Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:31:54.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterisation of the eddy dissipation model for the analysis of hydrogen-fuelled scramjets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2019

J.J.O.E Hoste ,
M. Fossati ,
I.J. Taylor  and
R.J. Gollan
J.J.O.E Hoste*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Aerospace Centre of Excellence, Glasgow, UK
M. Fossati
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Aerospace Centre of Excellence, Glasgow, UK
I.J. Taylor
Affiliation:
Division of Aerospace Sciences, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
R.J. Gollan
Affiliation:
University of Queensland, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, Centre for Hypersonics, Brisbane, Australia
*
jimmy-john.hoste@dlr.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The eddy dissipation model (EDM) is analysed with respect to the ability to address the turbulence–combustion interaction process inside hydrogen-fuelled scramjet engines designed to operate at high Mach numbers (≈7–12). The aim is to identify the most appropriate strategy for the use of the model and the calibration of the modelling constants for future design purposes. To this end, three hydrogen-fuelled experimental scramjet configurations with different fuel injection approaches are studied numerically. The first case consists of parallel fuel injection and it is shown that relying on estimates of ignition delay from a 1D kinetics program can greatly improve the effectiveness of the EDM. This was achieved through a proposed zonal approach. The second case considers fuel injection behind a strut. Here the EDM predicts two reacting layers along the domain which is in agreement with experimental temperature profiles close to the point of injection but not the case any more at the downstream end of the test section. The first two scramjet test cases demonstrated that the kinetic limit, which can be applied to the EDM, does not improve the predictions in comparison to experimental data. The last case considered a transverse injection of hydrogen and the EDM approach provided overall good agreement with experimental pressure traces except in the vicinity of the injection location. The EDM appears to be a suitable tool for scramjet combustor analysis incorporating different fuel injection mechanisms with hydrogen. More specifically, the considered test cases demonstrate that the model provides reasonable predictions of pressure, velocity, temperature and composition.

Keywords

Eddy dissipation modelingscramjet performance analysisturbulence-chemistry interaction
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1262 , April 2019 , pp. 536 - 565
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Currently research fellow at German Aerospace Center, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Göttingen. jimmy-john.hoste@dlr.de

References

1. Preller, D. and Smart, M.K. Scramjets for reusable launch of small satellites. 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 2015, p 3586.Google Scholar
2. Forbes-Spyratos, S.O., Kearney, M.P., Smart, M.K. and Jahn, I.H. Trajectory design of a rocket-scramjet-rocket multi-stage launch system. 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, 2017, p 2107.Google Scholar
3. Ferri, A. Mixing-controlled supersonic combustion, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1973, 5, (1), pp 301–338.Google Scholar
4. Ingenito, A. and Bruno, C. Physics and regimes of supersonic combustion, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (3), pp 515.Google Scholar
5. Landsberg, W.O., Wheatley, V. and Veeraragavan, A. Characteristics of cascaded fuel injectors within an accelerating scramjet combustor, AIAA J, 2016, 54, pp 3692–3700.Google Scholar
6. O’Brien, T.F., Starkey, R.P. and Lewis, M.J. Quasi-one-dimensional high-speed engine model with finite-rate chemistry, J Propulsion and Power, 2001, 17, (6), pp 1366–1374.Google Scholar
7. MK Smart. Scramjets, Aeronautical J, 2007, 111, (1124), pp 605–619.Google Scholar
8. Vanyai, T., Bricalli, M., Brieschenk, S. and Boyce, R.R. Scramjet performance for ideal combustion processes, Aerosp Science and Technology, 2018, 75, pp 215–226.Google Scholar
9. Torrez, S.M., Driscoll, J.F., Ihme, M. and Fotia, M.L. Reduced-order modeling of turbulent reacting flows with application to ramjets and scramjets, J Propulsion and Power, 2011, 27, (2), pp 371–382.Google Scholar
10. Baurle, R.A. Modeling of high speed reacting flows: established practices and future challenges. 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, p 267, 2004.Google Scholar
11. Georgiadis, N.J., Yoder, D.A., Vyas, M.A. and Engblom, W.A. Status of turbulence modeling for hypersonic propulsion flowpaths, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2014, 28, (3), pp 295–318.Google Scholar
12. Magnussen, B.F. and Hjertager, B.H. On mathematical modeling of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot formation and combustion. Symposium (international) on Combustion, Vol. 16, The Combustion Institute, Elsevier, Pittsburgh, US, 1977, pp 719–729.Google Scholar
13. Edwards, J.R. and Fulton, J.A. Development of a RANS and LES/RANS flow solver for high-speed engine flowpath simulations. 20th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 2015, p 3570.Google Scholar
14. Mohieldin, T.O., Tiwari, S.N. and Reubush, D.E. Numerical investigation of dual-mode scramjet combustor with large upstream interaction, 2004.Google Scholar
15. Chandra Murty, M.S.R. and Chakraborty, D. Numerical simulation of angular injection of hydrogen fuel in scramjet combustor, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerosp Engineering, 2012, 226, (7), pp 861–872.Google Scholar
16. Dharavath, M., Manna, P. and Chakraborty, D. Thermochemical exploration of hydrogen combustion in generic scramjet combustor, Aerosp Science and Technology, 2013, 24, (1), pp 264–274.Google Scholar
17. Kummitha, O.R., Pandey, K.M. and Gupta, R. CFD analysis of a scramjet combustor with cavity based flame holders. Acta Astronautica, 2018, 144, pp 244–253.Google Scholar
18. Hoste, J.J.O.E. Scramjet combustion modeling using eddy dissipation model, PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2018.Google Scholar
19. Gollan, R.J. and Jacobs, P.A. About the formulation, verification and validation of the hypersonic flow solver Eilmer, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2013, 73, (1), pp 19–57.Google Scholar
20. Wilcox, D.C. Formulation of the k−ω turbulence model revisited, AIAA J, 2008, 46, (11): 2823–2838.Google Scholar
21. Chan, W.Y.K., Jacobs, P.A. and Mee, D.J. Suitability of the k–ω turbulence model for scramjet flowfield simulations, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2012, 70, (4), pp 493–514.Google Scholar
22. Hoste, J.J.O.E, Casseau, V., Fossati, M., Taylor, I.J. and Gollan, R.J. Numerical modeling and simulation of supersonic flows in propulsion systems by open-source solvers. 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, 2017, p 2411.Google Scholar
23. Hoste, J.J.O.E, Fossati, M., Taylor, I.J. and Gollan, R.J. Modeling scramjet supersonic combustion via eddy dissipation model. 68th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Adelaide, 2017.Google Scholar
24. Macrossan, M.N. The equilibrium flux method for the calculation of flows with non-equilibrium chemical reactions, J Computational Physics, 1989, 80, (1), pp 204–231.Google Scholar
25. Liou, M.S. Ten years in the making – AUSM-family. AIAA Paper, 2001, pp 2001–2521.Google Scholar
26. Jacobs, P.A., Gollan, R.J., Denman, A.J., O’Flaherty, B.T., Potter, D.F., Petrie-Repar, P.J. and Johnston, I.A. Eilmer’s theory book: basic models for gas dynamics and thermochemistry. Tech. Rep, The University of Queensland, 2012.Google Scholar
27. Gordon, S. and McBride, B.J. Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications, I. Analysis, 1994, NASA RP-1311.Google Scholar
28. Poinsot, T. and Veynante, D. Theoretical and Numerical Combustion, third edition, Aquaprint, 2012, France.Google Scholar
29. Urzay, J. Supersonic combustion in air-breathing propulsion systems for hypersonic flight. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2018, 50, pp 593–627.Google Scholar
30. Sekar, B. and Mukunda, H.S. A computational study of direct simulation of high speed mixing layers without and with chemical heat release. Symposium (International) on Combustion, Vol. 23. The Combustion Institute, Elsevier, 1991, Pittsburgh, US, pp 707–713.Google Scholar
31. Drozda, T.G., Baurle, R.A. and Drummond, J.P. Impact of flight enthalpy, fuel simulant, and chemical reactions on the mixing characteristics of several injectors at hypervelocity flow conditions, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, United States, 2016.Google Scholar
32. Burrows, M.C. and Kurkov, A.P. An analytical and experimental study of supersonic combustion of hydrogen in vitiated air stream, AIAA J, 1973, 11, (9), pp 1217–1218.Google Scholar
33. Burrows, M.C. and Kurkov, A.P. Analytical and experimental study of supersonic combustion of hydrogen in a vitiated airstream, NASA-TM-X-2828, NASA Lewis Research Center, September 1973.Google Scholar
34. Waidmann, W., Alff, F., Brummund, U., Böhm, M., Clauss, W. and Oschwald, M. Experimental investigation of the combustion process in a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet). DGLR Jahrbuch, 1994, pp 629–638.Google Scholar
35. Karl, S., Hannemann, K., Mack, A. and Steelant, J. CFD analysis of the HyShot II scramjet experiments in the HEG shock tunnel. 15th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 2008, p 2548.Google Scholar
36. Karl, S. Numerical investigation of a generic scramjet configuration, PhD thesis, Saechsische Landesbibliothek-Staats-und Universitaetsbibliothek Dresden, 2011.Google Scholar
37. Pecnik, R., Terrapon, V.E., Ham, F., Iaccarino, G. and Pitsch, H. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of the HyShot II scramjet, AIAA J, 2012, 50, (8), pp 1717–1732.Google Scholar
38. Larsson, J., Laurence, S., Bermejo-Moreno, I., Bodart, J., Karl, S. and Vicquelin, R. Incipient thermal choking and stable shock-train formation in the heat-release region of a scramjet combustor. Part ii: large eddy simulations, Combustion and Flame, 2015, 162, (4), pp 907–920.Google Scholar
39. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
40. Evans, J.S. and Schexnayder, C.J. Influence of chemical kinetics and unmixedness on burning in supersonic hydrogen flames, AIAA J, 1980, 18, (2), pp 188–193.Google Scholar
41. Ebrahimi, H.B. CFD validation for scramjet combustor and nozzle flows, Part I. AIAA Paper, 1993, p 1840.Google Scholar
42. Parent, B. and Sislian, J.P. Validation of the Wilcox k-omega model for flows characteristic to hypersonic airbreathing propulsion, AIAA J, 2004, 42, (2), pp 261–270.Google Scholar
43. Engblom, W.A., Frate, F.C. and Nelson, C.C . Progress in validation of Wind-US for ramjet/scramjet combustion. 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 2005.Google Scholar
44. Xiao, X., Hassan, H.A. and Baurle, R.A. Modeling scramjet flows with variable turbulent Prandtl and Schmidt numbers, AIAA J, 2007, 45, (6), 1415–1423.Google Scholar
45. Keistler, P. A variable turbulent Prandtl and Schmidt number model study for scramjet applications, PhD thesis, North Carolina State University, US, 2009.Google Scholar
46. Gao, Z., Jiang, C., Pan, S. and Lee, C.H. Combustion heat-release effects on supersonic compressible turbulent boundary layers, AIAA J, 2015, 53, (7), 1949–1968.Google Scholar
47. Edwards, J.R., Boles, J.A. and Baurle, R.A. Large-eddy/Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulation of a supersonic reacting wall jet, Combustion and Flame, 2012, 159, (3), pp 1127–1138.Google Scholar
48. Kim, J.H., Yoon, Y., Jeung, I.S., Huh, H. and Choi, J.-Y. Numerical study of mixing enhancement by shock waves in model scramiet engine, AIAA J, 2003, 41, (6), pp 1074–1080.Google Scholar
49. Bhagwandin, V., Engblom, W. and Georgiadis, N. Numerical simulation of a hydrogen-fueled dual-mode scramjet engine using Wind-US. 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2009, p 5382.Google Scholar
50. Bittker, D.A. and Scullin, V.J. General chemical kinetics computer program for static and flow reactions, with application to combustion and shock-tube kinetics, NASA-TN-D-6586, 1972.Google Scholar
51. Kirchhartz, R.M., Mee, D.J., Stalker, R.J., Jacobs, P.A. and Smart, M.K. Supersonic boundary-layer combustion: effects of upstream entropy and shear-layer thickness, J Propulsion and Power, 2010, 26, (1), pp 57–66.Google Scholar
52. Oevermann, M. Numerical investigation of turbulent hydrogen combustion in a scramjet using flamelet modeling, Aerosp Science and Technology, 2000, 4, (7), pp 463–480.Google Scholar
53. Mura, A. and Izard, J.F. Numerical simulation of supersonic nonpremixed turbulent combustion in a scramjet combustor model, J Propulsion and Power, 2010, 26, (4), pp 858–868.Google Scholar
54. Gao, Z., Wang, J., Jiang, C. and Lee, C. Application and theoretical analysis of the flamelet model for supersonic turbulent combustion flows in the scramjet engine, Combustion Theory and Modelling, 2014, 18, (6), pp 652–691.Google Scholar
55. Hou, L., Niu, D. and Ren, Z. Partially premixed flamelet modeling in a hydrogen-fueled supersonic combustor, Int J Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39, (17), pp 9497–9504.Google Scholar
56. Kummitha, O.R. Numerical analysis of hydrogen fuel scramjet combustor with turbulence development inserts and with different turbulence models, Int J Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42, (9), pp 6360–6368.Google Scholar
57. Génin, F. and Menon, S. Simulation of turbulent mixing behind a strut injector in supersonic flow, AIAA J, 2010, 48, (3), 526.Google Scholar
58. Potturi, A.S. and Edwards, J.R. Hybrid Large-Eddy/Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of flow through a model scramjet. AIAA J, 2014, 52, (7), pp 1417–1429.Google Scholar
59. Fureby, C., Fedina, E. and Tegnér, J. A computational study of supersonic combustion behind a wedge-shaped flameholder, Shock Waves, 2014, 24, (1), pp 41–50.Google Scholar
60. Gonzalez-Juez, E.D., Kerstein, A.R., Ranjan, R. and Menon, S. Advances and challenges in modeling high-speed turbulent combustion in propulsion systems. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2017, 60, pp 26–67.Google Scholar
61. Nichols, R.H. and Nelson, C.C. Wall function boundary conditions including heat transfer and compressibility, AIAA J, 2004, 42, (6), pp 1107–1114.Google Scholar
62. Karl, S., Laurence, S., Martinez Schramm, J. and Hannemann, K. CFD analysis of unsteady combustion phenomena in the HyShot-II scramjet configuration. 18th AIAA/3AF International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, 2012, p 5912.Google Scholar
63. Barth, T.J. and Deconinck, H. High-Order Methods for Computational Physics, Vol. 9, 2013, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar