Mixing in scramjet combustor having upstream and downstream cavities with hydrogen fuel injection in between

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of quadruple cavities on the performance of a scramjet combustor using computational methods. The investigation focuses on a two-dimensional, supersonic, non-reacting flow field simulated using Menter’s SST k-ω turbulence model to solve the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations. It evaluates the impact of upstream and downstream cavities and varying fuel-to-airstream pressure ratios (FAPR) on the flow structures within the combustor, and quantifies the performance through mixing efficiency (MxE), total pressure recovery (TPR), and mass-averaged Mach number (MAMN). The combustor geometry consists of a rectangular chamber with finite-width inlets for parallel air inflow along with two rearward-facing steps. The configuration features quadruple trapezoidal cavities, with two pairs of trapezoidal cavities of aspect ratio 7 positioned on both the upstream and downstream sides of the rectangular slot fuel injector. The impacts of these cavities are thoroughly examined under varying fuel delivery pressures (FDP), and the performance of quadruple trapezoidal cavity configuration is subsequently compared to the previously studied dual trapezoidal cavity design. The insight physics of mixing in various regions of the combustor are analyzed through shockwaves and streamlines, and the performance parameters are quantified for further understanding of supersonic flow fields. Shock-to-shear layer interactions (SSLIs) and shock-to-boundary layer interactions (SBLIs) contribute crucially to the mixing process within the studied combustor, adding complexity to the flow field analysis. The maximum mixing performance obtained at the outlet of the quadruple trapezoidal cavity configured combustion chamber is 83% for FAPR 4.5. The findings reveal that the quadruple cavity configuration offers significantly improved mixing efficiency compared to the dual cavity setup, albeit at the cost of greater pressure loss. By presenting quantified outcomes and a comparison with prior research, this research provides valuable implications for advancing cavity-enhanced mixing in scramjet systems.

Keywords

Scramjet turbulence model supersonic sonic quadruple cavities mixing efficiency total pressure recovery shock interactions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Curran

ET.

Scramjet engines: the first forty years. J Propulsion Power 2001; 17(6): 1138–1148.

Tishkoff

Drummond

Edwards

Nejad

. Future directions of supersonic combustion research - air Force/NASA workshop on supersonic combustion. In: 35th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, January 1997. Reno, NV: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Huang

Pourkashanian

Ingham

Luo

Wang

ZG.

Investigation on the flameholding mechanisms in supersonic flows: backward-facing step and cavity flameholder. J Vis 2011; 14(1): 63–74.

Gugulothu

SK.

A systematic literature review based on different fuel injection strategies used in scramjet combustors. Heat Transf Asian Res 2019; 48(8): 3657–3681.

Sarathkumar Sebastin

Jeyakumar

Karthik

. The non-reacting flow characteristics of pylon and wall injections in a dual combustion ramjet engine. Int J Engine Res 2022; 23(9): 1495–1502.

Athithan

Jeyakumar

Numerical investigations on the influence of double ramps in a strut based scramjet combustor. Int J Engine Res 2023; 24(5): 2025–2038.

Ogawa

Effects of injection angle and pressure on mixing performance of fuel injection via various geometries for upstream-fuel-injected scramjets. Acta Astronaut 2016; 128: 485–498.

Rogers

RC.

Model of transverse fuel injection in supersonic combustors. AIAA J 1980; 18(3): 294–301.

Drummond

. Numerical investigation of the perpendicular injector flow field in a hydrogen fueled scramjet. In: 12th fluid and plasma dynamics conference, July 1979. Williamsburg, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

10.

Yang

Sun

Trajectory analysis of fuel injection into supersonic cross flow based on Schlieren method. Chin J Aeronaut 2012; 25(1): 42–50.

11.

Kang

Lee

Yang

Smart

Suraweera

MV.

Cowl and cavity effects on mixing and combustion in scramjet engines. J Propulsion Power 2011; 27(6): 1169–1177.

12.

Gruber

Nejad

Chen

Dutton

JC.

Mixing and penetration studies of Sonic Jets in a Mach 2 Freestream. J Propulsion Power 1995; 11(2): 315–323.

13.

Zhang

Chang

Cai

Sun

A preliminary research on combustion characteristics of a novel-type scramjet combustor. Int J Aerosp Eng 2022; 2022: 1–18.

14.

Kim

Baek

Han

CY.

Numerical study on supersonic combustion with cavity-based fuel injection. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2004; 47(2): 271–286.

15.

Aso

Kawai

Ando

. Experimental study on mixing phenomena in supersonic flows with slotinjection. In: 29th aerospace sciences meeting, January 1991. Reno, NV: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

16.

Ogawa

Boyce

. Computational investigation of fuel injection with various injector geometries and mixing into hypersonic crossflow in scramjet engines. In: 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, January 2013. Grapevine (Dallas/Ft. Worth Region), TX: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

17.

Ali

Fujiwara

Leblanc

JE.

Influence of main flow inlet configuration on mixing and flameholding in transverse injection into supersonic airstream. Int J Sci Eng 2000; 38(11): 1161–1180.

18.

Zhang

Feng

Bai

Bao

Research on combustion characteristics of scramjet combustor with different flight dynamic pressure conditions. Propulsion Power Res 2023; 12(1): 69–82.

19.

Haas

J-F

Sturtevant

Interaction of weak shock waves with cylindrical and spherical gas inhomogeneities. J Fluid Mech 1987; 181(1): 41.

20.

Marble

Zukoski

Jacobs

Hendricks

. Shock enhancement and control of hypersonic mixing and combustion. In: 26th joint propulsion conference, July 1990. Orlando, FL: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

21.

Campioli

Maddalena

Schetz

. Studies of shock wave/transverse injection interaction on supersonic mixing processes. In: 14th AIAA/AHI space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, November 2006. Canberra: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

22.

Relangi

Ingenito

Jeyakumar

The investigation of inclined AFT wall cavities in a circular scramjet combustor. Int J Engine Res 2023; 24(4): 1300–1311.

23.

Schadow

KC.

Cavity-actuated supersonic mixing and combustion control. Combust Flame 1994; 99(2): 295–301.

24.

Liu

Shao

Guo

Liu

Parametric study of flow and combustion characteristic in a cavitied scramjet with multi-position injection. Fire 2024; 7(6): 176.

25.

Ben-Yakar

Experimental investigation of mixing and ignition of transverse jets in supersonic crossflows. 2001.

26.

Moradi

Mahyari

Barzegar Gerdroodbary

Abdollahi

Amini

Shape effect of cavity flameholder on mixing zone of hydrogen jet at supersonic flow. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018; 43(33): 16364–16372.

27.

Yang

Wang

Sun

Wang

Numerical and experimental study on flame structure characteristics in a supersonic combustor with dual-cavity. Acta Astronaut 2015; 117: 376–389.

28.

Quinones

Numerical analysis of scramjet cavity flameholders at varying flight mach numbers. South Carolina: Clemson University, 2018.

29.

Aziz

Chowdhury

Shingh

Ali

Influence of jet-to-crossflow pressure ratio and combustor width on performance of a hydrogen fueled scramjet. Int J Engine Res 2023; 24(4): 1744–1759.

30.

Talukder

Mahian

Aziz

Ali

Effects of wall cavity and fuel injection pressure on the performance of a non-reacting supersonic combustor. Int J Engine Res 2024; 25(7): 1381–1398.

31.

Menon

Seitzman

Shani

Genin

Thao

Miki

, et al. Experimental and numerical studies of mixing and combustion in scramjet combustors. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit, July 2004. Fort Lauderdale, FL: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

32.

Kim

J-H

Yoon

Jeung

I-S

Huh

Choi

J-Y.

Numerical study of mixing enhancement by shock waves in model scramjet engine. AIAA J 2003; 41(6): 1074–1080.

33.

Trudgian

Landsberg

Veeraragavan

Experimental investigation of inclining the upstream wall of a scramjet cavity. Aerosp Sci Technol 2020; 99: 105767.

34.

Zhang

Rona

Edwards

JA.

The effect of trailing edge geometry on cavity flow oscillation driven by a supersonic shear layer. Aeronaut J 1998; 102(1013): 129–136.

35.

Luetke

Mohieldin

Tiwari

. Unsteady numerical analysis of hydrogen combustion in a dual mode engine. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, July 2007. Cincinnati, OH: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Jul. 2007.

36.

White

. Viscous fluid flow. Vol. 3 (Chapter 1, 2, 7). New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

37.

Menter

FR.

Two-eq22 eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994; 32(8): 1598–1605.

38.

Chowdhury

Aziz

Shingh

Ali

Amin

. Effects of turbulence modeling and turbulent Schmidt number on supersonic mixing simulations. In: Volume 11: heat transfer and thermal engineering, virtual, online, November 2021, p.V011T11A021. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

39.

Zhang

Choi

Yang

Lin

K-C.

Ignition transients in a scramjet engine with air throttling part 1: nonreacting flow. J Propulsion Power 2014; 30(2): 438–448.

40.

Mao

Riggins

McClinton

. Numerical simulation of transverse fuel injection. In: NASA Lewis research center computational fluid dynamics symposium on aeropropulsion, 1991, pp.635–667.

41.

Drozda

Lampenfield

Deshmukh

Baurle

Drummond

. The effect of turbulence modeling on the mixing characteristics of several fuel injectors at hypervelocity flow conditions. In: AIAA Scitech 2019 forum, January 2019, pp.1–23. San Diego, CA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

42.

Weidner

Drummond

. A parametric study of staged fuel injector configurations for scramjet applications. In: 17th joint propulsion conference, July 1981. Colorado Springs, CO: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.