aerospace

Article
Suction Control of a Boundary Layer Ingestion Inlet
Lei Liu 1,2 , Guozhan Li 3, *, Ban Wang 4 and Shaofeng Wu 4

1 State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China;
liulei7255@nuaa.edu.cn
2 College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing 210016, China
3 College of Metrology and Measurement Engineering, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
4 School of Mechanical Engineering, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China;
bigban@zju.edu.cn (B.W.); wushaofeng1926@126.com (S.W.)
* Correspondence: liguozhan@cjlu.edu.cn

Abstract: This study presents a numerical investigation of suction control in an aggressive S-shaped
air intake with large boundary ingestion. The results show that the variation of suction control
parameters such as suction location, suction pipe diameter, and suction angle all have an impact on
the effectiveness of the flow control. In general, further upstream suction, such as near the throat, is
favorable for the decrease of the second flow intensity and the area of the low-energy fluid region at
the exit of the S-shaped inlet. However, it is bad for the total pressure recovery and the circumferential
total pressure uniform distribution. From the perspective of the uniformity of the total pressure
distribution at the air intake exit, there is an optimal location for suction between the throat and the
separation start point. A bigger suction pipe diameter brings better effects as the suction location
and suction angle keep constant, due to more low-energy fluid being sucked out. But this doesn’t
mean the largest mass flow suction results in the biggest improvement. Overall, sucking at the 1st
bend, with suction angle and suction pipe diameter equaling 15 degrees and 12 mm, respectively, is
the optimal suction scheme here. Since the change rule of the cross-section area along the centerline
has not changed during suction control, the second flow and complex surface streamline at the air
intake exit cannot be eliminated, though they can be decreased a lot with reasonable suction control.
Similarly, owing to large boundary ingestion, the remarkable low-energy fluid region always exists
despite the significant reduction of the separation and second flow, which is very different from the
Citation: Liu, L.; Li, G.; Wang, B.; Wu, results of this kind of micro-suction executed in the non-BLI S-duct. To pursue a higher improvement,
S. Suction Control of a Boundary suction combined with vortex generator vanes has been further studied. Corresponding results
Layer Ingestion Inlet. Aerospace 2023, analysis shows that the hybrid flow control method has great potential and should be investigated in
10, 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/
detail in the future.
aerospace10120989

Academic Editor: Lawrence Keywords: S-shaped air intake; boundary layer ingestion; suction control; distortion
S. Ukeiley

Received: 30 August 2023

Revised: 7 November 2023
1. Introduction
Accepted: 14 November 2023
Published: 24 November 2023 Half flush-mounted S-shaped air intake with large boundary layer ingestion (BLI)
has been a research hotspot in recent years and has received wide attention thanks to its
favorable stealth, small frontal area, and compact structure [1]. As the gas supply appa-
ratus of the future Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) transport aircraft, except for the common
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
benefits mentioned above, numerous studies about it have shown that the boundary layer
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ingesting propulsor has the potential to improve aircraft fuel efficiency [2–8]. However,
This article is an open access article
challenges also exist. The inherent S-shaped diffuser geometry combined with a thick
distributed under the terms and
ingested boundary layer results in severe flow distortions (mainly including total pressure
conditions of the Creative Commons
distortion and swirl distortion) at the inlet of the turbofan engine, which is very bad for
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the aerodynamic performance of downstream components [9–14]. The swirl distortion
4.0/).
component of these inlet flow profiles changes the incidence angle of air entering the

Aerospace 2023, 10, 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10120989 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 2 of 22

fan which alters the amount of flow turning and work performed by the fan [15,16]. In
fan geometries researched by Gunn and Hall [17], BLI was found to reduce the fan-stage
efficiency by around 1–2% relative to operation with uniform inlet flow. In the presence
of BLI-type (NASA’s Inlet A) distortion, both a 15.5% decrease in stream thrust and a 14%
increase in thrust-specific fuel consumption occur [12]. Therefore, obtaining the benefits of
BLI from a system level requires that acceptable pressure recovery and distortion levels be
maintained for engine operation [1]. As a result, flow control or optimization that is used
for improving the air quality at the aerodynamic interface plane (AIP) of the BLI S-shaped
air intake is more necessary compared to the conventional pylon-mounted engine inlet or
other non-BLI inlets.
With the development of flow control methods [18] and experimental techniques for
physical measurements, large amounts of work for coping with the S-shaped air intake exit
distortion have been performed in recent years. It is noteworthy that most of them achieve
their aims with passive or active flow control methods because geometry optimization is
not effective for distortion control [19–21]. Among various flow control methods [22–31],
blowing and suction are two kinds of active flow control techniques with effectiveness.
By blowing net high-energy fluid in, the power of the low-energy fluid to overcome the
adverse pressure gradient is strengthened; then, the serious flow separation and secondary
flow that originally occurred in the serpentine duct weakens or disappears, making the
interior flow more fluent. As to suction, its role is to eliminate or reduce the flow separation
in the S-shaped air intake by sucking out the low-energy fluid in the boundary layer.
In 2014, Harouni et al. [32] studied the effect of blowing and suction control on the
engine-face distortion of a half flush-mounted S-shaped inlet and concluded that the
secondary flows occurring in the diffuser could be more efficiently managed by keeping
the jet flows separate and distinct. However, in this study, neither a detailed analysis of
the flow field in the BLI S-shaped inlet with flow control nor the deep exploration of the
influence discipline of flow-control parameters (such as the actuation location, angle, and so
on) variation on the flow control effect has proceeded. Subsequently, Vaccaro et al. [30] paid
their attention to the experimental and numerical investigation of steady-blowing control
in a compact inlet duct in 2015. The results show that not only did the two-dimensional
tangential control jet improve the time-averaged pressure recovery at the air intake exit,
but it also essentially eliminated the energy content of the distinct unsteady fluctuations
that characterized the baseline flow field. Though both the time-averaged flow field and
the unsteady flow field have been analyzed in this work, the inlet is a short, rectangular,
diffusing S-shape duct without boundary layer ingestion.
In summary, there are many achievements in interior blowing or suction control in the
S-shaped inlet. However, most of them focus on the positive or negative effects caused by
flow control, and few of them tend to pay attention to the detailed effect of flow control
parameters variation on the S-shaped inlet’s aerodynamic performance, not to mention the
adoption of supplementary measures. On the other hand, the flow field in the S-shaped
inlet has big differences from the flow field in the S-shaped inlet with large boundary
layer ingestion. Correspondingly, the flow control method and the underlying mechanism
should be different. So, with respect to this reality, quantities of compressible Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes computations for a half flush-mounted S-shaped inlet with a series
of suction schemes have been conducted. Furthermore, the complex 3D interior flow details
under different schemes have been analyzed and compared.

2. Computational Setup
2.1. Model in Study
The S-shaped inlet studied here is a half flush-mounted inlet with large boundary
layer ingestion, with a Mach number at the inlet of about 0.37. The diameter of its exit
section, D, equals 280.4 mm, and the design mass flow of it, mdesign , equals 8.997 kg/s. The
suction control devices are comprised of 12 pipes with suction pipe diameters d equaling
8 mm, 10 mm, or 12 mm, as shown in Figure 1b. All suction pipes are installed at the same
 Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 3 of 22

suction control devices are comprised of 12 pipes with suction pipe diameters d equaling
acute angle (β = 158◦mm,
, 30◦10
, 45 ◦ ) with
mm, or 12the
mm,local
as shown in Figure
tangent 1b. All
line. The suction pipesofare
arrangement installed
these at the same
suction
pipes was chosen based on the conclusion obtained by Harouni that the most practically suction
acute angle (β = 15°, 30°, 45°) with the local tangent line. The arrangement of these
pipesscheme
effective flow control was chosenwasbased on the conclusion ejector
the circumferential obtainedscheme
by Harouni
[32].that the most practically
Furthermore,
effective flow control scheme was the circumferential ejector scheme [32]. Furthermore,
the position near the throat section, just at the 1st bend, and near the separation point are
the position near the throat section, just at the 1st bend, and near the separation point are
selected as three typical suction locations, as shown in Figure 1c, which is an additional
selected as three typical suction locations, as shown in Figure 1c, which is an additional
variable relative tovariable
the previous
relative research [32]. research [32].
to the previous

(a) (b)
a L=881.575 mm
A’
z=-54. 68

“A’B’BA ”plane

z=881. 58
-Symmetry plane
z=0

B’
z/L=0.0326

Δx
（Near Throat）

D=280.4mm
z/L=0.1576
st
The 11stBend
（The Bend）
z/L=0.3038
B
（Near Separation Point）

(c)
Figure 1. Schematic of the suction control device. (a) The S-shaped inlet. (b) Local map of the suction
Figure 1. Schematic of the suction control device. (a) The S-shaped inlet. (b) Local map of the suction
control device. (c) Schematic of the suction location and angle.
control device. (c) Schematic of the suction location and angle.
2.2. Numerical Methods
2.2. Numerical Methods
With the rapid development of computational fluid mechanics (CFD) in recent years,
With the rapid development
more of computational
accurate numerical fluid mechanics
simulation methods such as LES(CFD)
and in
DNSrecent
haveyears,
been put for-
more accurate numerical
ward and applied in some simple or simplified models [33–35]. However,forward
simulation methods such as LES and DNS have been put as concluded in
and applied in some simple
Yang’s or simplified
research paper, LESmodelsis likely[33–35].
to become However,
used for aasbroader
concluded
rangein ofYang’s
flow problems
research paper, LES andismore
likely to become
complex usedincluding
problems, for a broader range of flow problems
more multi-disciplinary applications, andin the fu-
ture. Nevertheless,
more complex problems, includingthere morearemulti-disciplinary
still significant challenges (such as the
applications, big shortcoming
in the future. in
implicit filtering, and time cost) remaining before LES can
Nevertheless, there are still significant challenges (such as the big shortcoming in implicitbecome a reliable, robust engi-
filtering, and timeneering analysis toolbefore
cost) remaining that canLESbe used
can as an alternative
become to RANS
a reliable, [33].engineering
robust As to DNS, the chal-
lenges for its wide application are greater, such as the economic and time costs. So, the
analysis tool that can be used as an alternative to RANS [33]. As to DNS, the challenges
numerical simulation in this study uses the commercial software ANSYS CFX 18.0 to solve
for its wide application are greater, such as the economic and time costs. So, the numerical
steady viscous Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with a time-perusing
simulation in thisfinite
study uses method.
volume the commercial
The Shear software ANSYS
Stress Transport CFX
(SST) 18.0 to model
turbulence solve issteady
employed for
viscous Reynolds-Averaged
this researchNavier-Stokes
as it is the highest (RANS)
fidelity equations with a time-perusing
working turbulence model and is well finite
established
volume method. The Shear
for its Stressflow
separated Transport
modeling (SST) turbulence
ability [36,37]. Themodel
spatialisdiscretization
employed for this
uses a second-
research as it is the highest
order upwind fidelity
scheme. working
To reduceturbulence
the effect ofmodel and isoutlet
the artificial well boundary
established forinternal
on the
its separated flowflow field, the
modeling calculation
ability [36,37].domain has been
The spatial obtained afteruses
discretization the extension of the original
a second-order
upwind scheme. To reduce the effect of the artificial outlet boundary on the internal flow
field, the calculation domain has been obtained after the extension of the original serpentine
diffuser. As shown in Figure 2a, the extensive section is about 1.5 times the diameter of the
diffuser exit.
An O-type grid topology is used in the main channel of the diffuser and the suction
pipes. Meshes near the air intake wall and the pipe wall, as well as at the junctions of the
air intake and the suction pipes, are all locally refined. To avoid the numerical discrepancy
caused by different meshing methods, the same grid topology is used for all schemes. The
 serpentine diffuser. As shown in Figure 2a, the extensive section is about 1.5 times t
diameter of the diffuser exit.
An O-type grid topology is used in the main channel of the diffuser and the sucti
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 4 of 22
pipes. Meshes near the air intake wall and the pipe wall, as well as at the junctions of t
air intake and the suction pipes, are all locally refined. To avoid the numerical discrepan
caused by different meshing methods, the same grid topology is used for all schemes. T
wall distance ofwall
the distance
first mesh cell first
of the is set to 0.002
mesh cell ismm, and
set to themm,
0.002 calculated
and they+ is about y+
calculated 1.0.is about 1
Both grid independence and computational
Both grid independence efficiency are
and computational considered
efficiency to determine
are considered the
to determine the a
appropriate mesh number.
propriate As anumber.
mesh result, the
As anumber of grid
result, the points
number of in thepoints
grid wholeincalculation
the whole calculati
domain is aboutdomain
2,000,000 in total.
is about 2,000,000 in total.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 2. Mesh for 2. Mesh for
the numerical the numerical
simulation simulation
of the of the
flow in the flow inair
S-shaped theintake
S-shaped
withairand
intake with and witho
without
suction control. (a) S-shaped inlet without suction control (Prototype). (b) S-shaped inlet with s
suction control. (a) S-shaped inlet without suction control (Prototype). (b) S-shaped inlet with
tion control.
suction control.
The boundary conditions of the suction control cases are shown in Figure 3. Clear
The boundary conditions of the suction control cases are shown in Figure 3. Clearly,
total pressure, P*, and total temperature, T*, of 288 K are set at the inlet of the S-shap
total pressure, P*, and total temperature, T*, of 288 K are set at the inlet of the S-shaped
air intake as the inlet boundary conditions. Because of large boundary layer ingestion, t
air intake as the inlet boundary conditions. Because of large boundary layer ingestion, the
total pressure distribution at the air intake inlet is not uniform, as shown in Figure 3b
total pressure distribution at the air intake inlet is not uniform, as shown in Figure 3b,c.
The thickness of the boundary layer δ equals 20 percent of the height of the air intake in
The thickness of the boundary layer δ equals 20 percent of the height of the air intake
(δ = 0.2 H). The total pressure distribution in the normal direction of the boundary layer
inlet (δ = 0.2 H). The total pressure distribution in the normal direction of the boundary
in other words, the first section of the function (P* = P*(x)) is obtained through the pre
layer—in other words, the first section of the function (P* = P*(x)) is obtained through the
ous experimental data fitting. Psuction is the external environmental pressure given at t
previous experimental
exit of thedata fitting.
suction Psuction
pipes, whichis acts
the as
external environmental
a throttle valve. As to the pressure
schemesgivenwithout sucti
at the exit of thecontrol,
suctionthis
pipes, which acts as a throttle valve. As to the
setting is not available here. What should be noticed is that schemes without
the suction ma
suction control, flow
this setting is not available
is not controlled here. What
by changing the should
value ofbePsuction
noticed is controlled
; it is that the suction
by changing t
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 2
mass flow is notdiameter
controlled by suction
of the changing the value
pipes. of Psuction
The usage of this; it is controlled
method by changing
is because the suction pipes a
the diameter of treated
the suction
as a pipes.
simple Thebleedusage ofStatic
valve. this method
pressure, is because
Pexit, is setthe
at suction
the exit pipes
of the are
S-shaped in
treated as a simple bleed valve. Static pressure, P , is set at the exit of the S-shaped
as the outlet boundary condition. All the wall faces are set as adiabatic with no slip.
exit inlet
as the outlet boundary condition. All the wall faces are set as adiabatic with no slip.

(a)
(a)
*
P (Pa)
107,100
107100
104,256
104256
101,411
101411
98,567
98567
95,722
95722
92,878
92878
90,033
90033
87,189
87189
84,344
84344
81,500
81500

(b) (c)
Figure
Figure 3. Boundary 3. Boundary
condition condition
settings settings
and total and total
pressure pressure distribution
distribution at the
at the inlet of the S-shaped
inlet of the S-shape
inlet. (a) Boundary conditions. (b) Total pressure distribution function at the inlet. (c) Total pressur
inlet. (a) Boundary conditions. (b) Total pressure distribution function at the inlet. (c) Total pressure
distribution contour at the inlet.
distribution contour at the inlet.
Finally, all numerical simulations were performed on a computing cluster with a tota
of 128 Intel® Xeon® scalable processors.

2.3. Evaluation Parameters

Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 5 of 22

Finally, all numerical simulations were performed on a computing cluster with a total
of 128 Intel® Xeon® scalable processors.

2.3. Evaluation Parameters

When comparing the aerodynamic performance of the air intake as well as the dis-
tortion at its exit in different schemes, the total pressure recovery coefficient (σ), the
circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient (DC120 ), the swirl distortion coefficient
(SC120 ), and the occupation ratio of low-energy fluid (AR) at the exit of the S-shaped inlet
are all available here, as shown below. Obviously, these four descriptors generally fall into
two categories. The first one characterizes the total pressure recovery, while the other three
characterize distortion at the exit of the S-shaped inlet:
∗ ∗
σ = PFAV,Exit /PFAV,Inlet (1)

AR = AL /AExit (2)

 
∗ ∗
DC120 = PFAV − (P120 )FAV, min /qFAV (3)




SC120 = Vxy,120 FAV,max
− Vxy,120 FAV,min
/VFAV (4)

∗ ∗ ∗
DA = (P FAV,H − PFAV,L )/PFAV (5)
In upper definitions, P*FAV is the mean total pressure at the exit of the S-shaped air
intake, (P*120 )FAV,min is the minimum area average total pressure in a series of 120-degree
sectors at the exit of the S-shaped inlet, and qFAV is the area average dynamic pressure.
(Vxy,120 )FAV,max is the maximum area average velocity of secondary flow in a series of
120-degree sectors. Correspondingly, (Vxy,120 )FAV,min is the minimum area average velocity
of secondary flow in a series of 120-degree sectors, and VFAV is the area average velocity.
In addition to parameter DC120 , DA is also an evaluation parameter for total pressure
distortion, but it is simpler and more direct.

2.4. Validation of the Simulation Method

To verify the accuracy of the calculation method used in this work, the numerical
simulation of the S-duct [37–39] was carried out as shown in Figure 4. The static pressure
coefficient Cp and the total pressure recovery coefficient σ are chosen for the comparison,
which is defined by:
∗

Cp = (P wall valid − Psection A )/(P section A − Psection A (6)

∗ ∗
σ = Psection E /Psection A (7)
The numerical results of the static pressure coefficient in Section A and Section B fit
the experimental data well. But in Section C, where serve separation occurs (Figure 4d),
there is a relatively larger error. We also compared our results with some other comparable
data (such as in the work of Fiola [37]), and a similar phenomenon that a relatively greater
error between the CFD result and experimental data in section C can be found. With
detailed analysis, we found it can be attributed to the fact that neither RANS turbulence
model can adequately account for strong flows with separation recently. The distribution
of the streamline on the symmetry plane of the S-duct and the Mach number at section E is
basically consistent with the experimental contours.
 there is a relatively larger error. We also compared our results with some other compara-
ble data (such as in the work of Fiola [37]), and a similar phenomenon that a relatively
greater error between the CFD result and experimental data in section C can be found.
With detailed analysis, we found it can be attributed to the fact that neither RANS turbu-
lence model can adequately account for strong flows with separation recently. The distri-
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 6 of 22
bution of the streamline on the symmetry plane of the S-duct and the Mach number at
section E is basically consistent with the experimental contours.

0.20
CFD_Section A
0.15
EXP_Section A
0.10

0.05

Cp
0.00

-0.05

-0.10

-0.15

-0.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
o
θ( )
(a) (b)
0.30 0.60
0.25 CFD_Section B 0.55 CFD_Section C
EXP_Section B EXP_Section C
0.20 0.50 CFD_Section D
0.15 0.45 EXP_Section D

0.10 0.40

Cp
Cp

0.05 0.35
0.00 0.30
-0.05 0.25
-0.10 0.20
-0.15 0.15
-0.20 0.10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
o o
θ( ) θ( )
(c) (d)
P(Pa)
101,000
101000
98,917
98917 EXP
96,833
96833 Exp_Section E CFD_Section E
94,750
94750 σ_EXP=0.9655
92,667
92667
90,583
90583
88,500 0.40
88500 0.3
86,417
86417 2
84,333
84333
0.2
0.3
4

82,250
6

82250
0

80,167
0 .2

80167
8
0.2

78,083
78083
76,000
76000
(e) (f)
Figure 4. Comparisons between the numerical results of the S-duct for validation and the experi-
Figure 4. Comparisons between the numerical results of the S-duct for validation and the experimen-
mental data given in the references [37–39]. (a) S-duct for validation [37–39]. (b) Static pressure co-
tal data given in the references [37–39]. (a) S-duct for validation [37–39]. (b) Static pressure coefficient
efficient at Section A. (c) Static pressure coefficient at Section B. (d) Static pressure coefficient at Sec-
at Section
tion C andA.Section
(c) Static
D. pressure coefficient
(e) Streamline at Section
distribution on B.
the(d) Static pressure
symmetry coefficient
plane of at Section
the S-duct. C
(f) Mach
and Section
number D. (e) Streamline
distribution distribution
at the S-duct exit. on the symmetry plane of the S-duct. (f) Mach number
distribution at the S-duct exit.

In general, the simulated results are in reasonable agreement with the experiment
results. Although this validation is a compromise, the diffuser studied in this validation
also has a typical S-shaped structure with complex second flow and flow separation in it,
which is similar to the half flush-mounted S-shaped inlet simulated in this paper. So, to
some extent, it is still meaningful to the simulation research here.
 In general, the simulated results are in reasonable agreement with the experiment
results. Although this validation is a compromise, the diffuser studied in this validation
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 also has a typical S-shaped structure with complex second flow and flow separation7 in it,
of 22
which is similar to the half flush-mounted S-shaped inlet simulated in this paper. So, to
some extent, it is still meaningful to the simulation research here.
3.
3. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
3.1. Research Schemes of the Suction Flow Control
3.1. Research Schemes of the Suction Flow Control
As mentioned above, suction location, installing angle of suction pipes, and suction
As mentioned above, suction location, installing angle of suction pipes, and suction
pipe diameter are three suction control parameters, each of which has three items for
pipe diameter
choosing. are three
As shown suction
in Table control
1, the parameters,
schemes have beeneach of which
named hassame
after the threerule.
items for
With
choosing. As shown in Table 1, the schemes have been named after the same rule.
detailed analysis and comparison, suction control law and characteristics can be obtained. With
detailedthe
Besides, analysis andsuction
optimal comparison,
schemesuction control
selected from law and
these characteristics
schemes can be obtained.
is available.
Besides, the optimal suction scheme selected from these schemes is available.
Table 1. Suction control parameters and naming rule of suction schemes.
Table 1. Suction control parameters and naming rule of suction schemes.
Parameters Suction Control Parameters
Parameters Suction Control Parameters Pipe Diameter
Location (z/L) Angle (β, ◦ )
Case Name Case Name Location (z/L) Angle (β, °) (d, mm)
Pipe Diameter (d, mm)
Location_Angle_Diameter Location_Angle_Diameter Near
Near throat, 1st Bend, Near throat, 1st Bend,
sepa- 15, 30, 45
(For example, 1stBend_15 ◦ _6 mm) Near 15,point
separation 30, 45 8, 10,8,12
10, 12
(For example, 1stBend_15°_6 mm) ration point

3.2.
3.2. The
The Change
Change in in Aerodynamic
Aerodynamic Performance
Performance and
and Interior
Interior Flow
Flow Details
Details
Figure
Figure 55 shows
shows thethesuction
suction mass
mass flow
flow change
change trend
trendwith
withthethevariation
variation of of the
thesuction
suction
pipe’s
pipe’sdiameter.
diameter.Clearly,
Clearly,suction
suctionmass
massflow
flowincreases
increasessignificantly
significantlywith
withthetheincrease
increaseofofthe
the
suction pipes’ diameter as the suction location and angle are fixed. Likewise,
suction pipes’ diameter as the suction location and angle are fixed. Likewise, the suction the suction
location
locationandand angle
angle cancan directly
directly influence
influence the
the amount
amount of of suction
suction mass
mass flow.
flow. ItIt can
can be
be easily
easily
found
found that suction further upstream means more suction mass flow if the installing angle
that suction further upstream means more suction mass flow if the installing angle
and
and the
thediameter
diameterof ofthe
thesuction
suctionpipes
pipesremain
remainconstant.
constant.

Figure5.
Figure 5. The
The suction
suction mass
massflow
flowchanges
changeswith
withthe
thevariation
variationof
ofthe
thesuction
suctionpipe’s
pipe’sdiameter.
diameter.

Thisphenomenon
This phenomenoncan canbebeinterpreted
interpretedas asthe
the velocity
velocity of of the
the suctioned
suctioned low-energy
low-energyfluid fluid
at
atthe
theupstream
upstreamlocation
locationbeing
beingrelatively
relativelylarger
largerthan
thanthethevelocity downstream,
velocity downstream, as shown
as shown in
Figure 6a. The
in Figure installing
6a. The angle
installing is also
angle is aalso
remarkable affecting
a remarkable factor:factor:
affecting a smaller install install
a smaller angle
brings more suction
angle brings mass flow
more suction massasflowbothasthebothsuction location
the suction and theand
location sizethe
of size
the suction pipes
of the suction
remain unchanged. The contours given in Figure 6b,c account for
pipes remain unchanged. The contours given in Figure 6b,c account for this phenomenon this phenomenon well.
The smaller installation angle means a larger speed component in the
well. The smaller installation angle means a larger speed component in the suction pipe suction pipe direction,
as portrayed
direction, visually invisually
as portrayed Figure 6b. Therefore,
in Figure a smaller installation
6b. Therefore, angle is good
a smaller installation angle forismore
good
mass flowmass
for more suction.
flow Besides, from Figure
suction. Besides, from6b, it can
Figure 6b,beit found
can be that
found most
thatof the of
most mass flow
the mass
that
flowisthat
suctioned out isout
is suctioned low-energy flow in
is low-energy thein
flow boundary
the boundary layer,layer,
only when
only whenthe installation
the instal-
angle
lationisangle
small,
is such 15◦ . as
small,assuch On15°.
theOncontrary, with the
the contrary, withinstallation angle increasing,
the installation angle increasing,more
and
more and more main flow with higher energy has been sucked out. Undoubtedly, thisfor
more main flow with higher energy has been sucked out. Undoubtedly, this is bad is
the
badaerodynamic performance
for the aerodynamic of the air
performance ofintake,
the air which
intake,can whichbe verified by the curves
can be verified given
by the curves
in Figure 7. On the other hand, a bigger installation angle means a bigger turning angle
for the sucked fluid. As a result, the possibility of flow separation occurring in the suction
pipes is increased, as shown in Figure 6b,c.
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

given in Figure 7. On the other hand, a bigger installation angle means a bigger turning
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 8 of 22
angle for the sucked fluid. As a result, the possibility of flow separation occurring in the
suction pipes is increased, as shown in Figure 6b,c.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 6. The velocity contour at 3 suction sections, the intersection of the suction pipe and the air
Figure 6. The velocity contour at 3 suction sections, the intersection of the suction pipe and the air
intake, and the exit of the suction pipes. (a) Velocity contour at 3 suction sections. (b) Local velocity
intake, and the exit of the suction pipes. (a) Velocity contour at 3 suction sections. (b) Local velocity
at the intersection of the suction pipe and the air intake. (c) Velocity contour at the exit of the suction
at the intersection
pipes of the suctionThroat_30°_10mm;
(Top: Throat_15°_10mm; pipe and the air intake. (c) Velocity contour at the exit of the suction
Throat_45°_10mm).
pipes (Top: Throat_15◦ _10mm; Throat_30◦ _10mm; Throat_45◦ _10mm).
In general, whether from the view of the total pressure recovery (σ) or the distortion
In general, whether from the view of the total pressure recovery (σ) or the distor-
(AR, DC120, SC120) at the air intake exit, there is the same change tendency that the aerody-
tion (AR, DC120 , SC120 ) at the air intake exit, there is the same change tendency that the
namic performance of the air intake becomes better and better as the diameter of the suc-
aerodynamic performance of the air intake becomes better and better as the diameter of
tion pipes increases from 8 mm to 12 mm, as shown in Figure 7. On the other hand, in the
the suction pipes increases from 8 mm to 12 mm, as shown in Figure 7. On the other
schemes studied here, this tendency does not change with the variation of the suction pipe
hand, in the schemes studied here, this tendency does not change with the variation of the
diameter
suction anddiameter
pipe suction location.
and suctionNamely, a bigger
location. suction
Namely, pipe suction
a bigger diameter brings
pipe a better
diameter flow
brings
control effect, no matter which suction location or suction angle is selected.
a better flow control effect, no matter which suction location or suction angle is selected. However, the
optimal suction
However, angle issuction
the optimal significantly
angle is correlated withcorrelated
significantly the suctionwithlocation and thelocation
the suction suction
pipe diameter. Only when the suction location is near the throat
and the suction pipe diameter. Only when the suction location is near the throat and and the diameter of the
the
suction pipes is relatively small, the aerodynamic performance of
diameter of the suction pipes is relatively small, the aerodynamic performance of the air the air intake simply
increases
intake with increases
simply the decreasewithofthe
thedecrease
suction angle.
of the The influence
suction angle.discipline of suction
The influence loca-
discipline
tion variation is also very complex. For the reduction of the low-energy
of suction location variation is also very complex. For the reduction of the low-energy fluid region char-
acterized
fluid regionby characterized
parameter ARby and the swirlAR
parameter distortion
and the(SC 120) at the AIP, further upstream
swirl distortion (SC120 ) at the AIP,
suction leads to a better effect. But for the total pressure
further upstream suction leads to a better effect. But for the total recovery σ and the circumferential
pressure recovery σ
total pressure distortion (DC ), as given in Figure 7a,c, there
and the circumferential total pressure distortion (DC120 ), as given in Figure 7a,c,
120 is a completely different
there
is a completely different result. Further upstream suction seems to lead to a worseattotal
result. Further upstream suction seems to lead to a worse total pressure distortion the
exit of the air intake, and the 1st bend, located between the throat and the
pressure distortion at the exit of the air intake, and the 1st bend, located between the throat separation sec-
tion,the
and seems to be the
separation optimal
section, one. to be the optimal one.
seems
parameter AR with the variation of the suction location may be
The change of the parameter
interpreted as
interpreted as follows.
follows. First, under the combined effects effects of large boundary layer ingestion,
ingestion,
strong adverse and cross pressure gradient, the boundary layer becomes thicker and thicker
streamwise. As a result, the area of the low energy-fluid region on the streamwise sections
becomes larger and larger, as shown in Figure 8. There is no question that suction is effective
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 strong adverse and cross pressure gradient, the boundary layer becomes thicker9 of and
22
thicker streamwise. As a result, the area of the low energy-fluid region on the streamwise
sections becomes larger and larger, as shown in Figure 8. There is no question that suction
is effective
both both to the
to the upstream upstream
flow field and flow
the field and the
flow field flow fieldofdownstream
downstream of the
the place where place
suction
where suction control proceeded. But certainly, the latter one is more influenced.
control proceeded. But certainly, the latter one is more influenced. Because the upstream Because
the upstream
location location
is closer to theisinlet
closer to the inlet
low-energy low-energy
fluid fluid source,
source, further upstream further upstream
suction suc-
will lead to
tion will
larger lead to larger
downstream downstream
regions regionssmaller
affected. Then, affected. Then,covered
regions smallerby regions covered
low-energy by
fluid
low-energy
appeared at fluid appeared
the exit at the exitinlet,
of the S-shaped of the S-shaped
namely inlet, namely
the lower value ofthe lower value
parameter AR, asof
parameter
shown AR, as7b.
in Figure shown in Figure
Besides, due to 7b.
the Besides,
adverse due to the
pressure adversethat
gradient pressure gradient
has been that
overcome
has
in been
time by overcome in timesuction,
further upstream by further upstream
the flow suction,
separation in thethe
airflow separation
intake in the air
has been weakened
or even eliminated, and, at last, lower swirl distortion (SC120 ) occurred at the exit (SC
intake has been weakened or even eliminated, and, at last, lower swirl distortion 120)
of the
occurred
air intake.at the exit of the air intake.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The change
change of
of aerodynamic
aerodynamic performance
performance parameters
parameters with
with the
the variation
variation of
of suction
suction control
control
parameters. (a) The total pressure recovery coefficient (σ). (b) The occupation ratio of low-energy
parameters. (a) The total pressure recovery coefficient (σ). (b) The occupation ratio of low-energy
fluid (AR). (c) The circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient (DC120). (d) The swirl distor-
fluid (AR). (c) The circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient (DC120 ). (d) The swirl distortion
tion coefficient (SC120).
coefficient (SC120 ).
As to
As to the
the total
total pressure
pressure recovery
recovery (σ)(σ) and
and the
the circumferential
circumferential total
total pressure
pressure distortion
distortion
(DC 120), a basic fact that should be mentioned first is that there are two direct effects caused
(DC120 ), a basic fact that should be mentioned first is that there are two direct effects caused
by suction
by suction control.
control. TheThe first
first one
one isis the
the energy
energy lossloss of
of the whole aerodynamic
the whole aerodynamic system.system.
Though the fluid sucked out is low-energy, there is also an
Though the fluid sucked out is low-energy, there is also an energy loss fromenergy loss from thethe perspec-
perspective
tive
of of whole
the the whole system.
system. Moreover,
Moreover, further
further upstream
upstream suctionmeans
suction meansmoremoreenergy
energyloss
loss due
due
to more fluid being sucked out, as illustrated in Figure 5, except for the
to more fluid being sucked out, as illustrated in Figure 5, except for the further upstream further upstream
fluid carrying
fluid carrying moremoreenergy
energywith
withitself relative
itself to the
relative downstream
to the downstream fluid. So, from
fluid. this point
So, from this
of view,
point suction
of view, further
suction upstream
further withwith
upstream larger-sized pipes
larger-sized and,and,
pipes simultaneously,
simultaneously, bigger in-
bigger
stallation-angles is bad for system energy. On the other hand, with
installation-angles is bad for system energy. On the other hand, with suction control, thesuction control, the
severe separation
severe separation hashas decreased
decreased aa lot,
lot, and
and the
the interior
interior passage
passage ofof the
the air
air intake
intake becomes
becomes
more fluent. As a result, more fluid will be sucked into the air intake
more fluent. As a result, more fluid will be sucked into the air intake through its inlet. through its Thus,
inlet.
from this viewpoint, further upstream and more low-energy fluid suction is of benefit to
the system-level energy. Overall, the total pressure is a characteristic parameter of fluid
energy to some extent; its decrease or increase depends on the integration of the effects
 ery and decreasing the circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient, especially as a
big-size suction pipe with a smaller suction angle has been selected, as shown in Figure
7a,c. At last, with the consideration of the synthetical effect of four main parameters (σ,
AR, DC120, SC120) given in Figure 7, the scheme of sucking at the 1st bend with a suction
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 angle and suction pipe diameter respectively equaling 15° and 12 mm is the best 10 one
of 22
among the 27 schemes listed here.
Nonuniform total pressure has been directly given at the inlet of the S-shaped air
intake. Consequently, as shown in the left image of Figure 8, the obvious high total pres-
of the two aspects mentioned above. When the former one is in the dominant position,
sure region and the significant low total pressure region always coexist in all sections, and
there are worse total pressure recovery and larger circumferential distortion coefficients,
the area ratio between them has been affected by the intensity of the second flow, the
such as the scheme of suction near the throat, with suction pipe diameter and installation
variation of the cross-section area, and shape. In addition, the embryo of the “counter vor-
angle respectively equaling 12 mm and 45◦ , as shown in Figure 7a,c. Although suction
tex” formed at the cross-section just between the 0.2(L + a) location and the “NearSepara-
at a downstream location, such as near the separation point, is good for system energy
tion” point. The
maintenance, shape
it is veryof the region
harmful covered
to the by the
separation low-energy
decrease, fluid atby
as verified the lower7b,d.
Figure part At
of
the sections is obviously affected by the intensity and size of the
last, as a compromise, the location between the upstream throat and the downstream“counter vortex” once it
is formed. Finally,
separation point showsthe shape of the low-energy
the biggest potentialityregion at the exit
in improving of the
total air intake
pressure is mainly
recovery and
characterized
decreasing the circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient, especially as athe
by the approximately circular shape of the “counter vortex”. From total
big-size
pressure contour
suction pipe withand surfacesuction
a smaller streamline
angleonhas
thebeen
symmetry plane
selected, as of the air
shown inintake
Figuregiven
7a,c. on
At
the
last, with the consideration of the synthetical effect of four main parameters (σ, AR,around
right side of Figure 8, it can be easily found that severe separation occurs just DC120 ,
the separation
SC120 ) given inpoint
Figureat 7,
thethe bottom
scheme wall. At the same
of sucking at thetime, severewith
1st bend adverse flow angle
a suction appearedand
in this separation
suction pipe diameterregionrespectively
and the total pressure15in and
equaling ◦ the adverse
12 mm flowis theregion
best onewasamong
relatively
the
lower.
27 schemes listed here.

Figure
Figure 8. Total pressure distribution
Total pressure distributionand
andsurface
surfacestreamline
streamline
onon equidistant
equidistant streamwise
streamwise sections
sections in
in the
the prototype scheme.
prototype scheme.

In order to further
Nonuniform total explore
pressurethe
hasmechanism of why
been directly theatvalue
given of σ or
the inlet of DC has a com-
the120S-shaped air
pletely
intake. different variation
Consequently, tendency
as shown in thecompared
left image to
of parameters
Figure 8, theSC 120 andhigh
obvious AR, total
as discussed
pressure
above,
region the
andvariation of circumferential
the significant total pressure
low total pressure distortion
region always on the
coexist in cross-sections
all sections, andalong
the
areastreamline
the ratio between them has
direction been
in the affected by
prototype airthe intensity
intake of the
without second
flow flow,has
control thebeen
variation
dis-
of the cross-section
cussed. Considering area,
theand shape.
shape In addition,
of the the embryo
cross-sections keepsofchanging
the “counter
andvortex”
only the formed
final
at the cross-section just between the 0.2(L + a) location and the “NearSeparation” point.
The shape of the region covered by the low-energy fluid at the lower part of the sections is
obviously affected by the intensity and size of the “counter vortex” once it is formed. Finally,
the shape of the low-energy region at the exit of the air intake is mainly characterized by
the approximately circular shape of the “counter vortex”. From the total pressure contour
and surface streamline on the symmetry plane of the air intake given on the right side of
Figure 8, it can be easily found that severe separation occurs just around the separation
point at the bottom wall. At the same time, severe adverse flow appeared in this separation
region and the total pressure in the adverse flow region was relatively lower.
In order to further explore the mechanism of why the value of σ or DC120 has a
completely different variation tendency compared to parameters SC120 and AR, as dis-
cussed above, the variation of circumferential total pressure distortion on the cross-sections
along the streamline direction in the prototype air intake without flow control has been
discussed. Considering the shape of the cross-sections keeps changing and only the final
section (namely the exit of the S-shaped air intake) is a perfect circle, another parameter
DA characterizing the circumferential total pressure distortion has been given and defined
by Formula (5). As shown in Figure 8 above, the value of DA decreases firstly along the
streamline direction and to the first local minimum point, and then it gradually increases
to the maximum point. Subsequently, it begins to decrease along the streamline direction
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 11 of 22

until arriving at the exit of the S-shaped air intake. With detailed analyses, it can be found
that the first local minimum point is located a little downstream of the 0.2(L + a) location
(namely the position around the “counter vortex” embryo point), while the maximum point
is located a bit upstream of the place (around the 0.6(L + a) location), where the adverse
flow begins to change their direction back to the original main flow direction. The reason
for this phenomenon is complicated. There is not only the influence of the shape variation
of the sections along the streamwise direction but also the effect of the flow separation. For
the former reason, the mix between the low-energy fluid and high-energy fluid has been
strengthened, since the width of the air intake (Y direction) decreases along the main flow
direction. On the other hand, once the flow separation occurs, the pressure in the back-flow
region is much lower than the value in the non-back-flow region. So, because of these
reasons, the value of DA firstly decreases and then increases gradually to the maximum
point; subsequently, it decreases gradually until the air intake outlet. In addition, we find
that the “counter vortex” can not only affect the shape of the low-energy fluid region at the
lower part of sections but also strengthen the mix of the flow in the low-energy fluid region
itself. So, to some extent, the “counter vortex” is good for decreasing the minimum total
pressure value at the sections along the flow direction.
Figure 9 is the total pressure distribution and surface streamline on a group of equidis-
tant streamwise sections in different schemes with and without suction control. From the
view of flow field details, the conclusion obtained above from the aerodynamic parameter
curves can be verified again, as the aerodynamic performance of the S-shaped inlet im-
proves with the increase of the suction pipe diameter. Besides, another conclusion is that
suction control with a smaller suction angle (such as 15◦ ) and a further upstream suction
location (such as the “Throat” location) can result in a bigger improvement. With suction
control, the low-energy region at the lower part of the cross-sections along the main flow
direction decreases a lot, especially as suction at the upstream location with a larger pipe
diameter, such as suction near the throat with a suction pipe diameter and suction angle
respectively equaling 12 mm and 15 degrees. Meanwhile, the size of the “counter vortex”
structure decreases a lot but always exists, as shown in Figure 9c. Except for the amount
of the low-energy fluid, the upward salient total pressure distribution has also decreased
gradually with a decrease in the size of the “counter vortex” structure.
A comparison of surface streamline and total pressure contour on the symmetry plane
in different schemes has been put forward. With the suction pipe diameter increasing,
the separation on the bottom wall decreases gradually. It can be clearly found that the
separation originally reflected on the symmetry plane nearly disappeared during suction
at the throat with a suction angle equaling 15 degrees and a suction pipe diameter finally
increasing to 12 mm. Furthermore, some more striking low-energy fluid appeared at the
back-flow region of the whole low-energy zone, as shown in Figure 10a,h. Except for
the suction pipe diameter, the suction location is also a significant influence factor for
the flow characters on the symmetry plane. As suction pipes move from the upstream
location to the downstream position without changing their diameter and installation angle,
the flow field improvement decreases a lot, such as from the throat (Figure 10c) to the
position near the separation point, as illustrated in Figure 10h. Compared with suction
location, suction angle variation leads to a relatively lower impact on the flow separation,
though its influence indeed exists. Also, the area of the region covered by the low-energy
fluid decreases a lot after suction control. However, it always exists, even in the optimal
suction scheme, due to the comprehensive effect of the large boundary ingestion, strong
adverse pressure gradient, and cross-second flow. As the low-energy fluid arrives at the
exit of the S-shaped inlet, it covers about 40% of the baseline exit and decreases a lot with
suction control.
 suction control, the low-energy region at the lower part of the cross-sections along the
main flow direction decreases a lot, especially as suction at the upstream location with a
larger pipe diameter, such as suction near the throat with a suction pipe diameter and
suction angle respectively equaling 12 mm and 15 degrees. Meanwhile, the size of the
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 “counter vortex” structure decreases a lot but always exists, as shown in Figure 9c.
12 Except
of 22
for the amount of the low-energy fluid, the upward salient total pressure distribution has
also decreased gradually with a decrease in the size of the “counter vortex” structure.

P*(Pa)
104,600
104600
103,046
103046
101,492
101492
99,937
99937
98,383
98383
96,829
96829
95,275
95275
93,721
93721
92,167
92167
90,612
90612
89,058
89058
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 87,504
87504 12 of 22
85,950
85950
(a) ( b)

(c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h)

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Total
Total pressure
pressuredistribution
distributionand
andsurface
surfacestreamline
streamlineononequidistant
equidistantstreamwise sections
streamwise in
sections
different schemes with suction. (a) NearThroat_15°_8mm.◦ (b) NearThroat_15°_10mm. (c) Near-
in different schemes with suction. (a) NearThroat_15 _8mm. (b) NearThroat_15◦ _10mm.
Throat_15°_12mm. (d) NearThroat_30°_12mm. (e) NearThroat_45°_12mm. (f) 1stBend_15°_12mm.
(c) NearThroat_15◦ _12mm. (d) NearThroat_30◦ _12mm. (e) NearThroat_45◦ _12mm.
(g) 1stBend_30°_12mm. (h) NearSeparation_15°_12mm.
(f) 1stBend_15◦ _12mm. (g) 1stBend_30◦ _12mm. (h) NearSeparation_15◦ _12mm.
A comparison of surface streamline and total pressure contour on the symmetry
For the sake of a more direct aerodynamic performance comparison between the
plane in different schemes has been put forward. With the suction pipe diameter increas-
27 schemes studied here, the distributions of total pressure, second flow, and surface stream-
ing, the separation on the bottom wall decreases gradually. It can be clearly found that the
line on the exit of the air intake in these schemes have been given in Figures 11 and 12.
separation
Firstly, thisoriginally
comparison reflected on verified
visually the symmetry
a newplane nearlythat
conclusion disappeared during suction
can be obtained from a
at the throat with a suction angle equaling 15 degrees and a suction pipe diameter
simple analysis of the aerodynamic performance curves given in Figure 7. In particular, finally
sucking at the throat with a suction pipe diameter and suction angle equaling 12atmm
increasing to 12 mm. Furthermore, some more striking low-energy fluid appeared the
back-flow region of the whole low-energy zone, as shown in Figure 10a,h. Except
and 15 degrees (Figures 11d and 12d), respectively, is the best scheme for decreasing thefor the
suction pipe diameter, the suction location is also a significant influence factor for the flow
characters on the symmetry plane. As suction pipes move from the upstream location to
the downstream position without changing their diameter and installation angle, the flow
field improvement decreases a lot, such as from the throat (Figure 10c) to the position near
the separation point, as illustrated in Figure 10h. Compared with suction location, suction
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 13 of 22

size and intensity of the second flow at the exit of the air intake among all the schemes
studied here. In addition, as illustrated in Figure 5, this scheme is also of the largest suction
mass flow. However, the data given in Figure 7 shows that this largest mass-flow suction
control does not produce the biggest improvement. Moreover, though the initial boundary
layer flow distortion given at the entrance of the air intake is followed by the influence
of the circumferential pressure gradients that shape the low momentum boundary layer
fluid into a central core of low total pressure fluid [32], both the size of the typical exit
“counter vortex” structure and the intensity of the second flow at the AIP decrease a lot
with reasonable suction. There is no doubt that the causes of the occurrence of the big-size
“counter vortex” and the large low-energy region at the exit of the BLI S-shaped air intake
are more complex. Relative to the conventional S-shaped air intake, it has something to
do with the boundary layer ingestion. So, the low-energy region always exists, though
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the “counter vortex” nearly disappears, as shown in Figures 11d and 12d, which13 is of 22
very
different from previous research results of suction in non-BLI S-ducts [40].

P*(Pa)
104,600
104600
103,046
103046
101,492
101492
99,937
99937
98,383
98383
96,829
96829
95,275
95275
93,721
93721
92,167
92167
90,612
90612
89,058
89058
87,504
87504
85,950
85950

(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h)

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Surface
Surfacestreamline
streamlineand total
and pressure
total contour
pressure on the
contour on symmetry planeplane
the symmetry of theofcalculation
the calcu-
domain in different schemes. (a) NearThroat_15°_8mm. (b) NearThroat_15°_10mm. (c) Near-
lation domain in different schemes. (a) NearThroat_15 _8mm. (b) NearThroat_15◦ _10mm.
◦
Throat_15°_12mm. (d) NearThroat_30°_12mm. (e) NearThroat_45°_12mm. (f) 1stBend_15°_12mm.
(c) NearThroat_15◦ _12mm. (d) NearThroat_30◦ _12mm. (e) NearThroat_45◦ _12mm.
(g) 1stBend_30°_12mm. (h) NearSeparation_15°_12mm.
(f) 1stBend_15 _12mm. (g) 1stBend_30 _12mm. (h) NearSeparation_15◦ _12mm.
◦ ◦

For the sake of a more direct aerodynamic performance comparison between the 27
schemes studied here, the distributions of total pressure, second flow, and surface stream-
line on the exit of the air intake in these schemes have been given in Figures 11 and 12.
Firstly, this comparison visually verified a new conclusion that can be obtained from a
simple analysis of the aerodynamic performance curves given in Figure 7. In particular,
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

“counter vortex” and the large low-energy region at the exit of the BLI S-shaped air intake
“counter
are morevortex” and
complex. the large
Relative to low-energy regionS-shaped
the conventional at the exitair
of intake,
the BLI itS-shaped air intake
has something to
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989
are more complex. Relative to the conventional S-shaped air intake, it has
do with the boundary layer ingestion. So, the low-energy region always exists, though something to
the
14 of 22
do with the
“counter boundary
vortex” layer
nearly ingestion.asSo,
disappears, the low-energy
shown in Figuresregion
11d and always exists, though
12d, which the
is very dif-
“counter vortex”
ferent from nearly
previous disappears,
research resultsas
ofshown
suctionininFigures
non-BLI 11d and 12d,
S-ducts [40].which is very dif-
ferent from previous research results of suction in non-BLI S-ducts [40].
P*(Pa)
P*(Pa)
104,600
104600
103,046
103046
104,600
104600
101,492
101492
103,046
103046
99,937
99937
101,492
101492
98,383
98383
99,937
99937
96,829
96829
98,383
98383
95,275
95275
96,829
96829
93,721
93721
95,275
95275
92,167
92167
93,721
93721
90,612
90612
92,167
92167
89,058
89058
90,612
90612
87,504
87504
89,058
89058
85,950
87,504
85950 (a) (b) (c) (d)
87504
85,950
85950 (a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

(e) (f) (g) (h) (i)
Figure
Figure 11.
11.Total pressure
Total distribution
pressure and surface
distribution streamline
and surface on the exit
streamline on of
thetheexit
air intake
of the inair
different
intake
Figure
schemes.11. Total
(a) pressure distribution
NoContorl. (b) and surface streamline
NearThroat_15°_8mm. (c) on
◦ the exit of the air intake in
NearThroat_15°_10mm. different
(d)
◦ Near-
in different schemes. (a) NoContorl. (b) NearThroat_15 _8mm. (c) NearThroat_15 _10mm.
schemes. (a) NoContorl.
Throat_15°_12mm. (e)
◦ (b) NearThroat_15°_8mm.
NearThroat_30°_12mm. (c) NearThroat_15°_10mm.
(f) NearThroat_45°_12mm.
◦ (d)◦ Near-
(g) 1stBend_15°_12mm.
(d) NearThroat_15 _12mm. (e) NearThroat_30 _12mm. (f) NearThroat_45 _12mm.
Throat_15°_12mm.
(h) 1stBend_30°_12mm. (e) NearThroat_30°_12mm. (f) NearThroat_45°_12mm. (g) 1stBend_15°_12mm.
(i) NearSeparation_15°_12mm.
◦
(g) 1stBend_30°_12mm.
1stBend_15 _12mm. (i) 1stBend_30 _12mm. (i) NearSeparation_15◦ _12mm.
◦
(h)NearSeparation_15°_12mm.
(h)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

(e) (f) (g) (h) (i)
Figure 12. Second flow distribution and surface streamline on the exit of the air intake in different
Figure
schemes.12. Second flow distribution and surface streamline(c)on NearThroat_15°_10mm.
the exit of the air intake in different
Figure 12. (a)Second
NoContorl.
flow distribution and surface streamline on the exit of the air(d)
(b) NearThroat_15°_8mm. Near-
intake in
schemes. (a) NoContorl. (b) NearThroat_15°_8mm. (c)
Throat_15°_12mm. (e) NearThroat_30°_12mm. (f) NearThroat_45°_12mm.
◦ NearThroat_15°_10mm. (d)◦ Near-
(g) 1stBend_15°_12mm.
different schemes. (a) NoContorl. (b) NearThroat_15 _8mm. (c) NearThroat_15 _10mm.
Throat_15°_12mm.
(h) 1stBend_30°_12mm.(e) NearThroat_30°_12mm. (f) NearThroat_45°_12mm. (g) 1stBend_15°_12mm.
(i) NearSeparation_15°_12mm.
NearThroat_15◦ _12mm.
(d) 1stBend_30°_12mm.
(h) (e) NearThroat_30◦ _12mm.
(i) NearSeparation_15°_12mm. (f) NearThroat_45◦ _12mm.
(g) 1stBend_15 _12mm. (h) 1stBend_30 _12mm. (i) NearSeparation_15◦ _12mm.
◦ ◦
Figure 13 offers the wall limit streamlines which indicate the route of the massless
Figure
particles 13 offers
attached the bottom
to the wall limit streamlines
wall which
and released indicate the
downstream route
from the of
airthe massless
intake inlet.
Figure 13 offers the wall limit streamlines which indicate the route of the massless
particles attached to the bottom wall and released downstream from the air intake inlet.
particles attached to the bottom wall and released downstream from the air intake inlet. As
shown in Figure 13a, without suction control, an obvious “counter vortex” limit streamline
begins to form, a bit downstream of the 1st bend suction location but upstream of the “Near
Separation” point in the prototype scheme. With the increase of the suction pipe diameter,
the size of the “counter vortex” limit streamline decreases gradually until it disappears as
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

As shown in Figure 13a, without suction control, an obvious “counter vortex” limit
streamline begins to form, a bit downstream of the 1st bend suction location but upstream
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 15 of 22
of the “Near Separation” point in the prototype scheme. With the increase of the suction
pipe diameter, the size of the “counter vortex” limit streamline decreases gradually until
it disappears as the suction pipe diameter increases to 12 mm and the location selected for
the suction
suction pipethe
is near diameter increaseswith
throat coupling to 12suction
mm and the location
angle equalingselected for (Figure
15 degrees suction 13b–d).
is near
the throat coupling with suction angle equaling 15 degrees (Figure 13b–d).
Additionally, the suction angle has an important influence on the bottom wall limitAdditionally, the
suction angle has an important influence on the bottom wall limit streamline distribution.
streamline distribution. From Figure 13d–f, it can be concluded that the wall limit stream-
From Figure 13d–f,
lines structure it can
changes a be
lot concluded thatangle
as the suction the wall limit streamlines
increases structure
from 15 degrees to 45changes
degrees
awhile
lot asthe
thesuction
suctionpipe
anglesize
increases from 15 degrees to 45 degrees while the
and suction location remain constant. Specifically, suction pipe
a smaller
size and suction location remain constant. Specifically, a smaller suction angle
suction angle results in a smaller “counter vortex” structure on the bottom wall of the results in S-
a
smaller
shaped “counter
air intake.vortex”
In fact,structure
this meansonless
theseparation
bottom walland ofathe S-shaped
smaller air intake.
“counter vortex” Inatfact,
the
this means less separation and a smaller “counter vortex” at the exit of the S-shaped inlet,
exit of the S-shaped inlet, as shown in Figures 11d–f and 12d–f. Furthermore, from the
as shown in Figures 11d–f and 12d–f. Furthermore, from the perspective of the bottom wall
perspective of the bottom wall limit streamline, suction further upstream results in a better
limit streamline, suction further upstream results in a better effect. As the suction location
effect. As the suction location moves from the position near the throat to the location near
moves from the position near the throat to the location near the separation point while
the separation point while the suction pipe diameter and the suction angle respectively
the suction pipe diameter and the suction angle respectively keep equaling 12 mm and
keep equaling 12 mm and 15 degrees, not only does the size of the wall limit streamline
15 degrees, not only does the size of the wall limit streamline “counter vortex” increase,
“counter vortex” increase, but also its location moves further upstream, as illustrated in
but also its location moves further upstream, as illustrated in Figure 13d,g,i.
Figure 13d,g,i.

P*(Pa)
104,600
104600
103,046
103046
101,492
101492
99,937
99937
98,383
98383
96,829
96829
95,275
95275
93,721
93721
92,167
92167
90,612
90612
89,058
89058
87,504
87504
85,950
85950
(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

Figure13.
Figure 13.Limit
Limitstreamline
streamlineononthe
the bottom
bottom wall
wall andand total
total pressure
pressure distribution
distribution at 3 at 3 suction
suction stream-
streamwise
wise sections
sections in schemes.
in different different (a)
schemes.
NoContorl.(a) (b)
NoContorl.
NearThroat_15(b) ◦ _8mm.
NearThroat_15°_8mm.
(c) NearThroat_15(c) Near-
◦ _10mm.
Throat_15°_10mm. ◦ (d) NearThroat_15°_12mm. ◦(e) NearThroat_30°_12mm. (f)◦ Near-
(d) NearThroat_15 _12mm. (e) NearThroat_30 _12mm. (f) NearThroat_45 _12mm.
Throat_45°_12mm. (g) 1stBend_15°_12mm. (h) 1stBend_30°_12mm. (i) NearSeparation_15°_12mm.
(g) 1stBend_15◦ _12mm. (h) 1stBend_30◦ _12mm. (i) NearSeparation_15◦ _12mm.

3.3. Additional Improvement for the Original Suction Control

As stated earlier, the remarkable low-energy fluid region and the velocity nonunifor-
mity always exist on the AIP, though the second flow can be decreased a lot with reasonable
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 3.3. Additional Improvement for the Original Suction Control 16 of 22
As stated earlier, the remarkable low-energy fluid region and the velocity nonuni-
formity always exist on the AIP, though the second flow can be decreased a lot with rea-
sonable suction control.
suction control. This phenomenon
This phenomenon is very different
is very different from thefromresultstheasresults
this kindas this kind
of micro-
of micro-suction
suction has been has been executed
executed in the S-shaped
in the S-shaped air intakeair intakeboundary
without without boundary layer in-
layer ingestion. It
gestion. It is clear
is clear that thatseparation
the flow the flow separation
occurring occurring
in the airinintake
the airstudied
intake studied here is mainly
here is mainly due to
the large
due to theingested boundary
large ingested layer fluid
boundary layerhaving not enough
fluid having energyenergy
not enough to overcome the strong
to overcome the
adverseadverse
strong pressure gradient,
pressure and it isand
gradient, notitaisproblem mainly mainly
not a problem about flowabout stability. So, to cope
flow stability. So,
with this problem, the main attention should be focused on the
to cope with this problem, the main attention should be focused on the further reduction further reduction of the
low-energy
of the low-energy fluid fluid
via increasing
via increasingthe suction massmass
the suction flowflowor supplying
or supplying energy
energyviaviablowing
blow-
in high-energy
ing in high-energy fluid or reinforcing
fluid or reinforcing the the
mixmixbetween
betweenthe the
highhigh
energy
energy mainstream
mainstream andandthe
secondary
the secondary flow.
flow.Based
Basedonon thethe
fact that
fact thatblowing
blowinghigh-energy
high-energyfluid fluidcancan effectively
effectively avoid
separation, but
flow separation, but because
because the the source
source of of the
the blown
blown fluid is a big big problem,
problem, the other two
methods seem to be more
methods seem to be more applicable. applicable.
On the
On the other
other hand,
hand, hybrid
hybrid systems
systems can can have
have an an additional
additional benefit
benefit on on performance
performance
parameters, compared to passive or active flow control alone [41]. As to mixingmixing
parameters, compared to passive or active flow control alone [41]. As to the main-the
mainstream
stream and the and the secondary
secondary flow, passive
flow, some some passive flow control
flow control technology,
technology, such assuch as the
the vortex
vortex generator,
generator, showsshows great great potential
potential [42–47].
[42–47]. So, So, in this
in this additionalsuction
additional suctionsupplementary
supplementary
method research
method research section,
section, large
large mass
mass flow
flow suction
suction control
control hashas been
been researched
researched first,
first, and
and
then the combination of the micro-suction control and the vortex
then the combination of the micro-suction control and the vortex generator control. As forgenerator control. As for
comparison, complementary flow control with vortex generator
comparison, complementary flow control with vortex generator vanes alone has also been vanes alone has also been
studied. The
studied. The instruments
instruments corresponding
corresponding to to large
large mass
mass flowflow suction
suction andand the
the active-passive
active-passive
combinational flow control are respectively shown in Figure
combinational flow control are respectively shown in Figure 14a,b. What should 14a,b. What should bebenoted
noted is
that the air rectification vanes always coexist with the vortex generator
is that the air rectification vanes always coexist with the vortex generator vanes. The suc- vanes. The suction
pipespipes
tion are installed
are installedat theat1st
thebend with with
1st bend installation angleangle
installation and pipe
and pipediameter respectively
diameter respec-
equaling 15 degrees and 12 mm. In other words, the model of the best micro-suction scheme
tively equaling 15 degrees and 12 mm. In other words, the model of the best micro-suction
concluded above is taken as the prototype here.
scheme concluded above is taken as the prototype here.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 14.
14. The
The instruments
instruments for
for additional
additional flow
flow control
control to
to the
the suction
suction flow
flow control.
control. (a)
(a) Large
Large mass
mass
flow suction. (b) Suction combined with vanes.
flow suction. (b) Suction combined with vanes.

The
The aerodynamic
aerodynamic parameters
parameters of of the
the 33 additional
additional schemes
schemes are are offered
offered in in Table
Table 2,
2, as
as
shown below. It is quite clear that the circumferential total pressure distortion
shown below. It is quite clear that the circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient coefficient
decreases
decreases aalot
lotunder
underthetheeffect
effectofofthethevortex
vortex generators
generators or or
large mass
large massflow suction.
flow In the
suction. In
active-passive combinational
the active-passive flow flow
combinational control scheme,
control the decrement
scheme, is about
the decrement 90.84%
is about as com-
90.84% as
pared to the
compared tosingle-suction scheme.
the single-suction scheme.The decrements
The decrements corresponding
correspondingto thetolarge mass mass
the large flow
suction scheme
flow suction and and
scheme the single VGsVGs
the single flow control
flow scheme
control scheme areareabout
about93.11%
93.11%and and60.77%,
60.77%,
respectively. From the view of the swirl distortion coefficient, coefficient, effects
effects that were somewhat
worse appeared in all three additional
additional schemes when contrasted with
schemes when contrasted with the
the original
originalsingle-
single-
suction scheme. However,
However, all ofof these
these deceased
deceased aa lotlotrelative
relativetotothe
theno
noflow
flowcontrol
controlscheme.
scheme.
This is because
becauseaaslightly
slightlystronger
strongersecond
second flow
flow hashas been
been produced
produced as VGs
as VGs or large
or large massmass
flow
suction
flow has been
suction has taken, as shown
been taken, in Figure
as shown 15f–h. 15f–h.
in Figure As to the
As total
to thepressure recovery,
total pressure there is
recovery,
nearlyisno
there difference
nearly betweenbetween
no difference the combination flow control
the combination schemescheme
flow control and theand single-suction
the single-
scheme. Likewise, the total pressure recovery of the single VGs scheme is approximately
equal to the value in the no-control scheme. These are not particularly surprising, since
 The most special and attractive scheme is the large mass flow suction scheme, in
which the value of the total pressure recovery coefficient is larger than 1. This phenome-
non is mainly because about 9% of the mass flow at the inlet of the air intake has been
sucked out. Furthermore, this sucked fluid is mainly low-energy fluid. With large mass
flow suction, the fluency of the fluid in the S-shaped air intake improves a lot. As a result,
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 17 of 22
the mass flow rate at the exit of the air intake increases by about 5.27% relative to the no-
control condition. It is not difficult to find that the suction of the low-energy fluid is good
for increasing the mass flow at the air intake exit, while the vortex generators and fluid
the main effect
rectification of the
vanes are vanes
bad foris it.
merely
As to to
theredistribute
low-energythe low-energy
region, fluid
the large to create
mass a more
flow suction
uniform flow at the air intake exit.
scheme brings the best effect, though all four flow control schemes listed in Table 2 can
decrease it.
Table 2. Aerodynamic parameters corresponding to the additional improvement schemes.

Parameters Table 2. Aerodynamic parameters corresponding to the additional improvement schemes.

msuction /minlet mexit (kg/s) AR σ DC120 SC120
Case Name
Parameters
No control msuction/m/inlet mexit (kg/s)
9.6059 AR 0.3978 σ 0.98750 DC0.2907
120 SC 120
0.0776
Case Name
1stBend_15 ◦ _12mm
No control /2.0638 9.60599.8432 0.39780.3316 0.99259
0.98750 0.2205
0.2907 0.0060
0.0776
1stBend_15°_12mm
Large mass flow suction 2.06388.9687 9.8432
10.1118 0.33160.2372 0.99259 >1 0.2205
0.0152 0.0060
0.0214
Large
1stBend_15 ◦
mass _12mm_Vanes
flow suction 8.96872.1608 10.11189.5952 0.23720.3331 >1 0.99262 0.0152
0.0202 0.0214
0.0436
1stBend_15°_12mm_Vanes
No Suction_Vanes 2.1608 / 9.59529.4793 0.33310.3658 0.99262
0.98759 0.0202
0.0865 0.0436
0.0275
No Suction_Vanes / 9.4793 0.3658 0.98759 0.0865 0.0275

P*(Pa)
104,600
104600
103,046
103046
101,492
101492
99,937
99937
98,383
98383
96,829
96829
95,275
95275
93,721
93721
92,167
92167
90,612
90612
89,058
89058
87,504
87504
85,950
85950
(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Total
Totalpressure,
pressure,surface streamline,
surface and
streamline, second
and flow
second distribution
flow on on
distribution the the
exitexit
of the
of air
the
intake in the improvement schemes. (a) P*_1stBend_15°_12mm. ◦ (b) P*_Large massflow suction. (c)
air intake in the improvement schemes. (a) P*_1stBend_15 _12mm. (b) P*_Large massflow suc-
P*_1stBend_15°_12mm_Vanes. (d) P*_No scution_Vanes. (e) Vxy_1stBend_15°_12mm. (f) Vxy_Large
tion. (c) P*_1stBend_15◦ _12mm_Vanes. (d) P*_No scution_Vanes. (e) Vxy _1stBend_15◦ _12mm.
massflow suction. (g) Vxy_1stBend_15°_12mm_Vanes. (h) Vxy_No scution_Vanes.
(f) Vxy _Large massflow suction. (g) Vxy _1stBend_15◦ _12mm_Vanes. (h) Vxy _No scution_Vanes.
Figure 15 gives the total pressure, second flow distribution, and surface streamline
The most special and attractive scheme is the large mass flow suction scheme, in which
on the exit of the air intake in the improvement schemes. It is obvious that the low-energy
the value of the total pressure recovery coefficient is larger than 1. This phenomenon is
region at the exit of the air intake dropped to different extents in different improvement
mainly because about 9% of the mass flow at the inlet of the air intake has been sucked out.
schemes. Furthermore, the pictures illustrate that the large mass flow suction scheme
Furthermore, this sucked fluid is mainly low-energy fluid. With large mass flow suction,
the fluency of the fluid in the S-shaped air intake improves a lot. As a result, the mass flow
rate at the exit of the air intake increases by about 5.27% relative to the no-control condition.
It is not difficult to find that the suction of the low-energy fluid is good for increasing the
mass flow at the air intake exit, while the vortex generators and fluid rectification vanes are
bad for it. As to the low-energy region, the large mass flow suction scheme brings the best
effect, though all four flow control schemes listed in Table 2 can decrease it.
Figure 15 gives the total pressure, second flow distribution, and surface streamline
on the exit of the air intake in the improvement schemes. It is obvious that the low-energy
region at the exit of the air intake dropped to different extents in different improvement
schemes. Furthermore, the pictures illustrate that the large mass flow suction scheme
brings the biggest low-energy fluid region decrease; next is the combinational scheme,
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 18 of 22

and last is the single VGs scheme. In addition, as the swirl distortion coefficient given
in Table 2 shows, the second flow increases to some extent, relative to the single-suction
scheme, and the apparent “counter vortex” originally appearing at the core of the air
intake-exit lower part disappears during the large mass flow suction or combinational flow
control scheme (Figure 15f,g). Overall, except for the total pressure recovery efficiency
being larger than 1, the large mass flow suction scheme seems to produce the best flow
control effect. However, some previous research shows that boundary layer ingestion can
result in decreases in fuel burn by several percentage points [2,5,48]. Hence, from a more
comprehensive perspective, large suction out of the low-energy fluid is not completely
good for the overall performance of the propulsion system. Mixing the main flow with
low-energy fluid may be a better choice. Although the second flow intensity and the swirl
distortion coefficient at the air intake exit increase a bit, the combinational scheme is still
thought to be the best potential method here because both the swirl distribution and the
second flow can be further decreased if the suction active flow control and the VGs passive
flow control match better. In fact, there are many influence factors and further research
about the combinational flow control that combines suction and vortex generator vanes
will proceed in the following study in the near future.

4. Conclusions
Numerical simulations of suction control in a boundary layer ingestion S-shaped
inlet have been conducted. For exploring the effect of suction parameters, variation in the
aerodynamic performance of the air intake, suction pipe diameter, suction location, and
angle have been selected as variables. After CFD method validation, a series of suction
control schemes have been researched. Then, some improvement measures have also been
taken and simulated as a supplementary for the effect-limited conventional micro mass
flow suction. With detailed comparisons of the results, some meaningful conclusions have
been obtained, as shown below.
(I) With the comprehensive effects of large boundary ingestion, strong adverse pressure
gradient, and cross second flow, serve flow separation and second flow occur in the S-
shaped inlet. Finally, the serve circumferential total pressure distortion and swirl distortion
appeared at the air intake exit. With suction control, the whole aerodynamic performance
improves, and all three variables listed here can significantly affect the suction effect. What
should be noted is that one suction parameter variation results in different impacts on
different aerodynamic performance assessment parameters. For example, further upstream
suction is good for the decrease of the second flow intensity and the low-energy fluid
region at the exit of the S-shaped inlet but is harmful to the total pressure recovery and the
circumferential total pressure distortion.
(II) As the suction angle and suction location keep constant, a bigger suction pipe
diameter brings a better effect due to the more low-energy fluid being sucked out. However,
this does not mean the largest suction mass flow creates the biggest improvement. Among
the 27 schemes investigated here, the scheme that sucks at the throat with suction angle
and suction pipe diameter respectively equaling 15 degrees and 12 mm produces the most
suction mass flow, but the aerodynamic performance of the air intake with this suction
scheme is not the best. From the perspective of the uniformity of total pressure at the
S-shaped inlet exit, there is an optimal location for suction between the throat and the
separation start point.
(III) In general, a smaller suction angle with an upper stream suction location is better
for the improvement of the diffuser’s aerodynamic performance. The angle of 15 degrees is
the best one for suction control among the three suction angles researched here. Overall,
sucking at the 1st bend with suction angle and suction pipe diameter equaling 15 degrees
and 12 mm, respectively, is the optimal scheme. The cross-second flow intensity and the
surface streamline structure at the air intake exit have a great impact on the total pressure
distribution on this exit.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 19 of 22

(IV) Since the shape of cross-sections along the main flow direction can influence the
cross-second flow, it can affect the second flow and the surface streamline on the air intake
exit. Indeed, the change rule of the cross-section area along the centerline has not changed
during suction control. So, the second flow and complex surface streamline at the exit
of the diffuser cannot be eliminated, though they can be decreased a lot with reasonable
suction control. Similarly, the remarkable low-energy fluid region at the air intake exit
always exists because of large boundary ingestion, though the separation and second flow
have been reduced significantly. This is very different from the results of micro-suction in
non-BLI S-shaped air intake.
(V) To pursue a higher improvement, suction combined with a vortex generator has
been further studied. Corresponding results analysis shows that this kind of hybrid flow
control has great potential, which should be investigated in detail in the future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.L. and G.L.; methodology, L.L.; software, S.W.; vali-
dation, B.W. and L.L.; formal analysis, L.L.; investigation, L.L.; resources, L.L.; data curation, B.W.;
writing—original draft preparation, L.L.; writing—review and editing, L.L.; visualization, B.W.;
supervision, G.L.; project administration, G.L.; funding acquisition, L.L., G.L. and B.W. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2020M671717),
the Open Project of State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization, Zhejiang University (Grant
No.ZJUCEU2011002), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12002335 and
Grant No. 51805124), and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
LZY22E050001).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author and the 1st author.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors declare that this investigation was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

AL the area of the low-energy fluid at the air intake exit

AExit the area of the air intake exit
AR the ratio of AL /AExit
Cp static pressure coefficient
BLI boundary layer ingestion
d the diameter of the suction pipes
D the diameter of the air intake exit
DC120 the circumferential total pressure distortion coefficient at the exit of the air intake
H the height of the air intake inlet
mdesign design mass flow rate of the air intake
mexit mass flow rate at the air intake exit
minlet mass flow rate at the air intake inlet
msuction the mass flow that has been sucked out
P static pressure
Pexit the static pressure at the air intake exit
Psuction the backpressure at the exit of the suction pipes
P*(x) the total pressure at the air intake inlet
P* total pressure
q the average dynamic pressure
R the curvature radius of the S-duct for validation
SC120 the swirl distortion coefficient at the air intake exit
T* total temperature
VFAV area average velocity
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 20 of 22

the velocity of the main flow in the suction pipes with an installation angle
Vpipe,15deg
equaling 15 degrees
Vxy,120 second flow velocity in a circular sector of 120◦
Vxz,main resultant velocity in the X and Z direction of the main flow
x the height from the bottom wall at the air intake inlet
θ cross-stream polar angle
α the installation angle of the suction pipe
σ total pressure recovery of the S-shaped air intake
δ boundary layer thickness
∆x the distance between the throat centroid of the air intake and the exit centroid
Subscripts
design the design condition
exit the exit of the S-shaped inlet
FAV the area average value
H high-energy region
L low-energy region
max maximum value
min minimum value
no control condition without flow control
pipe the suction pipes
section A the A-A cross-section of the S-duct for validation
section E the E-E cross-section of the S-duct for validation
suction suction control
wall valid the wall of the S-duct for validation
120 circular sector whose angle is 120
15 deg suction pipe with a 15-degree installation angle
Superscripts
* total condition

References
1. Berrier, B.L.; Carter, M.B.; Brian, G.A. High Reynolds Number Investigation of a Flush-Mounted, S-Duct Inlet with Large Amounts of
Boundary Layer Ingestion; NASA/TP-2005-213766; Langley Research Center, NASA: Hampton, VA, USA, 2005.
2. Plas, A.P.; Sargeant, M.A.; Madani, V.; Crichton, D.; Greitzer, E.M.; Hynes, T.P.; Hall, C.A. Performance of a Boundary Layer
Ingesting (BLI) Propulsion System. In Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA,
8–11 January 2007.
3. Sabo, K.M.; Drela, M. Benefits of Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion. In Proceedings of the AIAA SciTech, 53rd AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 5–9 January 2015.
4. Ochs, S.S.; Tillman, G.; Joo, J.; Voytovych, D. CFD-based Analysis of Boundary Layer Ingesting Propulsion. In Proceedings of the
Propulsion and Energy Forum, 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 27–29 July 2015.
5. Uranga, A.; Drela, M.; Greitzer, E.M.; Hall, D.K.; Titchener, N.A.; Lieu, M.K.; Siu, N.M.; Casses, C.; Huang, A.C.; Gatlin, G.M.;
et al. Boundary Layer Ingestion Benefit of the D8 Transport Aircraft. AIAA J. 2017, 55, 3693–3708. [CrossRef]
6. Hall, D.K.; Huang, A.C.; Uranga, A.; Greitzer, E.M.; Drela, M.; Sato, S. Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion Benefit for Transport
Aircraft. J. Propuls. Power 2017, 33, 1118–1129. [CrossRef]
7. Arend, D.J.; Wolter, J.D.; Hirt, S.M.; Provenza, A.; Gazzaniga, J.A.; Cousins, W.T.; Hardin, L.W.; Sharma, O. Experimental
Evaluation of an Embedded Boundary Layer Ingesting Propulsor for Highly Efficient Subsonic Cruise Aircraft. In Proceedings of
the AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–12 July
2017.
8. Rademakers, R.P.M.; Bindl, S.; Niehuis, R. Effects of flow distortions as they occur in s-duct inlets on the performance and stability
of a jet engine. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2015: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, Montréal, QC,
Canada, 15–19 June 2015.
9. Liu, L.; Chen, F.; Luo, K.; Pan, H.; Qin, H.; Wang, F.; Zhou, M.; Tian, X. Blowing-suction control in s-shaped inlet and its impact on
fan-stage performance. AIAA J. 2019, 57, 3954–3968. [CrossRef]
10. Laskaridis, P.; Singh, R.; Pachidis, V.; Pilidis, P. Opportunities and challenges for distributed propulsion and boundary layer
ingestion. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 2014, 86, 451–458. [CrossRef]
11. Perovic, D.; Hall, C.A.; Gunn, E.J. Stall inception in a boundary layer ingesting fan. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2015:
Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition GT2015, Montréal, QC, Canada, 15–19 June 2015.
12. Lucas, J.R.; O’Brien, W.F.; Ferrar, A.M. Effect of BLI–type inlet distortion on turbofan engine performance. In Proceedings of the
ASME Turbo Expo 2014: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, Düsseldorf, Germany, 16–20 June 2014.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 21 of 22

13. Romani, G.; Ye, Q.; Avallone, F.; Ragni, D.; Casalino, D. Numerical analysis of fan noise for the NOVA boundary-layer ingestion
configuration. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2020, 96, 105532. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, W.; Stapelfeldt, S.; Vahdati, M. Influence of the inlet distortion on fan stall margin at different rotational speeds. Aerosp.
Sci. Technol. 2020, 98, 105668. [CrossRef]
15. Frohnapfel, D.J.; O’Brien, W.F. Fan Response to Inlet Swirl Distortions Produced by Boundary Layer Ingesting Aircraft Configura-
tions. In Proceedings of the Propulsion and Energy Forum, 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL,
USA, 27–29 July 2015.
16. Lu, H.; Yang, Z.; Pan, T.; Li, Q. Non-uniform stator loss reduction design strategy in a transonic axial-flow compressor stage
under inflow distortion. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 92, 347–362. [CrossRef]
17. Gunn, E.J.; Hall, C.A. Aerodynamics of Boundary Layer Ingesting Fans. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2014: Turbine
Technical Conference and Exposition, Düsseldorf, Germany, 16–20 June 2014.
18. Zhu, H.; Hao, W.; Li, C.; Ding, Q.; Wu, B. Application of flow control strategy of blowing, synthetic and plasma jet actuators in
vertical axis wind turbines. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 468–480. [CrossRef]
19. Lee, B.J.; Liou, M.S.; Kim, C. Optimizing a Boundary-Layer-Ingestion Offset Inlet by Discrete Adjoint Approach. AIAA J. 2010, 48,
2008–2016. [CrossRef]
20. Rodriguez, D.L. Multidisciplinary Optimization Method for Designing Boundary-Layer-Ingesting Inlets. J. Aircr. 2009, 46,
883–894. [CrossRef]
21. Zenkner, S.; Trost, M.; Becker, R.; Voß, C. Preliminary engine design and inlet optimization of the MULDICON concept. Aerosp.
Sci. Technol. 2019, 93, 105318. [CrossRef]
22. Lima, L.S.M.; Huebner, R.; Tobaldini, L. Numerical Investigations of S-Shaped Air Inlet for Embedded Engines. J. Propuls. Power
2019, 35, 475–489. [CrossRef]
23. Rudin, I.; Arad, E.; Cohen, J. Performance enhancement of boundary layer ingesting inlet using active flow control methods. In
Proceedings of the AIAA AVIATION Forum, 2018 Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 25–29 June 2018.
24. Asghar, A.; Sidhu, S.; Allan, W.D.E.; Ingram, G.; Hickling, T.M.; Stowe, R. Investigation of a passive flow control device in an
s-duct inlet of a propulsion system with high subsonic flow. In Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2018, Turbomachinery
Technical Conference and Exposition, Oslo, Norway, 11–15 June 2018.
25. Tanguy, G.; MacManus, D.G.; Zachos, P.; Gil-Prieto, D.; Garnier, E. Passive Flow Control Study in an S-Duct Using Stereo Particle
Image Velocimetry. AIAA J. 2017, 55, 1862–1877. [CrossRef]
26. Selvanayagam, J.; Aliaga, C.; Stokes, J.; Sasanapuri, B. Numerical Simulation of an Aircraft Engine Intake S-Duct Diffuser. In
Proceedings of the AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA,
10–12 July 2017.
27. Sakidin, H.; Jessam, R.A.; Al-Kayiem, H.H.; Nasif, M.S.; Yusof, M.H.; Sa’ad, N.; Ling Chuan Ching, D.; Abdul Karim, S.A. Flow
control in s-shaped air intake diffuser of gas turbine using proposed energy promoters. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 131, 02006.
[CrossRef]
28. Lakebrink, M.T.; Mani, M.; Winkler, C. Numerical investigation of fluidic oscillator flow control in an s-duct diffuser. In
Proceedings of the AIAA SciTech Forum, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Grapevine, TX, USA, 9–13 January 2017.
29. Keerthi, M.C.; Kushari, A.; Somasundaram, V. Experimental study of suction flow control effectiveness in a serpentine intake. J.
Fluids Eng. 2017, 139, 101104. [CrossRef]
30. Vaccaro, J.C.; Elimelech, Y.; Chen, Y.; Sahni, O.; Jansen, K.E.; Amitay, M. Experimental and numerical investigation on steady
blowing flow control within a compact inlet duct. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2015, 54, 143–152. [CrossRef]
31. Gu, J.W.; Ren, J.; Wu, N.; Li, M.; Hu, Q.; Liu, H.; Chen, X.L.; Liu, E.H. Numerical Analysis of Effect of Boundary Layer
Characteristics on the Flow Field in S-shaped Inlet. MATEC Web Conf. 2015, 25, 01011. [CrossRef]
32. Ghaedamini Harouni, A. Flow control of a boundary layer ingesting serpentine diffuser via blowing and suction. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 2014, 39, 472–480. [CrossRef]
33. Zhiyin, Y. Large-eddy simulation: Past, present and the future. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2015, 28, 11–24. [CrossRef]
34. De Vanna, F.; Bernardini, M.; Picano, F.; Benini, E. Wall-modeled LES of shock-wave/boundary layer interaction. Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 2022, 98, 109071. [CrossRef]
35. Schlatter, P.; ÖRlÜ, R. Assessment of direct numerical simulation data of turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 2010, 659,
116–126. [CrossRef]
36. Fiola, C.; Agarwal, R.K. Simulation of Secondary and Separated Flow in Diffusing S Ducts. J. Propuls. Power 2015, 31, 180–191.
[CrossRef]
37. Fiola, C.; Agarwal, R.K. Simulation of secondary and separated flow in a diffusing S-duct using four different turbulence models.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 2013, 228, 1954–1963. [CrossRef]
38. Wellborn, S.; Reichert, B.; Okiishi, T. An experimental investigation of the flow in a diffusing S-duct. In Proceedings of the 28th
Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN, USA, 6–8 July 1992.
39. Gan, W.; Zhang, X. Design optimization of a three-dimensional diffusing S-duct using a modified SST turbulent model. Aerosp.
Sci. Technol. 2017, 63, 63–72. [CrossRef]
40. Debiasi, M.; Herberg, M.; Zeng, Y.; Tsai, H.M.; Dhanabalan, S. Control of Flow Separation in S-Ducts via Flow Injection and
Suction. In Proceedings of the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 7–10 January 2008.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 989 22 of 22

41. Wojewodka, M.M.; White, C.; Shahpar, S.; Kontis, K. A review of flow control techniques and optimization in s-shaped ducts. Int.
J. Heat Fluid Flow 2018, 74, 223–235. [CrossRef]
42. Keerthi, M.C.; Kushari, A. Effectiveness of Vortex Generator Jets and Wall Suction on Separated Flows in Serpentine-Duct Diffuser.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2014, 34, 12–19. [CrossRef]
43. Paul, A.R.; Ranjan, P.; Patel, V.K.; Jain, A. Comparative studies on flow control in rectangular S-duct diffuser using submerged-
vortex generators. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2013, 28, 332–343. [CrossRef]
44. Yi, J.; Kim, C.; Lee, B.J. Adjoint-based design optimization of vortex generator in an s-shaped subsonic inlet. AIAA J. 2012, 50,
2492–2507. [CrossRef]
45. Yi, J.; Lee, B.J.; Kim, C. Efficient Design Optimization of Vortex Generators in Subsonic Offset Inlet by Discrete Adjoint Approach.
In Proceedings of the 20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 27–30 June 2011.
46. Annbtawi, A.J.; Blackweldeq, R.F.; Lissnmnn, P.B.S.; Liebeck, R.H. An Experimental Study of Vortex Generators in Boundary
Layer Ingesting Diffusers with a Centerline Offset. In Proceedings of the 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 20–24 June 1999.
47. Aref, P.; Ghoreyshi, M.; Jirasek, A.; Satchell, M.J. CFD Validation and Flow Control of RAE-M2129 S-Duct Diffuser Using
CREATETM-AV Kestrel Simulation Tools. Aerospace 2018, 5, 31. [CrossRef]
48. Webster, R.; Sreenivas, K.; Hyams, D.; Hilbert, B.; Briley, W.; Whitfield, D. Demonstration of Sub-system Level Simulations: A
Coupled Inlet and Turbofan Stage. In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit,
Atlanta, GA, USA, 30 July–1 August 2012.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.