Search

Waverider Design
Introduction We have already explored various theories used to predict and solve for hypersonic
History flowfields. We have also seen the general characteristics of hypersonic vehicles and
Hypersonic Flow various issues the designer must be aware of. We can now learn how waveriders
Theory are optimized based on the characteristics of the assumed flowfield.
Vehicle Design
Waveriders
Caret Wing:
Examples
The waverider owes its origins to work done on winged atmospheric reentry
Summary
vehicles in the 1950s. In 1959, Terence Nonweiler proposed that a three-
References dimensional hypersonic vehicle could be constructed from a known flowfield, like
Home those described earlier. In particular, Nonweiler chose the flowfield behind a planar
oblique shock (the shock formed on a 2D wedge) and used the stream surfaces
behind the shock to generate a body shape. Viewed from overhead, the shape looks
like a delta wing, but it is actually a concave pyramid shape, known as a caret, as
viewed from the aft. The advantage of the caret wing is that the body appears to be
riding on top of the attached shock wave at design Mach number, as illustrated
below.

Caret wing showing the attached shock plus a three-view construction [from Corda and Anderson,
1988 and Starkey and Lewis, 1998]

Because the planar shock surface is attached at the leading edge, there is no flow
spillage from the lower to upper surface. The flow contained beneath the vehicle is
at high pressure because of the shock and therefore results in compression lift
being generated on the wing’s lower surface.
Conical-Flow Waverider:

In addition to the simple 2D tangent-wedge flowfield used to design the caret wing,
more complicated flowfields can also be used to generate hypersonic bodies. In
fact, the flowfield over any axisymmetric body can be used to design a waverider
with a shock surface attached along the leading edge. Probably the most commonly
used flowfield is that based on conical shapes. Conical shapes typically used
include the right circular cone, inclined circular and elliptical cones, yawed circular
and elliptical cones, and bodies with longitudinal curvature. Some investigators
have gone further using calculus of variations and hypersonic small disturbance
theory to search for optimum waverider shapes with high lift-to-drag ratios (see
Bowcutt, Anderson and Capriotti, 1987 and Corda and Anderson, 1988). The
following figure illustrates in greater detail how conical-flow waveriders are
designed. Typically, numerical techniques are used to solve for the inviscid conical
shock wave about a cone-shaped surface. The lower surface of the body is defined
by the intersection of the conical flow stream surface with the shock wave; this
intersection produces the body’s leading edge. The upper surface of the body is
usually designed assuming it is a freestream surface or an expansion surface. In
the latter case, some small increase in L/D can be gained at the price of a more
complicated and time-consuming construction method. The result of this process is
a three-dimensional inviscid flow waveriding body, as illustrated below.

Construction of a body producing a conical shock; (inset) sample conical-flow waverider [from
Cockrell, Huebner and Finley, 1995 and Corda and Anderson, 1988]

Osculating Cone Waverider:

A modification of conical-flow techniques, mentioned previously, is the osculating

cones method. Although conical-flow derived waveriders are relatively easy to
design, they tend to be prohibitively long and difficult to develop into practical flight
vehicles. The advantage of the osculating cones method is that multiple cones are
used to design non-axisymmetric shock patterns allowing greater flexibility in
vehicle design. For example, a designer can use varying conical shock shapes for
different portions of the vehicle to improve performance after the incorporation of
engines, crew canopies, control surfaces, and other high-drag items. An example of
an osculating cones derived waverider is illustrated below.

Mach 6 waverider designed using the osculating cones method [from Miller, Argrow, Center, and
Brauckmann, 1998]

Viscous Waveriders:

The waveriders discussed thus far were all designed assuming inviscid flow (no
friction). Since viscous forces play such a large role in hypersonic flight, we might
expect that inclusion of these forces should have a significant impact on vehicle
shape. Starting with conical flow waveriders based on the inviscid analysis
discussed above, researchers have included viscous effects into the design process
using integral boundary layer relationships. The designer need only vary the cone
shock angle (theta s) to produce an entire family of optimized conical waveriders for
a given Mach number. An example of such a series is illustrated below. Note how
the shape of each vehicle changes to optimize its L/D performance as the assumed
shock angle changes.
 Series of viscous optimized waveriders at Mach 6 [from Bowcutt, Anderson and Capriotti, 1987]

In addition, the performance of each vehicle derived for a given design Mach
number can be compared to locate a so-called "optimum of the optimums," or the
optimum shape for that design Mach number. This is done in the graph below (a),
and this plot indicates that the highest L/D value is obtained by the waverider
designed for a shock angle of 12°. The resulting vehicle is also shown below (b).

(a) Comparison of waverider performance; (b) optimum Mach 6 waverider (theta s=12) [from
Bowcutt, Anderson and Capriotti, 1987]

Note that the optimum shape is composed of very complex curves indicating that
the optimization routine is carefully adjusting the vehicle shape to reduce both wave
and skin friction drag. In fact, the authors noted that the optimum shape designed
for any Mach number exhibited roughly equal values of both types of drag. Shock
angles less than the optimum resulted in greater skin friction while the reverse was
true of higher shock angles.

In addition, this optimization technique also allows the designer to optimize for
different performance criterion and to apply different types of viscous boundary
layers. The following figure shows the different types of configurations that can
result from optimizing for maximum lift-to-drag ratio as opposed to minimum drag
coefficient (C D). Also, note how the vehicle edges become more rounded as the
assumed boundary layer profile becomes more turbulent.

Mach 6 and Mach 14 waveriders optimized for different conditions [from Bowcutt, Anderson and
Capriotti, 1987]

The authors also applied this optimization technique to a Mach 25 waverider to

produce a waverider body at the upper extreme of hypersonic flight. The resulting
shape illustrated below, makes an interesting comparison with the Mach 6
waverider.
 Optimum Mach 25 waverider [from Bowcutt, Anderson and Capriotti, 1987]

Note how much greater the wing sweep is at the higher Mach number due to the
much smaller Mach cone produced at such a high speed. The raised spline
centerbody apparent in the Mach 25 vehicle is also noteworthy. The feature results
from a volume requirement placed on the design and indicates a compromise
between minimizing skin friction and maintaining sufficient vehicle volume.

Returning briefly to the aerodynamic characteristics of hypersonic vehicles, recall

the "L/D barrier" so important to hypersonic vehicle research:
 Maximum lift-to-drag ratios for hypersonic vehicles and the "L/D barrier" [from Anderson, 2000]

These viscous optimized designs (solid data points) appear to break that barrier
and actually more closely obey the following relationship (represented as the
dashed line in the above figure):

Thus, these results indicate that waveriders show great promise in breaking the L/D
barrier and deserve great consideration in future hypersonic vehicle design. The
viscous optimization techniques outlined here have also been applied to power law
bodies since such bodies represent minimum drag shapes. See Sabean and Lewis,
1998, for more information about viscous-optimized power law bodies.

Star Bodies:

A final noteworthy waverider concept is another variation on the conical-flow design

known as the star body. Instead of exhibiting the wedge-like shape of the concepts
discussed thus far, the star body is actually composed of multiple conical-flow or
power law body waveriders superimposed and joined at the leading edge. An
example star body showing two joined power law shapes is shown below.

ľ power law star body designed for Mach 6.4 [from Sabean and Lewis, 1998]

The theoretical advantage of this concept is that an attached shock will be formed
between each of the star "fins" reducing wave drag. The cost, however, is greater
surface area resulting in greater skin friction drag. Nonetheless, research indicates
that a properly designed star body configuration can see up to a 20% reduction in
drag over an equivalent conical waverider, as indicated below.
Comparison of drag coefficients for a star body and conical waverider [from Sabean and Lewis,
1998]

Aircraft | Design | Ask Us | Shop | Search

About Us | Contact Us | Copyright © 1997-2018

Search