See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343536702

Numerical Study of Single Cavity at Inlet Mach of 2 for Non Reactive Jets In
Scramjet Combustor

Research · July 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36625.25449

CITATIONS READS

0 45

1 author:

Ajin Branesh

9 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dual cavity Scramjet combustor View project

Drag Enhancement Techniques on airfoil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ajin Branesh on 09 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advance Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 10S, (2020), pp. 6003-6008

Numerical Study of Single Cavity at Inlet Mach of 2 for Non Reactive Jets
In Scramjet Combustor

Ajin Branesh
Professor-Aerospace Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab-140413, India
branesh28@gmail.com

Abstract
The research for implementing favourable techniques and methods for hypersonic transportation
involves scramjet propulsion where the combustion is finished within a few milliseconds which can
add a huge amount of rich mixture inside the combustor section. The Scramjet combustor flow
dynamics is investigated for turbulence generation and air holding capability using axis symmetric
cavity sections employed inside the combustor model. Here the incoming mach is set to be 2 for which
the recirculation and flow instability caused are predicted for a total of 21 cases and performed to
recommend an optimum solution of implementing single cavity on either side from the combustor axis.
Recirculation zones thus formed will pave way for enhanced mixing and atomization behaviour
prominently. In this work, the cavity with L/D 3 and 5 are considered with ramp angles 30, 45 and 60
degrees which are studied for ensuring increment in turbulence and maintaining mach inside the
combustor. Rectangular cavities with the above configurations are employed for two dimensional
studies that are compared to a model without having cavity section on it. The shock train region
formed because of the cavity implementation allows the upcoming flow stream to hold for an extra
second that may ensure holding techniques.

Keywords: Mixing enhancement, single cavity, recirculation, flow oscillations, flame holding,
combustor.

1. INTRODUCTION:
Advanced research made in scramjet combustor suggest the wider use of wall mounted cavities that
includes both open and closed cavities, strut implementation and injector ramp angle study. The
cavity implemented in scramjet combustor having L/D 3 and 7 stated that the cavity length predict
the rate of mass entertainments while the depth implies the residence time of fluid while equipped
with recessed cavity[1]. Regarding the flame holding technique and stabilization during combustion,
open cavities of L/D could be <7-10 [2].Optimum design that triggers streamwise vorticity which is a
result of flow alternations plays a major role in mixing point of view[3].The importance of fuel
injection study concludes, the shock train imposed in the flow increases the mixing
tendency[4].Usually wall mounted cavity section may results in a minimum pressure loss across the
domain considering cold flow mixing efficiencies[5]. While swept ramp injectors are placed, it has
been observed that the combustion efficiency was around 5% where the wall pressure and streamwise
voritcity are considered [6]. Cavity assisted techniques shows better efficiency for mach 4 and 6 with
equivalence ratio 0.25 and 0.75 yielding combustion efficiency of around 80% [7]. K-w SST models
have been widely used for predicting the shock pattern across the combustor and Adaptive Mesh
Refinement can be a suitable option for complex shock prediction with combustion related to
turbulence[8]. Strut and cavity technique employed opt to reduce the thermal load and heat release
zone is altered based on strut location also [9]. The plume visualization carried out for injector ramp
provides optimum results for mach ranging 3-5[10].

2. COMBUSTOR GEOMETRY:

The combustor model is design with cavity section comprising L/D 3 and 5 located at 150mm from
the combustor inlet. The total length of the combustor will remain the same which is 595mm and
cavity length of 30 and 50mm respectively for those two lengths to depth ratios. The entire combustor
model is divided in to three sections for maintaining the divergence angle of walls to be 1, 1 and 3
degree respectively for each section from the horizontal reference line.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 6003

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advance Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 10S, (2020), pp. 6003-6008

3. GRID GENERATION AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:

The grids are very finer near the cavity for predicting the recirculation zone clearly. Structured grids
are generated for all the geometries considered for study. The inlet mach number is assumed to be 2,
with 0.1MPa and temperature of around 600k. The flow field is investigated using K-w turbulence
model for predicting the adverse pressure gradients. The walls are set to be adiabatic and no slip
conditions are employed

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

Figure.4.1 Pressure Contour for all cases

The model without cavity fig.4.1.a) has not experiences an adverse pressure effects as
compared to the model given in fig.4.1.b) which has a cavity of L/D 3 with ramp angle 45 degree.
With this aspect it is clear that the intensity is getting more predominant when the ramp angle is
getting increased which can be visualized in fig.4.1.c) and for ramp angle of 30 degree that is when
the cavity angle is getting reduced, the intensity of shock waves also getting reduced as displayed in
fig.4.1.d). When the case is exercised with L/D 5, the decrease in angle produces more and more
pressure gradients which can be compared with fig.4.1.e), fig.4.1.f) and fig.4.1.g).

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 6004

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advance Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 10S, (2020), pp. 6003-6008

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

Figure.4.2 Mach number contour

Fig.4.2.a) the model corresponds to experience a Mach number which is lesser than the mach
number exerted by all other models which are having cavities. Hence it can be stated that the cavity
implementation when the inlet Mach number is 2, offers a wide range of performance enhancement.
When the L/D the cavity is 3 with the ramp angle 45 degrees shown in fig.4.2.b), the expansion
excreted is comparably good in which the flow is getting accelerated as the flow field near the cavity
section once expedites flow oscillations. Moreover when the ramp angle is getting increased to 60
degree, the flow itself sustained a bit and experiences some percent of speed increment by fig.4.2.c)
because of the extensive area it covers during the intersection of incoming flows. But in fig.2.d), when
the ramp angle of 30 degree for the model with cavity having L/D 3, the area of the cavity section
goes on steeper so that the upcoming field losses its tendency of propelling parameter which decays
the mach at exit that simultaneously leads to the increase in resistance. While considering the model
of cavity L/D 5 with ramp angle of 45 degree as of fig.4.2.e), the increase in length paves way for
sustaining the speed at which the flow field penetrates, which ensures the continuous increase in flow
velocity near the divergence section of the combustor. Once the ramp angle is 60 degree fig.4.2.f), the
flow intersections are pushed rearwards that expands near the third section inside the combustor
ensures greater average value of flow velocity leads to be effective in this case. In the final model
displayed in fig.4.2.g), when the angle is getting reduced that means when the ramp angle is 30 degree
for L/D cavity 5 fig.4.2.g), the amount of mach produced at the last section of the combustor is low
compared to the models shown above. One can add that as the ramp angle is getting reduced the mach
number for the particular cases are also getting decreased.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 6005

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advance Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 10S, (2020), pp. 6003-6008

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

Figure.4.3 Turbulence Kinetic energy

Fig.4.3.a) corresponds to a model of combustor having no cavity sections employed that

suggests the kinetic energy of turbulence excreted is very minimum as compared to all models that
has cavity on it. When the cavity of L/D 3 employed with ramp angle of 45 degree fig.4.3.b) is
studied, the amount of turbulence generated is enormous that may leads to significant mixing of fuel
to air. Because of the sudden area restriction employed in the form of 45 degree cavity, the flow
projects towards the wall and repelled or intersected onto the incoming flow field that in turn provides
a recirculation zone. Moreover in this case the turbulence created also dissipates the intensity in
between both the cavity section. In fig.4.3.c), where the model is having 60 degree ramp angle allows
most of the flow to pass through the combustor because of the more steeper it has so that the holding
of air upcoming at this speed has less effective compared with 45 degrees. For the cavity with L/D
ratio 3 of ramp angle 30 degree at fig.4.3.d) holds most of the flow and projected inside the cavity
section so that the turbulence created are within the cavity and not in between. This is effective if the
flow field enters inside the cavity and recirculation is generated inside the cavity. In order to find the
possibilities the L/D has been increased to 5 with ramp angle 45 degree [fig.4.3.(e)], the intensity of
turbulence because of the recirculation zone formed by this cavity is more and more vigorously
propagated in between as well with huge values that suggest this may be effective for holding the air.
Here the flow is reciprocated and follows a linear manner which makes the upcoming flow field to
penetrate into it. Most often of the model displayed in fig.4.3.f) which is having ramp angle of 60
degree, suggests the pattern to be more staggered near the cavity section ensuring the turbulence
intensity is maintained and the intensity is not getting fluctuated too much as compared with the
model of 45 degree. When this is compared with the ramp angle of 30 degree [fig.4.3.g], it is clear
that when the angle is getting increased there is a lesser amount of turbulence kinetic energy because
in this model the flow intersection created is getting transmitted and repelled back in between the
forward and aft sections of the cavity which means the turbulence generated perpendicular to the flow
field is comparatively low.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 6006

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advance Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 10S, (2020), pp. 6003-6008

5. CONCLUSIONS:

The following conclusions are made after simulating the flow field inside the combustor model with
and without cavity of L/Ds 3 and 5 having ramp angles 30, 45 and 60 degrees for non reactive flows
at mach number 2 for each models;
i. In the aspect of maintaining or ensuring adverse pressure effects, then it is advisable to have
cavity of L/D 5 and angle 45 or 30 degree. If the L/D is 3 then the ramp angle would be kept
at 60 degrees.
ii. In the aspect of maintaining the mach number at the exit of the combustor, it is advisable to
have the L/D cavity having ramp angle of 45 or 60 degree. But while considering the cavity
with L/D 3 the ramp angle can be 45 or 60 degree. The lower the ramp angle the lower the
performance is.
iii. In the aspect of increasing the turbulence kinetic energy it is advisable to have L/D 5 with
ramp angle 45 degree. If ratio of 3 is used then 45 degree ramp angle will also be the best
choice.
With this overall approach, it can be stated that for holding the air inside the combustor and
enhancing the mixing behaviour, cavity can be implemented at a distance of 150mm from the
combustor inlet with the L/D 5 having aft ramp angle of 45 degrees when the inlet mach is 2.
The flow field studied for non reactive jets gives a major guidance for performing numerical
study for reactive jets and the fuel injection regions can also be predicted with this kind of studies.

6. REFERENCES:

[1]Baurle, R. A., and Gruber, M. R., ―Study of Recessed Cavity Flow fields for Supersonic
Combustion Applications, AIAA Paper 98-0938, Jan. 1998
[2] Ben-Yakar, A., and Hanson, R., ―Cavity Flame holders for Ignition and Flame Stabilization in
Scramjets: Review and Experimental Study,AIAA Paper 98-3122, July 1998
[3] Tishk off, J.M., Drummond, J. P., Edwards, T., and Nejad, A. S., ―Future Direction of
Supersonic Combustion Research: Air Force/NASA Workshop on Supersonic Combustion, AIAA
Paper 97-1017, Jan. 1997.
[4] Hsu, K.-Y., Carter, C., Crafton, J., Gruber, M., Donbar, J., Mathur, T., Schommer, D., and
Terry,W., ―Fuel Distribution about a Cavity Flame holder in Supersonic Flow, AIAA Paper
2000-3583, July 2000.
[5] Baurle, R. A., Mathur, T., Gruber, M. R., and Jackson, K. R., ―Numerical and Experimental
Investigation of a Scramjet Combustor for Hypersonic Missile Applications,AIAA Paper 98- 3121,
July 1998.
[6] Eklund, D. R., and Gruber, M. R., ―Study of a Supersonic Combustor Employing an
Aerodynamic Ramp Pilot Injector, AIAA Paper 99-2249, June 1999.
[7] Eklund, D. R., Baurle, R. A., and Gruber, M. R., ―Numerical Study ofa Scramjet Combustor
Fuelled by an Aerodynamic Ramp Injector in Dual-Mode Combustion, AIAA Paper 2001-0379, Jan.
2001.
[8] Junsu Shin, Kyoo Hwan Moon, and Hong-Gye Sung, Numerical simulation of hydrogen
combustion in a model scramjet combustor using IDDES framework, 20th AIAA International Space
Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Glasgow, Scotland (AIAA 2015-
3625).doi:10.2514/6.2015-3625.
[9] Chenlin Zhang, Juntao Chang, Wen Shi, and Wen Bao, Influence factor analysis of performance
parameter for a strut/cavity supersonic combustor 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum, (AIAA 2015-3944). doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2015-3944
[10]Ortweth,P.,Mathur,A.,Vinogradov,V.,Grin,V., Goldfeld,M.,and Starov,A .,“Experimental and
Numerical Investigation of Hydrogen and Ethylene Combustion in a Mach3-5 Channel with a Single
Injector,” AIAA Paper96-3245,July1996.
[11]McMillin,B.K.,Seitzman,J.M.,andHanson,R.K.,“Comparison of NO and OH Planar Fluorescence
Temperature Measurements in Scramjet Model Flowelds,”AIAAJournal, Vol.32,No.10,1994,pp.1945
–1952.
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 6007
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advance Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 10S, (2020), pp. 6003-6008

[12]Sung,C.J.,Li,J.G.,Yu,G.,and Law,C.K.,“Influence of Chemical Kinetics on the Self-Ignition of a

Model Supersonic Hydrogen-Air Combustor,” AIAA Journal, Vol.37,No.2,1999,pp.208 –214.
[13] Weipeng Li, TakuNonomura, Akira Oyama and Kozo Fujii; ―LES Study of Feedback-loop
Mechanism of Supersonic Open Cavity Flows‖; 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA
2010-5112, 28 June - 1 July 2010.
[14].X. Zhang, J.A. Edwards. Experimental Investigation of Supersonic Flow over Two Cavities in
Tandem. AIAA Journal,1992, 30(5): 11821190
[15]O.R. Kummitha, Numerical analysis of hydrogen fuel scramjet combustor with turbulence
development inserts and with different turbulence models, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
42 (9)(2017)6360–6368.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijhydene.2016.10.137.
[16] Gautam Choubey and K.M. Pandey, Effect of variation of angle of attack on the performance of
two-strut scramjet combustor, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41 (26) (2016) 11455 –
11470. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.048.
[17] Gautam Choubey and K.M. Pandey, Effect of different strut wall injection techniques on the
performance of two-strut scramjet combustor, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42 (18)
(2017)13259– 13275.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j .ijhydene.2017.04.024.580
[18] Hongbo Wang and Zhenguo Wang and Mingbo Sun and Haiyan Wu, Combustion modes of
hydrogen jet combustion in a cavity-based supersonic combustor, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 38(27)(2013)12078–12089. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.06.132.
[19]O.R.Kummitha,L.Suneetha,K.Pandey, Numerical analysis of scramjet combustor with innovative
strut and fuel injection techniques, International Journal of HydrogenEnergy42(15)
(2017)1052410535.doi.org /10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.213.
[29] V. Kumar and R. Sharma, “Experimental, characterization and evaluation of various composite
materials for automobile components,” Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 525–540,
2018.
[21] S. Kumar and S. S. Sehgal, “Experimental performance analysis on flat bed solar collector with
and without microchannel fins,” Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 740–749, 2017.
[22] D. Vats and A. Sharma, “Recommendation systems: Classification, open issues and recent
developments,” Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 3224–3231, 2019.
[23] V. Dhiman, G. Singh, and M. Kumar, “Modeling and control of underactuated system using LQR
controller based on GA,” Lect. Notes Mech. Eng., pp. 595–603, 2019.
[24] G. Singh and M. Singh, “Pre- clinical modeling and simulation of radiofrequency ablation in
human lung tumor,” Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 77–88, 2017.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 6008

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC

View publication stats