RANS Modelling of Shock-Wave Boundary Layer Interaction in a Mixed Compression Axisymmetric Hypersonic Intake

Abstract

This work focuses on developing a design methodology for a mixed compression axisymmetric hypersonic intake and numerically computing flow around the designed intake using RANS methods to study shock/shock and shock wave/boundary layer interaction. The focus of the computational study is on the effect of increasing the blunt radius of the cowl lip on the resulting shock/shock interaction between the oblique shock emanating from the cone compression apex and the bow shock on the cowl lip; as well the resulting reflected oblique shock boundary layer interaction from the cowl tip onto the cone compression surface. Three (3) radii are tested: 2mm, 16mm and 32mm at Mach 2 and the study is extended to a nominal 16mm condition at Mach 5. It is found that with increasing cowl-lip radius the magnitude of the shock-wave/boundary layer interaction increases significantly. Separation on the cone compression surface is observed at the 16mm and 32mm case at the Mach 2 position and in the 16mm case at the Mach 5 position. In addition in the 16mm and 32mm cases at the Mach 2 position, a Mach stem is observed. The shock/shock interactions, however, are found to be less dramatic. Type III and IV phenomena are observed, however, there is limited interference with the bow shock.

Grid Adaptive Technique for Simulation of Scramjet Intake-Isolator at Hypersonic Speeds

“…Krishna Zero et al, had simulated hypersonic flow shock boundary-layer interaction with mesh adaptation in ANSYS Fluent successfully and suggested possibility of more accurate results with advanced reliability turbulence models [15]. Abhijeet Kumar recommended RANS methods with a SA turbulence model to capture the flow separation due to shock wave boundary layer interaction at Mach 5 in hypersonic intake [16]. Emad Qasem Hussein et al, used Density based method in Ansys Fluent to simulate aerodynamic heating for a flying body at Hypersonic flows had comparatively good results with analytical results [17].…”