NUMERICAL STUDY OF ANALYSING THE FLOW

MIXING CHARACTERISTICS IN A SUPERSONIC

CROSS FLOW THROUGH SECONDARY INJECTION

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

SATHEESH KUMAR. M (2016501038)

VIJAY ANAND. A (2016501053)

AKSHAYA KANNAN (2016501057)

RAJA VIGNESH (2016501067)

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

in

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

MADRAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI 600 044

OCTOBER 2020
 ii

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report NUMERICAL STUDY OF ANALYSING THE

FLOW MIXING CHARACTERISTICS IN A SUPERSONIC CROSS FLOW
THROUGH SECONDARY INJECTION is the bonafide work of SATHEESH
KUMAR. M (2016501038), VIJAY ANAND. A (2016501053), AKSHAYA
KANNAN (2016501057) and RAJA VIGNESH (2016501067) who carried out the
project work under my supervision. Certified further that to the best of my knowledge
the work reported herein does not form part of any other thesis or dissertation on the
basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on this or any
other candidates.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
DR. S. THANIGAIARASU DR. B. KATHIRAVAN
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Department of Aerospace Engineering Department of Aerospace Engineering
MIT Campus MIT Campus
Anna University Anna University
Chennai - 600044 Chennai - 600044
 iii

ABSTRACT

The motive of this project is to identify the flow mixing characteristics by injecting a

secondary flow into a supersonic core flow inside a constant area duct. The constant

area duct resembles the Isolator of a SCRAMJET engine which is usually added

upstream of the combustor to stop it from disrupting the operation of the Inlet. The

idea behind the project is to introduce a secondary flow (Part of the fuel – in case of

the engine) into the supersonic core flow from the inlet at angles of 30, 45, and 90

degrees and at different jet total pressures to observe the mixing of the flows and

identify the best suitable condition. A nozzle is modelled for theoretical design Mach

number 2 to deliver supersonic flow at the inlet of the constant area duct. The length

of the constant area duct is calculated by assuming fanno flow conditions inside the

duct. The injection point is at mid-length of the constant area duct. The Numerical

study was carried out by using the SST (Shear Stress Transport) turbulence model in

order to investigate the influence of changing the injection angle and main flow and

secondary flow total pressure on the flow field structure of the constant area duct and

on its performance parameters. The results show that the increase in secondary jet

flow total pressure shows significant effect on the mixing characteristics. It is also

observed that the transverse injection shows better mixing than the normal injection,

thus providing better chances of achieving faster fuel-air mixing in isolator before

further injection inside the combustor for faster combustion process and reducing the

combustor length in a SCRAMJET engine.

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like thank Prof. T. Thyagarajan, Dean, Madras
Institute of Technology for providing me this opportunity to complete this project
work successfully.

I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. S. Thanigaiarasu, Professor and Head of

Aerospace Engineering department for allowing me to do this project in the Aerospace
Department and helping me constantly to execute it.

I would like to extend heartfelt thanks to my project guide Mr. B. Kathiravan,

Teaching fellow, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Madras Institute of
Technology for giving me his valuable support and encouragement by providing all
the facilities that were needed for the proper execution of this project. I have great
pleasure in expressing my sincere and whole hearted gratitude to them for his valuable
guidance and constant motivation.

I express my sense of gratitude to all the panel members and faculties of

Aerospace Engineering Department for their constant support and suggestions.

I am highly grateful to one and all, who directly or indirectly helped me in this
project especially my parents and friends for extending their love and support. I
extend my thanks to almighty for the divine love and power.

SATHEESH KUMAR. M
VIJAY ANAND A
AKSHAYA KANNAN
RAJA VIGNESH
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF SYMBOL AND ABBREVIATIONS x

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCRAMJET ENGINES 1

1.1.1 Advantages of scramjet Engine 4

1.1.2 Disadvantages of Scramjet Engine 4
1.2 DUAL – MODE COMBUSTION 4
1.3 FLOW STRUCTURE IN A SCRAMJET
ISOLATOR 5

2 LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 RECENT ADVANCES IN SCRAMJET 7
FUEL INJECTION
2.1.1 Injection Methods 8
2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SCRAMJET
PROPULSION SYSTEM 10
2.3 FUEL – AIR MIXING AND COMBUSTION
IN SCRAMJETS 12
2.4 CFD ANALYSIS OF WALL INJECTION
WITH CAVITY 14
2.5 FTV EFFECTS OF A TRANSVERSE
INJECTION 16
2.6 SCRAMJET ISOLATORS 16
2.7 FLOW VISUALIZATION OF AN
ISOLATOR 18
2.8 NUMERICAL SIMULATION ON
SITVC NOZZLE 19
 vi

2.9 FLOW PHENOMENA 21

2.9.1 Shock Reflections 21
2.9.2 Shock – Shock Interactions 22
2.9.3 Shock – Boundary Layer Interactions 23
2.10 PHYSICAL PROPERTIRES OF
SUPERSONIC CROSS FLOWS 23
2.11 ISENTROPIC RELATIONS 25
2.12 FANNO FLOW 26

3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL
FLUID DYNAMICS 27
3.2 MODELLING PROCESS 28
3.3 GEOMETRY 28
3.4 MESHING 31
3.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 33
3.5.1 Inlet Boundary Conditions 33
3.5.2 Opening Boundary Conditions 36
3.5.3 Wall Boundary Conditions 36
3.5.4 Solver Control 36
3.6 OUTPUT CONTROL 37

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 RESULTS 38
4.2 TOTAL PRESSURE VARIATION 38
4.3 MACH NUMBER CONTOUR FOR
LATERAL PLANES 44
4.3.1 30 degree and 4.5 bar Main Flow
Pressure 45
4.3.2 30 degree and 6 bar Main Flow
Pressure 48
4.3.3 45 degree and 4.5 bar Main Flow
Pressure 51
4.3.4 45 degree and 6 bar Main Flow
Pressure 54
 vii

4.3.5 90 degree and 4.5 bar Main Flow

Pressure 57
4.3.6 90 degree and 6 bar Main Flow
Pressure 60

5 CONCLUSIONS 67

REFERENCES 68
 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1.1 Scramjet Schematic Diagram 2

1.2 Artists concept of the X-43A of NASP 3
program
1.3 Schematic of the flow structure in an isolator 6
2.1 Normal Fuel Injection 9
2.2 Comparison of Mach contours at different 11
injection angles downstream
2.3 Nozzle, Copper and Steel duct sections of 13
SCHOLAR combustor model
2.4 Rectangular cavity flame holder 15
2.5 GAMBIT profile of wall injector (with cavity) 15
with L/D ratio = 5

2.6 Mach number distribution 19

2.7 Shock wave structure 19

2.8 SITVC nozzle flow field structure (Mach 20

number contour)
2.9 Shock reflecting from a surface 22
2.10 Shock – Shock Interaction 22
2.11 Shock – Boundary Layer Interactions 23
2.12 Two – dimensional flow field and pressure 25
distribution of transverse slot gas injection by
Spaid and Zukoski
3.1 Models 30

3.2 Inside view of the domain 31

3.3 Meshing of models with domain 33

P0 Z
4.1 vs plots for all the angles and main flow 43
P D
pressures at different mass flow ratios.

4.2 Mach number contour for model with no 45

injection
 ix

4.3 Mach number contours for 30 degrees angle of 48

injection and 4.5 bar pressure
4.4 Mach number contours for 30 degrees angle of 51
injection and 6 bar pressure
4.5 Mach number contours for 45 degrees angle of 54
injection and 4.5 bar pressure
4.6 Mach number contours for 45 degrees angle of 57
injection and 6 bar pressure
4.7 Mach number contours for 90 degrees angle of 60
injection and 4.5 bar pressure
4.8 Mach number contours for 90 degrees angle of 63
injection and 6 bar pressure
4.9 Detailed view of injection zone of 45 degrees, 65
6 bar and 9% mass flow ratio
4.10 Density Gradient Contours 66
 x

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

L - Length
D - Hydraulic Diameter
FTV - Fluidic Thrust Vector
SITVC - Secondary Injection Thrust Vector Control
P - Pressure
C-D - Convergent divergent
SERN - Single expansion ramp nozzle
V - Velocity
2D - 2 dimensional
3D - Three dimensional
CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics
ρ - Density
Cf0 or f - Coefficient of friction
M - Mach number
A - Area
A* - Throat area
R - Gas Constant
P0 - Total Pressure
 1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCRAMJET ENGINES:

In aerodynamics, Hypersonic speeds are speeds that are highly supersonic.
Since the 1970s, the term has generally been used to refer to speeds equal to and
greater than Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound. The hypersonic regime is
a subset of the supersonic regime. The precise Mach number at which aircraft can
be said to be fully hypersonic is even more elusive, especially since physical
changes in the airflow (molecular dissociation, ionization) occur at quite different
speeds. Generally, a combination of effects become important as a whole around
Mach 5. The hypersonic regime is often defined as speeds where ramjets do not
produce net thrust. For this purpose, SCRAMJETS (Supersonic Combustion
RAMJET) came into existence.

Hypersonic flight is considered the next great advancement within the

aviation industry. Air-breathing hypersonic propulsion can help to put satellite
into orbit or sustain flight within the atmosphere with lower weight and propulsion
required compared to rockets, as the oxidizer (air) is taken from the environment
as opposed to being carried onboard. Hypersonic air-breathing commercial flight
will potentially offer great advancements in reliability, reusability, and
economies of scale for high-speed atmospheric cruising. These proposed
vehicles and methods of propulsion remove the need to carry oxidizers and other
limitations which rocket engines incur and increase the possibility of achieving
the desired range, payload, and efficiency.
A typical scramjet engine consists of a converging inlet, isolator, combustion
chamber, and a diverging nozzle. The basic schematic scramjet is depicted in
Figure 1.
 2

Figure 1.1: SCRAMJET Schematic Diagram

The flow field inside a scramjet combustor is highly complex. The mixing
of reactants, flame holding, stability and complete combustion of fuel in shorter
length are the major concerns in the development of scramjet engines.

For extracting maximum thrust from the expanding gases, an optimum

nozzle has to be designed. A good nozzle should produce maximum thrust and
should add less weight to the vehicle. SERN nozzle is one of the widely used
nozzles in scramjet applications. Single Expansion Ramp Nozzle, is a typical
linear expansion nozzle. In this type of nozzle gas pressure transfers work only
on one side. Unlike axially symmetric traditional nozzles, SERN nozzle is not
axially symmetric, but consist of two expansion ramps. SERN nozzle is widely
used because of its low weight at large expansion ratios. Also, SERN produces
additional lift at under-expansion.

The research on scramjet propulsion started with bell X-1 which attained
supersonic flight in 1947. A variety of experimental scramjet engines are built
and ground tested in US and UK laboratories. In 1964 Frederik S. Billing and
Gordon L. Dugger submitted a patent application for a supersonic combustion
ramjet. An axisymmetric hydrogen fuelled dual – mode scramjet was developed
in late 1970s by Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM). In 1981 tests were
 3

made in Australia under the guidance of Professor Ray Stalker in T3 ground test
facility at ANU. First successful flight test of scramjet was performed by Russia
in 1991. Then from 1992 to 1998, an additional 6 flight tests of the axisymmetric
high – speed scramjet demonstrator were conducted by CIAM together with
France and then with NASA, USA. Operated for 77 seconds, maximum flight
speed of above Mach 6.4 was achieved. In the 2000s, research speeded up
particularly with focus on improving scramjet engines. HYPER-X team Claimed
the first flight of thrust producing scramjet powered vehicle with aerodynamic
manoeuvring surfaces named X-43A (Figure 1.2) in the year 2004. The HyShot
came up with combustor project and successfully demonstrated it on July 30,
2002. A series of scramjet ground tests supporting HIFiRE (Hypersonic
International Flight Research Experimentation) flight2 were conducted at NASA
Langley Arc-Heated Scramjet Test Facility (AHSTF) at simulated Mach 8 flight
conditions. HIFiRE successfully tested a flight of hypersonic aircraft on May 22,
2009. In 2010 Australian and American defence Scientists tested a (HIFiRE)
hypersonic rocket. It reached an atmospheric velocity of more than 5000
kilometres per hour. On May 27, 2010, NASA and United Air Force successfully
flew the X-51A Waverider for approximately 200 seconds at Mach 5, setting a
new world record in hypersonic air speed. Second test of X-51A Waverider at
Mach 6 was conducted on August 15, 2012 but it failed due to faulty control fin.

Figure 1.2: Artists Concept of the X-43A of NASP program

 4

1.1.1 Advantages of Scramjet Engine:

The following are the advantages of using a scramjet engine for hypersonic flows:

1. Does not have to carry oxygen.

2. No rotating parts makes it easier to manufacture than a turbojet.
3. Has a higher specific impulse (change in momentum per unit of propellant)
than a rocket engine; could provide between 1000 and 4000 seconds, while
a rocket typically provides around 450 seconds or less.
4. Higher speed could mean cheaper access to outer space in the future.
5. As Hydrogen is used as the propellant and combustion is carried out at
supersonic velocity with the help of oxygen from the atmosphere, steam
dihydrogen oxide is the exhaust gas which is eco-friendly in nature.

1.1.2 Disadvantages of Scramjet Engine:

The disadvantages of the using a scramjet engine are:

1. A scramjet cannot produce efficient thrust unless boosted to high speed,

around Mach 5. As a result, additional propulsion systems are required.
2. Lack of stealth.
3. Expensive and difficult testing and development.
4. Temperature on the on the aircraft is much higher compared to the air
surrounding it which requires new materials to endure these temperatures.
5. Challenges occur in maintaining combustion in the supersonic flow; the
fuel has to be injected, mixed, ignited and burned all within a friction of
seconds.
1.2 DUAL – MODE COMBUSTION:

Scramjet operation in the lower hypersonic regime between Mach 4 and 8 is

characterised by what is called Dual – mode combustion. In this instance, flow
is compressed by shock waves in the forebody and inlet, and is supplied to the
combustor at supersonic conditions. Combustion of fuel with the incoming air
 5

generates a large local pressure rise and separation of the boundary layer on the
surfaces of the combustor duct. This separation, which can feed upstream of the
point of fuel injection, acts to further compress the core flow by generating a
series of shock waves known as a shock-train. A short length of duct, called the
Isolator, is usually added to the scramjet flow path upstream of the combustor to
contain this phenomenon and stop it from disrupting the operation of the inlet. In
some engines, the combination of diffusion in the isolator and heat release in the
combustor decelerates the core flow to subsonic conditions. In this instance the
core flow must then re-accelerate through Mach 1 in what is known as a thermal
throat.

Dual – mode combustion can produce large pressure levels in the combustor
and nozzle, generating high levels of thrust. This flow is affected by many
parameters, including the state of the boundary layer in the isolator, the flow
Mach number exiting the inlet, the area distribution of the combustor, and the
position and number of fuel injection stations. As the separated regions on the
surfaces of the isolator and combustor are seen by the core flow as blockage,
scramjet engines operating in dual-mode can be thought of involving fluid –
dynamic variable geometry. At speeds above Mach 8, the increased kinetic
energy of the airflow through the engine means that the combustion generated
pressure rise is not strong enough to cause boundary layer separation. Flow
remains attached and supersonic throughout in the instance, and the engine
operates as a pure scramjet.

1.3 FLOW STRUCTURE IN A SCRAMJET ISOLATOR:

The structure of the supersonic flow in confined ducts under the influence
of a strong adverse pressure gradient is of interest in the design of scramjet
isolators. As shown in the schematic of Figure 1.3, the pressure gradient is
imposed on the incoming supersonic flow in the form of shock waves. If there
were no boundary layer, a normal would form in a plane. However, the presence
 6

of an incoming boundary layer produces a series of normal or oblique shocks that

can spread the pressure rise over a length of many duct diameters. This
phenomenon, known as ‘pseudo shock’ or ‘shock train’ is characterised by a
region of separated flow next to the wall, together with a supersonic core that
experiences a pressure gradient due to the area restriction of the separation,
forming a series of crossing oblique shocks in the core flow. A mixing region also
grows between the core and separated flows, balancing the pressure rise in the
core against the shear stress on the boundary of the separation. Finally, the flow
reattaches at some point and mixes out to conditions that match the imposed back
pressure. Being able to predict the length scale of this flow structure is the key
component of isolator design for dual – mode scramjets.

Figure 1.3: Schematic of flow structure in an isolator

 7

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 RECENT ADVANCES IN SCRAMJET FUEL INJECTION:

Fuel injection techniques into scramjet engines are a field that is still
developing today. The fuel that is used by scramjets is usually either a liquid or a
gas. The fuel and air need to be mixed stoichiometric proportions for efficient
combustion to take place. The main problem of scramjet fuel injection is that the
airflow is quite fast, meaning that there is minimal time for the fuel to mix with
the air and ignite to produce thrust (essentially milliseconds). Hydrogen is the
main fuel used for combustion. Hydrocarbons present more of a challenge
compared to hydrogen due to longer ignition delay and the requirement for more
advanced mixing techniques. Enhancing the mixing, and thus reducing the
combustor length, is an important aspect in designing scramjet engines. There are
number of techniques used today for fuel injection into scramjet engines.

There are several key issues that must be considered in the design of an
efficient fuel injector. Of particular importance are the total pressure losses
created by the injector and the injection processes that must be minimized since
the losses reduce the thrust of the engine. The injector design must also produce
rapid mixing and combustion of the fuel and air. Rapid mixing and combustion
allow the combustor length and weight to be minimised, and they provide the heat
release for conversion to thrust by the engine nozzle. The injector design and flow
disturbances produced by injection should provide a region for flame holding,
resulting in a stable piloting source for downstream ignition of the fuel. The
injector cannot result in too several local flow disturbances, that could result in
locally high wall static pressures and temperatures, leading to increased frictional
losses and severe wall cooling requirements. A number of options are available
 8

for injecting fuel and enhancing the mixing of the fuel and air in high speed flows
typical of those found in a scramjet combustor.

2.1.1. Injection Methods:

Some traditional approaches for injecting fuel are described below:

1. Parallel, Normal and Transverse Injection: Parallel fuel injection

consists of fuel flowing parallel to the air in the engine but separated by a
splitter plate. When the splitter plate ends, a shear layer is created due to
different velocities of the fuel and air which acts as the primary source of
mixing the fuel with the air. Normal fuel injection consists of an injection
port on the wall of a scramjet. The port injects the fuel normal to the flow
of air in the scramjet. Normal fuel injection creates a detached normal
shock upstream of the injector which causes separation zones upstream and
downstream of the injector as in the Figure. Research conducted to
minimize the total pressure loss displayed low combustion efficiency due
to poor mixing. Transverse fuel injection is a combination of parallel and
normal fuel injection. In a transverse injector, the fuel is injected at an angle
between normal and parallel to the flow. Transverse injection reduces some
of the negatives to normal injection, bur requires a larger injection pressure
to achieve the same penetration height into the air flow which increases the
total pressure loss of the scramjet.
2. Ramp Injectors: Using the results from parallel injection, it was theorized
that adding axial velocity to the parallel injection may increase the mixing.
To add axial velocity to the flow near fuel injection, ramps were added with
fuel injectors on the trailing edge of the ramp injecting fuel parallel to the
flow. The flow over the ramps created counter-rotating vortices that
increased the mixing.
3. Strut Injector: A strut is connected to both the bottom and top of the
combustion section. Since it is across the whole combustion section, fuel
 9

injection occurs at several locations and allows the fuel to be added

throughout the flow field.
4. Upstream Injector: Another type of injection method is upstream
injection, as tested by Gardner et.al. This basically involves injecting the
hydrogen fuel from the intake into the flow from portholes upstream prior
to combustion. This method is for a 2D scramjet engine. The main
advantage is that it allows for a shorter combustion chamber, thus a
reduction in skin friction drag. It has been determined that drag in the
combustion chamber is one of the main contributors to inefficiency in a
scramjet.
5. Cavity Flame Holder: it uses a backward-facing step to induce
recirculation, with fuel injected upstream of this cavity. This cavity would
also provide a continuous ignition point or flame holder with little pressure
drop, and hence sustained combustion. The advantage is that the drag
associated with flow separation is less over a cavity than over a bluff body.
The wall injection method limits the penetration of the fuel into the airflow.

Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. The main issue to
consider in scramjet injection is flow speed, which has an effect on the mixing
efficiency of the fuel and air. However, greater mixing can be achieved at the
expense of pressure loss. A high mixing rate increases the efficiency of a
scramjet, as it reduces the combustor length, and hence the skin friction drag.

Figure 2.1: Normal Fuel Injection

 10

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SCRAMJET PROPULSION

SYSTEM:

In the present study various investigations are done on different components

of scramjet propulsion systems. In the first part of the investigation, numerical
study was carried out on transverse injection of fuel into the supersonic stream.
Investigations includes the study of formation of recirculation regions, shock
waves and wall pressure at different injection angles, free stream conditions and
injection pressure ratio. Various turbulence models have been tested and the
obtained results are well validated with the experimental. Formation of various
structures due to sonic jet and supersonic stream interactions are analysed. With
increase in Mach number the size of auto ignition regions got minimised and jet
injection angle shows the significant effect on the shock structure and peak
pressure rise. Degree of boundary layer separation has increased with increase in
pressure ratio. In the later part, investigations are done on DLR scramjet
combustor where the fuel is injected parallel to the free stream using strut.
Numerical investigation on flow phenomena in a scramjet combustor has been
performed for different geometric and operating parameters. The present
investigations aim to find the optimal geometric parameters and better fuel
injection system which has maximum combustion efficiency.

A combination of Eddy Dissipation (ED) and Finite Rate Chemistry (FRC)

models are used to model combustion. The effects of divergence angle on the
performance of scramjet combustor are analysed. The effects of scaling on the
DLR combustor are also analysed. Also, the effects of shocks created by strut and
inlet conditions of scramjet combustor on combustion efficiency have been
evaluated. A multiple struts combustor has been developed to improve the
performance of combustor. The results show that divergence angle and inlet
conditions of combustor are significant on performance of scramjet combustor.
 11

Multiple struts combustor has shown higher efficiency than single strut
combustor.

In the final part, the exit conditions of combustor are used to evaluate the
performance of scramjet nozzle. Numerical simulation of Single expansion ramp
nozzle is carried out to investigate the effect of different geometric and
operational conditions on performance parameters. Based on this study, an
optimum ramp angle at which the SERN generates maximum axial thrust is
obtained for various operating conditions and behaviour of the thrust and lift
profile with various geometric changes at various operating conditions are
predicted. Optimum angle for maximum thrust has shifted to left when simulated
at higher operating conditions. Lower cowl and ramp length gave increased thrust
and rate of increase varied from one operating condition to another.

Figure 2.2: Comparison of Mach Contours at different injection angles downstream

 12

Following conclusions were derived from the investigation:

1. With increase in free stream Mach number the separation length has
reduced and the wall peak pressure has increased during injection.
2. With increase in pressure ratio both the separation length and wall peak
pressure has increase. Also, the height of the Mach disc has increased.
3. By injecting fuel at an angle into downstream resulted in decrease in
separation length and wall peak pressure. The more the jet inclined toward
the wall in downstream reported lower peak pressure and separation region.
4. By injecting fuel at an angle upstream resulted in deformation of Mach disc
and also the separation length. More the jet injected against the upstream
resulted in high peak pressure. But the larger separation length is reported
with normal injection.
2.3 FUEL – AIR MIXING AND COMBUSTION IN
SCRAMJETS:

Activities in the area of fuel-air mixing and combustion associated with the
Research and Technology Organization Working Group on Technologies for
Propelled Hypersonic Flight are described. Work discussed in this paper has
centred on the design of two basic experiments for studying the mixing and
combustion of fuel and air in a scramjet. Simulations are conducted to aid in the
design of these experiments. The experimental models were constructed, and data
were collected in the laboratory. Comparison of the data from a co-axial jet
mixing experiment and a supersonic combustor experiment with a combustor
code were made and described.

The two basic experiments are being conducted at the NASA Langley
Research Center to collect detailed high-speed mixing and combustion data for
use in physical model development and code validation. The first experiment
concerns coaxial jet mixing of a helium/oxygen centre jet with a coflowing air
outer jet and was chosen to provide detailed supersonic mixing data. The second
 13

experiment was developed to study high-speed mixing and combustion in a

simple “scramjet like” engine environment. The experiment utilizes a ducted flow
rig containing vitiated supersonic air with a single fuel injector that introduces
supersonic gaseous hydrogen from the lower wall.

Comparison of the data from the coaxial jet mixing experiment with one
combustor code were then made and described. The comparisons of the helium
mass fraction and pitot pressure data with the simulation were good, although
there were some observed differences in the measures and computed pitot
pressure in the jet mixing region.

The second experiment flow path was then analysed and comparisons were
made with temperature data. Computed results indicate that the five pilot injectors
ignite just ahead of the primary fuel injector and aid in ignition downstream of
the injector. Combustion then occurs at later stations in the hydrogen-air mixing
layer around the primary fuel jet. The temperature data also indicates that
combustion of the pilot fuel is delayed beyond the step, but occurs further
downstream. Near the end of the copper section of the SCHOLAR model,
increased temperature due to combustion is noted in both the computation and
the data. The highest temperatures in the data (2400 K) lie near the lower wall.
The highest computed temperature (2100 K) lie around the upper region of the
remaining fuel core at this station. Overall, the computation exhibits more
significant combustion of the primary fuel jet relative to the degree of combustion
indicated by the temperature data.

Figure 2.3: Nozzle, Copper and Steel duct sections of SCHOLAR combustor model
 14

2.4 CFD ANALYSIS OF WALL INJECTION WITH CAVITY

A CFD analysis of the combustion process of a scramjet engine having wall

injector with cavity with a L/D ratio of 5 is carried out in this study using
FLUENT software. Both air intake and Hydrogen injection are at Mach 2 speed
and Hydrogen is being injected upstream of the cavity. It is observed that a
maximum temperature of 2100 K can be achieved with the injection of Hydrogen
at Mach 2 speed with high thrust production and low shock formation.

Cavity Flame holder fuel injection system uses a backward-facing step to

induce recirculation, with fuel injected upstream of this cavity. This cavity would
also provide a continuous ignition point or flame holder with little pressure drop,
and hence sustained combustion. The advantage is that the drag associated with
flow separation is less over a cavity than over a bluff body. The two main
disadvantages are the losses in stagnation pressure due to this step, as well a
reduction in total temperature. Also, the wall injection method limits the
penetration of the fuel into the airflow. This means that a broad application of this
method is not possible, since ignition heavily depends on the Mach number.

With a cavity installed downstream of the fuel injection point, it was

observed that the mixing efficiency as well as the combustion was greatly
improved, since the mass and heat movement along the shear layer and inside the
cavity are greatly increased. The depth of the cavity determines the ignition time
based on the free stream conditions, while the length of the cavity has to be chosen
to sustain a suitable vortex to provide sufficient mixing inside the cavity. There
needs to be sufficient time for the injected fuel and free stream air to mix and
ignite. An increase in the wall angle of the cavity produces greater combustion
efficiency, but also a greater total pressure loss. It is also to be noted that if the
injector is comparatively far from the leading edge of the cavity, the cavity forms
small vortices because the mixture entering the cavity is insufficient. However, if
 15

the injector is relatively close to the cavity, the injected fuel does not penetrate
into the free stream due to the flow turning into the cavity.

Figure 2.4: Rectangular cavity flame holder

From the analysis, it is observed that for a scramjet engine having a wall
injector with a cavity of L/D = 5, if hydrogen is injected at a speed of Mach 2 to
an incoming air stream at Mach 2 speed, a rich air-fuel mixture can be achieved
and efficient combustion of this mixture gives a maximum temperature of 2100
K at the outlet of the combustor. Moreover, a high axial velocity of 1800 m/s is
obtained which is indicative of high thrust production. Also, there is weak shock
formation. Hence, better flame holding can be achieved if the wall injector is
coupled with a cavity having a L/D ratio of 5. Due to ever increasing human need
for greater speed and reduced travel time, hypersonic combustion systems will
become more and more important in the future. As the mixing time for fuel in the
combustor system is very less (approximately 1 m/s), newer and better injection
systems have to be developed that enhance fuel-air mixing and reduce ignition
delay period, thus increasing both combustion efficiency and thrust.

Figure 2.5: GAMBIT profile of wall injector (with cavity) with L/D ratio = 5
 16

2.5 FTV EFFECTS OF A TRANSVERSE INJECTION:

The sonic injection into the oncoming supersonic stream represents
problematic at various aerospace engineering applications such as combustion in
the scramjet engines and related issues with hypersonic vehicle reaction jets
control. Properties and basic features of the supersonic cross flows are also the
issue in Fluidic Thrust Vector (FTV) systems. There is a number of different
techniques and modes of the fluidic thrust vectoring as the Coanda effect counter
and co-flow injection control or skewing of the sonic line by fluidic displacement
of throat surface. Among these various techniques, Secondary gas Injection
thrust-vector control (SITVC) or the shock vector control (SVC) is selected as
direct and straightforward type of the FTV.

The transverse gas injection into the main supersonic flow of an

axisymmetric convergent – divergent (C-D) propulsive nozzle is investigated for
the fluidic thrust-vectoring (FTV) possibilities. Truncated ideal contour and
conical C-D nozzle with different position and angle of the secondary circular
injection port are selected as test models in the current numerical and
experimental study. Analytical approach revealed parameters which affect the
FTV efficiency, these criterions are further numerically explored and results data
of the conical nozzle test cases are compared and coupled with the ones from
experiments. It is found that upstream inclined injection has positive effect on
vectoring capabilities and that with moderate secondary to primary mass-flow
ratios, ranging around 5%, pertinent vector side force is possible to be achieved.

2.6 SCRAMJET ISOLATORS:

Scramjet operation in the lower hypersonic regime between Mach 4 and 8 is

characterised by what is called dual-mode combustion. In this situation
disturbances generated by heat-release in the combustor can propagate upstream
of fuel injection to affect the operation of the inlet. The method used to alleviate
 17

this problem is installation of a short duct between the inlet and the combustor
known as an Isolator.

The key feature of isolator design is the choice of the length required to
‘isolate’ the inlet from influences propagating upstream from the combustor.
Determination of this length requires modelling of separated, diffusing flows in
internal ducts. The diffuser model of Ortwerth has been implemented as a part of
a quasi-one-dimensional cycle code for the calculation of these flows. Given the
distribution of heat release in the combustor and isolator/combustor geometry,
this code predicts the length of the upstream influence and hence required isolator
length.

It has been postulated by many authors that the pressure gradient

experienced by the core flow in the duct must be equal to the pressure gradient
that can be supported by shear in the separated region. Based on a large amount
of experimental data at different Mach numbers, Reynolds numbers and in
different duct geometries, Ortwerth determined that the rate of pressure rise
(diffusion) in a duct is directly proportional to the dynamic pressure of the
incoming flow and the skin friction coefficient at the initial point of separation in
the duct, and inversely proportional to the duct hydraulic diameter. From this he
developed a diffuser model for separated flow in ducts which can be expressed
as:

dP 89 ρV 2
≈ C ( )
dx DH f0 2

In essence, this relationship supplies the ability to determine a length scale over
which pressure rise must be spread in a duct. It will be used in the next section of
this paper as the extra equation needed to perform quasi-one-dimensional
calculations of flow properties in separated ducts.
 18

2.7 FLOW VISUALIZATION OF AN ISOLATOR:

Understanding the physical mechanisms and having insight to the complex

flow field involving unstart phenomena in supersonic inlets has gained
considerable attention especially in the area of scramjet inlet/isolator
aerothermodynamics. In this study, Schlieren visualization and computational
analysis of shock wave structures in ramjet/scramjet inlet/isolator models in
supersonic flow have been performed. Experiments were performed in the
supersonic wind tunnel at the Trisonic Research Laboratory in Istanbul Technical
University. The test section floor and the existing mechanism underneath have
been modified to be able to mount the designed inlet/isolator model on the floor
of the test section. The inlet/isolator model with a 12 degrees compression ramp
is investigated at Mach 2 both computationally and experimentally.
Computations were performed using Star CCM+ software to investigate shock
wave structures in and around the three-dimensional inlet/isolator model as
mounted on the test section floor as a guide for designing and experimental
model. In the results, the effects of shock wave-boundary layer interactions with
flow separation were observed. Average of the density distributions on a series
of planes from one side wall to the other from the CFD results agreed well with
schlieren images obtained experimentally. The structure of the shock waves and
angles obtained from the schlieren images agree quite well with those obtained
from the CFD results. The effects of lambda-shock formations which indicate
possible boundary layer separations, reflections of shock waves, and shock wave
– boundary layer interactions on inlet unstart phenomena have been discussed.
 19

(a) Top view (b) Side view

Figure 2.6: Mach number distribution

(a) Experimental result (b) CFD results

Figure 2.7: Shock wave structure

2.8 NUMERICAL SIMULATION ON SITVC NOZZLE:

A numerical study has been performed to characterize the nozzle flow field
of Secondary Injection Thrust Vector Control (SITVC) and to estimate the
performance parameters of SITVC. After validating the CFD turbulence models
with an experimental data, a numerical simulation has been conducted in order to
investigate the influence of changing the injection location, the injection angle,
and the primary nozzle divergence half angle on the SITVC nozzle flow field
structure and on the SITVC performance parameters. The secondary mass flow
rate was kept constant for all cases during the simulation. The results showed that
 20

downstream injection near the nozzle exit increases the high-pressure zone
upstream the injection leading to an increase in the side force, also, the higher
divergence half angle 15 degrees slightly increases the side force and it provides
a wide range of deflection without shock impingement on the opposite wall
becoming more effective for SITVC. The injection angle in the upstream
direction 135 degrees increases the side force, and by decreasing the injection
angle to downstream 45 degrees, the side force decreases. However, the SITVC
performance parameters and the flow field structure are more influenced by the
injection location and the primary nozzle divergence half angle while being less
influenced by the injection angle.

Figure 2.8: SITVC nozzle flow field structure (Mach number contour)

Numerical simulation has been carried out with the help of the realizable k
– epsilon turbulence model accompanied with enhanced wall treatment and
showed a good accuracy with the experimental data in order to analyse the
 21

influence of changing the injection angle, injection location, and primary nozzle
divergence half angle on the SITVC nozzle flow field structure and the SITVC
performance parameters for a given secondary mass flow rate. It was found that
as the injection location moved downstream, the chance of shock impingement
decreases and the side force increases, but the axial thrust augmentation decreases
due to the inefficient expansion of the secondary injection, also with increasing
angle of injection from 45 to 135 degrees, the side force increases, but axial thrust
augmentation slightly decreases, and it was concluded that small divergence half
angles 5 degrees are not efficient form the point of view of SITVC as the chance
of the shock impingement increases. Finally, results showed that downstream
injection, increasing injection angle (upstream inclination) and higher divergence
half angle, improves the performance of SITVC.

2.9 FLOW PHENOMENA:

Generally, in a compressible flow, the most commonly observed flow

phenomena are shock reflections, shock-shock interactions and shock-boundary
layer interaction. These phenomena are fore most important to study to get full
picture of effects of varying density.

2.9.1 Shock Reflections:

When a shock wave is incident on a surface, it gets reflected back at some

angle. The angle of reflection and the properties across such reflected shock wave
varies depending on a number of factors. Properties across the shock depends
upon the properties of flow before incidence and deflection angle.
 22

Figure 2.9: Shock reflecting from a surface

2.9.2 Shock – Shock Interactions:

Majorly in case of internal flows and sometimes in case of the external flows,
the phenomena of Shock – shock interactions are observed.

Figure 2.10: Shock – Shock Interaction

Figure 1.10 shows the resultant flow direction when two shock wave
interacts. Flow property changes across the shock waves. It changes in a similar
way as discussed in the section of oblique shock waves. The dotted line in the
figure if called slip line.
 23

2.9.3 Shock – Boundary Layer Interaction:

Shock wave – Boundary Layer Interaction (SBLI) is a fundamental phenomenon

in gas dynamics and frequently a defining feature in high speed aerodynamic flow
fields. The interactions can be found in practical situations, ranging from transonic
aircraft wings to hypersonic vehicles and engines. SBLI’s have the potential to
pose serious problems and is thus critical issue for aerospace applications. This
phenomenon is foremost important to analyse in supersonic flows since any
abrupt changes in the boundary layer disturbs the entire flow.

Figure 2.11: Shock – Boundary Layer Interactions

The shock produces and adverse pressure gradient along the boundary layer,
which causes the flow to slow and the boundary layer to thicken. In the limit the
flow may recirculate, and the boundary layer will detach from the wall. Figure
2.11 shows the graphical view of velocity profile in boundary layer and its
changes due to shock impingement. In the separation bubble the direction of flow
has changed and velocity profile with negative velocity is noticed.

2.10 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SUPERSONIC CROSS

FLOWS:

Strong bow show generated by the secondary transverse injection is mainly

responsible for diverting the main jet flow. Resulting flow field is characterised
 24

with the complex flow structures featuring strong adverse pressure gradients
accompanied with the three-dimensional vortex and shock regions, boundary
layer separation, shock generation, and their interaction, wakes, flow
reattachment, and mixing shear layers.

The secondary injectant in the flow is acting as an obstacle and source of

main jet momentum change. The upstream separation distance is in general
determined by the flow nature of the boundary layer (laminar or turbulent) and by
the penetration height of the injectant, as reported by Spaid and Zukoski.
Supersonic main flow “foresees” the secondary injectant plume as an obstacle and
generates the bow shock as a response. In the basic case of supersonic cross-flow
interaction, the turbulent boundary layer of the main flow detaches upstream of
the injection port due to an adverse pressure gradient, which is the consequence
of the bow shock. This interaction and the shock structure contribute in
development of main flow deflection steeper gradient while between the shock
region and the wall recirculation, shock bubble is formed. The structure between
the wall, shock region, and the injectant plume involves the counterrotating vortex
pair, commonly known as Primary upstream vortex (PUV) which develops
along the wall boundary and smaller counterrotating Secondary upstream
vortex (SUV) near the injectant plume. The separation shock formed along the
distanced boundary layer by these vortices and sonic surface in between them
initially deviate the incoming flow. After separation region, main flow then faces
strong bow shock and rapidly deflects. Sonically injected gas is under expanded.
Thus, it is expanding in the main flow through the Prandtl-Meyer fan and is
recompressed with the Mach disk at the end of this process.

On the downstream side of the injection, low-pressure region behind the jet
creates suction which turns the injectant plume towards the wall. The low-
pressure region is in greater part responsible for the wake which is dominated by
strong vortical motions of Primary and Secondary Downstream Vortices
 25

(PDV and SDV). The closing edge of the pressure bubble on the downstream
wall side, driven by the trailing edge of SDV and recompression shock reattaches
the flow to the wall.

Figure 2.12: Two-dimensional flow field and pressure distribution of transverse

slot gas injection by Spaid and Zukoski

2.11 ISENTROPIC RELATIONS:

As a gas is forced through a tube, the gas molecules are deflected by the
walls of the tube. If the speed of the gas is much less than the speed of sound of
the gas, the density of the gas remains constant and the velocity of the flow
increases. However, as the speed of the flow approaches the speed of sound we
must consider compressibility effects on the gas. Considering flow through a
tube, as shown in the figure, if the flow is very gradually compressed (area
decreases) and then gradually expanded (area increases), the flow conditions
return to their original values. We say that such a process is reversible. From a
consideration of the second law of thermodynamics, a reversible flow maintains
a constant value of entropy. Engineers call this type of flow an isentropic flow.
 26

The equations for isentropic flow are called as isentropic relations. The
isentropic relations for a flow is given as follows:

2.12 FANNO FLOW:

Consider a 1D steady flow of a perfect gas, with constant specific heats,
through a constant area duct. Also, let there be a neither external heat exchange
or external shaft work and let differences in elevation produce negligible changes
compared to frictional effects. The flow with above mentioned conditions,
namely adiabatic flow with no external work, is called Fanno line flow. The
equation for finding the length of a constant area duct is:

L Lmax Lmax
4f̅ = (4f̅ ) − (4f̅ )
D D M1 D M2
 27

CHAPTER 3
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL FLUID

DYNAMICS:

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful tool used to model the

real-life behaviour of fluids. It allows the optimization of design parameters
without the need for costly testing of multiple prototypes. What is more, it is also
a powerful graphical tool for visualizing flow patterns that can give insight into
flow physics that otherwise would be very difficult and costly to discover
experimentally, if possible, at all. Governing equations exist to model fluid
behaviour, but it is not always possible to apply them to many of the complex
flow patterns we see in the real world directly as there would be too many unknow
variables. However, CFD involves creating a computational mesh to divide up
real world continuous fluids into more manageable discrete sections. The
governing equations for fluid flow can then be applied to each section
individually, but as the properties of each section are inevitably linked to its
neighbouring sections, all the sections can be solved simultaneously until a full
solution for the entire flow field can be found. This method obviously requires a
huge amount of computational power, nevertheless with the advancement of
modern computing, solutions that would take months to compute by hand can
now be found in seconds using nothing more than an ordinary desktop or laptop
computer.

As with everything, CFD is not without its limitation. Its accuracy or validity
are dependent on a multitude of different factors: the quality and appropriateness
of the mesh, the degree to which the chosen equations match the type of flow to
be modelled, the interpretation of the results, the accuracy of the boundary
conditions entered by the user or the level of convergence of the solution, to name
 28

but a few. Often it comes down to the skill of the user, as each flow problem will
be slightly different and as a result, it will require slightly different modelling
approach. However, experimental data can provide a valuable reference point
with which to check the validity of CFD models.

3.2 MODELLING PROCESS:

The modelling process consists of first taking the real-world fluid geometry
and replicating this in the virtual environment. From here, a mesh can be created
to divide the fluid up into discrete sections. Boundary conditions must then be
entered into the model to designate parameters such as the type nozzle
geometries, with their characteristics and applications of fluids to be modelled or
the details of any walls or flow inlet/outlets and open atmosphere etc. the
simulation is then ready to be run and when a converged solution is found, it must
be carefully analysed to establish whether the mesh is appropriately modelling
the flow conditions.

3.3 GEOMETRY:

The geometry required for the computation are developed using CATIA V5
R21. The Figure shows the convergent-divergent nozzle of rectangular inlet of
dimensions 15 x 17 mm. The throat is of the dimensions 8 x 17 mm. The
theoretical design outlet Mach number of the nozzle is 2. The exit area of the
nozzle if 13.5 x 17 mm. The area ratio of the nozzle is 1.6875. the length of the
nozzle from inlet to exit is 39.493 mm.

The nozzle is followed by a constant area duct of cross-sectional area of

229.5 mm2. The length of the constant area duct is calculated using the fanno flow
equation for a design exit Mach number of 1.6. the length of the constant area
duct is 89.505 mm.

4 types of models are designed based on the injection parameters. 1st model
is plain constant area duct without secondary injection port. The other models are
 29

with circular secondary injection port of diameter 2.5 mm placed exactly at the
mid-section of the constant area duct at different angles of 30, 45 and 90 degrees.

The exit domain for calculating the atmospheric flow field structure is made
divergent. The breadth of inlet of the domain is 8D and the outlet of the domain
is 16D. the length of the domain is 20D and the thickness of the entire domain is
8D, where D hydraulic diameter of the inlet of the nozzle.

(a) No injection model with domain

(b) 30 degrees injection model with domain

 30

(c) 45 degrees model with domain

(d) 90 degrees model with domain

Figure 3.1: Models

 31

Figure 3.2: Inside view of the domain

3.4 MESHING:

Geometry of the different models along with computational domain

developed using CATIA were used for generating the mesh in ANSYS Mesh.
Unstructured Quad and triangle meshing were done using this software.

The number of nodes and elements for each case are:

1. No injection: Elements: 69601, Nodes: 68275

2. 30-degree injection: Elements: 119072, Nodes: 103337
3. 45-degree injection: Elements: 87705, Nodes: 80730
4. 90-degree injection: Elements: 77423, Nodes: 74411

The element size of all the models are 0.005 m. The method used to mesh is
Hex-Dominant (Quad/tri). Average skewness for all the models is less than 0.3.
 32

(a) Mesh of No injection model

(b) Mesh of 30 degrees injection model

(c) Mesh of 45 degrees injection model

 33

(d) Mesh of 90 degrees injection model

Figure 3.3: Meshing of models with domain

3.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:

The mesh file generated using ANSYS Mesh was imported into ANSYS
CFX where all the boundary conditions required for the computation are defined.
Following are the conditions that are implied on the model:

1. Analysis type: Steady State

2. Material: Air at Ideal Gas
3. Domain Reference Pressure: 0 bar
4. Heat Transfer Option: Total Energy
5. Turbulence Option: Shear Stress Transport

3.5.1 Inlet Boundary Conditions:

The inlet of the nozzle is named as the inlet boundary where the inlet
boundary conditions are mentioned. There is one inlet boundary for the model
without secondary injection. The boundary conditions given for the inlet of main
flow are:
 34

1. Flow Regime: Subsonic

2. Flow Direction: Normal to Boundary condition
3. Turbulence Option: Zero Gradient
4. Heat Transfer Option: Static Temperature
5. Mass and Momentum Option: Total Pressure (stable)

The following cases are given at the inlet for total pressure and static
temperature:

Cases Total Pressure (bar) Static Temperature (K)

1 4.5 185.0529
2 6 172.7779

The inlet conditions for the secondary flow are given at the secondary inlet
port. For a given core flow pressure, a number of secondary injection pressures
are given and simulated at 3 different angles viz. 30, 45 and 90 degrees.

Note: The secondary inlet pressures are calculated by taking the mass flow
ratio of secondary mass flow rate to main mass flow rate and they are calculated
using the isentropic relations. The static temperature for each case of pressure is
also calculated using the isentropic relations.

Following are the secondary flow pressures for the main flow pressure of 4.5 bar
and 6 bar for all the angles:
 35

Main Flow Total Pressure = 4.5 bar

Mass flow ratio Total Pressure Static Temperature
Cases
(%) (bar) (K)
1 2 1.24676591 238.6472
2 3 1.87014887 222.6296
3 4 2.49353182 210.5422
4 5 3.11691487 200.9429
5 6.5 4.05198921 189.5806
6 9 5.6104466 175.6171
7 10 6.2338296 171.1693
8 12 7.4805955 163.5925

Main Flow Total Pressure = 6 bar

Mass flow ratio Total Pressure Static Temperature
Cases
(%) (bar) (K)
1 2 1.6623545 227.4298
2 3 2.4935318 210.5421
3 4 3.3247091 198.1492
4 5 4.1558864 188.4859
5 6.5 5.4026523 177.2208
6 9 7.4805955 163.5924
7 10 8.3117727 159.2939
8 12 9.9741273 152.0127
 36

3.5.2 Opening Boundary Conditions:

The domain constructed at the exit of the constant area duct is given the
Opening boundary condition. Where the atmospheric conditions are provided.
The Opening boundary conditions given are:

1. Flow Regime: Subsonic

2. Flow Direction: Normal to Boundary condition
3. Turbulence Option: Zero Gradient
4. Heat Transfer Option: Static Temperature
5. Mass and Momentum Option: Total Pressure (stable)

The total pressure and static temperature values are 1.01325 bar and 300K.

3.5.3 Wall Boundary Conditions:

The wall boundary conditions are given for the walls of the nozzle and
constant area duct along with the side of the domain that is attached with the exit
of the constant area duct. The boundary details are:

1. Mass and Momentum Option: No Slip Wall

2. Wall Roughness: Smooth Wall
3. Heat Transfer Option: Adiabatic Wall

3.5.4 Solver Control:

Some of the important solver parameters used during the computations are
given below:

1. Advection Scheme: Upwind

2. Turbulence Scheme: First Order
3. Residual Target: 1E-5
4. Length Scale Option: Conservative
5. Compressibility Control: ON
 37

3.6 OUTPUT CONTROL:

RMS residue for Mass, U, V, W – momentum, Energy, Turbulence Kinetic

Energy and Turbulence Frequency equations are monitored. Pressure,
Momentum and Energy Imbalance are monitored and allowed to go below 1%
before terminating the solver.
 38

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 RESULTS:

Once the simulation for all the cases according to the previously mentioned
setup conditions are performed, the results are obtained by post-processing
procedure where the axial pressure data in the mid plane and contours of various
properties can be obtained like Mach Number, Pressure, Density, Temperature
etc. can be obtained. Also, various plots can be generated from the acquired
values.

4.2 TOTAL PRESSURE VARIATION:

Here the total pressure along the centreline is obtained from the nozzle exit
to 0.3 m distance from the nozzle exit at 100 equidistant locations along the z
axis. The axial distance z is normalised by dividing it with the exit diameter of
the nozzle and the total pressure is normalised by dividing it with the main flow
inlet pressure. The axial distance at the nozzle exit is taken as z = 0. The graph is
plotted for different mass flow ratios for all the angles and main flow and
secondary flow pressure variations.

From the total pressure plots in Figure 5.1, we can observe where the total
pressure drop occurs and where the total pressure drop is high. As seen in the
graphs plotted in Figure 5.1 (i), the main flow pressure of 6 bar has minimum
pressure drop under no injection condition compared to the main flow pressure
of 4.5 bar. It can be observed that higher core flow pressures provide minimum
pressure drop inside the constant area duct isolator.
 39

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 2%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 4.5_90 6_90

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 3%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 4.5_90 6_90

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

 40

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 4%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 4.5_90 6_90

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 5%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 4.5_90 6_90

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 41

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 6.5%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 4.5_90 6_90

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 9%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 4.5_90 6_90

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

 42

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 10%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 6_90 4.5_90

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

Total Pressure (mass flow ratio = 12%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

4.5_30 6_30 4.5_45 6_45 0 6_90

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

 43

Total Pressure (No injection)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Po/P (4.5 bar) Po/P (6 bar)

(i) No injection
𝐏𝟎 𝐙
Figure 4.1: 𝐯𝐬 plots for all the angles and main flow pressures at different mass
𝐏 𝐃
flow ratios.

In the Figure 4.1 (a), it is observed that the total pressure drop is minimum
and almost similar for all the angles when the mass flow fraction is 2%. The
secondary injection does not affect the core supersonic flow majorly when the
mass flow fraction is too low (i.e.) when the secondary inlet pressure is too low
compared to the core flow inlet pressure.

As the mass flow ratio increases, the total pressure drop for 90 degrees angle
of injection begins to increase drastically even for mild variations in mass flow
ratio. Up to mass flow ratio of 3%, the total pressure drop is within the limits as
seen in Figure 4.1 (b). After that, the total pressure drop drastically increases as
it can be seen in the other graphs. In the Figure 4.1 (h), the pressure drop occurs
at the duct inlet itself (at the nozzle exit), which is highly inefficient. Hence
normal injection cannot be widely used when the secondary injection pressure is
even mildly higher. Also, in normal injection, the parallel velocity component of
 44

the injection jet flow is very less. This affects the mixing greatly and hence proves
to be inefficient compared to transverse injection.

The total pressure drop for 30 degrees injection angle is the minimum
compared to the other angles of injection considered in this experiment. It proves
to be a better angle for injection as it has more parallel velocity component of the
injection jet flow compared to the other angles. The only drawback being the
requirement of very high secondary jet pressure for the flow to show effective
mixing characteristics.

The drawbacks of both the injection angles seems to be slightly reduced for
the case of 45 degrees of injection. Even though there is slightly more pressure
drop compared to the 30 degrees angle, it is within the acceptable limits.

4.3 MACH NUMBER CONTOUR FOR LATERAL PLANE:

Following are the Mach number contours on the lateral mid planes for the
cases of no injection, and multiple angles of secondary injection at 2 different
main flow pressures and 8 different mass flow ratios.

(a) 4.5 bar

 45

(b) 6 bar
Figure 4.2: Mach Number contour for model with no injection

4.3.1 30 degree and 4.5 bar Main Flow Pressure:

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

 46

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 47

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

 48

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

Figure 4.3: Mach number contours for 30-degree angle of injection and 4.5 bar pressure

As it can be seen in the Mach contours in Figure 4.3, the flows start to mix
only when the secondary jet pressure is almost equal to the main flow pressure.
And the mixing characteristics is better only when the secondary jet pressure is
very high. At low pressures, the flow does not show major changes. Also, the
strength of the bow shock created and the flow separation region before the
injection is very less.

4.3.2 30 degree and 6 bar Main Flow Pressure:

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

 49

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 50

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

 51

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

Figure 4.4: Mach number contours for 30-degree angle of injection and 6 bar pressure

4.3.3 45 degree and 4.5 bar Main Flow Pressure:

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

 52

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 53

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

 54

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

Figure 4.5: Mach number contours for 45-degree angle of injection and 4.5 bar pressure

As it can be seen in the Figure 4.5, even for 45 degrees angle, the flow begins
to change almost only when the main flow pressure and jet flow pressure is equal.
But compared to 30 degrees injection, the flow shows better mixing
characteristics at a slightly lesser mass flow ratio compared to the 30 degrees
angle of injection. Here also, the strength of the bow shock is lesser, but slightly
greater compared to 30 degrees angle of injection.

4.3.4 45 degree and 6 bar Main Flow Pressure:

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

 55

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 56

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

 57

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

Figure 4.6: Mach number contours for 45-degree angle of injection and 6 bar pressure

4.3.5 90 degree and 4.5 bar Main Flow Pressure:

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

 58

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 59

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

 60

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

Figure 4.7: Mach number contours for 90-degree angle of injection and 4.5 bar pressure

For the case of normal injection, the flow separates drastically even for small
variations in mass flow ratio. At higher mass flow ratios, the flow separates well
behind the injection point and at the ratio of 12%, the flow separates at the inlet
of the constant area duct itself, affecting the mixing of flow drastically. The
strength of the bow shock created is very high. But it shows better mixing
characteristics at low secondary jet pressures.

4.3.6 90 degree and 6 bar Main Flow Pressure:

(a) Mass flow ratio = 2%

 61

(b) Mass flow ratio = 3%

(c) Mass flow ratio = 4%

(d) Mass flow ratio = 5%

 62

(e) Mass flow ratio = 6.5%

(f) Mass flow ratio = 9%

(g) Mass flow ratio = 10%

 63

(h) Mass flow ratio = 12%

Figure 4.8: Mach number contours for 90-degree angle of injection and 6 bar pressure

The normal injection (injection at 90 degrees) begins to show drastic

variation for small variations in mass flow ratio. The flow begins to separate
sooner for normal injection when compared to transverse injection. Also, the
primary bow seems to be much stronger for normal injection compared to the
transverse injection, as observed from the Mach contours in Figures 4.7 and 4.8.
The two secondary injections into the core supersonic flow mixes rapidly even at
low mass flow ratios. But as the mass flow ratio increases, the flow begins to
separate too soon and the flow Mach number is affected drastically. When the
mass flow ratio is as high as 12%, The bow shock stands at the nozzle exit which
makes the flow inside the isolator subsonic until the secondary flow is injected
into the isolator. This affects the flow mixing drastically and the total pressure
loss is very high under these conditions, as it can be observed in Figures 4.1 (h),
4.7 (h) and 4.8 (h). It can be inferred that as the angle of injection is increased,
the strength of primary bow shock increases and its originating point moves
upstream the injector, and the strength of separation increases as the angle of
injection increases which leads to an extension of the high – pressure zone
 64

upstream the injector; thus a stronger separation shock results in higher pressure
in the high-pressure zone upstream the injection.

As the injection angle decreases, the strength of the primary bow shock
decreases. For injection at 30 degrees, the flow mixing characteristics tend to be
better than normal injection; this is due to the relatively higher parallel velocity
component of the injected air. But for the flow to attain proper mixing, large
secondary injection pressure is required. The flow starts to show variation in
mixing only when the secondary injection pressure is approximately equal to the
core flow pressure. When it is lesser than the core flow pressure, there is not much
variation in the mixing characteristics. When the angle of injection is 30 degrees,
the mixing characteristics are better only the mass flow ratio is as high as 12%,
as it can be observed in the Figure 4.3(h) and 4.4(h). But flow mixing
characteristics tend to be excellent when the secondary injection angle is
decreased. The total pressure loss is very low for the 30-degree angle injection as
it can be seen in the Figure 4.1. It can thus be inferred that it will be ideal to inject
the fuel at lower angles to obtain better mixing of flow; the only drawback being
the requirement of very high secondary injection pressures which will be difficult
to provide.

This drawback is slightly overcome when the flow is injected at an angle of

45 degree. At this angle, the better mixing of flow still occurs at high secondary
injection pressures but not as high as it is required for injection at 30 degrees. The
strength of the primary bow shock is higher than the strength of the bow shock
when the flow was injected at 30 degrees. Hence the total pressure drop is also
slightly greater compared to lower angles. But it is not as high as it was for the
normal injection. It was still within the acceptable limits as it can be seen in the
Figure 4.1. Similar to the injection at 30 degrees angle, for injection at 45 degrees
too, the secondary injection pressure should be greater or equal to the core flow
 65

pressure to obtain better mixing of the cross flows. But even for mass flow ratio
of 9%, there is better mixing of the cross flows at 45 degrees injection.

High Pressure Zone Low Pressure Zone

Primary
Bow Shocks

Shock-Shock
interactions

Mach Disks

Figure 4.9: Detailed view of injection zone of 45 degrees, 6 bar and 9% mass flow
ratio

The density gradient is lesser for lower angles of injection, causing less total
energy loss in those cases. But during normal injection, the density gradient is
comparatively greater and hence induces large total pressure and energy losses,
which affects mixing of flow largely. It has a major effect on the flow mixing
characteristics. This also proves that transverse injection provides better mixing
of the secondary jet flow and the supersonic main flow when compared to normal
injection. This can be observed in the Figure 4.10. At the region of injection, the
density gradient is lesser in the case of transverse injection as seen in Figure 4.10
(a), whereas in the normal injection case, the density gradient profile is much
greater comparatively.
 66

(a) 45 degrees at 6bar and 12% mass flow ratio

(b) 90 degrees at 6 bar and 12% mass flow ratio

Figure 4.10 Density Gradient Contours
 67

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

This project work is conducted to perform the numerical study of flow

mixing characteristics of a supersonic cross flow by secondary injection in a
constant area duct; which is compared to the flow field in the isolator of a scramjet
engine. This study is performed to identify if the shock formation occurring inside
the isolator assists the mixing of the fuel with the incoming air stream from the
inlet so that the combustion can occur faster and the combustor length can be
reduced. Also, to study the total pressure drop at injection ports for different
injection angles and different core and secondary flow pressures and to see what
are the advantages of having part of the fuel injected in the isolator itself before
the air stream enters the combustor.

We can thus infer a number of facts from the discussion in the previous
chapter. The pressure drop inside the duct without injection is lesser when the
inlet pressure is greater. When the secondary jet flow is injected into the
supersonic stream at 90 degrees, there is huge total pressure drop at higher mass
flow ratios and the strength of primary bow shock and the shock induced
separation is very high. But the secondary jet pressure required for flow mixing
is low when compared to injection at 30 and 45 degrees. At 30 degrees, the flow
mixing characteristics are very much better and the shock strength and total
pressure drop is very low but with a drawback of very high secondary jet pressure
requirement. At 45 degrees injection, the mixing tends to be better than that of
the normal injection and the secondary jet pressure requirement is also less
compared to 30 degrees. Thus, the flow mixing characteristics are much better at
lower angles of injection than normal injection.
 68

REFERENCES

[1] Ethirajan Rathakrishnan, January 2018, “Gas Dynamics, 6th edition”. PHI
Learning Private Limited, ISBN: 9788120353169.

[2] H.R. Noaman, Hai Bin Tang, and Elsayed Khalil, March 2019, “Numerical
Simulation on the Influence of Injection Location, Injection Angle, and
Divergence Half Angle on SITVC Nozzle Flow Field”. Research Article in
Hindawi, International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Volume 2019, Article
ID: 7392497, 16 Pages.

[3] J.P. Drummond, Glenn S. Diskin, Andrew Cutler, February 2002, “Fuel – Air
Mixing and Combustion in Scramjets”

[4] Krishna Murari Pandey, Sivasakthivel Thangavel, January 2010, “Recent

Advances in Scramjet Fuel Injection – A Review”. Article in International Journal
of Chemical Engineering and Applications, DOI: 10.7763/IJCEA. 2010.V1.52.

[5] Krishna Murari Pandey, January 2011, “CFD Analysis of Wall Injection with
Large Sized Cavity Based Scramjet Combustion at Mach 2”. Article in
International Journal of Engineering and Technology, DOI: 10.7763/IJET.
2011.V3.210.

[6] Michael K. Smart, “Scramjet Isolators”. Research Article. Centre for

Hypersonics, the University of Queensland.

[7] P. Nithish Reddy, “Numerical Investigations on Development of Scramjet

Propulsion System”, Thesis.

[8] Spaid, F.W., and E.E. Zukoski, 1968, “Study of the interaction of gaseous jets
from transverse slots with supersonic external flows”. AIAA J. 6(2):205 – 12.
 69

[9] S. Seckin, K.B. Yuceil, 2013, “Flow Visualization of a Scramjet Inlet-Isolator

Model in Supersonic Flow”, EPJ Web of Conferences 45, 01099 (2013), DOI:
10.1051/epjconf/20134501099.

[10] V. Zmijanovic, V. Lago, L. Leger, E. Depussay, M. Sellam, and A. Chpoun,

“Thrust Vectoring Effects of a Transverse Gas Injection into a Supersonic Cross
Flow of an Axisymmetric Convergent – Divergent Nozzle”, Progress in Propulsion
Physics 4 (2013) 227-256, DOI: 10.1051/eucass/201304227.

[11] Vu Ngoc Long, Luu Hong Quan, Nguyen Phu Hung, Le Doan Quang,
“Analysis of a Dual-mode Scramjet Engine Isolator Operating from Mach 3.5 to
Mach 6”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Applications,
Volume 4, No. 5, 2016, pp. 189-198. DOI: 10.11648/j.ijmea.20160405.14.