Aerothermal Flow Path Analysis and Design of a

Hypersonic Propulsion Unit

A dissertation submitted for

Master of Technology
(under the dual-degree program)

by

Amit Batra

97D01002

under guidance of

Prof. Bhaskar Roy

Department of Aerospace Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

June-2002
 CONTENTS

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 4
Nomenclature......................................................................................................................... 5
1. Preamble ............................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Objectives and scope of the project .......................................................................... 7
1.2 Approach ..................................................................................................................... 8
2. Introduction: hypersonic airbreathing propulsion ........................................................ 11
2.1 Ramjet ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Scramjet..................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Fixed geometry dual mode ramjet-scramjet .......................................................... 13
2.4 State of the art........................................................................................................... 14
3. Issues in hypersonic airbreathing propulsion ................................................................ 17
3.1 Combustor design..................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Fuel/Cooling .............................................................................................................. 18
3.3 Injection/Mixing ....................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Shockwave - boundary layer Interaction ............................................................... 19
3.5 Optimum inlet diffusion........................................................................................... 20
3.6 Struts.......................................................................................................................... 21
3.7 Variable geometry vs. fixed geometry .................................................................... 21
3.8 Ground testing .......................................................................................................... 21
3.9 Performance enhancement ...................................................................................... 23
3.10 Flight speed ............................................................................................................. 23
4. Theoretical background .................................................................................................. 24
4.1 Generalized one-dimensional flow .......................................................................... 24
4.2 Combustion pressure loss ........................................................................................ 27
4.3 Shock reflection and intersection phenomena ....................................................... 28
5. One-dimensional design methodology............................................................................ 30
5.1 Preliminary design methodology............................................................................. 30
5.2 One-dimensional analysis of combustor gas flow path ......................................... 31
5.3 Numerical implementation ...................................................................................... 33

2
6. Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 35
6.1 Available information .............................................................................................. 35
6.2 Data verification ....................................................................................................... 37
6.3 Cycle analysis ............................................................................................................ 38
6.4 Component analysis: inlet........................................................................................ 40
6.5 Component analysis: isolator .................................................................................. 43
6.6 Component analysis: combustor ............................................................................. 44
6.7 Component analysis: Nozzle.................................................................................... 49
6.8 Preliminary layout.................................................................................................... 49
7. Parametric performance analysis ................................................................................... 51
Closure ................................................................................................................................. 59
References............................................................................................................................ 61
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 64

3
 Abstract

Application of airbreathing hypersonic powerplants for propulsion poses a challenge to the

world scientific community, even though the gasdynamics and aerodynamics of hypersonic
flow have been investigated for several years now. In the present work, preliminary level
work has been done to cover the ground for the design of a dual-mode ramjet scramjet
powerplant for hypersonic vehicles. Various issues in the design of such powerplants have
been presented. Brayton cycle suited to the mission requirements have been constructed and
analyzed. An analytical approach to aid the initial design of the dual-mode ramjet-scramjet
powerplant for a hypersonic vehicle has been laid down. ‘Method of influence coefficients’
have been suggested and numerically implemented for developing one-dimensional
analysis capability. A detailed user manual for this software is separately made available.
‘Method of characteristics’ has been suggested for detailed flow mapping in the nozzle.
Simplistic estimate of the boundary layer and the forebody shock reflections in the inlet is
made. The empirical laws available from earlier literature have been implemented to obtain
the required length of the isolator, without going to the details of the shockwave-boundary
layer interaction. A preliminary geometry of the propulsion unit has been proposed, which
makes use of the detail combustor design studies done separately by others. The parametric
performance studies for the engine has been done using an available in-house developed
code.

4
Nomenclature

a = sonic velocity (m/s)

A = cross-sectional area of gas flow path (m2)
b = width of strut (m)
CA = concentration of species A (mol/m3)
Cd = coefficient of drag
Cp = specific heat (kJ/kg K)
d = exit diameter of fuel injection nozzle (m)
DAB = molecular diffusivity of A in B (m2/s)
Ea = energy of activation for a reaction (kcal/mol)
f/a = fuel air ratio of mixture
f = friction factor
h = height of strut (m)
j = molar diffusivity flux (kmol/m2·s)
k = rate of reaction constant
k0 = frequency factor
Lm = mixing length (m)
M = Mach number
m = mass flow rate (kg/s)
P = pressure (kN/m2)
PRF = pressure recovery factor
r = air fuel velocity ratio
Re = Reynolds number
s = air fuel density ratio
T = temperature (K)
u = velocity of stream (m/s)
w = rate of reaction (kmol/s·m3)
x = axis parallel to motion of vehicle (origin is kept at center of first injector)
y = an axis parallel to pitch axis of the aircraft
γ = ratio of specific heats of a gas

5
δm = mixing layer thickness (m)
φ = equivalence ratio
η = efficiency
ρ = density (kg/m3)
ψ = static temperature ratio between combustor inlet air and free-stream air.

Subscripts :
A = air
F = fuel
L = lean
R = rich
b = burner (combustor)
c = compression
e = expansion
st = stoichiometric condition
0, t = stagnation property (stagnation temperature, stagnation pressure)

6
1. Preamble

1.1 Objectives and scope of the project

This project aims toward the design of a dual-mode (ramjet & scramjet based) air-breathing
powerplant for an air-launched hypersonic research vehicle (HRV). To achieve preliminary
analysis and design capability, one-dimensional aerothermodynamic analysis methodology
of the hypersonic propulsion unit is to be developed and numerically implemented. A 1-D
gas flow path analysis code is to be developed based on the selected methodology. The
code will take into account the average flow path parameters across forebody, intake,
isolator, combustor and nozzle ducts. The output will predict the performance of the
propulsive unit in terms of thrust, SFC etc. at design point as well as off-design points. The
software will be capable of analyzing various geometries so that different designs can be
compared and parametric study is made possible, leading to a good preliminary design.
The above task requires integration of diverse fields, e.g. subsonic and supersonic
gasdynamics and combustion phenomena, shock-boundary layer interaction, forebody
compression, aftbody expansion and intake shock structures etc. under varying operating
conditions.
The output from the project would contain:
- Geometric details of engine intake, isolator, combustor and nozzle.
- 1-D analytical modeling of the entire flow including a simple combustion
modeling.
- Flow parameters (Mach number, pressure, temperature) along the length of the
engine.
- Performance map of the engine (in terms of the thrust, SFC, pressure recovery).
- Effects of the following parameters on the performance of the engine
Altitude and Mach number
Inlet flow angle
Flow path geometry.

7
1.2 Approach

One-dimensional aerothermodynamic solution of the flow inside the propulsion unit is

utilized to arrive at a baseline configuration. This analysis would produce the aerodynamic
and thermal map and decide the geometry of the flow path of the propulsion unit. The 1-D
solver facilitates a preliminary optimization of the design of various components. For the
development of understanding for modeling and design, the various aspects of the problems
are identified.

Gas dynamics aspects: The flow inside the propulsion unit is essentially a generalized
flow with area variation, heat addition, mass injection and friction. The vehicle makes use
of the shocks arising from the vehicle for compression. It is, therefore, important to
understand the shock phenomena, predicting the onset of shocks and the reflection and
absorption phenomena.
Hypersonic flows normally have thin shock layers, which interact with the boundary layers
and make the flow phenomena complex [1]. Shock - boundary layer interaction phenomena
in the forebody affects the capture area and therefore affects the inlet design [13]. It
interferes with the diffusion in the inlet-isolator region and is of prime concern in the
isolator design. At high temperature, substantial amount of flow energy goes to dissociation
and excitation of vibration degree of freedom of the molecules [1]. This results in what is
known as high temperature gas dynamics and involves certain special effects, which are
essential to the design. Numerical methods such as method of influence coefficients (MIC)
and method of characteristics (MoC) have been extensively used in literature and detailed
3-D codes based upon it are found [1]. They find utility in the present study.
Air chemistry and real gas effects: The predictions would be better if the Cp and γ values
are taken based upon the local temperature and composition. Equilibrium air chemistry
software based on minimization of free energy is available in open literature. It can be
modified to suit present requirements. Turbulence levels of air largely dictate the losses in
flows. The transition Reynold’s number, up to Mach 10 is of the order Re ~ 107. At Mach
20, transition Reynold’s number is of the order Re ~ 108. The effect of low-density rarified
flow is studied using Knudsen number. At Knudsen number, Kn ~ 0.03, the temperature and
velocity slip starts occurring at the surface. After Kn ~ 0.2, the continuum assumption

8
becomes invalid. For the present mission, the maximum Kn would be around 10-5. So,
rarified gas dynamics may not be considered for the present problem [13].
Combustion model: Single or multiple fuel options are available. The thermo-chemistry for
one-dimensional equilibrium can be obtained by NASA-ODE codes. For 1-D analysis,
combustion phenomena can be considered as a simultaneous mass and heat addition
phenomena. Scalability limitation in the combustion test results is a serious problem.

Vehicle aspects: The engine-airframe integrity here is much more important than in the
conventional aircrafts. This is because the forebody contour is used to generate oblique
shocks that compress and direct the flow into the inlet. Also, at the nozzle end, it’s the
vehicle body that acts as the nozzle wall.
Forebody compression: This is needed to increase the capture area for the intake and hence
the mass flow rate. The oblique shocks also help in directing the flow to the engine inlet. A
choice between finite and infinite number of such oblique shock appears. Normally, for
design simplicity, a finite number of forebody shocks are preferred [13]. Basic cycle
estimates show that in order to achieve adequate compression efficiency, at least two, and
preferably three or four oblique shock configuration should be used. The design chosen for
HRV is a two-shock configuration.
Typically, the underside of the vehicle to which the engine is mounted, consists of a wedge
(~ 15o). If necessary, for approximate aerodynamic analysis, local surface inclination
methods can be applied [1].
Isolator may not be required if proper shaping of the combustor area is achieved.
The number of injectors, their configuration and strut geometry is a critical factor. Struts
may be used to divide the combustor into smaller parts as well as housing of the injectors.
For the present engine size, two struts (resulting in three flow regions) appear to be
appropriate.
Combustor: There are two different concepts based on whether to separate spatially the
ramjet and the scramjet combustion zone. In designs with separate combustion zones, it is
proposed to use as much of the scramjet portion as isolator for the ramjet. The injector
design for the two combustion modes is a highly specialized task. Prediction of engine hot
points is important for designing re-generative cooling.

9
Performance estimation: The engine works on the Brayton cycle. Thermodynamic cycle
analysis is carried out to estimate the performance of the engine. This estimation requires
various efficiencies as lumped input quantities. In absence of detailed design and analysis
tools, some realistic values should be taken from literature to estimate the cycle
coordinates. Better estimates of efficiency will be through performance maps for engine
components, i.e. inlet, nozzle etc. that can separately be generated. This would require the
modeling of separate parts.

Modeling aspects: A simple one-dimensional software tool for the analysis of a particular
geometry can readily be made based on method of influence coefficient (MIC) [36].
Preliminary analysis of some representative geometry can thus be done.
The flow domains to be analyzed are:
Forebody: The forebody oblique shock structure can be obtained for a given geometry and
operating condition. Thus, average flow quantities at any station between the forebody and
the inlet cowl can be obtained. An estimate of ‘spillage’ flow can also be obtained form
this.
Inlet and isolator: The shock reflections expected for a given geometry can be analyzed
using inviscid shock reflection theory. For the region of isolator free from shocks MIC can
be employed.
Combustor: For one-dimensional analysis, it would be appropriate to assume combustion as
a heat and mass addition process and so an existing model can be used with the MIC [36].
Boundary layer losses: For performance estimation purpose, the influence of boundary
layer friction can be accounted by including a hypothetical, constant pressure duct with
friction [13]. For simplicity, the presence of forebody boundary layer can be accounted for
by estimating its displacement thickness at the inlet face.
Nozzle: The wave structure resulting in the nozzle part needs to be studied in detail. This
may need more detailed methods like method of characteristics, left beyond the scope of the
present work.

10
2. Introduction: hypersonic airbreathing propulsion

Air-breathing ramjet and scramjet engines are attractive because of the high-speed,
sustained atmospheric flight that they promise. Until now, hypersonic velocities have been
achievable only using rocket engine. Due to the large weight of the oxidizer that needs to be
carried in a rocket, its payload fraction is very poor as compared to air-breathing engines
(e.g. gas turbine engines), where the atmospheric air is used to assist fuel combustion. But
the maximum Mach number range that the gas turbine engines can reach is far lower than
what the rockets offer. Hypersonic air-breathing propulsion proposes to offer best of both
the worlds. The benefit of ramjets over rockets is that they utilize the oxygen in the
atmosphere to burn the fuel rather than having to carry the oxygen in the vehicle. The
elimination of the need to carry the oxidizer along translates into increased payload. This
will result in cheaper access to space as well as fast inter-continental travel. The proposed
ramjet and scramjet engines will extend the atmospheric flight envelop to Mach number
range as high as 25.

Fig. 2.1 Extension in flight envelope offered by ramjets and scramjets

Ramjets and scramjets are jet engine with no rotating machinery as present in current jet
engines. Rather than using rotating compressor blades it utilizes the speed of the vehicle
and the contour of the vehicle undersurface to compress the incoming flow. Therefore term

11
‘ramjet’ is coined because the compression takes place due to the ramming action of the
high-speed flow. Scramjet is a special type of ramjet suited for higher Mach number
operations. Scramjet engine is termed so because the flow through the engine stays
supersonic throughout. The fuel is added and burned at supersonic speeds.
Just as a gas turbine engine, the ramjet and scramjet are based on Brayton cycle. The
difference in the operating regimes of different engines results in the difference in the
mechanism and the extent of compression and expansion in the thermodynamic cycle.

2.1 Ramjet

A ramjet achieves compression of intake air by the forebody shocks and forward speed of
the air vehicle. Before entering the diffuser passage, the free-stream air meets the oblique
shocks emanating from the vehicle forebody. This partially diffused air, upon entering the
intake of the aircraft is further diffused in the diffuser passage, by the convergent-divergent
contour and shock structure (consisting of a normal shock train), to subsonic velocities
comparable to those in a turbojet. The expansion of hot gas (through a Convergent-
Divergent nozzle) after fuel injection and combustion accelerates the exhaust air to a
supersonic velocity higher than that at the inlet and creates positive thrust. Hydrocarbon
fuel is normally used [31].

Fig. 2.2 Schematic of a ramjet propulsion unit [13]

12
2.2 Scramjet

Scramjet stands for ‘supersonic combustion ramjets’. Beyond a certain Mach number range
( ≈ 7 ) it becomes inefficient to diffuse the high inlet velocities to subsonic range for
combustion. The scramjet differs from the ramjet in that the diffusion of flow is only partial
and uses oblique shock train to obtain it. Thus fuel injection, mixing and combustion takes
place at supersonic speeds through the engine. It has a simpler gas-flow path, but is vastly
more complex, aerodynamically, than a jet engine. Hydrogen is normally the fuel used [31].

Fig. 2.3 Schematic of a scramjet propulsion unit [13]

2.3 Fixed geometry dual mode ramjet-scramjet

Any air-breathing flight vehicle operating at hypersonic speeds will require a combined
cycle engine that operates efficiently through out the mission, from low subsonic speeds to
the high supersonic or hypersonic speeds. Curran and Stull proposed the dual-mode ramjet-
scramjet engine concept in 1964 [17]. This concept integrates the ramjet and scramjet into
one with an aim to operate in either mode depending on the speed range requirement. Here,
the gas-flow path geometry is more or less similar to the pure scramjet, so that the
Convergent-Divergent (C-D) geometry present in a ramjet is not present here. The ability to
shift from one mode to the other requires two things. Firstly, the control of shock-train
structure in the inlet so that a choice can be made between the normal shock train and
oblique shock train during ramjet (full diffusion) and scramjet (partial diffusion) modes

13
respectively. This is done by controlling the combustion backpressure and fuel flow rate by
the injectors. The second requirement, which occurs only during the ramjet operation mode,
is to choke the subsonic flow in the combustor “thermally” to make it supersonic again.
This requires high rates of combustion and energy release. It is further discussed in chapter
3. The mode transition is a complicate system level problem and requires special attention.

Fig. 2.4 Schematic of a fixed geometry dual-mode ramjet-scramjet [17]

2.4 State of the art

The concept of supersonic combustion ramjet attracted attention after the conventional
ramjet technology matured, about forty years ago. Early work was started by Ferri in
Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, Billig with Avery and Dugger [8] in John Hopkins
University, and Weber and MacKay [35] for NACA. Based on this foundation work, a
number of projects like Incremental Flight Test Vehicle (IFTV), Hypersonic Research
Engine, Aerothermodynamic Integration Model, Supersonic Combustion Ramjet Missile
(SCRAM), National AeroSpace Plane (NASP), started in the USA. Scramjet program in
Russia or former USSR, has been in progress since late 1950s. Flight tests were conducted
on Kholad, the Hypersonic Flying Laboratory. Curran [5] gives further review over last 40
years of efforts in the USA, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, Australia and other countries.
Most of the work was terminated in 1980s in favour of rocket propulsion, but interest in

14
scramjet has revived in last decade. Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion offers mission
effectiveness by reducing on-board propellant load in favor of payload and therefore
making it cost-effective. According to an estimate, the space launch cost can be reduced
form the present $25000 per kg to $2500 per kg [30]. Till date, extensive study and
experimentation at the laboratory level has been carried out through out the world. But
only a little progress could be made at flight test level. The fastest airbreathing engine-
powered airplane, the SR-71, can cruise just above Mach 3. History’s only hypersonic
plane, the Mach 6.7 X-15 of U.S. used rockets only [25]. Recently, NASA’s hypersonic
experimental vehicle X-43A had an accidental failure during the first attempted flight test.
Till date, very few full scale ground testing could be carried out, owing to various problems
(discussed in chapter 3). Under the Hyper-X program of NASA, wind tunnel tests of a high
fidelity models in Mach 6 and 10 tunnels have been carried out to obtain detailed
aerodynamic characteristics [14]. Actual flight engine has been tested in the high
temperature tunnel at full flight conditions to evaluate fueling techniques and to determine
engine performance for comparison with the flight data [14]. In order to keep pace with the
world, India has entered the field with getting initiated on projects on hypersonic reusable
launch vehicle (Avatar, DRDL), hypersonic transport vehicle (ABPP, ISRO) and small dual
mode ram-scram engine for missile propulsion. The preliminary design, database
development and development of test facilities is under progress. The rate of progress and
the amount of manpower involved certainly promises a bright future. Table 2.1 summarizes
the various programs going around in different countries.

15
 Table 2.1 Hypersonic program - world scenario [24].
country Program Application Status Remarks
X-30 (NASP) SSTO mission Postponed indefinitely Speed –Mach 25
Scramjet propulsion –
Hydrogen fuelled
Demonstrator for First flight test LOX-Kerosene Rocket
X-34 re-usable launch completed Development of TPS materials
USA vehicle
Global reach and Design under progress RBCC engine with skip
Hypersoar
strike mission trajectory
Hypersonic Wind tunnel testing Demonstration of
Hyper-X
experimental Test flight in 2001 Ramjet/Scramjet engine with
(X-43)
research vehicle hydrogen
Re-usable launch Under progress Variable cycle engine HYPR-
Japan HYPR project vehicle 90-T
Air turbo ram expander
Trans- Demonstrated Further work not known
atmospheric Hydrogen burning
- vehicle and scramjet model on top
military of rocket in 1991
Russia application
MARK (Multi- TSTO transport Design under progress Hybrid powerplant with
purpose airbreathing engine in Mach
aerospace range 0-20
system)
Technology Hydrogen Program initiated in 1998
Hypersonic
development Combustion
Technology
Intake tests up to
Program (HPT)
Mach 7
Germa
Hypersonic Flight testing to Inlet models tested at Flying laboratory or test beds
ny
Technology validate hypersonic speeds
Experimental hypersonic
demonstrator technology
(HYTEX)
FESTIP Space To develop hypersonic
(Future Transportation technologies
European Space
-
Transportation
France
Investigation
Program
Military -do-
PREPHA -
application
Low cost space Design under progress Airbreathing and rocket
UK Skylon
access propulsion

16
3. Issues in hypersonic airbreathing propulsion

Issues such as mission requirements, integration of inlet/isolator, combustor, nozzle,

airframe, fuel system specifications and cooling concepts are essential considerations in
design. Also, factors such as size, weight, and design complexity are as important
considerations as the performance characteristics. Some of these important design issues
are briefly investigated here. The various classes and general characteristics of
hypersonic airbreathing vehicle concepts are summarized in table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1: General Characteristics of hypersonic airbreathing vehicle concepts [32].
Flight Flow-path Flight
Mission Propulsion System Fuel Vehicle length (ft)
Mach geometry duration
Fixed, Overall: 5-15
Tactical Dual combustor ramjet Liq. HC, slurry,
6–8 passively 10-12 min. Combustor: 2-5
Missile and/or rocket solid HC
cooled Nozzle: 2-5
Trans- Dual mode Overall: 100-200
Variable Liq. H2,
atmos. 0 – 25 ramjet/scramjet +many 20-30 min. Combustor: 2-5
geometry Liq. O2
Missile low speed options Nozzle: 50-80
Variable, M 6-8: 1-3 Overall: 100-200
Hyper- 0–8 M 6-8: Turboramjets Mach 6-8: HC
actively hr. Combustor: 2-6
cruise 0 – 15 M 15: scramjet Mach 15: Liq. H2
cooled M 15: 1hr. Nozzle: 50-80

3.1 Combustor design

It can be noted in table 3.1 that the combustor length remains the same for all the classes
of vehicles. The wall-shear losses can drastically reduce scramjet engine performance.
Simply adding combustor length for better mixing/combustion efficiency is usually not
possible. This suggests that the supersonic combustion processes are inherently mixing-
limited [32]. In fact, the progress in realizing a scramjet powered hypersonic vehicle is
hindered mainly by the design of a combustor. Technical hurdles like fuel injection and
mixing without severe shocks, combustor cooling, wall friction losses, thermal choking,
and combustor gas dynamics poses a challenge. Appropriate matching of gas dynamics
and combustion is essential for production of useful thrust. Injection of suitable fuel in an
appropriate amount, in an appropriate fashion and into a conducive environment is to be
ensured for sustaining flame. Also a check is to be put on heavy losses in total pressure.
An assessment of mixing, chemical kinetics, heat liberation and pressure losses is to be
incorporated in the gas dynamic analysis of the combustor.

17
3.2 Fuel/Cooling

Hydrocarbon is preferred for ramjet and hydrogen is preferred for scramjet operation.
However, possibility of JP based fuel for Mach 6-8 operation is being extensively looked
into [32]. The idea of ‘thermal choking’ being inherent to a fixed geometry ramjet-
scramjet design demands high rate of combustion and endothermicity of the fuel, which
the kerosene based fuel is yet to demonstrate at supersonic combustion speeds.
A strong coupling between the fuel endothermicity, combustor characteristics and
cooling requirements has been identified. The vehicle structure can be used as a heat
exchanger to crack the hydrocarbon fuel, thereby shedding its heat content. The
composition of cracked fuel products depends strongly on the time-temperature history of
the vehicle. The hydrocarbon fuel remains near its thermodynamic critical point within
the heat exchanger. So small changes in temperature and pressure may lead to large
variations in density, viscosity, ratio of specific heats etc. and may result in instability
and catastrophic failure. The precise control of thermal cracking process is thus essential
to the process is essential to the production of desired fuel constituents at the burner entry
through out the flight trajectory [32].

3.3 Injection/Mixing

The shear/mixing layer theory is widely employed to understand the physics of fuel-air
mixing and combustion. The total pressure loss created by the injector and the injection
and mixing processes is of great concern because of its effect on the engine thrust. The
injector must produce rapid mixing and combustion of fuel with air. The injector
distribution in the engine should also result in a uniform combustor profile. Up to Mach
10, the fuel may have a normal injection into the flow but at higher Mach numbers, the
injection must be nearly axial since the fuel injection provides a significant portion of the
engine thrust [32]. Several phenomena result in the reduction of mixing with increasing
flow velocity, including velocity differential between fuel and air, compressibility and
occurrence of exothermic chemical reaction. On the other hand, mixing is augmented by
the shocks emanating from the struts and walls. Several options available for injector

18
design include transverse injection from combustor walls (intrusive or otherwise) and in-
stream injection from struts [13, 32]. Intrusive injection devices can provide good fuel
dispersal but they require active cooling of the injector structure. Transverse injectors
offer relatively rapid near-field mixing and good fuel penetration. In-stream injection
results in slower mixing but has advantage of adding to the thrust component of the
engine. Injection from ramps has also proven to be effective means of injection-cum-
flame holding in scramjets. Novel configurations like pulsed injection and cavity injector-
flame holders are also under study [32].
Energetic fuel injection [7]
At high altitude, for expansion ratios of order 1000, greater level of frozen atomic species
can be expected. The thrust being very sensitive to the exit velocity is highly dependent
on factors such as friction, mixing, profile and wave drag which reduce the exit velocity.
Builder and Czysz [4, 7] have given the concept of “energetic fuel injection” where the
idea is to use the fuel as an active fluid through controlled injection and mixing, thereby
using the momentum contributed by the injected fuel to add to the nozzle thrust and
absorb the frozen energy of the dissociated gas through molecular collision.

3.4 Shockwave - boundary layer Interaction

The inlet and isolator part of the vehicle consists of shock structure used to compress the
captured air stream. For the requirement of minimum total pressure loss, it is required to
obtain this compression through sufficiently weak oblique shock reflections. An inviscid
shock reflection and intersection phenomenon is relatively simple and is described in
section 4.9. However, when the shock wave interacts with the boundary layer along the
wall, the flow becomes highly complicated. In such a case, the shock no longer remains
to be a sharp discontinuity; instead the pressure recovery takes place rather continuously
over a length as large as 8-10 times the tube diameter [17]. Also, this region of shock
compression may involve several curved or oblique shocks with bifurcated ends [17].
The interaction of boundary layer with normal shock, for different Mach numbers is
shown in the figure 3.1.

19
 Fig. 3.1: Schematic sketch of normal shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction in a
constant area duct [17].

This phenomenon becomes important for the inlet design as the total pressure recovery
and the recovery length become increasingly dependent on the Mach number, Reynold’s
number and boundary-layer parameter [21]. There is no clear-cut theory available that
captures the above phenomenon analytically, however, many experimental and numerical
results are available in the open literature.

3.5 Optimum inlet diffusion

In a Ramjet engine, the inlet air is fully diffused to subsonic velocities while in Scramjet
engine it is only partially compressed and remains supersonic. This is primarily because
the static pressure after compression is constrained on the higher end by structural
limitations (10 atmosphere approx.) and on the lower end by the combustion stability
requirements [13]. In that sense, partial diffusion and thus supersonic combustion is an
effect of the diffusion limits and not the cause of it.
As a conventional practice, represented by all known aircrafts, is to design for maximum
inlet diffusion. At hypersonic speeds, maximum diffusion produces a greater entropy rise
than a lesser compression. So a question pertinent to selection of engine from this family
is the optimum amount of compression for the Brayton cycle [4, 7]. The cycle that
maximizes jet thrust for a given heat-energy input is the one that minimizes the overall
entropy rise. Higher compression ratio in Brayton cycle results in minimized entropy rise
during the heat addition but also results in increased entropy rise in the compression and

20
expansion. Thus the optimum compression ratio occurs when the above two exactly
offset each other and the overall cycle efficiency is maximized.

3.6 Struts

Struts are flow dividers used in inlets and combustor region of the ramjet-scramjet
engine designs. Most significant need of struts in the design arises from the fact that the
results of ground-based combustion experiments carried out on small test beds are not
scalable to large engine sizes. The two adjacent strut walls form a self-contained
combustor unit with possible housing of injector in the struts itself [27]. Also, the inlet
design is enhanced by the use of struts that channel the flow into separate smaller flow
paths thereby diffusing the flow in shortest possible inlet length. Struts also provide an
efficient mixing and combustion environment. In inlet and isolator, the struts also serve
as supporting structure. This results in elimination of panels and other supporting
structure leading to significant weight reduction [27]. Other uses of struts appear in
ducted rocket operation where small ‘strut rockets’ embedded in each strut provide the
motive force when required.
The number of struts to be used is an optimization issue as it increases the overall engine
drag and heat-load on the cooling system.

3.7 Variable geometry vs. fixed geometry

Even though the variable geometry intake offers advantages in terms of performance at
off-design conditions, it is avoided due to practical constraints of weight and
containment. Especially for reusable vehicles, it is difficult to ensure integrity of the
variable geometry mechanisms during repeated cycles. For nozzle, however, variable
geometry seems to become inevitable owing to small margin of thrust available over drag
under off-design conditions.

3.8 Ground testing

Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion has been studied throughout the world for nearly 60
years. Numerous ground tests have been performed and tremendous improvement in

21
understanding has taken place. Simulation for Mach number, altitude (T∞, P∞, ρ∞),
Reynold’s number and full running time has been made possible. Existing aerothermal
testing and aeropropulsion system testing facilities are capable of studying aerodynamic
stability and control, flow path performance including inlet, isolator and simulated
combustor performance, heat transfer, net thrust, net lift and moments and mass capture.
However, scramjet ground testing has its challenges and limitations. For example, facility
size generally limits the experimental scale, resulting in subscale or partial simulation of
the flow path. Also, scaled testing does not properly captures the combustion related
phenomena, the boundary layer formation and fuel mixing characteristics. Studies
performed at NASA indicate that at least a 3-4 meter vehicle could be a ‘smart-scale’ for
a 65-meter vehicle concept while demonstrating scramjet propulsion [25]. Typically, a
test section of 1m diameter for engine testing and 3m diameter for vehicle testing is
required. This amounts to setting up mass-flow rates of up to 150 kg/s for 180 seconds
and a storage capacity of 50 tons. [24].

Fig. 3.2: Scramjet test facilities in the United States [ 24]

22
3.9 Performance enhancement

During certain critical parts of its mission, a hypersonic vehicle needs to meet stringent
requirements of aerodynamic efficiency or L/D ratio. This calls for an instantaneous
performance boost through lift enhancement and drag reduction. This can potentially be
accomplished by incorporating external burning [33]. It is known that external heat
addition to one side of the airfoil would offer both drag reduction as well as lift
enhancement. It is also known to offer some additional benefit in the form of external
pressure thrust. This concept tends to increase the specific impulse and therefore fuel
efficiency [33]. The vehicles incorporating this concept are popularly known as “flame
riders”.
Scramjet performance (especially specific thrust at supersonic and low hypersonic Mach
numbers) can also be improved by injection of evaporative coolants into the intake or the
airflow upstream [33]. This concept has, for long, been used successfully in aircraft
intakes.

3.10 Flight speed

Some initial studies claimed speeds of the order of Mach 25 and beyond for the
hydrogen-fueled systems and Mach 14-16 for hydrocarbon-fueled systems. Subsequent
studies in 1960s and 1970s revised these estimates to Mach 15-20 and Mach 12-14
respectively. Most of these early estimates were crude did not incorporated the detailed
operation and performance models of the scramjets. Also, these studies were not
configuration specific. Waltrup, in his recent studies, incorporated the performance
model and the variation in chemistry inside the combustion chamber [34]. The reasonable
upper bounds on the flight Mach number would appear to be between Mach 9 and 10 for
hydrocarbon fueled, axi-symmetric missile shaped vehicle. The precise values are highly
dependent on the configuration. The upper bound is highly sensitive to the ratio of area of
nozzle and diffuser exit as well as combustor area. For hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, it is
found to be highly insensitive to the type of hydrocarbon used [34].

23
4. Theoretical background

4.1 Generalized one-dimensional flow

The various driving potentials for an internal flow through a duct are area variation, wall
friction, heat transfer, mechanical work, mass addition, body forces, drag of entrained
particles and chemical reaction. Analytical and numerical methods are available for
solution of simple flows with perfect gas assumption and otherwise. In addition to simple
flows, there are complex flows (generalized flows), in which two or more driving
potential act simultaneously. Because of the complexity arising due to the simultaneous
action of potentials, the governing differential equations for complex flows are, in most
cases, solved by applying numerical scheme. In absence of rotating/moving parts, ramjets
and scramjet engines use an aerothermodynamic duct to impart compression or expansion
to the flow. The flow in the propulsive unit can thus be seen as a generalized flow with
varying area duct with mass addition, heat addition and wall friction. Therefore schemes
such as ‘method of influence coefficients’ can be used for numerical implementation.
Fig. 4.1 presents a physical model for generalized steady one-dimensional flow. The
various independents driving potentials for the flow are:
1. Area change, dA
2. Wall friction, δFf
3. Heat transfer, δQ
4. Work, δW
5. Drag and other body forces, δD
.
6. Mass addition, d m .

24
 Fig. 4.1: Physical model for generalized steady one-dimensional flow [36].

Applying basic conservation laws:

Continuity equation:

.
dm dρ dA dV
= + +
.
ρ A V
m
Momentum Equation:
.
ρV 2 ⎛ 4C f dx ⎞ δD dm
dp + ρVdV + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + + ρV 2 (1 - y) . = 0
2 ⎝ DH ⎠ A m
where DH = hydraulic diameter, Cf = Coeff. of friction, y=(Vix/V).

Energy Equation:

.
⎛ V 2 ⎞ ⎡⎛ V2 ⎞ ⎛ V 2 ⎞⎤ d m
δ W − δQ + dh + d⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎢⎜⎜ h + ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ hi + i ⎟⎟⎥ . = 0
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎢⎣⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎥⎦ m

25
Making assumption of perfect gas (h = Cp; Cp = constant) and assuming equation of state
p=ρRT, the equations take the final form as:

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ dp⎤ ⎡ . .
⎤
⎢ 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ p ⎥ ⎢dm m−dA A ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ 1 0 (γM ) 2
2
0 γM2 0 0 0
⎥ ⎢ dρ⎥ ⎢
⎥⎢ρ ⎥ ⎢
K +L ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 −1 −1 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ dt ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ t ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢dV⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 12 −1 1 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢V ⎥ =⎢ ⎥
⎢ (γ −1) M 2 ⎥ ⎢dM⎥ ⎢ dT ⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ T ⎥
⎢ ψ ⎥ ⎢M ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ γM 2 ⎥ ⎢dP⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 −1 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ψ ⎥⎢P ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2γM 2 ⎥ ⎢ dF⎥ ⎢ dA ⎥
⎢ −1 0 0 0 −
1+ γM 2
0 1 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ A ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ F ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ (γ −1) γ 0 −1 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥ ⎢ ds⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Cp ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

Where P, T, A and V denote total pressure, total temperature, area and velocity. Also,
.
γ −1 2 γM ⎡⎛ 4C f dx ⎞ 2(δ D) ⎤
2
L = −γM2 (1 − y )
dm
ψ = 1+ M K=− ⎢⎜ ⎟+ ⎥
2 ⎣⎜⎝ DH ⎟⎠ γM2 pA ⎦
.
2 m

The incremental change in flow properties at a particular state can thus be obtained by
inverting the above matrix and giving the values of all flow potentials. It should be noted
that the above matrix is non-invertible at sonic point [36].

Formulation for transition through the sonic point

At M=1, and the analytical expression for dM2/M2 takes 0/0 form and the determinant of
the matrix above becomes zero. To deal with this, L’Hospital’s rule may be applied at
limit of M tending to unity. In general, starting with [36],

⎧ .⎫
dM2 ψ ⎪ dA 2 dT 2 ⎡ 4C f dx ⎤ ⎡ 2 2 ⎤ dm ⎪
= ⎨− 2 + (1 + γM ) + γM ⎢ + dC d ⎥ + 2(1 + γM ) − 2yγ M
⎢ ⎥⎦ . ⎬
M2 (1 − M2 ) ⎪ A T ⎣ DH ⎦ ⎣ ⎪
⎩ m ⎭

26
where,
2δ D
dC d =
γM2pA

Writing the derivative in terms of x yields:

dM 2 G(x)
=
dx 1 − M2
where,
⎧ ⎡ 4C dC d ⎤
.
⎫
⎪ d(lnA)
G(x) = M2ψ⎨− 2 + (1 + γM2 )
d(lnT)
+ γM2 ⎢ f + ⎥ + 2(1 + γM [
2
) − 2yγ M 2 d(ln m) ⎪
⎬]
⎪⎩ dx dx ⎣ DH dx ⎦ dx ⎪
⎭

Applying L’Hospital’s rule as M approaches unity yields:

* 2
⎛ dM2 ⎞ * ⎛ * ⎞
⎜ ⎟ =−φ ± ⎜φ ⎟ − σ*
⎜ dx ⎟ 2 ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
where,

⎧ ⎡ . ⎤⎫
(γ + 1) ⎪ ⎡ d(lnT) ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ 4C f dC d ⎞ ⎤ ⎢ d(ln m) ⎪
*
φ = ⎨⎢γ ⎥ + ⎢ γ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ ⎥ + ⎢ (2γ − 2γγ )⎥⎥ ⎬ +
2 ⎪⎣ dx ⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎝ DH dx ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢ dx ⎥⎪
⎩ ⎣ ⎦⎭
⎧ . ⎫
⎪ d(lnA ) ⎡ 4C f dC d ⎤ d(ln m) ⎪
⎥ + [2(γ + 1) − 2yγ ]
d(lnT)
γ ⎨− 2 + (γ + 1) + γ⎢ + ⎬
⎪ dx dx ⎣ DH dx ⎦ dx ⎪
⎩ ⎭
and,
⎧ ⎛C ⎞ ⎫
⎪ d⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ . ⎛ . ⎞⎪
d (ln T) ⎜ ⎟
2 2 2 2
γ + 1 ⎪ d (lnA) ⎝ DH ⎠ ( dy d(lnm) ⎪
+ 2 + 2γ − 2yγ)
d Cd d (lnm)
σ* = ⎨− 2 + (γ + 1) +γ + 4γ − 2γ ⎜ ⎟⎬
2 ⎪ dx2 dx2 dx2 dx dx2 dx ⎜ dx ⎟⎪
⎜ ⎟
⎪ ⎝ ⎠⎪
⎩ ⎭
The increment dM may thus be obtained near the sonic point.

4.2 Combustion pressure loss

Total pressure in combustor of a scramjet is lost due to turbulence and shocks due to
injector geometry, angle of injection, friction, change in Mach number, which is in turn
caused by mass addition, heat addition and area variation. Other than the adiabatic and
Rayleigh loss, part of the total pressure loss is also due to friction and turbulence in

27
boundary layer. It is taken into account by introducing viscous head term in energy
equation. Pressure loss, is given by,
x V2
dPt = − ρ ⋅ f
D 2
where f is the friction factor, given by

1 ⎛ e/ D 2.51 ⎞
= −2 ⋅ log⎜ + ⎟ , when 3000 < Re < 108
⎜ 3.7 Re f ⎟
f ⎝ ⎠
e is the absolute roughness of duct surface,
D is characteristic dimension and
Re is Reynolds number.
For practical assessment of pressure loss due to injection at a particular angle by a given
geometry, data given in literature [9] was used. Estimation of total pressure drop in
ramjet combustor zone is possible by the method given by Pinkel [23]. The chart given
by Pinkel is useful to calculate the pressure loss due to friction and combustion, upto
combustion chamber Mach number of about 0.35.

4.3 Shock reflection and intersection phenomena

The reflections of waves occur because the flow has to conform to the boundary
conditions. An oblique shock (or expansion fan) occurs when the supersonic flow is
turned into itself (or away from itself). An oblique shock (or expansion fan) turns the
flow towards (or away from) the wave. At a given Mach number, there is a maximum
wedge angle through which the flow can be turned by means of an attached oblique
shock wave. Beyond this maximum turning angle, the flow experiences Mach reflections.
The above rules give a unique shock structure for a given geometry and boundary
conditions as can be seen in the figures.

28
 Fig. 4.4: Mach reflections
Fig. 4.2: Reflections at wall

Fig. 4.5: Neutralization of incident shock

Fig. 4.3: Reflection form free pressure boundary

Intersection of two incident shocks result in formation of two transmitted oblique shocks
and a slip line separating two flow domains downstream (fig. 4.6). The transmitted
shocks adjust themselves so that the static pressure and flow direction on both sides of
slip line is same (so that the mechanical equilibrium is maintained). In some cases, there
is no solution for transmitted oblique shocks that satisfy all the flow conditions. In such
case, a normal shock develops at the intersection. This is known as mach intersection
(fig. 4.7)

Fig. 4.6: Mach intersection Fig. 4.7: Regular intersection

29
5. One-dimensional design methodology

In the currant work, design based on properties predicted by one-dimensional models is

attempted. One-dimensional methods are capable of suggesting the properties on a
section as a whole. This means that the variation in properties over a particular section is
suppressed in these models, and in most cases, the predicted properties are to be treated
as the average over the section. One-dimensional models are known to have limited
accuracy. They are popular and extensively used because they give useful insight into the
phenomena while being easily to implement. Thus they are useful for the purpose of
preliminary design.

5.1 Preliminary design methodology

The preliminary design steps have been devised. The first step is to lay down the
thermodynamic cycle of the propulsion unit. This can be summarized as follows:
i. Pressure Ratio Factor has been applied to arrive at P03.
ii. T03/T01 has been assumed as per expected thermodynamic cycle configuration.
iii. Compression efficiency, ηc has been assumed.
iv. Between station 1 (inlet face) and station 3 (combustor entry), above assumptions
have been applied without any further gasdynamic analysis.
v. Combustor length is decided by cold-mixing criteria.
vi. Combustor exit conditions are decided by energy requirements for thrust
production.
vii. Combustor geometry and combustion products (including heat release model) are
studied using equilibrium chemistry model.
viii. Combustor area ratio and air/fuel ratio (equivalence ratio) are being optimized
meeting T04 and M4, which would meet the thrust requirements.
ix. Nozzle gasdynamic analysis is being carried out on the basis of full expansion
assumption to meet the exit velocity requirement (for the required thrust). This is
then used to obtain an estimate of the required nozzle area ratio.

30
5.2 One-dimensional analysis of combustor gas flow path

In designing the combustor of a dual mode, air-breathing power plant following factors
are to be decided.
1. Area variation along x
2. Heat release rate along x
These parameters govern the flow in a complex manner which is captured by first order
governing equation given by Heiser and Pratt [13].
⎛ γ −1 2 ⎞
⎜1+ M ⎟⎧
⎪ ⎛ 1 dA ⎞ 1 + γ M ⎛ 1 dTt ⎞⎫⎪
2
dM ⋅
=m⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎨− ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎬
dx ⎜ 1 − M 2 ⎟⎪⎩ ⎝ A dx ⎠ 2 ⎝ t
T dx ⎠⎪⎭
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

⎡ ⎛ γ −1⎞ 2 ⎤
⎢ 1+ ⎜ ⎟M 2 ⎥
T ( x) = T2
Tt ( x) ⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥
Tt 2 ( x) ⎢ ⎛ γ − 1 ⎞ 2 ⎥
⎢1 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ M ( x) ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦⎥
A2 M 2 T ( x)
p ( x) = p2
Ac ( x) M ( x) T2
γ
p ( x) ⎡ T2 Tt ( x) ⎤ γ −1
Pt ( x) = Pt 2 ⎢ ⎥
p2 ⎣ T ( x) Tt 2 ⎦

M ( x) T ( x)
u ( x) = u 2
M2 T2

here, the subscript `t’ signifies total quantities, ‘2’ signifies station number at the entry to
the combustor and ‘x’ is the axial direction.
Since the rate of change of Mach number is decided by rate of change of area and rate of
change of heat content, we can achieve an appropriate geometry by varying these two
parameters. The geometry should be capable of operating in both ramjet and scramjet
modes. There cannot be a physical throat in the combustor, as that geometry will not
operate in scramjet mode. So the combustor is entirely a diverging duct. The divergence

31
should be such that flow chokes thermally towards the end of combustion in ramjet
mode.
So by choosing different A(x) and Tt(x) we can obtain a number of geometry that suit to
all operating conditions. These geometries can later be compared for best performance.
The equations above can be used to obtained the static temperature, pressure and velocity
profiles in the combustor.
This differential equation can be solved using the Runge-Kutta method. A computer
program is written in FORTRAN. It requires conditions at inlet of combustor (x=0) as
boundary conditions. Geometry (A(x)) and heat released (Tt(x)) also need to be supplied.
The value of Cp and γ also changes with progress of combustion and this should also be
considered. Pressure lost due to friction, heat addition and momentum change is
calculated in the code, however a correction factor (discussed in section 4.8), which fills
the gap between theoretical and actual pressure loss, needs to be applied. The procedure
is outlined in figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Gas flow path analysis of scramjet combustor

32
5.3 Numerical implementation

The program developed, achieves the solution of complex flow by marching along the
flow direction. The conditions at the entry of the duct are given as input. The
distributions of the abovementioned driving potentials are also given as input. Flow
variables such as pressure, temperature, Mach number and entropy are obtainable as
output. The composition of fluid, here, is assumed to be constant throughout. The
formulation of equation assumes the specific heat, Cp to be constant at any point. Its
value, however, changes from point to point with the change in static temperature.
The program MAIN handles the inputs and outputs to the various subroutines. The
subroutine POTENTIAL calculates the values of flow potentials from the inputs and the
flow properties at a particular point. The value of Cp for different static temperature
values have to be supplied in a separate file. Subroutine POTENTIAL also calls
subroutine INTERPOL that is a general-purpose subroutine to give linearly interpolated
value between two known values. Subroutine SOLVER then calculates the influence
coefficients and gives the values of increments in the flow properties. The program, in its
present state fails near the singularity (i.e. Mach No. approaching unity). Modifications
are underway so that the program shifts to subroutine SING for the solution near the
singularity.

Fig. 5.2: Structure of the program

33
Extensive validation of the program has been carried out using simple flow situations like
isentropic flow, Rayleigh flow, Fanno flow etc. In general, the results obtained have an
excellent matching with the ideal values. A detailed user manual for the program is
prepared separately.
Limitations
a. MIC is limited to shock-less domains, so that the program, in its present form, is
useful for the analysis of the sections free of shock structure. Thus the solution
obtained from the program corresponds to those of an adapted, shock free duct.
b. MIC has an inherent singularity at Mach number of unity. A general derivation
based on L’Hospital’s rule is done for dealing with the singularity at the sonic
point. However, the program stops at the point of choking and has to be manually
started again.
c. The program helps to arrive at a design only by recursive manual runs.

34
6. Analysis

6.1 Available information

Flight envelope and mission requirements

The flight envelope of the proposed vehicle is given briefly in table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Flight envelope details

Total range 1500 km (approx.)
Launching Mach number 3.5
Launching altitude 13 km
Total mass at launch 2500 kg (approx)
Empty mass 1500 kg
Cruise Mach number 7
Cruise altitude 35 km

Fig. 6.1: Range vs. altitude Fig. 6.2: Mach number vs. altitude

The mission requirements in terms of thrust profile and estimated drag profile is given in
table 6.2.

35
 Table 6.2: Mission input data for HRV
Altitude Pressure Mach Air kg Drag Thrust
13045 18082 3.511 108.59 52186.71 93991.83
15573 11853 4.002 89.01 41420.35 76635.48
19670 5855 4.501 56.67 24358.48 46284.52
21815 4098 5.003 48.69 19270.91 37583.26
23193 3280 5.5 48.75 17566.5 35132.4
24996 2475 6.001 42.77 14951.81 28555.49
27903 1556 6.501 33.39 11235.51 20446.26
35000 583 7.0 18.37 9908.159 10045

Fig. 6.3: Angle of attack profile Fig. 6.4: Vehicle drag profile

Reference geometry
The reference external geometry has been supplied as an input. Even though it is
tentative, it helps to visualize the airframe-propulsion system integration and gives an
idea of the overall size. The vehicle lift and drag estimates have been made using this
reference geometry.

36
 Fig. 6.5: HRV configuration

6.2 Data verification

It is required to understand the input data provided (table 6.2) in terms of engineering
parameters like SFC, Isp and efficiencies. This is necessary for understanding the
performance requirements to meet the mission.
The two forebody wedge angles are fixed at 4o and 14o. Therefore, for the above
configuration, there will be two oblique shock waves emanating from the forebody,
separating the free-stream conditions from the inlet face conditions. Using the above
information and the following,

Vexit = Vintake face + Specific thrust

Specific thrust = (thrust)/(mass flow rate), taking constant fuel-air ratio of 1/15,

37
 SFC = (fuel-air ratio)/(Specific thrust)

Isp = 1/(g*SFC)

Overall efficiency = Vfreestream/(spec. thrust * SFC)

we obtain, the mission data in terms of engineering parameters as given in table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Mission data in terms of engineering parameters (computed)

Overall
Altitude Mach Inlet Mach V exit Spec. thrust SFC Isp eff.
13045 3.511 2.79 1906.5 865.6 7.702E-05 1324.907 0.306
15573 4.002 3.15 2002.4 861.0 7.743E-05 1317.821 0.334
19670 4.501 3.5 2118.5 816.7 8.163E-05 1250.109 0.361
21815 5.003 3.7 2235.9 771.9 8.637E-05 1181.462 0.384
23193 5.5 3.99 2355.1 720.7 9.251E-05 1103.058 0.400
24996 6.001 4.26 2456.5 667.7 9.984E-05 1022.036 0.405
27903 6.501 4.46 2577.2 612.3 1.089E-04 937.2655 0.408
35000 7 4.24 2782.6 546.7 1.220E-04 836.7347 0.415

For the above mission data, the variation of parameters with respect to altitude and Mach
number is found to be gradual. This is in contrast to an earlier mission data (not reported),
which showed fluctuations in terms of the specific thrust and SFC requirements. Such an
analysis, therefore, helps to fine-tune the mission data. For further analysis, the altitude of
35 km and Mach number 7 (which is the cruise point of the vehicle) has been taken as the
design point.

6.3 Cycle analysis

The thermodynamic cycle analysis is carried out as an attempt to fix the coordinates of
the Brayton cycle of the engine at the ends of the compression, combustion and
expansion legs. This is, however, not a complete cycle construction as the intermediate
points on the thermodynamic path are unknown in absence of a complete aero-thermal
map. It becomes necessary to rely on representative numbers in order to move further.
These are given in table 6.4.

38
 Table 6.4: Representative values of parameters for cycle analysis
Specific heat of air in free-stream, Cpo 1004.5
Specific heat of air in compression, Cpc 1090.0
Specific heat of air in burner, Cpb 1510.0
Specific heat of air in expansion, Cpe 1510.0
Temperature ratio across compression, T3/To, ψ 7.0
Compression efficiency, ηc 0.9
Burner efficieny, ηb 0.92
Expansion efficiency, ηe 0.95

Note that the value of temperature ratio across the compression leg, ψ, is a strong
parameter and is changed again and again to arrive at optimal quantities over the cycle.
From the basic gasdynamic equation, we have:

ψ − Tx
To
ηe =
ψ −1
where,
Tx
= ψ (1 − η c ) + η c
To
and Tx is the temperature resulting from isentropic compression.
Therefore,
C pc R
p3 To
= ψ
Po Tx
For the combustion part, from conservation of energy,
h 4 − h 3 = C pb (T4 − T3 )
where h is the enthalpy.
Now, similar to Tx, we define Ty which is the temperature attained after isentropic
expansion (of expansion efficiency =1.0). So that,
T10 Ty
= 1 − η e (1 − )
T4 T4
T4 and T10 being the combustor exit and exhaust temperatures respectively.
This leads to a cycle efficiency expression:
C pr ⎧⎪⎛ C po To C po ⎞ To C po To ⎫⎪
η tc = 1 − ⎨⎜⎜ ψ . + ⎟ −
⎟ T4 (h 4 − h 3 ) ⎬⎪
C po ⎪⎝ (h 4 − h 3 ) C pb ⎠
⎩ ⎭
Implementing the above, for the data given, we obtain, the cycle analysis result given in
figure 6.6 and table 6.5.

39
 7000

M=3.5
6000
M=5.5
M=7
5000
Temperature (K)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000

Entropy (J/K)

Fig. 6.6: Brayton cycle constructed from preliminary analysis

Table 6.5: Cycle analysis results

Altitude Mach Pfree-stream Tx/To p3/po T4/T3 Ty/T4 T10/T4 cycle eff.
13050 3.51 17973.95 1.38 110.95 2.735 0.456 0.4833 0.4898
15570 4 11923.26 1.41 128.63 2.783 0.445 0.4728 0.5008
19670 4.5 5965.67 1.39 116.72 2.766 0.452 0.4797 0.4946
21820 5 4210.34 1.39 116.72 2.751 0.452 0.4797 0.4936
23190 5.5 3380.15 1.36 99.83 2.660 0.464 0.4910 0.4787
25000 6 2548.2 1.38 110.95 2.688 0.456 0.4833 0.4863
27900 6.5 1633.78 1.42 134.77 2.823 0.441 0.4695 0.5059
35000 7 581.95 1.4 122.61 2.774 0.448 0.4762 0.4977

6.4 Component analysis: inlet

The inlet has a dual purpose of catering to the required mass flow and provide some
initial compression through the shock structure. The nature of the shock structure
depends highly on the installation of the inlet with respect to the airframe, because the
free-stream flow passes through two oblique shocks (emanating from the forebody) to
reach the inlet face. Interestingly, as shown in figure 6.7, irrespective of the angle of
attack of the vehicle, the flow at the inlet face is aligned to the vehicle under-surface

40
when it enters the inlet. The sizing of the inlet is done so that it is capable of catering to
the mass-flow requirements.

Fig. 6.7: Flow from free-stream to the inlet face.

Inlet shock structure

To estimate properties across the inlet, it is necessary to estimate the shock reflections
inside the inlet. The shock structures in the inlet for various operating conditions are
given in figure 6.8. The results are summarized in table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Summary of the inlet shock structure estimate

freestream mach inlet entry mach hot_x hot_y pressure ratio density ratio vel. ratio Downstr. Mach
3.5 2.73 284.99 193 2.567 1.915 0.878 2.071
383.62 100.125 2.184 1.723 0.83 1.526
4 3.1 319.32 193 2.833 2.038 0.893 2.347
423.032 110.411 2.327 1.797 0.856 1.765
487.377 193 2.094 1.676 0.774 1.222
4.5 3.43 345.709 193 3.095 2.152 0.902 2.58
450.825 117.665 2.468 1.867 0.871 1.953
523.593 193 2.136 1.698 0.814 1.417
5 3.63 360.1 193 3.264 2.222 0.907 2.715
465.241 121.428 2.557 1.91 0.878 2.059
540.623 193 2.179 1.721 0.828 1.516
5.5 3.92 379.117 193 3.523 2.325 0.912 2.905
483.591 126.217 2.689 1.972 0.886 2.203
561.043 193 2.249 1.757 0.844 1.643
585.369 152.781 2.139 1.7 0.722 1.057
6 4.17 393.958 193 3.76 2.414 0.916 3.062
497.404 129.823 2.804 2.025 0.891 2.319
575.607 193 2.311 1.789 0.854 1.741
602.473 157.246 2.094 1.676 0.767 1.195
6.5 4.36 404.379 193 3.948 2.482 0.919 3.177
506.859 132.29 2.892 2.064 0.895 2.402
7 4.15 393.958 193 3.76 2.414 0.916 3.062
497.404 129.823 2.804 2.025 0.891 2.319
575.607 193 2.311 1.789 0.854 1.741
602.473 157.246 2.094 1.676 0.767 1.195

41
 Oblique Shock Reflection Structure in the Inlet Oblique Shock Reflection Structure in the Inlet
Freestream Mach=3.5 & Inlet entry Mach=2.73 Freestream Mach=4.5 & Inlet entry Mach=3.43

250 250
Mach no. at downstream of the shock structure=1.52 Mach no. at downstream of the shock structure=1.41
200 200

150 150
y (mm)

y (mm)
100
100

50
50

0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
x (mm)
x (mm)

Oblique Shock Reflection Structure in the Inlet Oblique Sho ck Reflectio n Structure in the Inlet
Freestream Mach=7.0 & Inlet entry Mach=4.15 Freestream M ach=5.5 & Inlet entry M ach=3.92

250
250
Mach no. at downstream of the shock structure=1.74
M ach no . at do wnstream o f the sho ck structure=1.64
200
200

150
y (mm)

150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
x (mm) x (mm)

Fig. 6.8: Inlet shock structure for various operating conditions

Inlet boundary layer estimate

Making use of the seventh root profile [20], the inlet boundary layer displacement
thickness is estimated. Therefore, a correction to the required inlet area is obtained as
given in fig 6.9.

42
 Fig. 6.9: Result of the inlet boundary layer estimate at the inlet face

6.5 Component analysis: isolator

The isolator contains the shock structure that gets “smeared” due to its interaction with
the boundary layer. Thus the isolator can be seen as an “elongated throat” to
accommodate the terminal normal shock train, across which the flow turns subsonic from
supersonic in the ramjet mode. Thus, the design of isolator is essentially based on ramjet
mode requirements. In scramjet mode, where the diffusion is partial as compared to
ramjet mode, the isolator space is utilized for fuel injection and mixing.

43
Fig. 6.10: Duct L/H vs. entry Mach no. for different boundary layer thickness cases
 1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8 1
[p/pi] / [p(st)/pi]

0.75

0.7

0.65 12

0.6
Realativised Pressure Distribution through Normal
0.55 Shock Train in Rectangular Section Constant Area
Duct
0.5
Isolator Enrty Mach = 1.25 to 4.0 at steps of 0.25
0.45 (curve 1 and 12 correspond to Mach 1.25 and 4.0 respectively)

0.4 Curve is independent of (theta/H) and Reynold's no. value

0.35
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

[x/H] / [L/H]
Fig. 6.11: Pressure distribution in duct containing shock train

From the extensive experimental work by Billig et. al. reported in [17], it is known that
the pressure distribution characteristics in a rectangular constant area duct, with
accommodated shock train, follows the characteristics given by fig. 6.11. Therefore using
fig. 6.10 and 6.11, depending upon the required static pressure rise and the isolator entry
Mach number, L/H for the isolator can be selected.

6.6 Component analysis: combustor

The dual mode power plant of a hypersonic airbreathing vehicle can operate in either
ramjet or scramjet mode. The first step towards designing the power plant would be to
estimate cycle parameters i.e. the temperature ratio and the pressure ratio of the power
plant. For the present exercise, data from flight conditions of the mission (table 6.2) is
taken. After cycle analysis, the data can be used for further analyses of combustor. These
are discussed in subsequent articles here.

44
Calculating cycle parameters
For the thermodynamic cycle to give useful work, incoming air from free-stream should
be compressed to raise the static temperature above fuel auto-ignition temperature. This
compression also increases the cycle pressure ratio, and higher cycle pressure ratio
implies high work output. But this compression is accompanied with pressure loss which
is proportional to the pressure ratio. So there exists an optimum pressure ratio that gives
maximum work from cycle. Heiser and Pratt [13] have given relations between static
temperature ratio ψ and pressure recovery factor for typical dual mode combustor. A
reasonable set of values was obtained by choosing different Mach numbers in the
combustor. The process is outlined in figure 6.12. Initially, using Tatm from table 6.2, and
using appropriate values of compression efficiency (ηc = 0.85) and static temperature
ratio (ψ), the pressure recovery factor (PRF) is calculated. Then the co-ordinates at
combustor inlet were calculated. The procedure was repeated if any of the parameters
was inappropriate.

Figure 6.12: Fixing conditions at combustor inlet

During the exercise, it was observed that above Mach 5 it is possible to achieve sufficient
compression without going through a normal shock. The parameters obtained at
combustor inlet (station 3) are given in table 6.7. Here it should be noted that the station 3
is physically different for ramjet and scramjet modes. The ramjet mode combustor is
downstream compared to the scramjet mode combustor.

45
 Table 6.7: Conditions at combustor inlet
P03 T03 T3 P3
M3 PRF ψ
(kPa) (K) (K) (kPa)
0.40 0.39 2.90 546.3 578 560.3 489.3
0.44 0.32 3.50 577.4 613 590.5 505.5
0.49 0.27 4.17 449.6 718 685.4 381.5
1.35 0.30 3.80 641.9 901 660.6 216.3
1.50 0.27 4.20 808.7 1058 729.8 220.3
1.68 0.24 4.53 946.6 1207 771.5 197.6
1.84 0.22 4.87 906.8 1397 833.1 148.4
2.00 0.21 5.18 506.8 1753 973.6 64.8

One dimensional flow path analysis

Prior to the analysis, it is necessary to select a suitable geometry for the analysis. The
geometry is defined by area variation, A(x), location of fuel injectors laid out in rows and
amount of fuel added through each row. Based on engineering judgment and references
[16, 6] the first cut geometry was taken as constant area isolator, high divergence
combustor and low divergence nozzle-cum-combustor. This geometry is schematically
shown in figure 6.13.The fuel injectors were distributed in four rows, one each in isolator
and first divergence and the remaining two in second divergence zone. Gas dynamic
analysis of the geometry was carried out at various operating points. This analysis gives
us the output parameters Mach number, static temperature, static pressure and theoretical
pressure recovery at the exit station of combustor. This analysis also gives an indication
of choking. The fuel injection scheme is to be selected so as to get the desired Mach
number (M=1 for ramjet mode and M>1 for scramjet mode) towards the end of the
combustor. Despite using all possible schemes of fuel injection, the first scheme of A(x)
could not satisfy the requirements at all operating conditions. So, a few rounds of
modifications were made to A(x). This geometry is satisfactory for working of the
combustor, however the configuration is not the optimum configuration. To optimize the
combustor design, parameters like combustor area A(x), fuel injection rate and injector
row locations are to be varied for objective of minimum pressure loss and maximum
thrust.

46
Combustor analysis: One dimensional flow path analysis
A dual-mode combustor must: (a) be capable of thermal choking in the ramjet mode and
(b) sustain supersonic flow, throughout, in the scramjet mode. With constant area
geometry, it is difficult to meet this simultaneously. Prospective geometry is one with
increasing (divergent) area. Addition of fuel (and therefore mass & heat) to a stream
tends to choke the flow. Area variation is a much stronger flow potential and an
appropriate variation of these potentials (area, mass and heat) is thus required for meeting
the requirements of a dual-mode combustor.
Analysis is done using the MIC code and the mission data provided.
Air/fuel ratio 15 (near stoichiometric)
Air mass flow 18.37 kg/s
Fuel rate 1.22 kg/s
Total heat added 54 MJ (Hydrocarbon fuel; 44MJ/kg)

For a representative combustor in scramjet mode at Mach 7, the conditions at combustor

inlet are:
Static Pressure 64776 Pa
Density 0.222 Kg/m3
Temperature 1012.0 K
Mach number 2.00
Velocity 1276.5 m/s
Total Pressure 506840.0 Pa

Length of combustor 0.7 m

Area at combustor entry 0.069 m2 (from continuity)

It is obtained that the flow chokes even at an area ratio of as high as 2.5. Therefore, it
appears that the air fuel ratio should be significantly reduced at this point for this
configuration. But that comes with a penalty of reduced total temperature at the
combustor exit, which has direct influence on thrust. (Note that the temperature at
combustor exit is analogous to ‘turbine entry temperature’ of the gas-turbine cycle.)

47
The MIC code has been used repeatedly to come up to better combustor geometry as
follows.
Inlet area 0.069m2
Exit area 0.190m2 (divergent geometry)
Combustor length 0.7m
Total heat addition 40 MJ (equivalence ratio, φ = 0.74)

The corresponding predictions at the combustor exit are:

Static pressure 69540 Pa
Static temperature 2722.5 K
Mach no. 1.184
Total temperature 3272 K

This configuration appears to fulfill the total temperature and Mach number requirements
at combustor exit (station 5).

Figure 6.13: Combustor area variation and injector layout

48
6.7 Component analysis: Nozzle

The required thrust is obtained by letting the combustor exhaust to expand through the
nozzle. The thrust requirement at various operating points is provided with the mission
data. Considering full expansion taking place, the exhaust gas velocity can be obtained
since the inlet face velocities are known, i.e. using,
Thrust = mass-flow rate*(V exit - V inlet).

The preliminary Brayton cycle analysis gives the nozzle exhaust temperature which thus
leads to a value of nozzle exhaust Mach number. The MIC code can thus be used to
arrive at a value of the area ratio required to obtain these exit conditions.
At design point, in this case,
Thrust 10045 N
Vinlet face 1947 m/s
Mass flow 19.5 kg/s

Using the procedure described above, we obtain,

Vnozzle exit 2475 m/s
Tnozzle exit 1336 K
Mnozzle exit 3.5
Area ratio, A4/A3 13.2 (using isentropic assumption).

Similar analysis is possible at the off-design points also. Note that the detailed nozzle
flow map is possible using method of characteristics, which is presently out of scope of
this report.

6.8 Preliminary layout

The preliminary layout of the combustor and the complete propulsion unit based on this
analysis is given below in figures 6.14 and 6.15.

49
 Fig. 6.14: Layout of the combustor

Fig. 6.15: Layout of the propulsion unit

50
7. Parametric performance analysis

In this chapter, a parametric analysis of the vehicle performance is attempted. The

sensitivities of some parameters are examined by monitoring other performance relevant
quantities. For this purpose, an available code is made use of. This is a simplistic code
that starts with the generation of 1000 random trajectories around a baseline trajectory,
serving a particular mission. It then does the basic performance calculations along these
random trajectories and chooses a trajectory requiring minimum fuel and other trajectory
requiring minimum inlet area.
The approach taken is as follows. Table 7.1 gives the list of sensitivity parameters and the
monitored quantities.

Table 7.1: List of sensitivity parameters and monitored quantities

Sensitivity parameters Monitored quantities
Cd engine Fuel consumed in ram-mode
Scram starting Mach no. Fuel consumed in scram-mode
Nozzle inlet temperature Fuel consumed in climb & accelerate mode
Initial (max.) vehicle weight Fuel consumed in cruise mode
Maximum Mach number Minimum total fuel
Maximum height Minimum required inlet area
Pressure loss in combustor --

It should be noted that only a single parameter is varied at a time. The results obtained are
all presented as quantities normalized by their reference values. The reference values for
the sensitivity parameters are given in table 7.2.

51
 Table 7.2: Reference values of the sensitivity parameters
Sensitivity parameters Reference values
Cd engine 0.2
Scram starting Mach no. 5.5
Nozzle inlet temperature 3600 K (ram mode); 4000 K (scram mode)
Initial (max.) vehicle weight 25000 N
Maximum Mach number 7
Maximum height 35000 m
Pressure loss in combustor 15% (ram mode); 20%(scram mode)

The results for this analysis are presented in figures 7.1 to 7.7.
It should be noted that for all the results presented, on any particular graph, each point is
chosen corresponding to the best trajectory among 1000 random trajectories. So, different
points on the same curve would correspond to a different trajectory (which is best suited
for that set of parameters among the 1000 trajectories).
In figure 7.1, it can be seen that the fuel consumption in all the individual phases as well
as the total fuel consumption over the mission increases with increase in Cd engine. The
steepest rise is obtained for the climb and accelerate mode.
The benefits of increasing nozzle entry temperature can be seen in figure 7.3, causing the
total fuel consumption as well as the inlet area requirement to go down. The fuel
consumption as well as the inlet area can be seen to increase with the increase in the
vehicle weight in figure 7.4. It is evident from fig. 7.5 that going beyond a certain
maximum Mach number would result in drastic increase in required fuel and inlet areas,
however, small variation around the reference values are possible. Figure 7.6 shows the
benefit in fuel consumption, but with increased inlet area (assuming constant Cd engine),
made available with the increase in the cruise altitude of the vehicle. Figure 7.7 predicts
the effect of the combustor pressure loss on the fuel and inlet area. These results can be
summarized in terms of the numerical values of the partial derivatives of the monitored
quantities with respect to the sensitivity parameters at the reference value points.
Graphically, this would correspond to the slopes of the curves given in fig. 7.1 to 7.7 at
the reference point (1.0,1.0). These values are presented in table 7.3.

52
 4.5 1.8

4 1.6

3.5 1.4

min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)

3 1.2
fuel in ram mode
fuel/fuel(ref)

2.5 fuel in scram mode 1

fuel in climb and acceleration
2 fuel in cruise 0.8

total fuel
1.5 0.6

1 0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Cd_engine/Cd_engine(ref) Cd_engine/Cd_engine(ref)

Fig. 7.1(a): Variation in fuel cons. with Cd engine. Fig. 7.1(b): Variation in min. inlet area with Cd engine.

1.4 1.1

1.2 1.05

min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)

1
1
fuel in ram mode
0.95
fuel/fuel(ref)

0.8 fuel in scram mode

fuel in climb and acceleration 0.9
0.6 fuel in cruise
total fuel 0.85
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.75

0
0.7
0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
sw itchin m ach/sw itching mach(ref)
sw itching m ach/sw itching m ach (ref)

Fig. 7.2(b): Variation in min. inlet area with

Fig. 7.2(a): Variation in fuel with scram starting Mach no.
scram starting Mach no.

1.8 1.15

1.1
1.6
scram fuel/scram fuel (ref)

1.05
ram fuel/ram fuel (ref)

1.4
ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88 1 ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88
1.2 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0
ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11 0.95 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11
1
0.9

0.8
0.85

0.6 0.8
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
scram nit/nit(ref) scram nit/nit(ref)

Fig. 7.3(a): Variation in ram-mode fuel consumption with Fig. 7.3(b): Variation in scram-mode fuel consumption with
nozzle entry total temperatures. nozzle entry total temperatures.

53
 2.2 1.2
climb& acclr. fuel/climb & acclr. fuel (ref)

2 1.1

cruise fuel/cruise fuel (ref)

1.8 1

1.6 ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88 0.9 ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0

1.4 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11 0.8 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11

1.2 0.7

1 0.6

0.8 0.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
scram nit/nit(ref)
scram nit/nit(ref)

Fig. 7.3(c): Variation in climb & accelerate fuel consumption Fig. 7.3(d): Variation in cruise fuel consumption with

with nozzle entry total temperatures. nozzle entry total temperatures.

1.2
3.65
1.15

min. inlet area/min. inlet area (ref)

3.15
1.1
total fuel/total fuel (ref)

2.65
1.05 ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88 ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88
ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0
2.15
1 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11 ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11

0.95 1.65

0.9 1.15

0.85
0.65
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
scram nit/nit(ref) scram nit/nit(ref)

Fig. 7.3(e): Variation in total fuel consumption with Fig. 7.3(f): Variation in min. inlet area with
nozzle entry total temperatures. nozzle entry total temperatures.

1.6 1.05

1.5

1.4 1.03
min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)

1.3
fuel in ram mode
1.2
fuel/fuel(ref)

1.01
fuel in scram mode
1.1 fuel in climb and acceleration
fuel in cruise
1 0.99
total fuel
0.9

0.8 0.97

0.7

0.6 0.95
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

max wt./max wt. (ref) m ax w t./m ax w t. (ref)

Fig. 7.4(a): Variation in fuel consumption with initial (max) Fig. 7.4(b): Variation in min. inlet area with initial (max)
vehicle weight. vehicle weight.

54
 4 16

3.5 14

3 12

min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)

2.5 fuel in ram mode 10
fuel/fuel(ref)

fuel in scram mode

2 fuel in climb and acceleration 8

fuel in cruise
1.5 6
total fuel

1 4

0.5 2

0 0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
m ax m ach/m ax m ach (ref)
max mach/max mach (ref)

Fig. 7.5(a): Variation in fuel consumption with max. Mach no. Fig. 7.5(b): Variation in min. inlet area with max. Mach no.

4 2

1.8
3.5
1.6
3
min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)
1.4
2.5 fuel in ram mode
fuel/fuel(ref)

1.2
fuel in scram mode
2 fuel in climb and acceleration 1
fuel in cruise
1.5 total fuel 0.8

0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
h max/h max (ref)
h m ax/h m ax (ref)

Fig. 7.6(a): Variation in fuel cons. with max. height Fig. 7.6(b): Variation in min. inlet area with max. height

1.1 1.1

1.05 1.05
scram fuel/scram fuel (ref)
ram fuel/ram fuel (ref)

ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66 ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

1 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0 1 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0
ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33
ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33

0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
scram ploss/ploss(ref) scram ploss/ploss(ref)

Fig. 7.7(a): Variation in ram-mode fuel with Fig. 7.7(b): Variation in scram-mode fuel with
combustor pressure loss combustor pressure loss

55
climb& acclr. fuel/climb & acclr. fuel (ref) 1.1 1.1

cruise fuel/cruise fuel (ref)

1.05 1.05

ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66 ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

1 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0 1 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0
ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33

0.95 0.95

0.9
0.9
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
scram ploss/ploss(ref) scram ploss/ploss(ref)

Fig. 7.7(c): Variation in climb & accelerate with Fig. 7.7(d): Variation in cruise fuel with

combustor pressure loss combustor pressure loss

1.1 1.1

min. inlet area/min. inlet area (ref)

1.05 1.05
total fuel/total fuel (ref)

ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66 ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

1 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0 1 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0
ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33 ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33

0.95 0.95

0.9 0.9
0.2 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
scram ploss/ploss(ref) scram ploss/ploss(ref)

Fig. 7.7(e): Variation in total fuel with Fig. 7.7(f): Variation in min. inlet area with
combustor pressure loss combustor pressure loss

Partial derivatives at the reference point

Table 7.3 presents the numerical values of the partial derivatives of the various monitored
quantities in terms of the sensitivity parameters. The notations are as follows:
P1 = Cd engine/Cd engine (ref.)
P2 = scram starting mach/scram starting mach (ref.)
P3 = scram-mode nozzle inlet temp./ scram-mode nozzle inlet temp (ref.)
P4 = max. wt./max. wt. (ref.)
P5 = Max. Mach/max. Mach (ref.)
P6 = Max. height/ Max. height (ref.)
P7 = scram-mode combustor pressure loss/ scram-mode combustor pressure loss (ref.)

56
Q1 = ram-mode fuel/ram-mode fuel (ref.)
Q2 = scram-mode fuel/scram-mode fuel (ref.)
Q3 = climb & accl. fuel/climb & accl. mode fuel (ref.)
Q4 = cruise fuel/cruise fuel (ref.)
Q5 = min. total fuel/min. total fuel (ref.)
Q6 = min. inlet area required/min. inlet area required fuel (ref.)

Table 7.3: Numerical value of the partial derivatives of the monitored quantities w.r.t. the
parameters at the reference point.
∂Q
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
∂P

P1 0.569 0.618 1.184 0.263 0.607 0.32

P2 2.270 -0.404 -0.443 0.584 0.200 0.000
P3 -0.341 -0.580 1.455 -1.650 -0.526 -2.380
P4 0.784 0.473 0.789 0.396 0.543 0.000
P5 1.490 -1.150 2.960 -2.650 -0.550 -0.760
P6 1.750 -2.840 1.960 -4.050 1.800 2.160
P7 0.101 -0.021 0.135 -0.070 0.006 0.021

The fidelity of the numerical values obtained here are questionable in view of the fact
that a very basic performance model has been used. But comparison of these values
among themselves would essentially give a qualitative insight into the relative sensitivity
of the parameters and therefore help finding out the most relevant parameters. Using the
detailed and appropriate knowledge of the variation of the parameters with the operating
conditions, it is possible to achieve an optimized trajectory, to serve the mission, taking
its course intermediate among all the 1000 random trajectories. The above exercise can
be made more useful and realistic if the effect of variation of one parameter on the other
is taken into account (presently only one parameter is varied at a tie, assuming all others
to remain constant). However, this has not been attempted in the present work.

57
Limitations
1. The code uses a fixed profile of the vehicle ballistic coefficient (Cd*S) versus
Mach number. Actually, as the weight and trajectory varies, the vehicle angle of
attack varies resulting in the variation of the Cd of vehicle. This has not been
taken into account.
2. The structure of the code does not allow using ‘pressure recovery factor’ as a
parameter, which would have provided very relevant information.

58
Closure

In this project, it is tried to cover the ground for the preliminary design of a dual-mode
ram-scram based powerplant for hypersonic vehicle. The work is limited to preliminary
level analysis and design.
A detailed literature survey is carried out, understanding various issues and
considerations involved in the field of hypersonic gasdynamics. From the basic mission
requirements, the required Brayton cycle coordinates are computed.
Complex flow is modeled using popular one-dimensional scheme called the ‘method of
influence coefficients’, where the complex flow is seen as one with simultaneous action
of potentials. The numerical code developed based on this scheme is capable of giving
aerothermal map of flow inside a adapted shock free duct with simultaneous area
variation, heat addition, mass injection, wall friction and particle drag. To use this code, a
good starting estimate of these flow potentials would be required. Parametric analysis
around a baseline configuration can then be done.
In inlet where the shock-boundary layer interaction phenomenon starts taking control of
the flow, simple inviscid oblique shock reflection phenomena is applied, to estimate the
flow. Similarly, boundary layer development over the forebody is estimated using the
‘seventh root profile’, based on suggestion found in literature. Thus shock-boundary layer
interaction phenomenon is not taken into account in the inlet.
The need of isolator arises from the shock-boundary layer interaction phenomenon,
which causes the sharp shock (discontinuity) to get smeared over a length. A detailed
flow mapping in this region would require a CFD analysis, instead of which, we have
used a highly acclaimed one-dimensional empirical formulation suggested though
extensive experimentation by Billig et. al. Charts are prepared based on this formulation,
using which, isolator length is calculated. In scramjet mode, the isolator length is not
required and is used for pre-injection and pre-combustion. Thus, housing of some scram-
injectors in isolator region is also suggested and incorporated by other student involved
with detail combustor design.

59
For the nozzle design, present model is found to be insufficient and would require
schemes like ‘method of characteristics’ to arrive at better estimates. This is especially
true in the region of the nozzle that is partially open to the atmosphere and makes use of
the jet boundary. The divergence requirements in the nozzles of hypersonic vehicles
make the use of the concept of these free-jet nozzles inevitable. However, for present
purpose, it is taken as completely ducted to estimate exit pressure, exit velocity and
therefore thrust.
Towards the end of this project, parametric performance studies were carried out for the
vehicle. Here, parametric sensitivities of various parameters (such as Cd engine, nozzle
entry temperature, maximum Mach number, maximum height and weight etc.) were
found by monitoring other quantities (like fuel consumed, minimum required inlet area
etc.). For this purpose, an available in-house developed code was made use of. In its
present state, this exercise is a partial success. This code can be extended to incorporate
the effect of variation of one parameter on the others, rather than taking them as
independent.

60
References

1. Anderson, J.D., “Hypersonic and high temperature gas dynamics”, McGraw-Hill

book company, 1989.
2. Bartok, W. and Sarofim, A. F., "Fossil fuel combustion", Wiley Interscience
publication, 1991.
3. Beans, E.W., “Computer solution to generalized one-dimensional flow”, Journal
of spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 7, No. 12, pp. 1460-1464, December 1970.
4. Builder, C.H., “On the thermodynamic spectrum of air breathing propulsion”,
AIAA 1st annual meeting, AIAA paper 64-243, June, 1964.
5. Curran, E. T., "Scramjet engines : The first forty years", International symposium
on air breathing engines, ISABE 97-7005, September 1997.
6. Curran, E. T., Murthy, S. N. B., (ed.), "Scramjet propulsion", Progress in
astronautics and aeronautics Vol. 189, AIAA, 2000.
7. Czysz, P.A., “Thermodynamic spectrum of airbreathing propulsion”, SAE
international technical paper 881203, Future Transportation Technology
Conference and Exposition, San Francisco, California, August, 1988.
8. Dugger, G.L., "Comparison of hypersonic ramjet with subsonic and supersonic
combustion", Combustion and propulsion, Fourth AGARD Colloquium, High
Mach number airbreathing engines, Pergamon press, 1961.
9. Fuller, R. P. et. al, "Comparison of physical and aerodynamic ramps as fuel
injectors in supersonic flow", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 14, No. 2,
1998, pp. 135 - 145.
10. Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., "Flames, their structure, radiation and
temperature", Chapman and Hall ltd, 1979.
11. Glawe, D. D., and Samimy, M., "Effects of nozzle geometry on parallel injection
into a supersonic flow", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 12 No. 6, Nov-Dec
1996.
12. Gordon, S., and McBride, B. J., "Computer program for calculation of complex
chemical equilibrium compositions and applications", NASA RP-1311, Lewis
Research Centre, NASA, Oct. 1994.

61
13. Heiser, W.H., Pratt, D.T., “Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion”, AIAA
educational series, AIAA Inc., Washington, DC, 1994.
14. “Hyper-X program“, http://larcpubs.larc.nasa.gov/randt/1999/pillar3_1_text.html
15. Jet Fuel JP-5 Material Safety Data Sheet No. 9942, NFPA 704, National Fire
Protection Association.
16. Kanda, T., et. al., "Mach 8 testing of scramjet engine model", Journal of
propulsion and power, Vol. 17 No. 1, Jan-Feb 2001.
17. Kazuyasu Matsuo et. al., “Shock train and pseudo shock phenomena in internal
gas flows”, Progress and aerospace science, Vol. 35, pp. 33-100, 1999.
18. Kraus, D. K., and Cutler, A. D., "Mixing of swirling jets in a supersonic duct
flow", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 12 No. 1, Jan-Feb 1996.
19. Levenspiel, O., "Chemical reaction engineering", John Wiley & Sons, Singapore,
1995, pp. 18 - 25.
20. Mahoney, J. J., “Inlets for supersonic missiles”, AIAA Educational Series, AIAA
Inc., 1990, pp. 67-80.
21. Merkli, P.E., “Pressure recovery in rectangular constant area supersonic
diffusers”, AIAA journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 168-172, February, 1976.
22. Perry, R. H. and Chilton, C. H., "Chemical engineers' handbook", (5th
international students edition), McGraw-Hill, 1973.
23. Pinkel, I., "Determination of ramjet combustion chamber temperatures by means
of total pressure surveys", NACA TN-2526, NACA, 1951.
24. Prahlada, “Technologies for hypersonic airbreathing propulsion”, Proceedings of
the 5th NCABE, pp 33-52, Hyderabad, December, 2000.
25. Rausch, V.L., Crawford, J.L., “Hyper-X: Flight validation of hypersonic
airbreathing technology”, Proceedings of the XIII ISABE, Chattanooga,
Tennessee, USA, September 7-12, 1997.
26. Schadow, M. J. et. al., "Enhancement of mixing in reacting fuel-rich plumes
issued from elliptical nozzles", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 3 No. 2,
Mar-Apr 1987.
27. Siebenhaar, A., “Strutjet matures to support propulsion needs in the 2000+
world”, Proceedings of the14th ISABE, Florence, Italy, Sept. 5-10, 1999.

62
28. Srikrishnan, J. et. al., "Experimental study on mixing enhancement by petal
nozzle in supersonic flow", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 12 No. 1, Jan-
Feb 1996.
29. Streeter, V. L., and Wylie, E. B., "Fluid Mechanics", McGraw Hill ltd., 1975, pp.
286-299.
30. Sweetman, B., “Runway to space”, Popular mechanics, pp 72-77, June, 1999.
31. Timnat, Y.M., ”Advanced airbreathing propulsion”, Kreieger publishing
company, Malabar, Florida, 1996.
32. Tishkoff, J.M., et al., “Future directions of supersonic combustion research: Air
force/NASA workshop on supersonic combustion:,
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/1997/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-97-1017.pdf
33. Townend, L. H., “Domain of scramjet”, Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 17,
No. 6, Nov-Dec, 2001.
34. Waltrup, P. J., "Upper bounds on the flight speed of hydrocarbon-fueled
scramjet-powered vehicles", Journal of propulsion and power, Vol. 17 No. 6,
Nov-Dec 2001.
35. Weber, R. J. and MacKay, T. S., "An analysis of ramjet engines using supersonic
combustion", NACA TN-4386, 1958.
36. Zucrow, M.J., Hoffman, J.D., “Gas Dynamics, Vol. I, John Wiley & sons, New
York, 1976.

63
 Acknowledgements

My heart felt acknowledgements are due to Prof. Bhaskar Roy, for providing his able
guidance, never-ending encouragement, freedom, infrastructure and personal support. I
consider myself to be fortunate to have his guidance, company and friendship.

Let me take this opportunity to also thank Shri Prahlada, Director, DRDL for making it
possible for people at IIT-Bombay to take up this interesting activity. Sincere thanks are
due to Dr. Pannerselvam, project director, HRV for his active guidance and direction
through out the project. His enthusiasm towards the project has always been very
inspiring. Sincere thanks to Dr. Panyam, Shri T. K. Anavardham and Dushyant Mahadik
for the fruitful technical discussions and guidance.

Thanks are due to Swapnil Pawar, for making the code available for the parametric
analysis. Heartfelt thanks to Gaurav Jain, for making the VC++ version of the code up
and running.

Special thanks to Praveen ‘jim’ Gill, Devendra Ghate, Gaurav Jain, Tuhin Sahai, Jai
Mirpuri, Jannu Bharath Kumar, Dushyant Mahadik, Vishal Borikar, Samir Tambe and P.
M. Sivadas for making my stay comfortable with wonderful discussion sessions.

Thanks are also due to Rajath Kedilaya, Tarun Gupta, S. Ajanavit, Naresh Mulchandani,
Vardan Kabra, Manan Chauhan, Ryan Gazder and Sanghamitra Korukonda for being
great companions.

Amit Batra
16-06-2002

64