Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-t27h7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T10:23:28.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - High-Order Simulations of Supersonic Combustion

from Part II - Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

By
Yun-Qin He  and
Guo-Zhu Liang
Edited by
Fernando F. Grinstein ,
Filipe S. Pereira  and
Massimo Germano
Fernando F. Grinstein
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Filipe S. Pereira
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Massimo Germano
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Using high-order simulations, we have shed light on complex chemically reacting flow processes and identified new mechanisms of the supersonic combustion process. We have employed 11th-order accurate implicit large eddy simulation (ILES) in conjunction with a finite-rate (Arrhenius) thermochemistry model using a reduced reaction mechanism for the combustion of hydrogen and air. We compare the coarse-grained computations with available experiments from the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and discuss the accuracy and uncertainties. A supersonic combustion chamber can be accurately modelled using high-order ILES without a specific turbulence-chemistry model. The simulations reveal that the flame intermittently propagates upstream behind the wedge-shaped flame holder, alternating between the upper and lower turbulent free shear layers at a frequency of ≃ 7,990 Hz. This can be a leading cause of unsteady pressure loadings on the interior surfaces downstream of the combustion chamber and is a crucial structural design parameter. Furthermore, the simulations reveal that high temperatures are sustained long distances downstream of the combustion onset. A barycentric map for the Reynolds stresses is employed to analyze the turbulent anisotropy. The results correlate the axisymmetric contraction and expansion of turbulence with the interaction of the reflected shock waves and the supersonic combustion hydroxyl production regions. The physics insights presented in this study could potentially lead to more efficient supersonic combustion and engineering designs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Coarse Graining Turbulence
Modeling and Data-Driven Approaches and their Applications
 , pp. 419 - 454
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alff, F., Böhm, M, Clauß, W., Oschwald, M., and Waidmann, W. 1994. Supersonic combustion of hydrogen/air in a scramjet combustion chamber. In: 45th International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel. IAF 94-S.4.429.Google Scholar
Allaire, G., Clerc, S., and Kokh, S. 2002. A five-equation model for the simulation of interfaces between compressible fluids. Journal of Computational Physics, 181(2), 577–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, W. R., McQuaid, M. J., Nusca, M. J., and Kotlar, A. J. 2010. A detailed, finite-rate, chemical kinetics mechanism for monomethylhydrazine-red fuming nitric acid systems. Tech. rept. ARL-TR-5088. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066. Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL.Google Scholar
Balsara, D. S., and Shu, C.-W. 2000. Monotonicity preserving weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes with increasingly high order of accuracy. Journal of Computational Physics, 160(2), 405–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S., Krahl, R., Durst, F., and Zenger, Ch. 2007. Presentation of anisotropy properties of turbulence, invariants versus eigenvalue approaches. Journal of Turbulence, 8, N32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, M., and Fureby, C. 2007. LES of supersonic combustion in a scramjet engine model. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 31(2), 2497–2504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, M., Fedina, E., Fureby, C., Tegnér, J., and Sabel’nikov, V. 2010. Finite rate chemistry large-eddy simulation of self-ignition in supersonic combustion ramjet. AIAA Journal, 48(3), 540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilger, R. W. 1993. Conditional moment closure for turbulent reacting flow. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 5(2), 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, K. N. C. 1996. The challenge of turbulent combustion. Symposium (International) on Combustion, 26(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, C., Ye, T., and Zhao, M. 2015. Large eddy simulation of hydrogen/air scramjet combustion using tabulated thermo-chemistry approach. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 28(5), 1316–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapuis, M., Fedina, E., Fureby, C., Hannemann, K., Karl, S., and Schramm, J. Martinez. 2013. A computational study of the HyShot II combustor performance. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 34(2), 2101–2109.Google Scholar
Charlette, F., Meneveau, C., and Veynante, D. 2002. A power-law flame wrinkling model for LES of premixed turbulent combustion Part I: Non-dynamic formulation and initial tests. Combustion and Flame, 131(1), 159–180.Google Scholar
Cook, A. W. 2009. Enthalpy diffusion in multicomponent flows. Physics of Fluids, 21(5), 055109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, J., Xu, F., Cai, X., and Mahmoudi, Y. 2021. Effects of velocity shear layer on detonation propagation in a supersonic expanding combustor. Physics of Fluids, 33(10), 105110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. 1988. Simplified second-order Godunov-type methods. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 9(3), 445–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drikakis, D. 2002. Embedded turbulence model in numerical methods for hyperbolic conservation laws. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 39(9), 763–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drikakis, D., and Tsangaris, S. 1993. On the solution of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations using improved flux vector splitting methods. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 17(6), 282–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drikakis, D., Hahn, M., Mosedale, A., and Thornber, B. 2009. Large eddy simulation using high-resolution and high-order methods. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 367(1899), 2985–2997.Google Scholar
Drikakis, D. 2003. Advances in turbulent flow computations using high-resolution methods. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 39(6), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drikakis, D., and Geurts, B. J. 2002. Turbulent Flow Computation. Vol. 66. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, J. P. 2014. Methods for prediction of high-speed reacting flows in aerospace propulsion. AIAA Journal, 52(3), 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emory, M., and Iaccarino, G. 2014. Visualizing turbulence anisotropy in the spatial domain with componentality contours. Pages 123–138 of: Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University. Annual Research Briefs. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Feng, H., Huang, C., and Wang, R. 2014. An improved mapped weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 232, 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C., Fedina, E., and Tegnér, J. 2014. A computational study of supersonic combustion behind a wedge-shaped flameholder. Shock Waves, 24, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C. 2020. The complexity of LES of high-speed reactive flows for combustor applications. In: AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fureby, C., and Nilsson, T. 2024. Coarse graining supersonic combustion. In Coarse Graining Turbulence: Modeling and Data-Driven Approaches and their Applications, Grinstein, Fernando F., Pereira, Filipe S., and Germano, Massimo (eds). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grinstein, F. F. 2024. Numerical simulations and coarse graining. In Coarse Graining Turbulence: Modeling and Data-Driven Approaches and Their Applications, Grinstein, Fernando F., Pereira, Filipe S., and Germano, Massimo (eds). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grinstein, F. F., Margolin, L. G., and Rider, W. J. 2007. Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harten, A., Engquist, B., Osher, S., and Chakravarthy, S. R. 1997. Uniformly High Order Accurate Essentially Non-oscillatory Schemes, III. Journal of Computational Physics, 131(1), 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, W., Pratt, D., Daley, D., and Mehta, U. 1994. Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrick, A. K., Aslam, T. D., and Powers, J. M. 2005. Mapped weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes: Achieving optimal order near critical points. Journal of Computational Physics, 207(2), 542–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Z.-W., He, G.-Q., Qin, F., and Wei, X.-G. 2015. Large eddy simulation of flame structure and combustion mode in a hydrogen fueled supersonic combustor. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(31), 9815–9824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, G.-S., and Shu, C.-W. 1996. Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. Journal of Computational Physics, 126(1), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karantonis, K., Kokkinakis, I. W., Thornber, B., and Drikakis, D. 2021. Compressibility in suddenly expanded subsonic flows. Physics of Fluids, 33(10), 105106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kee, R. J., Rupley, F. M., and Miller, J. A. 1989 (September). Chemkin-II: A Fortran Chemical Kinetics Package for the Analysis of Gas Phase Chemical Kinetics. Tech. rept. SAND-89-8009. Sandia National Lab.(SNL-CA), Livermore, CA.Google Scholar
Kim, K. H., and Kim, C. 2005. Accurate, efficient and monotonic numerical methods for multi-dimensional compressible flows: Part II: Multi-dimensional limiting process. Journal of Computational Physics, 208(2), 570–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimenko, A. Yu. 1990. Multicomponent diffusion of various admixtures in turbulent flow. Fluid Dynamics, 25, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkinakis, I. W., Drikakis, D., Ritos, K., and Spottswood, S. M. 2020a. Direct numerical simulation of supersonic flow and acoustics over a compression ramp. Physics of Fluids, 32, 066107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkinakis, I. W., Drikakis, D., and Youngs, D. L. 2019. Modeling of Rayleigh–Taylor mixing using single-fluid models. Phys. Rev. E, 99(Jan), 013104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kokkinakis, I. W., Drikakis, D., and Youngs, D. L. 2020b. Vortex morphology in Richtmyer–Meshkov-induced turbulent mixing. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 407, 132459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkinakis, I. W., and Drikakis, D. 2015. Implicit Large Eddy Simulation of weakly-compressible turbulent channel flow. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 287, 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokkinakis, I. W., Drikakis, D., Youngs, D. L., and Williams, R. J. R. 2015. Two-equation and multi-fluid turbulence models for Rayleigh–Taylor mixing. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 56, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Wei-Shen, and Pan, Kuo-Long. 2020. Computational investigation of an ethylene-fueled supersonic combustor assisted by a porous cylindrical burner. Aerospace Science and Technology, 107, 106350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X.-D., Osher, S., and Chan, T. 1994. Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. Journal of Computational Physics, 115(1), 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnussen, B. 1981. On the structure of turbulence and a generalized eddy dissipation concept for chemical reaction in turbulent flow. Proceedings of the 9th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10.2514/6.1981-42.Google Scholar
Nichols, R. H., Tramel, R. W., and Buning, P. G. 2008. Evaluation of two high-order weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes. AIAA Journal, 46(12), 3090–3102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, T., Zhong, S., and Fureby, C. 2021. LES of H2-air jet combustion in high enthalpy supersonic crossflow. Physics of Fluids, 33(3), 035133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oevermann, M. 2000. Numerical investigation of turbulent hydrogen combustion in a SCRAMJET using flamelet modeling. Aerospace Science and Technology, 4(7), 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potturi, A., and Edwards, J. 2012. LES/RANS simulation of a supersonic combustion experiment. In: 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rana, Z. A., Thornber, B., and Drikakis, D. 2011. Transverse jet injection into a supersonic turbulent cross-flow. Physics of Fluids, 23(4), 046103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Kokkinakis, I. W., Drikakis, D., and Spottswood, S. M. 2017. Implicit large eddy simulation of acoustic loading in supersonic turbulent boundary layers. Physics of Fluids, 29(4), 046101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Kokkinakis, I. W., and Drikakis, D. 2018a. Physical insight into a Mach 7.2 compression corner flow. In: 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Kokkinakis, I. W., and Drikakis, D. 2018b. Performance of high-order implicit large eddy simulations. Computers & Fluids, 173, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Kokkinakis, I. W., and Drikakis, D. 2018c. Physical insight into the accuracy of finely-resolved iLES in turbulent boundary layers. Computers & Fluids, 169, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Drikakis, D., and Kokkinakis, I. W. 2019. Wall-pressure spectra models for supersonic and hypersonic turbulent boundary layers. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 443, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safer, K., Bounif, A., Safer, M., and Gökalp, I. 2010. Free turbulent reacting jet simulation based on combination of transport equations and PDF. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 4(2), 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, C. 2009. High-order weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes for convection dominated problems. SIAM Review, 51(1), 82–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, C. W. 1990. Numerical experiments on the accuracy of ENO and modified ENO schemes. Journal of Scientific Computing, 5(2), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, C.-W. 1998. Essentially non-oscillatory and weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. Pages 325–432 of: Advanced Numerical Approximation of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Equations, A. Quarteroni (ed). Springer.Google Scholar
Spekreijse, S. 1987. Multigrid solution of monotone second-order discretizations of hyperbolic conservation laws. Mathematics of Computation, 49, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiteri, R., and Ruuth, S. 2002. A new class of optimal high-order strong-stability-preserving time discretization methods. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 40(2), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweby, P. K. 1984. High Resolution Schemes Using Flux Limiters for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 21(5), 995–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ellen M., Wu, Minwei, and Martn, M. Pino. 2007. Optimization of nonlinear error for weighted essentially non-oscillatory methods in direct numerical simulations of compressible turbulence. Journal of Computational Physics, 223(1), 384–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornber, B., and Drikakis, D. 2008. Implicit Large-Eddy Simulation of a deep cavity using high-resolution methods. AIAA Journal, 46(10), 2634–2645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornber, B., Mosedale, A., Drikakis, D., Youngs, D., and Williams, R. J. R. 2008. An improved reconstruction method for compressible flows with low Mach number features. Journal of Computational Physics, 227(10), 4873–4894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornber, B., Drikakis, D., Youngs, D. L., and Williams, R. J. R. 2010. The influence of initial conditions on turbulent mixing due to Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 654, 99–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titarev, V. A., and Toro, E. F. 2004. Finite-volume WENO schemes for three-dimensional conservation laws. Journal of Computational Physics, 201(1), 238–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toniato, P. 2019. Free-jet testing of a Mach 12 scramjet in an expansion tube. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Queensland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, E. F. 1991. A linearized Riemann solver for the time-dependent Euler equations of gas dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 434(1892), 683–693.Google Scholar
Toro, E. F. 1995. Direct Riemann solvers for the time-dependent Euler equations. Shock Waves, 5(1), 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, E. F., Spruce, M., and Speares, W. 1994. Restoration of the contact surface in the HLL–Riemann solver. Shock Waves, 4(1), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, E. F. 2009. Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, A Practical Introduction. 3rd ed. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoutsanis, P., Kokkinakis, I. W., Könözsy, László, D., Dimitris, W., Robin J. R., and Youngs, David L. 2015. Comparison of structured- and unstructured-grid, compressible and incompressible methods using the vortex pairing problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 293, 207–231.Google Scholar
van Leer, B. 1977. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme III. Upstream-centered finite-difference schemes for ideal compressible flow. Journal of Computational Physics, 23(3), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leer, B. 1979. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. Journal of Computational Physics, 32(1), 101–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waidmann, W., Alff, F., Böhm, M., Brummund, U., Clauß, W., and Oschwald, M. 1996. Supersonic combustion of hydrogen/air in a scramjet combustion chamber. Space Technology, 15(6), 421–429.Google Scholar
Williams, F. A. 2000. Progress in knowledge of flamelet structure and extinction. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 26(4), 657–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, M., and Peters, N. 1992. Turbulent premixed combustion: A flamelet formulation and spectral analysis in theory and IC-engine experiments. Symposium (International) on Combustion, 24(1), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Kun, Zhang, Peng, Yao, Wei, and Fan, Xuejun. 2017. Numerical investigation on flame stabilization in DLR hydrogen supersonic combustor with strut injection. Combustion Science and Technology, 189(12), 2154–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, M., and Martn, M. P. 2007. Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp. AIAA Journal, 45(4), 879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Z., Yang, S., Xie, S., Li, J., and Ren, H. 2020. Turbulence–chemistry interaction models with finite-rate chemistry and compressibility correction for simulation of supersonic turbulent combustion. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 14(1), 1546–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, H., He, Y., Strobel, K. L., Gilmore, C. K., Kelley, S. P., Hennick, C. C., Sebastian, T., Woolston, M. R., Perreault, D. J., and Barrett, S. R. H. 2018. Flight of an aeroplane with solid-state propulsion. Nature, 563, 532–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanotti, O., and Dumbser, M. 2016. Efficient conservative ADER schemes based on WENO reconstruction and space-time predictor in primitive variables. Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, X., Xia, Z., Ma, L., Li, C., Fang, C., Natan, B., and Gany, A. 2021. Research progress on solid-fueled Scramjet. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 35(1), 398–415.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×