You are on page 1of 14



Supersonic Ramp Inlet is a rectangular plate like device within air intake of a jet engine designed to generate a shock wave to aid the inlet compression process at supersonic speeds. The ramp sits at an acute angle to deflect the intake air from longitudinal direction. At supersonic flight speed the deflection of air stream creates an oblique shock wave at forward end of ramp. Air crossing the shock wave suddenly slows to a lower mach number thus increasing pressure. Although there are reflected oblique shock waves and a weak normal shock wave generated downstream. This form of intake is more efficient than equivalent pitot intake due to high pressure recovery at speeds. Oblique shockwave should intercept the air intake lip thus avoiding air spillage and pre entry drag on outer boundary of deflected stream tube. For a fixed geometry intake at zero incidence, This condition is achieved at particular Mach number because angle of shockwave becomes more acute with increasing aircraft speeds.

Good inlet design is critical to the functioning of supersonic aircraft. The inlet cone must be positioned correctly for oblique shock to impinge on the inlet wall, such that internal instead of external compression occurs and engine unstart does not occur. The inlet must be in a proper shape to offer the appropriate amount of subsonic air to compressor. Lastly the inlet should not be oversized for the amount of air it brings, as these will increase the mass. When oblique shock generated by the inlet cone impinges on the inlet wall, a separation bubble forms. This is caused by the confluence of oblique shock and a boundary layer that is formed on the inlet wall. Across the oblique shock wave, pressure increases and low momentum of boundary layer air is insufficient to overcome the higher pressure. The separation bubbles formed by the oblique shock wave/ Boundary layer interaction causes the boundary layer to extruded outward a significant distance. The corresponding inlet radius must be oversized by the height of the separation bubble, making the inlet larger and heavier. This represents a region where air does not flow but recirculates.

The interaction of shock wave with a turbulent boundary layer constitutes one of the fundamental problems of modern high speed aerodynamics. The shock interaction problem is particularly germane to design of supersonic inlets. In such supersonic inlets deceleration of the flow is achieved through a succession of oblique shock waves followed by a terminal shock. Boundary layers form on the inlet surfaces and interact with the shock systems, giving rise to various shock/boundary layer interactions. Each interaction of oblique normal shock waves with boundary layers causes stagnation pressure losses and downstream spatial distortions seen by the engine. The inlet is carefully designed to minimize these losses and distortions during the compression process since they affect overall propulsion performance. Further, shock induced seperation can lead to engine unstart which requires the entire propulsion system undergo a restart sequence during flight. Firstly, we consider a single ramp inlet and simulation is carried out for invisid and viscous flow interactions using Gambit and Fluent. We compare the result with different mesh density (coarse, medium and fine mesh). Contours of pressure coefficient, temperature and Mach

number are calculated. Verifying this result, such that pressure ratio is optimum i.e. (optimum pressure ratio).Extending this result to Multi Ramp with different Ramp angles (deflection angles).The main aim is to get an optimized pressure ratio.


Objective of the study:
The objective of the present study is to obtain optimum pressure ratio in a supersonic inlet. The supersonic airflow that hits the inlet produces shock waves, normal and oblique based on the geometry. When a normal shock is formed the pressure loss is more and hence the efficiency of the engine reduces. Oblique shock waves minimize the loss of pressure compared to the normal shock. Hence the inlet has to be designed to obtain oblique shock waves. This is the reason a wedge (2D), a cone (3D) are used to generate an oblique shock. Here a wedge shaped ramp is considered with a particular ramp angle to produce an oblique shock. Analysis is carried out by taking the ramp geometry with varying mach numbers and vice versa. Pressure, Temperature, Mach number contours are post processed and these results are extended in the use of multiple ramps to get an optimum pressure ratio. The geometry, grid generation are done using GAMBIT and the mesh is exported to a solver, FLUENT where the iterations are done and the contours are obtained. A paper NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF 2D RAMP INLET should be validated which is an inviscid case and these results are to be extended to viscous interactions where in the shock wave boundary layer interactions play an important role. The analysis of single ramp versus a multi ramp inlet has to be done. Further the 2D case is extended to a 3D geometry which experiences a relieving effect is analyzed using CFD. Finally, for varying angle of attacks the optimization in pressure is calculated.

Input Ramp angle &mach number geometry of ramp flow solver

Specifying flow conditions



Convergence criteria achieved NO Examine mesh



Optimization of pressure ratio at supersonic ramp inlet has been studied for many years. The computational of inlet flow has been subjected to number of investigations. The two dimensional ramp inlet flow field was studied with typical mode operations. The design of ramp inlet is

done using grid generation techniques for both inviscid and viscous flows. Various methods for obtaining optimum pressure ratio for a supersonic ramp inlet can be found in the literature. In 1982 Bangent et Al conducted an analytical study to determine the impact of flight Mach number on inlet for a supersonic aircraft. In 1984 Biringen, outlines a time-implicit, finitedifference solution procedure for Euler equations, to calculate two dimensional inlet flow fields. Later in 1988 Moretti, presented an efficient Euler computational technique for two dimensional Euler equations at any number of any shape and type, whose interaction can be treated by this technique. Dimitri (1989), presented a simple theoretical method to determine the inviscid, steady state diffuser performance of a tunnel with two plane, parallel supersonic streams that come into constant downstream of a splitter plane and from an infinitely thin interface. Later on (2000) Singh Th. Et Al presented a study of the field of compression, axisymmetric, mixed-

supersonic air intakes for viscous flows. The governing equations of mass,

momentum, energy, and state equation have been solved to obtain the complete flow field using the commercial software package (FLUENT). Recently CFD was used for supersonic inlet. The two dimensional ramp inlet flow field was investigated by Dr.Jalal M.Jalil and Ahmed k.kirdy. In this work solution algorithm was developed based up on McCormacks finite difference technique to solve subsonic-supersonic flow problems using ramp inlet. The work focuses on calculation of inviscid inlet flow field with uniform in flow boundary conditions, viscous effects which are important to simulate, flow reversal and separation are not considered. Taher Fodeibou, Ziaul Huque and Jenny Galvis studied Effect of Mach number and angle of attack and mass flow rate and Entropy gain in a supersonic inlet. The paper looked at variation of mass flow rate through the inlet, gain in Entropy

through the inlet and angle of oblique shock waves .They found that mass flow rate found to increase with angle of attack. Entropy gain through the inlet increases with increase in Mach number and angle of attack. A research paper on Low sonic boom inlet for supersonic aircraft was given by W. Sanders & Lois J. Weir. All internal compression inlets for supersonic aircraft with variable geometry system and shock stability systems provide high performance, large operability margins. These inlets have high internal area compression and very low external surface angles. A research paper on the inlet ramp for supersonic aircraft was written by Michael Jost & Bichler in which a hydraulically pivotable inlet ramp is used for supplying air into engines of supersonic airplanes. It can be adjusted to number of positions to optimize air flow under various mach numbers. A paper by Hongjun Ran and Dimitri Mavris presented a paper on Design of 2D Supersonic Inlet to Maximize Total Pressure Recovery with the objectives of maximizing the total pressure recovery and matching the engine mass flow demand. This paper provides a method to estimate the total pressure recovery for an off-design condition for the specified inlet configuration. The result of total pressure recovery for on-design condition is considered acceptable according to the comparisons with experimental data and CFD simulation. The CFD simulations of inlet were performed with CFD code CHEM. CHEM is a full featured Navier stokes solver for non equilibrium flows. It uses advanced grid generation algorithm based up on finite volume methods and high resolution Riemann solvers. A finite volume procedure is applied to discretize flow equations. CHEM is frequently used because it can guarantee the numerical truncation errors. The Grids for CFD simulations were generated using the code GRIDGEN. Grid density parameters were performed with base line configuration. The computational domains consists of a two dimensional representation of experimental hardware internal flow path a direct sounding. Grid is created using unstructured triangular mesh. In this research a total of 127012 triangular elements were used with nodes clustered in flow path regions. . For supersonic inlets it is essential that inlet decelerate the flow in a manner that minimizes the pressure losses to cowl and addictive drag. Mixed compression

inlets in which some of the supersonic deceleration in which velocity is accomplished externally to the duct and some of compression is accomplished internally. The inlet ramp servers for the control of air supply as well as for evacuation of boundary layer air and being usable flow technology and strength wise are high supersonic operation. The advantages are that air intake is the critical region upstream of the inlet can be varied very accurately. At the same time boundary air layer which can develop to be bleed off (or) evacuated in any closed cross section of inlet ramp.


CFD is one of the branches of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the millions of calculations required to simulate the interaction of fluids and gases with the complex surfaces used in engineering. However, even with simplified equations and high speed supercomputers, only approximate solutions can be achieved in many cases. More accurate codes that can accurately and quickly simulate even complex scenarios such as supersonic or turbulent flows are an ongoing area of research. How does a CFD code work? CFD codes are structured around the numerical algorithms that can be tackle fluid problems. In order to provide easy access to their solving power all commercial CFD packages include sophisticated user interfaces input problem parameters and to examine the results. Hence all codes contain three main elements: 1. Pre-processing. 2. Solver 3. Post-processing. Pre-Processing: This is the first step in building and analyzing a flow model. Preprocessor consist of input of a flow problem by means of an operator friendly interface and subsequent transformation of this input into form of suitable for the use by the solver. The user activities at the Pre-processing stage involve: Definition of the geometry of the region: The computational domain. Grid generation the subdivision of the domain into a number of smaller, non-overlapping sub domains (or control volumes or elements Selection of physical or chemical phenomena that need to be modeled). Definition of fluid properties

Specification of appropriate boundary conditions at cells, which coincide with or touch the boundary. The solution of a flow problem (velocity, pressure, temperature etc.) is defined at nodes inside each cell. The accuracy of CFD solutions is governed by number of cells in the grid. In general, the larger numbers of cells better the solution accuracy. Both the accuracy of the solution & its cost in terms of necessary computer hardware & calculation time are dependent on the fineness of the grid. Efforts are underway to develop CFD codes with a (self) adaptive meshing capability. Ultimately such programs will automatically refine the grid in areas of rapid variation. GAMBIT (CFD PREPROCESSOR): GAMBIT is a state-of-the-art preprocessor for engineering analysis. With advanced geometry and meshing tools in a powerful, flexible, tightly-integrated, and easy-to use interface, GAMBIT can dramatically reduce preprocessing times for many applications. Complex models can be built directly within GAMBITs solid geometry modeler, or imported from any major CAD/CAE system. Using a virtual geometry overlay and advanced cleanup tools, imported geometries are quickly converted into suitable flow domains. A comprehensive set of highly-automated and size function driven meshing tools ensures that the best mesh can be generated, whether structured, multiblock, unstructured, or hybrid. Solver-: The CFD solver does the flow calculations and produces the results. FLUENT, FloWizard, FIDAP, CFX and POLYFLOW are some of the types of solvers. FLUENT is used in most industries. Flowizard is the first general-purpose rapid flow modeling tool for design and process engineers built by Fluent. POLYFLOW (and FIDAP) are also used in a wide range of fields, with emphasis on the materials processing industries. FLUENT and CFX two solvers were developed independently by ANSYS and have a number of things in common, but they also have some significant differences. Both are control-volume based for high accuracy and rely heavily on a pressure-based solution technique for broad applicability. They differ mainly in the way they integrate the fluid flow equations and in their equation solution strategies. The CFX solver uses finite elements (cell vertex numerics), similar to those used in mechanical analysis, to discretize the domain. In contrast, the FLUENT solver uses finite volumes (cell centered numerics). CFX software focuses on one approach to solve the governing equations of motion

While FLUENT product offers several solution approaches (density-, segregated- and coupledpressure-based methods). The FLUENT CFD code has extensive interactivity, so we can make changes to the analysis at any time during the process. This saves time and enables to refine designs more efficiently. Graphical user interface (GUI) is intuitive, which helps to shorten the learning curve and make the modeling process faster. In addition, FLUENT's adaptive and dynamic mesh capability is unique and works with a wide range of physical models. This capability makes it possible and simple to model complex moving objects in relation to flow. This solver provides the broadest range of rigorous physical models that have been validated against industrial scale applications, so we can accurately simulate real-world conditions, including multiphase flows, reacting flows, rotating equipment, moving and deforming objects, turbulence, radiation, acoustics and dynamic meshing. The FLUENT solver has repeatedly proven to be fast and reliable for a wide range of CFD applications. The speed to solution is faster because suite of software enables us to stay within one interface from geometry building through the solution process, to post-processing and final output. The numerical solution of NavierStokes equations in CFD codes usually implies a discretization method: it means that derivatives in partial differential equations are approximated by algebraic expressions which can be alternatively obtained by means of the finite-difference or the finite-element method. Otherwise, in a way that is completely different from the previous one, the discretization equations can be derived from the integral form of the conservation equations: this approach, known as the finite volume method, is implemented in FLUENT (FLUENT users guide, vols. 15, Lebanon, 2001), because of its adaptability to a wide variety of grid structures. The result is a set of algebraic equations through which mass, momentum, and energy transport are predicted at discrete points in the domain. In the freeboard model that is being described, the segregated solver has been chosen so the governing equations are solved sequentially. Because the governing equations are non-linear and coupled, several iterations of the solution loop must be performed before a converged solution is obtained and each of the iteration is carried out as follows: (1) Fluid properties are updated in relation to the current solution; if the calculation is at the first iteration, the fluid properties are updated consistent with the initialized solution. (2) The three momentum equations are solved consecutively using the current value for pressure so as to update the velocity field.

(3) Since the velocities obtained in the previous step may not satisfy the continuity equation, one more equation for the pressure correction is derived from the continuity equation and the linearized momentum equations: once solved, it gives the correct pressure so that continuity is satisfied. The pressurevelocity coupling is made by the SIMPLE algorithm, as in FLUENT default options. (4) Other equations for scalar quantities such as turbulence, chemical species and radiation are solved using the previously updated value of the other variables; when inter-phase coupling is to be considered, the source terms in the appropriate continuous phase equations have to be updated with a discrete phase trajectory calculation. (5) Finally, the convergence of the equations set is checked and all the procedure is repeated until convergence criteria are met. Post-Processing: This is the final step in CFD analysis, and it involves the organization and interpretation of the predicted flow data and the production of CFD images and animations. FLUENT'S software includes full post processing capabilities. FLUENT exports CFD's data to third-party postprocessors and visualization tools such as Ensight, Field view and TechPlot as well as to VRML formats. In addition, FLUENT CFD solutions are easily coupled with structural codes such as ABAQUS, MSC and ANSYS, as well as to other engineering process simulation tools. Thus FLUENT is general-purpose computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software ideally suited for incompressible and mildly compressible flows. Utilizing a pressure-based segregated finitevolume method solver, FLUENT contains physical models for a wide range of applications including turbulent flows, heat transfer, reacting flows, chemical mixing, combustion, and multiphase flows. FLUENT provides physical models on unstructured meshes, bringing you the benefits of easier problem setup and greater accuracy using solution-adaptation of the mesh. FLUENT is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software package to simulate fluid flow problems. It uses the finite-volume method to solve the governing equations for a fluid. It provides the capability to use different physical models such as incompressible or compressible, inviscid or viscous, laminar or turbulent, etc. Geometry and grid generation is done using GAMBIT which is the preprocessor bundled with FLUENT. Owing to increased popularity of engineering work stations, many of which has outstanding graphics capabilities, the leading CFD are now equipped with versatile data visualization tools. These include

Domain geometry & Grid display. Vector plots. Line & shaded contour plots. 2D & 3D surface plots. Particle tracking. View manipulation (translation, rotation, scaling etc.) Advantages of CFD: Major advancements in the area of gas-solid multiphase flow modeling offer substantial process improvements that have the potential to significantly improve process plant operations. Prediction of gas solid flow fields, in processes such as pneumatic transport lines, risers, fluidized bed reactors, hoppers and precipitators are crucial to the operation of most process plants. Up to now, the inability to accurately model these interactions has limited the role that simulation could play in improving operations. In recent years, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software developers have focused on this area to develop new modeling methods that can simulate gas-liquid-solid flows to a much higher level of reliability. As a result, process industry engineers are beginning to utilize these methods to make major improvements by evaluating alternatives that would be, if not impossible, too expensive or time-consuming to trial on the plant floor. Over the past few decades, CFD has been used to improve process design by allowing engineers to simulate the performance of alternative configurations, eliminating guesswork that would normally be used to establish equipment geometry and process conditions. The use of CFD enables engineers to obtain solutions for problems with complex geometry and boundary conditions. A CFD analysis yields values for pressure, fluid velocity, temperature, and species or phase concentration on a computational grid throughout the solution domain. Advantages of CFD can be summarized as: 1. It provides the flexibility to change design parameters without the expense of hardware changes. It therefore costs less than laboratory or field experiments, allowing engineers to try more alternative designs than would be feasible otherwise.

2. It has a faster turnaround time than experiments. 3. It guides the engineer to the root of problems, and is therefore well suited for trouble-shooting. 4. It provides comprehensive information about a flow field, especially in regions where measurements are either difficult or impossible to obtain.

. .