Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:27:37.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transient fluid-combustion phenomena in a model scramjet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2013

S. J. Laurence ,
S. Karl ,
J. Martinez Schramm  and
K. Hannemann
S. J. Laurence*
Affiliation:
Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Spacecraft Department, German Aerospace Center, Bunsenstraße 10, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
S. Karl
Affiliation:
Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Spacecraft Department, German Aerospace Center, Bunsenstraße 10, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
J. Martinez Schramm
Affiliation:
Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Spacecraft Department, German Aerospace Center, Bunsenstraße 10, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
K. Hannemann
Affiliation:
Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Spacecraft Department, German Aerospace Center, Bunsenstraße 10, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
*
†Email address for correspondence: stuart.laurence@dlr.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experimental and numerical investigation of the unsteady phenomena induced in a hydrogen-fuelled scramjet combustor under high-equivalence-ratio conditions is carried out, focusing on the processes leading up to unstart. The configuration for the study is the fuelled flow path of the HyShot II flight experiment. Experiments are performed in the HEG reflected-shock wind tunnel, and results are compared with those obtained from unsteady numerical simulations. High-speed schlieren and OH∗ chemiluminescence visualization, together with time-resolved surface pressure measurements, allow links to be drawn between the experimentally observed flow and combustion features. The transient flow structures signalling the onset of unstart are observed to take the form of an upstream-propagating shock train. Both the speed of propagation and the downstream location at which the shock train originates depend strongly on the equivalence ratio. The physical nature of the incipient shock system, however, appears to be similar for different equivalence ratios. Both experiments and computations indicate that the primary mechanism responsible for the transient behaviour is thermal choking, though localized boundary-layer separation is observed to accompany the shock system as it moves upstream. In the numerical simulations, the global choking behaviour is dictated by the limited region of maximum heat release around the shear layer between the injected hydrogen and the incoming air flow. This leads to the idea of ‘local’ thermal choking and results in a lower choking limit than is predicted by a simple integral analysis. Such localized choking makes it possible for new quasi-steady flow topologies to arise, and these are observed in both experiments and simulation. Finally, a quasi-unsteady one-dimensional analytical model is proposed to explain elements of the shock-propagation behaviour.

JFM classification

Reacting Flows: Combustion Compressible Flows: Gas dynamics Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 722 , 10 May 2013 , pp. 85 - 120
Copyright
©2013 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.)

References

Bertin, J. J., Stetson, K. F., Bouslog, S. A. & Caram, J. M. 1997 Effect of isolated roughness elements on boundary-layer transition for Shuttle Orbiter. J. Spacecr. Rockets 34 (4), 426–436.Google Scholar
Boyce, R. R., Paull, A., Stalker, R. J., Wendt, M., Chinzei, N. & Miyajima, H. 2000 Comparison of supersonic combustion between impulse and vitiation-heated facilities. J. Propul. Power 16 (4), 709–717.Google Scholar
Curran, E. T., Heiser, W. H. & Pratt, D. T. 1996 Fluid phenomena in scramjet combustion systems. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28, 323–360.Google Scholar
Do, H., Im, S., Mungal, M. G. & Cappelli, M. A. 2011 The influence of boundary layers on supersonic inlet flow unstart induced by mass injection. Exp. Fluids 51 (3), 679–691.Google Scholar
Ferri, A. 1968 Review of SCRAMJET propulsion technology. J. Aircraft 5 (1), 3–10.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
Gardner, A. D., Hannemann, K., Steelant, J. & Paull, A. 2004 Ground testing of the Hyshot supersonic combustion flight experiment in HEG and comparison with flight data. AIAA Paper 2004-3345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhold, T., Friedrich, O., Evans, J. & Galle, M. 1997 Calculation of complex three-dimensional configurations employing the DLR TAU code. AIAA Paper 97-0167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlinger, P. 2001 An implicit multigrid method for turbulent combustion. J. Comput. Phys. 167, 247–276.Google Scholar
Haber, L. C. & Vandsburger, U. 2003 A global reaction model for OH* chemiluminescence applied to a laminar flat-flame burner. Combust. Sci. Technol. 175, 1859–1891.Google Scholar
Hannemann, K. 2003 High enthalpy flows in the HEG shock tunnel: experiment and numerical rebuilding. AIAA Paper 2003-978.Google Scholar
Hannemann, K., Karl, S., Schramm, J. M. & Steelant, J. 2010 Methodology of a combined ground based testing and numerical modelling analysis of supersonic combustion flow paths. Shock Waves 20, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannemann, K., Schnieder, M., Reimann, B. & Schramm, J. M. 2000 The influence and delay of driver-gas contamination in HEG. AIAA Paper 2000-2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannemann, K., Schramm, J. M., Karl, S. & Steelant, J. 2008 Experimental investigation of different scramjet hydrogen injection systems. In Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Heiser, W. H. & Pratt, D. T. 1994 Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion. AIAA Education Series. AIAA.Google Scholar
Herning, F. & Zipperer, L. 1936 Beitrag zur Berechnung der Zähigkeit technischer Gasgemische aus den Zähigkeitswerten der Einzelbestandteile. Gas- und Wasserfach 4, 69–73.Google Scholar
Jameson, A. 1991 Time dependent calculations using Multigrid, with application to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings. AIAA Paper 91-1596.Google Scholar
Karl, S. 2011 Numerical investigation of a generic scramjet configuration. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
Karl, S. & Hannemann, K. 2008 CFD analysis of the HyShot II scramjet experiments in the HEG shock tunnel. AIAA Paper 2008-2548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkegi, R. H. 1975 Comparison of shock induced two- and three-dimensional incipient turbulent separation. AIAA J. 13 (4), 534–535.Google Scholar
Krek, R. M. & Jacobs, P. A. 1993 STN, shock tube and nozzle calculations for equilibrium air. Rep. 2/93. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Love, E. S. 1955 Pressure rise associated with shock-induced boundary-layer separation. NACA Tech. Note NACA-TN-3601.Google Scholar
Matsuo, K., Miyazato, Y. & Kim, H.-D. 1999 Shock train and pseudo-shock phenomena in internal gas flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 35, 33–100.Google Scholar
McDaniel, K. S. & Edwards, J. R. 1999 Simulation of thermal choking in a model scramjet combustor. AIAA Paper 99-3411.Google Scholar
McDaniel, K. S. & Edwards, J. R. 2001 Three-dimensional simulation of thermal choking in a model scramjet combustor. AIAA Paper 2001-0382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musielak, D. 2011 Year in review: high-speed air-breathing propulsion. Aerospace America, December, p. 49.Google Scholar
Newsome, R. W. 1984 Numerical simulation of near-critical and unsteady, subcritical inlet flow. AIAA J. 22 (10), 1375–1379.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
Paull, A., Alesi, H. & Anderson, S. M. 2003 The methodology behind the HyShot flight program. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian International Aerospace Congress and 14th National Space Engineering Symposium, Brisbane, Australia.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, G. S. 2006 Schlieren and Shadowgraph Techniques. Springer.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. H. 1953 The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow. Ronald Press.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
Smart, M. K., Hass, N. E. & Paull, A. 2006 Flight data analysis of the HyShot 2 scramjet flight experiment. AIAA J. 44 (10), 2366–2375.Google Scholar
Sunami, T., Itoh, K., Sato, K. & Komuro, T. 2006 Mach 8 ground tests of the hypermixer scramjet for HyShot-IV flight experiment. AIAA Paper 2006-8062.Google Scholar
Sunami, T. & Kodera, M. 2012 Numerical investigation of a detonation wave system in a scramjet combustor. AIAA Paper 2012-5861.Google Scholar
Tan, H.-J. & Guo, R. W. 2007 Experimental study of the unstable-unstarted condition of a hypersonic inlet at Mach 6. J. Propul. Power 23 (4), 783–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, H.-J., Li, L. G., Wen, Y.-F. & Zhang, Q.-F. 2011 Experimental investigation of the unstart process of a generic hypersonic inlet. AIAA J. 49 (2), 279–288.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieting, A. R. 1976 Exploratory study of transient unstart phenomena in a three-dimensional fixed-geometry scramjet engine. NASA Tech. Note TN D-8156.Google Scholar
Wilke, C. R. 1950 A viscosity equation for gas mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. 18 (4), 517–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar