Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-7l7zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-05T09:33:31.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isolator-combustor interactions in a circular model scramjet with thermal and non-thermal choking-induced unstart

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

D. Baccarella Open the ORCID record for D. Baccarella [Opens in a new window] ,
Q. Liu Open the ORCID record for Q. Liu [Opens in a new window] ,
B. McGann ,
G. Lee  and
T. Lee Open the ORCID record for T. Lee [Opens in a new window]
D. Baccarella
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA
Q. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL61801, USA
B. McGann
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL61801, USA
G. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL61801, USA
T. Lee*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL61801, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: tonghun@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the interactions between combustor and isolator and the role played by combustion on choking-induced unstart. Shock train unsteadiness and pressure fluctuations in non-reacting environments have been previously explained in terms of shock-boundary layer interaction and acoustic forcing but, when applied to scramjets, it is still unclear whether and how this picture is altered by combustion effects. The novel experimental set-up used in this study consists of a circular cross-section model scramjet, with optically accessible combustor and isolator, tested in a high-enthalpy hypersonic free stream at Mach 4.5. A comparison is made between cases in which flow choking is induced via thermal (combustion) and non-thermal (mass addition) mechanisms using time-resolved static wall pressure measurements, high-speed flow visualization and planar laser-induced fluorescence of the OH radical as diagnostic tools. Further details on the nature of the interactions observed were provided by experiments performed in a low-enthalpy $\textrm {CO}_2$ free stream at Mach 4 using planar laser scattering visualization. The results revealed remarkable qualitative similarities between unstart processes occurring at high and low enthalpy. At high enthalpy the similarities between thermal and non-thermal choking-induced unstart were both qualitative and quantitative, suggesting very limited effect of combustion on the dynamics of the isolator shock train. Isolator flow unsteadiness, on the other hand, drastically affected the propagation of the pseudo-normal shock in the combustor, but no significant feedback effect on the isolator behaviour was observed.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Shock waves Reacting Flows: Combustion Aerodynamics: High-speed flow

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 917 , 25 June 2021 , A38
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baccarella, D., Lee, G., Liu, Q., Elliott, G.S., Freund, J.B. & Lee, T. 2020 Laser-induced plasma ignition experiments in a direct-connect supersonic combustor at Mach 3. J. Propul. Power 36 (5), 732–743.Google Scholar
Baccarella, D., Liu, Q., Lee, T., Hammack, S.D. & Do, H. 2017 The supersonic combustion facility ACT-2. AIAA Paper 2017-103.Google Scholar
Baccarella, D., Liu, Q., McGann, B.J. & Lee, T. 2019 Combustion induced choking and unstart initiation in a circular constant-area supersonic flow. AIAA J. 57 (12), 5365–5376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulman, M. & Siebenhaar, A. 2006 The rebirth of round hypersonic propulsion. AIAA Paper 2006-5035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, B.F. & Dutton, J.C. 1990 Characteristics of multiple shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions in rectangular ducts. J. Propul. Power 6 (2), 186–193.Google Scholar
Choi, J.Y., Ma, F. & Yang, V. 2005 Combustion oscillations in a scramjet engine combustor with transverse fuel injection. Proc. Combust. Inst. 30 (2), 2851–2858.Google Scholar
Crocco, L. 1958 One dimensional treatment of steady gas dynamics. In Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics (ed. H.W. Emmons), pp. 110–130. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Curran, E.T. & Stull, F.D. 1964 The utilization of supersonic combustion ramjet systems at low Mach numbers. TDR 63–4097. AF Aero Propulsion Laboratory.Google Scholar
Do, H., Im, S., Mungal, M.G. & Cappelli, M.A. 2011 a The influence of boundary layers on supersonic inlet flow unstart induced by mass injection. Exp. Fluids 51 (3), 679–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Do, H., Im, S., Mungal, M.G. & Cappelli, M.A. 2011 b Visualizing supersonic inlet duct unstart using planar laser Rayleigh scattering. Exp. Fluids 50 (6), 1651–1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Do, H., Passaro, A. & Baccarella, D. 2012 Inlet unstart of an ethylene-fueled model scramjet with a Mach 4.5 freestream flow. AIAA Paper 2012-5929.Google Scholar
Emami, S., Trexler, C.A., Auslender, A.H. & Weidner, J.P. 1995 Experimental investigation of inlet-combustor isolators for a dual-mode scramjet at a Mach number of 4. NASA Tech. Paper 3502.Google Scholar
Erbland, P., Rizzetta, D. & Miles, R. 2000 Numerical and experimental investigation of $\textrm {CO}_2$ condensate behavior in hypersonic flow. AIAA Paper 2000-2379.Google Scholar
Fike, J.A., Duraisamy, K., Alonso, J.J., Do, H., Im, S. & Cappelli, M.A. 2011 Experimental and theoretical investigations of normal shock wave/turbulent boundarylayer interactions at low Mach numbers in a square straight duct. AIAA Paper 2011-3192.Google Scholar
Fotia, M.L. & Driscoll, J.F. 2012 Isolator-combustor interactions in a direct-connect ramjet-scramjet experiment. J. Propul. Power 28 (1), 83–95.Google Scholar
Frost, M.A., Gangurde, D.Y., Paull, A. & Mee, D.J. 2009 Boundary-layer separation due to combustion-induced pressure rise in supersonic flow. AIAA J. 47 (4), 1050–1053.Google Scholar
Gamba, M. & Mungal, M.G. 2015 Ignition, flame structure and near-wall burning in transverse hydrogen jets in supersonic crossflow. J. Fluid Mech. 780, 226–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnani, F., Zare-Behtash, H. & Kontis, K. 2016 Pseudo-shock waves and their interactions in high-speed intakes. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 82, 36–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasselbrink, M.G.J.. & Mungal, E.F. 2001 Transverse jets and jet flames. Part 2. Velocity and OH field imaging. J. Fluid Mech. 443 (5), 27–68.Google Scholar
Heiser, W.H. & Pratt, D.T. 1994 Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion, AIAA Education Series. AIAA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R., Driscoll, J.F. & Gamba, M. 2009 Unsteadiness characteristics and three-dimensional leading shock structure of a Mach 2.0 shock train. AIAA Paper 2017-0087.Google Scholar
Hunt, R.L. & Gamba, M. 2018a On the origin and propagation of perturbations that cause shock train inherent unsteadiness. J. Fluid Mech. 861, 815–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R.L. & Gamba, M. 2018 b Shock train unsteadiness characteristics, oblique-to-normal transition, and three-dimensional leading shock structure. AIAA J. 56 (4), 1569–1587.Google Scholar
Ikui, T., Matsuo, K. & Nagai, M. 1974 a The mechanism of pseudo-shock waves. Bull. JSME 17 (108), 731–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikui, T., Matsuo, K., Nagai, M. & Honjo, M. 1974 b Oscillation phenomena of pseudo-shock waves. Bull. JSME 17 (112), 1278–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, S., Baccarella, D., McGann, B.J., Liu, Q., Wermer, L. & Do, H. 2016 Unstart phenomena induced by mass addition and heat release in a model scramjet. J. Fluid Mech. 797, 604–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, S. & Do, H. 2018 Unstart phenomena induced by flow choking in scramjet inlet-isolators. Prog. Aerosp. Sci 97, 1–21.Google Scholar
Klomparens, R.L., Driscoll, J.F. & Gamba, M. 2015 Unsteadiness characteristics and pressure distribution of an oblique shock train. AIAA Paper 2015-1519.Google Scholar
Kychakoff, G., Howe, R.D. & Hanson, R.K. 1984 Quantitative flow visualization technique for measurements in combustion gases. Appl. Opt. 23 (5), 704–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurence, S.J., Karl, S., Martinez Schramm, J. & Hannemann, K. 2013 Transient fluid-combustion phenomena in a model scramjet. J. Fluid Mech. 722, 85–120.Google Scholar
Laurence, S.J., Lieber, D., Martinez Schramm, J., Hannemann, K. & Larsson, J. 2014 Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part I: shock-tunnel experiments. Combust. Flame 162 (4), 921–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, M.D. & Narayanaswamy, V. 2018 Investigations of flowfield and dynamics in an axisymmetric isolator. AIAA Paper 2018-1619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Ma, F., Yang, V., Lin, K.-C. & Jackson, T.A. 2007 A comprehensive study of combustion oscillations in a hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet engine. AIAA Paper 2007-836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Q., Baccarella, D., McGann, B. & Lee, T. 2019 Dual-mode operation and transition in axisymmetric scramjets. AIAA J. 57 (11), 4764–4777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Q., Baccarella, D., McGann, B.J. & Lee, T. 2018 Experimental investigation of single jet and dual jet injection in a supersonic combustor. AIAA Paper 2018-1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Q., Passaro, A., Baccarella, D. & Do, H. 2014 Ethylene flame dynamics and inlet unstart in a model scramjet. J. Propul. Power 30 (6), 1577–1585.Google Scholar
Ma, F., Li, J., Yang, V., Lin, K.-C. & Jackson, T.A. 2005 Thermoacoustic flow instability in a scramjet combustor. AIAA Paper 2005-3824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashio, S., Kurashina, K., Bamba, T., Okimoto, S. & Kaji, S. 2001 Unstart phenomenon due to thermal choke in scramjet module. AIAA Paper 2001-1887.Google Scholar
Matsuo, K., Miyazato, Y. & Kim, H.D. 1999 Shock train and pseudo-shock phenomena in internal gas flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci 35 (1), 33–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuo, K., Mochizuki, H., Miyazato, Y. & Gohya, M. 1993 Oscillatory characteristics of a pseudo-shock wave in a rectangular straight duct. JSME Intl J. 36 (2), 222–229.Google Scholar
Micka, D.J. & Driscoll, J.F. 2009 Combustion characteristics of a dual-mode scramjet combustor with cavity flameholder. Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (2), 2397–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyazato, Y., Matsuo, K. & Kasada, R. 2009 Experimental and theoretical investigations of normal shock wave/turbulent boundarylayer interactions at low Mach numbers in a square straight duct. AIAA Paper 2009-925.Google Scholar
Nill, L. & Mattick, A. 1996 An experimental study of shock structure in a normal shock train. AIAA Paper 1996-799.Google Scholar
Norris, G. 2011 X-51A scramjet fails on second attempt. Aerosp. Daily Defense Rep. 238 (55).Google Scholar
O'Byrne, S., Doolan, M., Olsen, S.R. & Houwing, A.F.P. 2000 Transient thermal choking processes in a model scramjet engine. J. Propul. Power 16 (5), 808–814.Google Scholar
Owens, M.G., Mullagiri, S., Segal, C., Ortwerth, P.J. & Mathur, A.B. 2001 Thermal choking analyses in a supersonic combustor. J. Propul. Power 17 (3), 611–616.Google Scholar
Riggins, D., Tackett, R., Taylor, T. & Auslender, A. 2006 Thermodynamic analysis of dual-mode scramjet engine operation and performance. AIAA Paper 2006-8059.Google Scholar
Rodi, P.E., Emami, S. & Trexler, C.A. 1996 Unsteady pressure behaviour in a ramjet/scramjet inlet. J. Propul. Power 12 (3), 486–493.Google Scholar
Sato, T. & Kaji, S. 1992 Study on steady and unsteady unstart phenomena due to compound choking and/or fluctuations in combustor of scramjet engines. AIAA Paper 1992-5102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitzman, J.M. & Hanson, R.K. 1993 Comparison of excitation techniques for quantitative fluorescence imaging of reacting flows. AIAA J. 31 (3), 513–519.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A.H. 1953 The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow: Vol. 1. Wiley.Google Scholar
Shimura, T., Mitani, T., Sakuranaka, N. & Izumikawa, M. 1998 Load oscillations caused by unstart of hypersonic wind tunnels and engines. J. Propul. Power 14 (3), 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srikant, S., Wagner, J.L., Valdivia, A., Akella, M.R. & Clemens, N.T. 2010 Unstart detection in a simplified-geometry hypersonic inlet-isolator flow. J. Propul. Power 26 (5), 1059–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugiyama, H., Takeda, H., Zhang, J., Okuda, K. & Yamagishi, H. 1988 Locations and oscillation phenomena of pseudo-shock waves in a straight rectangulat duct. JSME Intl J. 31 (1), 9–15.Google Scholar
Sun, M., Wang, H. & Xiao, F. 2019 Jet in Supersonic Crossflow, pp. 173–200. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamaki, T., Tomita, Y. & Yamane, R. 1970 A study of pseudo-shock: 1st report, $\lambda$-type pseudo-shock. Bull. JSME 13 (55), 51–58.Google Scholar
Tamaki, T., Tomita, Y. & Yamane, R. 1971 A study of pseudo-shock: 2nd report, x-type pseudo-shock. Bull. JSME 14 (74), 807–817.Google Scholar
Tan, H., Sun, S. & Yin, Z. 2009 Oscillatory flows of rectangular hypersonic inlet unstart caused by downstream mass-flow choking. J. Propul. Power 25 (1), 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdivia, A., Yuceil, K.B., Wagner, J.L., Clemens, N.T. & Dolling, D.S. 2009 Active control of supersonic inlet unstart using vortex generator jets. AIAA Paper 2009-4022.Google Scholar
Vanstone, L., Bosco, A., Saleh, Y., Akella, M.R., Clemens, N.T. & Gogineni, S. 2020 Closed-loop control of unstart in a Mach 1.8 isolator. J. Propul. Power 36 (1), 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J.L., Yuceil, K.B. & Clemens, N.T. 2010 Velocimetry measurements of unstart in an inlet-isolator model in Mach 5 flow. AIAA J. 48, 1875–1888.Google Scholar
Wagner, J.L., Yuceil, K.B., Valdivia, A., Clemens, N.T. & Dolling, D.S. 2009 Experimental investigation of unstart in an inlet/isolator model in Mach 5 flow. AIAA J. 47 (6), 1528–1542.Google Scholar
Weller, H.G., Tabor, G., Jasak, H. & Fureby, C. 1998 A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques. Comput. Phys. 12 (6), 620–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieting, A.R. 1976 Exploratory study of transient upstart phenomena in a three-dimensional fixed-geometry scramjet engine. Tech. Rep. TN D-8156. NASA Tech. Note.Google Scholar
Xiong, B., Wang, Z., Fan, X. & Wang, Y. 2017 Experimental study on the flow separation and self-excited oscillation phenomenon in a rectangular duct. Acta Astronaut. 133 (112), 158–165.Google Scholar
Yamane, R., Kondo, E., Tomita, Y. & Sakae, N. 1984 a Vibration of pseudo-shock in straight duct, 1st report, fluctuation of static pressure. Bull. JSME 27 (229), 1385–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamane, R., Takahashi, M. & Saito, H. 1984 b Vibration of pseudo-shock in straight duct, 2nd report, correlation of static pressure fluctuation. Bull. JSME 27 (229), 1393–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Q.F., Tan, H.J., Sun, S., Bu, H.X. & Rao, C.Y. 2016 Unstart of a hypersonic inlet with side compression caused by downstream choking. AIAA J. 54 (1), 28–38.Google Scholar