Image analyses of supersonic air-intake buzz and control by natural ventilation

Regular Paper


Intake buzz was initiated on a typical two-dimensional supersonic air-intake model at various supersonic Mach numbers up to 3 by gradually changing the back pressure from supercritical to subcritical operating condition in a wind tunnel. Schlieren pictures from a still camera and a high-speed camera were recorded. Analyses of individual high-speed images of the unvented intake were carried out to locate the time-dependent positions and velocities of the ramp shock around the cowl lip. The displacements of the shock indicate sinusoidal oscillations with dominant frequency of 102.4 Hz, close to that obtained from unsteady pressure measurements. Phase trajectories of shock position based on image analyses indicate that the shock oscillations have limit cycle type oscillation, typical of nonlinear dynamic systems. Natural ventilation of the intake was found to be extremely effective in increasing the total pressure recovery, suppress buzz oscillations and in delaying the onset of buzz by preventing the upstream propagation of disturbances through passive bleeding of the internal boundary layer.

Graphical abstract

Effectiveness of natural ventilation in control of air-intake buzz at Mach 3.0


Supersonic air intake buzz control by natural ventilation Image processing Passive boundary layer bleed Air-intake aerodynamics Wind tunnel testing 

List of symbols


Angular position of butterfly valve (0°—fully open, 90°—fully closed)


Free stream Mach number


Exit area of the intake


Throat area of the intake


  1. Chima RV (2012) Analysis of buzz in a supersonic inlet. NASA TM 2012-217612Google Scholar
  2. Dailey CL (1955) Supersonic diffuser instability. J Aeronaut Sci 22(11):733–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ferri A, Nucci RM (1951) The origin of aerodynamic instability of supersonic inlets at subcritical conditions. NACA RM-L50K30Google Scholar
  4. Fisher SA, Neale MC, Brooks AJ (1972) On the sub-critical stability if variable ramp intakes at Mach numbers around 2. ARC R & M 3711Google Scholar
  5. Park I-S, Ananthkrishnan N, Tahk MJ, Vineeth CS, Gupta NK (2011) Low-order model for buzz oscillations in the intake of a ramjet engine. J Propuls Power 27(2):503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Suryanarayana GK (2009) Aerodynamic drag reduction of bluff bodies—application of natural ventilation. Lambert Academic Publishers, Cologne. ISBN 978-3-8383-1103-6Google Scholar
  7. Suryanarayana GK (2011) Effect of flare angle and natural ventilation on the aerodynamic characteristics of a typical re-entry body at subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. J Aerosp Sci 63(4):1–7Google Scholar
  8. Suryanarayana GK, Meier GEA (1995) Effect of ventilation on the flow-field around a sphere. Exp Fluids 19:78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Suryanarayana GK, Prabhu A (2000) Effect of natural ventilation on the boundary layer separation and near-wake vortex shedding characteristics of a sphere. Exp Fluids 29:582–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Suryanarayana GK, Pauer H, Meier GEA (1993) Bluff body drag reduction by passive ventilation. Exp Fluids 16:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tanaka N, Mizukaki T (2012) Visualization of unsteady behavior of shock waves around supersonic intake installed in shock tunnel. In: 28th International congress of the aeronautical sciences (ICAS)Google Scholar
  12. Trapier S, Deck S, Duveau P (2008) Delayed detached simulation and analysis of supersonic intake buzz. AIAA J 46(1):118–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Visualization Society of Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIR-National Aerospace LaboratoriesBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations