Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion (Scramjet) Design Procedure: Lecture Series by Prof DR Ali Sarosh

sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
Shocks & Stars Engineering – providing viable solutions
D
of
The Design and Comparative
Pr
by
Performance Analysis of Two
n
ig
es
Hydrogen-Fueled Scramjet
D
n
io
Systems
u ls
op
Pr
c
ni
by
so
er
PROF DR ALI SAROSH

yp
H
CEO & Chief Technical Director Shocks & Stars Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd.
in
es
ot
N
re
tu
2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 1

ec
sh
ro
The Basis
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Why Scramjet Research ?
Pr
– Better, Faster and Cheaper Solution to Space-travel
by
– Cheaper = Simplicity = Efficiency Compromise
n
ig
• What is the Objective ?
es
– Assess and Analyze the Performance Based Viability of Comparative
D
Scramjet Systems
n
io
• What are Types of Scramjets ?
uls
– Constant Combustor Area Scramjet : SCRAMJET 1
op
Pr
– Constant Combustor Press Scramjet : SCRAMJET 2
• What is the Difference ?
c
ni
so
– Historically : Integration of High Process Efficiency Systems

er
– Ensuing : 75% (Low) Efficiency Compression, Combustion System

yp
Integrated to Quasi-Isentropic Expansion System

H
• What is the Results’ Utilization ?

in
– Choose Better Engine Type for Given Design Considerations

es
– Choose the Vehicle Type Supported by the Chosen Engine

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Objective of Scramjet Research Work
Sa
li
rA
D
of
1. Viability. To Assess the Performance Based
Pr
by
Viability of Two Comparative Scramjet Systems. Each
n
Operating at 75% (Low) Compression and Combustion
ig
es
Efficiencies Coupled To a Quasi-Isentropic Expansion
D
System.
n
io
ls
2. Analytical Accuracy. Establish the Accuracy of
u
op
Several Aerothermodynamic Approaches in Assessing
Pr
the Flow and Performance Parameters for
c
ni
Comparative HAP Systems
so
er
3. Computational Accuracy. Establish the Accuracy of

yp
Numerical Simulation Results (of FLUENT 6.3.17) vis-

H
in
à-vis the Aerothermodynamic Methods for

es
Comparative HAP Systems

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Limitations
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
1. Archival Data. Non-Availability of Exact
by
Archival Experimental/ Computational/
n
ig
es
Test Data
D
n
io
2. Experimentation. Non-Accessibility
uls
op
to Experimental Facilities for Validation
Pr
c
of Analytical/ Computational Results
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sequence of Dissertation
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Approach of Scramjet Research
Pr
by
• PART I : Scramjet System Design
n
– Compression, Combustion, Expansion Geometry
ig
es
– Optimal Combustor Configuration
D
• PART II : Scramjet Flow Assessment
n
io
ls
– Aerothermodynamic Assessment
u
op
– Numerical Simulations
Pr
• PART III : Scramjet Performance Assessment
c
ni
– Aerothermodynamic Results
so
– CFD Results
er
yp
• Scramjet Vehicle
H
– Transatmospheric or Hypersonic Cruiser

in
es
• Conclusion
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Tools & References
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Softwares
Pr
– MATLAB :- for aerothermodynamic coding
by
– Gambit 2.2.30 :- for meshing and grid generation
n
ig
– FLUENT 6.3.17 :- for flow simulation
es
– CHEMKIN Collection 3.7 :- for Chemical Kinetics
D
n
– Mechanical Desktop (AMD) :- for 3-D modeling
io
– Solid Works
uls
– CATIA V5R20
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Tools & References
Sa
li
rA
D
• Major References
of
Pr
– Sarosh, Ali, Dong Yun-Feng, and Muhammad Shoaib. "An Aerothermodynamic and Mass-
Model Integrated Optimization Framework for Highly-Integrated Forebody-Inlet
by
Configurations." In Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 245, pp. 277-282. Trans Tech
Publications Ltd, 2013.
n
ig
– Sarosh, Ali, Dong Yun Feng, and Muhammad Adnan. "An Aerothermodynamic Design
es
Approach for Scramjet Combustors and Comparative Performance of Low-Efficiency
D
Systems." In Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 110, pp. 4652-4660. Trans Tech
Publications Ltd, 2012.
n
io
– Sarosh, Ali, and Dong Yun Feng. "An Aerothermodynamic-CFD Approach for Design of
ls
Hydrogen-Fuelled, Constant-Area Scramjet Combustor." Proceedings of APISAT (2010):
u
1230-1233.
op
– Sarosh, Ali, Dong Yun Feng, and Farhan, Amir. "Comparative Performance Assessment of
Pr
Low-Efficiency Hydrogen-Fueled Scramjet Systems." AIAA 2010-7035, In 46th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference 2010
c
ni
– William H. Heiser, David T. Pratt, “Hypersonic AirBreathing Propulsion,” AIAA Education
so
Series, 1994.
er
– John D. Anderson, Jr, “Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective,” 3rd ed,
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Singapore 2003.
yp
– Alan Harland, Simon Machin, “Conceptual Design and Analysis of Hydrocarbon Fueled
H
Scramjet Engine, ”The University of Adelaide , Report for Defence Science and Technology
in
Organization, Australia, 20 October 2006.

es
– Manzoor, Qasim, and Ali Sarosh. "Conceptual design of independently configurable Mach
6.8 hydrogen fuelled dual mode scramjet propulsion system."
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Approach of Scramjet Research
Sa
li
rA
D
Scramjet
of
Pr
Constant Combustor Constant Combustor
Area Scramjet : Scramjet 1
by
Press Scramjet : Scramjet 2
n
ig
es
Geometric Parameters Flow Parameters Performance Parameters
D
Assessment (Part 1) Assessment (Part 2) Assessment (Part 3)
n
io
ls
Aerothermodynamic Numerical Simulation
u
op
Approach Approach
Pr
Component Analysis Approach
c Basic Optimized Roe-FDS Scheme
ni
Geometry Geometry 2nd Order Accurate
so
Generalized Finite Control Volume

er
yp
Stream Thrust Analysis Approach

H
Exact Approximate
in
Mod Stream Thrust Analysis Approach Solution : Solution:

Flow Parameters
es
Flow &
Performance
ot
Kinetic Energy Efficiency Method

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Summary of Aerothermodynamic Approaches
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Approach Salient Features
Pr
1. Generalized One-Dimensional Fluid Dynamics Approach
by
Finite 2. Analysis is Greatly Simplified --- Variation of Fluid Properties in 1-D
n
ig
Control 3. Trivial Solution for Ideal Conditions at Steady State
es
Volume 4. Non-Trivial Solution for Real Conditions (i.e Reaction Chemistry)
D
5. Cannot Account for Geometric & Thermodynamic Efficiencies Variations
n
io
1. One-Dimensional Thermodynamics Approach
ls
Stream
2. Thermodynamics Processes Follow Brayton Cycle
u
Thrust &
op
3. Primary Quantity is Stream Thrust Function
Modified
Pr
4. Can Account for Geometric and Thermodynamic Efficiencies Variation
Stream c
5. Modification of Stream Thrust Losses Incorporated for Component Behavior
ni
Thrust
so
Assessment in Modified Stream Thrust Analysis

Analysis
er
6. Suitable for Large System Design and Flow Assessment

yp
1. One/Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis for Compression, Combustion and Expansion

H
Generalized Components Using Compression/ Expansion Waves

in
Flow 2. Account for Fluid and Thermodynamic Phenomena

es
Analysis 3. Can Account for Geometric and Flow Variations

ot
N
4. Best Suited for Component Design and Flow Assessment

re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Summary of Models for Numerical Simulation
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Models Reason for Applicability
Pr
1. Coupled-Implicit Solvers
by
Density Based Solver 2. Best Suited for High Speed Compressible Flows
n
3. Convergence Efficient but Memory Inefficient
ig
es
Temporal 1. Extremely Good Approximation for Hypersonic Flows
D
Discretization : Steady 2. Airbreathing Engine Performance Evaluation Done at Steady State (Heiser et
n
State al, pp 54)
io
ls
1. Compared to LES Reduces Computational effort
u
DES
op
2. Reduces Computational Resources
(RANS)
Pr
3. Widely Used for Practical Engineering Applications
4. Used for Computation of Time Dependent Unsteady Flows
c
Viscous
ni
1. Blends the Robust & Accurate Formulation of k   in the Near Wall with
so
Free Stream Independence of k   in the Far Field

SST- k
er
2. More Accurate and Reliable for a Wider Class of Flows

yp
3. Model equations Behave Appropriately in Near-Wall and Far-Field Zones

H
1. Computes Chemical Source Terms Using Arrhenius Expression

in
Laminar Finite Rate 2. Model is Exact for Laminar flame and Acceptable for Supersonic Flame
es
Reaction Model 3. Accelerates Convergence

ot
4. Improves Solution Stability

N
re
tu

ec
sh
Summary of Solution Controls for Numerical
ro
Sa
Simulation
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Solution Types Reason for Applicability
by
1. Simple and Method of Choice for Engineering Problems
n
2. Exhibit Better Convergence Properties in Asymptotic
ig
Roe-
es
Flux Calculations for Steady State Problem
FDS
D
3. Provides Exact Solution for Discontinuities
n
io
4. Linearization Errors are Small
uls
1. Increased level of Result Accuracy from 1st Order
op
2nd Order 2. Scheme is Stable Even at Higher Courant Numbers (>2)
Spatial
Pr
Upwind
Discretization 3. Wiggles Can be Eliminated
c
Scheme
ni
4. Physics of Problem is More Closely represented
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Numerical Simulation Approach
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Gambit 2.2.30 & FLUENT 6.3.17 Code
Pr
• Mathematical Model
by
n
– Three Step Model
ig
es
– First Step :- Laminar, Non-Reacting Flow (~300 Iterations)
D
• Continuity Equation
n
io
• Momentum Equation
uls
– Second Step :- Turbulent, Non-Reacting Flow (~700 Iterations)
op
Pr
• Energy Equation
• Reynolds Averaged Navier Stoke’s (RANS) Eqn
c
ni
• Boussinesq Hypothesis (for term  u iu j )
so
er
• Turbulent Kinetic Energy “k”

yp
• Specific Dissipation Rate “ω”

H
– Third Step :- Turbulent, Reactive Flow (~20K Iterations)

in
• Second Step Equations

es
ot
• Species Transport Equation

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
PART I
D
n
io
uls
op
Hypersonic AirbreathingPr
c
ni
so
Propulsion (Scramjet) System

er
yp
Geometric Design
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Basic Design Considerations
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Physical Parameters
Pr
by
– Cruising Altitude : 30 kilometers
n
ig
– Free Stream Mach Number : 8.0
es
D
• System Parameters
n
io
ls
– Compression Efficiency ≈ 75%
u
op
• Cycle Temperature Ratio (T3/T0) = 4.50
– Combustion Efficiency ≈ 75% Pr
c
ni
so
• Single Fuel Injector

er
• Injection Pressure Ratio (Pinj/Pin) : 5.0~6.0 (Low)

yp
H
– Expansion Efficiency > 95%

in
es
• Quasi-Isentropic Expansion
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Scramjet Reference Stations Designation
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Stn Engine location
by
Free stream condition
n
0
ig
External compression begins
es
Inlet of isolator
D
1
Internal compression begins
n
io
Combustor inlet
ls
3
u
Internal compression ends
op
Nozzle inlet
Pr
4
c Internal expansion begins
ni
Nozzle exit
so
9
er
External expansion begins

yp
End of expansion ramp

H
10
External expansion ends
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Methodology
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Identical Free Stream Conditions
by
Constant SERN
Scramjet 1
n
Area Expansion
ig
es
Combustor System 1
D
n
io
Common
uls
Compression
op
System
Pr
c
ni
so
er
Constant SERN
yp
Pressure Expansion Scramjet 2

H
Combustor System 2
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Compression System Components Design
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Identical system for Scramjet 1 & 2
by
n
• External Compression Components
ig
es
D
– Compression Ramp
n
io
ls
– Inlet
u
op
• Internal Compression Components Pr
c
ni
so
– Constant Area Diffuser (Isolator)

er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Exit Flow Velocity Vs Stream Thrust Function
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
u ls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
Figure 45 Exit velocity/stream thrust as function of Figure 46 Exit velocity/stream thrust as function of
yp
fuel-air ratio :Scramjet 1 fuel-air ratio :Scramjet 2

H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Performance Parameters Vs Expansion Efficiency
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
ls
u
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
Figure 63 Performance parameters as function of Figure 64 Performance parameters as function of

H
Expansion Efficiency : Scramjet 1 Expansion Efficiency : Scramjet 2

in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Ramjet-Scramjet Continuum
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
•Max Performance of any Overall KE Efficiency is in the Vicinity of Mach 3.0

H
•Max Free Stream Mach No of Thrust Termination : Scramjet 1 = 15.0 ; Scramjet 2 = 13.0
in
es
•Quantitatively Superior to Average Real Scramjet Design … Heiser 1996

ot
•Direct Comparison of Airbreathing and Rocket Engine Performance

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Oblique Shock Reflection
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
For M0=8.0, the Maximum Deflection Angle (θmax) = 43.70

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Physical Parameters of Compression
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Physical Parameter Free Stream Inlet Entry Combustor Entry
Pr
by
Mach Number 8.0 4.38 3.0
n
ig
Static Pressure (Pa) 1196 1.357x104 6.45x104
es
D
Static Temperature (K) 226.5 645 1117
n
io
ls
Density (kg/m3) 0.0184 0.0733 0.2013
u
op
Pr
Stagnation Pressure (Pa) ni1.168x107 3.395x106
c 2.362x106
so
er
yp
•Stagnation Pressure Drop Across Compression = 80%

H
in
•Static Pressure Rise Across Compression System = 53%

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Compression Components Design (contd...)
Sa
li
rA
D
Ramp-Inlet Geometry
of
Pr
•Combustor Inlet Temp (T3) ≈ 1000K
by
•Combustor Inlet Mach (M3) ≈ 3.0
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
Regular Reflection of Oblique Shock
ni
so
Waves from Solid Boundary

er
•M1 = 4.38 (Inlet Mach No)

yp
H
•P3/P0 = 28.25 (Compression Ratio)

in
•P3/P1 = 2.49 (Isolator Press Ratio)

es
ot
•Θmax = 43.70 (Detached Shock)

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Region Entities Parameters
by
Ramp Angle
(deg) 17
Compression
External
n
ig
es
Ramp Length
0.523
D
(m)
n
io
Free Stream
0.03668
ls
Area (m2)
u
op
Inlet Capture
0.007258
Pr
Area (m2)
c
Compression
Internal
ni
Inlet Height
0.0386
so
(m)
er
Isolator
yp
Wedge Shaped Ramp as Opposed Conical Length (m) 0.025

H
Shape Precludes the Thin Shock Layer Formation

in
Isolator Area
at Hypersonic Mach Number 1.0
es
Ratio (A3/A1)
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
One-Dimensional Finite Control Volume Approach
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Conditions for Use
Pr
– Very Small Boundary Layer Region---Flow is very Nearly Uniform
by
– Fully Developed Flow---Property Profiles Vary Very Little in Axial
n
ig
Direction
es
– Stream Thrust Average---Fluid Properties are Perfectly Uniform at Each
D
Axial Location
n
io
• Utility of Stream Thrust Average
uls
– Analytically Simple
op
– Thermodynamically Conserved
• Assumptions Pr
c
ni
– Flow is STEADY---Extremely Good Approx for Hypersonic Flows due to
so
Enormous Inertial Terms---Airbreathing Engine Performance is Always

er
Done at Steady State

yp
– Known THERMOCHEMISTRY of Flow---All Intensive Properties of Fluid

H
Can be Determined
in
– EFFECTS such as Gravitation, Acceleration, Electrical, Magnetic are

es
Negligible
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
One-Dimensional Finite Control Volume Approach
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
•Energy Equation
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
ls
•State Equation
u
op
•Continuity Equation
Pr •Gibbs Equation
c
ni
so
•Momentum Equation
er
•Axial Component :-
yp
• Assumptions
H
•Flow is Steady
in
•Transverse Component :- •Thermochemistry is Known

es
•Calorically perfect Gas

ot
N
•Gravitational Effects Negligible

re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Thermodynamic Closed Cycle Analysis
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Brayton Cycle for Heat Engine
Pr
• Generalized Approach
by
• Cardinal Rules
1. Working Medium is a Pure Substance --- Air in Equilibrium State &
n
ig
Combustion Replaced by Heat Addition Without Mass Addition
es
2. Working Medium Passes Series of Equilibrium Processes to return to
D
Original State
n
3. Cycle Static Temp Ratio Ψ is an Independent Variable
io
• Thermodynamic Processes
u ls
– Adiabatic Compression (0~3)
op
– Isobaric Heat Addition (3~4)
Pr
– Adiabatic Expansion (4~10)
– Isobaric Heat Rejection (10~0)
c
ni
• Major Outcome
so
er
– Thermodynamic Cycle Efficiency + 4 Performance Measures :

Thermal, Propulsive & Overall Efficiencies, Specific Impulse
yp
• Limitation
H
in
– Cannot Distinguish Between Geometrical Variations --- Apply Only to

Constant Burner Pressure Cases
es
– Expansion Process Downstream of Dissociation Reaction is Not in

ot
Equilibrium and Cannot be Analyzed due to Loss of Energy

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Stream Thrust Analysis Approach
Sa
li
rA
D
• One-Dimensional Flow Approach
of
• Basis : Momentum Relationship --- Stream Thrust Function as
Pr
Primary Flow Quantity
by
• Cardinal Rules
1. Dividing Stream forms Boundary Between Internal and External Flow
n
ig
2. Flow is Undisturbed to Control Volume Inlet Plane
es
3. Flow Properties at Exit Plane Represented by 1-D Averages
D
4. Exhaust Flow Can be Under or Over-expanded
5. Cycle Static Temp Ratio Ψ is an Independent Parameter
n
io
6. Pressure Ratio (P10/P0) is an Independent Parameter
ls
7. Perfect Gas Constant R is Same at all Stations
u
• Thermodynamic Processes
op
– Same as Brayton Cycle
Pr
• Major Outcome
– Uninstalled Thrust c
ni
– Component Analysis : Flow Parameters for Compression,
so
Combustion & Expansion Components

– Performance Measures : Ideal One-Dimensional Generalized Control
er
Volume Approach
yp
• Utility
H
– Can Account for Several Significant Phenomena such as Mass,

in
Momentum, Kinetic Energy Flux, Fuel Effects, Geometry etc, Not

Possible by Thermo-Cycle Analysis
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Modified Stream Thrust Analysis Approach
Sa
li
rA
D
• One-Dimensional Flow Approach
of
• Basis : Stream Thrust Analysis Component Behavior
Pr
• Cardinal Rules Parameters High Avg Low
by
1. Substitution of Best Estimates of Component Behavior in Stream
Thrust Analysis
n
η1 0.95 0.90 0.85
ig
2. Component Behavior Estimates
es
1. Optimistic (High)
2. Pessimistic (Low)  C f A 
D
  w  0.01 0.02 0.04
3. Midway (Average)  2 A3 C
n
3. Analysis Proceeds as Stream Thrust Average Approach EXCEPT
io
that Losses are Modeled Differently
ηb 0.90 0.85 0.80
ls
1. Compression Efficiency
u
2. External Cycle Temperature Ratio (T1/T0)
 Aw 
op
3. Expansion Efficiency C  
f
A3  b 0.10 0.20 0.40
4. Isentropic Flow Parameters 
Pr
5. Expansion Area Ratio
• Thermodynamic Processes c Cev 0.99 0.98 0.97
ni
– Same as Brayton Cycle
so
• Major Outcome Cpe (kJ/kg-K) 1.59 1.51 1.42

er
– Same as for Stream Thrust Analysis Approach

yp
• Utility  e
1.222 1.238 1.255
H
– Can Account for Several Significant Phenomena Not Possible by

Thermo-Cycle Analysis
in
– Computes Flow and Performance Parameters Based on Wide Range

Cea 1.0 0.99 0.98
es
of Estimates for Component Behavior

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Generalized Flow Analysis Approach
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Components Design and Performance Estimation
Pr
by
• Approaches vis-à-vis Components
n
ig
– Compression : Generalized Two-Dimensional Oblique
es
Compression and Expansion Wave
D
n
– Combustion : Generalized One-Dimensional Continuous Flow
io
ls
– Expansion : Generalized Two-Dimensional Exhaust Flow
u
op
• Reference : Shapiro, A. H., The Dynamics and
Pr
Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow, NY 1953.
c
ni
so
• Common Assumptions
er
– Flow Remains One-Dimensional and Steady--- Flow Properties

yp
H
are Uniform Across Entry/ Exit Planes

in
– Air is Calorically Perfect Gas of Constant Properties

es
ot
– Adiabatic Walls
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
H-K Diagram
Sa
li
rA
D
of
•Constant Area Combustor with Frictionless
Pr
Heat Addition (φconstant)
by
 e    1 M 2 Tt
pe 1   M i2
n
 1  T 
 
ig
1
 1 2 
 M 
2 
  1 2  
1 
es
1
2
M M 
 2  pi 1   M e2
D
n
io
•Constant Pressure Combustor ( p, v constant)
u ls
1

op

  1 2   1
   1 2   

pt  p  1 
 1
M  1
Pr
1  M i 1  
c  2   2  e  
ni

 
so
    1   1
1 Mi  
2
 

se  si  pi   pi  Te  1 
er
2  se  si 
 ln      ln  .   
 pe  1    1 M e2  
yp
R R
     pe  Ti  
2  
H
 
in
 10    1 M 10 2
es
 1 
10   1  2 
 1
ot
1 2
M 10   M 10 
N
2
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
H-K Diagram : Scramjet 1 & 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
u ls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
Figure 40 H-K diagram for Scramjet1 at design point Figure 41 H-K diagram for Scramjet 2 at design point
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Physical Parameters of Isolators
Sa
li
rA
D
Boundary Layer Momentum Back Pressure
of
Thickness Ratio Ratio
Pr
by
  p   pe 
2

n
  50  e
 1   170   1 
ig
p  pi
L H .   i   
es

 M i2  1 
D
H 4 R e
n
io
Boundary Layer
ls
Reynolds Number Inlet Mach Number
u
op
Pr
•θ /H = 0.062 •P3/P1 max = 21 (to Avoid Subsonic Flow)
c
•Re θ = 8000 •P3/P0 actual = 28.25
ni
so
•H = 0.0386 m •P3/P1 actual = 2.49

er
yp
•P0 = 1196 Pa
H
in
•P1 = 13573 Pa (Compress Gas Dynamics)

es
•P3 = 33792 Pa (Stream Thrust Analysis)

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Isolator-Inlet Unstart Phenomenon
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
•Mach No. is Sufficiently Reduced •Inlet Flow is Distorted
Below Starting c •Total Pressure Losses
ni
•Supercritical State
so
•Flow Angularity
•M0 =4.38
er
•Blockages
yp
•Mt = 3.744
•Angle of Attack Changes
H
•A0/At > 1.55

•Boundary Layer Separation
in
•Subcritical State
•Unusual Gas Ingestion
es
•M0 ≤ 1.87 & Ms < 0.595

ot
•A1/At = 1.195
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
Isolator Geometry
of
Pr
•B.L Thick to Height Ratio ≈ 0.062
by
•B.L Reynolds Number ≈ 8000
n
ig
es
D
n
io
u ls
op
  p Pr 
c 2
  p 
ni
  50  e
 1   170  e
 1 
so
p p
L H .   i   i  
er

H  M i2  1 
yp
4 R e
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Combustion System Components Design
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Step 1 :- Initial Combustor Sizing
by
n
• Step 2 :- Optimal Combustor Sizing
ig
es
D
• Step 3 :- Probable Burner Configurations
n
io
ls
• Step 4 :- Optimal Combustor Configuration
u
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Zero Shear Mixing
Sa
li
rA
D
Fick’s Law :- Time Rate of Molecular Transport of air into Fuel and Vice-Versa is Proportional
of
Pr
to the Product of Interfacial Area and Local Concentration Gradient.
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
Air Mole Fraction
op
Pr
c
Axial growth of mixing layer due fuel-air
ni
so
diffusion
er
X = Lm and δm = H = 8b
yp
H
in
Longer Mixing Length Estimation: Based on Parallel Streams of Fuel & Air at Equal Velocities
es
ot
Mixing Length Reduction : Angular Fuel Injection & Unequal Velocities

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Combustor Sizing
Sa
li
rA
D
•Solved on the basis of Generalized One-Dimensional Flow ---- SHAPIRO 1967
of
Pr
by
n
•If M > 1.0
ig
es
•Occluding Exit Flow :-
D
•Decrease in Cross-Sectional Area
n
•Decrease in Mach Number
io
•Increase in Stagnation Temperature
uls
•Relieving Exit Flow
op
•Increasing the Cross Sectional Area
Pr
•Increasing the Mach Number
c
ni
•Decrease in Stagnation Temperature
so
•Limitation
er
•A(x) cannot be Decreased due to No-Throat Geometry

yp
•Tt(x) cannot be Decreased due to Exothermic Reaction

H
in
•Solution
es
•A(x) and Tt(x) are both present in GE hence NO Closed Form Integral Solution Exist
ot
•Hence Solve A(x) for dTt(x)/dx = 0 and Vice Versa for All Physical Parameters
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Initial Combustor Geometry : Scramjet 1&2
Sa
li
rA
D
Parameters Values
of
Pr
Static pressure 33792 Pa
by
Static temperature 1019 K
n
ig
Density 0.11455 kg/m3
es
Dynamic viscosity 4.203x10-5 N-s/m2
D
n
Kinematic viscosity 3.669x10-4 m2/s
io
ls
Schmidt number 1.0
u
Zero-Shear Mixing Layer
op
Molecular diffusivity 3.669x10-4 m2/s
ucb2
Lm  Pr
c Average velocity 2023
ni
16DFA Estimated mixing length 1.7 m
so
er
Scale of manifolding 8
Mod Stream Thrust Analysis
yp
Scale of segregation 5x10-3m

H
A4 T4 V3
in
 (1  f )   Total combustor length 2.25 m

es
A3 T3 V4 1.0 (Scramjet 1)
ot
Area Ratio (A4/A3)

3.39 (Scramjet 2)
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Optimal Combustor Length : Scramjet 1
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
•Combustor length corresponding to 90% pressure rise = 350 mm
es
D
•Combustor length corresponding to 80% product species = 350 mm
n
io
ls
•Combustor length corresponding to 3500 K static temperature > 750 mm
u
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Optimal Combustor Length : Scramjet 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
•Combustor length corresponding to p3 = p4 = 700 mm
es
D
•Combustor length corresponding to 80% product species = 750 mm
n
io
ls
•Combustor length corresponding to 3500 K static temperature > 2250 mm
u
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Optimal Combustor Area Ratio : Scramjet 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Generalized Flow Analysis Approach
by
  1    1  
n

ig
A( x)  A3  ( x) 1 b M32    b  M32 
es
  2   2  
D
n
io
 X 
ls
 ( x)  1 ( b 1)  ;  1
u
1 ( 1) X 
op
Pr
c
ni
so
New Area Ratio

er
• Scramjet 2: A4/A3 =1.88

yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Modified Combustor Geometry
Sa
li
rA
D
of
•Scramjet 1 Modified Geometry
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
•Scramjet 2 Modified Geometry
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Probable Combustor Configurations
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Category I :- Wall Injectors; No Mechanical Structures
Pr
by
– Configuration 1 : Transverse Injection
n
– Configuration 2 : 600 Downstream Injection
ig
es
– Configuration 3 : 300 Downstream Injection
D
n
• Category II :- Wall Injectors; Mechanical Structures
io
ls
– Configuration 4 : Transverse Injection; Vertical Pylons
u
op
– Configuration 5 : 450 Injection; Angular Pylon
Pr
• Category III :- Wall / Cavity Injectors; Mechanical Cavity
c
ni
so
– Configuration 6 : 450 Upstream Injection through Cavity

er
– Configuration 7 : Transverse Injection through Cavity

yp
H
– Configuration 8 : Transverse Wall Injection Upstream of Cavity

in
– Configuration 9 : 300 Downstream Injection Upstream of Cavity

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Fuel Injection Strategies
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Aim of Fuel Injection
by
n
– Rapid Near Field Mixing
ig
es
– Reduce Ignition Delay
D
n
io
– Improve Flame Holding & Stabilization
uls
op
• Types of Injectors
Pr
c
ni
– Flush Mounted :- Combustor Walls

so
er
yp
– Intrusive Injectors :- Combustor Flow

H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Near Field Mixing Concept
Sa
li
rA
D
Injectors
of
Pr
by
Generation of Strong Stream wise Vortices
n
ig
es
Mixing Enhancement
D
n
io
Micro Scales Macro Scales
uls
op
Pr
Stretching of Fuel-Air Interface Entrainment of Air in Fuel
c
ni
so
Increase Interfacial Area

er
Efficient Fuel-Air Mixing

yp
H
Steeps Local Concentration Gradient Does Not Directly

in
Initiate Combustion
es
ot
Enhancement of Diffusive Mixing Process

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Ignition and Flame Holding
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Ignition
Pr
by
– Parameters :- T, p, fuel-air mixture
n
– Occurs :- Sufficient Free radicals are Present to Initiate Reaction
ig
es
– Li = u Ti
D
– Implies :- for Ti (Unchanged) if u is Increased then Li is also
n
Increased.
io
ls
– Solution :- Reduce Ti for High Speed Flows by Using FLAME
u
op
HOLDERS
• Flame Holders Pr
c
ni
– Reduce Ignition Delay Time
so
– Continuous Source of Radicals

er
yp
– Techniques :- Stabilization
H
• Organization of Re-circulation Area for Fuel-Area Mixing

in
• Interaction of Shock waves with Partially/ Fully Mixed Fuel-Air

es
ot
• Coherent Structure Containing Unmixed Fuel-Air (Diffusion Flame)

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Fuel-Jet Interaction
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Cavity Flow field Characteristics
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Control Methods
Pr
Active Devices Passive Devices
by
n
ig
Moveable Devices Mounted Devices
es
D
Vortex
Mechanical 90deg Slanted
n
generators
io
Fuel Injection Back-wall Back-wall
uls
Acoustical
op
Shock at OSW at Spoilers
Pr
Upstream Mass Injectionc TE of Cavity Slanted TE
ni
so
Longitudinal No Oscillations
er
Steady Pulsating
yp
Oscillations Shear Layer

H
Shear Layer Attachment

in
Attenuation of Oscillation
es
Acoustic Wave No Acoustic

ot
Propagation Wave
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Angled Back-Wall Cavity
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
90-deg Back-Wall Cavity
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Oscillatory Behavior of Cavities
Sa
li
rA
D
Cavities
of
Pr
Short
by
Long
(Acoustically Closed) (Acoustically Open)
n
ig
(L/H = 2~3) (L/H = 7~10)
es
D
n
Transverse Oscillations Longitudinal Oscillations
io
uls
op
Flame Anchoring/ Stabilization Fuel-Air Mixing Enhancement
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Longitudinal Oscillations
Sa
li
rA
D
Longitudinal Oscillations
of
Pr
Model 1 Model 2
by
n
Acoustic Wave Reflected
ig
Acoustic Wave Induces
es
LE Small Vortices From wall
D
n
io
Vortices Convected Downstream & grow
ls
Reflected Wave Convected Downstream
u
op
Instability in Flow
Pr
c
Shear Layer attachment
ni
Shear Layer attachment
so
Deflected Upwards & downwards Deflected Upwards & downwards

er
yp
H
Shock Impinges on Rear Wall

in
es
Cavity Oscillations is Not a Good Phenomenon. It Must be Suppressed to Avoid Flow Instabilities
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
•Category I Configuration:- Numerical Simulation Results
of
Pr
Config # 1
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
ls
Config # 2
u
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
Config # 3
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
•Category II Configuration:- Numerical Simulation Results
of
Pr
Config # 4
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
u ls
op
Pr
c
Config # 5
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
•Category III Configuration:- Numerical Simulation Results
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
Config # 6
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
Config # 7
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
•Category III Configuration:- Numerical Simulation Results
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
Config # 8 Config # 9
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Optimal Combustor Configuration
Sa
li
rA
D
•Configuration 9 :- Numerical Simulation Results
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
Rossiter’s Formula :- Strouhal Number
u ls
Oscillation Frequency Vs Cavity Length
op
1800000
Pr
1600000
1400000 c
ni
1200000
so
1000000
fm(Hz)
er
800000
yp
600000
H
400000
in
200000
es
0
ot
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

N
Length(m )
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Expansion System Components Design
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Single Expansion Ramp Nozzle (SERN)
by
– Confined Nozzle Design
n
ig
es
– Single Expansion Ramp Design
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Expansion System Geometry : Scramjet 1
Sa
li
rA
D
Method of Characteristics
of
Zone Geometric entity Parameter
Pr
I Mach Wave Angle (deg) 76.83
by
Mach No (M III) for flow turning 2.25
n
ig
III
es
Mach Wave Angle (deg) 26.38
D
Ratio Hx/H4 for which Mx=MIII 2.398
n
IV
io
Axial Length of zone IV (mtrs) 0.0342
u ls
op
Pr
Ratio of exit to entry height H10/H4 15.03
VI
c
ni
Ratio (LVI/0.5H4) of zone VI 53.71
so
er
Axial Length of zone VI (mtrs) 1.0367

yp
1/2 Expansion Angle for Nozzle 38.27

H
in
Total Confined Length of Nozzle (mtrs) 0.0342

es
Total Expansion Length (mtr) 1.071

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Expansion System Geometry : Scramjet 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Zone Geometric entity Parameter
Pr
I Mach Wave Angle (deg) 31.757
by
n
III Mach No (M III) for flow turning 2.61
ig
es
D
IV Ratio Hx/H4 for which Mx=MIII 2.21
n
io
ls
Axial Length of zone IV (mtrs) 0.1054
u
op
VI Mach Wave Angle (deg) 16.6
Pr
Ratio of exit to entry height H10/H4 c 6.88
ni
Ratio (LVI/0.5H4) of zone VI 23.09
so
er
Axial Length of zone VI (mtrs) 0.8377

yp
Total 1/2 Expansion Angle for Nozzle 22.67

H
in
Confined Length of Nozzle (mtrs) 0.1054

es
Total Expansion Length (mtr) 0.9431

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Finalized 2-D Model : Scramjet 1 & 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
3-D Model Main Body : Scramjet 1 & 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Assembly 3-D Model : Scramjet 1 & 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
PART II
D
n
io
uls
op
Hypersonic AirbreathingPr
c
ni
so
Propulsion (Scramjet) System

er
yp
Flow Parameters Assessment

H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Mesh Topology
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Flow Parameters : Air Inlet
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Parameters Free Stream Air Inlet
by
(Station 0) (Station 2)
n
ig
es
Static Pressure (Pa) 1196.3 13573
D
Static Temperature (K) 226.5 645
n
io
ls
Velocity (m/s) 2413 2241
u
op
Mach Number 8.0 4.38
Pr
c
ni
•Free Stream conditions represent altitude 30 kilometers
so
er
(design launching altitude)

yp
H
•Air inlet conditions determined by compressible gas

in
es
dynamics (reflection of oblique shock waves at solid

ot
boundary)
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Compression System Flow Assessment
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Aerothermodynamic Results
Pr
by
– Free Stream Mach number = 8.0
n
ig
es
– Static Temp Ratio (T3/T0) = 4.5
D
n
– Compression Process Efficiency = 0.75
io
uls
op
Parameters FCV (OSW) STA Mod STA Compt Anal
Pr
c
ni
Pressure (p3) 64510 33792 34092 33044
so
er
Temperature (T3) 1117 1019 1019 985

yp
H
Velocity (V3) 2017 2023 2024 2015

in
es
Mach No (M3) 3.0 3.19 3.19 3.23

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Numerical Simulations
Pr
by
•Solver : Coupled Implicit (density)
n
ig
es
•Time : Steady state
D
n
•Turbulence : SST-k omega
io
uls
•Accuracy : 2nd Order
op
Far field Press Outlet Pr
c
ni
so
Param Result Param Result

er
yp
P0 (Pa) 1196 P3 (Pa) 32781

H
T0(K) 226.5 T3(K) 944

in
V0(m/s) 2413 V3(m/s) 2066

es
ot
M0 8.0 M3 3.56
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Numerical Simulations : Experimental Validation
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
•Results Comparison for with NASA’s P8 Inlet Experiment

in
es
•CLOSE Qualitative agreement

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Chemical Reaction Models
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Solver
by
n
Density Based Pressure Based
ig
es
D
Species Transport
n
io
Generalized Finite Rate Formulation
uls
op
Laminar Finite Rate Model
Pr
c
ni
Eddy Dissipation Model
so
er
yp
Finite Rate/ Eddy Dissipation Model

H
in
Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC)

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Chemical Reaction Models : Generalized Finite
ro
Sa
Rate Formulation
li
rA
D
of
Turbulence- Characteristics Application
Pr
Chemistry Model
by
•Computes Chemical Source by •Exact for Laminar Flame
n
ig
Arrhenius Expression •Acceptable for Supersonic
es
Laminar Finite •Turbulence Fluctuations are Flame --- Turbulence +
D
Rate Ignored Small Fluctuations
n
io
•Computationally Cheap •Accelerated Convergence
uls
•Reaction Stabilization
op
Pr
•Reaction Rates Controlled by
c •Good for Segregated
Turbulence --- NO ignition Source (Pressure-Based) Solver
ni
so
•Arrhenius Chemical Kinetics •Acceptable for Non-

Eddy
er
Avoided Premixed Flames

yp
Dissipation •Realistic Results 1~2 Step •Not Suitable for Pre-Mixed

H
in
Reaction Flames
es
•Computationally Cheap
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Chemical Reaction Models : Generalized Finite
ro
Sa
Rate Formulation
li
rA
D
of
Turbulence- Characteristics Application
Pr
Chemistry Model
by
•Computes by Arrhenius •Acceptable for segregated
n
ig
Expression & Eddy Dissipation (Pressure-based) Solver
Finite Rate/
es
•Arrhenius Kinetic Switch •1~2 Steps Reactions Only
D
Eddy
n
•Post Ignition Computations by •Acceptable for Pre-Mixed/
io
Dissipation Eddy Dissipation Partially Pre-Mixed/ Non-
uls
Mixed Flames
op
Pr
•Detailed Chemical Mechanism
c •Good for Non-Fast
for Turbulent Flows Chemistry Assumption
ni
so
Eddy •Assumption 1 :- Fine Scale •SNCR : Selective No

er
Dissipation reaction Catalytic Reactions

yp
Concept (EDC) •Assumption 2 :- Constant •Very Slow Convergence

H
in
Pressure Combustion
es
•Computationally Expensive
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Turbulence Model
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Factors Affecting Choice of Turbulence Models
Pr
by
– Physics of Flow
n
ig
– Established Practices
es
– Level of Accuracy
D
n
– Available Computational Resources
io
uls
– Available Simulation Time
op
Pr
• Desired Results ni
c
– Solution of Time Dependent Navier Stoke’s Equation
so
for High Reynolds Number Flow Over Complex

er
yp
Geometries Resolvable to the Smallest Scale of

H
Motion
in
– NOT POSSIBLE as yet

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Turbulence Models (contd…)
Sa
li
rA
D
of
•Reduced
Simulations (DES)
Detached Eddy Governs Transport
Pr
Computations
of Average Flow
by
Reynolds Averaging •Reduced Grid
Quantities for the
Dependency
n
Approach (RANS) Whole Range of
ig
•Wider Application
es
Turbulence
•Good Unsteady &
Turbulence Models
D
Modelling
Steady Flows
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c Removal of •Large
Simulations (LES)
ni
Eddies Smaller Computations
so
than Filter (Mesh •Requires Highly

Large Eddy
er
size). Modeling Accurate

yp
Reynolds Filtering Less Turbulence Discretization

H
Approach But Resolving •Good for Wall

in
More Bounded Flows

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Turbulence Model : Reynolds Averaging
Sa
li
rA
D
Reynolds Average Navier Stoke’s Equation
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
Reynolds Stress Term
D
n
io
uls
Reynolds Stress Model
op
Pr
c
ni
so
Reynolds Stress Transport

Boussinesq Approach
Model (RSM)
er
yp
H
in
es
Spalart-Allmaras (SA) Model K-Epsilon Model K-Omega Model

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Turbulence Models Comparison
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Turbulence Model Characteristics
Pr
by
•Simple One-Equation Model
n
•Good for Crude Simulations on Coarse Meshes
ig
Spalart-Allmaras (SA)
es
•Low Reynolds Number Model
D
•Computationally Efficient
n
io
•Simplest Complete Model : Solution of two Transport Equations
uls
•Robust, Economical and Reasonably Accurate
op
k-epsilon (Standard)
•Valid for Fully Turbulent Flow
Pr
•Computationally fast
c
ni
so
•Improved Accuracy for Rapidly Strained Flows

er
k-epsilon (Realizable) •Enhanced Accuracy for Swirling Flows

yp
•Consumes More CPU Time than standard model

H
in
•Most Accurate k-eps model

es
k-epsilon (RNG) •Accurate Prediction for Rotating, Separation, Recirculation Flow

ot
•Consumes 10~15% More CPU Time than Standard Model

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Turbulence Models Comparison
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Turbulence Model Characteristics
Pr
by
•Incorporates Modification for Low Reynolds No. effects
n
k-Omega (Standard)
ig
•Applicable to Wall Bounded and Free Shear Layer Flows
es
•Improved Accuracy for Predicting Free Shear Layer
D
n
•Blends Robust and Accurate Formulation of k-omega in Near
io
Wall Region with Free Stream Independence of k-eps model
uls
k-Omega (SST) •More Accurate for a Wider Class of Flows than Standard Model
op
•Model Equations Behave Appropriately in Both Near-Wall and
Pr
Far-Field Zones
c
ni
so
•Models 5 Additional and 7 Additional Equations for 2-D & 3-D

er
•Accurate Modeling of Anisotropic Turbulence…Highly Swirling

yp
Flows
H
RSM •Good for Wall Bounded Flows using Coarse Near-Wall Mesh
in
•Consumes 50~60% More CPU Time per Iterations

es
ot
•Consumes 15~20% More Memory (due Large No of Variables)

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Combustion System Flow Assessment
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Aerothermodynamic Results : Scramjet 1
Pr
by
– Combustor Inlet Mach number = 3.19
n
ig
– Stagnation Temp Ratio (Tt4/Tt3) = 1.40
es
D
– Combustion Process Efficiency = 0.75
n
io
– Area Ratio A4/A3 = 1.0
uls
op
Parameters FCV
Pr STA Mod STA Compt Anal
c
ni
so
Pressure (p4) 217686 211862 217263 71611

er
yp
Temperature (T4) 3056 3566 3581 2262

H
in
Velocity (V4) 1635 1161 1148 1441

es
Mach No (M4) 1.47 1.03 1.01 1.53

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Combustion System Flow Assessment :
ro
Sa
Scramjet 1
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
u ls
•Reaction : One Step; finite rate
op
Pr
Comb Inlet Fuel Inlet Comb Out
c
ni
Para Data Para Data Para Data
so
er
P3 (Pa) 32781 Pf (Pa) 181520 P4 (Pa) 71480

yp
H
T3(K) 944 Tf(K) 151 T4(K) 2010

in
V3(m/s) 2066 Vf(m/s) 1875 V4(m/s) 1651

es
ot
M3 3.56 Mf 2.0 M4 1.72

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Combustion System Flow Assessment
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
– Combustor Inlet Mach number = 3.19
n
ig
es
D
n
io
– Area Ratio A4/A3 = 1.88
uls
op
Parameters FCV
c
ni
so
Pressure (p4) 64510 33792 34092 41479

er
yp
Temperature (T4) 2368 2807 2810 1759

H
in
Velocity (V4) 2017 1908 1909 1935

es
Mach No (M4) 1.32 1.90 1.90 2.32

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Combustion System Flow Assessment :
ro
Sa
Scramjet 2
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
u ls
op
Pr
Comb Inlet Fuel Inlet Comb Out
c
ni
so
er
P3 (Pa) 32781 Pf (Pa) 181520 P4 (Pa) 31057

yp
H
T3(K) 944 Tf(K) 151 T4(K) 1484

in
V3(m/s) 2066 Vf(m/s) 1875 V4(m/s) 1997

es
ot
M3 3.56 Mf 2.0 M4 2.24

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
•Results Comparison for Scramjet 2 with Billig’s Experiment

in
es

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Based on Assumption
Pr
by
– Exhaust System Can Be Modeled as Isentropic Flow
n
of Calorically Perfect Gas.
ig
es
• Important Attributes of Characteristics
D
n
– Propagate at Mach Wave Angle Relative to Local
io
ls
Flow
u
op
– Only be Generated or Absorbed by Changing Slope
of Bounding Surface Pr
c
ni
so
– Once Generated---Carry Fixed Amount and Direction

er
of Turning of Local Flow

yp
– Play the Same Role for Exhaust System as Oblique

H
in
Shock Wave Analysis for Compression System

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Method of Characteristics (contd…)
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Outcome
Pr
by
– Produces Uniform, Parallel Flow at desired Exit Mach Number
n
• Initial Flow Turning is Equal and Opposite to Remainder Flow
ig
es
Turning
D
– Produced Minimum Length Exhaust Nozzle
n
io
• Sharp Corner at Nozzle Entry: Prandtl-Meyer Expansion Fan
uls
• Change in Slope at Nozzle Boundary : Absorbing/ Canceling
op
Characteristics
Pr
• NO Compression Waves in the Flowfield
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Expansion System Flow Assessment
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
– Nozzle Inlet Mach number = 1.03
n
ig
es
D
n
io
ls
– Pressure Ratio P10/P0 = 1.0
u
op
Parameters FCV
c
ni
so
Pressure (p10) 1196 1196 1196 1196

er
yp
Temperature (T10) 691 1435 1444 1435

H
in
Velocity (V10) 2732 2790 2848 2790

es
Mach No (M10) 5.16 3.71 3.98 3.71

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Expansion System Flow Assessment :
ro
Sa
Scramjet 1
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
•Reaction : frozen flow
op
Nozzle Inlet Nozzle Exit
Pr
c
ni
Para Data Para Data
so
er
P4 (Pa) 71480 P4 (Pa) 1283

yp
H
T4(K) 2010 T4(K) 693

in
V4(m/s) 1651 V4(m/s) 2640

es
ot
M4 1.72 M4 5.59
N
Refer slide No 17 for schematic of expansion flow domain

re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
– Nozzle Inlet Mach number = 1.90
n
ig
es
D
n
io
ls
– Pressure Ratio P10/P0 = 1.0
u
op
Parameters FCV
c
ni
so
Pressure (p10) 1196 1196 1196 1196

er
yp
Temperature (T10) 758 1546 1576 1546

H
in
Velocity (V10) 2707 2729 2751 2729

es
Mach No (M10) 4.88 3.50 3.68 3.50

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Expansion System Flow Assessment :
ro
Sa
Scramjet 2
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
•Reaction : frozen flow
op
Nozzle Inlet Nozzle Exit
Pr
c
ni
Para Data Para Data
so
er
P4 (Pa) 31057 P4 (Pa) 742

yp
H
T4(K) 1484 T4(K) 337

in
V4(m/s) 1997 V4(m/s) 2606

es
ot
M4 2.24 M4 5.51
N
Refer slide No 17 for schematic of expansion flow domain

re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
•Results Comparison for Scramjet 2 with Baysal’s Experiment

in
es

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Integrated System Flow Assessment :
ro
Sa
Scramjet 1
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
Far-Field Flow Exit Flow Exit
op
(ER 1.0) (ER 0.55)
Pr
c
ni
so
P0 (Pa) 1196 P10(Pa) 931 P10(Pa) 1156

er
yp
T0(K) 226.5 T10(K) 391 T10(K) 577

H
in
V0(m/s) 2413 V10(m/s) 2920 V10(m/s) 2650

es
ot
M0 8.0 M10 4.23 M10 4.36

N
re
tu

ec
sh
Integrated System Flow Assessment :
ro
Sa
Scramjet 2
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
Far-Field Flow Exit Flow Exit
op
(ER 1.0) (ER 0.55)
Pr
c
ni
so
P0 (Pa) 1196 P10(Pa) 961 P10(Pa) 1152

er
yp
T0(K) 226.5 T10(K) 390 T10(K) 418

H
in
V0(m/s) 2413 V10(m/s) 2800 V10(m/s) 2601

es
ot
M0 8.0 M10 4.90 M10 4.36

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Verification of CFD
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Verification of CFD
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Verification of Results
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Verification Parameters
by
n
– Iterative Convergence of Residual
ig
es
– Spatial Convergence :- Mesh Refinement
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Verification of CFD Results
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Iterative Convergence :- Residual
by
– Continuity : 3rd Order of Magnitude
n
ig
es
– X-Velocity : 2nd Order of Magnitude
D
n
– Y-Velocity : 3rd Order of Magnitude
io
uls
– Energy : 3rd Order of Magnitude
op
Pr
– Turbulent K.E. c : 4th Order of Magnitude
ni
– Specific Dissipation Rate : 4th Order of Magnitude
so
er
– Species H2 : 3rd Order of Magnitude

yp
H
– Species O2 : 3rd Order of Magnitude

in
es
– Species H2O : 3rd Order of Magnitude

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Verification of CFD Results
Sa
li
rA
D
•Spatial Convergence :- Mesh Refinement Results
of
Pr
by
Grid Normalized Grid Spacing Pressure Recovery (P10/P0)
n
ig
1 1 (Fine) f1 = 0.80331
es
D
2 2 (Medium) f2 = 0.78325
n
io
3 4 (Coarse) f3 = 0.63529
uls
op
• Order of Grid Convergence for 3 Grid Levels : 2.8828
• Pr
Richardson’s Extrapolation for Continuum at Zero Grid Size : 0.80646
c
ni
so
• Grid Convergence Index 1—2 for Fine Grid : 0.0050211

er
• Grid Convergence Index 2—3 for Coarse Grid : 0.037035

yp
H
• Constancy for Asymptotic Range of Convergence : 0.0050211

in
• Best Pressure Recovery of 0.80646 is Achievable with an Error Band of

es
0.50211 Percent.
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
PART III
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion
c
ni
so
(Scramjet) System Performance

er
yp
Parameters Assessment
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Aerothermodynamic Performance
ro
Sa
Measures
li
rA
D
of
• Uninstalled Thrust (F)- (N)
Pr
by
• Specific Thrust (m/sec)
n
ig
es
D
• Specific Impulse (Isp)- (sec)
n
io
uls
• Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)- (kg/N-sec)
op
• Thermal Efficiency (th ) Pr
c
ni
so
er
• Propulsive Efficiency ( pr )
yp
H
in
• Overall Efficiency (0 )

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Thermodynamic Efficiencies
Sa
li
rA
D
Propulsive
Chemical Mechanical Thrust
of
Energy Power Power
Pr
Fuel Heat Work Thrust
by
n
ig
es
Burner Thermo-Cycle
D
Efficiency Efficiency
n
io
uls
op
Pr
Thermal c Propulsive
Efficiency Efficiency
ni
so
er
yp
H
Overall
in
Efficiency
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Thermodynamic Efficiencies
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Efficiencies Formulae Conditions
Pr
by
ηth = f (…pe/pi, Te/Ti…)
n
Thermal (ηth)
ig
ηth < 1.0
es
D
n
io
uls
ηp ↑ when Ve/V0 ↓
op
Pr
f ↑and/or Ve/V0 ≈ 1.0
Propulsive (ηp) c
ηp ≥ 1.0
ni
so
Approx: f <<<
er
(Propulsive efficiency can be

yp
greater than 1.0 due to momentum

H
of added fuel mass flow)…Heiser

in
Most powerful
es
Overall (ηo)
ot
measure of HAP
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Performance Assessment : Scramjet 1
Sa
li
rA
D
of
FCV STA MSTA FCV STA MSTA
Pr
Parameters
by
ER 1.0 ER 1.0 ER 1.0 ER 0.55 ER 0.55 ER 0.55
n
ig
es
Uninstalled Thrust 642 601 835 333 317 371
D
n
io
Specific Thrust 397 372 517 206 196 229
u ls
op
Specific Impulse 1403 1313 1821 1314 1248 1461
Specific Fuel
Pr
c
7.27x10-5 7.77x10-5 5.6x10-5 7.76x10-5 8.17x10-5 6.98x10-5
ni
Consumption
so
er
Thermal Efficiency 0.2675 0.2473 0.36275 0.2421 0.2282 0.2732

yp
H
Propulsive
1.03 1.03 0.98992 1.07 1.08 1.055
in
Efficiency
es
ot
Overall Efficiency 0.2767 0.2547 0.3591 0.25916 0.24616 0.2882

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Performance Assessment : Scramjet 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
FCV STA MSTA FCV STA MSTA
Pr
Parameters
by
ER 1.0 ER 1.0 ER 1.0 ER 0.55 ER 0.55 ER 0.55
n
ig
es
Uninstalled Thrust 601 638 674 317 282 303
D
n
io
Specific Thrust 372 395 417 196 175 187
u ls
op
Specific Impulse 1313 1394 1470 1248 1113 1194
Specific Fuel
Pr
c
7.77x10-5 7.32x10-5 6.94x10-5 8.17x10-5 9.17x10-5 8.54x10-5
ni
Consumption
so
er
Thermal Efficiency 0.2473 0.2654 0.28237 0.2282 0.1998 0.21686

yp
H
Propulsive
1.03 1.03 1.0263 1.078 1.09 1.0858
in
Efficiency
es
ot
Overall Efficiency 0.2547 0.2749 0.2898 0.24616 0.219 0.23547

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Performance Comparison : Scramjet 1 & 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Overall Efficiency Comparison of Scramjet 1 and 2
by
Overall eff: Scram1 Overall eff: Scram2
n
ig
es
0.35
D
0.3
n
io
0.25
ls
O verall Eff
u
op
0.2
Pr
0.15 c
ni
0.1
so
0.05
er
yp
0
H
0.01 0.0125 0.015 0.0175 0.02 0.0225 0.025 0.0275 0.03

in
es
fuel-air ratio
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Performance Comparison : Scramjet 1 & 2
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Thrust Performance of Scramjet 1 and 2
Pr
S c r a mj e t 1: U ni nst Thr ust S c r a mj e t 2 : U ni nst Thr ust
by
S c r a mj e t 1: S pe c i f i c Thr ust S c r a mj e t 2 : S pe c i f i c Thr ust
n
ig
1000
es
D
800
n
io
600
u ls
op
400
Pr
c
200
ni
so
0
er
yp
0.01 0.0125 0.015 0.0175 0.02 0.0225 0.025 0.0275 0.03

H
in
fuel-air ratio
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Performance Validation
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Basis :- Modified Stream Thrust Analysis
by
vis-à-vis Numerical Simulation Results
n
ig
es
– Scramjet 1 and 2
D
n
io
– At Stoichiometric (ER 1.0) Conditions
uls
op
– Below Stoichiometric (ER 0.55) Conditions
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Comparative Performance Assessment :
ro
Sa
Stoichiometric Conditions (ER 1.0)
li
rA
D
of
Pr
Scramjet 1 Scramjet 2
by
Parameters
n
ig
MSTA CFD MSTA CFD
es
D
Uninstalled
n
835 868 674 708
io
Thrust
uls
op
Specific
517 537 417 438
Pr
Thrust
c
ni
Specific
1821 1892 1470 1542
so
Impulse
er
yp
Specific Fuel
5.62x10-5 5.39x10-5 6.94x10-5 6.61x10-5
H
Consumption
in
es
Overall
0.3591 0.3732 0.2898 0.3044
ot
Efficiency
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
Non-Stoichiometric Conditions (ER 0.55)
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
Parameters
n
ig
MSTA CFD MSTA CFD
es
D
Uninstalled
n
371 402 303 332
io
Thrust
uls
op
Specific
229 249 187 205
Pr
Thrust
c
ni
Specific
1461 1587 1194 1309
so
Impulse
er
yp
Specific Fuel
6.98x10-5 6.43x10-5 8.54x10-5 7.79x10-5
H
Consumption
in
es
Overall
0.2882 0.3130 0.2355 0.2581
ot
Efficiency
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
Scramjet Engines
li
rA
D
of
Pr
DeSTO
Parameters Scramjet 1 Scramjet 2
by
Australia
n
ig
es
Uninstalled
868 674 1610
D
Thrust
n
io
Specific
1892 1719 746
ls
Impulse
u
op
Pr
Overall
Efficiency
0.3732
c 0.3391 0.3205
ni
so
er
yp
DeSTO Australia :- Project 360 Based on Integration of a

H
Hydrocarbon Fuelled Scramjet for SAM System

in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Results Validation : % Variation Data
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Compression System Combustion System: Scramjet 1
Pr
by
Parameters % Variation Parameters % Variation
n
Pressure (P3) 0.795 Pressure (P4) 0.183
ig
es
Velocity (V3) 2.53 Velocity (V4) 11
D
n
Temperature (T3) 4.16 Temperature (T4) 14.5
io
ls
Mach No (M3) 10 Mach No (M4) 12
u
op
Combustion System: Scramjet 2 Pr Expansion System: Scramjet 1
c
ni
so

er
Pressure (P4) 26 Pressure (P10) 7.2

yp
H
Velocity (V4) 3.6 Velocity (V10) 5.3

in
Temperature (T4) 15.5 Temperature (T10) 52*

es
ot
Mach No (M4) 3.0 Mach No (M10) 51*

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Expansion System: Scramjet 2 Integrated System: Scramjet 1
Pr
by
n
Pressure (P10) 38 Pressure (P10) 22
ig
es
Velocity (V10) 4.50 Velocity (V10) 2.53
D
n
Temperature (T10) 78* Temperature (T10) 73*
io
ls
Mach No (M10) 57* Mach No (M10) 6.3
u
op
Integrated System: Scramjet 2 Pr
c
ni
so
Parameters % Variation
er
Pressure (P10) 19.6

yp
H
Velocity (V10) 4.9

in
Temperature (T10) 75*

es
ot
Mach No (M10) 37*

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Results Validation : % Variation Data
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
ER 1.0 ER 1.0
by
n
ig
es
Overall Efficiency 3.9 Overall Efficiency 5.03
D
n
io
ls
ER 0.55 ER 0.55
u
op
Pr
Overall Efficiency 8.60
c Overall Efficiency 9.5
ni
so
er
yp
H
•Primary Performance Parameters are in GOOD Agreement (<10%)

in
es
•CFD Results can be Improved by Using More Detailed Reaction Formulations

ot
(i.e > 3-steps)

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Scramjet Vehicle Performance
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Transatmospheric Vehicle
by
n
• Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Comparative Vehicle Performance
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Parameters Hyper-Cruiser Transatmospheric
Pr
by
Range/ Orbital Radius (kms) 5000 6871 (LEO)
n
ig
Empty Mass Fraction 0.55 0.35
es
D
Mass of Payload (kg) 250 250
n
io
Cruise/ Orbital Velocity (m/s) 2413 (Mach 8.0) 7609 (Mach 26)
uls
Fuel Mass Fraction 0.18695 0.54963
op
Pr
Initial Mass Ratio 3.80 9.96
c
ni
Hardware Mass Ratio 3.09 4.487
so
er
Empty Mass of Vehicle (kg) 523 872

yp
Fuel Mass of Vehicle (kg) 178 1369

H
in
Initial Mass of Vehicle (kg) 951 2491

es
ot
Required Overall Efficiency HAP 0.3947 0.4826

N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
n
io
uls
op
Pr
Design Conclusion
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Design Conclusion1 :
ro
Sa
Model Representation
li
rA
D
of
• Compression System : 75% Efficient
Pr
by
– 170 Linear Compression Ramp
n
ig
– 2-D Generic Rectangular Inlet Without Sidewalls
es
D
• Combustion System : 75% Efficient
n
io
ls
– Single Injector 300 Downstream Injection
u
op
– Low Injection Pressure Ratio (Pinj/Pin=5.0)
Pr
c
– Large Acoustically Open (L/D=10)
ni
so
• Expansion System : 95% Efficient

er
yp
– Single Expansion Ramp Nozzle (SERN)

H
in
– Short Confined Nozzle

es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
Design Conclusion 2 :
ro
Sa
Combustor Geometry
li
rA
D
of
• Combustor Sizing
Pr
by
– Identical Free Stream and Inlet Conditions
n
ig
– Optimal Combustor Length
es
D
– Constt Area Burner < 1/2 Length Constt Press Burner
n
io
ls
• Combustor Configuration
u
op
– 300 Downstream Single Injection
Pr
c
– Wall-Flushed Injection Port
ni
so
– 0.5L Distance Upstream of Cavity

er
yp
– Large Acoustically Open Cavity

H
in
– Maximize Near Field Mixing, Flame Holding, Axial

es
Momentum, Shear Layer Growth Rate

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Design Conclusion 3 : Integrated Model
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Viability
by
– Aerothermodynamically and Computationally
n
ig
– 75% Efficient Compression + Combustion + 95% Expansion System
es
– Viable for Integration
D
n
io
– Achieve Workable Overall Efficiency ~ 0.37
uls
• Volume
op
Pr
– Scramjet 1 < Scramjet 2
c
ni
– Lesser Weight and Volume
so
– Reduced Empty Mass ( me ) of Vehicle

er
yp
– Increase in Mass of Payload (mp) and/or Fuel (mf)

H
in
– Reduction in Initial Mass Ratio (mi /mp ) --- Basic Design Goal
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
Assessment Approaches
li
rA
D
of
• Aerothermodynamic Approaches
Pr
by
– Several Methods Available
n
ig
– NO Single Comprehensive Approach
es
– Generalized Finite Control Volume : Compression System
D
n
– Generalized 1-D Flow Method : Small System/ Component
io
ls
– Stream Thrust Analysis : Integrated Components
u
op
– Modified Stream Thrust : Variable Behavior Large System
Pr
c
• Numerical Simulation/ CFD Approach
ni
so
– Coupled-Implicit Algorithm : 2nd (O) Roe-FDS Scheme

er
yp
– Single-Step Finite Rate Chemistry

H
– Quantitative Agreement --- Analytical Results

in
es
– Qualitative Agreement --- Historical Experimental Data

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
Performance & Utilization
li
rA
D
of
Pr
• Overall Engine Performance
by
– ER 1.0 :- Scramjet 1 = 1.25 x Scramjet 2
n
ig
es
– ER 0.55 :- Scramjet 1 = 1.18 x Scramjet 2
D
n
io
– Constant Combustor-Area (Scramjet 1) :
uls
op
SUPERIOR Type
Pr
c
• Vehicle Integration
ni
so
er
– Single-Stage-to-Orbit Vehicle
yp
H
– Overall Propulsion System Efficiency ~ 0.37

in
es
– Hypersonic High Altitude Cruiser

ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Continuing Research for Students
Sa
li
rA
D
of
• Experimental Validation of Results:- Hypersonic, High-Temperature
Pr
Wind Tunnel Testing
by
• Comparative Analytical Results:-
n
ig
– Variable Process Efficiencies
es
– Variable Cycle Static Temperature Ratio
D
n
– Variable Fuel Heating Values
io
– Variable Free Stream Conditions
uls
• Additional Numerical Simulations:-
op
Pr
– Higher Reaction Steps
c
– Change of Scheme/ Mathematical Model
ni
so
– Change of CFD Tools

er
• Aerothermodynamics and Numerical Simulations of HAP (Scramjet)

yp
Integrated Missile and Launch Systems

H
• Comprehensive Cataloguing of All Possible Combustor

in
Configurations Along with Analytical, Computational and

es
Experimental Results
ot
N
re
tu

ec
sh
ro
Sa
li
rA
D
of
Pr
by
n
ig
es
D
THANK YOU
n
io
uls
op
Pr
c
ni
so
er
yp
H
in
es
ot
N
re
tu

ec

Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion (Scramjet) Design Procedure: Lecture Series by Prof DR Ali Sarosh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion (Scramjet) Design Procedure: Lecture Series by Prof DR Ali Sarosh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion (Scramjet) Design Procedure: Lecture Series by Prof DR Ali Sarosh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sh

PROF DR ALI SAROSH

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 1

– Historically : Integration of High Process Efficiency Systems

– Ensuing : 75% (Low) Efficiency Compression, Combustion System

Integrated to Quasi-Isentropic Expansion System

• What is the Results’ Utilization ?

– Choose Better Engine Type for Given Design Considerations

– Choose the Vehicle Type Supported by the Chosen Engine

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 2

3. Computational Accuracy. Establish the Accuracy of

Numerical Simulation Results (of FLUENT 6.3.17) vis-

à-vis the Aerothermodynamic Methods for

Comparative HAP Systems

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 3

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 4

– Transatmospheric or Hypersonic Cruiser

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 5

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 6

Organization, Australia, 20 October 2006.

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 7

Generalized Finite Control Volume

Stream Thrust Analysis Approach

Mod Stream Thrust Analysis Approach Solution : Solution:

Kinetic Energy Efficiency Method

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 8

Assessment in Modified Stream Thrust Analysis

6. Suitable for Large System Design and Flow Assessment

1. One/Two-Dimensional Flow Analysis for Compression, Combustion and Expansion

Generalized Components Using Compression/ Expansion Waves

Flow 2. Account for Fluid and Thermodynamic Phenomena

Analysis 3. Can Account for Geometric and Flow Variations

4. Best Suited for Component Design and Flow Assessment

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 9

Free Stream Independence of k   in the Far Field

2. More Accurate and Reliable for a Wider Class of Flows

3. Model equations Behave Appropriately in Near-Wall and Far-Field Zones

1. Computes Chemical Source Terms Using Arrhenius Expression

Reaction Model 3. Accelerates Convergence

4. Improves Solution Stability

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 10

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 11

• Turbulent Kinetic Energy “k”

• Specific Dissipation Rate “ω”

– Third Step :- Turbulent, Reactive Flow (~20K Iterations)

• Second Step Equations

• Species Transport Equation

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 12

Propulsion (Scramjet) System

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 13

• Single Fuel Injector

• Injection Pressure Ratio (Pinj/Pin) : 5.0~6.0 (Low)

– Expansion Efficiency > 95%

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 14

External expansion begins

End of expansion ramp

2/8/2023 Lecture Notes by Prof Dr Ali Sarosh 15

Pressure Expansion Scramjet 2