1o SiPGEM 1o Simpsio do Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia Mecnica

Escola de Engenharia de So Carlos Universidade de So Paulo

12 e 13 de setembro de 2016, So Carlos - SP

ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL DESIGN OF A

MIXED-COMPRESSION AIR INTAKE FOR A SUPERSONIC FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT.

P. D. Bravo - Mosquera, Aeronaves - Aerodinmica, pdbravom@usp.br

H. D. Cern - Muoz, Aeronaves - Aerodinmica, hernan@sc.usp.br
F. Catalano, Aeronaves - Aerodinmica, catalano@sc.usp.br

Abstract. This paper aims to describe the methodologies used to design a two-dimensional mixed-compression air intake
with variable ramps for a supersonic fighter aircraft. Analytical and numerical simulations were implemented in order
to determine the air intake geometry and evaluate its performance in the design condition imposed, which was based on
the characteristics of a typical stage in a combat mission. For this purpose, the design of the supersonic and subsonic
diffuser was realized in order to maximize the total pressure recovery (Intake performance) and adjust the quantity and
quality of mass flow required for the best performance of the aircraft engine. Results show that the air intake designed is
highly efficient due to the correct selection of the shock waves system, the throat area and the subsonic duct, providing a
flow field with the correct velocity at the engine entrance, even being evaluated in different off-design conditions.

Keywords: Air Intake Design, Fighter Aircraft, Analytical Simulations, Numerical Simulations, Intake performance.

1. INTRODUCTION.

During the conceptual design phase of a new aircraft is possible to establish several limitations and constraints that
must be fulfilled throughout the entire aircraft design process. Many of these restrictions are related to the mission
that the aircraft have to perform. In this way, the application of the constraints analysis allows to calculate the main
performance characteristics of the aircraft (maximum take-off weight (WT O ), wing surface area (Sw ) and engine thrust
(T )) in relation to each phase of flight. These three parameters will govern the size, the performance and the operational
and manufacturing costs of the aircraft, allowing to establish the steps for the preliminary and detail aircraft design phases.
Above-mentioned, the power-plant system must be sized in terms of the available thrust and the mass flow (m) required
by the engine. However, the thrust calculated with the constraints analysis represents an ideal value, compared with the
thrust when the engine is installed on the aircraft. Therefore, the assembly of the power-plant system over the fuselage
induces forces on the aerodynamic surfaces, increasing the total Drag of the aircraft (Goldsmith et al. 1993). Based on
the experience of Seddon et al. (1999) and Whitford, (1987) these additional forces are called "Self-Drag" and must
be counterbalanced by the available thrust of the engine selected. Hence, the "Self-Drag" forces are the produced by
the intake (Supersonic and Subsonic diffusers) and the nozzle of the power-plant system. This increase in Drag has to
be considered in the estimation of the thrust required by the aircraft. In this way, the calculation of the external loss
coefficients of the intake and the nozzle allows to determine the real thrust required for the operation of the aircraft and
consequently, the area ratios for the correct mass flow required by the aircraft engine.
The first estimation of the external loss coefficients of the power-plant system led to organize the methodologies for
the preliminary design of the air intake presented in this paper. For this, the first step was to develop a subjective analysis
of the types of air intake that have been more implemented in the fighter jets, with its respective location on the fuselage
(Sbester, 2007). The above, with the aim to study the advantage of each type and select the air intake that represents the
best performance, in relation to a non-conventional fighter aircraft, which is being designed (Bravo, 2016. in prep). As a
consequence, a two-dimensional mixed-compression air intake system was chosen. Once the intake type is selected, the
second step for its design was to determine the shock waves system for the air compression stage and finally, the geometry
of the subsonic duct.
According to Mattingly et al. (2002) and Waters, (1971) to compare the analytical and numerical methodologies for
the design of the air intake with the military specification MIL-E-5008B is necessary to base its design with the focus to
maximize the total pressure recovery (R ), which represents the intake efficiency, while at the same time minimize drag,
fan face pressure distortions, weight, complexity and cost (Aziz et al. 2013). In this sense, the supersonic diffuser was
designed based in the methodologies of Das et al. (2010), Ran et al. (2005) and Slater, (2012) which allow the correct
estimation of the number of ramps to compress the air, the length of them, the location of the normal shock wave in
the throat and the area ratios between the entrance of the diffuser and the engine (Lee et al. 2011). On the other hand,
the design of the subsonic duct was based in the methodologies developed by Wendt, (2004) with the goal to maintain a
minimal pressure drop of the fluid that comes from the supersonic diffuser to the inlet engine.
As it was mentioned above, the nozzle of a power-plant system also induces "Self-Drag" forces. However, it was
not designed due to the scope of this research only relates the design of an air intake. Therefore, the loss coefficient of
P. D. Bravo - Mosquera, H. D. Cern - Muoz and F. Catalano
Analytical And Numerical Design Of A Mixed-Compression Air Intake For A Supersonic Fighter Aircraft.

the nozzle was established in accordance with Gamble et al. (2004), for a nozzle operating in typical case of supersonic
cruise.
The flight condition imposed to design the intake was taken from the combat mission analysis developed by Nicolai
et al. (2010), in which the author explains that, for the "Escape Dash" phase in a typical combat mission, the aircraft
accelerate to a high speed dash of Mach = 2 at the maximum ceiling. Therefore, a common jet-engine loses 8% of the
free stream total pressure through the intake, suffering a reduction in thrust of 13% and consequently a 5% of increase in
the fuel consumption, if it is flying at 16500 m above the sea level (Whitford, 1987). For this reason, the intake design of
this research aims to optimize the pressure recovery in this condition with a uniform distribution at the engine face.
To predict the intake performance, two-dimensional numerical simulations were implemented in order to analyze
the main aerodynamic characteristics of the intake designed analytically. For this, different studies of the mesh type,
the boundary conditions and the turbulence model for the simulations were realized, aiming to obtain greater numerical
accuracy of the shock waves/boundary layer interaction inside and outside the intake (Delery, 1985). The software used
for the simulation was ANSYS - FLUENT 14.5 , R which enables the imposition of approximated values of static pressure
and temperature in the outlet of the subsonic diffuser, besides a set of interpolation parameters for the correct interpretation
of the boundary conditions imposed (ANSYS, 2012).

2. OBJECTIVE.

The air intake system in a jet engine must satisfy an essential requirement; provide the correct amount of airflow to the
engine face. This airflow should be free of distortions, with stability and being able to transform most of kinetic energy
into energy due to pressure (Seddon el at. 1999). The main objective of this preliminary intake design is to provide
the correct quantity and quality of mass flow to the engine VOLVO RM-12. The mass flow for the best performance of
the engine must be delivered among a Mach = 0.4 - 0.5, according to the technical specifications of the engine selected
(Mattingly et al. 2002). Therefore, a correct estimation of the number of ramps needed to reduce the relative velocity of
the aircraft was developed, due to the design of the supersonic intake was executed in base to the characteristics of the
"Escape Dash" phase (On-Design Condition), where the maximum velocity is Mach = 2 at 16500 m.

3. METHODOLOGY.

3.1 Analytical Design.

One of the methodologies to decrease the external loss coefficient of the intake is to use multiple compression ramps
in the supersonic stage, aiming to reduce smoothly the flow velocity and get high total pressure recovery values. However,
Wyatt, (1958) and Delery, (1999) have shown that if the number of oblique shocks is increased, the flow complication will
be greater and the flow quality will be less satisfactory, due to the boundary layer/shocks interaction and the high values
of Drag. Also the intake weight will increase because the system will need greater length (Huda et al. 2012). Therefore,
the analytical estimation of the external loss coefficient of the intake was calculated regarding to the Eq. (1) and assuming
the performance of the intake operating in the critical condition (Ideal), Fig. (1).
   1/2 
A1 2 1 2
A0 1 M0 +1 + +1 M0
In = (1)
[F gc /(m0 a0 )]

Figure 1. Sketch of the whole intake system operating at its critical condition.

Where, (A0 ) represents the cross-sectional area in the engine entrance and (F/m0 ) represents the specific thrust, when
the engine is not installed on the aircraft. As can be seen in the Fig. (1), (A1 ) represents the capture area of the intake,
whose value must be subtly greater than (A0 ), in order to have a certain safety margin to design the boundary layer
diverter. Accordingly, the amount of bleed air passing through the diverter depends directly on the type of intake. In
 1o SiPGEM-EESC/USP
1o Simpsio do Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia Mecnica

this case, for a Mach = 2, approximately 4% of the cross-sectional area of the engine must be considered to design the
boundary layer diverter (Mattingly et al. 2002). Therefore, the capture area of the intake was calculated with the Eq. (2).

A1 = 1.04(A0 ) (2)

3.1.1 Supersonic Diffuser.

Once (A1 ) is estimated, the cross-sectional area of the supersonic diffuser was calculated (A0i ). For this, it was
elaborated a code in MATLAB , R with the aim to calculate the intake pressure recovery in function of the deflection
angles of the compression ramps in the supersonic diffuser (Station Point 1 to 4 in Fig. (1)), whose result allowed to
establish a relation between the mass flow requirements of the supersonic diffuser (m0 , A0i ) and the intake efficiency
(R ). Thus, regarding to the military specification MIL-E-5008B (Mattingly et al. 2002 and Waters, 1971), the specific
total pressure recovery for the supersonic diffuser can be calculated by the Eq. (3).

Rspec = 1 0.075(M0 1)1.35 (3)

With the specific value of the total pressure recovery, the number of shock waves required to reach this value were
determined. In this way, using the compressible flow equations presented in Ames, (1953) it was possible to calculate all
the variables shown in the Fig. (1). Therefore, with the numerical solution of the Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) the propagation
angles of the oblique shocks and the Mach number downstream each compression ramps were calculated, in function of
its deflection angles.
2
( 1)M(i1) sin2 (i ) + 2
Mi2 sin2 (i i ) = 2 i = (1 3) (4)
2M(i1) sin2 (i ) ( 1)

2
2cot(i )(M(i1) sin2 (i ) 1)
tan(i ) = 2 i = (1 3) (5)
2 + M(i1) ( + 1 2sin2 (i ))

For the oblique shock waves, the pressure recovery across each oblique shock was calculated by the Eq. (6), as follows:
" 2
#/(1) " #1/(1)
( + 1)M(i1) sin2 (i ) ( + 1)
P Ri = 2 2 i = (1 3) (6)
( 1)M(i1) sin2 (i ) + 2 2M(i1) sin2 (i ) ( 1)

Assuming that M3 is equal to M4 upstream the normal shock wave, it was possible to calculate M4 downstream the
normal shock and its respective pressure recovery, bearing in mind a constant area for the throat of the intake (Station
Point 4 to 5 in Fig. (1)). These parameters were calculated using the Eq. (7) and Eq. (8).

( 1)M32 + 2
M42 = (7)
2M32 ( 1)
/(1)  1/(1)
( + 1)M32

( + 1)
P Rn = (8)
( 1)M32 + 2 2M32 ( 1)

The third oblique shock is the result of the deflection angle of the external cowl lip (Station Point 3 in Fig. (1)). If this
angle increases, the uniformity of the flow and thus, the intake efficiency improve. However, if this angle increases too
much, the cowl lip Drag boosts. Therefore, a balance of forces using CFD was performed, in order to determine the cowl
lip angle that distributes the highest airflow quality and also representing the least possible Drag.

3.1.2 Subsonic Diffuser.

In order to calculate the variables involved in the subsonic diffuser (Station Point 5 to 6 in Fig. (1)), some geometric
and performance characteristics of the selected engine must be considered (Larsson et al. 1988). Therefore, using the
isentropic flow equations, an areas ratio between the intake throat and the subsonic diffuser were implemented, thus:

At At /A At 1
= =  2 (9)
A0 A0 /A A0 rh
1 rt

Where, rh /rt represents the hub-tip ratio of the engine.

P. D. Bravo - Mosquera, H. D. Cern - Muoz and F. Catalano
Analytical And Numerical Design Of A Mixed-Compression Air Intake For A Supersonic Fighter Aircraft.

In this way, following the areas ratio for constant Mach number and mass flow (Ames, 1953), we have:
 2   +1/1  2   +1/1
At 1 2 1 2 A0 1 2 1 2
= 2 1+ M5 ; = 2 1+ M6 (10)
A M5 + 1 2 A M6 + 1 2
(M5 ) was calculated numerically and (M6 ) was given from the engine data (Larsson et al. 1988). Based on Barnhart,
(1997) the Borda-Carnot loss equation served to evaluate the pressure recovery of this section, as follows:
!
1

1 At 2 (1 D )
A0
P Rsub = 1 kd 2 (11)
1+ M62

Where, (D ) represents a constant efficiency of the subsonic diffuser and (kd ) represents the additional losses produced
by the length of the duct and the expansion angle (2d ).

3.1.3 Calculation of Total Pressure Recovery.

Equation (12) represents the sum of the pressure recovery of the supersonic and subsonic diffusers, which symbolizes
the total efficiency of the intake designed.
3
Y
R = P Ri P Rn P Rsub (12)
i=1

The mass flow required by the present intake project was determined applying the Eq. (13):
mi A0i R
= = (13)
mispec A0ispec Rspec
By the mass conservation equation, we have:
mi 0 V0 A0i A0i A0i At
= = = (14)
m1 0 V0 A1 A1 At A1
Where, the difference between (m1 ) and (mi ) is the spilled air by the exterior cowl lip, (A0i /At ) is determined by the
shock wave system and (At /A1 ) by all the intake geometry.
Finally, the performance of the intake is widely used as a measure to determine the total stagnation pressure in each
intake section. In this way, a relation between the static pressure in the engine entrance and the free stream was established.
" #/1
P6 1 + 1
2 M0
2
= R (15)
Pa 1 + 1
2 M6
2

3.2 Numerical Design

This section aims to evaluate the aerodynamic and performance characteristics obtained in the preliminary intake
design presented above.

3.2.1 Computational Domain and Grid Generation

A two-dimensional computational domain was created to simulate the aerodynamic behavior of the intake. For this,
the computational domain starts from the point where the fluid passes through the first compression ramp, until the
engine entrance. The simulations were performed with the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) parameters both
on-off design conditions, using the Shear Stress Transport (SST) turbulence model, including the viscous work term
(Kim et al. 2005). Appropriate mesh were calculated for the intake, discretizing the computational domain in space
and time through an adequate number of elements, where the Navier-Stokes equations were solved. Therefore, a grid
independence study was conducted. The first layer of cells was set in y = 1e 5 resulting in a y + 2. As a result,
approximately 1.7e6 elements for the intake were generated. Structured meshes were implemented for the cells near
the walls of the model, in order to obtain higher numerical accuracy between the shock waves and the boundary layer.
Unstructured mesh (tetrahedral) were used for the rest of the domain (Kim et al. 2011 and Kanazaki et al. 2004). Figure
(2) shows the mesh comparison at different sizes of grid and the final mesh generated for the intake configuration. The
ANSYS FLUENT-Solver was selected to solve the convergence criteria imposed, with the aim to reach the maximum
residue adjusted in 1e 5. The maximum number of iterations was 1200.
As it was stipulated above, in the engine inlet the flow must be totally subsonic for the best performance of the engine.
For this, it was imposed the opening boundary condition for subsonic regime at the outlet of the intake. This condition
allows to set relative values of the static pressure, which were calculated using the Eq. (15).
 1o SiPGEM-EESC/USP
1o Simpsio do Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia Mecnica

Figure 2. Computational mesh and independance mesh analysis for Mach number and pressure distribution around the
intake system.

4. RESULTS.

4.1 On-Design Condition

After an extensive iterative analysis of the pressure recovery obtained for each deflection angle of the compression
ramps and keeping the same geometry of the subsonic duct. It was decided to fix the first two compression ramps at 7
degrees of tilt, varying the angle of the cowl lip. Therefore, Fig. (3a) shows the variation of the total pressure recovery in
function of Mach number at different configurations of the intake.

Figure 3. Variation of the intake efficiency based on the deflection angle of the last ramp (a). External cowl lip axial force
and intake efficiency in function of the deflection angle of the last ramp (b).

Figure (3a) shows that including the external cowl lip angle, the total pressure recovery for the on-design condition is
greater than the MIL-E-5008B norm. Therefore, the configuration adopted optimize the intake efficiency.
In order to determine the most efficient configuration for the on-design condition, it was calculated the axial force
produced by the deflection angle of the external cowl lip. Figure (3b) shows that for 5o , 6o and 7o the axial force produced
by the cowl lip is negative, in other words, the cowl lip is producing Thrust in this positions. On the other hand, for an
deflection angle of 8o , the axial force is 0.085 N and increases to 11.9 N at 9o . In this case, producing Drag. In view of
the above, it was decided to fix the ramps in 7o , 7o , 8o for the on-design condition, since small increases in Thrust or Drag
in some parts of the propulsion system of an aircraft generate larger amounts of engine fuel consumption. This is also
P. D. Bravo - Mosquera, H. D. Cern - Muoz and F. Catalano
Analytical And Numerical Design Of A Mixed-Compression Air Intake For A Supersonic Fighter Aircraft.

possible to understand in the Fig. (4). As can be seen, for the ramps configuration 7o , 7o , 8o the normal shock wave is
formed just at the entrance of the throat (Critical Operation). Therefore, this configuration provides better quality of mass
flow to the engine (Seddon et al. 1999). Although in other configurations exist the presence of internal oblique shock
waves, the normal shock is formed into the throat (Supercritical Operation). This does not mean that the intake system is
not efficient, because this is an geometric and performance advantage of the mixed compression type. Which, despite of
the increases in Drag and noise, the mass flow required by the engine arrives at a correct velocity, keeping high values of
pressure.

Figure 4. Mach number and static pressure countours for the intake system at different deflection angles of the last ramp
(On-Design condition).

4.2 Off-Design Condition

This study focuses on the variation of the performance characteristics of the optimal intake configuration for different
flight velocities. Figure (5) and Figure (6) show the countours of Mach number and static pressure respectively for
velocities from Mach number = 1.6 to 2.2. As can be seen, when the velocity of the free stream is greater, the flow field is
much more complicated, due to the presence of expansion shocks inside the intake. However, the intake designed remains
the normal shock in the throat. Therefore, the mass flow arrives with and ideal velocity to the engine.
On the other hand, for velocities below Mach number = 1.8, the normal shock is formed upstream the throat (Subcrit-
ical Operation), causing that the cowl lip spilled air be higher, increasing the Drag and the noise produced by the intake.
However, the mass flow arrives with a correct velocity, even if the quality of the flow field is not the most optimal for the
engine operation. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the preliminary geometric design of the supersonic air intake
was well executed.

Figure 5. Mach number countour for the intake system at different relative velocities (Off-design condition).
 1o SiPGEM-EESC/USP
1o Simpsio do Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia Mecnica

Figure 6. Static pressure countour for the intake system at different relative velocities (Off-design condition).

5. CONCLUSIONS.

Analytical and numerical simulations were realized for the design and performance analysis of a mixed-compression
air intake for a supersonic fighter aircraft. At this point of the research, the results allow to have ideas about the efficiency
produced by the system in function of the engine requirements. Angle deflections in the external cowl lip presented
different results that may be used depending of the flight phase of the aircraft. For example, for small angles, the external
cowl lip produces Thrust, which will aid to reduce the aircraft take-off run. On the other hand, for deflection angles greater,
the uniformity of the flow field increase. However, the additional Drag generated could cause performance reduction and
therefore, an increase in fuel consumption.
During the Off-design study of the optimum intake, the performance of the intake kept constant when the Mach number
increases. This suggested that the aircraft could optimize the "Escape dash" phase in the mission proposed.
By last, numerical analysis are being developed to compare the efficiency produced by the intake, when this is mounted
on a non-conventional aircraft.

6. REFERENCES.

Ames, R., 1953, Equations, Tables, and Charts for Compressible Flow, NACA Technical Report, USA, TR. 1135.
ANSYS Inc., 2012, Solver theory and modeling guide, Canonsburg.
Aziz, M., Elbanna, H., Abdelrahman, M., 2013, High Fidelity Design Optimization of a Three Dimension Supersonic
Intake, In: Proceedings of 43rd Fluid Dynamics Conference (AIAA), San Diego, California, USA, vol. 43, pp.
2462.
Barnhart, P., 1997, Ipac-inlet performance analysis code, NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program, USA,
TR. 204130.
Das, S., Prasad, J., 2010, Starting characteristics of a rectangular supersonic air intake with cowl deflection, Aeronau-
tical Journal, vol. 114, n. 3, pp. 177-189.
Delery, J., 1985, Shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction and its control, Progress in Aerospace Science, vol.
22, n. 4, pp. 209-280.
Delery, J., 1999, Shock phenomena in high speed aerodynamics: still a source of major concern, Aeronautical Journal,
vol. 103, n. 1019, pp. 19-34.
Gamble, E., Terrell, D., Defrancesco R., 2004, Nozzle selection and design criteria, In: Proceedings of 40th Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit (AIAA), Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, vol. 40, pp. 3923.
Goldsmith, E., Seddon, J., 1993, Practical intake aerodynamic design. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau-
tics Inc, USA.
Huda, Z., Edi, P., 2012, Materials selection in design of structures and engines of supersonic aircrafts: A review,
Materials and Design, vol. 46, n. 1, pp. 552-590.
Kanazaki, M., Fujiwara, H., Ito, Y., Fujita, T., Obayashi, S., Nakahashi, K., 2004, Numerical simulation of supersonic
intake using structured-unstructured zonal approach, In: Proceedings of 24th International Congress of the aero-
nautical science (ICAS), Yokohama, Japan, vol. 24, pp. 418.
Kim, H., Takayasu, K., Sing, M., Povinelli, L., Conners, T., 2011, Flow simulation of supersonic inlet with bypass
annular duct, Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 27, n. 1, pp. 29-39.
P. D. Bravo - Mosquera, H. D. Cern - Muoz and F. Catalano
Analytical And Numerical Design Of A Mixed-Compression Air Intake For A Supersonic Fighter Aircraft.

Kim, S., Song, D., 2005, Modified shear-stress transport turbulence model for supersonic flows, Journal of Aircraft,
vol. 2, n. 5, pp. 1118-1125.
Larsson, L., Beno, L., Daub, W., 1988, Development of the F404/RM12 for the JAS 39 Gripen, In: Proceedings of
ASME International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, Amsterdam, Netherlands, vol. 2, pp.
88-GT-305.
Lee, H., Lee, B., Kim, S., Jeung, I., 2011, Flow characteristics of small-sized supersonic inlets, Journal of Propulsion
and Power, vol. 27, n. 2, pp. 306-318.
Mattingly, J., Heiser, W., Pratt, D., 2002, Aircraft engine design. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Inc, USA.
Nicolai, L., Carichner, G., Malcolm, L., 2010, Fundamentals of aircraft and airship design. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, USA.
Ran, H., Mavris, D., 2005, Preliminary Design of a 2D Supersonic Inlet to Maximize Total Pressure Recovery, In:
Proceedings of 5th Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (AIAA), Arligton, Virginia, USA,
vol. 5, pp. 7375.
Slater, J., 2012, Design and analysis tool for external-compression supersonic inlets, In: Proceedings of 50th Aerospace
Science Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (AIAA), Nashville, Tennessee,
USA, vol. 50, pp. 0016.
Seddon, J., Goldsmith, E., 1999, Intake aerodynamics. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, USA.
Sbester, A., 2007, Tradeoffs in jet inlet design: A historical perspective, Journal of Aircraft, vol. 44, n. 3, pp.
705-717.
Waters, M., 1971, Tubojet-Ramjet propulsion system for all-body hypersonic aircraft, NASA Technical Note, USA, TN.
D-5993.
Wendt, B., 2004, The Performance of a Subsonic Diffuser Designed for High Speed Turbojet-Propelled Flight, NASA
Contractor Report, USA, CR. 213410.
Whitford, R., 1987, Design for air combat. Janes Information Group, United Kingdom.
Wyatt, D., 1958, A Review of Supersonic Air Intake Problems, Air Intake Problems in Supersonic Propulsion, Agard
Advisory Report, USA, Pergamon Press.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank to CAPES by the scholarship granted.

8. RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE

The author(s) is (are) the only responsible for the printed material included in this paper.