Assessment of Total Pressure and Swirl Distortions in a Busemann Inlet at Mach 6

Document Type : Regular Article


1 School of Aircraft Engineering, Nanchang Hangkong University, No. 696, Fenghenan Road, Nanchang, 100190, Jiangxi, P.R. China

2 Science and Technology on Scramjet Laboratory,China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center, MianYang, 621000, China,Aerospace Technology Institute



Flow distortions in high-speed inlet systems are complex, and high-performance air-breathing propulsion systems. In this paper, large eddy simulations are performed to study the total pressure and swirl distortions in a Busemann inlet at freestream Mach number 6. The on-design flow condition with both the Attack Angle and Sideslip Angle equal to zero and two off-design conditions (Attack Angle = 6 deg, Sideslip Angle = 0 deg and Attack Angle = 6 deg, Sideslip Angle = 6 deg) are considered to explore the flow characteristics inside the inlet duct as well as the distortions at the inlet exit plane. It is found that under the on-design flow condition, the shock structures and boundary layer development are nearly axisymmetric about the inlet axis. The captured freestream is compressed smoothly through inlet duct. The total pressure loss is limited primarily to within the boundary layer region, and nearly no swirling flow is introduced during the flow compression process. Under the off-design flow conditions, the shock structures inside the inlet duct become non-axisymmetric, and localized strong shock–boundary layer interactions occur. In the case of the off-design flow condition with Attack Angle = 6 deg, Sideslip Angle = 0 deg, a large flow separation zone appears owing to the incidence of a strong curved shock on the wall surface at the leeward side in the inlet duct, and the low-kinetic-energy flow contained in this flow separation zone leads to an obvious total-pressure reduction at the exit plane of inlet. Meanwhile, a large-scale swirling flow is formed at the exit plane of inlet owing to the appearance of a nonuniform transverse pressure gradient. Under the off-design conditions, a pair of vortex is observed at the exit plane of inlet. The shock wave–boundary layer interactions under the off-design conditions are stronger than those under the on-design condition, which results in more intense total pressure and swirl distortions. The averages of the fluctuating distortions are more evident than the temporal-averaged total-pressure and swirl distortions. These results show that turbulent flow fluctuations are important in determining the overall distortion level in a Busemann inlet.


Main Subjects

AIR1419C (2017). Inlet total pressure distortion considerations for gas turbine engines. SAE International.##
AIR5686 (2017). A methodology for assessing inlet swirl distortion, SAE International.##
ARP1420C (2017). Gas turbine engine inlet flow distortion guidelines. SAE International.##
Bachchan, N., & Hillie, R. (2004a,August). Effects of Hypersonic Inlet Flow Non-Uniformities on Stabilising Isolator Shock Systems. AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island.##
Bachchan, N., & Hillie, R. (2004b, August). Hypersonic inlet flow analysis at off-design conditions. 22nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island.##
Brahmachary, S., & Ogawa, H. (2021). Multipoint design optimization of busemann-based intakes for scramjet-powered ascent flight. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 37:6, 850-867.
Ding, F., Liu, J., Shen, C., & Huang, W. (2015). Novel inlet–airframe integration methodology for hypersonic waverider vehicles. Acta Astronautica, 111, 178-197.
Ding, F., Liu, J., Shen, C., Huang, W., Liu, Z., & Chen, S. (2018). An overview of waverider design concept in airframe/inlet integration methodology for air-breathing hypersonic vehicles. Acta Astronautica, 152, 639-656.
Flock, A. K., & Gülhan, A. (2016). Viscous effects and truncation effects in axisymmetric busemann scramjet intakes. AIAA Journal, 54:6, 1881-1891.
Geurts, B. J., Kuerten, J. G. M., Vreman, A. W., Theofilis, V., & Zandbergen, P. J. (1993). A finite volume approach to compressible Large Eddy Simulations. Applied Scientific Research, 51, 325-329.
Heiser, W., Pratt, D., Daley, D., & Mehta, U. (1994). Hypersonic airbreathing propulsion. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, USA.##
Luo, S., Sun, Y., Liu, J., Song J., & Cao, W., (2022). Performance analysis of the hypersonic vehicle with dorsal and ventral intake. Aerospace Science and Technology, 113 A, 1270-9638.
Ma, B., Wang, G., Wu, J., & Ye, Z. (2020). Avoiding choked flow and flow hysteresis of busemann biplane by stagger approach. Journal of Aircraft, 57(3), 440-455.
Malo-Molina, F. J., Gaitonde, D. V., Ebrahimi, H. B., & Ruffin, S. M. (2010). Three-dimensional analysis of a supersonic combustor coupled to innovative inward-turning inlets. AIAA Journal, 48(3), 572-582.
McGann, B., Lee, T., Ombrello, T., Carter, C. D., Hammack, S. D., & Do, H. (2019). Inlet distortion effects on fuel distribution and ignition in scramjet cavity flameholder. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 35(3), 601-613.
Mölder, S., & Szpiro, E. J. (1966). Busemann inlet for hypersonic speeds. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 3(8), 1303-1304.
Musa, O., Huang, G., & Yu, Z. (2022). Assessment of new pressure-corrected design method for hypersonic internal waverider intake. Acta Astronautica, 201, 230-246.
Ombrello, T., Peltier, S., & Carter, C. D. (2015). Effects of inlet distortion on cavity ignition in supersonic flow. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida.##
Ramunno, M. A., Boyd, I. M., Grandhi, R. V., & Camberos, J. (2022). Integrated hypersonic aeropropulsion model for multidisciplinary vehicle analysis and optimization. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 38(3), 478-488.
Schulte, D., Henckels, A., & Neubacher, R. (2001). Manipulation of shock/boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic inlets. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 17(3), 585-590.
Wang, C., Tian, X., Yan, L., Xue, L., & Cheng, K. (2015). Preliminary integrated design of hypersonic vehicle configurations including inward-turning inlets. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 28(6), 04014143.
Wang, X., Wang, J., & Lyu, Z. (2016). A new integration method based on the coupling of mutistage osculating cones waverider and Busemann inlet for hypersonic airbreathing vehicles. Acta Astronautica, 126, 424-438.
Xie, W., Wu, Z., Yu, A., & Guo, S. (2018). Control of severe shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions in hypersonic inlets. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 34(3), 614-623.
Xiong, B., Fan, X., & Wang, Y. (2019). Parameterization and optimization design of a hypersonic inward turning inlet. Acta Astronautica, 164, 130-141.
Xu, S., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Fan, X., & Xiong, B. (2022). Experimental investigations of hypersonic inlet unstart/restart process and hysteresis phenomenon caused by angle of attack. Aerospace Science and Technology, 126, 107621.
Yu, Z., Huang, G., & Xia, C. (2020). 3D inverse method of characteristics for hypersonic bump-inlet integration airbreathing vehicles. Acta Astronautica, 166, 11–22.
Zhai, J., Zhang, C., Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2022). Control of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction using a backward-facing step. Aerospace Science and Technology, 126, 107665.
Zhang, Y., Tan, H., Zhuang, Y., & Wang, D. (2014). Influence of expansion waves on cowl shock/boundary layer interaction in hypersonic inlets. Journal of Propulsion and Powe,r 30(5), 1183-1191.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., He, X., Deng, X., & Sun, H (2017). Detached eddy simulation of complex separation flows over a modern fighter 313 model at high angle of attack. Communications in Computational Physics, 22, 1309–1332.