Comparative Assessment of Modified <span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="vertical-align:-4.5268pt" id="M1" height="12.3952pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0657574 -7.8684 8.76089 12.3952" width="8.76089pt"><g transform="matrix(.017,0,0,-0.017,0,0)"><path id="g113-225" d="M478 372C478 418 458 448 431 448C409 448 389 431 389 410C389 404 391 400 394 395C398 388 406 371 406 348C406 253 308 122 251 51H249C254 122 249 257 231 336C212 421 189 448 159 448C126 448 75 412 23 327L48 306C83 354 103 371 115 371C125 371 134 360 144 334C185 224 192 64 183 -19C146 -100 116 -202 110 -244L125 -261C154 -259 208 -234 222 -220C222 -194 225 -84 235 -23C247 -3 273 36 308 79C379 165 478 288 478 372Z"/></g></svg>-</span><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="vertical-align:-4.3443pt" id="M2" height="15.4164pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0657574 -11.0721 28.8078 15.4164" width="28.8078pt"><g transform="matrix(.017,0,0,-0.017,0,0)"><path id="g121-80" d="M631 18C609 24 585 35 559 65C534 91 514 117 478 169C448 214 406 281 389 313C462 346 516 399 516 485C516 545 490 590 449 616C412 641 363 650 290 650H42V622C120 615 128 612 128 527V125C128 40 120 34 38 28V0H300V28C221 34 212 40 212 125V284H244C295 284 312 272 329 244C359 195 395 133 430 84C475 19 516 -3 592 -7C603 -8 615 -8 627 -8L631 18ZM212 316V563C212 591 215 602 223 607C231 613 248 617 277 617C352 617 423 577 423 469C423 415 407 375 368 345C343 324 310 316 260 316H212Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.017,0,0,-0.017,10.881,0)"><path id="g121-99" d="M380 106C343 72 306 56 265 56C195 56 116 112 115 248C235 252 361 262 377 265C396 269 400 277 400 297C400 374 333 449 250 449H249C198 449 144 421 103 376S37 269 37 201C37 88 109 -12 232 -12C263 -12 332 6 395 84L380 106ZM225 412C281 412 315 364 314 312C314 297 308 292 290 292C232 290 176 289 120 289C135 370 180 412 225 412Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.012,0,0,-0.012,18.241,4.134)"><path id="g50-230" d="M482 498C482 606 448 710 328 710C138 710 24 416 24 218C24 99 58 -12 184 -12C373 -12 482 294 482 498ZM395 521C395 483 391 449 383 395H128C158 537 226 671 312 671C388 671 395 566 395 521ZM375 342C348 190 284 25 192 25C128 25 109 116 109 199C109 243 112 292 121 342H375Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.012,0,0,-0.012,24.32,4.134)"><path id="g190-117" d="M298 36L289 62C276 55 253 45 228 45C202 45 169 60 169 141V397H276C289 405 292 426 282 437H169V574L155 576L90 509V437H45L17 408L21 397H90V107C90 28 125 -12 188 -12C198 -12 213 -8 230 1L298 36Z"/></g></svg> Models for Scramjet Intake Flow Analysis

<div>Computational domain, grid system, and boundary conditions for the double ramp case.</div>

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

fig4

Figure 4

Figure 4: Comparative Assessment of Modified <span class="nowrap"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="vertical-align:-4.5268pt" id="M1" height="12.3952pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0657574 -7.8684 8.76089 12.3952" width="8.76089pt"><g transform="matrix(.017,0,0,-0.017,0,0)"><path id="g113-225" d="M478 372C478 418 458 448 431 448C409 448 389 431 389 410C389 404 391 400 394 395C398 388 406 371 406 348C406 253 308 122 251 51H249C254 122 249 257 231 336C212 421 189 448 159 448C126 448 75 412 23 327L48 306C83 354 103 371 115 371C125 371 134 360 144 334C185 224 192 64 183 -19C146 -100 116 -202 110 -244L125 -261C154 -259 208 -234 222 -220C222 -194 225 -84 235 -23C247 -3 273 36 308 79C379 165 478 288 478 372Z"/></g></svg>-</span><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="vertical-align:-4.3443pt" id="M2" height="15.4164pt" version="1.1" viewBox="-0.0657574 -11.0721 28.8078 15.4164" width="28.8078pt"><g transform="matrix(.017,0,0,-0.017,0,0)"><path id="g121-80" d="M631 18C609 24 585 35 559 65C534 91 514 117 478 169C448 214 406 281 389 313C462 346 516 399 516 485C516 545 490 590 449 616C412 641 363 650 290 650H42V622C120 615 128 612 128 527V125C128 40 120 34 38 28V0H300V28C221 34 212 40 212 125V284H244C295 284 312 272 329 244C359 195 395 133 430 84C475 19 516 -3 592 -7C603 -8 615 -8 627 -8L631 18ZM212 316V563C212 591 215 602 223 607C231 613 248 617 277 617C352 617 423 577 423 469C423 415 407 375 368 345C343 324 310 316 260 316H212Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.017,0,0,-0.017,10.881,0)"><path id="g121-99" d="M380 106C343 72 306 56 265 56C195 56 116 112 115 248C235 252 361 262 377 265C396 269 400 277 400 297C400 374 333 449 250 449H249C198 449 144 421 103 376S37 269 37 201C37 88 109 -12 232 -12C263 -12 332 6 395 84L380 106ZM225 412C281 412 315 364 314 312C314 297 308 292 290 292C232 290 176 289 120 289C135 370 180 412 225 412Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.012,0,0,-0.012,18.241,4.134)"><path id="g50-230" d="M482 498C482 606 448 710 328 710C138 710 24 416 24 218C24 99 58 -12 184 -12C373 -12 482 294 482 498ZM395 521C395 483 391 449 383 395H128C158 537 226 671 312 671C388 671 395 566 395 521ZM375 342C348 190 284 25 192 25C128 25 109 116 109 199C109 243 112 292 121 342H375Z"/></g><g transform="matrix(.012,0,0,-0.012,24.32,4.134)"><path id="g190-117" d="M298 36L289 62C276 55 253 45 228 45C202 45 169 60 169 141V397H276C289 405 292 426 282 437H169V574L155 576L90 509V437H45L17 408L21 397H90V107C90 28 125 -12 188 -12C198 -12 213 -8 230 1L298 36Z"/></g></svg> Models for Scramjet Intake Flow Analysis 

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Comparative Assessment of Modified - Models for Scramjet Intake Flow Analysis

Figure 4