Computational Investigation of Stagnation-Region Gas Injection for Protection of a Locally Heated Skin

  • Tulasi TirupatiEmail author
  • B. S. Subhash Chandran
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Type III and IV shock interactions on the scramjet cowl principal edge produces localized heating of surfaces and leads to thermo-structural failure. One of the methods to protect these surfaces is by blowing shock away with supersonic injection of coolant into stagnation region. The displacement of shock depends on the mass flux ratio of supersonic jet and free stream of projected area. The strength and type of shock interference depends on the location of shock generator. Computational analysis carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of this method with the above parameters. The contours of flow field presented. Shock standoff distance and effective heat flux reduction computed. Geometry and structured grid generated using ICEM CFD. The simulations carried with ANSYS CFX. It found that the minimum shock standoff distance to protect the structure is with mass flow ratio of 0.34. Computed shock standoff distances for the mass flux ratios of zero, 0.17, 0.34, and 0.51 are 4, 8, 12, and 19 mm respectively. The standoff distances are successive integer multiples of zero mass flux standoff distance.


Heat transfer Shock interaction CFD Stagnation region Gas injection 


  1. 1.
    Axdahl EL (2013) A study of premixed shock-induced combustion with application to hypervelocity flight. School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, US, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson JD (1992) Aerothermodynamics: a tutorial discussion in thermal structures and materials for high-speed flight. In: Thornton EA (ed) Proceedings of the first thermal structures conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heppenheimer TA (2009) Facing the heat barrier: a history of hypersonics. NASA History Series, Government Printing Office, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomas JL, Dwoyer DL, Kumar A (1991) Computational fluid dynamics for hypersonic airbreathing aircraft. In: Desideri JA, Glowinski R, Periaux J (eds) Hypersonic flows for reentry problems, vol I. Springer, Berlin (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaitonde D, Shang JS (1990) A numerical study of shock-on shock viscous hypersonic flow past blunt bodies. AIAA Paper 90-1491Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stollery JL (1987) Some aspects of shock-wave boundary-layer interactions relevant to intake flows. In: Aerodynamics of hypersonic lifting vehicles, AGARD CP-428Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Love ES (1952) The effects of a small jet of air exhausting from the nose of a body of revolution in a supersonic flow. NACA RM L52I19aGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nowak RJ (1988) Gas-jet and tangent-slot film cooling tests of a 12.5 degree cone at Mach number 6.7. NASA TP 2786Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nowak RJ, Holden MS, Wieting AR (1990) Shock/shock interference on a transpiration cooled hemispherical model. AIAA Paper 90-1643Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holden MS, Rodriguez KM (1992) Studies of shock/shock interaction on smooth and transpiration-cooled hemispherical nosetips in hypersonic flows. Technical Report 7931, NASA CR-189585Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Albertson CW, Venkat VS (2006) Shock interaction control for scramjet cowl leading edges. AIAAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CMR Technical CampusHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.DRDOHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations