12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies AIAA 2003-7067

15 - 19 December 2003, Norfolk, Virginia

REYNOLDS AVERAGED NAVIER-STOKES BASED

AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF INLET FOR A HYPERSONIC
RESEARCH VEHICLE

Manoj T. Nair∗, Naresh Kumar and S.K. Saxena†

Computational and Theoretical Fluid Dynamics Division,
National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore,
India
The aim of the present work is to carry out RANS computations of flow
through the inlet of a Hypersonic Research Vehicle (HRV) with a view to ac-
complish detailed aerodynamic analysis, which should lead to an improved design
of the inlet. Three inlet configurations which differ in the inlet-duct height are
considered in this study. The results of this study are presented in the form of
detailed computational flow visualization through density contours, variation of
flow parameters at various desired sections and inlet performance in each case.

Introduction ary layers over the fore-body, which if allowed to

Low-cost access to space with reusable vehi-
cles employing air-breathing propulsion will open
a new window for future progress of mankind.
There are competing efforts from several indus-
trial countries including India to put forward con-
ceptual designs and feasibility studies for a viable
technology for this purpose. One such effort is
currently in progress at Defence Research and
Development Laboratory (DRDL) for the design
and development of a Hypersonic Research Vehi-
cle (HRV) which employs dual mode air-breathing
propulsion. The inlet is a very critical compo-
nent of such a vehicle and needs to be highly
efficient for this technology to succeed. The inlet
consists of a fore-body and an integrated duct,
the initial compression being carried out by the
fore-body. There are three main aspects of inlet
design. First the available energy of the entering
air should be conserved as much as possible. In
other words, free stream air should exit the in-
let duct with a minimum of total pressure loss.
Secondly the flow distortion at the exit should
be minimized. Third the contribution to external
drag and vehicle weight of the inlet system should
be minimized.
The flow through the inlet is characterized by
shock-shock interaction, shock-boundary layer in-
teraction, development of thick turbulent bound-
∗
Member, AIAA
†
Associate Fellow, AIAA
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
enter the inlet duct can lead to adverse effects on
the inlet performance.3 Although the inlet-duct
may be two-dimensional, the flow approaching the
duct entrance can be highly three-dimensional. In
view of all this, the three-dimensional Reynolds
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are
the appropriate mathematical model for the anal-
ysis of such a flow.
The aim of the present work is to carry out
RANS computations of flow through the inlet
of a Hypersonic Research Vehicle (HRV) with a
view to accomplish detailed aerodynamic analy-
sis, which should lead to an improved design of
the inlet. An in-house developed RANS code
(MB-EURANIUM) with Spalart-Allmaras model
of turbulence4–6, 8, 9 is employed for this purpose.
Three inlet configurations which differ in the
inlet-duct height are considered in this study. The
results of this study are presented in the form of
detailed flow visualization through density con-
tours, variation of flow parameters at various de-
sired sections and inlet performance in each case.
Governing Flow Equations
The code MB-EURANIUM solves full three-
dimensional Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
equations. These equations in generalized body-

Copyright © 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
fitted coordinate system are written as, by the equations for the Newtonian fluid

τxx = 2µux − 2/3µ(ux + vy + wz )

b
∂Q b
∂F b
∂G ∂Hb
+ + + τyy = 2µvy − 2/3µ(ux + vy + wz )
∂τ ∂ξ ∂η ∂ζ
( ) (1) τzz = 2µwz − 2/3µ(ux + vy + wz )
1 b v ∂G
∂F b v ∂Hbv
= + + τxy = τyx = µ(uy + vx )
Re ∂ξ ∂η ∂ζ
τxz = τzx = µ(uz + wx )
τyz = τzy = µ(vz + wy )
where
∂T ∂T ∂T
qx = −θ , qy = −θ , qz = −θ (5)
    ∂x ∂y ∂z
e (e + p)W
ρ  ρW  where θ = (γ−1)Prµ M 2 . T is the static temper-
1   1   ∞ ∞
b =  ρu 
Q b =  ρuW + pκx 
E (2) ature and µ is the coefficient of viscosity. It may
J 
 ρv  J 
ρvW + pκy  be noted that for turbulent flow, we write
ρw ρwW + pκz
µ = µm + µt (6)
Here Re is the free-stream Reynolds number
where µm is the coefficient of molecular viscosity
based on a characteristic length.
and is a property of the fluid, while µt is called the
Q = JQ b is the state vector of conserved vari-
coefficient of eddy viscosity and is a property of
ables and J is the Jacobian of the transforma- the flow. The coefficient of molecular viscosity is
tion. E b denotes an inviscid flux vector and can
computed employing Sutherland’s law and a tur-
b
be F, G, b Hb depending on κ = ξ, η, ζ respec-
bulence model is used to obtain the coefficient of
tively. The contravariant velocity is given by eddy viscosity. The free-stream Mach number is
W = uκx + vκy + wκz . The Cartesian veloc- denoted by M∞ . The free stream Prandtl number
ity components are u, v and w respectively and is given by Pr∞ .
the velocity vector U = u bı + v b  + wb k with The derivatives can be transformed to the gen-
2
q̃ = U · U. The fluid density is ρ. The to- eralized body-fitted coordinate system using the
tal energy per unit volume is e = ρ I + 21 ρ q̃ 2 chain rule.
where I is the internal energy per unit mass of the
gas. An ideal gas assumption has been made and Numerical Approach
the pressure p is given by the equation of state A brief outline of the numerical approach fol-
p = (γ − 1)ρI. lowed to solve the RANS equations is presented
b v denotes a viscous flux vector and can be
E here. The code MB-EURANIUM employs a To-
b
Fv , Gb v, H
b v depending on κ = ξ, η, ζ respec- tal Variation Diminishing (TVD) formulation of
tively. It is given as Roe’s Riemann solver based on Monotone Upwind
Scheme for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) within
κ κ κ
b v = ( x )(Fv ) + ( y )(Gv ) + ( z )(Hv ) (3) the frame work of a cell centered finite volume
E
J J J approach and generalized body-fitted coordinates
to discretize the Euler terms.4, 9 A variety of en-
The Cartesian viscous flux vectors are given as, tropy fixes and TVD limiters are available to suit
a problem. The viscous terms are central dif-
ferenced. The time term is discretized using a
Fv = [uτxx + vτxy + wτxz − qx , 0, τxx , τxy , τxz ]T multi-stage Runge-Kutta time-stepping scheme.
Gv = [uτxy + vτyy + wτyz − qy , 0, τxy , τyy , τyz ]T A number of convergence acceleration techniques
Hv = [uτxz + vτyz + wτzz − qz , 0, τxz , τyz , τzz ]T(4) have been introduced in the code to enhance its
efficiency. These include local time-stepping, up-
wind implicit residual averaging, grid sequencing
The elements of the shear-stress tensor and the and multigrid techniques. The algebraic Baldwin-
heat flux vector in Cartesian coordinates are given Lomax2 turbulence model and the one-equation
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Spalart-Allmaras10 turbulence model are avail-
able to simulate turbulent flows.8 The multi-block
capability allows handling of complex configura-
tions without any difficulty. The code has been
parallelized using MPI libraries and can be ported
on any parallel platform having these libraries.

Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model Fig. 1 Nomenclature for the configuration.

Inspired by the Baldwin-Barth1 work, Spalart-
Allmaras10 developed a new one-equation model
which was derived from scratch to avoid any an-
cestry and ensure future growth. The deriva- Table 1 Free stream conditions
tion employs certain empiricism and arguments
of dimensional analysis, Galilean invariance, and Reynolds number, Re 5.4 ×106
selective dependence on the molecular viscosity. Free stream Mach number, M∞ 6.5
The model is numerically forgiving, in terms of Angle of attack, α 7◦
near wall resolution and stiffness, and yields fairly Free stream temperature, T∞ 242.7 K
rapid convergence to steady state. The wall and Free stream pressure, P∞ 582.9 N/m2
free-stream boundary conditions are trivial. The Ratio of specific heats, γ 1.4
details of the implementation and limited test-
ing of SA model in the code MB-EURANIUM are
available in Saxena and Nair.8 The turbulent flow
computations presented in the present work em-
ploy SA model.

Test Cases
Figure 1 describes the nomenclature for the
configuration. The body consists of three ramps
on the pressure side followed by an inlet duct. The
duct is of rectangular cross section and consists of
walls on four sides.
Three different test cases are considered which
differ only in inlet-duct height. The inlet-duct
height for the three cases are

1. Inlet A : 220mm
2. Inlet B : 230mm and
3. Inlet C : 240mm.

The free stream conditions are provided in Ta-

ble 1. These conditions correspond to an altitude
of 35 km.
Flow symmetry is assumed and only half the
body in the spanwise direction is considered for
present computations. Since the incoming flow
is hypersonic, freestream conditions are imposed
at the inflow boundary. At the outflow boundary
flow variables are extrapolated. No-slip bound-
Fig. 2 Pitch-plane grid for the HRV.
ary condition is applied on the wall. The wall is
considered to be adiabatic for the present study.
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a) full view
Fig. 3 Sectional view of the grid around the
HRV.
Grid Generation
A 54-block structured Navier-Stokes grid with
a C-O topology and 1.8 million grid points was
generated employing GRIDGEN.7 The grid gen-
eration involved the coupling of the internal and
the external flow. The x-axis was taken along the
axis of the body and z-axis was taken to be in
the span-wise direction, and the y-axis was taken
along the height of the duct. Figure 2 shows the
pitch plane grid for the vehicle. Figure 3 shows
the sectional view of the grid on the bottom of
the vehicle. The y + value at the entrance of the
inlet-duct is approximately 4. b) close-up at the inlet-duct
Results and Discussions Fig. 4 Density contour at the pitch-plane of
The test cases studied have three compression the HRV for inlet A.
ramps to compress the incoming air before it en- duct quite complex. The external flow on the fore-
ters the inlet-duct. In the first test case (inlet-A), body is equally complex and is characterized by
the height of the inlet-duct is 220mm. The Fig- the shock-boundary layer interaction at the com-
ure 4(a) provides the density contours at the pitch pression corners of the ramps and shock-shock
plane for the complete inlet for this case. The interaction at the lip of the inlet-duct.
blunt-body shock is sharply captured. The shocks
Table 2 Mass flow rates at the entrance of the
at the junction of the first and second ramp, and inlet-duct for the three inlets.
the second and third ramp are also clearly visi-
ble. These three shocks appear to hit the lip of Inlet Mass flow rate (kg/sec)
the inlet-duct. In a blown-up view of the density N-S Ideal % capture
contours at the rear, shown in Figure 4(b), the Inlet A 24.74 33.94 72.89
reflected shock inside the duct is seen to interact Inlet B 24.96 34.22 72.98
with the shear-layer formed due to the separa- Inlet C 25.96 34.48 75.31
tion of the incoming boundary-layer at the lip of
the duct. An expansion fan emanating from the Density contours at the pitch plane for inlet-B
lip can also be identified interacting with the re- and inlet-C is presented in Figures 5 and 6 re-
flected shock. All this makes the flow inside the spectively. In these cases, the compression corner
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a) full view a) full view

b) close-up at the inlet-duct b) close-up at the inlet-duct

Fig. 5 Density contour at the pitch-plane of Fig. 6 Density contour at the pitch-plane of
the HRV for inlet B. the HRV for inlet C.

Table 3 Relative performance of the three in- Table 4 Relative performance of the three in-
lets. lets.

Inlet Pressure recovery Inlet Mach number

duct entrance duct exit duct entrance duct exit
Inlet A 0.56 0.28 Inlet A 3.72 3.15
Inlet B 0.57 0.28 Inlet B 3.77 3.18
Inlet C 0.59 0.29 Inlet C 3.91 3.30

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 5 Comparison of Mass flow rates at
the entrance of the inlet-duct for inlet-A for
Navier-Stokes and Euler computations.
Inlet Mass flow rate (kg/sec)
N-S Euler %
Inlet A 24.74 25.48 97.09
a) z=0m b) z=0.2m

a) z=0m b) z=0.2m c) z=0.4m d) z=0.6m

Fig. 9 Density contour at different sections of
the inlet-duct for inlet-C.
shocks seem to hit inside the duct and not at the
lip. The boundary layer entering the inlet has
an adverse effect on the performance of the in-
let. The ways to mitigate this adverse effect is an
important design issue.3
c) z=0.4m d) z=0.6m The relative performance of the three inlets is
compared in Tables 2, 3 and 4. It can be seen
Fig. 7 Density contour at different sections of that the third inlet provides the best performance,
the inlet-duct for inlet-A.
both in terms of mass flow capture and the total
pressure recovery. The average Mach numbers at
the end of the compression ramps is also provided.
The ideal mass flow rate is calculated as the mass
flow rate entering an area along the dotted line
in Figure 1 with width equal to the width of the
inlet. Table 5 shows the difference in the mass
flow rates between RANS and Euler computations
for inlet-A. The difference is small indicating that
the viscous effects are small at the entrance of the
a) z=0m b) z=0.2m duct.
Density contours at various span-wise sections
for the inlet-duct are presented in Figures 7, 8
and 9 respectively for the three inlets. It can be
observed that as the inlet height increases, the
ramp shocks hit deeper inside the duct.

c) z=0.4m d) z=0.6m
Fig. 8 Density contour at different sections of
the inlet-duct for inlet-B.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 z=0m z=0.2m
0.1 20 20
18 18
16 16
0.0 14 14
12 12

P/P

P/P
10 10
-0.1 8 8
6 6
-0.2 4 4
-Cp

2 2
0 0
-0.3 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5
y (m) y (m)
-0.4
z=0.4m z=0.6m
leeward side 20 20
-0.5 18 18
windward side 16 16
-0.6 14 14
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 12 12

P/P

P/P
10 10
x (meter) 8 8
6 6
4 4
Fig. 10 Cp variation along the x-axis at the 2
0
2
0
pitch plane for inlet-A. -0.75 -0.7 -0.65
y (m)
-0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65
y (m)
-0.6 -0.55 -0.5

z=0m z=0.2m Fig. 12 P/P∞ variation along the y at different

20 20
18 18 z-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for
16 16
14 14 inlet-C.
12 12
P/P

P/P

10 10
8 8
6 6 y=-0.55m y=-0.60m
4 4 18.0 17.5
2 2
17.5 17.0
0 0
-0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 17.0 16.5
y (m) y (m) 16.5 16.0
P/P

P/P
16.0 15.5
z=0.4m z=0.6m 15.5 15.0
20 20 15.0 14.5
18 18
16 16 14.5 14.0
14 14 14.0 13.5
12 12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
z (m) z (m)
P/P

P/P

10 10
8 8
6 6 y=-0.65m y=-0.70m
4 4 15.0 10
2 2 9
0 0 14.5
-0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 8
y (m) y (m) 14.0 7
6
P/P

P/P
13.5
5

Fig. 11 P/P∞ variation along the y at different 13.0 4

3
12.5
z-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for 12.0
2
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
inlet-A. z (m) z (m)

The Cp at the pitch plane for inlet-A is pre- Fig. 13 P/P∞ variation along the z at different
sented in Figures 10. This clearly brings out the y-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for
large contribution to lift from the fore-body. inlet-A.
The variation of pressure at four span-wise sec-
y=-0.55m y=-0.60m
tions (constant z) at the entrance of the inlet-duct 18.5 18.5
18.0 18.0
for inlet-A and inlet-C is given in Figures 11 and 17.5 17.5
17.0 17.0
12 respectively, while the pressure variation at
P/P

P/P

16.5 16.5
16.0 16.0
sections along y-coordinate (height of the duct) 15.5 15.5
15.0 15.0
is provided in Figures 13 and 14. Similar distri- 14.5 14.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
bution for Mach number and density is presented z (m) z (m)

in Figures 15 through 22. The non-uniformity in 15.5

y=-0.65m
4.5
y=-0.70m

the profiles, particularly near the lip of the inlet 15.0 4.0
3.5
duct can be noted in these figures. The variation 14.5
3.0
P/P

P/P

14.0
of the flow properties along the z-coordinate is 13.5
2.5
2.0
larger for y=-0.7m than those at other y-sections 13.0 1.5
12.5 1.0
shown. This large variation near the lip of the 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
z (m)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
z (m)
duct can also be noted in the figures showing the
variation of properties along y-coordinate for var- Fig. 14 P/P∞ variation along the z at different
ious z-sections. The variation of Mach number at y-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for
the entrance of the inlet-duct shown in Figures 15 inlet-C.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 z=0m z=0.2m y=-0.55m y=-0.60m
6 6 7 7
6 6
5 5
5 5
4 4
Mach #

Mach #

Mach #

Mach #
4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
0 0
0 0 -1 -1
-0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
y (m) y (m) z (m) z (m)
z=0.4m z=0.6m y=-0.65m y=-0.70m
7 7 7 7
6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5
Mach #

Mach #

Mach #

Mach #
4 4
4 4
3 3
3 3
2 2
2 2 1 1
1 1 0 0
0 0 -1 -1
-0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
y (m) y (m) z (m) z (m)

Fig. 15 Mach number variation along the y at Fig. 18 Mach number variation along the z at
different z-sections at the entrance of the inlet- different y-sections at the entrance of the inlet-
duct for inlet-A. duct for inlet-C.

z=0m z=0.2m z=0m z=0.2m

6 6 7 7
5 5 6 6
4 4 5 5

density

density
Mach #

Mach #

3 3 4 4

2 2 3 3

1 1 2 2

0 0 1 1
-0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5
y (m) y (m) y (m) y (m)

z=0.4m z=0.6m z=0.4m z=0.6m

6 6 7 7
5 5 6 6
4 4 5 5
density

density
Mach #

Mach #

3 3 4 4

2 2 3 3

1 1 2 2

0 0 1 1
-0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5
y (m) y (m) y (m) y (m)

Fig. 16 Mach number variation along the y at Fig. 19 ρ/ρ∞ variation along the y at different
different z-sections at the entrance of the inlet- z-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for
duct for inlet-C. inlet-A.

y=-0.55m y=-0.60m
z=0m z=0.2m
7 7 7 7
6 6
6 6
5 5
5 5
density

density
Mach #

Mach #

4 4
3 3 4 4
2 2 3 3
1 1
2 2
0 0
-1 -1 1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5
z (m) z (m) y (m) y (m)
y=-0.65m y=-0.70m
z=0.4m z=0.6m
7 7 7 7
6 6
6 6
5 5
5 5
density

density
Mach #

Mach #

4 4
3 3 4 4
2 2 3 3
1 1
2 2
0 0
-1 -1 1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.75 -0.7 -0.65 -0.6 -0.55 -0.5
z (m) z (m) y (m) y (m)

Fig. 17 Mach number variation along the z at Fig. 20 ρ/ρ∞ variation along the y at different
different y-sections at the entrance of the inlet- z-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for
duct for inlet-A. inlet-C.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 y=-0.55m y=-0.60m
7 7
6 6
5 5
density

density
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
z (m) z (m)

y=-0.65m y=-0.70m
7 7
6 6
5 5
density

density
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
z (m) z (m)

Fig. 21 ρ/ρ∞ variation along the z at different

y-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for Fig. 23 Density contours at three different
inlet-A. sections (x=1.25m, x=3.0m and x=4.35m) for
inlet-C.
y=-0.55m y=-0.60m
7
6
7
6
fully carried out employing the RANS code MB-
5 5 EURANIUM with Spalart-Allmaras model of tur-
density

density

4 4
bulence. The analysis confirms the highly three-
3 3
2 2
dimensional and viscous nature of the complex
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
flow approaching the inlet-duct. The boundary-
z (m) z (m)
layers developed along the fore-body enter the
y=-0.65m y=-0.70m
7 7 duct and can adversely effect the inlet perfor-
6 6 mance. How to mitigate this adverse effect is an
5 5
density

density

4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
z (m)
Fig. 22 ρ/ρ∞ variation along the z at different
y-sections at the entrance of the inlet-duct for
inlet-C.
to Figure 18 indicate that close to the lip of the
inlet-duct the Mach numbers could be close to the
free stream value. This is more prominent in the
case of inlet C. This is due to the ramp shocks
crossing the entrance plane and hitting inlet-duct
inside and not at the lip.
The Figure 23 show the density contours at
three different sections of the three inlets along
the axial direction for the inlet-C. All the flow fea-
tures discussed above can again be identified here.
The important point which comes out of this pic-
ture is that the flow approaching the inlet-duct is
highly three-dimensional and viscous.
Concluding Remarks
A detailed aerodynamic analysis of the inlet of
a Hypersonic Research Vehicle has been success-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
important design issue. The third inlet provides
the best performance. Though the duct area in-
creases by 9% for inlet-C compared to inlet-A the
z (m) corresponding increase in mass flow is only 5%.
This is due to the decrease in density in the cowl
region for inlet-C as the ramp shocks hit inside
the cowl. Detailed numerical flow visualization,
variation of flow parameters at desired locations
and comparative study of the performance of the
three inlets has been provided.
The fast turn-around achieved (work completed
in about one month time, including grid genera-
tion for the three cases) in the present complex
CFD study encourages the view that RANS simu-
lation can now be employed at much earlier stages
of a design cycle than what was previously possi-
ble. This should lead to shorter design cycles and
better aerodynamic design.
Acknowledgment
This study has been carried out in response
to a request from DRDL and is monitored
by Dr. S. Panneerselvam, Technology Director
(Aerodynamics), DRDL. The large scale paral-
lel computing for the present case was carried
9
out using the 18 processors of Flosolver Mk5 at
NAL and the 12 processors of Origin 3000 system
at CSIR Centre for Mathematical Modelling and
Computer Simulation (C-MMACS), Bangalore.

References
1
Baldwin, B. S., and Barth, T. J. (1990), A one
equation turbulence transport model for high Reynolds
number wall bounded flows. Tech. Rep. TM 102847,
NASA.
2
Baldwin, B. S., and Lomax, H. (1978), Thin-layer
approximation and algebraic model for separated flow,
AIAA 78-257
3
Goonko, Y., and Mazul, I. (2002), Some factors of
hypersonic inlet/airplane interactions. Journal of Aircraft,
39, 1, 37–50.
4
Manoj T. Nair, Saxena, S. K. (2002), Multi-block
Euler computations for complex configurations. Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics Journal, 11, 1, 64–77.
5
Nair, M. T., Rampurawala, A. M., and Saxena,
S. K. (2001), MB-EURANIUM User’s Manual. Tech. Rep.
PD CF 0110, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore,
India.
6
Nair, M. T., and Saxena, S. K. (2002), Reynolds
Averged Navier-Stokes computations for a Light Com-
bat Aircraft. Tech. Rep. NAL PD CF-0204, National
Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore, India.
7
Pointwise. (1999), Gridgen User Manual version
13.3. Bedford, Texas, USA.
8
Saxena, S. K., and Nair, M. T. (2002), Implementa-
tion and testing of Spalart-Allmaras model in a multi-block
code, AIAA 2002-0835.
9
Saxena, S. K., and Ravi, K. (1995), Some aspects
of blunt body flow computations with Roe scheme. AIAA
Journal, 33, 6, 1025–1031.
10
Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R. (1992), A one
equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA
92-0439.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics