Numerical Solution for Supersonic Wedge and Conical Flow

Chishti Maajid 1
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3073, Australia

Numerical methods were employed to solve the oblique shock relation and Taylor-
Maccoll equation, implicitly and explicitly. Once the equations were established, computer
codes were written in Matlab software, based on the developed procedure. Two dimensional
wedge flows at any arbitrary angle of attack were considered. However, the flow over cone
was only considered at zero degree angle of attack. The paper presents the numerical
analysis and the final results achieved from the developed computer programs. The error
recorded in the two dimensional wedge programs is less than 0.2% when compared with
NASA’s wedge flow program. The error recorded in the conical flow program is less than
3% compared to NACA’s graphs for conical flow. The paper also includes some applications
of the developed software.

Nomenclature
p = pressure
ρ = density
T = temperature
M = Mach number
γ = ratio of specific heats
Subscripts
1 = Upstream conditions
2 = Behind the shock
3 = At the surface of the cone

I. Introduction

T he paper provides the numerical procedures used to solve oblique shock relation and Taylor-Maccoll equation.
Newton method is employed to solve oblique shock relation implicitly. Runge-Kutta-Nyström (RKN) marching
scheme is used to solve the initial value Taylor-Maccoll equation. To solve Taylor-Maccoll equation implicitly, a
combination of RKN method and discretization process was used. The results obtained from the developed software
were validated against NASA’s results. These problems have been solved earlier, but the approach used in this paper
is new and has its own advantages which make the developed software better than other available software such as
NASA’s wedge flow software.
The current readily available two dimensional (2-D) wedge program developed by NASA takes M1 and β as user
input and solves wedge at 0o angle of attack in Earth and Mars atmosphere. It provides major property ratios &
displays the flow field. There is no readily available conical flow program; therefore graphs were used to compare
the results. The wedge flow programs can be used with different user inputs (i.e. either M1 & Shock angle “β” or M1
& Cone angle “θ”) for any perfect gas at all altitudes for a wedge at an arbitrary angle of attack. It displays the flow
field and computes major properties and their ratios. The conical flow programs can take different user inputs (i.e.
M1 & Shock angle “θS” or M1 & Cone angle “θC”) and provides the final values at the surface of the cone. The
developed software is a stand alone application; therefore it can be used without a need of special program. Further
applications and advantages of the software are provided at the end of the paper. The theory applicable to the topics
is available in Ref. 1, a brief description is provided below.

1
Student, School of Aerospace, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University, Student member
AIAA.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
A. Oblique shock relation
The flow over two dimensional wedge is defined by oblique shock relation give in Eq. (1). The flow is assumed
to be steady, inviscid, adiabatic, and with no body forces.

( )(
tan θ = (2 cot β ) * M12 sin 2 β − 1 M12 (γ + cos 2β ) + 2 ) (1)

where M1 = Upstream Mach number, θ = Semi wedge angle, and β = Shock angle
Equation (1) provides explicit solution for θ if β and M1 are known. However, to solve Eq. (1) for β when θ and
M1 are given, numerical method such as Newton method can be used. This approach was used to write the program
to solve Eq. (1) implicitly.

B. Wedge flow at an angle of attack

Figure 1 shows the flow over the wedge at an angle of attack. Equation (2) given by Emanuel2 is used to solve
this flow. The properties over the top and bottom surface of the wedge are different. The δ has a value 0 & 1 for
strong and weak shock respectively. Furthermore, │χ│≤ 1 for the attached shock solution.

  γ −1 2 
{ }
tan β = ( M 2 − 1) + 2λ cos[( 4πδ + cos −1 χ ) / 3]  31 +

M  tan θ 
(2)
  2  

1/ 2
  γ − 1 2  γ + 1 2  2    γ − 1 2  γ − 1 2 γ + 1 4  2  3
λ = ( M 2 − 1) 2 − 31 + M 1 + M  tan θ  and χ =  ( M 2 − 1)3 − 91 + M 1 + M + M  tan θ  λ
  2  2     2  2 4  

Where
α = Angle of attack, shown with positive sign convention.
M1 = Upstream Mach number. y
βTOP
θGIVEN = Semi wedge angle given by user. x
βTOP = Top surface shock angle. α
θBTM = Bottom surface flow deflection angle. M1 θGIVEN βTOPDATUM
Datum = Wedge axis. θBTM
Datum
θTOP = θGIVEN - α
θBTM = θGIVEN + α Shock Wedge
It is important to note that even though the entropy on the
top and bottom surface of the wedge is not same, the flow is not
Figure 1. Wedge at an angle of attack.
rotational. The wedge is assumed to be infinitely wide such that
the flow over the upper and bottom wedge surfaces may be
treated separately. Another physical limitation that must be observed is that the angle of attack of the wedge should
be less than the semi wedge angle (θGIVEN), because if α is greater than θGIVEN expansion fans will occur instead of
oblique shocks.
Vθ
C. Axisymmetric Conical Flow
Shock
The Axisymmetric Conical Flow (ACF) is r e Vr
defined by Taylor-Maccoll equation, given in Eq. Cone
(3). The derivation of the equation is given in θS θ
Anderson1. Figure 2 shows the variables and V1 θC
symbols used in Eq. (3) where “e” is any point in
the flow field. The value of Vmax stays constant
before and after the shock wave because total
enthalpy is constant across the shockwave. The Figure 2. Variable used in Taylor-Maccoll equation
major assumptions for the flow are:
• The flow is steady, isentropic, and at an angle of 0o with respect to the cone axis.
• The fluid properties such as pressure, temperatures etc. are constant along any ray from the vertex of the cone
including the cone surface.
• The fluid properties are only dependant on coordinate θ as shown in Fig. 2.
• The flow is axisymmetric with respect to the axis of the cone.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (γ − 1)  2  dVr     d V   dV  dVr dVr d 2Vr  
2
 dV
2
−
 max r  −  (2Vr ) +  r cot(θ )  +  2r  −  r +  = 0
(3)
2
V V Vr
2   dθ    dθ   dθ   dθ  dθ dθ dθ 2  

Where
Vr = Radial component of velocity downstream shock wave.
Vθ = Normal component of velocity downstream shock wave, and Vθ = (dVr/dθ).
r, θ = Spherical coordinates.
Vmax is the maximum theoretical velocity obtainable from a fixed reservoir condition, i.e. when the flow has
expanded theoretically to zero temperature. It is given by Eq. (4).
CP = Specific heat at constant pressure
T0 = Stagnation temperature for region under consideration.

Vmax = (2 * C P * T0 ) (1/2)
(4)

Equation (3) is a second order ordinary differential equation which can be solved using numerical methods.
However, to solve Eq. (3) it has to be written in standard form of y’’ = f (y’,y,x). The standard form of Eq. (3) is
shown in Eq. (5), which is obtained by keeping d 2Vr dθ 2 on the left hand side of the equation, and all other term
on the right hand side.

 dV  2    2  dVr    (γ − 1)  2

2
 dVr    dVr
2

 r
 * V  − (γ − 1) * (V ) * −
 max r
V V 2
−    −  * −
 max r
V V 2
−   * cot(θ ) 
 d 2Vr   dθ   dθ    2  dθ    dθ
r r
     (5)
 2  =
 dθ   (γ − 1)   dV    dV  
2 2

 2
* Vmax − Vr2 −  r   −  r  
 2   dθ    dθ  

II. Numerical Methods

Kreyszig3 has provided detailed description of the numerical methods used to develop the computer software,
however a brief description of the techniques is given below.

A. Newton method
Newton method was used to solve Eq. (1) implicitly (i.e. find β when θ and M1 are known). The method has
faster convergence rate than other numerical techniques. However, derivative of the function needs to be calculated
to use this method. The derivative was approximated numerically by the forward difference scheme. Equation (6) is
the main equation for this method, where n = 1 2 3……N, N = total number of iterations.

{
x n +1 = x n − f ( x n ) f / ( x n )} (6)

B. Runge-Kutta-Nyström (RKN) method

Taylor-Maccoll equation is solved as initial value problem. RKN method is used, as it provides a direct solution
for second order differential equation. During the research on the topic it was found that this technique has not been
used earlier to solve Taylor Maccoll equation. Equation (5) will be solved using RKN method, fundamental
equations of which are provided below, where n = 0 1 2 …………N-1, N = number of steps, h = step size.

a ) k 1 = 0 . 5 * h * f ( x n , y n , y ' n ), f ) k 4 = 0 .5 * h * f ( x n + h , y n + L , y ' n + 2 k 3 )

b ) K = 0 . 5 * h * ( y ' n + ( k 1 / 2 )), g ) x n +1 = x n + h ,

c ) k 2 = 0 . 5 * h * f ( x n + ( h / 2 ), y n + ( K / 2 ), y ' n + k 1 ), h ) y n + 1 = y n + h * (y n + {(k 1 + k 2 + k 3 )/3}),

d ) k 3 = 0 . 5 * h * f ( x n + ( h / 2 ), y n + ( K / 2 ), y ' n + k 2 ), i) y ' n + 1 = y ' n + {(k 1 + 2k 2 + 2k 3 + k 4 )/3},

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
e ) L = h * ( y ' n + k 3 ),

This method is used in both explicit and implicit solution of Taylor-Maccoll equation. To solve Taylor-Maccoll
equation implicitly other methods are also required, however, RKN method alone is sufficient to solve it explicitly.

C. Discretization
Discretization is starting step used in the program to solve Eq. (5) implicitly (i.e. find θS when user input M1and
θC). The graphs given in Ames4 were discretized using linear equations. Each curve was divided into three sections.
This was done to provide the starting value of shock angle θS based on the user input of M1 and θC. This process is
described in Fig. 3 for third section of a curve for given Mach number. The curve is discretized by using equation of
line “y=mx+c”, where ‘m’ and ‘c’ are taken from the
corresponding matrix as descried in the implicit cone
program section. Curve from
NACA 1135,
Where θC user = Cone angle, user input. θSmax
Shock chart 5.
θC break = minimum cone angle for the corresponding angle, Discretized line
section. Degrees
θC max = maximum cone angle for a given mach θS
number θS user
θS = Shock angle calculated from descritized line.
θS user = final solution to be achieved. θS break
θC TM = cone angle calculated from Taylor-Maccoll III section
equation corresponding to θS. θSmin
II section
I section
θS break = minimum shock angle for the corresponding
Cone Angle, Degrees θC break θ θC max
section. C user θC TM
θSmin & θSmax = minimum and maximum shock angle. Figure 3. Discretization
Section I is bounded by 0o≤θC≤6o/8o for
(1≤M1≤1.125/1.125<M1≤5). Section II is bounded by 6o/8o<θC≤8o/14o for (1≤M1≤1.125/1.125<M1≤5) and Section
III is bounded by 8o/14o <θC≤θCmax for (1≤M1≤1.125/1.125<M1≤5). This division was done due to different curvature
and small range of θC for M1≤1.125. The results achieved from discretization are used in the next step of the process
as explained in the section of implicit cone program.

III. Programs Developed

MATLAB was used to develop the software codes. The following section provides the flowcharts and
descriptions of the different programs developed in the software.
Start

A. Explicit wedge program User Input M1,

Figure 4 provides the flow chart for the program developed β, γ, and
upstream
based on Eq. (1). The user needs to input M1, β, and upstream properties
flow properties. The program provides the user with flow
properties behind the shock wave and the figure of the flow field. No 1≤M1≤5 & 0<β<90
If the flow is not physical the program warns the user to change
the input to get a physical solution. No
0<θ<90 Calculate θ using Eq. (1)
Using θ, β, and M calculate properties
1
B. Implicit wedge program Yes downstream of the shock.
This program is based on Eq. (1) solved using Newton
method. The user inputs M1, θ, upstream flow conditions, initial Draw the flow field and
guess for β, total no. of iterations (N), and error tolerance. For this display the results
program to converge, the user has to provide an educated guess
Display the error Stop
for β. Due to the nature of Newton method if the initial guess is
far from the final solution the program may not converge. The Figure 4. Program based on θ-β-M eq.
flow chart for the program is given in Fig. 5. The results achieved
from this program were compared with Glenn5, the user inputs were: γ = 1.4, N = 30, Error tolerance = 0.0001, p1 =
101225 Pa, ρ1 = 1.226 kg/m3, T1 = 288 K.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
C. Properties and Flow Diagram
The program calculating the flow properties is based on the equations for oblique shocks given in Anderson1.
The flow properties such as p, T, ρ, and their ratios are calculated and displayed on the screen. The program to
display the flow field is based on equation of line “y = mx + C”. Different values of slopes (m) and constants (C) are
calculated based on the value of β, θ and upstream flow. Upstream flow is drawn at values of y = 2, 1, -1, -2. These
programs are common for every wedge flow programs, Extract p1, ρ 1, T1, M1, θ, & β from previous
minor modifications are made to use them for wedge flow program
at an angle of attack. Figure 6 a) & b) show the flow 1
Use Eqs. given in Anderson to
charts of the programs for properties and flow field calculate Mn1 and Mn2
respectively.
1
Use Eqs. given in Anderson to
Start calculate other flow properties

Input M1, θ, N, Display the final result.

initial guess for β, γ,
and error tolerance. Stop
a)
A No 1≤M1≤5 & 0<β<90 &
Extract ‘θ’ and ‘β’ from previous programs.
0<θ<90
Yes
Calculate f(β) using Using y = mx+c, where m = tanδ and δ =
θ,- θ, β and -β and c = 0, draw the
M sin β − 1
2 2
Wedge (θ, -θ) and the Shock (β ,- β).
2 cot β 1
− tan θ = f ( β )
M 12 (γ + cos 2 β ) + 2
Using y = const. Draw the upstream flow.
Where const. = 1,2,-1,-2 in this program.
Calculate f’ (β) using Forward Difference
Scheme f / ( β ) = f ( β + h ) − f ( β ) where Find the intersection between
h y = tan(β) and y = 1
y = tan(β) and y = 2
h = increment or step size
y = tan(-β) and y = -1
y = tan(-β) and y = -2
A No f’(β) ≠ 0
Using y = mx+c draw the downstream flow parallel to
Yes the wedge. Where m = tan(θ) for upper section of the
Calculate new β using wedge and m = tan(-θ) for lower section of the wedge
β(n+1) = β(n) – [f (β)/f‘ (β)] and c = const. derived from the intersection points.

No Check the error Tolerance Label and Display the figure

NO n >=N |β(n+1) – β(n)| <= Error Tolerance
Stop
Yes Yes b)
Draw the flow field and
display the results Figure 6. Flow Properties and Diagram
A Display the error Stop Start

Figure 5. Implicit Wedge Input M1,

θ, and α

D. Wedge flow at an angle of attack

The flow over a wedge at an arbitrary angle of attack is A No 1≤M1≤5 &
0<θ<90 & α<θ
based on Eq. (2). The user inputs M1, θ, and α. The value of
α should be less than θ for the shock wave to occur, however
Calculate θTOP and θBTM as shown earlier. Use Eq. (2) to
if α>θ expansion fans will occur and the program will stop as calculate βTOP and βBTM from given conditions.
it is not designed to solve for expansion fans. The program
only caters for oblique shock waves. The top and bottom
A For Top &
surfaces of the wedge are solved separately as they will have No
bottom 0<β<90
different wedge angle (θTOP & θBTM) as explained earlier.
Flow properties are also calculated twice, separately for top Invoke program to calculate flow properties using βTOP, θTOP
and bottom surfaces using the program described above. and βBTM, θBTM over the top and bottom surface of the wedge.
Similarly flow field program is used to draw the figure, with
Draw the flow field and
upstream flow at an angle of attack. The flow chart of the display the results
program is shown in Fig. 7, where θ = θGIVEN. The program is
capable of handling negative and zero degree angle of attack. A Display the error Stop
The result achieved from this program is shown later in the
paper. Figure 7. Wedge at an angle of attack

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
E. Explicit cone program
The explicit cone program is based on Eq. (5). The procedure of solving conical flow problem involves
combination of solving oblique shock relation and Eq. (5). RKN method was employed in this paper to solve Eq.
(5). The initial values to start the RKN method are calculated from two dimensional wedge flow problem, as the
properties just downstream conical and two dimensional oblique shock waves are same. Steps to solve Taylor-
Maccoll equation are listed below based on Anderson1.
Steps used to solve conical flow:
1. User input M1, θS, γ, CP, h, p1, T1, and ρ1. 5. Calculate starting value for Vr and Vθ
2. Use two dimensional wedge program to calculate Vr = V * cos(θ S - δ )
flow properties just after shock wave M2, δ (flow
Vθ = dVr dθ = −V * sin(θ S − δ )
deflection angle), T0
3. Calculate Vmax = (2*CP*T0) 1/2 6. Use RKN method to solve Taylor-Maccoll
4. Calculate velocity just behind the shock, equation based on Vr and Vθ
7. Check if Vθ≥0, if true stop iterations else iterate
[
V = Vmax {2 (γ − 1) M 22 }+ 1]−1 / 2

step 6-7 until Vθ≥0

Once the cone surface is defined i.e. Vθ ≥ 0, calculate the flow properties at the cone surface based on Eqs. (7-10).
(
VC = VrC2 + Vθ2C )1/ 2
as VθC = 0 at the cone surface, therefore VC = V rC

[ [ {
M 3 = 2 (γ − 1) (V rC V max )
−2
−1 }]] 1/ 2
(7)

γ
P3   (γ − 1) 2    (γ − 1) 2  γ −1
= 1 + 
P1   2
M 2  1 + 
   2
M 3  1 + 2γ ∗ (M 1 sin θ S ) − 1
 
2
[ ( (( )) (γ + 1))]
(8)

) ( ( ))
γ
T3   (γ − 1) 2    (γ − 1) 2  γ −1   2γ   2 + (γ − 1)(M 1 sin θ S ) 2
= 1 +  M 2  1 +  M 3  1 +  (
(M 1 sin θ S )2 − 1  
T1   2    2    (γ + 1)   (γ + 1)(M 1 sin θ S )
2
(( ))  (9)

ρ 3  P3   T3 
=   
ρ 1  P1   T1  (10)

Where VC = velocity at the cone surface, h = step size

The step size used in this program should

be negative as the program marches from the θS
Vθ
shock towards the cone surface. This is an Vr
M∞ δ
indirect method of solving the problem and it M 2, V
is depicted in Fig. 8. The flow chart used to 2
develop the program based on this method is 1
shown in Fig. 9. The user inputs for this
program are M1, θS, γ, h, CP, and upstream
properties. Once the solution is converged 3
h θ Vθ = 0 at cone surface
final result is displayed. It is sometimes
necessary to use the direct approach of solving θc
conical flow. This was achieved by solving
Eq. (5) implicitly. The program based on this Figure 8. Procedure to solve conical flow program
approach is explained next.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Start F. Implicit cone program
This approach of solving cone flow implicitly is new as it was
Input of M1, θS, γ, h, and developed by the author and his supervisor. This program is divided
Upstream Conditions into three major steps of: 1) Discretzing curves given in Ames4, 2)
Bisecting the interval to converge to final solution, 3) Using Taylor-
1≤M1≤5 & Maccoll equation to calculate the final result. The inputs for this
A No
0<θS<90 program are: M1, θC, γ, h, CP, and upstream properties. The three steps
of the programs will be discussed next.
Yes
Calculate flow properties just after shock 1. Discretization
using program based on Eq. (1). The procedure of discritization was explained earlier, the
application of this procedure in the program is explained in this
A No 0<δ<90 section. Five different set of data are required to perform discretization,
Yes they includes 1) Values of M1, ranging from 1-5 based on Ames4, 2)
Calculate “Vmax” and “V” using Maximum cone angle (θCmax) for each M1 in data set 1, 3) 2-D matrix
step 3 and 4 containing slopes ‘m’ of the discretized line for each curve. Row of
Calculate Vr and dVr/dθ just behind the this matrix corresponds to given M1 and column corresponds to the
shock using step 5 different sections of the curve. 4) A similar 2-D matrix containing the
values of constants ‘c’ for discretized lines, 5) A 2-D matrix containing
Employ RKN method (steps a - i) to
solve Eq. (5)
the values of θCbreak for every section. This data is stored in
Discretization program. Once the user provides the input of M1 and
No Vθ >= 0 θCuser the program determines the corresponding section and develops
Yes
the equation of discretized line which will be used to calculate the first
guess for the value of θS. This program is only used in the first
A No 0<θC<90
Yes iteration. Once the value of θS is determined it is updated at every
Calculate properties at the cone using Eqs. 7 -10 iteration using bisection method and Taylor-Maccoll equation to
converge at the final solution of θSuser as defined in Fig. 3. Figure 10
Display the results shows the flow chart for discretization program.
Give an error 2. Bisection Method
A Stop Once the lower and upper limit of shock angle is determined using
message.
discretization, bisection method is used to converge to the final
Figure 9. Explicit Cone program solution. The upper limit (θS) and lower limit (θSbreak) are selected in
such a way that the θSuser is always bracketed between the two values. After this the range is bisected and at every
step it is checked that the final solution is bracketed between Start
the upper and lower limit. The flow chart for the procedure is
User input M1 and θC user
given in Fig. 11, where θSloop = The current shock angle for the
loop used in Taylor-Maccoll equation to calculate the cone
angle, θSgreater & θSsmaller= Upper and lower limit of the shock No 1 ≤ M1 ≤ 5 & θCmin ≤
angle bracketing the final solution. θCuser ≤ θCmax
The number of iterations ‘N’ was determined by running
different combinations and it was found that 30 iterations are Yes
sufficient to provide accurate results without incurring a Checking M 1 with respect to data 1 to find the
penalty in computational time. θCloop is calculated using explicit row number and checking in which section θC
falls, to define the column number.
cone program for the value of θSloop. Once the iterations are
over the data having minimum error i.e.| θCloop – θCuser| is Pick “m” and “C” from data 3 and 4 respectively
selected and the corresponding value of shock angle is stored; based on the row and column number.
for final analysis using Taylor-Maccoll equation. The Taylor- Calculate first guess of shock angle using
Maccoll equation is solved as explained in explicit cone equation of line θS = m*θC user + C.
program, there is no need to give any user input as all the
required data is extracted from bisection and discretization Calculate other values such as θSbreak, θSmin, and θSmax
program. The final result is displayed on the screen once No
calculations are over. Stop θSmin ≤θS ≤θSmax
Yes
Bisection Method
Figure 10. Discretization

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The validation of both the cone programs was done against Ames6. The user inputs used to achieve the results
were γ = 1.405, Number of iterations (N) = 30, step size = -0.01(explicit) or -0.007(implicit), p1 = 101225 Pa, ρ1=
1.226 kg/m3, T1 = 288 K. The overall process of implicit cone program is given in Fig. 12.
Gather the data from Start
Discretization program.
User input M1 and θCuser.
Calculate the first θS loop using
θS loop = (θS break+ θ S)/2
No 1≤M1≤5 &
A
Invoke Taylor-Maccoll equation to 0<θCuser<90
calculate the value of θC loop based on Yes
the value of θSloop and M1. Call Discretization Program

Yes No No
θC loop > θC user A θSmin ≤θS≤ θSmax
θS greater = θS loop θS greater = θS Yes
θS smaller = θS break θS smaller = θS loop Call program based Eq. (1) to
calculate the value of θCloop based
Calculate new value of θS loop using
on θSloop
θS loop = (θS greater + θS smaller)/2
No
Calculate the difference using
A 0<θCloop≤θCmax
For N iterations. Diff = |θC loop - θC user|
After Nth iteration.
Find the minimum value of difference from all the iterations. Yes
Save all the relevant values such as θC loop, θS loop, M1, pressure, For N Call the program based on Bisection
temperature, density, gamma and specific heat at constant iterations method to converge to final solution.
pressure.
No
Figure 11. Bisection Method A Convergence
Yes
Call program based on Eq. (1) to
IV. Output of the programs calculate the final value of θS, & other
This section displays the output of the developed software. properties on the cone surface and
display final result
Fig. 13 a, b, & c show output of the program developed for
wedge at 0o, output of the program developed by Glenn5 and A Error message Stop
output of the program developed for wedge at α = 10o
respectively. Tables 1 and 2 show the output of wedge at 0o Figure 12. Implicit cone program
angle of attack. Tables 1 and 3 show the result achieved from the cone program. The inputs for wedge program were
M1 = 3.2, θ = 20o and for wedge at an angle of attack were M1 = 3.2, θ = 20o, & α = 10o. The inputs for cone
program were M1 = 2.5, θC = 25o. Standard sea level conditions, as defined earlier were used for wedge and cone
programs.
Table 1 Property Ratios
p2 / p1 T2 / T1 ρ2 / ρ1 θ or θC β or θS
Wedge 4.0274 1.6048 2.5096 20o 36.3351o
Cone 2.9242 1.3937 2.0981 25o 37.3752o

Table 2 Wedge program Output Table 3 Cone program Output

Quantity Before Shock After Shock Quantity Before Shock At the cone
M 3.2 2.1205 M 2.5 1.7576
ρ 1.2260 kg/m3 3.0767 kg/m3 ρ 1.2260 kg/m3 2.5722 kg/m3
p 101225 Pa 407670 Pa p 101225 Pa 296000 Pa
T 288 K 462.1878 K T 288 K 401.3964 K

Table 4. Percentage Mean Error for M1 = 3

Quantity β M2 p2 / p1 T2 / T1 ρ2 / ρ1 Mean error
Error 0.0563 0.0691 0.0843 0.0319 0.0397 0.056254

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
a) b) c)
Figure 13. Output of various wedge programs

V. Validation
The error analysis and validation done on the results achieved from the developed software is shown in this section.
The sources of error, limitations of the software, and some applications are also provided.

A. Two Dimensional wedge program beta from Ref. 5

beta from developed program
The results of this program were validated against the M2 from ref. 5
wedge flow program developed by Glenn5. The input M2 from developed program
values for the program are provided in the section where 55 2.85
these programs were discussed. The mean percentage error 50 2.65
recorded during the validation is shown in Table 4 for M1 45 2.45
Beta, degrees

= 3 and the wedge angle varying from 5o till 29o at an

40 2.25
increment of 2o. The maximum mean error recorded was

M2
about 0.09%. 35 2.05
The comparison of the results of two programs is 30 1.85
shown in Fig. 14. The value of root mean square (RMS) 25 1.65
error was found to be 0.1531%.
20 1.45
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
B. Explicit Cone flow program
T heta, degrees
This program’s result was compared against that of
Ames6. Only M3 and θC were available from Ames6 Figure 14. M2 and Shock angle for M1 = 3
therefore only these values were compared, however the program is capable of calculating other flow properties on
the cone surface such as pressure, temperature, and density. It can be seen from table 5 that mean error is less than
1.14%. Various combinations of M1 and θS were compared to achieve the general result, and the combinations are
shown in appendix table 6.
Figure 15 shows comparison of results achieved from Ames6 and developed software for M1 = 5 and different
values of θS. The maximum recoded mean error was about 2.8%. The value of RMS error for explicit program was
recorded to be about 1.282%.

C. Implicit cone program

Similar comparisons as done for explicit program were carried out for the implicit program. The data used for
general comparison is shown in appendix table 6. The maximum error recorded was about 2.7%, however for
majority of case error is within 1.5%. Table 5 shows the result of validation analysis done for this program. The
comparison of the results achieved from the developed software and Ames6 for θC = 8o and different values of M1 is
shown in Fig. 16. The RMS error for this program is about 0.853%.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Table 5 Percentage Mean Errors
Explicit Cone Implicit Cone
Quantity General M1 =5 General θC = 8o
Cone Angle 0.9157 0.2792 0.438 0.305
M3 0.8975 1.1350 0.732 0.839

Cone angle from program

Cone angle from Ref. 6 Shock angle from implicit program
M 3 from program Shock angle from Ref. 6
M 3 from Ref. 6 4 M 3 from implicit program
Cone Angle, Degree

50 3.5 M 3 from Ref. 6

80 5

Shock angle, Degrees

40 3 70 4.5
2.5 4

M3
60
30 2 3.5
50
1.5 3

M3
20 40
1 2.5
30 2
10 0.5
20 1.5
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 10 1
Shock angle, Degree 0 0.5
Figure 15. M3 and θc for M1 = 5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

M1
D. Source of Errors: Figure 16. M3 and θs for θc = 8°
• As charts were used for comparison, therefore the
accuracy of result depends on the accuracy of the values read from the charts.
• The upstream conditions were not defined in Glenn5 and Ames6 , hence sea level standard day conditions
were used, and the differences in the value of these properties may result in variation the final solution.
• Truncation and round off errors which occur during computations can result in the variation of final results.
• Use of different approach to solve the problem can also result in the variation of solution.
• The accuracy of the solution is also dependent on the number of significant figures used in the calculations.
The software developed uses single precision i.e. 7 digits.

E. Limitations of the programs

The limitations applicable to all the programs are discussed here. The first two limitations are applicable to all
the developed programs.
1. These programs are only developed for supersonic range, therefore they only work for 1≤ M1≤ 5.
2. The programs are capable of handling angles between 0o to 90o, however the results are bound by the
physical characteristics of gas i.e. for perfect gas practical range of θ is up to about 41o for M1 = 5.
3. Most of the programs developed can’t be used for flow at angle of attack to wedge or cone except one
program which can solve flow over wedge at an angle of attack.
4. This limitation is applicable to implicit cone program. As this program is based on discretization of
Ames4 curves, therefore it can be only used for perfect gas with γ = 1.405 and it only provides weak
shock solution.
5. During validation it was found that the implicit cone program work for 5 ≤ θC ≤ θmax for M1 < 2. For M1
≥ 2 the program is capable of handling the complete physical range of cone angles. This may be due to
the bisection step after discretization. It can be seen from Ames4, that the curves for M1 < 2 are almost
horizontal for θC < 5. This means during bisection method the variation in the value of θSloop is not
significant and the program cannot converge to a final solution.

F. Applications
The developed software provides an easy and accurate solution to 2-D wedge and axisymmetric cone problem. It
can be used to design the engine inlet of a supersonic aircraft such as Concorde (2-D flow inlet) and SR-71
(axisymmetric cone inlet). It can also be used to design a nose cone for a supersonic aircraft or missile, which
greatly affects their performance. It can be used to design an efficient supersonic engine and can improve the
performance of supersonic missile and rockets. Being compact in size and user friendly it can be used as study tool

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
to provide better understanding of supersonic flow to engineering students. The software provides an easy access
and great insight into the supersonic flow to the beginner without the knowledge of complicated CFD softwares.

VI. Concluding Remarks

A numerical analysis of supersonic flow over two dimensional wedge and axisymmetric cone has been
undertaken using MATLAB software. The numerical results were analyzed and validated against other available
results. Some characteristics of the developed software are:
a) The software is small and user friendly.
b) User can give different inputs based on available data (M1 & θ/ θC or M1 & β/ θS).
c) Software calculates all the major properties and their ratios downstream of the shock wave.
d) It displays the flow field for the wedge flow with shock wave, wedge, and streamlines.
e) It is capable of handling wedge flow at arbitrary angle of attacks.
f) It can work for any value of γ for a perfect gas.
g) It is not restricted to sea level conditions; user can input the value of upstream properties.
h) It is a standalone application, therefore doesn’t need any specific software to run.
i) It can handle complete supersonic regime 1≤M1≤5.
j) Software solves both cone and wedge flow problems.
Based on the validations performed following conclusions are reached: 1) the RMS error for wedge programs is
about 0.1531%. 2) The RMS error for explicit cone program is about 1.282%. 3) The RMS error for implicit cone
program is about 0.853%. These results confirm that the software provides satisfactory results in the domain of its
application; with above listed characteristics this software is superior to the other readily available supersonic flow
software such as Glenn5.
The results obtained during the present analysis suggest additional investigation in the following areas: 1)
developing a program for cone flow at an angle of attack, 2) Making implicit cone program more comprehensive by
removing the limitation of minimum θC and making it applicable for any value of γ with no restriction of weak
shock solution, 3) Inclusion of expansion fans for the program of wedge flow at an angle of attack, 4) Covering the
hypersonic range of Mach number. Inclusion of all these suggestions can make the software more comprehensive
and will provide user with more options.

Appendix
Table 6. Comparison data for Validation of results.
Explicit M1 1.25 1.5 1.7 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.5 5 - -
Cone θS 60 50 40 35 40 25 30 20 61 65 12 - -
Implicit M1 1.05 1.15 1.25 1.5 1.7 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.5 5
Cone θC 6.5 8 17.75 21 15.75 16.75 26.6 13.25 20.5 11.5 48.6 51.55 4.2

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the efforts of my supervisor A/Prof. Hadi Winarto, who has made many helpful
suggestions and who had reviewed the text. I am also indebted to Dr. Javid Bayandor and Mr. Suhaib Mohammad
Ali for their valuable suggestions.

References
1 rd
Anderson, J. D., Modern Compressible Flow, 3 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003, Chaps. 4, 10.
2
Emanuel, G., Analytical Fluid Dynamics, 2nd ed., CRC Press, New York, Appendix C.
3
Kreyszig, Erwin, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 8th ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 2005, Chaps. 17, 19.
4
Ames Research Lab, “Equations, Tables and Charts for Compressible Flow,” NACA Report 1135, 1953, Chart 5.
5
Glenn Research Center, “Oblique Shock Waves,” URL: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/oblique.html
[cited 10 April 2006]
6
Ames Research Lab, “Equations, Tables and Charts for Compressible Flow,” NACA Report 1135, 1953, pp. 48-53.
7
Hairer E. and Wanner G., Solving Ordinary Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980.
8
Palm, William J., Introduction to MATLAB 6 for Engineers, McGraw Hill, New York, 2001.
9
Thomas P.D., Vinokur M., “Numerical Solutions for Three Dimensional Inviscid Supersonic Flow”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 10,
No. 7, 1972 , pp 887-894.
10
Wolf T, “Comment on Approximate Formula of Week Oblique Shock Wave Angle”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 7, 1993,
pp 1363.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics