Combustion Science and Technology

ISSN: 0010-2202 (Print) 1563-521X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcst20

Flame Interaction Characteristics in Scramjet

Combustor Equipped with Strut/Wall Combined
Fuel Injectors

Junlong Zhang, Juntao Chang, Huimin Tian, Ji Li & Wen Bao

To cite this article: Junlong Zhang, Juntao Chang, Huimin Tian, Ji Li & Wen Bao (2019): Flame
Interaction Characteristics in Scramjet Combustor Equipped with Strut/Wall Combined Fuel
Injectors, Combustion Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/00102202.2019.1627342

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2019.1627342

Published online: 10 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcst20
COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2019.1627342

Flame Interaction Characteristics in Scramjet Combustor

Equipped with Strut/Wall Combined Fuel Injectors
Junlong Zhanga, Juntao Changb, Huimin Tiana, Ji Lia, and Wen Baoa
a
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, People’s
Republic of China; bAcademy of Fundamental and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A strut/wall combined fuel injection scheme was experimentally Received 25 March 2019
investigated in a flush-wall scramjet combustor fueled with liquid Revised 13 May 2019
kerosene. A thin strut was adopted as fuel injector and flame holder, Accepted 31 May 2019
and wall injectors were also placed on side wall of the combustor, KEYWORDS
downstream of the strut. With the injection of pure oxygen through Scramjet combustor; flame
the injectors in the trailing edge of the strut, a stable flame was characteristics; strut/wall
achieved in the combustor, and the flame interaction characteristics combined fuel injection; strut
were experimentally investigated. Experiments were conducted at
the inlet of Mach number 2.0 with different strut/wall fuel distribu-
tion schemes. Flame was divided into two parts, namely the core
flame and the wall flame, and interaction mechanism between the
two parts was experimentally investigated. Experiment results show
that core flame is enhanced with the increasing of fuel equivalence
ratio. Core flame propagates to side wall of the combustor to ignite
wall fuel, forming a wall flame. Wall flame leads to a thermal chocking
at the downstream of strut to enhance core flame. Combustor per-
formance and flame characteristics are influenced by fuel distribution
schemes. The location of wall fuel injectors is also optimized to
improve combustion efficiency. These results in this paper are valu-
able for the future optimization of combustion organization in scram-
jet combustor with multi-stages fuel injection scheme.

Introduction
For the advantages of high specific impulse and high speed, scramjet is regarded as one of the
most efficient air-breathing propulsion devices in supersonic flight condition, and has been
widely investigated in many countries (Curran 2001; Townend 2001). Combustor is the key
component of a scramjet (Chang et al. 2018; Li et al. 2018a; Sun et al. 2008), and some issues
about fuel injection and flame holding in supersonic combustor need to be solved urgently. As
combustion process is organized within a supersonic flow, the rapid fuel/air mixing (Pandey,
Roga, Choubey 2015), the reliable ignition and the stabilized combustion (Wang et al. 2017)
must be realized with a short residence time of an order of milliseconds. It will take an extra
time for fuel droplet to achieve atomization and evaporation process when fuel is in liquid
state. It is to say that liquid hydrocarbon fuel required quick vaporization before mixing and
subsequent combustion (Betelin et al. 2012), and flame holder also play the role on

CONTACT Juntao Chang changjuntao@hit.edu.cn Academy of Fundamental and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150001, People’s Republic of China
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/gcst.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 J. ZHANG ET AL.

accelerating atomization and evaporation process. Therefore, there is an urgent need for
optimization of fuel injection and flame stabilization schemes (Wang et al. 2013, 2015).
Strut is one of the most efficienct fuel injection schemes, as fuel is directly injected into
primary flow through it (Candon and Ogawa 2018; Vishwakarma and Vaidyanathan 2016;
Wu et al. 2017). Mixing characteristics of various strut injectors in supersonic flow were
experimentally studied by Hsu (Hsu et al. 2009). Results showed that struts with large
wedge angles could create a strong shock and flow blockage to promote a larger wake with
good fuel mixing. Effects of strut height and width on fuel/air mixing and pressure loss in
combustor section were numerically investigated (Bagg and Greendyke 2009), showing
that an increase in the size of baseline strut resulted in an increase in total pressure loss, as
well as increase in combustion area behind strut. Studies have indicated that the stream-
wise vortices generated behind strut have a significant influence on fuel/air mixing process
(Huang and Yan 2016; Kodera, Sunami, Sheel 2002; Sunami and Scheel 2002). Sunami
(Kodera, Sunami, Sheel 2002; Sunami and Scheel 2002; Sunami et al. 2005) designed an
alternating-wedge strut, as shown in Figure 5, and numerous studies were conducted on
this strut to analyze the flow characteristics. Strut is commonly used as fuel injector,
combined with cavity flame holder, and interaction mechanism between strut fuel injec-
tion and cavity combustion was widely studied (Sathiyamoorthy et al. 2018; Hsu et al.
2010). Strut and wall cavities were used as effective techniques in a kerosene-fueled
scramjet that was tested in a propulsion wind tunnel by Chang (Chang, Gu, Chen
2005). A supersonic combustion organizer that comprises both cavity flame holder and
strut injector are applied in a liquid kerosene–fueled model scramjet (Bao et al. 2014).
Experimental results indicate that strut injection can improve combustion performance,
especially when strut is mounted close to cavity. Effect of fuel injection allocation on
combustion characteristics of a cavity-strut model scramjet was also investigated (Zong
et al. 2013), and results indicated that greater the strut injection proportion, the greater the
bench thrust increase.
Apart from the role of fuel injector, strut is also adopted as flame holder in combined
fuel injection scheme (Li et al. 2018b). Two-stage struts were fitted in a dual-mode
combustor, and flame transition process was investigated under various inflow conditions
(Zhu and Xu 2017; Zhu, Xu, Ji 2016; Zhu et al. 2018). A supersonic combustor, equipped
with an alternating-wedge strut injector and wall-mounted ramp injectors, that generate
streamwise vortices, was designed by Tetsuji (Nishioka 1995; Sunami et al. 2002). In
addition to the function of fuel mixing, the alternating-wedge strut was also used as the
flame holder in the supersonic combustor without any other additional wall-mounted
flame holders. Based on early studies on flow field and combustion characteristics in strut-
equipped supersonic combustor, a new O2-pilot thin strut was proposed by Bao (Bao
et al., 2013), the configuration of which was 6 mm, with a front blockage of 6%. Different
from conventional struts, in the design of O2-pilot thin strut, an additional oxygen injector
is set in tailing edge of the strut, and the injection of oxygen plays a key role in flame
stabilization process (Hu et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2018). Based on strut flame holder,
a large number of experimental and simulation studies were conducted to investigate
combustion characteristics in supersonic combustor. Feng (Feng et al. 2017) studied
performance improvement of a variable geometry dual mode combustor with the strut
flame holder. Flame stabilization characteristics and flame establishment process were
researched in the thin strut-equipped supersonic combustor (Zhang et al. 2017).
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

In order to broaden the operating range of combustor, fuel should be injected into
combustor through staged-injectors. A center mounted flame holder with wall fuel injectors
is designed to play the role of staged fuel injection and flame stabilization (Hu et al. 2014).
With this new mechanism, combustion started in the center of main flow and then extended
towards combustor wall. Since oxygen in central flow was first consumed during combustion,
new fuel injected from wall injectors could be effectively utilized through reacting with the
draped oxygen close to combustor wall. Subsequently, a low temperature fuel film is formed at
the wall that potentially affected the wall temperature. A film cooling effect will generate due to
the wall fuel injection, and calculation results indicate that the engine wall temperature can be
reduced significantly with the effect of film cooling (Zuo et al. 2018). Research results prove
that strut/wall fuel injection scheme is an effective way to give consideration to both combus-
tion efficiency and wall thermal protection performance.
Previous studies have investigated the combustor performance of both combustion effi-
ciency and thermal protection in supersonic combustor with strut/wall combined fuel injec-
tion scheme. The present work in this paper has focused on this content, and the flame
characteristics and the interaction mechanism between core flame and wall flame were
investigated with high-speed photography and pressure detection. With the investigations
in this paper, a depth understanding of flame characteristic in a flush-wall scramjet combustor
with strut/wall combined fuel injectors is achieved. These results are valuable for the future
optimization of combustion organization in supersonic combustor using strut as flame holder.

Experimental setup
Test facility
Experiments were conducted on the directly connected scramjet combustor test rig in Harbin
Institute of Technology, as shown in Figure 1. An ethanol/oxygen heater was used to simulate
supersonic airflow. Then, high enthalpy airflow was accelerated to Ma = 2.0 through Laval
nozzle. A high speed camera and some pressure transducers were used to record flame images
and measure pressure data during experiments, respectively. Fuel injection was obtained by
strut and wall fuel injectors. At the same time, the strut also played the role in flame holding.
A plasma ignitor was designed and placed in combustor, downstream of the strut.
The main dimensions of the experiment combustor model are shown in Figure 2. The total
length of the experimental model is 1480 mm, with the total expansion ratio of 2.5. The first part
is an isolator with a length of 300 mm. Then, an expansion part is connected to the duct exit of
the isolator. The third part with a constant cross section area is located at the exit of the
expansion part. An expansion part with a length of 100 mm is the fourth part, and the wall fuel
injectors equipped next to the expansion part. The fifth section is a 420 mm long duct with the
constant cross section area, and the sixth one is a nozzle with the length of 100 mm.
A strut was equipped in center of airflow, as shown in Figure 2. The strut back was aligned
with the exit of isolator. In order to take flame pictures around strut, a quartz window was
equipped in the upper wall of combustor. A high-speed camera was used to record flame images.
Camera parameter was 8000 frames per second and exposure time was 100 μs. During the
experiments, the main function of strut was fuel injecting and flame holding. There were two
rows of injectors, marked with A and B in Figure 3. Injector A was fuel injectors. Direction of the
fuel injection was normal to the leading edge of the strut. Oxygen injectors were designed at
tailing edge of the strut, marked as B. There are two columns of oxygen injectors in the trailing
4 J. ZHANG ET AL.

1 3 4 5 6

7
Figure 1. Photograph of the experimental system: 1, Heater and Laval nozzle; 2, Visualization section; 3,
Reflector; 4, Pressure sensors, 5, Support structure of camera; 6, Model combustor; 7, Strut.

Isolator Combustor

4.3 deg

Central strut Wall fuel injectors

x/mm
0 300 560 860 980 1380 1480
Figure 2. Schematic of scramjet combustor and camera field of view.

A B

Figure 3. Structure of the center strut.

 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

edge of the strut, and each column contains 11 injection holes, with the hole diameter of 0.5 mm.
With the help of oxygen, combustion was stablished and enhanced. Fuel was ignited by a plasma
jet ignitor (PJ ignitor) mounted at strut back. An amount of nitrogen was injected into the cavity
of ignitor, ionized to produce high-enthalpy plasma to achieve fuel ignition.

Time sequence and experiment conditions

The time sequence in this paper refers to Zhang et al. (2019), and it is shown in Figure 4.
Heated air flow begins at t0. PJ ignitor is switched on as soon as steady airflow is
established at t1. Half a second later, when PJ ignitor is stable, liquid kerosene is injected
into combustor at t2. One second later, at t3, PJ ignitor is switched off, and flame can be
sustained itself until the end of experiment. Kerosene injection process lasts for 4 s. In
early 1.5 s, fuel is injected into combustor from strut injectors, ignited to form core flame.
In later 2.5 s, the extra fuel is injected into combustor from wall injectors, ignited to form
wall flame.
The experiments in this paper were conducted at the inlet Mach number of 2.0, with
the stagnation state of Tt = 1165 K. In order to achieve the stable ignition in the
combustor, a little amount of oxygen was injected into the trailing edge of the strut,
and the mass flow of oxygen was 13 g/s in all the experimental conditions in this paper.
Fuel was injected both from strut injectors and wall injectors, and different fuel distribu-
tion schemes were tested to investigate flame characteristics in strut/wall combined fuel
injection combustor. Table 1 shows the experimental conditions in this paper.

Wall pressure history in a typical experiment

There were 34 pressure transducers mounted on side wall of combustor, measuring the
pressure within the range of 0–1 MPa with maximum error of ±0.25% at frequency of
0.5 kHz.
Figure 5 shows pressure results measured by a part of pressure transducers in Case
B. The process of experiment was divided into three stages, namely the core flame
establishment stage, the core flame stabilization stage and the wall fuel injection stage.
In core flame establishment stage, strut-injected fuel was injected into combustor, ignited
to form core flame, and the wall pressure gradually increased accompanied with the
enhancement of core flame. In core flame stabilization stage, core flame was stabilized

Heated air flow

PJ ignitor

Fuel injection

Time
t0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5
Figure 4. Time sequence in experiments.
6 J. ZHANG ET AL.

Table 1. Fuel distribution schemes in different experiments.

Cases Ma p0 (MPa) Tt/K ERstrut ERwall Wall injectors location
A 2.0 0.146 1165 0.13 0.33 Side-up-down wall
B 2.0 0.146 1165 0.21 0.33 Side-up-down wall
C 2.0 0.146 1165 0.33 0.33 Side-up-down wall
D 2.0 0.146 1165 0.21 0.33 Side-up-down wall
E 2.0 0.146 1165 0.21 0.47 Side-up-down wall
F 2.0 0.146 1165 0.23 0.36 Side-up-down wall
G 2.0 0.146 1165 0.23 0.36 Up-down wall
H 2.0 0.146 1165 0.23 0.36 Side wall

0.5
Pressure in wall combustion zone
Pressure in isolator Core flame stabilization
0.4 Pressure in core combustion zone stage

Wall fuel injection

0.3 stage
Core flame
pw/apM

establishment stage
0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t/s

Figure 5. Wall pressure history in Case B.

Table 2. Location of the feature pressure transducers.

Transducer number T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Transducer location (mm) 300 525 350 935 1005 1070
Combustion zone Core combustion zone Wall combustion zone

in center of main airflow, and wall pressure kept in a constant value. In wall fuel injection
stage, wall fuel was injected into combustor through wall injectors, and pressure near the
wall fuel injectors increased, since the establishment of wall flame. In order to get detailed
analysis of pressure distributions, six feature pressure transducers were chosen to present
experimental results, and the location of these transducers are shown in Table 2. T1 ~ T3
are located in core combustion zone, and T4 ~ T6 are located in wall combustion zone.

Result and discussion

Core flame behavior without wall fuel injection
In strut-equipped scramjet combustor, fuel was injected directly into primary airflow through
strut injectors, and it was ignited by plasma ignitor to form core flame. An experiment with
linearly increasing equivalence ratio was conducted. The ER varied from 0.13 to 0.35 during the
experiment, and fuel was all injected into combustor through strut injectors. Figure 6 presents
the flame images in four typical conditions in different ER. In supersonic combustor, strut
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

a.ER=0.13 b.ER=0.20 c.ER=0.27 d.ER=0.35

Figure 6. Flame images in different ER.

blocks the high-speed airflow, and a flammable region with a low local Mach number and long
fuel resident time generates at tailing edge of the strut. In thin-strut flame holding scheme, pilot
flame generates in the flammable region (Zhang et al. 2017). With the assistance of pilot flame,
fuel distributed at side wall of strut is ignited, and the flame propagates to side wall of combustor,
leading to enlargement of the flame width.
The core flame in Figure 6a and b mainly gathers at strut back, while in Figure 6c and d the
core flame has already diffused to primary airflow. Flame boundary is located in the region
that flame propagation velocity matched well with flowing velocity. In lower ER conditions,
flame is not strong enough to slow down the flowing velocity in primary flow, so that the flame
in this condition is only formed in low-speed region at back of strut. With the increasing of
ER, thermal release resulting from combustion is also enhanced in higher ER conditions,
resulting in slowing down of the flowing velocity. So that flame can propagate to side wall of
combustor, and flame width increases accompanied with the increasing of ER.
Flame width is one of the most important variable to characterize flame structure, and
it is denoted by the symbol W in this paper. Figure 7a shows the flame image captured by
high-speed camera, and Figure 7b is the flame boundary, Figure 7c showing the variation
of flame width accompanied with ER variation. In this paper, W is defined as the width of
the flame at the right edge of the flame region, and the length from the end of the strut in
the flow direction to the edge is 86 mm. As can be seen in Figure 7c, flame width
maintains in 9 mm in initial stage of ER increasing. When ER = 0.17, flame width begins
to increase along with ER growth. The increasing rate of flame width in different ER
condition is also quite different. When ER is within the range from 0.17 to 0.23, the
increasing rate of flame width is slow. While, when ER is larger than 0.23, a sudden
increasing of increasing rate appears. When ER is larger than 0.31, flame width maintains
in 27 mm with a large pulsation. Flame width is gradually increased along with the
increasing of ER. That is to say that with the increasing of ER, core flame will diffuse to
primary flow, gradually approaching side wall of combustor.
Flame area is also an important variable, and Figure 8 presents the variation of flame area
during the experiment. Delimiting that pixel belongs to the part of flame in flame image if the
gray value of it exceeds 20, then the area of flame equals to the numbers of the pixels belonging
to flame, expressed with Sflame. The variable S expresses the area of quartz windows. In early
0.7 s, ER maintains in 0.13, then, ER increases from 0.13 to 0.35. Experimental process is divided
8 J. ZHANG ET AL.

Flame boundary

Strut Strut

Flame width
a.flame image b.flame boundary
40

30
W/mm

20

10

0
0.13 0.20 0.27 0.34
ER
c. variation of flame width with ER

Figure 7. Variation of flame width in different ER conditions.

0.5

ER ER increases from 0.13 to

0.4 maintains 0.35
in 0.13

0.3
Flame
Sflame/S

establishment stage
0.2

0.1
Flame stable stage Flame oscillation
stage
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
t/s

Figure 8. Variation of flame area in different ER.

into three stages, namely the flame establishment stage, the flame stable stage and the flame
oscillation stage. In flame establishment stage, ignitor is switched on and a little part of fuel is
ignited. While, the initial flame is unstable, and global flame is established at 0.25 s. In flame
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

3.5

ER=0.35
3
ER=0.27
2.5

pw/p0 ER=0.20
2

1.5
ER=0.13
1
ER increasing
0.5

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm

Figure 9. Pressure distributions in different ER.

stable stage, flame is stabilized in combustor with a slight oscillation of flame area. Accompanied
with ER increasing, flame area increases linearly in this stage. At 1.9 s, the amplitude of flame
area becomes greater, and it is in flame oscillation stage in higher ER.
Figure 9 shows pressure distributions in different ER conditions. As is shown in the
figure, wall pressure gradually increases accompanied with ER growth. In combustion
region, thermal release results in a pressure rising. The pressure rising region is mainly
located in the range of 250 mm < x < 900 mm. In the range of x > 900 mm, there is nearly
no pressure rising, that means that fuel has already burned out in this region. Thermal
release slows down airflow velocity, and pressure rising propagates upstream of strut. In
the highest ER experimental condition, combustion region has already disturbed the 6th
pressure sensor, leading to a pressure rising in isolator. Based on the investigation on core
flame, interaction between core flame and wall flame will be discussed in the next sections.

Wall flame behavior affected by core flame

In order to analyze the effect of core flame on wall-injected fuel, three experiments in different
strut fuel ER were conducted, and the experimental conditions are listed as follows.

Case A: ERstrut = 0.13, ERwall = 0.33;

Case B: ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33;
Case C: ERstrut = 0.33, ERwall = 0.33.

In the three experiments, ER of strut-injected fuel is 0.13, 0.21, 0.33, respectively, and
ER of wall-injected fuel is kept in 0.33. The wall-injected fuel is injected into combustor
when core flame is established and stabilized, as has been mentioned in the time sequence
introduction in Part 2.2.
10 J. ZHANG ET AL.

Case
A

Case
B

Case
C

Stage a Stage b Stage c Stage d

Figure 10. Flame images in different ER (Cases A–C).

Flame images in different ER are shown in Figure 10, and each experiment process is
divided into four stages. In stage a, PJ ignitor is switched on, while in this stage no fuel is
injected into combustor. In stage b, strut-injected fuel is injected into combustor. With the
assistance of PJ ignitor, the strut-injected fuel is ignited, forming a core flame at the back
of strut. In stage c, PJ ignitor is switched off, and the core flame is stabilized at strut back.
From Case A to Case C, flame width and flame area are gradually enlarged. In stage d,
wall-injected fuel is injected into combustor. In Case A, the flame structure changes little
after the injection of wall-fuel. In Case B and Case C, the flame width is enlarged for the
reason of wall fuel injection. Especially in Case C, the flame not only gathers at strut back,
but also propagates near side wall of combustor and upstream of strut.
Figure 11 presents the wall pressure history of the three cases. The process of each
experiment is divided into three stages, namely the core flame establishment stage (corre-
sponding to stage a and stage b in Figure 10), the core flame stabilization stage (corresponding
to stage c in Figure 10) and the wall fuel injection stage (corresponding to stage d in Figure 10).
Four pressure transducers, T1, T2, T4 and T5, are chosen to present the wall pressure
variation, among which, T1 and T2 show the wall pressure in core combustion zone, and
T4 and T5 show the wall pressure in wall combustion zone. In Case A, core flame is
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

0.5
0.45 T1 T2
0.4 Core flame
T4 T5 stabilization stage
0.35
Wall fuel injection
0.3 stage

pw/Mpa
Core flame
0.25 establishment
0.2 stage

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t/s
A: ERstrut = 0.13, ERwall = 0.33
0.5
0.45 T1 T2
T4 T5
0.4 Core flame
0.35 stabilization stage
Wall fuel
0.3
pw/Mpa

Core flame injection stage

0.25 establishment
stage
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t/s
B: ERstru t = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33
0.45
T1 T2 Core flame
0.4 stabilization stage
T4 T5
0.35
Wall fuel
0.3 injection stage
Core flame
pw/Mpa

0.25
establishment
0.2 stage

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t/s
C: ERstru t = 0.33, ERwall = 0.33

Figure 11. Wall pressure history for Case A, Case B and Case C.

established and stabilized in combustor, resulting in a rising up of pressure distributions.

While the pressure of T4 and T5 changes little after the injection of wall fuel. Wall fuel
injection nearly makes no influence on wall pressures in this case. In Case B and Case C, the
wall pressure of T4 and T5 obviously increases when wall fuel is injected into combustor, since
12 J. ZHANG ET AL.

ERstrut in Case B and Case C is higher than that in Case A. With the increasing of ERstrut, core
flame width and area are enlarged, that is beneficial for the core flame to propagate near to wall
injectors. Wall pressure rises up as soon as the injection of wall fuel in these two cases, which
indicated that core flame is strong enough to achieve ignition of the wall fuel. The experi-
mental results show that when ERstrut is not large enough, core flame is too weak to ignite wall-
injected fuel. While, when core flame is strong enough, wall-fuel is ignited and wall flame
forms to propagate upstream.
The wall pressure distributions in these typical experimental conditions are presented in
Figure 12. Figure 12a shows two operating conditions in Case A. Pressure distributions in
the two ER conditions are almost coincide, that means that the injection of wall fuel makes
no effect on combustion characteristics in this experimental condition of ERstrut = 0.13.
Pressure rising region is mainly located in 300 mm<x < 900 mm. At the position of wall fuel
injectors, there is not an obvious pressure rising. In Case B, ERstrut increases to 0.21, and wall
pressure in 300 mm < x < 900 mm is also improved, indicating that core flame was
enhanced. Different from wall pressure in Case A, the pressure rises up in
900 mm <x < 1400 mm in Case B, proving that wall-injected fuel is ignited by core flame.
The whole combustor is divided into two main combustion zones, that are the core
combustion zone located in 300 mm <x < 900 mm and the wall combustion zone located
in 900 mm <x < 1400 mm. In core combustion zone, strut-injected fuel is ignited to obtain
a pressure rising, and similarly in wall combustion zone, wall-injected fuel is ignited to
achieve a pressure rising. In Case C, with the increasing of ERstrut, the wall pressure in core
combustion zone rises up further, and a higher wall pressure also formed in wall combustion
zone. Figure 12d shows three typical experimental conditions in different strut/wall fuel
distribution ratios. In the three typical experimental conditions, ERwall is all in 0.33, and
wall-injected fuel is divided into two states, namely the ignited state and the unignited state.
When core flame is not strong enough, such as in Case A, wall-injected fuel is in unignited
state, with an unobvious pressure rising in wall combustion zone. When core flame is strong
enough, such as in Case B and Case C, wall-injected fuel is in ignited state. Compared with
pressure in wall combustion zone in Case B, the wall pressure in Case C is improved further,
and combustion efficiency of wall-injected fuel is also improved in this condition.
Figure 13 is the flame images and the schematics of interaction between core flame and
wall fuel both in Case A and Case B. In Figure 13a, ERstrut = 0.13, core flame gathers at
strut back with a small width, and fuel has been burned out before reaching wall-fuel
injectors. Wall-injected fuel cannot achieve auto-ignition in this flowing conditions. So
that, there is not a wall flame generating in Case A. In Figure 13b, ERstrut increases to 0.21.
Core flame propagates to side wall of combustor, and flame width and area of core
combustion region are also enlarged. There is a wall fuel ignition region in the location
of wall fuel injectors, as is shown in Figure 13b. Wall-injected fuel is ignited in wall fuel
ignition region by core flame. Conclusion is that effect of core flame on the wall injected
fuel is to achieve the ignition of wall fuel.

Core flame behavior affected by wall fuel injection

When wall-injected fuel is ignited by core flame, a thermal release resulting from wall
flame will also make a deep influence on characteristics of core flame conversely. In order
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

3
ERstrut = 0.13, ERwall = 0
2.5
ERstrut = 0.13, ERwall = 0.33

pw/p0
2
Wall
1.5 combustion
zone
1
Core combustion
0.5 zone

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm
a. pressure distributions in case A
3
ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0
2.5 ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33
pw/p0

2
Wall
1.5 combustion
zone
1
Core combustion
0.5 zone

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm
b. pressure distributions in case B
3

2.5

2
pw/p0

Wall
1.5 Core combustion combustion
zone zone
1
ERstrut = 0.33, ERwall = 0
0.5 ERstrut = 0.33, ERwall = 0.33

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm
c. pressure distributions in case C
3

2.5
pw/p0

1.5

1
ERstrut = 0.33, ERwall = 0.33
0.5 ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33
ERstrut = 0.13, ERwall = 0.33
0 500 1500
x/mm 1000
d. pressure distributions in different ER

Figure 12. Wall pressure distributions in different ER.

14 J. ZHANG ET AL.

Wall fuel injectors

Wall fuel boundary
Flame boundary
strut

a. interaction between core flame and wall fuel in case A

Wall fuel ignition region

Flame
strut boundary

b. interaction between core flame and wall fuel in case B

Figure 13. Schematics of interaction between core flame and wall fuel.

to analyze the effect of wall flame on core flame, two experiments in different wall fuel
equivalence ratios were conducted. The experimental conditions are listed as follows:

Case D: ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33;

Case E: ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.47.

In the two experiments, ERstrut maintains in 0.21, and ERwall is respectively 0.33 and 0.47.
Wall-injected fuel is injected into combustor when core flame is in stabilization stage.
Figure 14 shows flame images in the two experimental conditions. In stage a, PJ ignitor
is switched on. In stage b, strut-injected fuel is ignited to form core flame at the strut back.
In stage c, ignitor is switched off and core flame is stabilized in combustor. For the reason
that ERstrut is the same in these two experimental conditions, the flame structures in stage
a ~ c are also identical. In stage d, wall-injected fuel is ignited by core flame. Comparing
the flame structures in stage d with that in stage c, we could find that core flame is
enhanced by the combustion of wall-injection fuel. The core flame area in Case E is
obvious larger than that in Case D, that proves that core flame is further enhanced in large
ERwall condition. The flame has even propagated upstream of strut after the wall fuel
injection in Case E. Results show that core flame could be enhanced with the effect of wall
flame.
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

Case
D

Case
E

Stage a Stage b Stage c Stage d

Figure 14. Flame images in different ER.

Figure 15 is the wall pressure distribution history in different cases. Five pressure
transducers, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, are chosen to present the pressure variation during
the experiment, among which, T2 and T3 show the pressure in core combustion zone, and
T4, T5, T6 show the pressure in wall combustion zone. Wall pressures in core flame
establishment stage and core flame stabilization stage are nearly the same in the two cases.
Wall pressure rises up and wall-injected fuel is successfully ignited by core flame. In Case
E, when wall flame is established, the pressure distributions of T2 and T3 also rise up. It is
proved that core flame is enhanced with the effect of core flame.
Figure 16 lists the pressure distributions in different conditions. In Case D, the wall
pressure in core combustion zone is nearly the same, no matter if there is wall fuel injected
into combustor, as is shown in Figure 16a. While, in Case E, the pressure in core combustion
zone rises up after the wall combustion established, as is shown in Figure 16b. Pressure
rising propagates upstream with a distance of 50 mm after the injection of wall fuel. In
Figure 16c, pressure distributions in experimental conditions of different ERwall are com-
pared. In Case E, the pressure distributions both in core combustion zone and in wall
combustion zone are obviously higher than that in Case D. Results show that when ERwall is
large enough, core flame will be enhanced with the effect of wall flame.
To further investigate the combustor performance in experiments, solving the typical quasi-
one-dimensional mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations based on a 1-D analysis
16 J. ZHANG ET AL.

0.5
0.45 T2 T3
0.4 T4 T5 Core flame
T6 stabilization stage
0.35
0.3 Wall fuel

pw/Mpa
Core flame injection stage
0.25 establishment stage
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t/s
D: ERstru t = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33
0.5
0.45 T2 T3
T4 T5
0.4 Core flame
T6
0.35 stabilization stage

0.3 Wall fuel

pw/Mpa

Core flame injection stage

0.25 establishment stage
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t/s
E: ERstru t = 0.21, ERwall = 0.47

Figure 15. Wall pressure history for Case D and Case E.

approach is employed by reference paper (Van Driest 1951). In this paper, the 1-D model of
combustor is based on the following Eqs. (1) and (2) for Mach number Ma and total
temperature Tt. A is the cross-sectional area of combustor. The wall skin friction coeffcient Cf
was estimated by the Van Driest method (Van Driest 1951). The hydraulic diameter D is defined
to be 4A/dw, where dw is the wetted perimeter of duct.
  
dMa 1 k1 dA kMa2 þ 1 dTt Ma2 dx
¼ 1þ Ma 2
  4Cf (1)
Ma Ma2  1 2 A 2 Tt 2 D

 2 
dTt 1 Ma  1 dp dA 1 þ ðk  1ÞMa2 dx
¼ þ  4Cf (2)
Tt 1 þ ðk þ 1ÞMa2 =2 kMa2 p A 2 D

Based on the results of wall pressure in Case D ~ E, Ma distributions in different

conditions are calculated and presented in Figure 17. In core combustion zone, due to
thermal release resulting from core flame, Ma reduces nearly to 1. If there is no wall fuel
injection, Ma will rise up again in wall combustion zone. In Case D, Ma reduces to less
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17

3
ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0
2.5 ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33

0
p /p
2

w
1.5 Wall combustion
zone
1

0.5 Core combustion

zone

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm
a. wall pressure in case D
3

2.5
Wall
0
p /p

2 combustion zone
w

1.5
Core combustion
1 zone

ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0

0.5
ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.47

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm
b. wall pressure in case E
3

2.5
0
p /p

2
w

1.5

1
ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.33
0.5 ERstrut = 0.21, ERwall = 0.47

0 500 1000 1500

x/mm
c. two typical experimental conditions

Figure 16. Wall pressure distributions in different ER.

than 1 in wall combustion zone. But Ma in core combustion zone is still larger than 1. The
combustor is in the ram-scram mode in this condition. In Case E, Ma is less than 1 both
in core combustion zone and in wall combustion zone. The combustor is in the scram
mode in this condition.
18 J. ZHANG ET AL.

ERstrut=0.21,ERwall=0 ERstrut=0.21,ERwall=0.47
2
ERstru t=0.21,ERwall=0.33

1.5

Ma
Ma=1

Strut injector Wall injector

0.5
0 500 1000 1500
x/mm

Figure 17. Mach number distributions in different ER distribution ratios.

Figure 18 shows the schematics of interaction between core flame and wall flame. Both
in the two cases, wall-injected fuel is successfully ignited by core flame. When wall-
injected fuel is ignited, a thermal chocking generates in wall combustion zone, and Ma
reduces to less than 1. Core combustion zone and wall combustion zone are all in subsonic
state, as is shown in Figure 18a. While, in Case D, between the two subsonic regions, it is
a supersonic region, corresponding to the calculating result in Figure 17. Wall flame could
not surmount the supersonic region to propagate upstream. If thermal chocking is large
enough, such as in Case E, airflow speed will be slow down both in core combustion zone
and wall combustion zone. The main combustion zones are all in subsonic state. Wall
flame propagates upstream to slow down the flowing speed in core combustion zone
further. Effect of wall flame on core flame is to enhance the strength of it and improve the
combustion efficiency of strut-injected fuel.

Combustion efficiency affected by wall injection locations

Apart from fuel distribution ratio, strut/wall fuel injection schemes will also have an
influence on flame characteristics. Different locations of wall fuel injectors are tested and
evaluated in this part. Wall fuel injectors are divided into two parts, namely the side wall
injectors and the up-down wall injectors. Three experiments in different wall fuel injection
schemes were conducted, and the experimental conditions are listed as follows.

Case F: ERstrut = 0.23, ERwall = 0.36, with side-up-down wall fuel injection
Case G: ERstrut = 0.23, ERwall = 0.36, with up-down wall fuel injection
Case H: ERstrut = 0.23, ERwall = 0.36, with side wall fuel injection

In the three experimental conditions, ER distribution ratios are all the same, kept in
ERstrut = 0.23 and ERwall = 0.36. While, different wall fuel injectors are adopted in the three
experimental conditions. Figure 19 is the pressure distributions in the three cases. In Case
F, wall fuel is injected into combustor both from side wall injectors and up-down wall
injectors. Wall-injected fuel is ignited, forming a pressure rising in wall combustion zone.
In Case G, wall fuel is injected into combustor from up-down wall injector. The pressure
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19

Subsonic region

strut
Core flame
Wall flame

Supersonic region

a. interaction between core flame and wall flame in case D

Subsonic region

strut
Wall flame
Core flame

b. interaction between core flame and wall flame in case E

Figure 18. Schematics of interaction between core flame and wall flame.

2.5
pw/p0

2
Case F
1.5 Case G
Case H
1

0.5
Core combustion zone Wall combustion
zone
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
x/mm

Figure 19. Pressure distributions in different experimental conditions.

20 J. ZHANG ET AL.

2.2

2
Case F
1.8 Case G
Case H
1.6

Ma
1.4

1.2

0.8
Strut fuel injection Wall fuel injection
0.6
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
x/mm

Figure 20. Mach number distributions in Case F, Case G, Case H.

80%

70%
Case F
60% Case H
Case G
50%
η

40%

30%
Wall combustion
20% zone
10%
Core combustion zone
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
x/mm

Figure 21. Combustion efficiency distributions in Case F, Case G, Case H.

both in core combustion zone and in wall combustion is higher in Case G than that in
Case F, which proves that the fuel injected from up-down wall injector will get a higher
combustion efficiency. In Case H, wall fuel is injected from side wall fuel injector, and
there is no obvious pressure rising in wall combustion zone. It is indicated that if wall fuel
is only injected into combustor from side wall injectors, the fuel could not be ignited.
Figure 20 is Mach number distributions in Case F, Case G and Case H. In Case H, Ma
rises up in x > 900 mm, and the airflow is in the supersonic state in this region. In Case
F and Case G, Ma is less than 1 both in core combustion zone and in wall combustion
zone. When wall-injected fuel is ignited, a thermal chocking generates in wall combustion
zone, and Ma in combustion zone is reduced.
Combustion efficiency is one of the most performance parameter of combustor, and Figure 21
is the combustion efficiency in the three experiments. The combustion efficiency begins to rise up
in x = 300 mm, that is the location of core flame. In the location of wall flame, combustion
efficiency is further improved. In Case G, the combustion efficiency is nearly the same in wall
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21

Up-wall injector Boundary of the fuel

Side-wall Side-wall
injector Combustion injector
region

Down-wall injector

Figure 22. Schematic of flame structure and fuel injection.

combustion zone compared with that in core flame zone, that proves that wall-injected fuel is not
ignited. In Case G, the combustion efficiency is 45.83%. The combustion efficiency in Case F and
Case H is 69% and 77%, respectively. Experiment results indicate that combustion efficiency is
higher when wall fuel is injected into combustor from up-down fuel injectors.
Figure 22 is the schematic of flame structure and fuel injection, and the wall flame
establishment process is described. Strut is equipped in core flow of combustor, and core
flame penetrates the whole height of the combustor, forming the core combustion zone. Core
flame propagates to side wall of the combustor, and with the increasing of ERstrut, core flame
width will be enlarged. At the same time, wall injectors are equipped downstream of the core
combustion zone. Parts of the fuel injected from up-down wall injectors will be directly
injected into combustion region, ignited to form wall flame. Then, up-wall flame will
propagate to side wall of the combustor to ignite the side-wall injected fuel. If wall fuel is
injected into the combustor only from side-wall injectors, penetration depth of the wall fuel is
not large enough to reach core combustion region. So that, the side-wall injected fuel cannot
be ignited. In Case H, the wall-injected fuel is not successfully ignited, and there is no obvious
pressure rising in wall combustion zone.

Conclusions
Strut/wall combined fuel injection scheme in a flush-wall supersonic combustor is experi-
mentally tested in this paper, and flame stabilization characteristics and interaction
mechanism between core flame and wall flame are discussed. Location of wall injectors
is also optimized to improve combustion efficiency. The main conclusions are as follows:

● Core flame generates at the strut back initially, then it propagates to side wall of
combustor with ER growth, leading to an enlargement of flame width and flame area.
Core flame acts as ignitor to achieve the ignition of wall-injected fuel. In Case A,
ERstrut = 0.13, core flame is not strong enough to ignite wall-injected. In Case B and
Case C, wall-injected fuel is ignited due to the increasing of ERstrut.
● Wall flame will enhance the strength of core flame in a content degree. Thermal
release resulting from wall combustion slows down the flowing speed of main airflow
both in core combustion zone and in wall combustion zone. In lower-speed zone,
22 J. ZHANG ET AL.

strut-injected fuel obtains a higher combustion efficiency. Wall combustion will

enhance core flame, and combustion efficiency of strut-injected fuel will be improved
with the assistance of wall combustion.
● Location of wall fuel injectors also has a deep influence on combustion efficiency.
Fuel injected from up-down wall injectors is easier to be ignited, then, wall flame
propagates to side wall of combustor to achieve the ignition of side wall injected fuel.
Wall fuel injected from side wall injectors could not be directly ignited, for the reason
that penetration depth of the wall-injected fuel cannot reach core flame.

Nomenclature

A Cross-sectional area (m2)

Cf Wall skin friction coeffficient
D Hydraulic diameter
dw Wetted perimeter
ER Equivalence ratio
ERstrut Equivalence ratio of fuel injected from strut injectors
ERwall Equivalence ratio of fuel injected from wall injectors
Ma Mach number
pw Wall static pressure (MPa)
p0 Pressure of combustor entrance (MPa)
Pt Total pressure (MPa)
Sflame Flame area
Tt Total temperature (K)
t Time during experiment (s)
η Combustion efficiency

Disclosure statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding
This research work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No.
91741123).

References
Bagg, M., and R. Greendyke (2009). Computational analysis of strut induced mixing in a scramjet.
47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, Orlando, FL. (p. 1253).
Bao, W., J. Hu, Y. Zong, Q. Yang, M. Wu, J. Chang, and D. Yu. 2013. Combustion characteristic
using O2-pilot strut in a liquid-kerosene-fueled strut-based dual-mode scramjet. Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. G 227 (12):1870–80. doi:10.1177/0954410012464455.
Bao, W., Y. Zong, J. Chang, J. Hu, Q. Yang, J. Song, and M. Wu. 2014. Effects of upstream strut on
the combustion of liquid kerosene in a model cavity scramjet. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. G 228
(12):2323–28. doi:10.1177/0954410013515370.
Betelin, V. B., N. N. Smirnov, V. F. Nikitin, V. R. Dushin, A. G. Kushnirenko, and V. A. Nerchenko.
2012. Evaporation and ignition of droplets in combustion chambers modeling and simulation.
Acta Astronaut. 70:23–35. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.06.021.
 COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 23

Candon, M. J., and H. Ogawa. 2018. Numerical analysis and design optimization of supersonic
after-burning with strut fuel injectors for scramjet engines. Acta Astronaut. 147:281–96.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.04.012.
Chang, J. T., J. L. Zhang, W. Bao, and D. R. Yu. 2018. Research progress on strut-equipped
supersonic combustors for scramjet application. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 103:1–30. doi:10.1016/j.
paerosci.2018.10.002.
Chang, X., H. Gu, and L. Chen (2005). Thrust and drag of a scramjet model with different
combustor geometries. AIAA/CIRA 13th International Space Planes and Hypersonics Systems
and Technologies Conference, Capua, Italy. (p. 3315).
Curran, E. T. 2001. Scramjet engines: The first forty years. J. Propul. Power 17 (6):1138–48.
doi:10.2514/2.5875.
Feng, S., J. Chang, J. Zhang, C. Zhang, and W. Bao. 2017. Numerical and experimental investigation
of improving combustion performance of variable geometry dual-mode combustor. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 64:213–22. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2017.02.002.
Hsu, K. Y., C. Carter, M. Gruber, and C. J. Tam (2009). Mixing study of strut injectors in supersonic
flows. 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Denver, CO. (p.
5226).
Hsu, K. Y., C. D. Carter, M. R. Gruber, T. Barhorst, and S. Smith. 2010. Experimental study of
cavity-strut combustion in supersonic flow. J. Propul. Power 26 (6):1237–46. doi:10.2514/1.45767.
Hu, J., J. Chang, W. Bao, Q. Yang, and J. Wen. 2014. Experimental study of a flush wall scramjet
combustor equipped with strut/wall fuel injection. Acta Astronaut. 104 (1):84–90. doi:10.1016/j.
actaastro.2014.07.012.
Hu, J., J. Qin, J. Chang, W. Bao, Y. Zong, and Q. Yang. 2013. Combustion stabilization based on
a center flame strut in a liquid kerosene fueled supersonic combustor. J. Therm. Sci. 22
(5):497–504. doi:10.1007/s11630-013-0654-6.
Huang, W., and L. Yan. 2016. Numerical investigation on the ram–Scram transition mechanism in
a strut-based dual-mode scramjet combustor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (8):4799–807.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.01.062.
Kodera, M., T. Sunami, and F. Sheel (2002). Numerical study on the supersonic mixing enhance-
ment using streamwise vortices. AIAA/AAAF 11th International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies Conference, Orleans, France. (p. 5117).
Li, J., R. Jin, G. Jiao, and W. Song. 2018a. Analysis on mode transition in a dual-mode scramjet
combustor. Combust. Sci. Technol. 190 (1):82–96. doi:10.1080/00102202.2017.1376190.
Li, M., X. He, Y. Zhao, Y. Jin, Z. Ge, and W. Huang. 2018b. Effect of strut length on combustion
performance of a trapped vortex combustor. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 76:204–16. doi:10.1016/j.
ast.2018.02.019.
Nishioka, M. 1995. Some thoughts and experiments on the supersonic mixing enhancement. J. Soci.
Fluid Mech. 14:377–89.
Pandey, K. M., S. Roga, and G. Choubey. 2015. Computational analysis of hypersonic combustor
using strut injector at flight mach 7. Combust. Sci. Technol. 187 (9):1392–407. doi:10.1080/
00102202.2015.1035371.
Sathiyamoorthy, K., T. H. Danish, J. Srinivas, and P. Manjunath. 2018. Experimental investigation
of supersonic combustion in a strut-cavity based combustor. Acta Astronaut. 148:285–93.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.05.014.
Sun, M. B., H. Geng, J. H. Liang, and Z. G. Wang. 2008. Flame characteristics in supersonic
combustor with hydrogen injection upstream of cavity flameholder. J. Propul. Power 24
(4):688–96. doi:10.2514/1.34970.
Sunami, T., P. Magre, A. Bresson, F. Grisch, M. Orain, and M. Kodera (2005, May). Experimental
study of strut injectors in a supersonic combustor using OH-PLIF. AIAA/CIRA 13th
International Space Planes And Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference, Capua,
Italy. (p. 3304).
Sunami, T., A. Murakami, K. Kudo, M. Kodera, and M. Nishioka (2002). Mixing and combustion
control strategies for efficient scramjet operation in wide range of flight mach number. AIAA/
24 J. ZHANG ET AL.

AAAF 11th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies
Conference, Orleans, France. (p. 5116).
Sunami, T., and F. Scheel (2002). Analysis of mixing enhancement using streamwise vortices in
a supersonic combustor by application of laser diagnostics. AIAA/AAAF 11th International
Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems And Technologies Conference, Orleans, France. (p. 5203).
Townend, L. H. 2001. Domain of the Scramjet. J. Propul. Power 17 (6):1205–13. doi:10.2514/2.5865.
Van Driest, E. R. 1951. Turbulent boundary layer in compressible fluids. J. Aircraft. Sci 18
(3):145–60. doi:10.2514/8.1895.
Vishwakarma, M., and A. Vaidyanathan. 2016. Experimental study of mixing enhancement using
pylon in supersonic flow. Acta Astronaut. 118:21–32. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.09.011.
Wang, H., Z. Wang, M. Sun, and H. Wu. 2013. Combustion modes of hydrogen jet combustion in a
cavity-based supersonic combustor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (27):12078–89. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2013.06.132.
Wang, Y., W. Song, D. Shi, Q. Fu, and Y. Wang. 2017. Experimental study of vitiation effects on
combustion characteristics of a supersonic combustor. Combust. Sci. Technol. 189 (9):1500–09.
doi:10.1080/00102202.2017.1305368.
Wang, Z. G., M. B. Sun, H. B. Wang, J. F. Yu, J. H. Liang, and F. C. Zhuang. 2015. Mixing-related
low frequency oscillation of combustion in an ethylene-fueled supersonic combustor. Proc.
Combust. Inst. 35 (2):2137–44. doi:10.1016/j.proci.2014.09.005.
Wu, K., P. Zhang, W. Yao, and X. Fan. 2017. Numerical investigation on flame stabilization in DLR
hydrogen supersonic combustor with strut injection. Combust. Sci. Technol. 189 (12):2154–79.
doi:10.1080/00102202.2017.1365847.
Zhang, J., J. Chang, J. Ma, Y. Wang, and W. Bao. 2019. Investigations on flame liftoff characteristics
in liquid-kerosene fueled supersonic combustor equipped with thin strut. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
84:686–97. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.11.017.
Zhang, J., J. Chang, J. Ma, C. Zhang, and W. Bao. 2017. Investigation of flame establishment and
stabilization mechanism in a kerosene fueled supersonic combustor equipped with a thin strut.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 70:152–60. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2017.08.005.
Zhang, J., J. Chang, J. Ma, Y. Zhang, and W. Bao. 2018. Local and global flame characteristics in
a liquid kerosene fueled supersonic combustor equipped with a thin strut. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
76:49–57. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.02.007.
Zhu, S., X. Xu, and P. Ji. 2016. Flame stabilization and propagation in dual-mode scramjet with
staged-strut injectors. Aiaa J. 55 (1):171–79. doi:10.2514/1.J054974.
Zhu, S., X. Xu, Q. Yang, and Y. Jin. 2018. Intermittent back-flash phenomenon of supersonic
combustion in the staged-strut scramjet engine. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 79:70–74. doi:10.1016/j.
ast.2018.05.037.
Zhu, S. H., and X. Xu. 2017. Experimental study on flame transition in a two-stage struts dual-mode
scramjet. J. Aerosp. Eng. 30 (5):06017002. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000740.
Zong, Y., W. Bao, J. Chang, J. Hu, Q. Yang, J. Song, and M. Wu. 2013. Effect of fuel injection
allocation on the combustion characteristics of a cavity-strut model scramjet. J. Aerosp. Eng. 28
(1):04014050. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000374.
Zuo, J., S. Zhang, J. Qin, W. Bao, and N. Cui. 2018. Performance evaluation of regenerative cooling/
film cooling for hydrocarbon fueled scramjet engine. Acta Astronaut. 148:57–68. doi:10.1016/j.
actaastro.2018.04.037.