i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Effect of hydrogen jets in supersonic mixing using

strut injection schemes

S. Jeyakumar a, Jayaraman Kandasamy b,*, Mehmet Karaca c, K. Karthik a,

R. Sivakumar d
a
CFD Center, Aeronautical Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, India
b
Mechanical Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
c
Aerospace Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
d
School of Mechanical Engineering, VIT University, Chennai, India

highlights

Numerical investigation on a modified fuel injection strategy in scramjet combustor.

Reynolds averaged Navier stokes equation adopted with SST k-u turbulence model.

Dual fuel injection scheme in the flow reduces the impact of shock waves.

Unsteady Detached Eddy Simulation results analyzed using Dynamic Mode Decomposition.

Primary peaks corresponding to dominant coherent modes determined using DDES method.

article info abstract

Article history: The prevalence of complex phenomena associated with the fuel mixing of a supersonic
Received 26 February 2021 stream in scramjet combustor is inherently occurred due to the short residence time. An
Received in revised form efficient injection mechanism is required to enhance the mixing and improve combustion
18 April 2021 efficiency. This numerical simulation study aims to reveal the performance of modified
Accepted 20 April 2021 strut injection strategies within a Mach 2.0 flow field. Two-dimensional steady and tran-
Available online 22 May 2021 sient Navier-Stokes computations of the DLR scramjet experiment is performed for various
strut injection locations. The Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equation with the SST k-ε
Keywords: turbulence model is utilized to solve the flow field under steady conditions. The critical
Hydrogen parameters examined to investigate steady solutions are wall static pressure, flow Mach
Strut injection number, and total pressure loss across the combustor. The dual injection configuration in
Scramjet the flow considerably reduces the shock waves impact at the downstream of the strut and
Dynamic mode decomposition preserves the magnitude of internal forces acting on combustor walls and total pressure
Dominant modes loss. Unsteady Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) results for hydrogen concentration and
velocity field are analyzed by applying Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD). Multiple in-
jections are observed to alter the frequency and the number of dominant modes.
© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jayaraman78@gmail.com (J. Kandasamy).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.04.123
0360-3199/© 2021 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
23014 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5

Introduction

The air-breathing hypersonic propulsion system requires a

supersonic combustion ramjet engine (scramjet), which is
considered as the future for space transportation and high
altitude vehicles. The scramjet engine's challenge involves
fuel/air mixing and the subsequent combustion process at
supersonic speeds. Since the air stream's residence time in the
combustor is short, an efficient fuel injection strategy should
be adopted to enhance the scramjet engine's mixing and
combustion efficiency. Many researchers have investigated
various injection strategies to improve fuel/air mixing, com-
bustion, and low stagnation pressure loss [1e5]. The intrusive
strut injectors in supersonic combustion studies revealed that
the augmentation in the scramjet engine's performance using
hydrogen injection is appreciably noticed [6,7].
The planar (two-dimensional) combustor configuration of
the Institute of Chemical Propulsion, DLR contains a strut to
inject hydrogen in supersonic air co-flow [8,9]. Many re-
searchers have extensively used these experimental data for
validating numerical investigations [10e19]. Oevermann [20]
performed a computational study on the 2D supersonic
combustor model based on the DLR experiments. The results
showed that the flow properties are almost comparable with
the experimental results. Wu et al. [21] showed good agree-
ment in 2D and 3D Large Eddy Simulation (LES) results of
shock train and turbulent mixing in DLR scramjet configura-
tion. Based on the averaged flowfield results, it is concluded
that 2D analysis is sufficient to capture the flow physics. Zha
et al. [22] computed the increase of turbulence intensity in the
mixing layer under supersonic conditions with the effect of
shock waves.
Fuel injection with two struts parallel to supersonic
airstream is computationally shown to enhance the mixing
and, therefore, combustion efficiency [23,24]. Also, oblique
shock waves that emerge from the strut demonstrated to
enhance mixing and efficiency in scramjet [25]. Strut rear
wall modification studies by Aravind and Rajivkumar [10]
revealed that the complete mixing of air and fuel could be
established with a relatively shorter combustor length than
Fig. 2 e Grid independence study: time-averaged static
pressure distribution along the bottom. Wall of the
combustor.
the baseline strut configuration from DLR. Suneetha et al. [26]
investigated a diamond-shaped strut injector's performance
in a Mach 2.5 flow field and reported specific inlet conditions
for optimum combustion efficiency. Donohue et al. [27]
investigated the swept ramp injector performance in a su-
personic flow. The authors noted that the interaction of
shock wave and the ramp injection vortices cause separation
in the shear layer.
Various strut injection strategies and combustor wall
divergence angles by Nithish Reddy and Venkatasubbaiah [28]
reported that the combustor wall divergence for varying inlet
conditions and multi-strut injection in the supersonic
combustor plays a significant role in combustion perfor-
mance. Zhang et al. [29e33] performed a detailed numerical
and experimental investigations using kerosene fuelled strut
injector in dual model scramjet combustor. In a strut scramjet
combustor, Ambe Verma et al. [34] used computational
modeling to investigate flush wall transverse injection at
various locations as well as parallel hydrogen jet injection. In
comparison to the other wall injection locations, their findings
showed that transverse injection at a 68 mm offers a

Fig. 1 e (a) Schematic layout of 2D combustor model (b) details of strut injection locations for three cases.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5 23015

Table 1 e Inflow conditions of air and fuel.

Variable Air H2
Ma 2.0 1.0
u (m/s) 706 1240
T (K) 340 250
P (bar) 1.0 1.0
r (kg/m3) 1.002 0.097
YO2 0.232 0
YH2 0 1
YH2O 0.032 0
YN2 0.736 0

combustion efficiency of 96%. The numerical investigation on
revolved wedge strut injector in a 2D scramjet combustor by
Kumitha et al. [35] reported that the mixing efficiency is
improved by 9% over the basic wedge strut. The effect of
multiport wall injection behind a strut base is numerically
studied by Jiang et al. [36] revealed that the mixing is improved
with increase in the injection port distances. The numerical
investigation [37] on the increase in hydrogen jet pressures in
a reacting supersonic field revealed that the hydrogen jet
penetration improves in the spatial direction with increase in
total pressure loss.
The dynamics of variable density, compressible turbulent
flows can be investigated using Dynamic Mode Decomposi-
tion (DMD) for global mode analysis. Using DMD spatial and
temporal dynamics: dominant structures, patterns, and their
corresponding frequencies can be extracted out of visual
snapshots [38]. This method is equivalent to decomposing a
nonlinear dynamic system based on a linear operator's
spectral analysis, which is regarded to span all transient
Fig. 4 e Wall static pressure distribution for DLR strut
injection of experimental and numerical simulation.
patterns and named as the Koopman operator [39]. DMD
analysis of the numerical results of DLR scramjet showed
unlikely coupling of pressure oscillations with the flame's
oscillations, which was argued to relate to wake instability
[40].
Dynamic analysis requires experimental or numerical ob-
servations of well-resolved instantaneous snapshots of the
flow. LES approach is the one that is a well developed and
feasible method for the aforementioned numerically obser-
vation of turbulent flow problems. However, supersonic
boundary layer flows still feature a wide range of spatial and
temporal scales to be resolved for viscosity generation. Hence,
high resolution in time and space increases the computational
cost while applying LES for the boundary layer domain. DES

Fig. 3 e Shadowgraph images of a single strut injection: (a) Experimental and (b) Numerical results.
23016 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5

Fig. 5 e Density line contours of shockwaves for considered strut injection schemes: (a) case 1 (b) case 2, (c) case 3, and (d)
case 4.

approach is a hybrid unsteady RANS/LES method proposed to
reduce computational cost [41]. Menter and Kuntz [42] pro-
posed a blending function for LES calculations without
compromising high resolution within the boundary layer to
prevent grid-related transition. The formulation of the shear
stress transport (SST) model was further extended by Spalart
et al. [41]. This modification was also applied in Delayed De-
tached Eddy Simulations [43].
Hence, most of the strut combustor scramjet studies
were focused on using the central strut with a single
injector. This stands as a motivation to take up the current
research, which is mainly aiming towards the mixing
behavior of strut injection in a 2D DLR supersonic
combustor model by shifting the fuel injection location in
the strut for constant hydrogen flow rate conditions. The
strut injection location effect on combustor performance
has been examined, estimating the major critical parame-
ters like wall static pressure distribution and total pressure
loss. The results are compared with the baseline strut
configuration.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5
Fig. 6 e Hydrogen mass fraction contours with flow streamlines at the near jet-wake interaction field for different injection
locations.
Numerical modeling
ramjet model studies is accomplished by solving the two-
dimensional mass, momentum, and energy conservative
equations, as well known reported [26]. Appropriate turbulence
modeling is the most crucial task in the supersonic flow field to
observe the fundamental flow structure [44]. In the current
approach, the compressible Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
equations (RANS) are solved by applying k-u SST turbulence
model. Menter [45] substantiated that the k-u SST turbulence
model is most appropriate for scramjet applications. The k-u
SST turbulence model can predict the mixing layers, adverse
pressure gradients, and separated flows, precisely as mentioned
[46]. The flow governing equations are discretized by the finite
volume method framework of ANSYSFluent [10]. The density-
based solver with the implicit formulation and advection up-
stream splitting methods are adopted in this work [47].
Two alternative methods for unsteady calculations are
the Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS)
method and the LES method. Initially, we have tested both
of these methods for the one with identical configurations.
23017
URANS method is too dissipative to resolve the shear layer.
Transient simulations are performed using the Delayed DES
model based on k-ε model [42,48]. Steady RANS solutions are
taken as the initial field, and transient simulations are
performed for a 6e-2 physical time before recording snap-
shots of velocity, density, and hydrogen mass fraction. This
interval corresponds to more than ten flowthrough times of
inflowing air to ensure steady statistics. A thousand snap-
shots of instantaneous hydrogen mass fraction field are
recorded with a time interval of 1e-5 s for dynamic analysis.
Grid adaptation is switched off when recording instanta-
neous snapshots to prevent miscalculation of dynamic
modes.
Numerical setup
Computational domain
The scramjet combustor model adopted for the present study
is tested at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) [8,9], as shown
23018 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5

Fig. 7 e Mach number contours for different injection locations.

in Fig. 1. The combustor is 340 mm in length and 50 mm in
height. The upper wall diverges to an angle of 3 over the
distance of 100 from the combustor inlet. The strut is located
at a distance of 77 mm from the combustor inlet. The length
and height of the strut are 32 mm and 6 mm, respectively. The
incoming air at the combustor inlet is at Mach 2.0, and the
hydrogen fuel is injected parallel to the airstream at the sonic
condition. The non-reacting mixing flow is considered
compressible and two-dimensional. Hydrogen is injected at
two various strut locations to analyze the mixing performance
under non-reacting conditions. Then results are compared
with the tested baseline cavity configurations. The details of
the injection point locations are shown in Fig. 1b. Fig. 1(b)
demonstrates the distinct injection locations for computa-
tions which refer as case 1 (baseline strut injection), case 2,
and case 3. In case 4, the injection locations for both case 2 and
case 3 are simultaneously operational for identical operating
conditions.
The compressible shear layer's growth rate with a density
gradient can be related to the convective Mach number,
following the work by Papamoschou and Roshko [49]. The
convective Mach number of the shear layer is 1.22 with a
convective velocity of 274.7 m/s.
Boundary condition
The proper implementation of the boundary conditions is
essential to define the computational fluid dynamics physics
problems. The inlet conditions for the fuel injection and
combustion process are listed in Table 1.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5 23019

In both steady and transient simulations, Dirichlet inlet

boundary conditions are used for the inflow, whereas the
outlet is based on Neuman-type boundary conditions. No-slip
condition is adopted along the walls of the combustor. In the
steady-state calculations, the turbulence intensity is consid-
ered less than 10% at the inlet, and the hydraulic diameter is
selected accordingly for initialization. In transient simula-
tions, the air inlet and the hydrogen jets turbulence intensity
are taken as 0.5% and 5%, respectively, as reported in the ex-
periments [50].

Grid generation

In the steady-state analysis, the unstructured grid is

employed to resolve the strut injection combustor flow field.
Three different grid sizes are adopted to optimize the grid
resolution, so the numerical result accuracy is improved along
with reducing computational cost and time. The grid sizes,
namely coarse (146,146), medium (195,950), and fine (290,112)
meshes, are considered for grid convergence study. The
y þ value is smaller than 1.0 for the entire flow field, which
corresponds to the height for the first-row cell fixed at 1e-
3 mm. The wall static pressure variation is calculated based on
three meshes that denote the steady-state solution's grid in-
dependence. The convergence is observed since the static
pressure values provide less than 1% variation for all the mesh
sizes (see Fig. 2). Therefore, medium-sized meshes are
considered for this study to reduce the computational time.
Transient simulations are initiated from the results of
steady-state simulations. The unsteady flow field is computed in
1e-3 (physical time) seconds before it reaches quasi-steady-state
dynamic analysis. Meanwhile, adaptive mesh, which is refined
using up to 3e5 mesh nodes, provides a high resolution of flow
structures. The grid adaptation is accounted for both mixing
Fig. 8 e Wall static pressure distribution of various strut
layer and shock train, and therefore refinement parameter is
injection locations (a) bottom wall (b) centerline of the
chosen as a density gradient with a threshold of 1e5.
supersonic combustor.
The solution is progressed with time at a fixed time step of
1e-6 s while taking the snapshots of every 1e-5 s for dynamic
analysis. The unstructured mesh provides excellent flexibility
in handling boundary conditions with complex geometry and
performing grid adaptation in unsteady simulation using LES,
unsteady, unstructured with DES [16]. Adaptive refinement
results in a uniform mesh at locations where coherent struc-
tures exists in the flow. As a result, deviation of dynamics
because of the numerical errors which emanate from grid ir-
regularities are reduced in coherent flow structure zones. The
accumulating numerical errors due to the irregularities in
mesh size and rounding known to reduce the accuracy of
Large Eddy Simulations [51]. These errors known to cause
accumulation of energy in the refined side [52]. The flow field
zones with the dynamic coherent structures are resolved
using uniform grid to reduce the error in modal analysis
results.

Validation

Fig. 9 e Total pressure loss across various axial length of The steady-state simulation results are qualitatively validated
the combustor. against the DLR experiments that were reported by Waidmann
et al. [8,9], as represented in Figs. 3 and 4. It is confirmed that
the shock generated from the strut and the reflected shock
23020 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5
Fig. 10 e Density contours for Case 1 using (a) URANS method and (b) DDES method.
waves from the wall and the wall static pressure distribution is
in good agreement with the experimental results. The marginal
variation in the static pressure distribution could be due to the
unpredicted turbulence vortices near the wall.
Results and discussion
The mixing performance for different strut injection strategies
in the DLR scramjet configuration is numerically investigated
using the CFD analysis. The focus of this work is the perfor-
mance of strut-type scramjet for various injection locations.
The RANS equations are solved for steady-state flow at iden-
tical boundary conditions and operating variables. Unsteady
computations are based on DDES approach.
Hydrogen injection in the shock train is investigated to
reveal mixing features and total pressure loss across the
scramjet under non-reacting flow fields. Fig. 5 represents the
density contour images for the various strut injection
configurations.
It is observed from Fig. 5a that strong oblique shock waves
are formed from the leading edges of the strut, which again gets
reflected from the combustor wall. The reflected shock waves
are deflected at various locations from the strut downstream.
The shock waves generated at the strut's trailing edges interfere
with the shock reflected on the combustor wall and further
weaken towards the combustor's bottom wall vicinity. A similar
trend exists in cases of 2 and 3 (Fig. 5b and c) with marginal
variation in the injection locations vicinity.
In the case of dual injection, Fig. 5d, i.e., case 4, the shock
waves generated from the trailing edges are dissipated by the
fuel injection stream. Moreover, the shock train in the strut-
downstream also weakens, which leads to a reduction in the
flow field's static pressure.
Flow streamlines and hydrogen mass fraction contours at
the strut's near wake region for various injection locations are
illustrated in Fig. 6. It is noticed that the hydrogen jet
streamlines are formed along with the jet injection location.
Low velocity (wake) regions are observed on both sides for
case 1, whereas the wake regions are emerged out at the
alternative sides of the hydrogen injection locations for case 2
and case 3. In case 4, the wake regions are located at the
middle of the strut. Hence, the hydrogen injection induces a
wake region in the vicinity of the flow. Similar trends are
substantiated in Mach number contours, as distinguished
from Fig. 7 for the four cases.
Particularly in baseline case 1, the airflow accelerates,
reaching a maximum Mach number of 2, and subsequently
becomes subsonic due to the formation of wake regions on
both sides. In other cases, the airflow is limited to around
Mach 1.5. Hence, case 1 provides competent mixing effi-
ciency compared with the other three cases by observing the
mixing length of hydrogen mass fraction contours, as
noticed from Fig. 6.
Wall static pressure
The static pressure distribution along the bottom wall and the
combustor's centerline for different injection cases are pre-
sented in Fig. 8. As shown in Fig. 8(a), the static pressure dis-
tribution is almost uniform at the inlet along the combustor
axis. Shock waves emanate from the strut leading/trailing
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5
Fig. 11 e Global mode analysis results for density contours of the transient simulation of case 1.
edges and also the reflected shocks from the wall. Consecutive
surge and plunge train in the static pressure creates respective
compressive and expansion regions in the scramjet. Moreover,
the wall pressure distribution for all the strut injection stra-
tegies shows a marginal variation in the profile along the
combustor's axial length.
From Fig. 8b, the static pressure is relatively more for the
distance, x ¼ 0.109 m at the middle plane of the combustor for the
strut injection case 1. Higher static pressure is occurred due to
the injection orifice: the center of the strut exit plane. The in-
jection orifice is located away from the center planes for other
injection cases, which creates a vortex around the center plane
of the strut exit that essentially induces a flow static pressure
region.
Total pressure loss
In general, the mixing enhancement due to shock waves in-
duces total pressure loss. Pressure loss across the combustor
is calculated using the following expression [53].
23021
ð
Po ru dA
ht ¼ 1  ðA
Poinl ru dA
A
Fig. 9 shows the total pressure loss across the scramjet
combustor for the various injection strategies. Case 4 shows
an increment in the total pressure loss from the injection
location downstream, mainly due to the strong shock wave
emerging from the dual injection strategies. However, the
injection strategies of case 2 and case 3 provide marginal
variation in the total pressure loss as compared with baseline
strut injection.
Transient solution
Two alternative methods that are tested for the transient
simulations are Unsteady RANS and DES models. Both of
these models are implemented for the Case 1 with a second-
23022 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5

Fig. 12 e Global mode analysis results for density contours of the transient flowfields computed.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5
order implicit bounded time-stepping method. DDES is
applied by using the blending function model constants of
Cdes1 ¼ 0.78 and Cdes2 ¼ 0.61 [54]. Instantaneous density
contours of transient simulations are shown in Fig. 10.
The location and the patterns of the shock train and the
jet's penetration are qualitatively observed as closer results for
both transient simulations. However, the URANS result does
not resolve the unsteady turbulent structures, notably the
transition on the upper divergence boundary layer. Conse-
quently, the DDES method is chosen to generate unsteady
snapshots for dynamic analysis.
Dynamic analysis
The well-defined DMD method is used to investigate the
flowfield dynamics resolved numerically and validated by
comparing with the DLR experiment.
To adopt global mode analysis, we commence with a
sequence of (nþ1) solution fields unrolled in a vector uj with a
constant time increment Dt. Two sets of the flowfield's tran-
sient solutions are merged into matrices X1 and X2 using n
consecutive snapshots as
X1 ¼ u1 ; u2 ; u3 ; …:; un
X2 ¼ u2 ; u3 ; u4 ; …:; uðnþ1Þ
The basic hypotheses of modal analysis assume a linear
operator A for a transient system such that uiþ1 ¼ A ui, named
the Koopman operator. This operator delineates the spatial and
dynamic characteristics by taking into account its eigenvalues
and eigenvectors. A companion matrix K, which is similar to the
Koopman operator that can be obtained using X1 and X2, such as
X2 y X1 K
The companion matrix K can be obtained first taking the
singular value decomposition of X1
X1 ¼ USV
Square matrix S (n x n) yields the singular values of X1.
After that, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the dynamic
system is calculated by decomposing the square matrix;
~ ¼ UT X2 VS1
A waves formed downstream of the strut, which further reduces
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors characterize the linear-
ized approximation and form DMD modes of the system. The
corresponding Koopman (DMD) modes which correspond to
wave numbers li are given by argðli Þ=Dt.
This analysis is susceptible due to the quasi-steady nature
of the solution. Once the system is initiated for a steady-state
solution, the snapshot capturing is delayed for more than ten
flowthrough periods. Later, 1000 instantaneous snapshots are
recorded. The convergence of the energy spectrum is achieved
for each case after ten flowthrough times to reach a stationary
solution.
The transient density fields are taken by subjecting into
DMD analysis since one can evaluate coupled flow physics of
jet mixing with density difference and flow pressure oscil-
lations. For Case 1, the transient density field eigenvalues,
spectrum, and two dominant DMD modes are shown in
23023
Fig. 11. Eigenvalues of the companion matrix are arranged on
the unity circle or inside, which indicates that the system is
in a quasi-equilibrium (non-amplification) state. The Eigen
field, which is the reconstructed eigenvectors, corresponding
to 12,835 Hz relates to the upper diverging wall boundary
layer.
The coherent flow structures are noticed along the upper
wall that are prominent after 0.2 m. The flow patterns
observed in the lower dominant frequency (8410 Hz) are
identified to represent the mixing layer. The flow fluctuations
arising from the jet interacting with the strut wake shear flow
and the boundary layer transition along the diverging upper
wall are decoupled.
To examine the dynamic characteristics of the hydrogen
mixing and to compare for four cases, the DMD analysis re-
sults are shown in Fig. 12. Almost all eigenvalues lay on a unit
circle for all four cases, which infer the mixing layer's quasi-
steadiness. There exist two dominant DMD modes for Case 2
and Case 3. The scales of the upper and lower flow structures,
that arise from strut wake and jet interaction, differentiate
with the span between strut corner and jet.
DMD mode contours correspond to the dominant fre-
quency in the low range, which relate the strut Karman wake
and jet interaction. The injection location is observed that it
could alter the frequency of oscillations and thereby the
mixing characteristics. Hence, varying the injection port may
provide dynamic control of mixing in the supersonic flow
field.
Conclusion
A two-dimensional DLR scramjet model comprising various
strut injection locations is numerically investigated in a non-
reacting flow field using RANS equations. The injection loca-
tions' effectiveness are analyzed based on the parameters like
density contours, static pressure distribution, and total pres-
sure loss across the combustor. It is confirmed that the adop-
ted numerical approach investigation is complimented for the
experimental DLR scramjet test results. It is noticed from the
density contour that the hydrogen injection from two orifices
with identical mass flow rate weakens the oblique shock
the static pressure at the middle plane of the combustor than
the single orifice injection. The simultaneous twin orifice
hydrogen injection from the same plane provides about uni-
form wall static pressure profile and stagnation pressure loss
across the combustor than the single orifice injection config-
uration. Both URANS and DDES methods are applied for the
base configuration (DLR experiment) by considering transient
simulations. The results of URANS method shown that it does
not resolve the transition region of the upper boundary.
Therefore DDES method is chosen to analyze the dynamics of
the four injection strategies. Results of Case 3 and Case 4 yield
two dominant modes, and Case 4 has four modes. The domi-
nant frequency in Case 3 and Case 4, which correspond to the
Karman wake, is about 5000 Hz and the higher dominant fre-
quency is about 12,500 Hz for both cases. Further investigation
on the effectiveness of the injection strategies using reacting
flows is considered in future work.
23024 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
references
[1] Ben-Yakar A, Hanson RK. Cavity flame-holders for ignition
and flame stabilization in scramjets: an overview. J Propul
Power 2001;17:869e77. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5818.
[2] Biling FS. Research on supersonic combustion. J Propul Power
1993;9:499e514. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1992-1.
[3] Sun C, Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Abazari AM, Hosseini S,
Li Z. Mixing efficiency of hydrogen multijet through
backward-facing steps at supersonic flow. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.030.
[4] Suneetha L, Randive P, Pandey KM. Implication of diamond
shaped dual strut on combustion characteristics in a cavity-
based scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45:17562e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.04.217.
[5] Liu X, Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Sheikholeslami M, Moradi R,
Shafee A, Li Z. Effect of strut angle on performance of
hydrogen multi-jets inside the cavity at combustion
chamber. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:31179e87. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.08.124.
[6] Gerlinger P, Br-uacute D, Ggemann. Numerical investigation
of hydrogen strut injections into supersonic airflows. J Propul
Power 2000;16:22e8. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5559.
[7] Masuya G, Tomoyuki T, Murakami A, Shinozaki N, Nakamura A,
Murayamall M, et al. Ignition and combustion performance of
scramjet combustors with fuel injection struts. J Propul Power
1995;11:301e7. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.51425.
[8] Guerra R, Waidmann W, Laible C. An experimental
investigation of the combustion of a hydrogen jet injected
parallel in a supersonic air stream. AIAA Papp 1991. https://
doi.org/10.2514/6.1991-5102. 91e5102.
[9] Waidmann W, Alff F, Brummund U, Bohm M, Clauss W,
Oschwald M. Experimental investigation of the combustion
process in a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet).
Hardthausen, Ger DLR Inst Chem 470 Propuls Eng
1994:629e38.
[10] Aravind S, Kumar R. Supersonic combustion of hydrogen
using an improved strut injection scheme. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2019;44:6257e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.01.064.
[11] Ge nin F, Menon S. Simulation of turbulent mixing behind a
strut injector in supersonic flow. AIAA J 2010;48:526e39.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.43647.
[12] Wu K, Zhang P, Yao W, Fan X. Computational realization of
multiple flame stabilization modes in DLR strut-injection
hydrogen supersonic combustor. Proc Combust Inst
2019;37:3685e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2018.07.097.
[13] Huang Z wei, He G qiang, Wang S, Qin F, Wei X geng, Shi L.
Simulations of combustion oscillation and flame dynamics
in a strut-based supersonic combustor. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42:8278e87. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.12.142.
[14] Kumaran K, Behera PR, Babu V. Numerical investigation of
the supersonic combustion of kerosene in a strut-based
combustor. J Propul Power 2010;26:1084e91. https://doi.org/
10.2514/1.46965.
[15] Kummitha OR. Numerical analysis of passive techniques for
optimizing the performance of scramjet combustor. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:10455e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.01.148.
[16] Kummitha OR, Pandey KM, Gupta R. Numerical investigation
of wavy wall strut fuel injector for hydrogen fueled scramjet
combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:32240e53. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.147.
[17] Kummitha OR, Pandey KM, Gupta R. Numerical analysis of
hydrogen fueled scramjet combustor with innovative
designs of strut injector. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45:13659e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.04.067.
[18] Ma S, Zhong F, Zhang X. Numerical study on supersonic
combustion of hydrogen and its mixture with Ethylene and
methane with strut injection. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:7591e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.03.007.
[19] Athithan AA, Jeyakumar S, Sczygiol N, Urbanski M. The
combustion characteristics of double ramps in a strut-based
scramjet combustor. Energies 2021;14:831. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14040831.
[20] Oevermann M. Numerical investigation of turbulent
hydrogen combustion in a SCRAMJET using flamelet
modeling. Aero Sci Technol 2000;4:463e80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1270-9638(00)01070-1.
[21] Wu K, Zhang P, Yao W, Fan X. Numerical investigation on
flame stabilization in DLR hydrogen supersonic combustor
with strut injection. Combust Sci Technol
2017;189:2154e79. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00102202.2017.1365847.
[22] Zha Z, Ye Z, Hong Z, Ye K. Effects of unsteady oblique shock
wave on mixing efficiency of two-dimensional supersonic
mixing layer. Acta Astronaut 2021;178:60e71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.07.028.
[23] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of variation of angle of attack
on the performance of two-strut scramjet combustor. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:11455e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.04.048.
[24] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of parametric variation of
strut layout and position on the performance of a typical
two-strut based scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:10485e500. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.03.014.
[25] Xue R, Wei X, He G, Hu C, Tang X. Effect of parallel-jet
addition on the shock train characteristics in a central-strut
isolator by detached eddy simulation. Int J Heat Mass Tran
2017;114:1159e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.06.074.
[26] Suneetha L, Randive P, Pandey KM. Numerical investigation
on influence of diamond shaped strut on the performance of
a scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;44:6949e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.01.187.
[27] Donohue JM, McDaniel JC, Haj-Hariri H. Experimental and
numerical study of swept ramp injection into a supersonic
flowfield. AIAA J 1994;32:1860e7. https://doi.org/10.2514/
3.12184.
[28] Nithish Reddy P, Venkatasubbaiah K. Numerical
investigations on development of scramjet combustor. J Aero
Eng 2015;28:1e8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-
5525.0000456.
[29] Zhang J, Chang J, Kong C, Qiu H, Bao W. Flame oscillation
characteristics in a kerosene fueled dual mode combustor
equipped with thin strut flameholder. Acta Astronaut
2019;161:222e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.actaastro.2019.05.037.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 6 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 2 3 0 1 3 e2 3 0 2 5
[30] Zhang J, Chang J, Wang Z, Gao L, Bao W. Flame propagation
and flashback characteristics in a kerosene fueled
supersonic combustor equipped with strut/wall combined
fuel injectors. Aero Sci Technol 2019;93:105303. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105303.
[31] Zhang J, Chang J, Quan F, Bian L, Bao W. Ignition
characteristics in a thin strut-equipped dual mode
combustor fueled with liquid kerosene. Acta Astronaut
2019;161:125e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.actaastro.2019.05.013.
[32] Zhang J, Chang J, Ma J, Wang Y, Bao W. Investigations on
flame liftoff characteristics in liquid-kerosene fueled
supersonic combustor equipped with thin strut. Aero Sci
Technol 2019;84:686e97. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ast.2018.11.017.
[33] Chang J, Zhang J, Bao W, Yu D. Research progress on strut-
equipped supersonic combustors for scramjet application.
Prog Aero Sci 2018;103:1e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paerosci.2018.10.002.
[34] Ambe Verma K, Murari Pandey K, Ray M, Kumar Sharma K.
Effect of transverse fuel injection system on combustion
efficiency in scramjet combustor. Energy 2021;218. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119511.
[35] Kummitha OR, Pandey KM, Padidam AKR. Effect of a
revolved wedge strut induced mixing enhancement for a
hydrogen fueled scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2021;46:13340e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2021.01.089.
[36] Jiang Y, Barzegar Gerdroodbary M, Sheikholeslami M,
Babazadeh H, Shafee A, Moradi R, et al. Influence of
upstream strut on hydrogen fuel distribution inside the
supersonic combustion chamber. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45:22032e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.06.026.
[37] Jeyakumar S, Jayaraman K, Sivakumar R, Karaca M, K K.
Numerical investigations on the hydrogen jet pressure
variations in a strut based scramjet combustor. Aircraft Eng
Aero Technol 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-08-2020-
0162. ahead-of-p.
[38] Schmid PJ. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and
experimental data. J Fluid Mech 2010;656:5e28. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0022112010001217.
[39] Rowley CW, Mezi I, Bagheri S, Schlatter P, Henningson DS.
Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J Fluid Mech
2009;641:115e27. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022112009992059.
[40] Li Q, Wang Z. Dynamic mode decomposition of turbulent
combustion process in DLR scramjet combustor. J Aero Eng
2017;30:1e10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-
5525.0000747.
[41] Spalart PR, Jou WH, Strelets M, Allmaras S. Comments on the
feas1ibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES
approach. Proc first AFOSR int conf DNS/LES, Ruston.
Louisiana Greyden Press; 1997. p. 137e47.
23025
[42] Menter FR, Kuntz M. Adaptation of eddy-viscosity turbulence
models to unsteady separated flow behind vehicles. In:
McCallen R, Browand F, Ross J, editors. Symp “the aerodyn
heavy veh truck buses trains” monterey, USA, 2e6 Dec 2002.
Berlin Heidelb New York: Springer; 2004. p. 339e52. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44419-0_30.
[43] Spalart PR, Deck S, Shur ML, Squires KD, Strelets MK,
Travin A. A new version of detached-eddy simulation,
resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor Comput Fluid
Dynam 2006;20:181e95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00162-006-
0015-0.
[44] Zhao M, Ye T. URANS study of pulsed hydrogen jet
characteristics and mixing enhancement in supersonic
crossflow. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:20493e503. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.06.027.
[45] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models
for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994;32:1598e605.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149.
[46] Li C, Chen X, Li Y, Musa O, Zhu L, Li W. Role of the backward-
facing steps at two struts on mixing and combustion
characteristics in a typical strut-based scramjet with
hydrogen fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:28371e87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.09.023.
[47] Choubey G, Pandey KM. Effect of variation of inlet boundary
conditions on the combustion flow-field of a typical double
cavity scramjet combustor. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:8139e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.03.062.
[48] Shur M, Spalart PR, Strelets M, Travin A. Detached-eddy
simulation of an airfoil at high angle of attack. 1999. https://
doi.org/10.1016/b978-008043328-8/50064-3.
[49] Papamoschou D, Roshko A. The compressible turbulent
shear layer: an experimental study. J Fluid Mech
1988;197:453e77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112088003325.
[50] Ingenito a. Theoretical investigation of air vitiation effects on
hydrogen fuelled scramjet performance. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:2862e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2014.12.014.
[51] Poinsot T, Garcia M, Senoner JM, Gicquel L, Staffelbach G,
Vermorel O. Numerical and physical instabilities
in massively parallel les of reacting flows. J Sci Comput
2011;49:78e93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-010-9432-8.
[52] Goodfriend E, Katopodes Chow F, Vanella M, Balaras E. Large-
Eddy simulation of flow through an array of cubes with local
grid refinement. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 2016;159:285e303.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-016-0128-y.
[53] Gerlinger P, Stoll P, Kindler M, Schneider F, Aigner M.
Numerical investigation of mixing and combustion
enhancement in supersonic combustors by strut induced
streamwise vorticity. Aero Sci Technol 2008;12:159e68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2007.04.003.
[54] Strelets M. Detached eddy simulation of massively separated
flows. 39th Aerosp Sci Meet Exhib 2001. https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2001-879.