NUMERICAL STUDY OF HEAT AND DRAG

REDUCTION OF HYPERSONIC FLOW

VEHICLES USING CONTERFLOWING JET
AND AEROSPIKE

Page 1 of 14
 Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Computational Method...............................................................................................................3
Results........................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion................................................................................................................................12
References................................................................................................................................13

Page 2 of 14
Introduction

Hypersonic flights are influenced by introduction of shock boundary layer, turbulence

transition, effect of real gas in high temperature and viscous effects. There is a strong adverse
pressure or shock wave gradient flow that is present in the rudder, cockpit and nose cone of
flights, which produces a serious local thermal environment. Drag reduction is because of
minimization of turbulent exchange of momentum near the wall. This magician is obtained
by decrease in turbulent transfer of mass and heat. Reduction of aerodynamic and drag hitting
is an essential direction for CFD (computational fluid dynamics). To minimise these loads
passive and active control strategies are implemented which include opposing jets in the
stagnation zone or forward facing spike can be attached. In this report numerical study of
drag and heat reduction of hypersonic flow vehicles are done with the help of aerospike and
counterflowing jets (Jia and Zhang, 2019). A detached shock in front of the body is created
by an aerospike. In between the zone and shock aadi circulating flow takes place which
works as a streamlined body profile helps drag reduction. Pulsed jet and aerospike recently
implemented the introduction of heat flux. As a result it is important to investigate the heat
and pressure reduction procedure along with the flow mechanism of complex flow around the
double ellipsoid.

Computational Method

2.1 Physical Models

Figure 1: Double ellipsoid with opposing jet or spike schematic diagram

To investigate the influence of the presence of the aerospace or counterfeit jet on the
reduction of heat flux of double ellipsoid flying vehicles at a hypersonic velocity, three
calculation models are established, one of which is the baseline (Model 0), two models are
the aerospace (Model 1) or counterfeit jet (model 2). A double ellipsoid is the geometric form

Page 3 of 14
of the baseline model. The maximum size is 215, 113.58, and 105.26 mm, respectively in
length, breadth and height. It can express its exact equation in (mm):

The model of the aerospace is a double ellipsoid, a narrow cylinder rod fixed to the point of
stagnation. The spike length is fixed at 10 mm and the diameter is 2 mm. The counterfeit jet
model is a double ellipsoid with a stagnant dot outlet of 2 mm in diameter.
2.2 Numerical procedures
The CFD++ commercial code is used to compute the model. The finite volume approach is
used to calculate and solve the issue based on the perfect gas assumption. The hybrid
LES/RANS hybrid three-dimensional compressible is employed. The hybrid LES/RANS
method will, as previous studies have shown, offer better results than RANS technologies
alone, and be much less costly than a full LES, especially for large numbers of Reynolds (Jia
and Zhang, 2019). The LES/RANS hybrid model is the solution for unresolved kinetic
turbulence energy and its rate of discharge for transport equations that combines both LES
and RANS anisotropy and low Reynolds damping effects.
In parts of the uniformly refined mesh it automatically mingles with an anisotropic version of
the Smagorinsky model and reverts to the k-epsilon model on rough mesh. The blending is
done in a way that allows for a constant effective shear stress, supplied by the minimum 2
models (LES and RANS) (Eghlima et al. 2018). The combined effects of the Boussinesq
hypothesis and LES/RANS mixture are handled by a non-linear extension and the modular
strain tensor is damped according to a certain latency parameter:

The latency parameter can be defined as . The

respective product of the RANS turbulence model is LV LES (the standard for effective
viscosity) as a feature of the length-scale/velocity product derived from the sub-grid LES and

Page 4 of 14
LVRANS. This expression is used for the selected LES and RANS models

.
A second order, upwind function, utilising a Harten Lax-van Leer Contact (HLLC) Riemann
solver, was a space discretization function with a fux limiting (TVD) multi-dimensional total
variation. Time stages involving the implicit approach of LU-SGS (low symmetrical Gauss-
Seidel lower) (Moradi et al. 2018). The fow feld was taken with a dual time step of the
second order. The physical time step is set to five to ten times and ten times each step.

Table 1: Information on grid test

The estimated free stream characteristics were then applied to the inlet for the wind tunnel
test. The infow upstream conditions are indicated as Ma∞ = 8.04, Re∞ = 107/m, total pressure
7.8 MPa, total temperature is 0°, 892 K. At the outfow, the interior cells extrapolate all
physical factors. The wall limit is the viscous isothermal wall without a slide with a constant
temperature of 288 K. To initialise the full fow field, the free fow value is utilised. The
counterfeit jet's border condition type is defined as the pressure intake and its mass fraction is
1.0. Jet air is considered the ideal gas. The multi-block-structured mesh is built in ICEM CFD
(Li et al. 2017). Most nodes are grouped along the orbiter wall to record the low-pressure
recirculation zone information. The entire grid for model 0 is up to 3.9 million and 120 cells
are typical to the board. The remaining two achieved 4.3 million, respectively 4.8 million.
Grid generation is demonstrated in Fig. 2 for several models.

Page 5 of 14
 Figure 2: Grid generation and computational domain for different models

Results

3.1 Validation of numerical methods

The heat transfer distributions of the basic model are produced with experimental data[10] to
quantitatively assess the correctness of the CFD results. The examination of grid
independence is evaluated by raising grid numbers in all three directions and reducing the
surface first cell height. Table 1 provides detailed grid information. It should be observed that
the stated grid refining factor (R*) is dependent on each direction on the rough grid. In
turbulent simulations, the first Y+ cell is maintained under 0.73 along the whole wall surface
to meet the demand for viscous solution.

Page 6 of 14
 Figure 3: Comparison of parameter distribution and flow field contours
As demonstrated, the grid scale is of minor importance only when the R chain > 1.5 and ++ <
0.73 are of a significantly similar pressure and heat transfer distributions in the moderate and
replanted scale grids. The modest grid scale is therefore used to ensure numerical accuracy
and to conserve computer resources for all situations. The hybrid technique is comparable to
the conventional turbulence type RANS-SST (Qin and Xu, 2019). Compared to experimental
schlieren, the computational density contours are illustrated in the figure 3a as seen in Fig.
3b. The numerical result reveals that the bow shock wave and the shock/shock interactions
around the second ellipse well are captured.

Page 7 of 14
 Figure 3: Flowfield and streamline in different planes
The basic flow field and mechanism of the first baseline model need to be explored before the
aerodisk and counterflowing jet investigation is conducted. The whole fow structure is shown
in Fig. 4a around the double ellipsoid. The symmetry plane (x–y) is pressure differentiated
and the surface of the double ellipsoid is characterised. The plane streamlines are also
displayed (Sudarshan and Saravanan, 2018). As visible, close to the first ellipsoid nose there
is a significant bow shock. When the fow is streamlined downstream, and the second
ellipsoid above eventually gets together, there is a shock/shock interaction.
The close-up perspective is shown in Figure 4b. As you can see, when a bow shock around
the first Ellipsoid reaches the surface of the second Ellipsoid, there is a significant shock
wave/boundary layer interaction. The heat flux on the top surface of a dual ellipsoid may be
explained by these phenomena, as illustrated in Fig. 3c. The density contours presented (see
Fig. 3a) and heat surface flux distributions allow these complicated flow structures to be
better understood (see Fig. 3c, d). In Figure 4c,d, due to its double ellipsoid arrangement, the
flow structure in the x-z plane is significantly different from that in the x-y plane.

Page 8 of 14
3.2 Aerodynamic characteristics

Figure 5: Pressure and heat flux distributions of model 1 and model 2

(Source: researchgate.net)
Here the figure 5 shows the particular pressure and the certain heat flux that has been
distributed of significant model number 1 and model number 2. It basically depicts the heat
flux in the particular pressure that is being generated on the nose. In which it decreases
significantly and the installation of counterflowing jets and the spike is being initiated in a
certain symmetrical plane (x-y plane). Near about 85% of model 1 and 30 % of model 2 to
reduction in significance hit flags and in model 1, 70% and in model 2, 21% of the particular
pressure. So both the pressure and the heat flux appear as the peak behind the particular nose
and the peak value of the pressure that is considered to be non-dimensional reaches up to 35
in model 1 (Sudarshan and Saravanan, 2018). In model 2 to it is 64 and the heat flux reaches
up to 2, 0.45 in model 1 and in model 2, 0.41. and then eventually the heat flux and the
pressure the clients at the very low level relation of the intersection of the two ellipsoids. The
particular pressure in model one reaches up to 30% whereas in model one it is -3%. Hence

Page 9 of 14
the surface pressure and the particular heat flux drops due to the reason of gradual flow
expansion downstream.
3.3 Flow mechanism analysis

Figure 6: Schematic diagram for flow field over double ellipsoid with opposite jet or
aerospike
In the above diagram a recirculating region is is obtained around the front part of the spike to
the reattachment centre. The floor which is produces behind the bow shock wave divide the
spike and producers a recirculating area (Pish et al. 2019).. In the second picture supersonic
flow field along with opposing jet is implemented at the front part of double ellipsoid. An
Counter flowing jet occurs for balancing the jet pressure with detached shockwave pressure.
The flow is complex as it contains match disk, re compressed shock waves and recirculation
region. In pictures 7a,b and c, the bow shock are pushed by an aerospike standing away from
the nose. The distance of the shock stand in the x y-axis is larger than the X z plane. As a
result, an elliptical shape is shown by shock waves. Figure a, b and d provide different
scenarios as compared to figure c. The distance of the shock stand is more remarkable than
model 0. A match reflection is obtained when the opposite jet comes in contact with the free
stream. The recirculating region is obtained surrounding the nozzle exit. Therefore the heat
flux and pressure enhances (Deng et al. 2018). In fig 7d the counter flowing jet comes in
contact with the free stream, and an interface is formed. The body surface is reacted in jet li
with the help of a free stream, and a recirculation region is obtained in the nozzle along with
recirculation region is obtained as well as recompression bow shock wave is obtained at the
attachment site of the jet layer. The heat flux and pressure level are low at the recirculation
site.

Page 10 of 14
 Figure 7: Flowflieds and streamlines of model 1 and model 2
(Source: researchgate.net)
In figure 7 and if it shows a proper comparison of the heat flux distribution and the surface
pressure at the significant nose that is of double ellipsoid in the particular plane y-z. The
introduction of the aerospike has a significant impact on the pressure and on the surface heat
flux (Sun et al. 2017). So basically the left half represents the particular case of aerospike
whereas the other half is considered to be written to represent the counter flowing jet. In the
case of aerospike the heat flux and the pressure at the particular region of stagnation of the
ellipsoid which is considered to be double decrease as to a certain low level because of
recirculation of the region (Eghlima et al. 2018). Ment of the layer that is considered to be
shared on the particular shoulder and on the first ellipsoid increases the significant pressure
and the local heat flux. And because of that separation and reattachments leads to different
options dounce in the pressure and In The heat flux as it is being prescribed and depicted in
figure 5 (Deng et al. 2018). So basically a clear scenario is being depicted and it is being
speculated in relation to the count of drawing Jet and when the jet flows out the nozzle and it
is being pushed by the particular fish stream and the other one is really attached to the surface
of the certain nose. And the heat flux and the pressure is considered to be really high when it

Page 11 of 14
is near the reattachments. The surface pressure and the particular heat flux decreases at the
very low level because of gradual flow expansion downstream.

Conclusion

So this story depicts a primary goal which is to find a pressure and heat reduction method as
well as the flow mechanism of complex flow which is around the double ellipsoid. There are
basically three-dimensional double episodes models that are being used with aerospikes. Here
the numerical data are being properly represented along with the models that depict heat flux
and pressure on the body surface. And it also opposes that flow out of the nozzle and it is
pushed towards the bow shock by standing away from the nose. Apparently, the pressure
peaks and the heat flux are being generated or been created by reattachments.

Page 12 of 14
References

Deng, F., Xie, F., Huang, W., Dong, H. and Zhang, D., 2018. Numerical exploration on jet
oscillation mechanism of counterflowing jet ahead of a hypersonic lifting-body vehicle.
Science China Technological Sciences, 61(7), pp.1056-1071.
Eghlima, Z., Mansour, K. and Fardipour, K., 2018. Heat transfer reduction using combination
of spike and counterflow jet on blunt body at high Mach number flow. Acta Astronautica,
143, pp.92-104.
Eghlima, Z., Mansour, K. and Fardipour, K., 2018. Heat transfer reduction using combination
of spike and counterflow jet on blunt body at high Mach number flow. Acta Astronautica,
143, pp.92-104.
Jia, J. and Zhang, Y., 2019. Heat flux and pressure reduction using aerospike and
counterflowing jet on complex hypersonic flow. International Journal of Aeronautical and
Space Sciences, pp.1-10.
Jia, J. and Zhang, Y., 2019. Heat flux and pressure reduction using aerospike and
counterflowing jet on complex hypersonic flow. International Journal of Aeronautical and
Space Sciences, pp.1-10.
Li, S.B., Wang, Z.G., Huang, W. and Yan, L., 2017. Analysis of flowfield characteristics for
equal polygon opposing jet on different freeflow conditions. Acta Astronautica, 133, pp.50-
62.
Moradi, R., Mosavat, M., Gerdroodbary, M.B., Abdollahi, A. and Amini, Y., 2018. The
influence of coolant jet direction on heat reduction on the nose cone with Aerodome at
supersonic flow. Acta astronautica, 151, pp.487-493.
Pish, F., Moradi, R., Edalatpour, A. and Gerdroodbary, M.B., 2019. The effect of coolant
injection from the tip of spike on aerodynamic heating of nose cone at supersonic flow. Acta
Astronautica, 154, pp.52-60.
Qin, Q. and Xu, J., 2019. Role of aerodome in pulsation/oscillation control and aeroheating
reduction. Acta Astronautica, 162, pp.481-496.
Sudarshan, B. and Saravanan, S., 2018. Heat flux characteristics within and outside a forward
facing cavity in a hypersonic flow. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 97, pp.59-69.
Sudarshan, B. and Saravanan, S., 2018. Heat flux characteristics within and outside a forward
facing cavity in a hypersonic flow. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 97, pp.59-69.

Page 13 of 14
Sun, X.W., Guo, Z.Y., Huang, W., Li, S.B. and Yan, L., 2017. A study of performance
parameters on drag and heat flux reduction efficiency of combinational novel cavity and
opposing jet concept in hypersonic flows. Acta Astronautica, 131, pp.204-225.

Page 14 of 14