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


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


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


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.


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


δm φ

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



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


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.


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

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.


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.


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


‘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 ConvergentDivergent 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]


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 ramjetscramjet 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


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


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 enginepowered 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.


Table 2.1 Hypersonic program - world scenario [24]. country Program X-30 (NASP) Application SSTO mission Status Postponed indefinitely Remarks Speed –Mach 25 Scramjet propulsion – Hydrogen fuelled LOX-Kerosene Rocket Development of TPS materials RBCC engine with skip trajectory Demonstration of Ramjet/Scramjet engine with hydrogen Variable cycle engine HYPR90-T Air turbo ram expander Further work not known

X-34 USA Hypersoar Hyper-X (X-43) Japan HYPR project

Demonstrator for re-usable launch vehicle Global reach and strike mission Hypersonic experimental research vehicle Re-usable launch vehicle Transatmospheric vehicle and military application TSTO transport

First flight test completed Design under progress Wind tunnel testing Test flight in 2001 Under progress

Russia MARK (Multipurpose aerospace system) Hypersonic Technology Program (HPT) Germa ny Hypersonic Technology Experimental demonstrator (HYTEX) FESTIP (Future European Space Transportation Investigation Program PREPHA UK Skylon

Demonstrated Hydrogen burning scramjet model on top of rocket in 1991 Design under progress

Hybrid powerplant with airbreathing engine in Mach range 0-20 Program initiated in 1998

Technology development

Flight testing to validate hypersonic technology Space Transportation

Hydrogen Combustion Intake tests up to Mach 7 Inlet models tested at hypersonic speeds

Flying laboratory or test beds

To develop hypersonic technologies -


Military application Low cost space access

Design under progress

-doAirbreathing and rocket propulsion


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]. Mission Tactical Missile Transatmos. Missile Hypercruise Flight Mach 6–8 Propulsion System Dual combustor ramjet and/or rocket Dual mode ramjet/scramjet +many low speed options M 6-8: Turboramjets M 15: scramjet Flow-path geometry Fixed, passively cooled Variable geometry Variable, actively cooled Fuel Liq. HC, slurry, solid HC Liq. H2, Liq. O2 Mach 6-8: HC Mach 15: Liq. H2 Flight duration 10-12 min. Vehicle length (ft) Overall: 5-15 Combustor: 2-5 Nozzle: 2-5 Overall: 100-200 Combustor: 2-5 Nozzle: 50-80 Overall: 100-200 Combustor: 2-6 Nozzle: 50-80

0 – 25

20-30 min. M 6-8: 1-3 hr. M 15: 1hr.

0–8 0 – 15

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 mixinglimited [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.


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 ramjetscramjet 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


design include transverse injection from combustor walls (intrusive or otherwise) and instream 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-cumflame holding in scramjets. Novel configurations like pulsed injection and cavity injectorflame 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.


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


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


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]


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].


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 .


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

Applying basic conservation laws: Continuity equation:




dρ dA dV + + ρ A V

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

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


Making assumption of perfect gas (h = Cp; Cp = constant) and assuming equation of state p=ρRT, the equations take the final form as:
⎡ 0 ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ 1 ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ 1 ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ 1 ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ −1 ⎢ ⎢ (γ −1 γ ) ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ ⎡ dp⎤ ⎡ . ⎥ ⎢ p ⎥ ⎢dm ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ dρ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ρ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ dt ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ t ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢dV⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢V ⎥ =⎢ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢dM ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢M ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢dP⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢P ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ dF⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ F ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ds⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ Cp ⎥ ⎢ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣
. ⎤ m−dA A ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ K +L ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ dT ⎥ T ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ dA ⎥ A ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎦

1 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0


1 0 0 −1 0 0 0 0

0 γM2 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 −1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

(γM ) 2

−1 12 1 0 0 −1

(γ −1) M 2
ψ γM 2 ψ 2γM 2 − 1+ γM 2 0

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

L = −γM2 (1 − y )



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 + γM2 ⎡ 4C f dx + dC ⎤ + ⎡2(1 + γM2 ) − 2yγ M2 ⎤ d m ⎪ = + (1 + γM ⎨− 2 ⎢ d⎥ ⎢ ⎥ . ⎬ ⎦ A T ⎣ DH ⎦ ⎣ ⎪ M2 (1 − M2 ) ⎪ m ⎭ ⎩


dC d = 2δ D γM2pA

Writing the derivative in terms of x yields:
dM 2 G(x) = dx 1 − M2

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



Applying L’Hospital’s rule as M approaches unity yields:
* * ⎛ dM2 ⎞ ⎛ * ⎜ ⎟ =−φ ± ⎜φ ⎜ dx ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎞ ⎟ − σ* ⎟ ⎠

⎧ . ⎡ ⎤⎫ * = (γ + 1) ⎪ ⎡ γ d(lnT) ⎤ + ⎡ γ⎛ 4C f + dC d ⎞ ⎤ + ⎢ d(ln m) (2γ − 2γγ )⎥ ⎪ + ⎟⎥ ⎢ φ ⎢ ⎜ ⎨ ⎥⎬ 2 ⎪⎢ dx ⎥ ⎢ ⎜ DH dx ⎟ ⎥ ⎢ dx ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎥⎪ ⎣ ⎦⎭ ⎩ . ⎫ ⎧ ⎡ 4C f dC d ⎤ ⎪ d(lnA ) d(lnT) d(ln m) ⎪ γ ⎨− 2 + (γ + 1) + γ⎢ + ⎬ ⎥ + [2(γ + 1) − 2yγ ] dx dx dx ⎦ dx ⎪ ⎣ DH ⎪ ⎩ ⎭

⎫ ⎧ ⎛C ⎞ . . ⎞ ⎛ d⎜ f ⎟ ⎪ 2C ⎜D ⎟ 2 (lnA) 2 (ln T) 2 (lnm) ⎜ d(lnm) ⎟⎪ d d dy γ + 1⎪ d d d ⎪ ⎝ H⎠ ( ⎟⎬ σ* = + (γ + 1) +γ + 4γ + 2 + 2γ − 2yγ) − 2γ ⎜ ⎨− 2 2 2 2 2 2 ⎪ dx dx ⎜ dx ⎟⎪ dx dx 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


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

where f is the friction factor, given by
⎛ e/ D 1 2.51 = −2 ⋅ log⎜ + ⎜ 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. ⎞ ⎟ , when 3000 < Re < 108 ⎟ ⎠

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.


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

Fig. 4.3: Reflection form free pressure boundary

Fig. 4.5: Neutralization of incident shock

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


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.


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 + γ M 2 ⎛ 1 dTt ⎞⎫ dM ⎪ 2 ⎜ ⎟⎪− ⎛ 1 dA ⎞ + ⎜ =m ⎟ ⎨ ⎜ 2 ⎜ T dx ⎟⎬ ⎟⎪ ⎜ 1− M ⎟⎪ ⎝ A dx ⎠ dx 2 ⎝ t ⎠⎭ ⎜ ⎟⎩ ⎝ ⎠

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

p ( x) ⎡ T2 Tt ( x) ⎤ γ −1 Pt ( x) = Pt 2 ⎢ ⎥ p2 ⎣ T ( x) Tt 2 ⎦ u ( x) = u 2 M ( x) T ( x) 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


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


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.

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.


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


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


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,


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


Table 6.4: Representative values of parameters for cycle analysis Specific heat of air in free-stream, Cpo Specific heat of air in compression, Cpc Specific heat of air in burner, Cpb Specific heat of air in expansion, Cpe Temperature ratio across compression, T3/To, ψ Compression efficiency, ηc Burner efficieny, ηb Expansion efficiency, ηe 1004.5 1090.0 1510.0 1510.0 7.0 0.9 0.92 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 ηe = To ψ −1

Tx = ψ (1 − η c ) + η c To

and Tx is the temperature resulting from isentropic compression. Therefore,
p3 To = ψ Po Tx C pc R

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,
Ty T10 = 1 − η e (1 − ) T4 T4

T4 and T10 being the combustor exit and exhaust temperatures respectively. This leads to a cycle efficiency expression:
η tc = 1 −
C pr ⎧⎛ C po To C po ⎪⎜ + ⎨⎜ ψ . C po ⎪⎝ (h 4 − h 3 ) C pb ⎩

⎞ To C po To ⎫ ⎪ ⎟ − ⎟ T4 (h 4 − h 3 ) ⎬ ⎪ ⎠ ⎭

Implementing the above, for the data given, we obtain, the cycle analysis result given in figure 6.6 and table 6.5.




M=3.5 M=5.5 M=7


Temperature (K)





0 0 1000 2000

Entropy (J/K)

Fig. 6.6: Brayton cycle constructed from preliminary analysis Table 6.5: Cycle analysis results Altitude 13050 15570 19670 21820 23190 25000 27900 35000 Mach 3.51 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Pfree-stream 17973.95 11923.26 5965.67 4210.34 3380.15 2548.2 1633.78 581.95 Tx/To 1.38 1.41 1.39 1.39 1.36 1.38 1.42 1.4 p3/po 110.95 128.63 116.72 116.72 99.83 110.95 134.77 122.61 T4/T3 2.735 2.783 2.766 2.751 2.660 2.688 2.823 2.774 Ty/T4 0.456 0.445 0.452 0.452 0.464 0.456 0.441 0.448 T10/T4 0.4833 0.4728 0.4797 0.4797 0.4910 0.4833 0.4695 0.4762 cycle eff. 0.4898 0.5008 0.4946 0.4936 0.4787 0.4863 0.5059 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


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









6.5 7

4.36 4.15


Oblique Shock Reflection Structure in the Inlet Freestream Mach=3.5 & Inlet entry Mach=2.73 250 Mach no. at downstream of the shock structure=1.52 200

Oblique Shock Reflection Structure in the Inlet Freestream Mach=4.5 & Inlet entry Mach=3.43 250 Mach no. at downstream of the shock structure=1.41 200

y (mm)



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






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

Oblique Shock Reflection Structure in the Inlet Freestream Mach=7.0 & Inlet entry Mach=4.15 250 Mach no. at downstream of the shock structure=1.74 200

Oblique Sho ck Reflectio n Structure in the Inlet Freestream M ach=5.5 & Inlet entry M ach=3.92 250 M ach no . at do wnstream o f the sho ck structure=1 .64 200 1 50 1 00 50 0

y (mm)




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


1 00


300 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.


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

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


0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 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
Isolator Enrty Mach = 1.25 to 4.0 at steps of 0.25 (curve 1 and 12 correspond to Mach 1.25 and 4.0 respectively) Curve is independent of (theta/H) and Reynold's no. value


Realativised Pressure Distribution through Normal Shock Train in Rectangular Section Constant Area Duct

[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.


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.


Table 6.7: Conditions at combustor inlet M3 0.40 0.44 0.49 1.35 1.50 1.68 1.84 2.00 PRF 0.39 0.32 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.21

2.90 3.50 4.17 3.80 4.20 4.53 4.87 5.18

P03 (kPa) 546.3 577.4 449.6 641.9 808.7 946.6 906.8 506.8

T03 (K) 578 613 718 901 1058 1207 1397 1753

T3 (K) 560.3 590.5 685.4 660.6 729.8 771.5 833.1 973.6

P3 (kPa) 489.3 505.5 381.5 216.3 220.3 197.6 148.4 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.


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 Air mass flow Fuel rate Total heat added 15 (near stoichiometric) 18.37 kg/s 1.22 kg/s 54 MJ (Hydrocarbon fuel; 44MJ/kg)

For a representative combustor in scramjet mode at Mach 7, the conditions at combustor inlet are:
Static Pressure Density Temperature Mach number Velocity Total Pressure 64776 Pa 0.222 Kg/m3 1012.0 K 2.00 1276.5 m/s 506840.0 Pa

Length of combustor Area at combustor entry

0.7 m 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.)


The MIC code has been used repeatedly to come up to better combustor geometry as follows.
Inlet area Exit area Combustor length 0.069m2 0.190m2 (divergent geometry) 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. Total temperature 1.184 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


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 Vinlet face Mass flow 10045 N 1947 m/s 19.5 kg/s

Using the procedure described above, we obtain,
Vnozzle exit Tnozzle exit Mnozzle exit Area ratio, A4/A3 2475 m/s 1336 K 3.5 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.


Fig. 6.14: Layout of the combustor

Fig. 6.15: Layout of the propulsion unit


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 Cd engine Scram starting Mach no. Nozzle inlet temperature Initial (max.) vehicle weight Maximum Mach number Maximum height Pressure loss in combustor

Monitored quantities Fuel consumed in ram-mode Fuel consumed in scram-mode Fuel consumed in climb & accelerate mode Fuel consumed in cruise mode Minimum total fuel Minimum required inlet area --

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.


Table 7.2: Reference values of the sensitivity parameters

Sensitivity parameters Cd engine Scram starting Mach no. Nozzle inlet temperature Initial (max.) vehicle weight Maximum Mach number Maximum height Pressure loss in combustor 0.2 5.5

Reference values

3600 K (ram mode); 4000 K (scram mode) 25000 N 7 35000 m 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 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.



4.5 4 3.5 3
min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

fuel in ram mode
fuel in scram mode
fuel in climb and acceleration
fuel in cruise
total fuel

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 Cd_engine/Cd_engine(ref) 3 4











Fig. 7.1(a): Variation in fuel cons. with Cd engine.
1.4 1.2

Fig. 7.1(b): Variation in min. inlet area with Cd engine.
1.1 1.05

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

fuel in ram mode

1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 sw itching m ach/sw itching m ach (ref)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.65

fuel in scram mode
fuel in climb and acceleration
fuel in cruise
total fuel






sw itchin m ach/sw itching mach(ref)

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

Fig. 7.2(b): Variation in min. inlet area with scram starting Mach no.


1.15 1.1
scram fuel/scram fuel (ref)

ram fuel/ram fuel (ref)

1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8


ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88

ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11


0.6 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 nozzle entry total temperatures.

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


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

1.2 1.1


cruise fuel/cruise fuel (ref)

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 scram nit/nit(ref)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 scram nit/nit(ref)
ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88
ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0
ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11

ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11

Fig. 7.3(c): Variation in climb & accelerate fuel consumption with nozzle entry total temperatures.

Fig. 7.3(d): Variation in cruise fuel consumption with nozzle entry total temperatures.


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

1.1 1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88

ram nit/nit(ref) = 0.88
ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0
ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.0

ram nit/nit(ref)=1.11




0.65 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 nozzle entry total temperatures.

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

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)



1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 max wt./max wt. (ref)

fuel in ram mode fuel in scram mode fuel in climb and acceleration fuel in cruise total fuel




0.95 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 m ax w t./m ax w t. (ref)

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

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


4 3.5
min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)



3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 max mach/max mach (ref)
fuel in ram mode
fuel in scram mode
fuel in climb and acceleration
fuel in cruise
total fuel








0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 m ax m ach/m ax m ach (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 3.5
min. inlet area/min. inlet area(ref)

2 1.8 1.6

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 fuel in ram mode fuel in scram mode fuel in climb and acceleration fuel in cruise total fuel

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2


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

h max/h max (ref)

Fig. 7.6(a): Variation in fuel cons. with max. height

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


ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

scram fuel/scram fuel (ref)

ram fuel/ram fuel (ref)


ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66


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

ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0

ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33


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

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

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

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


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


cruise fuel/cruise fuel (ref)



ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66


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


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



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

0.9 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

scram ploss/ploss(ref)

Fig. 7.7(c): Variation in climb & accelerate with combustor pressure loss

Fig. 7.7(d): Variation in cruise fuel with combustor pressure loss

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


total fuel/total fuel (ref)



ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

ram ploss/ploss(ref) = 0.66

ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0

ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.0

ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33

ram ploss/ploss(ref)=1.33


0.9 0.2 0.7 1.2

0.9 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 combustor pressure loss

Fig. 7.7(f): Variation in min. inlet area with 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.)


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 ∂P

Q1 0.569 2.270 -0.341 0.784 1.490 1.750 0.101

Q2 0.618 -0.404 -0.580 0.473 -1.150 -2.840 -0.021

Q3 1.184 -0.443 1.455 0.789 2.960 1.960 0.135

Q4 0.263 0.584 -1.650 0.396 -2.650 -4.050 -0.070

Q5 0.607 0.200 -0.526 0.543 -0.550 1.800 0.006

Q6 0.32 0.000 -2.380 0.000 -0.760 2.160 0.021

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

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.



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.



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 scraminjectors in isolator region is also suggested and incorporated by other student involved with detail combustor design.


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


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.


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.


13. Heiser, W.H., Pratt, D.T., “Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion”, AIAA educational series, AIAA Inc., Washington, DC, 1994. 14. “Hyper-X program“, 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.


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, JanFeb 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:, 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.



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


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful