Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:29:35.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active inlet flow control technology demonstration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

J. W. Hamstra ,
D. N. Miller ,
P. P. Truax ,
B. A. Anderson  and
B. J. Wendt
J. W. Hamstra
Affiliation:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
D. N. Miller
Affiliation:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
P. P. Truax
Affiliation:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
B. A. Anderson
Affiliation:
NASA Glenn Research Center
B. J. Wendt
Affiliation:
NASA Glenn Research Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents results from a joint Lockheed Martin/NASA Glenn effort to design and verify an ultra-compact, highly-survivable engine inlet subsonic duct based on the emerging technology of active inlet flow control (AIFC). In the AIFC concept, micro-scale actuation (∼mm in size) is used in an approach denoted ‘secondary flow control’ to intelligently alter a serpentine duct's inherent secondary flow characteristics with the goal of simultaneously improving the critical system-level performance metrics of total pressure recovery, spatial distortion, and RMS turbulence. In this approach, separation control is a secondary benefit, not a design requirement. The baseline concept for this study was a 4:1 aspect ratio ultra-compact (LID= 2·5) serpentine duct that fully obscured line-of-sight view of the engine face. At relevant flow conditions, this type of duct exhibits excessive pressure loss and distortion because of extreme wall curvature. Two sets of flow control effectors were designed with the intent of establishing high performance levels to the baseline duct. The first set used two arrays of 36 co-rotating microvane vortex generators (VGs); the second set used two arrays of 36 micro air-jet (microjet) VGs, which were designed to produce the same ‘vorticity signature’ as the microvanes. Optimisation of the microvane array was accomplished using a design of experiments (DOE) methodology to guide selection of parameters used in multiple Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) flow solutions. A verification test conducted in the NASA Glenn W1B test facility indicated low pressure recovery and high distortion for the baseline duct without flow control. With microvane flow control, at a throat Mach number of 0·60, pressure recovery was increased 5%, and both spatial distortion and turbulence were decreased approximately 50%. Microjet effectors also provided significantly improved performance over the baseline configuration.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1040 , October 2000 , pp. 473 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Tindell, R.H. Highly compact inlet diffuser technology, AIAA Paper 87-1747.Google Scholar
2. Amitay, M., Pitt, D., Kibens, V., Parekh, D. and Glezer, A. Control of internal flow separation using synthetic jet actuators, AIAA Paper 2000-0903.Google Scholar
3. Anderson, B.H. and Gibb, J. Study on vortex generator flow control for the management of inlet distortion, J Propulsion and Power, 1993, 9, (3), pp 420–430.Google Scholar
4. Anderson, B.H. and Gibb, J. Vortex generator installation studies on steady state and dynamic distortion, J Aircr, 1998, 35, (4), pp 513–552.Google Scholar
5. Gibb, J. and Anderson, B.H. Vortex flow control applied to aircraft intake ducts, Proceedings of the Royal Aero Society, Conf Paper, 1995, 14.Google Scholar
6. Bray, T.P., Wier, B. and Gibb, J. Experimental evaluation of inlet distortion management at flight Reynolds number, DERA/MSS/MSFC2/CR990134, 1999.Google Scholar
7. Bender, E.E., Anderson, B.H. and Yagle, P.J. Vortex generator modelling for Navier-Stokes codes, ASME Paper No FEDSM99-69219.Google Scholar
8. Anderson, B.H., Miller, D.N., Yagle, P.J. and Truax, P.P. A study on MEMS flow control for the management of engine face distortion in compact inlet systems. ASME Paper No FEDSM99-6920.Google Scholar
9. Box, E.P., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S. Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
10. Miller, D.N., Yagle, P.J. and Hamstra, J.W. Fluidic throat skewing for thrust vectoring in fixed-geometry nozzles, AIAA Paper 99-0365.Google Scholar
11. Hercock, R.G. and Williams, D.D. Aerodynamic response, AGARD- LS-72, Paper 3, 1974.Google Scholar
12. Wendt, B.J. and Reichert, B.A. An inexpensive and effective five-hole probe rake, Experiments in fluids, 1995, 19, pp. 295–296.Google Scholar
13. Reichert, B.A. and Wendt, B.J. Uncertainty of five-hole probe measurements. Fluid Measurement and Instrumentation, 1994, 183, pp 39–44.Google Scholar