Peer Review Paper

F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Computational analysis of subsonic flow in aircraft engine
intake with auxiliary air intake configuration

Journal: Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Manuscript ID: AEAT-02-2014-0022
Manuscript Type: Research Paper
Keywords:
Aircraft engine, Auxiliary air intake, Pressure recovery, Computational fluid
dynamics, Take-off performance, Auxiliary interference plane (AIP)

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
Abstract:
With the objective to reduce the take off distance in naval aircrafts by using auxiliary intake door
in the engine duct and thereby maximizing total pressure recovery. Computational studies on
aerodynamic performance over an auxiliary air intake fitted in a typical aircraft S-intake were presented in
this paper. The aerodynamic performances of auxiliary air intake were calculated at Mach number of 0.1
and Reynolds number based on inlet duct length is of 0- 9.8 *10
5
. Unstructured mesh was done with
Ansys ICEM-CFD using tetra-triangular cells and all the computations were done with commercial
computational package Ansys Fluent. Pressure recovery for 3D-Ducts with and without auxiliary air intake
was studied computationally with good accuracy using k- epsilonturbulence model. The performance
parameters like total pressure recovery, static pressure were calculated at aerodynamic interference
plane (AIP). The aircraft inlet duct with auxiliary air intake shows a better efficient at low range operation
end.
Keywords: Air intake, pressure recovery, Computational fluid dynamics, auxiliary interference plane (AIP)
Introduction:
Naval aircrafts has only short run way distance which demands better engine performance during
take-off. The proper supply of air into the aircraft engine under various operational conditions of aircraft is
a fundamental role of aerodynamics. The feeding of fresh air into the aircraft is carried out by passage
enclosed through intake lip and duct called air intake.
But due to various factors like flow separation, spillage at lip, pressure loss, friction, boundary
layer, interaction with mounting arrangement the supply of air into the engine getsaffected. During the
take-off condition, the air supply into the engine is limited by the area of intake is while at high speed
spillage plays a main role in dragging air supply.
At lower subsonic speeds, especially during takeoff, it is necessary that allow the engine to have
a high mass flow of air to produce required thrust. But during take-off, since there is no much pressure
difference between engine face and inlet lip face there is no ramming effect produced, also air is
required to force to enter into the engine. Hence, during take-off the engine must depend on its gathering
Page 1 of 28 Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
ability to fulfill its appetite of large volume of air.This fulfilling ability of engines air demandduring take-
off ability is mainly depends on the area of the inlet, thus the larger the area of the inlet throat, greater the
gathering ability of the engine.
The capture area and its influence on pressure recovery and drag is an issue with both
supersonic and subsonic designs. If the intake which has a large captures area, or, more to the point, a
high capture/throat area ratio, this is optimized for low speeds, the excess airflow spilling it around it at
high speeds will separate and thus will create spillage drag. But increasing the area of intake affects the
performance of aircraft engine at cruise speed and altitude for which it is designed. Equally sizing the
capture area for high speed operation will mean loss of performance at low speeds, due to insufficient air
reaching the engine. This issue can be solved in generally two ways as intermittently operating auxiliary
intakes and variable inlet geometry depending on airflow available. Since later is a non-cost effective and
riskiest, some designers ruled out second option.For the foregoing reasons, it is desirable to be able to
enlarge the minimum total cross-sectional area of the inlet passageway, such as by providing
intermittently operating auxiliary airflow passageways to the engine. These types of doors opens at low
speeds to effectively increase the capture area and close when they are not needed and they usually take
the form of blow-in doors.
Understanding of aerodynamics over inlet is necessary for the design an inlet with good balance
between good pressure recovery and low inlet drag. Even 1% increment in the pressure recovery yields
the 1% increment in thrust, thus study of pressure recovery in air intake is necessary. The present
computational study only focuses on the effect of auxiliary air intake in the S-duct at takeoff conditions.
The auxiliary air intake is of blow-in type and has a shape of three airfoils so that engine damage caused
by foreign objects can be prevented and flow separation at auxillary door lips can be avoided.
Literature survey:
Since most of research in auxiliary air intake was carried out by defense organizations, in spite of
remarkable progress in auxiliary air intake research, the publication and access are limited. Sobester[1]
reviewed the historical survey of scientific and technical developments in aerodynamics of jet engines and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
its influence on inlet designs. The transformation of freestream flow conditions into the engines required
conditions is the measuring scale for the efficiency of intake. Better inlet comprises of good total pressure
recovery along with minimum drag, fan face pressure distribution, weight, complexity and cost. TheIn
terms of pressure recovery Scoop type inlet is found to be better than flush-mounted submerged
intakes.The main source of pressure loss at inlet is frictional effect between airflow and aircraft body.
MiG-29 had the feature of intermittently operating auxiliary air intake with a sealed door to stop the engine
damage might have been caused by foreign object when operating near ground.So in this study a scoop
type inlet likely of S-shaped along with auxiliary air intake attached with complete typical aircraft is
considered for study.
Mujumdaret al [5] presented the design optimization of Y-shaped intake ducts which are
symmetrical about their central plane embedded in the fuselage. The two arms of the Y are typically ducts
with double bends (S-shaped) and the two arms merges downstream and beyond which the duct is a
single symmetrical tube. In our work the computation model is selected such that the single S-duct which
form an arm of Y- shaped intake and symmetrical boundary condition is used to analyze the flow in the
merged portion of Y-shaped intake.
Fattah et al [2 & 3] works on auxiliary air intake in Jindivik aircraft is detailed with wind tunnel
values at velocity ranges from 0 85 m/s and angle of attack from 0
0
to 10
0
. The effect of geometry,
shape and location of different auxiliary air intake were tested and found that rectangular with the
curvature similar to the cowl is found to have best. The sharp lip profile auxiliary air intake was found
have a better pressure recovery capability at all speed tests. Also pressure recovery ability is in
decreasing from fully closed door configuration to half closed door configuration and then to fully open
configuration. Test with cross wind found that the auxiliary air take effect on it was found as negligible.
The variation of static pressure on the length of the inner duct is compared with the model without
auxiliary duct and found to have a better raise. Hence the auxiliary air intake of rectangular shape and
sharp lipped profile is considered in this study.
Computational analysis for the flow field within the three-dimensionalS-duct is done with the
extended k- turbulence model at Mach number of 0.6 was carried out by yongchoetal [3].A straight duct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
of 4.6 D
i
is attachedbefore the S-duct to get the boundary layer thickness equivalent to aircraft body at the
inlet of S-duct. The computed static pressure, total pressure fields are compared with the experimental
values of Vakili et al [7].From velocity vectors the separation regions are calculated and it is found that
computed flow separation region is farther downstream than the experimentally measured values.Also, on
comparison of circumferential static pressure with the experimental values the agreement was not good.
The deviation of computed results from experimental was due to the boundary layer growth originated
from installation of straight duct and henceadditional computational study is needed for correctly
predicting the turbulent flow inside the duct. Hence in our study to compute the boundary layer growth
correctly we are attaching the inlet with typical aircraft likely of Mig-29.
Numerical simulation was carried out around the wing-body configurations was found to be
effective method for boundary layer growth [Kanazaki,8-10]. Some studies were done for inlet studies
with wing-body configuration[dinesh] to study the coupled internal and external flow.
Geometry:
The geometry adopted for present study is a symmetrical portion ofatypical aircraft(similar to MiG
29) having aY-shaped duct with its two of arms shapedinto two S ducts as shown in figure 1. The length
of each S-duct is of 4m and has an inlet area of 0.18m
2
and exit area of 0.22m
2
i.e., area ratio of inlet to
exit is 0.8. Arectangular shaped auxiliary air intake of dimension 0.3*0.6 m is attached on curvature of
intake as shown in figure 2a. The auxiliary intake has splitsinto three streamlined doors with equally
spacing between themso that the incoming flow can be channel to reduce the boundary layer growth as
shown in figure 2b.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
Fig. 2a :S- Duct

Fig. 2b : S- Duct with a rectangular auxiliary duct
Grid Generation:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
The unstructured grid generation were done using Ansys ICEM CFD commercial software to
obtain a surface and volume mesh consist of tetra and triangular cells the quality of the mesh is around
0.23 and the nodes and cells around 200000 with the scale factor of 0.3 as shown in figure 3.

Fig. 3a : Unstructured Mesh on the surface of S - Duct

Fig. 3b : Cut sectional view of Mesh on the surfaceFig. 3c : Cut sectional view of Mesh on the surface

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
Fig. 3d : Cut sectional view of Mesh on the surface
Computational:
Three dimensional numerical computational were performed using commercial CFD package
Fluent. In present investigation, steady state computations have been made adopting k- turbulent
model. The use of the turbulent model has been arrived after making necessary grid sensitivity tests,
convergence history.
The first cell distance near the wall boundary conditions was of order of 5*10
3
mm and y
+
of 0.4.
The pressure far-field boundary condition at the inlet, no slip wall boundary condition with
suitable near wall treatment for turbulent flows were enforced in fuselage air intake, auxiliary air intake,
doors. In order to save the computational time only half of aircraft were considered with symmetrical
boundary condition was applied at mid plane of fuselage. The overall grid, computational domain and
boundary condition adopted is shown in fig. 4. The residuals of continuity, energy, and turbulent kinetic
energy with mass flux between the inflow and outflow and y+ values were monitored. The convergence
history of mass weighted average was monitored during the entire solution period. Results were analyzed
only when it was ascertained that the residuals has converged to the order of 10-
5
.
Results:
Fig.5a and 5b shows the static pressure distributions at inner surface of duct with and without
channel opening of auxiliary intake duct. The surface static pressure rises along the inner duct for both
configuration. From the comparison it is clear that that the presence of auxiliary air intake affect the static
pressure ahead of it and aft it.
Fig. 6a and 6b shows the comparison of total pressure at the inner surface of duct for with and
without channel opening of auxiliary duct respectively. Further fig. 6c shows the closure view of total
pressure distribution near the channel opening. From the calculation of mass weighted average it is found
that the total pressure raised form a value of 94 KPa to 96Kpa on comparing the door closed and door
open configuration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
Velocity profiles normal to the surface of the duct is shown in fig. 6. It is found the a secondary
fluid is developed on aft portion of bend of S-duct which is primary due to movement of fluid particles
towards the center of duct to satisfy constant mass flux.
Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed and open configuration along the flow
direction are shown in the fig. 7a and 7b respectively. Velocity at inlet is decreased by the presence of
auxiliary opening so that average velocity reduced which will lead to less spillage drag. Near the lower
wall it is found that low energy is found. The non-uniform flow at the exit of S-duct is clearly predicted from
the contour. From the closure view near the channel it is found that the flow between first channel is
having lesser velocity and the second channel has higher velocity and so does the third channel.

Fig. 5a : Static pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.

Fig. 5b : Static pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Fig. 6a : Total pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.

Fig. 6b : Total pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 6c :Closure view of Total pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Fig. 7a: Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.

Fig. 7b: Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 7c: Closure view of Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Fig. 8a: Velocity vector on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.

Fig. 8b: Velocity vector on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration near inlet.

Fig. 8b: Velocity vector on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration near inlet.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Conclusion:
Because of Auxiliary air intake doors the total pressure at Aerodynamic Interference Plane (AIP)
improves from 94.5KPa to 97.5KPa at 0 degree AOA and at 0.1 Mach number.
The study clearly captures the flow structures in the Y- duct with each arm consists of S-duct with
an auxiliary air intake. From the total pressure recovery comparison it is found that the auxiliary air intake
shows a better aerodynamic efficiency during the takeoff regime of aircraft.
It reduces the flow separation at the intake lip experimental study on the intake duct with auxiliary
air intake is necessary for the validation of computational results with the AAID. Also we are continuing
this work at different angle of attacks and at different Mach numbers.
References:
1. Tradeoffs in Jet Inlet Design: A Historical Perspective, AndrsSbester, JOURNAL OF
AIRCRAFTVol. 44, No. 3, MayJune 2007.
2. Modification of Jindivikairintake duct with an auxiliary intake static aerodynamic tests, A. M.
Abdel-fathah, propulsion technical memorandum august 1991.
3. Wind tunnel tests on jindivik air intake duct with and without an auxiliary intake, A. M. Abdel
fetah, Y.Y. Link, propulsion memorandum 472, march 1992.
4. Soo-yongcho ., Byung kyu park, Numerical study of three dimensional compressible flow within
an S- duct for aircraft engine inlet, KSAS international journal, Vol. 1., No. 1, May 2000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
5. AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OPTIMIZATION STUDIES AT CASDE , P.M. Mujumdar, K.
Sudhakar, A.G. Marathe, A. Isaacs, D. Ghate& N. Nigam , Proceedings of the Symposium on
Applied Aerodynamics and Design of Aerospace Vehicles 15-16 December 2003, Bangalore,
India
6. Inlet Drag Prediction for Aircraft Conceptual Design Paul Malan and Eugene F. Brownt
,JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT Vol. 31, No. 3, May-June 1994
7. Vakili, A. D., Wu, J. M., Bhat M. K. and Liver, P. A., 1987, Compressible flow in diffusing S-duct
with flow seperatiom, in Heat transfer and fluid flow in rotating Machinery edited by Yang, W.J.,
Hemisphere publishing corporation, pp. 201-211.
8. Dinesh kumar
9. 9. NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SUPERSONIC FLOW AROUND WING-BODY
10. CONFIGURATION WITH INTEGRATED ENGINE NACELLE ,Masahiro Kanazaki*, Shigeru
Obayashi and Kazuhiro Nakahashi, AIAA-2002-0836
11. Doyle Knight, Wei-Li Zhang and Don Smith, Automated Design of a three-dimensional subsonic
diffuser, J. of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 16 No.6, Nov.-Dec. 2000.
12. Doyle Knight, Automated optimal design of supersonic and subsonic diffusers using CFD,
European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering,
ECCOMAS 2000.
13. Richard C. Jenkins and Albert L. Loeffler Jr., Modeling of subsonic flow through a Compact
Offset Inlet diffuser, AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3, March 1991.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Computational analysis of subsonic flow in aircraft
engine intake with auxiliary air intake configuration

Computational analysis of subsonic flow in aircraft engine intake with auxiliary air intake configuration

Author 1 Name: Rajasekar J.
Department: Department of Aeronautical Engineering
University: Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology
Town/City: Pudukkottai
State (US only):
Country: India

Author 2 Name: Senthilkumar R.
Department: Department of Aeronautical Engineering
University: Mount Zion College of Engineering and Technology
Town/City: Pudukkottai
State (US only):
Country: India

rajasekar.jayabal@gmail.com

Please check this box if you do not wish your email address to be published

NOTE: affiliations should appear as the following: Department (if applicable); Institution; City; State (US only); Country.
No further information or detail should be included

Acknowledgments (if applicable):

We thank the management and administration of Mount Zion College and Technology for giving their encouragement and support
for this work.

Biographical Details (if applicable): Nil

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this paper is to increase the take-off performance and to reduce the take-off distance in aircrafts by using
auxiliary intake door in the engine duct and thereby maximizing total pressure recovery.

Design/methodology/approach Computational studies on aerodynamic performance over an auxiliary air intake fitted in a typical
aircraft S-intake were presented in this paper. Unstructured mesh was done with Ansys ICEM-CFD using tetra-triangular cells and
three dimensional numerical computational were performed using commercial computational software Ansys Fluent. The
aerodynamic performances of auxiliary air intake were calculated at Mach number of 0.1 and range of Reynolds number based on
inlet duct length is of 0 - 9.8 *10
5
.

Findings - Pressure recovery and flow separation at cowl lip for three dimension inlet ducts with and without auxiliary air intake were
studied computationally with good accuracy. The performance parameters like total pressure recovery, static pressure were
calculated at aerodynamic interference plane (AIP). The aircraft inlet duct with auxiliary air intake shows a better efficient at low
range operation end.

Research limitations/implications - The present computational study only focuses on the effect of auxiliary air intake in the S-duct
at take-off conditions.

Practical implications Aircraft engine with auxiliary air intake will be a stronger solution for the short take off aircraft such as
naval aircrafts.

Originality/value Computational study on auxiliary air intake is very few in the academic community.

Paper type Research paper

Keywords [Mandatory]: Aircraft engine, Auxiliary air intake, Pressure recovery, Computational fluid dynamics,
Auxiliary interference plane (AIP), Take-off performance

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Type footer information here
Type header information here

For internal production use only

Running Heads:
Abstract:
With the objective to reduce the take off distance in naval aircrafts by using auxiliary intake door in the engine
duct and thereby maximizing total pressure recovery. Computational studies on aerodynamic performance over an
auxiliary air intake fitted in a typical aircraft S-intake were presented in this paper. The aerodynamic performances of
auxiliary air intake were calculated at Mach number of 0.1 and Reynolds number based on inlet duct length is of 0- 9.8
*10
5
. Unstructured mesh was done with Ansys ICEM-CFD using tetra-triangular cells and all the computations were
done with commercial computational package Ansys Fluent. Pressure recovery for 3D-Ducts with and without auxiliary
air intake was studied computationally with good accuracy using k- epsilonturbulence model. The performance
parameters like total pressure recovery, static pressure were calculated at aerodynamic interference plane (AIP). The
aircraft inlet duct with auxiliary air intake shows a better efficient at low range operation end.
Keywords: Air intake, pressure recovery, Computational fluid dynamics, auxiliary interference plane (AIP)
Introduction:
Naval aircrafts has only short run way distance which demands better engine performance during take-off. The
proper supply of air into the aircraft engine under various operational conditions of aircraft is a fundamental role of
aerodynamics. The feeding of fresh air into the aircraft is carried out by passage enclosed through intake lip and duct
called air intake.
But due to various factors like flow separation, spillage at lip, pressure loss, friction, boundary layer, interaction
with mounting arrangement the supply of air into the engine getsaffected. During the take-off condition, the air supply
into the engine is limited by the area of intake is while at high speed spillage plays a main role in dragging air supply.
At lower subsonic speeds, especially during takeoff, it is necessary that allow the engine to have a high mass
flow of air to produce required thrust. But during take-off, since there is no much pressure difference between engine
face and inlet lip face there is no ramming effect produced, also air is required to force to enter into the engine.
Hence, during take-off the engine must depend on its gathering ability to fulfill its appetite of large volume of air.This
fulfilling ability of engines air demandduring take-off ability is mainly depends on the area of the inlet, thus the larger
the area of the inlet throat, greater the gathering ability of the engine.
The capture area and its influence on pressure recovery and drag is an issue with both supersonic and
subsonic designs. If the intake which has a large captures area, or, more to the point, a high capture/throat area ratio,
this is optimized for low speeds, the excess airflow spilling it around it at high speeds will separate and thus will create
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

spillage drag. But increasing the area of intake affects the performance of aircraft engine at cruise speed and altitude
for which it is designed. Equally sizing the capture area for high speed operation will mean loss of performance at low
speeds, due to insufficient air reaching the engine. This issue can be solved in generally two ways as intermittently
operating auxiliary intakes and variable inlet geometry depending on airflow available. Since later is a non-cost
effective and riskiest, some designers ruled out second option.For the foregoing reasons, it is desirable to be able to
enlarge the minimum total cross-sectional area of the inlet passageway, such as by providing intermittently operating
auxiliary airflow passageways to the engine. These types of doors opens at low speeds to effectively increase the
capture area and close when they are not needed and they usually take the form of blow-in doors.
Understanding of aerodynamics over inlet is necessary for the design an inlet with good balance between good
pressure recovery and low inlet drag. Even 1% increment in the pressure recovery yields the 1% increment in thrust,
thus study of pressure recovery in air intake is necessary. The present computational study only focuses on the effect
of auxiliary air intake in the S-duct at takeoff conditions. The auxiliary air intake is of blow-in type and has a shape of
three airfoils so that engine damage caused by foreign objects can be prevented and flow separation at auxillary door
lips can be avoided.
Literature survey:
Since most of research in auxiliary air intake was carried out by defense organizations, in spite of remarkable
progress in auxiliary air intake research, the publication and access are limited. Sobester[1] reviewed the historical
survey of scientific and technical developments in aerodynamics of jet engines and its influence on inlet designs. The
transformation of freestream flow conditions into the engines required conditions is the measuring scale for the
efficiency of intake. Better inlet comprises of good total pressure recovery along with minimum drag, fan face pressure
distribution, weight, complexity and cost. TheIn terms of pressure recovery Scoop type inlet is found to be better than
flush-mounted submerged intakes.The main source of pressure loss at inlet is frictional effect between airflow and
aircraft body. MiG-29 had the feature of intermittently operating auxiliary air intake with a sealed door to stop the
engine damage might have been caused by foreign object when operating near ground.So in this study a scoop type
inlet likely of S-shaped along with auxiliary air intake attached with complete typical aircraft is considered for study.
Mujumdaret al [5] presented the design optimization of Y-shaped intake ducts which are symmetrical about
their central plane embedded in the fuselage. The two arms of the Y are typically ducts with double bends (S-shaped)
and the two arms merges downstream and beyond which the duct is a single symmetrical tube. In our work the
computation model is selected such that the single S-duct which form an arm of Y- shaped intake and symmetrical
boundary condition is used to analyze the flow in the merged portion of Y-shaped intake.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Fattah et al [2 & 3] works on auxiliary air intake in Jindivik aircraft is detailed with wind tunnel values at velocity
ranges from 0 85 m/s and angle of attack from 0
0
to 10
0
. The effect of geometry, shape and location of different
auxiliary air intake were tested and found that rectangular with the curvature similar to the cowl is found to have best.
The sharp lip profile auxiliary air intake was found have a better pressure recovery capability at all speed tests. Also
pressure recovery ability is in decreasing from fully closed door configuration to half closed door configuration and then
to fully open configuration. Test with cross wind found that the auxiliary air take effect on it was found as negligible. The
variation of static pressure on the length of the inner duct is compared with the model without auxiliary duct and found
to have a better raise. Hence the auxiliary air intake of rectangular shape and sharp lipped profile is considered in this
study.
Computational analysis for the flow field within the three-dimensionalS-duct is done with the extended k-
turbulence model at Mach number of 0.6 was carried out by yongchoetal [3].A straight duct of 4.6 D
i
is attachedbefore
the S-duct to get the boundary layer thickness equivalent to aircraft body at the inlet of S-duct. The computed static
pressure, total pressure fields are compared with the experimental values of Vakili et al [7].From velocity vectors the
separation regions are calculated and it is found that computed flow separation region is farther downstream than the
experimentally measured values.Also, on comparison of circumferential static pressure with the experimental values
the agreement was not good. The deviation of computed results from experimental was due to the boundary layer
growth originated from installation of straight duct and henceadditional computational study is needed for correctly
predicting the turbulent flow inside the duct. Hence in our study to compute the boundary layer growth correctly we are
attaching the inlet with typical aircraft likely of Mig-29.
Numerical simulation was carried out around the wing-body configurations was found to be effective method
for boundary layer growth [Kanazaki,8-10]. Some studies were done for inlet studies with wing-body
configuration[dinesh] to study the coupled internal and external flow.
Geometry:
The geometry adopted for present study is a symmetrical portion ofatypical aircraft(similar to MiG 29) having
aY-shaped duct with its two of arms shapedinto two S ducts as shown in figure 1. The length of each S-duct is of 4m
and has an inlet area of 0.18m
2
and exit area of 0.22m
2
i.e., area ratio of inlet to exit is 0.8. Arectangular shaped
auxiliary air intake of dimension 0.3*0.6 m is attached on curvature of intake as shown in figure 2a. The auxiliary intake
has splitsinto three streamlined doors with equally spacing between themso that the incoming flow can be channel to
reduce the boundary layer growth as shown in figure 2b.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


Fig. 2a :S- Duct

Fig. 2b : S- Duct with a rectangular auxiliary duct
Grid Generation:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

The unstructured grid generation were done using Ansys ICEM CFD commercial software to obtain a surface
and volume mesh consist of tetra and triangular cells the quality of the mesh is around 0.23 and the nodes and cells
around 200000 with the scale factor of 0.3 as shown in figure 3.

Fig. 3a : Unstructured Mesh on the surface of S - Duct

Fig. 3b : Cut sectional view of Mesh on the surfaceFig. 3c : Cut sectional view of Mesh on the surface

Fig. 3d : Cut sectional view of Mesh on the surface
Computational:
Three dimensional numerical computational were performed using commercial CFD package Fluent. In present
investigation, steady state computations have been made adopting k- turbulent model. The use of the turbulent
model has been arrived after making necessary grid sensitivity tests, convergence history.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

The first cell distance near the wall boundary conditions was of order of 5*10
3
mm and y
+
of 0.4.
The pressure far-field boundary condition at the inlet, no slip wall boundary condition with suitable near wall
treatment for turbulent flows were enforced in fuselage air intake, auxiliary air intake, doors. In order to save the
computational time only half of aircraft were considered with symmetrical boundary condition was applied at mid plane
of fuselage. The overall grid, computational domain and boundary condition adopted is shown in fig. 4. The residuals of
continuity, energy, and turbulent kinetic energy with mass flux between the inflow and outflow and y+ values were
monitored. The convergence history of mass weighted average was monitored during the entire solution period.
Results were analyzed only when it was ascertained that the residuals has converged to the order of 10-
5
.
Results:
Fig.5a and 5b shows the static pressure distributions at inner surface of duct with and without channel opening
of auxiliary intake duct. The surface static pressure rises along the inner duct for both configuration. From the
comparison it is clear that that the presence of auxiliary air intake affect the static pressure ahead of it and aft it.
Fig. 6a and 6b shows the comparison of total pressure at the inner surface of duct for with and without channel
opening of auxiliary duct respectively. Further fig. 6c shows the closure view of total pressure distribution near the
channel opening. From the calculation of mass weighted average it is found that the total pressure raised form a value
of 94 KPa to 96Kpa on comparing the door closed and door open configuration.
Velocity profiles normal to the surface of the duct is shown in fig. 6. It is found the a secondary fluid is
developed on aft portion of bend of S-duct which is primary due to movement of fluid particles towards the center of
duct to satisfy constant mass flux.
Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed and open configuration along the flow direction are
shown in the fig. 7a and 7b respectively. Velocity at inlet is decreased by the presence of auxiliary opening so that
average velocity reduced which will lead to less spillage drag. Near the lower wall it is found that low energy is found.
The non-uniform flow at the exit of S-duct is clearly predicted from the contour. From the closure view near the
channel it is found that the flow between first channel is having lesser velocity and the second channel has higher
velocity and so does the third channel.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


Fig. 5a : Static pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.

Fig. 5b : Static pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 6a : Total pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


Fig. 6b : Total pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 6c :Closure view of Total pressure contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 7a: Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


Fig. 7b: Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 7c: Closure view of Velocity contour on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration.

Fig. 8a: Velocity vector on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


Fig. 8b: Velocity vector on mid plane of S-Duct in door closed configuration near inlet.

Fig. 8b: Velocity vector on mid plane of S-Duct in door open configuration near inlet.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


Conclusion:
Because of Auxiliary air intake doors the total pressure at Aerodynamic Interference Plane (AIP) improves from
94.5KPa to 97.5KPa at 0 degree AOA and at 0.1 Mach number.
The study clearly captures the flow structures in the Y- duct with each arm consists of S-duct with an auxiliary
air intake. From the total pressure recovery comparison it is found that the auxiliary air intake shows a better
aerodynamic efficiency during the takeoff regime of aircraft.
It reduces the flow separation at the intake lip experimental study on the intake duct with auxiliary air intake is
necessary for the validation of computational results with the AAID. Also we are continuing this work at different angle
of attacks and at different Mach numbers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

References:
1. Tradeoffs in Jet Inlet Design: A Historical Perspective, AndrsSbester, JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFTVol. 44, No.
3, MayJune 2007.
2. Modification of Jindivikairintake duct with an auxiliary intake static aerodynamic tests, A. M. Abdel-fathah,
propulsion technical memorandum august 1991.
3. Wind tunnel tests on jindivik air intake duct with and without an auxiliary intake, A. M. Abdel fetah, Y.Y. Link,
propulsion memorandum 472, march 1992.
4. Soo-yongcho ., Byung kyu park, Numerical study of three dimensional compressible flow within an S- duct for
aircraft engine inlet, KSAS international journal, Vol. 1., No. 1, May 2000.
5. AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OPTIMIZATION STUDIES AT CASDE , P.M. Mujumdar, K. Sudhakar, A.G.
Marathe, A. Isaacs, D. Ghate& N. Nigam , Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Aerodynamics and
Design of Aerospace Vehicles 15-16 December 2003, Bangalore, India
6. Inlet Drag Prediction for Aircraft Conceptual Design Paul Malan and Eugene F. Brownt ,JOURNAL OF
AIRCRAFT Vol. 31, No. 3, May-June 1994
7. Vakili, A. D., Wu, J. M., Bhat M. K. and Liver, P. A., 1987, Compressible flow in diffusing S-duct with flow
seperatiom, in Heat transfer and fluid flow in rotating Machinery edited by Yang, W.J., Hemisphere publishing
corporation, pp. 201-211.
8. Dinesh kumar
9. 9. NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SUPERSONIC FLOW AROUND WING-BODY
10. CONFIGURATION WITH INTEGRATED ENGINE NACELLE ,Masahiro Kanazaki*, Shigeru Obayashi and
Kazuhiro Nakahashi, AIAA-2002-0836
11. Doyle Knight, Wei-Li Zhang and Don Smith, Automated Design of a three-dimensional subsonic diffuser, J. of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 16 No.6, Nov.-Dec. 2000.
12. Doyle Knight, Automated optimal design of supersonic and subsonic diffusers using CFD, European
Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS 2000.
13. Richard C. Jenkins and Albert L. Loeffler Jr., Modeling of subsonic flow through a Compact Offset Inlet
diffuser, AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3, March 1991.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Peer Review Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peer Review Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F

You might also like