See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264231745

Preliminary Design of a Tip-to-Tail Model of a Ram-Scram Jet Engine

Conference Paper · January 2009

DOI: 10.2514/6.2009-714

CITATIONS READS
6 904

3 authors:

Frederick Ferguson Mookesh Dhanasar

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
103 PUBLICATIONS   521 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Isaiah Blankson
NASA
101 PUBLICATIONS   801 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Waverider View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mookesh Dhanasar on 04 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Preliminary Design of A Tip-to-Tail Model of A
Ram-Scram Jet Engine
Frederick Ferguson,1 and Mookesh Dhanasar2
North Carolina A&T State University

Isaiah M. Blankson3
NASA Glenn Research Center

Abstract

The ramjet and the scramjet are promising air breathing engine concepts that are
capable of powering any aircraft in the Mach number range of 3 to 10. This research
explores the inverse design of a tip-to-tail dual mode ramjet-scramjet engine that is
derived from the exact solution of simplified supersonic and hypersonic flow fields.
Through the coupled use of the exact solutions of shock waves in an ideal gas, and the
exact representations of planar and axisymmetric geometric shapes, a series of
elementary configurations are developed and analyzed. The design process is
accomplished through the use of specially developed subroutines, programmed in
FORTRAN, to manipulate and assemble these elementary configurations into completed
engine configurations. The elementary shapes of interest to this study include the star-
shaped leading edges, the caret-shaped inlets, and cylindrical combustors, convergent and
divergent nozzles, and plug nozzle after-bodies. This research effort is built on the
authors’ previous works on elementary aerodynamic shape generation, integration and
analysis. As part of this effort a FORTRAN code is developed. As its output, the design
code generates the engine configuration and analyzes its aerodynamic performance.
Further, the algorithms used to evaluate the resulting engine performance characteristics,
such as the Isp, the thrust, and maximum operating temperatures, are based on empirical
engineering correlations and strict geometric principles. In general, the code developed as
part of this research effort was used to conduct the following studies: Generate
propulsion systems configurations from prescribed 2-D shock waves; Evaluate the
resulting engine geometric characteristics; Evaluate the thrust performance of the engine,
and; Identify the design parameters that affect the engine’s overall performance and
shape. The outcome of this research can be classified in the following two categories.
First, the propulsion system design and assembly process led to the discovery of
engineering parameters that directly influence the aerodynamic performance of the
resulting configuration. These parameters were manipulated to generate configurations
with superior thrust and Isp characteristics. Second, routines were developed that led to
the design and analysis of a morphing ramjet-to-scramjet configuration.

Nomenclature
 = angle of attack
 = shock wave angle
Cf = skin friction coefficient
Cp = pressure coefficient
D = Drag, force component parallel to the freestream velocity

1
Professor & Director, Center for Aerospace Research, and AIAA Senior Member.
2
Graduate Student, Center for Aerospace Research, and AIAA Member.
3
Senior Scientist, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, and AIAA Associate Member.
 = specific heats ratio
L = Lift, force component perpendicular to the freestream velocity
M = Mach number
 = wedge angle
P = pressure
u = velocity component parallel to the freestream velocity
S = Surface area
T = temperature
OOP = Object Oriented Programming

I. Introduction
Aircraft designers of the 21st century are focusing on a revolutionary engine technology that is
capable of not only propelling vehicles to hypersonic speeds, but also one that can facilitate integrated air-
to-space operations. The SCRAMJET, abbreviated from the words; Supersonic Combustion Ramjet, is
the latest evolution of the jet engine family. The scramjet, like its predecessor, the ramjet is natural
extensions of the jet engine concept. However, unlike the ramjet, the scramjet uses no rotating parts.
Scramjets will enable three categories of hypersonic craft; namely, weapons, such as cruise missiles;
aircraft, such as those designed for global strike and reconnaissance missions; and space-access vehicles
that will take off and land like conventional airliners1.
While the physical concepts behind the scramjet are very simple, the practical ramifications of
constructing such an engine are quite formidable. A few of the challenges are supersonic fuel-air mixing,
the heat dissipation both from the air friction and the internal combustion, and the engine operating
temperatures. Consequently, the flow path of the incoming air needs to be extremely precise to minimize
hot spots. However, by far, the biggest challenges arise from the intense operational temperatures. Since
the air entering the engine is already heated by friction with the engine walls, combustion chamber
temperatures could exceed 5000 degrees Fahrenheit, if left unchecked1-2. At these temperatures most
metals melt, and air and fuel become ionized, so that the physics of their behavior becomes unpredictable.
The objective of this paper is to identify the preliminary design variables of an idealized ram-scramjet
engine under optimum conditions.

A: A Brief History of Scramjet Development

In the United States, Scramjets have a long and active development history. Theoretical studies of the
scramjet started in the 1940s, and by the late 1950s, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and NASA began
developing scramjet engines. Since then, many hydrogen and hydrocarbon-fueled engine programs have
helped the scramjet technology base evolve to its current state. The most influential of these efforts was
NASA’s National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program. This program was established in 1986 to develop a
vehicle which is capable of speeds greater than Mach 15, and capable of both horizontal takeoff and
landing capabilities1-4. In November of 1991, Russian scientists with the support of French colleagues,
tested a small axisymmetric hydrogen ramjet propelled by a SA-5 surface to air missile, at Mach 5.35. In
1993 the Australian University of Queensland achieved the first positive net thrust in a completely
scramjet powered vehicle tested in their T4 shock tunnel. In August 30, 2001 the US Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency fired a 4 inch diameter 20% scramjet powered missile at Mach 7 from a
specialized gun. The scramjet then covered 260 ft in about 30 milliseconds under its own power. Again,
on July 29, 2002 the University of Queensland launched a scramjet in a Terrier Orion Mk70 rocket about
370 km into the sky. Upon plummeting back to earth, the scramjet fired for a few seconds before impact.
On March 27, 2004 NASA's 12ft X-43 plane became the first to successfully incorporate a scramjet
engine and fly under its power for 10 seconds. This made it the world’s fastest air-breathing aircraft
having flow at a speed of at Mach 6.8316. However, this record was short lived, since in November 16,
2004 the X-43 plane flew for a 3rd time5-6, to reach a maximum speed of Mach 9.8.
 II. Aerophysics of the Ram-Scramjet
A: Conventional Ramjet and Scramjet Designs
The ramjet was designed to work at supersonic speeds. Unlike turbojets, ramjets have no moving
parts. The air is captured by the inlet and compressed by the primary shock wave. A typical ramjet
configuration17, 18 is illustrated in Fig. 1. As observed in Fig. 1, the compressed air is decelerated as it
approaches the burner, and combustion takes place under subsonic conditions. A nozzle is then employed
to accelerate the hot gas back to supersonic speeds. This mode of operation gives the ramjets a leap in
speed to Mach numbers ranging from 3 – 5. It is of interest to note that the air speed in the ramjet
compressor remains high. In addition, the air in the combustor is brought to subsonic conditions prior to
burning, resulting in both high temperature and pressure in the engine with temperatures in the range of
5,000ºF. These and other effects, force the ramjet to favor operations at low Mach numbers1-2, 7.

Fig. 1: Schematic Diagram of the Ramjet7 Fig. 2: Schematic Diagram of the Scramjet7.

In an effort to mitigate this problem designers came up with the scramjet concept, a supersonic
combustion ramjet which solved the overheating problem of the ramjet. This concept is illustrated in Fig.
2. The difficulties associated with mixing air with the fuel at supersonic speeds, and completing
combustion within milliseconds, have both been solved as demonstrated in the two successful X-34 test
flights15. In this effort, a deliberate attempt is made to construct a variable ‘diffuser-to-plug-nozzle’
concept that allows for the seamless engine transition from ramjet to scramjet operation modes.

B. Aerophysics of the Ram-Scramjet

At high speeds, the primary purpose of the air induction system, which comprises of the vehicle
forebody and inlet, is to capture and compress an appropriate quantity of air. This appropriate mass flow
must then be further processed by the other engine components6 as illustrated in Fig. 3. In conventional
jet engines, the inlet works in combination with the mechanical compressor to provide the necessary high
pressure for the entire engine. For vehicles flying at high speeds, adequate compression can be achieved
without a mechanical compressor. The fore-body provides the initial external compression which also
contributes to the drag and moments of the vehicle. Typically, the internal inlet compression provides the
final compression of the propulsion cycle. In general, the fore-body and the inlet are designed in harmony
to provide the required mass capture and aerodynamic contraction ratio needed to maximize the inlet
efficiency.
The air in the captured stream tube undergoes a reduction in Mach number with an appropriate
increase in pressure and temperature16. In a well designed system, there are shock waves and reflected
waves built into the flow path to assist in the processing of the flow. However, there are non-uniformities,
due to oblique reflecting shock waves, which can influence the flow path and subsequently the
combustion process. Non-uniformities in the scramjet air induction are due to phenomena associated with
the vehicle bow shock, isentropic turning Mach waves, shock-boundary layer interaction, non-uniform
flow conditions, and three-dimensional effects. Fig. 3 illustrates the flowfield associated with the stream
tube as it passes through the system of shock waves in the fore-body, inlet and through the isolator6.
Fig. 3: Isolator and Combustor Aero-Physics6.

III: Preliminary Forebody-Isolator Morphing Designs and Analysis

A. Forebody-Inlet Design and Analysis
In this analysis, the forebody is designed specifically to provide the scramjet with a uniform flow at a
prescribed back pressure. To accomplish this task, an aerodynamic configuration is derived under a set of
cruise conditions, namely a specified Mach number, M, a prescribed planar shock wave shape, , and a
given flight altitude7-9. This data is used to generate the flowfield from which the forebody is derived.
This design concept is illustrated in Fig. 4 through the use of either one or two shock waves. However,
the shapes of interest to this study were derived from only one planar shock wave that intersects with the
cowl lip for effective mass flow capture. The compression surfaces of the forebody are designed by
tracing the stream-surfaces emanating from the prescribed shock wave7-9. Fig. 5 summarizes the design
procedures used in this analysis, starting with the free stream conditions and ending with the evaluation of
the mass flow captured by the scramjet.

1
1
2

2 2

M  , 1 M 1 , 1 M 2 , 2

Fig. 4. Illustration of the Forebody

Fig. 5. Vehicle Forebody Design Procedures

For instance, with a known cruise Mach number, M  and a prescribed shock angle,  1 , the initial
shape of the forebody lower surface angle,  1 , and the Mach number behind the shock, M1 , are
determined by using the oblique shock relations given in equations (1) and (2);

M 2 sin 2 β1  1
tan θ1  2 cot β1 (1)
M 2(γ  cos 2 β )  2
 1

and
M n,1
M1  (2)
sin  1   

where  is a const, and the symbols, M n,1 and M n, , are defined as follows,
 1    1 2 M n2,
M n2,1  (3)
 M n2,    1 2
and
M n,   M  sin(1 ) (4)

It is of interest to note that the value of  2 is dictated by the cowl location and a fixed point on the
forebody. When the results of  1 and M1 are coupled to an appropriate value for  2 , the flow properties
at the cowl inlet can be calculated using equations (1) and (2) in which the values of M 2 and 1 are
replaced with those of M1 and  2 . For flight Mach number above five, the temperatures on sharp leading
edges exceed the practical limits for most structural materials. As such, for any considerations in the
hypersonic flight regime only blunt leading edges are practical. Since the forebody generated by this
design approach has a sharp leading edge that supports the attached shock wave, a slight engineering
modification must be done8.

Figure 6. Star-Shaped Inlets for the Ramjet-to-Scramjet Concept.

C. Isolator Design and Analysis

The isolator of interest to this study is constructed as indicated in Figure 6. The behavior of the
isolator is critical to the design of the dual mode ram-scramjet, since the isolator may either be comprised
of a system of normal or oblique shocks. Typically, the isolator will generate an exit static pressure
somewhere in the range of its inlet pressure, P2, and that corresponding to a normal shock at the inlet
conditions, Pn2. Any back pressure greater that the pressure behind the normal shock will cause the
isolator to ‘unstart’. In this analysis, the isolator is considered to be a constant area duct in which friction
and heat transfer are neglected. Under these conditions, if the value of the static pressure ratio, p3/p2, is
assumed in the appropriate range, then the system of 1D conservation laws will result in the following
expression for the isolator exit Mach number4, 11-13;

 
 12
  2 M 2 1    1 2M 2 
    1 
M3   2 2
  (5)

 
1  M 2  P3 P2
2 2
  2 


Similarly, with the exit Mach number known, the length of the isolator can be evaluated based on the
following experimental relationship developed in Ref 11:

L


 H 50P3 P2   1  170P3 P2   12  (6)
Re  1
1
H 4 M 22
where Re is the inlet Reynolds number based on the momentum thickness and H is the height of the
isolator duct.
Fig. 7: Illustration of a Stream Tube Fig. 8. The 4-Pts Star Shaped Forebody

C: 3D Forebody-Inlet-Isolator Design and Analysis

The creation of the star-shaped forebodies of interest to this research effort starts with the 2D concept
illustrated in Figure 6. As described earlier, the generation of the 2D shape is based on the oblique shock
and the shock train relationships. The 2D geometry is developed through the use of a FORTRAN Code,
which also serves as the basis upon which 3D shapes are constructed. Once the 2D shape is realized,
using the waverider methodology9-10, 14-18, appropriate 3D stream surfaces are constructed.
In a similar manner, a stream tube is constructed from the stream surfaces by piecing appropriate
surfaces together, refer to Fig. 7. Finally, stream tubes are pieced together to generate a combined 3D
forebody, inlet and isolator configuration as illustrated in Fig. 8. Using this technique ‘completed
forebody inlet isolator configurations’ can be derived by piecing together a number of stream tube
together. In the case of a ‘four-point star-shaped forebody-inlet-isolator configuration’, four tubes are
pieced together to generate the final configuration illustrated in Fig. 8. The five and six points star-shaped
configurations illustrated in Fig. 9a – 9e can also be generated in like manners.

8a) Rear View 8b) Rear View 8c) Side View

8d) Isometric View 8e) Isometric View

Fig. 8: Illustration of A Morphing Ramjet-to-Scramjet Configuration
 III: Preliminary Combustor-Nozzle Morphing Designs and Analysis
A. 3D Ramjet-Scramjet Configurations Derived from 2D Flowfields
The previous section mainly focused on the design of an inlet-isolator system that is capable of
operating over a wide range of Mach numbers, while providing high quality flow to three distinct regions
of the engine; namely, the forebody, the inlet and the isolator. On the other hand, the Combustor-Nozzle
design aspects of the ram-scramjet focused on four fundamental elements. These elements are as follows:
a transition element, two combustor elements and a nozzle element. The transition element design accepts
the air flow coming out of the isolator and effectively guides it into the combustor for burning. The
combustor consists of two design elements, which provides greater flexibility for morphing and
eventually the manipulation of the sonic point in the combustion process if and when it arises. The nozzle
accelerates and expels the combustion products leaving the engine. For illustrative purposes, the
combined elements: forebody through nozzle are highlighted in Figure 9, where each element is derived
from the previous one in an explicit 2D design process. Later the 2D elements are used to generate their
3D counter parts, resulting in an entire 3D configuration.

Primary Shock Reflected Isolator Diffuser Combustor Nozzle

Shock
Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone
A B Zone C D E F G

Fig. 9: Illustration of A Ramjet-to-Scramjet Mid-Section with Morphing Design Points

The geometric points, A through G, lying on the x-axis not only define the various components of the
ramjet propulsion system such as it’s forebody, inlet, isolator, diffuser, combustor and nozzle, they also
serves as the key indicators for the 3D construction of these components. For example, using the
information at points D and E along the x-axis and the geometric information resulting from the star-
shaped, fore-body configuration illustrated in Figure 9, an appropriate 3D configuration representing the
diffuser can be constructed. In this case, the geometry of the resulting transition element is illustrated in
Figure 10.

a) Diffuser Base View b) Diffuser Side View c) Diffuser Isometric View

Fig. 10: Illustration of the diffuser Component Derived from a star-shaped fore-body
Fig. 11: Illustration of the Transition-Combustor-Nozzle Element

By choosing the design points, A – G, in the form of design parameters and independent of each other,
the resulting integrated configuration can have its E-point beyond its F-point location with respect to the
x-axis, as can be observed in Figs. 9, 10 and 11. In addition, the current design method is capable of
generating shapes of either rectangular or circular cross sections. This approach provides a great deal of
flexibility in arriving at candidates with desirable aerodynamic characteristics. In addition, when
generating the 3-D configurations, the choice of the fore-body is of great importance, since it provides the
geometric information need from the third dimension. In this research, star-shaped, fore-bodies are
generated with the number of blades ranging from two to eight. Once the appropriate forebody
information is obtained, following the approach already outlined, each component of the ramjet can be
uniquely defined in 3D and constructed, using the routines already established.

Table 1: Influence Coefficients for Fluid Flows in Quasi 1D Ducts18.

dA dH  Q 4C f dx dm dm dM W 
 2y
A c pTx Dh m m MW 
  1 2 
dM
  1 2 
1  M 
1  M  2 M 2 1  M  1  M 1   2 1 M
2 2 

    1  M
2
 2   
2 
21  M   
M   -1
1 M 2
2
21 M 2
1 M 2 1 M 2

dT   1M 2 1  M 2

   1M 4   1M 2 1  M 2    1M 2
T 1  M 2
1 M 2 
2 1 M 2  
1 M 2 1  M  2
0

dP M 2 M 2


M 2 1    1M 2    1 2 
2M 2 1  M  M 2
P 1 M 2

1 M 2 
2 1 M 2  

1 M
2
2
 
1 M 2
0

dS
0 1 
  1M 2   1M 2 0 0
cp 2

B. 3D Ramjet-Scramjet Analysis
The analysis of the propulsion system consists of the evaluation of the following six major components;
namely, the primary shock zone, the inlet, the isolator, the diffuser and mixing region (transition element),
the combustor and the nozzle. The evaluation of the primary shock zone, the inlet and the nozzle is
straight forward and is conducted in accordance with Ref. 18-20 and as described in Part III, sections A
and B of this paper. However, the evaluation of the flowfield parameters in the transition, combustion and
nozzle elements are somewhat complicated and are conducted in accordance with the quasi 1D influence
coefficients method described in Ref. 18.
 Consider a typical transition, combustion and nozzle combination of elements as generated in this
study, and as illustrated in Figure 11. A closer look at Figure 11, illustrates the transition and combustor
elements with their external surfaces removed. The aero thermodynamic evaluation of this part of the
scramjet involves the quasi 1D calculations of the flow field variables at each station in the length-wise
direction of the duct illustrated in Figure 11. This task is accomplished through the use of the appropriate
influence coefficients tabulated in Table 1. However, the use of Table 1 is not very straight forward. Prior
to its use, a combustor model must be developed, and the expressions in the gray cells at the head of each
column in Table 1 must be evaluated. The task of defining the combustion model and evaluating the
appropriate starting relationships are described in the next section of this paper.

C: Scramjet Basic Assumptions

The framework for the scramjet model has been established in the form of predictive relationships which
are suitable for appropriate integration into the quasi 1D equation equations with design parameters for
optimization. In addition, the working fluid is air, and it has been modeled using the thermally perfect gas
law, as such the equation of state holds. The additional assumptions are as follows:

C.1.2: Specific heat

The thermally perfect empirical relationship for the determination of the specific heat for air used
in this study is as follows: c p  a 0  a1T  a 2T 2  a3T 3  a 4T 4  a5T 5  a6T 6 ,
where the coefficients are tabulated in Table 2, and temperature is evaluated in Kelvins. The ratio of the
specific heats, , is evaluated through the use of the equation,   c p c p  R  , and where R is the
universal gas constant with a value of 287.0 J/Kg K. In a similar manner, the skin friction coefficient
associated with the fluid flow within the combustor can be predicted based on the following expression,
 a0  a1 f st   a2 f st   a3 f st 
2 3
Cf where the coefficients ao through a3 are
tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2: Coefficients for Cp and Cf Evaluation

ao a1 a2 a3 a4
cp 1.0575E+3 -4.4890E-1 1.1407E-03 -7.9999E-7 1.9327E-10
Cf 0.0018 0.0019 0.00597 0.00469

Table 3: Empirical Relations used in the Combustion Model17

 y  79  y 79  y 36 x  37
C x H y   x   O2  N 2   xCO2  H 2 O   x  N 2 f st 
 4  21  2 21  4  (7) 1034 x  7  (8)
1.0  exp  Ax L 
 m x   b x   1.0  exp  Bx L
1.0  exp  A (9) (10)

LM x  0.179C m exp1.720 ;  1 LM x  3.333C m exp1.204 ;   1

(11a) (11b)

C.1.2: Fuel Injection Model

In this study and as in Ref. 19, the fuel is assumed to be hydrogen, and it is injected into the
combustor at an angle of 45o in order to achieve adequate mixing with the air. Fuel injection conditions
are set to the following: M H 2  1.0, TH 2  600 K , PH 2  101325 N / m 2 and H = 1.4. The heat of reaction
for hydrogen and the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio are, respectively, H r  119,954 kJ kg and f st  0.0294 .
The fuel to air ratio for the hydrogen-air mixture is determined from the chemical equation describing the
ideal combustion of hydrogen and air. The chemical equation for the stoichiometric combustion of
interest to the scramjet combustion process is derived from the equations (7) and (8) that are tabulated in
Table 3, with the atomic weight of the participating elements: H =1, C = 12, N =14 and O=16, taken into
consideration and where the symbol, fst, represents the stoichiometric fuel to air ratio. In this study a
hydrogen fuel scramjet is proposed, such that, x = 0 and y = 2, yielding a value of fst equals to 0.0291.

C.1.3: Combustor Model

Studies19 of the chemical kinetics in scramjet burners suggests an exponential function
representation for the mixing efficiency, m(x). Such a relationship is tabulated in Table 3, where A is a fit
parameter that represents near-field mixing and the symbol, L, represent the distance needed for the minor
mixant (fuel) to be mixed with the major mixant (air) in stoichiometric proportions. The fit parameter A
typically varies in the range 1 to 5 and for this analysis it is chosen to be A = 4.5, Ref 19. In a similar
manner, a combustion efficiency model is required to calculate the incremental energy release by the fuel
at each step in the combustor. The combustion efficiency, b(x), is also an exponential function.
However, it is assumed that this function grows at a slower rate than the mixing efficiency and attains a
value of ηb = 0.9 when the value of ηM = 1. The relationship for the combustion efficiency,ηb, model used
in this analysis is described in equation (10) and tabulated in Table 3. The coefficient B is once again a fit
parameter and is chosen to be 2.3, (B = 2.3). The axial growth of the mixing and combustion efficiencies,
m(x) and b(x), for the combustor model used in this study is illustrated in Figure 12.
Frame 001  23 Dec 2008 

0.9

0.8
Burinin and Mixing Efficiencies

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
4.75 5 5.25 5.5
x location in Combustor

Fig. 12: Axial growth of the mixing and combustion efficiencies

C.1.3: Combustor Length

An estimation of the combustor length is obtained from the mixing and combustion models described
earlier. If the equivalence ratio, , is less than or equal to unity, the fuel is considered the minor mixant,
and if the equivalence ratio is greater than unity, the air is considered the minor mixant. The axial distance
at which the minor mixant is depleted is given by the conditional relations defined in equations (11a) and
911b), and tabulated in Table 4. The symbol, Lm, represents the nondimensional combustor length with
respects to the combustor height and the experimentally determined mixing constant is defined by the
symbol, Cm. The mixing constant is reported to vary from values of 25 to 60, and is chosen to be 45 (Cm =
45) for this analysis, Ref. 19.
 C.1.4: Chemical Energy Release
The combustion chamber is model in two parts: the first part consists of a constant cross sectional
area, while the second part allows for variation in its cross sectional area. It can be shown that for 1D
theory, the energy released due to the combustion of fuel, dm , can be expressed in the form of
incremental total temperature ratio, dT0 T0 , as follows20:

Q  dH 0    1 2  dT0
 1  M  (12)
c pT  2  T0

where the chemical energy, Q , is defined as, Q  H r dm  m  , and the symbols, Hr and b, represent
the fuel heating value and the burning efficiency, respectively. In addition, the incremental change in the

total energy of the mixture, dH 0 , is evaluated as follows: dH 0  H a ,0  H f ,0 dm  m 
 , where the
20
symbols, H a,0 and H f ,0 , represents the total enthalpy of the air and fuel, respectively .

D: Numerical Integration of the Scramjet Flowfield parameters

The flowfield variables, p, , u and T, in the transition, combustor and nozzle sections of the ram-
scramjet engine, illustrated in Figure 11, are modeled using the quasi-one-dimensional analysis
relationships tabulated in Table 316-28. The parameters influencing the quasi-one-dimensional flow
through these sections include the area variation, dA A , the skin friction coefficient, 4 C f dx D , the
chemical heat release, Q  dH 0  c p T , and fuel mass injection, dm m . The heating parameters are
activated only within the combustor element. Consequently, an explicit integration scheme based on a
system of ordinary differential equations can be designed to update the following three thermodynamic
parameters as follows:
  dT  
Titotal
1  Titotal 1.0   0   (13)
  T0  i 

  dM  
M itotal  M itotal 1.0    (14)
 M  i 
1

  dp  
pitotal
1  pitotal 1.0     (15)
  p  i 


where the following incremental properties are evaluated based on the expressions illustrated in Table 1.
The coefficients, C1 through C13, are evaluated at each spatial step in accordance with equations (16) -
(18) as follows:
 dT0  1  Q  dH 0 
   (16)
  C1  
 T0  i c pT 
 dM   dA   dT   2C f dx   dm   dWM   d 
  C 2    C3  0   C4      C7  
   D   C5  m   C6  W (17)
 M i  A i  T0 i  i i  M i   i
 dp   dA   dT   2C f dx   dm   dWM   d 
   C8    C9  0   C10      C13  
  D   C11 m   C12  W (18)
 p i  A i  T0 i  i i  M i   i

E: Scramjet Performance Parameters

Once the flowfield solutions are obtained in the transition, combustor and nozzle elements are obtained;
the thrust of the engine is calculated as the difference between the impulse function at the combustor exit
and the isolator entrance20:
 T  I ( x4 )  I ( x2 ) (6)

 
where, the impulse function, I, is defined as, I  pA 1  M 2 . In a similar manner the drag force, Fx,
generated by the combined forebody, inlet and isolator elements are computed. The performance
parameters of this interest to this study are the net thrust, Tnet = T – Fx, and the Thrust to Drag ratio, TD,
where TD is defined as T/D.

IV: Results and Conclusion

A: Preliminary Results
Frame 001  23 Dec 2008 
Two samples, one from each of the two classes of configurations that were developed as part of this
study, are illustrated in Figures 13 and 14. As can be observed in these Figures, a variety of shapes can be
generated by manipulating the design points A through G, in any manner of combination. In addition,
configurations with rectangular or circular cross sections can be constructed and analyze at will. Figures
15 through 17 illustrate the behavior of the velocity, pressure and temperature within the scramjet. As
noted, these plots illustrate the expected behavior of the thermodynamic variables associated with heating
in the combustion chamber that are consistent with either constant area, increasing area or decreasing area
ratios. Preliminary results indicated that the thrust to drag performance of the scramjets constructed using
this design approach can be as much as 100.0. A sample of the variation of the engine Isp versus the free
Frame 001 Mach
stream 2008  ranging from 4 to 12 is illustrated in Figure 18. These results are very conservative,
23 Decnumber
since the code is yet to be perfected.

Figure 13: Illustration of 4-Pts Scramjet with Square Combustor C-Sections

Y

Figure 14: Illustration of 4-Pts Scramjet with Circular Combustor C-Sections

B: Conclusion
This paper gives a preliminary report on efforts to design a reconfigurable propulsion system; morphing
from ramjet to scramjet mode of operation in flight. Performance requirements will almost certainly
dictate the use of a translating center body and associated outer ‘clamshell’. The design of the forebody-
inlet-isolator was accomplish through the use of 2D planar flowfields. In addition, realistic ramjet-to-
scramjet propulsion systems were derived and analysis from 2D planar shock waves. The ramjet-scramjet
transition mechanism does demand a great deal of aerodynamic and structural analysis. The current
approach focused on using the ideal situation; however, phase two of this effort will improved the
analysis methods by introducing combustion and quasi-1D nozzle modules with real gas effects. Detailed
analysis of the ‘ramjet-to-scramjet propulsion systems’ performance at various Mach numbers is of
interest to this study and will form a significant element of this research project as it develops.
Frame 001  24 Dec 2008 
Frame 001  03 Jan 2009 

1500
450000
1.8
1.8

400000
1.6 1.6
1400
Local C-Sectional Area

350000

Local C-Sectional Area

1.4 1.4

Local Velocity

Local Pressure
300000
1.2 1300 1.2

250000

1 1
200000

0.8 1200 0.8

150000

0.6 0.6
100000
1100
0.4 0.4
50000

3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6
x Location in Scramjet x-Location in Scramjet
Frame 001  03 Jan 2009 
Frame 001  24 Dec 2008 
Fig. 15: Scramjet Area & Velocity Distribution Fig. 16: Scramjet Area & Pressure Distribution
1100
6000

Isp
1.8

1000
5500
1.6
Local C-Sectional Area

900
1.4
Local Temperature

5000

1.2 800

4500
1
700

0.8
4000

600
0.6

3500
0.4 500

3 4 5 6 4 6 8 10 12

x-Location in Scramjet Freestream Mach Number

Fig. 17: Scramjet Area & Temperature Distribution Fig. 18: Scramjet Isp vs Mach Number

This includes developing the geometric concepts, calculating inlet flowfields, and estimating
performance and losses at key Mach numbers; ranging from Mach 3 up to Mach 12. Managing the shock
locations on the inlet, especially to provide good flow conditions into both the core and compressor duct,
is of great interest during off-design conditions. The inward turning diffuser concepts are already
employed in the design process, as they lend themselves to concentric engine flowfields. With the
development of a suitable inlet and ram-scramjet configuration, a detailed combined-cycle engine model
will be developed, covering the Mach number range from static to near-hypersonic and beyond. The
ultimate product of this effort will be a recommended geometry for use as a CFD and wind tunnel or
flight test bed for the demonstration of a turbine-based combined-cycle RBCC engine.

VI: Acknowledgments
This work has been partially sponsored by the following agencies; WPAB, NAVAIR, NASA Glenn
and Langley Research Centers. In addition, special appreciation is extended to Dr. Datta Gaitonde and
Mr. Donnie Saunders of the Air Vehicles Directorate at Wright Patterson Air Force Base for their
encouragement and support of this project. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Isaiah Blankson of NASA
Glenn Research Center and Dr. Reginal Williams of the Naval Airforce Base at Patuxent River in
Maryland.
 VI: References
I. M. Blankson et al., “GLENN 20/20”. Results of the GRC Visioning Team. A presentation by the
1

Visioning Team to the DLT, OH, Nov. 2004.

2
I. M. . Blankson et al. “Anatomy of a Hypersonic Air-breather: A Turbine Based Combined - Cycle
Hypersonic Cruise Application-Vehicle.” International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines, ISABE
Paper 1999, Florence, Italy. Sept 1999.
3
John J, Bertin “Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics.” AIAA Education Series. ISBN: 1-56347-036-5,
Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994
4
William H. Heiser, David T. Pratt “Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion.” AIAA Education Series.
ISBN: 1-56347-035-7, Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994.
5
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, PAO, “NASA’s X-43A Proves Hypersonic Scramjet Flight,
March 27, 2004.
6
Dean Andreadis, “Scramjet Engines Enabling The Seamless Integration Of Air & Space Operations”,
Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion, Hypersonics, West Palm Beach, FL.
7
http://www.aeromuseum.org/Education/Lessons/HowPlaneFly/HowPlaneFly.html
8
John D. Anderson “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics” Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001.
9
Hydar Apdin and Frederick Ferguson, ‘A Design Concept for the Construction of Completed
Hypersonic Vehicles’, 13th AIAA/CIRA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and
Technologies Conference, CIRCA, Italy, May 2005
10
J. Zhang and F. Ferguson, ‘Construction and Analysis of Hypersonic Vehicle Configurations’, 13th
AIAA/CIRA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, CIRCA,
Italy, May 2005.
11
E. T. Curran and S.N.B. Murthy, “Scramjet Propulsion”, Vol. 189, AIAA, 2000.
12
Waltrup, P. J., and Billig, F. S., ‘Prediction of Recompression Wall Pressure Distributions in
Scramjet Engines, “Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol., 10, No. 9, 1973, pp. 620-622.
13
Billig F. S.; “Research on Supersonic Combustion” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 9, No 4,
July-Aug 1993
14
Bowcutt, Kevin G., “Optimization of hypersonic Waveriders Derived from Cone Flows Including
Viscous Effects”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland, 1986
15
Bowcutt, Kevin G., Anderson, John D. Jr., and Capriotti, D.P., “Viscous Optimized Hypersonic
Waveriders,” AIAA paper 87-0272, 1987.
16
Ferguson, F., “Expanding the Waverider Design Space Using Arbitrary Generating Flowfields”,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland, 1993.
17
Frederick Ferguson, Terry L. Corbett, Jr., Stephen Akwaboa, and Haile Lindsay, “The Development
of Waveriders From an Axisymmetric Flowfield”, AIAA 2007-847, 45th American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV 2007.
18
Shapiro, H. Asher, ‘The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Flow, Volume I, The
Ronald Press Company, 1953.
19
Markell, Kyle C., ‘Exergy Methods for the Generic Analysis and Optimization of Hypersonic vehicle
Concepts”, MS Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 2005.
20
Jing, C., Shuo, T., and Bingnan, K., “Airframe/Scramjet Integrated Design of Hypersonic Cruise
Vehicle”, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2007-642, Reno, NV, 2007.

View publication stats