See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260554349

Geometry Rule of Combustor-Inlet Interaction in Ramjet Engines

Article  in  Journal of Propulsion and Power · April 2014

DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

CITATIONS READS

8 1,872

2 authors:

Tao Cui Shunlin Tang

Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS   229 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   302 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Theoretical and experimental analysis of small scale turbulence behaviour at Finite Reynolds numbers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tao Cui on 20 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER
Vol. 30, No. 2, March–April 2014

Geometry Rule of Combustor–Inlet Interaction in Ramjet Engines

Tao Cui∗ and Shunlin Tang†
Harbin Institute of Technology, 150001 Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China
DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892
Combustor–inlet interactions in ramjet engines are associated with such critical operation processes as combustion
mode (ramjet mode/scramjet mode) transition and the onset of inlet unstart. Previous studies showed these critical
operational processes were characterized by a nonlinear hysteresis property that originated from flow instabilities.
This paper describes in detail, discusses, and comes to the conclusion that the complex hysteresis phenomena that are
exhibited during the combustor–inlet interaction in a ramjet engine are governed by a certain mathematical rule: the
butterfly geometry in Thom’s classification theorem. This conclusion is proved analytically under the assumption of
inviscid flow. It shows the bifurcation set of a ramjet engine is a butterfly-shaped geometry. The butterfly geometry is
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

higher in dimension than the formerly found cusp geometry, and it rules the hysteresis behaviors that are exhibited
during combustion mode transition and inlet start/unstart, respectively. The formerly found cusp geometry is a local
geometry of butterfly geometry. This invariance geometry rule offers not only an explanation of the known hysteresis
behaviors but also a way of predicting the unknown hysteresis behaviors that are exhibited during combustor–inlet
interaction in a ramjet engine. The hysteresis property introduces complex route-dependent behaviors to ramjet
engines, and it is therefore necessary to have a global picture of various hysteresis phenomena for further
understanding of the control problems of ramjet engines.

Nomenclature thermal choke is induced by the sufficient heat release of combustion

A = cross-sectional area, m 2 for the stabilization of subsonic combustion and inlet shock waves.
B = bifurcation set Otherwise, the airflow remains supersonic without a choking
k = ratio of specific heats mechanism, and the engine will be operating in the scramjet mode. A
M = Mach number transition from the ramjet mode to the scramjet mode in the flight
m_ = mass flow rate, kg∕s trajectories of a ramjet engine will be, of course, undesirable.
P = total pressure, Pa Much work has been done on the mechanism of combustion mode
p = static pressure, Pa transition because of its great importance [1]. For example, Sullins [2]
R = gas constant, J∕
kg · K experimentally demonstrated the mode transition in a ramjet
T = total temperature, K combustor and observed the unsteadiness of a shock system during
t = butterfly factor the transition. Chun et al. [3] observed that the flame in a combustor
u = bias factor jumped from far downstream to the end of an injector while a mode
v = splitting factor transition occurred. Eggers and Novell [4] found that, under certain
w = normal factor conditions, the small deviations in fuel flow may significantly affect
τ = heat addition ratio the movement of shock trains, and the operation mode may transit
from a scramjet mode to a ramjet mode. O’Byrne et al. [5] examined
Subscripts the transient process of thermal choking in a model supersonic
combustor and reported the separation of boundary layer, the
sub = subsonic formation of detonation, and the formation of a near-normal shock
super = supersonic wave. Goyne et al. [6] investigated the transition between supersonic
0 = incoming flow and subsonic combustions in a hydrogen–air combustor. Riggins
1 = inlet entrance et al. [7] conducted a numerical study and reported that the transition
2 = first throat behavior is characterized by the decrease in entropy (increase in total
3 = combustor entrance pressure) with an increment of heat release. These studies indicated
4 = combustor exit that the transition between ramjet and scramjet modes is often
5 = second throat accompanied by such a discontinuous phenomenon as the
6 = nozzle exit unsteadiness of shock waves and the catastrophic change in the
reaction rate of air/fuel mixture, etc. The discontinuous processes
have a great impact on the operation of an engine.
Therefore, a series of studies has been conducted on the
I. Introduction
discontinuous processes of a ramjet engine for the purpose of finding
A RAMJET engine is the simplest, in terms of moving parts, of all
airbreathing engines. Compression is produced in it by means
of shock waves, whereas combustion is done at a subsonic speed. An
the simple mathematical rules that govern the ramjet flow. As reported
in [8], Cui et al. found, in an analytical way, the geometry rule of cusp
singularity, which governs the discontinuous processes of combustion
engine is usually operating in the ramjet mode, while a sustained mode transition. Cui et al. also reported, by computational fluid
dynamics simulations in [9], that the discontinuous behaviors of inlet
Received 26 December 2012; revision received 18 July 2013; accepted for start/unstart obey locally the same geometry rule, and offered in [10] a
publication 18 July 2013; published online 20 February 2014. Copyright © way of observing the loops-coupled hysteresis phenomenon of inlet
2013 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All start/unstart from the viewpoint of multistability. Cui et al. further
rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, reported in [11] the loops-coupled hysteresis phenomenon that
on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright occurred in the Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM)/NASA
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code 1533-3876/14 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
Mach 6.5 flight test, and a neglect of the hysteresis phenomenon had
*Associate Professor, School of Energy Science and Engineering; cuitao@ given rise to the error detection of inlet start/unstart in the flight test.
hit.edu.cn. Our previous studies offered insights into the geometry rule and the
† discontinuous hysteresis behaviors of ramjet flow. However, the inlet
Doctoral Student, School of Energy Science and Engineering;
tangshun_0@126.com. and combustor are analyzed in a separate way. The interaction
449
 450 CUI AND TANG

between inlet and combustor is not taken into consideration. And so, A0 ≤ A1 (1)
in this paper, we focused on the combustor–inlet interaction in a
ramjet engine and found, from a global perspective, that the nonlinear It should be noted that the flow is choked at the nozzle throat
phenomena that are exhibited in a ramjet engine are governed by
butterfly geometry, the dimension of which is higher than that of the M5  1 (2)
formerly found cusp geometry. The cusp geometry is just a local
geometry of the butterfly geometry. This invariance geometry rule Therefore, the Mach number at combustor exit M4 can be calculated
inherent in a ramjet engine offers a way of predicting various using the following isentropic relations of nozzle flow:
hysteresis behaviors that are exhibited during the combustor–inlet
( p





interaction in a ramjet engine. _ i  Kq
Mi Ai Pi ∕ T i  const
m
T i  const i  4; 5; 6 (3)
Pi  const
II. Analytical Model
The analytical model used is constructed by following the and
principles of multistability with assumptions similar to those in the
Kantrowitz theory. As shown in Fig. 1, the inlet is fully enclosed (i.e., M4  q−1
sub
A5 ∕A4  (4)
the freestream velocity is normal to the entry plane). Overall total where
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

temperature rise ratio τ  T 4 ∕T 0 , cross-sectional area A2 , A3 , A5 , and

freestream Mach number M0 can be adjusted to control the internal   
2 k − 1 2 −
k1∕2
k−1
flow and/or the combustion process. q
M  M 1 M (5)
k1 2
A. Model of Operation Modes
Under the preceding assumptions, there are three operation modes s





































 k1∕k−1

(i.e., scramjet mode, ramjet mode, and inlet unstart) in the ramjet k 2
K (6)
engine, shown in Fig. 2. R k1

1. Scramjet Mode and Ramjet Mode and q−1

sub is the inverse function of q. The inverse function of q has two
Models of scramjet mode and ramjet mode are similar to those solutions: one is subsonic and the other is supersonic. The supersonic
reported in [8]. solution is denoted by q−1 −1
super, and qsub corresponds to the subsonic
solution.
2. Inlet Unstart The overall total temperature rise ratio through the combustion
section is given a priori, and the total temperatures along the engine
A model of inlet unstart for a ramjet engine is not provided in our
channel can be given by
previous papers. When the inlet is unstarted, the engine flow is
characterized by a bow shock located in front of the inlet. The inlet
T 5  T 4  τT 3  τT 2  τT 1 (7)
mass flow rate coefficient will be equal to or lesser than one
The Mach number at combustor entrance M3 can be given by
p



M3  Φ−1 Φ
M4 ∕ τ (8)
M0 Heat
A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4

addition where

Mf1  
k − 1∕2M2 g1∕2

Φ
M  (9)
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of ramjet engine. 1  kM2

The steady flow through the inlet compression section can be

expressed as
M0 ( p





M>1 M>1 M>1 _ i  Kq
Mi Ai Pi ∕ T i  const
m
T i  const i  1; 2; 3 (10)
Pi  const
a) Scramjet mode From the equations of continuity and energy, the capture area can be
substituted by

q
M1  P1
M0 Normal A0  A (11)
M>1
shock
M<1 M=1 q
M0  P0 1

This total pressure ratio can be approximately obtained using the

normal shock equation
b) Ramjet mode
P1 f
k  1M20 ∕2 
k − 1M20 gk∕
k−1
 (12)
P0 f
2γ∕k  1M20 − 
γ − 1∕
k  1gk∕
k−1
M0 Bow
shock The capture area can be obtained by substituting Eq. (12) into
Eq. (11). The total pressure at combustor exit can be given by

c) Inlet unstart A0 q
M0  p

P4  P0 τ (13)
Fig. 2 Three operation modes of a ramjet engine. A4 q
M4 
 CUI AND TANG 451

The total pressure along the channel fulfills 4. Critical Conditions for a Transition from Inlet Unstart to Any Other
Operation Mode
P0 ≠ P1  P2  P3 ≠ P4  P5 (14) The transition from inlet unstart to a ramjet mode occurs when the
normal shock wave is located at the inlet entrance. The total pressure
at combustor entrance P3 can then be obtained using the normal
B. Model of Critical Conditions for Mode Transition shock equation:
If one or several of these control parameters, such as τ, A2 , A3 , A5 ,
and M0 , are changed to some critical values, the operation mode will f
k  1M20 ∕2 
k − 1M20 gk∕
k−1
P3  P0 (23)
be changed. There are four kinds of critical conditions for a sudden f
2γ∕k  1M20 − 
γ − 1∕
k  1gk∕
k−1
change to occur in the operation mode.
and M3 can be given by
1. Critical Conditions for a Transition from Scramjet Mode to Any Other
Operation Mode M3  q−1
sub q
M 0 A1 P0 ∕
A3 P3  (24)
The model of critical conditions for a transition from a scramjet
It should be noted that the flow is choked at nozzle throat
mode to a ramjet mode is similar to that reported in [8].
M5  1 (25)
2. Critical Conditions for a Transition from Ramjet to Scramjet Mode
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

The model of critical conditions for a transition from a ramjet mode Therefore, the Mach number at combustor exit M4 can be obtained
to a scramjet mode is similar to that reported in [8]. using the following isentropic relations of nozzle flow
( p





3. Critical Conditions for a Transition from a Ramjet Mode _ i  Kq
Mi Ai Pi ∕ T i  const
m
to Inlet Unstart T i  const i  4; 5; 6 (26)
The transition from a ramjet mode to inlet unstart occurs when the Pi  const
normal shock wave is located at inlet throat. The flow is compressed
as the area converges from A1 to minimum area A2 at the throat and
section. Therefore, the Mach number at inlet throat M2 may be
obtained using the following isentropic relations: M4  q−1
sub
A5 ∕A4  (27)

( p




The overall total temperature rise ratio, which corresponds to the
_ i  Kq
Mi Ai Pi ∕ T i  const
m
i  1; 2 critical conditions for a transition from a ramjet mode to inlet unstart,
T i  const (15)
can be expressed as
Pi  const
 
Φ
M4  2
and τ (28)
Φ
M3 
M2  q−1
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2  (16)
III. Hysteresis Phenomena
The total pressure at the combustor entrance P3 can then be obtained Combustor–inlet interaction represents a crucial aspect in the
using the normal shock equation development of a ramjet or any other supersonic airbreathing engine.
Any change in the inlet flow can modify the downstream combustion
characteristics (and vice versa) and subsequently leads to undesirable
f
k  1M22 ∕2 
k − 1M22 gk∕
k−1 discontinuous behaviors, such as inlet unstart and undesirable
P3  P0 (17)
f
2γ∕k  1M22 − 
γ − 1∕
k  1gk∕
k−1 combustion mode transition.
During the flight test conducted on 12 February 1998 by NASA
and M3 can be given by and CIAM, the overfueling of the combustor at low Mach numbers
resulted in an inlet unstart. The flight-test results indicated that the
inlet unstarted when fuel was first injected, and it remained unstarted,
M3  q−1
sub q
M 0 A1 P0 ∕
A3 P3  (18) due to the strong combustor–inlet interaction. The inlet restarted
when the fuel flow rate was reduced. Although the inlet restarted at
It should be noted that the flow is choked at nozzle throat 50 s, the control system still sensed that the inlet was unstarted for the
remainder of the flight because of apparent hysteresis effects [12].
M5  1 (19) Meanwhile, during this flight test, the goal to demonstrate the
combustion mode transition was not achieved, even though pretest
Therefore, the Mach number at combustor exit M4 may be obtained predictions by both NASA and CIAM indicated supersonic
using the following isentropic relations of nozzle flow: combustion would be achieved. Recently, during the first X-51 flight
test on 23 April 2010, X-51 experienced an inlet unstart for about
( p




110 s after the engine was ignited and, fortunately, the engine
_ i  Kq
Mi Ai Pi ∕ T i  const
m
T i  const i  4; 5; 6 (20) restarted successfully [13]. The second X-51 flight test on
Pi  const 13 June 2011 ended prematurely due to the occurrence of inlet unstart
caused by high combustor backpressure and, unfortunately, a
and subsequent attempt to restart the inlet was unsuccessful [14]. It can be
seen from the two X-51 flight tests that, once inlet unstarts, it was
uncertain whether the inlet could restart or not. This uncertainty is a
M4  q−1
sub
A5 ∕A4  (21)
remarkable character of the hysteresis system.
In addition to the well-known flight tests, the experimental
The overall total temperature rise ratio, which corresponds to the
evidence of hysteresis phenomena can also be seen through ground
critical conditions for a transition from a ramjet mode to inlet unstart,
experiments. Depending on the direction of the change (increase or
can thus be expressed as
decrease) in fuel flow rate, a hysteresis can be observed in thrust
  characteristics [15]. When the fuel flow rate decreases from that
Φ
M4  2
τ (22) causing the intensive mode or even engine unstart, the range of
Φ
M3  intensive mode extends to the lower flow rate side. This means that,
 452 CUI AND TANG

III Scramjet mode A4=A5

C4 A1=A2
A5=1m2
M0

A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4
M0=3.0
Operation Mode

Ramjet mode
C1
II
C3 Fig. 4 Replacing the converging channels of inlet and nozzle with a
constant cross-sectional area channel.

Unstart mode C2
Ramjet C2(C3)
I 0.15
mode
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

Fig. 3 Operation modes versus τ for A5
1 m2 and M0
3.0. 0.14 C1(C4) Unstart mode

p4 /P0
A5=1.1
once the flow conditions within the combustor are sufficient for the 0.13
A2=1.0
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

intensive mode, they survive to some extent during the reduction M0=3.0
process in the fuel flow rate. Similar phenomena were observed 0.12
during the other tests, where the intensive and weak modes appeared
alternatively during the constant fuel flow rate operation. As reported
Scramjet mode
in [16], the experimental study revealed that a mode transition was a 0.11
hysteretic phenomenon with transition happening over a slightly
wider range of fuel rates when it was going from supersonic 1.5 2 2.5
combustion to subsonic combustion and vice versa. The experimental
Fig. 5 Response of p4 ∕P0 to τ for the channel configuration shown in
observation of hysteresis appearing in the transitions between Fig. 4.
combustion modes and inlet unstart can also be found in [17].
This study on combustor–inlet interaction aims at the improve-
ment of the understanding of hysteresis phenomena. The afore- IV. Governing Geometry Rule: A Butterfly
mentioned analytical model is valid in describing the phenomena,
It has been shown, using Thom’s classification theorem in [8,9],
although it is simple. The transitions among scramjet mode, ramjet
that the discontinuous behaviors of combustion mode transition and
mode, and inlet unstart can be calculated using this model by
inlet start/unstart are locally governed by the geometry rule of cusp
changing some control parameter, and the corresponding hysteresis
geometry, respectively. According to Thom’s classification theorem,
curves are shown in Fig. 3. The calculations are performed under
the configuration of singular points is invariant under diffeomorphic
conditions A1  1.0, A2  0.8, A3  1.1, and A4  1.1 m2 .
coordinate transformations. The invariance property allows the
It can be seen from Fig. 3 that, although a ramjet engine initially
operates in a scramjet mode, its operation mode suddenly transits from classification of systems into a small set of qualitatively different
the scramjet mode to the ramjet mode if τ is increased to critical models.
An attempt is made using Thom’s classification theorem to
position C1 . As τ is further increased to critical position C2 , the
demonstrate that the behavior of a ramjet engine is captured by the
operation mode suddenly transits from the ramjet mode to inlet unstart.
unfolding of a canonical singularity. Usually, there are four kinds of
Subsequently, if τ is decreased, the operation mode will not be changed
critical flow regimes for a sudden change to occur in the operation
until τ reaches critical position C3 , where the operation mode transits
mode of a ramjet engine. The critical conditions can be defined using
back from inlet unstart to a ramjet mode. As τ is further decreased, the
the following subsets, respectively:
operation mode will not be changed until τ reaches critical position C4 ,
where the operation mode will transit back from the ramjet mode to a   
 Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g
scramjet mode. Once a ramjet engine is propelled to transit from one B1 
M0 ; τ; A1 ; A2 ; A3 ; A5 τ −  0
operation mode to another, or vice versa, it cannot be propelled back to Φ2 fq−1
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A3 g
the previous operation mode along the same route. (29)
Hysteresis is the built-in property of a multistable system and is
caused by an unstable positive feedback mechanism [18]. In a ramjet   
 Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g
engine, when the shock wave moves into the converging channel, it B2 
M0 ; τ; A1 ; A2 ; A3 ; A5 τ −  0
will be unstable due to the positive feedback effect with a positive Φ2 fq−1
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A3 g
eigenvalue of the shock equation [19]. The hysteresis originates from (30)
the positive feedback mechanism of an unstable shock motion in the
converging channel of a ramjet engine.
 
For further illustration of this hysteresis mechanism, both the 
positive feedback mechanisms existing in the inlet and nozzle are B3 
M0 ; τ; A1 ; A2 ; A3 ; A5 τ
eliminated by replacing the converging channels with constant cross-
sectional area channels (see Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 5, the transitions Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
− p































p
































among the scramjet mode, ramjet mode, and inlet unstart exhibit a 2 −1
Φ fqsub q

k − 1M0  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2
continuous property. No hysteresis occurs during the combustor– 
inlet interaction when there is no positive feedback mechanism in 0 (31)
both inlet and nozzle.

  
 Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
B4 
M0 ; τ; A1 ; A2 ; A3 ; A5 τ − q






































































q






































































0
Φ2 fq−1 −1 −1
sub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2 2

(32)
 CUI AND TANG 453

The bifurcation set B of a ramjet engine is the union of the four subsets B1 , B2 , B3 , and B4 . We write

B  B1 ∪ B2 ∪ B3 ∪ B4 (33)

Bifurcation set B can thus be expressed as

   
Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
τ− 2 −1
τ− 2 −1
τ− p






























p
































Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g −1
Φ fqsub q

k − 1M20  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2
 
Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
τ− q






































































q






































































0 (34)
Φ2 fq−1 −1 −1
sub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2 2

Thus, we have

τ4  ατ3  βτ2  γτ  θ  0 (35)

Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

where
Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
α− − − p































p
































Φ2 fq−1
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A 3 g Φ2 fq−1 q
M A ∕A g
super 0 1 3
2 −1
Φ fqsub q

k − 1M0  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

− q






































































q






































































(36)
Φ2 fq−1 −1 −1
sub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2 2

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

β p































p
































Φ2 fq−1
sub q

k − 1M 2  2∕ 2kM2 −
k − 1A ∕A g
0 0 1 3

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

q






































































q







































































Φ fqsub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfq−1
2 −1 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2

Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g

Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fq−1
2 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A3 g

Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g
 −1
p































p































 (37)
Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
2
sub q

k − 1M 2
0  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g Φ fq−1
2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A3 g

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

q






































































q







































































Φ fqsub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfq−1
2 −1 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2

Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g
 −1
p































p
































Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fqsub q

k − 1M20  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2 2 −1 Φ fq−1
2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A3 g

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

q






































































q







































































Φ fqsub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfq−1
2 −1 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2

Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
γ− −1 2 −1
p































p
































Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fqsub q

k − 1M0  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2 2 −1 2

Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g
−
Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fq−1
2 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A3 g

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

q






































































q







































































Φ fqsub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfq−1
2 −1 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2

Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
− −1
p































p































(38)
Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fqsub q

k − 1M0  2∕ 2kM20 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2 2 −1 2

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

q






































































q







































































Φ fqsub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfq−1
2 −1 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2

Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
− −1
p































p
































Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
2
sub q

k − 1M 0  2∕ 2kM0 −
k − 1A1 ∕A3 g
2 2

Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g

q






































































q







































































Φ2 fq−1 −1 −1
sub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfqsuper q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2 2
 454 CUI AND TANG

Φ2 fq−1
super
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
sub
A5 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
θ −1 2 −1
p































p
































Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A3 g Φ2 fq−1
2
sub q

k − 1M 2  2∕ 2kM2 −
k − 1A ∕A g
0 0 1 3
(39)
Φ2 fq−1 sub
A5 ∕A3 g
q






































































q







































































Φ fqsub q

k − 1fqsuper q
M0 A1 ∕A2 g  2∕ 2kfq−1
2 −1 −1 2
super q
M 0 A1 ∕A2 g −
k − 1A2 ∕A3 g
2

By defining a topological mapping even the bifurcation set is four-dimensional and it can therefore be
8 drawn. As shown in Fig. 6, it can be illustrated only through two- or
> α three-dimensional sections. The detailed description of the
>
> σ →τ−
>
> 4 bifurcation set can be provided by projecting a three-dimensional
>
> 15α2 5β
>
> object into a two-dimensional surface. Of the three typical two-
>
> t→− 
< 16 2 dimensional geometries presented, the first geometry is a cusp (see
5α3 (40) Fig. 6a), the second geometry contains two cusps (see Fig. 6b), and
>
> u→ − 5αβ  5γ the third contains three cusps (see Fig. 6c). The difference between
>
> 8
>
> 45α 4 15α2 β 15αγ geometries 2 and 3 lies in the fact that the left and right curves shown
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

>
>v → −  −  15θ
>
> in Fig. 6b do not meet with each other, but the corresponding ones
>
: 256 16 4
w  24σ 5  8tσ 3  3u2
the normal form of bifurcation set B
of butterfly singularity can be
expressed as
   A3  A4  1 m2 and M0  3.0, geometry 2 is calculated with
 30σ 4  12tσ 2  6uσ  2v  0
B

t; u; v; w
w  24σ 5  8tσ 3  3u2
Consequently, the reduction of a physical model to a canonical
singularity is achieved. The bifurcation set B
of butterfly singularity
is controlled by four parameters. Two of them are the normal factor w
and the splitting factor v. The other two are the bias factor u and the
butterfly factor t. The bias factor alters the position and shape of the
cusp, and it swings the main body of the cusp to the left or right, but
the vertex of the cusp bends to the opposite. Meanwhile, the bias
factor moves the behavior surface up and down. The butterfly factor
creates the third stable mode of behavior. As the butterfly factor
increases, the cusp on the control surface evolves into three cusps,
which forms a triangular “pocket.” Above the pocket is the new,
triangular sheet on the behavior surface between the top and bottom
sheets. The bias factor can be changed to reduce the pocket on one
side until it disappears in a swallowtail. In the butterfly singularity,
shown in Fig. 6c intersect each other to form a new cusp.
From the normal form of butterfly geometry shown in Fig. 6, the
geometry rule of combustor–inlet interaction is calculated for a
ramjet engine and presented in Fig. 7.
As shown in Fig. 7, geometry 1 is calculated with A1  A2 
(41) A1  1 m2 , A3  A4  1.1 m2 , and M0  3.0, and geometry 3 is
calculated with A1  1 m2 and M0  3.0. A new parameter A2;3 is
introduced in geometry 3 for the purpose of finding an intersection
point J of the third cusp. A2;3 is the function of A2 and A3 , and is
defined as A2;3  A2 cos θ  A3 sin θ  ϕ, where the values of θ
and ϕ are π∕3 and −1.1, respectively. The intersection points of the
curves are denoted by A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, respectively.
As a whole, all the curves and their corresponding intersection points
have been used to define the geometric property of the bifurcation set
of ramjet engines.
In fact, the hysteresis behaviors shown in Fig. 3 can be explained
using this butterfly geometry. A bifurcation set is generally
composed of critical points where hysteresis occurs once any control
route passes through them. The geometry rule shown in Fig. 7 can be
used to provide a global picture of the hysteresis phenomena that
are exhibited during the combustor–inlet interaction in a ramjet
engine.

500
0 Route I
-500
-1000
v

Route II
-1500
-2000
v t
-2500
w
-3000
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
w × 104
a) Geometry I

-18 400
Route III
Route VII
-20 v=200 300
Route VIII
Route IV
v

-22 200 Route IX

t

Route X
Route XIII
-24 Route V Route XI
100
Route XII
-26 Route VI Route XIV
0
-500 0 500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
w w
b) Geometry II c) Geometry III
Fig. 6 Normal form of butterfly geometry.
 CUI AND TANG 455

1
Route 1 A
0.95 A1=A2=A3=A4=1m2
0.9 M0=3.0

A5 (m2)
0.85
Route 2
v 0.8
t
w 0.75
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

a) Geometry 1

B C
Route 3 A1=1m2 E A1=1m2
F Route 7
A3=A4=1.1m2 M0=3.0
1 M0=3.0 0.4 Route 8
H Route 9
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

0.95 G
Route 4 Route 10

A2,3 (m2)
A2 (m2)

Route 11
0.9 D 0.2 I Route 12
Route 5 Route 13
0.85 1
Route 6 1
Route 14 J A5 (m2 )
0.8 A5 (m2 ) 0
1.6 0.8 2 0.5
1.4 1.2 1 1.5 1

b) Geometry 2 c) Geometry 3
Fig. 7 Butterfly geometry of combustor–inlet interaction in a ramjet engine.

4 0.16 Unstart mode

Route I Route 1 C1(C2,C3,C4)
2 0.14

Topological 0.12
x

p4 /P0

0
Similarity
0.1
-2
0.08 Scramjet mode
-4
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
w × 104
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 8 State parameter versus control parameter along route I and route 1.

V. Global Picture of Hysteresis Phenomena
Fourteen typical control routes are drawn using the geometry rule
of the combustor–inlet interaction to determine the diverse hysteresis
behaviors that are exhibited during various transitions in the multiple
operational states of a ramjet engine. As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the
variation of the state parameter along each control route against the
control parameters are calculated to determine whether hysteresis, or
what kind of hysteresis, occurs.
Figure 8a shows the variation of state parameter x against control
parameter w along route I. The calculation results are obtained using
the normal form of the equilibrium surface for butterfly singularity.
Similarly, the variation of p4 ∕P0 against τ along route 1 is calculated
by the aforementioned analytical model and is shown in Fig. 8b. Both
scramjet mode, its operation mode suddenly transits from the
scramjet mode to inlet unstart when τ is increased to critical position
C1 . When τ is decreased, the operation mode will not be changed until
τ reaches critical position C4 , where the operation mode will transit
back from inlet unstart to the scramjet mode. The engine
configuration corresponding to route 2 is denoted as configuration 2
(see Fig. 9b). The cross-sectional area of the inlet as well as the
combustor is constant, and there is a converging section in the nozzle.
The hysteresis behavior shown in Fig. 10b originates from the
A1=A2=A3=A4
=A5=1m2
A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4

of the two curves are continuous and there is a topological similarity

between them. As shown in Figs. 8a and 8b, the variation of state
parameter along each of the two routes against control parameters
exhibits a continuous property, and no hysteresis occurs. From the a) Engine configuration 1
viewpoint of dynamic system theories, this means there is no unstable
positive feedback effect in existence. It can be seen from the A 1 =A 2 =A 3
preceding discussion that there is no converging channel in the =A4=1m2
corresponding engine configuration denoted by configuration 1 (see
A5
A3

A6
A1

A2

A4

Fig. 9a). Indeed, the cross-sectional area of the engine is constant.

The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter A5=0.85m2
along routes II and 2 are shown in Figs. 10a and 10b, respectively.
Likewise, there is a topological similarity between the two curves. As b) Engine configuration 2
shown in Fig. 10b, if the ramjet engine initially operates in the Fig. 9 Engine configurations corresponding to route 1 and route 2.
 456 CUI AND TANG

6 0.25
4 Route II Route 2 Inlet unstart C1
0.2
2

p4 /P0
0 0.15

x
Topological
-2
Similarity 0.1
-4 C4
Scramjet mode
-6 0.05
-2 -1 0 1 2 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45
w × 104

a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine

Fig. 10 State parameter versus control parameter along route II and route 2.

3 C2(C3) Route 3
Route III 0.15 Ramjet
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

mode
2
0.14 C1(C4) Unstart mode
1 Topological

p4 /P0
0 Similarity
x

0.13
-1
0.12
-2
0.11 Scramjet mode
-3
-1000 -500 0 500 1.5 2 2.5
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 11 State parameter versus control parameter along route III and route 3.

unstable positive feedback effect introduced by the converging
channel. The appearance of only one hysteresis loop originates from
the existence of only one converging section in a ramjet engine. For a
fixed control parameter, there will be at most three solutions (one
unstable solution and two stable solutions) for a ramjet engine. The
engine will thus exhibit a bistable operation.
The variations of state parameter against control parameter along
routes III and 3 are shown in Figs. 11a and 11b, respectively. Both of
the two curves are continuous and there is a topological similarity
between them. This means there is no unstable positive feedback
effect in existence. The engine configuration corresponding to route 3
is denoted as configuration 3, as shown in Fig. 12a. In this case, there
is no converging section in the engine channel where A1  A2 <
A3  A4  A5 . In engine configuration 3, there is a diverging
section, which has the capacity of stabilizing a normal shock so that
the ramjet engine can operate in the ramjet mode. It should be noted
that the ramjet engine cannot operate stably in a ramjet mode in this
case. As a result, point C1 coincides to point C4 , and point C2
coincides to C3 .
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route IV and route 4 are shown in Figs. 13a and 13b,
respectively. There is a topological similarity between the two curves.
It can be seen from Fig. 13b that, if a ramjet engine initially operates
in the scramjet mode, its operation mode suddenly transits from the
scramjet mode to the ramjet mode when τ is increased to critical
position C1 . As τ is further increased to critical position C2 , the
operation mode suddenly transits from the ramjet mode to inlet
unstart. Subsequently, when τ is decreased, the operation mode of a
ramjet engine will not be changed until τ reaches critical position C3 ,
where the operation mode transits back from inlet unstart to the
ramjet mode. As τ is further decreased, the operation mode will not be
changed until τ reaches critical position C4 , where the operation
mode will transit back from the ramjet mode to the scramjet mode.
The engine configuration corresponding to route 4 is denoted as
configuration 4 (see Fig. 12b). The appearance of two hysteresis
loops originates from the existence of two converging sections in the
ramjet engine.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route V and route 5 are shown in Figs. 14a and 14b,
respectively. There is a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these two curves are similar in
shape to those shown in Figs. 13a and 13b, except that the two critical
points (e.g., points C1 and C2 ) coincide to one point in this case. The
engine configuration corresponding to route 5 is denoted as
configuration 5, as shown in Fig. 12c.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route VI and route 6 are shown in Figs. 15a and 15b,
respectively. There is a topological similarity between the two

A3=A4=A5 A2=0.91m2
=1.1m2
A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4

A1=A2=1m2 A5=0.96m2

a) Engine configuration 3 b) Engine configuration 4

A2=0.87m2 A2=0.82m2
A5

A6

A6
A1

A3

A4

A1
A2

A3

A4

A5
A2

A5=0.89m2 A5=0.83m2

c) Engine configuration 5 d) Engine configuration 6

Fig. 12 Engine configurations corresponding to routes 3–6.
 CUI AND TANG 457

Route IV III Route 4

C4 Scramjet mode

Operation Mode
2

C1 Ramjet mode
0

x
II
Topological C3
Similarity
-2
C2
I Unstart mode
-500 0 500 1.4 1.6 1.8
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 13 State parameter versus control parameter along route IV and route 4.

III Scramjet mode

C4

Operation Mode
2 Route V Route 5
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

C1 Ramjet mode
0 II
x

Topological C3
Similarity
-2
Unstart mode C2
I
-500 0 500 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 14 State parameter versus control parameter along route V and route 5.

III Scramjet mode

C4
Operation Mode

2 Route VI Route 6

C1 Ramjet mode
0 II
x

Topological C3
Similarity
-2
Unstart mode C2
I
-4
-500 0 500 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 15 State parameter versus control parameter along route VI and route 6.

hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these two curves are similar in
shape except that point C3 locates on the left of point C1 in this case.
The engine configuration corresponding to route 6 is denoted as
configuration 6, as shown in Fig. 12d.
The variations of state parameter against control parameter along
route VII and route 7 are shown in Figs. 16a and 16b, respectively.
Both of the two curves are continuous and there is a topological
similarity between them. The engine configuration corresponding to
route 7 is denoted as configuration 7, as shown in Fig. 17a.
The variations of state parameter against control parameter along
route VIII and route 8 are shown in Figs. 18a and 18b, respectively.
There exists a topological similarity between the two hysteresis
curves. The engine configuration corresponding to route 8 is denoted
as configuration 8, as shown in Fig. 17b.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route IX and route 9 are shown in Fig. 19a and 19b,
respectively. There exists a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these two curves are similar in
shape to those shown in Figs. 14a and 14b. Falling back to see the
bifurcation set shown in Fig. 7c, this control route passes through
point G, one of the intersection points of the bifurcation curves. The
engine configuration corresponding to route 9 is denoted as
configuration 9, as shown in Fig. 17c.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route X and route 10 are shown in Figs. 20a and 20b,
respectively. There exists a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that the response curves exhibit
another special hysteresis property. For example, after transitions

4 0.16 C2(C3)
Ramjet mode
0.14 Unstart mode
2 C1(C4)
Route VII 0.12 Route 7
p4 /P0

0 0.1
x

Topological
Similarity 0.08
-2 Scramjet
0.06 mode
-4 0.04
-2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 16 State parameter versus control parameter along route VII and route 7.
 458 CUI AND TANG

A3=A4=A5 A3=A4=1.05m2
=1.15m2

A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4
A5

A6
A1

A2

A3

A4
A2=0.94m2
A1=A2=1m2 A5=0.98m2

a) Engine configuration 7 b) Engine configuration 8

A3=A4=1.05m2 A3=A4=1.0m2

A1

A2

A3

A4

A6
A1

A5

A6
A2

A5
A2=0.94m2

A3
A2=0.93m2

A4
A5=0.98m2 A5=0.95m2

c) Engine configuration 9 d) Engine configuration 10

A2=0.89m2 A3=A4=0.96m2 A2=0.87m2 A3=A4=0.92m2

A3
A3

A1
A4

A2
A2

A5

A5
A1

A6
A6

A4
A5=0.89m2 A5=0.79m2
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

e) Engine configuration 11 f) Engine configuration 12

A3=A4=0.91m2 A5=0.77m2 A2=A3=A4=0.8m2 A5=0.6m2

A1

A2

A3

A4

A6

A1

A3
A2

A4

A6
A2=0.86m2

A5
A5

g) Engine configuration 13 h) Engine configuration 14

Fig. 17 Engine configurations corresponding to routes 7–14.

4
III Scramjet mode
C4
Operation Mode

2 Route VIII Route 8

C1 Ramjet mode
0
x

Topological II
C3
Similarity
-2
C2
I Unstart mode
-4
-500 0 500 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 18 State parameter versus control parameter along route VIII and route 8.

from the scramjet mode to the ramjet mode at point C1 and further to
inlet unstart at point C2 , the ramjet engine transits back to the ramjet
mode at point C3 and further to the scramjet mode at point C4 . As it
happens, points C3 and C4 coincide to one point while this occurs.
This means the ramjet engine can transit at this point to either the
ramjet mode or the scramjet mode. As shown in Fig. 7c, this control
route passes through point H, one of the intersection points of the
bifurcation curves. The engine configuration corresponding to route
10 is denoted as configuration 10, as shown in Fig. 17d.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route XI and route 11 are shown in Figs. 21a and 21b,
respectively. There exists a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these curves present another very
special hysteresis property. For example, after transitions from the
scramjet mode to the ramjet mode at point C1 and further to inlet
unstart at point C2 , the ramjet engine will not usually transit back to
the ramjet mode as normal, but transit back to the scramjet mode
directly at point C3 . In this case, point C3 is located on the left of point
C4 . This means that not all transitions occur between two adjacent
operation modes. There is at least one hysteresis loop that involves
more than two operation modes, such as the hysteresis loop
scramjet mode → ramjet mode → inlet unstart → scramjet mode,
which consists of three operation modes. In addition, there is a
scramjet mode ↔ ramjet mode hysteresis loop, which is an internal

4
III Scramjet mode
C4
Operation Mode

2 Route IX Route 9

C1 Ramjet mode
0 II
x

Topological C3
Similarity
-2
Unstart mode C2
I
-4
-500 0 500 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 19 State parameter versus control parameter along route VIII and route 9.
 CUI AND TANG 459

Scramjet mode
4 III
Route X C4(C3) Route 10

Operation Mode
2

0 C1 Ramjet mode

x
Topological II
-2 Similarity

-4 Unstart mode C2
600 400 200
I
200 0
-200 -400 150 v 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
w

a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine

Fig. 20 State parameter versus control parameter along route X and route 10.

4 Route XI Scramjet mode Route 11

III
C3 C4
2

Operation Mode
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

0
x

C1
Topological II
-2 Ramjet mode
Similarity
-4
600 Unstart mode
400 200 C2
200 180 I
0 160
w -200 140 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
-400 120 v
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 21 State parameter versus control parameter along route XI and route 11.

4 Route XII Scramjet mode Route 12

III
C3 C4
Operation Mode

2
0
x

-2 Topological II
Ramjet mode
Similarity
-4
600 Unstart mode C1(C2)
400
200 I
0 180
w -200 140 160 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
-400 100 120 v
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 22 State parameter versus control parameter along route XII and route 12.

hysteresis loop of the major hysteresis loop. The sequence of this
internal hysteresis loop is scramjet mode → ramjet mode →
scramjet mode. This hysteresis, which originates from the existence
of multistability and multisolution domain, is a loops-coupled
hysteresis [11]. The engine configuration corresponding to route 11
is denoted as configuration 11, as shown in Fig. 17e.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route XII and route 12 are shown in Figs. 22a and 22b,
respectively. There exists a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these two curves are similar in
shape to those shown in Figs. 21a and 21b, except that the two critical
points (e.g., points C1 and C2 ) coincide to one point in this case. As
shown in Fig. 7c, this control route passes through point I, one of the
intersection points of the bifurcation curves. The engine configur-
ation corresponding to route 12 is denoted as configuration 12, as
shown in Fig. 17f.
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route XIII and route 13 are shown in Figs. 23a and 23b,
respectively. There is a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these curves present another very
special hysteresis property. If the ramjet engine initially operates in
the scramjet mode, its operation mode will not usually transit to the
ramjet mode as normal, but transit to inlet unstart directly when τ is
increased to critical position C1 . Subsequently, when τ is decreased,
the operation mode transits back to inlet unstart at point C3 . This
means the ramjet mode is unreachable if the ramjet engine initially
operates in either the scramjet mode or inlet unstart. However, when
the ramjet engine initially operates in the ramjet mode, it is possible to

4 Route XIII Scramjet mode Route 13

III
C3 C4
Operation Mode

0
x

Topological II
Similarity Ramjet mode
-2
Unstart mode C2 C1
-4 I
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
w
a) Normal form b) Ramjet engine
Fig. 23 State parameter versus control parameter along route XIII and route 13.
 460 CUI AND TANG
5 Route XIV
0
x
Topological
Similarity
-5
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
w
a) Normal form
Fig. 24 State parameter versus control parameter along route XIV and route 14.
transit to the other two operation modes. The engine configuration
corresponding to route 13 is denoted as configuration 13, as shown in
Fig. 17g.
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892
The variations of the state parameter against the control parameter
along route XIV and route 14 are shown in Figs. 24a and 24b,
respectively. There is a topological similarity between the two
hysteresis curves. It can be seen that these two curves are similar in
shape to those shown in Figs. 23a and 23b, except that points C2 and
C4 disappear in this case. The ramjet engine cannot operate stably in a
ramjet mode. As shown in Fig. 7c, this control route passes through
point J, one of the intersection points of the bifurcation curves. The
engine configuration corresponding to route 14 is denoted as
configuration 14, as shown in Fig. 17h. There is no diverging section
in the inlet to stabilize a normal shock, which leads to the
disappearance of the ramjet mode operation.
It can be seen from the preceding discussion that, although it is the
simplest, in terms of moving parts, of all airbreathing engines, the
ramjet engine exhibits complex nonlinear hysteresis behaviors. The
complexity of dynamics behaviors involves hysteresis and complex
routes, and originates from the memory effect of initial states and the
existence of a multisolution domain [20]. The geometry rule provides
a global picture of various hysteresis behaviors that are exhibited
during the combustor–inlet interaction in a ramjet engine.
VI. Conclusions
Complex hysteresis phenomena that are exhibited during the
combustor–inlet interaction in a ramjet engine are presented in an
analytical way in this paper. These nonlinear phenomena originate
from the unstable positive feedback mechanism of shock motion in
converging channels under the assumption of inviscid flow.
Moreover, the nonlinear phenomena are discovered to be governed
by a geometry rule based on Thom’s classification theorem. The
governing rule is useful for explaining the present hysteresis
behaviors at present. In addition, the governing geometry rule can
offer guidelines to the reports on the existence of very special
hysteresis phenomena in a ramjet engine.
Acknowledgment
Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (grant 50906015) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Billig, F. S., “Research on Supersonic Combustion,” Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 9, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 499–514.
doi:10.2514/3.23652
[2] Sullins, G. A., “Demonstration of Mode Transition in a Scramjet
Combustor,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 9, No. 4, July–
Aug. 1993, pp. 515–520.
doi:10.2514/3.23653
[3] Chun, J., Scheuermann, T., von Wolfersdorf, J., and Weigand, B.,
“Experimental Study on Combustion Mode Transition in a Scramjet
with Parallel Injection,” AIAA Paper 2006-8063, 2006.
[4] Eggers, T., and Novell, P., “Design Studies of the JAPHAR
Experimental Vehicle for Dual Mode Ramjet Demonstration,” AIAA
Paper 2001-1921, 2001.
Scramjet mode Route 14
III
C3
Operation Mode
II
Unstart mode C1
I
0.8 1 1.2 1.4
b) Ramjet engine
[5] O’Byrne, S., Doolan, M., Olsen, S. R., and Houwing, A. F. P., “Analysis
of Transient Thermal Choking Processes in a Model Scramjet
Engine,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2000,
pp. 808–814.
[6] Goyne, C. P., McDaniel, J. C., Quagliaroli, T. M., Krauss, R. H., and
Day, S. W., “Dual-Mode Combustion of Hydrogen in a Mach 5,
Continuous-Flow Facility,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 17,
No. 6, 2001, pp. 1313–1318.
doi:10.2514/2.5880
[7] Riggins, D., Tackett, R., and Taylor, T., “Thermodynamic Analysis of
Dual-Mode Scramjet Engine Operation and Performance,” AIAA Paper
2006-8059, 2006.
[8] Cui, T., Tang, S., Zhang, C., and Yu, D., “Hysteresis Phenomenon of
Mode Transition in Ramjet Engines and Its Topological Rule,” Journal
of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2012, pp. 1277–1284.
doi:10.2514/1.60314
[9] Cui, T., Yu, D., Chang, J., and Bao, W., “Topological Geometry
Interpretation of Supersonic Inlet Start/Unstart Based on Catastrophe
Theory,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1464–1468.
[10] Cui, T., Lv, Z., and Yu, D., “Multistability and Complex Routes of
Supersonic Inlet Start/Unstart,” Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1204–1217.
[11] Cui, T., He, X., Yu, D., and Tang, S., “Multi-Stability and Loops-
Coupled Hysteresis: Flight-Test Analysis on Error Detection of Inlet
Start/Unstart,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2012,
pp. 496–503.
[12] Rodriguez, C. G., “Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of the
Central Institute of Aviation Motors/NASA Scramjet,” Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, pp. 547–555.
doi:10.2514/2.6165
[13] Mutzman, R., and Murphy, S., “X-51 Development: A Chief Engineer’s
Perspective,” 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies Conference, Presentation of Case 88ABW-
2011-0846, April 2011.
[14] Jeffrey, M. D., Michael, S. B., Graham, J. L., and Kuang-Yu, H.,
“Simultaneous High-Frequency Pressure and TDLAS Measurements in
a Small-Scale Axisymmetric Isolator with Bleed,” AIAA Paper 2012-
0331, 2012.
[15] Curran, E. T., and Murthy, S. N. B., Scramjet Propulsion, AIAA, Reston
VA, 2001, pp. 191–195.
[16] Robert, R., Christopher, P. G., Willie, H., Roland, H. K., James, C. M.,
and Charles, J. T., “Experimental Study of Test-Medium Vitiation
Effects on Dual-Mode Scramjet Performance,” Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1135–1142.
[17] Masatoshi, K., Sadatake, T., Takeshi, K., Tohru, M., and Kan, K., “Mach
6 Tests of Scramjet Engine with Boundary-Layer Bleeding and Two-
Staged Injection,” AIAA Paper 2003-7049, 2003.
[18] Angeli, D., and Sontag, E. D., “Multi-Stability in Monotone Input/
Output Systems,” Systems & Control Letters, Vol. 51, Nos. 3–4, 2004,
pp. 185–202, pp. 185–202.
doi:10.1016/j.sysconle.2003.08.003
[19] MacMartin, D. G., “Dynamics and Control of Shock Motion in a
Near-Isentropic Inlet,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2004,
pp. 846–853.
doi:10.2514/1.416
[20] Florent, R., Louis, M., Arnaud, C., and Francois, D., “Multistability and
Memory Effect in a Highly Turbulent Flow: Experimental Evidence for
a Global Bifurcation,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 93, No. 16, 2004,
pp. 164501-1–164501-4.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.164501
J. Powers
Associate Editor
 This article has been cited by:

1. Tao Cui, Yong Wang, Kai Liu, Jianren Jin. Classification of Combustor–Inlet Interactions for Airbreathing Ramjet
Propulsion. AIAA Journal, ahead of print1-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 10, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34892

View publication stats