{62000 hmercan Insitute of keronautis & Astronautics or published wih permission of author(s) andor author(s) sponsoring organization. Alaa 2000-0090 Mixing Augmentation of Transverse Injection in SCRamjct Combustor / ‘Sang-Hyeon Lee’ and Young-Jin Kimt University of Ulsan, Ulsan, 680-749, Republic of Korea and Tohru Mitani* i i NAL Kekuda Center, Kimigay, Kakuda, Miyagi, 981-15, Japan Abstract /Metods fr sig sopmentichs ofthe tansvers injection ina Seranetcombasor are sugested Based on th it ht he mln factor conling the mixing character in ranwver neti she etetve backpessare (he presutetound ts injection hele) iti ed orks ow expansion ness Jhé Injection por in drt rence th etfetve bickresnire. thee dimesional Nave Stokes code ‘opting he upwind method of Rox fe fieace slung scheme cue. The Ka ttulncs model i ed to cele the wrbulen visoly. I shown tha ihe retucingeTeive bags makes eveleoincreste he mixing rae ano insets he penevaton daaoce wit excnive loses of "stagnation pressure. Also, it is shown that the streamwise vorticity generated by baroclinic ae: has. . reat infuences on he mixing proces) i 2 = penton daance normalized by D Nomenclature m sins i B, =x vetorsin physel coordinate re = iffsve vectors in physical coordiaie 2 =aoctnc source D melanie of lector sezale oe ne oe © mstreanise voricty malized ed by 4, /D i th Haas ow tte density M = Mach aumber i = avenged station presire Subset P= tate pressure 1 feel je Q = solution vector Sntiagaiboa cate fun $ aapectes T= mperanic T =turbulenee YS taiediecioa = alet condidon Assisi Profesok, School of Tantpot Ssiems Eng, AIAA Member + Ornuat Reseatch Assistant, Schoo! uf Transpo Syeme Bog * Head of Ramjet Combustion Group, ALAA Member “ipa mor te Amon iti Arama nd Sea rt | i eN, i American Insiut of Aconatics and Astronautics fee si d 3 ee :Ber : Introduction Mixiog problem The design of the combustor of a supersonic combuson ramjet (SCRamet) engine requires very effciedtfuel-at mixing methods because ofthe shor residence time of the airflow within the engine. The residence time of ai in hypersoni alrplne engines i ‘only on the onder of a milsecond for typical ght conditions. Within this short duration of time, the fuel ‘ust be mixed with the air and then burned wittoat excessive acrodynamic dag. to achieve. maximum thet ‘The popular method of feel injection for SCRamjet engine is the transverse injection This ‘ype of injection bas been proved tobe a eible meio, and used in most of SCRamjet engine."* The flow field of ‘a singl€ transverse injection is shown in Fig. 1. There is & tee dimensional bow shock in from of the fuel imeraction between bow shock and boundary ‘makes an oblique shock. These shock waves ineriase the aerodynamic drag. A vortex pair due to the separation of flow passing around the injectant flow is shown after the injectant flow. It is known that this ‘vortex pair hasan important role inthe mixing process, Scope of investigation This study was conducted in ord 1, find more ciflelent transverse injection methods. The results of the previous studies showed that the effective backpressure, the pressure near the injection por, has very important roles onthe mixing characterises tn the preliminary study, it was found tal the redvtion of the effective backpressure makes it possible 0 increase mixing rte and penetration distance. The flow expansion generated with expansion cavity near the injection port is adopted to reduce the effective backpressure, ‘The main parameters of fucl-ae mixing are mixing ‘at, penetration distance and stagoation-pressure los. In this study, the gouls of mixing augmentation are higher mixing rate, higher penetration disance and lowr stagnation pressure loss. Mixing rate is onc of the most important parameters, since the enhancement of mixing rate diecily resus in the enhancement of combustion in a SCRamjet combustor. Penetation American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics {612000 American Institue of Aeronautics & Astronautics or published with permission of authors) andior authors" sponsoring organization. ALAA 2000-0090 distance of injectant is also an important parameyers, since the fuel in SCRamjet combustor should be far from the combustor wall to enhance the ralxing with air and to avoid wall-heating, The excessive loss of stagnation pressure should be avoided, since the loss of stagnation pressure means the loss of thrust“? ‘Thee kinds of the model injectors shown in Fig. 2 are tested. The frst figure shows the canonical model (model A). The second model (model B) and third ‘ode! (model C) are designed to reduce the effective backpressure with the expansion waves preceded by the cavity near the injection port. t will be shown that the models B and C improve the mixing characteristics sich as mixing rate, penetration: distance without excessive inerease of stagnation loss. It is also shown that the mixing enbancement is strongly related with streamwise vorticity produced by baroclinic torque. liyer Governing equations ‘were used to solve the mean flow and the k-o turbulence model? equations are used to calculate the turbulent viscosity. These governing equ ‘expressed in vector form with tensor notation: Qe. A Per Ph pay” Ey Lemp ety + PB yo phat, ph, pos, Ey iit art alt ~Qyot'h ote, S,100.0.6atis ~ Boa), (a0 ke any ~ Book)y o~o' #05, Hwy $0 ip BT = +0, @=5/9, 9 =3/40 and f =97100. ‘Acmodel forthe dilatation-dissipation term suggested bby Wilcox is included to predict the compressibility effects, ‘The diffusion velocities of species are found by Fick's law. The formulas and data of viscosity, thermal and binary itfusivity are taken” from ‘The intermolecular potential function isthe 2 ‘The three-dimensional Navier-Stokes coustionsenn 126 pel The vcny of fot tet fos Caso ti Ie Sosa cps coer mailed sg ine pebdTe ral soto ep oiled fom te cn el ne a Mater gun nosed by Mae sd ce The aiuviy ots bony pmo ene toa ChapauSng tin, end hyo wpe nite eden wit Blas ie ie fle vy wo he cont Sone ton tae vin. Ts te Pan sani td er Sei ess wine of cl wt FS (Bu Die ‘Sphiting) scheme" is adopted. The LU-SGS (Lower Upper Symmettic Gauss Seidel) scheme" is used for time integration Flow conditions ‘The calculation conditions are the same with experimental conditions of Gruber’ for the purpose of comparing the results of this sty. Inthe experiment, the fuel i replaced with the alt for the sake of safety ‘The inflow sir and injectant are treated as perfect gases. ‘Te Mach numbers of air inflow and injectant flow are 1.95 and 1.0, respectively. The stagnation pressure and tagnation temperature of air inflow ate 317.7 kPa, 297K, respectively. ‘The stagnation temperatures of {njectant are 297K and the static pressure atthe nozzle ‘exit is 164.6 KPa, The penéization and mixing rate of jet ate controlled by the jet-to-crass flow momentum flax ratio, J, defined as (8), nM), (Ve GP) In this study, the value of J is varied from 0.510 20. ‘Géometry of models and grid systems La Figure 2 shows the geometries and grid systems of ‘model combustors. Model A is the canonical injector 4 model, The diameter of the cirelar injection hole (D) is 3.18mm. The length of the combustor is 18.0D (6D {e280 American institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or published with permission of author(s) ander 3 thor(y sponsoring organization ‘AIAA 2000-0050 before and 12D after injection pot, the width is 2.00, andthe heights SSD. In mos! B, the diameter of the injection port with model A. There i a cavly nea the injection port to produce expansion waves. The injection ports are located atthe front region of the eavity for model B, since the ming enhancement were belter than any other position inthe pretimnary study. The expansion angle of the eavty is 30 degrees (the depth is 0.87). Model C has almost same geometries with the smodel B except the region before nd after the injection port. The cavity exists ofly beside the injection port, Rence there are no expansion ramp in front of the injection port and no ramps behind the injection port. The injection ports are located beside the front region ofthe cavity for model C, since the mixing enhancement were etter than any other postion in the preliminsy study. The expansion angle of the cavity is 30 degrees (he deph i about 0.87), Which is same with mode B. ‘The rumber of grid points is 360,000(150(x) x 40(y)%60(). The grid points are clustered near the walls and tear the injection por. Results (Code validation ‘To validate the cade used in this study, the results ofthis study are compared with the experimental result of Gruber!. Figure 3 shows the distibutions of wall pressure along the centerline (y=0), The high pressure in front of the injection port is due to the separation shock and the bow shock, while the low pressure behind the injection por is due to the wake. In this study, the reduction of wall pressure near x = -1D was not shown. The result ofthis study is almost same with that of Gruber except the front region near x= -1D. Global mixing process ‘To understand the overill tends of mixing process the mass-tractions of injectant are ploted in Fig. 4 ‘The first ow of figures shows the mixing trend when the value of jtto-cross flow momentum flux ratio, J, is 0.5, while the second and third rows show the mixing trends when the values of J ate 1.0 ané 2.0, respectively. “The comparisons among the figures in each row American Insitute of Aeronauties and Astronauticsillstrte that the mixing rates and the penetration istancesfotinjectant are enhanced in model B and C. ‘Two mpdels suggested in this study show dliferent trends Jot mixing enhancement. Model B strongly entrees mixing rae but slightly enhances penetration, While model C slightly enfiances mixing rate but strongly enhances penetration. In the following Sections, the reason and the measure of mixing ‘enhancement inthe model B and C willbe discussed, ‘The comparison among the figures in each column iMustrates that the mixing rate decreases and the penetration distance of injectant increases asthe value of J increases. This fact suggests that the value of J ‘should be carefully selected for a SCRamjet combustor, since the mixing z2:e and penettaion distance of injectant important parameters of the fuel-air mixing, showgopposite trends with the variance ofthe value of Jeach other, ‘Mixing rate Mixing rate is one of the most. important rameters of mixing characteristics, since the ‘combustion process strongly depends on the mixing rocess. Figure 5 shows the trends of mixing rate in the mode! A, B and C when the value of is 1.0. The definition of mixing rate isthe decay rate of maxinium ‘masscfraction of fuel. The decay rate of maximum ‘mass-frection of fuel is changed to be linear of log-log Scale atthe far field (after about x/D=4 in model A), ‘This is believed due to the fact that the mixing process ‘depends not strongly on the convection but strongly on the mass diffusion. Therefor there isthe transition of mixing regime from convection dominated regime to iffesion dominated regime, since there ate no ow acceleration mechanisms at the far field of injection port,” ‘The first feature found in this graph isthe fact that Model B end C show higher mixing rate than model A. at all values of J. Especially, model B. shows significantly higher mixing rate than that of the other models, which is very important fact considering ‘Combustion process in gal SCRamjet combustors It should be noted that the enhancements of mixing rate {nV model B and C result from the existence of the ‘cavity that makes expansion waves near the injection Port Tt is believed thet the enhancement of mixing rate 's stongly elated with the streamwise vorticity (12000 american inst of Reronautics & Astronautics or published with permission of author(s) andlor authors 4 ponsoring organization, ‘AIA 2000-0090 ‘The second feature shown in this graph is the fact ‘that the mixing rates are closely related with the value of J (eto-cross flow momentum flux ratio). The ‘cases with higher value of J show slower mixing than that with lower value of J. This is due to weak inertia force of the injectant flow with small value of J. The aisflow can penetrate more easily into the injectant ‘low with lower value of J than that with higher value of J. Considering only the mixing rate the value of J should be reduced as lower as possible. However, as mentioned above, the trade-off of penetration distance of injectant into the airflow should be considered. Penetration distance ‘The penetration distance is estimated with the center of mass of fuel from the lower wall, which is ‘defined in te following from: 2G) = ferrite ‘fs [fer dyda Figure 6 shows the trajectory of penetration distances ‘of the combustor models. In every case, the Pengiration distance increases rapidly right after the nection but the increasing rate of penetration decrease gradually and finally comes to be a constent at the far fel ‘The fits feature found inthis graph isthe fact that ‘model B and C show higher penetration distances than ‘model A at all values of J. Especially, model C shows significantly higher penetration distance than that of the other models, which is very important fact considering combustion process. in real scramjet combustors. ‘The second feature shown in this graph is the fact ‘thatthe penetration distance are closely related with the value of J, The eases with higher value of J show higher penetration distance than that with lower value of J. This i due to the fact that the injectant flow with 2 higher value ofJ has stronger inertia force relative to the airflow than tht with higher value of J. Influences of vorticity and backpressure Wis well known that streamwise vorticity has great {influences on the mixing process in high-speed flow.[] ‘The streamwise vorticity produce large convection flow in the plane perpendicular to the ditection of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.»i petal le cy ete fpplatvaa aerhragalnrapete Bee eee eee eae behint! the injectant flow. Therefore, there must be to cecal meni ty aa Rgamiate cies tee ae ee ee ee eee ee agin ne pert Peering he lil oredapantiert oes 90 pf Spt pote “The Historie of streamwise vorticity of all motels sre plied in Fig. 7. “The fist feature showa in this graph isthe at hat the suengbs of steamwise vorticity in model Band C ae higher values of streamwise vorticity in overall sense. Considering the fot thatthe mixing rates of ‘model B and C ate higher than that of model A (see Fig. 5), the stronger streamwise vorticity seems to be the main reason ofthe enhancement ofthe mixing rt. However, the diterences of mixing rate beeen models B and C could not be explained ony withthe sirarvise vorticity. Its believed that another factor isthe effective backpressure. There is expansion ramp atthe rear part ofthe injection port in model B, while there is lat epion atthe rear par ofthe injection port in model C. Because of this reason, the injectant of model B experiences stonget expansion right fer the injection. Tis stronger expansion in mod! B makes it possible to enhance the mixing rate much moce than model C. : “The Second feature shown in Fig. 7 the at that the suength of streamwise vorticity i closely relied with the value of 1. The eases with higher vale of 3 have stongersueamite vor than that With lower value of. Thisis due tothe fast that he injetant ow with higher value of J more stongy interacts with Airow. Another reason i thatthe inject’ wit lng value of dis has larger density, which makes stronger boetine sources. Ue shouldbe noted that the mining rat is not directly enhanced with the increase of streamwise 5 {2000 American Insitute o Aeronautics & Astronautics or pushed wth permission of author(s) andor author(s) sponsoring organization, ATAA 2000-0090 vorticity, The injectamt flow with larger value of J has higher penetration but lower mixing rate that that with small value of J, The mixing rate is determined with the relations between streamwise vorticity and inertia force of injectant flow relative to the of airflow. ‘There are two sources of streamwise vorticity: one is the baroclinic torque and the other isthe secondary flows fi y-z plane produced by pressure gradient, The baroclinic torgue is generated by the baroclinic source term inthe vorticity equation. 4(o) 4 Pas) ar tex¥P a(5) mm ‘The symbol @ denotes 2 vorticity vector, If the gradient of density and the gradient of pressure are not parallel to each other, the baroclinic source is generated. In this study, the difference of density between fuel and air makes density gradient, while the ‘expansion waves make pressure gradient, Figure & shows the changes of the baroclinic sources along the streamwise direction. This graph ilustrates the fact ‘ut the tends of sieamwise vorticty-are very similar to that of the baroclinic source term. Therefore, it ‘ould be stated that the main source of streamise ‘vorticity isthe baroclinic source term. Stagnation pressure loss ‘The mixing augmentation makes the extra por of the stagnation pressure Toss. However, if the loss ‘much excessive, there are significant problems from a viewpoint of thrust, Hence, It should be checked how ‘much the stagnation pressure loss is made duting the mixing process, The definition of averaged stagnation Pressure al a y-z plane is expressed in the following form: FG)~ [Troradyas | ffeudyde Figure 9 shows the vgyiation of the stagnation Pressures of the modelf A, B and C. The sharp increases of stagnation pressures are duc to the fuel injection. Model B and C has almost same tends of Stagnation pressure change and almostsame values at ‘American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauticsthe exit plane which aro smaller than that of model A. “The maximpm values of model B and C shown near Injection pot are higher than that of model A, which ‘means thy model B and C make smaller the stagnation pressurgfosses due tothe, bow shock than model A. “However the losses behind the injection port af mode! B and C are larger than that of mods! A since there are stronger secondary flows such as. streamwise vorticity are produced in model B and C. Those vorical secondary flows make stagnation pressure losses. ‘These addtional losses of stagnation pressure model B and C are the price of mixing augment However, the price would not be too much. Even the largest loss (Shown in the case thatthe value of J is 0.5) is within 10% of the stagnation pressure of model A. In te cases that the value of J are 1.0 and 2.0 shows about 6% and 3% additional losses, respectively ‘Therefore, t Gould be stated that there are considerable mixing enhancements with model B and model C without excessive loses Conclusions In the present study, a method for the mixing sugmentation of the transverse injection in a Seramjet combustor is suggested and the possibility was ‘checked with the numerical methods. Based on the fact that the main factor controlling the mixing characteristics in transverse injection is the effective backpressure, i is tried to make a flow expansion near ‘the injection port in order to reduce effective backpressure, 1 is shown that the reducing of the effective backpressure with flow expansion make it possible to increase to increase the mixing rate and the penetration distance without excessive losses of stagnation Pressure, Two models suggested in this study showed different trends of mixing enhancement: model B (whose expansion cavity exists in whole region near the injection port) showed considerable enhancement ‘of mixing rate, while model B (whose expansion cavity exists only beside the injection port) showed considerable enhancement of penetration of injectant ‘Also, it is shown that the streamwise vorticity ‘generated mainly by baroclinic source and has great influences on the mixing process, 6 (6/2000 American instute of Aerontutics & Astronautics or published wth permission of author(s) andor author(s sponsoring organization, IAA 2000-0090 References 1 Zakoski, E, B, and Spaid, F W,, “Secondary Injection of Gases into a Supersonic Flow," AIAA Journal Vol. 2, No. 10, October 1964, pp. 1689-16 Sehetz, J. A, Hawkins, P. F, and Lehms "Structure of Highly Underexpanded Transverse Jets ina Supersonic Stream," ALAA Joumal Vol. 5, No. 5, May 1967, p.882-884 Spald, F. W., and Zukoski, EE, “Further Experiments Concerning Secondary Injection of Gases into a Supersonic Flow,” AIAA Journal, Vo. 4, No. 12, December 1966, pp.2216-2218, Wang, K.C., Smith, 0.1, and Karagoria, A. R, "In-Flight Imaging of Transverse Gas Jets Injected into Compressible Cossflows," AIA Journal Vol, 33, No, 12, December 1995, pp.2259-2263. Grubet, M. R, Nejad, AS, and Goss, L. P *Surlace Pressure Measurements in Supersonic ransverse Injection Flowfiel," ALAA. Paper 97- » “Hypervelocty Seramjet Mixing Jourral of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 11. No. 5, 1995, pp 1088-1090. Lec, SH, Jeung, 1S, and Yoon Y., “Computational Investigation of Shock-Eahonced Mixing: Application to. Citcular Cross-Section CComustr,” AIAA Journal, Vo. 36, No, 11, 1998, pp 2055-2062 Wilcox, D. C. “Comparison of Two-Equation Turbulence Models for Boundary Layers with Pressure Gradient,” AIAA Journal Vol. 31, No. 8 1993,pp.1414-1424, Reld, CR, Prausnitz, J. Mand Poling,B. E, The ‘properties of Gases and Ligulds, 4th ed, McGraw. Hill, New York, 198. 10 Roc, P. L, “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol 43, No. 3, 1981, pp. 352-372. 11 Yoon, Sand Jameson, A, “Lower-Uppet Symmetic-Guuss Seidel Method for the Euler and Navir-Sokes Equation,” AIAA Journal Vol, 26; No 9, 1988, pp. 1025-1026, x 12 Green, S. L “Fluid Vortity," Kiuwer Academic Publishers, 1995, pp, 471-532. ‘American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics(2000 American insite of Aeronautics & Astronautics or published with permission of author(s) andlor authors sponsoring organization, AIAA 2000-0080 Tn i Fig. 1 Perspective View of the Mean Transverse Injection Flow-field 20 25) =10 — CAL-PRESENT 20 sg 8 © EXP-GRUBER ae to os vo a 30 Zz xD Fig. 3 Wall pressure distribution along: the center axis (y=0). 1 n Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics{212000 American ingtute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or published wth permission of author(s) andor authors) sponsoring organization, Model A Model 8 Model C. Fig. 4 Overall view of mixing process in three models: model A in the first column, model B in the second column and model C in the third column. ‘The values of J are 0.5 for the first row, 1.0 for the second row and 2.0 for the last row. 8 ‘American Institute of Aeronautics ang Astronautics ifF IAA 2000-0090 asl o-05 woot. moses 3 eacetd asl os19 MODELA wheel ave —— os} 2 -mooet © treat Fig. 5 Comparison of mixing rate expressed by Fig. 6 Comparison of penetration distance Aecay rate of maximum mass fraction of inject pormaized by diameter of injctiod hole. (ploted on log-log scale). ° ‘American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics(612000 American Institue of Aeroneuties & Astronautics or pulshed with permission of authors) andlor authors" sponsoring organization AIAA 20000090 29 woven ¢ Ea 9 al a0 woos. woos. x <-MODELE ole a ‘ woes “1 “woos. See ts oe Fig. 7 Comparison of sueamwise vorticity Fig. 8 Comparison of baroclinic somuce normaized by diameter of injection hole and normaized by presure and density of ar inflow. velocity of ar inflow. 10 Be toeeapraas American Institute of Aeronauties and Astronautics{e000 Arrieaninsttute of Aeronautics & Astronauts or published wih permission of ethos andor author(s sponsoring organization. dos ~ 138 woos. Semone. ary v7 noon. =e MODEL 190 mone Fig. 9 Comparison of stagnation pressure normaized by stagnation pressure of ar inflow. au ‘American Istitue of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA 2000-0090,