To solve the problem that the control of shock wave elimination is weakened under off-design conditions, the design concept of a variable-geometry inlet scheme that combines the variable-geometry cowl (translating and diagonalizing) with regulating shock wave elimination is introduced in this paper. The variable-geometry inlet is designed by the theories of oblique shock wave and isentropic wave as well as the Oswatitsch theory. Regulatory law of the variable-geometry cowl based on shock wave elimination is obtained by the geometric relationships between cowl compression angle, cowl shock wave angle, and optimal control point or range. Numerical simulations are conducted to investigate flow field characteristics, control mechanism, and working performance of the inlet. Results reveal that expansion waves have a significant impact on the cowl shock wave and boundary layer interaction, and flow separation. Furthermore, variable-geometry inlet with translating and diagonalizing cowl based on the regulation of shock wave elimination effectively controls and even completely eliminates the flow separation. In terms of inlet performance, the total pressure loss of the variable-geometry inlet decreases such that the total pressure recovery coefficients of the translating cowl and diagonalizing cowl inlets are increased by maximum values of 3.39 % and 9.97 %, respectively. However, the mass flow coefficient of translating cowl inlet decreases, whereas that of the diagonalizing cowl inlet is equivalent to that of the fixed-geometry inlet. The working range can be widened by changing the internal contract ratio of the inlet through translating or diagonalizing the cowl. The results confirm that the scheme of variable geometry inlet with diagonalizing cowl is practicable and reliable and has important guiding significance and value for inlet design.
CurranET. Scramjet engines: the first forty years. J Propul Power2001; 17(6): 1138–1148. DOI: 10.2514/2.5875.
3.
TownendLH. Domain of the scramjet. J Propul Power2001; 17(6): 1205–1213. DOI: 10.2514/2.5865.
4.
FryRS. A century of ramjet propulsion technology evolution. J Propul Power2004; 20(1): 27–58. DOI: 10.2514/1.9178.
5.
FalempinFSerreL. French contribution towards a possible fully reusable air-breathing space launcher. In: 54th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law 29 September - 3 October. Bremen, Germany: IAC-03-V.6.02, 2003. DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-03-V.6.02.
6.
FalempinFSerreL. French flight testing program LEA - status in 2011. 17th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference 11 - 14 april 2011, San Francisco, California: AIAA-2011-2200, 2011. DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-2200.
7.
FalempinFWendlingEGoldfeldM, et al.Experimental investigation of starting process for a variable geometry air inlet operating from Mach 2 to Mach 8. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit 9 - 12 july 2006. AIAA: Sacramento, California, 2006, 2006–4513. DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-4513.
8.
McClintonCR. X-43: scramjet power breaks the hypersonic barrier. In: 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada: AIAA 2006-1, 2006. DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-1.
9.
HuebnerLDRockKERufEG, et al.Hyper-X flight engine ground testing for X-43 flight risk reduction. AIAA/NAL-NASDA-ISAS 10th international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference. Kyoto, Japan: AIAA; 2001, 2001-1809. DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-1809.
10.
KojimaTTanatsuguNSatoT, et al.Development study on axisymmetric air inlet for ATREX engine. In: 10th AIAA/NALNASDA-ISAS international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, 24-27 april 2001. Kyoto, Japan: AIAA, 2001, 1895. DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-1895.
11.
JohnsonHJMontoyaEJ. Local flow measurements at the inlet spike tip of a Mach 3 supersonic cruise airplane. Washington, D. C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1973, 19730015310.
12.
SatoTTanatsuguNKobayashiH, et al.Development study on the atrex engine. In: 54th international astronautical congress of the international astronautical federation (IAF), the international academy of astronautics and the international institute of space law. Bremen, Germany: IAC-03-S.5.02; 2003. DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-03-S.5.02.
13.
MaruYTanatsuguNSatoT, et al.Multi-row disk arrangement concept for spike of axisymmetric air inlet. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 11-14 July 2004. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: AIAA; 2004. DOI: 10.2514/6.2004-3407.
14.
KobayashiHTanatsuguNSatoT, et al.Experimental study of multi-row disk inlets for hypersonic air breathing propulsion. In: 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 5-8 January 2004, Reno, Nevada: AIAA; 2004. DOI: 10.2514/6.2004-861.
15.
KojimaTTaguchiHAokiT, et al.Development study of the air-intake of the ATREX engine. In: 12th international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conferences, 15-19 December 2003, Norfolk, Virginia; 2003. DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-7042.
16.
ZhangYTanHJ. Ramp shock regulation of supersonic inlet with shape memory alloy plate. AIAA J2018; 56(4): 1696–1702. DOI: 10.2514/1.J056318.
LiuYWangLQianZS. Numerical investigation on the assistant restarting method of variable geometry for high Mach number inlet. Aero Sci Technol2018; 79: 647–657. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.06.014.
19.
ShindeVMcNamaraJGaitondeD. Control of transitional shock wave boundary layer interaction using structurally constrained surface morphing. Aero Sci Technol2020; 96(2020): 105545. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.105545.
20.
ZuoFYMemmoloA. Investigation of conical shock wave/boundary layer interaction in axisymmetric internal flow. Aero Sci Technol2020; 106(2020): 106106. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2020.106106.
21.
ZhaiJZhangCAWangFM, et al.Control of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction using a backward-facing step. Aero Sci Technol2022; 126(2022): 107665. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2022.107665.
22.
GrossALittleJFaselHF. Numerical investigation of unswept and swept turbulent shock-wave boundary layer interactions. Aero Sci Technol2022; 123(2022): 107455. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2022.107455.
23.
KrishnanLSandhamNDSteelantJ. Shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in a model scramjet intake. AIAA J2009; 47(7): 1680–1691. DOI: 10.2514/1.41107.
24.
SathianarayananAVermaSB. Experimental investigation of an incident shock-induced interaction near an expansion corner. J Spacecraft Rockets2017; 54(3): 105104. DOI: 10.2514/1.A33466.
25.
VanWDM SinletsCurranETMurthySNB (eds). Scramjet Propulsion. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. Reston, VA: AIAA, 2000, vol 189, pp. 447–511. DOI: 10.2514/4.866609.
26.
DeBonisJROberkampfWLWolfTT, et al.Assessment of computational fluid dynamics and experimental data for shock boundary-layer interactions. AIAA J2012; 50(4): 891–903. DOI: 10.2514/1.J051341.
WangBLiuWDZhaoYX, et al.Experimental investigation of the micro-ramp based shock wave and turbulent boundary layer interaction control. Phys Fluids2012; 24(5): 055110. DOI: 10.1063/1.4719146.
29.
ZhangYTanHJTianFC, et al.Control of incident shock/boundary-layer interaction by a two-dimensional bump. AIAA J2014; 52(4): 08711. DOI: 10.2514/1.J052786.
30.
ZhangYTanHJLiJF, et al.Control of cowl-shock/boundary-layer interactions by deformable shape-aemory alloy bump. AIAA J2019; 57(2): 1–18. DOI: 10.2514/1.J057409.
31.
TongFLLiXLYuanXX, et al.Incident shock wave and supersonic turbulent boundary layer interactions near an expansion corner. Comput Fluids2020; 198(2020): 104385. DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2019.104385.
32.
ChewYT. Shock wave and boundary layer interaction in the presence of an expansion corner. Aeronaut Q1979; 30(3): 506–527. DOI: 10.1017/S0001925900008684.
33.
HawboldtRJSullivanPAGottliebJJ. Experimental study of shock wave and hypersonic boundary layer interactions near a convex corner. In: 24th fluid dynamics conference, Orlando, FL, 6-9 July 1993; 1993, 93–2980. DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-2980.
34.
HawboldtRJSullivanPAGottliebJJ. Interactions between shock wave and hypersonic laminar boundary layer near convex corner. J Spacecraft Rockets1995; 32(5): 1–20. DOI: 10.2514/3.26684.
35.
WhiteMEAultDA. Hypersonic shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions in the vicinity of an expansion corner. In: 6th international aerospace planes and hypersonics technologies conference, 3-7 april 1995, chattanooga. AIAA: TN, 1995, pp. 95–6125. DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-6125.
ZhangYTanHJZhuangY, et al.Influence of expansion waves on cowl shock/boundary layer interaction in hypersonic inlets. J Propul Power2014; 30(5): 80–97. DOI: 10.2514/1.B35090.
39.
SandersBWWeirLJ. Aerodynamic design of a dual-Flow Mach 7 hypersonic inlet system for a turbine-based combined-cycle hypersonic propulsion system. Washington, D.C: NASA/CR-2008-2115214.
40.
HerrmannCKoschelW. Experimental investigation of the internal compression of a hypersonic intake. In: 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Indianapolis Indiana, 7-10 July 2002. DOI: 10.2514/6.2002-4130.
41.
TahaAATiwariSNMohieldinTO. Validation of fluent CFD code in supersonic flow field. In: 15th AIAA computational fluid dynamics conference, Anaheim, CA, 11-14 june 2001. DOI: 10.2514/6.2001-2637.
42.
KoutsavdisEStuckertG. A numerical investigation of the flow characteristics of plug nozzles using FLUENT. In: 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, 14-17 Jan 2002. DOI: 10.2514/6.2002-511.
43.
ReinartzBUHerrmannCDBallmannJ, et al.Aerodynamic performance analysis of a hypersonic inlet isolator using computation and experiment. J Propul Power2003; 19(5): 868–875. DOI: 10.2514/2.6177.
44.
AllamaprabhuCRaghunandanBMorinigoJ. Improved prediction of flow separation in thrust optimized parabolic nozzles with FLUENT. In: 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, San Diego, California, 31 July-03 August, 2011, pp. 2011–5689. DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5689.
45.
TanHJLiCHZhangY. Investigation of a fluidic shock control method for hypersonic inlets. J Propul Power2010; 26(5): 1072–1083. DOI: 10.2514/1.48513.
46.
ChangJTBaoWYuDR, et al.Effects of wall cooling on performance parameters of hypersonic inlets. Acta Astronaut2009; 65(3): 467–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.02.005.
47.
AndersonJD. Modern compressible flow. 3rd ed. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2003. DOI: 10.1063/1.5000876.
48.
DupontPHaddadCArdissoneJP, et al.Space and time organisation of a shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. Aero Sci Technol2005; 9(7): 561–572. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2004.12.009.
