performances of 30

22 viscosity.1,2 If a large amount of the low-speed flow of the bump inlet were analyzed in supersonic flow, and it was found 31

23 boundary layer enters the inlet, the efficiency of the combustor that bump inlet could divert the boundary layer and reduce the 32

24 will be reduced, and it will also have an adverse effect on inlet total pressure loss effectively.8,9 Masud studied the perfor- 33

25 start. mances of bump inlet in supersonic flow and subsonic flow, 34

26 Many numerical simulations and experiments indicated respectively.10 Wind tunnel experiments also showed that 35

27 that bump inlet had a remarkable effect on diversion of the bump inlet had excellent performances on total pressure recov- 36
ery and diversion of the boundary layer.11 In general, the 37
design and analysis of bump inlet in supersonic flow have been 38
* Corresponding author.
well researched, and bump inlets have been applied to various 39
E-mail address: wange_nudt@163.com (Y. WANG). supersonic aircraft.12–14 40
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. However, the designs and analyses of bump in hypersonic 41
flow were still few. Numerical simulations showed that super- 42
sonic bump would produce a strong shock wave if directly 43
Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
1000-9361 Ó 2019 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
2 S. XU et al.

44 applied in hypersonic flow, which caused too much total pres-

45 sure loss.
46 To solve these problems, the mechanism of supersonic
47 bump is introduced to hypersonic inlet forebody design, in
48 which the transverse pressure gradient is set by the Method
49 Of Characteristics (MOC) on the forebody to divert the
50 boundary layer. The integrated bump/forebody can avoid
51 strong shock and high total pressure loss. This new design
52 method is applied to a normal chin hypersonic inlet. Boundary
53 layer diversion and flow parameters, especially starting abili- Fig. 2 Solution of flow field in osculating plane based on MOC.
54 ties, are studied and compared between original and modified
55 inlets.
the conical shock, and line BB0 is tangent to line AB at point B. 84
56 2. Model design The shock-dependent area and the isentropic compression area 85
in the osculating plane are the area of ABC and the area down- 86

57 2.1. Original inlet stream BC, respectively. The shock-dependent area of the 87
modified inlet is similar to that of the original inlet. By con- 88
trast, the isentropic compression area is redesigned, which is 89
58 A chin inlet is employed as the original inlet, which is named
composed of a cluster of Mach waves. Each Mach wave is 90
59 Case A in this paper. As shown in Fig. 1, the forebody is
designed by the MOC, and the bisection method is used to 91
60 axisymmetric with a diameter of 631 mm. The cowl is installed
adjust the static pressure of the wall in order to ensure that 92
61 on the forebody with a 90° center angle. The length of the
the Mach wave from the wall is matched with the correspond- 93
62 whole model is 1600 mm, and the total contraction ratio
ing discrete point in BB0 . 94
63 (CRtotal) and the internal contraction ratio (CRin) of the inlet
A different distribution of these Mach waves achieves dif- 95
64 are 6.0 and 1.9, respectively. Symmetry and osculating planes
ferent pressure distributions along the flow direction. The 96
65 are displayed in the front and top views. h is the center angle
Mach wave distribution factor k is defined by Eq. (1), in which 97
66 from the symmetry plane to the corresponding osculating
rB is the distance from B to the axis, and LBB0 is the length of 98
67 plane. What’s more, the forebody in every osculation plane
BB0 . Thus different controllable Mach wave flow fields are 99
68 can be divided into two parts, i.e., the shock-dependent area
obtained by controlling the value of k. For example, with a 100
69 and the isentropic compression area. In addition, the original
decrease of k, the wall pressure rises. 101
70 inlet is designed at Mach 6.0, and achieves the shock-on-lip 102
71 to capture as much airflow as possible at the design condition. LBB0
k¼ ð1Þ
rB 104

72 2.2. Modified inlet To form a transverse pressure gradient, different k are 105
selected in every osculating plane, which are defined by 106
73 The modified inlet which is named Case B is obtained based on Eq. (2) with kmin = 0.1 and kmax = 1.2. Besides, k of the mod- 107
74 the original inlet. To avoid affecting the conical shock, the ified inlet is corrected so that the distribution of k is smooth, as 108
75 transverse pressure gradient is set on the isentropic compres- shown in the black rectangle frame of Fig. 3. 109
76 sion area, acting a role as the supersonic bump. The new isen- ( 110
kmax kmin 2
tropic compression should not affect the conical shock, so h þ kmin 0  h  50
77
k¼ 502 ð2Þ
78 these two inlets would capture the same amount of air. By con- kmax 50  h  90 112
79 trolling the isentropic compression curve in different osculat-
80 ing planes along the transverse direction, modification of the
81 forebody is realized.
82 The MOC is employed to design the compression curve in
83 every osculating plane as shown in Fig. 2. Line AB represents

Fig. 3 Distributions of k of original inlet and modified inlet in

Fig. 1 Diagram of original inlet. transverse direction.

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody 3

Fig. 4 Comparison of the shapes between the original inlet and the modified inlet.

Fig. 5 Mach number distributions of flow field calculated by MOC and Fluent at Ma = 6.0.

113 The two inlets have the same throat and cowl, ensuring that 3. Numerical modeling 136
114 CRtotal of the two inlets are equal. Besides, CRin of Case A is
115 constant within every osculating plane (1.90), while that of 3.1. Computational method and boundary conditions 137
116 Case B increases gradually along the transverse direction with
117 the minimum 1.72 and the maximum 2.47. Fig. 4(a) clearly
The performances of the original inlet and the modified inlet at 138
118 shows the difference between the two inlets, in which the pur-
the design condition and during the self-starting process are 139
119 ple model represents the original inlet and the grey one is the
researched by viscid numerical simulation. The fluid is mod- 140
120 modified inlet. Fig. 4(b) shows the surfaces of the two models
eled as ideal gas. The simulations are carried out using the 141
121 at X = 1.2 m. Obviously, the wall of the modified inlet is
density-based solver. The two-equation Standard k-e as a tur- 142
122 higher than that of the original inlet near the symmetry plane
bulence model, is employed in the simulations to solve the 143
123 and lower than that of the original inlet on both sides. It means
three-dimensional compressible Reynolds-Averaged Navier- 144
124 that the modified inlet forms a slim and integrated bump on
Stokes (RANS) equations. The piecewise-polynomial method 145
125 the forebody compared to that of the original inlet.
is selected to compute specific heat, and viscosity is solved 146
using Sutherland. The residuals are monitored to ensure con- 147
126 2.3. Validation of MOC
vergence of the numerical solution. Structured grids are 148
employed for calculation. The grid distribution on the wall is 149
127 In order to confirm the reliability of the MOC used in the shown in Fig. 6. To ensure the accuracy of the turbulence flow 150
128 design, the wall obtained by the MOC is calculated by the solution, a value of y+ below 0.25 is realized for the main por- 151
129 CFD software Fluent with inviscid flow. Fig. 5(a) shows the tion of the wall flow region. 152
130 Mach number (Ma) contours of the flow field calculated by No-slip boundary condition and adiabatic condition are 153
131 the MOC and Fluent, respectively. Meanwhile, the Mach num- enforced at the wall. Far-field flow boundary condition is used 154
132 ber curves on the walls of the two flow fields are also compared at the inlet of the computation region. Pressure boundary con- 155
133 as shown in Fig. 5(b). It shows that the two results agree with dition is applied at the outlet of the computation region. Sym- 156
134 each other very well, which validates the precision of the metry boundary condition is used in the symmetry plane. 157
135 MOC.

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
4 S. XU et al.

Fig. 6 Grid distribution on wall.

Fig. 9 Comparison of wall pressure ratio distributions between

current simulation and experimental data.

grid. Therefore, the moderate grid is chosen to carry out the 172
following simulations, and the scale of 3D grid is about 173
1910000. 174
The numerical simulation method was validated based on a 175
chin inlet. An experiment was done in a wind tunnel at 176
Ma = 4.0. Fig. 9 shows the distributions of the wall pressure 177
ratios (p/p0, p0 is the static pressure of far field flow) in the sym- 178

Fig. 7 Comparison of Mach number contours among three metry plane obtained by the experiment and the numerical 179

different grid scales. simulation. This level of agreement in the wall static pressure 180
distribution could put confidence in resolving the model in this 181
paper. 182

158 3.2. Grid independency and model validation 4. Results and discussion 183

159 In order to investigate the grid independency of the numerical 4.1. Diversion of low-speed flow 184
160 simulations, a two-dimensional grid independency analysis is
161 performed in the symmetry plane. Three different grid scales Fig. 10 shows the static pressure contour lines on the forebod- 185
162 are compared, namely the coarse grid (160  50), the moderate ies of the two inlets at Ma = 6.0. As the modified inlet which is 186
163 grid (240  80), and the refined grid (360  120). Fig. 7 depicts Case B in the figure integrates the bump with the forebody, a 187
164 the Mach number contours under the three scales of grids. It is transverse pressure gradient is formed on the forebody surface 188
165 clear that the grid scale makes a slight difference on Mach compared to that of the original inlet. 189
166 number distributions. In addition, with the number of grids To evaluate the impact of the transverse pressure gradient 190
167 increasing, the conical shock waves are getting closer to the on the low-speed flow, the velocity (V) contours at the plane 191
168 cowl lip. Fig. 8 shows the velocity profiles near wall, where of X = 1.2 m near the symmetry plane are shown in Fig. 11. 192
169 the black line represents the sonic line. It is found that the The contour lines of the low-speed flow of Case B are lower 193
170 velocity profile near wall of the coarse grid is rough, and that than those of Case A. For example, the height of the line 194
171 of the moderate grid is almost similar to that of the refined V = 1611 m/s of Case B is 16.81% lower than that of Case 195

Fig. 8 Velocity profiles near wall with three different grid scales.

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody 5

ratios in the process of accelerating. With an increase of the 214

Mach number, the flow ratios (u) of the two inlets increase 215
slowly, and then the flow ratio of Case B rapidly increases at 216
Ma = 4.85 and it starts, while Case A starts at Ma = 5.8. 217
The Mach numbers (Mat), pressure ratios (pt/p0), and total 218
pressure recovery (rt) at throats are shown in Fig. 12(b)–(d), 219
respectively. All these results reveal that the modified inlet 220
achieves a better self-starting performance. Therefore, it can 221
be concluded that the modification of the forebody is particu- 222
larly beneficial to the inlet start. 223
Furthermore, the Mach number contours of the two inlets 224
are compared during the accelerating start process. In Fig. 13, 225
the symmetry plane is selected to display the flow structures in 226
the start process. The separation shock wave of Case A is on 227
the outside of the cowl lip at Ma = 4.5. Besides, large-scale 228

Fig. 10 Static pressure contours on forebodies of two inlets at separation zones are formed, which cause high flow loss and 229

Ma = 6.0. great changes of main flow parameters at the throat. A similar 230
flow structure can be seen in Case B. With the Mach number 231
rising to 4.8, the separation shock waves of two inlets are close 232
to the cowl lip. In addition, the separation shock wave of Case 233
A is slightly stronger than that of Case B. However, there is a 234
sudden change in the Mach number contours of Case B at 235
Ma = 4.9, in which large-scale separation disappears. It is 236
obvious that Case B has already started, while Case A still 237
keeps its unstarted state. With a further increase of the Mach 238
number, the conical shock waves are close to the lip for both 239
inlets. Besides, the separation zone of Case A moves back 240
and becomes small. It can be seen that Case A starts at 241
Ma = 5.8, in which the flow structure is similar to that of Case 242
Fig. 11 Velocity contours at plane of X = 1.2 m of two inlets.
B. When the Mach number increases to 6.0 which is the design 243
condition, the conical shock intersects with the cowl lip for 244

196 A, and the height of the line V = 1432 m/s of Case B is both inlets. Small-scale separation zones are formed in internal 245

197 16.32% lower than that of Case A. It is proven that the low- contraction sections caused by the interaction between the lip 246

198 speed flow of the modified inlet is smaller than that of the orig- shock wave and the boundary layer. 247

199 inal inlet near the symmetry plane. Based on the analysis above, the start process can be 248
described as follows: the separation shock wave gradually 249

200 4.2. Inlet performances at design condition approaches to the cowl lip, the large-scale separation zone 250
moves backward, and then disappears with an increase of 251
the Mach number. 252
201 The performances of the original inlet and the modified inlet at
The streamlines near wall of the two inlets during the accel- 253
202 the design condition are analyzed in this paper. Table 1 shows
erating start process are displayed in Fig. 14. The two inlets are 254
203 flow parameters at the throat. The two inlets capture almost
both unstarted with large-scale separation zones at Ma = 4.5 255
204 the same amount of air. What’s more, similar numbers can
as shown in Fig. 14(a). Besides, it can be seen that spillages 256
205 be seen in the Mach number, the static pressure ratio, and
are formed for the two inlets. Furthermore, the separation line 257
206 the total pressure recovery of the two inlets. This result indi-
of Case A shows a two-dimensional shape along the transverse 258
207 cates that the modified inlet achieves almost the same perfor-
direction near the symmetry plane, while that of Case B 259
208 mance as that of the original inlet at the design condition.
changes greatly and is relatively backward. In other words, 260
the separation zone of Case B is smaller than that of Case 261
209 4.3. Self-starting process
A. In Fig. 14(b), the two inlets are still unstarted at 262
Ma = 4.8, and the streamlines are similar to those at 263
210 Inlet start is an important factor in inlet design. Whether an Ma = 4.5. As shown in Fig. 14(c), when the Mach number 264
211 inlet can start successfully has a strong impact on the perfor- increases to 4.9, there is no obvious difference in the streamli- 265
212 mance of a ramjet/scramjet.15–20 Self-starting processes of the nes distribution of Case A. By contrast, the streamlines of Case 266
213 two inlets are studied and compared. Fig. 12 shows the flow B change dramatically, in which the separation zone becomes 267

Table 1 Flow parameters at throat.

Model Flow ratio Mass-averaged Mach number Mass-averaged static pressure ratio Mass-averaged total pressure recovery
Case A 0.9757 2.951 23.72 0.5639
Case B 0.9631 2.974 23.34 0.5642

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
6 S. XU et al.

Fig. 12 Comparisons of main flow parameters at throat in start process.

Fig. 13 Comparison of Mach number distributions in symmetry planes during accelerating start process.

268 small and the spillage almost disappears. When the Mach The walls static pressure distributions along the transverse 274
269 number increases to 5.8, the separation zone of Case A direction are extracted with unstarted inlets at Ma = 4.5 to 275
270 becomes small, and the separation line moves back signifi- study the mechanism of the improvement of the start perfor- 276
271 cantly. What’s more, with further increases of the Mach num- mance of the modified inlet. Fig. 15 displays the wall static 277
272 ber (Ma = 6.0), the streamlines of the two inlets show no pressure distributions of the original inlet and the modified 278
273 obvious difference compared to those at Ma = 5.8. inlet at the plane of X = 1.32 m, in which the dotted black line 279

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody 7

Fig. 16 Comparison of supersonic channels at throats of

original inlet and the modified inlet at Ma = 4.5.

represents the location of the sidewall. It can be seen that a lar- 280
ger transvers pressure gradient is formed in Case B within the 281
unstart separation bubble. This transverse pressure gradient in 282
case B makes side-moving of subsonic flow in the separation 283
bubble much easier, which leads to a smaller separation region 284
during the starting process. 285
Fig. 16 shows the supersonic channel at the throats at 286
Ma = 4.5. The flow spillage is a critical factor for the estab- 287
lishment of the supersonic channel. The supersonic channel 288
area of Case A accounts for 14.5%, while that of Case B 289
accounts for 38.9%. Obviously, it is beneficial to the start of 290
Case B. 291

5. Conclusions 292

The mechanism of supersonic bump inlet is applied to the inte- 293

gration of bump/forebody in a hypersonic inlet. A modified 294
inlet is obtained based on a chin inlet by the MOC. By compar- 295
ing the performances of the modified inlet and the original 296
inlet, conclusions could be drawn as follows: 297

(1) The hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody 298

has the ability to divert low-speed flow. 299
(2) A modification of the forebody is beneficial to inlet start, 300
in which the self-start Mach number of the modified 301
inlet is 0.95 lower than that of the original inlet. 302
(3) By analyzing the inlet start process, it is found that the 303
Fig. 14 Comparison of streamlines near wall of two inlets during modification changes the shape of the separation zone 304
accelerating start process. and increases the flow spillage, which is beneficial to 305
the modified inlet start. 306

References 307

1. Seddon J, Goldsmith EL. Intake aerodynamics. Dayton: Air Force 308

Institute of Technology; 1999. p. 169–76. 309
2. Zhou Y, Zhao Y, Xu D. Numerical investigation of hypersonic 310
flat-plate boundary layer transition mechanism induced by differ- 311
ent roughness shapes. Acta Astronaut 2016;127:209–18. 312
3. Tan HJ, Guo RW. Design and wind tunnel study of a top- 313
mounted diverterless inlet. Chin J Aeronaut 2004;17(2):72–8. 314
4. Tillotson BJ, Loth E, Dutton JC, Mace J, Haeffele B. Exper- 315
imental study of a Mach 3 bump-compression flowfield. J Propuls 316
Power 2009;25(3):545–54. 317
5. Liang DW, Li B. Reverse design of diverterless inlet and 318
mechanism of diversion boundary layer. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut 319
Sin 2005;26(3):286–9 [Chinese]. 320
6. Wooden PA, Azevedo JJ. Use of CFD in developing the JSF F-35 321
outer mold lines. Reston: AIAA; 2006, Report No.: AIAA-2006- 322
Fig. 15 Comparison of static pressure distributions of unstarted 3663. 323

inlets along transverse direction at plane of X = 1.32 m at 7. Xu SC, Wang Y, Wang ZG, Fan XQ. The design and analysis of 324

Ma = 4.5. bump in high speed supersonic flow. Reston: AIAA; 2017, Report 325
No.: AIAA-2017-2269. 326

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010
 CJA 1288 No. of Pages 8
3 June 2019
8 S. XU et al.

327 8. Song DK, Dong JS. Numerical study on performance of super- 14. Svensson M. A CFD investigation of a generic bump and its 345
328 sonic inlets with various three-dimensional bumps. J Mech Sci application to a diverterless supersonic inlet [disserta- 346
329 Technol 2008;22(8):1640–7. tion]. Linköping: Linköping university; 2008. 347
330 9. Lim S, Dong HK, Sang DK. A computational study on the 15. Wang WX, Guo RW. Numerical study of unsteady starting 348
331 efficiency of boundary layer bleeding for the supersonic bump type characteristics of a hypersonic inlet. Chin J Aeronaut 2013;26 349
332 inlet. Reston: AIAA; 2009, Report No.: AIAA-2009-34. (3):563–71. 350
333 10. Masud J, Akram F. Effect of passive bleed system on an integrated 16. Bai CY, Wu ZN. Hypersonic starting flow at high angle of attack. 351
334 diverterless supersonic inlet. Reston: AIAA; 2011, Report No.: Chin J Aeronaut 2016;29(2):297–304. 352
335 AIAA-2011-0920. 17. Chang JT, Li N, Xu KJ, Bao W, Du DR. Recent research progress 353
336 11. Masud J, Akram F. Flow field and performance analysis of an on unstart mechanism, detection and control of hypersonic inlet. 354
337 integrated diverterless supersonic inlet. Aeronaut J 2013;115 Aerospace Sci 2017;89:1–22. 355
338 (1170):471–80. 18. Molder S, Timofeev EV, Tahir RB. Flow stating in high compres- 356
339 12. Eiman BS, Huang GP, Anthony H. Design of hypersonic forebody sion hypersonic air inlets by mass spillage. Reston: AIAA; 2004, 357
340 by the combination of bump and waverider surfaces. Reston: AIAA; Report No.: AIAA-2004-4130. 358
341 2017, Report No.: AIAA-2017-2177. 19. Wang Y. Investigation on the starting characteristicsof hypersonic 359
342 13. Bhanderi H, Babinsky H. Improved boundary layer quantities in the inlet [dissertation]. Changsha: National University of Defense 360
343 shock wave boundary layer interaction region on Technology; 2008. 361
344 bumps. Reston: AIAA; 2005, Report No.: AIAA-2005-4896. 20. Wang CX, Tan HJ, Zhang QF, Sun S. Test of low Mach number 362
unstart and restart process of hypersonic inlet. Acta Aeronaut 363
Astronaut Sin 2017;38(11):38–49 [Chinese]. 364
365

Please cite this article in press as: XU S et al. Design and analysis of a hypersonic inlet with an integrated bump/forebody, Chin J Aeronaut (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.010