DESIGN AND TESTING OF SUPERSONIC CONICAL INTAKE OF RAMJET ENGINE

• Main Author: (NIM : 23607301); Pembimbing: Dr. Romie Oktavianus Bura, SOFYAN
• Format: Theses
• Language: Indonesia
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/17262
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

Ramjet intake design plays important role related to engine performance i.e. to supply sufficient temperature and pressure to establish good combustion. Typically, ramjet intake is designed to gain Mach 0.2 or less before entering combustor to provide adequate temperature and pressure. In this research, external compression supersonic intake is designed based on Mach 2 operation. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and experimental work were used to validate the design. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> shock – on lip design is done to gain high pressure recovery and low drag. Analytical design result was compared with CFD works to observe flow characteristic in subcritical, critical adn supercritical operation of the intake. Computational fluid dynamics analysis can also aid the design due to complexity of the flow which is not considered in the design process. Furthemore, CFD results was validated by experimental works in supersonic wind tunnel. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This experiment work was conducted to measure pressure recovery and mass flow ratio. It was obtained from the design that the Mach number before entering the combustor is 0.163 and the pressure recovery is 0.93. At this Mach number, the pressure and temperature are 4.267 atm and 492.65 K respectively. Overall, analytical result met good agreement with CFD result except for the total pressure. As a result, pressure recovery also has a big error. This big error generated because compression efficiency is not calculated in the design process. By a factor of compression efficiency of 0.8, total pressure can reduce to 38 %. Static and total temperature have small errors (less than 1 %). By comparing analytical and CFD result, the intake can supply adequate temperature and pressure to establish good combustion. Because of limitation in the experiment that affected result accuracy, the error of <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> the pressure recovery parameter is more than 20 % compared to CFD results.