Plagiarism Checker X - Report

Originality Assessment

12%
Overall Similarity

Date: Nov 27, 2024 Remarks: Low similarity Verify Report:

Matches: 957 / 8230 words detected, check with your View Certificate Online
Sources: 37 supervisor if changes are
required.

v 8.0.7 - WML 3
FILE - PROJECT REPORT .DOCX
NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IVESTIGATION OF A SUPERSONIC INLET MACH 2

A PROJECT REPORT

(Phase I)

Submitted by

CHERUKUMUDI HARISH (U21AE006)

KATARI VASAVI PADMAVATHI (U21AE013)

RAGHAVARAPU HEMANTH SAGAR (U21AE025)

Submitted to the

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

in

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF 21 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

(Declared as Deemed – to – be University under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956)

CHENNAI – 600 073

NOVEMBER 2024

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report titled, “NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL

IVESTIGATION OF A SUPERSONIC INLET MACH 2”, is being submitted by

CHERUKUMUDI HARISH (U21AE006)

KATARI VASAVI PADMAVATHI (U21AE013)

RAGHAVARAPU HEMANTH SAGAR (U21AE025)

to the School of Aeronautical Engineering, Bharath Institute of 35 Science and

Technology, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research in the partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the award of the degree of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

(AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING). This is a Bonafide record of the work carried out by

them under my guidance and supervision in the academic year 2024 – 2025. Further

certified that, to the best of my knowledge, the work reported herein does not form part of

any other degree or diploma, on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an

earlier occasion on this or any other candidate.

PROJECT GUIDE

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Mr. E. MAHA VISHNU,

Assistant Professor,

School of Aeronautical Engineering,

Bharath Institute of Science & Technology,

Bharath Institute of Higher Education & Research, Chennai – 600073

Dr. C. SURESH KUMAR,

Professor,

School of Aeronautical Engineering, Bharath Institute of Science & Technology,

Bharath Institute of Higher Education & Research, Chennai – 600073

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

(Declared as Deemed – to – be University under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956)

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF 35 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE OF EVALUATION

S. No.

Student Name

Register No.

Title of the Project

Name of the Project Guide with Designation

CHERUKUMUDI

HARISH

(U21AE006)

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL IVESTIGATION OF A SUPERSONIC INLET MACH

Mr. E.

MAHA VISHNU

Assistant Professor

KATARI VASAVI

PADMAVATHI

(U21AE013)

RAGHAVARAPU HEMANTH

SAGAR
(U21AE025)

The report of the project work submitted by the above students in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Aeronautical

Engineering of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research has been evaluated

and confirmed to be their genuine work.

29 Submitted for Viva Voce held on ________________

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

ABSTRACT

This report describes the numerical and experimentation of a supersonic inlet at Mach 2.

The study aims to investigate the performance of the Single & Double wedge inlets at

Mach 2.The performance parameters are evaluated from the reference of “Modern

Compressible flow’’ by Anderson 17 . The wedge angles are considered (θ = 5°) for single

wedge (θ1= 10°, θ2= 21°) for the Double wedge inlets, The pressure losses for the

considered wedge angles are minimal than the other, The pressure recovery factor after

the normal shock formation for the single wedge (0.8), double wedge (0.95), from the

results of the single and double wedges it is concluded that the high TPR is found in the

double wedge inlet which indicates that usage of more number of ramps results in minimal

pressure losses, geometric parameters are considered 0.1 (m) for the initial wedge and the

other dimensions are evaluated using the initial wedge as reference. Theoretical

calculations are verified using the MATLAB code. The computational analysis is carried out
in the ANSYS Fluent Software and the outcomes of the analysis of the both the wedges

resulted in little variation compared to the theoretical results. Single wedge resulted below

2% error while Double wedge resulted below 5% error . Further, the fabrication of the

models will done and the experimental results will be evaluated with computational results

which need to carried out.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, we express our sincere thanks to the almighty, for bestowing his blessings

throughout this project work. We express our gratitude to our parents for their care,

support, prayers and love.

Our wholehearted thanks to our Honourable Chairman Dr.S.Jagathrakshakan, Honourable

President Dr. J. Sandeep Anand, 21 Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research

for their kind words and enthusiastic motivation.

We would like to express our deep gratitude to Dr. M. Sundararajan, 27 Vice Chancellor,

Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research. We would also like to thank Dr. S.

Elangovan, Professor Emeritus, Dr. S. Selvi Rajan, Professor Emeritus and Dr. M.

Sundararaj, Professor and Dean, School of Aeronautical Engineering for their valuable

suggestions, constant support and encouragement during the course of our study.

We wish to express our sincere gratitude and indebtedness to our project guide Mr. E.

Maha Vishnu for his valuable guidance and support for the successful completion of the

project work.
32 We would like to express our sincere thanks to the teaching staff and non-teaching staff

in the Department of Aeronautical Engineering who helped us directly and indirectly to

complete the project work.

CHERUKUMUDI HARISH (U21AE006)

KATARI VASAVI PADMAVATHI (U21AE013)

RAGHAVARAPU HEMANTH SAGAR (U21AE025)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

chapter no. title page no.

ABSTRACT iv

list of tables viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS x

1 Introduction 11

1.1 INLETS 11

1.2 Characteristics of inlet 12

1.3 TYPES OF INLET 12

1.3.1 Subsonic Inlet 12

1.3.2 Supersonic Inlet 14

1.3.3 Hypersonic Inlet 15

1.3.4 Challenges in designing of inlet 17

1.4 SHOCK WAVES 19

1.4.1 Normal Shock 18

1.4.2 Oblique Shock 18

 1.4.3 Bow Shock 18

1.5 TYPES OF INLET COMPRESSION 20

2 LITERATURE SURVEY 22

2.1 Introduction 22

2.2 summary of literatures 23

2.3 RESEARCH GAP 29

2.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT 29

2.5 OBJECTIVE 29

2.6 METHODOLOGY 30

2.6.1 Estimation of The Main Parameters 31

2.6.1.1 Single Ramp Calculations 31

2.6.1.2 Double Ramp Calculations 36

2.6.2 Analytical Calculations 45

2.6.3 Computational Analysis 49

3 results and discussion 57

4 Conclusion 58

5 APPENDIX 1 59

6 REFERENCES 66

PLAGIARISM REPORT 68
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO

TITLE

PAGE NO

3.1

Comparison Of the Single Ramp Results

57

3.2

Comparison Of the Double Ramp Results

57
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURENO

TITLE

PAGE NO.

1.1

Subsonic Inlet

12

1.2
Supersonic Inlet

14

1.3

Types of Compression

21

2.1

Methodology

30

2.2

2D Sketch of Single Ramp

29

2.3

Single Ramp

35

2.4

2D Sketch of Double Ramp

36

2.5

Double Ramp

43

2.6

Geometric 2D Sketch of Single Ramp

49

2.7

Structural 33 Meshing of Single Ramp

50

2.8

Boundary Condition setup of Single Ramp

50

2.9

Pressure Distribution over the Single Ramp

51

2.10

Density Distribution over the Single Ramp

51

2.11

Temperature Variation over the Single Ramp

52

2.12

Mach Variation over the Single Ramp

52

2.13

Geometric 2D Sketch of Double Ramp

53

2.14

Structural Meshing of Double Ramp

53

2.15

Boundary Condition setup of Double Ramp

54

2.16

Pressure Distribution over the Double Ramp

54

2.17

Density Distribution over the Double Ramp

55
2.18

Temperature Variation over the Double Ramp

55

2.19

Mach Variation over the Double Ramp

56

LIST OF SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

AOA - Angle of Attack

TPR - Total Pressure Recovery

θ - Wedge Angle

ꞵ - Wave Angle

M - Mach Number
 BPR - Back Pressure Ratio

P - Pressure

T - Temperature

ρ - Density

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter emphasize 7 the significance of Inlets usage and importance of inlets to an

aircraft . A brief review of literature pertaining to the present work is also presented.

1.1 introduction

Inlet is the primary component of an aircraft engines, which are prevalent in both

commercial and military aviation. These inlets partake a key role in maintaining required 14

mass flow rate and pressure rise required for the proper combustion of fuel in combustion

chamber. The efficiency and thrust production of an airbreathing engine was mostly

affected by the inlet performance. Based on the incoming flow Mach number, the inlets are

categorized into two types, Subsonic and Supersonic inlets. These two types of aircraft

inlets differ in their operational attributes and contributes towards respective engine’s

performance. These are designed in such a way to perform efficiently at various flight

conditions of desired Mach numbers. The main role of the any inlet is to channel the 3 air

into the engine combustion chamber by compressing the incoming air up to required

pressure and temperature essential for proper mixing and efficient combustion with fuel.

The design of an inlet affects the Total Pressure Recovery (TPR), thrust generation, fuel

efficiency, engines stability and drag minimization and a proper inlet design at a desired
flow regime (Subsonic or Supersonic) ensures a smooth airflow into 1 the engine at

optimal working conditions. The inlets must maintain performance during maneuvers that

high angle of attacks (AOA) and rapid changes in speed.

1.2 Characteristics of Inlets

The design and functionality of aircraft inlets are crucial for optimal engine performance,

especially at transition from subsonic to supersonic speeds. The characteristics of inlets

differ significantly between these two flow regimes due to variations in airflow dynamics,

pressure recovery, and overall aerodynamic efficiency. This discussion explores the

fundamental aspects of 1 subsonic and supersonic inlets, highlighting their design

principles, operational characteristics, and challenges.

1.3 TYPES OF INLETS

1.3.1 Subsonic Inlets :

The subsonic inlets are designed to feature a smooth curve with a thicker lip to facilitate

airflow at lower speeds. Mostly the subsonic inlets are adapted 3 below Mach 1 cruise

conditions, these are common in commercial airlines. (e.g., Turbojet, Turboprop,

Turboshaft, Turbofan )

1 Figure 1.1 : Subsonic Inlet

Design and functionality :

These inlets typically feature a larger cross-sectional area at the entrance compared to the

engine's intake area, allowing for smooth airflow into the engine. The design is often fixed-

geometry, which means it does not require variable components to adjust at different
altitudes and flight conditions. However, some designs may incorporate with blow-in doors

and auxiliary inlets to enhance performance during specific phases of flight, such as

takeoff.

Key characteristics :

Pressure Recovery: Subsonic inlets aim for high pressure recovery, which is vital for

maintaining engine efficiency. A loss of just 1% in inlet pressure recovery can lead to a

1.3% loss in thrust.

Flow Stability: 14 The inlet must ensure stable airflow into the engine across various

operating conditions. This involves managing boundary layer effects and preventing flow

separation that could lead to engine stall .

Drag Minimization: Reducing drag is essential for improving fuel efficiency and overall

aircraft performance. Inlet shapes are optimized to minimize drag while maintaining

adequate airflow.

Integration with Airframe: The positioning of subsonic inlets is critical to avoid ingesting

vortices or separated flows from 3 the wings or fuselage. This integration affects overall

aerodynamic performance.

Operating Conditions: Subsonic inlets are designed to operate efficiently across a range of

altitudes and speeds but are primarily optimized for cruise conditions at subsonic speed.

1.3.2 1 Supersonic Inlet :

The Supersonic inlets are different due to presence of the shock waves leads to removal of

compressors. These inlets are designed with sharper lips to minimize the shock wave

effects occurred due to higher Mach numbers greater than 1. The lips slow down 3 the

incoming air to subsonic speed before entering into throat area through oblique and normal

shocks.

Figure1.2:Supersonic inlet

Design and functionality:

These inlets must decelerate the incoming supersonic air to subsonic speeds before it
enters the combustion chamber, which is achieved through a series of shock waves and

contoured geometry adjustment. The design typically includes either internal or external or

mixed compression sections that utilize 1 oblique shocks and a diffuser section that

further reduces velocity while increasing pressure.

Key Characteristics :

Shock Wave Management: Supersonic inlets employ oblique shocks followed by a normal

shock to effectively manage airflow deceleration. The position and strength of these shocks

are critical for minimizing 17 total pressure loss during operation.

Pressure Recovery: Similar to subsonic inlets, supersonic designs prioritize high pressure

recovery ratios. However, they face greater challenges due to shock-induced losses; thus,

achieving effective pressure recovery is more complex.

Variable Geometry: Many supersonic inlets utilize variable geometry mechanisms (such

as adjustable throat areas) to adapt to changing flight conditions and maintain optimal

performance across different Mach numbers.

Boundary Layer Control: Effective management of boundary layers is crucial to prevent

flow separation at high speeds. Designs may include features like diverter-less intakes that

help to redirect boundary layers 1 away from the engine face.

Operational Efficiency Across Conditions: Supersonic inlets must perform well not only at

cruise but also during take-off and landing phases, where airflow characteristics can vary

significantly due to changes in speed and angle of attack.

1.3.3 Hypersonic Inlet :

7 Similar to the supersonic inlets the hypersonic inlet is also designed for the higher Mach

number above 5 . These both inlets share same design properties and operate in a similar

way .

Design and functionality:

The design and functionality of these inlets similar to the 1 supersonic inlets but the only

difference is that the travel speed when compared to supersonic inlets travel below Mach

5, While the hypersonic travel above Mach 5, Which are more faster than the supersonic
aircrafts.

Key Characteristics:

Extreme Compression Techniques: Hypersonic inlets often employ advanced methods

such as scramjet technology, where combustion occurs at supersonic speeds. This

necessitates exceptionally efficient air compression techniques without traditional shock

wave management due to high velocities.

Thermal Management: At hypersonic speeds, thermal loads 1 on the inlet structure

increase dramatically due to friction with air molecules. Materials used must withstand high

temperatures while maintaining structural integrity.

Flow Stability: Maintaining stable airflow into 3 the engine is critical at these speeds,

where any disturbance can lead to severe performance issues or even catastrophic failure.

Advanced 1 computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are often employed during

the design phase to predict flow behaviour accurately.

Integration with Airframe: The inlet design must be seamlessly integrated with the overall

aircraft structure to minimize drag and optimize aerodynamic efficiency at hypersonic

speeds. This involves innovative shapes that can manage boundary layers effectively

without introducing excessive weight or complexity

1.3.4 Challenges in Designing of Inlets :

The designing of the inlets presents a myriad of challenges that the engineers must 7 be

able to navigate and ensure optimal performances and aircraft’s aerodynamic profiles.

Key challenges in inlet designing :

Pressure Recovery and Drag: One of the foremost challenges is achieving a high-pressure

recovery while minimizing drag. Pressure loss can significantly impact engine performance,

as even a 1% loss in pressure can reduce thrust by approximately 1%. Designers must

balance 1 the need for smooth airflow into the engine with the aerodynamic efficiency of

the inlet shape. This often involves intricate trade-offs between inlet geometry and external
aerodynamic surfaces to mitigate frictional losses and maintain optimal airflow

characteristics.

2 Flow Separation and Stability: Inlets are susceptible to flow separation, especially at

high angles of attack or during manoeuvre’s. This phenomenon can lead to unsteady flow

conditions that adversely affect engine performance and aircraft stability. Engineers must

design inlets to manage boundary layer effects effectively, ensuring that airflow remains 1

attached to the inlet walls to prevent separation. The presence of shock waves in

supersonic and hypersonic regimes further complicates this issue, as they can exacerbate

flow instabilities.

Variable Geometry Requirements: For supersonic and hypersonic inlets, 3 variable

geometry is often necessary to adapt to changing flight conditions. This includes

mechanisms to adjust the throat area or bypass airflow as needed. The complexity of these

systems increases the potential for mechanical failure and requires precise control systems

to maintain optimal inlet performance across different speeds and altitudes.

Thermal Management: At hypersonic speeds, inlets face extreme thermal loads due to

friction with air molecules, which can reach high stagnation temperatures. Materials used in

inlet construction must be capable of withstanding these conditions 23 without

compromising structural integrity. Additionally, effective thermal management strategies

are essential to prevent overheating and ensure reliable operation.

Integration with Airframe: 2 The design of inlets must consider their integration with the

aircraft's fuselage and wings. This integration is crucial for maintaining aerodynamic

efficiency while ensuring that the inlet captures sufficient airflow without introducing

excessive drag or flow distortion. The shape and placement of inlets can significantly

influence overall aircraft performance, necessitating careful aerodynamic analysis during

the design phase.

Flow Distortion: Inlet designs must minimize flow distortion 1 at the engine face, as

uneven airflow can lead to inefficient engine operation and increased risk of compressor

stall. Engineers often utilize computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to analyze
flow patterns and optimize inlet shapes to achieve uniform air distribution at the engine

intake.

Operational Envelope: Inlets must perform efficiently across 3 a wide range of operating

conditions, from low-speed takeoff to high-speed cruise. This requires careful consideration

of various factors such as altitude, temperature, and Mach number during the design

process. The ability to maintain stable operation under these varying conditions is critical

for ensuring overall aircraft performance.

Asymmetrical Flow Issues: Particularly in Y-shaped or diverterless inlets, asymmetrical

flow can occur due to pressure variations at duct junctions or changes 14 in mass flow

rates, Such asymmetries can lead to significant pressure fluctuations at the engine face,

adversely affecting stability and control during flight maneuvers. Designers must account

for these potential instabilities when developing inlet configurations.

1.3 SHOCK WAVES

1 Shock waves are strong pressure waves, which are capable of compressing the

incoming flow by reducing the Mach number. Shock formation can differ variously

according to cruise conditions they are: Oblique shock, Normal shock & Bow shock, these

shocks form at different locations of the inlet.The shock perpendicular to the direction of

the flow is normal shock.The shock which forms at an angle to the direction of the flow is

an oblique shock.

1.4.1Normal Shock :

This shock occur when supersonic flow encounters a shock wave that is perpendicular

(normal) to the direction of the flow. This is strongest shock of all, after 5 the normal

shock the flow changes from subsonic to supersonic. The flow properties show a

significant increase in the static pressure, temperature, density , but the total pressure

decreases due to irreversibility of the shock process . The entropy increases 1 across the

flow and thermodynamic properties are altered significantly .

1.4.2 Oblique Shocks:

These shocks occur when supersonic flow encounters a surface at an angle, resulting in a
shock wave that is inclined relative to the flow direction. 3 This type of shock can deflect

the flow while still it to remain supersonic downstream. These shock properties 1 can be

calculated using θ−β−M relationship, similar to the normal shock the flow and

thermodynamic properties remains same, But the Mach number decreases across the

shock.

1.4.3 Bow shocks:

These form around or in front of the object moving through a fluid at supersonic speeds

when the object has a blunt shape, these push fluid ahead of object creating a wave that

encircles the object, these lead to flow separation which affects the 36 drag and stability.

Understanding of 1 shock waves are crucial for predicting how aircraft performs at

various speeds and conditions, and the behavior of incoming air flow and to optimize and

to find out the defaults and challenges that might cause damage to the aircraft and affect

the performance, efficiency and leading to flame off conditions, the inlets need to be

designed in a way that can generate the required shock waves and achieve the

compression suitable for the engine.

1.5 TYPES OF INLET COMPRESSION

The compression of flow is the main factor of a inlet design mostly in 22 the supersonic

and hypersonic inlets. Where the inlets are designed to achieve the compression required

for the combustion process and minimize 1 the pressure losses. The compression varies

as per the geometry of inlet varies.

There are three types of compressions

i. Internal Compression:

The inlet utilizes 15 a series of oblique shock followed by a normal shock wave to

compress the incoming airflow to the subsonic speeds, the series of oblique shocks reduce

the flow speed progressively, it often requires variable throat areas to accommodate to

various flight conditions and manage the normal shock formation effectively, this

compression can achieve high pressure recovery ratios making it suitable for the high-

performance aircrafts to operate at various supersonic speeds.

ii. External Compression:

The inlet utilizes the series of oblique shocks that form outside the inlet 3 before entering

the engine duct. These designs actually employe ramps or cones that generates the series

1 of the oblique shocks, which compress the airflow these are simpler when compared to

internal ones, these inlets design allow for the better management of the boundary layer

and optimize the airflow into the engine.

iii. Mixed Compression:

This inlet combines the elements of both internal & external compressions, It utilizes the

external oblique shocks followed by the internal normal shock within the inlet. this type of

design allows for better adaptability, Significantly at higher Mach numbers (above

2.5),these provide a good pressure recovery ,but these design are mostly heavier and

complex.

Figure 1.3 Types of inlet compressions

Summary

The Selection 1 of the inlet depends on the various factors including the design of the

aircraft, operational speed, performance characteristics. Each type of inlet offers unique

type of advantages and disadvantages & challenges.

Chapter 2

literature survey

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The history of inlets is a fascinating journey that reflects the evolution of aviation
technology and engineering challenges. Inlets are crucial components of jet engines,

designed to efficiently channel air into the engine while managing pressure and flow

characteristics. The inception of jet propulsion in the late 1930s marked the beginning of

significant developments in inlet design. Early jet aircraft, 1 such as the Messerschmitt

Me-262 and Gloster Meteor, utilized pitot-type inlets positioned away from the fuselage to

capture clean airflow. While this design allowed for effective air intake, it soon became

apparent that such configurations consumed valuable fuselage space, prompting

engineers to explore alternative arrangements. By the end of the first decade of jet flight,

the aeronautics community recognized 1 the need for a balance between pressure

recovery and drag reduction. Engineers began experimenting with various inlet designs,

including scoop-type inlets that provided good pressure recovery but often incurred higher

drag penalties. The shift towards side-mounted twin intakes on fuselage sides emerged as

a logical solution to optimize space while 23 improving aerodynamic efficiency. This

transition highlighted the fundamental trade-offs inherent in inlet design, as engineers

sought to maximize thrust while minimizing drag. As aircraft speeds increased, particularly

with the advent of supersonic flight, inlet design became increasingly complex. 2 The

introduction of mixed compression inlets, exemplified by the SR-71 Blackbird, represented

a significant technological advancement. These inlets utilized 34 a combination of oblique

and normal shock waves to decelerate incoming air efficiently before it entered the engine.

The SR-71's innovative design included a translating spike that adjusted inlet geometry

based on flight speed, ensuring optimal airflow conditions at high Mach numbers. The

challenges associated 1 with supersonic inlets were further underscored by issues such

as "unstarts," where airflow disruptions led to significant performance degradation.

Engineers had to develop sophisticated control systems and conduct extensive 2 wind

tunnel testing to mitigate these risks. 1 The need for precise airflow management at high

speeds necessitated a deeper understanding of fluid dynamics and shock wave behavior,

With the progression into hypersonic flight regimes, inlet design faced new hurdles related

to extreme thermal loads and airflow stability. Hypersonic aircraft required advanced
materials capable of withstanding high temperatures generated by friction with air

molecules. Additionally, innovative designs like parametric inlets emerged, which aimed to

manage supersonic compression externally to avoid instability within the ducting.

Throughout this historical trajectory, advancements in 30 computational fluid dynamics

(CFD) and experimental techniques have played pivotal roles in refining inlet designs. The

integration of theoretical knowledge with practical experimentation has allowed engineers

to address challenges related to pressure recovery, flow stability, and aerodynamic

efficiency more effectively.

In this chapter, past studies are reviewed to explain the subsonic and sonic conditions of

the inlets 7 in terms of flow field characteristics and pressure recovery factor. This also

includes the On-design & Off-design conditions that are used 1 to minimize the pressure

losses. The use geometric variation resulting the minimal pressure losses and increment of

the performance characteristics.

2.2 Summary of Literature Survey

Das and Prasad 1 analyzed a 2-D 37 mixed compression inlet with a On-design condition

at Mach number of 2.2 is considered in this literature by including bleed and deflection of

cowl lip angle, with and without the back pressure. Numerical Simulations have been

captured and observed varying 22 in the flow field, After the computational and

experimental result comparison it is found performance enhances with increase in cow-lip

angle for free exit flow and a small cowl lip angle of 2° deflection improves the inlet

performance for a pressurized exit flow with 2.8 percent bleed.

Farhani and Mahdavi 2 analyzed a new compression inlet which has resulted in improved

the target performance parameters i.e. TPR ratio, The inlet utilizes a four ramp and a cone

as 1 the compression surfaces and a model has been designed to a condition Mach 3.

The performances have been evaluated via numerical simulations for both On-design &

Off-design conditions are 2 compared with the evaluated experimental data of two double

cone inlets, The acquired data results indicating a new proposed inlet is effective and a

78.6% of TPR is achieved.

Chao3 et al.., designed a inlet of an airbreathing engine operating at Mach numbers

3.0-5.5, utilizing a four-shock train mixed compression configuration with a sidewall

compression at the isolator's start. Effective 3D RANS computations, validated by

experiments, show that the inlet self-starts at a freestream Mach number of 10, significantly

improving total pressure recovery and maintaining performance across all studied flight

states. The inlet achieves shock-on-lip at Mach 5.0, with maximum 1 total pressure

recovery at zero angle of attack, meeting engine performance goals despite disruptions

from positive and negative angle of attack changes.

Derek 4et al., utilized a variable-geometry cowl with three motion types: vertical, horizontal,

and lip rotation. A low-order model simulates wave interactions 2 to assess the benefits of

these configurations. The findings indicate that variable-geometry inlets can significantly

improve performance for scramjet vehicles operating over diverse flight conditions,

maintaining efficiency across a wider Mach number range.

Hongjun and Dimitri5 analyzed the 6 design of a 2d model mixed compression, two-ramp

supersonic inlet aimed at maximizing total pressure recovery and meeting engine mass

flow requirements. The design indicates an optimized total pressure recovery for on-design

conditions by ensuring equal strength of oblique and normal shocks. For off-design

conditions, conservative estimates 1 of total pressure recovery are used to assess engine

performance. Adjustments to the second ramp angle and the bypass door schedule are

made to match mass flow demands and resulted in increment of TPR. Boundary layer

effects are neglected in the supersonic section, while 17 friction and expansion losses are

considered in the subsonic diffuser.

Wenlong and Qiang 6 analyzed an inlet with integrated bump with an S-Shape diffuser at

designed Mach 1.7 , On the CFD analysis 1 the boundary layer fluid are pushed away to

wall , it is seen that there is a large increment in the TPR of 91% at the end of the inlet

section , and concluded that same changes in the design of the inlet at center line area the

flow separation can be prevented behind the normal shock wave can help in achieving

better performance of the inlet.

Javad and Behzad 7 research computationally assess the performance of two types of

supersonic air intakes: external and mixed compression, focusing on how geometric and

flow conditions affect their efficiency. 20 A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver was

developed to simulate turbulent, compressible flow around these intakes. Key geometric

parameters, including spike angle and exit area, along with flow conditions like 1 flight

Mach number and back pressure ratio (BPR), were analyzed for their impact on

performance metrics such as total pressure recovery (TPR), mass flow 28 ratio (MFR),

flow distortion (FD), and drag coefficient (Cd). Results showed that increasing BPR

improved intake performance under supercritical conditions, while higher Mach numbers

negatively impacted both intake types. Flow distortion was particularly sensitive to

geometric changes, 1 with mixed compression intakes outperforming external ones in

terms of lower drag and flow distortion.

Jinsheng8 et al.., Their study investigates 4 a two-dimensional supersonic inlet designed

to optimize aerodynamic performance through numerical simulations and wind tunnel

experiments. The variable geometry scheme effectively addresses the trade-off between

low Mach number starting performance and high Mach number efficiency, allowing stable

operation across a wide speed range. The addition of suction 1 in the diffuser enhances

performance, increasing the total pressure recovery coefficient by 2-3% while slightly

reducing outlet Mach number. As backpressure rises, 4 the shock train transitions from

weak to strong types, with flow separation primarily occurring near the diffuser sidewalls.

The sidewall suction effectively mitigates low-energy flow and stabilizes shock waves.

Shasi9 et al., has done 10 a theoretical and analytical study for 2-D , external

compression, Supersonic intake, with different numbers of ramps has been made and

analyzed at Mach 2.8, Using the MATLAB the theoretical calculations are done models

are designed in the CATIA and exported into ANSYS using the fluent software the

analysis are 20 carried out for all models , form the analysis t it is concluded that inlet

design with more number of ramps shows the high pressure recovery after the normal

shock .
Chen10et al., Their research 2 focused on the dynamic identification and control of

normal shock in a supersonic airliner’s inlet-engine integrated model, emphasizing the

impact of bleed air flow rates. Utilizing a two-dimensional CFD model, the study examines

how varying bleed flow affects 1 the normal shock position. The authors identified a

transfer function and developed a comprehensive model linking shock position to total

pressure recovery. Closed-loop control simulations demonstrated that the model can

effectively counter disturbances in inlet flow, maintaining stable operation near optimal

performance levels. This integration enhances the overall efficiency of the inlet-engine

system under varying operational conditions.

Senthil and Murugunandam11 investigated the performance enhancement of scramjet

intakes by incorporating a concave design along the cowl surface. The study builds upon

the baseline intake model established by Emami et al. (1995) and evaluates two concavity

depths (0.05 and 0.1 inches) through numerical simulations at a Mach number of 4.03,

comparing them against the base model. Their 2 findings indicate that the concave

design effectively reduces flow separation on the ramp wall and improves total pressure

recovery. This improvement is attributed to expansion fans generated at 1 the start of the

concavity, which mitigate the shock at the cowl lip and limit the size of flow separation.

Additionally, these expansion fans help align shock waves with the flow direction, reducing

reflections within the isolator and leading to higher total pressure at its exit. Both concavity

designs resulted in a slight 24 increase in Mach number without altering mass flow rate,

although minor flow distortion was observed, which could potentially be addressed by

modifying isolator length. Overall, this study highlights 2 the potential for significant

performance improvements in scramjet engines through cowl surface modifications.

Wang12 et al., Evaluated the design 1 of a supersonic isentropic inlet, which is

advantageous for hypersonic and supersonic vehicles due to its compact design that

minimizes shock wave effects while maintaining good total pressure recovery. 25 To

simplify the design process, they utilized the concept of expansion waves. Unlike

compression waves that slow down airflow, expansion waves accelerate it, allowing for
streamlined flow. They utilized Prandtl-Meyer expansion waves, 1 which can be analyzed

using straight forward equations, to derive the inlet's compression surface profile. By

combining the Method of Characteristics (MOC) equations with Prandtl-Meyer equations, a

precise flow field for the designed inlet is established. A bilinear interpolation method is

then applied to calculate streamline points, 1 leading to a sketch of the inlet forebody.

Numerical simulations confirm that the designed inlet performs well in terms of total

pressure recovery, demonstrating the practicality of this design approach and its potential

for broader applications in supersonic inlet design.

Soltani and farahani13 Analyzed 8 the performance characteristics of an axisymmetric

inlet were experimentally examined under both design and off-design conditions across a

range of free stream Mach numbers (1.5 to 2.5) and mass flow rates. Measurements

included pressure recovery, 1 mass flow through the inlet, and pressure distribution on

the spike and cowl, alongside visualizations of the shock wave formation. Results indicated

that as the Mach number increased, pressure recovery decreased, while the maximum

mass flow rate increased. Changes in mass flow impacted surface pressure on both the

cowl and spike, altering pressure and Mach number at the diffuser's end, which affects

propulsion system performance. Notably, the external boundary layer was found to be

largely independent of 14 mass flow rate at constant Mach numbers, contrasting with the

internal boundary layer behavior.

Aziz14 et al., Designed a inlet based on Numerical studies conducted to optimize 4 the

design of a supersonic intake, focusing on maximizing total pressure recovery. 6 Using

the CFDRC package, the intake was designed for a supersonic transport aircraft operating

at Mach 2.2 and an altitude of 16,700 meters. The optimized design featured a rectangular

cross-section 1 with mixed compression, incorporating three oblique shock waves and a

terminal normal shock, leading into a three-dimensional diffuser with a circular exit. A

preliminary study proposed a method to calculate 18 total pressure recovery based on two

geometric parameters: intake lip position and height, normalized to the engine face

diameter. This approach facilitated the identification of an effective design space for further
CFD analysis. The optimization process yielded an ideal intake configuration, which was

then evaluated for performance during off-design conditions.

Fakhry and Pai15 concluded that the variable multi-ramp external compression two-

dimensional inlet is the most attractive method to obtain the maximum Total pressure

Recovery and minimize the pre-entry drag, to analyze the inlet they used two developed

programs (GMTRY & CRIT), 13 The exact solution of the shock wave equation is used to

determine the inlet parameters at critical operational conditions.

2.3 Research gap

The research studies in the past decades have made a great number of investigations 1

on the inlet design approaches which mostly aims to minimize the pressure losses, many

existing literatures hasn’t considered the investigation of pressure recovery at Mach 2.0 for

various angle of attack.

2.4 ProBLEM STATEMENT

Optimization of maximum pressure recovery in a Supersonic inlet at Mach 2.0, by

maintaining the single and double ramp configurations, capable of generating oblique

shocks and a normal shock at cowl-lip, leads to a minimal pressure loss with subsonic

combustion Mach of range 0.2-0.5.

2.5 OBJECTIVES

To study & investigate the variation in pressure recovery at Mach 2.0 for a supersonic inlet

by varying Ramp angles for different angle of attack

2.6 METHODOLOGY

The Procedure begins with an in-depth literature review, which is followed by theoretical

calculations gathered from the literatures and reference books. The theoretical calculations

are done and 2 compared with the code constructed using MATLAB. Two models are

created one for single and another for double ramp with calculated dimensions and those
are analyzed using the ANSYS Fluent software.

The evaluated results have to be compared with theoretical, Analytical, Computational data

compared individually. Further the fabrication of the models 1 has to be carried and their

experimentation and result need to evaluated with the Computational.

Figure 2.1 Methodology

2.6.1 Estimation of the Main parameters

The abstract indicates the usage of the Ramps to increase the pressure recovery. Two

models of the ramps inlets designs 7 need to be figured out and the dimensions to be

calculated , this section determines about the theoretical and analytical calculation process

for the two models employing Single and Double ramp .

2.6.1.1 Single Ramp calculations:

Figure 2.2 2D sketch of Single Ramp

The shock angle the TPR are calculated using the formulas from the reference

books(Anderson 17).

• Estimation of Shock Angle(β)

Dimensionless parameters (λ, χ) are to be calculated

X = 0.986

= 2.959

= 34.301°

Pressure Recovery:

M1 = 2 , 5 γ = 1.4 , β = 34.301° , θ = 5° P1= 101325 pa,T1= 288.16 K,

ρ1=1.225 kg/m3.

Normal Mach at (1), Mn1 = M1(sinβ)

Mn1 = 2.0(sin(34.301°))

Mn1 = 1.127

P1= 101325 pa, T1= 288.16 K, ρ1=1.225 kg/m3

 = 1332860.62 pa

= 311.823 K

= 1.489 Kg/m3

= 0.997

 At Normal Shock

M2 = 1.821
Geometric Calculation of single Ramp

Figure 2.3 Single Ramp

where,

RL = Ramp Length

H = Total Height

h = Capture Height

Rh = Ramp Height

β = Shock Angle

θ = Ramp Angle

Here the initial ramp length is considered through Trail and Error method

As an initial estimation a ramp length of 0.1m is considered.

Here,

θ = 5°

Rh

Rh = 0.008 m

H = 0.068 m
h = 0.059 m

2.6.1.2 Double Ramp calculations:

Figure 2.4 2D Sketch of Double Ramp

The shock angle the TPR 31 are calculated using the formulas from the reference

book(17).

Estimation of Shock Angle(β)

Dimensionless parameters (λ, χ) are to be calculated

X = 0.934

= 2.833

= 39.313°

Pressure Recovery:

M1 = 2 , 5 γ = 1.4 , β = 34.301° , θ = 10° P1= 101325 pa,T1= 288.16 K,

ρ1=1.225 kg/m3.
Normal Mach at (1), Mn1 = M1(sinβ)

Mn1 = 2.0(sin(39.313°))

Mn1 = 1.267

P1= 101325 pa, T1= 288.16 K, ρ1=1.225 kg/m3

= 172917.75 pa

= 337.18 K

= 1.786 Kg/m3

= 0.984
For Second Ramp :

Estimation of Shock Angle(β)

Dimensionless parameters (λ, χ) are to be calculated

X = 0.569

= 1.457

= 39.313°

Pressure Recovery:

M2 = 1.640, 5 γ = 1.4 , = 50.989° , Δθ = 11°, P1= 101325 pa,

Normal Mach at (2), Mn2 = M2(sinβ2)

Mn1 = 1.640(sin(50.989°))

Mn1 = 1.274
P2= 1729.17.75 pa, T2= 337.18 K, ρ2=1.736 kg/m3

= 299000.48 pa

= 396.17 K

= 2.629 Kg/m3

 At Normal Shock

M3 = 1.243
Geometric Calculation of Double Ramp

Figure 2.5 Double Ramp

where ,

RL1 = 1st Ramp Length

RL2 = 2nd Ramp Length

H = Total Height

h = Capture Height

Rh1 = 1st Ramp Height

Rh2 = 2nd Ramp Height

β1 = 1st Shock Angle

β2= 2nd Shock Angle

θ1 = 1st Ramp Angle

θ2 = 2nd Ramp Angle

As an initial estimation 31 a ramp length of 0.1m is considered.

Here,

=39.313°, =50.989°, θ1 = 10° &θ2 = 21°

.017 m

X = 0.009 m

= 0.065 m

H = 0.135 m

2.6.2 Analytical Calculation:

To have a clarification 1 of the theoretical results analytical method is taken, Therefore, a

MATLAB is constructed the code includes the formulas that are theoretically calculated and

code is simplified which can be used to calculate many number of ramps and the values

are accurate to the theoretical calculation. The code for the Outputs 2 is presented in the

(APPENDIX 1),

The code outputs are listed below:

Output for a single Ramp:

RAMP-1 CALCULATIONS

Beta1:34.301194

M1:2.000000

Mn1:1.127087

Pressure Ratio1:1.315378

Density Ratio1:1.215558

Temperature Ratio1:1.082118

Pressure at 1:133280.682639

Density at 1:1.489059

Temperature at 1:311.823258

Mn2:0.891341

M2:1.821292

Pressure Recovery1:0.997904

NORMAL SHOCK CALCULATIONS

Beta2:90.000000

M2:1.821292

Mn2:1.821292

Pressure Ratio2:3.703288

Density Ratio2:2.392975

Temperature Ratio2:1.547566

Pressure at 2:493576.760086

Density at 2:3.563281

Temperature at 2:482.567188

Mn3:0.611810

M3:0.611810

Pressure Recovery2:0.803184

Overall Pressure Recovery:0.801500

GEOMETRIC PARAMETER CALCULATIONS

Capture Height:0.059470 m

Ramp-1 Height:0.008749 m^2

Total Height:0.068218 m

Output for a Double Ramp:

RAMP-1 CALCULATIONS

Beta1:39.313768

M1:2.000000

Mn1:1.267134

Pressure Ratio1:1.706566

Density Ratio1:1.458418

Temperature Ratio1:1.170149

Pressure at 1:172917.753133

Density at 1:1.786562

Temperature at 1:337.189993

Mn2:0.803193

M2:1.640535

Pressure Recovery1:0.98464

RAMP-2 CALCULATIONS

Beta2:50.989640

M2:1.640535

Mn2:1.274749

Pressure Ratio2:1.729149

Density Ratio2:1.471688

Temperature Ratio2:1.174943

Pressure at 2:299000.489820

Density at 2:2.629261
Temperature at 2:396.178939

Mn3:0.799099

M3:1.243446

Pressure Recovery2:0.983499

NORMAL SHOCK CALCULATIONS

Beta3:90.000000

M3:1.243446

Mn3:1.243446

Pressure Ratio3:1.637183

Density Ratio3:1.417158

Temperature Ratio3:1.155258

Pressure at 3:489518.480386

Density at 3:3.726079

Temperature at 3:457.688717

Mn4:0.816336

M4:0.816336

Pressure Recovery3:0.987919

Overall Pressure Recovery:0.956698

GEOMETRIC PARAMETER CALCULATIONS

Capture Height:0.092653 m

X:0.009778 m

Ramp-1 Height:0.017633 m

Ramp-2 Height:0.025057 m

Ramp-2 length:0.065276 m

Total Height:0.135343

2.6.3 COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS

Computational analysis over a single ramp & Double Ramps were carried over a

symmetrical flow domain designed with dimensions calculated through theoretical

approach using ANSYS 2021 R2.

A 2D single ramp model of length 0.1m was designed through ANSYS design modeler.

The generated geometry was divided into three separate faces using face split command

for better structured grid pattern in meshing, setup and analysis process are listed below :

Design Process Using ANSYS Design Modeler 20 :

On the workspace of the design modeler construct the sketch 5 as per the calculated

design parameters.

Note : All the dimensions are in meters(m)

Figure 2.6 Geometric 2D Sketch of the Single Ramp

The mesh across the domain was generated with an edge sizing of 500,400,450 divisions

for vertical edges. 200, 300, 500 are the number of divisions considered for horizontal

edge, edge sizing by fixing the element behaviour in hard. Face meshing applied to split

faces generated a structured grid pattern, The geometry has been named with different

face naming.
Figure 2.7 Structural Meshing of The Single Ramp

After 2 the meshing process the mesh geometry are update to the analyser.

Here, the pressure farfield is with the upstream conditions of 101325 pa pressure and

288.16 K temperature, 1 where the pressure outlet is specified with a 311.82 K

temperature estimated from ramp calculations. An inviscid supersonic flow of Mach 2.0

was simulated across the mesh geometry in an iterative manner, where 36 the air is

considered as ideal gas.

Figure 2.8 Boundary conditions setup of the Single Ramp

After the initialization of the geometry with an input of high number of iterations, 23 the

increase in the iterations result in accuracy and a smooth analysis over the design . 30 The

Contour of Pressure, Velocity, Temperature and Mach have been inserted below:

Figure 2.9 Pressure Distribution Over the Single Ramp

Figure 2.10 Density Distribution Over the Single Ramp

Figure 2.11 Temperature Variation Over the Single Ramp

Figure 2.12 Mach Variation Over the Single Ramp

7 Similar to the single ramp analysis the Double ramp analysis have been made and the

contours are inserted below similar to the Single ramp representation.

Figure 2.13 Geometric 2D Sketch of the Double Ramp

Figure 2.14 Structural Meshing of the Double Ramp

Figure 2.15 Boundary condition setup of the Double Ramp

Figure 2.16 Pressure Distribution over the Double Ramp

Figure 2.17 Density Distribution over the Double Ramp

Figure 2.18 Temperature Distribution over the Double Ramp

Figure 2.19 Mach Variation Over the Double Ramp

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The computational results of the single and double ramps are evaluated and compared

with the Theoretical results. The variation 7 between the results are Tabulated below:

Single Ramp:

Table 3.1 Comparison of single ramp results

Parameters

Theoretical

Computational
Error%

Pressure (pa)

133280.68

135905.6

1.93

Density (kg/m3)

1.489

1.508

1.28

Temperature (K)

311.82

313.89

0.66

Mach Number

1.82

1.80

0.85

Double Ramp:

Table 3.2 Comparison of double ramp results

Parameters

Theoretical

Computational

Error%

Pressure (pa)

299000.48

313182.9

4.52
Density (kg/m3)

2.629

2.703

2.73

Temperature (K)

396.17

404.59

2.08

Mach Number

1.24

1.19

4.03

CONCLUSION

The results above are of the designed models which are constructed 14 according to the

Theoretical calculation. The results show a significant rise 1 in the pressure recovery to

the double wedge design when compared to the single wedge. When compared with CFD

results the error percentage is below the 5%, As per the past decades studies over the

inlet 2 design and optimization the results achieved are considerable and accurate.
APPENDIX 1

The code which is used to calculate the flow parameters and Geometric parameters ,

Using the code the solutions can be drawn for varying ramp angles and Number of Ramps.

% Input Parameters

M_1 = input('Enter 1 the value of Incoming Flow Mach Number, M1:');

g = input('Enter the value of Gamma:');

z = 2;

while z>1

n = input('Enter the value of number of ramps (1 or 2):');

P1 = 101325;

D1 = 1.225;

T1 = 288.16;

C = n;

if C==1

T_1 = input('Enter the value of Theta ( °):');

l1 = input('Enter the value of first ramp length (m):');

a = [ T_1, 0];

y = 2;

f = ["RAMP-1","NORMAL SHOCK"];

elseif C==2

T_1 = input('Enter the value of Theta1 ( °):');

T_2 = input('Enter the value of Theta2 ( °):');

l1 = input('Enter the value of first ramp length (m):');

t_2 = T_2-T_1;

a = [ T_1, t_2, 0];

y = 2;
f = ["RAMP-1","RAMP-2","NORMAL SHOCK"];

else

fprintf('PLEASE DEFINE THE VALUE OF NUMBER OF RAMPS AS EITHER ''1'' or

''2''\n\n');

y =0;

end

z = z-y;

end

d = 1;

e = 2;

o = length(a);

p = zeros(1, o);

pp = zeros(1,o);

for i = 1:1: o

% Calculation of basic values to substitute in formula

pi = 3.141592;

% Calculation of Lambda

La = (sqrt(((((M_1)^2)-1)^2)-(3*(1 + ((g-1)/2)*((M_1)^2))*(1 +

((g+1)/2)*((M_1)^2))*((tand(a(i)))^2))));

% Calculation of X

X = (((((((M_1)^2)-1)^3)-(9*(1 + ((g-1)/2)*((M_1)^2))*((1 +

((g-1)/2)*((M_1)^2))+(((g+1)/4)*((M_1)^4)))*((tand(a(i)))^2)))/((La)^3)));

% Calculation of Beta

B = abs (atand(((((M_1)^2)-1) + ( 2*La*(cos((((4*pi)+acos(X))/3)))))/(3*(1 +

((g-1)/2)*((M_1)^2))*(tand(a(i))))));

p(i) = B;

% Calculation of Mn1

Mn_1 = ((M_1)*sind(B));
% Calculation of Mn2

Mn_2 = (sqrt(((((((M_1)*sind(B)))^2) + (2/(g-1)))/((((2*g)/(g-1))*((((M_1)*sind(B)))^2))-1))));

% Calculation of M2

M_2 = (Mn_2/(sind((B-a(i)))));

% 19 Calculation of density ratio

D_R = (((g+1)*((((M_1)*sind(B)))^2))/(((g-1)*((((M_1)*sind(B)))^2))+2));

% Calculation of pressure ratio

P_R = (1 +(((2*g)/(g+1))*(((((M_1)*sind(B)))^2)-1)));

% Calculation of temperature ratio

T_R = ((P_R)*(1/D_R));

% Calculation of density Value

Ds = D_R * D1;

% Calculation of Pressure Value

Ps = P_R * P1;

% Calculation of Temperature Value

Ts = T_R * T1;

% Calculation of initial stagnation to static pressure ratio

Po1_P1 = ((1+((g-1)/2)*(((((M_1)*sind(B)))^2)))^(g/(g-1)));

% Calculation of Final stagnation to 5 static pressure ratio

Po2_P2 = ((1+((g-1)/2)*(((Mn_2)^2)))^(g/(g-1)));

% Calculation of pressure recovery

Po2_Po1 = ((Po2_P2)*(P_R)*(1/(Po1_P1)));

pp(i) = Po2_Po1;

% display of results

q = f(i);

fprintf ('\n%s CALCULATIONS\n', q);

fprintf ('Beta%d:%.6f\n', d, B);

fprintf ('M%d:%.6f\n', d, M_1);

fprintf ('Mn%d:%.6f\n', d,Mn_1);

fprintf ('Pressure Ratio%d:%.6f\n', d,P_R);

fprintf ('Density Ratio%d:%.6f\n', d, D_R);

fprintf ('Temperature Ratio%d:%.6f\n', d, T_R);

fprintf ('Pressure at %d:%.6f\n', d, Ps);

fprintf ('Density at %d:%.6f\n', d, Ds);

fprintf ('Temperature at %d:%.6f\n', d, Ts);

fprintf ('Mn%d:%.6f\n', e,Mn_2);

fprintf ('M%d:%.6f\n', e,M_2);

fprintf ('Pressure Recovery%d:%.6f\n', d,Po2_Po1);

del_M = M_2 - M_1;

M_1 = M_1 + del_M;

d = d +1;

e = e+1;

del_D = Ds-D1;

D1 = D1 + del_D;

del_P = Ps-P1;

P1 = P1 + del_P;

del_T = Ts-T1;

T1 = T1 + del_T;

end

%Overall Pressure Recovery

E = n;

if E ==1

ovp = pp(1)*pp(2);

fprintf('Overall Pressure Recovery:%.6f \n', ovp);

else

ovp = pp(1)*pp(2)*pp(3);
fprintf('Overall Pressure Recovery:%.6f \n', ovp);

end

% Geometric Parameter Calculations

D = n;

if D == 1

h = (l1)*(tand(p(1)));

R1 =( tand(T_1))*(l1);

ch = h-R1;

fprintf('\nGEOMETRIC PARAMETER CALCULATIONS\n');

fprintf('Capture Height:%.6f m\n', ch);

fprintf('Ramp-1 Height:%.6f m^2\n', R1);

fprintf('Total Height:%.6f m\n', h);

else

h1 = l1*(tand(T_1));

x = h1/(tand(p(2)+T_1));

l2 = ((x*tand(p(2)+T_1))-(l1*(tand(p(1)))))/((tand(p(1)))-(tand(p(2)+T_1)));

h2 = l2*(tand(T_2));

H = (l1+l2)*(tand(p(1)));

ch = H-h1-h2;

fprintf('\nGEOMETRIC PARAMETER CALCULATIONS\n');

fprintf('Capture Height:%.6f m\n', ch);

fprintf('X:%.6f m\n', x);

fprintf('Ramp-1 Height:%.6f m\n', h1);

fprintf('Ramp-2 Height:%.6f m\n', h2);

fprintf('Ramp-2 length:%.6f m\n', l2);

fprintf('Total Height:%.6f m\n', H);

end
REFERENCES

1. S Das and JK Prasad. Cowl Deflection 1 Angle in a Supersonic Air Intake. Defence

Science Journal 2009; 59(2): 99-105.

2. Farahani M, Mahdavi MM. A 16 proposed design method for supersonic inlet to improve

performance parameters. Aerospace Science and Technology 2019; 91: 583-592.

3. Chao Huo, Zhenhua Yang, Zhengze Zhang and Peijin Liu. Numerical analysis on the

conceptual design of an air-breathing engine inlet working in mach number 3∼5.5. Journal

of AEROSPACE ENGINEERING 2021; 0(0): 1-14.

4. Derek J Dalle, Sean M Torrez, and James F Driscoll. 11 Performance Analysis of

Variable-Geometry Scramjet Inlets Using a Low-Order Model. 47th

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit 31 July – 03

August 2011: 5756.

5. Hongjun Ran and Dimitri Mavris. 6 Preliminary Design of a 2D Supersonic Inlet to

Maximize Total Pressure Recovery. AIAA 5Th Aviation, Technology, Integration and

Operation Conference(ATIO) 26-28 September 2005: 7357.

6. Wenlong Luo and Qiang Wang. 26 Aerodynamic Design of a Forebody-integrated Bump

Inlet With A S-Shape Diffuser. International Forum on Energy, Environment Science and

Materials (IFEESM2015) 2015: 840-845

7. Javed Sepahi-Younsi and Behzad Forouzi Feshalami. Performance Evaluation of

External and 6 Mixed Compression Supersonic Air Intakes: Parametric Study. Journal of
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING 2019; 32(05): 04019066-1- 04019066-14.

8. Jinsheng Zhang, Huacheng Yuan, Yunfei Wang and Guoping Huang. 4 Experiment

and numerical investigation of flow control on a supersonic inlet diffuser. Aerospace

Science and Technology 2020; 106: 106182.

9. V Kumar Shashi, Sridhar Archana, Kumar K LChaithanya, Srinivasan Poojita, and M

Mukesh. Aerodynamic design and optimization of supersonic inlets for external

compression. AIP Conference Proceedings 2204 2020; 030005-1 - 030005-10.

10. Haoying Chen, Haibo Zhang, Zhihua Xi and Qiangang Zheng. 12 Study on Inlet and

Engine Integrated Model with Normal Shock Position Feedback. International Journal of

Aerospace Engineering 2020; 2020; 5313941-1 – 5313941-13.

11. P Senthilkumar,T.M.Murugunandam. Numerical Simulation of Supersonic flow through

Scram jet intake with Concavity in Cowl Surface. Applied Fluid Mechanics 2020 , Vol. 13,

No. 5, pp. 1601-1610, 2020.

12. Wang, Yuanguang, Shuo Zhou, and Jingtao Guo. "Design process of supersonic

isentropic inlet with expansion wave concept." Procedia Engineering 126 (2015): 184-188.

13. Soltani, Mohammad R., and Mohammad Farahani. "Performance study of an inlet in

supersonic flow." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of

Aerospace Engineering 227, no. 1 (2013): 159-174.

14. Aziz, M. A., H. M. Elbanna, and M. M. Abdelrahman. 9 "Design optimization of a three

dimension supersonic intake using the CFD-RC package." In Tenth International Congress

of Fluid Dynamics (ICFD10). 2010.

15. Fakhary, I. A., and T. G. Pai. "A Study on Matching Problems of Supersonic Two-

Dimensional Air Inlets." Engineering Transactions 35, no. 2 (1987): 217-227.

16. Rathakrishnan, Ethirajan. "Applied gas dynamics." (2019).

17. Anderson, John David. "Modern compressible flow: with historical perspective."

(No Title) (1990).

18. Farokhi, Saeed. Aircraft propulsion: cleaner, leaner, and greener. John
Wiley & Sons, 2021.

v
Sources
https://exrocketman.blogspot.com/2020/11/fundamentals-of-inlets.html
1 INTERNET
5%
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-63638-z
2 INTERNET
1%
https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/p/air-entrance.html
3 INTERNET
1%
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/aeronautical-journal/article/abs/experimental-and-numerical-
4 investigation-on-a-supersonic-inlet-with-large-bleed-window/8B57C2A57BDA6A92E93E15CFF3134DFC
INTERNET
1%
https://www.sanfoundry.com/gas-dynamics-questions-answers-normal-shock-waves/
5 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/DESIGN-OPTIMIZATION-OF-A-THREE-DIMENSION-SUPERSONIC-Aziz-
6 Elbanna/a343b12e7289cb50517c611102162e9850848f5f
INTERNET
<1%
https://library.soton.ac.uk/writing_the_dissertation/results_discussion
7 INTERNET
<1%
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0954410011426672
8 INTERNET
<1%
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TY3rtcwAAAAJ
9 INTERNET
<1%
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/2204/1/030005/1002617/Aerodynamic-design-and-optimization-of-
10 supersonic
INTERNET
<1%
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/90713
11 INTERNET
<1%
https://preview.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2020/5313941/fig1/
12 INTERNET
<1%
https://et.ippt.pan.pl/index.php/et/article/view/1759/0
13 INTERNET
<1%
https://ansyshelp.ansys.com/public////////Views/Secured/corp/v242/en/cfx_mod/i1306221.html
14 INTERNET
<1%
 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120018047/downloads/20120018047.pdf
15 INTERNET
<1%
https://ae.sharif.edu/~portal/faculty/1379071436
16 INTERNET
<1%
https://repository.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/25446/Ran_2005_1.pdf?sequence=3
17 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224936311_DESIGN_OPTIMIZATION_OF_A_THREE_DIMENSION_SUPE
RSONIC_INTAKE_USING_THE_CFD-RC_PACKAGE#:~:text=A study was conducted as a prelude to,normalized
18 with respect to the engine face diameter.
INTERNET
<1%
https://ansyshelp.ansys.com/public////Views/Secured/corp/v242/en/flu_th/flu_th.html
19 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46753-3
20 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.careers360.com/university/bharath-institute-of-higher-education-and-research-chennai/btech-
21 aeronautical-engineering-course
INTERNET
<1%
https://onlinecourses.nptel.ac.in/noc24_ae12/preview
22 INTERNET
<1%
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-45321-2_7
23 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.jafmonline.net/article_1031_b971c5aef8738e8ec0ba76eeb109cf82.pdf
24 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705815035419
25 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301462593_Aerodynamic_Design_of_An_Forebody-
26 integrated_Bump_Inlet_With_A_S-Shape_Diffuser
INTERNET
<1%
https://jrmch.ac.in/vice-chancellor.php
27 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-pressure-recovery-coefficient-versus-flight-Mach-
28 number_fig2_245230924
INTERNET
<1%
 https://test.sathyabama.ac.in/website/ProjectGuidelines_2021.pdf
29 INTERNET
<1%
https://aeroplanetech.com/torque-and-stability/
30 INTERNET
<1%
https://concalculator.com/ramp-calculator/
31 INTERNET
<1%
https://hix.ai/hub/email/thank-you-letter-for-project-completion
32 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Meshing-of-single-ramp-b-Meshing-stepped-ramp-For-case1The-
33 boundary-layer-which_fig2_322569146
INTERNET
<1%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1270963819302834
34 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.bharathuniv.ac.in/
35 INTERNET
<1%
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/392-rocket-aerodynamics#:~:text=Rocket aerodynamics is the study
36 of how air,it pointing in the right direction without wobbling).
INTERNET
<1%
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212540X20300043
37 INTERNET
<1%

EXCLUDE CUSTOM MATCHES OFF

EXCLUDE QUOTES ON

EXCLUDE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON